Things Noticeable this week

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

In my point of view, that's sadly a wrong assertion. You can't compare human nature and human society.
That's not because a small group of people want to fight that all their collectivity wants to fight.

A minority of brutal people have created rules to push the majority of the pacific or fearful ones to die for them on battlefield. If a man do not want to fight, he has to face a tribunal, to go to jail and in some cases to be executed by the brutal representants of his nation.

How many recent wars would have not happened if people could have decided if they wanted or not to participate through a referendum? Probably none.

Recently if USA, UK or France would have been real democracies, they would never had sent their young soldiers in the Middle East or Northern Africa. People who decided to go to war, were senators, lords or presidents sleeping in satin sheets.

Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ~ Herman Goering

The point is not that humanity is inherently violent. The point is that humanity is very easily manipulated by bad people for bad purposes. Democracy and freedom of information make this manipulating process harder, but the process remains achievable and the willingness to achieve it never goes away.

Do not rejoice in his defeat, you men. For though the world has stood up and stopped the bastard, the bitch that bore him is in heat again.”
~ Berthold Brecht - The Resistable Rise of Arturo Ui.

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

In my point of view, that's sadly a wrong assertion. You can't compare human nature and human society.
That's not because a small group of people want to fight that all their collectivity wants to fight.

A minority of brutal people have created rules to push the majority of the pacific or fearful ones to die for them on battlefield. If a man do not want to fight, he has to face a tribunal, to go to jail and in some cases to be executed by the brutal representants of his nation.

How many recent wars would have not happened if people could have decided if they wanted or not to participate through a referendum? Probably none.

Depends on what you call recent and you cannot class all leaders the same, Chamberlain did not want a war between Britain and Germany in 1936, WWI was still fresh in people's minds and his intentions were good, however he and many others totally misjudged the extent of Nazi ambition and aggression.
Possibly if there was a vote then the UK may have been against a war in 1936 however they would have expected the world powers to rein in the Nazi war machine, by 1939 it was way too late, the genie was out of the bottle and a major war was inevitable.

The Falklands war was an act of aggression on British territory against British civilians, the Argentinians were run by a thuggish dictator and the British people were in favour of intervention.

The people will never have the full facts and yes we know in the case of WMD our leaders will use fabricated evidence but any referendum would be based on information provided by our leaders.

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Recently if USA, UK or France would have been real democracies, they would never had sent their young soldiers in the Middle East or Northern Africa. People who decided to go to war, were senators, lords or presidents sleeping in satin sheets.

Those Senators, Lords or Presidents were once almost ordinary people, albeit a tad richer than most of us and moving in different circles, the fact is that power tends to corrupt ordinary folk. I think you will find public opinion was in favour of intervention in many of those wars at the time, albeit based on evidence provided by our leaders.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/03/remembering-iraq/

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/22/us...ism-fades.html

Wars have been part of human life since the beginning, if you believe in the Bible (which I don't, but it serves as a good example) then Cain slew Abel very early on so the seed for evil is in us all and the first Biblical war occurs as early as Genesis chapter 14.

The first actual war in recorded history took place in Mesopotamia in 2700 BCE between Sumer and Elam although prehistoric cave paintings clearly show humans attacking each other with spears and arrows, that was way before satin sheets were even created, although the leaders probably lay on the better animal hides.

[Puhbear69]

Ozedemir under Police Protction

Turkish security forces have complained in Munich that the Green Party politician Özdemir
(a Member of the German Parliament !!!) is a "terrorist" in their hotel. The police put three officials to the side of the Erdogan critic.

A normal visit to the Munich Security Conference is currently impossible for Green Party politician Cem Özdemir. The reason: the Turkish delegation resides in his hotel. After a complaint to the police about the Erdogan critic, the Bavarian officials were forced to act and put Özdemir under police protection.

This was confirmed by the Police Headquarters Munich of the "Welt". As the newspaper further reports, Özdemir accompany three officers during the security conference - on dates he is brought in a police vehicle. The police did not want to comment on the background and scope of the protection measure.

Complaint about "terrorist" Özdemir
Ozdemir told the WAMS that he happened to meet the delegation headed by Prime Minister Binali Yildirim on Friday in the hotel lobby. "From her expression, I could see that they were not pleased to see me," he said. The grim looks should have followed a complaint of the Turks. About the fact that there is a "terrorist" in their hotel. This was Özdemir meant.

Ozdemir said the incident confirmed his assessment of "the nature of the regime in Ankara". One gets "an impression, which aggressiveness emanates from this uncertainty personnel probably in Turkey, if they behave themselves already with us in such a way." It was "bad enough that Erdogan's henchmen spread fear and terror among dissidents," added Ozdemir. "But in Germany it has lost nothing."

In the past, Özdemir had repeatedly sharply criticized President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, stressing that there could be no EU membership with Turkey.

Incident with bodyguards in the US
Turkish security guards were down on a visit to Washington last year. At that time, several of Erdogan's bodyguards had beaten peaceful Kurdish protesters. Eleven people were injured in the attacks, nine of them had to be treated in hospital.


Source: ARD- news : http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/oezd...chutz-101.html
(in German, auto. translated)

----------------------------------------------------------------
I can't comment this news report in a way, VEF could accept it. - Sorry !

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

Depends on what you call recent and you cannot class all leaders the same, Chamberlain did not want a war between Britain and Germany in 1936, WWI was still fresh in people's minds and his intentions were good, however he and many others totally misjudged the extent of Nazi ambition and aggression.
Possibly if there was a vote then the UK may have been against a war in 1936 however they would have expected the world powers to rein in the Nazi war machine, by 1939 it was way too late, the genie was out of the bottle and a major war was inevitable.

I'm not telling that all the elites were brutal fighters. There surely were good kings and presidents.
But the fact is that neither the German, nor the French, nor the English have been able to vote democratically to tell if they wanted to go on war or not.

I'm not that sure that Adolf Hitler would have get the majority of the mothers, fathers and grand-parents, wives or partners to send their sons, boyfriends or husbands dying on battlefield.

German soldiers who were in Verdun during WWI knew and said how horrible was war. They would not have made a nice publicity.

My grandmother who spoke to me about German occupation in Paris, said to me that German soldiers were not happy to be in France. They wanted to be at home with their families.
A lot of German soldiers were not crazy Nazis.
When German soldiers had to move from Paris to the Russian battlefield, they were unhappy and depressed.

Originally Posted by Wendigo

The Falklands war was an act of aggression on British territory against British civilians, the Argentinians were run by a thuggish dictator and the British people were in favour of intervention.

In fact, it never was clearly a British territory and still is on a list of disputed territories listed in the UNO. I believed it was a British one until I spent four days ago some times by pure hazard on this story.

En 1976 toutefois, le comité juridique interaméricain, organe consultatif de l'Organisation des Etats américains, déclare l'existence d'un "droit de souveraineté irréfutable" de l'Argentine sur les Malouines.

In 1976, however, the Inter-American Juridical Committee, an advisory body of the Organization of American States, declared the existence of an "irrefutable right of sovereignty" of Argentina over the Malvinas.

Originally Posted by Wendigo

The people will never have the full facts and yes we know in the case of WMD our leaders will use fabricated evidence but any referendum would be based on information provided by our leaders.

Those Senators, Lords or Presidents were once almost ordinary people, albeit a tad richer than most of us and moving in different circles, the fact is that power tends to corrupt ordinary folk. I think you will find public opinion was in favour of intervention in many of those wars at the time, albeit based on evidence provided by our leaders.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/03/remembering-iraq/

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/22/us...ism-fades.html

That's public opinions, retranscripted by "newspapers and surveys" (today we know what means "surveys" ) but when it's time to send friends and family on battlefield because of our votes, it's another story.
Even more if just before to vote, the peaceful people would demonstrate that we can find a solution through negociations and that wars will cause tears and blood.

Originally Posted by Wendigo

Wars have been part of human life since the beginning, if you believe in the Bible (which I don't, but it serves as a good example) then Cain slew Abel very early on so the seed for evil is in us all and the first Biblical war occurs as early as Genesis chapter 14.

The first actual war in recorded history took place in Mesopotamia in 2700 BCE between Sumer and Elam although prehistoric cave paintings clearly show humans attacking each other with spears and arrows, that was way before satin sheets were even created, although the leaders probably lay on the better animal hides.

Hhhmmm. They were uneducated people. Today we see films of Mel Gibson or Oliver Stone. We all know that war is not romantic. It's a horrible thing that is not sexy at all.

[chris chunt]

Originally Posted by chris chunt

Bit of a brew ha ha developing over a column in the daily mail written by Richard Littlejohn about Tom Daley and his husband Dustin Gee expecting a baby and showing a scan of it .

I read the article and don't think it was homophobic at all in fact a lot of it was making fun of all future parents of whatever sex showing scans of babies .
Like we need to know about it .

This is another case of guardian readers ( the paper that makes a 20 mill a year loss ) deciding what other people can read or look at .

Good luck Richard and long may your column continue .

There's more talent in Richard Littlejohns little finger than there is in the bronze winning Olympian Tom Daley or film you've never heard of or want to see director Dustin Gee Black .

Censorship by those who know what's best for other people .
Guardian readers .

Still the daily mail got it's own back by exposing a saint in the making for what he really is .

How ironic that other lefty luvvie darlings are all wearing black to stand up to sex pests at the baftas .
And there was one of them within their ranks .
I had to chortle .

All hail the daily mail !

[Greenman]

One thing I've noticed is that I still can't shift this blasted cough/sore throat that I've had for two weeks since the main cold went, but I have taken steps to get rid of it by an old standby-Buttercup Syrup medicine and that appears to be working. this has been the worst Wimter ever(so far) for colds and flu in this country even though many of us got jabs back in October.

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by Greenman

One thing I've noticed is that I still can't shift this blasted cough/sore throat that I've had for two weeks since the main cold went, but I have taken steps to get rid of it by an old standby-Buttercup Syrup medicine and that appears to be working. this has been the worst Wimter ever(so far) for colds and flu in this country even though many of us got jabs back in October.

I'll swap ya Mate I'll trade my sunburn I got last week while at my golf club where it was sunny and warm to hot for your cold Deal

[trailmaster]

Today across America it is a national holiday: President's day which celebrates the birthday of George Washington and Abraham Lincloln, except for one thing.

When I was much younger there were two holidays. Lincoln's birthday is actually on February 12 and George Washington's actual birthday is February 22 and schools were closed, there was no mail, and all government offices were closed.

Then those dingbats in the U.S. congress did away with that in 1971. They wanted a national holiday to fall on a Monday so people would have a three day weekend, so now only a few of the U.S. states celebrate Lincoln's birthday as a state holiday, and the rest of the country celebrate both on the third Monday of February.

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by trailmaster

Today across America it is a national holiday: President's day which celebrates the birthday of George Washington and Abraham Lincloln, except for one thing.

When I was much younger there were two holidays. Lincoln's birthday is actually on February 12 and George Washington's actual birthday is February 22 and schools were closed, there was no mail, and all government offices were closed.

Then those dingbats in the U.S. congress did away with that in 1971. They wanted a national holiday to fall on a Monday so people would have a three day weekend, so now only a few of the U.S. states celebrate Lincoln's birthday as a state holiday, and the rest of the country celebrate both on the third Monday of February.

I thought your retired every day is a holiday in that case

[trailmaster]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

I thought your retired every day is a holiday in that case

That's true. As a retired person every day is almost the same, except that the weekends are usually a little quieter because schools are closed, and most government offices are closed and many of the smaller stores have limited hours and some are closed on Sundays. Actually most children here in the U.S don't get that much out of the state and national holidays. They just use those days to catch up on school homework. Only during the holiday season do children get more out of the holidays because these holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years) days are filled with family celebrations and gatherings.