FabSwingers.com forum: tonights debate

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

only really started this as the other one was getting too long to scroll through and read all the entrys

now my thoughts

1. GB is an ugly sod whos should stick to sound bites

2. Cameron was on my waver list but he got slapped back when he pulled that smirky face at that nice mr Clegg

3. that nice mr Clegg is utterly shaggable

vote so far is for Nice Mr Clegg

2 more debates to go

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ig badMan
over a year ago

Up North :-)

"only really started this as the other one was getting too long to scroll through and read all the entrys

now my thoughts

1. GB is an ugly sod whos should stick to sound bites

2. Cameron was on my waver list but he got slapped back when he pulled that smirky face at that nice mr Clegg

3. that nice mr Clegg is utterly shaggable

vote so far is for Nice Mr Clegg

2 more debates to go

Cameron scares me a little. He is like a kid dancing round waiting for the ice cream van. I just don't know if he is able to do the job.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Nick Clegg won this one tonight. Came across really well, Cameron was all sorts and Brown is now a dead man walking.

It was great went Brown said ' Nick would agree with me on this'

Clegg...'No'

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

the biggest thing tonight?

"we agree with Nick"

you dont think they are trying to build the perception of an alliance do you??

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ickmealloverWoman
over a year ago

a very plush appartment off junt 7 M5

Cameron was only gonna ever get in on this premise

GB and the reds messed up big style

And everyone else see's a yellow vote as a wasted vote WHICH IT IS NOT

So now Cameron must be wriggling about in hi M&S boxers cos Cleggy has overtaken him in this race

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

the reason this debate has taken so long to come to the public domain is because the two main party's didnt want the yellows there

now we know why

for the first time the public get to see just how tangible NC and his team can be

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ig badMan
over a year ago

Up North :-)

He did look good! I was more than impressed at the liberals.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We were very impressed with Nick Clegg tonight.

It seems that for the first time in ages there may be someone worth voting for.

XXXX

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Nick Clegg gets my vote and has David Cameron had botox

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *zMaleMan
over a year ago

penzance

What really scares me Nick Clegg is such a grey man I wouldn't recognise him in the Street !!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ickmealloverWoman
over a year ago

a very plush appartment off junt 7 M5

"What really scares me Nick Clegg is such a grey man I wouldn't recognise him in the Street !!!!!!!!!!!!"

Does it matter if he does a good job?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *zMaleMan
over a year ago

penzance

"What really scares me Nick Clegg is such a grey man I wouldn't recognise him in the Street !!!!!!!!!!!!

Does it matter if he does a good job?

If I don't know him, how can I trust him ??? I'm not saying it's his fault but the party has not sold him at all well. As a potential leader of this country his face should have been plastered all over the press

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Up until tonight we couldn't have told you the name of the Lib Dem leader but he's made an impression on us.

And that's the first time a politician has done that!

XXXX

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ickmealloverWoman
over a year ago

a very plush appartment off junt 7 M5

"What really scares me Nick Clegg is such a grey man I wouldn't recognise him in the Street !!!!!!!!!!!!

Does it matter if he does a good job?

It has been

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

it was interesting....

Winner for me was Nick Clegg by a mile... it was interesting that he was speaking to the camera, and did put up on the fact that the other two were taking potshots at each other... when the other parties are saying when they were agreeing with you.... and remembering the names of all the questioners at the end was a brilliant touch for me...

GB looked very nervous at the beginning, actually got more confident as it got along.... he was the one i was expecting least from, and actually did better than i expected...

Cameron actually disappointed me... came across as a bit too smooth virgin on smarmy to me..... not convinced... i think he was the biggest loser for me....

now.. interesting to see what Clegg does from here.... the council across the water from us is lib dem run, and have to say there are some admiring glances.....

if they can make huge inroads into the big northern cities then game on and hold onto the london, southern and southwestern seats they have... game on....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ouple1234Couple
over a year ago

BELFAST UK

need jeremy clarkson for pm

fuk the rest clarkson is the best

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ig badMan
over a year ago

Up North :-)

"it was interesting....

GB looked very nervous at the beginning, actually got more confident as it got along.... he was the one i was expecting least from, and actually did better than i expected...

Cameron actually disappointed me... came across as a bit too smooth virgin on smarmy to me..... not convinced... i think he was the biggest loser for me....

now.. interesting to see what Clegg does from here.... the council across the water from us is lib dem run, and have to say there are some admiring glances.....

if they can make huge inroads into the big northern cities then game on and hold onto the london, southern and southwestern seats they have... game on...."

I was looking for Cameron to convince me and he didn't. I figure he and his lot would do the best for me personally but there is a bigger picture and they just didn't convince me. Clegg was very confident and i was a little surprised how well he came across. Bet Labour and the Torys wish they had him as leader.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Another good point about Clegg tonight was that he actually remembered the names of the people in the audience who were asking the questions and interacted with them well.

Cameron made an ass of it at one point when he couldn't find the chap that asked a question and made himself look stupid and not paying attention.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The whole idea of a debate is wrong anyway, we're not sposed to be voting for a single person, it's the party and what they stand for we should be voting for.

The whole idea of democreacy is flawed now anyway, all we have is a choice between two opposing parties who would basically do everything differently to the other party. How is it good for the country for everything to be completely turned around every 4-5 years? In can take decades before the benefits of some decisions can be reaped.

