±«Óãtv

Of course there is a certain amount of sentimentality attached to Cadbury - I suspect most people in the UK have grown up with it, and we instantly attach our childhood memories with the familiar purple and white bar and the super sweet smooth chocolate. Cadbury's Dairy Milk is a unique chocolate, and although it is sold worldwide, the Dairy Milk made in the UK tastes completely different to the Dairy Milk in other parts of the world (certain countries don't use cows milk for example, substituing it with buffalo milk, and certain countries substitute a portion of cocoa for palm oil). Even the Queen receives a special boxes of chocolates from Cadbury's made to an exclusive recipe!

Unemployment is going to rise as a result of the take over, as all too frequently, companies are relocating their factories overseas to cut costs. How many people will lose their jobs? Will it be another repeat of Terry's Chocolates?

given our water, electricity, defence contractors, nuclear, gas storage, etc are all foreign why get worried over chocolate? Even our politics is privatised as some politicians take benefit of israeli friendly gold via the 'friends network' and the Head of State is privatised to one family of role gamers. Seems its ok to sell off everything strategic but a chocolate biscuit maker rattles the tea cups? As a step too far?

the only other states with so much foreign owned assets are usually colonies of other countries. No other modern state allows strategic assets to be owned by foreign [usually State] companies.

the uk guardian class are guardians of their wallets and not the nation?

In the US Cadburys chocolate is already made by Hershey under licence from Cadbury Schweppes - so how will that work. The chocolate they make is Cadburys with a few extra nasty ingredients included.
And I seem to remember that the last Conservative government passed a Law to downgrade the content of British chocolate - Cadburys responded by cutting the levels of milk and cocoa in their chocolate, adding artificial ingredients and generally making it a bit nastier.

RELAX, 'CHOCOLATE' WILL SOON BE DEEMED RACIST IN EU - AND BANNED (#2)

That'll show 'em! And re-marketing (in the rest of the world) as 'Obamabar' isn't looking too promising. Can you still get Sugar-Puffs?

THRALL - ONE WHO IS INTELLECTUALLY OR MORALLY ENSLAVED.

(1)Needy Wannabe, Tony Blair, visited vacuous Dubya Bush, and instantly ADOPTED HIS DISTINCTIVE SWAGGER. This is an unmistakable sign of being IN THRALL.

(2)Those in thrall (in turn) to the Blair charisma, now line up at Chilcott to tell us that Tony was FORCEFUL with Dubya - HIS OWN MAN, and would not have made an unreserved promise of war.

1 and 2 are incompatible - those who are IN THRALL promise ANYTHING ASKED.

NEWSNIGHT: some psychological comment is called for please. Oliver James perhaps?

"....Clarissa Dickson Wright and Michael Winner will be joining us in the studio to debate the rights and wrongs of the nanny state."

It's the first time these two have met, so there should be fireworks aplenty!!!!!!!!!! Or so sayeth M Python Esq!

Can't wait. Light blue touch paper ....... and run like ???????

Actually
BS (#6)

Could use Oliver James on this one also? Nanny State, Booze culture..........

If you engage a promise, fear your heart could shatter.

If you worship upon an image, judge of it’s content.

If you desire a call to rally, beware, defy empty chant.

If they be words chosen heard, caution lest be hollow.

For desire will anger foolishness from your soul.


If you ponder to wish, care by all may still lay unheard.

If you seek urge to pray, call upon the wisdom divine.

If you purport youth, then foretell savage years.

If you should wail, expect none of which you yearn.

For if your soul fears least to want, from your ached heart, prepare your search to forgive.


And if cry aloud for gain......

Heed dreams, not far distant nightmares ....

Though consider ... if you have chosen to believe ....

You may yet be betrayed.


Copyright:

JAperson

(From sometime then ... ‘til .... some considerable time after the cobbler’s product makes contact with the pail.)

Oops!

Almost forgot the point .....

We are being reminded that, this week, a year has passed and the analysis keeps on, and on and on ....


Perchance the Great British Public has a serious lesson to learn ....


Image ‘aint evryfink!

Verity Murphy.

"Today the Cadbury's board backed a £11.5bn takeover bid from US company Kraft Foods."

personally, I think they're getting what they deserve.

Cadbury's doesn't make chocolates (too little cocoa) and Kraft doesn't make food.

JEFF HOON - WHAT AN ASSET!

Hoon declared to Chilcott that the USA were shocked on 9/11 because they "did not see it coming". Too true, the REGULAR FOLKS did not see it coming - BUT THE 'NEXUS OF EVIL' actually WAVED IT THROUGH, as the New Pearl Harbour - vital to the pre-emptive War on Terror.

To much to expect Hoon to 'know' anything of this - he's a lawyer.

#7

Yes, Brightyanghing, that brought a smile to may face seeing Clarissa Dickson Wright's and Michael Winner's names in Newsnight's introduction.

mim

My immediate reaction to hearing that Cadbury's board had at last folded under the weight of the Kraft bid was intense disappointment. Am I just being sentimental?

Partly, yes -- it's another step away from our Englishness. Like the takeovers of our car manufacturers, our utilities, our banks, our supermarkets. The names of English and British companies are disappearing and becoming overtly foreign.

Sometimes I don't understand what I read and hear in the media. It's argued that it's good that foreign companies want to invest in Britain. Yet what good is that, if it means that the British people don't want to invest in their own country? We buy German and French cars, American computers, Italian shoes, and bank with Spanish banks -- do we care about who profits? Perhaps we should. Yet we seem to care less than almost any other industrial nation I know.

Cadbury's is a world-wide name -- I was proud that it was English. I'm troubled to think that there's little left to be proud of. It wasn't just that it made English chocolate. It was the nature of the company and its history.

The economic argument has been made by Mistress76uk(1) and mademoiselle_h((5). And very important it is too. Can anyone come up with any gain at all for Britain of the takeover of Cadbury's (apart from the gains by the Cadbury's board and the immediate gains made by its shareholders, that is)?

Do we just have to accept that Britain is being sold off to the highest bidder? Thatcher's government trumpeted its successes in selling British companies and closing down our manufacturing industries, and replaced them with nothing but -- what? Financial institutions? Service industries? Selling thin air must be very profitable, if it's all that's keeping Britain alive.

I rejoiced when the new Labour Party replaced the old and discredited Tory party as our government. Conservative politics and policies have done little good for this country since the 1950s. But now the Labour party is discredited too, presiding over the destruction and loss of what little Britishness we have left (it's perhaps significant that the other topic of conversation here is the "nanny state", such a terribly un-British concept). I would like to see the Liberal Democrats provide a real alternative (I have, I must declare it, been a Liberal all my life, well, since I was 15), but its present leadership hardly fills me with confidence.

Maybe it's time I left...

'LET ME COME WITH YOU - I CAN SEE PERFECTLY THE MESS WE'RE IN' (#12)

Since we broke away from the other animals, we have artificially enlarged and enhanced (and fouled) our 'niche'. Small wonder so many species are dying out.

Humanity is not equipped to reverse this trend. While Gordon (or whoever) goes for 'growth', we will slip out the exit.

ClockEndMike #12.

"..step away from our Englishness."
"..English and British companies are disappearing.."
"..proud that it was English."

"Am I just being sentimental?"

no, just a little too , frankly.

'Patriotism is the Last Refuge of a Scoundrel'
-- Samuel Johnson

the worst thing about nestle taking over rowntree was they made kitkats inedible [for me] by upping the sugar content [and reducing the size].

#14 junior
" 'Patriotism is the Last Refuge of a Scoundrel'-- Samuel Johnson"
Oft-quoted, but out of context:-
"On the evening of 7 April 1775, he made the famous statement, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."This line was not, as widely believed, about patriotism in general, but the false use of the term "patriotism" by John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute (the patriot-minister) and his supporters; Johnson opposed "self-professed Patriots" in general, but valued what he considered "true" patriotism"

Had Johnson been alive to witness the destruction of patriotism by today's 'self-professed Patriots' he would surely have said: "Multiculturalism is the loss of respect for the scorned"

indignantindegene #16.

interesting.

the meaning of a word or phrase can change through the ages.

for instance, a sophist used to be a teacher of philosophy & rhetoric; today we think of sophists as people who advance confusing or illogical arguments in order to deceive.

jr4412(14): "too patriotic"?

The point about your misquote has already been made, but a realistic (NOT jingoistic) pride in the achievements of your country and what it stands for, and concern for its economic losses and the resulting loss of employment for British residents, is hardly being "too patriotic", surely.

I'm certainly not a "nationalist" -- I'm a strong supporter in principle of the European Union, and have been for 40 years, and of the traditional British willingness to accept -- but I am proud of what's good in our history, and of what Britain has stood for for centuries: care for one's neighbours, freedom and independence of thought and action, and a certain pride in quality and achievement.

By the way: I have strong reservations about the biased article in wikipedia you linked to.

I stand by what I said. I'm still glad I was born and live here, but for how much longer?

Now, jauntycyclist(15) wrote: "the worst thing about nestle taking over rowntree was they made kitkats inedible"

The worst thing? What a sad reflection on your outlook. You don't mind who makes it, or that the profits now go abroad to a company long criticised for its ethics, just whether the product is to your taste. Maybe that's why Britain is being sold off -- we don't care any more.

ClockEndMike #18.

"..but I am proud of what's good in our history, and of what Britain has stood for for centuries: care for one's neighbours, freedom and independence of thought and action, and a certain pride in quality and achievement."

(all together now) "always look on the bright side of life".

care for one's neighbours -- except when they're foreign, or 'worse', subjects of the (assorted) imperial majesties. ;(

(or even, surplus to requirements. remind me, why did you (the British) ship your kids to Australia?)

no, personally I'm not as impressed by all that as you appear to be.

ClockEndMike #18.

"By the way: I have strong reservations about the biased article in wikipedia you linked to."

Oxford English Dictionary definition:

patriot (noun) a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it.

hope you'll find this source less contentious; I do think that characterising you as a patriot, given this deinition and your posts #12 and #18, is fair.

too patriotic? well that's how I read #12 (and also #18).

jr4412(19):

The very wikipedia article you linked to yourself quotes J. Peter Euben, who wrote that for Socrates, "patriotism does not require one to agree with everything that his country does and would actually promote analytical questioning in a quest to make the country the best it possibly can be."

I said I was proud of "what's good in our history", but I would be the last to defend everything done in the name of Britain. I do think, however, we have much to be grateful for, and maybe more than many other countries.

This has become an argument about "patriotism", which I think is a diversion, an attempt on your part to misunderstand what I was saying. I didn't use the word, but you did. Or maybe you simply don't agree with me, in which case an argument would be more appropriate than simply trying to score points.

MEANWHILE IN AMERICA . . .

A 'Patriot Missile' is, presumably, the one you use on anyone who is 'with the terrorists' (because they are not 'with us')?

"GOOD OLD CONVENTIONAL WARFARE"

Even better than Cadbury's. (Dannatt)

ClockEndMike #21.

"Or maybe you simply don't agree with me, in which case an argument would be more appropriate than simply trying to score points."

correct, I disagree both with some of the examples you gave and with your 'tone'.

(#12)"Like the takeovers of our car manufacturers, our utilities, our banks, our supermarkets. The names of English and British companies are disappearing and becoming overtly foreign."

utter tripe. the whole idea about a PLC is that the shareholders own the company (thereby conveniently insulating the owners from the consequences of their companies activities). what's 'yours' about Sainsbury's or Cadbury's? do you own shares? the brands are protected by international copyright and trademark legislation, the actual manufacturer matters not (apart that is, from the employment issues).

(#12)"Do we just have to accept that Britain is being sold off to the highest bidder?"

yes, free markets.

(#18)"..a certain pride in quality and achievement."

until somewhen during Edwardian times ok, but after, say, WWI?

(#12)"Yet what good is that, if it means that the British people don't want to invest in their own country?"

a key question, IMO. ask yourself WHY.

(why do we have such appaling (by comparison) public services?)

finally, I'd genuinely like to hear what you have to say about the post WWII period, why did you dispose of your children? (I have never managed to understand this)

Excellent debate by Jeremy on the Cadbury's takeover with John Redwood & Jon Moulton, particularly where Jeremy stated that foreign companies were barred from buying French companies, yet anyone could buy a British company. However, he summed it up perfectly by saying "we were being taken for mugs."

Regardless of whether you are fond of Cadburys or not, it raises the issue of protectionism. Doesn't being part of the EU mean that between Member States, protectionism is not allowed, yet British companies are not allowed to buy French electricity companies, but French electricity companies can buy British ones? Surely the UK can also put some forms of protectionism into practice as their EU counterparts have.....

