 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / July 2007Prime Minister Blair Blasts Critics In Final Defense Of Iraq War
Correct on all counts, Tony Blair hangs tough and is a stalwart right to the end of his tenure as Prime Minister. History will vindicate him -- and damn his critics. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas --------------------------------------------------------------- Blair blasts critics in final defence of Iraq war AFP 18 June 2007 Tony Blair on Monday strongly defended intervening in Iraq for the final time as prime minister before parliament's top scrutiny body. In a robust farewell performance, Blair insisted ordinary Muslims craved democracy, saying that Islamist terrorists rather than the West were their worst enemy. He warned that the West would be making a "fundamental mistake" if it gave up defending democracy when threatened with terrorism and slapped down those blaming coalition failures for the sectarian unrest since the March 2003 US-led invasion to topple dictator Saddam Hussein. And Blair, who steps down next week, admitted that he felt a heavy responsibility for the death toll in Iraq. "It is so comforting to people to say there was an error made in the planning. Someone didn't spot what was going to go on," he told the House of Commons liaison committee, made up of all the chiefs the lower chamber's scrutiny bodies. "That is not what has created the problem. What has created the problem is that the people we are fighting have decided to give us a problem. "What they have decided is that if they can hang on long enough in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, or anywhere else, then we will lose the will." Bingo! The American & British Cut-And-Run Crowds WANT us to LOSE our WILL also -- which puts them in league as aiders and abettors of the Islamofascist Jihadist Terrorist Cause. -- DSH He said that Islamist militants purporting that Muslims were being oppressed by the West had a "difficult argument to make" if Muslims were being given a free vote for the first time. "If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world." Absolutely Correct. But the Cut-And-Run Crowd doesn't twig to that verity. -- DSH Blair stands down on June 27 after a decade in power, leaving a legacy clouded by his decision to support US President George W. Bush in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. ---------------------------- DSH Deus Vult > Correct on all counts, Tony Blair hangs tough and is a stalwart right to the > end of his tenure as Prime Minister. [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > invasion of Iraq. > ---------------------------- Well, he would, wouldn't he? Shame that the incoming PM and most of his old buddies, let alone the nation, disagree. He's already damned, and history will damn him even further. Twit! Surreyman > Well, he would, wouldn't he? > Shame that the incoming PM and most of his old buddies, let alone the > nation, disagree. No evidence of that at all. Indeed there's lots of anecdotal evidence that Gordon was 'on board' right from the start with Iraq.  SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > > Well, he would, wouldn't he? > > Shame that the incoming PM and most of his old buddies, let alone the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -- 'Course he was. But he's now duckin' and divin' like mad, as are the Deputy Leader candidates. Surreyman >> > Well, he would, wouldn't he? >> > Shame that the incoming PM and most of his old buddies, let alone the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Deputy > Leader candidates. Oh yes. The sound of parachute harnesses being strapped on can be heard throughout the land... I can see the UK armed forces leaving Iraq in about a year, along with claims that 'we have handed our bit of the country over to the appropriate civil power' and the 'Earl of Islington', or whatever title he chooses, gets the blame for any future death and disfigurement in the Basra area. They'll stay in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future because it's a good training ground and the journalists sent out are obsessed with the Kipplingesque overtones that their Oxbridge English degrees drummed into them. I find the contrasts in the dispatches very interesting. In Iraq they do tend to be centred on the poor Iraqis with their lack of hospitals and electric power and the corruption and the USAF turning up now and again to spread aunty Fatima across the landscape. In Afghanistan it's almost invariably 'inward looking' and the soldiers are the focus, complete with literary allusions to 'The Empire' and comments about 'hard faced, well armed, hill tribesmen'. I imagine we'll spend much of the next decade listening, now and again, to the words of some hard faced professional soldier recruited from the urban provincial slums of England with ten years experience and with more equipment than he can easily carry expressing the view that 'Your Afghan, he's a natural, he's incredibly fit, fairly well trained and a dead shot' and we'll all remember our Kipling and nod in agreement... Meanwhile, our hospitals will continue to recruit Iraqi doctors who will enter our society and integrate, happy in the knowledge that nobody sane will ever suggest they return home... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. -- William Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >I can see the UK armed forces leaving Iraq in about a year, along with >claims that 'we have handed our bit of the country over to the appropriate >civil power' and the 'Earl of Islington', or whatever title he chooses, >gets the blame for any future death and disfigurement in the Basra area. Surely Lord Haw-Haw would be more appropriate? >>I can see the UK armed forces leaving Iraq in about a year, along with >>claims that 'we have handed our bit of the country over to the appropriate >>civil power' and the 'Earl of Islington', or whatever title he chooses, >>gets the blame for any future death and disfigurement in the Basra area. > >Surely Lord Haw-Haw would be more appropriate? Lord Haw-Haw's broadcasts didn't result in the deaths of 130+ British soldiers. Lord Haw-Haw wasn't even British, although the government alleged he was, using a nationality technicality so he could be hanged. The Highlander Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan, togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan! > I can see the UK armed forces leaving Iraq in about a year, along with > claims that 'we have handed our bit of the country over to the appropriate [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > enter our society and integrate, happy in the knowledge that nobody sane > will ever suggest they return home... Good perception/writing. Thanks for that. Molesworth "William Black" wrote in message > Oh yes. > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > enter our society and integrate, happy in the knowledge that nobody sane > will ever suggest they return home... What has surprised me most is the depth and competence of the BA at a time when the rest of Western Europe is paring its military establishments down to almost nothing. By an accident of fate, Britain may now may have the most powerful land forces in Western Europe for the first time in modern history, excepting the brief post-WWII period. The Afghan War is treated differently here too. It is rarely mentioned because the fighting is less spectacular, there are far fewer forces engaged, the casualties comparatively light, and it doesn't provide as convenient a lever for the opposition to use to shift the Republicans out of office. Recent military successes over the present campaign season don't help the opposition much either. On another topic, I read an article by a modern swordsmith who thinks something as seemingly minor as the weight added by gold plating a hilt effects the performance of a weapon and why we didn't see more of it on 'working' swords, even of kings, from the days swords were important tools. It's an interesting idea. Plating in those days would have been by applying leaf rather than the thinner electroplating we use today. -the Troll > On another topic, I read an article by a modern swordsmith who thinks > something as seemingly minor as the weight added by gold plating a hilt [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > applying leaf rather than the thinner electroplating we use today. -the > Troll 1. Mercuric gilding was known in medieval times. You just wouldn't want to be in the street where they were doing it, never mind in the same room... We only know about leaf gilding being used on some armours because there are two that have been taken to bits and we can see the edges of the leafs of gold. 2. Swords weren't used very much in battles. They're invariably everyone's 'second weapon'. It's all bit like pistols today. Nice to have, may get you home if it all goes wrong, gives some status but you really wouldn't want to go into battle with one and nothing else... 3. They're only fighting a battle once every generation or so. 4. Any king who needs a 'working sword' is doing something wrong. At Crecy, Edward III rode a palfrey, a light horse not suitable for combat. 'Trial by Combat' was not common and nobody seems to have owned a 'best' and a 'working' sword as far as we know. Indeed 'the knight with two swords' is a figure mentioned by Mallory in 'Mort d'Arthur' 5. There isn't much gold about. England tried to introduce a gold coinage but it all promptly disappeared under people's beds... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message >> On another topic, I read an article by a modern swordsmith who thinks >> something as seemingly minor as the weight added by gold plating a hilt [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > 5. There isn't much gold about. England tried to introduce a gold > coinage but it all promptly disappeared under people's beds... Yup, knew most of that except for the mercuric gilding. Gold coinage was for hoarding from the time it was introduced and why, even though the coins were soft, so many gold (and electrum) ancients remain in near-perfect condition today. An example is the gold Frankish coins found in Redwald's grave at Sutton Hoo. Silver coinage was divided. Larger Greek denominations (above one drachm) were also often hoarded. I have a silver nomos of Tarentum struck in the third century BC that is graded FDC, or nearly uncirculated condition. You can still see the fine stress striations from striking on its surface. By the later Roman Republic, the only silver coin struck in quantity was the denarius. It was of small enough value for regular use. In the later Imperial Period it was debased and eventually only silver washed. Right through the Roman period day-to-day transactions were most often made in base metal token coinage. Leaf gilding doesn't take much gold and why the swordsmith's idea seems odd to me. He was talking about swords of the sixteenth century. I should have been more specific. My favorite sword of the Middle Ages is the sword of Henry V (d.1422) found hanging over his tomb. It's a thoroughly workmanlike sword, beautifully proportioned, and reputed to be very fast in the hand. In contrast with this would be the sword of Sancho IV of Castile and Leon (d.1258), which is gilded and ornamented. The sword was used secondarily to the lance, but the lance wasn't expected to survive the first contact in a charge and was of no use in the ensuing melee. Your point of infrequent war is well taken but there were more frequent lesser skirmishes, sieges, and tournaments. -the Troll > Leaf gilding doesn't take much gold and why the swordsmith's idea seems > odd to me. He was talking about swords of the sixteenth century. I should > have been more specific. Sixteenth century are horrible to try and categorise because you've got the beginings of swords as 'male jewellery' designed for wearing with 'civilian clothes' rather than with armour and the start of dueling becoming popular and of fencing rather than swordsmanship becoming the fashionable skill of the idle rich. > Your point of infrequent war is well taken but there were more frequent > lesser skirmishes, sieges, and tournaments. Tournaments are odd because what people did at them varied as time passed with them starting out as melees with men with unrebated weapons (in some cases) designed as battle training to events where nobody was supposed to get killed, or even injured and the equipment used was unsuitable for anything else. Smaller sieges and skirmishes tend not to end in confrontations between armed and armoured men. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message [.] >> Leaf gilding doesn't take much gold and why the swordsmith's idea seems >> odd to me. He was talking about swords of the sixteenth century. I should [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > becoming popular and of fencing rather than swordsmanship becoming the > fashionable skill of the idle rich. Yup. This swordsmith makes a specialty of traveling to museum collections and making exact copies. He seems to be very knowledgeable. >> Your point of infrequent war is well taken but there were more frequent >> lesser skirmishes, sieges, and tournaments. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > get killed, or even injured and the equipment used was unsuitable for > anything else. Yup. > Smaller sieges and skirmishes tend not to end in confrontations between > armed and armoured men. I don't think that's right. Sieges, certainly, used armed and armored forces and there was rarely a time without conflict between the barons until the fifteenth century. These may not be elevated to the category of 'battles' or 'wars' by the history books, but were armed conflicts just the same. Even travel for people likely to be attacked by enemies was with armed escorts and the marcher lords were constantly fighting in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and at the edges of the empire in Eastern Europe. The reconquista in Spain never really stopped, and Italy was a morass of city states constantly at war with one another. -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message >> Smaller sieges and skirmishes tend not to end in confrontations between >> armed and armoured men. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > reconquista in Spain never really stopped, and Italy was a morass of city > states constantly at war with one another. True, but lots of ambushes and inconclusive sieges and the emergence of cannon later on meant that the conventional conflict between armoured men just didn't happen very often. Caesare Borgia didn't die in some vast battle, but in a silly little ambush on the road... Most of his opponents died with a stiletto in the back or a with belly full of poison. The Wars of the Roses in England are odd because there are lots of pitched battles. The reason usually given for this is that the development of fortifications in England was neglected and so 'places of strength' couldn't stand against modern cannon and so people had to come out and fight... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message [.] >>> Smaller sieges and skirmishes tend not to end in confrontations between >>> armed and armoured men. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > cannon later on meant that the conventional conflict between armoured men > just didn't happen very often. That's right, by the fifteenth century, but earlier there was never a time there wasn't war somewhere. Ireland, the Balkans, Prussia, the present Baltic States, Poland, Scotland, Italy, and Spain were particular hot spots. > Caesare Borgia didn't die in some vast battle, but in a silly little > ambush on the road... > > Most of his opponents died with a stiletto in the back or a with belly > full of poison. That doesn't mean there were no battles and sieges taking the Romagna and the Marches or in his wars allied to the French against the Spanish. > The Wars of the Roses in England are odd because there are lots of pitched > battles. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > couldn't stand against modern cannon and so people had to come out and > fight... Castles were still useful as assembly points, for the storage of supplies, and for the short-term protection of the local big cheese. They also couldn't be easily bypasses as they were often astride major roads. Siege trains were not quickly assembled, were not always available, and were expensive. The poopy little field guns of the time were not useful against fortifications. As late as the summer of 1936, 1200 defenders, with no guns to speak of, held the medieval Alcazar of Toledo against 6000 Reds armed with batteries of modern guns up to 150mm for seventy odd days. None of the 600 women and children hiding in the subterranean cellars was killed. There were two natural deaths from old age and two children were born during the siege. The walls of the place were, in places, sixteen feet thick of granite blocks. -the Troll . The poopy little field guns of the time were not useful against > fortifications. You need to do some reading. I can recommend Blackmore's catalogue of the Artillery of the Tower Armouries... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message > "hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message > . The poopy little field guns of the time were not useful against >> fortifications. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I can recommend Blackmore's catalogue of the Artillery of the Tower > Armouries... Do you mean guns, gunners, and gunpowder were cheap, that heavy guns could be moved quickly overland, or that light guns could be used to knock down walls? The first two wheeled gun wasn't recorded until 1454 in France. Your friend Borgia had great difficulty moving guns around and paying for them - in Italy. 'Armies' during the Wars of the Roses averaged 2000-2500 men. I don't think armies of this size dragged along a train of guns capable of knocking down castle walls. Most of the army would have spent its time guarding this train. My argument is a well built castle could have resisted an attacking army for some time if in good repair and properly stocked and garrisoned. They still had a role to play in warfare of the period if no longer decisive. -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Your friend Borgia had great difficulty moving guns around and paying for > them - in Italy. Warwick's artillery train was the largest in Europe, and it moved. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message [.] >> Do you mean guns, gunners, and gunpowder were cheap, that heavy guns >> could be moved quickly overland, or that light guns could be used to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Warwick's artillery train was the largest in Europe, and it moved. ...which didn't help him much at Barnet. The large number of guns recorded in Medieval records is accounted for by the fact they made no distinction between hand held guns and what would later be called canon. Mons Meg fired a 350 pound shot. I wouldn't have wanted to move around even one on the roads of the period. Meg weighed six tons and moved at the rate of 3 miles per day - as long as it wasn't raining. That's 90 miles in a month - of good weather. I realize old Meg was larger than the usual bombard of the period, but it points out the difficulties. -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > a month - of good weather. I realize old Meg was larger than the usual > bombard of the period, but it points out the difficulties. The thing is you're saying that field guns are no good for knocking down walls and siege guns are no good at following field armies. Nobody has a problem with that. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message [.] >> The large number of guns recorded in Medieval records is accounted for by >> the fact they made no distinction between hand held guns and what would [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Nobody has a problem with that. That's what I'm saying and by extension that castles still had an important role in the warfare of the period. -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > That's what I'm saying and by extension that castles still had an > important role in the warfare of the period. True, but not in England... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message [.] >>> The thing is you're saying that field guns are no good for knocking down >>> walls and siege guns are no good at following field armies. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > True, but not in England... Why not? Because the castles were not as large and advanced as those on the continent? -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Why not? Because the castles were not as large and advanced as those on > the continent? Exactly. England was the aggressor in the Hundred Years War. There was no need for advanced 'cannon proof' castles there. There was in places like France because the 'Godamns' were coming sooner or later... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message [.] >> Why not? Because the castles were not as large and advanced as those on >> the continent? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > There was in places like France because the 'Godamns' were coming sooner > or later... Makes perfect sense. The exception would be the castles built by the king in Wales and elsewhere, which are what you guys call a serious bit of kit. -the Troll > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Makes perfect sense. The exception would be the castles built by the king > in Wales and elsewhere, which are what you guys call a serious bit of kit. Not by the time decent cannon come along. By then they're anachronistic piles of stone that impress only the rubes. So, for example, Sarzana castle in Ferreira (and I mention it because I've been there) isn't really a fortification at all much, but the Henrician stuff like Tilbury Fort (been there as well) is an artillery bastion enclosed by a low wall. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message [.] >>> There was no need for advanced 'cannon proof' castles there. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Henrician stuff like Tilbury Fort (been there as well) is an artillery > bastion enclosed by a low wall. Any serious castle built later than about 1200 could house troops and supplies, and couldn't be carried without some kind of siege if properly garrisoned. It might not take more than a week to breach the walls but then the attacker would need sufficient force to storm the place, say a ratio of 2:1 for the attacker at least. Too, the attacker would need guns large enough to knock down the walls. All of these count as an investment for the attacker and against his timetable. If there were three enemy castles along the attacker's route of march, three weeks would be a minimum needed to pass them unless the attacker was willing to string out his force against all three at once and thus expose himself to attack in detail. Taken together, it means castles could still be relevant as late as 1550, or so, or until guns and carriages of sufficient force became light enough move quickly with a field army. In the Highlands, very small castles were useful even past that time. A very clever one I saw was a simple tower with very narrow steps leading to the entrance on the second floor. There was no moat or outer wall, no barbican, no elaborate gate. The entrance was a stout narrow door only wide enough for a single man to pass through. There was no rail for the narrow stone staircase. This meant that the place could not be taken by surprise as long as one man stood guard by the door, which for clan warfare of the period, was enough. -the Troll In alt.history.british hippo <south-sudan.net> wrote: >"William Black" wrote in message >[.] >>>> There was no need for advanced 'cannon proof' castles there. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> Henrician stuff like Tilbury Fort (been there as well) is an artillery >> bastion enclosed by a low wall. >Any serious castle built later than about 1200 could house troops and >supplies, and couldn't be carried without some kind of siege if properly [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >them unless the attacker was willing to string out his force against all >three at once and thus expose himself to attack in detail. >Taken together, it means castles could still be relevant as late as 1550, or >so, or until guns and carriages of sufficient force became light enough move >quickly with a field army. I don't think you quite understand medieval warfare. A surrender without a siege usually meant that you went home with your arms and armor, surrendering only the castle. A siege followed by a surrender meant that you walked out and went home. Having to take a castle by force usually meant that everybody inside died, and not in very pretty ways either. The result was simple. Most serious sieges ended when the walls were rendered indefensible. But there was another side to it as well. In England by the time canon came around, the king had overwhelming military power. And a long memory. If you resisted him militarily, you had best be prepared to take him out totally because you were dead meat. If you were avenging what was seen to be a wrong, you'd likely be exiled for 10 years but your family would keep and inherit your lands. If you were attempting serious treason, you'd be dead (perhaps even dismantled in the process), your lands taken, and your family proscribed. Which is why the Wars of the Roses were serious stuff. The continent was somewhat different, but that's another post. >In the Highlands, very small castles were useful even past that time. A very >clever one I saw was a simple tower with very narrow steps leading to the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >as one man stood guard by the door, which for clan warfare of the period, >was enough. -the Troll But not against the King of England when he went north. Signature--- Paul J. Gans > In alt.history.british hippo <south-sudan.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > The continent was somewhat different, but that's another > post. If I remember correctly, during Roman times, if a city surrendered without a battle, the general formula was that the general got most of the loot from it. If it had to be taken in a fight, the surviving troops got most of it. Did something like that pertain in medieval times? >>In the Highlands, very small castles were useful even past that time. A >>very [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > But not against the King of England when he went north. > If I remember correctly, during Roman times, if a city surrendered without > a battle, the general formula was that the general got most of the loot > from it. If it had to be taken in a fight, the surviving troops got most > of it. > > Did something like that pertain in medieval times? Not really. There is the slow emergence of 'the rules and customs of war' which was essentially a set of basic 'rules of the game' for grownups. Things like slaughtering captives became frowned upon, so did the sacking of towns and cities that surrendered. It didn't stop it happening, but it did give survivors of battles some sort of hope if their side lost. I believe the church had a lot to do with it. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "J Antero" wrote in message [.] > If I remember correctly, during Roman times, if a city surrendered without > a battle, the general formula was that the general got most of the loot > from it. If it had to be taken in a fight, the surviving troops got most > of it. There wasn't an absolute formula for it. It was up to the Roman commander or Senate if the city was to be turned over to his troops to loot, regardless of how the place was taken. He could also elect to enslave the population or not. The decision could be political or based on the simple need for cash. During the earlier Republic, the conquered city or king's treasury and treasuries of the temples would become the property of the Roman State. Any seepage could get the commander (Consul, Proconsul) charged by the Senate on his return to Rome. The Roman army commander could, of course, receive gifts, the armor of the enemy commander, and a cut of the sale of slaves and other loot to include real estate. In the later Republican Period, Marius, Caesar, Sulla, and other strong men often kept more of what would otherwise have gone to the treasury. They got away with it because they, or more correctly their party, were the absolute power in Rome. -the Troll In alt.history.british J Antero <ae@re.com> wrote: >> In alt.history.british hippo <south-sudan.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] >> The continent was somewhat different, but that's another >> post. >If I remember correctly, during Roman times, if a city surrendered without a >battle, the general formula was that the general got most of the loot from >it. If it had to be taken in a fight, the surviving troops got most of it. >Did something like that pertain in medieval times? If a city or town surrendered on demand, there was no looting at all. At least that was what was supposed to happen. Most folks will fight to avoid losing everything they have. Signature--- Paul J. Gans > In alt.history.british hippo <south-sudan.net> wrote: This is off-topic stuff. It's about Blair and Iraq. > >"William Black" wrote in message > >[.] [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > -- > --- Paul J. Gans "Paul J Gans" wrote in message [.] >>Taken together, it means castles could still be relevant as late as 1550, >>or [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > The continent was somewhat different, but that's another post. I was presuming serious warfare. >>In the Highlands, very small castles were useful even past that time. A >>very [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > But not against the King of England when he went north. If the king and his army made it to this place he was lost. It's way out on one if the fingers of land between two lochs in the far west of the highlands. It was strictly a strong-house for clan warfare but cleverly done for its limited purpose. -the Troll > If the king and his army made it to this place he was lost. It's way out > on one if the fingers of land between two lochs in the far west of the > highlands. It was strictly a strong-house for clan warfare but cleverly > done for its limited purpose. But you are not talking about 'serious warfare' either. A Peel Tower isn't a problem for anyone operating over the level of force necessary to project a cattle raid into the next lord's manor, which is what they're designed to stop. It's a 'defensive structure' only to the extent that you can't easily knock it down with what you can carry on a horse or on your back. Twenty or thirty pounds of gunpowder will blow the doors off and the inhabitants can't actually do anything to stop you short of sallying out. Proper fortifications have clever bits of architecture to stop that happening... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" wrote in message >> If the king and his army made it to this place he was lost. It's way out >> on one if the fingers of land between two lochs in the far west of the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Proper fortifications have clever bits of architecture to stop that > happening... We were talking about two separate things here, castles and highland strong-houses. I goggled 'peel tower' and they are nothing like what I saw in the highlands, although I did see a large example in Ireland. The highlands 'castle' was far less elaborate, large, and less strongly built. There wasn't a cut stone in the place I can remember except for the door surround and steps, which were no wider than eighteen inches. It would have had no defense against an attacker using gunpowder against the outer wall. It was built strictly to defend against surprise clan raids. -the Troll In alt.history.british hippo <south-sudan.net> wrote: >"Paul J Gans" wrote in message >[.] >>>Taken together, it means castles could still be relevant as late as 1550, >>>or [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> >> The continent was somewhat different, but that's another post. >I was presuming serious warfare. >>>In the Highlands, very small castles were useful even past that time. A >>>very [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> But not against the King of England when he went north. >If the king and his army made it to this place he was lost. It's way out on >one if the fingers of land between two lochs in the far west of the >highlands. It was strictly a strong-house for clan warfare but cleverly done >for its limited purpose. -the Troll The king (if he had enough sense, and most did) took care of things another way. He did not have to kill his enemies. All he had to do was impoverish them. That entailed destroying his economic base, ie. burning out his villagers, burning the fields and stealing all the cattle. In addition, followers would be detached by threat or bribery. Signature--- Paul J. Gans "Paul J Gans" wrote in message [.] >>> But not against the King of England when he went north. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > fields and stealing all the cattle. In addition, followers would > be detached by threat or bribery. Many of the western highland clans had island possessions as well as lands on the mainland within the king's reach. The McLeods, for example, had lands on the islands of Skye, Harris, Lewis, Rassay, Uist, and others as well as mainland possessions in Assynt, and even their mainland lands were difficult and nearly roadless. Cattle and sheep would be driven deep into the hills in times of war. The highlands was very different from the agricultural economy of the lowlands, which was more like northern England's. Controlling the highlands had been difficult even for the Scottish kings. What was needed in the highlands was protection from surprise visits by marauding neighbors, giving the chief time to raise his clansmen. That was achieved by just such a castle as I described. Another interesting castle is the seat of the MacNeil of Barra, an island in the outer Hebrides. It is small and unimposing except that it sits on a small island in a large bay. At high tide there is no land mass for a besieger to occupy with his forces. The waves of the sea lap the very walls of the castle. There is no record in history of it ever falling to an enemy. -the Troll In alt.history.british hippo <south-sudan.net> wrote: >"Paul J Gans" wrote in message >[.] >>>> But not against the King of England when he went north. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> fields and stealing all the cattle. In addition, followers would >> be detached by threat or bribery. >Many of the western highland clans had island possessions as well as lands >on the mainland within the king's reach. The McLeods, for example, had lands [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >of the lowlands, which was more like northern England's. Controlling the >highlands had been difficult even for the Scottish kings. >What was needed in the highlands was protection from surprise visits by >marauding neighbors, giving the chief time to raise his clansmen. That was >achieved by just such a castle as I described. >Another interesting castle is the seat of the MacNeil of Barra, an island in >the outer Hebrides. It is small and unimposing except that it sits on a >small island in a large bay. At high tide there is no land mass for a >besieger to occupy with his forces. The waves of the sea lap the very walls >of the castle. There is no record in history of it ever falling to an >enemy. -the Troll I agree with all that about the highlands of Scotland. Nobody ever seems seriously to have tried to directly conquer them. Signature--- Paul J. Gans > In alt.history.british hippo <south-sudan.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > I agree with all that about the highlands of Scotland. Nobody > ever seems seriously to have tried to directly conquer them. Who wanted 'em! Serious point, though. Surreyman In alt.history.british a.spencer3 <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> In alt.history.british hippo <south-sudan.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >> I agree with all that about the highlands of Scotland. Nobody >> ever seems seriously to have tried to directly conquer them. >Who wanted 'em! >Serious point, though. Well, that's right. I hope I am not causing uproar when I point out that the Highlands and the Islands were among the poorest regions of Europe. Nobody (except for another Scotsman) ever considered them worth the cost of taking them. The one exception is the Vikings, of course, who wanted what we'd today call "naval bases" and "safe harbors". Signature--- Paul J. Gans > In alt.history.british hippo <south-sudan.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I agree with all that about the highlands of Scotland. Nobody > ever seems seriously to have tried to directly conquer them. Once the Scottish kingdom was firmly established the only real enemy in national wars generally was England and of course it was so much easier for them just to march over the border where you are only about 50 miles from Edinburgh anyway. Rather than try and conquer the Highlands the English sometimes looked on disaffected Highlanders (ie which often meant the MacDonalds) as a potential fifth column against the Scottish Crown. Allan > "William Black" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > had a role to play in warfare of the period if no longer decisive. -the > Troll Well, it still took me three hours to force my way into Windsor Castle last week. Surreyman "a.spencer3" wrote in message [.] > Well, it still took me three hours to force my way into Windsor Castle > last > week. Tourist or have you been keeping better company these days? :^) My friends in NI have given up on the Canary Islands idea and got paid back by the most splendid spring and early summer in memory. Ultimately it was probably the lack of green and separation from the kids and grands that didn't quite make up for the sun. How is it going with the escape to Spain plan going? -the Troll > "a.spencer3" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > didn't quite make up for the sun. How is it going with the escape to Spain > plan going? -the Troll They're our neighbours, don'tyerknow! Needed to chat for them to fix their fence .... Well, the Canaries are pretty bleak. They're just an early-year sun place. Not so keen on permanency in Spain these days. The next year is for retiring properly, completing a mass of probate/estate management I got lumbered with (numerous return trips to Caerphilly for the first time in many years!), consolidating finances and, when all's organised, deciding on the Great Leap Forward. Could be anything/anywhere currently. Possibly a small UK nest and several months wintering overseas in a different place wherever each year. How's your barrier reef fort doing? Surreyman "a.spencer3" wrote in message [.] How is it going with the escape to Spain >> plan going? -the Troll >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > How's your barrier reef fort doing? Sounds like a great plan and glad to hear you're not leaving. Olde England just wouldn't be the same if the English all went to Spain and I hate to give up on my romantic visions. It was giving up the pub after all, right? Bullfighting just ain't a viable alternative. The fort has been delayed by land prices and finding the right parcel to build on. It needs to be high enough in elevation to build on the ground - a concession to old age, not yet incorporated into the city, able to sustain two in-ground septic systems, and be off the main roads. There is a parcel of 8 acres I'm looking at as we speak. It already has a small lake on it but lacks enough trees. I'm too old to wait for new ones to grow. Meanwhile I'm fixing up the old place to sell. You will have to do the same. Even with a falling national real estate market my house has nearly doubled in value - again. A house several down from me just went on the market for 4.2 million bucks. It's a bit larger than mine, newly completely restored, and architecturally finer, but it is on a noisy street and has half the garden area and less privacy. If it sells for anything like the asking price, mine will fetch 3.5 million US and an offset against the delay. -the Troll > Sounds like a great plan and glad to hear you're not leaving. Olde England > just wouldn't be the same if the English all went to Spain and I hate to > give up on my romantic visions. It was giving up the pub after all, right? > Bullfighting just ain't a viable alternative. The pubs are no bloody good any more. There's a smoking ban starting in a week's time. Might seem trivial to many. But to smokers, like myself, it means no more drinking inside at the bar - the heart of the pub. Or even anywhere at the pub in winter. Also means the Loyal Toast means nothing at dinners etc., so one or two favourite dining clubs will be getting resignations after some 35 years of enjoyment. A xxxxxxxxxxx unecessary draconian measure that is xxxxxxxxx up the social lives of a third of the drinking classes. And don't tell me to stop smoking, after 50 years! And don't even mention the so-called arguments for all this rubbish. It means an absolute change of a way of life. Totally sickening. And totally unnecessary. Bastards! Surreyman >> Sounds like a great plan and glad to hear you're not leaving. Olde >> England [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > unnecessary. > Bastards! I gave up smoking a couple of years ago (except for an insanely expensive cigar now and again) and found I couldn't stand going into a pub for more than an hour or so in the evening. I found that even when sitting outside one and trying to eat a meal with someone smoking two tables away it was distressing. From the end of the month I'll be able to spend an evening in a pub without feeling ill. Mind you, pub gardens will become 'forbidden zones'... Still, you can't have everything. The poor shivering smokers staggering back inside all wet and cold this autumn will make entertaining watching... I think I will go to the folk club on Monday evening, for the first time in two years... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. On Jun 24, 8:27 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >> Sounds like a great plan and glad to hear you're not leaving. Olde > >> England [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach > Time for tea. The lost work hours from smokers needing to go outside to smoke, the strange promotions based on conversations between smokers, the rather obvious stench in the head guy's office when you open the door, etc. > The lost work hours from smokers needing to go outside to smoke, the > strange promotions based on conversations between smokers, the rather > obvious stench in the head guy's office when you open the door, etc. In the establishment where I worked my bosses were almost all non smokers (well, after the WWII veterans retired anyway) Anyone who smoked was never penalised, but were pretty obviously actively discriminated against when things like promotions came around. Working in a 'closed cycle' air conditioned environment meant that nobody got to smoke inside after about 1985... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > >> Sounds like a great plan and glad to hear you're not leaving. Olde > >> England [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > I think I will go to the folk club on Monday evening, for the first time in > two years... You've long been able to select non-smoking establishments to an increasing extent. I'll no longer have the reverse privilege anywhere. That's what's so xxxxxxx unfair. Surreyman >> I gave up smoking a couple of years ago (except for an insanely expensive >> cigar now and again) and found I couldn't stand going into a pub for more [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > increasing > extent. There aren't any non-smoking pubs within reasonable distance of where I live. All there is for the likes of me is a back room without a bar and full of broken and shabby furniture and screaming kids... I'm happy, you're not. The solution is in your own hands. Get elected and change things... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>> I gave up smoking a couple of years ago (except for an insanely expensive >>> cigar now and again) and found I couldn't stand going into a pub for more [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Get elected and change things... The main element that drove it here was the unfunded liability for workers' compensation that arose when it was found that second-hand smoke could cause cancer in some people. I suspect that's what is behind it in Europe now. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) > The main element that drove it here was the unfunded liability for > workers' compensation that arose when it was found that second-hand smoke > could cause cancer in some people. I suspect that's what is behind it in > Europe now. That's exactly what was driving it in the UK. Employers have a 'duty of care' to their staff under the Health and Safety legislation here. Something doesn't therefore have to even be proved to be unsafe, there just has to be reasonable suspicion that it may be unsafe and the employer has to make the necessary changes. In this case there were a number of anomalous situations, such as when smokers were employed and the situation in private clubs, and so primary legislation had to be passed. But in real terms all they've done was to pre-empt the first barman to drag his employer through the courts after catching lung cancer... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>The main element that drove it here was the unfunded liability for >>workers' compensation that arose when it was found that second-hand smoke [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > has to be reasonable suspicion that it may be unsafe and the employer has to > make the necessary changes. Mommy statism at its finest. > In this case there were a number of anomalous situations, such as when > smokers were employed and the situation in private clubs, and so primary > legislation had to be passed. > > But in real terms all they've done was to pre-empt the first barman to drag > his employer through the courts after catching lung cancer... I doubt that. Perhaps the first barman in twenty years' time... -- Les Cargill >>>The main element that drove it here was the unfunded liability for >>>workers' compensation that arose when it was found that second-hand smoke [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Mommy statism at its finest. Works for me. So I don't care... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>>>The main element that drove it here was the unfunded liability for >>>>workers' compensation that arose when it was found that second-hand smoke [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > So I don't care... You don't resent being an element of industrial inventory to be managed? -- Les Cargill >>>>>The main element that drove it here was the unfunded liability for >>>>>workers' compensation that arose when it was found that second-hand [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > You don't resent being an element of industrial inventory to be > managed? Eh? Your dialectic is faulty comrade. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>>>>>The main element that drove it here was the unfunded liability for >>>>>>workers' compensation that arose when it was found that second-hand [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Your dialectic is faulty comrade. I don't think so. Really. I liked our species better when people were somewhat pricklier about the details. Maybe it's because "A Man For All Seasons" was on again recently. Cussedness is a virtue. -- Les Cargill >>>The main element that drove it here was the unfunded liability for workers' >>>compensation that arose when it was found that second-hand smoke could [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Mommy statism at its finest. Since it is tax money that funds the workers' compensation system, I will tolerate it, especially since it means I can go to a pub and not come stinking to high heaven. >> In this case there were a number of anomalous situations, such as when >> smokers were employed and the situation in private clubs, and so primary [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I doubt that. Perhaps the first barman in twenty years' time... Ontario has already had two successful claims and one death as a result of cancer from on-the-job exposure to tobacco smoke. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) <snip> > The main element that drove it here was the unfunded liability for workers' > compensation that arose when it was found that second-hand smoke could cause > cancer in some people. I suspect that's what is behind it in Europe now. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901158.html That debate was never settled. Hell, there was adequate wiggle room on whether or not *smoking* caused cancer to keep it out of legitimate public health debate for decades. That's nobody's fault; the timelines for development of disease are so long that it's simply a very noisy proposition. The driver for antismoking is just the usual Puritanical forces, with a framework of overzealous application of actuarial inference. If it were, as William says, just about the aesthetic preference being for a smoke-free environment, then why isn't it framed in those terms? Isn't that enough? Why is it necessary to invent the argument as a public health argument? -- Les Cargill > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > those terms? Isn't that enough? Why is it necessary to invent the > argument as a public health argument? The precedent has been established in this jurisdiction, so it is now reasonable to protect the public from such liability. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) Quit smoking and whining, and start working out >> >> Sounds like a great plan and glad to hear you're not leaving. Olde >> >> England [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Surreyman >>> Sounds like a great plan and glad to hear you're not leaving. Olde England >>> just wouldn't be the same if the English all went to Spain and I hate to [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > I think I will go to the folk club on Monday evening, for the first time in > two years... We here in Ontario have forced smokers outside, and they persist even in our winter. Fuggem if they won't learn. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) >>>> Sounds like a great plan and glad to hear you're not leaving. Olde >>>> England [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > We here in Ontario have forced smokers outside, and they persist even in > our winter. Fuggem if they won't learn. Ditto in B.C.! - nil "a.spencer3" wrote in message [.] >> Sounds like a great plan and glad to hear you're not leaving. Olde >> England [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > unnecessary. > Bastards! Chuckle, they passed a similar ordinance here too that was supposed to go into effect yesterday. The kids who went out last night said folks were smoking in all the bars in spite of the ban. It may turn out to be one of those 'feel good' laws that are not enforced. It would be saner to require an air exchanger capable of a certain capacity per cubic feet of space with built in ion scrubbers for the recirculated air. That would have made everyone but the real nutters happy. Originally the smoking set-off from public buildings would have had people standing to smoke in the middle of the street. The idiots had to change that at the last minute. I have a list of the names of the city councilpersons who voted for the ban to remind me who not to vote for again. -the Troll <SNIP> > Chuckle, they passed a similar ordinance here too that was supposed to go > into effect yesterday. The kids who went out last night said folks were [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I have a list of the names of the city councilpersons who voted for the ban > to remind me who not to vote for again. -the Troll In NZ the bars were claiming there would be massive losses suffered as the punters were scared away.... Some bars promised to ignore the ban.. They only had to prosecute one person... Now you don't hear about it.... There are even suggestions that bar takings haven't been affected (Certainly haven't heard the bar owners complaining.. Maybe lots of people who can't stand the stench of tobacco smoke have decided they might go out to the pub etc... > <SNIP> >> Chuckle, they passed a similar ordinance here too that was supposed to go [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > complaining.. Maybe lots of people who can't stand the stench of tobacco > smoke have decided they might go out to the pub etc... The ban seems to have gone off very smoothly in Scotland too. There are some real moaners but they seem to be in a real minority. There have been some real silly stories in the press of course. One story was of a father who claimed the ban was damaging his children's health. That is because he didn't go to the pub as often the children were being subjected to his smoking. Nothing like taking responsibility for you own actions :-) Another story was that people were being more obviously subjected to people passing wind because there was no smoke to disguise the smell! Allan "Kerryn Offord" wrote in message <SNIP> >> Chuckle, they passed a similar ordinance here too that was supposed to go >> into effect yesterday. The kids who went out last night said folks were [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > complaining.. Maybe lots of people who can't stand the stench of tobacco > smoke have decided they might go out to the pub etc... That's certainly possible. I intend to eat and drink in establishments outside the city and have already been making plans in the event the ban is enforced. I remember bars smelling like wet wool, spilled beer, and packed humanity. I can't imagine tobacco smoke making it any worse. -the Troll > "a.spencer3" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > I have a list of the names of the city councilpersons who voted for the ban > to remind me who not to vote for again. -the Troll Not here. We're stupid, remember? We're the nation that largely follows all the rules whilst the rest (in the EU for instance) flout 'em. I laughed when Ireland did this last year - but apparently even the country pubs comply. NI, Wales & Scotland already have, and it holds. It's here for real. Even if it only lasts as long as Prohibition it'll be too late for me ...... I wish all the minority-lovers in Parliament would now remember me. Surreyman "a.spencer3" wrote in message [.] > Not here. > We're stupid, remember? We're the nation that largely follows all the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ...... > I wish all the minority-lovers in Parliament would now remember me. Politically we are strong enough a minority to swing the vote in a local election. The problem is we won't. The bastards are clever enough to have made us feel guilty by years of propaganda before they tried the ban. They're working on booze now and roast beef and chips will follow. Soon we'll be the ruminating bovine society they want, docile and easy to push around. -the Troll > "a.spencer3" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > I have a list of the names of the city councilpersons who voted for the > ban to remind me who not to vote for again. -the Troll Based on a quarter-century of experience, it will take little time for the smoking ban to become very very popular, because most people will quickly breathe in relief when they no longer find it necessary to avoid public and private venues just to be able to breathe air without the illnesses associated with nicotine. They predicted widespread business dislocations when the ban was put in place in California and other states. Instead, business improved as non-smokers found it was no longer necessary to avoid those businesses. Hippo, do you have any idea whatsoever just how much illness and grief that smoking inflicts on other people? Do you have any idea how exposure to secondhand smoke causes many people to develop lifelong respiratory illnesses as a consequnce of the autoimmune reactions to the smoke and nicotine. Do you have any idea how bad and objectionable you, your clothing, and objects exposed to your rancid tar and nicotine smoke smell when they are in the presence of non-smokers? >Based on a quarter-century of experience, it will take little time for the >smoking ban to become very very popular, because most people will quickly [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >clothing, and objects exposed to your rancid tar and nicotine smoke smell >when they are in the presence of non-smokers? Exactly, Dallas. Unfortunately in the UK the opposition against the smoking ban put it forward as an example of the nanny state and rampant socialism rather than common sense. -- Julian Richards www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV" THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL >>Based on a quarter-century of experience, it will take little time for the >>smoking ban to become very very popular, because most people will quickly [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL I remember a time when it was considered very bad manners to smoke in the presence of non-smokers, especially without their freely given consent. Smokers have since that time arrogated to themselves the unilateral right to inflict their addictions to tobacco smoke and all of its deletorious effects upon non-smokers regardless of venue and the objections of non-smokers. Having broadly breached the trust and compromised the health and welfare of non-smokers, tobacco smokers have no good reason to be surprised when non-smokers found it necessary to defend their rights to breathe air in public venues unpolluted by the deletorius effects of tobacco smoke. It is a nanny state when a government and society seeks to interfere with an individual's choices which affect only themselves and only their individual rights, and it is a just government and society which seeks to interfere with an individual's choices which inflict uninvited harm upon other people. If someone wants to smoke tobacco, keep the noxious effects to themselves, and cease barring non-smokers from public venues; they can then smoke tobacco without infringing other people's equal rights. Anything less tramples the rights and liberties of others to participate in events at public venues without being compelled to sacrifice their right to breathe healthy air. > I remember a time when it was considered very bad manners to smoke in the > presence of non-smokers, especially without their freely given consent. I don't know any smokers who would not still ask for permission to smoke among non-smokers. Indeed, I know many smokers who don't smoke in the presence of non-smokers at all. > Smokers have since that time arrogated to themselves the unilateral right to > inflict their addictions to tobacco smoke and all of its deletorious effects > upon non-smokers regardless of venue and the objections of non-smokers. That is not true. <snip> Don't you think it would be a lot easier if the sale of tobacco was made illegal? > > I remember a time when it was considered very bad manners to smoke in the > > presence of non-smokers, especially without their freely given consent. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Don't you think it would be a lot easier if the sale of tobacco was made > illegal? You mean like alcohol during prohibition? > > > I remember a time when it was considered very bad manners to smoke in the > > > presence of non-smokers, especially without their freely given consent. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You mean like alcohol during prohibition? Or marijuana? Sure made things a lot easier making it illegal. Joe >> I remember a time when it was considered very bad manners to smoke in the >> presence of non-smokers, especially without their freely given consent. > > I don't know any smokers who would not still ask for permission to smoke > among non-smokers. Indeed, I know many smokers who don't smoke in the > presence of non-smokers at all. When you say, "I don't know any smokers who would not still ask for permission to smoke among non-smokers", you cannot possibly be telling the truth. Anyone can see the falsity of your comment by visiting the same places you frequent. For example, all you have to do is go for a stroll through Athens some morning to see countless numbers of smokers who are smoking without the permission of non-smokers in their midst. Although Greece has finally enacted a number of laws regulating where smoking is restricted and prohibited in public places, these regulations are almost universally ignored, and enforcement rarely occurs except in special circumstances. Sit down to breakfast at nearly any cafe or restaurant and you'll find an abundance of smokers who will smoke in your pres |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message