|
|
Post by stokeharry on Aug 22, 2015 11:17:21 GMT
Something similar to that owd yea Oh the irony. Pot kettle black ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 22, 2015 22:04:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2015 22:16:08 GMT
Corbynism is sweeping the whole country in a wonderful , beautiful swathe of passion and optimism that is leaving the British public in no doubt who they should vote for ..... And they will .w   |
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Aug 23, 2015 8:36:31 GMT
It is very unlikely that Jeremy Corbyn will win a general election.
The controlled media and fear-mongering of the masses will see to that.
Nevertheless, if he becomes party leader at least will get an alternative view to the same tired old crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 8:54:22 GMT
It is very unlikely that Jeremy Corbyn will win a general election. The controlled media and fear-mongering of the masses will see to that. Nevertheless, if he becomes party leader at least will get an alternative view to the same tired old crap. So when Corby says that he is CND and it is reported in the mail we should simply ignore it as fiction or a figment of our imagination? |
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Aug 23, 2015 8:57:43 GMT
It is very unlikely that Jeremy Corbyn will win a general election. The controlled media and fear-mongering of the masses will see to that. Nevertheless, if he becomes party leader at least will get an alternative view to the same tired old crap. I agree with your first and last statements, but to effectively say that with a non-biased press, he would win, is just wrong. As much as I respect him, I can't see him winning over the electorate, even on a level playing field. |
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Aug 23, 2015 9:07:31 GMT
It is very unlikely that Jeremy Corbyn will win a general election. The controlled media and fear-mongering of the masses will see to that. Nevertheless, if he becomes party leader at least will get an alternative view to the same tired old crap. So when Corby says that he is CND and it is reported in the mail we should simply ignore it as fiction or a figment of our imagination? Of course the Mail just reports it. Maybe, it's a figment of my imagination that they then spin this into an alarmist headline and add 'opinion dressed as fact' comment throughout their article about the absurdity of such a position? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 9:11:01 GMT
The abolition of nuclear weapons is alarming.
It doesn't need any spinning.
Unless you're puddled of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Aug 23, 2015 9:26:40 GMT
The abolition of nuclear weapons is alarming. It doesn't need any spinning. Unless you're puddled of course. If it doesn't need spinning, why is it spun then? Unless the readers are puddled and incapable of forming their own opinion, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 10:06:06 GMT
Some clearly are . if you cant believe what someone is saying and has said scores of times , then there is little hope of any credibility when it comes down to having a debate . If Corbyn has said he is CND AND AGAINST TRIDENT , then most would find this VERY alarming and dangerous.
|
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 23, 2015 11:48:03 GMT
The abolition of nuclear weapons is alarming. It doesn't need any spinning. Unless you're puddled of course. If it doesn't need spinning, why is it spun then? Unless the readers are puddled and incapable of forming their own opinion, of course. My Corbyn's belief in unilateral nuclear disarmament, when combined with complete withdrawal from NATO, doesn't need spinning. It is what it is and Corbyn has openly said that is what his intention is. Mr Corbyn will not be able to win a general election on that platform. The only question worth asking is "If you're so sure we don't need nuclear weapons and/or NATO can you then tell us what the next threats to our country are going to be for the next 50 years?" Mr Corbyn, nor anyone else for that matter, can say with any degree of accuracy or surety what threats the UK will face. Because of that no electorate will vote for unilateral nuclear disarmament. |
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Aug 23, 2015 12:21:48 GMT
If it doesn't need spinning, why is it spun then? Unless the readers are puddled and incapable of forming their own opinion, of course. My Corbyn's belief in unilateral nuclear disarmament, when combined with complete withdrawal from NATO, doesn't need spinning. It is what it is and Corbyn has openly said that is what his intention is. Mr Corbyn will not be able to win a general election on that platform. The only question worth asking is "If you're so sure we don't need nuclear weapons and/or NATO can you then tell us what the next threats to our country are going to be for the next 50 years?" Mr Corbyn, nor anyone else for that matter, can say with any degree of accuracy or surety what threats the UK will face. Because of that no electorate will vote for unilateral nuclear disarmament. Back to my point that he won't win a general election. I'm happy to have a number of years where an alternative view is presented. And as for nuclear weapons. We're only under threat because of all of the places this country has been involved in invading and blowing the shit out of over the years. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 14:21:48 GMT
Germany ....No
Italy .....No
Japan ...No
Greece ...No
Norway ....no
Yugoslavia ....no
Austria .....No
Malta ....No
America ....No
Canada ....No
France ....No
You see Starkiller the answer is no .
However , there is a risk from those countries you seem to prefer in terms of allegience . This I base on your previous contributions on such subjects like this . You are not on your own either . There are one or two of a similar persuasion .
The common denominator in all this being religious belief , although not entirely true . I am of course referring to those countries who we have invaded or attacked. Who knows what sets them apart . Who knows why they have to resort to terrorism and other acts of barbaric cruelty not just to foreign armies , but to innocent civilians . I am talking about deliberate targeted attacks .
Always remember this ......One mans terrorist fundamentalist , is another mans Kebab carver coming soon on a high St near you , because customs cannot detect what's going on between the ears .
Mumf
|
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Aug 23, 2015 15:29:35 GMT
So many negative certainties being spouted regarding Corbyn, but if he manages to galvanise support from the disenfranchised to the extent that the SNP did in Scotland, then all bets are off.
The media will spin away, the grass roots will counter, very interesting times.
Better the debate for democracies sake.
|
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Aug 23, 2015 15:45:50 GMT
Germany ....No Italy .....No Japan ...No Greece ...No Norway ....no Yugoslavia ....no Austria .....No Malta ....No America ....No Canada ....No France ....No You see Starkiller the answer is no . However , there is a risk from those countries you seem to prefer in terms of allegience . This I base on your previous contributions on such subjects like this . You are not on your own either . There are one or two of a similar persuasion . The common denominator in all this being religious belief , although not entirely true . I am of course referring to those countries who we have invaded or attacked. Who knows what sets them apart . Who knows why they have to resort to terrorism and other acts of barbaric cruelty not just to foreign armies , but to innocent civilians . I am talking about deliberate targeted attacks . Always remember this ......One mans terrorist fundamentalist , is another mans Kebab carver coming soon on a high St near you , because customs cannot detect what's going on between the ears . Mumf Utter gibberish..........you really do have nothing to add do you. "Always remember this".......hahahahah, advice from Mumf,......hahahahhahahahha, because every high street has a kebab shop and the thought police cannot possibly know that a lot of them want us DEAD!!!!!!! Surely only a complete fucking idiot cannot see this! kebab shop, killer, fuzzy, terrorist, wake up UK for fucks sake!! Thumbs up, great post mate, common sense at last.  (just to get in before harry) |
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on Aug 23, 2015 15:50:36 GMT
Germany ....No Italy .....No Japan ...No Greece ...No Norway ....no Yugoslavia ....no Austria .....No Malta ....No America ....No Canada ....No France ....No You see Starkiller the answer is no . However , there is a risk from those countries you seem to prefer in terms of allegience . This I base on your previous contributions on such subjects like this . You are not on your own either . There are one or two of a similar persuasion . The common denominator in all this being religious belief , although not entirely true . I am of course referring to those countries who we have invaded or attacked. Who knows what sets them apart . Who knows why they have to resort to terrorism and other acts of barbaric cruelty not just to foreign armies , but to innocent civilians . I am talking about deliberate targeted attacks . Always remember this ......One mans terrorist fundamentalist , is another mans Kebab carver coming soon on a high St near you , because customs cannot detect what's going on between the ears . Mumf Spot on mate and fully agree but it's wasted on the likes of billy no mates . He doesn't live in the real world you see  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 15:53:06 GMT
Germany ....No Italy .....No Japan ...No Greece ...No Norway ....no Yugoslavia ....no Austria .....No Malta ....No America ....No Canada ....No France ....No You see Starkiller the answer is no . However , there is a risk from those countries you seem to prefer in terms of allegience . This I base on your previous contributions on such subjects like this . You are not on your own either . There are one or two of a similar persuasion . The common denominator in all this being religious belief , although not entirely true . I am of course referring to those countries who we have invaded or attacked. Who knows what sets them apart . Who knows why they have to resort to terrorism and other acts of barbaric cruelty not just to foreign armies , but to innocent civilians . I am talking about deliberate targeted attacks . Always remember this ......One mans terrorist fundamentalist , is another mans Kebab carver coming soon on a high St near you , because customs cannot detect what's going on between the ears . Mumf Spot on mate and fully agree but it's wasted on the likes of billy no mates . He doesn't live in the world you see There's not much oil in his lamp is there .....  Flatters to deceive . |
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Aug 23, 2015 15:55:06 GMT
Like i say...........nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Aug 23, 2015 16:46:38 GMT
I'd like someone to explain why the UK needs Trident? If our country got to the point where it "needed" to use it, our world would not be worth living in. Leaving NATO however, seems completely bonkers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 23, 2015 16:50:19 GMT
