Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin

[barjon]

atilla

I wasn't suggesting that you don't need systems in order that a mass of people can live together in reasonable harmony. And I purposely said "organised" religion rather than meaning the tenets of religion themselves -it's the way the various faiths organise themselves that conveys the power *(and wealth) to the relatively few.

Look at the extremes of communism and capitalism during the cold war. You had the leaders of the respective systems prepared to blow the world to bits rather than face "conversion" to the opposing system. Why? Well, it would have been the "establishment" that would have been mainly affected by such a change whilst the common herd busy trying to feed, house and clothe their families wouldn't have noticed a great change in their daily lives.

jon

 

[chump]

"Lord of the Rings and the one ring comes to mind. Is there any one man who can carry all that power without being possessed by it all? "......in true Spike Milligan form ...I'd like the opportunity to find out............

 

[Atilla]

"Lord of the Rings and the one ring comes to mind. Is there any one man who can carry all that power without being possessed by it all? "......in true Spike Milligan form ...I'd like the opportunity to find out............

By my guestimation you are already there a old boy.

What would you do if you had any more power wealth and influence than you already have that you are not doing today?

 

[Crap Buddist]

How about a global minimum wage plan ?

 

[Crap Buddist]

and what about food distribution, I mean there supposed to be enough food resources to "feed the world" but still 20 odd thousand people die through hunger related causes every day.. and this is modern living? no one government seems to be singing a very loud song about that ? Is it too big a problem to resolve ?

 

[Splitlink]

I The army looks after it's own and those who join up are literally up for it! They know the risks?

I'm unhappy with that phrase. These are young people and I don't believe that they do understand the horrors that can happen to them, if they don't get killed. I think that to say that they knew what they were getting into is not sufficient. Did we know what they were getting into when we sent them there? Our soldiers are a valuable asset and should only be used in our defence, or in rare circumstances. If we send them to fight then we must take responsibility for them, especially if they come back basket cases.

Split

 

[Crap Buddist]

WHat if ?

The Geneva convention stated that all (global) army personel had to be over the western retiremnt age of say (U.N. Agreed too ) of 65 years young. :idea:

Favoured weapon of choice.

Brown furry zip up boots filled with homegrown fertilizer explosive and dentures. Close quarter combat ? that'll be the walking stick, and sling shot pear drops. ohh, use the bus pass as ninja stylie shuriken (sp) hai, hai, bet they would bloody hurt if you sharpend the edges?

solve the pensions crisis too...... and maybe just maybe all th old codgers would use their gained insight and wisdom to resolve things a bit more sensibly? ohh and let 7 year olds decide if the country should go to war too ? Couldnt be any worse could it ?


just trying to put some sort of sense into war...... or something

 

[Atilla]

I'm unhappy with that phrase. These are young people and I don't believe that they do understand the horrors that can happen to them, if they don't get killed. I think that to say that they knew what they were getting into is not sufficient. Did we know what they were getting into when we sent them there? Our soldiers are a valuable asset and should only be used in our defence, or in rare circumstances. If we send them to fight then we must take responsibility for them, especially if they come back basket cases.

Split

I did say I was playing devils advocate Split. I concur with your point of view. On a personal level, I could not fight for a war I did not believe in. Whilst I would defend the freedom of our parliament I would not fight to attack some other country 000s of miles else where for some **** and bull story.

We now have the army telling us how to treat soldiers and support them when they come back. Politicians here and in the US are destroying the very honour and moral of the soldiers who are dying for their ambitions. Very sad indeed.

Fancy Brown spinning on the 1000 soldiers coming home presenting it twice to the public to get votes. How freaking shallow is that? Depths of depravity. Gordon will not get my vote nor will that kinder garden snot. Menzies is great I think.

 

[Atilla]

The Geneva convention stated that all (global) army personel had to be over the western retiremnt age of say (U.N. Agreed too ) of 65 years young. :idea:

Favoured weapon of choice.

Brown furry zip up boots filled with homegrown fertilizer explosive and dentures. Close quarter combat ? that'll be the walking stick, and sling shot pear drops. ohh, use the bus pass as ninja stylie shuriken (sp) hai, hai, bet they would bloody hurt if you sharpend the edges?

solve the pensions crisis too...... and maybe just maybe all th old codgers would use their gained insight and wisdom to resolve things a bit more sensibly? ohh and let 7 year olds decide if the country should go to war too ? Couldnt be any worse could it ?


just trying to put some sort of sense into war...... or something

Great ideas CB,

1. The minimum wage is a tricky one because £5 in UK is £50 in China / India.
2. If you give free food away you destroy the receiving countries food industry.
3. Getting the elderly to fight wars definately has milage. Resolve pension and NHS crises and hopefuly bring some booty home like good cheese to put on your cracker.

If I had my way I'd have one ring that binds and rules them all. :cheesy: One global parliament, one language, one religion, one police force, one army, one taxation system one of everything. One global nation. No boundaries, no borders, no discrimination. Anybody who objects I'd send to another planet. Not Australia but Pluto :cheesy:

 

[Splitlink]

I did say I was playing devils advocate Split. I concur with your point of view. On a personal level, I could not fight for a war I did not believe in. Whilst I would defend the freedom of our parliament I would not fight to attack some other country 000s of miles else where for some **** and bull story.

We now have the army telling us how to treat soldiers and support them when they come back. Politicians here and in the US are destroying the very honour and moral of the soldiers who are dying for their ambitions. Very sad indeed.

Fancy Brown spinning on the 1000 soldiers coming home presenting it twice to the public to get votes. How freaking shallow is that? Depths of depravity. Gordon will not get my vote nor will that kinder garden snot. Menzies is great I think.

Hi Atilla,

Unfortunately, I supported the war in Iraq years ago. I wish I had not, it has been a disaster from the time the country was occupied. I am now against sending our troops anywhere and am not sure whether that is the right attitude, either. :confused

Regards Split

 

[Rhody Trader]

Unfortunately, I supported the war in Iraq years ago. I wish I had not.

As if it really made a difference. It was going to happen one way or another.

it has been a disaster from the time the country was occupied. I am now against sending our troops anywhere and am not sure whether that is the right attitude, either. :confused

Rarely are absolutes the path to be taken. We can't intervene in every hot spot. Nor can we stay completely out of it. The U.S. tried that approach a couple of times in the early 20th century. Didn't work out too well. The question, of course, is how the decision to commit troops is made and on what basis.

 

[Splitlink]

As if it really made a difference. It was going to happen one way or another.



Rarely are absolutes the path to be taken. We can't intervene in every hot spot. Nor can we stay completely out of it. The U.S. tried that approach a couple of times in the early 20th century. Didn't work out too well. The question, of course, is how the decision to commit troops is made and on what basis.

All that is true, but I allowed myself to be persuaded that WMD existed and I backed the BB tandem. I thought that it was the correct thing to do at the time. Invading the country was the easy part!

On that basis, I shall be very careful not adopt a "let's go in there" policy" in the future, although I know that what you say is, absolutely, true and because taking a non-interventionist policy can be dangerous to our own security.

The one consolation is that I said that "only if the population is for it". I live in Spain and the opposition to Aznar's decision was overwhelming to the point that I knew that he was making a serious political mistake, with the election only a year away. In the event , he lost it.


Split

 

[Rhody Trader]

All that is true, but I allowed myself to be persuaded that WMD existed and I backed the BB tandem. I thought that it was the correct thing to do at the time. Invading the country was the easy part!

The only thing any of us can do is make decisions based on the information we have available to us at the time. The real skill is in understanding the legitimacy, value, and possible bias of the source(s) of that information or opinion.

The problem we have as citizens taking positions on national policies is that we will never have the same information available to us as those actually making the decision. We can only make the best possible choice of our representatives based on our determination of their judgement.

 

[Splitlink]

The only thing any of us can do is make decisions based on the information we have available to us at the time. The real skill is in understanding the legitimacy, value, and possible bias of the source(s) of that information or opinion.

The problem we have as citizens taking positions on national policies is that we will never have the same information available to us as those actually making the decision. We can only make the best possible choice of our representatives based on our determination of their judgement.

The fact is that it doesn't matter a damn what we think, once the elections have been won. Bush and Blair were going to invade Iraq, whatever public opinion was.

Split.