Deterrent-proof
Posted on
August 08, 2015 by
Chris Cairns
1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks 
-
08 08 15 07:45
Deterrent-proof | Speymouth
Ignored
The world's most-read Scottish politics website
1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
-
About
Wings Over Scotland is a (mainly) Scottish political media digest and monitor, which also offers its own commentary. (More)
-
Recent Posts
- 04-18
- 04-18
- 04-17
- 04-15
- 04-14
- 04-13
- 04-12
- 04-11
- 04-10
- 04-09
- 04-07
- 04-06
- 04-03
- 04-03
- 03-31
- 03-31
- 03-30
- 03-30
- 03-29
- 03-27
Wings Over ScotlandA tall tale
Wee Books
Video
Probably a robbery
Transphobia
And wko created the conditions for these terrorists? And who is the greater terrorist?
Tells such a story in one picture, nuclear weapons abomination (which only cockroaches survive!) and Deash marching onwards – and now we’re bombing Syria! My God, do we never learn?
Yes Trident and it’s likes are such a deterrent – afterall nobody died in conflict in Korea or Vietnam or Iraq (twice) or the Balkans or Afghanistan (Russia and US-UK).
And of course there we no conflicts in Africa or South America or the Middle East or between India and Pakistan either after nuclear weapons came along.
its NOT it’s (I don’t like this phone)
Great cartoon.
The UK’s got nuclear weapons but was subject to terrorism firstly during the troubles & now by ISIS.
America had 9/11.
France has had several attacks recently.
We all have nuclear weapons but this was not a deterrent to terrorism.
The world has changed, it’s not country v country, it’s cross-border ideology.How would you bomb such a dispersed membership?
You can’t fight these people with nuclear warheads.
So why have them when they can’t & never will be used?
They don’t care as long as they are profiting.
Here we go again. Lets all jump on the “west bad” meme and blame ourselves for every loony terrorist and loony regime.
Just talk me through how one load of extreme religious zealots murdering, beheading, raping, etc another religious group – where that group professes to believe in the same god, prophet etc -is the west’s fault.
Tell me what you would have done when Iraq invaded Kuwait, or when the Gadaffi government were trying to hunt down their opposition trapped on the coast, or when the Yazidis were trapped on the mountain top with the ISIL murderers hell bent on killing them – or when the Bosnian Muslim were being slaughtered. How many hundreds of thousands of innocent lives would you allow to be lost – that you could have prevented – to maintain your “non intervention” stance?
Lets just stick say, to the Yazidis, for the sake of discussion. There are 10,000 Yazidis trapped on a mountain top – facing death at the hands of the ISIL hoardes. You are in charge of our armed forces. Are you going to send bombers? Yes or No? Those are your only two options.
unsensibledave, you’re missing the point of the cartoon.
It’s clearly referring to the 70th anniversary of Hiroshima & the fact that nuclear weapons are no defence against terrorism.
It’s nothing to do with the west is bad.
Sensibledave 8.03
Dropping nuclear bombs would have wiped out everyone on top of that hill as well as those at the bottom.
David Smith says:
8 August, 2015 at 7:59 am
They don’t care as long as they are profiting.
Nail on head, David.
Trident is the holy grail of economic imperialism, the ultimate in weapons sales that gives a means of fighting to all conficts. The old ‘divide and rule’ ultimate lie. If we need nukes, we must have an enemy. Well guess what! We don’t believe you. There is no threat that warrants sure a response. It is the ultimate justification for the gun lobby/arms manufacturers. Without these leeches, there would be no conflicts.
Cockroaches..
Joe’s Apartment (short clip from)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QafzJzS6bWY
Ever since Alex Salmond used the description of “unpardonable folly” when the “west” bombed Belgrade I have forced myself to calculate outcomes.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait I saw the dangers but when Iraq was flattened and could no longer trouble its neighbours so far so good. However Blair and Bush wanted a notch or two on their swords so they reinvaded and we can see the consequent folly.
In none of that was a nuclear deterrant an issue!
Whoops apocalypse. That mushroom cloud could be right over the Clyde estuary but not where it really matters though. Westminster says nuke’s make you safe but imagine if we had won back our country. Dont think. Rule Britannia.
Painfully accurate.
IvMoz 8.10
… its art – and its in the eye of the beholder.
Why did we end up with nuclear weapons? Because a bunch of German and Japanese loonies decided that they wanted to impose their rule on the world. Millions were dying trying to stop them. The Japanese, in particular, demonstrated despicable traits in their entry to the war with the bombing of Pearl Harbour and much later, fearsome and obdurate defence of their homeland by fighting to the death to defend every inch of every island near Japan.
So, the yanks had developed a weapon that was potentially capable of stopping the war – and saving the lives of hundreds and thousands of american and allied troops by bringing the war to an end.
That was then. Since then, many other countries have developed nuclear weapons from France through to N. Korea (we think) and from Pakistan and India through to Israel, Russia and China.
Is anyone here “confident” that none of the countries in that list, given a set of circumstances, might become such a threat – that mutually assured destruction is the only deterrent for them to not pursue expansionism and annexations?
Oanybody mak a “sensible dave” filter? Gitsoanmatits sohediz.
Given that some people (as pointed out above) will fight to the death and indeed, as we know, some see their own death (even suicide) as desirable I doubt ‘mutually assured destruction’ can therefore be seen as a deterrent.
There’s possibly a logic in what ‘sensibledave’ is writing. Damned if I know what it is though.
Heedtracker 8.41
“Westminster says nuke’s make you safe but imagine ….”
Just on a point of accuracy Heedy, shouldn’t we assume that every voter that voted Conservative, Labour, UKIP, LibDem felt that having nukes might make us safe-r? Including most people in Scotland?
The whole unilateral disarmament thing fascinates me. You don’t want nuclear weapons – but you want the protection of NATO’s nukes? Or are you proposing the whole of “the West” unilaterally disarms?
Sensible(?)dave @8.54am
Wow just wow so much shit in such a small paragraph,
where to begin?
NO country attacks another out of sheer malice (generalization I know), its always ALWAYS out of a sense of self preservation, even the Japanese were only (in their view) trying to protect the homeland from western encroachment in the far east in Burma Malaya, Philippines etc, the Germans reacting to a terrible punishment in the treaty of Versailles.
We are ALWAYS right in your world, eh Dave?
We have to kill all those dashed Fuzzy Wuzzies before the damn Cockroaches Swarm over to Blighty ..WOT!
That’ll sort out Johnny Blinkin Foreigner Eh
Dave’s like a man who thinks you can put out a fire with a machine gun.
NO NO NO NO NO Japan was beaten no navy no air force and totally surrounded being starved to death and torched city by city by the USAF and without any means of defence.
BUT the USA had these new weapons that needed ‘TESTED’
Two different ‘types’ of A bomb needed a field test and two Japanese cities were the testing grounds.
Just a nice wee scientific experiment really.
Geoff Huijer 9.07
“Given that some people (as pointed out above) will fight to the death and indeed, as we know, some see their own death (even suicide) as desirable I doubt ‘mutually assured destruction’ can therefore be seen as a deterrent.”
… no has one said that nuclear weapons are a defence against terrorism Geoff. They are a deterrent aimed at stopping another World War – and they have been successful for 70 years.
It is the cartoon that attempts to draw the link between an ISIL zealot and nuclear weapons – not me.
@ Sensibledave
To even consider the use of nukes in the first place demonstrates an attitude that cannot be changed by a threat of a similar counter strike.
The threat to the UK is essentially an ideological one, promulgated by our own interference in countries where our presence is neither wanted or required.
Should an attack occur on the UK, which desert village or Mountain hideout will our own weapons turn to glass. Essentially fulfilling the dreams of those who would attack us in the first place.
Usual war is good propaganda sensibledave, but look at it from the other side of your teamGB rules the waves so lets nuke em bleh.
Last century, Japan and Germany were British empire style wannabes and like you say, look what happened.
Or, imagine you’re a young Afghan and Iraqi and you’re watching the American and British war machine bombing your country back to the stone age for democracy and freedom, mission accomplishing vengeance, oil, you strange UKOK chap that you are.
Empathy sensibledave? or, talk about being shackled to maniacs.
