Time Travel

If you could back in time and change one thing what would it be ?

«1

Comments

  • The outcome of the 2001 play off final.

  • I wouldn't change anything personally as you don't know the outcome! 

    i would like to see though:

    the making of the pyramids

    london around the Jack the ripper era 

    tudor times

    what my town looked like in olden days image

  • wouldn't it be great to just walk through your own village a hundred years ago and just observe

  • the past and the future seren.

     

  • But you might meet your parents... and before you know it, you'll be disappearing from photographs.

  • The first rule of Time Travel is that you are not allowed to change anything.

    But I would like to go back and observe London before the Great Fire.

  • There's nothing I woulCharente but I would love to have been around in the 60s to have a look 

  • i want to go forward and have a look.

  • Not sure I'd I'd want to go back in time and change things, other than maybe to stop myself doing what with hindsight were mistakes.
    If I could go back in time and just observe things then I'd probably go back and watch the Wright brothers doing their first flight or plant a homing device on Amelia Earhart's plane so that I could track it and find out what actually happened to her.

  • I'd go back to see how my parents met.

    I'd accidentally prevent the moment they feel in love causing my mum to develop a crush on me.

    I'd neary fade from existence but just manage to pull it together at the school dance so they fall in love by getting my dad to deck the such school bully who would take advantage of my mum.

    Then a non dramatic return to the present in a lightning powered car leaving behind a trail of fire.

     

  • Whoops, just seen Runny's post! I'm always late to the party...

  • image Shame you couldn't go back to before it was posted

  • I'd make my mum go to the doctor

  • And stop my dad from smoking

  • I'd like to go back to the day before I was born and have a bit of wander around the various places I have lived or visited since.

    Would like to see Stonehenge being built as well

  • I would witness as many wars as I could. Sounds a bit weird and backwards but reading and watching doesn't quite bring the real horror to life and to feel what these people did for 5 minutes perhaps would change the way I think image

  • TheVicar wrote (see)

    I would witness as many wars as I could. Sounds a bit weird and backwards but reading and watching doesn't quite bring the real horror to life and to feel what these people did for 5 minutes perhaps would change the way I think image

    I'm a bit confused by that statment. Presumably (unless you are actually Michael Gove) your current stance is anti-war with compassion to those who have suffered as a result of it.

    Seeing it at first hand would surely confirm the way you already think  - not change it?

  • With more recent wars then even civilians can get caught up in them because of the types of weapons that get used but what if you went back to times where they didn't have them.
    Would you feel the same way as someone that could get bombed or shot would feel if the soldiers only had swords, or would you simply hide until the fighting was over and simply take it as an interuption to your day to day life.
    How must people have felt when the first weapons were developed that allowed you to kill people at a distance compared to when you simply had to stay as far away from the people that were doing the killing.

     

  • I still think wars, if they have to be fought, should be fought by sending a few hundred willing soldiers into a field with swords and horses.

    With the commander in chief at the head of them - not sitting behind a desk signing other people's death warrants.

    I wonder how many would have the b*lls for up-close, hand to hand fighting when it came down to it? Few, I imagine.

  • http://hateandanger.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/what-do-we-want-time-travel-when-do-we-want-it-its-irrelevant.jpg

     

  • Love it image

  • Screamapillar wrote (see)

    I still think wars, if they have to be fought, should be fought by sending a few hundred willing soldiers into a field with swords and horses.

    With the commander in chief at the head of them - not sitting behind a desk signing other people's death warrants.

    I wonder how many would have the b*lls for up-close, hand to hand fighting when it came down to it? Few, I imagine.

     

    fighting hand to hand and up close and personal still happens in war not as much as it used to but it happens, and I can tell you what does take more balls now days when in a war zone and that's the day to day living that the civi standing next to you could blow up any anytime, and the simple task of moving around either on foot or in a mounted role with the constant threat of a ied under foot or wheel now that takes balls.

  • Well basically I was a squaddie and have seen some rather disterbing things in my time. However my job more than anything is to understand people and peoples feelings. Not to ram religion down their throat, believe it of not. I enjoy human stories but I what really moves me is how people act in times of trouble and strife. What makes these people tick, what did they feel, what horror have they seen or faced. For example I am reading one of the best eye witness accounts about ww1 called storm of steel by ernst junger.

    We will never go back to a period where war hasn't happened. From the dawn of time we have fought, even against different species of humans! Not using this as fact but the Cain and Abel story from the Bible is ancient and thats about bashing somebody to death over something silly! War is a way of life it will always happen and peace is something that people will never experience in their lives. War is sometimes a necessary evil, sometimes their is no reason, but we will always have war.

    So yes its a bit weird, no I am far from being a Pacifist - Jesus could be because he is perfect I am hoever far from it. I served my country and in due course I hope to finish my training and become an Army Chaplain. So time travelling back to witness different wars first hand isn't macabre experiment I'd wish to carry out, I would just want to share the grief and horror with these young lads that went before me and who never came home.

  • Jus wrote (see)
    Screamapillar wrote (see)

    I still think wars, if they have to be fought, should be fought by sending a few hundred willing soldiers into a field with swords and horses.

    With the commander in chief at the head of them - not sitting behind a desk signing other people's death warrants.

    I wonder how many would have the b*lls for up-close, hand to hand fighting when it came down to it? Few, I imagine.

     

    fighting hand to hand and up close and personal still happens in war not as much as it used to but it happens, and I can tell you what does take more balls now days when in a war zone and that's the day to day living that the civi standing next to you could blow up any anytime, and the simple task of moving around either on foot or in a mounted role with the constant threat of a ied under foot or wheel now that takes balls.

    Yes, absolutely - what I was questioning is whether a modern leader would maintain the courage to lead if he had to face those circumstances personally. Richard III wasn't exactly hanging back at Bosworth or Henry V at Agincourt.

    I admire that.

  • Sorry I was just answering my own question image

    Problem is the kings who actually fought were bought up training for the day. David Cameron has ponced about a bit. Thats doesn't really qualify him for this. Look at Prince Harry - I'd ride in to battle with him because he has trained to do such a thing. So we would have to live in a world where the Prime minister knew what he/she was going to end up doing if called upon. So if role of Prime minister happened to be faffing around with taking more money off us etc but also to ride into war then we would get a very different type of leader in the first place.

    So to answer your question Nope I don't think any so called leader in this country would be willing to go front line! Nor USA but perhaps Russiaimage

  • Well, Putin pretends to be a bit of a hard man but I'm pretty sure he'd cack himself in a genuinely dangerous situation.

    I reckon John Prescott might be up for it though image

  • TheVicar wrote (see)

    Sorry I was just answering my own question image

    Problem is the kings who actually fought were bought up training for the day. David Cameron has ponced about a bit. Thats doesn't really qualify him for this. Look at Prince Harry - I'd ride in to battle with him because he has trained to do such a thing. So we would have to live in a world where the Prime minister knew what he/she was going to end up doing if called upon. So if role of Prime minister happened to be faffing around with taking more money off us etc but also to ride into war then we would get a very different type of leader in the first place.

    So to answer your question Nope I don't think any so called leader in this country would be willing to go front line! Nor USA but perhaps Russiaimage

    I wish more world leaders and people in government would serve then they might under stand the serving guys and girls on the ground a lot better, it might help them when it comes to making decisions and telling us lot what to do.

  • Jus-Got point well made. But to play devils advocate. You would then start relying on high ranking army officers as such to run the country because it will never be your nomal squaddie who will be prime minister thats for sure image British military history suggests high ranking officers are no better than politicians. Perhaps round up every politician and send them as a super regiment into Syria to sort it all out?

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.