The problem is that prestige and "coolness" sometimes trump practicality and usefulness when the government decides to spend money. Don't get me started on subsidizing sports stadiums, with public funds, for wealthy athletic teams and their wealthy owners...while school roofs leak.
-
Bombing
-
In reply to: It's Tony Blair's fault 100% for following that Bush idiot. Bullshit.You can talk about responsibility and tit for tat and precipitating events all you want to. But it boils down to this - terrorists MADE THE DECISION to kill a lot of innocent people. The 9/11 terrorists MADE THE DECISION to kill 3000 innocent people. I'm not saying that we shouldn't always take the opportunity to look at what we as a nation are doing, but to say these bombings are the fault of Bush or Blair is fundamental bullshit.
-
Your post should be in much larger type, just so it is easy for everyone to see and read. Getting others to understand...eh...one thing at a time.
-
Everyone can say its so and so's fault but for me it runs deeper. I am not bitching because we lost 35 of our own nor am I responsible for killing innocent people in iraq. I am just someone who lives in England and has absolutley no say whatsoever in what my country does and what people may do to our country. All I can do is witness the stuff that happens and although people want to lay blame I think we need to look at the innocent people that died. They didn't decide to kill people in Iraq, they didn't ask to be killed. These were as were 9/11 just innocent every day decent people who were killed because of the governments or whoevers decisions to bomb us etc etc. I don't think it is fair to say that we deserved to get bombed. Would you say that to a relative who had just found out their loved one was dead?
-
And to you Jessica, I also say great post!it is pretty straightforewared. Out of any given action, there exists many possible responses. It is the choice of the responder what path they take. The blame for any action rests soley and squarely on the shoulders of the one or ones who committ the action.
-
Thank you vincubus its nice of you to say that made me smile. It is true what you say I agree 100%. We don't take the actions we unfortunately have to deal with the consequences (?spelling). If I had my way there would be no war no killings and everyone would get free take aways for life.
-
OK, but most car insurance companies would disagree.
-
Sorry I know its late but not sure what car insurance has to do with it? Sorry blond moment Steve
-
Glad to have made you smile, jessica. Takes less muscles to smile, too. Angry folks always seem to have that "muscular" mouth!lol!Yes, Steve, please also enlighten, tighten, and brighten my mind on this subject. I am not a blonde, and I am always down to learn sumpin new.
-
It was in response to vincubus' saying: "The blame for any action rests soley and squarely on the shoulders of the one or ones who committ the action." I thought my post would follow his, but I was too slow in hitting the "Continue" button.In the case of a sniper picking off a random person, I suppose you could put 100% of the blame on the sniper. But in care crashes, wars, etc., it's unusual for anyone to rate a full 100%.
-
What the hell does car insurance have to do with it?
-
In reply to: But in care crashes, wars, etc., it's unusual for anyone to rate a full 100%. That's a faulty analogy. Most car crashes are accidental. Neither party meant for it to happen. In wars or terrorist attacks, at least one side very much meant for it to happen.
-
A = the less at-fault partyB = the more at-fault partyYeah, but A can create a situation that made it likely that B will run into A.It happened to my car, when it was parked on the street. Someone cut off a driver, who, because of it, crashed (hard) into my car. The insurance companies of the two offending cars spent a month arguing that the other person should me majority at-fault. They finally compromised at 50-50, which is what my insurance company suggested in the first place (they just wanted to get reimbursed, since they had already paid me).It's possible that London was bombed as a protest to Britain's involvement in the Iraq war. Tony Blair involved Britain in the war. Therefore, it can be argued, the bombing was partially Tony Blair's fault, even if going to war was justified. Besides that, there may be security issues in Britain, such as their immigration policy and lax security in certain areas, that also contributed. Blair has been PM for quite a while now.
-
You do bring up the interesting point that "at fault" doesn't always entail lack of justification.
-
Georgina Dufoix was France's social affiars minister between 1994 and 1996. During her tenure, it was found that blood for transfusion was not handled in a way that would screen out or kill the virus, using techniques that were well known at the time, and were being used elsewhere. She and others were charged with a crime, becuase, had they done what they should have, some number of AIDS cases could have been prevented. During the trial, she said, "Je suis responsable, mais pas coupable." ("I am responsible, but not guilty.") It's a French legal concept, but then think of O.J. Simpson's trial (civil responsibility for two deaths, bot no criminal guilt).But O.J. Simpson is not a good analogy for Tony Blair.