Walsingham

I have to say that Mao really understood guerrilla warfare. He totally wrote the book, figuratively and literally.

I think it's weird and wrong that the BBC is going on about how big a success the film is. Sometimes I'd swear they are corrupt.

I wonder what would happen if you hyperloaded their food with minerals like calcium?

Everyone mis-speaks occasionally. Especially in this era where everything goes on record.

Attrition isn't the only way with ants. They're persistent, and they are numerous. You need to attack in depth. 1. Remain vigilant and attack any in your area 2. Divert other ants to alternate locations using bait such as raisins which are hard to carry, but very attractive 3. Go to the infrastructure by attacking the nest holes I had HUGE problems with ants in Asia. Although I backed off after a titanic midnight struggle after which they 'buried' their dead in a big mound they made on the kicthen floor, then covered with soil they brought in specially. This convinced me to cease fire. They never invaded again. Very very weird.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I quite like vegemite. And not just because of the advertising.

I agree with mkreku. The sony walkmans seem good.

Today I stumped up

Quick, everyone! Imagine Salma Hayek in From Dusk til Dawn! Now that's what I call trickle down economics.

Just

You obviously have had dealings with a different Pentagon to the one I know and love. There were plenty of people who pointed out that there would be serious unrest, but at the top of the pyramid you had Donald Rumsfeld telling everyone to just get on and fix what he saw as mere tactical issues. Which might have been possible had Rumsfeld also not insisted on fighting as lightly as possible. Shock and awe was demonstrably powerful as breaking stuff, but not so good as a force concept for political/social control. I cannot agree with the notion that Saddam would fall internally or that this would be less bloody than we have seen. The forst point is debateable, I will admit, but the latter seems self-evident by your own argument. If his removal caused a power vacuum when we invaded with overwhelming military and economic capital then how much more divided and violent would the sides have been in a domestic conflict? Civil wars are always the worst in any case. Force parity coupled with indiscipline invariably leads to protracted and grotesquely brutal warfare. As for which figures you believe actually that can make a massive difference. I've seen figures of violent deaths under Saddam going around 600k (not counting deaths from sanctions and mismanagement), while anti-war groups have gone as high as 1 million in the post-war, and as low as 40k. On the other hand, and inspite of todays' dead, we now have an Iraq moving purposefully towards its second free elections.

The hub of your insane delusion is revealed to be that you believe that centrally planned economies worked in China and Russia. You can huff all you like but looking around the forum no one is buying your fantasy except you. Even accepting growth occurred, you are also saying that the deaths of tens of millions in famine and persecution are acceptable prices for that growth. Rather than other countries which grew enormously over the same period like West Germany or Japan.

Apparently it means women covered in vegemite. God bless the colonies!

Strong, centrally planned economy? Redistribution of the political system so that power resides with the broad masses? Complete removal of the investor as a social class? I thought you were in favour of local planning committees. Because you know, centrally planned economies don't freaking work. But then if you want to remove the concept of investors you've clearly got as much grasp of economic behaviour as a concussed bee. Your ideal state is going to be a desert bereft of initiative and scattered with huge failed government projects. Redistribution of power to the masses sounds nice, but how precisely do you propose doing that? Especially given you will refuse to allow those masses the right to invest in anything.

I'd have to take the pragmatic view that special interests will always find ways to make their presence felt. If I were working for them, and the govt banned advertising I'd simply spend the budget on 'treating' the constituents of our supporters. A few children's playgrounds, a clinic, facilitated by the senator/councilman and on the evening news. Lovely. If that's too obvious what about a factory?

You can't expect people who are amateurs to behave like professionals, mate. They have to eat, and that means earning a living doing proper work, not travelling to Burutustan to cover a conflict or descending into government archives for days on end to chase a crucial receipt. I'd follow up by asking if you consider the 'problems' with humanitarian intervention outweigh the benefits. Personally I can swallow a lot of BS if it means preventing the deaths of a few million innocent people.

Does a planned highly controlled military require a dictatorial degree of control? Does a planned highly controlled police force require a dictatorial degree of control? Does a planned highly controlled mass transit system require a dictatorial degree of control? The proper functioning of a state system requires control, but don't use such loaded words as "dictatorial" just because you love a tiny minority dominating your economic system. All order relies on implied force, and all implied force relies on actual force. Believe what you like, but the capitalist society I live in is hardly bloodless and unstained. How, exactly, can private capital be "fundamental to human behavior," when for most of human history we did not even have currency? Thus far it seems your definition of communism means nothing more than a high tax rate on high earners coupled with ... er... not much. Seems pretty weak tea, to be honest.

Fair enough. For my part I'd recall the way the toppling of Saddam's statue was handled in Western media, which I saw live and then saw butchered by editorial slant into US triumphalism. BUt that doesn't mean everything I see on the news is rubbish. In purely practical terms, unless one believes some information received from outside sources how can you even begin to formulate your moral and personal compass let alone judge the objective truth of subsequent events?

- Yes, er... the military does require a dictatorial degree of control over it. The more powerful the military become the mroe closely they have to be monitored. The British army has two complete chains of command, three police forces, and three legal systems before you get to the civil power monitoring it all. - I never said the state wasn't bloodied. But there's a difference between the amount of violence required to stop people from doing extremely weird things like murder, and the amount required to stop people doing normal things like wanting their own house. - By capital I mean private ownership.

Good lord. I wonder if you could find the footage on youtube?

Erm... you realise how dumb that sounds? Books are just 'people' written down. but I'll assume you were referring to the fact that books are generally referenced while people aren't. In any event I trust eye witnesses when those witnesses have no obvious motive to lie, and are generally sober characters. Call me mental. It's like I'm totally 100% convinced about the Nazi death camps because my grandfather liberated one. He also saw others. If I hear from my sergeant major or a major in teh Army that he ssaw ethnic slaughter in the balkans then I'll take that over any number of journalists who make their living from saying things.

*shakes head* Now the Iraqis are claiming its a conspiracy and that the detectors do work. They are saying it's all because the inventor won't tell the UK and US how they work! The capacity of mid-easterners to entertain conspiracies never ceases to amaze me. It must be something to do with the controlled media etc etc.

All you ever do is say how loveliness is socialist. Yet you completely deny that a planned highly controlled economy requires a dictatorial degree of control. That would be blind were it not for the fact that you have on several occasions stated your willingness to see blood flow freely in pursuit - no maintenance - of this utopia. Your argument that the violence would be meted out by local committees and is thereby somehow OK reveals your 'reason' as no more than ivory tower mental flatulence. Trapped flatus caused by excess and importune consumption of large heavy texts. There is no difference between the communist who would ban private capital because it 'causes' violence and the religious fanatic who would ban sex because it does the same. Both 'problems' are fundamental to human behaviour, and attempts to prohibit them are futile and cause pointless suffering.