Trident, yay or nay?

whatsgoingon wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:“Strategic nuclear weapons have no military use. It would seem the government wishes to replace Trident simply to remain a nuclear power.”

If only they knew as much as you, I'm very surprised you're not running the country with your clearly superior knowledge.
What is it you do?

He's a full time tree hugger!

whatsgoingon wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:Yes but quotations are used to denote a quoted passage.

That was a quote.

Hence the quotation marks.

It was a selected quote I assume rather than just a random quote, I don't copy and paste quotes unless they:
a) represent what I think and back up what I'm saying, or
b) are completely ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

That's all well and good mate and I appreciate the guidance, but I'm going to follow the English language and it's agreed rules on this one.

Anyway the quote was from one Major General Patrick Cordingley, which I thought was interesting.

Hence I posted it.

In quote marks.

Because it was a quote.

Consider yourself bollocked WGO!

Soul Kitchen wrote:Consider yourself bollocked WGO!

Just having a laugh at WGO, no harm intended.

Soul Kitchen wrote:

whatsgoingon wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:“Strategic nuclear weapons have no military use. It would seem the government wishes to replace Trident simply to remain a nuclear power.”

If only they knew as much as you, I'm very surprised you're not running the country with your clearly superior knowledge.
What is it you do?

He's a full time tree hugger!

Certainly most of his views support anybody but the indigenous UK population.

bwfc1874 wrote:

whatsgoingon wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:Yes but quotations are used to denote a quoted passage.

That was a quote.

Hence the quotation marks.

It was a selected quote I assume rather than just a random quote, I don't copy and paste quotes unless they:
a) represent what I think and back up what I'm saying, or
b) are completely ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

That's all well and good mate and I appreciate the guidance, but I'm going to follow the English language and it's agreed rules on this one.

Anyway the quote was from one Major General Patrick Cordingley, which I thought was interesting.

Hence I posted it.

In quote marks.

Because it was a quote.

maybe qualifying as that at the time would have clarified that a little sooner, to anybody reading it it was your quote, marks or no marks.

The majority seem to have coped with what quote marks mean.

bwfc1874 wrote:The majority seem to have coped with what quote marks mean.

Or maybe they just accepted as your view which essentially it is what you've been spouting anyway.
Most people when quoting other people on a forum specify the origins of the quote.

I wanted to see if you'd have a nibble.

Soul Kitchen wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Soul Kitchen wrote:RT spot on there.
How ironic that a bloke that is supposed to represent the workforce is willing to put thousands on the dole because of his own lust for power by keeping the £3 tree huggers on side!? And here's me thinking only tories looked after themselves?

So using your logic we would still build everything by hand and have fox hunting to avoid putting people on the dole.

?
The guy even voted against the party policy/manifesto, can't ever remember a party leader doing that?
He's the tories best friend and his single minded principles don't allow him to see it?
Can't see out but a tory government for the next 10 to 15 years.

I am no fan of Corbyn but arguing that we shouldn't do something because it may put people on the dole is not a sensible argument. It was one of the lines used by fox hunt supporters and before them the Luddites who destroyed machinery because they believed it threatened their jobs.

bwfc1874 wrote:I wanted to see if you'd have a nibble.

Me too 

xmiles wrote:

gloswhite wrote:Bollotom is spot on. I have also served in places where sensitive material is used, and I can tell you that the Russian threat never really went away. Putin is a dangerous and ruthless man, and if anyone is naïve enough to believe there is no threat from him then they just aren't reading the situation properly.  He is the current threat, and you can't have a more clear example than his land grab of the Crimea. Ever wondered why he didn't go further ?

You seriously think us having Trident is what stopped Putin going further?

I don't think its a major step to realise that owning such weapons is mainly to show intent. This is to say 'so far, no further'. Whereas owning Trident on its own didn't stop him, and I'm surprised you even considered that that was what I meant. He stopped short of the conflict escalating, and spreading, because, for all his faults, he's a very clever, and manipulative. man. We should also consider that we have tactical, or battlefield, nuclear weapons, which would be used within a theatre, before resorting to ICBM.s. Although the scenarios have now changed, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are examples. Although once these are deployed, we could well be on the slippery slope.

Also, a major benefit for a sea-borne force is that it is undetectable, whereas all land based weapons are identifiable prior to any engagement, taking away any deterrent possibilities.

bwfc1874 wrote:I wanted to see if you'd have a nibble.

He's made you look a right knob

In what way?

Boggersbelief wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:I wanted to see if you'd have a nibble.

He's made you look a right knob

Even more of a knob? 

Didn't think it was possible 

Here we go! 

The comedy duo are online. Just need Karly to join in now for the full set!

You love us really 74!!!

bwfc1874 wrote:Here we go! 

The comedy duo are online. Just need Karly to join in now for the full set!

Just joking mate.

No harm intended

Calm down calm down, ( in a Robbie Fowler voice )