We also are voting for MPs who are sposed to represent the people in their area, but actually have to vote according to what they are told once in government (whips make sure they 'toe the party line'). What's the point in us having freedom to vote, if the people who then represent us do not?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I wanted Cameron to convince me I was doing the right thing voting for him and he didn't. Very disappointing. Clegg came across as well intentioned and I believe that he believes he can really make a change... if only the Libs didn't support the scrapping of Trident. They lost my vote on that issue. I'd never vote Labour even if you paid me to. So it's the Tories for me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Cameron made an ass of it at one point when he couldn't find the chap that asked a question and made himself look stupid and not paying attention. "

To be fair, Clegg did the same thing and both men's views were impeded by the camera. I think it showed humility to actually ask who asked the question.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

I have been waiting to hear someone state that they would scrap the totally pointless replacement for Trident so well done Nick Clegg!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Cameron made an ass of it at one point when he couldn't find the chap that asked a question and made himself look stupid and not paying attention.

To be fair, Clegg did the same thing and both men's views were impeded by the camera. I think it showed humility to actually ask who asked the question."

I missed that one with Clegg, must had went for a pee

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I have been waiting to hear someone state that they would scrap the totally pointless replacement for Trident so well done Nick Clegg!"

Why don't you send our soldiers out to fight with empty rifles while you're at it. Same effect.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ickmealloverWoman
over a year ago

a very plush appartment off junt 7 M5

"I have been waiting to hear someone state that they would scrap the totally pointless replacement for Trident so well done Nick Clegg!

Why don't you send our soldiers out to fight with empty rifles while you're at it. Same effect."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"I have been waiting to hear someone state that they would scrap the totally pointless replacement for Trident so well done Nick Clegg!

Why don't you send our soldiers out to fight with empty rifles while you're at it. Same effect."

Just what has convential weaponery got to do with Trident?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ickmealloverWoman
over a year ago

a very plush appartment off junt 7 M5

"I have been waiting to hear someone state that they would scrap the totally pointless replacement for Trident so well done Nick Clegg!

Why don't you send our soldiers out to fight with empty rifles while you're at it. Same effect.

Just what has convential weaponery got to do with Trident?

nuthin whatsoever

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

We are currently fighting a war against the Taliban without the use of nuclear weapons, since 1945 we have had our troops fighting in several wars and conflicts where nuclear warheads have had absolutely no part in the proceedings....so where is the 'empty rifle' connection?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I have been waiting to hear someone state that they would scrap the totally pointless replacement for Trident so well done Nick Clegg!

Why don't you send our soldiers out to fight with empty rifles while you're at it. Same effect.

Just what has convential weaponery got to do with Trident?

Can you not see the analogy?

We scrap our nukes. Korea develops theirs. All we have is an army firing bullets. Hardly a defence against nuclear weapons in the hands of nutter, is it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ickmealloverWoman
over a year ago

a very plush appartment off junt 7 M5

"I have been waiting to hear someone state that they would scrap the totally pointless replacement for Trident so well done Nick Clegg!

Why don't you send our soldiers out to fight with empty rifles while you're at it. Same effect.

Just what has convential weaponery got to do with Trident?

Can you not see the analogy?

We scrap our nukes. Korea develops theirs. All we have is an army firing bullets. Hardly a defence against nuclear weapons in the hands of nutter, is it.

we have powerful alies

not an issue in the real world

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"I have been waiting to hear someone state that they would scrap the totally pointless replacement for Trident so well done Nick Clegg!

Why don't you send our soldiers out to fight with empty rifles while you're at it. Same effect.

Just what has convential weaponery got to do with Trident?

Can you not see the analogy?

We scrap our nukes. Korea develops theirs. All we have is an army firing bullets. Hardly a defence against nuclear weapons in the hands of nutter, is it.

So out of the blue the North Koreans are going to launch a nuclear attack on Britain?

The biggest threat to the UK from nuclear weapons is a terrorist attack, it won't be coming from any missile so who are we going to aim these Trident missiles at?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"We are currently fighting a war against the Taliban without the use of nuclear weapons, since 1945 we have had our troops fighting in several wars and conflicts where nuclear warheads have had absolutely no part in the proceedings....so where is the 'empty rifle' connection?"

Er... we don;t need nukes against the Taliban as they don't have them either. Since 1945 we've had nukes and THAT has meant that anybody we fought who had them too daren't use them. Do you not get what nuclear weapons are?

They are a deterent. Nobody sane will actually use the things but a nutter might. So that's why we have them, as an insurance.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I have been waiting to hear someone state that they would scrap the totally pointless replacement for Trident so well done Nick Clegg!

Why don't you send our soldiers out to fight with empty rifles while you're at it. Same effect.

Just what has convential weaponery got to do with Trident?

Can you not see the analogy?

We scrap our nukes. Korea develops theirs. All we have is an army firing bullets. Hardly a defence against nuclear weapons in the hands of nutter, is it.

So out of the blue the North Koreans are going to launch a nuclear attack on Britain?

The biggest threat to the UK from nuclear weapons is a terrorist attack, it won't be coming from any missile so who are we going to aim these Trident missiles at?"

Oh ffs. Korea was used as an example. Jesus. Pick a country, any country, a communist one, a hardline Muslim state who hates us and the yanks. Any bleedin country that has nukes or is developing them. We have ours to protect us from them. ffs!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

I think this is what the conservatives will start attacking the lib dems on in debate 2... which is trident....

bearing in mind conservatively the replacement for trident would cost 100 billion pounds over 25 years.... that is a lot of money that could be spent elsewhere...

how many nukes to we need as a deterant? if you know you are going to get one back if you fire one you don't need that many.....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Why do you have to talk to people like they are stupid and you are all knowing?

Try having a debate without all the 'Er's'......

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ickmealloverWoman
over a year ago

a very plush appartment off junt 7 M5

"Why do you have to talk to people like they are stupid and you are all knowing?

Try having a debate without all the 'Er's'......

only does it to us girlies

carnt think why

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

If we were to be the subject of a full scale nuclear attack from for example Russia or China, it wouldn't matter one iota if we had Trident or not.

Anyone living within 100 miles of a strategic target would be history.

It wouldn't make me feel any better at the point of frying to know we were sending missiles back in retaliation as myself and my loved ones would be seconds away from death.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And why do they pick those countries one word OIL

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Why do you have to talk to people like they are stupid and you are all knowing?

After tonight's debate I was hovering between the Libs and the Tories. Not now. This glib nonsense about removing our nuclear deterent has pushed me firmly back into the Blue corner.

If we become an anti0nuke state, as Clegg wants us to be, we also have to tell the Americans that they can't launch, base or pass any nukes through our territories. What do you think that will do to our relationship with the US? They will simply regard us the same as they do the French, or the Spanish, or the Italians. Whether we like it or not we benfit enormously from our relationship with America and one of those benefits is the sharing of information. Their network of satellites is far superior to ours and our nuclear submarines/ships would not know where to strike without info from the US.

We'd all love to live in a peaceful world but the hard fact is that it isn't a peaceful world. And we need our own defence systems to combat any current threat... and any unforeseen threat in the future. How many people predicted the World Trade Centre tragedy?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

I don't get your argument that if we scrap Trident we won't be allowed to permit the US to launch missiles from within our territories, base them here or allow them to pass through....I never heard Nick Clegg say that, he just said what millions of British people believe in this day and age...that being we don't need to spend up to £20 Billion on a new Trident system.

His argument that that money would be better spent on our convential forces made a lot of sense to many people in this country, which I am sure will be proven at the General Election.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *zMaleMan
over a year ago

penzance

1963 The Bay of Pigs. If it wasn't for nuclear weapons we would have had World War 3. It became a stand off and neither nation the US or the USSR were prepared to press the button, as both nations realised the consequences.

Unfortunately since the end of the COLD WAR, there are other nations not friendly to us that have developed nuclear weapons. As a result we have to be able to defend ourselves. I think it is a derisory arguement that we should depend on our allies to defend us, as we are, whether you like it or not part of NATO.

Having said that Trident is a tried and trusted system, so why should we spend 100's of billions replacing it?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ig badMan
over a year ago

Up North :-)

"1963 The Bay of Pigs. If it wasn't for nuclear weapons we would have had World War 3. It became a stand off and neither nation the US or the USSR were prepared to press the button, as both nations realised the consequences.

Having said that Trident is a tried and trusted system, so why should we spend 100's of billions replacing it?"

Spot on with the ww3 bit. Why replace? Well i guess because the Americans can zap them mid flight

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So Clegg is only concerned about £20b?? (thought it was £100b myself but hey ho)

Brown gave the banks how many billions this year alone so I'm sure we can come up with a mere £20b to pay for the peace of mind that Trident gives us. £20b is nothing if you look at the overall GPD of this country.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

none of them at all , everyone full of shit to be honest , only lies followed by more lies with differnt colours .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Having said that Trident is a tried and trusted system, so why should we spend 100's of billions replacing it?"

Trident is 25 years old already so if we keep it for another 25 years without updating it I'd hate to ne the man with his finger on the button if we ever need it in case it blows up in his face and wipes out our own cities. You don't keep a jumbo flying for 50 years so I'd take even less chances with a nuclear weapon!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Not all NATO members have nuclear weapons, and to be fair the Bay of Pigs was 47 years ago.....did us having nuclear weapons have any impact on the outcome of the sabre rattling between the US and USSR all that time ago?, I'm not so sure it made any difference at all.

President Obama stated at the Nuclear conference last week that the biggest threat to a modern world from Nuclear weapons came not from a large state but from a small organisation such as Al Queda.

So if some Pakistani dissident smuggled a warhead into a British port such as Harwich and detonated the weapon in London, does anyone really believe we would have an idea where the attack originated?

So what would we do with our Trident missiles in retaliation?.....bomb everyone in the hope we hit the guilty group/nation?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *zMaleMan
over a year ago

penzance

"I don't get your argument that if we scrap Trident we won't be allowed to permit the US to launch missiles from within our territories, base them here or allow them to pass through....I never heard Nick Clegg say that, he just said what millions of British people believe in this day and age...that being we don't need to spend up to £20 Billion on a new Trident system.

His argument that that money would be better spent on our convential forces made a lot of sense to many people in this country, which I am sure will be proven at the General Election."

No one can claim to know what millions of people in this country are thinking, without having a referendum. That is a sweeping statement.

If Nick Clegg gains power and scraps Trident or any other form of nuclear deterent because he is against nuclear weapons, which the Lib Dems have arged for decades, then it is only a natural progression for them to ban the placement of US nuclear weapons on our territory.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" a small organisation such as Al Queda."

One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ig badMan
over a year ago

Up North :-)

" a small organisation such as Al Queda.

One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day!"

Its all if and buts i guess we don't know if trident works till we have to use it. Even if it doesn't at that time the button is pushed the world is fucked any way as someone will have some that do

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" a small organisation such as Al Queda.

One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day!

Its all if and buts i guess we don't know if trident works till we have to use it. Even if it doesn't at that time the button is pushed the world is fucked any way as someone will have some that do

As a deterent nukes do their job. As a weapon, I hope we get one off before we get wiped out ourselves. As you say, if it ever reaches a point where someone somewhere has pressed the button, I'd rather have a few to send their way than none at all.

The biggest threat to a peaceful world is a pacifist.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

" a small organisation such as Al Queda.

One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day!"

You miss my point, we wouldn't even know who smuggled a nuclear weapon into London and detonated it.....so how would we retaliate?

What country would you have us Nuke if Al Queda were suspected of being the guilty party....Pakistan?, Afghanistan? Uzbekistan?, Chechnia?, Yemen?, Sierra Leone?, Nigeria?, Sedan?......

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

if it makes you guys proud, the americans are actually quite jealous of how the 1st uk debate went, love to see what the viewing figures are for this in the morning... the larger the number, the bigger the bounce for clegg???

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

[Removed by poster at 16/04/10 00:53:28]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ig badMan
over a year ago

Up North :-)

" a small organisation such as Al Queda.

One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day!

Its all if and buts i guess we don't know if trident works till we have to use it. Even if it doesn't at that time the button is pushed the world is fucked any way as someone will have some that do

The biggest threat to a peaceful world is a pacifist."

I work on the idea that it doesn't matter if they do work or not but as long as people think they do is enough to deter. Well i hope so!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *zMaleMan
over a year ago

penzance

"if it makes you guys proud, the americans are actually quite jealous of how the 1st uk debate went, love to see what the viewing figures are for this in the morning... the larger the number, the bigger the bounce for clegg???"

Which scares me stupid following on from the previous threads

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

" The biggest threat to a peaceful world is a pacifist."

Don't confuse resistance to Trident 2 with Pacifism......

I fully support our armed forces, I have immediate family and close friends in Helmand in the past, present and going back out this summer.

So not a pacifist, just a non believer in a nuclear weapon system...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *zMaleMan
over a year ago

penzance

" a small organisation such as Al Queda.

One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day!

You miss my point, we wouldn't even know who smuggled a nuclear weapon into London and detonated it.....so how would we retaliate?

What country would you have us Nuke if Al Queda were suspected of being the guilty party....Pakistan?, Afghanistan? Uzbekistan?, Chechnia?, Yemen?, Sierra Leone?, Nigeria?, Sedan?......"

All of them if need be

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

" a small organisation such as Al Queda.

One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day!

You miss my point, we wouldn't even know who smuggled a nuclear weapon into London and detonated it.....so how would we retaliate?

What country would you have us Nuke if Al Queda were suspected of being the guilty party....Pakistan?, Afghanistan? Uzbekistan?, Chechnia?, Yemen?, Sierra Leone?, Nigeria?, Sedan?......

All of them if need be"

That's perfect.....kill millions of people, whether they are guilty or not.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ig badMan
over a year ago

Up North :-)

" a small organisation such as Al Queda.

One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day!

You miss my point, we wouldn't even know who smuggled a nuclear weapon into London and detonated it.....so how would we retaliate?

What country would you have us Nuke if Al Queda were suspected of being the guilty party....Pakistan?, Afghanistan? Uzbekistan?, Chechnia?, Yemen?, Sierra Leone?, Nigeria?, Sedan?......

All of them if need be

That's perfect.....kill millions of people, whether they are guilty or not."

Genetic specific biological weapons would be a distinct possibility. However as they are banned no one would have developed such things would they.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *zMaleMan
over a year ago

penzance

" a small organisation such as Al Queda.

One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day!

You miss my point, we wouldn't even know who smuggled a nuclear weapon into London and detonated it.....so how would we retaliate?

What country would you have us Nuke if Al Queda were suspected of being the guilty party....Pakistan?, Afghanistan? Uzbekistan?, Chechnia?, Yemen?, Sierra Leone?, Nigeria?, Sedan?......

All of them if need be

That's perfect.....kill millions of people, whether they are guilty or not."

OK it was a flippant statement for which I apologise.

Jane I don't mean any offence this is a debate OK. The intelligence gathered by us the US and other members of NATO are well aware of where the threats come from and who is involved. Since 911 the stae of security and security measures have risen immeasurably. We have to have faith in these systems or else the terrorists win. We would literally be in a state of terror.

Al Queda is only one potential threat, we still have to be able to defend ourselves from the others.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" a small organisation such as Al Queda.

One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day!

You miss my point, we wouldn't even know who smuggled a nuclear weapon into London and detonated it.....so how would we retaliate?

What country would you have us Nuke if Al Queda were suspected of being the guilty party....Pakistan?, Afghanistan? Uzbekistan?, Chechnia?, Yemen?, Sierra Leone?, Nigeria?, Sedan?......"

Plutonium is a very rare substance and it's pretty much known who's got what where. The break up of the USSR meant that the West became suddenly very nervous about the former Soviet satellite states realising they had nukes on their soil. It wasn't about whether they'd use them, it was whether they'd sell them.

Anyone trying to smuggle a nuke small enough that it doesn't have to be placed in a missile to reach it's destination will have to smuggle it's component parts into the UK separately. Our border control doesn't even come into the equation as MI5 (homeland security) overide Customs and the Borders Agency in matters of national security and pretty much know who to watch and where the threat is coming from.

Since 7/7 MI5 has intercepted numerous potential attacks on the UK mainland from Al-Qaeda. They can do this with assistance and information passed to us from the CIA, and from Mossad. (The British govt were pissed off at Mossad over the recent killing of a palestinian high ranker in a hotel not because they used British passports but because we weren't told about it, it was embarrassing).

