BS: Demise of the Labour Party

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 03:21 PM

Jim,
- an illegally armed political organisation who re-introduced the gun into Irish politics and threatened to invade Dublin.

That would be the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and they did invade Dublin!

Do you deny that the majority in NI did not want to leave the UK, and were prepared to fight to remain part of it?

No.
It is a fact.
The officers you refer to refused to force them out by killing their former comrades.
They preferred to resign as was their legal right.
There was no refusal to obey orders nor any threat to do so.
Resigning is not a rebellion.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 04:01 PM

"much better to claim it from expenses, or maybe from the massive bonuses given out for making a balls-up of our economy"

What balls up Jom? The UK economy at present is one of the strongest in the developed world. Don't think many Corbyn supporters had anything to do with that though.

"watching them in their natural environment almost all of my working life."

I know there are some Mudcatters who are bird watchers and I think that they will agree with me on that, the seagull was the bird that inspireD R.J.Mitchell to design and build the Spitfire.

"Amazing what you can see through a galley porthole!

Ah back to your unfathomable downer on Cooks again Jom, but almost an "own goal" like the "Rourke's Drift" one in a previous thread - IF I were aboard ship, and IF I worked in the Galley you tell me "Brain of County Clare" who would have the best chance of seeing exactly what a seagull could do in flight?































THE F**KER WHO FEEDS THEM - YOU HALFWIT PRAT.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 05:23 PM

Well, I rather like Mrs May's cabinet choice. I think Boris can make an excellent Foreign secretary, he seems at ease in any company and is unhindered by any deep seated ideology.....I can see Boris becoming a bit of a star, if he can handle the very difficult set of circumstances with which he has been saddled.
I like David Davis who seems sincere and sensible and Mrs May is exactly what we need at present as Prime minister.

Never voted Conservative in my life, but if it comes to a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea, my vote would go to the Conservatives over the self serving Blairite scum.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 06:19 PM

"The UK economy at present is one of the strongest in the developed world. Don't think many Corbyn supporters had anything to do with that though."

So lefties are all feckless benefits claimants then are they? Not the people who keep the NHS afloat in spite of Toryism, not the people who keep our old people happy in care homes on a pittance, not the kids who are being duped into thinking that they're on an "apprenticeship," not the millions of retail industry workers who are on the minimum wage and who can be called in to work until ten at night or all day Saturday and Sunday to make sure that you can shop at your whim, not the exploited millions who change the beds and clean the bogs in stuffy hotel bedrooms to keep rich foreign tourists happy? Yes, many of them are Corbyn supporters who do a damn sight more to keep this economy afloat than most of those spivs in the City who rob the world blind with computer mice. That quote of yours plumbs the depths of disgrace more than anything you've ever said, which is saying something, eh? Talk about us and them...

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 06:51 PM

Steve Shaw - 16 Jul 16 - 06:19 PM

STOP THE PRESSES - RESULTS OF ANOTHER NATIONWIDE POLL BY STEVE SHAW

Poll 1:
The people who keep the NHS afloat are all "lefties" who support Jeremy Corbyn to a man;

Poll 2:
The people who keep our old people happy in care homes on a pittance are all "lefties" who support Jeremy Corbyn to a man;

Poll 3:
Every single kid currently serving an "apprenticeship" is a "leftie" and a Jeremy Corbyn Supporter

Poll 4:
Every single retail worker in the country on the new Living wage introduced by the Conservative Government last April is a "leftie" and Corbyn Supporter

Poll 5:
All those working in the leisure and hospitality industry are "lefties" and Jeremy Corbyn supporters.

All of the above according to Steve Shaw do a damn sight more to keep this economy afloat than most, yet would by being Corbyn supporters throw the bloody lot a way in the blink of an eye to elect into office a man who would be the greatest disaster as a Prime Minister this country has ever seen. Hell leadership qualities!!! I don't know anyone who would follow him even out of the vaguest feeling of idle curiosity.

Must be nice speaking with so much authority on behalf of so many people - but hang on a minute you don't do you - its all just "made-up-shit".

Corbyn supporters are numbered at less than 200,000 - Labour voters are numbered in their millions and it is the Labour voters that will put a Labour Government in power - they will not vote for Corbyn or those candidates selected by his followers.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 07:22 PM

That is just about the stupidest piece of twisting I've ever seen. Have another vat of your favourite and sleep soundly. All day tomorrow would be good, at least for us here, and it might just leave you sweeter. You are getting old, after all, and it don't half show.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 09:55 PM

...and whilst we are amusing ourselves with ornithological metaphors..

..can't decide if the most apt bird for the tories is the vulture or the dodo...??? 😜

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Jul 16 - 10:00 PM

... ostrich...???


.. Rod Hull's effin emu...?????


.. bugger it.. too much choice.. they all display classic tory characteristics....????

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 03:08 AM

"What balls up Jom?"
ONE
TWO
THREE
Are you insane? - Britain has suffered a series of economic disasters and is heading for another one caused by this shit decision.
As far as the consequences are concerned, the people of Britain have borne the burden of those disasters and those in charge have got off scott free.
Typical was the banking crisis, where we bailed out and those who caused it and those in charge paid themselves huge bonuses to put matters matters right.
Fine from your side of the fence Mr Woodencock.
Still nothing on accommodation for your itinerant work-force, I see??
"Do you deny that the majority in NI did not want to leave the UK, and were prepared to fight to remain part of it?"
The people of Northern Ireland were never asked what they wanted - the sectarians got guns and threatened to invade Dublin and those whose responsibility it was to defend Britian said they would not carry out that defence.
You've long lost this battle Keith
How happy wuld you be if those who wished stay in Europe took up arms to carry out their wishes and the army refused to act
I suppose you've been stirred into enthusiasm by the sectarian marching season you support, me little Billy Boy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 04:15 AM

The people of Northern Ireland were never asked what they wanted

Complete bollocks Jim!!
On 28 September 1912, over 500,000 Unionists signed the Ulster Covenant pledging to defy Home Rule by all means possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 04:22 AM

Were any catholics asked to sign?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 04:26 AM

pfr, surely it would be more appropriate for the Dodo to be adopted by the Labour Party considering the circumstances they find themselves in.

As for taking a break Mr Shaw, couldn't possibly when you come out with such outrageous assertions based upon nothing bar your own rather ludicrous point of view. You speak with authority for no-one but yourself so please do not be surprised if when you come out with terms like "mainstream Christians" and claim "majorities support" without evidence to back it up you will be taken to task for it.

The Labour Party is in one God awful mess, of it's own making. The only people who support Corbyn are the 100,000 radicals who were allowed to "join" the Labour Party to vote in the last leadership election by paying a £3 fee. The fear from Corbyn's supporters now is the fact that they may now baulk at the prospect of having to pay a heftier £25 fee to vote in this leadership election (What will it be next time? £50 - reads like some sort of sshoddy scam to raise Party funds).

Now instead of Shaw's baseless assertions here are the findings of some polls that have actually been taken that indicate the degree of "support" that Corbyn has:

1: Parliamentary Labour Party are against him 172 to 40

2: Three out of every four voters are against him

3: Labour's NEC had to ignore its own election rules to let Corbyn stand. The vote to let him appear on the ballot as incumbent was only passed by four votes, one of them being Corbyn's own vote.

4: Ipsos Mori Poll question - "Has Jeremy Corbyn got what it takes to be a good Prime Minister?"
Yes - 23% (% for Eagle was 21%)
Don't know - 9% (% for Eagle was 39%)
No - 68% (% for Eagle was 40%)

5: YouGov Poll Question - "If Jeremy Corbyn remains as Labour leader, how likely or unlikely are they to win the next general election?"

Likely - 39%
Unlikely - 57%
Don't know - 4%

6: YouGov Poll of UNITE Members:

Question 1 - "Is Corbyn doing well as Labour Party Leader?"
Yes - 34%
No - 65%

Question 2 - "Is Corbyn ever likely to be PM?"
Yes - 18%
No - 79%

Question 3 - "Should Corbyn lead Labour to next election?"
Yes - 35%
No - 49%

Len McCluskey Boss of UNITE claims his members have got it wrong and that UNITE will support Corbyn - shades of Arthur Scargill? I thought Unions were supposed to represent their members not tell them what is good for them.

7: So what were the views of other Trades Union members?

YouGov poll question - "Do you think Jeremy Corbyn should fight the next General Election as Labour Leader?"

CWU - Yes 30%: No 62%
USDAW - Yes 27%: No 61%
GMB - Yes 34%: No 60%
Unison - Yes 28%: No 59%

8: Sky Data Poll Question - "Who would make a better Prime Minister?"

Theresa May - 62%
Don't know - 20%
Jeremy Corbyn - 18%

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 05:09 AM

When the number of people reach 100,000 can they still be considered radicals or are they part of the broad church which the Labour Party has ever been.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 05:18 AM

It's bloody impossible to discuss anything at all with someone who declares that he will "take me to task" on the basis of gross misrepresentations of what I said. Your modus operandi is to fly off the handle with me and Jim at every opportunity, regardless of what we say (or in many cases what we haven't said at all) but not once do you ever "take to task" akenaton, Keith or bobad in spite of the multiple streams of idiocy that emanate from them. You are the ultimate tribalist. I could recite the Tory manifesto to you as gospel and you'd find something to "take me to task" about. You're a waste of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 05:23 AM

Jim Carroll - 17 Jul 16 - 03:08 AM

I say again what balls up?

FTSE up to highest point it has been for 9 months

£1 = €1.20

These reported each day so why do you select information that is one month out of date?

"Typical was the banking crisis, where we bailed out and those who caused it and those in charge paid themselves huge bonuses to put matters matters right."

The banks were bailed out so that people did not lose their savings, that businesses big and small who employ the workforce of the nation could continue to function and that people could be paid. Those sound reasonable explanations as to why the Government felt the need to "bail-out" the banks and come to their rescue? Those in charge of the banks paid themselves big bonuses did they? I seem to recall that they were actually asked to forego their bonuses and in some cases pay them back. Where changes at the top were made in certain institutions the incoming head was offered a salary and bonus package based upon HIS/HER performance NOT that of the institution he/she was taking charge of. Previous example given:

If someone steps in to take over the running of something that was making a £345 million loss each year and 12 months latter has succeeded in reducing that loss to only £150 million a year - he/she has saved the shareholders of that company £195 million pounds in the course of that year - has he/she done a good job? I'd say that he/she had and therefore would deserve the bonus offered when he/she was originally offered the position.

"Still nothing on accommodation for your itinerant work-force, I see??"

On the contrary, I have asked you a number of times now. When you came south to London to find work did you find accommodation? Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, all over the world move to find work. That migration of labour generally seems to be towards big cities, yet it does not seem to result in them all finding themselves "homeless" possibly because they did the same as you and I did.

1. Stayed for a short while with someone you knew before finding somewhere affordable to rent.
2. Stayed at a cheap B&B until you could find somewhere affordable to rent.
3. Find somewhere affordable to rent before moving down.

No great mystery Carroll - as I say hundreds of thousands if not millions do it all the time - as well you know.

"The people of Northern Ireland were never asked what they wanted - the sectarians got guns and threatened to invade Dublin"

The people of Ireland weren't asked either, they knew that the political party they supported had won them Home Rule when a gang of seven sectarians decided to start a fight that resulted in the destruction of the centre of Dublin followed by two wars that resulted in massive loss of life - yet you applaud that. shall we put it into perspective:

In 1916 seven men signed the Proclamation of the Republic in Dublin.

The American Declaration of Independence of 1776 had fifty-six signatories.

In 1912 virtually an entire community put their signatures to the Ulster Covenant. In Ulster, 218,206 men signed the Covenant; and 228,991 women signed a parallel Declaration associating themselves with the men in their uncompromising opposition to the new Home Rule Bill now before parliament . A further 19,162 men and 5,055 women of Ulster birth signed in Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, York, Liverpool, London, Manchester and Bristol.

The Ulster Covenant was a truly impressive demonstration of the resolve of early twentieth-century Ulster unionists to remain citizens of the then United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Note: Ulster Unionists - not Protestants

Where and when did the UVF ever threaten to march south and "invade Dublin" as you put it? Carson and Craig were explicitly clear on who would face the UVF if Home Rule was forced on Ulster and Ulster men and women were deprived of their birth right as British subjects - the BRITISH GOVERNMENT

and those whose responsibility it was to defend Britian {sic} said they would not carry out that defence.

The responsibility for the defence of Britain was devolved to 57 officers of the 3rd Cavalry Division? Wow they must have been absolute Titans if they were responsible for the defence of Great Britain before the other 440,000 men in the British Army at the time and God knows how many more in the Royal Navy.

You've long lost this battle Keith

No Carroll you lose this battle every single time you bring it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 05:26 AM

Steve Shaw - 17 Jul 16 - 05:18 AM

Pot, kettle, black Shaw I'll leave you to join up the dots, it is after all what you and the usual suspects have been unabashedly dishing out to Keith A and Akenaton for over two years now.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 06:08 AM

So the £1 is worth 1.20 Euro, well that's great except it's not is it.

Just 3 weeks ago it was slightly over 1.30 Euro and thus everything we import now will be approximately 8% more expensive than it was just three weeks ago including food together with all the other goods we import from Europe.

Who does this hit the most ............ well it affects us all to an extent but it does affect the people with less resources hardest as they have no surplus wealth with which to pay the increased costs.

But I'm sure you will say that is their own fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 06:28 AM

Ah Raggy are you talking about people who pop out all the time to buy computers again? Not noticed much of an increase in my usual household bills, food, electricity, etc.

Interest rates expected to come down to the lowest they have ever been, best mortgage rates on offer ever, British exports more competitively priced. All the "doom'n'gloom" predictions that you lot were wittering on about have not come to pass and looking at it rationally why should they - as for at least the next three years nothing will change and even after that people will do what is in the best interests of the region - and that will rule out any great "spite fest", they aren't after all the British Labour Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 06:40 AM

Yeh, whatever. Your knowledge of macro-economics is vast no doubt.

You can't even realise that I used Dell Computers as an example of what we can expect in the coming months. You just regurgitate again and again "I've only ever bought two computers ........ doesn't bother me"

You probably don't even realise it a small part of things to come because you have your Union Flag glasses on.

Your lack of consideration for other people is now legendary so no change there.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 06:56 AM

"All the "doom'n'gloom" predictions that you lot were wittering on about have not come to pass and looking at it rationally why should they"

It certainly is happening in the higher education sector, which is already suffering. A funding crisis is building in our universities, and already we're seeing students and academics changing their plans. There is real unease in HE, and this is beginning to effect research which is an issue as we are a leading country for research and collaboration.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 08:11 AM

"FTSE up to highest point it has been for 9 months"
Britain's greatest export is money and the wealth gap has never been greater and it is increasing whatever the figures say
The economy is now geared to producing more wealth for the wealthy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 11:00 AM

..so then... as speculated/predicted.. Angela Lameduck = stalking horse / sacrificial mutton..

Owen Smith = The Red Dragon Knight in Shining Armour... our hero !!!???


The wife has taken an instant fancy to Smith after only watching him for 10 minutes on the telly..

Well.. He might not be as left as Corbyn, but he's much younger, and dashing fit looking eye candy for middle aged house wives
in his open necked "Poldark" white shirt.. 😜

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stanron
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 11:28 AM

He also said he would vote for Trident. It wasn't squeezed out of him. He was direct and emphatic. A change from JC.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 11:50 AM

Not entirely sure what kind of mood brief exposure to pin up boy Owen Smith has put the wife in...

.. but she's now watching a Hugh Grant rom com DVD in just her bra and pyjama bottoms... ?????


Could this be the magic winning formula for a next Labour Leader and Prime Minister...?????? 🤔

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 17 Jul 16 - 02:40 PM

Voting for Trident means that person is willing to slaughter millions of people (most of whom will have no control over the actions of their government) in an insane act of mutually assured destruction. It's the act of a lunatic, plain and simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 02:26 AM

Stu, you are correct to cite it would be mutually assured destruction if Trident were to be used. However in the 21st Century it is normal to use an acronym for ease of use. Thus I would suggest M.A.D. instead of Trident.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 08:35 AM

Apparently we need nuclear weapons to aid the fight against terrorism

So sayeth the defence secretary on bbc this morning..when pressed by the obnoxious Mr Humphries he became a stuttering wreck and could not justify the statement.

The fight against terrorism will be appearing in a street near you very shortly.

the great powers are at last beginning to build bridges on defence against the biggest danger facing the world today....Islamic Fundamentalism........let us not rock the boat by creating cold war bogeymen.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 09:41 AM

Stu - 17 Jul 16 - 02:40 PM

"Voting for Trident means that person is willing to slaughter millions of people (most of whom will have no control over the actions of their government) in an insane act of mutually assured destruction."

Really??? It has been voted on before, and it's been around operationally since 1979 - how many people has it killed so far?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 09:45 AM

By the way, it has been explained before todays vote in Parliament has got nothing to do with Trident per se - The vote today is about building four submarines.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 09:57 AM

The vote will go in favour of the next generation of nuclear submarine but as Teribus said they haven't actually killed anyone. (maybe one or two in the dockyard)

Begs the question why do we have them.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 10:46 AM

Because they actually do what it says on the packet - they are a deterrent.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 12:59 PM

Sorry Mr T, but they are not a deterrent to terrorism

They may be a deterrent to Russia and China, though I find it hard to believe that either of these powers have any intention of attacking us....our biggest danger is to Western economies via small groups or "lone wolf" Islamic Terrorists and they can only be dealt with by conventional means.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 03:08 PM

Surprisingly I find myself in agreement with Akenaton.

Having said that anyone who goes to bed with his cocoa and union flag pyjamas on probably won't understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 05:04 PM

I think Mr. T meant detergent.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 06:52 PM

How droll Greg F.

Nice to hear that Raggy believes that Islamic Fundamentalism is a problem.

As far as that and those who may support them goes, the last thing Chirac in France did was to reconfigure the weapons load on France's SSBNs - four missile tubes are now loaded with "Tactical" warheads in case some state decides to back the "extremists" - Iran has already been given the warning.

Of course nuclear weapons are not meant to deter any terrorist attack. They will as explained above deter any country with any idea of supporting some terrorist organisation with nuclear ambitions George W Bush while he was President of the United States stopped in their tracks secret nuclear weapons programmes in Iran, Syria and Libya - by the bye just in case anybody misses the significance of that, the only reason you hide and create a secret nuclear weapons programme is that you fully intend to use those weapons, because if secret they serve no purpose as a deterrent.

Al Qaeda is now almost irrelevant, since their spectacular in 2001 they have achieved nothing.

ISIS have been on the back foot for the last 12 months. The threat of their "lone wolf attacks" represent their last dying throws and they fully realise that. As an organisation they are going nowhere and they know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 07:09 PM

Israel has the bomb but that has not deterred attacks on Israel from multiple quarters. Go on, tell me why Israel didn't nuke Gaza or Lebanon, and please don't say it was because Israel is the nice guy. Pakistan has the bomb but it hasn't prevented Indian aggression or US drones from killing people on their turf. We have the bomb but it didn't deter Argentina from occupying our sovereign territory. The US has the bomb but it didn't deter 9-11. Over 200 countries do not have the bomb and the vast majority of them have not been attacked during the nuclear age. Proving that the bomb is a deterrent is like proving that God exists or that the Stones were better than the Beatles. Can't be done. The best deterrent by far is to have a non-aggressive, non-interfering foreign policy. The US and UK have a lot to learn in that regard. And the bomb is completely bloody useless against al Qaeda and Isis and they know it, and that knowledge informs their modus operandi.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 16 - 10:02 PM

Islamic Fundamentalism is a problem.

The problem is crazy people, not Islam.

The threat of their "lone wolf attacks" represent their last dying throws

Hardly. And I think you meant throes. Unless, of course, they're playing bocce.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 02:50 AM

"Apparently we need nuclear weapons to aid the fight against terrorism"
How exactly to we "fight terrorism" with nuclear weapons - bomb Iraq, or Syria, or Nice, or Paris, or London, or Istanbul..... or wherever the terrorists operate? - how stupid can you get.
That's the nature of terrorism - unlike the nations involved in the Cold War, it has no base.
States like Israel and Saudi, whose policies generate terrorism and who, in some cases, finance it, are considered friends and allies; in the case of Israel, they have openly shown that they are prepared to spread terrorism by offering to assist apartheid South Africa to obtain nuclear weapons..
Deterrence has always been a short term and unreliable policy, even when our "enemies" had identifiable locations.
Winning the hearts and minds has always been the answer to world conflict and that will never happen while national self-interest is put first.
Have we learned nothing from the Chilcott rport?   
COST OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
WHO BENEFITS FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 04:20 AM

Steve Shaw - 18 Jul 16 - 07:09 PM

1: "Israel has the bomb but that has not deterred attacks on Israel from multiple quarters. Go on, tell me why Israel didn't nuke Gaza or Lebanon, and please don't say it was because Israel is the nice guy."

I would imagine that Israel has never ever used it's nuclear weapons because it has never needed to. The pan-Arabic movement of Nasser no longer exists and Israel is no longer confronted by nation states calling for its destruction (It has been 43 now since Israel was attacked by an enemy that represented a nation state).

2: "Pakistan has the bomb but it hasn't prevented Indian aggression or US drones from killing people on their turf."

Trust you to get the shoe on the wrong foot Shaw. What Indian aggression? Four times in the past Pakistan attacked India, there have been no such attacks since both acquired nuclear weapons. The Government of Pakistan is incapable of enforcing the rule of law and order in either the NWFP or in the FATA along it's border with Afghanistan, "allied" to the US effort to prevent attacks from inside these areas hitting targets in Afghanistan why would Pakistani nuclear weapons enter the equation.

3: "We have the bomb but it didn't deter Argentina from occupying our sovereign territory.

Most certainly did in 1977. In 1982 the Argentine invasion took the UK Government by surprise, or so we are led to believe. I personally know that Captain Nick Barker RN who was in command of the Antarctic Patrol Ship HMS Endurance had been supplying the powers that be in the Royal Navy and the Foreign Office with intelligence of Argentina's intentions for at least a year before the event.

At present it is the threat that one of our SSNs is allocated to the area that provides the greatest deterrent to any military action by the Argentines.

4: "The US has the bomb but it didn't deter 9-11."
Nor would I expect it to, but what it has deterred is what the USA identified as the greatest threat to its national security in the wake of the attacks on the 11th September 2001:

An international terrorist organisation, linking up with a "rogue" State hostile to the USA that either possesses WMD or has the technical ability to produce or procure WMD, which results in an "anonymous" asymmetric attack on the USA using WMD.

Subsequent US actions taken after 9/11 and US nuclear weapons did succeed in deterring any state from acting in the role of "rogue" state to any international terrorist organisation in the scenario outlined above. Evidence to substantiate that assertion?

Libya - unilaterally renounced its WMD programmes including a secret nuclear weapons programme.
North Korea - momentarily halted its nuclear weapons programme while GWB was in office.
Iran - was forced to halt its nuclear weapons programme when the US found out about the undeclared uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qum.
Syria - Secret nuclear weapons programme halted and destroyed.
Pakistan - Illegal nuclear weapons proliferation network run by Dr A.Q.Khan exposed and shut down

5: "Over 200 countries do not have the bomb and the vast majority of them have not been attacked during the nuclear age."

Are you sure about that? From your list of 200 (The UN has only 193 member states including all those with nuclear weapons, so the following does not include those countries that you have obviously invented) take away those whose security is guaranteed by being part of an alliance that has as one of its partners a nuclear power. then go through the list again and you will be astounded at the number who have been involved in some form of conflict or another since 1945.


6: the Stones were better than the Beatles

I thought everybody knew that.

7: "The best deterrent by far is to have a non-aggressive, non-interfering foreign policy."

Really? What happens when another nation adopts an interfering and aggressive foreign policy towards you? Your statement is complete and utter rubbish.

8: The modus operandi of the likes of Al-Qaeda and ISIS is to pop up, do something and then get hammered. That has been their track record so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 06:52 AM

"I thought everybody knew that."

I disagree that the Stones were better than The Beatles.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 08:19 AM

A

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 09:42 AM

I've come across many inane statements over the years on this forum but this particular one is brilliant in replying to Steve Shaw statement

"3: "We have the bomb but it didn't deter Argentina from occupying our sovereign territory".

Teribus typed "Most certainly did in 1977" something also prevented them in 1976, 1975, 1974, 1973 and numerous years before that. It also did in 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981 but NOT 1982 the year the Argentinians invaded the Falklands Islands. Something has prevented them every year ever since but I somehow doubt it is the threat of nuclear retribution.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 09:49 AM

Yeah, but you know how those Argie wogs are! They'll do it one of these days!

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 11:30 AM

I've always considered the 'nuclear armament' issue to be a bit of a very expensive political tool
to be used by the tories as a last resort to discredit Labour election candidates,
when the tories are losing the debates on more pressing social priorities......


I can be persuaded to see the reasons for mega world powers occupying huge land masses
to rely on the deterrence factor..

after all, nuke moscow, and survivors can still repopulate up in the northern tundra;
take out washington, and they can still attempt to rebuild elsewhere on the wild west continent.

If nothing else, Chernobyl established that radiation fall out could be 'contained' to some extent.

But whichever way you look at it, one or two nukes on London, Manchester, and the Whitby folk festival,
and all of us are 100% cooked and f@cked.....!!!!! 😬

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 12:24 PM

.. maybe that little fleet of big submarines might have a better use as Arks...

.. crested newts, slow worms, lizards, tasty rare breed pigs & sheep, a few other remaining endangered indigenous UK island species....????

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 12:43 PM

Huh? Don't know what happened to my post there. Never mind. So a nation that is otherwise deterred by our nukes needn't worry as long as it takes us by surprise. Heheh. As for the number of countries on the planet, there are various ways of counting. Google it. Picking me up on that technicality is a mark of the man's desperation. As for non-nuclear countries not being attacked because they're in some sort of alliance, well we could do that. You don't really think that the yanks would put up with someone taking over a non-nuclear UK, do you?

And Freddie And The Dreamers were greater than both.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 12:45 PM

"And Freddie And The Dreamers were greater than both."

Ack.

*does funny little jig*

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 01:05 PM

.. I'm veering more towards choosing between The Move, Small Faces, The Who,The Yardbirds, and Syd Barrett era Pink Floyd...

The beatles had a lot to thank George Martin for...

See how superior music was under Harold Wilson.... 😎

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 01:13 PM

Although a year or three later it was Cat Stevens for me, the first LP's I ever bought.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 01:23 PM

punkfolkrocker - 19 Jul 16 - 11:30 AM

A Tory tool eh? Very funny then that it was a Labour Prime Minister who was its greatest advocate and Nye Bevan who insisted that we have it so that no British foreign Secretary would have to walk into any international negotiation naked.

"after all, nuke moscow, and survivors can still repopulate up in the northern tundra;
take out washington, and they can still attempt to rebuild elsewhere on the wild west continent."

pfr just exactly what do you think MAD means? We. us, little Britain has got the nuclear capability to wipe out Russia and China while we could only wipe them out the once Russia could wipe us out about about 100 times - but when all said and done once is enough isn't it?


Raggytash - 19 Jul 16 - 09:42 AM

Raggy the Argentines acted in 1982 for a number of reasons. They totally misread the situation and seriously underestimated the resolve of the British Government and the capabilities of our armed forces.

punkfolkrocker - 19 Jul 16 - 12:24 PM

Start totting up how many British jobs depend on those submarines being built.

Steve Shaw - 19 Jul 16 - 12:43 PM

"You don't really think that the yanks would put up with someone taking over a non-nuclear UK, do you?

In the wake of Suez - the greatest foreign policy mistake the Yanks ever made (Even their President who made the decisions at the time agreed with that) Both Great Britain and France made sure that they would have their own independent nuclear deterrents because Suez showed that the USA could not be trusted. France actually left the NATO military alliance and kicked all US troops out of their NATO bases on French soil.

Oh and please, please, please let just one of you clowns chirp up and say that the UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent, as I will paint the room with you.

"And Freddie And The Dreamers were greater than both."

Only to a wanker like you Shaw.