[QUOTE=IAmIchigo;48775465]Nobody is saying that 9/11 itself was an 'inside job' people are saying that the anti Taliban sentiment to leverage support for wars in the middle wars with countries that had no involvement in the attacks, [B]the Iraq war itself would NOT have happened without the 9/11 attacks.[/B] look at the patriot act which was also brought due to 9/11[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily true. US policy towards Iraq was aimed at removing Saddam and his regime for over a decade before 9/11. It just gave Bush any easy justification and a tool with which to manufacture propaganda.
[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;48776117]I fucking hate the tories and want to 'like' this guy and while this is a sensationalist story he has all but confirmed that he'd get rid of Trident and open our borders letting everyone in. Those 2 points alone makes labor dead to me even if i agree with other policies.[/QUOTE]
Ok at the risk of being that guy who is just defending Corbyn i want to say firstly, maintaining the trident program goes against the UK's commitment to the treaty on the non proliferation of nuclear weapons. Secondly i dont know where you are getting this open borders stuff, he wants to commit to helping more refugees (who are not immigrants and are returned to their native lands if and when the conflict is resolved) he will not "open our borders" and let EVERYONE in he simply wants to help those at risk more
[editline]28th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Explosions;48776148]Not necessarily true. US policy towards Iraq was aimed at removing Saddam and his regime for over a decade before 9/11. It just gave Bush any easy justification and a tool with which to manufacture propaganda.[/QUOTE]
this is what Corbyn says though, he is saying that the speed at which the US pushed the war in iraq after 9/11 is the orchestration, he isn't saying the war would not have happened but it wouldn't have happened as fast and as recklessly as it did after the events of the 9/11 terrorist attack
Alright I'm sure you are all sick of hearing my opinion but please i urge you to read more on what the man actually has said and done in the past, not what the papers are currently saying as the man has been in politics for many years and the truth can be found with very little research as he himself rebukes a lot of the sensationalist stuff(like this). I shall now go back to lurking
no it doesnt go against the treaty and yes he does want to broadly open the borders (though as a classical liberal that is a good thing)
[QUOTE=IAmIchigo;48776181]Ok at the risk of being that guy who is just defending Corbyn i want to say firstly, maintaining the trident program goes against the UK's commitment to the treaty on the non proliferation of nuclear weapons. Secondly i dont know where you are getting this open borders stuff, he wants to commit to helping more refugees (who are not immigrants and are returned to their native lands if and when the conflict is resolved) he will not "open our borders" and let EVERYONE in he simply wants to help those at risk more
[editline]28th September 2015[/editline]
this is what Corbyn says though, he is saying that the speed at which the US pushed the war in iraq after 9/11 is the orchestration, he isn't saying the war would not have happened but it wouldn't have happened as fast and as recklessly as it did after the events of the 9/11 terrorist attack[/QUOTE]
Like I said, no one else will commit, this is not an ideal world, and open boarders of any kind i do not want for a whole magnitude of reasons which this is not the thread for, so i stand by both points.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48776211]no it doesnt go against the treaty and yes he does want to broadly open the borders (though as a classical liberal that is a good thing)[/QUOTE]
(Last post i swear)
"Article VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
this is the treaties exact text to which the UK(us) is a signatory to, also funny enough this is the only binding commitment in the treaty if you read it.
([url]http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPTtext.shtml[/url]) have a read its actually pretty interesting since none of the 5 countries signed to it have made any steps towards it.
the point of the NPF was to stop new countries getting other weapons through existing nuclear powers regardless of what the other clauses say. the 'end of arms race' is a sidenote
[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;48776117]i mean holy fuck how ignorant must you be with all this shit going on in the world right now to even consider that losing our nukes is a good idea. This is not an ideal world, there is no trail to blaze , no precedent to be set, no other country will get rid of their nukes meaning all we do is weaken our position on the world stage, it's fucking expensive and nukes are abhorrent but to me they are a necessary evil.[/QUOTE]
Both Russia and the USA have been reducing their nuclear stockpiles, while only North Korea is in the process of eagerly trying to expand theirs.
Trident is a gigantic waste of money, doesn't serve the national interest whatsover, is of no military value, and is potentially dangerous.
That's also not to mention that launching any number of nuclear bombs means the complete annihilation of civilization, so why bother having a weapon you can't use?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48776260]Both Russia and the USA have been reducing their nuclear stockpiles, while only North Korea is in the process of eagerly trying to expand theirs.
Trident is a gigantic waste of money, doesn't serve the national interest whatsover, is of no military value, and is potentially dangerous.
That's also not to mention that launching any number of nuclear bombs means the complete annihilation of civilization, so why bother having a weapon you can't use?[/QUOTE]
No one else will get rid of their nukes, sure they get rid of some but they'll always make sure they have enough to get the job done. That job is MAD. It is completely and utterly pathetic, shit and everything else, but it's here to stay you're either part of it or you're not, I'd rather be in the part of it camp.
[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;48776327]No one else will get rid of their nukes, sure they get rid of some but they'll always make sure they have enough to get the job done. That job is MAD. It is completely and utterly pathetic, shit and everything else, but it's here to stay you're either part of it or you're not, I'd rather be in the part of it camp.[/QUOTE]
Surely it doesn't matter if you're part of it or not, we all die anyway regardless
[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;48776327]No one else will get rid of their nukes, sure they get rid of some but they'll always make sure they have enough to get the job done. That job is MAD. It is completely and utterly pathetic, shit and everything else, but it's here to stay you're either part of it or you're not, I'd rather be in the part of it camp.[/QUOTE]
Except you've got two scenarios were a nuclear war to break out.
If a nuclear war breaks out and you have bombs, civilization is destroyed.
If a nuclear war breaks out and you don't have nuclear bombs, civilization is destroyed.
I don't see what the advantage of the bomb is.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;48776336]Surely it doesn't matter if you're part of it or not, we all die anyway regardless[/QUOTE]
But that's the point of MAD, deturant and all that. While we have nukes no one will nuke us, no one will invade us, that's the exact same line of thought of every country with nukes, it's why North Korea wants nukes, it's why iran is angling for them, we won't nuke you if you don't give us a reason too. Does it work? well it's worked this far along so I'm disinclined to test that theory (i appreciate there's alot of contributing factors as to why the cold war never went hot but like i said i don't want to test theory as to why that was).
This is getting away from the point though and it'll go on for ages, i don't want trident removed and i don't want open borders, Corybn wants these things and for me that makes him unelectable and that really pisses me off.
[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;48776383]But that's the point of MAD, deturant and all that. While we have nukes no one will nuke us, no one will invade us, that's the exact same line of thought of every country with nukes, it's why North Korea wants nukes, it's why iran is angling for them, you won't nuke you if you don't give us a reason too. Does it work? well it's worked this far along so I'm disinclined to test that theory (i appreciate there's alot of contributing factors as to why the cold war never went hot but like i said i don't want to test theory as to why that was).
This is getting away from the point though and it'll go on for ages, i don't want trident removed and i don't want open borders, Corybn wants these things and for me that makes him unelectable and that really pisses me off.[/QUOTE]
There are only 9 countries with nuclear weapons and a couple extra holding some for the USA, why do we need to be one of them?
[QUOTE=OvB;48775173]Old Corbyn nwo quote[/QUOTE]
That quote is from 1991, back when the new world order meant something very different to what is does now. He was referring to the powerful, largely western political and economic union.
As for bush using 9/11 to leverage support for various Middle eastern wars including the afghan regime change, that's just accepted historical fact. That's just how propaganda works.
Corbyns statement was completely non controversial here
[editline]28th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;48775596]According to just about every poll so far, he has a fucking -3 approval rating, which is worse than what Michael Foot had when he first became leader.
Corbyn just has a loud cult following that makes him seem more popular than he really is.[/QUOTE]
I feel like his poor approval ratings are down to the nonsense in the press, like that in the OP, and its depressing. Hopefully he can turn it round over the next five years as people hear his policies directly from him, rather than taken out of context by the press (run by the super rich who will certainly not benefit from his policies and so have a vested interest in character assassination, being in the only g7 country where inequality had increased since 2000)
[editline]28th September 2015[/editline]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79nbLSy6Lus[/media]
Watch this interview if you want to know what he's really about.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48776372]Except you've got two scenarios were a nuclear war to break out.
If a nuclear war breaks out and you have bombs, civilization is destroyed.
If a nuclear war breaks out and you don't have nuclear bombs, civilization is destroyed.
I don't see what the advantage of the bomb is.[/QUOTE]
That's simply wrong. It cashes out the argument in an asinine way.
It's
[quote]
If a nuclear war breaks out and both sides have nuclear weapons, both civilizations are destroyed.
If a [B]war[/B] breaks out and one side has nuclear weapons and the other [B]does not,[/B] one civilization has the significantly more potential to destroy the other.
If a war breaks out and neither side has nuclear weapons, they may still destroy eachother's civilization but with significantly reduced potential.
[/quote]
The advantage of the bomb is that anyone [I]without[/I] one cannot attack you without risking ultimate destruction. A destruction so devastating that it ruins entire generations.
If you have the bomb and the other person also does, neither of you cannot attack without risking [I]total[/I] destruction such that the war is virtually pointless. Peace follows.
While many have talked about the inefficacy of the Cold War, that is cost untold amounts of money and human life, and set up the current world situation via long paths of short-term decision making, it stands to be pointed out that many large scale conflicts simply did not happen because of the risk of a moot war.
However, speaking directly to Britain, their nuclear arsenal is so small as to be irrelevant. That's simply the fact of the matter. It would be ideal if [I]no[/I] nation wielded nuclear weapons, but in the grim reality that some do, then there is no point in their proliferation. The more nations who deliberate about the act of nuclear war, the higher the risk of nuclear war. Wielding a minimal number of nuclear weapons for the simple fact of [I]pride[/I] with a flimsy justification is absurd since the risk is societal annihilation.
And let's face it. A nuclear strike on western Europe would be met in kind by the U.S., so first-order deterrence, that is, by European parties, only makes sense in a sort of jingoistic "we can stand on our own legs!" way. Or an avante-garde conspiracy theorist who believes the U.S. is poised to alpha strike Europe at any moment.
Britain wouldn't be a logical nuclear target anymore because it's not the 1980s. There's little reason for them to retain nuclear weapons.
[editline]28th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;48776894][b]And let's face it. A nuclear strike on western Europe would be met in kind by the U.S.[/b], so first-order deterrence, that is, by European parties, only makes sense in a sort of jingoistic "we can stand on our own legs!" way. Or an avante-garde conspiracy theorist who believes the U.S. is poised to alpha strike Europe at any moment.[/QUOTE]
Not sure why you'd say this.
[QUOTE=Explosions;48777222]
Not sure why you'd say this.[/QUOTE]
I'm not entirely convinced by it either but it's better for everyone if the possibility is there. Just the idea that the US might retaliate on our behalf is enough to make someone think twice about dropping a nuke on us, even if there is also a chance that they might not.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;48776894]And let's face it. A nuclear strike on western Europe would be met in kind by the U.S., so first-order deterrence, that is, by European parties, only makes sense in a sort of jingoistic "we can stand on our own legs!" way. Or an avante-garde conspiracy theorist who believes the U.S. is poised to alpha strike Europe at any moment.[/QUOTE]
Given the choice between maintaining our own nuclear deterrent and giving them up on the off-chance the US might be willing to sacrifice a huge portion of its civilians and infrastructure merely to avenge our own... I think the former is the better choice. You weren't willing to do it during the Suez Crisis and you won't be willing to do it now or in fifty years time. Quite rightly too.
Everyone in this thread has a fundamental misunderstanding of MAD. The argument that nuclear weapons are useless because they'll never be used is missing the point entirely. Nuclear weapons at the point where they're fired have already failed, their role in today's world has evolved into one of, by existence, preventing other nuclear weapons from being fired at that country in the first place. No nuclear power will realistically believe the US will fire nuclear weapons on our behalf and as such our nuclear deterrent isn't credible. It's entirely meaningless even if the US actually [i]does[/i] fire a second strike against a nation that launches a first strike against the UK because by that point it's too late and our cost-saving 'deterrent' has failed to safeguard our country's security.
[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;48777701]Given the choice between maintaining our own nuclear deterrent and giving them up on the off-chance the US might be willing to sacrifice a huge portion of its civilians and infrastructure merely to avenge our own... I think the former is the better choice. You weren't willing to do it during the Suez Crisis and you won't be willing to do it now or in fifty years time. Quite rightly too.
Everyone in this thread has a fundamental misunderstanding of MAD. The argument that nuclear weapons are useless because they'll never be used is missing the point entirely. Nuclear weapons at the point where they're fired have already failed, their role in today's world has evolved into one of, by existence, preventing other nuclear weapons from being fired at that country in the first place. No nuclear power will realistically believe the US will fire nuclear weapons on our behalf and as such our nuclear deterrent isn't credible. It's entirely meaningless even if the US actually [i]does[/i] fire a second strike against a nation that launches a first strike against the UK because by that point it's too late and our cost-saving 'deterrent' has failed to safeguard our country's security.[/QUOTE]
No one would dare launch nukes at us even if we didn't have nuclear weapons because despite what you say, it is actually very likely that the US would retaliate. It's why Nuclear weapons have never been used since WW2. We don't actually need our own, we're better off putting the money into conventional forces which are far more useful.
You want to gamble the future security of the country on the willingness of the then-US president to throw his nation's cities and people to the wind to merely [i]avenge[/i] us? What if successive presidents cancel the treaty? What if political relations with the US take a turn for the worse in 2040? And most importantly: What if the situation were reversed? Would you be willing to die in order to destroy the cities and murder tens of millions of innocent civilians of the country who launched a nuclear strike against a nation that wasn't your own? Think about it.
The point of a nuclear deterrent isn't vengeance, by that point it's inherently failed and is useless to the point where it might as well not even be used. The point of a nuclear deterrent is to put no doubt in a hypothetical nuclear enemy's mind as to the [i]capability[/i] to retaliate absolutely. A deterrence subject to political manipulation and the will power and selflessness of an otherwise unaffected third party doesn't achieve that.
I'm also sorry to say that you're naive if you think money saved from scrapping Trident will be put back into conventional forces.
This is all pretty disgusting though, support Corbyn or not the media attacking him relentlessly serves as a reminder of why our country needs guys like him.
[editline]28th September 2015[/editline]
Hell, this is bigger than Corbyn: left wing economics are based of Keynesian theories and yet people still insist we're the heart and the Tories are the brains.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;48775663]Saying approval ratings mean nothing is just naive, when a leader has a -3 approval rating something horribly wrong.[/QUOTE]
How the fuck does he have a worse approval rating than Congress?
Wow, this is probably old news to British people, but I never knew The Telegraph was this bad. It's really sad that this kind of personal attack spinning is printed on a medium that people put so much trust in. They don't even bother guarding themselves by putting it in an "Opinion" section, they put it in "News"!
Apropos the Trident program as a deterrent - who would want to nuke the UK? The most likely scenario is probably a terrorist attack by a non-state actor, in which case Trident actually just aggravates the risk by having more weapons-grade nuclear material in circulation. State actors have no reason to bomb the UK, and even if they did, only major actors like the US, France, Russia and China have the capability to deliver a weapon to the UK by air (including marine launches), and if any of them are launching nukes, then we're at the point of global war. None of them can act without immediately involving everyone else. The number of nuclear warheads world-wide is actively being reduced despite efforts by some countries to develop them, because major actors know that the danger is greater by keeping them.
The UK could lead by example by being one of the first major nuclear powers to disarm completely. Alternatively, while I think it's a terrible use of resources, it could retire the out-dated Trident program until a suitable replacement can be developed. Also, nuclear deterrence, as impractical and worthless as it is in the modern age, can still be provided by entering a NATO nuclear sharing agreement with the US like a number of other European countries have.
Who let this fool become leader
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48775286]Well, no. There wasn't really any involvement of big money, because even if we worked off the logic that it was done for the self-interest of powerful moneyed interests, then they did an exceptionally bad job at advancing and preserving their interests.
No matter how narrowly or widely you define a group and their interests, the wars in the region over the past twenty years haven't made any sense for either the big corporations or the national interest.[/QUOTE]
False. Afghanistan is certainly another deal entirely but the Iraq War was rubber stamped via:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4sjq9pzFa8[/media]
The documents used in setting up this report were obtained via the FoI act and are vetted and authentic. Corporations played an absolutely crucial role in formulating the attack and occupation of Iraq.
[QUOTE=Inspector N;48778425]Who let this fool become leader[/QUOTE]
Did you even read the article? Or the thread? Or anything?
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;48778591]Did you even read the article? Or the thread? Or anything?[/QUOTE]
He read the title and thats about it.
[QUOTE=jA_cOp;48778358]Wow, this is probably old news to British people, but I never knew The Telegraph was this bad. It's really sad that this kind of personal attack spinning is printed on a medium that people put so much trust in. They don't even bother guarding themselves by putting it in an "Opinion" section, they put it in "News"!
Apropos the Trident program as a deterrent - who would want to nuke the UK? The most likely scenario is probably a terrorist attack by a non-state actor, in which case Trident actually just aggravates the risk by having more weapons-grade nuclear material in circulation. State actors have no reason to bomb the UK, and even if they did, only major actors like the US, France, Russia and China have the capability to deliver a weapon to the UK by air (including marine launches), and if any of them are launching nukes, then we're at the point of global war. None of them can act without immediately involving everyone else. The number of nuclear warheads world-wide is actively being reduced despite efforts by some countries to develop them, because major actors know that the danger is greater by keeping them.
The UK could lead by example by being one of the first major nuclear powers to disarm completely. Alternatively, while I think it's a terrible use of resources, it could retire the out-dated Trident program until a suitable replacement can be developed. Also, nuclear deterrence, as impractical and worthless as it is in the modern age, can still be provided by entering a NATO nuclear sharing agreement with the US like a number of other European countries have.[/QUOTE]
It's not just a nuclear deterrent you know, it's a conventional warfare deterrent as well. You do not get invaded if you have quality nuclear weapons.
[QUOTE=Shadow801;48778910]It's not just a nuclear deterrent you know, it's a conventional warfare deterrent as well. You do not get invaded if you have quality nuclear weapons.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, Britain is widely known for being at risk of a land invasion.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;48776894]The advantage of the bomb is that anyone [I]without[/I] one cannot attack you without risking ultimate destruction.[/quote]
Is there an example of a country that, having gone to war with us, could be nuked?
Is there even a country which poses a direct major threat to us?
[quote]If you have the bomb and the other person also does, neither of you cannot attack without risking [I]total[/I] destruction such that the war is virtually pointless. Peace follows.[/quote]
Nuclear bombs don't create peace, international treaties do. There have been many times we've gotten close to nuclear war due to incompetence and paranoia on both sides.
[quote]However, speaking directly to Britain, their nuclear arsenal is so small as to be irrelevant. That's simply the fact of the matter. It would be ideal if [I]no[/I] nation wielded nuclear weapons, but in the grim reality that some do, then there is no point in their proliferation. The more nations who deliberate about the act of nuclear war, the higher the risk of nuclear war. Wielding a minimal number of nuclear weapons for the simple fact of [I]pride[/I] with a flimsy justification is absurd since the risk is societal annihilation.[/QUOTE]
I'd get rid of them entirely.
There are a handful of states operating nuclear bombs. The fact of the matter is that they are expensive and useless weapons kept maintained for prestige rather than any real military use.
In America and Russia, their nuclear stockpiles have shrunken massively, are decades old, are handled by inept and bored technicians, and many of them aren't ready for war. If the President today ordered a nuclear strike on Russia half of the ICBMS wouldn't even get out of the ground.
[QUOTE=Shadow801;48778910]It's not just a nuclear deterrent you know, it's a conventional warfare deterrent as well. You do not get invaded if you have quality nuclear weapons.[/QUOTE]
Lmao whos going to invade us?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
