Should we be fighting in Syria?

Just when you thought that the Labour Party couldn't go any further backwards, Corbyn opens his trap.

I'm sure that his flowers and chocolates approach would be a success.

Why is the only option to bomb Syria Copper?

bwfc1874 wrote:Why is the only option to bomb Syria Copper?

No that isn't the only option.

However his none shoot to kill policy is a wind up. I think that he's as dangerous as Blair was, but just on the other end of the policy scale.

Don't agree with a non-shoot to kill policy myself.

He's far less dangerous than Cameron is, if he gets his way we'll be embroiled in another war we know nothing about.

We are already embroiled in a "war" because of past Labour governments.

If it's true that Cameron (and remember I'm no Tory or have ever voted Tory) will be piling money into home security and trying to secure the borders (impossible job but can be better) then that's the way to go for me.

This is where the Trident debate becomes relevant again, surely?

Why waste money on a missile system that we don't need and will never use when we could be ploughing that resource into preventing cyber attacks and gathering data on whackjobs who want to poison our drinking water?

I'd much rather the government blew a load of cash on stopping me dying when I clean my teeth than upgrading a weapons system from the 1960's.

Just seems more relevant and therefore important.

Copper Dragon wrote:We are already embroiled in a "war" because of past Labour governments.

If it's true that Cameron (and remember I'm no Tory or have ever voted Tory) will be piling money into home security and trying to secure the borders (impossible job but can be better) then that's the way to go for me.

Corbyn wants to increase spending in defence strategies against micro threats like the ones posed by IS etc taking money out of macro strategies like Trident. 

Obviously it's all irrelevant at this point though as we have a Tory government for the next 5 years, but not sure how well we can feel protected when the met's budget is being slashed so heavily.

Breadman wrote:This is where the Trident debate becomes relevant again, surely?

Why waste money on a missile system that we don't need and will never use when we could be ploughing that resource into preventing cyber attacks and gathering data on whackjobs who want to poison our drinking water?

I'd much rather the government blew a load of cash on stopping me dying when I clean my teeth than upgrading a weapons system from the 1960's.

Just seems more relevant and therefore important.

Beat me to it mate.

It's obvious, innit?

Put that sabre down, stop trying to pretend that we're a major player in the Nuclear World, get real and spend the money in the most appropriate areas.

ie, preventing me from dropping dead in my pyjamas.

And anyway, it's not like we actually need our own nukes, is it?

South East England's full of Yanky ones which I am sure they'd be happy to launch on our behalf, should the occasion arise......

bwfc1874 wrote:I haven't told you my expectations I've told you what Corbyn's policy is - as you claimed it was a secret.

Is that clear enough?

You and Corbyn piss in the same naive pot, that's clear enough.

You had no idea what that pot was until this evening, might be better to give it some thought overnight SK before making any snap judgements.

As always I'm happy to help you out with more info just PM me like last time mate.

Soul Kitchen wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:I haven't told you my expectations I've told you what Corbyn's policy is - as you claimed it was a secret.

Is that clear enough?

You and Corbyn piss in the same naive pot, that's clear enough.

I would happily piss in Jezza's pot. (If he'd let me.)

I've been waiting for a Jeremy to follow for years and so far all I've had is the one with the tiny hand who liked playing the "crazy gagster" character on tawdry TV shows,( ie a knob), the one on Top Gear with the over-inflated sense of self-worth (ie, another knob) and the one in that Pearl Jam song (who turned out not to be real but was still a knob if you listen to the lyrics.)

Please, for the love of Dawkins, let me enjoy this Jeremy.

Thankyou.

okocha wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

okocha wrote:

Similarly, it is hypocritical to criticise Iran's build-up of nuclear weapons whilst supporting the renewal of Trident here.

Nuclear weapons are safer in our hands.

But you can't expect Iran or others to give up their weapons whilst we renew ours.......
And what use are nuclear weapons in circumstances such as last Friday's?

Spend the money saved instead on improving conventional security against much more likely forms of attack, and on bolstering public services without which our country is just a shadow of what it should stand for.

Rather than re-type the same argument I made yesterday, I'm just re-posting here in support of Breadman and 1874.

Be honest folks - Trident is as about as much use as a chocolate fireguard in the modern world.
It could be argued that spending 20 billion or whatever it costs would be a boost to the economy and jobs, but it's just as likely that Lockheed or a European arms manufacturer would win the contract as BAE Systems - and BAE outsource a load of work abroad anyway allegedly.

So rather than Britain becoming 20 billion poorer, the money could be more sensibly spent on developing defence systems appropriate to the age we live in or improving the quality of life of British citizens - or both.

wanderlust wrote:Be honest folks - Trident is as about as much use as a chocolate fireguard in the modern world.
It could be argued that spending 20 billion or whatever it costs would be a boost to the economy and jobs, but it's just as likely that Lockheed or a European arms manufacturer would win the contract as BAE Systems - and BAE outsource a load of work abroad anyway allegedly.

So rather than Britain becoming 20 billion poorer, the money could be more sensibly spent on developing defence systems appropriate to the age we live in or improving the quality of life of British citizens - or both.

If people remain adamant about Britain retaining a nuclear threat even though it wouldn't work as a deterrent against an ideology, why not go for the cheaper option as the Chinese did?

All you need is a weak government that is stupid enough to put the build and operation of nuclear power plants out to tender and willing to put price ahead of national security. Whack in the lowest bid by a mile to make sure you get the gig - after all it's a damn sight cheaper than building ICBMs and the mugs will pay you for the work anyway. 
You then have nuclear bombs on their home soil so any sign of trouble from them and....ooops! 

Make Hinkley Point, Bradwell and Sizewell synonymous with Chernobyl.

Accidentally of course.
Unfortunately Assad isn't as gullible, two-faced or desperate to please as Cameron.

Wanderlust, you are a fucking scumbag. Sick and tired of your anti-UK bullshit.

We are the greatest nation in the world, if you don't like it fuck off elsewhere.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Wanderlust, you are a fucking scumbag. Sick and tired of your anti-UK bullshit.

We are the greatest nation in the world, if you don't like it fuck off elsewhere.

How is preferring British construction and British site management with British security forces guarding the biggest British security threats anti-UK? 
You are an idiot who can't see how much this Government is undermining our national security.
I don't want the greatest nation in the world reduced to rubble because of the actions of our weak and stupid government. Or do you support the idea of the Chinese controlling our nuclear power stations?

Or do you just swallow the newspaper propaganda hook, line and sinker like the gullible twat you are?