Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Absolutely! Gosh, how would we be able to pay for nuclear missiles and the planes, ships and submarines required to launch them. Maybe we wouldn't even be able to launch devastating attacks using smart bombs on
Tom
Attachments
They are more than just remnants, the greater part of New Labour has not been destroyed, so we still need to be very cautious about exactly what Labour stands for. I still think Labour poses a greater threat to ordinary, working & financially sensible people than the Tory party. I don’t like either, but for me Tory is the best pick from a rotten bunch.
I think he's too canny. That figure could easily change and it's not reliable anyway. The Independent reports it as 75% of Labour voters in favour of Remain and 25% against. There could be some dirty tricks going on, the Tories are capable of anything to stop Corbyn.
.
Whats point of missiles in Corbynutopia... He says in his manifesto he, d call a meeting to discuss retaliation but would never give order to fire anything.. Might as well just give them all to Putin.
Seem we have choice between a Marxist dictatorship or May?? Now which shall we vote for... Luxury communism (labour choice of words not mine) or May and all her faults.
My friend next door summed it up today. He proclaimed over our edge "you, ll be selling your house at coast when my lot get in,nobody will be allowed second homes under Corbyn"
Out of mouths of babes and fat slobs.
I did tell him my lot had paid for everything he owned, his children's education, the roof over his head, etc etc but point was lost.He, s another angry voice.
Last edited:
It might have helped if TM had been able to read the article below before she met DT, or even had any form of contact with the administration.
If if there is much exaggeration and some outright untruths, it is pretty horrific.
Without any doubt whatsoever, even if DT promised the best deal the USA had ever made, I wouldn't trust it at all.
‘This guy doesn’t know anything’: the inside story of Trump’s shambolic transition team
Michael Lewis, author of Moneyball and The Big Short, reveals how Trump’s bungled presidential transition set the template for his time in the White House
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/sep/27/this-guy-doesnt-know-anything-the-inside-story-of-trumps-shambolic-transition-team
If if there is much exaggeration and some outright untruths, it is pretty horrific.
Without any doubt whatsoever, even if DT promised the best deal the USA had ever made, I wouldn't trust it at all.
‘This guy doesn’t know anything’: the inside story of Trump’s shambolic transition team
Michael Lewis, author of Moneyball and The Big Short, reveals how Trump’s bungled presidential transition set the template for his time in the White House
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/sep/27/this-guy-doesnt-know-anything-the-inside-story-of-trumps-shambolic-transition-team
Oyster, can you precis the article, life is just too short to read it all. I, ll believe whatever you tell us.. Trump is a bad guy will do.
The department of agriculture was an excellent case study. The place had an annual budget of $164bn and was charged with so many missions critical to the society that the people who worked there played a drinking game called Does the Department of Agriculture Do It? Someone would name a function of government, say, making sure that geese don’t gather at US airports, and fly into jet engines. Someone else would have to guess whether the agriculture department did it. (In this case, it did.) Guess wrong and you had to drink. Among other things, the department essentially maintained rural America, and also ensured that the American poor and the elderly did not starve. Much of its work was complicated and technical – and yet for the months between the election and the inauguration, Trump people never turned up to learn about it. Only on inauguration day did they flood into the building, but the people who showed up had no idea why they were there or what they were meant to do. Trump sent, among others, a long-haul truck driver, a telephone company clerk, a gas company meter reader, a country club cabana attendant, a Republican National Committee intern and the owner of a scented candle company. One of the CVs listed the new appointee’s only skill as “a pleasant demeanor”.
All these people had two things in common. They were Trump loyalists. And they knew nothing whatsoever about the job they suddenly found themselves in. A new American experiment was underway.
I love to read your posts, they display a vivid imagination if nothing else
Let's examine the logic of the Nuclear Deterrent and ask, for what reason would anyone threaten us with them?
Answer ?
There isn't a reason, is there?
For who would find invading these islands required the use of Nuclear Weapons?
Are you actually seriously suggesting if the Russians invade we would use them? that would be National Suicide and surely no one would be stupid enough to do so.
If the Russians say decided to invade this country, how would chucking our handful of Firecrackers at them put them off?
We can't target the invasion force can we, without blowing ourselves up.and the missiles the Americans have foisted on to us so far seem to go home to the USA when fired.
The idea is ludicrous, so much so that we would do better to dump the American missiles and all the associated crap and threaten to blow ourselves up with bombs stored here while they were in the process of invading us, as the difference with throwing dodgy missiles in their general direction is unlikely to do much harm , after their defences have most likely countered most of them,even assuming they go in the right direction, meanwhile guaranteeing our destruction by a retaliatory strike.
Blowing ourselves and them up is in fact a multiple bonus,
- we save money immediately,
- no longer have to ask how high when the Americans say "jump"
- And have the satisfaction of taking the Red Army with us
- The country is of Zero value to the enemy afterwards whichever way it goes
And here is an even better idea! be like most nations on the planet, grow up and dump nuclear weapons, thus not making us a target as America's lapdog.
Brexit is supposed to be about establishing control, being independent of America would be an ideal place to start.
For after all which nation was the one and only one mad enough to employ nuclear weapons?
And only 9 out of over a hundred have them any way.
As to your second home on the coast, it would be better served housing someone who didn't buy it as a toy, but as somewhere to live, in Yorkshire here most of the fishing villages are filled with people who have bought these status symbols and displaced the locals, caused the house prices to rise to the point where the local young can't afford to marry and live in the village their family have lived in for generations.
Corbyn won't take your toys off you, but beware of the other lot.
You, ve spouted that old clap trap before OG... More than once.
You may well be correct. It's all hypothetical. Nobody really knows what has kept relative world peace since 1945.(Well no world wars and no nuclear conflicts)
However, under a Labour govt. (Clement Attlee actually) UK took decision to have a nuclear deterent, a choice all subsequent governments have supported and maintained. Even Corbyn says he would keep Trident, which brings me to the point.
Our current pretence of an opposition openly says they would keep Trident.... But never ever use it. That is utter stupid. Either have it or don't, but having it and saying you would never use it defeats having it in first place.
Personally think MAD has kept us safe (relatively) but I respect your right to think differently, even tho it's utter clap trap.Well bo11ox actually. But talking that is something of your speciality.
Truth is they are scared of Corbyn, the electoral drift is indicating a good chance he'll be elected next GE. Only today a Tory MP was seriously saying they should adopt some of his methods to appeal to the ordinary person.
.
Last edited:
As an ordinary person (so to speak), I think they'll have to go way further than adopting some of his methods to appeal to me.
Like adopt some his policies (and not just as lip gloss to look as if they are doing so).
(I really don't think I am a huge leftie with communist/marxist tendencies.)
Right now, I am finding it hard to imagine brexit not being the only issue I'd vote on if there were a GE tomorrow. Or in accord with tradition, next Thursday.
Frankly I'm not surprised that you take the attitude you do, but don't confuse yourself into thinking it is sane or reasonable.
It is quite simply stupid madness.
By the way, how do you manage to say this in one line
"You may well be correct. "
Then say this.
"but I respect your right to think differently, even tho it's utter clap trap.Well bo11ox actually. But talking that is something of your speciality
So apparently my speciality is "utter claP trap,Well bo11ox actually, and at the same time "You may well be correct."?
Comedy award of the day goes to you, and my congratulations as usual
Last edited:
A stupid madness which has kept nuclear war at bay for 70 years or more. In our entire history there has never been a weapon devised which has gone unused for such periods. Changing the status quo of that would be inviting its use.
Your reasoning is pure hypothetical and totally dependant on trusting all. A very very dangerous approach. In an ideal peaceful world we wouldn't need any form of nuclear deterent, missiles or even military. Its not an ideal world, mankind has not reached maturity, as recent events in Salisbury have proven to the sane amongst us, when and if the entire human race evolves into a truly social animal I would agree with you. For the time being we, ll keep our deterent thanks.
It will be another vote loser for Comrade Corbyn. His stance on it is bewildering, sitting on fence on yet another issue.
We, ll have to agree to disagree. Again.
Totally agree for multi lateral disarmament. Unilateral for us. No thanks.
Last edited:
Possibly somewhat more rational and safer than hurling insults at Kim and threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea.
And all we have achieved by having this obsolete weapon system is to paint a target on ourselves, with no advantage gained over the nations that don't have these pointless weapons
Your approach is ludicrous, we will never use these weapons, and the Russians will never invade us as we have nothing that makes us worth the effort, except perhaps to neutralise the Nuclear weapons the Americans have foisted on us to increase their power.
If Nuclear weapons have prevented war, why is there such a big investment in Conventional Forces?
Because they are the only deterrent viable, that can actually deter anyone,
What possible reason could an enemy have to employ nukes to attack us? could they use and occupy the country afterwards?
Would it be worth having?
No, the only advantage would be eliminating the threat we pose with our nuclear weapons.
So where and what advantage do we have over a nation without Nuclear Weapons?
We simply make a target of out of a nation that otherwise isn't worth invading or attacking otherwise.
All you can come up with is nonsense and propaganda.
Anthrax and Various deadly Toxins for instance have been around longer than that and are equally useless but deadly weapons
And this statement "Totally agree for multi lateral disarmament. " shows just how confused your thinking is, for by the logic you use, that there is a threat from Russia, what logic would there be if that was true, in abandoning the nuclear deterrent when they have an infinitely more powerful military than we could ever possess?
And they could invade us any time they fancy?
The only thing that keeps nuclear weapons popular in the public mind is irrational fear and a complete lack of understanding of our own strategic value in world affairs, where we are simply only worth attacking because we pose a small but significant threat with our pitifully few borrowed weapons of mass destruction.
Last edited: