|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 19:28:44 GMT
1. yes they can. along with nuclear, granted, but they can. 2. we will absolutely have to make concessions now, because if we don't, we will be making huge concessions in the future. Sound so like you’re advocating austerity 🥴 Sorry, Was meant to issue this guy ——> 😄 not him ^ Nah, not austerity at all, the people making the concessions will likely have to be big businesses, which contribute the vast majority of CO2 emissions.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 1, 2019 19:38:07 GMT
Thanks - a good article - I think that somes it up - but as it indicates, it's more a question of waste through government inefficiencies, rather than anything else. I have absolutely no faith that either a Johnson or Corbyn government would be any more efficient than the german government, I’m all for clean air and being environmentally friendly as possible but I’d rather we not throw 10s of billions at a project that is likely doomed to fail. Plant some trees and clean the beaches up, I can get behind that sort of stuff.
|
|
|
Post by John Smiths Upper Fan on Dec 1, 2019 20:13:14 GMT
This labour representative on the ITV debate. We'd back investing 20bn into Trident and nuclear weaponary but only as a deterrent, we'd never use it.
Fucking idiots, doesn't Labours manifesto spunk enough tax payers money up the wall pointlessly already.
If your going to invest 20bn into nuclear weaponary you've got to be willing to press the button.
We need Trident and we must be willing to give the go ahead god forbid it were ever needed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 20:15:36 GMT
This labour representative on the ITV debate. We'd back investing 20bn into Trident and nuclear weaponary but only as a deterrent, we'd never use it. Fucking idiots, doesn't Labours manifesto spunk enough tax payers money up the wall pointlessly already. If your going to invest 20bn into nuclear weaponary you've got to be willing to press the button. We need Trident and we must be willing to give the go ahead god forbid it were ever needed. 'needed' is not the term. If someone fired at us, we would gain nothing by firing back. It is never 'needed' to be used.
|
|
|
Post by John Smiths Upper Fan on Dec 1, 2019 20:19:07 GMT
This labour representative on the ITV debate. We'd back investing 20bn into Trident and nuclear weaponary but only as a deterrent, we'd never use it. Fucking idiots, doesn't Labours manifesto spunk enough tax payers money up the wall pointlessly already. If your going to invest 20bn into nuclear weaponary you've got to be willing to press the button. We need Trident and we must be willing to give the go ahead god forbid it were ever needed. 'needed' is not the term. If someone fired at us, we would gain nothing by firing back. It is never 'needed' to be used. So we sit back and watch the country burn without any retribution what so ever? Defence is needed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 20:27:52 GMT
'needed' is not the term. If someone fired at us, we would gain nothing by firing back. It is never 'needed' to be used. So we sit back and watch the country burn without any retribution what so ever? Defence is needed. What would retribution gain us? I understand the thought behind deterrence, but it must never, ever be used.
|
|
|
Post by John Smiths Upper Fan on Dec 1, 2019 20:31:22 GMT
So we sit back and watch the country burn without any retribution what so ever? Defence is needed. What would retribution gain us? I understand the thought behind deterrence, but it must never, ever be used. It's war. Always has been, always will be.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 1, 2019 20:34:04 GMT
If we get into a war with another nuclear power and nukes start flying nobody wins, we’re all basically fucked.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 20:40:40 GMT
What would retribution gain us? I understand the thought behind deterrence, but it must never, ever be used. It's war. Always has been, always will be. That isn't war. That's it. Everyone is fucked. No-one wins. All retaliation would do is kill millions more innocents. It is literally never, ever justifiable.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 1, 2019 20:41:00 GMT
The frightening thing is, war is a constant throughout the history of mankind and at some point the major powers will have a war in the future, which means nuclear war is an inevitability.
ideally there would be a mutual denuclearization pact between all nations but that’s never going to happen, and even if it did there would be constant suspicion that one of the powers were breaching it with a secret weapons program... we’re basically screwed when it all goes off, I just hope I’m not around to witness it!
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Dec 1, 2019 22:46:53 GMT
So we sit back and watch the country burn without any retribution what so ever? Defence is needed. What would retribution gain us? I understand the thought behind deterrence, but it must never, ever be used. It's a massive waste of money and we cant even use it unilaterally. It deals with yesterdays threat. Much better spending the money on armed forces imo.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 2, 2019 7:12:57 GMT
It's war. Always has been, always will be. That isn't war. That's it. Everyone is fucked. No-one wins. All retaliation would do is kill millions more innocents. It is literally never, ever justifiable. In the absence of retaliation your conclusion that “everyone is fucked” is wrong. Because the perpetrator of the first nuclear strike is fine. Imagine if Hitler had had the bomb back in 1939 and we didn’t. He’d have simply flattened Britain. And carried on relentlessly creating his Lebensraum in the East, probably wiping out Russia as well as he wasn’t particularly fond of the Slavs. But if we had the bomb and he knew we had the capability and the intent to destroy Germany if he launched a nuclear attack, he would not use it. (I do appreciate that by April 1945 when he had gone completely loco, he may well have fancied setting of a global Armageddon, but whether, at that time, he commanded sufficient authority to make that happen is arguable).
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 2, 2019 7:15:37 GMT
What would retribution gain us? I understand the thought behind deterrence, but it must never, ever be used. It's a massive waste of money and we cant even use it unilaterally. It deals with yesterdays threat. Much better spending the money on armed forces imo. That’s a rational argument (nearly!) Investing in a nuclear deterrent that you say you will never use is an irrational argument.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Dec 2, 2019 7:19:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 2, 2019 7:41:38 GMT
The irony is, of course, he is making a political point about his son’s death - as, indeed, are you.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Dec 2, 2019 8:02:57 GMT
The irony is, of course, he is making a political point about his son’s death - as, indeed, are you. Not sure he will be seeing the irony of his own sons death.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 2, 2019 8:25:09 GMT
The irony is, of course, he is making a political point about his son’s death - as, indeed, are you. Not sure he will be seeing the irony of his own sons death. Agreed. What’s your excuse?
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 2, 2019 8:26:51 GMT
I like it how all the same people who immediately politicised Grenfel are now telling us not to politicise London bridge.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Dec 2, 2019 8:30:19 GMT
Not sure he will be seeing the irony of his own sons death. Agreed. What’s your excuse? Father put it out there, I’m putting it on here...
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 2, 2019 8:41:00 GMT
And if Johnson did nothing people would say he’s putting the nation in danger “why isn’t he doing anything about the other 74 terrorists on our streets”
|
|
|
Post by foster on Dec 2, 2019 8:47:51 GMT
'I'm not a racist, my grandfather knew the Koran off by heart' Is that a real quote?
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 2, 2019 8:59:56 GMT
if Labour thought they could squeeze political capital out of this they would be politicising it, but terrorism isn’t really their strong suit so they can’t really do much with it, grenfel was more their thing.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Dec 2, 2019 9:01:04 GMT
Not sure he will be seeing the irony of his own sons death. Agreed. What’s your excuse? So you're saying that bullshit tabloids can get away with spouting shit and exploiting someone's death, just to back up their agenda?..and that even the relatives of the deceased can't point out that they're wrong. The paper needs to be banged to rights for this kind of vile behaviour. They should be shut down for that kind of shit. It's not acceptable and the more people know about that, the better. ] It's pathetic that you would even argue that people can't repost the dads tweet, just because it goes against your agenda.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 2, 2019 9:04:54 GMT
Agreed. What’s your excuse? So you're saying that bullshit tabloids can get away with spouting shit and exploiting someone's death, just to back up their agenda?..and that even the relatives of the deceased can't point out that they're wrong. The paper needs to be banged to rights for this kind of vile behaviour. They should be shut down for that kind of shit. It's not acceptable and the more people know about that, the better. ] It's pathetic that you would even argue that people can't repost the dads tweet, just because it goes against your agenda. So the newspapers shouldn’t report on what the prime minister is doing in response to the attack ?
|
|
|
Post by foster on Dec 2, 2019 9:08:32 GMT
So you're saying that bullshit tabloids can get away with spouting shit and exploiting someone's death, just to back up their agenda?..and that even the relatives of the deceased can't point out that they're wrong. The paper needs to be banged to rights for this kind of vile behaviour. They should be shut down for that kind of shit. It's not acceptable and the more people know about that, the better. ] It's pathetic that you would even argue that people can't repost the dads tweet, just because it goes against your agenda. So the newspapers shouldn’t report on what the prime minister is doing in response to the attacks ? No, they shouldn't be using the photo of a victim without the express permission of their next of kin / parents. It's a complete lack of respect to use his photo without at least informing the parents beforehand.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 9:14:45 GMT
So we sit back and watch the country burn without any retribution what so ever? Defence is needed. What would retribution gain us? I understand the thought behind deterrence, but it must never, ever be used. How is it a deterrent if the opposition know we(((Corbyn))) will never use it ?
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 2, 2019 9:14:52 GMT
So the newspapers shouldn’t report on what the prime minister is doing in response to the attacks ? No, they shouldn't be using the photo of a victim without the express permission of their next of kin / parents. It's a complete lack of respect to use his photo without at least informing the parents beforehand. Pretty sure all the papers have printed photos of the victims, should they all be closed down ?
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Dec 2, 2019 9:30:19 GMT
Agreed. What’s your excuse? So you're saying that bullshit tabloids can get away with spouting shit and exploiting someone's death, just to back up their agenda?..and that even the relatives of the deceased can't point out that they're wrong. The paper needs to be banged to rights for this kind of vile behaviour. They should be shut down for that kind of shit. It's not acceptable and the more people know about that, the better. ] It's pathetic that you would even argue that people can't repost the dads tweet, just because it goes against your agenda. Ban this vile rag! How dare they use a photo of the deceased above a political comment about Boris Johnson. Jack Merritt: London Bridge attack victim described as 'best guy'
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Dec 2, 2019 9:44:41 GMT
The political use of the incident over the weekend proved what we all know deep down, the politicians of both the main parties would sell their own grandmother for power.
The left cannot take the high ground as yvette cooper started it, Boris would have been better advised to take a dignified stance instead of getting embroiled.
Whoever you plan to vote for, you'll need to hold your nose, as the stench from them all is overpowering.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Dec 2, 2019 9:45:26 GMT
No, they shouldn't be using the photo of a victim without the express permission of their next of kin / parents. It's a complete lack of respect to use his photo without at least informing the parents beforehand. Pretty sure all the papers have printed photos of the victims, should they all be closed down ? Seems low to defend these rags of papers over the relative of the deceased. The dad only pulled up 2 papers as far as I can tell. If you think it's acceptable that's in your character not mine.
|
|