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?
c69 wrote:Perhaps if we scrapped Trident we could spend more money and expand our armed forces and equip them properly.
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.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.
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).Wendigo7 wrote: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.Petej wrote:What action would you suggest? More air raids? ground invasion? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya has understandably made us cautious with good reasonWendigo7 wrote: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.c69 wrote: Why do you believe from that statement he is supporting Assad?
*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.
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.
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.
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.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.
crash 669 wrote: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.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.
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.
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?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.
His Macdonalds advert was a particular highlightcrash 669 wrote: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.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.
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.
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.bimboman wrote: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.
A5D5E5 wrote: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.bimboman wrote: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 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.
Socialist wealth is good wealth.bimboman wrote:A5D5E5 wrote: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.bimboman wrote: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 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.
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.crash 669 wrote: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?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.
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.crash 669 wrote: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.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.
Ken Loach has always been a horrible prick though:crash 669 wrote: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.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.
How does that makes sense? Principled person gets held to higher account so only people worth listening to are those without scruples?bimboman wrote:A5D5E5 wrote: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.bimboman wrote: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 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.
DragsterDriver wrote:Corbyn wanted UN agreement, but doesn’t that include Russia?
I don't see the problem, not enough bloodlust?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.
Corbyn just wants to watch the world burn and feel great about himself at the same time.unseenwork wrote:I don't see the problem, not enough bloodlust?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.
unseenwork wrote:I don't see the problem, not enough bloodlust?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.
You really honestly believe that this will help the situation?Personally I'd rather avoid starting World War 3.bimboman wrote:unseenwork wrote:I don't see the problem, not enough bloodlust?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.
You approve the use of gas ? Was there any blood shed from the western missles ?
unseenwork wrote:You really honestly believe that this will help the situation?bimboman wrote:unseenwork wrote:I don't see the problem, not enough bloodlust?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.
You approve the use of gas ? Was there any blood shed from the western missles ?
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.
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.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 I dislike everything he stands for.bimboman wrote: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 it would be pretty funny like.Willie Falloon wrote:I think I dislike everything he stands for.bimboman wrote: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.
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.
unseenwork wrote:I think it would be pretty funny like.Willie Falloon wrote:I think I dislike everything he stands for.bimboman wrote: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.
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.
Oh calm down Bimbo.bimboman wrote:unseenwork wrote:I think it would be pretty funny like.Willie Falloon wrote:I think I dislike everything he stands for.bimboman wrote: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.
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.
You're fairly deranged aren't you.
Certainly not against bloodshed are you.
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!bimboman wrote:I'm perfectly calm. You being deranged doesn't anger me in the slightest. You're quite nasty though.
unseenwork wrote: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!bimboman wrote:I'm perfectly calm. You being deranged doesn't anger me in the slightest. You're quite nasty though.
unseenwork wrote:Now I do despise him given his position on Brexit, but hey ho, at least there would be some degree of craic if he were put in.