Jump to content

Jeremy Corbyn elected as Leader of the Labour Party


Recommended Posts

Do you really think there is a prime minister only missile launch button?  40, 000 have joined the Labour party since he was elected, many more love his honest approach to politics.  The right wing media are desperate to put him down as they are terrified he may bring their whole sphere of influence crashing down.  Murdoch,  tory puppet master, is being especially vitriolic in his attacks.  Even Eamonn Holmes made a complete tit of himself yesterday, dumbing down the political questions to compare it to football for gods sake. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Unfortunately imo, he's just spoken to a luvvie rally, in favour of taking in more migrants; so I think we can forget any chance of him entering 10 Downing St now !

not sure to be honest :D    

Do any members of the royal family sing it?

Do you really think there is a prime minister only missile launch button?  40, 000 have joined the Labour party since he was elected, many more love his honest approach to politics.  The right wing media are desperate to put him down as they are terrified he may bring their whole sphere of influence crashing down.  Murdoch,  tory puppet master, is being especially vitriolic in his attacks.  Even Eamonn Holmes made a complete tit of himself yesterday, dumbing down the political questions to compare it to football for gods sake. 

 

Who knows if there is a Prime Minister only button? I don't, you don't, nobody does. However the impression we are given is that the Prime Minister IS the one who would press the magical button (Just as the President would do in America) and Corbyn has said outright that he would not do it.

 

As for the Tory press angle, why do all the leftys always have to throw that one in the mix? By doing so they are treating anyone who does not think that Corbyn and his ban the bomb nutters are totally incapable of forming their own decisions without the aid of Murdoch and his ilk. Where do all the leftys get their "Corbyn is a nice man" news from? How do they know that "most" people don't get their news from the same place as them but still manage to form the view that Corbyn is not for them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only compare the position of the Labour Party today to that of a car which has been abandoned in a field, then found by Corbyns gang who are having the time of their lives razzing it around and around.

Like all back seat drivers they're not any good at it, but they'll have enormous fun with it anyway until some political grown ups come along and take it off them, though there won't be much left of it by then, I'm afraid... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are we going to nuke?

 

That depends on who manages to get hold of a nuclear bomb with an axe to grind against the west. We are also bound to use our nuclear deterrent in defense of our allies who don't have nukes. Personally I hope we never do have to use them but I would rather we had someone who would rather than Compo Corbyn who most definately wouldn't. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the agenda of the unions in the election of JC was to try & get back to some position of power in the event of a Labour victory at the next election.I do think the unions will find they have backed the wrong horse though & should have gone for a more moderate bed fellow.

Although JC seems a likeable & sincere type of bloke, the non nuclear issue is naive to say the least  & the modern world dictates that a nuclear deterrent is a favourable option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every British nuclear armed submarine has a locked safe containing an identical sealed letter from the serving British PM, they contain instructions to the boats commander on what to do if the government (and presumably the rest of us) has been wiped out in a nuclear strike on the UK, they are called the 'Letters of Last Resort'.

I shudder to think what Corbyns letters would look like, they'd probably have a doodle of a flower on the envelope.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I shudder to think what Corbyns letters would look like, they'd probably have a doodle of a flower on the envelope.

 

And a big piece of folded white paper to open out and hang from the coning tower :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What real relevance has the nuclear bomb got in todays world? 

It's getting to be about as outdated as a catapult.

What leader, however aggressive would 'press the button' and cause that kind of destruction,  (which would have long term global consequences and so negatively affect them also) when a torpedo carrying virus/bacteria could wipe out a population and leave all their assets and land intact for taking later?

I suspect the only reason the Conservatives want to keep the Trident project is because it's a way of lining their own pockets.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

What real relevance has the nuclear bomb got in todays world? 

It's getting to be about as outdated as a catapult.

What leader, however aggressive would 'press the button' and cause that kind of destruction,  (which would have long term global consequences and so negatively affect them also) when a torpedo carrying virus/bacteria could wipe out a population and leave all their assets and land intact for taking later?

I suspect the only reason the Conservatives want to keep the Trident project is because it's a way of lining their own pockets.    

 

A lot of Labour MP's want to keep it

 

A lot of union leaders want to keep it

 

all for different reasons, but its hardly just the tories

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many nukes do we need? Haven't we already got enough to blow humanity to oblivion? Wouldn't the hundred billion or so be better spent stopping wars or on the NHS for a start? The kind of enemy we are dealing with now has no fear of nuclear deterrents, they are useless against them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I think we actually agree on something ! The reality of our nuclear deterent was created to provide us with a seat, as a "super-power" at the UN security council; thus allowing us to punch politically above our weight. It's use would be integrated within NATO and ultimately controlled by the US, so hardly "independent". It's effect; as Sha said, there are much more devastating and effective weapons in the NCB armoury, principally biological agents; which allow a pre-emptive attack, without an immediate retalitation; and the destruction of populations without damage to the built infrastructure. The attraction of such weapons to terrorists, would be that they don't require complex or expensive delivery systems, just enough infected Jihadists to reach their various targets. So, if, on balance, you ask me whether it's worth £billions to re-new Trident, I would suggest it isn't; however, you only need to look at the Unions for the real motivation within Labour, it's all about "jobs"; as indeed is the selling of arms to States like Saudi Arabia etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While there is money to be made from arms production war will never be far away & what better way of disposing of older armaments than letting them fall into the hands of terrorist groups to keep the cycle of conflict going.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Iran are also looking to get involved on the side of the Russians. It is good that Russia has taken the initiative,but if their objective is the salvation of Assad with consequences of attacking US backed opposition as well as IS then we could potentially finish up with another East West stand off & an escalation of hostilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but we're back to a debate about the lesser of evils. Tyrants or terrorists?  I don't think we enjoy the luxury of ascribing good and evil at this stage between the two; as one (ISIL) are totally outside any pretence of a civilized entity and must represent the common enemy to be disposed of first. It then becomes a question of diplomacy between the US and Russia, and possibly other M/East players. Alas, the debate is overridden by the super-power politics of Russia v USA; Russia wants a M/East ally with access to Med ports; while the US wants to keep Russia out. As we've said, the genie was allowed out of the bottle when Bush and Bliar took out Saddam in Iraq, and began the fall of the Dictators, in the naïve belief that the "Arab Spring" would bring western style Liberal Democracies, when it fact it released a Medieval form of Islamic fundamentalism, far worse than any Dictatorship, bringing an instability that is now affecting us all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, yes Baz, you are right I was over generalising when I said it was the Conservatives, there are probably also members of other parties who would stand to profit from Trident.

Though I think it would be mainly Conservatives (with 'big business' interests) this would also include Labour's Blairites (who are really Conservatives) and members of other parties too who have relevant links.

As PJ has pointed it is their paymasters who get the lion's share, but the politicians will no doubt be getting a very generous cut.  

 

I agree with PJ (shock! horror! did I really say that?) that rather than funding Trident the money could be better spent on such as the NHS.

 

As Ob's has pointed out even if we do have nuclear weapons whether and when they would be used would ultimately be decided by those who control the US. So Trident would be for their benefit and not ours.

Imagine if it did come to button pressing time, the US orders us to nuke Russia (or whoever) then they would immediately nuke us back. We'd be nuked but would any bombs reach the US?

 

I think it's about time we stopped playing puppet (and muppet) for the US who don't really give a jot about us!

I think we are living in very evil times.

The 'paymasters' who 'own' the US are after world dominion and don't give a toss how many millions will be killed to achieve their aim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I often wonder if the rest of Europe, bar the UK and France, ever have this debate; but are happy to leave the issue to the two main super-powers, whilst getting on with spending their money on improving the lives of their citizens?  The reality is, that with or without "the bomb" we would be evaporated; and our puny contribution to such an exchange would merely represent overkill. As I've said; a much more dangerous scenario, would be the possession of WMDs by the likes of ISIL, and evidence from captured hard drives, suggests that they are looking at this possibly, especially biological warfare.  :cry:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes ,the real threat is these weapons falling into terrorist hands or rogue states. At least with the US & Russia they are "adult" enough to recognise the consequences of nuclear war but need the deterrent capability of it. As has been pointed out there are much more subtle weapons of death that don't obliterate the infrastructure of target areas & it is probably these that pose the biggest threat . Ultimately though, boots on the ground will always be needed so a good ,strong ,well trained army is essential.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Davy, can you name any country, other than one of your adult nations which has dropped a nuke on an enemy?

 

Also when did Britain acquire this good strong well trained army? We are almost insignificant

Link to post
Share on other sites

We do seem to keep depleting the armed forces & i suppose it could be argued the British Army was at its strongest when defeating hordes of fuzzywuzzys & other assorted indigenous & ill equipped people in the conquest of the Empire.

As for the nukes though, i believe they still have a deterrent power & have taught the world lots about the development of nuclear power which will be needed in years to come.The fear of the bomb still makes conventional warfare a necessity & it is wrong that successive governments are depleting our regular forces in favour of Territorials & reservists. Defence of the realm should not be negotiable & should not be left in the hands of a third party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In any nuclear exchange, those areas containing ICBMs or their control and command systems, will be the most likely targets; so to have a nuclear capability makes us a more than likely target. As for getting our own back on the Russians or Chinese; the Yanks would be doing that for us, so why add our puny little, but expensive stockpile, to the general conflagration? As Einstein said " WW4 will be fought with bows and arrows", assuming anyone's still left.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...