You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn
November 25 2024 10.01pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Jeremy Corbyn

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 135 of 464 < 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 >

  

jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 18 Jan 16 5.20pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 5.12pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jan 2016 5.08pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 4.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 4.14pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 3.45pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 11.38am

All of this nonsense in the currant buns front page.
Most of the assertions were actually what Andrew Marr said, not Corbyn. He neither agreed nor disagreed with what Marr was saying. A set up hatchet job if ever I saw one.
His main point was finding a way to keep jobs in places like Barrow.


It appears that Corbyn is trying to come up with a 'solution' that placates Unite and his own disarmament ideology. Nothing wrong with that in principle.

However, the solution, which he appeared to support on Marr, and has been collaborated in the papers which suggest the Labour spin masters have been supporting the idea, is a giant, expensive fudge, one which if Cameron had proposed, you would be critiscisimg to the hilt.

This is a classic clash of interests. A politician having to compromise principles because his paymasters disagree with his principles. I would actually have some respect for Corbyn if he said, no trident under any circumstances. However, he has opened up in my mind that that his principles are for sale. Something he appeared to be against from the start, with his 'new politics', and if I was a Labour or Corbyn supporter, I would be concerned at this development.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.23pm)

FYI tis corroborated.

See even after I've left the classroom I can learn people things.

You will spin anti Corbyn, even if he saved your mother from a house fire.


Rabid right wingers opposing Corbyn's plan:

[Link]

Rather than attacking the man (remember when the argument is lost, slander is the tool of the loser, or something), you could try and rebuff what I said.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.53pm)

1. Telling you the correct term is not attacking you. If I wanted I could have said nothing and let you carry on using the wrong term, so in fact I'm doing the opposite.
2. Has Corbyn definitely said trident subs won't have nukes? He said is was a possibility.
He's trying to placate those that would lose jobs if trident with nuclear wasn't an option. There are other types of non nuclear missiles that could be used instead.

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 4.17pm)

You haven't answered my key point above. What is point of creating something costly that is useless because it placates the unions? I maintain that if Osbourne proposed something similar, you would be up in arms.

And given Corbyn's remarks yesterday that Trident doesn't deter the threats to Britain, he sited 9/11 as an example how would a non-nuclear trident deter threats, such as 9/11, to Britain?

There is no deterrent to terrorist attacks. Trident doesn't really serve as a deterrent per se only as a means of assuring that an attack, no matter how devastating on the UK, would result in an equally devastating attack (its a form of deterrent).

It didn't mean the soviet union wouldn't attack the west - only that the UK would retain nuclear capability even if every single UK base fell in the first few minutes.

At the time of course, Trident wasn't the UKs only nuclear option, we had a fleet of Vulcan bombers and US missiles at Greenham Common etc They were the deterrent. Trident was about assurance of Mutually Assured Destruction. These other options where phased out in the 80s, by the Conservatives, with Trident being retained. But really since the collapse of the soviet union, Trident has largely been pointless.



Still doesn't answer the questions, not that I did ask you to respond.

You have to let those who are asked answer questions answer, not launch constantly into your tangent. I find it irritating, patronising and disrespectful.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 5.13pm)

That's unlucky, because its a public forum not a place for you and nick to take it in turns to badger and bait each other ad infinitum.

If you want to have private conversations with posters, maybe PM them?


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Stuk Flag Top half 18 Jan 16 5.33pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jan 2016 5.17pm

Quote Stuk at 18 Jan 2016 4.03pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.24pm

Quote Stuk at 18 Jan 2016 3.15pm

He's had possibly his most retarded weekend so far.

I don't even think he'll make it to the general election.


Don't say that. There are at least a dozen 'safe' Labour seats Farage could win if Corbyn keeps this up until the next election.


That's why I think they'll oust him. Quite a few high profile Labour MPs would be at risk of losing their seats to someone else.

I think for Labour, at the next election, its either going to be a victory or a humiliating landslide defeat with Corbyn in charge. I don't think it can sit in between as a 'close run thing'. I wouldn't rule him out as assured defeat. That's the same thing a lot of people were saying about UKIP because they didn't like them, and they did exceptionally well at the election (arguably polling third nationally).

With leaders that are 'love or hate' its impossible to be sure. Its notably that most of the people who seem to hate Corbyn with Passion, wouldn't have been voting for Labour anyhow.



His own MPs don't vote Labour?