The US has just re armed Israel and Iran with nuclear. US/UK funded, armed and supported Daesh. The illegal bombing continues and the migrants ‘swarm’ at the Gates. The illegal wars have cost £Billions. It would be cheaper to re settle the migrants and asylum seekers. US/UK and France have caused the devastation in the Middle East. They are the countries who refuse to take migrants, other countries have to take them in. Eg Italy and Germany.
Westminster are building another nuclear station and guaranteeing it twice as much finance as renewable energy. It will cost £Billions and be over- budget and time. Funded by the Chinese (Gov?). How much will Osbourne/Cameron and their associates make out of that in consultant’s fees and bank fees and charges? The Tory bankers. The Tories banned wind turbines and cut the solar/renewable investment.
Coal is plentiful all over the UK and half the price of imported Gas. Westminster refuse permission for a CC project at Longannet Fife and are shutting it down. They funded two coal plants near Sheffield £2Billion (each?) The Tories have ruined the Oil sector. No Inquires about non compliance with Health/Safety guidelines. Helicopters falling from the sky. Workers now have to work three weeks on/off not condusive to social/family life. There will be more strains put in families and children and health problems.
sensibledave got his history lessons from Redneck Camp
Westminster are spending £100Billion on Trident and £Billions on illegal wars to destabilise the World and make the world less safe. Westminster have ruined the world economy and are killing, abusing and starving children. Using the Official Secrets Act to cover up their crimes.
Where’s the Chilcot verdict?
Another thing to ponder on. Excellent work point still well made.
I’ve been told the cockroach thing and googled it again this morning. 🙂
PS: As Tony (not Blair) would have said “Well stone me”
————————————————————–After I laid my stones – selected from a nearby pile – I thought how long ago it all seemed. Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, Danny Alexander, Douglas Alexander; every sitting Labour and Lib Dem MP in Scotland, except two. Other than Brown and Darling, who were already going, how many could have foreseen that their Westminster careers would be over before a year had passed? That pan-British political parties in Scotland might be finished? I looked at the cairn and understood that it came from that different time.
—————————————————————-
https://archive.is/ekzjq
heedtracker 9:20 am
Same old waffle Heedy and not one single answer.
Yazidis Heedy?
Kuwait Heedy?
Bosnians Heedy?
Libyans Heedy?
Nato protection Heedy
Unilateral Disarmament by the whole of the “West” Heedy?
Share with me what you would have done, or do, in each situation. Once you have answered then we will know where we stand.
Until then I’ll work on the basis that you actually can’t make a decision (other than concluding anything south of the border is “bad”).
Come on Heedy. Tell me what you would have done. Would the lives of the innocent Yazidis, Kuwaities, libyans, Bosnians, etc just be “collateral damage” in your fluffy, idealogical world?
Timely and right on the money Chris.
Kuwait was once part of Iraq. The territory was disputed. Iraq ‘invaded’ Kuwait after years of having questions for discussion regarding Kuwait ignored or dismissed I think it was 33 times (if my memory serves me well) at the United Nations. This perhaps puts Iraq into perspective. The West didn’t even wait for a resolution before bombing it to death, let alone allow discussion.
Ignoring the ethics of nuclear weapons, the cartoon captures perfectly their uselessness in the current global situation.
We are unlikely to be invaded by another country, and if were invaded are we really saying that our hand is so weak in defence of our own borders that the only play we can make is going ‘all in’ by retaliating with nuclear weapons?
The article on this site http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-chocolate-teapot/ goes through this scenario in detail and is well worth a read. I just wonder why the conservatives are not agitating for non renewal of trident but improvement to defence and counter-terrorism?
It is an argument the yes side made… that Scotland was largely undefended, her coastline unpatrolled (by our vessels at least) and the RAF presence is greatly reduced.
The trouble is, for many folk the mere mention of a Scottish Navy or Airforce triggers an attack of the famous cringe.
The University of California developed Nuclear
The Japanese reported as being prepared to surrender when the US dropped the bomb? as a warning to Russia. The British surrendered at Singapore. The Japanese were exceedingly cruel and did start the attack. The British had invaded India etc. (A fifth column in Asia sided with the Japs)
In Europe 26Million Russians died (1 in 6)
8Million Germans (1 in 4), 6 Million Poles, 6Million Jews, 2 million Americans,
1/2 Million French, 1/2 Million British.
