I have done and i've not come across any reason why Nexxo's question needs a new thread before you respond to it. The question is relevant to the subject of this thread so why not answer it here?
If you want, I can just delete the old thread and start a new one every time someone asks you something, if you are so incapable of bringing yourself to answer more than one question per thread (or perhaps, just incapable full stop). But for now, you may make your point in full, without fear of distraction of whatever current point this thread was supposed to be on. Enjoy.
Given that all that is happening now is quoting other users and no new content added. Could I please request that a mod close the thread to prevent it devolving even further such as the others. Much appreciated.
Anyone saw the news yesterday about all the slums in London. What a ****-HOLE that part of the UK is now!
Yes, but they are nothing in comparison to Indian slums: houses made out of cardboard, open sewers in the middle of the street, disease rife.
Yes it is a ****-hole! But really, 21st Century London turn into this mess. Churchill will be churning in his grave! India has the money to solve it's own problems but would rather spend it money on a military & space program!
I fear Britain is losing it's reputation as a prestigious country, that leads by example. The shilpa shetty thing, the london riots, and the outcry about the Indian aid. It probably makes Britan look very bad to tourists and outsiders. I'm guessing, for the Indian PM to turn round and say "keep the aid, it's a peanut for us", it must've been big news over there in India. Being spread out all over the front pages of their newspapers. How the British public are angry at the aid. We profited hugely from the colonies, and made a lot of money out of the Indian subcontinent. The 5 year aid plan is probably a drop on the ocean [or drop in the pond], in the grand scheme of things. As I said earlier, the "aid" is probably just reallocation, it could be sent to bolster Indian armed forces without upsetting the Pakistanis. It may not have been used for the aircrafts per se, but it could be used for other arms that we sell to them as well. Btw, to put things into contenxt we spent £18B in the war i nAfghanistan as of Jul 2011. Who knows what the total is to date. Maybe this is turning point where the student outgrows the master. How Brazil (former colony of Portugal) is now more well off than Portugal, and is evening assisting it through it's EU bailout problems.
FTFY India lies right next to Pakistan, which is falling to pieces. It will soon become the next fundamentalist Islamic state. We're talking an Iraq or Iran. But those states are small fry compared to Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Now, who could we give aid to in the nearby vicinity for them to spend on their military? On the west are: Iran - ; Afghanistan - we're already putting enough there; China - have quite simply masses of money, and a possible threat to the west; and India - a rich state definitely, but under the impression of aiding people in slums, we get the moral high ground and a chance of stability in the region. By plugging money into India, not only do we get business support, but a country prepared for a conflict. Doing this we can prevent an Iraq - we don't have to go into conflict with a country far away from our respective countries. I assure you Dwarfer, the last thing you want is nuclear war.
I, however, am not. /mod hat on SuicideNeil, this sort of abuse of the tagging system, and of another user, is completely unacceptable. I'm issuing an infraction for this, please do not do this again. Edit: Teelzebub, unfortunately for you, you too have added an abusive tag in the time it took me to write this message. This sort of abuse of the tagging in this forum stops now. Bans will be issued for abusers from now on. Look, guys (and girls), we don't like banning people, or issuing infractions. We don't even like having to use the colour red. But every time a user is attacked personally or flamed we're forced to do something, because the bottom line is, whether you think someone is an idiot or not, the serious subforum exists for mature and civilised debate about serious issues. We understand things can get heated, but outright verbal insults and flames are unacceptable and will result in us getting involved. I don't like taking a hard line, but behaviour which belittles or bullies any individual will not be tolerated. Keep it friendly guys, and if you feel a user is really detrimental to the forum, talk to us (really, community opinions are always welcomed), don't insult them. edit: tags removed.
Nations with nuclear weapons are still restricted to conventional warfare, I wouldn't fear an Iran with the bomb, personally. Iran has no history of aggression either, they have not invaded or attacked any country since their invasion of Greece (when Iran was called Persia) and that was 500 BC. Last time they were involved in a war was when Iraq attacked them, backed by the west, I should add. And that was self defense: you can hardly blame a country from defending itself when attacked. Edit: I do not believe Iran has a nuclear weapon, to begin with.
Barack Obama isn't a liberal; his political record demonstrates this quite clearly. Oh and before I forget:
It's not obvious to you why a state run by terrorist theocrats whose theology encourages suicide bombing as a way of getting into Heaven is a threat to everyone if it gets nukes? Really ? This again. If you cared to read the thread, you will see I have already answered this! Actually, Iran has sent hit squads to other countries, including the US in the past. Most recently, they decided that it was OKAY to try to kill top Lebanese officials !
Seriously? Sorry, but that's not true. There's no magic power stopping anyone from using their Nukes. Regardless of some signed "Conventional Warfare" agreement.
It's obvious to me if we keep provoking a government and consequently give them a reason to, they just might choose to point them our direction... in the extremely unlikely event that they do get a hold of them that is.
I wasn't aware of any signed "conventional warfare" agreement, after WWII, nations with nuclear weapons have been restricted to conventional warfare, yes. You cannot use the bomb, not in your own region, let alone against nations possessing nuclear weapons. Call it a streak of self-preservation, if you will. Edit: I'm going by the track record here, combined with common sense and that streak of self-preservation I mentioned.