 

Optimistic as ever
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Y Ddraig Goch Flag In The Crowd 18 Jan 16 5.42pm Send a Private Message to Y Ddraig Goch Add Y Ddraig Goch as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jan 2016 5.17pm

Quote Stuk at 18 Jan 2016 4.03pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.24pm

Quote Stuk at 18 Jan 2016 3.15pm

He's had possibly his most retarded weekend so far.

I don't even think he'll make it to the general election.


Don't say that. There are at least a dozen 'safe' Labour seats Farage could win if Corbyn keeps this up until the next election.


That's why I think they'll oust him. Quite a few high profile Labour MPs would be at risk of losing their seats to someone else.

I think for Labour, at the next election, its either going to be a victory or a humiliating landslide defeat with Corbyn in charge. I don't think it can sit in between as a 'close run thing'. I wouldn't rule him out as assured defeat. That's the same thing a lot of people were saying about UKIP because they didn't like them, and they did exceptionally well at the election (arguably polling third nationally).

With leaders that are 'love or hate' its impossible to be sure. Its notably that most of the people who seem to hate Corbyn with Passion, wouldn't have been voting for Labour anyhow.



I disagree, you get the usual barns from the Tories and other parties but that would happen anyway. Most of the real vitriol seems to be coming from within the Labour Party.


The very vocal far left have distorted the perceived shift to the left. If Corbyn is half as intelligent as his supporters suggest he will be trying to regain a more centrist position

 

the dignified don't even enter in the game

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
matt_himself Flag Matataland 18 Jan 16 8.07pm Send a Private Message to matt_himself Add matt_himself as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jan 2016 5.20pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 5.12pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jan 2016 5.08pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 4.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 4.14pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 3.45pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 11.38am

All of this nonsense in the currant buns front page.
Most of the assertions were actually what Andrew Marr said, not Corbyn. He neither agreed nor disagreed with what Marr was saying. A set up hatchet job if ever I saw one.
His main point was finding a way to keep jobs in places like Barrow.


It appears that Corbyn is trying to come up with a 'solution' that placates Unite and his own disarmament ideology. Nothing wrong with that in principle.

However, the solution, which he appeared to support on Marr, and has been collaborated in the papers which suggest the Labour spin masters have been supporting the idea, is a giant, expensive fudge, one which if Cameron had proposed, you would be critiscisimg to the hilt.

This is a classic clash of interests. A politician having to compromise principles because his paymasters disagree with his principles. I would actually have some respect for Corbyn if he said, no trident under any circumstances. However, he has opened up in my mind that that his principles are for sale. Something he appeared to be against from the start, with his 'new politics', and if I was a Labour or Corbyn supporter, I would be concerned at this development.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.23pm)

FYI tis corroborated.

See even after I've left the classroom I can learn people things.

You will spin anti Corbyn, even if he saved your mother from a house fire.


Rabid right wingers opposing Corbyn's plan:

[Link]

Rather than attacking the man (remember when the argument is lost, slander is the tool of the loser, or something), you could try and rebuff what I said.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.53pm)

1. Telling you the correct term is not attacking you. If I wanted I could have said nothing and let you carry on using the wrong term, so in fact I'm doing the opposite.
2. Has Corbyn definitely said trident subs won't have nukes? He said is was a possibility.
He's trying to placate those that would lose jobs if trident with nuclear wasn't an option. There are other types of non nuclear missiles that could be used instead.

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 4.17pm)

You haven't answered my key point above. What is point of creating something costly that is useless because it placates the unions? I maintain that if Osbourne proposed something similar, you would be up in arms.

And given Corbyn's remarks yesterday that Trident doesn't deter the threats to Britain, he sited 9/11 as an example how would a non-nuclear trident deter threats, such as 9/11, to Britain?

There is no deterrent to terrorist attacks. Trident doesn't really serve as a deterrent per se only as a means of assuring that an attack, no matter how devastating on the UK, would result in an equally devastating attack (its a form of deterrent).

It didn't mean the soviet union wouldn't attack the west - only that the UK would retain nuclear capability even if every single UK base fell in the first few minutes.

At the time of course, Trident wasn't the UKs only nuclear option, we had a fleet of Vulcan bombers and US missiles at Greenham Common etc They were the deterrent. Trident was about assurance of Mutually Assured Destruction. These other options where phased out in the 80s, by the Conservatives, with Trident being retained. But really since the collapse of the soviet union, Trident has largely been pointless.



Still doesn't answer the questions, not that I did ask you to respond.

You have to let those who are asked answer questions answer, not launch constantly into your tangent. I find it irritating, patronising and disrespectful.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 5.13pm)

That's unlucky, because its a public forum not a place for you and nick to take it in turns to badger and bait each other ad infinitum.

If you want to have private conversations with posters, maybe PM them?



One can only speculate as your reasons to be perceived as an expert on everything, Jamie.

Good luck with that.

 

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 18 Jan 16 8.13pm

Quote on me shed son at 18 Jan 2016 5.07pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jan 2016 5.00pm

Quote Stuk at 18 Jan 2016 4.18pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 4.14pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 3.45pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 11.38am

All of this nonsense in the currant buns front page.
Most of the assertions were actually what Andrew Marr said, not Corbyn. He neither agreed nor disagreed with what Marr was saying. A set up hatchet job if ever I saw one.
His main point was finding a way to keep jobs in places like Barrow.


It appears that Corbyn is trying to come up with a 'solution' that placates Unite and his own disarmament ideology. Nothing wrong with that in principle.

However, the solution, which he appeared to support on Marr, and has been collaborated in the papers which suggest the Labour spin masters have been supporting the idea, is a giant, expensive fudge, one which if Cameron had proposed, you would be critiscisimg to the hilt.

This is a classic clash of interests. A politician having to compromise principles because his paymasters disagree with his principles. I would actually have some respect for Corbyn if he said, no trident under any circumstances. However, he has opened up in my mind that that his principles are for sale. Something he appeared to be against from the start, with his 'new politics', and if I was a Labour or Corbyn supporter, I would be concerned at this development.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.23pm)

FYI tis corroborated.

See even after I've left the classroom I can learn people things.

You will spin anti Corbyn, even if he saved your mother from a house fire.


Rabid right wingers opposing Corbyn's plan:

[Link]

Rather than attacking the man (remember when the argument is lost, slander is the tool of the loser, or something), you could try and rebuff what I said.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.53pm)

1. Telling you the correct term is not attacking you.
2. Has Corbyn definitely said trident subs won't have nukes? He said is was a possibility.


He can't definitely say anything. He's not in power, and he's never going to be.

Keith dickhead Vaz made the same mistake after Corbyn's bungle.

However, former minister and senior backbencher Keith Vaz said he had changed his mind on Trident.
"I think Jeremy Corbyn has persuaded me. He has made it very clear when he is prime minister that he is not going to be able to use these weapons, so what is the point in having them?"

Because the next prime minister might need them. Whilst some people talk a big game on the 'nuclear option' its very easy to do so from a point given that no one has ever had to act on it, or even remotely act on it.

Its one thing to say you'd never use them, but its another thing to actually not use them, say, following a nuclear attack on London, that's killed 100,000 people, destroyed the UK economy and potentially will render the UK a third world country in the coming weeks.

In response to a nuclear attack I suspect the only person in history that wouldn't retaliate in kind, even after talking big, is Ghandi, and even then I think its probably 50-50.

Hypothetical vs Reality is often the left wings delusion; the assumption that we can retain a rational distance from the context and events.

A big irony, and shock for the Labour government, was the discovery that in the cold war turning hot, that NATO almost certainly would be the first side to resort to using chemical, nuclear and/or biological weapons.



You've obviously not played Civilization then.


 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 18 Jan 16 8.26pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 4.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 4.14pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 3.45pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 11.38am

All of this nonsense in the currant buns front page.
Most of the assertions were actually what Andrew Marr said, not Corbyn. He neither agreed nor disagreed with what Marr was saying. A set up hatchet job if ever I saw one.
His main point was finding a way to keep jobs in places like Barrow.


It appears that Corbyn is trying to come up with a 'solution' that placates Unite and his own disarmament ideology. Nothing wrong with that in principle.

However, the solution, which he appeared to support on Marr, and has been collaborated in the papers which suggest the Labour spin masters have been supporting the idea, is a giant, expensive fudge, one which if Cameron had proposed, you would be critiscisimg to the hilt.

This is a classic clash of interests. A politician having to compromise principles because his paymasters disagree with his principles. I would actually have some respect for Corbyn if he said, no trident under any circumstances. However, he has opened up in my mind that that his principles are for sale. Something he appeared to be against from the start, with his 'new politics', and if I was a Labour or Corbyn supporter, I would be concerned at this development.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.23pm)

FYI tis corroborated.

See even after I've left the classroom I can learn people things.

You will spin anti Corbyn, even if he saved your mother from a house fire.


Rabid right wingers opposing Corbyn's plan:

[Link]

Rather than attacking the man (remember when the argument is lost, slander is the tool of the loser, or something), you could try and rebuff what I said.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.53pm)

1. Telling you the correct term is not attacking you. If I wanted I could have said nothing and let you carry on using the wrong term, so in fact I'm doing the opposite.
2. Has Corbyn definitely said trident subs won't have nukes? He said is was a possibility.
He's trying to placate those that would lose jobs if trident with nuclear wasn't an option. There are other types of non nuclear missiles that could be used instead.

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 4.17pm)

You haven't answered my key point above. What is point of creating something costly that is useless because it placates the unions? I maintain that if Osbourne proposed something similar, you would be up in arms.

And given Corbyn's remarks yesterday that Trident doesn't deter the threats to Britain, he sited 9/11 as an example how would a non-nuclear trident deter threats, such as 9/11, to Britain?

I can see why the unions are concerned that thousands of jobs are at risk if trident doesn't get the go ahead. Fact is though, we'd spend loads of money on something that on the face of it, we won't have much control over anyway.

In some respects, and answering yourpoint in creating something useless, that's basic Keynesian economics. if it's employment we're worried about - as employment = wages = spending = good for the economy, then perhaps we'd be better off using the keynesian model of burying a s*** load of money deep deep underground so that people are paid to dig the money out.

Trident is more than just the deterrent conundrum, it's not that simple. Sure I've read about drone subs that would be able to hunt down trident subs anyway.

I personally think that we'd be better off investing the billions in ways to confront non nuclear threats such as ISIS for instance. Also those billions couldbe spent in a lot of other useful ways.

Would nuclear capability stop ISIS? I doubt it. How did USA's nuclear deterrent stop the 9/11 attacks?

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 8.33pm)

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 18 Jan 16 8.41pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jan 2016 5.08pm

At the time of course, Trident wasn't the UKs only nuclear option, we had a fleet of Vulcan bombers and US missiles at Greenham Common etc They were the deterrent. Trident was about assurance of Mutually Assured Destruction. These other options where phased out in the 80s, by the Conservatives, with Trident being retained. But really since the collapse of the soviet union, Trident has largely been pointless.


How can you seriously say that Jamie? Nuclear upgrades take a long time to plan for and there are possible existential threats to us from China, Russia, North Korea, pakistan, Iran.....Saying that these or other countries wouldn't be a nuclear threat to us in the years ahead is an unknowable and hence negligent thinking.

How can you seriously say there are no possible nuclear threats to this country in the future? This is playing with national security.

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 18 Jan 16 8.50pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 8.26pm

Trident is more than just the deterrent conundrum, it's not that simple. Sure I've read about drone subs that would be able to hunt down trident subs anyway.

I personally think that we'd be better off investing the billions in ways to confront non nuclear threats such as ISIS for instance. Also those billions couldbe spent in a lot of other useful ways.

Would nuclear capability stop ISIS? I doubt it. How did USA's nuclear deterrent stop the 9/11 attacks?

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 8.33pm)

Drone subs eh....taking out all the sub capacity at the same time eh......Amazon can't get them to deliver packages to postcodes but you read something and suddenly our nuclear subs are irrelevant. Sigh.

Bringing up IS is moot as you already stated they aren't an option. Nuclear deterrents are there to deter countries with nuclear weapons.....That's the point.


 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
-TUX- Flag Alphabettispaghetti 18 Jan 16 9.15pm Send a Private Message to -TUX- Add -TUX- as a friend

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 17 Jan 2016 10.43pm

I do feel sorry for myself sometimes. Completely unable to make my own mind up on any decision unless I am told by the politicians and media what to think.

Thank god there's a group of people, many of whom frequent this forum, that can save people like me from ourselves.

Anyway, back to nuclear weapons. The point of having them is so that they're never used. Do you think Kruschev would have pulled back in 62 if America couldn't match the russkies?

Edited by Y Ddraig Goch (17 Jan 2016 10.44pm)


There's nothing to think about as nothing happened. And it never will.

 

Time to move forward together.
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
matt_himself Flag Matataland 18 Jan 16 9.27pm Send a Private Message to matt_himself Add matt_himself as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 8.26pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 4.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 4.14pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 3.45pm

Quote matt_himself at 18 Jan 2016 3.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Jan 2016 11.38am

All of this nonsense in the currant buns front page.
Most of the assertions were actually what Andrew Marr said, not Corbyn. He neither agreed nor disagreed with what Marr was saying. A set up hatchet job if ever I saw one.
His main point was finding a way to keep jobs in places like Barrow.


It appears that Corbyn is trying to come up with a 'solution' that placates Unite and his own disarmament ideology. Nothing wrong with that in principle.

However, the solution, which he appeared to support on Marr, and has been collaborated in the papers which suggest the Labour spin masters have been supporting the idea, is a giant, expensive fudge, one which if Cameron had proposed, you would be critiscisimg to the hilt.

This is a classic clash of interests. A politician having to compromise principles because his paymasters disagree with his principles. I would actually have some respect for Corbyn if he said, no trident under any circumstances. However, he has opened up in my mind that that his principles are for sale. Something he appeared to be against from the start, with his 'new politics', and if I was a Labour or Corbyn supporter, I would be concerned at this development.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.23pm)

FYI tis corroborated.

See even after I've left the classroom I can learn people things.

You will spin anti Corbyn, even if he saved your mother from a house fire.


Rabid right wingers opposing Corbyn's plan:

[Link]

Rather than attacking the man (remember when the argument is lost, slander is the tool of the loser, or something), you could try and rebuff what I said.

Edited by matt_himself (18 Jan 2016 3.53pm)

1. Telling you the correct term is not attacking you. If I wanted I could have said nothing and let you carry on using the wrong term, so in fact I'm doing the opposite.
2. Has Corbyn definitely said trident subs won't have nukes? He said is was a possibility.
He's trying to placate those that would lose jobs if trident with nuclear wasn't an option. There are other types of non nuclear missiles that could be used instead.

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 4.17pm)

You haven't answered my key point above. What is point of creating something costly that is useless because it placates the unions? I maintain that if Osbourne proposed something similar, you would be up in arms.

And given Corbyn's remarks yesterday that Trident doesn't deter the threats to Britain, he sited 9/11 as an example how would a non-nuclear trident deter threats, such as 9/11, to Britain?

I can see why the unions are concerned that thousands of jobs are at risk if trident doesn't get the go ahead. Fact is though, we'd spend loads of money on something that on the face of it, we won't have much control over anyway.

In some respects, and answering yourpoint in creating something useless, that's basic Keynesian economics. if it's employment we're worried about - as employment = wages = spending = good for the economy, then perhaps we'd be better off using the keynesian model of burying a s*** load of money deep deep underground so that people are paid to dig the money out.

Trident is more than just the deterrent conundrum, it's not that simple. Sure I've read about drone subs that would be able to hunt down trident subs anyway.

I personally think that we'd be better off investing the billions in ways to confront non nuclear threats such as ISIS for instance. Also those billions couldbe spent in a lot of other useful ways.

Would nuclear capability stop ISIS? I doubt it. How did USA's nuclear deterrent stop the 9/11 attacks?

Edited by nickgusset (18 Jan 2016 8.33pm)


Correct me for misunderstanding but weren't you anti-military action on ISIS? Wasn't confronting ISIS, as recently as weeks ago, 'inciting', the problem? Wasn't 'dialogue' e answer?

Now you appear to be condoning action on ISIS.

Which is it?

 

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
matt_himself Flag Matataland 18 Jan 16 9.29pm Send a Private Message to matt_himself Add matt_himself as a friend

Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Jan 2016 8.41pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jan 2016 5.08pm

At the time of course, Trident wasn't the UKs only nuclear option, we had a fleet of Vulcan bombers and US missiles at Greenham Common etc They were the deterrent. Trident was about assurance of Mutually Assured Destruction. These other options where phased out in the 80s, by the Conservatives, with Trident being retained. But really since the collapse of the soviet union, Trident has largely been pointless.


How can you seriously say that Jamie? Nuclear upgrades take a long time to plan for and there are possible existential threats to us from China, Russia, North Korea, pakistan, Iran.....Saying that these or other countries wouldn't be a nuclear threat to us in the years ahead is an unknowable and hence negligent thinking.

How can you seriously say there are no possible nuclear threats to this country in the future? This is playing with national security.


Edited by matt_himself (19 Jan 2016 4.42am)

 

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Y Ddraig Goch Flag In The Crowd 18 Jan 16 9.43pm Send a Private Message to Y Ddraig Goch Add Y Ddraig Goch as a friend

Quote -TUX- at 18 Jan 2016 9.15pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 17 Jan 2016 10.43pm

I do feel sorry for myself sometimes. Completely unable to make my own mind up on any decision unless I am told by the politicians and media what to think.

Thank god there's a group of people, many of whom frequent this forum, that can save people like me from ourselves.

Anyway, back to nuclear weapons. The point of having them is so that they're never used. Do you think Kruschev would have pulled back in 62 if America couldn't match the russkies?

Edited by Y Ddraig Goch (17 Jan 2016 10.44pm)


There's nothing to think about as nothing happened. And it never will.


Exactamundo

 

the dignified don't even enter in the game

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 135 of 464 < 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn