Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think he is a well intentioned fool. Softly softly while leading a country is not possible. Too many difficult situations and global questions are asked, that he would not be able to deal with from his hand wringing, pacifist point of view. Just look back to Chamberlain to see what these tactics result in. " ..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is and has been consistent in his ideals since being elected, he's bright enough to have like others switched his ideals to suit personal progression in Government but chose not to and that is rare in modern politics regardless of party.. many of his policies are pretty sound and cut across most peoples politics with the ownership of our infrastructure and resources by profiteering companies be they other Government or privately owned.. his aspirations are well intentioned but there is as ever the issue of costings.. its a bit ironic that those who condemn him for wanting dialogue to resolve conflict where those who were engaged in dialogue in the past to cease the terrorism we lived with then.. " I am worried about the £30bn a year we are lending, given loans and rates will no doubt be granted a few of those we are divorcing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is and has been consistent in his ideals since being elected, he's bright enough to have like others switched his ideals to suit personal progression in Government but chose not to and that is rare in modern politics regardless of party.. many of his policies are pretty sound and cut across most peoples politics with the ownership of our infrastructure and resources by profiteering companies be they other Government or privately owned.. his aspirations are well intentioned but there is as ever the issue of costings.. its a bit ironic that those who condemn him for wanting dialogue to resolve conflict where those who were engaged in dialogue in the past to cease the terrorism we lived with then.. I am worried about the £30bn a year we are lending, given loans and rates will no doubt be granted a few of those we are divorcing?" i think like the US election when many of us were looking at the 2 candidates and the issue's that they were facing etc that similarly some of those people over the pond will be looking here and maybe thinking the same.. rock and a hard place springs to mind.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is and has been consistent in his ideals since being elected, he's bright enough to have like others switched his ideals to suit personal progression in Government but chose not to and that is rare in modern politics regardless of party.. many of his policies are pretty sound and cut across most peoples politics with the ownership of our infrastructure and resources by profiteering companies be they other Government or privately owned.. his aspirations are well intentioned but there is as ever the issue of costings.. its a bit ironic that those who condemn him for wanting dialogue to resolve conflict where those who were engaged in dialogue in the past to cease the terrorism we lived with then.. I am worried about the £30bn a year we are lending, given loans and rates will no doubt be granted a few of those we are divorcing? i think like the US election when many of us were looking at the 2 candidates and the issue's that they were facing etc that similarly some of those people over the pond will be looking here and maybe thinking the same.. rock and a hard place springs to mind.. " I was just thinking listening to Farron, if Clegg is going to go Independent  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is and has been consistent in his ideals since being elected, he's bright enough to have like others switched his ideals to suit personal progression in Government but chose not to and that is rare in modern politics regardless of party.. many of his policies are pretty sound and cut across most peoples politics with the ownership of our infrastructure and resources by profiteering companies be they other Government or privately owned.. his aspirations are well intentioned but there is as ever the issue of costings.. its a bit ironic that those who condemn him for wanting dialogue to resolve conflict where those who were engaged in dialogue in the past to cease the terrorism we lived with then.. I am worried about the £30bn a year we are lending, given loans and rates will no doubt be granted a few of those we are divorcing? i think like the US election when many of us were looking at the 2 candidates and the issue's that they were facing etc that similarly some of those people over the pond will be looking here and maybe thinking the same.. rock and a hard place springs to mind.. " I dont think May or Corbyn are electable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is and has been consistent in his ideals since being elected, he's bright enough to have like others switched his ideals to suit personal progression in Government but chose not to and that is rare in modern politics regardless of party.. many of his policies are pretty sound and cut across most peoples politics with the ownership of our infrastructure and resources by profiteering companies be they other Government or privately owned.. his aspirations are well intentioned but there is as ever the issue of costings.. its a bit ironic that those who condemn him for wanting dialogue to resolve conflict where those who were engaged in dialogue in the past to cease the terrorism we lived with then.. I am worried about the £30bn a year we are lending, given loans and rates will no doubt be granted a few of those we are divorcing? i think like the US election when many of us were looking at the 2 candidates and the issue's that they were facing etc that similarly some of those people over the pond will be looking here and maybe thinking the same.. rock and a hard place springs to mind.. I dont think May or Corbyn are electable. " You mean you don't like either of them. As it is very highly likely that one of them will get elected. They are both 'electable'. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is and has been consistent in his ideals since being elected, he's bright enough to have like others switched his ideals to suit personal progression in Government but chose not to and that is rare in modern politics regardless of party.. many of his policies are pretty sound and cut across most peoples politics with the ownership of our infrastructure and resources by profiteering companies be they other Government or privately owned.. his aspirations are well intentioned but there is as ever the issue of costings.. its a bit ironic that those who condemn him for wanting dialogue to resolve conflict where those who were engaged in dialogue in the past to cease the terrorism we lived with then.. I am worried about the £30bn a year we are lending, given loans and rates will no doubt be granted a few of those we are divorcing? i think like the US election when many of us were looking at the 2 candidates and the issue's that they were facing etc that similarly some of those people over the pond will be looking here and maybe thinking the same.. rock and a hard place springs to mind.. I dont think May or Corbyn are electable. You mean you don't like either of them. As it is very highly likely that one of them will get elected. They are both 'electable'. -Matt" Trump, Clinton, May and Corbyn are all joke politicians who could only possibily get elected by the types of people that would vote for a sandwich stuffed full of shit, if it was the candidate for their party of choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think he is a well intentioned fool. Softly softly while leading a country is not possible. Too many difficult situations and global questions are asked, that he would not be able to deal with from his hand wringing, pacifist point of view. Just look back to Chamberlain to see what these tactics result in. .. "Chamberlain tactics resulted in britain having a year and half to try to put his defense up to date, knowing triggering a war in 1938 would have meant nazi flags in Buckingham palace and house of parliament by the end of 1939 if not earlier... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think he is a well intentioned fool. Softly softly while leading a country is not possible. Too many difficult situations and global questions are asked, that he would not be able to deal with from his hand wringing, pacifist point of view. Just look back to Chamberlain to see what these tactics result in. ..
