Kroney

Cultist I know you'll battle with this concept but some jokes are just not appropriate. Not that I'm saying I agree with him, because I believe Mandela's later work far outweighs the methods he used in his early life, but one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

OK, I'm with you, fair enough. I can't disagree with you, there. I'll leave the money situation aside, as you've got me beat. I was also suggesting that it's primarily a diplomatic position. The UN themselves say that the SC's primary purpose is to foster diplomatic relations. Do you think the UK is not worth anything in that regard, too? It seems to me that a diplomatic position would be best served by countries with both diplomatic reach and a level of international respect. Viewed under this lens, I don't believe the US or Russia would have seats, due to international perception of the US as an aggressor.

Maybe I'm just being slow, but I'm not at all sure what your point actually was. You appeared to be saying that the UK shouldn't be on the SC because it makes a negligable contribution to UN security measures. Now you seem to be saying that the fact that the UK doesn't make much of a contribution to UN security measures isn't a valid argument. I said that the UK makes a significant contribution to the UN in the form of bases, supplies, troops and so on. I wasn't actually referencing UN peacekeepers, but army regulars. They may not be directly controlled by the UN, but the vast majority of the actions are UN-mandated. Perhaps, in my turn, I should have made that clearer.

The trouble with using that link to counter me is that it lists the largest contributors as Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Ethiopia and Nigeria. Either that link isn't appropriate for this discussion, or those five have a better claim to sit on the UNSC than the US. Since the latter is obviously ridiculous, I can only conclude that it's not relevant. I am not saying the UK is amongst the five most powerful countries, no. I am saying that it's a diplomatic position and is not as simple as the biggest bullies in the room.

Sorry to bump this from wherever it was, but I found it after doing a search for tarna based off a signature I saw. Wondered what happened. Kind of wish I hadn't, now. I've been away from this particular community for quite a long time, but tarna was always a stalwart. I didn't know him personally, but it's very sad nonetheless.

Good Lord, man. France over Britain? We shall revolt. It's long overdue time for the UNSC to be overhauled, but I don't think it's fair to say the UK's international role has diminished to the extent that we're without any use on it. If nothing else NATO and the UN still use a good number of our overseas territories, of which there are still more than a handful, to base supplies and men. If nothing else, that should give us a say, not to mention we're still one of the largest contributors of aid, troops and supplies to international efforts. I think it should be expanded to more than five seats, though. Perhaps on a regional basis with a rotating chair, rather than national. Perhaps a continental/sea zone system, with a chair for North America, Europe, Australasia, Central America and Caribbean etc. The regions could take turns in having a member chairing their region.

Watched Apollo 13 last night. I've seen it a few times, but insisted on watching again when the girlfriend said, "Oh, that's the one where they blow up the asteroid? Yeah, I didn't like that film." It's weathered pretty well, the lift off and other CGI sequences are starting to look a little dated, but considering the film's 15-odd years old, it's not nearly as bad as you'd expect.

Colonel Blood. A book about the only man to successfully nick the crown jewels. At least, he got them out of the treasure house. He was an Irish revolutionary, spy for Charles II and a very distant ancestor of mine. It's a sort of historical biography. Very interesting.

That's not necessarily incorrect, but it is incredibly simplistic. While you are correct in asserting that these historical events happened, they were spurred by particular internal events that can easily push things in the opposite direction. Any form of government, including democracies, can be toppled by powerful parties of self-interest or indeed by populist revolts. That's setting aside for the moment that these examples weren't even democracies by the current understanding, more a form of autocracy by ballot. You are rather neatly sidestepping the populist revolt from absolute monarchy, to communist collective, to dictatorship, to democratic lip service, to autocracy that's happened in the largest country on Earth within the last hundred years. You may be familiar with it? My point is that it's not a one way street.

I have to agree. I think there has to be more than a nation than some sort of free trade and non-interference agreement. Or at least, I would like there to be. And I think history does not look favourably on nations that don't have something deeper. Provided that something is a thing which CAN be selectively chosen, rather than something you have no control over, then what is the problem? Would you guys say that the idea of a nation is inimicable to free movement? I really don't see what the issue would be and experience shows that the risk of any sort of cultural diluton is minimal at worst. I don't really see that the concept of cultural integration is really necessary beyond obeying the laws of the land. Again, experience shows that generations born into a foreign land will be culturally absorbed eventually. Too much scaremongering imo

I've just read through this thread. Never seen so much thinly-veiled xenophobia all in one thread. Speaking as a resident of "Londonistan", it is true that you can go walking around and see plenty of brown people. You can go to Southall and see the wonder of the local signs being bilingual English and Punjabi. I actually flatshare with an Indian girl in an affluent area of North Londonistan. As of 12:30 on the 29th November, the sky has not yet fallen in on anybody's heads. Nor has English culture, whatever you may decide that should be, collapsed around anybody's ears. It is a fact that as your country gets more affluent, more people are going to want to live there. There is absolutely no Earthly reason why anybody should be sitting at the ports demanding that people swear allegiance to the new country, or give up their skull caps, head scarves, religious icons or anything else outside of outright, bare-faced racism. None. Anybody attempting to justify such behaviour is, at very best, a xenophobe. As long as incoming people are willing to obey the laws of the country they're in, then that is the only thing that matters. Should they break the laws of that country, they should be punished according to it. That discussions like this are still happening in the supposedly enlightened West in the 21st century makes my skin crawl.

If you look at the map, the reasons behind fighting over these few bare rocks is pretty clear. China needs a clear sea lane from its coastal waters out to the South China Sea and thence the Pacific. If Japan/Taiwan manage to lay claim to them, that entire avenue out to the sea will be owned by democratic, capitalist countries inimicable to Chinese military expansion. Thus, those islands are critical to China being able to move into that area without passing through Japanese/Taiwanese home waters. Whatever either side are using as an excuse, it's a pretty clear cut projection of power situation. One side wants to expand their sphere of influence, the other wants to contain them. I learned this **** on Europa Universalis.

HI! Too goddamn old, not much now that I've got too goddamn old, in a place only slightly goddamn older than me.

Oh, it's the people that are currently on a site that make a community, not the people that left! Sargie, as I live and breathe. Got to admire your persistence with your posting style. Is it only ten years? It seems much longer. How are you doing? I did. I was a bit of an avatar ****.

Virus scan, uninstall tool bars, re-enable user-disabled virus software, tell them to stop disabling the software you put on to protect their machine, leave, get called two weeks later, rinse, repeat.

I can't imagine a Scotsman being optimistic about anything.

It all seems a really long time ago to me. I still have all of my own hair though, so that's nice.

I went through a similar process a little while ago. I got some hifi speakers off eBay, an Onkyo AV receiver off eBay and plugged a PC into the receiver via HDMI video and optical audio (no HDMI audio on my amp). My digital TV box plays through it, as does my games console. It's easy as pie. The hardest part was finding the menu setting to turn off the rubbish downward-firing TV speakers so my flatmate couldn't keep turning those up instead of the 5.1 hifi speakers and sub. Edit: I've just realised how old this thread is. Soz.

A good bit of violent cross border raiding would do the north of England no end of good.

Genetically I'm a mongrel Brit, Scottish, Welsh and English blooded with nothing interesting going on at all. Personally, I'm from Surrey and living in London. Wow, I'm really dull.

I guess I'll post an introduction thread, I wouldn't want to drag another thread off topic too much. Hello to Humanoid, Gfted1, Gorgon and any of the other old BIS lot who're still knocking about. It's rather nice to be remembered by a few people after so long! For the guys I don't know, hello to you too. Try not to hold my little ego-party against me. I promise I'm alright, really.

lol, they yet named this small country as GREAT. Megalomania is so Megalomania. Great as in bigger than Britain, ie Wales and England. Great Britain comes off the tongue better than "Slightly Bigger Britain", or "Britain Plus Scotland", or "Full Armed and Operational Britain", though I am a fan of the latter. Hi Hi guys! Some of you are still knocking around, then. Good to see.

Hello. Long time dead poster first time resurrectee. Salmond's an idiot and his policies are moronic. With that chap at the helm the only way Scotland will vote for independence is if their sense of nationalism is greater than their sense of self-preservation.

If anyone wants to see a good British war film, I'd recommend Battle of Britain. Good, strong film that covers a lot of ground and represents the German side of the battle, too. Great lines in it, too. "What's our status, Control? The engine's overheating and so am I. It's either stand down or blow up, which do you want?" (paraphrase)

She says she's putting together another website, but as to what kind or if it'll get off the ground or not, I don't know.