Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Armageddon - 2007? - Freddie Dawkins (6th Nov 2006 - 13:17:36) Just coming away from the Bohunt Manor debate, some info that I came across earlier this year: "Armageddon is today known as Megiddo - a small town in northern Israel that lies in the direct path of any southward Syrian invasion into modern-day Israel." A Kurdish friend has told me that a passage in the Koran refers to Armageddon and there is also a prediction that Armageddon will occur again in 2007. Armageddon is commonly referred to as the code word for both World Wars, so are we due a third next year? Wikipedia has some good info. The recent Dispatches tv programme looked at the Iranian nuclear development programme and Israel's nuclear deterrent. One of Israel's retired top military men predicted in the programme that the summer of 2007 would be the last point at which the West would have to stop Iran possessing nuclear weapons.. sobering thought. The former chief of the Israeli Air Force predicted that unless Iran stops development of strategic nuclear weapons, Israel would have no choice but to bomb Iran's nuclear plants - as they have done in the past. All a bit worrying. Think I'll stick with Liphook and not book a big summer trip next year! Freddie

Re: Armageddon - 2007? - Steve Read (7th Nov 2006 - 18:27:13) Interesting point Freddie, was just curious to know how many world leaders objected and bombed Israel when it was developing its nuclear progamme. The tail wagging the dog springs to mind regarding Israel's relationship with the USA etc. Still its best not to have nuclear weapons at the disposal of unstable governments propping up unstable leaders. Especially those leaders looking to expand their influence and borders throughout the world. Especially those leaders who are blessed with the vision, forsight and political awareness of a house brick. Is it George W?

Re: Armageddon - 2007? - Freddie Dawkins (8th Nov 2006 - 12:47:58) Hi, Steve - Like the Brick/Bush analogy. Looks like Middle America's given its verdict in the mid-term elections. Wonder what will happen when we have our next general elections in the UK? cheers Freddie

Re: Armageddon - 2007? - Allan (9th Nov 2006 - 01:33:48) Steve, Read your post with great interest and noted your reservations about the quality of G.w.B. as a leader of his country and I can't help thinking; W.T.F. do we know except what we are told on subjects like terrorism, security, etc. I'm almost sure that the answer is nowt! That chappie that's just been banged up for 40 years for planning to murder by means most fowl, loads of us, I'd lost from my radar ages ago. Our securities wallas didn't, they were concentrated, performed and achieved. I suppose the point I am making is this:- John Major was portrayed as one of the worst P.M.'s of modern times after labour came into power. Labour would like us to believe that the economic "miracle" which ensued was down to them. Think so? Bush enjoys similar negative reviews, and it is so damned tempting to go along with the "clever" put downs of the guy, but, I cannot help reflecting on Clinton's military responses to al Queda atrocities previous when he was President, described by Bush, in oppposition, as sending million dollar missiles at ten dollar tents in Afghanistan. Will history identify Dubya as a fool or a man of conviction and purpose, ahead of his many critics ?. Don't know. Not any more than those who would purport to. But, like the John Major thing above, I would not like to bet on it. Allan

Re: Armageddon - 2007? - Steve Read (10th Nov 2006 - 20:06:16) Alan, I take your point about information we actually get to hear and read, only the select few ever get to know the real picture. Yes history will tell us eventually who were good leaders and who were not. History also teaches us the mistakes that were made, as the old saying goes "only a fool does not learn by his mistakes." My take on things rightly or wrongly are that no matter how snuggled up in bed we as a nation are with the USA, the bottom line when it all pans out is that the USA have only the interests of themselves at heart. They have us on board to give them the support and backing which they constantly crave, in whatever action they determine seems appropriate throughout the world, but only when it benefits them. Yes, we needed them during WW2, would we be here but for them today posting on boards like this, I think not. But the question asked is had not Japan bombed Pearl Harbour would the Americans have committed fully to the war, or was it forseen that the future danger would come from the Russians after Hitler ran his course? The need to establish an American influence in Europe after Hitler was dealt with was overriding its policy to become involved. There intentions to police the world after the war, although well meaning, and again we all have a lot to be thankful for, have also cost many countless lives. The danger I feel when someone has a bigger stick than anybody else they can clobber whoever and whenever they like especially when there are advantages to be had. All the time Iraq and Iran were kicking ten bales out of each other, there was money to be made plus they were also leaving Israel alone. As soon as Sadaam started eyeing up next door and the extra oil reserves, forget Kuwait, Saudi Arabia (that other fully democratic Arab nation complete with one of the worst human rights record in the world, but boy can we make some money there), Daddy Bush sends in the troops and off we go again. The benefits, protected oil reserves, huge financial gain from the rebuilding of Kuwait and the long giving thanks of the Saudi's ( all bar a certain Mr. Bin Laden). We end up losing more troops to "friendly fire" than the "Enemy" and picking up the odd few crumbs fallen from the table. A good deal! When "The Brick" got elected whats the odds on being round with Daddy for Sunday lunch one day and Bush Senior saying to him "if you get the chance boy give that old Sadaam the kicking I never finished". 9/11 comes and the rest is history. I just feel for the countless lives lost on all sides, is the Middle East anymore stable now? Where will it all kick off next? I would just like to see a little bit more thought given to our actions before we jump headlong into another conflict under the skirts of the USA. As my poor old father-in-law used to tell me when fighting in Italy during WW2, "when the Germans opened up we took cover, when we opened up the Germans took cover, when the Yanks opened up we all took cover! Sums it up really.

Re: Armageddon - 2007? - L R (13th Nov 2006 - 02:17:39) I thought of George Bush when at the Remembrance Service in Bramshott on Sunday, Rev Simon Weedon quoted someone as saying that you should be more afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion than by an army of lions led by a sheep. It depends on your view of whether Bush is a lion or a sheep as to whether you should be worried by him as leader of the free world. I agree with Allan and prefer not to get too caught up in the current Bush-bashing but try to keep a more open mind. We can't fairly judge today from this close perspective whether Bush (or Blair) have been (1) great and visionary leaders, (2) total world disasters or (3), something in between. (If you'd asked almost any German in the 1930's, they would have said Hitler was the greatest leader the world had ever seen...what a difference just a few years made. And conversely, revisionist historians now say Genghis Khan was actually a great leader and not the evil monster history books have claimed for centuries. Just two of an endless list of examples of the benefit of hind-sight). We'll have to wait many years for confidential documents to be made public and for the passage of time to reveal consequences before we can honestly say whether some of the big decisions on security, war and terrorism taken by our elected leaders have been good or bad. Our descendants and the historians of the future will be the best judges. Thinking about the public perception of George Bush, what worries me is how incredibly gullible and open to manipulation mass opinion is. I do not support his politics, and no doubt George Bush has many faults but just because he's not very articulate and has made a few blunders, it doesn't automatically mean he's totally stupid. (He can't be TOTALLY stupid.... after all he has reached a far higher position in life than any of the rest of us!). If we had powerful enemies, couldn't every single one of us be made to look quite idiotic especially if someone was filming us every time we spoke? Most of us like to believe we are free thinkers and that it is only other people who are swayed by the currently popular buzz, but be honest, if you see enough TV satire shows, newspaper cartoons and internet forwards telling you someone is stupid, it's very hard not to get caught up in the wave, even though you have no first hand knowledge. It's so much easier to run with the pack and laugh at the clever jokes, than to be uncool and reserve judgement. Conversely, if PR people do their job right or the press choose to promote the idea, most people will happily believe someone who is very flawed is completely wonderful. Remember after Princess Diana's death, how the media took over, whipped up a frenzy of emotion and created mass hysteria (with a view to selling more papers) and virtually made her into a Saint whose good works totally eclipsed those of Mother Theresa. On most issues, eventually and after some time, the evidence usually builds up enough so we can make a fair judgement and that is how our opinions should be formed, but I think we are often far too quick to judge. Our opinions are too often shaped by what the media and those in positions of power choose to tell us, but politicians, government officials, the press, TV and radio and, dare I say it, some religious leaders have different reasons for putting their own spin on the truth, or omitting various parts of it and as a society we are frequently being manipulated by them. This to me, is the single most dangerous element in society today. This even applies to local Councils albeit on a much smaller and less significant scale. Councils sometimes make decisions based on facts that are not made public for various reasons, and local people may never know the real factors that lead to some of these decisions. Not everything that is discussed goes into the minutes. I'm not saying there's anything underhand going on, just that when we choose to support or oppose our local council on certain issues we should be aware that we don't always know the whole story. We are so often at the mercy of the press. We've seen it here in Liphook and on this site when an issue comes up but not all the relevant info is in the public domain and mass opinion changes according to whatever the local press reporter knows and chooses to include in his latest article. I don't know what the answer is, as the powerful few have always controlled the 'ignorant' masses, ironically even more so in communist states, where everyone is supposed to be equal. It seems very unlikely, but who knows...... (we certainly don't), maybe they DID find WMD in Iraq and they chose not to tell us for reasons we can't at this time even begin to imagine. That is the level of control "they" have over us! I won't be at all surprised if the US knows full well where Bin Laden is but they are watching him so they don't tell the world. (I do so love conspiracy theories!)

Re: Armageddon - 2007? - Allan (15th Nov 2006 - 01:37:05) Steve, You have a very positive attitude to our cousins across the water i.e.:- they suck! Some time ago Jeremy!!!!(presents Top Gear Jeremy) had a show on t.v. First thing he did was approach a map of the world, cigarette in hand, and remove the jigsaw piece that was u.s.a. and chucked it over his shoulder and say "that's all right then."This, as I interpreted it, was a statement of anti political correctness designed to state his opinion on the country and all it stands for, or an attempt to amuse us all, as he was being paid to do. That was quite amusing if you thought so at the time. But, the 11th. sept. hadn't happened yet! What did , though, was the Kenyan atrocities, The U. S. Cole, and surely somebody in U.S. government should have started to get seriously concerned that the attacks on their interests were coming from one direction. Given the sophistication of U.S. intelligence, I take you back to my original point, which was that you, me and the rest of us know not enough to make any intelligent comment on any of this. I, in my humble opinion, think we get told that which THEY will let us know: not what we hear on television reports, or read in the paper. On the subject of withdrawal from the area, I think you need to go back to why the U.S.A. went in in the first place. Would you give credence to the argument that, we ,as an alliance, had a big time interest in the welfare of a country's population that we, in the west, are totally (and happily) unfamiliar with, or the idea that The Kingdom of Saudi

Re: Armageddon - 2007? - Steve Read (17th Nov 2006 - 20:20:24) Alan, Sorry lost track of your last post, and where you were heading. Would like to point out the following. Because I state an opinion on my take of things regarding affairs which involve us as a country does this make me less intelligent than the next man or woman. When wanting to catch up with world affairs myself, Jeremy is not my first port of call for an update. Anti political or political correctness today far outways the good old fashioned honesty and conviction of belief. Where did I actually state the USA sucks? Because I question their motives in world affairs does this automatically give the impression that I think they suck! Having been in the States the following week after 9/11 the one thing that really hits home over there is the overwhelming sense of being a patriot. Something maybe this country could do with a bit more, flags and support everywhere. Try putting up a flag over here and you will need permission to fly the bloody thing or be accused of being a member of the far right. Look at the trouble with England flags being displayed for the World Cup, and thats only every four years. Regarding your first mention of John Major and the subsequent "economic miracle" does it really matter who claims the bragging rights, by admitting that there was a miracle means we were in the mire to start with and who put us there Maggie Somebody? Without wishing to add a little bit of anti politcal correctness myself, maybe if John had put as much effort into running the country and looking over his shoulder at his own party, as he did with Edwina C, maybe just maybe his stay at Number 10 would have been longer.

Re: Armageddon - 2007? - Freddie Dawkins (18th Nov 2006 - 13:37:47) Hi, Allan - Not sure if you heard the R4 "From Our Own Correspondent" this morning. Fascinating report from Brian Barron, who covered Vietnam and who was in Baghdad last week. He drew lots of parallels with what happened to the US forces in Vietnam, how they appeared to learn their lessons from Vietnam, how Bush Snr dealt with Saddam when he invaded Kuwait and how Bush Jnr has not learnt the lessons.. The litany of crimes each day in Iraq are terrible when they are read, almost blandly, over the radio. Given the latest furore over what Margaret Hodge said...Tony Blair admitted on Al Jazeera...it's all a mess and the victims are the Iraqi people. I can only see one way out of all this: Get the UN in, give them huge funding, reconstruct, and get the Americans to have a real dialogue with the Syrians, Iranians and Israelis and maybe, as Brian Barron and others were saying this morning, there might, just might, be an end to the killing and an eventual return to some kind of stability in the Middle East. If we can pour hundreds of millions into armaments, we must surely be able to spend the same money on rebuilding? Freddie

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home