Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Corruption

Snp Make Labour Look Small Govt

Recommended Posts

Just read this in the Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11233496/SNP-name-their-price-abandon-Trident-to-put-Miliband-in-Downing-Street.html

To get into bed with Labour theyre wanting an end to the austerity that never was; as its ruining the lives of poor little Jocklings. More NHS spending, massive extension of state-funded child care, ending Trident and tax cuts for small business.

But then the thick jock commie bint tells the world she'll never do a deal with the Tory party, nothing like weakening ones hand by saying youll only do a deal with one of the 2 major parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch what they do, not what they say. Galloway has already illustrated the SNP could have financed all their spending plans via already devolved revenue raising powers. They did not, however.

Their trident position sickens me, however. Nuclear proliferation has ensured relative peace between industrial nations since 1945. We need more nukes, not less. If Iran had nukes, maybe Israel wouldnt be such a rogue state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their trident position sickens me, however. Nuclear proliferation has ensured relative peace between industrial nations since 1945. We need more nukes, not less. If Iran had nukes, maybe Israel wouldnt be such a rogue state.

If Iran had nukes, Israel probably wouldn't exist. If Saddam had had nukes in 1991, Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia probably wouldn't exist, unless your argument is that the Gulf War wouldn't have happened because nobody would have dared lift a finger to him? Which is hardly a comforting thought given some of the crackpots that manage to end up running countries.

If Russia hadn't discovered / stolen nuclear technology, we might not have had the Cold War nor the Cuban Missile Crisis. Perhaps ISIL and North Korea should be given nuclear weapons to better balance the odds? For the many faults of Western leaders, many people living in the west don't realise how safe and well run their countries actually are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need nuclear weapons as a deterrent. It's natural selection. A country that can't/won't defend itself won't be a country for long. Look what happened to Maliki in Iraq. When Isis came in, the Americans sat back and said we're not going to help Iraq until your gone because your an incompetent prime minister (which he was). Defense can take many forms, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had to pay for the financial costs of the Gulf war and then some. These countries exist today because they are prepared to defend themselves. Putin is doing a similar thing in Russia. He is drawing a line against EU/Nato expansion, this far, no further.

In short, the world needs these low level tear ups from time to time to maintain stability against a larger catastrophe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need nuclear weapons as a deterrent. It's natural selection. A country that can't/won't defend itself won't be a country for long. Look what happened to Maliki in Iraq. When Isis came in, the Americans sat back and said we're not going to help Iraq until your gone because your an incompetent prime minister (which he was). Defense can take many forms, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had to pay for the financial costs of the Gulf war and then some. These countries exist today because they are prepared to defend themselves. Putin is doing a similar thing in Russia. He is drawing a line against EU/Nato expansion, this far, no further.

In short, the world needs these low level tear ups from time to time to maintain stability against a larger catastrophe.

Or we humans are Evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need nuclear weapons as a deterrent. It's natural selection. A country that can't/won't defend itself won't be a country for long. Look what happened to Maliki in Iraq. When Isis came in, the Americans sat back and said we're not going to help Iraq until your gone because your an incompetent prime minister (which he was). Defense can take many forms, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had to pay for the financial costs of the Gulf war and then some. These countries exist today because they are prepared to defend themselves. Putin is doing a similar thing in Russia. He is drawing a line against EU/Nato expansion, this far, no further.

In short, the world needs these low level tear ups from time to time to maintain stability against a larger catastrophe.

You've lost me... In what way would nukes have helped in those conflicts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see that Sturgeon needs to go into coalition to reach her goals. She will no doubt win a huge majority and the Scots may well want a different outcome to an in out referendum on Europe.

England is going its own way on EU exit, an in out referendum with no plan B on the out bit. Just let Cameron get on with it, and hope for an out vote; EU exit and the break up of the UK to quickly follow.

Flashman so used to winning in life without compromise at Eton that he has set the UK on a cataclysmic course anyway.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've lost me... In what way would nukes have helped in those conflicts?

I think you rather missed the point.

Much of Iraq fell to IS because it had no viable defence. Without nukes, the EU has no viable defence against Russia or China deciding to roll in, other than America's willingness to get into a nuclear war to save Paris and London.

Though, of course, it's rather pointless when they're importing other cultures en masse that will replace their own in a few generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   218 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.