egafd.com

"Hence my reply that Britain should not be a global policeman which confused me."

Replace "me" with "you" in the above sentence. !laugh!

Cheers
D

You said to Lizard,

"try to think more clearly. "

Why are you such a condescending toss-pot David? With every post and argument you make, you erode what ever little bit of support you have, for your crap views.

Forumites: Read Johnson's posts, to get a sneak preview of how any dissent will be dealt with in any future New Labour government. Thousands of brain-washed "Right-on" characters like DJ will roam the country (all on ?100,000 per year), finger wagging and pointing out, how you are guilty of, "Wrong-think" and how, "Confused" you are, unless you too are a brain washed New Labour drone!

Ultimately if you don't "Change your ways", you'll be sacked from your job and probably be brought in to New Labour HQ for, "Re-programming!"

"Your suggestion that you cannot have military intervention unless there are Mirage jets or communications networks is wrong. How on earth did countries intervene in others internal affairs in the world pre-Mirage jets or comms networks, otherwise?"

I sometimes think you just write utter drivel to try and wind people up, that's not going to work with me or several others on here.
I will explain my views more clearly, so you can try and understand. It doesn't matter which country is involved, take any! if it's possible for a UN or NATO or any other force to get involved, thereby saving massive loss of life, then they should. This invariably means using great force against the agressor, however, when you can't see the agressor, as in Rwanda and some of the other country's you mentioned, it's almost impossible, as there are no command and control systems to take out, this is especially true in African states.

Then you blustered: How on earth did countries intervene in others(sic) internal affairs in the world pre-Mirage jets or comms networks, otherwise?"

They didn't.

"Why are you such a condescending toss-pot David? With every post and argument you make, you erode what ever little bit of support you have, for your crap views. "

You still don't get it do you, Jim?

Here's Lizard's response to me earlier on another thread.
"That was then David, before your labotomy, remember????? anyway, "

Given that you have been insulting me solidly for about a year now in a concerted campaign, much to my amusement I have to say, the important lesson that you still haven't learnt is as follows:

If I get treated with respect, I will respond in kind. If I don't and get insulted simply for disagreeing with you, Lizard or whoever, you will get it back in bucketsful. To ignore your insults and turn the other cheek is not my style as you know.

So its up to you. Carry on insulting me and take the results, preferably without whining about them on this forum as you are doing here.

Has the inflatable house turned up yet?

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=243759&t=243759

Cheers
D

"Then you blustered: How on earth did countries intervene in others(sic) internal affairs in the world pre-Mirage jets or comms networks, otherwise?"

They didn't."

Perhaps you could drop a line re. the above to Julius Caesar, the bloke who wrote "Caesar's Gallic Wars".

How do you think nearly all of Africa became part of the British, Italian, German and French empires then? Did they write a letter to the relevant governments saying "You look a very fine country. Do you fancy coming over here and taking us over?"

CHeers
D

"No. You still don't get it. And the above statement is incorrect."

If it's incorrect then, as I said, be more clear.

To repeat myself again:

I asked: "But if the UN don't do anything we shouldn't either?"

You replied: "For the last time, I do not believe that the UK should act as a global policeman."

A few posts later you say: "In the case of Rwanda, I think Britain should have got involved irrespective of the UN."

That, to me, looks like you're contradicting yourself.

[quote]Replace "me" with "you"[/quote]

Your missus would be onto a winner!

Not based on what I've heard!

"That, to me, looks like you're contradicting yourself."

To you possibly but not to me. Apologies for any confusion.

Cheers
D