³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

The coverage last night on Georgia was better but you still managed to identify that Georgia launched the military action that provoked Russia. Thats not the same as "they hit civilians deliberately with an artillery barrage". So far as I know Miliband and Rice have not even mentioned that though I think it is not possible it could be propaganda.

A nations ally kills a couple of thousand of your citizens and then criticizes your inevitable response. They offer no regrets. Star Wars is introduced and breaks the 1972 ABM treaty, I believe. Probably why they talk about rogue states when they don't have the capacity to hit the US. The missile defence could one day prevent MAD and allow a first strike.

How would you see it?

Just for the record if this was 1968 then I would be utterly against Russian/Soviet empire building.

This just is nothing like that and if Nato does not pay attention will they snatch war from the jaws of peace.

thegangofone (#1) "Just for the record if this was 1968 then I would be utterly against Russian/Soviet empire building."

Why? What's changed? The USSR wanted Warsaw buffer states back then just as the CSTO does now. Is it not NATO and the SI which is determined to expand its 'empire' under the ever less defensible banner of 'freedom' and 'democracy' (anarchism)?

more olympics pumping? is there a daily quota?

glitter? has NN a daytime tv mindset now?


South Ossetia.

In short, NATO had created an autonomous area for the ethnic Albanians inside a sovereign country, Serbia; while Russia and the CIS have insured autonomous status for South Ossetians and Abkhasians inside another sovereign state, Georgia.

From a Russian perspective the two cases were linked.

On the day of Kosovo's declaration of independence the Russian statement said the Russian Federation will recognize the efforts by South Ossetia and Abkhazia to secede from Georgia.


so this face off hasn't come out of no where. its based on the doctrine of kosovo that states with diverse cultures do not have the right of sovereignty.

so who is responsible for this doctrine?

Speaking of anarchism, once upon a time when women gave up work to raise (stable) families and build secure communities we had a population which replaced itself.

But now we live in far more times, and we don't need to do any of that do we, and we're all much happier now as a consequence, aren't we?

"why are so few of the existing laws enforced anyway?"

I would have thought that was obvious; a combination of too much paperwork forced onto the police by government, bad management by the police, and badly analysed statistical processes by the government.

Government should have a one-in, one-out policy when it comes to passing new laws; they should be forced to repeal an existing spurious/redundant law before being allowed to enact a new one.

There are 100's of pointless or duplicated laws on the books, especially since 1997.

For example, when it comes to terrorism, virtually all the standard laws (which would work perfectly well in terrorism cases) could be used; we don't need separate/duplicated terrorism laws. Murder is murder; does it matter whether there was a political motive behind it? That's for the judge to decide when it comes to working out a sentence, nothing to do with parliament.

They need to stop passing "specific" laws on extremely specific situations, and instead just use/tweak the generic laws which would do the job perfectly well.

Passing 100's of new laws for very specific situations when the existing laws would do the job perfectly as-is, is the main reason why there's virtually no enforcement of any laws these days.

Having targets/statistics which reward the police disproportionately for "solving" non-crimes doesn't help either. After all, why bother to solve a murder if they can increase their clean-up rates 100 times as much by giving on-the-spot fines to a collection of cctv-caught litter louts instead?

At the end of the day it's all about common sense, and the government have absolutely none of that, and the police aren't much better.

In my experience, when it comes to anything which involves effort by the police, the police simply don't want to know, and their lack of analysis/understanding is mind-blowing. Classic example is a conversation I had with them a while back...

"I found my stolen car in the end; and another car was nicked from where they dumped mine; massive string of joy-rides right the way across the county; do you want to dust my car for prints? There were tons of other people at the station when I reported mine saying the same thing. Get my thief, and you've got theirs too"

"nope; we don't see a connection between your car being dumped and the car next to it being stolen, or any of the other 100's of cars that got stolen that night. go away and just let us put this in a file and forget about it."

And then there was the time that my fuel line was severed which almost led to an entire block of flats exploding with the fumes from the garages below, "nope; don't want to come over or process it; just fill in a form at the station so you can get your reference number for insurance."

Serious burglaries aren't any different either; my parents' houses/businesses have been burgled countless times; the police say the same thing "not coming over. just fill in a form and we'll file it away"

;-)
ed

But a self-proclaimed 'liberal' (anarchist/free-marketeer) at work in 2004.

I do hope it's not going to be Kirsty and her friends from NSPCC/CEOP or that dreadful person Michele Elliott telling us all how dirty and disgusting men are and wouldn't it be nice if they didn't like sex and all that stuff that normally happens when some pervert story hits the news.
Oh, and please try to refrain from using the "convicted paedophile" catchphrase. You cannot be convicted of being one you know.

Goose steppers do seem to have the capacity to overdoes on Senokot and self adulation before posting.

I would have thought that after the recently convicted paedophile and want-to-be bail bomber case that Glitter would be a real catch for the far right. He's not that respected anymore but then is any BNP or far right candidate?

HEGEMONY AND WORRIED SHEEP

thegangofone (#9) You clearly have strong views about the BNP, but we've yet to see you state what it is that you find so aversive.

Consider this: rational opposition to uncontrolled immigration into the UK has little to do with racism, it's opposition to a further rise in the number of poorly skilled/low IQ people in the UK, which is likely to sap resources and increase social instability (look to African and S. immigrants' native countries (see Africa and S. Asia for a harbinger). One must think about social structure in terms of the Gaussian distribution of abilities. If one doesn't, what are one's preconceptions/assumptions?

Secondly, one has to ask what it is about our current politically correct/Cultural Marxist/New-Left culture which is worth defending if the reason why immigration has been encouraged in recent times is because of our below replacement level indiginous birth rate. What is it about our way of life which is driving our birth rate below replacement level? This low birth rate has very important implications for our economy given improvements in longevity through better healthcare as in time, the population begins shrinking.

Just consider whether, in the light of all the demographic evidence from the ONS and elsewhere, those who fear or campaign against (in reality a socialist command economy) may in fact be being unwittingly used to anarchically contribute to the demise of this country.

Finally, can you see why some people might get angry about people who just call them names when they try to spell all this out? It's been known since the 1930s you know.