Osama Bin Laden DEAD- Killed By U.S. Forces

[Phil H]

Norma

You do seem to have misunderstoof my reply above!!

...you express intolerance of people's practical dependance on an NHS which is a contract between government and its people...

I don't think I expressed intolerance of the NHS at all!! I merely compared it, if you re-read my post, to a modern religion, and made some additional comparisons. I made no judgement on it at all!

Its disingenuous too for you to start making a spurious dichotomy between 'religion' and 'organised religion'.

Nonsense - its a perfectly acceptable thing to do - the catholic church, islam etc (or since you are so picky, any formal denomination), can be flawed and yet contain people of integrity, and deep spirituality. I see many people making that distinction today - people who pray and believe in a supreme being (call Him God or not) while shying away from any denomination.

...organised religion can be hugely intolerant of other religions..

usually because, like the papacy it has taken on a "political" level or role. But not all those who are religious are intolerant by any means.

You talk of RZ as being a 'red' and therefore being all that is bad and hell driven presumably.

It was an ironic comment on how fitting his name seemed to be! I may disagree utterly with his views but I never mentioned hell or being bad!

Yet you fail to see the role played by the US in creating its Frankenstein..

I haven't mentioned Osama Bin Laden.

As Churchill once said "the enemy of my enemy is my friend..." In war anything is justified so long as you win - the aim is to keep your people safe. There's sometimes fall out - but war is nasty, brutish and deadly. The Russians in Afghanistan were a strategic threat given the state of Iran at that time (post Shah), the US was entitled to engage and to engage the people. The Dauphin used Joan of Arc (or Jeanne d'Arc if you prefer) to rally France against the English - using religeon to aid the civil power has been going on for millenia - OBL was not the first and won't be the last..

I wonder if those who used 'religion' against 'communism'... have ever regretted seeing the boomerang slam back into their own home ground?

I'm sure they have - but no one anticipated the insanity of 9/11 in the wildest nightmares. Most wars turn out differently from the way they started, because they change things on many levels. But regrets cannot interfere with doing what is necessary to defend your country as best you can.

The attacks on New York,the attacks in London, horrific,underserved attacks on innocent people in offices,on their way to work in tubes and buses...its all beyond words....

And done by insane fanatics who want political control in the name ofreligion.

I'll admit that I am an utter pragmatist on foreign affairs and defence, because I see no other realistic alternative. That's based on deep reflection and watching world affairs closely over 40 years (my degree was in international politics). I wish it were otherwise, and that is why I see spirituality (and especially Christianity with its message of love thy neighbour as thyself/do unto others as you would have them do unto you) as so important - an aetheistic or agnostic world would not, in my view help at all.

Phil

Phil

[DVV]

Boom bye bye, Usama.
Welcome to hell.
F*** you and all your supporters.

[Phil H]

Boom bye bye, Usama. Welcome to hell. F*** you and all your supporters.

Is that the greeting they receive from the 444 virgins on arrival?

Phhil

[Graham]

It had to happen!

Clash Of The Titans!

Natalie Severn versus Phil H!

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Phil.
We are coming from different places here.
Being born and raised in the England I am well aware that our history and our national character has been shaped by the successive invasions of our emerald isle and that we have needed to defend ourselves at every turn.I have a great admiration for Lord Nelson who went right to the edge to defend our country, he even put himself in the firing line to win a victory which was more valuable to him than life itself.But in general I am not very interested in war and battles.Julie quoted St Francis. I am an atheist or agnostic but I like what t St Francis said about all living things being our brothers and sisters.We don't need to be destroying each other with bombs, lets try and find ways to live in peace.

[Natalie Severn]

No need for sarcasm Graham
-reminds me of the title of a book on the subject---- 'Clash of the Barbarisms' was it?

[Errata]

Not to be picky....

But if Islam gives us terrorists and therefore they gotta go...

And Christians give us Crusades and Inquisitions so they gotta go...

And Jews give us injustice for a vanquished foe and Gefilte fish so they gotta go....

And Science gives us eugenics, social darwinism, statistics, bio weapons, investigational cruelty, vivisections, Tuskeegee, cost/benefit analysis for medical treatment, pigeon guided bombs, carcinogens, a hole in the ozone layer, fracking, space junk, mass extinction, the great pacific trash vortex, meltdowns, MRSA, Octomom, the extermination camps of Nazi germany, not to mention bombs for the Muslims, swords for the Christians, whatever the hell they put in Gefilte fish for the Jews...

If we just get rid of science doesn't it mean that all the religions go back to relatively good behaviour and they can duke it out like men when conflict arises? I mean, we could get rid of religion but that leaves all of the other bad parts of science not attached to religion. No, I think eliminating science is the way to go.

[Phil H]

We don't need to be destroying each other with bombs, lets try and find ways to live in peace.

Was it Churchill who said, "If you want peace prepare for war," or was he parphrasing someone else?

My aspiration is entirely in agreement with your's Norma. But until we get there government's have an obligation to protect their people and to do their best for them.

Human nature also means that there will always be people out there who want to take advantage - the Hitler's, Saddam's Hussein's etc. There are also nation's who almost certainly do not share the aspiration we do - Russia, China - for various reasons. There are tyrants who want mainly to oppress their own people - Korea, Zimbabwe, Syria, come to mind.

The cruel truth is that in international politics even allies cannot trust each other - few countries have worked together as closely or effectively and over as long a period as the UK and USA, yet the US has goals and aims which differ from the UK's - those could lead to splits and clashes - hence wise Government's keep all the options open.

If some countries voluntarily give up their armed forces, others won't and might take advantage.

If you make the UN a world Government and give it all the defence forces, how can you guarantee that it might not become a tyranny and use those forces to follow ends with which we would not agree? After all, not everyone in the world has been educated in western liberal traditions. And if we were trapped - as an unarmed nation, within an EU or UN that was armed, but moving in ways we disliked or disadvantaged us severely - might we not fight as opooressed people have done before?

I see no simple solutions here.

It is guaranteeing one's country's safety, security and relative prosperity that is paramount. Citizens might say now they want fairer play - but wait until prices rise, or resources get scarce and they'll turn on the Government perceived to have let the side down - as in the UK happened to Labour over the financial crisis.

And that is the challenge of the next century, as I see it - how do we manage potentially diminishing resources, global warming that might reduce water supplies and thus crops; how do we deal with population movements that might equate to those towards the end of the Roman empire? We may have to fight - would war be wrong then?

War has existed as long as man has been remotely civilised - it is not going to stop now.

Sorry to be bleak.

Phil

[Stephen Thomas]

Sorry to be bleak.

Realistic more like, Phil. A very fine and well reasoned post there.

That's the way of the world whether we like it or not.

[Phil H]

A very fine and well reasoned post there.

Thank you, Stephen. But "realism" can be very difficult for some to stomach - hence my final phrase.

Phil

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Phil,
I am really busy here at the moment so cannot give very much time today to answer your post with the thoughtfulness it deserves.
I see your perspective as being rather isolationist.A country by country kind of thing.
But the world is changing so rapidly-particularly in recent months. Personally I was very heartened by the massive demonstrations of people power in the Middle East.The uprisings in Egypt , politically and economically were very significant in terms of it being an international political development of major importance -ok lots of domestic issues wait to be tackled and one can't be without concern to see how that all evolves.The army will be reluctant to relinquish its king making role but it will be impossible for them to totally ignore the views of a democratically elected government-hopefully later this Summer---and the majority of the conscripts in the army.
The Egyptians may not end up with our idea of a democracy but masses and masses of people in the streets made it clear they wanted freedom of speech,freedom of choice and economic,social and political development.
Those mass actions demonstrated a refusal to be under the thumbs of tyrants,monarchs and feudal systems .
No doubt about it,the map of the Middle East was transformed by the Egyptian revolution.And it won't stop there.It will have its global impact.
You need to ask,if you really believe you can protect yourself by lashing out at all your adversaries simultaneously---you have already cited China and Russia ,Iran ,Korea ---now Libya -as being your adversaries and now you must surely throw in the rising tide of Arab revolution in the Middle East? Are you not deluding yourself that you can protect yourself from these 'foes' by your insistence on wearing your combat boots?

[Phil H]

But the world is changing so rapidly-particularly in recent months. Personally I was very heartened by the massive demonstrations of people power in the Middle East.The uprisings in Egypt , politically and economically were very significant in terms of it being an international political development of major importance -ok lots of domestic issues wait to be tackled and one can't be without concern to see how that all evolves.

Precisely - what if fundamentalist islamic regimes gain power? If an initial moderate regime proves untable it could leave a power vacuum - and muslim brotherhood remain in the background highly organised and active.

I neither say not believe that that will happen, but no western state can but think about and prepare for a worst case scenario - given the risk to Suez, oil etc etc, not to mention the potential threat to Israel (and the latter's reaction) from a hard-line islamic state next door.

The Egyptians may not end up with our idea of a democracy but masses and masses of people in the streets made it clear they wanted freedom of speech,freedom of choice and economic,social and political development.
Those mass actions demonstrated a refusal to be under the thumbs of tyrants,monarchs and feudal systems .