France/UK and US Oil interests, carved up the Middle East and are responsible for the strife. The Balfour Agreement 1917 gave the right to a State of Israel. Lord Balfour/Rothchild and Gladstone.
It was supposed to be 20/80 settlement. It is now 80/20. Immigrants. 7.5Million. An apartheid State supported, funded and armed by the West. The Arabs were refused the vote. Reneged by the West. The West support absolute despot monarchies in the Middle East and supply them with weapons to suppress the people. It would never be tolerated in the West Total hypocrites.
In the 1950’s Churchill took all Iran’s Oil and illegally destabilised the country brought back the deposed Shah and put the PM in jail. Every modernising leader in the Middle East has been deposed and killed by the West. The CIA/M15 hide their crimes under the Official Secrets Act. The problems are of deprivation, inequality and poverty not religion. The part US/UK and France have played is shameful.
Listening to the Republican hustings in America, I heard one of the candidates talk about the arms available to DAESH. They have more Humvis than the Iraqi army. They seem to have no difficulty selling oil for arms.
Who is trading with them? Do the CIA, MI6,KGB, Mossad not know what is going on. I bet they do and I bet they could stop it if they wanted.
Right on the button.
Ken500
… same questions to you and everyone else Ken
Yazidis Ken? Should we have let them die?
Bosnians Ken? Should we have let them die?
etc, etc
Are you going to tell me what you would have done or are you just going to shout at anyone who actually had to make a decision
@sensibledave says: 8 August, 2015 at 8:03 am:
“Here we go again. Lets all jump on the “west bad” meme and blame ourselves for every loony terrorist and loony regime.”
Err! No, Dave, we are not in any way blaming ourselves – we are blaming the Southern British Establishment, and its supporters, and its equivalent organs throughout the Western World. How many times must you numpties be told we are NOT all in this together?
We can forget the rest of your Establishment propaganda as we all know, (including you), that the post WWII carve up of the Middle East by the Allies and the USA/UK led creation of Israel began a process of destruction that continues to this day and is still being backed by the USA/UK establishments.
Fantasy Land, these are American weapons and can only be fired with US permission, however if the people of England persist with this imperial delusion and are prepared to mortgage the farm to pay for them, on their own head be it, the folly will be entirely theirs and they should start making alternative arrangements to re-house them & move them from Scotland toot-sweet before spending any more money on Faslane.
Nuclear no more.
SensibleDave no more. What’s not to like!
Seriously, why would you continue to feed him. Let him say his bit then leave well alone. Do not respond, he is purely a wind up merchant. Surely everyone knows this by now.
Nice one Chris, I live in the West of Scotland quite close to one of the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons in the world so have a big fuck off target on us. I wonder if Dave would feel the same if he had these abominations on his doorstep.
PS just found some old footage of sensibledave type…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z80jmLbaMfU
Sensibledave sounds like a bright bloke, He must be great company!!
Agree totally OneScot Why feed the winder upperer? He’s probably getting big brownie points from higher ranks for getting us all going.
sensibledave says: Nukes are good
The USA did not need to use nuclear weapons on Japan to end the second World War.
The were many reasons for using its only 2 weapons – ending the war was not high on the list.
Israel and Turkey are helping Daesh and other fighters in Syria, using it as a pretext to bomb the Kurds. Israel an apartheid State, supported and funded and armed by the US. 122 Nuclear warheads. US condones 26,000 people being killed a year by gun crime in the US.
In considering the morality of the “justifiable war” we have a long history of thought on the issue and it has led to conclusions which we ought to consider in this debate.
The Westphalian principles served Europe very well as “deterrent” for many, many years, and they are enshrined in International Law. Since Blair and Bush, certainly, and arguably since Thatcher and Reagan, those principles have been steadily undermined. But not overtly through a rerun of the debate and a reasoned demonstration that the doctrine is wrong or no longer appropriate. Rather we have the usual distortions of the arguments and the appeals to emotion, which war mongers always deploy when softening their population up to accept war and the profits which attend it.
So what, exactly, has changed which renders Westphalia redundant? What has changed which makes it now right to intervene in civil and religious wars?
Europe suffered from those wars for centuries, and Westphalia put a stop to that. It is not my view that we are now more civilised and so the necessary evil that entails need no longer be tolerated in the wider interest. Nor do I think that these evil islamists are any different from those evil catholics/ protestants in Europe before Westphalia was accepted. What have they done which is worse than the genocide of the Cathars? What more chilling stance than “burn them all: God will know his own?”
I am fed up with this double standard, and fed up with the complacency which takes the positive ( though sometimes very distasteful) outcomes of Westphalia for granted and assumes that if we abandon the doctrine we will get different results.
I am appalled by the fact that the nuclear powers are in perpetual breach of the non proliferation treaty, and that the only part of that treaty which is “honoured” is the part that says that countries which do not have such weapons should be stopped from acquiring them: why is that part sacred when the part which says that those who have them should get rid of them is ignored?
If mutually assured destruction is really a deterrrent then why do we oppose other states acquiring nuclear weapons: if all are deterred that is a good thing, right? And only one country has used those things, I notice. Who needs deterring?
Hiroshima/Nagasaki are justified by an assertion that the bomb saved lives by stopping the war: it won’t do. It is not evidenced, but even if it was true, it won’t do. For these are weapons deliberately used on a civilian population without even the current cynical pretense that such consequences are never meant: are “collateral damage”. Hiroshima was not like that at all: it was an atrocity and it is not a matter of numbers alone. If that argument succeeds then so does deployment of chemical and germ weapons any time it will subdue the opposition. Or we think they might
To be sure it is arguable that the “laws of war” are meaningless and that if a war is in progress then any and all means are justifiable so long as they make victory more likely. And the “laws of war” are often breached in conflict, as we all know. But they are not there for nothing: and they save many more lives than does “deterrence”
The illogicality at the core of current western policy lies there: we have gradually and covertly abandoned the underpinning morality which led to Westphalia and the Geneva convention and all the rest of the features which identify “justified” war. But we are appalled at the fact that the opposition have recognised that and acted on it. That is the primary objection to the actions of “terrorists” in my view: that they do not subscribe to the international law of war. But our leaders no longer even pay lip service to those laws. They might have reopened the debate about what those laws should be, or even if they should exist: and they might have a case. Instead they have just done it: and Blair, at least, did it on the basis that he is a “sincere” kind of guy with good instincts. Well who isn’t in their own head? That is no basis for civilisation, and it never has been. We have known this for centuries.
The argument that the “evil west” is responsible for much of this is a strong one: but it is not strong for small scale or even large scale particular actions and invasions: they are a consequence of the abandonment of those international treaties and conventions, not a cause. Europe developed that body of law, and deserves some credit for that (even while recognising that they never held securely in face of vested interest): but equally the West deserves censure for its ignorant abandonment of hard learned lessons of history which have served us very well
As ever with the right, they call themselves conservative and point to their disney version of history in support of that self perception. In reality they have very little understanding of history, but a deal of understanding of a feudal “tradition” with no moral underpinning at all, beyond might is right and profit is king. As with the welfare state, so with war.
Sensible Dave is typical of the modern “expert”. He has a point of view. He will “cherry pick” from the history tree the facts that reinforce his point of view only.
Dave I read your posts and You leave me with the impression that you are very afraid. Step back. It is perfectly OK to admit that the culture you are part of is not very nice or good, and that it has made an awful lot of mistakes.
Once you do that you can learn from the mistakes of the past, instead of repeating them.
The Rev is right. You can’t put out a fire with a machine gun.
@sensibledave says: 8 August, 2015 at 8:54 am:
“Why did we end up with nuclear weapons? Because a bunch of German and Japanese loonies decided that they wanted to impose their rule on the world.”
Pish! We(?) ended up with nuclear weapons only because some brave civilian resistance operatives and some Mosquito Crews managed to delay the German development long enough to allow the Allies, (More correctly their associate Allies), to get, “Atom Bombs”, first.
You really need to free yourself from the Establishments propaganda, Dave. You will feel more free, and cleaner, for making the effort. Here’s the truth : –
Most people on this site are going through an educational process in a journey which ends in the realisation that we (the West) are the bad guys. But let’s not underestimate the power of denial here.
