+ Post New Thread
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 131
General Chat Thread, Depressed if we have a Tory goverment. in General; *delete me*...
  1. #61
    kevbaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Plymouth
    Posts
    855
    Thank Post
    129
    Thanked 69 Times in 47 Posts
    Rep Power
    43
    *delete me*

  2. #62

    broc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,046
    Thank Post
    104
    Thanked 401 Times in 265 Posts
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by torledo View Post
    i hate it when people use the 'would it have been any different ?' argument. IT's pure conjecture, the fact is only one party did it for real. Are we supposed to excuse the record of the incumbent govt. because, well, we're pretty sure it would have ended up the same way whoever was in power....hypothetically.

    it's nonsense. just as it's nonsense that some people point to very high interest rates of the 80's/90's.....when it's extremely unlikely to reoccur today because of the way the monetary system and CB operations work these days and because of a political switch from monetarism to inflation targetting which happened BEFORE 1997 and new labour .....nothing to do with the color of the rosette in power.

    then again the some of the people who won't vote for the tories because of the high rates of the ERM era, probably wanted us to join the euro until recently. madness.
    I agree with you; however it's a shame that opposition politicians (of all persuasions) spend so much time blaming the Govt in power for all the problems facing the country, with short memories when it comes to remembering how things didn't always work for them the last time they were in power.....
    Last edited by broc; 5th May 2010 at 02:18 PM.

  3. #63

    broc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,046
    Thank Post
    104
    Thanked 401 Times in 265 Posts
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by torledo View Post
    but the deficit reduction strategy is a [national] libdem goal. if that's more conservative/right-of-center than what labour are proposing, then it's not something specific to local libdems is it ?
    Haven't the LibDems at least said they will hold off the cuts (like Labour) until the economy can take it?

  4. #64

    teejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,170
    Thank Post
    284
    Thanked 771 Times in 581 Posts
    Rep Power
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    Possibly, but like a good politico - you didn't actually answer the question Under what circumstances would you put your finger on the big red button and say to your self 'you know what, this is the right thing to do'.

    Because of their very nature most civilised nations are pretty much agreed that there is no plausable circumstance where such mass genocide can be considered in any way the moral thing to do. It's only a detterrent so long as your enemys actually believe you would possibly uses. Really, I don't think we ever would. So it'd not a detterrent, just a huge waste of tax payers money.
    Quite simply, if someone attacks us with nuclear weapons. If you think that threat isn't a future possibility, then I would strongly disagree with you as I beleive there is a bigger possibility of this happening in the future than in the cold war.

  5. #65
    maark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    leicester
    Posts
    470
    Thank Post
    90
    Thanked 73 Times in 65 Posts
    Rep Power
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by teejay View Post
    The problem in Afghanistan is that our government along with our allies completely underestimated the threat posed by the Taliban. If they'd taken it seriously and put in the resources, equipment and troop numbers plus didn't get distracted by invading Iraq then the Afghan problem would've been solved years ago.
    I don't think so - from wikipedia:
    Between December 25, 1979 and February 15, 1989, a total of 620,000 soldiers served with the forces in Afghanistan (though there were only 80,000-104,000 serving at one time): 525,000 in the Army, 90,000 with border troops and other KGB sub-units, 5,000 in independent formations of MVD Internal Troops, and police forces. A further 21,000 personnel were with the Soviet troop contingent over the same period doing various white collar and blue collar jobs.

    The total irrecoverable personnel losses of the Soviet Armed Forces, frontier, and internal security troops came to 14,453

  6. #66

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,617
    Thank Post
    514
    Thanked 2,442 Times in 1,890 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by teejay View Post
    Quite simply, if someone attacks us with nuclear weapons. If you think that threat isn't a future possibility, then I would strongly disagree with you as I beleive there is a bigger possibility of this happening in the future than in the cold war.
    No country would use nukes against the UK - the only groups that would use them would be terrorists, and rogue states. Both of which can be dealt with via non-nuclear deterrent means (better anti-terrorism training, equipment etc..., and better missile defence systems, not to mention the fact that we have the capability to sit a non-nuclear sub off the coast of a country and take out dozens of sites within minutes via standard heavy explosive weapons. Why do we need nukes again?

  7. 2 Thanks to localzuk:

    CHR1S (5th May 2010), tmcd35 (5th May 2010)

  8. #67

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,154
    Thank Post
    114
    Thanked 527 Times in 450 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by salan View Post
    They all say they will do this that and the other and then nothing.
    This just isn't true!

    It may be that they don't do what you want but to suggest that governments "do nothing" suggests you've take no notice of what's happened in the country during your entire life!

