Bulldozing world history

[Margaret Pilkington]

He is,of course, entitled to his opinion, but he is inconsistent in opinions, and his rationale for posts is often ill-considered, badly thought out and on the side of sensationalism.
None of this bodes well for a good thread...or a good post for that matter

[Less]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

He is,of course, entitled to his opinion, but he is inconsistent in opinions, and his rationale for posts is often ill-considered, badly thought out and on the side of sensationalism.
None of this bodes well for a good thread...or a good post for that matter

Indeed, but the site needs input, the less input the site gets the more it costs the owner, the more he posts the less the rest of us post, may I remind the moderator's that to keep the site going, he can be removed without a reason having to be given, without him breaking a rule, just because he ruining the site with his input?

[Less]

Originally Posted by Less

Indeed, but the site needs input, the less input the site gets the more it costs the owner, the more he posts the less the rest of us post, may I remind the moderator's that to keep the site going, he can be removed without a reason having to be given, without him breaking a rule, just because he ruining the site with his input?

I would of course prefer him to think before he posts...

We know that won't happen.

[Accyexplorer]

I'm actually willing to listen to reason and logic so I'm not an all out "troll" as you call them.
In most instances when i post something in threads it's relevant to the topic.
I think, I can actually ask some legitimate questions,just because they may not fit into some folks bubbles isn't a reason to ban me from the site.
Don't like me,my comments,my "input"? Block me, You will no longer see my posts again.Banning folk who seem obnoxious isn't the way forward,the forum would be even quieter than it is now IMO.

Some folk have got to find my posts entertaining if for no other reason than the folk like Less getting so wound up......plus it may break up the usual comments that can seem a little repetitive to some.

What I will say is, if folk think I'm a impudent upstart who's posts contribute nothing worth while to the site and they want me banned....its only right their requests are answered by the Mods/owner......



....No need to replie,I'm done with this thread.

[Margaret Pilkington]

I do not consider you an upstart.
I am always willing to listen to the opinions of others.....it is a thing called 'respect' which motivates me.
But Jason, you have to admit that you have come on here and posted stuff about subjects with the intention of 'stirring the pot'.
Sometimes your posts have been inconsistent. It is as if you do not know what you believe.

I do not have to believe the same as you to respect your opinions.
I do not get into spitting competitions either.
You could be so much better if you just thought about what you were posting.
I do not wish to see you removed.Neither do I want to put you on an 'ignore' list....(this does not work well as you can see posts that others quote).

[Morecambe Ex Pat]

Even though many people opposed an invasion of Iraq, it went ahead anyway because the politicians believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. History has proved that no such weapons existed but the damage has now been done and we are suffering the consequences.

I for one never supported the invasion but it is a fact that the country of my birth, along with the good ol' USofA were the ones to carry out this il-thought through action. The world will remember the countries who carried out the invasion rather than the fact that the people of those countries were lied to.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Morecambe Ex Pat

Even though many people opposed an invasion of Iraq, it went ahead anyway because the politicians believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. History has proved that no such weapons existed but the damage has now been done and we are suffering the consequences.

I for one never supported the invasion but it is a fact that the country of my birth, along with the good ol' USofA were the ones to carry out this il-thought through action. The world will remember the countries who carried out the invasion rather than the fact that the people of those countries were lied to.

Of course that is the case, but to blame the people of the UK.....many of whom demonstrated against the conflict. We, the people,were powerless in this matter.
There may be members who come on the forum who have sons and daughters serving in the forces.....there may even be members who lost family in that conflict too.
It is disrespectful to post in the terms that Accyx posted.
I take no blame for the conflict, but I do lay the blame at the feet of Tony Blair.....and George Bush.
It has been shown that both of these men decided long before the conflict, what was to happen in this area of the world. It was they who poked the hornets nest.......not the people of either country.
Yes the world will remember the countries which set it all off, but, we have to keep reiterating that the people were lied to......and that armies go where governments send them.

[Barrie Yates]

Originally Posted by Accyexplorer

Would these archaeological sites still be in existence if the US and UK had not launched an (illegal) invasion followed by an incompetent occupation? Hmmm
IMO the UK and the US are guilty of unnecessarily and (illegally) kick starting the chain of events which have now led to the eradication of a key part of world history.
If only the Brits, Frogs and German imperialists had been able to loot more than they did in the 19th century

You ignore the destruction of important archaeological artefacts in Afghanistan which were destroyed by the Taliban - after Russia pulled out and long before the US & UK became involved. In fact the destruction of the artefacts did have some influence on the decision to go boots on the ground in Afghanistan.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Accyexplorer

Would these archaeological sites still be in existence if the US and UK had not launched an (illegal) invasion followed by an incompetent occupation? Hmmm
IMO the UK and the US are guilty of unnecessarily and (illegally) kick starting the chain of events which have now led to the eradication of a key part of world history.
If only the Brits, Frogs and German imperialists had been able to loot more than they did in the 19th century

Not good to introduce an argument with a rhetorical question ...

They might have been in existence ... or, there again they might have been sucked into an alternate universe by the Great Cosmic Muffin. Totally irrelevant thingy about 19th century Imperialism.

If you believe that the great Anglo-American cluster [deleted] in Iraq gave a boost to ISIS, you are probably correct. Anyone who believed in Iraqui WMD must have had a serious malfunction in his on-board bs deflector system. The invasion sent a clear message to muslim extremists ... and probably to the muslim world in general ... let's call it an Urbanesque message ... deus vult ... or, if not God, GWB.

But I would argue ... for fun and illumination ... that once the developed world develped a thirst for oil, ISIS, and all the other nutbar fraternities were inevitable. Maybe we could blame God, or a minor malfunction at the big bang, for putting all the oil in the middle of the asylum.

Has anyone else given any thought as to what an ISIS world would be like? Kinda makes an all-out nuclear war look not all that bad.

[Morecambe Ex Pat]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Of course that is the case, but to blame the people of the UK.....many of whom demonstrated against the conflict. We, the people,were powerless in this matter.
There may be members who come on the forum who have sons and daughters serving in the forces.....there may even be members who lost family in that conflict too.
It is disrespectful to post in the terms that Accyx posted.
I take no blame for the conflict, but I do lay the blame at the feet of Tony Blair.....and George Bush.
It has been shown that both of these men decided long before the conflict, what was to happen in this area of the world. It was they who poked the hornets nest.......not the people of either country.
Yes the world will remember the countries which set it all off, but, we have to keep reiterating that the people were lied to......and that armies go where governments send them.

None of the wars throughout history have been the doing of ordinary people but the work of egotistical politicians who think they have a right to take what belongs to others. As a country we have been doing that since the Norman conquests and it carried on while we illegally built our empire.

Unfortunately, history records the name of the country which did the invading and only the academics know the circumstances of what started the conflicts.

[accyman]

i think the hitler thing was justified though he was a bit of a pillock to say the least

[Margaret Pilkington]

Men start wars citing all kinds of reasons(and the British isles has been invaded over the centuries by other peoples, the Romans, the Vikings, the French to name but a few)but the main reason is the pursuit of power.
To impose their will on a weaker population. I fear that the march of Islam is a real and present danger......and I do not want to be alive when they declare a British Caliphate.
Good job I am long in the tooth and at the bum end of my life.

[accyman]

not just men margaret thatcher had a good barny as well with argentina

even women cant resist a good argument lol

[Margaret Pilkington]

Margaret Thatcher and Boudicca were men who dressed as women to foil the fellas.
I am not sure that either of them started wars...but they were not afraid to take up the challenge for their beliefs(yes...I know that because you believe something it doesn't necessarily make it true).

[accyman]

i dont suppose these IS lot would fancy giving the leaning tower of piza a nudge would they

iv been waiting for years for that to topple and im running out of time

it was prommised back in 1980's on newsround that it would most likely topple within 10 years

still waiting here john craven