Chamberlain tactics resulted in britain having a year and half to try to put his defense up to date, knowing triggering a war in 1938 would have meant nazi flags in Buckingham palace and house of parliament by the end of 1939 if not earlier... "Not according to Wolfston history prize winning analysis from Adam Tooze who showed that even france alone were strong enough to beat Nazi Germany in the mid 1930's. Chamberlain did take steps to improve britains defences but this wss largely pointless as Nazi germany was growing at a strength that outstipped our own improvement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think he is a well intentioned fool. Softly softly while leading a country is not possible. Too many difficult situations and global questions are asked, that he would not be able to deal with from his hand wringing, pacifist point of view. Just look back to Chamberlain to see what these tactics result in. ..
Chamberlain tactics resulted in britain having a year and half to try to put his defense up to date, knowing triggering a war in 1938 would have meant nazi flags in Buckingham palace and house of parliament by the end of 1939 if not earlier...
Not according to Wolfston history prize winning analysis from Adam Tooze who showed that even france alone were strong enough to beat Nazi Germany in the mid 1930's. Chamberlain did take steps to improve britains defences but this wss largely pointless as Nazi germany was growing at a strength that outstipped our own improvement. "Well then dont blame Neville for having inherited a rather defenseless Britain when he became PM in 1937... Thanks him instead for taking the right approach at a crucial moment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think he is a well intentioned fool. Softly softly while leading a country is not possible. Too many difficult situations and global questions are asked, that he would not be able to deal with from his hand wringing, pacifist point of view. Just look back to Chamberlain to see what these tactics result in. ..
Chamberlain tactics resulted in britain having a year and half to try to put his defense up to date, knowing triggering a war in 1938 would have meant nazi flags in Buckingham palace and house of parliament by the end of 1939 if not earlier...
Not according to Wolfston history prize winning analysis from Adam Tooze who showed that even france alone were strong enough to beat Nazi Germany in the mid 1930's. Chamberlain did take steps to improve britains defences but this wss largely pointless as Nazi germany was growing at a strength that outstipped our own improvement.
Well then dont blame Neville for having inherited a rather defenseless Britain when he became PM in 1937... Thanks him instead for taking the right approach at a crucial moment."Not sure how that follows what i said. I forget the exact date Tooze puts on it but he basically shows, with 800 pages of quantitiative analysis how we / France / US could have walked over Hitler until about 1937 or 1938. There's a reason the German generals were told to retreat if they encountered any resistance in the sudetenland. Ergo his point is that WW2 only happened because too many people pussy footed around with peace rather than taking the hard decision at the optimal time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think he is a well intentioned fool. Softly softly while leading a country is not possible. Too many difficult situations and global questions are asked, that he would not be able to deal with from his hand wringing, pacifist point of view. Just look back to Chamberlain to see what these tactics result in. " I agree with this a very good post | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is and has been consistent in his ideals since being elected, he's bright enough to have like others switched his ideals to suit personal progression in Government but chose not to and that is rare in modern politics regardless of party.. many of his policies are pretty sound and cut across most peoples politics with the ownership of our infrastructure and resources by profiteering companies be they other Government or privately owned.. his aspirations are well intentioned but there is as ever the issue of costings.. its a bit ironic that those who condemn him for wanting dialogue to resolve conflict where those who were engaged in dialogue in the past to cease the terrorism we lived with then.. I am worried about the £30bn a year we are lending, given loans and rates will no doubt be granted a few of those we are divorcing? i think like the US election when many of us were looking at the 2 candidates and the issue's that they were facing etc that similarly some of those people over the pond will be looking here and maybe thinking the same.. rock and a hard place springs to mind.. I dont think May or Corbyn are electable. " tend to agree, but one of them will be PM either outright or the other(albeit a very slim possibility) in a coalition maybe.. May has really shown herself to be very poor these past few weeks.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think he is a well intentioned fool. Softly softly while leading a country is not possible. Too many difficult situations and global questions are asked, that he would not be able to deal with from his hand wringing, pacifist point of view. Just look back to Chamberlain to see what these tactics result in. ..
Chamberlain tactics resulted in britain having a year and half to try to put his defense up to date, knowing triggering a war in 1938 would have meant nazi flags in Buckingham palace and house of parliament by the end of 1939 if not earlier...
Not according to Wolfston history prize winning analysis from Adam Tooze who showed that even france alone were strong enough to beat Nazi Germany in the mid 1930's. Chamberlain did take steps to improve britains defences but this wss largely pointless as Nazi germany was growing at a strength that outstipped our own improvement.
Well then dont blame Neville for having inherited a rather defenseless Britain when he became PM in 1937... Thanks him instead for taking the right approach at a crucial moment.
Not sure how that follows what i said. I forget the exact date Tooze puts on it but he basically shows, with 800 pages of quantitiative analysis how we / France / US could have walked over Hitler until about 1937 or 1938. There's a reason the German generals were told to retreat if they encountered any resistance in the sudetenland. Ergo his point is that WW2 only happened because too many people pussy footed around with peace rather than taking the hard decision at the optimal time. "That's fine; Perhaps re reading your post may help you to understand may 1937 is not the mid of 1930's. But maybe thanks to that "soft", "naive", integral and boring man there were no nazi flags planted on British soil. Obviously you are free to agree with whatever suits you best. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think he is a well intentioned fool. Softly softly while leading a country is not possible. Too many difficult situations and global questions are asked, that he would not be able to deal with from his hand wringing, pacifist point of view. Just look back to Chamberlain to see what these tactics result in. ..
Chamberlain tactics resulted in britain having a year and half to try to put his defense up to date, knowing triggering a war in 1938 would have meant nazi flags in Buckingham palace and house of parliament by the end of 1939 if not earlier...
Not according to Wolfston history prize winning analysis from Adam Tooze who showed that even france alone were strong enough to beat Nazi Germany in the mid 1930's. Chamberlain did take steps to improve britains defences but this wss largely pointless as Nazi germany was growing at a strength that outstipped our own improvement.
Well then dont blame Neville for having inherited a rather defenseless Britain when he became PM in 1937... Thanks him instead for taking the right approach at a crucial moment.
Not sure how that follows what i said. I forget the exact date Tooze puts on it but he basically shows, with 800 pages of quantitiative analysis how we / France / US could have walked over Hitler until about 1937 or 1938. There's a reason the German generals were told to retreat if they encountered any resistance in the sudetenland. Ergo his point is that WW2 only happened because too many people pussy footed around with peace rather than taking the hard decision at the optimal time.
That's fine; Perhaps re reading your post may help you to understand may 1937 is not the mid of 1930's. But maybe thanks to that "soft", "naive", integral and boring man there were no nazi flags planted on British soil. Obviously you are free to agree with whatever suits you best."Not my analysis, as i say 800-pages of prize winning quantitative analysis. But im sure you read something similar before arriving at your position. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" That's fine; Perhaps re reading your post may help you to understand may 1937 is not the mid of 1930's. But maybe thanks to that "soft", "naive", integral and boring man there were no nazi flags planted on British soil. Obviously you are free to agree with whatever suits you best." While your view does perhaps have merit, I have never heard that the man himself ever claimed that is what he was trying to give us extra time to build our defences | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" That's fine; Perhaps re reading your post may help you to understand may 1937 is not the mid of 1930's. But maybe thanks to that "soft", "naive", integral and boring man there were no nazi flags planted on British soil. Obviously you are free to agree with whatever suits you best. While your view does perhaps have merit, I have never heard that the man himself ever claimed that is what he was trying to give us extra time to build our defences" You heard it from me my dear; but don't believe what I say  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have not heard Corbyn condemning these acts yet, I have heard sympathies and respect for public services, though nothing of the acts themselves .. Anyone else? If PM, on the tightrope, what or how would the public expect to hear?" Corbyn probably wants to have a nice chat with them. See if he could ask the Islamic extremists what they would like to stop killing innocent civilians. Maybe offer them a nice cuppa and a piece of cake while he's at it. Or maybe, given his support of other terrorists, he empathises with them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have not heard Corbyn condemning these acts yet, I have heard sympathies and respect for public services, though nothing of the acts themselves .. Anyone else? If PM, on the tightrope, what or how would the public expect to hear? Corbyn probably wants to have a nice chat with them. See if he could ask the Islamic extremists what they would like to stop killing innocent civilians. Maybe offer them a nice cuppa and a piece of cake while he's at it. Or maybe, given his support of other terrorists, he empathises with them."
It is hard to find the words to describe how much I despise Corbyn, so I won't even try. I will just say that the man is a nasty dangerous little shit and has somehow managed to fool millions of people | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have not heard Corbyn condemning these acts yet, I have heard sympathies and respect for public services, though nothing of the acts themselves .. Anyone else? If PM, on the tightrope, what or how would the public expect to hear? Corbyn probably wants to have a nice chat with them. See if he could ask the Islamic extremists what they would like to stop killing innocent civilians. Maybe offer them a nice cuppa and a piece of cake while he's at it. Or maybe, given his support of other terrorists, he empathises with them.
It is hard to find the words to describe how much I despise Corbyn, so I won't even try. I will just say that the man is a nasty dangerous little shit and has somehow managed to fool millions of people"yes not lets talk about May who sends billions of £££ weapons to Saudo arabia who funds isis.. thats just too much to talk about lets blame the pacifist lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have not heard Corbyn condemning these acts yet, I have heard sympathies and respect for public services, though nothing of the acts themselves .. Anyone else? If PM, on the tightrope, what or how would the public expect to hear? Corbyn probably wants to have a nice chat with them. See if he could ask the Islamic extremists what they would like to stop killing innocent civilians. Maybe offer them a nice cuppa and a piece of cake while he's at it. Or maybe, given his support of other terrorists, he empathises with them.
It is hard to find the words to describe how much I despise Corbyn, so I won't even try. I will just say that the man is a nasty dangerous little shit and has somehow managed to fool millions of people"There will always be people happy to spend lots of other peoples money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have not heard Corbyn condemning these acts yet, I have heard sympathies and respect for public services, though nothing of the acts themselves .. Anyone else? If PM, on the tightrope, what or how would the public expect to hear? Corbyn probably wants to have a nice chat with them. See if he could ask the Islamic extremists what they would like to stop killing innocent civilians. Maybe offer them a nice cuppa and a piece of cake while he's at it. Or maybe, given his support of other terrorists, he empathises with them.
It is hard to find the words to describe how much I despise Corbyn, so I won't even try. I will just say that the man is a nasty dangerous little shit and has somehow managed to fool millions of people yes not lets talk about May who sends billions of £££ weapons to Saudo arabia who funds isis..
thats just too much to talk about lets blame the pacifist lol"This is the sort of simplistic comment that is so prevalent on the left. We sell weapons to the Saudi state which is run by the Royal family. The Royal Family is one of the most progressive organisations in the world at tackling extremism, look at the Mohammed bin Nayef centre and it's reoffending rate. Their domestic terrorism record is excellent, far better than ours. This is not altruistic behaviour though, it's self preservation. The Royal Family know full well that ISIS is more likely to topple them than any other sovereign state, hence their crack down on terrorism. However, like most countries there are factions of power and within Saudi Arabia there are religious extremists that do fund terrorist. But to lump them all into one group and then conflate weapon sales in a way that implies the weapons are sold to the ISIS funders is both factually inaccurate and irresponsible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have not heard Corbyn condemning these acts yet, I have heard sympathies and respect for public services, though nothing of the acts themselves .. Anyone else? If PM, on the tightrope, what or how would the public expect to hear? Corbyn probably wants to have a nice chat with them. See if he could ask the Islamic extremists what they would like to stop killing innocent civilians. Maybe offer them a nice cuppa and a piece of cake while he's at it. Or maybe, given his support of other terrorists, he empathises with them.