So you see the threat of a suitcase nuke is pretty insignificant but the threat of someone like Kim Il-sung, who is mad enough to press any fookin button if he knew he was on his last legs, is very real indeed. He is determined to develop nuclear weapons yet his perceived threat for developing them isn't from any of his neighbouring countries (who don't have nukes either) - he just wants to flex his muscles and convince himself that he deserves a place at the world table.

Let's take an abstract view and try and think of something in the future that we haven't foreseen. A threat from someone we haven't considered.

Argentina. Prosperous country. Kinda don't like us cos of the Falklands. Gets a hardliner in charge. Develops nukes. Invades the Malvinas. We do... what?

(don't forget, there are British people living on British soil there.)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *zMaleMan
over a year ago

penzance

"Having said that Trident is a tried and trusted system, so why should we spend 100's of billions replacing it?

No you wouldn't keep an airframe flying for 50 years you'd build another one to replace it. So why not the nuclear system we have in place???

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Having said that Trident is a tried and trusted system, so why should we spend 100's of billions replacing it?

No you wouldn't keep an airframe flying for 50 years you'd build another one to replace it. So why not the nuclear system we have in place??? "

Exactly. But it needs updating and I'm not talking about a lick of paint on the tip of each warhead lol .. Smarter computer systems to control it. Better isotopes that can be dealt with at the end of their life safely. All the infrastructure needed to maintain and deploy them. The submarines that will be needed to house them.

Nick Clegg rustled up £19b of savings pretty easily so I'm sure he can find £20b per year to keep us adequately protected defensively.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

If MI5 are so infallible (spelling?), then how did we suffer the London bus and tube bombings?.....

If the American homeland security is so infallible then why did they suffer the Twin Towers attacks?.....

Only two days ago the White House deputy national security advisor speaking at the Nuclear Weapons talks stated that Al Qaeda are known to be pursuing the materials to build a nuclear weapon according to US intelligence.

If Weapons grade Plutonium is so secure then it begs the question how both the South Africans and Israelis happened to get their hands on it in the past?

The argument that UK and US security agencies know where all such material is at any given time seems wishful thinking to me.....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *zMaleMan
over a year ago

penzance

"If MI5 are so infallible (spelling?), then how did we suffer the London bus and tube bombings?.....

If the American homeland security is so infallible then why did they suffer the Twin Towers attacks?.....

If Weapons grade Plutonium is so secure then it begs the question how both the South Africans and Israelis happened to get their hands on it in the past?

The argument that UK and US security agencies know where all such material is at any given time seems wishful thinking to me.....

Which gives more credence to the arguement to be able to defend ourselves surely!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

" a small organisation such as Al Queda.

One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day!

You miss my point, we wouldn't even know who smuggled a nuclear weapon into London and detonated it.....so how would we retaliate?

What country would you have us Nuke if Al Queda were suspected of being the guilty party....Pakistan?, Afghanistan? Uzbekistan?, Chechnia?, Yemen?, Sierra Leone?, Nigeria?, Sedan?......

All of them if need be

That's perfect.....kill millions of people, whether they are guilty or not.

OK it was a flippant statement for which I apologise.

Al Queda is only one potential threat, we still have to be able to defend ourselves from the others. "

A young white British boy managed to make a bomb, climb on a bus and after a 30 mile journey from Plymouth made a failed attempt to explode the bomb in a packed Exeter shopping centre.

So excuse me if my faith in MI5 is a little thin......both of my sons were in that Exeter shopping centre on the day of the failed bombing attempt, one actually working in the building next to the cafe where the bomb was detonated (failed thank god).

So I know better than most that it only takes one to slip through the net of MI5.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *zMaleMan
over a year ago

penzance

Since 7/7 and 911 our security services have tightened up and we've been passing more information to the US and Vice Versa that ever before because both nations know that by doing so the security of the UK and the US is stronger

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"If MI5 are so infallible (spelling?), then how did we suffer the London bus and tube bombings?.....

If the American homeland security is so infallible then why did they suffer the Twin Towers attacks?.....

If Weapons grade Plutonium is so secure then it begs the question how both the South Africans and Israelis happened to get their hands on it in the past?

The argument that UK and US security agencies know where all such material is at any given time seems wishful thinking to me.....

Which gives more credence to the arguement to be able to defend ourselves surely!"

How would Trident help us if someone detonated a nuclear device in London or Manchester?

Groups like Al Qaeda couldn't give a damn about our submarine based nuclear missiles, whether we have them or not makes no difference to a ground attack from a nuclear weapon from an unknown source.

I say the money is far better spent in our conventional forces, as Nick Clegg stated tonight.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"Since 7/7 and 911 our security services have tightened up and we've been passing more information to the US and Vice Versa that ever before because both nations know that by doing so the security of the UK and the US is stronger

The Exeter bombing attempt came well after both 7/7 and 9/11.

Where was our intelligence then?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *zMaleMan
over a year ago

penzance

You have to look at the bigger picture Jane. It is not only Al Qaeda. maybe Trident can't help against them but if we scrap the deterrent and another hostile nation comes to the fore, where would we be? Up the Swanny without a paddle and to be able to restore the deterent at short notice would be impossible.

We really could go on forever. I think we have to agree to disagree. But it's been a great debate.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *zMaleMan
over a year ago

penzance

That is a completely different arguement. A) it doesn't involve a nuclear bomb. B) It was some poor man with mental health issues who radicalised himself and tried to learn how to build a bomb from the interweb.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I find it interesting that Nick Clegg says we must scrap Trident as we can't afford to replace it yet can find 'savings' to the tune of £19b quite easily.

