***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 9*****
==========================================================
Continuing debate.
PLEASE NOTE:-
To try and maintain some kind of logical order of discussion, if you start a new subject then reply to this post.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 25 Jan 16 at 01:01
|
At the risk of being ridiculed would someone please explain what Cameron's plan is in the long term to solve this problem?
I have listened for the last couple of weeks to Today in Parliament, read the Press from all directions and nowhere can I find anything other than a knee-jerk reaction of 'We have to bomb them now'
I just may be persuaded that it was the correct course of action if I could see what was planned after that for the long term, to stop it escalating....but I can't.
In doing this I have also listened to Corbyn speaking, actual words coming out of his mouth as opposed to what the media says he has said, and in contrast he makes far more sense to me.
Pat
|
It's interesting. Without Mr Corbyn, Mr Cameron would not have had any hope of getting a good majority.
But who wants to support Corbyn the nutter? That nice Liz Kendall might have had Tory MPs queueing up behind her to vote against the war.
|
I don't want to support Corbyn, that's why I've been searching for the long term plan but if there isn't one surely not supporting him on this vote is cutting of our noses to save our face?
Pat
|
Being close minded about air strikes is about as sensible as being close minded about no air strikes.
You're right to look for a solution; a bombing campaign is part of what? Because as part of a strategy it may make sense, but as a standalone action it does not.
|
The only good terrorist is a dead one..
" the figures reveal the UK experienced a greater number of terrorist incidents than any other EU member state in 2014, ranking 28th in the world of the 162 countries listed, followed by Greece and France."
tinyurl.com/p5y9m7w
|
There need to be several plans, and I hope there are.
I'd certainly want one for cutting off their supplies of money and arms (mentioned as an objective in the recitals to the motion). Where is the oil they are selling coming from? Secure the supplies and pipelines, and stop it. When the new Toyota pickups stop appearing there might be a chance of getting somewhere.
The very specific reference to air-strikes seems narrow. The government needs control of the armed forces to do what it considers necessary under the UN resolution. Discussing strategy in Parliament, when the SNP for example declares before the debate and uses as a stick to beat the government with, is verging on daft.
|
Yes, I can understand that Manatee but would have liked some vague reassurance that there was a Plan B around.
Assuming Manatee is correct what do the forum members genuinely think his long term plan is?
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Wed 2 Dec 15 at 16:19
|
Cameron's long term plan is to get non-executive directorships for himself with such companies as petrochemical and construction giants when he retires from politics, as he has stated he will, in the next 3 years.
It's a bit Like Blair's plan, which has worked spectacularly well for him, considering his sizeable bank balance now.
DC is just TB MkII.
|
>>DC is just TB MkII. <<
And we agree again Alanovic!
Now, assuming this is the case, then I don't understand why everyone condemns Tony Blair and appears to back Cameron?
Pat
|
|
Same reason they backed Blair;)
|
>> >>DC is just TB MkII. <<
>>
>> And we agree again Alanovic!
>>
>> Now, assuming this is the case, then I don't understand why everyone condemns Tony Blair
>> and appears to back Cameron?
>>
>> Pat
Blair made stuff up, I mean really made stuff up, lied to justify diving in with weapons. Cameron has just exaggerated a bit.
|
>> Now, assuming this is the case, then I don't understand why everyone condemns Tony Blair
>> and appears to back Cameron?
Tony Blair wasn't condemned at the time, he was condemned afterwards... when it was found out he'd fiddled the evidence to go to war.
David Cameron has presented the evidence having run it past those who produced it first, to ensure they agree with the facts....
... although to be fair, no one will know if he'd have done that if it wasn't for Blair's actions.
Last edited by: Westpig on Thu 3 Dec 15 at 08:45
|
>> At the risk of being ridiculed would someone please explain what Cameron's plan is in
>> the long term to solve this problem?
There is no long term solution we can put in place. The IRA was a known single issue/entity so was solvable. This is fluid, organic, the parties vary and in effect its been going on since the birth of christendom.
Bombing is a sop to the hung ho brigade.
|
|
Bomb the UK recruits to ISIL -if you can find them. Dampens volunteers if you get killed.
|
>> Bombing is a sop to the hung ho brigade.
>>
Do I take it you disagree with Hilary Benn then?
tinyurl.com/pwts3rl
As far as I am concerned, he put it rather well.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34992032
"RAF Tornado jets have carried out their first air strikes against so-called Islamic State in Syria, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.
Four Tornados from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus took part in the operation soon after MPs voted to approve bombing.
The strikes targeted the Omar oil fields in eastern Syria, which is under IS control, and were "successful", Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said.
He had personally approved the targets ahead of the Commons vote, he said."
Makes sense to me, as far as it goes. Maybe that was the idea. I'd be surprised if such an obvious target hadn't been hit already.
|
The Father.....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cISvaNlvWxI
The son...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj26SJAJhBY
Oh for the opportunity to sit at dinner and watch and listen to these two discuss the matter.
|
From Vol 7:
>> Oh, well, guilty as charged then. Take him down.
>>
>> >> Good job you were never a copper.
>>
>>So what are you saying then?... A good copper never follows his/her instincts, follows what >>their 5 senses give them, form an informed opinion.... then try to back it up with fact.
>>Are you suggesting a dreadful, politically correct, enforced numbness where you cannot form an opinion in case you got it wrong? You force yourself to remain artificially neutral?
>>Surely most people use their life experiences to form a preliminary judgement.. and the >>good ones keep an open mind and are willing to change tack if the evidence changes?
"He looks like one" is what you said. That's the diametric opposite of having an open mind and is the definition of prejudice.
|
>>DC is just TB MkII.
I may be wrong, but I really don't think so. I think DC is PM because he believes in public service and thinks he can do it better than anybody else; I think TB was only ever a believer in himself.
|
|
I was sent on a "how to get a job" course once when unemployed. One subject was how to approach interviews. The reason being that people will forma judgement within 5 seconds of meeting people, and 95% of time they will be right. I've no idea whether there was any scientific basis but personal experience is that there's something in it. Not prejudice though, which implies unfavourable - can go either way.
|
|
Then there's the weird looking fella from Bristol who didn't kill that girl.
|
|
LOL yeah he was a wrong 'un, not. There was a good docudrama on that some months back.
|
|
Yes. You make a decision on somebody in 5 seconds. When it comes to job interviews, it doesn't matter. When it comes to putting somebody in jail it does...
|
>> "He looks like one" is what you said. That's the diametric opposite of having an
>> open mind and is the definition of prejudice.
>>
Utter cobblers.
It's your starter for ten, then you dig a bit deeper... and in a policing perspective, then start recording the evidence with a view of proving it.
Are you really stating that you should clear your head of all thoughts whatsoever and go in to everything with a completely blank canvas? Christ, investigators wouldn't get far with that.
I take it, you are coming from the angle of 'looks like' being me making my assumptions from press briefings, statements and things like that... and me gathering all the information together and then forming an opinion.... not a literal 'looks like'?
|
No, I'm coming from the angle that he's said himself he isn't a pacifist and wouldn't rule out military action in all circumstances. So whatever he 'looks like' is prejudice when balanced against the man's own words.
JC: "I wouldn't describe myself as a pacifist, but I would describe an act of violence, an act of war as a very last resort."
|
>> No, I'm coming from the angle that he's said himself he isn't a pacifist and
>> wouldn't rule out military action in all circumstances. So whatever he 'looks like' is prejudice
>> when balanced against the man's own words.
I need to clarify, that 'looks like' in this instance means looks like to me when all the evidence is looked at in its entirety.... not some middle aged bearded bloke and what he personally looks like visually.
>>
>> JC: "I wouldn't describe myself as a pacifist, but I would describe an act of
>> violence, an act of war as a very last resort."
>>
Are you seriously saying that a politician (or a crook) should be taken at their word... and that's it? No other interpretation is acceptable?... and it would be prejudiced to think otherwise?
Really?
|
>I need to clarify, that 'looks like' in this instance
I took it that you really meant "appears to be".
Which given that he's a politician and thus what his beliefs appear to be is all we've got to go on, seems sensible to me.
|
>> >I need to clarify, that 'looks like' in this instance
>>
>> I took it that you really meant "appears to be".
>>
>> Which given that he's a politician and thus what his beliefs appear to be is
>> all we've got to go on, seems sensible to me.
>>
Thank you, that's what I meant.
Sometimes on here though, when you go back to things you realise there's the potential for a double meaning.
|
It suits you, I suspect, WP, to think of him as a pacifist. So far as I can tell he's nearly one, but stating that it is so is an absolutist position without real substantiation. It is prejudice. We will not know for certain I suppose until he's PM and faced with such decisions, and I for one hope he doesn't become PM (merely because he represents the appalling Labour party). But, I'm prepared to take him at his word on this one, the statement I posted seems clear enough.
You may well like to think you have the evidence to present a prosecution case, but that's not always sufficient for conviction, as I'm sure you're more than aware.
|
>> You may well like to think you have the evidence to present a prosecution case,
>> but that's not always sufficient for conviction, as I'm sure you're more than aware.
>>
Look the 'evidence' and 'prosecution' side of it confuses things.. I've gone with it, because you posted something about cops and prejudice which I thought wholly incorrect and wrong.
The bottom line is the leader of the opposition is a pacifist in my opinion... and I have formed my opinion from his political stance, his political statements and the organisations he is a member of or used to be a member of.
It's the old 'duck' scenario. He looks like that duck...(not literally, ducks don't have beards).
|
>> ducks don't have beards
>>
You evidently haven't been down to Brighton recently.
There you go, some prejudice for you. ;-)
|
>> It suits you, I suspect, WP, to think of him as a pacifist.
It doesn't 'suit me' in the slightest.
I wish the leader of the opposition wasn't a pacifist.
Despite being a Tory voter I'd prefer Labour to be stronger and more relevant than they are, so that there are proper political checks to our governemnt.... and then there's our standing in the world, which I think is diminished by the current Labour debacle.
Hilary Benn or Chuka Umunna would be my preference.
|
>> I wish the leader of the opposition wasn't a pacifist.
He isn't, so you're all right there then.
|
>> >> I wish the leader of the opposition wasn't a pacifist.
>>
>> He isn't, so you're all right there then.
>>
On the 'balance of probabilities', what's your best guess?
tinyurl.com/ofs5wm7
|
|
My best guess is that, as PM, he would take us to war if necessary. Therefore, not pacifist.
|
|
He's anti-war and anti-nuclear. Whether he's technically a pacifist or not (he doesn't seem to know himself), it doesn't inspire voters to believe he would do all that might be necessary to protect the UK.
|
|
You are correct in so far he supported the invasion of Ukraine..
|
Jeremy Corbyn has suggested the UK could keep its Trident submarine fleet but without carrying nuclear warheads.
The Labour leader said there were "options" for maintaining defence jobs while showing the UK was willing to take a lead in nuclear "de-escalation".
WTF? what a prick!
|
|
Mods please merge /delete my post.
|
|
An attempt to keep the unions onside. Many aren't happy at the thought of all those jobs disappearing. One has already said they'll do whatever it takes to keep them.
|
Trident subs are not hunter killers, they are designed to creep about, unnoticed, off the coast of your enemy. They are pretty much useless for anything else, other than lurking and listening.
So what the point in spending money on them if they can't do the only thing they are designed to do?
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 17 Jan 16 at 12:11
|
I think it's just another example of him thinking it would be easy to do what he wants. As he's now finding it's somewhat more difficult.