On a lighter note, absolutely loved the closing debate by Jeremy with Michael Winner and Clarissa Dickson-Wright! Michael's policies of jailing someone for throwing a sweet wrapper over the wall when there are bins there is not such a bad idea. He was correct that everyone does whatever they please, and they are not punished for it, hence the binge drinking etc.

Mistress76uk #25.

"Doesn't being part of the EU mean that between Member States, protectionism is not allowed.."

if it were (outright) illegal, they'd be in court already.

for most Europeans "..being part of the EU.." also means Schengen and the Euro, in other words -- integration.

for the most part, from Thatcher onwards, the British have been very selective and not a little stand-offish, I think this is perhaps part of the -- payback?

This is a silly argument, and i'm probably silly for continuing it, but...

The definition of "patriot" quoted above (20) is from the Oxford American Dictionary. My Oxford English Reference Dictionary defines a patriot as "a person who is devoted to and ready to support or defend his or her country".

One definition in the Oxford English Dictionary is "one who disinterestedly or self-sacrificingly exerts himself to promote the well-being of his country."

Yes, in that sense, I am a patriot. You believe I'm too patriotic, because I'm disappointed that a famous English company with a distinguished history is now owned by a disinterested American global conglomerate, and because I see nothing of benefit to its present employees in Britain or to the country as a whole, only a loss. And, yes, as I admitted, there is a certainly sentimentality in my response to the sale of Cadbury's.

I don't think that's being too patriotic, but I respect your right to disagree.

My God - considering the news of the day it was boring tonight. It was more like a Tory old guard appreciation society tonight than a the UK's premier current affairs show. John Redwood (he of the last Major Tory govt - who cocked up big-time and who wouldn't do anything to stop any business deal anywhere as long as there was money in it..) and another business type who laughed at each others' jokes and didn't really disagree on much at all; Gen Sir Richard.. who is working for D.Cameron, and Clarissa Dickson Wright and Michael Winner and yes Michael, we all know that you can afford to spend lots of time overseas and drink whatever you want and that you're not worried where your next dollar is coming from - unfortunately the rest of the country isn't as privilaged as you are.

I think if it hadn't been for Col Tim Collins's report on the rocket attacks between Gaza & Israel I'd have passed out..!

Maybe Jeremy likes the old Tories - he certainly warmed to them..

jr4412(24):

You called my observations "utter tripe" (oh, very intelligent). You added:

"the whole idea about a PLC is that the shareholders own the company (thereby conveniently insulating the owners from the consequences of their companies activities). what's 'yours' about Sainsbury's or Cadbury's? do you own shares? the brands are protected by international copyright and trademark legislation, the actual manufacturer matters not (apart that is, from the employment issues)"

Yes, I do own shares. Not in Sainsbury's, or in Cadbury's, I admit. I did own shares in a British-owned utility which was taken over by a French company (though I voted against the takeover). I was only offered cash or a mix of cash and shares in the new parent company. I invested the money in another English company. You say "the actual manufacturer matters not (apart that is, from the employment issues)". Well, of course, that is the point: the employment issues. I'm not sure what you mean by "the actual manufacturer" -- do you mean the workers, or the board that makes the decisions? If the latter, then clearly whether the board is based in Philadelphia or in Birmingham does matter. The company policies will be very different.

In response to my question "Do we just have to accept that Britain is being sold off to the highest bidder?" you respond "yes, free markets." But, as was made clear during tonight's debate on Newsnight, many other countries do not always allow foreigners to buy nationally-owned companies, even within the EU. "Free market" does not mean "free-for-all", it means one where competition is not restricted.

(#18)"..a certain pride in quality and achievement."

You suggest Britain only had pride in quality and achievement "until somewhen during Edwardian times" but not after WWI? Well, I don't agree. Certainly there was a great deal of pride in British quality and achievement during the 1960s, when I was becoming aware of politics and going up to university. And I don't believe it's entirely disappeared yet :-)

(#12)"Yet what good is that, if it means that the British people don't want to invest in their own country?"

You say "a key question, IMO. ask yourself WHY."

I do. I really do. That was my question.

"finally, I'd genuinely like to hear what you have to say about the post WWII period, why did you dispose of your children?"

