On 4/25/2017 11:25 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/04/17 11:00, bert wrote:
In article ,
newshound writes
On 4/23/2017 8:09 PM, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/04/2017 13:53, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I also admire politicians who have genuine principles, for standing
up for what they believe in, and not bowing down to party and career
progression. There aren't anywhere near enough of them. People like
Corbyn, Blair, Tony Benn, Hilary Benn, Heseltine, Tebbit, Thatcher,
etc. That doesn't mean I support their views - I don't think anyone
could support all the above, but I respect them for being genuine
to their own beliefs.
Not sure how Blair got into that list... He always seemed incapable
of having an opinion until a focus group told him which one to have!

The Blair principle was that, unless you can actually get an elected
government, you really can't make significant changes to policy. And
it has to be said that the Blair governments put much-needed money
into the NHS.

Typical Labour. If you see a problem throw money at it.

Throw *someone elses* money at it.
And make sures your chums are there to catch it.

Yeah, those unprincipled money-grabbing nurses did alright out of it.

In article ,
newshound wrote:
On 4/25/2017 11:25 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/04/17 11:00, bert wrote:
In article ,
newshound writes
On 4/23/2017 8:09 PM, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/04/2017 13:53, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I also admire politicians who have genuine principles, for standing
up for what they believe in, and not bowing down to party and career
progression. There aren't anywhere near enough of them. People like
Corbyn, Blair, Tony Benn, Hilary Benn, Heseltine, Tebbit, Thatcher,
etc. That doesn't mean I support their views - I don't think anyone
could support all the above, but I respect them for being genuine
to their own beliefs.
Not sure how Blair got into that list... He always seemed incapable
of having an opinion until a focus group told him which one to have!

The Blair principle was that, unless you can actually get an elected
government, you really can't make significant changes to policy. And
it has to be said that the Blair governments put much-needed money
into the NHS.

Typical Labour. If you see a problem throw money at it.

Throw *someone elses* money at it.
And make sures your chums are there to catch it.

Yeah, those unprincipled money-grabbing nurses did alright out of it.

That would never do. After all, the real purpose of taxpayer's money is to
make profits for big business. Like May is doing by privatizing bits of
the NHS. If there is any left over after paying for the renovations of the
Rees-Mogg family home, of course.

--
*If a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 25/04/17 21:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"critcher" wrote in message
news
On 25/04/2017 10:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"TimW" wrote in message
news On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote:
[snipped Harry]
Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this
morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn:


Talk about flawed?

How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not
having Nuclear Weapons? I think none.

In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race

Not even possible.

oh it is extremely possible,

Nope.

take away supermarkets and shops from us and most would be ****ed,

Most isnt all.

destroy the supply chains and god help society in advanced countries
like ours.

Plenty survived those getting ****ed over at the end of WW2
in the losing countrys. Sure, lots starved to death in Japan etc
but nothing even remotely like everyone died there.

Didnt happen in the worst famines where some even
resorted to eating their kids, quite literally. Usually
swapping kids so you didnt have to eat your own.

a better result than the destruction of some of them?

That didnt even happen with the Japs.


The domesday scenario normally associated with nuclear war is a nuclear
winter which would bring about mass extinctions of all kinds of animals,
probs us included.
TW

On 26/04/17 16:46, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/17 21:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"critcher" wrote in message
news
On 25/04/2017 10:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"TimW" wrote in message
news On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote:
[snipped Harry]
Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this
morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn:


Talk about flawed?

How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not
having Nuclear Weapons? I think none.

In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race

Not even possible.

oh it is extremely possible,

Nope.

take away supermarkets and shops from us and most would be ****ed,

Most isnt all.

destroy the supply chains and god help society in advanced countries
like ours.

Plenty survived those getting ****ed over at the end of WW2
in the losing countrys. Sure, lots starved to death in Japan etc
but nothing even remotely like everyone died there.

Didnt happen in the worst famines where some even
resorted to eating their kids, quite literally. Usually
swapping kids so you didnt have to eat your own.

a better result than the destruction of some of them?

That didnt even happen with the Japs.


The domesday scenario normally associated with nuclear war is a nuclear
winter which would bring about mass extinctions of all kinds of animals,
probs us included.

Except that a 'nuclear winter' cant really happen. Its more hollywood tosh.

TW


--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 25/04/17 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[...]

Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the
population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style
to which they wish to become accustomed.

The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed.
Without too much destruction of property

Nuclear weapons are not very good at that.


Utter ****. There are figures. I can't be bothered to look up the actual
estimates but something like this:

Napoleonic Wars, casualties:
95% soldiers/combatants 5% civilians, women, children
WW1
85% combatants 15% civilians
WW2
60% combatants 40% civilians
Late 20th Century Wars
20% combatants 80% civilians
Now, Iraq, Syria: casualties
5% combatants 95% civilians, women,children.

So modern warfare has become the high tech slaughter of innocent people.
That isn't just what ISIS do, it's what the British Army do too, and the
USA are very good at it. Civilian killing.

So the trick is to kill everybody foreign, keep your own military safely
out of harms way so casualties are way down in small numbers, and still
claim your brave lads are doing a fine thing for their country.

Drones, Cruise missiles etc are very good for that.

TW

On 26/04/17 17:04, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/17 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[...]

Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the
population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style
to which they wish to become accustomed.

The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed.
Without too much destruction of property

Nuclear weapons are not very good at that.


Utter ****. There are figures. I can't be bothered to look up the actual
estimates


But of course they are nothing like this at all.


but something like this:

Napoleonic Wars, casualties:
95% soldiers/combatants 5% civilians, women, children
WW1
85% combatants 15% civilians
WW2
60% combatants 40% civilians
Late 20th Century Wars
20% combatants 80% civilians
Now, Iraq, Syria: casualties
5% combatants 95% civilians, women,children.

So modern warfare has become the high tech slaughter of innocent people.
That isn't just what ISIS do, it's what the British Army do too, and the
USA are very good at it. Civilian killing.

So the trick is to kill everybody foreign, keep your own military safely
out of harms way so casualties are way down in small numbers, and still
claim your brave lads are doing a fine thing for their country.

Drones, Cruise missiles etc are very good for that.

TW


Idle hand waving invention of data to support a handwavey hypothesis.

You are a climate scientist and I claim my £5.

Of course its so easy to claim your 'freedom fighters are actually
civilians isn't it?

Anyway the point is there are too many people in poor countries because
we cracked infant mortality, and they didn't do contraception, so they
end up in war zones dying that way instead.

Its a rough world outside Islington.



--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On 26/04/17 17:15, TimW wrote:
On 26/04/17 16:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/04/17 16:46, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/17 21:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"critcher" wrote in message
news On 25/04/2017 10:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"TimW" wrote in message
news On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote:
[snipped Harry]
Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray
this
morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn:


Talk about flawed?

How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not
having Nuclear Weapons? I think none.

In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race

Not even possible.

oh it is extremely possible,

Nope.

take away supermarkets and shops from us and most would be ****ed,

Most isnt all.

destroy the supply chains and god help society in advanced countries
like ours.

Plenty survived those getting ****ed over at the end of WW2
in the losing countrys. Sure, lots starved to death in Japan etc
but nothing even remotely like everyone died there.

Didnt happen in the worst famines where some even
resorted to eating their kids, quite literally. Usually
swapping kids so you didnt have to eat your own.

a better result than the destruction of some of them?

That didnt even happen with the Japs.


The domesday scenario normally associated with nuclear war is a nuclear
winter which would bring about mass extinctions of all kinds of animals,
probs us included.

Except that a 'nuclear winter' cant really happen. Its more hollywood
tosh.


I wouldn't know. Pretty sure you wouldn't either..

Well the first sentence is correct, but I simply researched what the
term is held to mean and what assumptions it is based upon and when you
do that any intelligent person can see its simply a scare story propped
up by a series of completely unlikely chance events occurring.

TW



--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/04/17 17:04, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/17 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[...]

Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the
population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style
to which they wish to become accustomed.

The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed.
Without too much destruction of property

Nuclear weapons are not very good at that.


Utter ****. There are figures. I can't be bothered to look up the actual
estimates


But of course they are nothing like this at all.


but something like this:

Napoleonic Wars, casualties:
95% soldiers/combatants 5% civilians, women, children
WW1
85% combatants 15% civilians
WW2
60% combatants 40% civilians
Late 20th Century Wars
20% combatants 80% civilians
Now, Iraq, Syria: casualties
5% combatants 95% civilians, women,children.

So modern warfare has become the high tech slaughter of innocent people.
That isn't just what ISIS do, it's what the British Army do too, and the
USA are very good at it. Civilian killing.

So the trick is to kill everybody foreign, keep your own military safely
out of harms way so casualties are way down in small numbers, and still
claim your brave lads are doing a fine thing for their country.

Drones, Cruise missiles etc are very good for that.

TW


Idle hand waving invention of data to support a handwavey hypothesis.

You are a climate scientist and I claim my £5.

Of course its so easy to claim your 'freedom fighters are actually
civilians isn't it?

Anyway the point is there are too many people in poor countries because
we cracked infant mortality, and they didn't do contraception, so they
end up in war zones dying that way instead.

Its a rough world outside Islington.




The present third world mess was forecast very accurately in the
Economist a few years back. People breed to exceed the capacity of the
food supply to feed them. War is the natural result.

On 26/04/17 17:56, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/04/17 17:04, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/17 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[...]

Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when
the
population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style
to which they wish to become accustomed.

The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed.
Without too much destruction of property

Nuclear weapons are not very good at that.


Utter ****. There are figures. I can't be bothered to look up the actual
estimates


But of course they are nothing like this at all.


but something like this:

Napoleonic Wars, casualties:
95% soldiers/combatants 5% civilians, women, children
WW1
85% combatants 15% civilians
WW2
60% combatants 40% civilians
Late 20th Century Wars
20% combatants 80% civilians
Now, Iraq, Syria: casualties
5% combatants 95% civilians, women,children.

So modern warfare has become the high tech slaughter of innocent people.
That isn't just what ISIS do, it's what the British Army do too, and the
USA are very good at it. Civilian killing.

So the trick is to kill everybody foreign, keep your own military safely
out of harms way so casualties are way down in small numbers, and still
claim your brave lads are doing a fine thing for their country.

Drones, Cruise missiles etc are very good for that.

TW


Idle hand waving invention of data to support a handwavey hypothesis.

You are a climate scientist and I claim my £5.

Of course its so easy to claim your 'freedom fighters are actually
civilians isn't it?

Anyway the point is there are too many people in poor countries because
we cracked infant mortality, and they didn't do contraception, so they
end up in war zones dying that way instead.

Its a rough world outside Islington.




The present third world mess was forecast very accurately in the
Economist a few years back. People breed to exceed the capacity of the
food supply to feed them. War is the natural result.

Exactly. However the snowflakes cant handle the idea, so we have to go
around being 'shocked'

If you want to stop war and carbon emissions, don't have kids.



--
Theres a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

On 26/04/2017 17:04, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/17 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[...]

Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the
population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style
to which they wish to become accustomed.

The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed.
Without too much destruction of property

Nuclear weapons are not very good at that.


Utter ****. There are figures. I can't be bothered to look up the actual
estimates but something like this:

Napoleonic Wars, casualties:
95% soldiers/combatants 5% civilians, women, children
WW1
85% combatants 15% civilians
WW2
60% combatants 40% civilians
Late 20th Century Wars
20% combatants 80% civilians
Now, Iraq, Syria: casualties
5% combatants 95% civilians, women,children.

So modern warfare has become the high tech slaughter of innocent people.
That isn't just what ISIS do, it's what the British Army do too, and the
USA are very good at it. Civilian killing.

So the trick is to kill everybody foreign, keep your own military safely
out of harms way so casualties are way down in small numbers, and still
claim your brave lads are doing a fine thing for their country.

Drones, Cruise missiles etc are very good for that.

What's your guess at the figures for the Falklands war?

On 26/04/2017 17:56, Capitol wrote:

The present third world mess was forecast very accurately in the
Economist a few years back. People breed to exceed the capacity of the
food supply to feed them. War is the natural result.


Its war that disrupts the food supply and causes the starvation.
Britain nearly starved because of WW2 many in germany did.

The wars in Africa aren't over food but power. If they were over food
the UN would be able to deliver the famine relief.

But the truth doesn't fit crapitall beliefs.

On 26/04/17 17:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Anyway the point is there are too many people in poor countries because
we cracked infant mortality, and they didn't do contraception, so they
end up in war zones dying that way instead.


That was not your point at all. You have just made a new point because
you can see that the old one was ********, lol!

Tim W

On 26/04/17 18:56, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/04/17 17:15, TimW wrote:
On 26/04/17 16:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Except that a 'nuclear winter' cant really happen. Its more hollywood
tosh.

I wouldn't know. Pretty sure you wouldn't either..

Well the first sentence is correct, but I simply researched what the
term is held to mean and what assumptions it is based upon and when
you do that any intelligent person can see its simply a scare story
propped up by a series of completely unlikely chance events occurring.

Bit like the China Syndrome. More Hollywood cock. Surprising numbers of
twerps believed it though.

It has slightly more possibility.

But not much.

Obviously serious volcanic eruptions like pinatubo and krakatoa made a
difference for a year or two.

But it would taker a lot to duplicate them in terms of ash volumes. Let
alone exceed them by orders of magnitude.




--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On 26/04/17 19:19, TimW wrote:
On 26/04/17 17:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Anyway the point is there are too many people in poor countries because
we cracked infant mortality, and they didn't do contraception, so they
end up in war zones dying that way instead.


That was not your point at all. You have just made a new point because
you can see that the old one was ********, lol!

Tim W

Its a mistake to look in the mirror and think you see other people there
Tim.


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 25/04/2017 20:50, Richard wrote:
"critcher" wrote in message news

On 25/04/2017 20:01, Richard wrote:
[snip]



You are the one whining about austerity, so it must be impacting you
somehow.
Are you saying that you are a lazy **** sponging off the company you
work for?
BTW, it would help if you could construct sentences which are less than
a page in length.

poor you, no I care!

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...

On 26/04/2017 17:04, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/17 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[...]

Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the
population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style
to which they wish to become accustomed.

The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed.
Without too much destruction of property

Nuclear weapons are not very good at that.


Utter ****. There are figures. I can't be bothered to look up the actual
estimates but something like this:

Napoleonic Wars, casualties:
95% soldiers/combatants 5% civilians, women, children
WW1
85% combatants 15% civilians
WW2
60% combatants 40% civilians
Late 20th Century Wars
20% combatants 80% civilians
Now, Iraq, Syria: casualties
5% combatants 95% civilians, women,children.

So modern warfare has become the high tech slaughter of innocent people.
That isn't just what ISIS do, it's what the British Army do too, and the
USA are very good at it. Civilian killing.

So the trick is to kill everybody foreign, keep your own military safely
out of harms way so casualties are way down in small numbers, and still
claim your brave lads are doing a fine thing for their country.

Drones, Cruise missiles etc are very good for that.

What's your guess at the figures for the Falklands war?

3.5 million refugees from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

On 26/04/2017 18:56, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/04/17 17:15, TimW wrote:
On 26/04/17 16:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Except that a 'nuclear winter' cant really happen. Its more hollywood
tosh.

I wouldn't know. Pretty sure you wouldn't either..

Well the first sentence is correct, but I simply researched what the
term is held to mean and what assumptions it is based upon and when
you do that any intelligent person can see its simply a scare story
propped up by a series of completely unlikely chance events occurring.

Bit like the China Syndrome. More Hollywood cock. Surprising numbers of
twerps believed it though.


Its a shame its not true, letting the core melt its way into the core
would be an easy disposal method.

"TimW" wrote in message
news
On 25/04/17 21:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"critcher" wrote in message
news
On 25/04/2017 10:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"TimW" wrote in message
news On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote:
[snipped Harry]
Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this
morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn:


Talk about flawed?

How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not
having Nuclear Weapons? I think none.

In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race

Not even possible.

oh it is extremely possible,

Nope.

take away supermarkets and shops from us and most would be ****ed,

Most isnt all.

destroy the supply chains and god help society in advanced countries
like ours.

Plenty survived those getting ****ed over at the end of WW2
in the losing countrys. Sure, lots starved to death in Japan etc
but nothing even remotely like everyone died there.

Didnt happen in the worst famines where some even
resorted to eating their kids, quite literally. Usually
swapping kids so you didnt have to eat your own.

a better result than the destruction of some of them?

That didnt even happen with the Japs.

The domesday scenario normally associated with nuclear war is a nuclear
winter

Not gunna happen, you watch.

which would bring about mass extinctions of all kinds of animals,

Like hell it would. Even the major events produced by the
most spectacular volcano eruptions that affected the
climate for years didnt do anything even remotely like that.

probs us included.

Not a chance. Humans can survive anything climate wise.

We survived the ice ages fine.

TimW wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the
population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style
to which they wish to become accustomed.

Even sillier than he usually manages.

The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed. Without too much
destruction of property

Not even possible.

Nuclear weapons are not very good at that.

Even sillier with neutron bombs alone.

Utter ****.

Yes.

There are figures. I can't be bothered to look up the actual estimates but
something like this:

Napoleonic Wars, casualties:
95% soldiers/combatants 5% civilians, women, children
WW1
85% combatants 15% civilians

And the right males to keep the population
under control certainly didnt get killed.

WW2 60% combatants 40% civilians

And the boomers that turned up after that
proves that the turnips line is just plain silly.

Late 20th Century Wars
20% combatants 80% civilians

Thats not true of some of them like the Gulf War that was
in fact much more like 90% combatants, 10% civilians.

Now, Iraq, Syria: casualties
5% combatants 95% civilians, women,children.

So modern warfare has become the high tech slaughter of innocent people.

The Gulf War wasnt and its the only real modern full scale war.

That isn't just what ISIS do, it's what the British Army do too, and the
USA are very good at it. Civilian killing.

Thats a lie with the Gulf War and Iraq alone,
and now Syria. And previous in Bosnia etc too.

So the trick is to kill everybody foreign,

Britain and the US dont do that.

keep your own military safely out of harms way so casualties are way down
in small numbers,

Yes, because the voters will no longer accept the
sort of casualtys that were seen in WW2 or even
what was seen with the colonisation of India etc.

and still claim your brave lads are doing a fine thing for their country.

In some cases they did, most obviously with Bosnia.

Drones, Cruise missiles etc are very good for that.

Yes, but they dont deliberately kill civilians
and are a hell of a lot more effective than
the sort of firestorm bombing used in WW2.

Corse its very arguable that the west should have
ever got involved in Iraq or even attempted to
have a military presence in Afghanistan, but it
is pretty clear that Bosnia would have been a
hell of a lot worse outcome for them if the west
hadn't eventually decided that enough was enough.

And Syria may well be turning into
that now with the use of Sarin by Assad.

Are you seriously claiming that he should be
allowed to do anything he likes in that regard ?

"TimW" wrote in message
news
On 26/04/17 16:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/04/17 16:46, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/17 21:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"critcher" wrote in message
news On 25/04/2017 10:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"TimW" wrote in message
news On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote:
[snipped Harry]
Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray
this
morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn:


Talk about flawed?

How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not
having Nuclear Weapons? I think none.

In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race

Not even possible.

oh it is extremely possible,

Nope.

take away supermarkets and shops from us and most would be ****ed,

Most isnt all.

destroy the supply chains and god help society in advanced countries
like ours.

Plenty survived those getting ****ed over at the end of WW2
in the losing countrys. Sure, lots starved to death in Japan etc
but nothing even remotely like everyone died there.

Didnt happen in the worst famines where some even
resorted to eating their kids, quite literally. Usually
swapping kids so you didnt have to eat your own.

a better result than the destruction of some of them?

That didnt even happen with the Japs.


