Poor Liz

Marble said:
A millitary intervention is what we should be doing about it. I can't emphiasize enough how bad that situation is. I just find it all a bit strange how we've seemed to have normalised an atrocity on this scale. Giving our country a pat on the back and validating ourselves and hierachy in the monarchy while we stand and watch, because of the russians and chinese is just very said, it really is.
Click to expand...

You can do bugger all without some form of acquiesence from Russia and China, sadly.

Military intervention is desirable, but totally impractical.

Conflating this atrocity with the Jubilee is just plain silly.
 
Well as a human being I'm allowed to feel like our concerns and thoughts should be with dealing with this situation with Syria, am I not?

I'm not asking everyone to agree with me, that would be something different.
 
Marble said:
Well as a human being I'm allowed to feel like our concerns and thoughts should be with dealing with this situation with Syria, am I not?

I'm not asking everyone to agree with me, that would be something different.
Click to expand...

Not for a minute disagreeing with your feelings, frustration and desire to help - I'm sure all on here agree on that. Just can't see any realistic options.
 
If we intervene the Guardian and the muslims will soon be moaning non stop and not giving a **** about the murdered children

VVO is right though Marble. The compostion of Syria is every bit as complicated as Iraq and it would simply not be easily resolved.

Having said that, i can see things getting so severe there that it simply might not be an option to realistically stand by
 
clivex said:
i think the tourist attraction angle is bollocks frankly and london is packed with tourists regardless of the time of year. Its arguably the most dynamic and certainly most varied city in the world right now. It doesnt need royalty to bring people in anymore than New York or Paris does

Versailles has no visitors now does it?

The millenium wheel and Tate modern are far bigger "attractions" than the royal family. Its not as if you can actually visit royalty is it?


and buckingham palace is a monstrous ugly building which would be better served as a huge central hotel and thus contributing real revenue

If we were a republic tomorrow I would safely bet that there would not the slightest drop off in visitors. Londons profile and attraction way exceeds that of a bunch of german state scroungers
Click to expand...

If the UK wasn't a monarchy we could easily be 'ruled' by 'President Miliband' in a couple of years. If that happens I might be forced to shoot myself in the face, or at the very least move to the southern hemisphere...
 
BennyB said:
If the UK wasn't a monarchy we could easily be 'ruled' by 'President Miliband' in a couple of years. If that happens I might be forced to shoot myself in the face, or at the very least move to the southern hemisphere...
Click to expand...
A worse scenario would be 'ruled' by 'President Cameron'.
 
But you're never 'ruled' by any president. Governed, maybe, never ruled.

Most of the world's most important nations are republics. They don't seem any worse off for having got rid of their monarchies.
 
It feels quite comforting knowing that if a government tried anything really really stupid, the monarch could stop it, and the army would support them.
 
You are kidding surely ?

Yes i really would like some unelected none to bright aristocrats allied to a bunch of uniformed tossers overiding a government elected with the voters mandate. Shall we look at some examples of the wonderful states where that has occured ?
 
Last edited:
The idea that someone should bé able to exercise genuine power on the basis of birthright and nothing else is for fairytales, religous nuts and thickos
 
Last edited:
Back
Top