Chat Forum
It is currently Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:52 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6376 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142 ... 160  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:26 pm
Posts: 102
The whole MENA region is a train wreck. The sooner a viable alternative to oil is mass-market the better. Without oil there will be no wars there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 47253
Location: In the Centre/left wing
Perhaps if we scrapped Trident we could spend more money and expand our armed forces and equip them properly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:26 pm
Posts: 102
c69 wrote:
Perhaps if we scrapped Trident we could spend more money and expand our armed forces and equip them properly.



Nuclear bomb proof umbrellas perhaps?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12480
Pruim wrote:
The whole MENA region is a train wreck. The sooner a viable alternative to oil is mass-market the better. Without oil there will be no wars there.

Even if we personally pulled out Pruim, there's so many religions, individuals, groups who believe that separate areas of land are rightfully theirs that it won't end. Easier for ourselves morally in that we don't have to fund the likes of saudi arabia sure but again we're probably the ones who can police it to a certain level. Whether that's good I'm not sure but every time it's left alone it kicks off etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4637
Location: Monmouthshire
Wendigo7 wrote:
Petej wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
c69 wrote:
Why do you believe from that statement he is supporting Assad?

The attacks have historically only ever been one way and this attack was in his rivals main area. If he thought by giving a neutral statement was the correct thing to do, that's stupidly naive. It's the same with the russian issue, he initially didn't want to give an answer, he stayed neutral (despite heavy evidence to the quandary) which was also stupid. It can also lead to a link between the 2. Assad and Putin are fairly well known in supporting each other, Corbyn not decrying/coming out against either of them despite basically all evidence pointing to them paints a picture that he's slightly supportive* of them.

*I don't believe he's that naive to give the same answer twice, he knew the history of assad and putin and yet still gave a neutral answer which personally for me raises alot of questions on where he stands etc.


What action would you suggest? More air raids? ground invasion? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya has understandably made us cautious with good reason

Not sure how he supports Assad by stating whether by Assad or Jihadist militias (Isis have also been caught with chemical weapons). As for international proxies i think everyone knows Russia is involved but so are Iran, Turkey (certainly against Kurdish forces), Saudi Arabia are also knee deep in blood again (still dropping clusterbombs in yemen?) with their continual proxy wars with Iran. There really isn't a good or bad side ala starwars just varying levels of awful.

Well put and good comeback Petej. We're caught in a rock and a hard place though. We... the west, whichever you prefer, have the resources to resolve the crisis in Syria but it probably will end up as a war pretty much regardless. Staying out doesn't help and the issue is if we don't do something, we will look weak. History isn't on our side but doing nothing isn't on our side either.

That being said, the poor media coverage and lack of funding the military has received in the last decade probably puts paid to any military acts. Really need them to gain more of a positive image and more money put into expanding the military back to a respectable level.


Indeed the west is in a tricky spot. I get pretty bored with the condemnation the UK and USA gets on Iraq while everybody seems to ignore the fact that Saddam Hussein was a complete bastard who used chemical weapons on Iraqi's (Kurdish Iraqi's).

May's done well by being sensible and solid only really been let down by Johnson being a moron which seems incurable but i guess for her she has put up with him pissing out of the cabinet office rather than pissing at the door.

The military funding is really being sucked up by big projects namely the aircraft carriers and trident replacement (which i certainly want to keep) but bloody hell we don't half waste a lot money. The issue is we don't need enough kit to get the benefit of making more. IE we are making 4 submarines the americans have i think (originally 16) 12 submarines so dev costs and manufacturing facility cost is spread over 12 instead of 4. I don't really want us to just buy stuff off the americans as we lose capability to make and develop it ourselves but the other option of working more with European partners will be unpalatable (brexit) to many.

With Russia I think the UK really could do something to hurt how their gangsters/oligarchs work and make it harder for them to operate in the UK-I would be delighted if they could start with Abramovich as he came up on the Americans list.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:46 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52359
Trident is 3-4 billion a year....

Aircraft carriers we're Browns decision, and a good one. The worlds sea ways are the conflict of the futuee and need protection.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21509
Corbyn's favourite film maker mate just called for Labour MPs who protested against anti-semitism to be booted out of the Labour party.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... party.html

They aren't even pretending.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4142
eldanielfire wrote:
Corbyn's favourite film maker mate just called for Labour MPs who protested against anti-semitism to be booted out of the Labour party.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... party.html

They aren't even pretending.