I suspect that his excuse for scrapping it - ie. affordability - is just a thin disguise for his party's real motive which is to disarm completely and become an anti-nuclear state. A policy that the LibDems have held for a very long time, even when I campaigned for them some 20 years ago.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *itchfieldMan
over a year ago

Portsmouth

I suspect Clegg was hammering on Trident because it was the largest potential saving any of them had to mention. Quite apart from whether he is for unilateral disarmament it went to further his admission we need to make hard choices and face serious cuts in expenditure. £100 billion sounds like a lot of money to save. I do wonder why we couldn't just buy nukes from the Yanks rather than developing new ones. We don't want to actually use the things obviously, just have the threat that we still have viable nukes. We just need enough that we can convince rational heads of state not to attack us, leaving our conventional troops and intelligence agencies free to deal with terrorists, organised crime and rogue states like North Korea.

I thought Clegg came across very well, he'll pick up a lot of votes if he does well in the next two debates. Brown looked like a ranting priest and kept trying to talk over the others. Cameron scored well on the NHS and his personal experience of it was probably quite moving for people.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

just reading the thread and catching up after posting it last night

great debate guys!

really enjoyed reading it....

i was thinking this morning that we have so much debt in this country now that the only way to assist with that is raise taxes and save where we can

the lib dems hav always been for that line

this time it seems to make sense to me.....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As a former Liberal Democrat party member there is one part in the entire debate that got my attention and made me sit up in shock and that was when Gordon Brown mentioned election reform and the introduction of Proportional Representation.

PR has been a long held mainstay of the LibDems and whenever they've tried to instigate a debate about it in the House of Common they've been derided, shouted down and plain laughed at over it. For Cheshire Cat to now adopt PR as part of the Labour Party's manifesto really shows Labour up for the fluid party that they are. One minute they are all for aggressive socialism and the next they in the middle of the road.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

No different from the fluid voters amongst us then?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"No different from the fluid voters amongst us then?"

My statement wasn't about the fluidity of the electorate, it was about Labour adopting PR as policy when they've been vehemently opposed to it for decades. It's all well and good deciding that PR is good for the country but if that's what they really thought why didn't Labour reform the way we vote when the Libs proposed it instead of using it as a vote-catcher now?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

as someone who follows politics im bettin a good twenty quid on the terror alert being upped as we get nearer the election......

trident im no sure one side says we dont need it and its a waste of resources other says it employs a lot of people and we should have it in case of an attack by another country which to be honest i cant see happening as we are one of the superpowers and it would result in a world wide war but as iv never really took an interest in nuclear weapons i cant really comment but the heart says we dont need it we can fight in so many ways although in a nuclear strike we would probably be dead so wouldnt know the outcome!! xx

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We're a superpower because we've got them. x

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

right bully boy tactics got it!! we got it and our friends got it so of you have it there more of us than there are of you kinda thing??

what i think we got it if another country launches the attack they high up folk get the nuclear bunker and press the button while the rest of us fry ??

i really need to get up to date on nuclear weapons! x

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire

well i like gordon brown, cant stand cameron he gives me the creeps but have to say gregg won for me, having said that isnt it a prerequist that you got to be an ugly fuckker to be prime minster

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Don’t see what all the fuss is about, trident is a deterrent, it will also be a deterrent in 20 years time, doubt any country will say, oh lets attack them, there missiles might not work, on the slim chance that some nutter starts launching nuclear weapons, can safely say none of us would be around to worry about it, well apart from our privileged with there nice little bunkers, not sure how that itself can sway anyone’s vote.

If our button didn’t work, our allies certainly would, either way we’d probably never know.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *exeteraWoman
over a year ago

Bridgend

[Removed by poster at 16/04/10 20:19:34]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *exeteraWoman
over a year ago

Bridgend

Some countries have throughout the centuries probably called us an hostile nation. We built our empire not for the good of those countries we enveloped but for what we could rape and pillage. Oil, gems, spices, silks etc etc etc.

Who the hell do we think we are as a country to tell the developing countries that hey, because you're years behind us you can't use a nuclear deterrent to protect yourselves, so tough shit. The money for Trident 2 can be better spent on the here and now.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Some countries have throughout the centuries probably called us an hostile nation. We built our empire not for the good of those countries we enveloped but for what we could rape and pillage. Oil, gems, spices, silks etc etc etc.

You're referring to a past that was very different to how we live today in terms of understanding the world around us as well as any moral obligation to let others live as they wish.

The British Empire was built upon a desire to make life for British people as comfortable as humanly possible, and part of that comfort was to ensure that no other nation could subjugate us. Often that involved identifying a threat and neutralising it, or taking control of a weaker civilisation and educating it so that we could extract the things we needed to make life better for ourselves but at the same time we made life better for them too. The British Empire is the only empire that was not built upon a bedrock of fear. Yes, we put down rebellions mercilessly and yes, we have blood on our hands, but we also breathed life into cultures that had the potential to develop into something far better than they had managed themselves. Not in the British Empire could a subject lose his or her life on a simple whim of their masters. I'm not saying that that didn't happen, of course it did, but those British governors that controlled British territories had to follow guidelines set down by their superiors in order to ensure that the transfer of goods and labour ran smoothly.

As each territory decided that they wanted to become independant of British rule we withdrew over a gradual period of time making sure that the transition of power ensured that the new rulers knew how to run their new kingdoms. Canada, India & Australia are perfect examples of how British rule allowed those territories to develop to such an extent that they eventually became countries in their own rights, yet they have opted to remain under the protective auspices of the Commonwealth.

It is this history, this vast experience of how to rule successfully, that enables us to make educated decisions about who else should control weapons that have the potential to end life on this planet. We owe not only to ourselves, but to every living thing that this planet provides a home for, the protection from others that would rather destroy than live in harmony if it cannot force it's will on those it seeks to control.

It's not about us and NATO saying "hey, we have the big toys and you can't have any", it's about looking at each country that seeks to develop weapons of mass destruction and asking why they need them.

But there is another threat that must also be considered. It is a remote threat sure, but it exists all the same. That is the threat of an E.L.I. - a Life Extinguishing Event, or in other words, an asteroid impact.

At the moment the only defence this planet has against such an event is nuclear weapons. They are the only thing humanity could launch to counteract our own extinction but to have this safeguard in only one location around the world would be madness. We need nuclear weapons placed strategically all over the world so that they can be launched from wherever it is determined would be the best insurance for our survival.

I watch programmes about the solar system all the time, as Space fascinates me, and our planet orbits a star alongside not only 8 other planets and their associated moons but thousands upon thousands of assorted asteroids ranging in size from a suitcase to the size of Mount Everest. An asteroid 1km wide would be enough to wipe out life on Earth and it only needs a nudge from Jupiter's gravitational pull to send it spinning towards us. It has happened before and it will happen again, eventually, assuredly. Nuclear weapons provide us with a means to deal with such a threat, maybe. As man's understanding of physics and the universe increases I'm sure we will develop weapons that will deal with asteroids far easier than nuclear missiles, but those same weapons could also destroy us if they end up in the wrong hands. Which is why a deterent is needed by those countries responsible enough to have them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

armegeddon??? bruce willis?? that other fit guy?? and steve tyler singin!!!

seriously im still none the wiser!! xx

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The British empire was partly built on enslaving people so if that's not fear i don't know what is. I can only assume the OP played "Jerusalem" as typing the above.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The British empire was partly built on enslaving people so if that's not fear i don't know what is. I can only assume the OP played "Jerusalem" as typing the above."

Partly. I admitted we had blood on our hands didn't I. But we also gave many countries things they would neverwise have had. India was a country ruled by feudal bloodletting on a regular basis. Maybe we gave them a common enemy to unite against but unite they did and look at India now.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"armegeddon??? bruce willis?? that other fit guy?? and steve tyler singin!!!

seriously im still none the wiser!! xx"

Watch Wonders of the Solar System by Prof. Brian Cox. You'll understand precisely what's spinning around out there in space. It's quite unnerving. x

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

il look out for it sounds interestin! x

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The British empire was partly built on enslaving people so if that's not fear i don't know what is. I can only assume the OP played "Jerusalem" as typing the above.

I do not deny the British Empire to some extent was good. however it was built on the backs of the fallen and enslaved.

As for India well as far as i remember its been on the brink of war with Pakistan for decades so i don't think the empire solved issues there.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The British empire was partly built on enslaving people so if that's not fear i don't know what is. I can only assume the OP played "Jerusalem" as typing the above."

I am offended by the racist overtones in your post. I am not a racist and never have been. I was simply trying to establish why we needed nuclear weapons and why we should have them and other, less unstable regimes, should not.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

* less stable (edit)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *exeteraWoman
over a year ago

Bridgend

Why can't we all just lie and say we have all these nuclear weapons and save billions of pounds that can be spent on making life in the here and now so much better for people. SIMPLES

As far as the threat from an E.L.E. as played out in Armageddon, starring Bruce Willis, Ben Afleck (that other fit bloke), I state the following. An extinction event (also known as: mass extinction; extinction-level event, ELE, or biotic crisis) is a sharp decrease in the diversity and abundance of macroscopic life. They occur when the rate of extinction increases with respect to the rate of speciation. Because the majority of diversity and biomass on earth is microbial, and thus difficult to measure, mass extinctions have little effect on the total diversity and abundance of life, but rather affect the easily observed component of the biosphere.[1]

Over 97% of species that ever lived are now extinct, but extinction occurs at an uneven rate. Based on the fossil record, the background rate of extinctions on Earth is about two to five taxonomic families of marine invertebrates and vertebrates every million years. Marine fossils are mostly used to measure extinction rates because of their superior fossil record and stratigraphic range compared to land organisms.

Since life began on Earth, several major mass extinctions have significantly exceeded the background extinction rate. The most recent, the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, occurred 65 million years ago, and has attracted more attention than all others as it marks the extinction of nearly all dinosaur species, which were the dominant animal class of the period. In the past 540 million years there have been five major events when over 50% of animal species died. There probably were mass extinctions in the Archean and Proterozoic Eons, but before the Phanerozoic there were no animals with hard body parts to leave a significant fossil record.

Estimates of the number of major mass extinctions in the last 540 million years range from as few as five to more than twenty. These differences stem from the threshold chosen for describing an extinction event as "major", and the data chosen to measure past diversity. [Infomation source Wikipedia ]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *he_original_poloWoman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

I didn’t watch the debate (I had much better things to do – or rather have done to me) but I did see Cameron being interviewed this morning and being asked how he felt it went. It quickly became apparent he has all the sincerity of an over ripe cantaloupe and I would trust him as far as I could kick Shrek off the sofa.

And as for all this “it’s time for change” bollox. The reality is, it’s not a time for HUGE change. Things do need to change, but in the grand scheme of things they are not issues requiring massive changes. I guess because it was a good tag for Obama then ol’ slug slime Cameron thinks he’ll have a piece of that tag line too.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *exeteraWoman
over a year ago

Bridgend

I agree polo, a turn around will take quite some time for any changes to filter down from the top in order for those of us on the ground to see any benefits. Things don't happen over night and we need to be midnful of that. Cameron didn't come across very well but I think from last night's debate it'll be a two horse race between Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We could all go to Wiki and pull data that serves our needs. I was referring to an event that threatens man's existence, not microrganisms. This planet will survive an asteroid impact and over millions of years another species will become dominant. I'm talking about nuclear weapons assisting man in his survival of such an event.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *exeteraWoman
over a year ago

Bridgend

"We could all go to Wiki and pull data that serves our needs. I was referring to an event that threatens man's existence, not microrganisms. This planet will survive an asteroid impact and over millions of years another species will become dominant. I'm talking about nuclear weapons assisting man in his survival of such an event. "

I dare to differ, so called global warming, meteorites, volcanic eruptians, asteroids, nuclear warheads and the like will all have an impact on micro-organisms. These micro-organisms are the very lowest of the food chain and without these, we will lose numerous species. Asteroids etc pepper planets with whatever they contain and this in itself can change the whole planets make-up. Global warming and the melting of the ice caps also have the capacity to do the same. Introducing micr-organisms etc that have not been around for millions if not billions of years. On a lighter note, with reference to your last post it appears woman will be fine

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i still dont understand how nuclear weapons could save us in such an incident wouldnt it kill us anyway?? x

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

I am quite sure that should an asteroid find itself on a collision course with the earth that the Americans, Russians and Chinese between them have more than enough nuclear missiles to tackle it....I don't think Britain having a few Trident missiles has much relevence in that.

Dump the plans for renewing Trident and put the money into our conventional forces.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Those same melting icecaps that are now reforming?

I watched with interest how the three leaders of the main political parties didn't mention global warming once on Thursday evening. It's been rebranded 'climate change' but the climater has been changing ever since the soalr system was formed 4.5bn years ago.

Interestingly, Nick Clegg, in 2007, argued against scrapping Trident. It appears that for all his polish that he's prepared to sell any policy in return for a Liberal vote.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Those same melting icecaps that are now reforming?

Interestingly, Nick Clegg, in 2007, argued against scrapping Trident. It appears that for all his polish that he's prepared to sell any policy in return for a Liberal vote."

doesnt every politician do that?? and sometimes it can be in the name of progress!!

but i wondered where global warmin went in the debate it seems not to be on peoples priority lists now but did see a big bit in the lib dem manifesto about it x

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Interestingly, Nick Clegg, in 2007, argued against scrapping Trident. It appears that for all his polish that he's prepared to sell any policy in return for a Liberal vote.

doesnt every politician do that?? and sometimes it can be in the name of progress!!

but i wondered where global warmin went in the debate it seems not to be on peoples priority lists now but did see a big bit in the lib dem manifesto about it x"

Yes they do but on such an important issue as this nation's defences I think any political party should be absolutely clear on it's position, so that we, the people, can make as much of an informed choice as possible.

With regards to global warming, many of the 'experts' that have been receiving funding for years have now siad that the planet is in no danger but that we should be 'erring on the side of caution anyway' - which to my ears, is a major backtrack. The Libs decided their manifesto some time ago and obviously haven't read the latest reports on climate change lol.

I'm a sceptic by nature and when I hear professional experts telling me to do this thing or that thing I nearly always do the opposite as I simply don't trust someone who receives funding to prepare reports that coincide with the policies of the fundpayer.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

but research is vital for society because without research we would still be livin in the dark ages?/

the difference is research with non political bias is hard to find and in the nature of research you are out to discredit everyone else and show that you are right!

and as a lot of funding comes from governments there are always goin to be tweaks unless its from an outside source!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

actually... ahem ... technicality..

Clegg isn't talking about scrapping trident... he is talking about finding the money at the moment to replace it....

doesn 100bn over 25 year make ecomonic sense at the moment.... probably not..... if the ecomony improves then sure, but at this point in time, that sort of money would be potentially better spent elsewhere...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

thats a lot of money!! money that really could be spent better but national defence is always goin to be a tricky one!!

didnt have this hassle when it was maggie and the handbags she was a formidable force lol!! xx

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"actually... ahem ... technicality..

Clegg isn't talking about scrapping trident... he is talking about finding the money at the moment to replace it....

But that's the whole crux of the matter isn't it. They're talking about the economy in 25 years time but addressing a recession that's taking place now. That's a bit short term don't you think. The economy will have many ups and downs over the next 25 years I'm sure, but to relinquish our place at the United Nations Security Council because we don't have our own independent nuclear weapons is a miscalculation at best and pure folly at worst. The UK is one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with France, China, Russia and the United States, and I'm sure they'd look upon us as poor relations if we tried to dicate nuclear policy without having our own nuclear weapons.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

The Trident bill doesn't come in 25 years time, the costs of Trident have started all ready with work on the first of the new Nuclear Vanguard SSBN submarines expected to start in 2011/12.

The costs will be ongoing at the rate of £3.5b to £5.5b per year over the next Twenty years.

It's true that thousands of jobs are on the line in Plymouth/Portsmouth/Scotland regarding the building of the Class 2 Vanguard, but the argument from many military observers is that we should be looking at an alternative missile delivery sustem that would cost less than One Fifth of new subs.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread