Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Is it worth nearly 40 billion to renews weapons of mass destruction ?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 73
|
By:
yes
|
|
By:
This debate is a complete waste of Parliamentary time , do you support this Spiv inspired waste of time a pathetic attempt by the Spivs to show some division in the Labour Party
|
|
By:
yes
|
|
By:
wonder what the PM has put in her letter of last resort? Nuke Boris?
|
|
By:
Here comes charisma!
|
|
By:
Is it worth forking out for?
|
|
By:
I do wonder what sort of woman Corbyn's wife is. He keeps going out in ill fitting shirts about a collar size too big and most times cannot seem to do his tie up properly. Most people I know with a wife manage to dress themselves.
|
|
By:
JC being shate upon big time by his own backbenchers, weak effort to get his case across
|
|
By:
The tories new what they were doing with this debate , what they have done is let Blairite Labour MPS attack the Leader of THE Labour Party catte blanche
|
|
By:
of course the tories knew what they are doing, a least one party does, I am sure the lab backbenchers didn't need any encouragement to put this lame duck down.
|
|
By:
Corbyn couldn't run a pub let alone a Country.
|
|
By:
The Blairites will not be laughing on September 24th when they have had another thrashing.
|
|
By:
There's a village somewhere looking for its idiot. Go home. They're getting anxious.
|
|
By:
anxious - two points which you may agree with, 1. democracy needs a strong oppossition. 2. labour with JC as leader cannot win a GE.
btw I admire you in a way, I have read all of your posts on various freds and although you are vastly outnumbered on most occasions you stick to your guns. respect. |
|
By:
then Wurzel will be crying because he will not be leader of the opposition
|
|
By:
Yes i do believe that democracy needs a strong oppostion thats why i am puzzled that 172 expressed no- confidence in the leader of the Labour Party despite winning a overwhelming victory in last years leadership election , on your other point is there any evidence that Labour will do better with any leader other than Jeremy and to be honest you could have Jesus Christ himself as Labour leader and they would be ridiculed and torn apart by the Establishment, the square mile and the vicious right wing press
|
|
By:
most of the 172 who voiced their reasons said it was because of weak or non-exsistant leadership, having given him support early on it quickly became apparent he could not do the job in respect of leading a strong opposition, I accept he as massive support with labour activists but that will not get him elected to government, a split in the party looks @ 1.01
|
|
By:
Lord West
"nasty b astard"   |
|
By:
I listened to a show the other night broadcast from Comrade Jezza's local boozer in Islington. They questioned 6 local Labour activists and the mug from Momentum said they were not bothered about being in power as long as Corbyn was the leader, the yoof love him though. Is that the same yoof that couldn't be bothered to vote in the referendum?
|
|
By:
its 100 billion - i posted before - ch4 news pages.
it's not an independent deterrent - we make the warheads(yes). the missiles are from USA. Some say we cannot fire them without express permission from the USA? so we have to phone up? while their missiles are heading here. Save cash by getting rid of submarines. we can have missiles that fire from trucks, you see these in moscow parades etc. ICBM - intercontinental ballistic missiles. we can maintain - having the bomb, just scaled down to save dosh. If we have 100 billion we can't spend elsewhere we can have subs. The five nuclear-weapon states under the NPT United States 1,750 - 6,970 Russia 1,790 - 7,300 United Kingdom 150 - 215 France 290 - 300 China n.a. / 260 Non-NPT nuclear powers India n.a. / 110–120 Pakistan n.a. / 120–130 Israel n.a. / est. 60–400 |
|
By:
The problem with the ICBM is they have a maximum distance they can travel (around 1500 miles I believe)
The submarines can strike from anywhere in the world so remain the indeterminate factor for any hostile foreign power |
|
By:
"it's not an independent deterrent - we make the warheads(yes).
the missiles are from USA. Some say we cannot fire them without express permission from the USA? so we have to phone up?" Ignorant / lying left wing tw*ts who don't know what they are talking about say that, it's not true. Probably most grauniad readers think it though, which explains a lot. |
|
By:
You see here the frothing bloodthistry right wing maniacs here , they blame the Guardian for most things
|
|
By:
From the guy who's every second post is some rant referencing "Murdoch"!
 |
|
By:
That is because Murdoch does have an unhealthy interest in control in this country , himself and other right win press barons do attempt to influence government policy , but in Murdochs case he has plenty of form for lying and misinforming the British public you only have to look at such despicable lies such as Hillsborough to reach conclusion over the garbage his so called empire churns out
|
|
By:
go and iron your brown shirt
|
|
By:
Feck off Burton and get on with saving Nigel and Donny
 |
|
By:
The Don will save you anx don't worry
|
|
By:
Stop ganging up on anxious please!
|
|
By:
If they are ever used it's end of the world.
radiation will wipe us out. remember a hydrogen device has never been used on any population. So does it matter if ICBM's have a limited range. The USA our allied have bases around the world. with missiles in them. The usa has 250 bases. Not all have missiles but you can see they've covered all the bases? The have 60 missiles in Turkey according to the Russians. They were a bit worried during the coup. In 1962 the USA withdrew their missiles after the soviets backed down and removed their Cuban presence. They must have put them back? America has enough to deal with any of them. Why do we need 4 subs with forty missiles? It's never going to be used. |
|
By:
" America has enough to deal with any of them. Why do we need 4 subs with forty missiles?
^^^^^^^^ Z ƃuᴉʞuᴉɥʇ uʍop ǝpᴉsd∩ ^^^^^^^^ |
|
By:
Hope we're not 'back of the queue' when we need the good 'Ol USA' to defend us.
|
|
By:
from who?
and i'm still not going to sleep with you  |
|
By:
Aaaaaawwwww, unrequited love is a bore (line from Glad to be Happy Mamas and Papas) Who knows JS today's friends can turn out to be tomorrows enemy's???? Trident is not just for Xmas you know, it's for the foreseeable future, I use the word foreseeable adviseately.
|
|
By:
Advisedly*** ffs.
|
|
By:
you aint putting no tridents up my rear that's for sure
will we fire it at the yanks? |
|
By:
genuine spitting out the coffee moment, "will we fire it at the yanks?" Only if they keep us at the back of the queue,  |
|
By:
why is it some of here can have differences but still have a laugh yet all too often it turns into a verbal yet futile fight?
if donny wins at least we know scotland will be safe |
|
By:
Scotland will be one giant golf course with wee Jimmy Krankie lookalike caddies.
It' all good fun JS. |