    I'll leave others to list things done by this government (good and bad) or by the last government (good and bad) but governments pretty much never "do nothing"!

  9. #68

    Dos_Box's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    9,831
    Thank Post
    581
    Thanked 2,162 Times in 987 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23
    Rep Power
    627
    Also we get a seat at the 'big table' at the UN.

  10. #69

    teejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,170
    Thank Post
    284
    Thanked 771 Times in 581 Posts
    Rep Power
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by maark View Post
    I don't think so - from wikipedia:
    Between December 25, 1979 and February 15, 1989, a total of 620,000 soldiers served with the forces in Afghanistan (though there were only 80,000-104,000 serving at one time): 525,000 in the Army, 90,000 with border troops and other KGB sub-units, 5,000 in independent formations of MVD Internal Troops, and police forces. A further 21,000 personnel were with the Soviet troop contingent over the same period doing various white collar and blue collar jobs.

    The total irrecoverable personnel losses of the Soviet Armed Forces, frontier, and internal security troops came to 14,453
    Yes, which shows perfectly my point, the Russians didn't commit enough troops (80-104,000 at a time) and got their arses kicked. The other difference is that then the Taliban were being supported, funded and trained by western governments.

  11. #70

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,617
    Thank Post
    514
    Thanked 2,442 Times in 1,890 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by Dos_Box View Post
    Also we get a seat at the 'big table' at the UN.
    The UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council...

  12. #71
    maark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    leicester
    Posts
    470
    Thank Post
    90
    Thanked 73 Times in 65 Posts
    Rep Power
    38
    so we commit 200,000 or more to afghanistan for what reason? I think it is a smokescreen for creating a buffer zone to the oil from russia.
    Only reason for trident is to get the seat at the UN - why can't UK re-invent itself as forward looking nation on the scandanavian model - invest in green technologies etc instead of trying to live up to past glories that we cannot aford any more.

  13. #72

    teejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,170
    Thank Post
    284
    Thanked 771 Times in 581 Posts
    Rep Power
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    No country would use nukes against the UK - the only groups that would use them would be terrorists, and rogue states. Both of which can be dealt with via non-nuclear deterrent means (better anti-terrorism training, equipment etc..., and better missile defence systems, not to mention the fact that we have the capability to sit a non-nuclear sub off the coast of a country and take out dozens of sites within minutes via standard heavy explosive weapons. Why do we need nukes again?
    Again, you are assuming a world in the future the same as the current one, Trident is a defence system to last 20 years plus. Also, the reason no country would use nukes against the UK is because we have a nuclear deterent, remove that and we are the kicking boy for any nuclear state.

  14. #73

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,618
    Thank Post
    845
    Thanked 881 Times in 731 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    326
    @maark - you had me right up till 'invest in green technologies', oh-hum!

    Quote Originally Posted by teejay View Post
    Also, the reason no country would use nukes against the UK is because we have a nuclear deterent, remove that and we are the kicking boy for any nuclear state.
    Scare mongering! And total hog-wash!

    The reason no country would use nukes against the UK is because we are a member of NATO. A treaty thay would effectively bring half the world armed forces bearing down on your neck without the need of a single nuke being fired in retaliation. Firing a nuke against a NATO member would be suicide. Saddam was only threatening WDM's and look where that got him!
    Last edited by tmcd35; 5th May 2010 at 03:03 PM.

  15. #74

    teejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,170
    Thank Post
    284
    Thanked 771 Times in 581 Posts
    Rep Power
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by maark View Post
    so we commit 200,000 or more to afghanistan for what reason? I think it is a smokescreen for creating a buffer zone to the oil from russia.
    Only reason for trident is to get the seat at the UN - why can't UK re-invent itself as forward looking nation on the scandanavian model - invest in green technologies etc instead of trying to live up to past glories that we cannot aford any more.
    I agree that we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan in the first place, there were other ways of doing it. However, as we decided to go in there, then you have to commit an army and resources capable of winning, which we didn't and still haven't done.

  16. #75

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    998
    Thank Post
    132
    Thanked 58 Times in 51 Posts
    Rep Power
    24
    I'll be going LibDem. They speaketh more sense.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Tory government not backing BSF?
    By jason2234 in forum BSF
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 30th April 2010, 06:08 PM
  2. Tory Councilers complain at Tory Education Policy!
    By tmcd35 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 27th April 2010, 03:52 PM
  3. [Pics] I've never voted Tory before...
    By mattx in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 22nd February 2010, 12:53 AM
  4. I'm depressed....
    By mattx in forum General Chat
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10th January 2008, 10:51 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •