[Archived] Boston Marathon hit by Explosions

[Al]

But what do you think has caused more deaths? The actions of terrorists attacking Western targets, or Western intervention in the Middle East?

Not an easy question to answer. How many deaths do you believe there would have been if they had been left to their own devices to fight civil wars among themselves? Certainly it would have saved a lot of our lads from being killed.

[SAS]

Nothing..... I repeat NOTHING would ever convince me to run a marathon SAS! However I might be ever so slightly tempted to give one a go IF I EVER saw a runner with a smile on his face!

Had a 26 sec silence then 26 sec applause before start of manchester today.

Great atmosphere in the city...

Might be able to show you a happy finisher later on too

[thenodrog]

Corrected for you.

So you deny that Arthur Scargill, Mick McGahey, Derek Robinson, Hugh Scanlon etc etc were paid up members of the Communist Party and that Jack Jones was actually in the pay of the KGB? And that all were more interested in furthering their political agenda of promoting communism in this country than furthering the situation of their union members? Pretty clear that Margaret Thatcher was not fighting the working classes she was actually fighting the forces of communism.

[jim mk2]

The Jack Jones allegations were a smear and never substantiated. The others were fighting to improve the lot of the working classes against the greed and corruption of the private sector. Thatcher declared war on the working classes in this country and in the process destroyed swathes of our manufacturing capacity - the result of which can be seen in the increasing gap between rich and poor and north-south divide and an unbalanced economy led by financial services which has brought the country to the brink of ruin.

[thenodrog]

The Jack Jones allegations were a smear and never substantiated. The others were fighting to improve the lot of the working classes against the greed and corruption of the private sector. Thatcher declared war on the working classes in this country and in the process destroyed swathes of our manufacturing capacity - the result of which can be seen in the increasing gap between rich and poor and north-south divide and an unbalanced economy led by financial services which has brought the country to the brink of ruin after 11 years of Labour government being in charge.

Corrected it for you.

btw.... Seems an awful lot of opinion came down against Jones! Who did he sue?

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=jack%20jones%20kgb%20spy&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45645796,d.d2k&fp=a5791f3ac5d52c7b&biw=1137&bih=520&pf=p&pdl=300

[Al]

Is there not a separate topic to discuss this sort of thing.

[T4E]

I got asked to enter a fundraising marathon once. Told the bloke no way. Then he told me it was for OAPs and blind people. So I thought "@#/? it, I could win that!"

*hides*

[Jeru tha Damaja]

As to American Imperialism, since when have I denied it? What I deny is that we base our decisions to go to war on "God told us so". When we go to war its to protect or advance our national interests and I would not have it any other way.

See, that policy has worked out badly in the past, especially in the Iran/Iraq region.

I seem to recall that it was in the "national interests" of the US and the UK to remove Mossadeq, so they did. Then they put the Shah in place to do their bidding and then something else happened....what was that again?

Oh, that's right, Ayatollah Khomeini took power and left us with the regime that we now regard as one of the biggest threats to world peace. (Of course, that perspective conveniently overlooks the fact that the Iranians have offered to participate in a nuclear weapons free zone throughout the Middle East, but we can't mention that because it was the US that refused to negotiate unless Israel was given an exemption.)

So, what did the US do to protect its "national interests" once the Ayatollah had control of Iran's oil? I'm pretty sure they sponsored a leader next door in Iraq....strong young military sort....Saddam, that was his name. I'm sure that didn't end badly at all...

Ah forget it, let's just carry on keaning about in other countries, what's the worst that could happen?

[thenodrog]

See, that policy has worked out badly in the past, especially in the Iran/Iraq region.

I seem to recall that it was in the "national interests" of the US and the UK to remove Mossadeq, so they did. Then they put the Shah in place to do their bidding and then something else happened....what was that again?

Oh, that's right, Ayatollah Khomeini took power and left us with the regime that we now regard as one of the biggest threats to world peace. (Of course, that perspective conveniently overlooks the fact that the Iranians have offered to participate in a nuclear weapons free zone throughout the Middle East, but we can't mention that because it was the US that refused to negotiate unless Israel was given an exemption.)

So, what did the US do to protect its "national interests" once the Ayatollah had control of Iran's oil? I'm pretty sure they sponsored a leader next door in Iraq....strong young military sort....Saddam, that was his name. I'm sure that didn't end badly at all...

Ah forget it, let's just carry on keaning about in other countries, what's the worst that could happen?

Good question....................... I suppose the international language would be German and we'd all be goosestepping to work in our leiderhosen with little stumpy moustaches. But on the plus side you would get your heartfelt wish Jeru..... Israel would never have existed! Every mushroom cloud would have a silver lining eh?

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Good question....................... I suppose the international language would be German and we'd all be goosestepping to work in our leiderhosen with little stumpy moustaches. But on the plus side you would get your heartfelt wish Jeru..... Israel would never have existed! Every mushroom cloud would have a silver lining eh?

Slightly different situation, but I am pleased that my argument was solid enough that you needed to take it to an extreme to put a hole in it. But everyone knows that any idea becomes impractical if you take it far enough.

Also, if Germany had won the war the chances are there wouldn't have ever been a mushroom cloud except perhaps over a test site. Looking at the current state of play, did Germany really lose in the long-run?

[jim mk2]

Slightly different situation, but I am pleased that my argument was solid enough that you needed to take it to an extreme to put a hole in it. But everyone knows that any idea becomes impractical if you take it far enough.

Also, if Germany had won the war the chances are there wouldn't have ever been a mushroom cloud except perhaps over a test site. Looking at the current state of play, did Germany really lose in the long-run?

Economic domination of Europe - which they have been seeking for the past 100 years but went about it in the wrong way with two world wars - and domination of European football, restoring the balance of power of the 1970s, so no they have won in the end.

The Germans however benefited from US money to rebuild its economy after the second world war and unlike Britain wasn't screwed for every single penny borrowed from the US to fund the war. The US saw its chance to weaken the British empire and British global trade and industry and from their point of view it worked.

[Steve Moss]

Economic domination of Europe - which they have been seeking for the past 100 years but went about it in the wrong way with two world wars - and domination of European football, restoring the balance of power of the 1970s, so no they have won in the end.

The Germans however benefited from US money to rebuild its economy after the second world war and unlike Britain wasn't screwed for every single penny borrowed from the US to fund the war. The US saw its chance to weaken the British empire and British global trade and industry and from their point of view it worked.

I'm not sure I understand this. The war loans, lend-lease, was the use of equipment. If the equipment was used up fighting Nazis or returned, there was no money due. And those good's Britain wanted to keep only cost 10% of the agreed upon value. I'm not sure how we "screwed" Britain under those terms.

As to the post-war loan, that was made at a 2% interest rate (hardly usurious) with a 50 year term AND Britain could elect to defer payments if it desired (which it did from time to time). And my understanding was that the loan was made to support the UK's overseas operations. If the USA wanted to cripple the British Empire we only needed not to make the loan. Instead we tried to preserve the British Empire.

I suppose that you could be upset that Germany and other European countries got a better deal, except that:

1. My memory is that the UK got Marshall Plan payments also.

2. The rest of Europe had their infrastructure destroyed by the USA (and the UK) and if we hadn't instituted the Marshall Plan, Europe would have been faced with horrific conditions.

So I'm struggling with the idea that we "screwed" our British allies.

And for the record I'm very much in favor of making rock solid common cause on the international stage between the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, etc. With some minor political differences I think we are essentially the same people and same culture and we need to stick together.

[Steve Moss]

See, that policy has worked out badly in the past, especially in the Iran/Iraq region.

Sure we've made mistakes. I never claimed we were perfect. But considering the relative positions of the USA as compared to other countries, we appear to have made more correct decisions than wrong.

This is position is in relation to the USA with the rest of the world. I think we've made plenty of other errors domestically which have resulted in the rise of an overly powerful federal government (such as the 17th Amendment). If it were up to me we'd readdress the balance between the federal and state, though I don't know whether it would make our overseas interventions less frequent (though it might due to budget constraints).

Ah forget it, let's just carry on keaning about in other countries, what's the worst that could happen?

Allowing ourselves to be paralyzed by doubt or moral equivalence is worse than making the occasional error.

And it appears to me that most of our actions are taken in relation to groups/nations who mess with the USA. I'm not very sympathetic to their whining about it.

[Guest Norbert]

The USA can be pretty ruthless with it's friends too. The post war deal struck for British reconstruction was a very hard nosed one, as was the pressuring of the new West German state to buy American military planes over British planes. And then there's the threats made to Harold Wilson over Vietnam which led to the pound being devalued, the outright lies about the French position over Iraq (freedom fries FFS) and the whole WMD issue as a whole (Hussein was a friend of the USA once).

Every country does it when they're in such a powerful position. Britain did it many times during the days of empire and China will do just the same to the USA and the rest of the world by the time I'm a pensioner.

[thenodrog]

Slightly different situation, but I am pleased that my argument was solid enough that you needed to take it to an extreme to put a hole in it. But everyone knows that any idea becomes impractical if you take it far enough.

Also, if Germany had won the war the chances are there wouldn't have ever been a mushroom cloud except perhaps over a test site. Looking at the current state of play, did Germany really lose in the long-run?

It's common belief that the 'test site' would have been London if Germany had developed an atomic bomb in time. Wasn't that what was going on at Telemark before sabotage screwed up their plans and wasn't that what the V2's were intended for?

[Steve Moss]

The USA can be pretty ruthless with it's friends too. The post war deal struck for British reconstruction was a very hard nosed one, . . .

How were any of the American deals with Britain "hard nosed"?

The Marshall Plan monies were 85% grant and 15% loan. Its the equivalent of borrowing a $100 and only having to pay back $15.

The post war loans only had a 2% interest rate and a 50 year payback. And Britain (the debtor) had the right to defer payment if it desired.

The war time lend-lease was free. Borrow the ships, tanks, etc. and no cost. You only have to return them after the war. If you wanted to keep them you could buy them for 10% of the agreed upon value.

I recognize that I'm looking at the matter from an American perspective so I'm perhaps not seeing things objectively. Which is why I'm asking the question, what is wrong with the above and how did we screw Britain or otherwise deal with it in a hard-nosed manner?

All said, I think we treated, and have treated, Britain during and post WWII a lot better than Britain has treated us, historically.

[Guest Norbert]

Correct me if I am wrong Steve, but wasn't one of the conditions that Sterling would be free floating in 1947/8? And put pressure on the British to open up the empire for US goods? And since we were still bust, suffering the harshest winter for years etc. that Sterling became worthless and the economy got even worse (which probably let us get a bit of Marshall Aid when the cold war was just starting).

The help during the war is not in question. The Lend/Lease, the food aid and of course the soldiers etc. was of immesurable help before you lot joined the action. It was afterwards when John Maynard Keynes and co. tried to negotiate the reconstruction money, that the Senators basically said "Look lads, we helped you out during the war so we're not just going to hand out more free money.", and struck a hard bargain half what the British were hoping for, and in the form of a loan. It is easy to see the US position after the war. after the sacrifices in Europe etc.

[Steve Moss]

Norbert- The pound did not become free floating until 1971.

This is what I found on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom#1945.E2.80.931951:_Age_of_Austerity):

"1945–1951: Age of Austerity

After World War II, the British economy had again lost huge amounts of absolute wealth. Its economy was driven entirely for the needs of war and took some time to be reorganised for peaceful production. Anticipating the end of the conflict, the United States had negotiated throughout the war to liberalise post-war trade and the international flow of capital in order to break into markets which had previously been closed to it, including the British Empire's Pound Sterling bloc. This was to be realised through the Atlantic Charter of 1941, through the establishment of the Bretton Woods system in 1944, and through the new economic power that the US was able to exert due to the weakened British economy.

Immediately after the war in the Pacific had ended, the U.S. halted free Lend-Lease, but did give the UK a long-term low-interest loan of USD 4.33bn. The winter of 1946–1947 proved to be very harsh curtailing production and leading to shortages of coal which again affected the economy so that by August 1947, when convertibility was due to begin, the economy was not as strong as it needed to be. When the Labour Government enacted convertibility, there was a run on Sterling, meaning that Sterling was being traded in for dollars, seen as the new, more powerful and stable currency in the world. This damaged the British economy and within weeks it was stopped. By 1949, the British pound was over valued and had to be devalued. The U.S. began Marshall Plan grants (mostly grants with a few loans) that pumped $3.3 billions into the economy and forced businessmen to modernize their approach to management."

I'm not an expert, but I don't think requesting access to previously closed markets is "screwing" our Allies or being "hard-nosed" in negotiations. We would have had access to those markets anyway, as Britain's overseas population went from around a high of 700 million to about 5 million as it was simply unable to sustain the Empire. One can either designate resources toward Empire or collectivism and institution of the Welfare State, but not both. Post-WWII Labour government was very clear in the direction it wanted to go, which is hardly an American problem.

[dave birch]

The ever increasing invasion of American culture gets closer and closer.

If you thought gun problems were just for the US, now, some "world " citizen in the US has built a "gun" by using a printer, and he's put the details on the web.

Yes, it's possible to build a gun by having a special printer.

I'd just like to say to those US citizens, thank you for imposing your will on the rest of the world, thank you for considering everyone else, just so that you, in your country can enjoy those liberties, (like shooting at people and animals), and imposing them on the rest of (the unwilling) world.

I would like to be a little more invective in my words, but I hope there is a little bit of Karma going to come your way.

[Steve Moss]

If one can build a "gun" via a printer (how they manage that, I don't know), imagine what else can be built.

Don't be so negative. Technology and science are wonderful things, even though sometimes they can be used for bad purposes.

Edit: Is this the article you were referring to? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22421185 If so, "the controversial group which created the firearm, Defense Distributed, plans to make the blueprints available online" is hardly the same as "he's put the details on the web". There's money to be made and I assume he won't just give them away for free.

On the other hand, if a gun can be made we're getting closer to a world where complex items can be made at home by anyone. This should help in reducing poverty and want, raising everyone's standard of living. I assume, Jim Birch, that you'll be singing the USA's praises just as soon as the tech becomes commonly available.

Here's a good review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing

[dave birch]

Steve, check the BBC News Website. It can be done. Yes, imagine what else can be built, with the right materials, body parts etc etc.

Not being negative at all, just got a problem with the increasing invasion of American culture with a focus on violence.

I'd rather focus on living a life without having someone beat up/ knife/shoot someone in any part of the world.

[Mike E]

3D printing is truly stunning technology.

[Stuart]

Having read that article I agree with Dave.

Just because guns are allowed in America - under the guise of the bill of rights - does not mean the rest of the world want or need them.

Cody Wilson, a 25 year old "crypto-anarchist" (whatever the @#/? one of those is) talks about "liberty" as the reason to arm the rest of the world.

Well Mr Wilson, I'm at liberty to say that you are a @#/? cretin. And I don't need a gun to be able to do that.

Anyone found with an unlicensed firearm whether bought or "printed" (FFS) should face the consequences.

I've no problem with stupid Americans killing each other with their legal guns, I don't pretend to understand the reasons let alone tell you not to do what the hell you like, but keep your @#/? 17th century ideals to yourselves and leave the rest of the world alone.

[broadsword]

Yes, that's what the world needs, more readily available firearms.

I have no idea how 3D printing works, but I'd hope it could be put to more positive use than to more easily facilitate acquiring deadly weapons.

Half-wits.

[DE.]

Having read that article I agree with Dave.

Just because guns are allowed in America - under the guise of the bill of rights - does not mean the rest of the world want or need them.

Cody Wilson, a 25 year old "crypto-anarchist" (whatever the @#/? one of those is) talks about "liberty" as the reason to arm the rest of the world.

Well Mr Wilson, I'm at liberty to say that you are a @#/? cretin. And I don't need a gun to be able to do that.

Anyone found with an unlicensed firearm whether bought or "printed" (FFS) should face the consequences.

I've no problem with stupid Americans killing each other with their legal guns, I don't pretend to understand the reasons let alone tell you not to do what the hell you like, but keep your @#/? 17th century ideals to yourselves and leave the rest of the world alone.

Spot on Stu. If Britain ever adopted America's stance on guns I'd be gone.