Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » My special plea to those in the media responsible for commi

124»

Comments

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,823
    Omnium said:

    There are respectable arguments that can be made for the UK doing away with its nuclear deterrent but the fact that it did not deter the Falklands war is not one of them.

    I think it it's actually quite an important point, since by far the least implausible answer to the key question "Who are the British planning to nuke that the Americans won't" is "Argentina".
    Charles De Gaulle answered your question sixty years ago.
    You're probably thinking of a specific quote that I'm missing but the French are in a different situation, since they're specifically trying to reduce the power of the Americans, whereas Trident was a way for the British to give the Americans moral support against Russia (and financial support, by buying their stuff.)
    So french nukes good, brit nukes bad ?
    Yes, and he's just explained why. Moreover, we cannot use our nuclear weapons without codes provided by the US. Meaning we cannot use them in a way that the US would not approve of. Meaning they are not a British asset, they are a US asset on British soil, paid for by Britain.

    Are you sure we need US codes?

    Unsurprisingly, I'm not party to exactly what we need. That said, I believe 100% the words of Crispin Black in the article I posted: http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/45658/nonsense-heart-britains-independent-nuclear-defence that we need *something* in order to operate them, be it guidance systems, or whatever. It's simply logical. Ask yourself, could we nuke America with this American system?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,903
    edited December 2014

    Omnium said:

    There are respectable arguments that can be made for the UK doing away with its nuclear deterrent but the fact that it did not deter the Falklands war is not one of them.

    I think it it's actually quite an important point, since by far the least implausible answer to the key question "Who are the British planning to nuke that the Americans won't" is "Argentina".
    Charles De Gaulle answered your question sixty years ago.
    You're probably thinking of a specific quote that I'm missing but the French are in a different situation, since they're specifically trying to reduce the power of the Americans, whereas Trident was a way for the British to give the Americans moral support against Russia (and financial support, by buying their stuff.)
    So french nukes good, brit nukes bad ?
    Yes, and he's just explained why. Moreover, we cannot use our nuclear weapons without codes provided by the US. Meaning we cannot use them in a way that the US would not approve of. Meaning they are not a British asset, they are a US asset on British soil, paid for by Britain.

    Are you sure we need US codes?

    Unsurprisingly, I'm not party to exactly what we need. That said, I believe 100% the words of Crispin Black in the article I posted: http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/45658/nonsense-heart-britains-independent-nuclear-defence that we need *something* in order to operate them, be it guidance systems, or whatever. It's simply logical. Ask yourself, could we nuke America with this American system?
    Wikipedia seems to suggest there isn't such a system, and that in extremis British commanders have the ability to launch outside of the command chain. I guess we might need codes for targetting thus explaining both quotes.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,823
    Socrates said:



    Except it wasn't to protect US hegemony in the region. Gadaffi had already come in from the cold and was in the US orbit. If the US had backed him to the hilt in suppressing the rebels, he would have been a loyal stalwart. But they didn't because they knew that his suppression of protesters as a terrible crime against human rights. The point they started bombing was when Gadaffi's murderous army was at the gates of Benghazi and threatening mass slaughter.

    You can also look at Syria: Obama did nothing for several years after the protests had started. Even after the mass killings were documented, he did nothing. All he did was to announce a red line as a way to get the hawks off his back. It was only when Assad later crossed that red line that Obama was forced to act or his credibility would go up in smoke. And he then acted in the most minimum way possible: arming and training some of the rebels. If he wanted to take out Assad he could easily have done it by now.

    This isn't a bad suggestion:

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/markets/item/4630-gadhafi-s-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollar

    Future humanitarian disasters are very hard to disprove aren't they?

    As for Syria, here is the US 2010 manual on irregular warfare:

    'The intent of U.S. [Unconventional Warfare] UW efforts is to exploit a hostile power’s political, military, economic, and psychological vulnerabilities by developing and sustaining resistance forces to accomplish U.S. strategic objectives…For the foreseeable future, U.S. forces will predominantly engage in irregular warfare (IW) operations.'

    See also Ukraine, see also Hong Kong, see also Thailand, see also everywhere else that has a falling out with the US.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,823
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    There are respectable arguments that can be made for the UK doing away with its nuclear deterrent but the fact that it did not deter the Falklands war is not one of them.

    I think it it's actually quite an important point, since by far the least implausible answer to the key question "Who are the British planning to nuke that the Americans won't" is "Argentina".
    Charles De Gaulle answered your question sixty years ago.
    You're probably thinking of a specific quote that I'm missing but the French are in a different situation, since they're specifically trying to reduce the power of the Americans, whereas Trident was a way for the British to give the Americans moral support against Russia (and financial support, by buying their stuff.)
    So french nukes good, brit nukes bad ?
    Yes, and he's just explained why. Moreover, we cannot use our nuclear weapons without codes provided by the US. Meaning we cannot use them in a way that the US would not approve of. Meaning they are not a British asset, they are a US asset on British soil, paid for by Britain.

    Are you sure we need US codes?

    Unsurprisingly, I'm not party to exactly what we need. That said, I believe 100% the words of Crispin Black in the article I posted: http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/45658/nonsense-heart-britains-independent-nuclear-defence that we need *something* in order to operate them, be it guidance systems, or whatever. It's simply logical. Ask yourself, could we nuke America with this American system?
    Wikipedia seems to suggest there isn't such a system, and that in extremis British commanders have the ability to launch outside of the command chain. I guess we might need codes for targetting thus explaining both quotes.
    Or perhaps Wikipedia might not be the best source for top secret information on the British Nuclear deterrent? Did you ask yourself that question?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,903

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    There are respectable arguments that can be made for the UK doing away with its nuclear deterrent but the fact that it did not deter the Falklands war is not one of them.

    I think it it's actually quite an important point, since by far the least implausible answer to the key question "Who are the British planning to nuke that the Americans won't" is "Argentina".
    Charles De Gaulle answered your question sixty years ago.
    You're probably thinking of a specific quote that I'm missing but the French are in a different situation, since they're specifically trying to reduce the power of the Americans, whereas Trident was a way for the British to give the Americans moral support against Russia (and financial support, by buying their stuff.)
    So french nukes good, brit nukes bad ?
    Yes, and he's just explained why. Moreover, we cannot use our nuclear weapons without codes provided by the US. Meaning we cannot use them in a way that the US would not approve of. Meaning they are not a British asset, they are a US asset on British soil, paid for by Britain.

    Are you sure we need US codes?

    Unsurprisingly, I'm not party to exactly what we need. That said, I believe 100% the words of Crispin Black in the article I posted: http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/45658/nonsense-heart-britains-independent-nuclear-defence that we need *something* in order to operate them, be it guidance systems, or whatever. It's simply logical. Ask yourself, could we nuke America with this American system?
    Wikipedia seems to suggest there isn't such a system, and that in extremis British commanders have the ability to launch outside of the command chain. I guess we might need codes for targetting thus explaining both quotes.
    Or perhaps Wikipedia might not be the best source for top secret information on the British Nuclear deterrent? Did you ask yourself that question?
    Yes, and that's why I asked you whether you were sure. You said you weren't so I see no reason to disbelieve what's on wikipedia. Doesn't mean I'm asserting it's true though.
  • Indigo said:

    Obviously that's not going to convince many on here, or those who are firmly in the cuts camp - but it seems to have added a bit of purpose and definition where before there was drift and the worry that even if his economics were dodgy Osborne had framed the argument on the economy so successfully that there just wasn't a way to win it in terms understandable to the public.

    Anyone not convinced of at least fairly serious cuts needs to buy a calculator.

    £1,451bn national debt costs us £52bn per year in interest, more than we spend on defense.

    £720bn spending - £612bn income = £108bn deficit

    £108bn costs us an extra £8bn in interest every subsequent year

    Every five years we increase the amount we spend on interest every year by the equivalent of the defense budget, every ten years by the equivalent of the Education budget.

    At the moment interest payments are at a record low, any time the markets find somewhere better to put their money, or start to suspect we might not pay it back (ie if EdM is elected) those rates might go up a lot. If we ended up being in the position Italy or Ireland was, we could be paying double that interest easily.

    Of course virtually no one (except the hard left) denies the need to make pretty large cuts, but the gap between Labour and Tory plans isn't between 'do nothing' and 'cut the deficit' it's about the way it's done and if Osborne's focus, which is solely on public spending is the right one. If we took him at his word in 2010, the current amount of cuts should've been enough to get the public finances almost balanced - due to the 2011-12 slowdown and the lack of wage growth in the recovery since, that hasn't happened. That's opened up a front for Labour to say that you need to be slightly more flexible to ensure that a) We get growth and b) that growth is reflected in pay and productivity. My point was that although that might not be accepted by those who agree with Osborne's analysis, it's a coherent argument that amounts to more than just moaning about the cruelty of cuts, and may even have some appeal when you combine it with the idea that the Osborne approach represents a fundamental change in the nature of the state that worries some people.

    The fact that France, which is in a much worse economic shape than we are can still borrow at a very low rate, and that the sky didn't fall in when it became clear we wouldn't be able to cut the deficit as hoped (and lost that AAA rating) would seem to indicate that providing you have a degree of growth and public spending restraint, and can show that you intend to deal with your deficit, then you won't be abandoned in quite the way people worried.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,823
    Omnium said:



    Yes, and that's why I asked you whether you were sure. You said you weren't so I see no reason to disbelieve what's on wikipedia. Doesn't mean I'm asserting it's true though.

    My second sentence there was asking you about the question regarding our ability to nuke the US -it sounds like it referred to the first sentence, making it more of an attack, which wasn't my intention. Apologies.

    In the absence of definitive information, we must go on the most likely scenario. I find Black a very credible source. To be utterly hypocritical, here's wiki again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Black
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,903

    Omnium said:



    Yes, and that's why I asked you whether you were sure. You said you weren't so I see no reason to disbelieve what's on wikipedia. Doesn't mean I'm asserting it's true though.

    My second sentence there was asking you about the question regarding our ability to nuke the US -it sounds like it referred to the first sentence, making it more of an attack, which wasn't my intention. Apologies.

    In the absence of definitive information, we must go on the most likely scenario. I find Black a very credible source. To be utterly hypocritical, here's wiki again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Black
    Sure. No problem.

    I find it extremely hard to believe that we can't launch independently. It would be daft. There will of course be strong constraints, and some of tose may well involve the US.

    We can be sure that Mr Black isn't currently involved in the actual mechanisms, otherwise he'd not be able to say anything.

    There's some playing down of the importance and efficacy of Trident from the Army and RAF, and some playing up by the Navy too.


  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,823
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:



    Yes, and that's why I asked you whether you were sure. You said you weren't so I see no reason to disbelieve what's on wikipedia. Doesn't mean I'm asserting it's true though.

    My second sentence there was asking you about the question regarding our ability to nuke the US -it sounds like it referred to the first sentence, making it more of an attack, which wasn't my intention. Apologies.

    In the absence of definitive information, we must go on the most likely scenario. I find Black a very credible source. To be utterly hypocritical, here's wiki again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Black
    Sure. No problem.

    I find it extremely hard to believe that we can't launch independently. It would be daft. There will of course be strong constraints, and some of tose may well involve the US.

    We can be sure that Mr Black isn't currently involved in the actual mechanisms, otherwise he'd not be able to say anything.

    There's some playing down of the importance and efficacy of Trident from the Army and RAF, and some playing up by the Navy too.


    We can at least be clear that whether or not we can 'press the button', it is a matter of public record that America's constant cooperation is required in the system's upkeep:

    'Without the cooperation of the US, says the report of the independent all-party Trident Commission, the life expectancy of the UK's nuclear capability could be measured in months.

    The commission's high level panel says it agrees that Britain's deterrent is "a hostage to American goodwill".

    "If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years".

    Not only are Britain's Trident missiles in a common pool shared with the US and maintained in Kings Bay, Georgia, its nuclear warheads are designed and maintained at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston with the help of US know-how, as recently declassified documents on the UK-US Mutual Defence Agreement confirmed.'
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/01/trident-nuclear-weapons-uk

    As for it being daft, it's not just daft, it's completely unhinged. That's why we would be better served by abandoning it and putting the money into conventional forces.


  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    isam said:

    eek said:

    Sean_F said:


    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.


    Registrars perform non-religious ceremonies. As such their religious views are irrelevant to the secular services they perform... And if they believe their religious views are being impacted then yes they should resign...
    In many other countries everyone has a civil marriage, with a religious one to follow. My brother had both when he married a Lutheran German.

    In Britain though religious leaders also act as Registrars, so those who have religious ceremonies go to these Registrars. Civil marriages are therefore predominantly for those who want a non religious ceremony. As such it is a civil function and a civil Registrar has no justification for refusing to marry an eligible couple.

    Issues of ethics and conscience are fairly frequent in my work life. I cannot refuse to treat people because I do not approve of their lifestyle.
    The best way would be to adopt this here. Everyone has a civil ceremony where anyone can become part of a union with anyone in the eyes of the law. Just like a civil partnership or a registry office wedding.

    The marriages in church should be meaningless in terms of the eyes of the law but would still mean as much to truly religious people, much as a baptism or christening does

    The people entitled to these marriages would be decided by individual churches. It may be that they will marry any couple or they may discriminate in any way they wish... Churches that refuse to marry same sex partnerships would be unpopular with many homosexuals, and vice versa perhaps... If they are unpopular on the whole they will evolve or die out. But at least no one is forced to do anything they don't believe in

    Churches could also turn away heterosexual couples if they wished too. For instance those who hadn't been to that church on a regular basis
    Have a Like. This is exactly my position on the subject and you've put it very well.
  • Good afternoon, everyone.

    It seems to have become warm during the night and colder during the day. Most peculiar.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,823
    GeoffM said:

    isam said:

    eek said:

    Sean_F said:


    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.


    Registrars perform non-religious ceremonies. As such their religious views are irrelevant to the secular services they perform... And if they believe their religious views are being impacted then yes they should resign...
    In many other countries everyone has a civil marriage, with a religious one to follow. My brother had both when he married a Lutheran German.

    In Britain though religious leaders also act as Registrars, so those who have religious ceremonies go to these Registrars. Civil marriages are therefore predominantly for those who want a non religious ceremony. As such it is a civil function and a civil Registrar has no justification for refusing to marry an eligible couple.

    Issues of ethics and conscience are fairly frequent in my work life. I cannot refuse to treat people because I do not approve of their lifestyle.
    The best way would be to adopt this here. Everyone has a civil ceremony where anyone can become part of a union with anyone in the eyes of the law. Just like a civil partnership or a registry office wedding.

    The marriages in church should be meaningless in terms of the eyes of the law but would still mean as much to truly religious people, much as a baptism or christening does

    The people entitled to these marriages would be decided by individual churches. It may be that they will marry any couple or they may discriminate in any way they wish... Churches that refuse to marry same sex partnerships would be unpopular with many homosexuals, and vice versa perhaps... If they are unpopular on the whole they will evolve or die out. But at least no one is forced to do anything they don't believe in

    Churches could also turn away heterosexual couples if they wished too. For instance those who hadn't been to that church on a regular basis
    Have a Like. This is exactly my position on the subject and you've put it very well.
    Thirded.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,954
    notme said:

    isam said:

    Tories are taking us back to the 1930's, UKIP want to take us back to the 50's, Labour are stuck in the early 80's, the Lib Dems don't matter.. what a choice!

    Im at a loss to work out how the whole 1930s thing has come about. As i understand it the predictions are for spending to drop down to 35% by 2020? Which is higher than the figure that gordon brown as chancellor had in the year 2000.
    Anybody with half a brain would realise that the UK economy has grown enormously over 80 years, so a comparison of spending in terms of the percentage is meaningless. But then again we see a lot of this sort of thing; confusing debt and deficit, mixing of quarterly and annual figures, thinking that a company pays tax on revenue, ignoring tax allowances when talking about income. I think it's no exaggeration to say that the majority of economic commentary, from both the press and politicians, is factually wrong.
  • Mr. glw, sadly, I must agree entirely.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,823
    edited December 2014
    glw said:

    notme said:

    isam said:

    Tories are taking us back to the 1930's, UKIP want to take us back to the 50's, Labour are stuck in the early 80's, the Lib Dems don't matter.. what a choice!

    Im at a loss to work out how the whole 1930s thing has come about. As i understand it the predictions are for spending to drop down to 35% by 2020? Which is higher than the figure that gordon brown as chancellor had in the year 2000.
    Anybody with half a brain would realise that the UK economy has grown enormously over 80 years, so a comparison of spending in terms of the percentage is meaningless.
    I'll happily put myself in the half a brain category here, but why would a percentage figure be rendered meaningless due to growth?

  • English votes: Miliband refuses to even contemplate a small step towards equality for the English:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11277767/Ed-Miliband-ducks-cross-party-talks-on-English-Home-Rule.html

    We really need a Parliament, though English votes for English laws would be a good first step.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341
    Indigo said:

    The desire for independence must surely have been shattered by the fall in oil price. There seems little rational in a prosperous low tax high welfare balanced economy Scotland.

    I think we risk overplaying the oil price thing a bit. When the oil price was over $100 the total Petroleum Revenue Tax take for the UK from the North Sea was £1.1bn, now its about £400m. So the worst you could say was that the Scottish Government would have lost about £600m, or about £120 per scot, this is in contrast to the Barnett Formula being worth about £1,300 per scot. Its not nothing, but its hardly significant.

    Hmm, that's precisely why the SNP want an oil sovereign wealth fund, to cushion changes - and have wanted it for many years.

    So unionists going on about oil are really saying the union is run by incompetents.

  • glwglw Posts: 9,954

    glw said:

    notme said:

    isam said:

    Tories are taking us back to the 1930's, UKIP want to take us back to the 50's, Labour are stuck in the early 80's, the Lib Dems don't matter.. what a choice!

    Im at a loss to work out how the whole 1930s thing has come about. As i understand it the predictions are for spending to drop down to 35% by 2020? Which is higher than the figure that gordon brown as chancellor had in the year 2000.
    Anybody with half a brain would realise that the UK economy has grown enormously over 80 years, so a comparison of spending in terms of the percentage is meaningless.
    I'll happily put myself in the half a brain category here, but why would a percentage figure be rendered meaningless due to growth?

    Because it's 35% of what? A percentage is only a ratio, unless you believe there is some sort of inherent good or wickedness for a certain level of public spending it doesn't mean anything without some units. i.e. Pounds, and adjusted for inflation etc.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    IMO Labour were never going to win a majority of more than about 10-15 seats, so losing just a few to the SNP would scupper their chances.
  • Mr. Carnyx, indeed, the SNP advocated a very advanced quantum mechanics approach to oil money, using it both for a sovereign wealth fund and for current spending.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341

    Mr. Carnyx, indeed, the SNP advocated a very advanced quantum mechanics approach to oil money, using it both for a sovereign wealth fund and for current spending.

    On the Unionist Media interpretation, not the Copenhagen one!

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    We need Scottish polls for the following:

    Glasgow & Edinburgh (Central belt) to determine the Lab/SNP battle

    Highland/Island & rural seats to check the LD/SNP battle

    Border seats to see if the Tories can take any seats.

    A GLasgow, Edinburgh, some borders poll and highland and island polls would be good.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    We also need England only polling, and some Welsh polls would be a good idea too.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    English votes: Miliband refuses to even contemplate a small step towards equality for the English:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11277767/Ed-Miliband-ducks-cross-party-talks-on-English-Home-Rule.html

    We really need a Parliament, though English votes for English laws would be a good first step.

    Of course not. Miliband has inherited his father's contempt for the English. He doesn't think they are a people, he doesn't think they deserve devolution and he doesn't think they are a nation to be included in his "Senate of the Nations and Regions".
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,823
    glw said:

    glw said:

    notme said:

    isam said:

    Tories are taking us back to the 1930's, UKIP want to take us back to the 50's, Labour are stuck in the early 80's, the Lib Dems don't matter.. what a choice!

    Im at a loss to work out how the whole 1930s thing has come about. As i understand it the predictions are for spending to drop down to 35% by 2020? Which is higher than the figure that gordon brown as chancellor had in the year 2000.
    Anybody with half a brain would realise that the UK economy has grown enormously over 80 years, so a comparison of spending in terms of the percentage is meaningless.
    I'll happily put myself in the half a brain category here, but why would a percentage figure be rendered meaningless due to growth?

    Because it's 35% of what? A percentage is only a ratio, unless you believe there is some sort of inherent good or wickedness for a certain level of public spending it doesn't mean anything without some units. i.e. Pounds, and adjusted for inflation etc.
    Of GDP I assume.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:



    Except it wasn't to protect US hegemony in the region. Gadaffi had already come in from the cold and was in the US orbit. If the US had backed him to the hilt in suppressing the rebels, he would have been a loyal stalwart. But they didn't because they knew that his suppression of protesters as a terrible crime against human rights. The point they started bombing was when Gadaffi's murderous army was at the gates of Benghazi and threatening mass slaughter.

    You can also look at Syria: Obama did nothing for several years after the protests had started. Even after the mass killings were documented, he did nothing. All he did was to announce a red line as a way to get the hawks off his back. It was only when Assad later crossed that red line that Obama was forced to act or his credibility would go up in smoke. And he then acted in the most minimum way possible: arming and training some of the rebels. If he wanted to take out Assad he could easily have done it by now.

    This isn't a bad suggestion:

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/markets/item/4630-gadhafi-s-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollar

    Future humanitarian disasters are very hard to disprove aren't they?

    As for Syria, here is the US 2010 manual on irregular warfare:

    'The intent of U.S. [Unconventional Warfare] UW efforts is to exploit a hostile power’s political, military, economic, and psychological vulnerabilities by developing and sustaining resistance forces to accomplish U.S. strategic objectives…For the foreseeable future, U.S. forces will predominantly engage in irregular warfare (IW) operations.'

    See also Ukraine, see also Hong Kong, see also Thailand, see also everywhere else that has a falling out with the US.
    The fact you have to scramble about for "suggestions" shows how bonkers it is. You basically start with a conclusion - that all American military interventions are part of a grand empire building scheme - and then have to find the logic to make it work. Any logic that suggests otherwise, such as it just happening to happen at the time of an imminent massacre, or the fact it was initially pushed by the French and British, is quickly ignored. Your readiness to ignore evidence is clear by your question, which is a flippant hand-wave of the fact you had a far superior military force on the outside of an opposing city, with that force's leader openly saying that no mercy would be shown.

    Meanwhile you use the thinnest scraps of evidence to claim the US is secretly behind events from Thailand and Hong Kong. It's frankly barmy. Like all conspiracy theorists, you have this black and white world view, and you have to wedge all events and facts into it.
  • New thread.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Pulpstar said:

    We also need England only polling, and some Welsh polls would be a good idea too.

    Feed the beast!

    You've just asked for £50K+ of polling...
  • glwglw Posts: 9,954
    edited December 2014

    Of GDP I assume.

    Even that gets you no closer to the reality unless you give a value for the GDP figures that you are comparing. This idea that there are good or bad values of spending, or taxation for that matter, is daft. What we actually care about is how much we have to spend, or for taxation how much money is coming into the treasury.

    35% of the UK GDP in 2020 will be a vastly larger sum than 35% in the 1930s, unless something truly catastrophic occurs, and as has already been pointed out it won't even be much different from relatively recent spending levels.

    The people who portray future spending plans, whoever wins the general election, as taking us back to something like the Great Depression are scaremongering.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207

    Trident..the weapon we need now more than ever before..

    Who are we planning to nuke?
    And more importantly, who are the British planning to nuke that the Americans won't?
    Are you absolutely certain that America would retaliate on our behalf?

    Personally I am not so sure and the world seems to be becoming an increasingly dangerous place.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,823
    Socrates said:



    The fact you have to scramble about for "suggestions" shows how bonkers it is. You basically start with a conclusion - that all American military interventions are part of a grand empire building scheme - and then have to find the logic to make it work. Any logic that suggests otherwise, such as it just happening to happen at the time of an imminent massacre, or the fact it was initially pushed by the French and British, is quickly ignored. Your readiness to ignore evidence is clear by your question, which is a flippant hand-wave of the fact you had a far superior military force on the outside of an opposing city, with that force's leader openly saying that no mercy would be shown.

    Meanwhile you use the thinnest scraps of evidence to claim the US is secretly behind events from Thailand and Hong Kong. It's frankly barmy. Like all conspiracy theorists, you have this black and white world view, and you have to wedge all events and facts into it.

    The word 'suggestion' was made flippantly. The suggestion itself was not, and I certainly did not have to 'scramble' for anything. I have provided significant evidence in support of the theory that Gadaffi's monetary policies were unacceptable to the US; you on the other hand have provided no evidence of an imminent massacre. With which topsy turvy logic is this grounds for criticism of my posts?

    I use no flimsy evidence to claim the US is behind these uprisings, the evidence is well documented. They are funded and organised by the National Endowment for Democracy, an arm of the State Department. Again, I stress, this has been proven time and again, and in the case of Hong Kong has been openly admitted.
    http://nsnbc.me/2014/09/30/us-openly-approves-hong-kong-chaos-created/

    Now, we might be in favour of the growth of democracy against the Communist regime of China, but we must see that these people's use by the State Department is nothing more or less than sedition against the PRC -a cynical and extremely dangerous strategy.

    I have consistently outlined the principles of indirect warfare, and shown you examples of it at work. You have consistently stuck your fingers in your ears -except when you accuse the Russians of doing it of course.

    You are very fond of documenting the calumnies of the British Empire. Imagine if during its decline, rather than accepting the process, the British had instead operated an 'encirclement' strategy against the growing power of the US? Fomented unrest within its borders, arranged its allies against it, fuelled international disputes with it, used its financial dominance to introduce sanctions against it, and aimed at subjugation and break up? What chaos and misery would have ensued in this futile attempt?
This discussion has been closed.