He'd be on better ground if he talked about issues that people were bothered about.
|
I see that Corbyn is now suggesting that we "accommodate" the Argentinians over the Falklands.
What REAL claim do they have?
Gibraltar is next in his sights, I bet.
He may be sincere in his beliefs, I grant you, but he gives every impression of not having the interests of the U.K. anywhere near his priority list.
By appealing to the class envy and the recipients of government salaries and benefits, I fear he just may creep into power, maybe with the help of the similarly inclined SNP.
I fear for this country.
|
|
I'm not criticising Roger, but I'm pretty sceptical about referencing the Telegraph in any discussion about Corbyn. Despite my acute reservations about him, I have to say this newspaper has conducted an unremitting, vitriolic campaign against him ever since he became a likely leader of the Labour Party - it never misses a chance to print something negative. It probably convinces the Corbynistas that they're absolutely right to support him.
|
>> I'm not criticising Roger, but I'm pretty sceptical about referencing the Telegraph in any discussion
>> about Corbyn. Despite my acute reservations about him, I have to say this newspaper has
>> conducted an unremitting, vitriolic campaign against him ever since he became a likely leader of
>> the Labour Party - it never misses a chance to print something negative. It probably
>> convinces the Corbynistas that they're absolutely right to support him.
But what does Corbyn do? He feeds stuff (like todays Trident idiocy) to them in spades, they dont even have to make it up. Even our resident lefty is now nonplussed
|
>>I see that Corbyn is now suggesting that we "accommodate" the Argentinians over the Falklands.
And I wonder how he would do that?
Since what they want is sovereignty and total associated mineral and territory rights.
The man is a fool. I wonder how much of the electorate is similarly foolish and gullible.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_Antarctica
|
>> Since what they want is sovereignty and total associated mineral and territory rights.
One day it will be financially viable to extract oil from that region. I have always believed that the Falklands war was about resourses, the politicians would abandon the will of the Falklands people in a heartbeat if it suited them.
|
>>I have always believed that the Falklands war was about resources
It is essentially about two things for Argentina;
1) As you say, Antarctic and regional mineral rights.
2) Home distraction for the electorate from ongoing economic disaster.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 17 Jan 16 at 14:44
|
>> 2) Home distraction for the electorate from ongoing economic disaster.
>>
Being in that neck of the woods, do you think it actually works?
|
>>Being in that neck of the woods, do you think it actually works?
Sadly, yes.
If you spend a bit of time on Google you'll notice that every time Argentina gets noisy about the Falklands it coincides with local political or economic difficulty.
Argentina is somewhat of a pain actually, on so many levels. If they hadn't got into a fight with us over the Falklands they were days away from a similar fight with Chile. Look up "The Beagle Conflict".
Its an a*** to work there, not that there's any particular UK/Argentina issue.
Their economy is, and has been forever, a basket case.
|
>> >>Being in that neck of the woods, do you think it actually works?
>>
>> Sadly, yes.
Yeah I do try and keep an eye on the news down there, I usually look at mercopress.
If they hadn't got
>> into a fight with us over the Falklands they were days away from a similar
>> fight with Chile. Look up "The Beagle Conflict".
Yes they have a particluar issue with Chile over border issues, I know it played a part in the war in 83. They were surprised how much support they gave us in 83.
>>
>> Its an a*** to work there, not that there's any particular UK/Argentina issue.
>>
>> Their economy is, and has been forever, a basket case.
Interesting, any particular reason for both the basket case and being difficult to work there? I remember reading they were quite well off in the 50s.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 17 Jan 16 at 16:23
|
Argentina was a wealthy country in the nineteenth century. At one time it was the tenth wealthiest country in the world and was seen as potentially becoming the United States of South America. The reasons for its decline since the early 1930s are much debated but widely attributed to the disastrous succession of incompetent and corrupt governments.
|
>> One day it will be financially viable to extract oil from that region.
Maybe, but haven't people being saying that for about 40 years?
|
>> So what the point in spending money on them if they can't do the only
>> thing they are designed to do?
As I've said before I'm not a member but if I were I'd have held my nose and voted for Yvette Cooper. There were though flashes during the campaign where he appeared to be somebody who would talk about issues in plain english and might even force Cameron/Osborne to account for themselves.
Unfortunately he's not done that. Worse he seems to continue in 'lefty cabal' mode. He's had time now to take and act on advice as to presentation and persona but seems to have utterly failed to do so. Even more unfortunately the system or electing the leader, a system designed ironically enough to keep the hands of 'extreme left' union leaders off the party's controls makes it difficult to replace him.
There's a rational argument that says a proper strategic defence review would decide a a UK independent strategic deterrent wasn't needed and that money saved should be channeled against the real threats facing this country. Simon Jenkins did a good job of articulating it in a piece for the guardian:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/13/renew-trident-dads-army-jeremy-corbyn-labour
Keeping the Vanguard class subs going without the missiles OTOH is not a rational option.
|
Simon Jenkins did a good job of articulating it in a piece for the guardian:
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/13/renew-trident-dads-army-jeremy-corbyn-labour
Alot of wild guesses and assumptions in that article, some of it is nonesense. I've not read his article stuff before but I take it he's not the guardian's defence correspondant?
|
>> WTF? what a prick!
>>
Corbyn might have heard of a proposal many years ago (possibly in the USA) to convert redundant Polaris submarines to fleet submarines by cutting out their missile compartments and joining the two ends. The Trident submarines are too old to make this viable.
|
|
Described in the paper today during an interview as ordering a "tea con leche"....la di da north London crap.
|
>> Described in the paper today during an interview as ordering a "tea con leche"....la di
>> da north London crap.
Possibly being droll, or maybe swerved into that when he decided at the last second not to say "black tea". It's tough having to be PC all the time.
I heard that Emily Thornberry on the wireless earlier. Shame that the auditions for replacement shadow defence minister didn't include a check for the ability to say "nuclear" rather than "nucular". Surprising really as she is fairly posh and a former barrister. Worked for George W mind. Maybe it's one of those genetic things, like being able to roll your tongue into a tube shape or hairy earholes, and she can't help it.
|
>>like being able to roll your tongue into a tube shape or hairy earholes, and she can't help it.
>>
....who the hell rolls their tongue into hairy earholes!!!!!!!?
|
>> ....who the hell rolls their tongue into hairy earholes!!!!!!!?
Yet another example of the importance of correct puncture-ation. Good job it wasn't the pendant thread.
|
>> Possibly being droll, or maybe swerved into that when he decided at the last second
>> not to say "black tea". It's tough having to be PC all the time.
Tea con leche would be tea WITH milk so not black shirley?
|
|
Whadda mistake-a to make-a - I should have said white tea:)
|
I hope you don't think that white tea is tea with milk.
White tea is one of those "alternative teas" like green tea, redbush tea...
or maybe I'm just confused...
Give me Assam with milk every time. Or maybe Earl Grey in the afternoons.
|
|
Glad to hear the pretentious twit is in touch with the working man/woman.
|
>> Glad to hear the pretentious twit is in touch with the working man/woman.
Just out of interest but can you link to the 'tea con leche' interview?
|
...storm in a "tea con leche" cup, as far as I can see.
Supposedly interviewed in an Ecuadorian café, which makes his request probably more normal than asking for a skinny latte in Starbucks.
...but, hey ho, any excuse.......
|
>> www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-interview-labour-leader-on-churches-cats-and-a-nuclear-free-world-a6816991.html
So, as suggested above he was in an Ecuadorian restaurant.
Man who speaks Spanish at home uses language in a Spanish speaking environment.
Ooodathortit.
EDIT. My ex-boss used to practice his Russian with staff from Baltics in cafe by the office. Is he pretentious too?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 17 Jan 16 at 21:09
|
>> EDIT. My ex-boss used to practice his Russian with staff from Baltics in cafe by
>> the office. Is he pretentious too?
Boss of a Quango? I'dve thought it was a pre requisite.
|
>> www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-interview-labour-leader-on-churches-cats-and-a-nuclear-free-world-a6816991.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
I'm afraid that anyone arguing for a nuclear free world is being childishly naïve. The genie is out of the bottle and nuclear bombs are here to stay.
|
>> I'm afraid that anyone arguing for a nuclear free world is being childishly naïve. The
>> genie is out of the bottle and nuclear bombs are here to stay.
>>
That is of course true but most countries in the world do not have nuclear weapons. Is the UK a safer place than Denmark or Germany or Canada because we have these weapons and they don't?
|
Don't forget countries in Europe have access to nuclear weapons if needed. Not total control, they are under the Americans control day to day but should they need arise they could use them.
The rest are under the nuclear umbrella of those that do have them.
|
>> Don't forget countries in Europe have access to nuclear weapons if needed. Not total control,
>> they are under the Americans control day to day but should they need arise they
>> could use them.
So how would that actually work in practice?
Let us say that Greece felt the need to fire a nuclear weapon at another country. The Americans would say - what, exactly?
|
|
...show us the money.......?
|
> So how would that actually work in practice?
>>
>> Let us say that Greece felt the need to fire a nuclear weapon at another
>> country. The Americans would say - what, exactly?
>>
It was part of the nato a***nal and still is to a lesser extent. It was a back door way of getting non nuclear states access to them. If the Americans weren't on board then it was a no no. It didn't give these countries full control but then they didn't pay the full bill either.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 17 Jan 16 at 22:45
|
>> I'm afraid that anyone arguing for a nuclear free world is being childishly naïve. The
>> genie is out of the bottle and nuclear bombs are here to stay.
While the genie out of the bottle bit is undeniable aspiring to a nuclear free world as opposed to one where the damn thing go on multiplying isn't so naive. Indeed it was pretty much that course that's seen agreements to slow proliferation and the Soviet era treaties removing weapons from Europe.
And none the stuff about tactical or mid range weapons being moved around with US consent has much relevance to UK's need to have our own intercontinental nuclear missiles.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 18 Jan 16 at 07:59
|
>> While the genie out of the bottle bit is undeniable aspiring to a nuclear free
>> world as opposed to one where the damn thing go on multiplying isn't so naive.
Wishing for a nuclear free world is one thing (which would I imagine apply to most sane people) but going down that path on your own, whilst an an enemy doesn't, is real 'head in sand' stuff.
I don't even see it as naive when it gets to people like Jeremy Corbyn.... he isn't stupid is he? It's wilful appeasement.
|
>> I don't even see it as naive when it gets to people like Jeremy Corbyn....
>> he isn't stupid is he? It's wilful appeasement.
Its a very valid argument to say someone has to make the first move and disarm, its not appeasement to want to work towards a nuclear arms free world, and I genuinely think he has a long term goal and dream, and giving up weapons is the first step along this route.
Of course he has completely failed to read Russia, who will resolutely fail to play ball, ever.
He has fantastic morals, but is genuinely clueless about the real world. In most things - alas unfortunately global economics as well.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 18 Jan 16 at 10:07
|
"He has fantastic morals, but is genuinely clueless about the real world."
Agree with the first, not sure about the second.
He could be clueless, or wilfully blind. A lot of what he seems to stand for is about protest, which is hardly a constructive position. As for his attitude to Russia, he is of course coloured by his left-wing, socialist starting-point. He blames the West alone for the problems in Ukraine.
His supporters don't seem to mind that the UK electorate will never in a million years endorse him as prime minister, as long as certain principles are being followed. Some press reports say that they know the Labour Party will never get into power with Corbyn at the helm, but at least they will have made a point.
I don't get it, myself.
|
>> Russia, he is of course coloured by his left-wing, socialist starting-point. He blames the West
>> alone for the problems in Ukraine.
