crookesey Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 But basically correct. Infact actually correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing'o'Merry Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Apart from the 27% of households with no internet access - and the 40% that don't access the internet daily. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=8 Still 60% is better than 0%. We can work on that other 40%. If we can afford 600 bn for bank bailouts, universal internet access must be easy as pie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Infact actually correct. There are a lot of added complications which I didn't bother to go into, but if you want to boil 'representative democracy' down to a single sentence, I don't think you can do a great deal better than I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Still 60% is better than 0%. We can work on that other 40%. If we can afford 600 bn for bank bailouts' date=' universal internet access must be easy as pie.[/quote'] What if someone wants to vote but doesn't want to have internet access at home? Are we to force it on people? BTW when was the last time we declared war on anybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 What if someone wants to vote but doesn't want to have internet access at home? Are we to force it on people? BTW when was the last time we declared war on anybody? That would have been during the second world war, though I don't know exactly on what date and against whom. I have heard stories - never confirmed - that the Government in 1982 wished to make an official declaration of war against Argentina but none of the civil servants at the time could remember what the procedure was. The whole concept of an official state of war between two countries is nowadays rather pointless - the UN charter simply outlaws the use of force in international relations. If you intend to disregard the charter and attack someone, you might as well just do it because a delaration of war will make no difference. Your attack is either justified or it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antifascist Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 What if someone wants to vote but doesn't want to have internet access at home? Are we to force it on people? No, but it should be made available to them. A new form of internet voting would by definition require internet access. Your remark is analogous to somebody wanting to drive but not wanting to own a car. Fine, then rent a car or borrow off a friend if you don't want to take the free car on offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 No, but it should be made available to them. A new form of internet voting would by definition require internet access. Your remark is analogous to somebody wanting to drive but not wanting to own a car. Fine, then rent a car or borrow off a friend if you don't want to take the free car on offer. It is more analogous to someone wanting to travel but not wanting to own a car, and your plan being to abolish trains and buses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arguendo Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Im going to have to agree with what cyclone posted. To me your post comes very much across as. I support this war, no vote is needed. I don't support this war, we need the vote. Let’s put it this way, a country decides to attack British soil, such as the UK, Gibraltar, Falklands even Australia, any country in which British citizens reside or the monarch is head of state, then as a country we are duty bound to take action, if that be military then so be it. If, as is happening the Libyans have an internal dispute, then what business is it of ours, why should it bother us that Iraq previous dictator fell out with US paymasters/Protectors, why should it have bothered us at the beginning when Iraq invaded Kuwait, why should we be concerned about Syria. Now if the government is so concerned about these issues, wouldn’t it be better to have a referendum, let the public vote on whether we should commit our troops, provide financial assistance. Personally I don’t see the need for a referendum, let’s just have a strict policy of no interference, let these countries go about their business unhindered, there’s also the point that not getting involved means we can’t be criticised for giving assistance, there’d be no need for marches demanding we get out of Muslim countries, being accused of killing their citizens. As I’ve said I have no interest whatsoever if other countries wish to go about annihilating each other, that is their business, just get on with it & leave us out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbirdone Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Let’s put it this way, a country decides to attack British soil, such as the UK, Gibraltar, Falklands even Australia, any country in which British citizens reside or the monarch is head of state, then as a country we are duty bound to take action, if that be military then so be it. If, as is happening the Libyans have an internal dispute, then what business is it of ours, why should it bother us that Iraq previous dictator fell out with US paymasters/Protectors, why should it have bothered us at the beginning when Iraq invaded Kuwait, why should we be concerned about Syria. Now if the government is so concerned about these issues, wouldn’t it be better to have a referendum, let the public vote on whether we should commit our troops, provide financial assistance. Personally I don’t see the need for a referendum, let’s just have a strict policy of no interference, let these countries go about their business unhindered, there’s also the point that not getting involved means we can’t be criticised for giving assistance, there’d be no need for marches demanding we get out of Muslim countries, being accused of killing their citizens. As I’ve said I have no interest whatsoever if other countries wish to go about annihilating each other, that is their business, just get on with it & leave us out of it. Well im sure when Iraq invaded Kuwait we had British citizens in the country and the same can be said for Libya. So if something kicks off, even you say we are duty bound to take action and if that is military so be it. Your 1st paragraph does contradict what you say in your 2nd paragraph. Having a strict policy of no interference, no ifs no buts is a rather simplistic view of things, the real world is far more complicated than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XXTickerXX Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Let’s put it this way, a country decides to attack British soil, such as the UK, Gibraltar, Falklands even Australia, any country in which British citizens reside or the monarch is head of state, then as a country we are duty bound to take action, if that be military then so be it. If, as is happening the Libyans have an internal dispute, then what business is it of ours, why should it bother us that Iraq previous dictator fell out with US paymasters/Protectors, why should it have bothered us at the beginning when Iraq invaded Kuwait, why should we be concerned about Syria. Now if the government is so concerned about these issues, wouldn’t it be better to have a referendum, let the public vote on whether we should commit our troops, provide financial assistance. Personally I don’t see the need for a referendum, let’s just have a strict policy of no interference, let these countries go about their business unhindered, there’s also the point that not getting involved means we can’t be criticised for giving assistance, there’d be no need for marches demanding we get out of Muslim countries, being accused of killing their citizens. As I’ve said I have no interest whatsoever if other countries wish to go about annihilating each other, that is their business, just get on with it & leave us out of it. No interference really???.So in the Kosovo war..to quote "The ethnic expulsion was accompanied by mass rape of Albanian women and numerous massacres of Albanian men, techniques which Serbs had used in the recent Bosnia War." So that's fine as long as it does`nt affect you and the others who don`t like interference.That`s like walking past someone in the street whilst they are getting raped and closing your eyes because its not you its happening to. What if china all of a sudden thinks lets invade Iran because we can have all their oil because we have none of our own.That`s fine by you because its just two foreign countries annihilating each other. Petrol prices quadruple overnight and everyone who says we should`nt interfere would be up in arms. I don't know,maybe MI5 and MI6 should give everyone a secure password for their databases for a referendum so we can all make an informed decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.