It's a real shame because I like a lot of Ken Loach's films, but he's drunk deep of the Corbyn Kool Aid.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:43 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52359
crash 669 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Corbyn's favourite film maker mate just called for Labour MPs who protested against anti-semitism to be booted out of the Labour party.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... party.html

They aren't even pretending.


It's a real shame because I like a lot of Ken Loach's films, but he's drunk deep of the Corbyn Kool Aid.



He's always been that far left wing though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4965
bimboman wrote:
Trident is 3-4 billion a year....

Aircraft carriers we're Browns decision, and a good one. The worlds sea ways are the conflict of the futuee and need protection.



From what I have read its closer to 2 billion per year...in perspective that's less than 2% of the annual cost of benefits.

The missiles and warheads are a tiny part of the costs whilst the submarines themselves (plus the crewing) are the real expense. Even if you wanted to scrap Trident you would want to keep the indigenous capability to design and build nuclear powered boats so you would not save much money.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4142
tc27 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Trident is 3-4 billion a year....

Aircraft carriers we're Browns decision, and a good one. The worlds sea ways are the conflict of the futuee and need protection.



From what I have read its closer to 2 billion per year...in perspective that's less than 2% of the annual cost of benefits.

The missiles and warheads are a tiny part of the costs whilst the submarines themselves (plus the crewing) are the real expense. Even if you wanted to scrap Trident you would want to keep the indigenous capability to design and build nuclear powered boats so you would not save much money.


But Jezza said we could keep the submarines without the missiles on them - it can't be the case that he was talking absolute toilet could it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1267
crash 669 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Corbyn's favourite film maker mate just called for Labour MPs who protested against anti-semitism to be booted out of the Labour party.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... party.html

They aren't even pretending.


It's a real shame because I like a lot of Ken Loach's films, but he's drunk deep of the Corbyn Kool Aid.


His Macdonalds advert was a particular highlight


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:40 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52359
Quote:
one of the director’s sons jokes that they are “forbidden” from talking about his brief foray into commercials, which included an advert for Caramac chocolate, made by Nestlé. “It was that or we had to move house,” said his son Jim, who has become a film director himself.



All communists are c unts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 9415
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
one of the director’s sons jokes that they are “forbidden” from talking about his brief foray into commercials, which included an advert for Caramac chocolate, made by Nestlé. “It was that or we had to move house,” said his son Jim, who has become a film director himself.



All communists are c unts.


I heard an interview with him on Radio 4 a while ago (probably around the time I, Daniel Blake was out. He was entirely honest and open about it. Essentially he said that his career was going nowhere. He couldn't get any funding for the films he wanted to make and he had to put food on the table.

I don't really see anything especially wrong with that. I don't really have any principles, but if I did, they would certainly come second to providing for my family.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:00 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52359
A5D5E5 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
one of the director’s sons jokes that they are “forbidden” from talking about his brief foray into commercials, which included an advert for Caramac chocolate, made by Nestlé. “It was that or we had to move house,” said his son Jim, who has become a film director himself.



All communists are c unts.


I heard an interview with him on Radio 4 a while ago (probably around the time I, Daniel Blake was out. He was entirely honest and open about it. Essentially he said that his career was going nowhere. He couldn't get any funding for the films he wanted to make and he had to put food on the table.

I don't really see anything especially wrong with that. I don't really have any principles, but if I did, they would certainly come second to providing for my family.



Of course "first we get rich, then we get honest" . However you forfeit the right to lecture anyone else on greed , or capitalism again.

For some perspective on "family food on table" his youngest child was 18, his others grown adults. I doubt he wasn't able to downsize, he decided to swap,his principals for not doing so. Maybe even his wife could have got a job.


Last edited by bimboman on Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 9415
bimboman wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
one of the director’s sons jokes that they are “forbidden” from talking about his brief foray into commercials, which included an advert for Caramac chocolate, made by Nestlé. “It was that or we had to move house,” said his son Jim, who has become a film director himself.



All communists are c unts.


I heard an interview with him on Radio 4 a while ago (probably around the time I, Daniel Blake was out. He was entirely honest and open about it. Essentially he said that his career was going nowhere. He couldn't get any funding for the films he wanted to make and he had to put food on the table.

I don't really see anything especially wrong with that. I don't really have any principles, but if I did, they would certainly come second to providing for my family.



Of course "first we get rich, then we get honest" . However you forfeit the right to lecture anyone else on greed , or capitalism again.


Socialist wealth is good wealth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4965
crash 669 wrote:
tc27 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Trident is 3-4 billion a year....

Aircraft carriers we're Browns decision, and a good one. The worlds sea ways are the conflict of the futuee and need protection.



From what I have read its closer to 2 billion per year...in perspective that's less than 2% of the annual cost of benefits.

The missiles and warheads are a tiny part of the costs whilst the submarines themselves (plus the crewing) are the real expense. Even if you wanted to scrap Trident you would want to keep the indigenous capability to design and build nuclear powered boats so you would not save much money.


But Jezza said we could keep the submarines without the missiles on them - it can't be the case that he was talking absolute toilet could it?


You could either build more Astute class attack submarines or build something like a SSBN but fill the missile compartment with conventionally armed cruise missiles (the Russians and American do this to be fair). Both would be useful but I still think not having to rely entirely on the US for nuclear retaliation is useful for NATO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7239
crash 669 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Corbyn's favourite film maker mate just called for Labour MPs who protested against anti-semitism to be booted out of the Labour party.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... party.html

They aren't even pretending.


It's a real shame because I like a lot of Ken Loach's films, but he's drunk deep of the Corbyn Kool Aid.


Always seemed to be a bit of a c*nt. When he was filming Kes, he had the kids actually beaten in one scene because he wanted a more realistic reaction from them. Imagine their surprise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:17 am
Posts: 45
If Agent NOB got his way, he would disband the entire armed forces and bend us all over for right good shafting from Comrade Putin.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21509
crash 669 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Corbyn's favourite film maker mate just called for Labour MPs who protested against anti-semitism to be booted out of the Labour party.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... party.html

They aren't even pretending.


It's a real shame because I like a lot of Ken Loach's films, but he's drunk deep of the Corbyn Kool Aid.


Ken Loach has always been a horrible prick though:

Spoiler: show
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:38 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52359
Wish I'd stuck with the Grand Prix coverage ! Just watching Steptoe on Marr, he's an evil c unt and if he lead the UK would actually make the world a very dangerous place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25507
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
Corbyn wanted UN agreement, but doesn’t that include Russia?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2561
If undermining the leadership was a deselection offence, Corbyn would never have been in a position to become leader. The irony of demanding loyalty from Labour MPs for this leader...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7292
bimboman wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
one of the director’s sons jokes that they are “forbidden” from talking about his brief foray into commercials, which included an advert for Caramac chocolate, made by Nestlé. “It was that or we had to move house,” said his son Jim, who has become a film director himself.



All communists are c unts.


I heard an interview with him on Radio 4 a while ago (probably around the time I, Daniel Blake was out. He was entirely honest and open about it. Essentially he said that his career was going nowhere. He couldn't get any funding for the films he wanted to make and he had to put food on the table.

I don't really see anything especially wrong with that. I don't really have any principles, but if I did, they would certainly come second to providing for my family.



Of course "first we get rich, then we get honest" . However you forfeit the right to lecture anyone else on greed , or capitalism again.

For some perspective on "family food on table" his youngest child was 18, his others grown adults. I doubt he wasn't able to downsize, he decided to swap,his principals for not doing so. Maybe even his wife could have got a job.

How does that makes sense? Principled person gets held to higher account so only people worth listening to are those without scruples?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:00 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52359
DragsterDriver wrote:
Corbyn wanted UN agreement, but doesn’t that include Russia?



Corbyn himself this morning agreed there's almost no circumstance where he would fire missles, the man is disgusting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:28 am
Posts: 14041
bimboman wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
Corbyn wanted UN agreement, but doesn’t that include Russia?



Corbyn himself this morning agreed there's almost no circumstance where he would fire missles, the man is disgusting.

I don't see the problem, not enough bloodlust?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2369
unseenwork wrote:
bimboman wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
Corbyn wanted UN agreement, but doesn’t that include Russia?



Corbyn himself this morning agreed there's almost no circumstance where he would fire missles, the man is disgusting.

I don't see the problem, not enough bloodlust?


Corbyn just wants to watch the world burn and feel great about himself at the same time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:52 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52359
unseenwork wrote:
bimboman wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
Corbyn wanted UN agreement, but doesn’t that include Russia?



Corbyn himself this morning agreed there's almost no circumstance where he would fire missles, the man is disgusting.

I don't see the problem, not enough bloodlust?



You approve the use of gas ? Was there any blood shed from the western missles ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:28 am
Posts: 14041
bimboman wrote:
unseenwork wrote:
bimboman wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
Corbyn wanted UN agreement, but doesn’t that include Russia?



Corbyn himself this morning agreed there's almost no circumstance where he would fire missles, the man is disgusting.

I don't see the problem, not enough bloodlust?



You approve the use of gas ? Was there any blood shed from the western missles ?

You really honestly believe that this will help the situation?Personally I'd rather avoid starting World War 3.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:57 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52359
unseenwork wrote:
bimboman wrote:
unseenwork wrote:
bimboman wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
Corbyn wanted UN agreement, but doesn’t that include Russia?



Corbyn himself this morning agreed there's almost no circumstance where he would fire missles, the man is disgusting.

I don't see the problem, not enough bloodlust?



You approve the use of gas ? Was there any blood shed from the western missles ?

You really honestly believe that this will help the situation?



What destroying chemical stores and factories ? Yeah it might.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:14 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25705
Corbyn is going for a couple of angles I don't think are of any use.

Firstly he questioned the legality of the strikes as his main criticism. This may be valid but I don't think he'll gain any traction when the strikes have been endorsed by loads of other countries. He should have gone in harder on the tactical error not a legal issue.

Secondly he asked for a change in the law so that all strikes should have parliamentary approval. That sounds silly and nobody would want that if there was a clear danger to the UK. The issue with Syria is that there wasn't and people think this makes it more dangerous not less.

Corbyn to me seems like a fool. He never capitalises on anything as he has his own ideological quirks that he can't suppress and I don't think "he's principled" cuts it at all. These ideologues are principled in the same way a toddler is principled.

It's insane that the polls are even and his popularity is going down, despite this being such turbulent times for public services, Brexit, war etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:39 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52359
Quote:
Firstly he questioned the legality of the strikes as his main criticism. This may be valid but I don't think he'll gain any traction when the strikes have been endorsed by loads of other countries. He should have gone in harder on the tactical error not a legal issue.

Secondly he asked for a change in the law so that all strikes should have parliamentary approval. That sounds silly and nobody would want that if there was a clear danger to the UK. The issue with Syria is that there wasn't and people think this makes it more dangerous not less.



A change in the law on all military action needing parliamentary approval is exactly what he is looking for.

Currently he knows as everyone knows there isn't a legal issue on Mays actions. He's looking to weaken the UK's response to all military concerns because that's what he wants.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6155
Location: LOL! WISDOM!
SamShark wrote:
Corbyn is going for a couple of angles I don't think are of any use.

Firstly he questioned the legality of the strikes as his main criticism. This may be valid but I don't think he'll gain any traction when the strikes have been endorsed by loads of other countries. He should have gone in harder on the tactical error not a legal issue.

Secondly he asked for a change in the law so that all strikes should have parliamentary approval. That sounds silly and nobody would want that if there was a clear danger to the UK. The issue with Syria is that there wasn't and people think this makes it more dangerous not less.

Corbyn to me seems like a fool. He never capitalises on anything as he has his own ideological quirks that he can't suppress and I don't think "he's principled" cuts it at all. These ideologues are principled in the same way a toddler is principled.

It's insane that the polls are even and his popularity is going down, despite this being such turbulent times for public services, Brexit, war etc.


I think it's perfectly sane and approproptriate that his popularity is going down as people become to understand what he and the people he represents are really like.

What is insane, and slightly scary, is that the country doesn't have anyone to offer any genuine or realistic policies to counter the tories.

Even Millibrand and his Edstone would walk in virtually unopposed at the moment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12673
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
Firstly he questioned the legality of the strikes as his main criticism. This may be valid but I don't think he'll gain any traction when the strikes have been endorsed by loads of other countries. He should have gone in harder on the tactical error not a legal issue.

Secondly he asked for a change in the law so that all strikes should have parliamentary approval. That sounds silly and nobody would want that if there was a clear danger to the UK. The issue with Syria is that there wasn't and people think this makes it more dangerous not less.



A change in the law on all military action needing parliamentary approval is exactly what he is looking for.

Currently he knows as everyone knows there isn't a legal issue on Mays actions. He's looking to weaken the UK's response to all military concerns because that's what he wants.


I think I dislike everything he stands for.

The UK would be a very scary and dangerous place if he were PM. A world famous target for terrorism and rogue states like Russia and North Korea to do what they want, safe in the knowledge, that the only way the Government would responds would be talks over jam sandwiches and tea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:28 am
Posts: 14041
Willie Falloon wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
Firstly he questioned the legality of the strikes as his main criticism. This may be valid but I don't think he'll gain any traction when the strikes have been endorsed by loads of other countries. He should have gone in harder on the tactical error not a legal issue.

Secondly he asked for a change in the law so that all strikes should have parliamentary approval. That sounds silly and nobody would want that if there was a clear danger to the UK. The issue with Syria is that there wasn't and people think this makes it more dangerous not less.



A change in the law on all military action needing parliamentary approval is exactly what he is looking for.

Currently he knows as everyone knows there isn't a legal issue on Mays actions. He's looking to weaken the UK's response to all military concerns because that's what he wants.


I think I dislike everything he stands for.

The UK would be a very scary and dangerous place if he were PM. A world famous target for terrorism and rogue states like Russia and North Korea to do what they want, safe in the knowledge, that the only way the Government would responds would be talks over jam sandwiches and tea.

I think it would be pretty funny like.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:57 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52359
unseenwork wrote:
Willie Falloon wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
Firstly he questioned the legality of the strikes as his main criticism. This may be valid but I don't think he'll gain any traction when the strikes have been endorsed by loads of other countries. He should have gone in harder on the tactical error not a legal issue.

Secondly he asked for a change in the law so that all strikes should have parliamentary approval. That sounds silly and nobody would want that if there was a clear danger to the UK. The issue with Syria is that there wasn't and people think this makes it more dangerous not less.



A change in the law on all military action needing parliamentary approval is exactly what he is looking for.

Currently he knows as everyone knows there isn't a legal issue on Mays actions. He's looking to weaken the UK's response to all military concerns because that's what he wants.


I think I dislike everything he stands for.

The UK would be a very scary and dangerous place if he were PM. A world famous target for terrorism and rogue states like Russia and North Korea to do what they want, safe in the knowledge, that the only way the Government would responds would be talks over jam sandwiches and tea.

I think it would be pretty funny like.



You're fairly deranged aren't you.

Certainly not against bloodshed are you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:28 am
Posts: 14041
bimboman wrote:
unseenwork wrote:
Willie Falloon wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
Firstly he questioned the legality of the strikes as his main criticism. This may be valid but I don't think he'll gain any traction when the strikes have been endorsed by loads of other countries. He should have gone in harder on the tactical error not a legal issue.

Secondly he asked for a change in the law so that all strikes should have parliamentary approval. That sounds silly and nobody would want that if there was a clear danger to the UK. The issue with Syria is that there wasn't and people think this makes it more dangerous not less.



A change in the law on all military action needing parliamentary approval is exactly what he is looking for.

Currently he knows as everyone knows there isn't a legal issue on Mays actions. He's looking to weaken the UK's response to all military concerns because that's what he wants.


I think I dislike everything he stands for.

The UK would be a very scary and dangerous place if he were PM. A world famous target for terrorism and rogue states like Russia and North Korea to do what they want, safe in the knowledge, that the only way the Government would responds would be talks over jam sandwiches and tea.

I think it would be pretty funny like.



You're fairly deranged aren't you.

Certainly not against bloodshed are you.

Oh calm down Bimbo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5183
Just a shit-stirring WUM more like.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:11 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 52359
I'm perfectly calm. You being deranged doesn't anger me in the slightest. You're quite nasty though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:28 am
Posts: 14041
bimboman wrote:
I'm perfectly calm. You being deranged doesn't anger me in the slightest. You're quite nasty though.

An now Bimbo, I can assure you I'm a delight really. You know where it would be particularly amusing if he were to come to power, Northern Ireland, seeing the likes of Foster dealing with him would be worth the price of admission in of itself!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6376 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142 ... 160  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: backrow, bimboman, Boobs not Moobs, camroc1, Dark, Diego, frillage, Google Adsense [Bot], guy smiley, happyhooker, Jeff the Bear, LandOTurk, Margin_Walker, my 2 cents, SamShark, Shrekles, sonic_attack, Ted., terryfinch, topofthemoon, True Blue, ukjim, Wilderbeast, ZappaMan and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group