The domesday scenario normally associated with nuclear war is a nuclear
winter which would bring about mass extinctions of all kinds of animals,
probs us included.

Except that a 'nuclear winter' cant really happen. Its more hollywood
tosh.

I wouldn't know.

Yes.

Pretty sure you wouldn't either..

He does on that, it can't happen.

"Capitol" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/04/17 17:04, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/17 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[...]

Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when
the
population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style
to which they wish to become accustomed.

The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed.
Without too much destruction of property

Nuclear weapons are not very good at that.


Utter ****. There are figures. I can't be bothered to look up the actual
estimates


But of course they are nothing like this at all.


but something like this:

Napoleonic Wars, casualties:
95% soldiers/combatants 5% civilians, women, children
WW1
85% combatants 15% civilians
WW2
60% combatants 40% civilians
Late 20th Century Wars
20% combatants 80% civilians
Now, Iraq, Syria: casualties
5% combatants 95% civilians, women,children.

So modern warfare has become the high tech slaughter of innocent people.
That isn't just what ISIS do, it's what the British Army do too, and the
USA are very good at it. Civilian killing.

So the trick is to kill everybody foreign, keep your own military safely
out of harms way so casualties are way down in small numbers, and still
claim your brave lads are doing a fine thing for their country.

Drones, Cruise missiles etc are very good for that.

TW


Idle hand waving invention of data to support a handwavey hypothesis.

You are a climate scientist and I claim my £5.

Of course its so easy to claim your 'freedom fighters are actually
civilians isn't it?

Anyway the point is there are too many people in poor countries because
we cracked infant mortality, and they didn't do contraception, so they
end up in war zones dying that way instead.

Its a rough world outside Islington.

The present third world mess was forecast very accurately in the Economist
a few years back.

Nope.

People breed to exceed the capacity of the food supply to feed them.

Not anymore, not even in China or India anymore.

War is the natural result.

How odd that the current war is in Syria which has one
of the lower breeding rates and has no problem feeding
everyone when there isnt a full scale civil war going on.

In spades with Bosnia which actually has a lower birth rate than Britain.

Nice theory, pity about the real world.

dennis@home wrote
Capitol wrote

The present third world mess was forecast very accurately in the
Economist a few years back. People breed to exceed the capacity
of the food supply to feed them. War is the natural result.

Its war that disrupts the food supply and causes the starvation.

Yes, quite a bit of the time.

Britain nearly starved because of WW2

Nope. Britain actually did rather better in WW2 than it
did just before that, essentially because they ate a lot
more home grown veg than they did just before the war.

many in germany did.

Not many at all did actually. Lots in Japan
did tho, particularly after the war had ended.

The wars in Africa aren't over food but power.

In fact **** all wars are about food.

If they were over food the UN would
be able to deliver the famine relief.

Not always. They pulled out of ethiopia etc because
it was too dangerous to provide famine relief there.

But the truth doesn't fit crapitall beliefs.

Yeah, that line at the top is completely silly
with Bosnia alone which actually has a birth
rate significantly lower than Britain has.

Othere has been no austerity,
that's why the borrowing is so high.
If you want to see austerity take a look at Greece.

Greece doesn't have austerity, it has a currency problem. (and a tax
gathering nightmare!)

http://www.france24.com/en/20110629-...mf-eu-bailout/

..

The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed.
Without too much destruction of property

Nuclear weapons are not very good at that.


Islamonuts would use them.

On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 20:04:48 UTC+1, critcher wrote:
On 25/04/2017 13:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/04/17 13:31, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/04/2017 11:06, bert wrote:
In article , John
Rumm writes
On 24/04/2017 19:33, critcher wrote:
On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote:


Warm fuzzy feelings butter no parsnips...
Labour is all about anti-management: Never having run anything that had
to survive without someone else's money being nicked, they have no idea
how to bake a bigger cake, only how to steal slices of someone else's.

From the average labour supporters worldview, anyone with more than
them cant be entitled to keep it. Self legalising robbers.


don't be so stupid, socialism is about sharing responsibilities both to the firm and the workforce but most of you right wingers never seem to believe that this is possible.

Socialism always fails where ever implemented.
Just as soon as they run out of money.
Too busy sharing out the pie to do any baking.

On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 20:20:01 UTC+1, critcher wrote:
On 25/04/2017 20:11, Richard wrote:
"critcher" wrote in message news

On 25/04/2017 13:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/04/17 13:31, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/04/2017 11:06, bert wrote:
In article , John
Rumm writes
On 24/04/2017 19:33, critcher wrote:
On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote:


Warm fuzzy feelings butter no parsnips...
Labour is all about anti-management: Never having run anything that
had to survive without someone else's money being nicked, they have
no idea how to bake a bigger cake, only how to steal slices of
someone else's.

From the average labour supporters worldview, anyone with more than
them cant be entitled to keep it. Self legalising robbers.


don't be so stupid, socialism is about sharing responsibilities both
to the firm and the workforce but most of you right wingers never seem
to believe that this is possible.

You are absolutely stupid. Have you ever lived in a socialist country?

no mores the pity and I think you would have difficulty finding one to
live in,

How about Venezuela?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ion-state.html

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 20:04:48 UTC+1, critcher wrote:
On 25/04/2017 13:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/04/17 13:31, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/04/2017 11:06, bert wrote:
In article , John
Rumm writes
On 24/04/2017 19:33, critcher wrote:
On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote:


Warm fuzzy feelings butter no parsnips...
Labour is all about anti-management: Never having run anything that had
to survive without someone else's money being nicked, they have no idea
how to bake a bigger cake, only how to steal slices of someone else's.

From the average labour supporters worldview, anyone with more than
them cant be entitled to keep it. Self legalising robbers.


don't be so stupid, socialism is about sharing responsibilities both to
the firm and the workforce but most of you right wingers never seem to
believe that this is possible.

Socialism always fails where ever implemented.

How odd that Norway didnt.

Just as soon as they run out of money.

No country ever does.

Too busy sharing out the pie to do any baking.

Even sillier than you usually manage with Norway.

On 25/04/17 01:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/04/17 19:25, critcher wrote:
[...]


And toryism is the answer, is it ****.

I never said it was.

However using the free market itself to regulate prices, and sensible
laissez faire approaches to capitalism with only minimal regulation to
prevent the worst excesses is about as good as it gets.

Its called Libertarian conservatism.

No party espouses it.


From which we learn that TNP harbours a fantasy of an ideal society as
as unreal and unattainable as ever dreamed up by any utopian.

One in which we all treat each other nicely and don't need a government
to prevent laissez faire capitalism degenerating into gangsterism,
ice-cream wars and protected monopolies, something like the middle ages
with firearms, all city states, private armies, walls, tolls, tarriffs,
families and feudal classes. God help us.

TW

On 27/04/17 11:23, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/17 01:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/04/17 19:25, critcher wrote:
[...]


And toryism is the answer, is it ****.

I never said it was.

However using the free market itself to regulate prices, and sensible
laissez faire approaches to capitalism with only minimal regulation to
prevent the worst excesses is about as good as it gets.

Its called Libertarian conservatism.

No party espouses it.


From which we learn that TNP harbours a fantasy of an ideal society as
as unreal and unattainable as ever dreamed up by any utopian.

One in which we all treat each other nicely and don't need a government
to prevent laissez faire capitalism degenerating into gangsterism,
ice-cream wars and protected monopolies, something like the middle ages
with firearms, all city states, private armies, walls, tolls, tarriffs,
families and feudal classes. God help us.


Well there ya go.

A government employee speaks out in defence of government as employer.

NO **** sherlock.




TW



--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

On 27/04/17 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/17 11:23, TimW wrote:
[...]

Well there ya go.

A government employee speaks out in defence of government as employer.

NO **** sherlock.


Which is just a reminder that TNP will say any old ****. He doesn't care
if it's true or not, he doesn't even know if it's true or not.

TW

On 27/04/17 12:11, TimW wrote:
On 27/04/17 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/17 11:23, TimW wrote:
[...]

Well there ya go.

A government employee speaks out in defence of government as employer.

NO **** sherlock.


Which is just a reminder that TNP will say any old ****. He doesn't care
if it's true or not, he doesn't even know if it's true or not.

You are confusing me with a socialist.

TW



--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On 27/04/17 12:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/17 12:11, TimW wrote:
On 27/04/17 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/17 11:23, TimW wrote:
[...]

Well there ya go.

A government employee speaks out in defence of government as employer.

NO **** sherlock.


Which is just a reminder that TNP will say any old ****. He doesn't care
if it's true or not, he doesn't even know if it's true or not.

You are confusing me with a socialist.

Just very surprised to be given a job by the government.

In article , TimW
writes
On 27/04/17 12:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/17 12:11, TimW wrote:
On 27/04/17 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/17 11:23, TimW wrote:
[...]

Well there ya go.

A government employee speaks out in defence of government as employer.

NO **** sherlock.


Which is just a reminder that TNP will say any old ****. He doesn't care
if it's true or not, he doesn't even know if it's true or not.

You are confusing me with a socialist.

Just very surprised to be given a job by the government.

Well I wouldn't have given you one.
--
bert

On 27/04/17 14:33, bert wrote:
In article , TimW writes
On 27/04/17 12:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/17 12:11, TimW wrote:
On 27/04/17 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

A government employee speaks out in defence of government as employer.

Which is just a reminder that TNP will say any old ****.

You are confusing me with a socialist.

Just very surprised to be given a job by the government.

Well I wouldn't have given you one.

Neither would I

In article , TimW
writes
On 27/04/17 14:33, bert wrote:
In article , TimW writes
On 27/04/17 12:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/17 12:11, TimW wrote:
On 27/04/17 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

A government employee speaks out in defence of government as employer.

Which is just a reminder that TNP will say any old ****.

You are confusing me with a socialist.

Just very surprised to be given a job by the government.

Well I wouldn't have given you one.

Neither would I
What, give yourself a job?
--
bert

On 27/04/17 15:11, bert wrote:
In article , TimW writes
On 27/04/17 14:33, bert wrote:
In article , TimW
writes
On 27/04/17 12:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/17 12:11, TimW wrote:
On 27/04/17 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

A government employee speaks out in defence of government as
employer.

Which is just a reminder that TNP will say any old ****.

You are confusing me with a socialist.

Just very surprised to be given a job by the government.

Well I wouldn't have given you one.

Neither would I
What, give yourself a job?
Yes.

On 27/04/17 15:11, bert wrote:
In article , TimW writes
On 27/04/17 14:33, bert wrote:
In article , TimW
writes
On 27/04/17 12:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/04/17 12:11, TimW wrote:
On 27/04/17 11:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

A government employee speaks out in defence of government as
employer.

Which is just a reminder that TNP will say any old ****.

You are confusing me with a socialist.

Just very surprised to be given a job by the government.

Well I wouldn't have given you one.

Neither would I
What, give yourself a job?
I took it as a candid admission of incompetence as well...

--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 17:04:32 UTC+1, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/17 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[...]

Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the
population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style
to which they wish to become accustomed.

The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed.
Without too much destruction of property

Nuclear weapons are not very good at that.


Utter ****. There are figures. I can't be bothered to look up the actual
estimates but something like this:

These figures tend to forget that a lot of people who died as were civilians before the war(s) started.
You now need a lot less civilians to sign up to be killed as soldiers/combatants.



Napoleonic Wars, casualties:
95% soldiers/combatants 5% civilians, women, children
WW1
85% combatants 15% civilians
WW2
60% combatants 40% civilians
Late 20th Century Wars
20% combatants 80% civilians
Now, Iraq, Syria: casualties
5% combatants 95% civilians, women,children.

So modern warfare has become the high tech slaughter of innocent people.
That isn't just what ISIS do, it's what the British Army do too, and the
USA are very good at it. Civilian killing.

So the trick is to kill everybody foreign, keep your own military safely
out of harms way so casualties are way down in small numbers, and still
claim your brave lads are doing a fine thing for their country.

Drones, Cruise missiles etc are very good for that.

TW