Germany ....No Italy .....No Japan ...No Greece ...No Norway ....no Yugoslavia ....no Austria .....No Malta ....No America ....No Canada ....No France ....No You see Starkiller the answer is no . However , there is a risk from those countries you seem to prefer in terms of allegience . This I base on your previous contributions on such subjects like this . You are not on your own either . There are one or two of a similar persuasion . The common denominator in all this being religious belief , although not entirely true . I am of course referring to those countries who we have invaded or attacked. Who knows what sets them apart . Who knows why they have to resort to terrorism and other acts of barbaric cruelty not just to foreign armies , but to innocent civilians . I am talking about deliberate targeted attacks . Always remember this ......One mans terrorist fundamentalist , is another mans Kebab carver coming soon on a high St near you , because customs cannot detect what's going on between the ears . Mumf Utter gibberish..........you really do have nothing to add do you. "Always remember this".......hahahahah, advice from Mumf,......hahahahhahahahha, because every high street has a kebab shop and the thought police cannot possibly know that a lot of them want us DEAD!!!!!!! Surely only a complete fucking idiot cannot see this! kebab shop, killer, fuzzy, terrorist, wake up UK for fucks sake!! Thumbs up, great post mate, common sense at last. (just to get in before harry) He has nothing left but to tell people what is right then when he's proved wrong, turns abusive. He's Harry's latest and bestest chum |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Aug 23, 2015 19:06:14 GMT
It's unbelievable isn't it. Imagine that, a way other than austerity, a way other than the least able in society shouldering the majority of the burden. It's kind of like austerity and the demonisation of the poor was made to look unavoidable by the cunts who had the most to lose by the truth? |
|
|
|
Post by Biblical on Aug 23, 2015 21:27:10 GMT
I'd like someone to explain why the UK needs Trident? If our country got to the point where it "needed" to use it, our world would not be worth living in. Leaving NATO however, seems completely bonkers. Exactly how I see it, if we ever have to use Trident it means the world is fucked anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 23, 2015 21:39:15 GMT
I'd like someone to explain why the UK needs Trident? If our country got to the point where it "needed" to use it, our world would not be worth living in. Leaving NATO however, seems completely bonkers. Your own post hints at why we need a nuclear deterrent. It's the idea of mutually assured destruction. Some on the left think this concept is purely a Cold War phenomena but that's not true - at all. The argument is that, by merely having nuclear weapons, you stop anyone else from using them against you. If a potential enemy, terrorist or otherwise, threatened to use nuclear weapons against the UK then the UK would then ensure a nuclear response was used - thereby potentially annihilating both sides. Corbyn' s CND allies say that no such threat exists anymore. However the point of having a defence strategy is that nobody knows, with any degree of certainty, what the future threats to the UK are going to be. Nobody knows if a future terrorist organsisation has or are potentially going to get hold of nuclear weaponry. Therefore it's always better to lean on the side of caution and wait until a formal agreement on multilateral nuclear proliferation takes place. With Trident the UK has three submarines. One is always in Faslane being worked on. One is always spare awaiting emergency deployment. One is always live and deployed somewhere at sea around the world and nobody (outside those in the know, presumably Trident Command) knows where. That's the argument anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 21:43:04 GMT
I'd like someone to explain why the UK needs Trident? If our country got to the point where it "needed" to use it, our world would not be worth living in. Leaving NATO however, seems completely bonkers. It needs Trident simply as a deterrent . Having Trident effectively means that no one would therefore risk their own countries welfare as a result ....there would be no winners . Many conventional wars are also prevented as a result of having nuclear capabilities . No country ever expects to have to use their weaponry but sees it as an insurance policy . Having a nuclear arsenal prevents many conventional wars from occurring and only two have ever been used in anger in the last 70 years . Justification. |
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Aug 23, 2015 22:17:10 GMT
I'd like someone to explain why the UK needs Trident? If our country got to the point where it "needed" to use it, our world would not be worth living in. Leaving NATO however, seems completely bonkers. Your own post hints at why we need a nuclear deterrent. It's the idea of mutually assured destruction. Some on the left think this concept is purely a Cold War phenomena but that's not true - at all. The argument is that, by merely having nuclear weapons, you stop anyone else from using them against you. If a potential enemy, terrorist or otherwise, threatened to use nuclear weapons against the UK then the UK would then ensure a nuclear response was used - thereby potentially annihilating both sides. Corbyn' s CND allies say that no such threat exists anymore. However the point of having a defence strategy is that nobody knows, with any degree of certainty, what the future threats to the UK are going to be. Nobody knows if a future terrorist organsisation has or are potentially going to get hold of nuclear weaponry. Therefore it's always better to lean on the side of caution and wait until a formal agreement on multilateral nuclear proliferation takes place. With Trident the UK has three submarines. One is always in Faslane being worked on. One is always spare awaiting emergency deployment. One is always live and deployed somewhere at sea around the world and nobody (outside those in the know, presumably Trident Command) knows where. That's the argument anyway. That's conventional wisdom. Do you really believe that if IS got hold of a nuke, they would think to themselves, "Let not set it off in London, because they will drop an ICBM on our command tent in Iraq"?  