Attack on children in Syria

[tacoben]

Tweet

I agree with Colwal it is hard to imagine how to control such a large country in the same way as England. It is much the same in China. Both take the large amount of land and govern each part differently.
I have only been to Russia once and it was a long time ago but I always felt they have much more in common with the English than the Americans I have met. As Colwal says one drink is much more likely to be twelve and I prefer that to drinking the p*** called Budweiser.
I would however isolate Slovakia as my dealings with one particular Slovakian would make me think the country is full of very, very lazy mummy boys with the intelligence of a tadpole. However it would be wrong to judge a country by the only Slovakian that I have ever met.

[tacoben]

A nice little quote:

'I am filled with the conviction that the interests of humanity would be best served if the United States remained true to its traditions, true to God whom it pretends to believe, and kept out of 'entagling alliances' situated as it is, geographically remote from the theaters of impending conflicts...'

My personal view is that when countries group together it creates a bigger problem and so I feel that what happens in another country is an internal problem. However as we see it is not so easy to sit back and watch such horrors. So now I have to consider is there an appropriate time to help and should it be as a member of a gang or as an independent choice from each country. In effect would the world be better off without the Commonwealth, European Union, UN, Nato etc etc etc.

[JasonFWard]

My personal view is that when countries group together it creates a bigger problem and so I feel that what happens in another country is an internal problem. However as we see it is not so easy to sit back and watch such horrors. So now I have to consider is there an appropriate time to help and should it be as a member of a gang or as an independent choice from each country. In effect would the world be better off without the Commonwealth, European Union, UN, Nato etc etc etc.

I couldn't be further from your opinion. Various parts of England used to war with each other until they formed England, England and Wales used to fight each other until there was a union, England used to fight with Scotland until there was a union. The member states of Europe have a long history of fighting each other, but stopped once they became part of the EU.

To my mind, most wars are about about tiny mind thinking, this bit of soil is mine not your, that water is mine not yours, that oil is mine not yours, that oil that is yours I need so I'm going to take it. But the conversation and outcome are very different when the thinking is that soil is ours, that water is ours, that oil is ours.

Whilst its clear to me that political union can be rushed and fall apart badly, overall I think it is to be supported and encouraged.

[tacoben]

Interesting because is some ways I think you are right and in others not.

Plenty of wars happened in the past but they were influenced by people outside of the UK. Incestuous royalty wanting to gain alliances for future political gains. In reality there are no true English because we are all a mixture of countless rape, pillaging and murderous wars. The true successful type of war involves wholesale destruction of the society before.

My view of both WW1 and WW2 was that they escalate purely because of alliances and a small conflict was made massive. The only reason the Japanese changed sides between the two wars was over land rights and the English being difficult over countries which they should have nothing to do with. Even now with North Korea the problem should be local but both Russia and USA are involved. The talks for N.Korea should be between, Japan, S Korea and China only but then that might lead to peace and that would never help justify the USA presence in the pacific area.

Yes it can be said that a collective of countries has brought peace amongst the member states but it has just moved the brutality and murder and PROFIT somewhere else the wars have never stopped.

Disputes over land (Oil, Fishing rights) are still present for example Northern Ireland, The Docto Islands, The Falklands, Taiwan. Bloodshed has become underhand with economic sanctions, politically motivated education, unhealthy alliances causing disease and poverty and eventual lower life expectancy and hardship for millions of people. So not as much war as a slavery and disparity of people.

After that I do see your point and without some of these groups the world may have been very different. But what has always remained true is that the USA causes more harm than good.