It is hard to find the words to describe how much I despise Corbyn, so I won't even try. I will just say that the man is a nasty dangerous little shit and has somehow managed to fool millions of people yes not lets talk about May who sends billions of £££ weapons to Saudo arabia who funds isis..
thats just too much to talk about lets blame the pacifist lol
This is the sort of simplistic comment that is so prevalent on the left. We sell weapons to the Saudi state which is run by the Royal family. The Royal Family is one of the most progressive organisations in the world at tackling extremism, look at the Mohammed bin Nayef centre and it's reoffending rate. Their domestic terrorism record is excellent, far better than ours. This is not altruistic behaviour though, it's self preservation. The Royal Family know full well that ISIS is more likely to topple them than any other sovereign state, hence their crack down on terrorism. However, like most countries there are factions of power and within Saudi Arabia there are religious extremists that do fund terrorist. But to lump them all into one group and then conflate weapon sales in a way that implies the weapons are sold to the ISIS funders is both factually inaccurate and irresponsible. "I would imagine conditions in Saudi prisons would help reoffending rates. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have not heard Corbyn condemning these acts yet, I have heard sympathies and respect for public services, though nothing of the acts themselves .. Anyone else? If PM, on the tightrope, what or how would the public expect to hear? Corbyn probably wants to have a nice chat with them. See if he could ask the Islamic extremists what they would like to stop killing innocent civilians. Maybe offer them a nice cuppa and a piece of cake while he's at it. Or maybe, given his support of other terrorists, he empathises with them.
It is hard to find the words to describe how much I despise Corbyn, so I won't even try. I will just say that the man is a nasty dangerous little shit and has somehow managed to fool millions of people yes not lets talk about May who sends billions of £££ weapons to Saudo arabia who funds isis..
thats just too much to talk about lets blame the pacifist lol
This is the sort of simplistic comment that is so prevalent on the left. We sell weapons to the Saudi state which is run by the Royal family. The Royal Family is one of the most progressive organisations in the world at tackling extremism, look at the Mohammed bin Nayef centre and it's reoffending rate. Their domestic terrorism record is excellent, far better than ours. This is not altruistic behaviour though, it's self preservation. The Royal Family know full well that ISIS is more likely to topple them than any other sovereign state, hence their crack down on terrorism. However, like most countries there are factions of power and within Saudi Arabia there are religious extremists that do fund terrorist. But to lump them all into one group and then conflate weapon sales in a way that implies the weapons are sold to the ISIS funders is both factually inaccurate and irresponsible.
I would imagine conditions in Saudi prisons would help reoffending rates. "Unlike the UK, the Saudi's don't pussy foot around with hate preachers anymore. People should research who Muhammed bin Nayef is and it will become fucking obvious his family ain't funding ISIS. The Saudi government isn't afraid to go into a mosque and deal with a hate preacher, unlike the UK government who get played for fools but preachers that stay just inside the legal lines. Turkeys don't donate money to thanks giving. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have not heard Corbyn condemning these acts yet, I have heard sympathies and respect for public services, though nothing of the acts themselves .. Anyone else? If PM, on the tightrope, what or how would the public expect to hear? Corbyn probably wants to have a nice chat with them. See if he could ask the Islamic extremists what they would like to stop killing innocent civilians. Maybe offer them a nice cuppa and a piece of cake while he's at it. Or maybe, given his support of other terrorists, he empathises with them.
It is hard to find the words to describe how much I despise Corbyn, so I won't even try. I will just say that the man is a nasty dangerous little shit and has somehow managed to fool millions of people"Perhaps you've been also fooled, you and a few more... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have not heard Corbyn condemning these acts yet, I have heard sympathies and respect for public services, though nothing of the acts themselves .. Anyone else? If PM, on the tightrope, what or how would the public expect to hear? Corbyn probably wants to have a nice chat with them. See if he could ask the Islamic extremists what they would like to stop killing innocent civilians. Maybe offer them a nice cuppa and a piece of cake while he's at it. Or maybe, given his support of other terrorists, he empathises with them.
It is hard to find the words to describe how much I despise Corbyn, so I won't even try. I will just say that the man is a nasty dangerous little shit and has somehow managed to fool millions of people yes not lets talk about May who sends billions of £££ weapons to Saudo arabia who funds isis..
thats just too much to talk about lets blame the pacifist lol
This is the sort of simplistic comment that is so prevalent on the left. We sell weapons to the Saudi state which is run by the Royal family. The Royal Family is one of the most progressive organisations in the world at tackling extremism, look at the Mohammed bin Nayef centre and it's reoffending rate. Their domestic terrorism record is excellent, far better than ours. This is not altruistic behaviour though, it's self preservation. The Royal Family know full well that ISIS is more likely to topple them than any other sovereign state, hence their crack down on terrorism. However, like most countries there are factions of power and within Saudi Arabia there are religious extremists that do fund terrorist. But to lump them all into one group and then conflate weapon sales in a way that implies the weapons are sold to the ISIS funders is both factually inaccurate and irresponsible.
I would imagine conditions in Saudi prisons would help reoffending rates.
Unlike the UK, the Saudi's don't pussy foot around with hate preachers anymore. People should research who Muhammed bin Nayef is and it will become fucking obvious his family ain't funding ISIS. The Saudi government isn't afraid to go into a mosque and deal with a hate preacher, unlike the UK government who get played for fools but preachers that stay just inside the legal lines.
Turkeys don't donate money to thanks giving. "its stated as fact by hilary clinton and was in podesta emails. also secret redacted mi5 files being released now make saudi arabia complicit in funding extreme jihadists. its a gentlemens game | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have not heard Corbyn condemning these acts yet, I have heard sympathies and respect for public services, though nothing of the acts themselves .. Anyone else? If PM, on the tightrope, what or how would the public expect to hear? Corbyn probably wants to have a nice chat with them. See if he could ask the Islamic extremists what they would like to stop killing innocent civilians. Maybe offer them a nice cuppa and a piece of cake while he's at it. Or maybe, given his support of other terrorists, he empathises with them.
It is hard to find the words to describe how much I despise Corbyn, so I won't even try. I will just say that the man is a nasty dangerous little shit and has somehow managed to fool millions of people yes not lets talk about May who sends billions of £££ weapons to Saudo arabia who funds isis..
thats just too much to talk about lets blame the pacifist lol
This is the sort of simplistic comment that is so prevalent on the left. We sell weapons to the Saudi state which is run by the Royal family. The Royal Family is one of the most progressive organisations in the world at tackling extremism, look at the Mohammed bin Nayef centre and it's reoffending rate. Their domestic terrorism record is excellent, far better than ours. This is not altruistic behaviour though, it's self preservation. The Royal Family know full well that ISIS is more likely to topple them than any other sovereign state, hence their crack down on terrorism. However, like most countries there are factions of power and within Saudi Arabia there are religious extremists that do fund terrorist. But to lump them all into one group and then conflate weapon sales in a way that implies the weapons are sold to the ISIS funders is both factually inaccurate and irresponsible.
I would imagine conditions in Saudi prisons would help reoffending rates.
Unlike the UK, the Saudi's don't pussy foot around with hate preachers anymore. People should research who Muhammed bin Nayef is and it will become fucking obvious his family ain't funding ISIS. The Saudi government isn't afraid to go into a mosque and deal with a hate preacher, unlike the UK government who get played for fools but preachers that stay just inside the legal lines.
Turkeys don't donate money to thanks giving. its stated as fact by hilary clinton and was in podesta emails.
also secret redacted mi5 files being released now make saudi arabia complicit in funding extreme jihadists.
its a gentlemens game"Who in saudi arabia? I don't deny funding goes from saudi arabia but you're seriously suggestion funding comes from a family where islamic extremists have tried to assassinate the prince four times? You're seriously suggesting the Saudi royal family want an islamic state with a caliphate? There's nothing stopping them doing that tomorrow if that's what they wanted! They have the land, they have the money, they are the right religion just stand down from power and... oh that's where the arguement falls apart. Nobody gives up power like that. Simplistic nonsense to suggest we shouldn't be selling them weapons. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have not heard Corbyn condemning these acts yet, I have heard sympathies and respect for public services, though nothing of the acts themselves .. Anyone else? If PM, on the tightrope, what or how would the public expect to hear? Corbyn probably wants to have a nice chat with them. See if he could ask the Islamic extremists what they would like to stop killing innocent civilians. Maybe offer them a nice cuppa and a piece of cake while he's at it. Or maybe, given his support of other terrorists, he empathises with them.
It is hard to find the words to describe how much I despise Corbyn, so I won't even try. I will just say that the man is a nasty dangerous little shit and has somehow managed to fool millions of people yes not lets talk about May who sends billions of £££ weapons to Saudo arabia who funds isis..
thats just too much to talk about lets blame the pacifist lol"I am believe it or not undecided - playing a little devils advocate to try and gain Labours true voice. If May can't deal with them neither can Corbyn The problem I see here is this. Our oil, petroleum and investment future are at stake. If He (and you as Labour supporters) don't want to deal with the Saudis, then you are going to HAVE to find other financiers. China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and the USA (who are increasingly questionable), will be off the table both for inward investment and National lending. Something which Labour need. So which way do Labour want it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/home-office-terrorist-funding-report-saudia-arabia-focus-not-publish-conservatives-government-a7766381.html guess we may never know " We know that money comes from the country, polls have shown around 20% of the population think Al-Queda are a positive influence! But you have to be a bit nuts to think the Royal family are funding an organisation that has put four assassination attempts on the prince! It's long been shown that the saudi government is one of our best allies, whilst it's population aren't our fans. Iran is the exact reverse with the population generally favourable to western people, but the government very unfavourable. It's a complex world I'm afraid. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kinda getting away from the thread here which is; is a government or leader that handles us with kid gloves one that will be more necessary in the future. " No, we will when human nature changes though (never). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kinda getting away from the thread here which is; is a government or leader that handles us with kid gloves one that will be more necessary in the future. " I'm curious, why do you see Corbyn as handling us with kid gloves? Is that just comparatively compared to May who handles us with derision and contempt? -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kinda getting away from the thread here which is; is a government or leader that handles us with kid gloves one that will be more necessary in the future. I'm curious, why do you see Corbyn as handling us with kid gloves? Is that just comparatively compared to May who handles us with derision and contempt? -Matt" Exactly my question. They are two leaders with two different styles which I have tried to point out. One that is anti nuclear, one that would rather talk than fire first, that would try (at least) to level inequalities, that comes across as the sympathetic everyday man, not of the political class even though he is a veteran. The other is a seasoned, long standing cabinet member, who's party and policies want to create industrious people, promote strong work ethics and business growth, rather than reliance on the state. (though they have raised tax thresholds) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kinda getting away from the thread here which is; is a government or leader that handles us with kid gloves one that will be more necessary in the future. I'm curious, why do you see Corbyn as handling us with kid gloves? Is that just comparatively compared to May who handles us with derision and contempt? -Matt Exactly my question. They are two leaders with two different styles which I have tried to point out. One that is anti nuclear, one that would rather talk than fire first, that would try (at least) to level inequalities, that comes across as the sympathetic everyday man, not of the political class even though he is a veteran. The other is a seasoned, long standing cabinet member, who's party and policies want to create industrious people, promote strong work ethics and business growth, rather than reliance on the state. (though they have raised tax thresholds)" Have you ever read the melian dialogue? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kinda getting away from the thread here which is; is a government or leader that handles us with kid gloves one that will be more necessary in the future. I'm curious, why do you see Corbyn as handling us with kid gloves? Is that just comparatively compared to May who handles us with derision and contempt? -Matt Exactly my question. They are two leaders with two different styles which I have tried to point out. One that is anti nuclear, one that would rather talk than fire first, that would try (at least) to level inequalities, that comes across as the sympathetic everyday man, not of the political class even though he is a veteran. The other is a seasoned, long standing cabinet member, who's party and policies want to create industrious people, promote strong work ethics and business growth, rather than reliance on the state. (though they have raised tax thresholds) Have you ever read the melian dialogue? " Well, I think that was what I was getting at... "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" But why do you think of Corbyn as 'weak' and May as 'strong'? I mean, I know May parrots on about Strong and Stable, but even her die hard fans must now be seeing through that. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kinda getting away from the thread here which is; is a government or leader that handles us with kid gloves one that will be more necessary in the future. I'm curious, why do you see Corbyn as handling us with kid gloves? Is that just comparatively compared to May who handles us with derision and contempt? -Matt Exactly my question. They are two leaders with two different styles which I have tried to point out. One that is anti nuclear, one that would rather talk than fire first, that would try (at least) to level inequalities, that comes across as the sympathetic everyday man, not of the political class even though he is a veteran. The other is a seasoned, long standing cabinet member, who's party and policies want to create industrious people, promote strong work ethics and business growth, rather than reliance on the state. (though they have raised tax thresholds) Have you ever read the melian dialogue? Well, I think that was what I was getting at... "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" But why do you think of Corbyn as 'weak' and May as 'strong'? I mean, I know May parrots on about Strong and Stable, but even her die hard fans must now be seeing through that. -Matt" I have never said Corbyn isn't strong. They are party leaders after all. They simply appeal to different voters. So, given generations is softly softly a better tenure to take. Are we to expect political holidays every time there is an act of terror for instance? Must the show stop. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kinda getting away from the thread here which is; is a government or leader that handles us with kid gloves one that will be more necessary in the future. I'm curious, why do you see Corbyn as handling us with kid gloves? Is that just comparatively compared to May who handles us with derision and contempt? -Matt Exactly my question. They are two leaders with two different styles which I have tried to point out. One that is anti nuclear, one that would rather talk than fire first, that would try (at least) to level inequalities, that comes across as the sympathetic everyday man, not of the political class even though he is a veteran. The other is a seasoned, long standing cabinet member, who's party and policies want to create industrious people, promote strong work ethics and business growth, rather than reliance on the state. (though they have raised tax thresholds) Have you ever read the melian dialogue? Well, I think that was what I was getting at... "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" But why do you think of Corbyn as 'weak' and May as 'strong'? I mean, I know May parrots on about Strong and Stable, but even her die hard fans must now be seeing through that. -Matt" Did you hear him dodge the trident questions on question time? He's a typical idealist who thinks everything can be solved with grown up discussion over a cup of tea. That's why he's weak, he doesn't want the weight of tough decisions on his conscience. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kinda getting away from the thread here which is; is a government or leader that handles us with kid gloves one that will be more necessary in the future. I'm curious, why do you see Corbyn as handling us with kid gloves? Is that just comparatively compared to May who handles us with derision and contempt? -Matt Exactly my question. They are two leaders with two different styles which I have tried to point out. One that is anti nuclear, one that would rather talk than fire first, that would try (at least) to level inequalities, that comes across as the sympathetic everyday man, not of the political class even though he is a veteran. The other is a seasoned, long standing cabinet member, who's party and policies want to create industrious people, promote strong work ethics and business growth, rather than reliance on the state. (though they have raised tax thresholds) Have you ever read the melian dialogue? Well, I think that was what I was getting at... "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" But why do you think of Corbyn as 'weak' and May as 'strong'? I mean, I know May parrots on about Strong and Stable, but even her die hard fans must now be seeing through that. -Matt Did you hear him dodge the trident questions on question time? He's a typical idealist who thinks everything can be solved with grown up discussion over a cup of tea. That's why he's weak, he doesn't want the weight of tough decisions on his conscience. " I prefer a conversation to being told i know best.. Trident is biggest white elephant ever.100 billion pissed up the wall.At the sane time cutting the forces we need to deal with terrorists. Insanity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kinda getting away from the thread here which is; is a government or leader that handles us with kid gloves one that will be more necessary in the future. I'm curious, why do you see Corbyn as handling us with kid gloves? Is that just comparatively compared to May who handles us with derision and contempt? -Matt Exactly my question. They are two leaders with two different styles which I have tried to point out. One that is anti nuclear, one that would rather talk than fire first, that would try (at least) to level inequalities, that comes across as the sympathetic everyday man, not of the political class even though he is a veteran. The other is a seasoned, long standing cabinet member, who's party and policies want to create industrious people, promote strong work ethics and business growth, rather than reliance on the state. (though they have raised tax thresholds) Have you ever read the melian dialogue? Well, I think that was what I was getting at... "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" But why do you think of Corbyn as 'weak' and May as 'strong'? I mean, I know May parrots on about Strong and Stable, but even her die hard fans must now be seeing through that. -Matt Did you hear him dodge the trident questions on question time? He's a typical idealist who thinks everything can be solved with grown up discussion over a cup of tea. That's why he's weak, he doesn't want the weight of tough decisions on his conscience. I prefer a conversation to being told i know best.. Trident is biggest white elephant ever.100 billion pissed up the wall.At the sane time cutting the forces we need to deal with terrorists. Insanity. "So the R&D that comes from Trident, the jobs maintained and created, contractors associated and departments running it. The towns and transport links housing the workers, the procurement across the isles and buyers interested in it's technologies have no effect on the livelihoods of anyone in the UK? Never mind safety should someone wish to launch against us. We currently don't have the capability to shoot nuclear rockets from the sky. The US Railgun is at Mach 5 or 6? The Russians have rockets at Mach 7 I believe. But yet non-proliferation is the main objective. Will Corbyn achieve that, Brixit, 27 trade deals and his manifesto in 4 years????? Calling it a white elephant is well and good but Corbyn wont went troops in, bomb or shoot to kill, so what is the point of your other in bolstering an army? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kinda getting away from the thread here which is; is a government or leader that handles us with kid gloves one that will be more necessary in the future. I'm curious, why do you see Corbyn as handling us with kid gloves? Is that just comparatively compared to May who handles us with derision and contempt? -Matt Exactly my question. They are two leaders with two different styles which I have tried to point out. One that is anti nuclear, one that would rather talk than fire first, that would try (at least) to level inequalities, that comes across as the sympathetic everyday man, not of the political class even though he is a veteran. The other is a seasoned, long standing cabinet member, who's party and policies want to create industrious people, promote strong work ethics and business growth, rather than reliance on the state. (though they have raised tax thresholds) Have you ever read the melian dialogue? Well, I think that was what I was getting at... "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" But why do you think of Corbyn as 'weak' and May as 'strong'? I mean, I know May parrots on about Strong and Stable, but even her die hard fans must now be seeing through that. -Matt Did you hear him dodge the trident questions on question time? He's a typical idealist who thinks everything can be solved with grown up discussion over a cup of tea. That's why he's weak, he doesn't want the weight of tough decisions on his conscience. I prefer a conversation to being told i know best.. Trident is biggest white elephant ever.100 billion pissed up the wall.At the sane time cutting the forces we need to deal with terrorists. Insanity.
So the R&D that comes from Trident, the jobs maintained and created, contractors associated and departments running it. The towns and transport links housing the workers, the procurement across the isles and buyers interested in it's technologies have no effect on the livelihoods of anyone in the UK? Never mind safety should someone wish to launch against us.
We currently don't have the capability to shoot nuclear rockets from the sky. The US Railgun is at Mach 5 or 6? The Russians have rockets at Mach 7 I believe. But yet non-proliferation is the main objective.
Will Corbyn achieve that, Brixit, 27 trade deals and his manifesto in 4 years?????
Calling it a white elephant is well and good but Corbyn wont went troops in, bomb or shoot to kill, so what is the point of your other in bolstering an army?"What R&D ? its existing american technology. Nothing cutting edge in trident.Its a cold war weapon.The enemy has changed and its sucking up all the resources we need for counter terrorism. Invest in drones and counter measures.Cyber warfare needs invedtment. Invest in the cutting edge of wafare not obsolete 80s tech.I doubt any political party can delver there manifesto in 4 years.Regarding boots on the ground after iraq and afganistan the public doesnt have the stomach for more invasions and regime changes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kinda getting away from the thread here which is; is a government or leader that handles us with kid gloves one that will be more necessary in the future. I'm curious, why do you see Corbyn as handling us with kid gloves? Is that just comparatively compared to May who handles us with derision and contempt? -Matt Exactly my question. They are two leaders with two different styles which I have tried to point out. One that is anti nuclear, one that would rather talk than fire first, that would try (at least) to level inequalities, that comes across as the sympathetic everyday man, not of the political class even though he is a veteran. The other is a seasoned, long standing cabinet member, who's party and policies want to create industrious people, promote strong work ethics and business growth, rather than reliance on the state. (though they have raised tax thresholds) Have you ever read the melian dialogue? Well, I think that was what I was getting at... "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" But why do you think of Corbyn as 'weak' and May as 'strong'? I mean, I know May parrots on about Strong and Stable, but even her die hard fans must now be seeing through that. -Matt Did you hear him dodge the trident questions on question time? He's a typical idealist who thinks everything can be solved with grown up discussion over a cup of tea. That's why he's weak, he doesn't want the weight of tough decisions on his conscience. I prefer a conversation to being told i know best.. Trident is biggest white elephant ever.100 billion pissed up the wall.At the sane time cutting the forces we need to deal with terrorists. Insanity. "It doesnt cost anywhere near £100bn, thats a made up number from the looney left. It's about a quarter of that from memory. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kinda getting away from the thread here which is; is a government or leader that handles us with kid gloves one that will be more necessary in the future. I'm curious, why do you see Corbyn as handling us with kid gloves? Is that just comparatively compared to May who handles us with derision and contempt? -Matt Exactly my question. They are two leaders with two different styles which I have tried to point out. One that is anti nuclear, one that would rather talk than fire first, that would try (at least) to level inequalities, that comes across as the sympathetic everyday man, not of the political class even though he is a veteran. The other is a seasoned, long standing cabinet member, who's party and policies want to create industrious people, promote strong work ethics and business growth, rather than reliance on the state. (though they have raised tax thresholds) Have you ever read the melian dialogue? Well, I think that was what I was getting at... "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" But why do you think of Corbyn as 'weak' and May as 'strong'? I mean, I know May parrots on about Strong and Stable, but even her die hard fans must now be seeing through that. -Matt Did you hear him dodge the trident questions on question time? He's a typical idealist who thinks everything can be solved with grown up discussion over a cup of tea. That's why he's weak, he doesn't want the weight of tough decisions on his conscience. I prefer a conversation to being told i know best.. Trident is biggest white elephant ever.100 billion pissed up the wall.At the sane time cutting the forces we need to deal with terrorists. Insanity.
It doesnt cost anywhere near £100bn, thats a made up number from the looney left. It's about a quarter of that from memory. "Nonsense the replacement costs are for trident about 20 to 25 billion.Nobody really knows. The yearly running costs are 2 to 2.5 billion this we do know as its a MOD figure.The decommissioning could be upto 13 billion.My 100 bilion figure is conservative some say 135 to 167 billion.The independent Trident Commission said in 2014 that the cost of replacement would be around £100bn | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kinda getting away from the thread here which is; is a government or leader that handles us with kid gloves one that will be more necessary in the future. I'm curious, why do you see Corbyn as handling us with kid gloves? Is that just comparatively compared to May who handles us with derision and contempt? -Matt Exactly my question. They are two leaders with two different styles which I have tried to point out. One that is anti nuclear, one that would rather talk than fire first, that would try (at least) to level inequalities, that comes across as the sympathetic everyday man, not of the political class even though he is a veteran. The other is a seasoned, long standing cabinet member, who's party and policies want to create industrious people, promote strong work ethics and business growth, rather than reliance on the state. (though they have raised tax thresholds) Have you ever read the melian dialogue? Well, I think that was what I was getting at... "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" But why do you think of Corbyn as 'weak' and May as 'strong'? I mean, I know May parrots on about Strong and Stable, but even her die hard fans must now be seeing through that. -Matt Did you hear him dodge the trident questions on question time? He's a typical idealist who thinks everything can be solved with grown up discussion over a cup of tea. That's why he's weak, he doesn't want the weight of tough decisions on his conscience. I prefer a conversation to being told i know best.. Trident is biggest white elephant ever.100 billion pissed up the wall.At the sane time cutting the forces we need to deal with terrorists. Insanity.
It doesnt cost anywhere near £100bn, thats a made up number from the looney left. It's about a quarter of that from memory. Nonsense the replacement costs are for trident about 20 to 25 billion.Nobody really knows. The yearly running costs are 2 to 2.5 billion this we do know as its a MOD figure.The decommissioning could be upto 13 billion.My 100 bilion figure is conservative some say 135 to 167 billion.The independent Trident Commission said in 2014 that the cost of replacement would be around £100bn"I've seen the figure and it's pure fantasy based on a misrepresentation of what trident is. If you think scrapping some ballistic missiles would save £100bn then we're back to the money tree again. If you think we don't need to residual submarines and people then that's just fantasy too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kinda getting away from the thread here which is; is a government or leader that handles us with kid gloves one that will be more necessary in the future. I'm curious, why do you see Corbyn as handling us with kid gloves? Is that just comparatively compared to May who handles us with derision and contempt? -Matt Exactly my question. They are two leaders with two different styles which I have tried to point out. One that is anti nuclear, one that would rather talk than fire first, that would try (at least) to level inequalities, that comes across as the sympathetic everyday man, not of the political class even though he is a veteran. The other is a seasoned, long standing cabinet member, who's party and policies want to create industrious people, promote strong work ethics and business growth, rather than reliance on the state. (though they have raised tax thresholds) Have you ever read the melian dialogue? Well, I think that was what I was getting at... "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" But why do you think of Corbyn as 'weak' and May as 'strong'? I mean, I know May parrots on about Strong and Stable, but even her die hard fans must now be seeing through that. -Matt Did you hear him dodge the trident questions on question time? He's a typical idealist who thinks everything can be solved with grown up discussion over a cup of tea. That's why he's weak, he doesn't want the weight of tough decisions on his conscience. I prefer a conversation to being told i know best.. Trident is biggest white elephant ever.100 billion pissed up the wall.At the sane time cutting the forces we need to deal with terrorists. Insanity.
It doesnt cost anywhere near £100bn, thats a made up number from the looney left. It's about a quarter of that from memory. Nonsense the replacement costs are for trident about 20 to 25 billion.Nobody really knows. The yearly running costs are 2 to 2.5 billion this we do know as its a MOD figure.The decommissioning could be upto 13 billion.My 100 bilion figure is conservative some say 135 to 167 billion.The independent Trident Commission said in 2014 that the cost of replacement would be around £100bn
I've seen the figure and it's pure fantasy based on a misrepresentation of what trident is. If you think scrapping some ballistic missiles would save £100bn then we're back to the money tree again. If you think we don't need to residual submarines and people then that's just fantasy too. "The only fantasy figure is 20 billion for 4 nuclear subs and 30 years of service including decomission.We just dont need them.Most of the civilised world doesn't have the need for them to sleep well at night. Just the flag wavers who think Britannia rules the waves think we need them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My 2014 figures were apparently an under estimate. In its strategic defence and security review at the end of last year, the government announced an increase from £25bn in the estimated cost of four new Trident submarines to £31bn, with an additional £10bn to cover overspends. The most expensive item would be the cumulative running costs, estimated by the government to be about 6% of the total defence budget. Crispin Blunt, Tory chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, has calculated, on the basis of parliamentary answers, that a new Trident system would cost £167bn over a 30-year lifespan. Is that a loony left figure or a loony conservative figure.. "You would not save anywhere near that figure by scapping our nuclear deterrent. May i remind you that NATO members are supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defence and we do with a lot of accounting fraud, so actually you'd save precisely nothing because the money would have to be spent somewhere else in defence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My 2014 figures were apparently an under estimate. In its strategic defence and security review at the end of last year, the government announced an increase from £25bn in the estimated cost of four new Trident submarines to £31bn, with an additional £10bn to cover overspends. The most expensive item would be the cumulative running costs, estimated by the government to be about 6% of the total defence budget. Crispin Blunt, Tory chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, has calculated, on the basis of parliamentary answers, that a new Trident system would cost £167bn over a 30-year lifespan. Is that a loony left figure or a loony conservative figure..
You would not save anywhere near that figure by scapping our nuclear deterrent. May i remind you that NATO members are supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defence and we do with a lot of accounting fraud, so actually you'd save precisely nothing because the money would have to be spent somewhere else in defence. "Exactly .We come full circle back to my argument . It should be spent on the real present threats not the imaginary nuclear exchange threat. I rest my case... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
