General Election June 8th

Who will you vote for at the General Election?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 189 28.8%

  • Labour

    Votes: 366 55.8%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 37 5.6%

  • SNP

    Votes: 8 1.2%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 23 3.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 33 5.0%
  • Total voters
    656
Status
Not open for further replies.
andyhinch said:
You quoted him as saying he wouldn't use them and i asked you to say when, don't you rember ?
Click to expand...

I don't remember my exact quote but the point that if we have a nuclear deterrent the pm of the day should say they would be prepared to use them has been covered many times over the last few pages alone. Like I said I would say I would use them but I probably wouldn't.

As you like poker analogies it's a very expensive game if bluff needed because the human race are cunts.

Don't have them or play the game are the only options really.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
Like a pacifist joining the Army; "Would you unflinchingly use that weapon to defend others, even if it meant taking another person's life, with the aim of making others defer from the action they were going to take initially?"
"No."
"Then how can we expect you to defend the nation?"
Click to expand...
v1.bjsxMTU3MTMxO2o7MTczODM7MTIwMDs2MDA7NDI4
 
Tanzeylee said:
It was all a bit meh for both of em
Click to expand...
Ah right. I like yer man Corbyn, as he comes across quite well on debates, but anyone who would have that fucking loathsome cow Abbott in their cabinet needs looking at.
 
Machiavelli said:
v1.bjsxMTU3MTMxO2o7MTczODM7MTIwMDs2MDA7NDI4
Click to expand...
Even medics have to have fired a weapon in training and been shown to be willing to take a life. Also, note that the medic heals those already wounded by others actions. They haven't prevented the wound from occuring by their responsiblity to primarily heal others. Prevention is better than cure. That's the deterrant. Diplomacy, like what Corbyn adovcates in such a scenario, is merely the act of trying to prevent escalation, not helped when your opponent knows they will endure no retribution for their actions.
 
hilts said:
I don't remember my exact quote but the point that if we have a nuclear deterrent the pm of the day should say they would be prepared to use them has been covered many times over the last few pages alone. Like I said I would say I would use them but I probably wouldn't.

As you like poker analogies it's a very expensive game if bluff needed because the human race are cunts.

Don't have them or play the game are the only options really.
Click to expand...
So if I've got a gun pointing at your head and tell you I'm not going to use it so why don't you pick yours up would you believe me ? Anyway I'm hardly going to vote for him, I helped design the fucking things.
PS there are some protocols in place that can take it out of the PM's hands if that puts your mind at rest, having said that with someone as stupid as me being one of the principle designers they probably won't get off the ground, sleep well :-)
 
Last edited:
Whilst I'm amazed the discussion has opened up beyond the lens of personal taxation I'm more amazed that the next topic inline was nuclear war. Was that really the next most pressing issue? Do you know what is going to have more of an impact from a military standpoint on your day to day lives? The governments attitude and expertise in encryption and the internet in general. Anyone catch what happened to the NHS recently? Fancy that happening to your bank? No money for you to withdraw? How about hitting your utility companies? No water or electricity? You really think the next war is going to be started with a nuke?
 
roj said:
Arguing about nuclear defence just before an election is a waste of time.
Click to expand...
That's because we're not.

It's about whether Corbyn is capable of making a decision that would affect everyone given his opposition to them in the past.

Bit of an odd analogy here;

"Cars pollute the planet, they should be destroyed!"
*years later, applies for manager of a Car Manufacturing plant* (I did say it was odd)
"If you got the job, would you strive to see the plant produce 1,000 cars a year?"
"Let me be clear when I say that cars are, in some people's minds, a necessity and that...."
"Just answer the question."

You get the point? He was strongly against them, publicly so, yet could now be in a position where he is EXPECTED to support their continued existance, contribute to their maintenance and consider their usage. Can we trust him to do that? That's the question, so far, he's dodging it.
 
Machiavelli said:
For the third time - Team America has got our back. You're carrying on as if we're on our own. It's getting ridiculous now.
Click to expand...
America has nothing to do with our own stance of deterrance, especially one our own Prime Minister is expected to take.

You're right, it is getting ridiculous that people keep thinking this is about nuclear war when it isn't.
 
hilts said:
I don't remember my exact quote but the point that if we have a nuclear deterrent the pm of the day should say they would be prepared to use them has been covered many times over the last few pages alone. Like I said I would say I would use them but I probably wouldn't.

As you like poker analogies it's a very expensive game if bluff needed because the human race are cunts.

Don't have them or play the game are the only options really.
Click to expand...
So a politician should be dishonest with himself or the voters. I thought I had seen it all on blue moon.
 
Machiavelli said:
So
nuclear - not arsed
IRA - not arsed
Anything else I'm missing?
Click to expand...

The problem is that these arguments are 20th century thinking in a 21st century world.

When talking about nukes you may as well be talking about our supply of sloops and cannons
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top