Well, I didn't dispose of my children, of course, but I know what you're referring to. My uncle, put in an orphanage after my grandmother died when he was 8, was one of the "Barnardo boys" who went to Canada in the 1920s and '30s. Do you have some experience here, too?

I don't know why it was done, I haven't read much about the issues or the reasons given. It's certainly not something I would defend. I remember when the practice finally ceased in the 1960s -- there was a great deal of surprise at the time that it was still going on.

My uncle talked very little about his time in Canada, but as far as I know he was not abused like those in the Australian institutions described in the article you linked to in The Times, but learned skills and a trade. He came back to Britain, I believe in his 20s, but after he was married he emigrated again, to Australia, the year I was born.

But what has this to do with Cadbury's or the sale of other British companies?

ClockEndMike #29.

"I'm not sure what you mean by "the actual manufacturer" -- do you mean the workers, or the board that makes the decisions?"

no, I meant the owner of the brand, and the actual production facility used.

"The company policies will be very different."

yes, with respect to their impact on the employment issues (where we agree) and no in that the brand will remain protected regardless (I feel we disagree on this?).

re free markets.

you cannot have your cake and eat it; protectionism: what about, say, the attitude BA takes to its precious Heathrow take-off slots? and what about RBS acquiring Santander (well, share of anyway), ABN AMRO, etc? UK companies have a history of buying 'foreign' enterprises too.

""Free market" does not mean "free-for-all""

well, Thatcher and that lot would have disagreed.

on the "..quality and achievement.." we'll have to agree to disagree, there are very few examples indeed post WWI, most of those intellectual and the actual 'exploitation' of the innovation took place elsewhere.

"But what has this [Child Migrants Programme] to do with Cadbury's or the sale of other British companies?"

that very much depends on your reading/interpretation of history, I suppose. to my thinking it simply reflects that the British do not place much value on human lives (generalising here) and why, in part, I find you saying (#18)"..proud of what's good in our history, and of what Britain has stood for for centuries: care for one's neighbours, freedom and independence of thought and action.." so disagreeable.

I'm in no doubt that you too have generalised in #12 and #18 and hope that you do not misconstrue this (or my previous posts) as a personal thing; I'm simply dismayed that in the 21st Century the world is still full of people who think little lines drawn on maps mean anything -- have you never seen pictures of Earth from space?

Newsnight's 30th Anniversary Programme has now been featured in today's FT :o)

The short tour of Gaza and Sderot by Tim Collins was a considerably more balanced report by the ±«Óãtv from this part of the world than I have seen for some time. When he met the masked Palestinian rocket launcher people he didn't do the one obvious thing I expected him to, which was to ask them why they launch rockets to try to kill Israeli citizens at random? Later he looked forward to the day when 'they don't have to fire rockets into Israel'. They don't have to do it now. So the missing question was a fundamental omission. I wonder, did he ask the question but the reply was edited out?

My comments on the Kraft buyout of Cadbury.

I was surprised that Cadbury employed 45,000 people worldwide, and only roughly 5,000 in England. I don't think the english jobs will remain for long.

Kraft also bought Terrys chocolate a while ago, it's absolute rubbish now, and I've stopped buying it. So another good buyout for my waistline, I won't be buying Cadburys either soon.

When a conglomorate like Kraft with fingers in so many pies buys yet another company, the workers always suffer, and the product becomes rubbish, they don't care about either.

Patriotism aguement; there is a tipping point on indigenous populations, we've almost reached ours, and are neither one thing or another. The arguement that we are all people is true, but just how many people need to change countries before everywhere becomes nothing. And no one cares or has any stake in that country, they are just all out for themselves only.

I wonder if a better route to go on where people should live in Europe say, is how many to the inhabitable square mile, set a figure, and if that figure goes over the limit, the last in is the first out. I think we would have a mass exodus on this tiny isle.

COMMENT (#32)

The Jews have a cultural certainty that the land is theirs (god-given) while the indigenes have the usual certainty that comes from occupation - animals are territorial.

Peaceful coexistence is impossible. 'Natural' extermination of the weaker group is inhibited by outside influence (yet we don't enforce our will - just tinker).

Not much room for rationality, hence random rockets and intermittent slaughter. Very Biblical.

#30 jnr

Circular, or a spherical argument?

