DZJ

The article itself undermines your point: Long-term migration into the UK, meanwhile, was 574,000. The figures show the UK population grew to 60,587,000 - an increase of 349,000. Plainly things aren't so bad after all. (And we're all still amused by your comic inability to differentiate England and the UK)

I don't see how the substance of that oath is much different from making kids swear allegiance to the flag of the United States, and the Constitution for which it stands. On that basis, every person educated in the public system (Q. - are private schools obliged to have their students pledge allegiance?) has already sworn their loyalty. Why then deny them the vote?

[raspy breath]I find your lack of faith disturbing...[raspy breath]

like fuck there is. Don't pretend to play nice now. And do actually try to work with specific details? It's a lot easier to play this game when you don't, of course. Sorry (and don't take this the wrong way) but I really don't follow you. What game are talking about? And what specific details would you like? I have made my meaning clear, and justified my use of words. I don't see any point arguing this one any further. What would you suggest is comforting to the dead? Cliches and caricatured history? And at any rate, the changes I referred to can be seen long before the end of the war and merely reached full maturity by the final months. More to the point, those changes (new equipment, tactics, technology etc) were introduced with the aim of reducing losses and so saving lives Soldiers, I would argue, were valuable then as well, but the nature of the war they were fighting inevitably led to high casualties - and the development of many different ways to reduce such casualties. The fact that societies and militaries tolerated such losses doesn't mean they weren't keenly felt.

Out of interest, how far did that one get? I had a click around a bit through the link you posted, but got a bit lost in the Congress-speak.

My apologies if my meaning has not been clear, but my use of 'cliche' is perfectly accurate. Three definitions from dictionary.com (I prefer the OED, but it's definition is very similar) I hoped it would be reasonably clear that I was referring to your characterisation of the First World War as a cliche, which it unquestionably is. Stories of idiotic generals and human waves are overused stereotypes and fit the definition of cliche perfectly. This thread is about public attitudes to war and comparisons between then and now. We can do better than lazy, stereotyped history in the same way that discourse on Iraq is not helped by attempts to see the situation in black and white or as a struggle of good and evil. I hoped to dispel some of the myths that abound about the First World War and perhaps encourage a nuanced view. If you want examples of how the First World War differed from your position, many senior officers were professional and intelligent and successfully integrated many spectacularly radical technologies and created a new way of waging war. By the end of the war tactics had developed far beyond any description of human waves thrown against machine guns. And you know, there's really no need to be aggressive.

Sorry, but that's a severely outdated cliche. It can't be outdated; it's about an event that happened 90 years ago. You can try to argue it's inaccurate - be my guest. But cliche would also then be a poor choice of word on your part. 'Cliché' doesn't refer to the events, it refers to obsolete view of history that you repeated. It's simply wrong. This isn't meant as a academic, intellectual point - quite the reverse. We dishonour the dead by (sometimes grossly) mischaracterising the war they fought. Their memory demands a nuanced approach.

Sorry, but that's a severely outdated cliche.

Having never been burgled (or personally experienced any other sort of crime, for that matter - who'd have thought it! In crime-ridden Britain as well!) I wouldn't know....but apparently the American method for dealing with violent crime is to quietly ignore it while trawling for crime stories from provincial England....

Who said anything about Argentina?

Isn't an organ doner something found in the less reputable of kebab shops? Or are we talking about donor organs?

Note that he's talking about attacking AQ targets within Pakistan, not about overthrowing the Pakistani government. A subtle distinction, but an important one nonetheless. Not that I agree with him. Seconded.

As I wrote (though you apparently didn't read it) this incident is unfortunate and regrettable. Further, one would hope that the police will learn lessons from this case, and that the Met will better coordinate its activities with regional forces in future. Also, I'd rather have a system of gun regulations that occasionally go awry than have a system with almost no regulation whatsoever.

Do any of you chaps have an opinion on the BBC?

I wouldn't get your hopes up. And, to ask a hypothetical question, even if Iraq goes along the same route as Northern Ireland, which terrorists would you like to see in the Iraqi government?

What is the issue here? Police make mistakes, newspapers exaggerate facts. Unfortunate and regrettable, but looks like dog bites man to me...

While the drivers bear a degree of moral responsibility, I think translating that into legal culpability would require an unsupportably convoluted argument.

Cruise as Stauffenberg? Ahahahahahahahahahh-HAHAHH!ohohohooo!! [LOL-ing, ROFL-ing, LMAO-ing, etc] ...my God, they're serious!

Thanks, but I'm aware of the strangeness of the 'assault weapons' definition. Do you know what 'regulatory loopholes' the article was referring to?

Fair point to speak against violence, but I'd have thought that black market handguns would be a more relevant target than 'assault weapons'. What are these 'regulatory loopholes' of which the article speaks?

Ah, so a Beretta 92FS is now the standard as to whether or not firearms are legal. What a bizarre way to argue. (To apply your logic, I imagine surface-to-air guided missiles are quite hard to come across in the States, are all 'weapons' therefore illegal?) It's wonderfully entertaining watching you constantly shift the goalposts, but what does that have to do with the fact that firearms are neither illegal, nor 'vanishingly rare' in the UK?

What does that have to do with the fact that firearms are still legal? (And at any rate, you're wrong. There are a million people licensed to possess firearms in Britain. Source: The British Shooting Sports Council. http://www.nationalshootingweek.co.uk/images/stories/pdf/2007_nsw_shooting_facts.pdf)

If the goal was eliminating gun ownership, kindly explain the continuing legality of rifles, shotguns, and certain pistols in the UK.

I don't know who that bloke is, and don't have much of an opinion either way on Bush and co., but he certainly does a good line in furious, scathing rhetoric.

Makes me wonder about the rest of the justice system when the simple matter of offing the guy can't be done without cocking it up. ..