mockney piers

Would it be truly wrong of me, considering the band were sort of anti-rock and she now looks like Valerie Singleton, that Kim Deal created some of the best hooks with a bass guitar around?

It's not very cool to say Phil Collins was a great drummer because Genesis were nice middle class boys unlike err the stones and err the who, but then he wasn't exactly rock'n'roll and he committed some of the greatest crimes against humanity in his solo career. I'd have gone Led Zep, Frank Zappa, Phil Collins and John Entwistle, though as Bob pointed out they added to the sum of parts (possibly minus Zappa), hence why Led Zep has to be the best band as each component is a strong contender for best of...and together they have some truly great moments (last couple of albums though...meh).

doh!!

I liked this weird formula for predictions, England out in the quarters surprise surprise. Click on it for the close up.

Agreed it's not necessary in order to make an agreement, but I think it is necessary to at least have a common overarching framework in order for it to work. Something like the ECHR and War Crimes Court and more similar institutions can only help too. Without it, as Kohnstam realises, there is no route for the expression of power purely through the means of justice rather than other mechanisms of coercion.

The problem with the UN is that from it's inception it's never been anything but a glorified talking shop (leaving aside the great things it does for health and development around the world). The WHOLE point of the European project is to subordinate national interests (primarily economic) to common interests. The collective security is almost a by-product, not a theoretical goal. It doesn't pass my attention btw, that most of those who complain about Europe are the ones who advocate much greater military spending. Seeing as our last two wars bankrupted us then lost us our empire, along with the deaths of over a million of our citizens, I personally don't see how can afford NOT to subordinate national for common interests and subordinate our local judiciary to a common overriding framework for justice.

Echoed, but Spain to win. Or frankly Germany...never write them etc....

It really then boils down to the US. The middle East is vital purely and simply for oil. The US hopes to maintain as much stability as possible by giving Israel a preponderance of power in the area, but we can all see that that doesn't prevent conflict. Everytime Israel abuses that power the US tells them off, but blocks UN condemnations and doesn't lessen financial and military aid, their horse is too important in their strategy to stop backing wholly. The continued injustices of the Palestinian situation do nothing but foster instability and resentment, and Israel's response is to build a big wall, put their fingers in their ears and go 'la la la'. But we surely can all see that this is not the way forward. Post communist Eastern Europe saw bankrupt, crumbling societies, and this breeds discontent which breeds extreme governments, it also saw millions of people under laxer controls wanting to become economic migrants. Our response was not to build walls and try to shut the problems out, but to invite them in. To allow labour to move freely and to invest in the crumbling factories, letting them share in mutual prosperity and common interests. I remember once reading an op-ed that the two state solution would probably never happen, perhaps the only way forward that could really work is to make a single state and have it join the European Union. Massively unrealistic perhaps, but I've yet to hear a suggestion that would be more likely to actually deliver peace!!

This was written by Max Kohnstamm, a Dutch jewish concentration camp survivor, whoh soon after the war administered Marshall plan resources and was soon involved in the European project, cooperating and becoming friends with Winrich Behr, one of the last officers to get out of Stalingrad alive. He echoes my feelings but says it much better than I could. "It was Thucydides who described the dealings between states as a world in which the strong do as they like and the weak put up with what they must. Power and dominion form the basis of that system, even when a balance has been achieved within it. But neither the hegemony of a given superpower nor the attempt to prevent war by means of a balance of power have ever led to a lasting peace. The big question remains: can power be replaced as a ruling principle in international relations by justice? And how can justice, if it is not to deteriorate into mere words receive access to power? Can we, to that end, develop other forms of power, in order to establish justice between states? Now that modern weaponry has made the danger of war even greater, this question has become even more urgent. A European fort, a sort of Switzerland on a large scale, is an illusion in today's world. The power to destroy, once the monopoly held by the state, is now in the hands of anyone who can obtain the necessary information through the internet. The power of mass destruction, in other words, has become increasingly privatised in this world. In such a situation, can the international institutions with their joint responsibility provide justice that is accompanied by the power it needs? For our civilisation, the ability to develop a robust international rule of law is a matter of survival. Is that a utopia? No: for half a century, Europe has been proving that it is possible" Quoted from Geert Mak's In Europe

Yep, there are a couple of nice lads, but on the whole, bunch of coonts as ratty might say. Vaya Espa?a

made me chuckle anyway

Indeed I'm sure they wouldn't Mick and I genuinely wasn't trying to stir, sorry if I offended. Vince, I'll have to look into it, but I've a feeling that we didn't really get involved in Burma after their independence, mind you that was 1948, not sure about straight after the war. We did indeed have a policy of effectively extrajudicial executions in what became Malaysia, but one of the reason counter-insurgency was more successful than in most places was that the communist rebels were mostly ethnic Chinese with little support among the locals and thus rather easier to tell apart. Again, something of a might makes right, and not something I would approve of, though in this case the locals, taxed, intimidated and often murdered by the insurgents, probably did! Perhaps what he meant was that they crossed into Burmese territory where they hid out to carry out the executions?

i couldn't decide troll or not, you've at least answered my question.

Perhaps, but then my best man grew up in Derry in the 1970s, he used to bring back rubber bullets from his holidays after he'd moved here to my school; his dad, a good friend of mine with whom I've discussed politics more often than I care to mention, was himself a school mate of a certain Mr McGuiness, so I'm not showing bias, just empathy. And again, in all fairness it was at the very least a simplistic post wasn't it.

Fair points all Bob. *Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Possibly a bit harsh.. and a fair point that a lot > can happen in twenty years (or rather, not a lot) > > Is having an army made-up of a genuine > cross-section of society really a good thing? Like > any other profession you ought to have people that > 'fit' and are good at it, not people who are made > to do it. All our dentists are drawn from a > genuine cross-section of society. > > > *where else would have such a healthy > organisation > > of disillusioned soldiers speaking out about > the > > wars they are sent on. > > That's conscription for you.

it would have to be irrational! ;-P

"I think it's legal to board ships in international waters if they are suspected to be carrying weapons of mass destruction or are engaging in terrorist activities." Or indeed invade countries, err or 'occupy' them?

Sorry Mick though in fairness I was responding to 'they came over and shot people' which would hardly qualify as 11+ now would it ;-) Of Bloody Sunday it may be a little simplistic but basically holds water. Of the other abuses, I am aware of them and would never defend them. In fact if you've read me on these boards over the last few years you'll know I've been incredibly critical of Britain's recent policies and often horrific past. I consider all forms of empire to be intrinsically evil, and any form of coercion through violence to be barbaric, hence my hatred of neo cons, new labour and Israeli policy. On the other hand I do have several friends who served in NI and they are unanimous in what a dark, depressing and terrifying place it was to be posted, one of whom lost friends there. Without exception they considered Bosnia less awful as at least they felt they were doing good there. Incidentally I also know several Israelis who have served across 2 generations of conflicts there, and the younger ones have similar thoughts about their postings (actually the air force guy who served in the first Lebanon invasion was none too thrilled either). To a certain extent I do sympathise with soldiers who want to do the right thing for their country in general but have governments who's ends are more nefarious. Even in this case as someone posted out, pity the poor IDF men who were given this task; they'd have known it was an absolute turkey (no pun intended) of a mission.

"The people I know who lived there described the (mostly) conscripted army as a unpredictable rabble of undertrained, frightened and often drunken young men who also happened to have guns." A bit harsh there bob. Max Hastings considers it to be the most enlightened and intellectual army in the world, and to a certain extent its true as its made up of a genuine cross section of society.* Mind you the below analysis of the recent invasion of Lebanon by the US Army College (they did the analysis not the invasion) considers it an army that has got soft having spent 20 years shooting at stone throwing kids from concrete towers (very rough precis there) http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub882.pdf *where else would have such a healthy organisation of disillusioned soldiers speaking out about the wars they are sent on.

Aagh, stop saying that. The whole of Ireland had the right to completely cecede from the union. The six counties voted to remain part of Britain and so it remains to this day. That might not be in perpetuity especially considering the shift in demographics, but stop being so damned simplistic about everything. For instance the first Ulster rising was a catholic massacre of protestants done specifically to demonstrate their loyalty to the English King whom they deemed to be a Catholic (everyone thought he was, though he claimed not to be, though he almost certainly was) against the encroachment upon royal power of the protestants in parliament. How do you square that circle in your simple 'occupation' world view?! Plus most of those protestants were economic and political migrants from Scotland, not occupying forces. Occupation, god you clearly haven't read a word have you, no wonder you failed history.

Can't dispute much of what you say vinceayre, though I think the main qualitative difference is that once we were found out we stopped the illegal activity, Israel simply doesn't care, even pissing off allies by using forged passports of Irish, Australian and British civilians to do their murdering, and their diplomatic response is "Meh!". Ooh, and I think the lesson learnt of Iraq, versus N Korea, is that when you have the bomb you DON'T get bombed or invaded. Ooh, and do you mean Burma or Malay?

"No - you went over and shot people instead....." more facile nonsense. Here's a breakdown of who did the killing: Republican paramilitary groups 2057 Loyalist paramilitary groups 1019 British security forces 363 Persons unknown 82 Irish security forces 5 against who did the dying Civilian 1855 Members of security forces (and reserves) 1123 of whom: British Army (excluding Northern Ireland regiments) 502 Royal Ulster Constabulary 301 Ulster Defence Regiment 196 Northern Ireland Prison Service 24 Garda S?och?na 9 Royal Irish Regiment 7 Territorial Army 7 English police forces 6 Royal Air Force 4 Royal Navy 2 Irish Army 1 Members of Republican Paramilitary Groups 394 Members of loyalist Paramilitary Groups 151 So in other words they came over and got shot. PLus 125 of those were innocent English civilians killed by republicans, so don't get all high and mighty. If you're referring to bloody sunday, it was daft to send shock troops to police a peaceful civilian march, but they were fired on by snipers who knew what the response would be and got the result they wanted, a huge recruiting sergeant and the effective end of the civil rights movement as a viable means. You might also consider that in the recent gaza 'war' the Israelis killed 30 times the number of women and children alone than people killed on bloody sunday. Taking all civilians into account that rises to 54x (762). 14 would be an average day shelling beaches in Gaza or firing missiles at ambulances in the Lebanon. The actions of the British Army compared to the IDF are simply not comparable at all.

baddamtish ;-)

"One of reasons the IRA was planting bombs in England was because the British army had occupied Northern Ireland and the catholics were being victimised by both the British army and the Ulster protestants" ...is a closer description to the state of affairs in palestine than NI. Have you actually ever read a single history book? Partition was a compromise facet of the negotiated settlement that granted home rule to the Irish Free State(look into it, it sparked a civil war in 1922). As a result of the conflict there arose a defacto partition that was later formalised in a series of treaties culminating in the '37 constitution. The army didn't 'occupy' Ulster, they were brought to NI to protect the catholic community, but disillusionment, abuses and accusations of siding with the unionists soon soured their presence amongst the catholic community, and they subsequently became a target of the IRA. The bombs in England were not a response to army presence in NI but a part of the dual strategy comprising specific political ends aimed at forcing the hand of Westminster as they knew Stormont would never compromise without pressure from London. The strategy was partly successful and the ends partly realised. Narnia, I guess bombing South Armagh would probably be the closest we'd get on Jah Lush's anaolgy. Palestine (as recognised by the UN) was conquered and occupied as a result of the victory in the six day war. I don't think long-term occupation was part of the plan, I think it developed over time, especially thanks to the unbalanced influence that the hawks have in Israeli politics (think lib dems in our coalition), but that victory was for me when Israel began to lose its way, and ultimately started losing sympathy in world opinion. Then came the first Lebanese invasion and the Sabra Shatila massacres over-seen (literally not figuratively) by Israeli troops. Then the second invasion and the so-called Gaza war. I think Israel (like Bush with Iraq) has spent what symapthy people had now. Palestine is entirely controlled by military presence and small illegal communities have been established there at great expense and maintained by military effort and stolen resources. Personally it seems insane as a strategy and don't understand why it was pursued. It will be unmaintainable the moment the US changes the strategic partnership and stops underwriting it all. But then Sharon who kicked off this whole phase of the war, undermining and twisting previous admittedly half-hearted moves towards a negotiated settlement (the so called road maps), was a nasty piece of work and a fanatic to boot, so maybe it shouldn't make sense. He saw in 9/11 and the Bush administration's response (simplistic us & them, good & evil) a cynical opportunity for a deeper strategic partnership and that both states would start pushing the boundary of the acceptable with illegal assassinations, torture and invasions. And we find ourselves where we are today, with absolutely no movement towards peace at all. This latest episode has been a very poor PR own goal, hence the desperate claims that the boats were full of terrorists and weapons. Perhaps if the US forces them to the negotiating table (after all Netenyahu maybe a right leaning conservative, but he's no Sharon) some good may come as a result of all this.

"Isreal has consistently got away with it.....probably because they are a nuclear nation." Probably more to do with the US veto truth be told, wielded more times by the US to the benefit of Israel than even the Soviet Union managed full stop in the Cold War.