There is no doubt we had our share in the agro in Ukraine and new how Russia would react. I think you are allowing the card carrying communist scare of the 60s and 70s to colour your view there a bit. Every modern socialist may still follow some of the doctrine of Lenin, Marx, Engels, Trotsky et al, but all of them know Russia doesn't.
As far as Corbyn goes, he either knows he has no chance of being PM, so will say what he thinks regardless, or he thinks people will flock to and vote for his ideals.
Either way, I dont think he is suitable for power. Dangerous nightmare I think both politically and economically.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 18 Jan 16 at 09:25
|
I'm not sure we should take Corbyn that seriously. I think he's mostly irrelevant.
But I do worry a little about the future of the Labour Party; it will take a very long time to recover from this aberration. (No, I am not and never have been a Labour voter.)
Corbyn is clearly rattled by the collision between the leftish position he feels his supporters have endorsed and the more moderate position of much of the parliamentary party. There is no way he can smooth over the potential conflict and lack of consensus at the heart of the opposition.
The "toothless Trident" suggestion is another cack-handed attempt to manage the party, as was the "whip or not to whip" over Syria, or the "revenge re-shuffle" of the shadow cabinet.
"I think you are allowing the card carrying communist scare of the 60s and 70s to colour your view there a bit."
You may be right, but Russia is keen to make every bit of capital (!) out of Corbyn that they can. And Corbyn is on record as recently as August 2015 attacking NATO and Britain's role in it.
I'm not defending the West's role over Ukraine - it is/was at least as much responsible as Russia, though the latter's annexation of Crimea is on a totally different level.
|
>> Its a very valid argument to say someone has to make the first move and
>> disarm, its not appeasement to want to work towards a nuclear arms free world, and
>> I genuinely think he has a long term goal and dream, and giving up weapons
>> is the first step along this route.
>>
>> Of course he has completely failed to read Russia, who will resolutely fail to play
>> ball, ever.
Doesn't the second paragraph completely contradict the first?
|
|
Its called a balanced argument.
|
> And none the stuff about tactical or mid range weapons being moved around with US
>> consent has much relevance to UK's need to have our own intercontinental nuclear missiles.
>>
I'd disagree with that. It's a useful indicator of other countries reaction to nuclear weapons. And a counter point to the argument that other countries don't have them so why do we. Infact many do, albeit limited access, but still a useful point i think.
|
>> I hope you don't think that white tea is tea with milk.
I do actually. But I'm from Yorkshire, where there are only four kinds of tea - milk x no milk x sugar x no sugar.
|
>> I do actually. But I'm from Yorkshire, where there are only four kinds of tea
>> - milk x no milk x sugar x no sugar.
Variants around strength though? Too weak to crawl up the spout is one I remember. Paternal grandmother's version of that was 'come love' - not sure what that meant but then againshe was a lancastrian - albeit that Rochdale's just over the border.
The Brother out Law likes it strong; 'tea mice can dance on'. That might be Irish as he's lived in West Cork for onks.
|
|
When tea is served weak, one of our sayings is ' horse ain't fit for work'
|
The Brother out Law likes it strong; 'tea mice can dance on'.
Not heard that one, tea one can stand a fork up in is the strong definition I use.
|
>> The Brother out Law likes it strong; 'tea mice can dance on'.
>>
>> Not heard that one, tea one can stand a fork up in is the strong
>> definition I use.
>>
Tea that is too weak is surely either "fortnightly tea" or "lighthouse tea"?
|
>> Tea that is too weak is surely either "fortnightly tea" or "lighthouse tea"?
...or 'dishwater', which is what Mrs Fl calls my brew.
|
|
Named after my wife's sister's tea preference, tea that is beyond weak, pale and insipid is known throughout our family as "Aunty Di. tea"!
|
>>tea one can stand a fork up in is the strong definition I use.
My ole dad [although he wasn't old if he died at age 54!) used to call his tea Gunfire = Hot & Strong.
He presumably picked up that expression during his 5 year vacation in the Middle East 1940-45
This olde byrd drinks one cup o' tea per dia more than me
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/12104467/Nigella-Lawson-reveals-addiction-to-tea-as-she-says-she-drinks-12-cups-a-day.html
Last edited by: Dog on Mon 18 Jan 16 at 08:49
|
|
Yeah but the white powder she takes with it ain't sweetener... :-)
|
My ole dad [although he wasn't old if he died at age 54!) used to call his tea Gunfire = Hot & Strong.
He presumably picked up that expression during his 5 year vacation in the Middle East 1940-45
I always thought gunfire was tea with a tot of whisky in it!
|
>>Yeah but the white powder she takes with it ain't sweetener... :-)
Liver salts?
>>I always thought gunfire was tea with a tot of whisky in it!
Well I'll be damned - he was in the REME too!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfire_%28drink%29
|
...I have to say that when The Telegraph can do no better than the following for a political headline:
tinyurl.com/corbyncat
...then I fear that political journalism has definitely lost its way.
(Though it serves to meet the Barclay Brothers quota of daily mentions of Corbyn in any light that may be seen as even mildly demeaning).
|
|
Té sin leche, por favor.
|
>> Described in the paper today during an interview as ordering a "tea con leche"....la di
>> da north London crap.
His current (third) wife is Mexican and numero dos was Chilean. Maybe, just maybe, Spanish is the domestic lingua franca.
That would account for the cat story as well.
|
It's my understanding that nuclear bombs get stale, the uranium or plutonium eventually becoming too feeble to detonate. They used to have to be rejuvenated from time to time either with new uranium or by being irradiated.
If you leave a lump of uranium for long enough it turns into lead. Or am I wrong?
It's quite a nice thought that the world's nuclear arsenals wouldn't work when push came to shove (not that a major non-nuclear war would be fun exactly).
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 18 Jan 16 at 14:02
|
>> If you leave a lump of uranium for long enough it turns into lead. Or
>> am I wrong?
Half of it will turn into lead reasonably quickly - 4.5 billion years. Not sure they need to be checking for that just yet.
|
>> Half of it will turn into lead reasonably quickly - 4.5 billion years
But it has to be enriched to ensure weapons-grade radioactivity long before its half-life. Nuclear bombs have to be maintained.
I may well be talking through my hat. It's a long time since I took a keen interest in atom bombs which are sinister frightening things. Jeremy Corbyn is right to a large extent. But the ghastly bombs are with us now and for the foreseeable future.
|
Can't help remembering General Ripper in Dr Strangelove, that superb comedy about the end of the world... Yee-hah!
I took my mother to it when it was just out, but the poor darling was absolutely horrified by it. She thought once the bombs existed they were going to be used sooner or later. Which they may be of course. But my earnest hope is that those in charge of the beastly things are as scared of them as I am.
|
|
Sort of thing the men in black take you away for, but most nuclear bombs use a plutonium isotope. Much lower half life, but sorting out the mumbo-jumbo for the facts is less than easy. It is though, one of those metals where getting a specific isotope is not easy, so I guess the formulation of what is actually put into a bomb is quite a closely guarded secret.
|
>> It is though, one of those metals where getting a specific isotope is not easy, so I guess the formulation of what is actually put into a bomb is quite a closely guarded secret.
No doubt. But even if it wasn't, the equipment and installations needed to make the stuff are enormously expensive and beyond the technical abilities of (say) isil. Only superpowers can really do it, and they tend to be governed by sensible people (he said, touching wood and crossing all his fingers).
|
>> Only superpowers can
>> really do it, and they tend to be governed by sensible people
What's the thread on here called, Trumpety trump?
|
Trump will never be POTUS. Far too nasty and mean looking. US voters like handsome presidents. Dubya or Hillary Clinton would massacre Trump at the polls.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 18 Jan 16 at 15:04
|
Labour Leader thread - Volume 7 - Pat
