The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

I'm making the point that the trump card for nationalism is always "but think of our brave boys". I find it rather vulgar, as many soldiers have as many varying political views as anyone else, and when you throw conscription into the equation, fighting for ones country is no proof of patriotism at all.

Sorry I must have missed it.

Surely most people, given a choice would choose not to be shot at. I don't find that unreasonable and don't recall anyone suggesting it is/was proof of patriotism. On the other side of the equation, there are also many stories of people from occupied territories who took a similar view and collaborated. I have little time for them or their fate, although I can see it may have been a difficult decision to make.

War is a bad thing and I don't doubt that most people involved in them don't want to be there and could probably find something better to do.

When the alternatives are Eugenics, Anti-Semitism, Gas Chambers and a gestapo controlled state, then I think on balance, I'd rather fight.

I'd certainly like to think I would, though being on a front-line seeing my mates getting killed would certainly test that resolve. I don't think any (few exceptions aside) of us can say what we'd do in that situation. It's not a call I ever want to thave to make. Friend of mine recently broke up with her army boyfriend. She said he came back from tour knowing he'd probably killed somebody and something in him died. He wasn't the same person. Can't say I'm a big fan of army recruiting techniques which seem to be, 'Go into schools, target the kids who aren't doing well and sell it as a big tour with your mates and basicaly loads of time going to the gym and drinking subsidised booze. Let's face it kids, you arent the sharpest tools in the box, what else are you going to do? What, the killing people bit? Ah it'll be fine, big tour wahey!'.

[Worthy4England]

So let me get this straight? British citizens DO have more rights to the spoils of Britain, because their gradfathers and ancestors worked long and hard for it, fought wars for it? This purely biological link is enough to ensure they have access to better healthcare, housing, education, a democracy?

The Dresden comment has been misinterpreted. T'was tongue in cheek, said with a smile and a laugh,and he did jokingly apologise back for Coventry. Whole point is of course I shouldn't actually be apologising, I wasn't there, I didn't do it. What I don't get is the same people saying I shouldn't be apologising for the bad things this country has done, are saying I should have greater access to the profits of all the good (and bad) things this country has done? I didn't have anything to do with them either. Seems a convenient argument to me, that surprisingly only ever comes from those on the right side of it.

Also, on Dresden, there is no excuse. 'They started it', or 'they did worse' doesn't quite cut it.

Pru, yes to para 1. That's what I'm saying anyhow. Describe what are "the spoils of britain"? Let's use healthcare as an example. The NHS can't cope with everyone from every part of the world who might want access to it - it wasn't designed for that purpose. Ideally I want free healthcare to an equal standard for everyone on the planet. As we're not there with it yet, someone has to pick and choose. To reverse your argument somewhat, if the pick and choose decision is between two people who have identical symptoms and need, then I'm going to choose the one that's contributed to the running and operational costs of the NHS through taxation for all their working lives. Yes indeedy.

Your argument or line of thought on the Dresden para is confusing me. I am saying that you shouldn't be apologising on anyones behalf without checking that they want to apologise.

On the other side of the argument "greater access", I'm saying that you have equal access to everyone else who by dint of biology was born in the UK.

You still haven't told me amid all the rhetoric, how this little island's NHS service is going to made available to all the world's sick and needy? The answer is fairly apparent - it isn't. There really is only one workable option - we try and build infrastructures in the countries that don't have them.

Ok so lets go build a hospital in Country X or Y. Oh err, we'll just give the money to Warlord X surely he'll build it? Feck he's bought a boat load of Kalashnikov's instead. Maybe we'll try and negotiate with Warlord X - hmmm he doesn't want to negotiate. Better idea we'll airlift folk out - feck he's just downed a Chinook load with a Stinger funded by the last lot of aid - does that mean we're at war with him?? etc. etc.

On the last line, don't think anyone's really made an excuse for Dresden other than we really wouldn't have been there if they didn't start it. Sorry might not cut it for you, but's that the way it is. In the 80's I threw (with some mates) a couple of Americans off a German train (stationary) for shouting remember Dresden down the carriages. I'm not apologising for it either.

[TANGODANCER]

So let me get this straight? British citizens DO have more rights to the spoils of Britain, because their gradfathers and ancestors worked long and hard for it, fought wars for it? This purely biological link is enough to ensure they have access to better healthcare, housing, education, a democracy?

The Dresden comment has been misinterpreted. T'was tongue in cheek, said with a smile and a laugh,and he did jokingly apologise back for Coventry. Whole point is of course I shouldn't actually be apologising, I wasn't there, I didn't do it. What I don't get is the same people saying I shouldn't be apologising for the bad things this country has done, are saying I should have greater access to the profits of all the good (and bad) things this country has done? I didn't have anything to do with them either. Seems a convenient argument to me, that surprisingly only ever comes from those on the right side of it.

Also, on Dresden, there is no excuse. 'They started it', or 'they did worse' doesn't quite cut it.

Not sure, Pru, how a nation can apologise for something like a bombing that happened during a war? Dresden was just another enemy city that purportedly had steel mills, ball-bearing factories and industries producing materials of war. It was never targeted by even the pilots who flew the planes, but by the higher-ups in the war office. Apologies are useless against the resolve to see it never happens again.....gee, can you even do that in a war?

Nobody is knocking your basic sentiments of peace and goodwill to all men, but to bring it about, all men must take part. What do you suggest we do in place of a priority system, run a raffle? No offence meant.

[Prufrock]

It still seems a contradiction to me. We don't apologise for Dresden, because we weren't alive, and didn't do it, our grandfathers did. But we can benefit from the NHS, from democracy and all the other things that came about when we weren't alive, and which our grandfathers, not us, did. We take the good and overlook the bad? There seems to be an argument, our ancestors made this country what it is, and we share in that. If so, then do we not share in the guilt of the bad things they did?

Not only have I never suggested opening the borders and having a free for all, I have explicitly stated I think it is a bad idea, but for purely economic reasons, and not through any sense of 'deserving' it more. Immigration does need to be regulated, but regulated in terms of what the country can handle economically, and not on some misguided 'Britain for the British' campaign.

Also I wrote Xmas, not Christmas before, through pure laziness, don't worry, they haven't got me yet.

[Prufrock]

Wasn't just a standard bombing raid though was it TD? Because it's war doesn't mean anything goes. That's why things like the Geneva convention, and the Hague treaties exist. Wars need rules. The Germans were on the retreat, and the bombing largely ignored the industrial suburbs of the town, and focussed on the civilian centre, deliberately causing wide spread massive fires, and maximum loss of life possible.

As for my 'solution' to immigration, my solution is by all means limit immigration, but on economic reasons, not because people born here deserve it more. It's still not fair, but life never is. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it as fair as possible.

[Worthy4England]

It still seems a contradiction to me. We don't apologise for Dresden, because we weren't alive, and didn't do it, our grandfathers did. But we can benefit from the NHS, from democracy and all the other things that came about when we weren't alive, and which our grandfathers, not us, did. We take the good and overlook the bad? There seems to be an argument, our ancestors made this country what it is, and we share in that. If so, then do we not share in the guilt of the bad things they did?

Not only have I never suggested opening the borders and having a free for all, I have explicitly stated I think it is a bad idea, but for purely economic reasons, and not through any sense of 'deserving' it more. Immigration does need to be regulated, but regulated in terms of what the country can handle economically, and not on some misguided 'Britain for the British' campaign.

Also I wrote Xmas, not Christmas before, through pure laziness, don't worry, they haven't got me yet.

I personally share no guilt about a bombing raid that happened during a war - no. I have no remorseful sleepless nights over it. It was a war - sh*t happens. I have heard first hand accounts from two people that saw their mates die on D-Day, not once did they say they felt remorseful over anything that occurred to the "other side". I don't apologise for Dresden (not because I wasn't alive) but it really isn't my place to. If those involved felt an apology was necessary, then I'd fully support them.

So lets get back to the NHS. You appear to be advocating that the UK should fund anyone's health care, from anywhere in the world until we can't afford to, provided they're legal immigrants? Surely that's what we do now? And doesn't that make it Britain for the British (as if they're legal immigrants they're British?) What's misguided here?

[TANGODANCER]

Now we may actually be approaching a comon denominator here Pru. I say may.

Our country may want to play the good Samatitan to the world. Our intent may be massive. The bottom line is that we are neither big enough or rich enough to do it. Do the oil-sheiks operate health and benefit systems and declare open borders to all and welcome? Do they fxxk, my friend. African despots care only about themselves and bollox to the starving millions, let aid from other coutries sort it out. Half the countries in the world can't sort themselves out, never mind helping others.And what about all those off-shore accounts from the rich, do they want to share anything? No fxxking way they do.

So, is it really about a visionary world where all men are equal and care equally about their fellows, or is that to be seen for the pipe-dream it is in the light of it belonging in never-never land. Who exactly offers open borders to us? Our best mates the Yankee-doodles are happy to see us on business trips or short vacations, but do they offer open borders? Oh yeah.

Getting one's house in order (how very ironic a statement right now) has never been more an issue. That's why we need a party with at least some determination to make a start at the core and work outwards, not at our open borders and work inwards. We need to do some renovation before inviting everyone to the party. Rocket science it ain't.

[Worthy4England]

The Germans were on the retreat.

Oh we'll just forget how many Jew they gassed in accordance with the Geneva convention then shall we. The fact they're now in retreat forgives everything?

[TANGODANCER]

Wasn't just a standard bombing raid though was it TD? Because it's war doesn't mean anything goes. That's why things like the Geneva convention, and the Hague treaties exist. Wars need rules. The Germans were on the retreat, and the bombing largely ignored the industrial suburbs of the town, and focussed on the civilian centre, deliberately causing wide spread massive fires, and maximum loss of life possible.
As for my 'solution' to immigration, my solution is by all means limit immigration, but on economic reasons, not because people born here deserve it more. It's still not fair, but life never is. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it as fair as possible.

Really? And who exactly stated that as a fact? Please refer me to the source. The British may be all manner of things, but butchers they've never been. Bomb-aimers in 1945 didn't exactly have sat-navs, so do eleaborate on your statement please.

[Prufrock]

I personally share no guilt about a bombing raid that happened during a war - no. I have no remorseful sleepless nights over it. It was a war - sh*t happens. I have heard first hand accounts from two people that saw their mates die on D-Day, not once did they say they felt remorseful over anything that occurred to the "other side". I don't apologise for Dresden (not because I wasn't alive) but it really isn't my place to. If those involved felt an apology was necessary, then I'd fully support them.

So lets get back to the NHS. You appear to be advocating that the UK should fund anyone's health care, from anywhere in the world until we can't afford to, provided they're legal immigrants? Surely that's what we do now? And doesn't that make it Britain for the British (as if they're legal immigrants they're British?) What's misguided here?

You know full well that ain't what's meant when the BNP and their lot start talking about Britain for the British.

Where did I suggest changing anything? This came about because TD brought up the English Democrat party, another of those splutteringly indignant parties that keep talking about common sense, whilst making very vague pledges. For instance they claim their main issues are Immigration, English Identity, The EU, and Pollitical Correctness. On their website, their stance on Immigration is:

"England is now the third most heavily populated country in the world and the most in Europe.

We don't have space or resources to permit more large scale immigration.

We say mass immigration must be ended. We would deport illegal immigrants and all those who are extremists, terrorists and criminals.

We would get control of our immigration systems by leaving the EU! "

That's it. Their main policy, and that's it. A vacuous four lines of empty rhetoric finished by an a rabble rousing exclamation mark. Get this lot in power ASAP, yes please.

[Prufrock]

The Germans were on the retreat.

Oh we'll just forget how many Jew they gassed in accordance with the Geneva convention then shall we. The fact they're now in retreat forgives everything?

Does that make it OK then? The Nazis were a bunch of bastards so we can kill innocent civilians? It's OK to be as bad as them?

Bombing in wars is supposed to be targetted at strategic places. Key word being targetted. Dresden had no such aims. It was deliberately wide spread, to create a firestorm, and to kill as many civilians as possible. That is not OK. And as I said earlier the argument 'they started it', or 'they did worse' is not a defence.

[Prufrock]

Wasn't just a standard bombing raid though was it TD? Because it's war doesn't mean anything goes. That's why things like the Geneva convention, and the Hague treaties exist. Wars need rules. The Germans were on the retreat, and the bombing largely ignored the industrial suburbs of the town, and focussed on the civilian centre, deliberately causing wide spread massive fires, and maximum loss of life possible.
As for my 'solution' to immigration, my solution is by all means limit immigration, but on economic reasons, not because people born here deserve it more. It's still not fair, but life never is. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it as fair as possible.

Really? And who exactly stated that as a fact? Please refer me to the source. The British may be all manner of things, but butchers they've never been. Bomb-aimers in 1945 didn't exactly have sat-navs, so do eleaborate on your statement please.

Really? We've always been spotless, and never done anything wrong? And I'm the naive one?!

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of ... rld_War_II

Both supposedly neutral sources, which refer to the bombing, it's large scale, and the fact it wasn't concentrated on specific targets.

Here's a link to the Wiki article on area bombing

Is that OK? Acceptable? Yes the German's started it, but they were the Nazis, the bad guys, surely stooping to their level, and saying it's OK, makes any moral outrage at their actions at least a tad hollow? We judge ourselves by our actions, not anybody elses's.

[a1]

we're all the same. if we'd've started with that "i'm better than you , so i'm not gonna be as bad as you" we'd've lost.

[Prufrock]

we're all the same. if we'd've started with that "i'm better than you , so i'm not gonna be as bad as you" we'd've lost.

That at least has some defence when a war's at it's peak. When the Germans are on the run, beaten, it's barbaric.

[TANGODANCER]

Well, I asked for sources, you provided some, fair do's. I can't say I haven't read these things previously, I have, but my initial point was that it was the War Office who gave the orders, not the servicemen or the British public. No one can ever sanctioned any form of killing as right, but in a kill or be killed situation such as war, I suppose some rational thinking goes out of the window in favour of not losing. Every member of the British public regarded Hitler and his gestapo as animals after revelation of what they were doing to the Jews, so maybe that affected some thought and consciences more than just a little. As for right, what's ever right about war? There's no difference between a shopkeeper and his family in Dresden than one in Birmingham, Manchester, London or Coventry is there?

[Prufrock]

Well, I asked for sources, you provided some, fair do's. I can't say I haven't read these things previously, I have, but my initial point was that it was the War Office who gave the orders, not the servicemen or the British public. No one can ever sanctioned any form of killing as right, but in a kill or be killed situation such as war, I suppose some rational thinking goes out of the window in favour of not losing. Every member of the British public regarded Hitler and his gestapo as animals after revelation of what they were doing to the Jews, so maybe that affected some thought and consciences more than just a little. As for right, what's ever right about war? There's no difference between a shopkeeper and his family in Dresden than one in Birmingham, Manchester, London or Coventry is there?

Nope, not at all. I'm not saying 'we' were worse than the Nazis, or even the same. But it was barbaric. As you say it's the war office, not the common people who make those decisions, but it was the common people who died in Dresden. I don't feel the need to apologise, like I don't feel the need to apologise to ex-colonies, or for the crusades. Doesn't mean I think it was all OK though.

[TANGODANCER]

Well, I asked for sources, you provided some, fair do's. I can't say I haven't read these things previously, I have, but my initial point was that it was the War Office who gave the orders, not the servicemen or the British public. No one can ever sanctioned any form of killing as right, but in a kill or be killed situation such as war, I suppose some rational thinking goes out of the window in favour of not losing. Every member of the British public regarded Hitler and his gestapo as animals after revelation of what they were doing to the Jews, so maybe that affected some thought and consciences more than just a little. As for right, what's ever right about war? There's no difference between a shopkeeper and his family in Dresden than one in Birmingham, Manchester, London or Coventry is there?

Nope, not at all. I'm not saying 'we' were worse than the Nazis, or even the same. But it was barbaric. As you say it's the war office, not the common people who make those decisions, but it was the common people who died in Dresden. I don't feel the need to apologise, like I don't feel the need to apologise to ex-colonies, or for the crusades. Doesn't mean I think it was all OK though.

So, we have to draw a line between reality and idealism. Idealism can be the target, but realism must be the benchmark.
Oh, and by the way, read as it'sa written, the Englishh Democratic Party points aren' that terrible. I'm struggling a bit to think of what major benefites the EU has actually provided us with. Let's see......

[TANGODANCER]

Quote of the day: "All those that have fought and died for this country should be allowed to live here!" Sir Nicholas Winterton.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Well, I asked for sources, you provided some, fair do's. I can't say I haven't read these things previously, I have, but my initial point was that it was the War Office who gave the orders, not the servicemen or the British public. No one can ever sanctioned any form of killing as right, but in a kill or be killed situation such as war, I suppose some rational thinking goes out of the window in favour of not losing. Every member of the British public regarded Hitler and his gestapo as animals after revelation of what they were doing to the Jews, so maybe that affected some thought and consciences more than just a little. As for right, what's ever right about war? There's no difference between a shopkeeper and his family in Dresden than one in Birmingham, Manchester, London or Coventry is there?

Not the War Office, the War Cabinet. Proposed by Bomber Harris and approved by Churchill. Saturation bombing of that type doesn't really need satnav precision. Unquestionably they targeted the city (as a communications centre) and not the industrial complexes outside the city. It was a civilian rather than military or economic target. As such it was probably a war crime as defined by the Geneva Convention then in place. By any measure, Germany had lost the war by that time so there was no danger of the allies losing. Did it shorten the war in the same way Hiroshima and Nagasaki did? Probably by a few days. Prufrock makes a good argument IMHO FWIW, although I'm not sure what it all proves.

[Worthy4England]

The Germans were on the retreat.

Oh we'll just forget how many Jew they gassed in accordance with the Geneva convention then shall we. The fact they're now in retreat forgives everything?

Does that make it OK then? The Nazis were a bunch of bastards so we can kill innocent civilians? It's OK to be as bad as them?

Bombing in wars is supposed to be targetted at strategic places. Key word being targetted. Dresden had no such aims. It was deliberately wide spread, to create a firestorm, and to kill as many civilians as possible. That is not OK. And as I said earlier the argument 'they started it', or 'they did worse' is not a defence.

No nothing about war is ok.

We killed the innocent civilians that voted the bastards in - oh and by the way, they were happy to have a go 30 years prior to the second WW too. Maybe the message didn't get through first time...

I'm not looking to construct a defence for anything that goes on in a war - just observing that you'd probably need to have been there to understand fully why a particular judgement call was made - life's generally a piece o pi$$ with hindsight and a gap of 60 years that dim the atrocities. Easy to sit in judgement then and say X or Y was wrong and there was no excuse...

Just in case you're wondering, I like Germany and have been many times.