General Election - 8th June 2017

[UsedtobeWozzer]

1 hour ago, kowenicki said:

Sigh. Those people didn't want a nuclear holocaust.. obviously. It was a question of his pacifism. He is one. He may as well unilaterally disarm if you will never use it under any circumstances.  The threat of having it as a deterrent is no deterrent if you openly say you will never use it. 

 

I see the whoopers and whistlers where in again happy clapping every single word and giggling at the weakest of weak jokes. 

 

Both poor again last night obviously. Independent observers stating that Corbyn struggled slightly more and I'd agree with that.

I'm not a pacifist but there were several questions about whether he would be prepared to use it first. You refer to it as a deterrent as does everybody. If you use it first it's not a deterrent. Also worth pointing out if you use it second it's not a deterrent either.

[joe_lead]

All those eager for pushing red buttons and launching WMD last night appeared to be angry, bald, middle aged, white men .... maybe it's a symptom of erectile dysfunction

[GlossopLatic]

1 hour ago, joe_lead said:

All those eager for pushing red buttons and launching WMD last night appeared to be angry, bald, middle aged, white men .... maybe it's a symptom of erectile dysfunction

 

See the biggest problem in this election is the spectacular lack of a centre ground. Just because people question Corbyn for not being tough enough on things such a terrorism does not mean we want to see a prime minister who nukes Syria.

 

I literally feel like neither of the 2 main parties wants my vote bizzare when you consider I live in a marginal constituency.

[opinions4u]

5 hours ago, UsedtobeWozzer said:

I'm not a pacifist but there were several questions about whether he would be prepared to use it first. You refer to it as a deterrent as does everybody. If you use it first it's not a deterrent. Also worth pointing out if you use it second it's not a deterrent either.

It acts as a deterrent for non-nuclear arsing about too.

[UsedtobeWozzer]

13 minutes ago, opinions4u said:

It acts as a deterrent for non-nuclear arsing about too.

Which is why I support the renewal of Trident. It doesn't diminish the point that it is only a deterrent if you never use it. As soon as you do, whatever the circumstances, it isn't a deterrent.

[leeslover]

I don't get why people say  Corbyn is a pacifist. He's supported the use of force in many conflicts, some of which I agree with, some of which I find shocking and some of which are grey areas 

[mikeroyboy]

USA developed the atomic bomb. Hiroshima was the only time one has been used in anger and it ended a war with devastating effect.

 

So it was never going to be accepted by other nations only one country having such a weapon was a good idea. U.S.S.R. followed suit a few years later with its own.

 

Is it a deterrent or not? It would be hard to argue its only use has probably saved many more lives than it cost.

 

Meanwhile, global road traffic deaths are running at circa 1.3 million a year, with injuries and disabilities 20-50 million.

 

We don't see many ban the car protests.

[Matt]

39 minutes ago, mikeroyboy said:

Meanwhile, global road traffic deaths are running at circa 1.3 million a year, with injuries and disabilities 20-50 million.

 

We don't see many ban the car protests.

 

We don't see them because it's a ridiculous argument. The car has a sole purpose, carrying folk about - not warning a far East despot to stop puffing up his chest; whereas the nuclear weapons sole purpose is to reduce things to ash - not take the kids to school.

[Latics and England]

I actually enjoyed the leaders special on QT last night. Yes, it was full of sound bites but at least you got to hear the leaders answering the questions without constantly shouting over each other.

 

They also seemed to put much more effort into talking about their own policies than their opponent's. 

 

I have been critical of May for avoiding the debates but actually, I could see her point after watching that.

 

As with all other debates this campaign I don't think either side excelled but certainly neither of them disgraced themselves. What we are voting on came through loud and clear.

 

I thought constantly returning to Trident was OTT but suggesting that the audience was advocating nuclear war is ridiculous. China, Russia, N Korea and the US will never disarm (I suspect France will one day and the capability of Israel, Pakistan and India is questionable) and so we have a choice as to whether we trust those countries enough to remove our deterrent. For me, it's a No but I respect the contra view.

 

I have a lot more faith in May's Brexit approach as I do fear that going in with a stated intention that a bad deal is better than no deal guarantees a bad deal. The EU will be anxious to agree a deal as for them, any deal would be better than no deal. You won't hear them say it though.

[mcfluff1985]

I'd rather have watched that last night than a debate where nothing gets said just shouting at each other. Like L&E said they at least talk about their own policies in that format. 

[blueatheart]

2 hours ago, mikeroyboy said:

USA developed the atomic bomb. Hiroshima was the only time one has been used in anger and it ended a war with devastating effect.

...and Nagasaki.

 

I agree with the poster above, the leaders debate last night is probably one of the best formats I've seen since 2010's debates.

[mikeroyboy]

2 hours ago, rummytheowl said:

 

We don't see them because it's a ridiculous argument. The car has a sole purpose, carrying folk about - not warning a far East despot to stop puffing up his chest; whereas the nuclear weapons sole purpose is to reduce things to ash - not take the kids to school.

 

It was not meant as a argument. It was a comparison of how cheap live is when it suits.

