Walsingham

I'm with Fenghuang! Bags on the arrows.

His albums are consistently superb. Track them down if you can.

I disagree with both Azarkon and Canto. It was by no means clear cut. In 1940 Britain had her back to the wall, but as yet there was no obvious threat that Hitler intended to reduce us to rubble. Indeed many were either for bending the knee or enthusiastically joining him against the perceived threat of communism. We are fortunate indeed that a man was available who could frame the situation so much more clearly than his contemporaries. A man with utterly outmoded (even for the time) notions of honour and courage. I refer you to his other greatest speech (my emphasis): "... I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..." And later on June 18th: "But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science." Let us be quite clear. The Jifascists believe in a world without utterly without science or democracy, a world run entirely on the uneducated interpretation of laws untouched by the men and women bound by them. A tyranny that would go beyond even that known under the Nazis. A world stripped of all 'unislamic' art, science, literature, and probably history. A world in which fully 50% of people would be reduced to the status of chattels, and the remainder by and large no more than drones. A threat not just to the West, but indeed to practically every culture, from the Bushmen of the Kalahari to the Inuit of Alaska, and even to Islamic countries which they consider insufficiently pure. Neither Hitler nor Stalin would have dared put forward such a crazed plan of total desolation.

A little light for morning listening! Have you heard of a chap called Anouar Brahem?

Are you kidding? Have you seen what they DO to cartoon characters over there? The last thing I want is some brutalised Mickey Mouse begging for change on the subway in his uniform. On the subject of contemporary thought: I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined the Government; 'I have nothing to offer but blood toil tears and sweat'. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind, We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, What is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory - victory - at all costs, victory, in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. - Winston Churchill

Here's another question: what if there are other intelligent life-forms, but we're the best there is?

See? Aram understand completely what I'm talking about. *Puff puff. Frown* *Speaks past stem of pipe* The real issue is NOT to smoke tobacco. Or any other substance such as roofing tar which will kill my lungs and stain the ceiling. Pure benzene is probably out. Do you think having the pipe and not actually smoking it would be sufficiently reminiscent of someone who USED to smoke a pipe heavily and is now only quitting on the strength of the sternest admonitions of their tweed suited country doctor?

I have decided that I need a pipe. i don't want to smoke, but I think to be stylish while pondering thorny issues I should have a pipe. I need suggestions as to how I can get one, and make it worthwile. What I can put in it, for example. Neat gin? Fire ants?

Actually, I've been chasing this up, and I believe if we meet aliens and they have funk it will be like this.

Interesting angle, and one I can't think of any way to disprove, Tale. However, my point is that regardless of intent or perception it is immoral to use terrorist methods. In much the same way that chemical and biological weapons are immoral. Causing, as it were - and I wince just saying it - unnecessary suffering.

They wouldnt have to worry about bio-weapons either. True up to a point. The enemy's biological deterrent woudl be reduced. But the enemy notionally would still be able to attack civilian centres.

Colrom, those are certainly arguments one can make in each case. However, in the case of the first man attacking the Chairman he will achieve his goal. The latter will almost certainly not. This makes the sacrifice of the target in the latter case completely pointless, and by inference the justification is lost.

. I was thinking more like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQrHcy3p9vU

.

So you're basically saying that the real reason the Americans deployed the bomb was to keep Stalin in check? That's a bit of an over-simplification. If I've learned anything from history it is not to expect things to be simple. I'm saying that I can accept there may have been alternatives solutions to the Japanese problem, but it was an effective one certain to work AND at the same time a solution to the Soviet problem. Indeed the only solution to the Soviet problem.

I'm going to go at your comments backwards, if I may. You end by stating that American Democracy does not suit everyone, and I would agree. Fundamentally it is concentrated on hog-tying and hamstringing the state as far as possible. But in most developing countries a weak state isn't the damn problem. Most 'despotism' is carried out by neighbour on neighbour. Nor is it easy to engage in democracy where information and education is scarce and of poor quality. Both being features of large countries with little or no infrastructure, and concentration of media control in the hands of a tiny few. The American Democratic process is based on a lot of profound philosophical thought and reason. It's in many ways how democracy ought to work. But it doesn't work because it's unstable in the face of real lazy avaricious human beings. This links back to my initial point about violence. As long as we have diversity (and I think we can assume this is good) of needs and views about how the world should be we will have conflict. Conflict can be argued rationally and negotiated - which I assume you advocate. But it can also be decided on the basis of a contest of violence. The crucial point is that succumbing to argument and negotiation is optional. Succumbing to a rock on the head is not. Your aspiration to achieve a world without violence is fine as a direction to point towards. But expecting to arrive at it, and worse PLANNING as if you will ever get there, is dangerous and in a government would be abuse of their mandate. The example you give of Ghandi is often used, and I think that where a government is bound by law and reason it is fine. BUt you will note that Ghandi himself remarked that against any other colonial power it would not have worked. They would simply have killed him.

I know more than most, but still very little about the command architecture in the Japanese court. So i shall stand aside for someone else to acst light on this. I think where Hitler is concerned it's a complex question and would depend a lot on the timing, and the context. I doubt he would have used it on Britain before 1944, but oddly enough might have done against the USA. He would quite certainly have used it against Soviet Russia. *thinks* No battle of Stalingrad. The wehrmacht just rolls into the debris. Of course they'd get sick pretty quickly from the radiation. *wakes from reverie*

*Impressed*

Monkey smuggling is a serious crime, St Jimmy. Monkeys belong in the jungle, not on the heads of hippies. I'm not sure how I feel about the question of monkeys hidden inside afros.

Scientifically I agree, obviously, when you say that we can't say with certainty. However historical analysis is not science. It is very likely that the bombs saved lives. I also think that compared with the damage done by the firestorm use of conventional weapons they weren't 'excessive'. And not wanting to be rude, but you're ignoring my earlier point about deterring Stalin. I think it's fairly evident from many sources (best collected in The Court of the Red Czar) that Stalin would cheerfully have pressed on into Europe without his fear of the bomb, and without a practical demonstration he would not have grasped its significance. I agree that military necessity had waned in the shadow of political momentum. Dresden for me is a far better example than H&N.

True, but it's amazing what they do with irrigation. Even if most of it was blown up or filled in during the Soviet occupation.

I don't understand your first paragraph. But I agree with the second.

Azarkon, much as I'm enjoying our debate, I think we're going off topic. The point iirc was that: 1. The use of the bomb on H&N was justifiable by modern rationales. Even with the benefit of hindsight. 2. The US administration at the time was better than other comparable states. And that the use of the bomb does not make this untrue. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Probably for similar reasons!