Every time I here that our nuclear deterrent has some sort of deterrent effect on terrorist organisations, I feel a double facepalm coming on! I see no reason why the UK needs Trident for any reason other than a dick measuring contest. |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 23, 2015 22:56:54 GMT
Your own post hints at why we need a nuclear deterrent. It's the idea of mutually assured destruction. Some on the left think this concept is purely a Cold War phenomena but that's not true - at all. The argument is that, by merely having nuclear weapons, you stop anyone else from using them against you. If a potential enemy, terrorist or otherwise, threatened to use nuclear weapons against the UK then the UK would then ensure a nuclear response was used - thereby potentially annihilating both sides. Corbyn' s CND allies say that no such threat exists anymore. However the point of having a defence strategy is that nobody knows, with any degree of certainty, what the future threats to the UK are going to be. Nobody knows if a future terrorist organsisation has or are potentially going to get hold of nuclear weaponry. Therefore it's always better to lean on the side of caution and wait until a formal agreement on multilateral nuclear proliferation takes place. With Trident the UK has three submarines. One is always in Faslane being worked on. One is always spare awaiting emergency deployment. One is always live and deployed somewhere at sea around the world and nobody (outside those in the know, presumably Trident Command) knows where. That's the argument anyway. That's conventional wisdom. Yes. It is. Corbyn won't be allowed to unilaterally disarm the UK ultimately because, if he advocates it, he'll never win a general election and therefore gain the power to do it. The point about nuclear disarmament is that you have to do it multilaterally not unilaterally. Which, as you've previously intimated yourself, is why pulling out of NATO is dangerous and shows a profound misunderstanding of international relations. It's fine to hold certain views on nuclear proliferation - most people will agree that it's definitively an ideal solution. However, as you've hilighted yourself, it's an ideal and you need to do it multilaterally. |
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Aug 24, 2015 5:09:19 GMT
That's conventional wisdom. Yes. It is. Corbyn won't be allowed to unilaterally disarm the UK ultimately because, if he advocates it, he'll never win a general election and therefore gain the power to do it. The point about nuclear disarmament is that you have to do it multilaterally not unilaterally. Which, as you've previously intimated yourself, is why pulling out of NATO is dangerous and shows a profound misunderstanding of international relations. It's fine to hold certain views on nuclear proliferation - most people will agree that it's definitively an ideal solution. However, as you've hilighted yourself, it's an ideal and you need to do it multilaterally. I think UND deserves it's own thread, as it's probably a distraction from the main discussion here, especially because that I agree with you that Corbyn will not be able to carry out his wish to disarm, irrespective of whether he becomes PM or not. |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 24, 2015 9:33:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Aug 24, 2015 10:01:10 GMT
So the anti Corbyn campaign has moved on from economics, as his views are not as barmy as some people would have us believe. So now we move on to something more tangible as defence strategy. Whilst I'm in favour of scrapping Trident, leaving NATO is a harder pill to swallow. In fact, I cannot pick the pill up, let alone swallow it. Question is, does Corbyn being a pacifist, matter? I know I'm repeating myself here, but having Corbyn as the leader of an opposition, with principles, is exactly what this country needs. In old money, I'm politically right of centre, although seeing that Mumf and a few others are more right wing that I am these days, I'm beginning to wonder where I am. A left wing UKIPer I guess... Anyway, back on topic, a Corbyn leadership, does not necessarily mean that UND and pulling out of NATO will become Labour Party Policy. He'll push for it to become policy, and his party will reject it, leaving him free to tackle the growing excesses of this country. |
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Aug 24, 2015 10:08:48 GMT
Someone needs to call out Camoron, Gideon and Ian Dumbcunt Smith and the fraud that is known as "austerity".
The poorest and most vulnerable targetted, essential services cut, millions put out of work, wages cut. All while the richest doubled their wealth and corporations continued to avoid paying a penny in tax. And that bunch of illegal immigrant scroungers (the royal family) had their money increased.
The Tories saw through new legislation that increased tax breaks for the richest, anonymity and immunity from prosecution for dodgy offshore accounts - which our very own chancellor has.
|
|
(just to get in before harry)
