|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Diana Princess of Wales
Casebook Message Boards: Beyond Whitechapel - Other Crimes: Diana Princess of Wales
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 10:10 am |        | Hi all,
Why would Saddam Hussien's replacement give up their arsenal? Why would any nation disarm itself?
If the point is that only nations that the United States approves of should have weapons of "mass destruction" (I always wondered about this phrase - cyanide can be a weapon of mass destruction), then that is another matter.
Let us be candid and honest, my country, the United States of America, is declaring that it has the supremacy to determine who rules a country and what weapons it should have. If a country fails to meet our approval, we are pledging to destroy it.
I personally do not care whether Iraq does or does not have any kind of weapon. What I care about is whether or not they use it against the U.S. or allies.
Were it left to me, no nation would have nuclear arms, chemical or biological weapons. But I would not advocating blasting the people of all those countries to enforce my will.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 11:28 am | | Dear Rich:
"Were it left to me, no nation would have nuclear arms, chemical or biological weapons."
How would you accomplish this?
Back in 1990-1991, my father was part of the On-Site Inspection Agency, and he was sent to the Soviet Union. He was there to determine that their government was adhering to the disarmament treaty. They sent teams to our sites in kind. This was a treaty between the US and Soviet Union, nothing to do with Iraq, but the compliance inspection runs much the same as the ones conducted by the United Nations.
The United Nations has imposed all these requirements on Iraq, not the United States. Iraq did not want any teams inspecting their sites because there were more spies spying rather than compliance inspection. Iraq still does not want compliance inspection teams (and I suppose it is understandable) because of the spy activity that went on in the past.
It is my understanding that the United States government is now pushing for a resolution to the issue. In other words, the US wants the UN to make Iraq hold to their original agreement of disarmament inspection and compliance. This is not to say that the US or UN wants a country to completely disarm itself. Just submit to the compliance inspections that Iraq agreed to 11 years ago or suffer the consequences.
You may recall several years ago when India and Pakistan violated their agreements by conducting nuclear arms testing. We did not declare war on these countries, but according to policy, all exports of defense articles ceased, all export licenses were revoked and/or denied. Only humanitarian exports were allowed to India and Pakistan. It should be no surprise that since Iraq has not allowed compliance inspection of their sites, the US has done the same in response to Iraq.
Also, it should be no surprise that Iraq has no great love for the US as the spies on the inspection team came from the US in the first place. And, I should think that if Iraq is armed with nuclear weapons, the US is most likely high on their list of targets. It is small wonder that the US would want Iraq to comply with the UN's inspections.
I am not big on the politics of the issue, and I wish there was an easy way of saying "no more war, no more weapons of mass destruction". But both are here to stay. The least we can do is all try to work together to keep it to a minimum.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Timsta
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 12:59 pm | | Divia, one point:
"And, I should think that if Iraq is armed with nuclear weapons, the US is most likely high on their list of targets."
Big difference between possessing a nuclear weapon and having intercontinental delivery capability.
In fact, unless Iraq has managed to further develop the range on it's super-Scud (I forget the name of it now), I think they'd be hard pressed to punt a nuke any further than Syria or Iran.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Neal Shelden
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 03:20 pm | | How can the US and Britain not take action against Iraq while they have biological, chemical and soon to be nuclear capability? The price of doing nothing will be too great!
Now I'm gonna upset everyone by suggesting they should extend it further to other nations like Syria and Iran if that's what it takes to get rid of the threat. And after reading some of the anti-Israeli opinions, is anyone seriously a friend of Arafat and lunatic PLO. I thought they were the Arab version of the IRA!
The left wing in Britain who appear to hate the US, also seem to hate everything about their own country. Once again at the commemeration of September 11 they come out with the same old rubbish about how the US and Britain are oppressing the poor little Arabs. How come there was no comment from them about the Islamic extremists (Al Marijoun) who spent Wednesday evening celebrating 9/11 at Finsbury Park Mosque in London. Two of the men running the meeting are wanted in two countries!
It's the liberalism in Britain that really worries me and I think it's time for the West to act before it's too late. Iraq is the first stop!
As for anyone in Britain who feels there's a lot things about our history to be ashamed of, I'm afraid I don't agree! I am proud of my country and of it's history, and the US should feel as proud of theirs too!
I believe that Britain and the US have more to teach the world than we have to learn. And if taking action against those who are clearly in the wrong (despite what the lefties say) such as Iraq, Bin Laden's lot etc, then now is the time for that action.
Neal. |
Author: Howard Brown
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 04:10 pm | | | Mr.Shelden: Terrific post. May I clarify what appeared to be anti-Jewish statements that really are not ? The reason the Arabs have it in for the West( and particularly the US),is that we give 10 Million dollars a DAY to Israel. Just because the Balfour Mandate "gave" that patch of land to the Israelis in '48,doesn't mean that the Arabs agree with it. You must remember the King David Hotel incident in '48 or '49,where British folks were blown to bits by a few of Israel's 4 terrorist p.m.'s( Begin was in on this incident). You are dead on correct about liberals. Apathy by the majority allows for Zionist( not Jewish,as not all Jews are Zionists )aggression that is HIDDEN due to the overwhelming Jewish presence in media( especially here in the US). The US and the UK needed to examine their priorities a long time ago before the Islamic world got to this point of dabbling in nuclear weapons and chemical warfare. Mr.Shelden,Britain has given the world far more than it,Britain,will ever recieve back. Its contributions are incalcuable. Your friend,Howard |
Author: Howard Brown
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 04:16 pm | | | Timsta: During the Gulf War,there was a false belief that American missiles were zapping the Iraqi scud missles left and right. Thats not true. All the Iraqi's have to do is land a few in downtown Tel Aviv,and I guarantee you that the stressed out Israelis will beat everyone to the punch and nuke Baghdad. Divia: That was a very interesting post. |
Author: Timsta
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 06:05 pm | | Howard:
I think I have a pretty good grasp of the operational capabilities of the hastily-cobbled-together American ABM systems. You are of course correct in stating that they were only partially successful in their objectives.
I don't deny Iraq's capability to reach targets as distant as Tel Aviv, for example, but to the best of my knowledge their capability is not sufficient to deliver a nuclear payload at that range. Nukes at that level of technology are simply far too heavy.
I guess I ought to clarify my earlier post. When I said "they'd be hard pressed to punt a nuke any further than Syria or Iran" I meant that only those countries lie within operational range of a nuclear delivery system. Possibly Turkey too, depends how far they could get a launcher inside Iraqi Kurdistan.
I didn't mean to imply that Iran and Syria had comparable offensive technologies to Iraq. Iran probably has a nuclear payload range of around 700-900 miles, assuming they have gotten their hands on the plans for the Nodong 2 and now have some Shahab 4s in hiding somewhere. I don't know much about Syria's offensive capabilities in that respect, I'm afraid. All the theater scenarios I'm familiar with revolve around vast numbers of Syrian tanks pouring past the Golan and supported by their none-too-shabby air force. I know they have the Scud-D too, though.
Of course 'dirty bombs' are another matter entirely.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 11:05 pm | | Dear Timsta:
I know nothing of the range of Iraq's missiles, so thank you for the info.
Do you think it is possible that they have the capability and have hidden that fact from the world? Since they will not comply with the inspections, I would think that it is possible.
Dear Howard:
I hope "interesting" in a good way.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Howard Brown
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 06:21 am | | | Interesting,as in informative....HB |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 07:39 am | | Hi Howard, thank you for the tip, I think I would get that video by ordering down town
Rick
P S, Rick is easier to spell Howard,  |
Author: Timsta
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 12:01 pm | | Divia:
One thing that surprised pretty much everyone in the Gulf War was how cruddy Iraq's missile technology actually turned out to be (note: that's not to say they weren't capable of inflicting damage, as the Israelis can testify). The much-touted Al Hussein 'super-Scud' turned out to be no more than an old Russian Scud-B (that's a 1962-vintage missile, folks) with an extra fuel tank rather crudely welded in, which completely messed up the flight dynamics (hence all the breakups). Didn't do much for the accuracy either.
Now, Israel is right on the edge of the Al Hussein's range (and way beyond any accurate targeting) if equipped with a payload of about 800-900 pounds. As above, I think that any 'conventional' nuclear payload developed by Iraq would be much, much heavier than this. I'm not a defense analyst, so I am pretty much guessing here. But to give you some idea, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima weighed 10,000 pounds. (OK, it's much older technology, but you get the idea.)
So it seems Iraq would have to seriously beef up engine power on their missiles to pose any real threat of nuclear payload delivery. Prior to, and during, the Gulf War, they experimented with switching the fuel from kerosene to a thing called unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine (UDMH), but there's no evidence they actually got this to work. This may well be what they are trying to cover up by denying access to weapons inspectors, but given the current state of the country I think it's highly unlikely they've progressed very far.
In terms of chemical or biological warheads, from what I understand, the main problem is in developing an effective dispersal system that can release the agent close enough to the target and fast enough so that the agent doesn't just dive into the ground with the missile (the Scud warhead doesn't detach from the missile; that's how antique this stuff is). They didn't have this technology during the Gulf War and are probably unlikely to have it now. They certainly were developing things like VX, Sarin, anthrax, botulinum toxin, etc. for weapons use but while this may make for an effective terror weapon, due to the reasons above it hardly qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction.
So yeah, they've probably been working on these technologies. And certainly you could describe this as 'attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction', but whether actually this gives them the capability do anything more than scare people (as they did in the Gulf War attacks), causing a small number of casualties, I think is very much open to question. I think the sort of horror scenarios that are currently being bandied about (nukes, large-scale CBW attacks etc.) are simply not credible at this point in time.
Hope that helps. I should point out I am far from an expert on this, btw.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 01:04 pm | | Neal, after reading your post of Fri 13 Sept, again
and concentrated on it more instead of skimming, I realise I agree with every word you say, and after the afghan skirmish when we had pakistani teenagers going to afganistan to fight for the taleban,-- and saying they would be perfectly willing to kill our soldiers,--- then I realise , WE ARE IMPORTING FOREIGNERS INTO BRITAIN,-- TO FIGHT AGAINST US!!! I'll say no more or Ally may have to ban me.
Rick |
Author: Howard Brown
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 03:59 pm | | | Dear Warwick: There was a book entitled,Camp Of The Saints,written back in the 1970's by a Frenchman named Jean Raspail....Because it frowned on the increasing "browning" of the West,it was deemed by the critics/powers that be to be racist....Raspail envisioned flotillas of hungry Indians,Pakis,etc.. sailing to the English Channel because of the tolerance of the West. The ease at which those Pakistani individuals you described would be willing to fight against the country that took them in,will only increase. It was facilitated by soft,intellectual,capitalists posing as idealists , who live in a dream world that unfortunately drags you and me into it. Let me give you a real good idea how America has changed over the last 3 decades....Where I work,our plant was 100% Euro-American......27 years later,it is nearly 80% Southeast Asian,Hispanic,African( not American blacks...). Fully 90 percent came here illegally( "wetbacks" across the Rio Grande,fleeing "green carders and I've- changed -my- mind- exchange students who got married to an American for legal status....A funny story: About 10 years ago,this nice Mexican lady was crazy about me....I was not really interested at the time,but she persisted....until I uh,er,eh,...well you know ! She then asked me if there was a chance that we could get married. Being the upfront,bold,and bigmouth dude that I am,I asked her if her request had anything to do with her being an illegal immigrant. She said,"Yes". I said "No"..no more dates for Howie. Anyway,she found some sap to hitch up with and then ditched him. She was now legal. The problem with immigration policies in our respective nations,is that the only ones really concerned are outfits like the National Alliance( US ) or in your country,Mr.Tyndall's National Front.......Looks bleak Warwick. We can thank the affordably "nice" ethics of the ruling classes of our countries.....Your pal, Howard |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 04:19 pm | | Howard. . .buddy. . .my friend,
Who were you working for that hired so many illegal immigrants? 90 percent of 80 percent seems like an awfully high figure.
I've never met a wetback, but I did get to know many people from Mexico and Guatemala when I lived in Chicago, and they were all hard-working, good people just trying to get by. I also had the great fortune of making some Muslim friends from India (and will always remember witnessing the marriage of one of them--the ceremony was a sight to see) I think the same can be said of the majority of immigrants who come here, and who aren't any different than our own ancestors. And despite the overhaul our immigration policy badly needs, I still think the great strength of our country are the immigrants who choose to make their homes here.
However, I do commiserate with you over your unfortunate experience with the Mexican woman. You should come to Chicago with me sometime--we'll drink some beer and I'll introduce you around to a better class of people than you've experienced. If we hurry, we can make the last of the great ethnic street festivals they hold over the summer.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Howard Brown
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 04:41 pm | | | David.....I wasn't bitching about the people. In fact,my last wife was a Puerto Rican lady( check my profile to see a picture of my little girl.),and I was not trying to be or sound racist.In fact,I am the supervisor to about 35 of them( the people I mentioned)..I,too,believe in what you say,but the fact remains that what Mr.Parminter mentioned is going to increase. ( been to Chicago(1972)...got carded at the Train Station trying to buy cigarettes by the mother of the drummer of the Chicago band,The Buckinghams. Great city.) Back to the immigration problem..There are simply too many folks not of the Western Civilization coming in to absorb. The figures I gave you are true. I have to go around and collect identification at my plant,verify its validity,and have it on file in case its needed....We had a Jamaican gentleman who was actually lured into the front office and handcuffed by 2 INS agents. That was 3 years ago. Numerous times,7 or 8 workers will just leave,as they had been tipped that the INS were coming that day.........Factory owners,who own large plants and landscapers alike,go out of their way to hire non-documented workers.. Here in Philly,Pete Rose,the disgraced baseball great.owns a large landscaping business that is known for assisting illegal( Mexicans )workers....My ex-brother-in-law,one of the best people I know,was an illegal immigrant too ! I agree that these people are just plain good ol' folks.just like my immigrant folks.....One of my best friends is an Arab,who runs a 7/11( wow ! what next? an Irish Cop?)and was hassled by the FBI for being a Hamas sympathiser...I get your drift David..........Hey what KIND of beer? Negra Modelo?? be on State Street in about 20 hours..Later,pal. HB |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 07:10 pm | | Dear Howard:
WW1: British and British Empire casualties about 908,000 US casualties about 116,700 which includes around 53,500 combat casualties.
WW2: UK casualties about 495,000. US casualties about 407,300. The UK total does not include civilian losses due to the bombing campaign of 1940-43 or the missile attacks of 1944-45.
Many different figures are given for holocaust deaths depending on who is giving them plus the impossibility of accurate tabulation. It's safest to say "Several million."
" . I also know that you don't know how many British,off
the top of your head,died in WW2....but you DO know how many
died in the,ahem,Holocaust. Ever wonder why? "
I find this puzzling. I don't know how many died in the holocaust and I doubt that anyone does exactly. Is there some reasoning behind Howard's statement above?
Neil:
My opinion concerning the Palestinians and the Israelis is that they are as bad as each other. It seems to be pretty pointless helping out either. Maybe there was some hope with the previous Israeli government but not with the current bunch. Equally, if Arafat has any control over his own people I have yet to see it. I do think that the Irish extremists, whether they're provos, INLA, IRA, Continuity or whatever are as bad as the alphabet soup of Palestinian/arab terrorism. We have the pleasure of living, as Ernest Bramah said, "...in interesting times."
Yes, why don't we arrest or deport any arab terrorists who are wanted in other countries and have had proper warrants sworn against them? We should but you will have to ask our current Leader why he lets Irish terrorists out of jail and refuses to instigate sufficient action to arrest those suspected of the most heinous bombings and killings.
I have no time for many "liberal" views believing that the beginning of "childrens rights" in the 1960's making it all but impossible for a parent to properly chastise a mischevious child led to a situation where many children have no respect for anyone other than themselves.
I certainly agree with you about being proud of our country, England especially after just sitting through the Last Night of the Proms. I think that it was Sir Sydney Smith who said: "He who is born English has won first prize in the lottery of life."
However, before agreeing that a war with Iraq is necesary I would want to know why our Leader didn't give us his dossier about Iraq months ago. His "proofs" would have to be very convincing.
Howard:
Your newer posts are like the Curate's egg: good in parts. In other parts however they're pretty weird. Lets check them out.
Yes, one of the justifiable Arab gripes is the continual support from the US for Israel caused as I mentioned earlier by there being an awful lot of Jewish votes. If there were 50 million Arab voters in the US, Arafat would have his main office in Tel Aviv by now.
And the Israeli power elite have as bad a record on terrorism as the Palestinians. You forgot the shamefull record of David Ben-Gurion. You worry me when you refer to the overwhelming Jewish presence in (the) media. Is there one? I thought the media mostly was composed of Brits, Aussies and some US. If you're thinking of Robert Maxwell, he was Jewish but is now deceased.
You are also correct about the failure of the Patriot-2 anti-missile missiles. It's only recently that the universal failure of these amm's to get close enough to an incoming SCUD to frighten it has been publicized. This may have something to do with the successful marketing of these missiles after Gulf-War-One.
Incidentally, I thought that the SCUD's are slightly developped V2's and can hardly be referred to as "Guided" missiles. I assume Timsta that you have the technical knowledge that you seem to have but as your words pretty much agree with various Defense correspondents, I suspect that you're completely right.
I looked up Jean Raspail and went through some of the lengthy quotes listed from his novel. It does read like turgid Ayn Rand although maybe that's the translation. He does seem to be obsessed about this wall of living eastern flesh as is his publisher, Social Contract Press. Comments on websites seem to be 50-50 on him either as a crazed fascist or a visionary.
I sympathise with your story about the White Race being edges out from your factory by newer immigrants. But I wonder, 60 years ago were there people complaining about how the
decent all American families like the Molloys or the Kelly's were being put out by the Poles and Czechs. And maybe 100 years ago there were grumbles about the Irish putting out of work decent Americans like Smith or Brown. Things change and people are people.
I'm not familiar with your "National Alliance" but you go at your peril when you praise John Tyndall's National Front. It really was a thoroughgoing "God bless Hitler, kick out the Jews and anyone who isn't white" fascist party. I think Tyndall may be retired now and his successor lives near Welshpool which is about 30 miles away from us. He was holding a March there last year and we were told to expect a riot except it rained and everyone went home. |
Author: Howard Brown
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 07:57 pm | | | Pete: You had to look up the figures you gave me on British victims of war. Most people our age know the 6,000,000 figure used as "Holocaust" victims like they know Santa Claus comes in December. Where ya been ? The fact is,is that at least here in America,that figure is a mantra. Peter,honestly,I don't know how many US soldiers died in either war myself !! Practically the entire American Media is controlled by,lets say,people who are not Arab-friendly. I'm sorry that you have to worry about me with what I said about "Jewish presence" in the media. I'm okay. Its Western policy-making that is in trouble. If Pakistani's( for example ) were in control of 90% of everything you see and hear in England and everything that did not suit their particular tastes was considered "unfit" to print,I tend to think an Anglophile such as you would be pretty irritated. Nothing wrong with Anglophilia.A truly great people. Neither anything wrong with Pakistani's.. Just different and at times clashing worldviews. Just like the rank and file Jewish American. All is hunky dory until it comes to Middle Eastern solutions. Pete,I thank you for your sympathy about White folks being "pushed' out of factories here. However,the new Americans work their asses off just like in the analogy you gave about the Irish pushing the Smith's and Brown's outta jobs. Irish were treated terribly here( for a good read,look up Draft Riots 1863 in New York). Pete,I really do not have any problems with New Americans or non-Europeans. That wasn't what I meant at all. The immigration policies are making our cities overflow with a variety of problems. Maybe just like 100 years ago.The people are here to work and prosper. Far be it from me to be antagonistic to working people( now the bourgeoise are a different story !). My statement to Mr.Parminter that there does not seem to be anyone doing anything about illegal immigration at all making it seem like racially oriented groups such as BNP seem like the only ones listening was certainly not an endorsement of the BNP,but rather a pretty-close-to-the-truth statement. People who go protest the BNP must not be too upset with illegal immigration as I know the BNP is against it vociferously. By the way,Jewish Americans are only about 2.8( if that !!) of the American population,not 50 million( I know ! I know ! you were just using a random figure...Tyndall probably used Sir Syd's famous quote himself,being a devoted Anglophile at a few of his BNP meetings. Shamir,Begin,Sharon,and Ben Gurion are the 4 Terrorist PM's of Israel...Pete,nice post on your part. Roll Britannia !! |
Author: Timsta
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 08:56 pm | | Peter:
"Incidentally, I thought that the SCUD's are slightly developped V-2's and can hardly be referred to as "Guided" missiles."
You're not far off the mark. In my post I almost made the point that this is almost WW2 technology but thought better of it.
Your comparison with V-2s is correct in some areas. Both are liquid propellant rockets, but with different fuels (V-2 alcohol/LOX, Scud kerosene/nitric oxide; I think alcohol actually was only used because of the shortage of suitable petroleum resources); both use similar gyroscopic guidance systems, etc.
You might be interested to know that they were still firing off V-2s from White Sands as late as 1952; the first Scuds (SS1-Bs) entered service in 1955, so as you can see there's only about one generation separating them.
The Scud certainly qualifies as a guided missile, as indeed does the V-2. But the guidance technology is light-years away from what a modern guided missile uses (GPS, contour-mapping radar, FLIR, laser guidance, whatever). Hence its miserable accuracy at any kind of range.
As for saying the same thing defense correspondents do, I imagine we have both read Jane's Defence Weekly from time to time. I must stress I'm no expert on these subjects though.
Now tell me, how again does this relate to "Diana, Princess of Wales"? ;)
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 09:58 pm | | | Peter,In 1945 only weeks prior to Adolf Eichman doing a runner he was asked by a leading Nazi how many Jews had actually been victims of the final solution. Eichman had replied that 9 million Jews had been killed. |
Author: Howard Brown
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 10:33 pm | | | Ivor.............that figure is what Eichmann said. The problem with the figure is that the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia stated prior to the 6 million figure,that there were 15 million Jewish people worldwide in 1939. However,after 1945,the same book stated that there were 11 Million Jews in the world....This means that in 6 years,despite the conditions the Jews were in,they INCREASED by 2 million. 15-6=9.....add the 2 and that makes 11.....People frown on the Revisionist historians,like the half-Jewish,David Irving,for bringing these facts up. No matter. The powers that be have already succeeded by establishing the etched in stone 6 Million figure. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 02:23 am | | Hi Howard,
Maybe we will never know the true number killed.Some sources for the Blitz dead for London for example believe the true figure was much higher than it actually was.It has been alleged that the true figure was never revealed during the war for reasons of moral. Figures in politics get changed all the time to suit various factions or situations.
I do know a lot of Jews got murdered during the war as did many other people and that the figure for Jews killed has been placed anywhere between 4 million and 12 million.One figure we dont hear much about which is just as important as any other is the 5 million children who perished. |
Author: Howard Brown
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 08:03 am | | | Ivor: Bingo,gringo !!! Funny that that horrible statistic never comes to light much......by the way,we are trying to cast a movie( see the other thread )and may need either you or I to do my desired 15 second cameo of Queen Vic...I ain't that bad in a wig.but being my pal,I give you first dibs on the role. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 06:05 pm | | | Hi Howard,I would not make a very good Queen Vic even in a wig so I will pass up on that one thanks. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 16 September 2002 - 08:10 am | | Hi Howard,
You wrote: 'Anyway,she found some sap to hitch up with and then ditched him. She was now legal.'
In this country, at least when I was working for the Immigration Service during the 1980s, such couples were interviewed and investigated to see if the marriage was genuine or purely to get round the immigration rules. 'Ditching' a gullible spouse would be a dead give-away and a very easy 'nick'! More difficult are the many cases where the Brit is so infatuated that they actually believe the marriage is genuine, and where their partner is so desperate to stay in the UK that their bogus marriage, and indeed their whole life, becomes an act. More difficult, but far from impossible to crack, if one has the resources and the determination.
Hi Peter,
You wrote: 'I have no time for many "liberal" views believing that the beginning of "childrens rights" in the 1960's making it all but impossible for a parent to properly chastise a mischevious child led to a situation where many children have no respect for anyone other than themselves.'
I hope you are not suggesting that parents can blame people concerned with protecting "children's rights" for the fact that their own kids run riot or turn out rotten. "It's not my fault - my son would have grown up to be the perfect gentleman if only I hadn't found it almost impossible to 'properly' chastise him every time he was mischievous. What could I do? My hands were tied." I've heard of some excuses in my time...
There are plenty of effective ways to chastise children that don't put parents in a remotely difficult position, either legally or morally. I certainly haven't found it 'all but impossible' to discipline my child properly, for example.
Bad kids tend to be churned out by bad parents who couldn't care less about the current legal or moral climate: some won't have been chastised at all; others not enough, or in an effective way; but many more will have been chastised regularly, inappropriately and/or severely. In all cases, respect for those in authority is hardly likely to result. But I just don't believe there are many bad kids around today as a result of parents who would have done a better job had they not been influenced/forced by "liberals" into providing less of the right kind of discipline.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
