There are a few forces in the World today who appear to wish to bring on World War 3, Kim Jong-un, Trump, Israel and the Fundamental Right and all should be countered for WW3 will, if it comes, will be apocalyptic for the majority of the Worlds population and to what end.
The World, today, may not be good place, but it is all our lives at stake and none should be lost due to the actions of the Warmongers, never today, tomorrow or anytime within the future.
And this is exactly what Christian Zionist millennialists like Tim Lahaie want.
Yesterday, Trump announced that he was going to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This is what the Israelis have been demanding for years, but previous administrations have not given into them, because they were very much aware that this would set off a powder keg of rage and hostility across the Middle East. Jerusalem was taken from the Palestinians, and still contains a sizable Arab population. The Israeli nationalist right would love it to be the capital of their nation, but it is also claimed by the Palestinians.
There have been mass protests and riots against Trump’s decision all over the Middle East. RT yesterday put up this footage of Israeli squaddies or the police trying to put down protesters or rioters in Bethlehem yesterday.
And politicians from across the political spectrum have condemned…
As you say this is exceedingly worrying, especially as there is, currently, a shortage of NHS Dentists.
However, do these young dentists realise that if there is a sudden large influx of dentists into the private sector then this could diminish the profits they wish to receive. In many ways a constant flow of regular guaranteed income is more beneficial that the possibility of some form of private income. There is supply and demand in all areas and this applies to the private sector in the same ways as the public sector.
That been said any decisions for anyone to leave the NHS is not at all good for those of us who have to rely on the NHS as we do not have the funds to go private.
There is a need to keep a check on quality but are targets the best way, for when you are concentrating on meeting certain targets your attention could be diverted away from other areas, which are as of equal importance, but no targets have been set.
I do worry regarding the constant push in the NHS to privatisation, as will be the case in dentistry should there be a further reduction in available dentists this does not mean the population will follow them to the private sector, they will most likely not visit the dentists. In the longer term this will then create more pressures on an already pressurised NHS leading to a serious decline in the health if persons within the UK. This will then have a disastrous effect on employment and the attendance rates, which in turn will create a lack of sustainability in the economy of the UK. Everything is interrelated from birth to death and all the levels in between.
I agree with most of this post, however, in my 60 odd years of life on this earth I have found that there are not many politicians in who you can believe in, be they red, blue, green, purple, orange, yellow and others. However, there are some in which there is some form of belief and others practically none. They all promise the earth and unfound riches in their manifestos and only when they assume power can the truths be revealed.
You cast your vote and hope for the best.
Regarding Brexit nothing has come forth as we have not Brexited and will not be doing so until March 2019 or may be not, depending on whether there will be a transition deal or not.
Everything is so up in the air and no one on either side in the UK or Europe can be sure of the final outcome. We can all speculate on what the outcome or outcomes will or can be and who will be in power if and when we do or not do Brexit.
That length of string is getting longer or is it shorter, day by day.
This is another fascinating little video from RT’s Going Underground. Host Afshin Rattansi talks to the former cabinet minister under Blair, Chris Smith, above his decision to oppose the Invasion of Iraq, his work in the Advertising Standards Authority, and Brexit.
Smith was Blair’s Culture Secretary, and the author of a book, Creative Britain. The cover showed him wielding a professional movie/TV camera. He states he opposed the Iraq invasion because it was ‘obviously the wrong the policy’. He also states that during his time with the Advertising Standards Authority, people wrote in asking them if they could possibly act against the misleading political advertising in elections. Smith states that this is sadly impossible. Their constitution limits them to commercial advertising only, and they have no power to prosecute or punishment politicians that lie.
On the subject of Brexit, he and Rattansi clearly hold different views. Smith appears…
While at first glance this appears to be another hare-brained idea and certainly would be if Government (taxpayers) money was to be used both for its initial purchase and then for its sustainability (running costs).
However, if money was forthcoming from the businesses that would benefit from an increase in trade, then that could be a different matter.
However, as that would be extremely unlikely to occur I therefore concur with the previous comments that it will be a waste of money and another foolish and expensive idea from the Boris, as it would be dead in the water, like a lead balloon. However, it could be crewed by the Cabinet and they could go down with the Yacht, although there are less expensive ways to be Cabinet rid.
During last week’s by-election in Oldham and West Royton, commentators criticised the apparent inability of a large number of constituents to speak English. In the lead-up to the poll, the Guardian’s Northern Correspondent tweeted: A dismaying number of voters I met in Oldham today can’t speak English despite living there a decade or more. But they’re voting…
‘…………By Simon ReichProfessor in The Division of Global Affairs and The Department of Political Science, Rutgers University Newark
When in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo attacks last January, I wrote a column suggesting that we all had to demonstrate a new toughness.
At that time, I thought the scale of ISIS’ attacks on Western targets was contained by its avowed doctrine of territorial legitimacy. I assumed any attacks in the West would be carried out by lone wolves or with one or two partners.
I was wrong.
Ever since it first declared a caliphate, ISIS’ leadership consistently expressed the intent of fighting a more or less conventional war in a well-defined piece of territory spreading across Iraq and Syria.
Their surprising initial victories reinforced that strategy. And it allowed them to pursue a war against the Yazidis, which the American Holocaust Museum has declared a genocide.
But then the Americans arrived, eager to engage a Jihadist army in direct combat.
So ISIS responded, by shifting its strategy towards new tactics: fighting a more common, irregular, guerrilla war, as the Taliban had often done successfully in Afghanistan and militants had done in Iraq before them.
Then the Russians arrived to support Syrian President Al Assad.
Although their initial targets have not been ISIS strongholds, it has changed the dynamic once again.
ISIS leaders understand that with the US on one side and the characteristically merciless Russians on the other, time is running out.
It is one thing to take on one of them. It is quite another to take on both.
They can replenish their forces with raw new recruits. But they probably can’t do it fast enough to hold off all sides. And the apparent execution by drone of Jihadi John, their poster child, threatens a further dent in their recruitment campaign.
So, the ever flexible ISIS leadership has moved to a new stage in their tactics – war by terror.
The goals are predictable.
First, killing civilians at home in Europe in highly symbolic settings. Their intent here is to provoke a debate about these countries’ involvement in Syria and Iraq and thus break the political will of the western countries. There is, in other words, a cost to be paid for military intervention.
Second, to convince potential new recruits that with limited training they can still play a crucial role as a martyr. After all, if you are going to die as a martyr, you don’t want to do so by the side of the road in the middle of the desert. You want to do so on the streets of Paris where everyone will know who you were and what you did.
Third, to convince the west that you are still a formidable force – everywhere.
The new tactic involves soft civilian targets. They involve country nationals and foreign recruits. The enemy is everywhere and nowhere. It is a classic terrorist response.
I spent the evening of the attacks frantically trying to reach my family and friends. My sister-in-law, Lorene Aldabra, is a professional singer and musician who often visits the Bataclan concert hall, scene of so much carnage. When you have to spend time tracking down loved ones, you really understand what this new war means.
The declarations of support are encouraging and touching. President Obama was as eloquent as ever. London’s mayor Boris Johnson sounded mildly Churchillian. Benjamin Netanyahu from Israel was blunt and forthright. But we can assume these attacks won’t be the last ones.
France is in a state of emergency. The security services in Europe and North America are on a state of alert. My spouse traveled on the Washington, DC-to-New York train Friday night and it was full of sniffer dogs and police. We risk a return to the national fear that gripped us after 9/11.
Parisians got it right when they assembled in large numbers and unfurled a sign saying “not afraid” in the hours after these attacks.
But not afraid of what?
The terrorists for sure. But also let’s not be afraid to distinguish between terrorists and Syrian asylum seekers. Between those who invoke the forces of evil and those imams who decry it. Between our Muslim friends and neighbors and our fanatical enemies.
The lives of Parisians will not be the same after November 13. But, knowing the city and its inhabitants well, I believe that they will not be deprived of oxygen and disappear into the vortex of hate preached by jihadists – or Europe’s extreme nationalists. Civility, albeit wrapped in an iron fist, will be their response. ………….’