 

The nuclear option hasn't been used again because of the shocking devastation it caused. But millions have still blown up by more 'civilized' munitions in the last 70 odd years. Ashes or bits - is there an acceptable difference?

[Matt]

11 hours ago, mikeroyboy said:

The nuclear option hasn't been used again because of the shocking devastation it caused. But millions have still blown up by more 'civilized' munitions in the last 70 odd years. Ashes or bits - is there an acceptable difference?

 

I was referring to an argument in the terms of a reason or set of reasons given in support of a viewpoint. I just indicated that It was a really poor comparison which had little meaning. I'm not sure what your point is now - we could pore over Sun Tzu and von Clausewitz all day.

[kowenicki]

On 03/06/2017 at 9:15 AM, 24hoursfromtulsehill said:

 

Yes. Other things being equal...such as the diligent collection of those taxes, which is generally frowned upon by Tories (and HMRC itself) as being unsporting or un-British.

 

That is spectacularly naive of you.  

[kowenicki]

On 03/06/2017 at 9:15 AM, 24hoursfromtulsehill said:

 

Yes. Other things being equal...such as the diligent collection of those taxes, which is generally frowned upon by Tories (and HMRC itself) as being unsporting or un-British.

 

That is spectacularly naive of you.  

[mcfluff1985]

I think whoever sounds the tougher on terrorism is likely to walk it now. So that'll be Tory then

[blueatheart]

16 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said:

I think whoever sounds the tougher on terrorism is likely to walk it now. So that'll be Tory then

I'm not convinced a pacifist and a Home Secretary who wants to delete the DNA database are the best choice for the UK to combat this problem.

 

 

[mcfluff1985]

55 minutes ago, blueatheart said:

I'm not convinced a pacifist and a Home Secretary who wants to delete the DNA database are the best choice for the UK to combat this problem.

 

 

In the interests of being impartial she only wants to delete people who haven't been convicted of a crime. On the other hand what do you care if you're doing nothing wrong. Have everyone on there for me

[mcfluff1985]

 

 

I'd say this is the speech that wins her the election 

[UsedtobeWozzer]

57 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said:

 

 

I'd say this is the speech that wins her the election 

Well maybe if her track record of taking 20,000 police off the streets is completely ignored.

[opinions4u]

14 minutes ago, UsedtobeWozzer said:

Well maybe if her track record of taking 20,000 police off the streets is completely ignored.

 

If crime statistics are to be believed there has been a far bigger reduction in crime than there has in the number of police.

 

In other words, there are more police per crime than there used to be.

[kowenicki]

2 hours ago, UsedtobeWozzer said:

Well maybe if her track record of taking 20,000 police off the streets is completely ignored.

 

Utterly irrelevant.  Have France, Sweden, Germany reduced police numbers? Have Australia, Canada? All have had attacks. Trying to score political points on this new form of random terrorism sickens me. How would extra police on the streets have prevented this. Do tell me. A man in a van mounts a kerb and runs people over, you simply cannot stop this in the traditional way. 

 

What is really to blame is the tolerance to multi culturalism that lead to ghettos in all of Western Europe. 

 

The only people really telling it how it is are the Quilliam foundation (particularly local lad Haras Rafiq). The Quilliam foundation are Muslims, who see this for what it is and aren't afraid to say it, whilst liberals hide their head in the sand and make excuses for the perpetrators, blaming foreign policy or some other totally bogus misdirection. 

Edited June 4, 2017 by kowenicki

[kowenicki]

This is Islamic terrorism. Politicians need to start calling it that and not saying it has nothing to do with Islam. That fool Burnham even saying the Manchester attacker wasn't Muslim. He was!  Listen to this. Spot on. 

 

 

 

 

Haras Rafiq. Quilliam. 

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2017 by kowenicki

[joe_lead]

1 hour ago, mcfluff1985 said:

 

 

I'd say this is the speech that wins her the election 

 

I applaud her recognition that we have tolerated extremism for too long.  Hopefully this will extend to the selling of weapons to the Saudis.  Very much doubt it though.

 

There you go Kowenicki, a free one for you as I know you love nothing better than down voting anyone who holds alternative views to yourself.  You really need to chill mate, you're taking things way too personal.  Before you Submit Replies imagine if that is how you'd say it if you were sat opposite them, we  all have the right to hold alternative opinions without it turning into playground name calling.

[kowenicki]

36 minutes ago, joe_lead said:

 

I applaud her recognition that we have tolerated extremism for too long.  Hopefully this will extend to the selling of weapons to the Saudis.  Very much doubt it though.

 

There you go Kowenicki, a free one for you as I know you love nothing better than down voting anyone who holds alternative views to yourself.  You really need to chill mate, you're taking things way too personal.  Before you Submit Replies imagine if that is how you'd say it if you were sat opposite them, we  all have the right to hold alternative opinions without it turning into playground name calling.

 

I agree 100%. I think you will find there are others on here far more guilty of that. 

 

Whilst I agree with your point on arms, Saudi Arabian arms sales has nothing to do with some people following their perverted Islamist ideology in the UK, stabbing and running people over.  Nothing. 

Edited June 4, 2017 by kowenicki