It is perfectly possible to debate this subject without the danger of being red-carded. Emotions have to kept in check, that’s all. But then that applies to any debate, worthy of the name.;)

Tornado – ” I often think if things are so bad and awfull for them living here , why are they so slow at going back to the countries they sing the praises of ??”

Because they are hypocrites.

“When in Rome….” has always been my belief, as mentioned in other posts here. It has to be the only basis for a homogenous interaction between incumbents and immigrants – anywhere. Multiculturalism is and has always been a flawed concept. Immigrants should be prepared to abide by the laws and ethos of the country they move to. When they do not is when racial tension breaks out. Generally speaking indigenous people resent their ways of life being subverted, and this applies to any immigrant anywhere. There are always exceptions to any rule, of course, but I believe the central point is valid.

Spot on Linc – we’re running scared of offending Muslims here and Cameron has finally got off the fence in his speech in Munich. Yes, I know, most Muslims are peacable, English-loving citizens ( I know a few of them and like them a lot ) but we have to be aware that a minority seek only evil against us and we should not be afraid to talk about it and to hell with the petty-fogging laws which seek to restrain us.

Well I’ve never seen them, so if they come they will be a bonus to the already excellent displays we already have. Nothing wrong with that is there?:)

Yes Im too young to have heard his speech in 1962 😀 But of course I knew about it when I wrote my post. And this quote clearly illustrates my point:
“Within these last 19 months at least 45 satellites have circled the earth. Some 40 of them were “made in the United States of America” and they were far more sophisticated and supplied far more knowledge to the people of the world than those of the Soviet Union” – so the goal was to overtake USSR at first place. For sure aerospace industry pushes related industries, which is also in his speech, but I was specifically referring to manned programs – there was purely prestige about that. Commercial space exploration doesn’t need man out there, communication satellites and ICBMs work fine without vulnerable human beings.

You missed this bit, which precedes your quote:

“There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency.”

They didn’t!!!:D:D:D Wooden spoon for the Welsh, I reckon.;)