So what? If a regime of the future clamps down - and Gaddafi and assad are showing that that can be done - will the west intervene to over throw them?

No doubt about it,the map of the Middle East was transformed by the Egyptian revolution.And it won't stop there.It will have its global impact.


It sure will - the instability will ruin the tourist industry and that is central to the economy of much of middle Egypt. But thinking nice thoughts will not make these benign countries and hoping never defended a country.

Think of this - there is a band of islamic countries running east west from the borders of China (and China includes muslim citizens) to Turkey, to the north are the former Soviet states (the "stans"). the band then turns south through the Levant, and then east west again across the Mahgreb. Now imagine the impact on Russia of its former subservient states all going muslim and not controlled by it? Imagine Israel's concerns about being surrounded by states with unknown stability and unknown intentions. Imagine the concerns of the west if Saudi and the oil states change regime and are no longer so docile.

This becomes a faultline between what one could characterise as Christendom (though I do not use the word in a religious but a cultural sense) and islam. Islam, or aspects of it are showing signs of resenting or at least recognising a conflict between western values and its own Koranic ones.

I lived through the OPEC crisis of the early 70s and the impact of oil price rises on the west, through inflation etc.

Western interests are threatened by what has happened in the Mahgreb, regimes known to be amenable to the west, the US and Israel (as in Egypt) have gone. Uncertainty, maybe years of it ensues.

I don't find that hopeful, I find that frightning.

You need to ask,if you really believe you can protect yourself by lashing out at all your adversaries simultaneously---you have already cited China and Russia ,Iran ,Korea ---now Libya -as being your adversaries and now you must surely throw in the rising tide of Arab revolution in the Middle East? Are you not deluding yourself that you can protect yourself from these 'foes' by your insistence on wearing your combat boots?

No one is talking about pro-active intervention - that clearly is two-edged and has not worked (at least as yet) as hoped in Iraq. So we must rely on diplomacy - but my point is that behind the diplomats we must have the ability and rights to defend our interests. With Russia and China dubious about intervention for regime change (as in the Libya resolution) the Un is a blunted instrument.

Events in N Africa have brought about a very rare occurence in world history - a time of mass change in countries - as in 1848 (known as the year of revolutions), or 1918 (with the fall of emperors). Those produced uncertain period, and the rise of Prussia which followed 1848 caused several wars, including both last century (WWI and WWII).

We will need very steady hands on tillers in our own and allied countries if we are to steer our way through this without a major catastrophe. But that's just my view.

Phil

[jason_c]

Phil

I agree with much of what you say. Thanks to all, I've enjoyed this thread.

I would love to debate all these points in more detail but im using an on-screen keyboard which is time consuming. Every paragraph is like writing out War and Peace.

[Derrick]

Also there is a new religeon on the block - science (or more specifically medicine) - its acolytes are men and woman in white coats. regard how the public grasp the NHS as they once did the church - yet the medical profession does not have the answers, cannot answer the questions and fails just as much as old-style religion did.

Hi Phil

You plainly have no grasp of the situation that the vast majority of people faced when trying to get even basic medical care without sacrificing food for medicines until the formation of the NHS after WWII.

One only has to watch the magnificient BBC drama When The Boat Comes In to realise how desperate the conditions of the poor were in the post WWI period. Some heroic doctors worked for next to nothing to deliver basic health care. Yet still so many died because of poor sanitation, poor diet and hellish working conditions.

I agree that no one is denying that medical science has all the answers but it has delivered life saving solutions for people suffering from all manner of conditions from heart disease to kidney failure. My cousin would still be on dialysis if she hadn't had a kidney transplant over 20 years ago. So don't talk to me about medicine being no more than a superstitious cult, Phil.

As a rich, developed Western society we should grant basic free health care to everyone on demand to stop people having to worry about sacrificing the other basic necessities of life. That actually includes you too Phil. I'd much rather live here than in the USA where healthcare for the poor is the same or worse than here in the UK before WWII. One only has to watch Michael Moore's Sicko to realise the situation in the States.

It was somewhat no surprise that the British people had had enough of Tory paternalism and voted in a Labour Government after the end of WWII. Having fought a brutal war for 6 years the people wanted a change in society that actually was fit for heroes after the Liberal/Tory fudge that followed WWI.

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Phil,
As I said earlier I need more time to reply,

Norma

Derrick,
Thanks for reminding us of the importance of the NHS.My mother had an illness from which she was dying when I was only 7 years old.Without the NHS she would have died ;as it was the illness took four years off her life after which she had her lung removed and went on to live a reasonably long life,
Best Norma