/ War , What is it good for ?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The Wild Scallion 12 Sep 2019

https://news.sky.com/story/preferred-bidder-revealed-for-new-fleet-of-royal-navy-frigates-11807446

Whilst this is good from a UK employment perspective .

I'd still say....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpWmlRNfLck

Can we build a fleet of "Peace ships" please full of mobile hospitals, eye surgeries , vaccination centres,  food stocks and water desalinisation equipment .

Oh silly me I'm just being idealistic once again .

Give me a slap , teach me a lesson.

6
wintertree 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

It’s not all war, war, war in the navy...

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/what-we-do/providing-humanitarian-assistance

1
cb294 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:


War, what is it good for?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyuJQ_UO7OE

profitofdoom 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

Thanks. Your post reminds me of Trotsky's eerie and scary saying, "You may not be interested in war. But war is interested in you"

summo 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

Recuse drowning folk in the Mediterranean, patrol against drug smuggling(and other forms of smuggling), protect shipping from Jack sparrow types, deliver aid to the Bahamas after a hurricane, rescue folk from an island after a volcano eruption or tsunami... there is more to a navy that than just it's guns. 

GridNorth 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

The American Civil War got rid of slavery in the Southern States of America, although that is debatable. The second World War got rid of the Nazis which is less debatable. The Iraq War got rid of Saddam Hussein which was a good thing but at the cost of increased instability in the Middle East which was a bad thing. I think a more valid question would be "was the price worth paying?"

3
EdS 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

if you can afford to imported the steel  and other materials to build them - WTO tarif and all

1
GridNorth 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

> Can we build a fleet of "Peace ships" please full of mobile hospitals, eye surgeries , vaccination centres,  food stocks and water desalinisation equipment .

It's a good idea but what do we do if someone tries to take them away from us?

Timmd 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

'' Recuse drowning folk in the Mediterranean, patrol against drug smuggling(and other forms of smuggling), protect shipping from Jack sparrow types, deliver aid to the Bahamas after a hurricane, rescue folk from an island after a volcano eruption or tsunami... there is more to a navy that than just it's guns. ''

What summo said, I like your idea BTW. 

Post edited at 11:14
krikoman 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

It reduces the worlds population and makes a few people very rich.

One of which we could do without, and the other might be better tackled in another way.

1
The Wild Scallion 12 Sep 2019
In reply to wintertree:

> It’s not all war, war, war in the navy...

I was hoping for a Village people link.

;-)

The Wild Scallion 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

I wasn't suggesting we dispose of the Navy everybody.

Just that we should be building a more hopeful and humanitarian future for all of us rather than starting with the premise of war.

I know that's a alien concept for some.

Post edited at 11:28
wintertree 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

> I was hoping for a Village people link.

 Kelsey Grammar -  https://www.vimeo.com/47519496

Bob Kemp 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

Look on the bright side - at least John Bolton's been fired.

The Wild Scallion 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Look on the bright side - at least John Bolton's been fired.

That's at least one plus,   I agree.

Dax H 12 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> The second World War got rid of the Nazis which is less debatable. I think a more valid question would be "was the price worth paying?"

I find this comment particularly offensive to the countless brave men and women from around the world who gave their lives during the war. 

Was it worth it, I suppose that depends on your point of view, if you are 6 foot plus with blond hair and blue eyes and a superiority complex you might not think it's worth it but from the point of view of someone who lives in a multi cultural melting pot I am damn glad that previous generations went to war to protect the freedoms that we enjoy today. 

6
Bob Kemp 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Dax H:

I think you've misread GridNorth's post. As far as I can see his question 'was the price worth paying' was suggested as a question that should be asked of all wars. He didn't say it wasn't worth paying in the case of the second World War.

krikoman 12 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> The American Civil War got rid of slavery in the Southern States of America, although that is debatable.

620,000 deaths

>The second World War got rid of the Nazis which is less debatable.

70–85 million deaths

>The Iraq War got rid of Saddam Hussein which was a good thing but at the cost of increased instability in the Middle East which was a bad thing.

288,000 deaths and counting

>I think a more valid question would be "was the price worth paying?"

It depends on who's paying, and who you ask the question of.

I think Blair would tell you it was a price worth paying, but for some disabled Iraqi child who's just had most of their family blown to bits, maybe not.

3
GridNorth 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Thank you.  Yes that is what I was saying.  To mis-represent what I said in the way that Dax H did is disgraceful.  Apology in order perhaps?

1
Pefa 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

Cuba provides more medical personnel to the developing world than all the G8 countries combined. 

Tom V 12 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

As Bob K said, I think your post was misread rather than misrepresented.

GridNorth 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Tom V:

I'm sure he misread it but to re-quote it in the misleading, dishonest way that he did to imply a meaning that was not there is as near to a definition of "misrepresenting" that I can think of.

Post edited at 17:57
1
Yanis Nayu 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Dax H:

I think you’ve misinterpreted what he’s saying. My take was the question was a general one rather than being specific to world war 2. 

summo 12 Sep 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> >The second World War got rid of the Nazis which is less debatable.

> 70–85 million deaths

I will take my chances with war; Stalin, Hitler or the Japanese empire were not famous for their tolerance. 

No war2, Hitler or the Japanese empire with nuclear weapons? 

Dax H 12 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> I'm sure he misread it but to re-quote it in the misleading, dishonest way that he did to imply a meaning that was not there is as near to a definition of "misrepresenting" that I can think of.

You have my apology,  I did misread your post and my abridgement of it was in no way designed to misrepresent or to be dishonest. I misunderstood what you were trying to say and I had been discussing WW2 and my grandparents involvement in it with the lad in my van a couple of hours before chipping in with my opinion on here.

Edited to add, sorry for the delay in the apology as well, only just finished work and got back on the Internet for a read. 

Post edited at 21:45
GridNorth 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Dax H:

Apology accepted.

Pefa 13 Sep 2019
In reply to summo:

> I will take my chances with war; Stalin, Hitler or the Japanese empire were not famous for their tolerance. 

Yes British were tolerant whilst starving 25 million Indians to death or 1 million Irish oh and Americans were tolerant when genociding 20 million native American Indians and whilst lynching blacks as family entertainment.

2
baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Yes British were tolerant whilst starving 25 million Indians to death or 1 million Irish oh and Americans were tolerant when genociding 20 million native American Indians and whilst lynching blacks as family entertainment.

Genociding?

What in the heck is genociding?

Ciro 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Genociding?

> What in the heck is genociding?

It's the present participle of genocide - taking part in the deliberate killing of a large group of people.

summo 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Pefa:

Debate is pointless as you clearly want to turn everything into some anti British or anti western rant. Despite being happy to enjoy the benefits of that society or culture. 

Dr.S at work 13 Sep 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

There are plans floating around for some UK hospital ships:

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-plan-for-a-british-hospital-ship-gains-political-support/

sounds like an excellent use of the a small part of the overseas aid budget, and perhaps as climate change worsens will be more and more valuable.

David Riley 13 Sep 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

Campaign against Sexual Harassment  -  Phwoar,  what is it good for ?

1
baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Ciro:

> It's the present participle of genocide - taking part in the deliberate killing of a large group of people.

And there was me thinking it was that annoying habit of turning a noun into a verb.

LeeWood 15 Sep 2019
In reply to summo:

> Debate is pointless as you clearly want to turn everything into some anti British or anti western rant. Despite being happy to enjoy the benefits of that society or culture. 

Growing numbers of 'us' who enjoy western lifestyle - are less and less comfortable doing so, with the knowledge of the exploitation it effects upon less fortunate people in far off lands, not to mention impact on the biosphere. Esp when the backwash hits us - acts of terrorism ... severe weather incidents. Of course its part of our constitution to suppress all such problems - but this cannot last forever

2
summo 15 Sep 2019
In reply to LeeWood:

I don't think there are enough of us who care, who are also willing to make the cuts necessary. The royal we of ukc is fairly environmentally aware. But we still like our travel, sports equipment etc. 

I benchmark average Joe against my brother. They made a special Facebook post last week because it was their kids first ever train trip, he is 3 and they live in a large town served by mainline trains. They did of course drive the 1 mile to the station. Where did they go, a shopping centre in the next town. 

I think we're doomed. 

Ps. The dislike wasn't me. 

Post edited at 10:41
Stichtplate 15 Sep 2019
In reply to LeeWood:

> Growing numbers of 'us' who enjoy western lifestyle - are less and less comfortable doing so, with the knowledge of the exploitation it effects upon less fortunate people in far off lands, not to mention impact on the biosphere. Esp when the backwash hits us - acts of terrorism ... severe weather incidents. Of course its part of our constitution to suppress all such problems - but this cannot last forever.

A 'Western lifestyle" is enjoyed by the rich everywhere. The biggest carbon emitters aren't in Europe or America and neither are the most brutal and exploitative regimes. Also worth noting that most of the big aid organisations, charity money, human rights groups and governmental and scientific efforts to mitigate climate change do originate in America and Europe.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-worlds-carbon-emissions-in-one-chart/

summo 15 Sep 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

Some of worst pollution is only elsewhere because we've out sourced our most polluting production to the other side of world. We are still buying the products. 

2
Stichtplate 15 Sep 2019
In reply to summo:

> Some of worst pollution is only elsewhere because we've out sourced our most polluting production to the other side of world. We are still buying the products. 

World's top carbon emitters per capita...

1. Qatar

2. Trinidad & Tobago

3. Kuwait

4. UAE

5. Bahrain

6. Saudia Arabia

7. Australia

None of them nations renowned as homes for outsourced production. And anyway, doesn't it typify the worst sort of Western paternalism to portray countries where production has been outsourced as somehow victims of the West? The Chinese certainly don't see themselves in such a light.

Edit: my real point is that I'm a bit sick of all the finger pointing at the West. I'm fine with the backlash at 'white saviour syndrome' but at the same time Western nations aren't the world's perpetual villains.

Post edited at 11:33
1
summo 15 Sep 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

Not sure on your sources, China, USA, india

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

It's not blaming the west. We did the worst in an era when we didn't know any better, now we know better but aren't prepared to change enough to make any significant difference, whilst expecting other developing countries in the world to not pollute like we did and do.

summo 15 Sep 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

It doesn't really matter per capita, it's total global emmisions that need reducing, most of the countries you chose have high emmissions because they generate nearly all their electricity from gas and run desalination plants. Their actual output measured against global output is very small. Do you really think Qatar is causing climate change more than China or the USA? 

Stichtplate 15 Sep 2019
In reply to summo:

> Not sure on your sources, China, USA, india

I wrote carbon emitters per capita, not per country. If we're talking efforts to combat carbon emissions per country it makes more sense to talk about per capita, otherwise countries like India and China are bound to top the lists just by virtue of having populations numbering in the billions.

> It's not blaming the west. We did the worst in an era when we didn't know any better, now we know better but aren't prepared to change enough to make any significant difference, whilst expecting other developing countries in the world to not pollute like we did and do.

It's a global problem that needs to be addressed globally. At least in the West it's become an important issue. Except for a few extremely vulnerable island states, it's not high on the political agenda in most of the rest of the world.

Post edited at 12:46
Stichtplate 15 Sep 2019
In reply to summo:

> It doesn't really matter per capita, it's total global emmisions that need reducing, most of the countries you chose have high emmissions because they generate nearly all their electricity from gas and run desalination plants. Their actual output measured against global output is very small. Do you really think Qatar is causing climate change more than China or the USA? 

If it doesn't matter per capita, I suppose a little country like the UK can just do nothing, after all, according to your link China, India and USA combined seem to produce more carbon than the entire rest of the world.

Edit: Sorry, bit glib. What I mean is that if climate change is to be curbed, individuals need to alter their behaviour even more than governments (you made the same point earlier discussing your brother). Countries like Qatar are trying to sustain population levels completely at odds with where they're located. Unless someone cracks cold fusion, this is wildly unsustainable.

Post edited at 12:59
1
wbo2 15 Sep 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:as we're discussing war how do we feel about selling bombs to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen?

Post edited at 13:04
summo 15 Sep 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

No the UK and the west should do something. We should take responsibility for our own emmission regardless of which country generates them on our behalf and help enable emerging countries skip their most polluting years. Many in China or India aspire to have our western lifestyle, the goal should be that things like their first car is electric, not a massive diesel. 

summo 15 Sep 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> If it doesn't matter per capita, I suppose a little country like the UK can just do nothing, after all, according to your link China, India and USA combined seem to produce more carbon than the entire rest of the world.

> Countries like Qatar are trying to sustain population levels completely at odds with where they're located. 

The UK is trying to sustain a population with a high end lifestyle, despite not having sufficient natural resources. 

Same thing? 

Stichtplate 15 Sep 2019
In reply to summo:

> The UK is trying to sustain a population with a high end lifestyle, despite not having sufficient natural resources. 

> Same thing? 

According to wiki, Uk is ranked at number 43 in carbon emitters per capita. Pretty good considering how densely populated and industrialised we are. I don't think we're deficient in natural resources either, we have some of the worlds most productive agricultural land, no issues with fresh water and huge potential for wind and hydro power. Still plenty of potential oil, coal and shale gas reserves too, but perhaps not the sort of reserves we should be exploiting.

Tom V 15 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

I'm unaware of this trend. Could you reference me some examples?

Jim Fraser 15 Sep 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

In the period 1914-18, and a further period of learning reinforcement 1939-45, the people of the United States of America learned that they could make a sh1t-load of money out of wars. The world is still paying the price for that learning outcome. 

Unfortunately, what they are too thick to realise is that even though private enterprise in victorious nations appears to make ridiculous profits from war it is actually an illusion. The loss to world GDP through economic destruction of warring nations has an effect everywhere. Peaceful economic development of the widest possible nature produces huge numbers of prosperous potential customers.

Look at the current situation with the EU. The Americans want to destroy it because it threatens the status of the Dollar and their domination of some markets. The Russians want to destroy it because it stands in the way of them re-establishing a wide European sphere of influence. The truth is that the EU and other European institutions are Russia's only hope of becoming a properly democratic and civilised prosperous country. If the Americans allow their market to be influenced by rising European standards then they gain hundreds of millions of prosperous customers, the value of their products increases and their margins can rise. 

And hot off the presses, AfCFTA, the African Continental Free Trade Agreement. Africa has maybe only a quarter of the internal trade of Europe or Asia. I think it's all but one of all the members of the African Union have signed up to this project which; wait for it; aims to create a single market, followed by free movement and a currency union. Sounds vaguely familiar. 

baron 15 Sep 2019
In reply to Tom V:

> I'm unaware of this trend. Could you reference me some examples?

To be burgled = burglarised 

To win a medal = medaling

To turn a noun into a verb = verbing

Just three off the top of my head.

Andy Hardy 15 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

To be carried from a football pitch on a stretcher = "stretchered off" 

baron 15 Sep 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> To be carried from a football pitch on a stretcher = "stretchered off" 

Apparently there’s a long history of nouns being turned into verbs stretching back hundreds of years.

I had perceived this as being a recent thing but maybe I’ve just noticed it more.

But I am never, ever, ever accepting ‘impacted’ unless it means being hit by a meteor!

Post edited at 22:18
Tom V 15 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

Thanks for the references.

Bob Kemp 15 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

Having an impacted wisdom tooth is a bit like being hit by a meteor... you will have no choice but to accept it!

baron 15 Sep 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Having an impacted wisdom tooth is a bit like being hit by a meteor... you will have no choice but to accept it!

OK, that’s two acceptable uses of impacted.  😀

Bob Kemp 15 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

There are some very old verbifications - I don't know how old 'shouldering the blame' is, but it must go back a bit. 

Post edited at 22:40
Bob Kemp 15 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

In fact when I think about it some of them must be archaic - 'rain', 'thunder' etc..

baron 15 Sep 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> There are some very old verbifications - I don't know how old 'shouldering the blame' is, but it must go back a bit. 

I love how the English language develops and there’s nothing better than listening to someone who has a deep understanding of the language and how to use it.

I just feel that there is a growing tendency to use language in a lazy manner and to try and shorten everything, maybe as a result of the media that we use, so that committing genocide becomes genociding, etc, etc.

I realise that I’ve probably verbed a few nouns in this post.

Pete Pozman 15 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

Impacted is OK when describing a tooth as impacted. 

Pete Pozman 15 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

A lot of these new usages aren't actually shorter. Eg "how has this impacted on you?" versus "how has this affected you". It's just fashion and it's always been there. 

Andy Clarke 16 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> I just feel that there is a growing tendency to use language in a lazy manner and to try and shorten everything, maybe as a result of the media that we use, so that committing genocide becomes genociding, etc, etc.

In the context of language development genocide is a very recent coinage, so it's no surprise that its usage is developing pretty rapidly. 

baron 16 Sep 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> A lot of these new usages aren't actually shorter. Eg "how has this impacted on you?" versus "how has this affected you". It's just fashion and it's always been there. 

It has certainly become fashionable but for some reason it just annoys me.

baron 16 Sep 2019
In reply to Andy Clarke:

> In the context of language development genocide is a very recent coinage, so it's no surprise that its usage is developing pretty rapidly. 

Do you think that there are any nouns that shouldn’t be turned into verbs?

Genociding just sounded wrong to me but I certainly take your point about it developing as a newish word. 

Andy Clarke 16 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Do you think that there are any nouns that shouldn’t be turned into verbs?

I think usage will always develop in ways one can't predict: that's the beauty of language change - but it also means getting too attached to one's own notions of decorum is only likely to end in disappointment. Personally, I just enjoy sitting back and watching the surprising twists and turns words can take. (Of course, I took a different view of correctness when teaching kids how to pass GCSE and A -level!)

baron 16 Sep 2019
In reply to Andy Clarke:

Yes, maybe I should just take a more relaxed approach.

Pete Pozman 19 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> It has certainly become fashionable but for some reason it just annoys me.

Me too. 

Pete Pozman 19 Sep 2019
In reply to Dax H:

> I find this comment particularly offensive to the countless brave men and women from around the world who gave their lives during the war. 

> Was it worth it, I suppose that depends on your point of view, if you are 6 foot plus with blond hair and blue eyes and a superiority complex you might not think it's worth it

Nazis, these days, tend to be big fat gets or snivelling "Incels" looking for a way to feel superior to something. 


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.