"I'm simply dismayed that in the 21st Century the world is still full of people who think little lines drawn on maps mean anything -- have you never seen pictures of Earth from space?"

Ah, you've finally revealed your true identity: an advocate of Global or World Government, Right? (or even extreme Left). In which case patriotism may not be an option available to you, depending on what form WG mat take:-



I have long argued for more power at grass roots level as we have already lost any people power via the ballot box since our Westminster idiots (mainly also spherical objects) endorsed the Lisbon Treaty without the promised referendum. My latest comment:-

/blogs/profile/?userid=13936896&skip=20

But then, I would say such things, as I am of an age where I have served my country and gloried in its natural beauty, its (past) great statesmen, and the Brits who have led the world in scientific discovery and artistic achievement. We have also done our share of attempted world domination but, having lived and worked in several of our previous colonies, I would conclude that our presence improved them whilst their independence has in many cases resulted in chaos.

We have seen the folly of trying to impose common standards and values (like Democracy?) on other countries that disregard what we consider to be basic human rights and values. And things Global, like global warming and World Trade have left the common man at the mercy of international marketers and manipulators. We could also be drifting into another form of World Order, based on a primitive religious belief system which, like uncontrolled immigration, doesn’t respect ‘little lines drawn on maps’.

I was for patriotism, but that’s now a dirty word like nationalism and discrimination (or choice), so before we are told by the Equality legislation what to think and say I’m preparing to join my offspring by becoming an Ex-patriot.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

...have you never seen pictures of Earth from space?"..

no one lives in space. the experience of real life is from the viewpoint of being on earth. so people who think pictures from space is the starting point are very much 'spacey'.

FROM LATE 1990's-2010 THE ROYAL NAVY HAS BEEN CANNIBALIZED TO 'FEED' THE NEEDS OF THE BRITISH ARMY!!

PART 4:

TO SAVE MONEY THE UK's PLANNED NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS ARE BEING BUILT WITHOUT ARMOUR, ARMOURED BULKHEADS, AIRCRAFT-LAUNCH CATAPULTS AND WITHOUT THE MISSILE-BASED WEAPONS & SENSORS REQUIRED FOR SHIP SELF-DEFENCE AGAINST ANTI-SHIP CRUISE MISSILES (ASCM's) & AIRCRAFT:

:

".... A number of protective measures such as side armour and armoured bulkheads proposed by industrial bid teams have been deleted from the design in order to comply with cost limitations...."

Catapults are necessary for Aircraft Carriers to be able to embark, launch & recover a variety of the most versatile & capable types of fixed-wing aircraft, such as Airborne Early Warning & Control (AWACS) types:

E-2D Hawkeye: The (U.S.) Navy's New AWACS-



The RN's new carriers will be restricted to Harrier type (short/vertical take off & land) fixed-wing aircraft & helicopters- that can not duplicate even remotely the function of modern, fixed-wing AWACS...

:

"... Money has also been saved in side armour protection, though Knight insists this was a strategic rather than a budgetary issue.

"'The CVF's first line of defence is the frigates and the new Type 45 destroyers around us,' he adds. 'Our only self-defence is close-in weapons systems and small guns.

"Instead, what you have on the ship is 36 of the most lethal aircraft*** ever made.'..."

*** aircraft whose designed-capabilities DO NOT include protecting warships from incoming anti-ship missiles...

EVERY OTHER 1st WORLD NATION WITH AIRCRAFT CARRIERS ARMS THEM COMPREHENSIVELY WITH ARMOUR & UP-TO-DATE MISSILE-BASED ASCM DEFENCES...

The US, Italy, France, Japan and even Brazil fit and are retrofitting their carriers with technologically up-to-date AAW weapons- for the UK to not be doing the same for its existing and planned carriers is gross negligence....

:

"... These (US Navy Nimitz class supercarriers) were completed with Kevlar armour over their vital areas and have improved hull protection arrangements..."

"The Kevlar armour has been retrofitted to the earlier carriers, as have many of the advanced systems built into the newer ships..."

















"... The Hyuga... will carry an Aegis-type air defense system, with the U.S.-developed AN/SPY-1 multi-function radar; her principal "weapons" armament will be 64 advanced ESSM-type missiles... "

"... She will also be fitted with two 20-mm Phalanx (radar guided) "Gatling" guns for close-in defense against anti-ship missiles, and she will have six tubes for anti-submarine torpedoes...."

-

CONTINUED


_________________
Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada

Defence of the UK

the ultimate aim by which a uk military force is to be judged is not if it can deal with optional wars of choice and political inspired adventures like iraq and afghanistan but if it can defend the uk.

do people really think we need more never ending pointless wars abroad? Should we not be turning afghanistan down rather than ramping it up? Not basing the defence of the uk on that failed and dark foreign policy?

the neocons want to turn the uk military into, in effect, a vexatious anti muslim army and so seek to bend and distort the uk military from their true and ultimate purpose of defending the uk.

we learnt the original advice from the military was they needed 250,000 troops to invade afghanistan. Powell claims afghanistan was 'done' with a few special forces. So why 9 years later are there running battles in the capital?

if you look at the debates the reason the uk gave up the empire is that it was too expensive to maintain. In the same way the uk needs to give up this anti muslim crusade foreign policy not just because it is wicked and not in the uk interest but because it is, when you take all the other costs like reconstruction, training etc, an expensive evil.

If we go invading [bringing democracy!!] every country where AQ has a temporary home then where do we stop? We will be invading forever. Richard Dearlove and a RAND report said the way to deal with AQ is not through invasions but through counter terrorism and the justice system.

People say they cannot forsee a need for conventional war of defence. But that is the point. No one ever sees the need for it until it happens. That is the time you need a well trained machine. Who saw the falklands. Is it not more likely conflict will break out in non EU europe that could ignite larger tensions?

if focussing on uk defence means the military focus is unsuited to foreign adventurism by politicians who may be in the pay of foreign money then so much the better.

BUT TYRANTS ARE 'SPACEY' - BETWEEN THEIR EARS (#39)

Look at Blair - 'the space (between his ears) expands to accommodate the vacuousness of his thinking'.

As I posted yesterday: megalomaniacs have SEEN THE EARTH FROM SPACE - AND IT BECKONS' They are CONTROL FREAKS. Since the beginning of group conflict, batty leaders have striven to enlarge the area under their CONTROL. It stands to reason, those who want to CONTROL THE WORLD, are now among us. It cannot be otherwise.

jauntycyclist #39.

"no one lives in space. the experience of real life is from the viewpoint of being on earth. so people who think pictures from space is the starting point are very much 'spacey'."

oh dear, why stop with reading? ever tried comprehension?


indignantindegene #35.

"Ah, you've finally revealed your true identity: an advocate of Global or World Government, Right? (or even extreme Left)"

I don't much like discrimination, we're the same people around the world; nationality is one of the excuses people use to discriminate, and nation states an added opportunity to wage war against one another. are you (honestly) of the opinion that a single planet, dominated by a single species, is better off DIVIDED into 200-odd 'nation states' than united?

indignantindegene #35.

"I have long argued for more power at grass roots level as we have already lost any people power via the ballot box.."

I do not think that a losing the nation state would have to mean loss of power "at grass roots level"; check out the Swiss model for instance, their people have considerably more say in their affairs than we do here (even before EU). this three-tier system could be scaled up to suit.

"..as I am of an age where I have served my country.."

so, like me, you're an 'old fogey'? ;)

A POINT WORTH DEBATING? (#43)

"are you (honestly) of the opinion that a single planet, dominated by a single species, is better off DIVIDED into 200-odd 'nation states' than united?"

I have observed that the most needy individuals rise to power, there to behave unpleasantly. It follows world domination would almost certainly be - globally - unpleasant.

I suggest small, humanly-manageable states, in a global federation, might well function with a higher tendency to human contentment, than the global community?

I certainly would not nominate any of our current wannabes to run the entire world.

barriesingleton #45.

concur.

"I suggest small, humanly-manageable states, in a global federation, might well function with a higher tendency to human contentment, than the global community?"

similar to #44?

#46 cont'd.

not 'sovereign' states though, more like counties (or cantons).

i'm sure things are different if psychologically one lives in 'space'.

maurice strong and the climate groupies are into all that one world stuff.

jauntycyclist #48.

had to look this up, you're talking about Maurice Strong?

FWIW, he seems to have achieved a lot more than either of us could hope for.

sour grapes?

#43jnr
"I don't much like discrimination, we're the same people around the world; nationality is one of the excuses people use to discriminate, and nation states an added opportunity to wage war against one another."

The ability to discriminate is found in all species, animal, fish and even plants. We discriminate when we befriend people having similar tastes and interests to us, and in the choice of spouse. We all avoid obnoxious people - that's discrimination too. My discrimination has never been on grounds of nationality or race; I have been really lucky in life and courted women of many races, but differences in culture and values ended most passionate affairs.

".. are you (honestly) of the opinion that a single planet, dominated by a single species, is better off DIVIDED into 200-odd 'nation states' than united?" Are you blind to the fact that most strife in this country is due to irreconcilable differences in cultures, beliefs and values? We welcomed diversity - and got forced marriages, honour killings, female genital mutilation, Sharia Law and suicide bombers!

I'm comfortable when amongst the tyoical prom concert audience, but not with punk rockers and rappers - how about you?

indignantindegene #50.

you are correct in saying that 'to discriminate' includes tastes, interests and even "choice of spouse", that is (as I'm sure you're aware) not the point I was making.

"..but differences in culture and values.."

yes, values I can understand (as in "obnoxious"), but discrimination on grounds of culture is problematic; you list "..forced marriages, honour killings, female genital mutilation, Sharia Law and suicide bombers!".

"forced marriages" (or 'arranged marriages') were, until not so long ago, common in this country (and much of Europe) too; personally, I do not agree with those, but then, I do not think much of 'marriage' -- as understood by followers of religion -- anyway. I prefer the concept in common use until around Shakespear's time, ie. an agreement that is entered into voluntarily, and dissolvable, between the people concerned and as witnessed by the community (nothing to do with the church, and nothing to do with the state).

"..honour killings.." murder is murder, no matter how you spin it; I see this in the context of a people crippled (mentally) by their religious beliefs, but it is still a 'capital' crime.

"..female genital mutilation.." I wish you had not added the 'female' since I'm opposed to any kind of mutilation of children by their parents or community; again, the perpetrators of such atrocities use their religious beliefs to justify themselves.

"..Sharia Law.." yes, is harsh and again, religious beliefs are the problem at heart. on the other hand, where do you stand on 'crime and punishment'? do you believe serial rapists or murderers are best kept in institutions at the cost of the community they violated? this deserves debate but a blog isn't the forum (for me since I'm not much of a writer; best discussed in person).

"..suicide bombers.." yep, another problem brought on by extreme (religious or nationalistic) beliefs and not what I'd advocate.

"I'm comfortable when amongst the tyoical prom concert audience, but not with punk rockers and rappers - how about you?"

I'm comfortable with most individuals but have my reservations regarding groups of people -- especially the fanatic sort.

interesting to see that you appear to think that a "typical prom concert audience" could be free of "obnoxious" people, or even people who also listen to more challenging types of music.

Division looks the state of play, no matter what liberals say.

NATURE LOVES A FORCED COUPLING

Why else would we lust after faces (structurally - genetically?) like our own? We even choose our dogs on the same basis.

Free will is hard to come by.

Personally, I think the greatest kindness lies in leaving the unconcieved, just as they are.

PS - I seem to remember the chemical changes in the brain, that we term 'falling in love', persist about two years. Might be a message there?

ANY STATISTICS ON APPARENT INTIGRATION IN THE BALTIC BEFORE . . .? (#52)

My gut instinct is that you can go a long way to APPARENT cohesion with mixed populations and schooling. However, only when some stressor is applied to the community (name your own) do you discover how much (or little) cohesion there is.

#53 Oh you were being over generous there Barrie, it's only supposed to last a year! But then it was a very small sample!

#54 A good example is Yugoslavia, they apparently all got on and co-operated, but look at the mayhem and killing that went on there, in it's supposed cohesive society.

#55

Interesting issues raised here Lizzy/Barrie

In 1999 a very good friend of mine signed up for 6 months VSO in Macedonia. Almost 2 1/2 years later, after working peacefully alongside Serbs, Croats and Ethnic Albanians until one day in April or May ALL British volunters were advised to be prepared to leave at a moments notice. They parked their cars (always full of fuel and with suitcase in boot) facing in the direction of Greece and carried passport with them at all times. Overnight, colleagues of several years working in common cause could not walk on the same street without spitting, shouting or hurling missiles.

TIME TO GO HOME.................