People like sensibledave are just plain stupid. The west is a problem. Humans are NOT supposed to kill other humans, unless you can convince one party that the other party is NOT human (this is a well known process – or you really are stupid) – then, it is ok to kill others. I have a simple rule – any nation calling any collection of people evil, is itself, evil.
There is NEVER any justification for both A bombs – not for that matter the fire bombing of Dresden which killed MORE people than BOTH A bombs put together. Japan should’ve been beating by soldiers on the ground – and if you loose tens of thousands doing so – then that is the price.
That said. I am not a complete pacifist. Anyone wishing for world peace should consider my tongue in cheek proposal.
Strap idiots like sensibledave to one or all of our ICB missiles and drop them all on Washington.
Result = World Peace.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Nuclear weapons may well have stopped another “outright ” world war,but they have not prevented conflict all over the world. Battles rage North,South,East and West on the planet.
They have not prevented war,but rather changed the theatres of operation where war is conducted,and the methodology of that conflict.
I would imagine the numbers killed in one conflict or another since the introduction of the nuclear bomb era would still be very substantial,even though the bomb was available to “prevent” this happening.
The bomb is not a deterrant to conflict,but has become a big stick with which to threaten those who oppose your dictates.
I do feel pity for those who think that somehow it brings peace to the world.
What Fiona said.
Germany was not allowed to re-arm after the 11WW. The UK has spent the equivalent of £40Billion a year on Defence (Attack) £2800Billion. Germany has invested in it’s economy. The £Billions of resources that have been illegally and secretly taken from Scotland by the Westminster criminals. Hidden under the Official Secrets Act.
sensibledave says:
8 August, 2015 at 9:48 am
heedtracker 9:20 am
Same old waffle Heedy and not one single answer.
I don’t know even know why you UKOK dudes bother now sensible. We voted NO, you won, you kept control of your Scotland region, you’ll be charging off to wars for ever and a day, hi-tech slaughtering peasants in hot countries , threatening same hot countries with a sound nuking (but not actually being allowed to by US), BBC War correspondents on safe distance Hilton roofs watching cities and people destroyed under 100 million dollar cruise missiles, union jack draped caskets come home to blighty watched by shattered families and on it teamGB goes.
Its the British way, scratch that, Great Britain!, rules the waves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/events/e22v2m
BBC says, War is good. Be there or be disloyal sensibledave.
Great cartoon. Says it all. Says it all to those who have the wit to listen.
When it comes to established history, I am a complete sceptic. The official story should always be considered suspect at best.
Example already referred to. Japan. The UK militarised Japan to gain a loyal ally in Asia. WW1 and Japan played a huge role protecting UK shipping in the Paciifc and Indian Oceans freeing UK major ships for closer to home. Troops ships from Australia would be protected by Japanese warships. Japan operated out of Singapore. The UK even used Japanese marines to suppress rebellion among Indian troops.
After WW1 the UK gave Japan all the technology needed to build aircraft carriers and master operating seaborne aircraft. The first landing/takeoff from a Japanese carrier was by an RAF pilot on secondment.
As a parallel consider Sadam Hussain. Our man in the Middle East to counter Iran. Or, the way the West stirred Islamic fundamentalism to counter the Russians in Afghanistan.
The lesson I take from history is that if you interfere outside your own immediate geographical zone, the outcome will never be what you expect and never for the better.
To all
Look above … not one single answer from any of you.
Come on , somebody, tell me what you would have done if you were in charge! Lets try and make it simple so you only have too give your answer as “1” or “2”. Answer either 1 or 2 below:
1) We were right to bomb ISIL to stop them murdering the Yazidis
or
2) We should have let them be Murdered because it isn’t anything to do with us.
Stop waffling, stop the ideological clap trap and just tell me what you would have done in just one real world situation – only then will you have the right to judge others.
A@ all: sensibledave has his answer but, as ever, he does not even realise he has been answered: or he ignores the fact that he has been answered. He is a troll: ignore
Hey people, leave Dave be. I disagree with him 100%. Nuclear weapons make only two things, misery (for everyone) and money(for a select few), but we cannot chase away dissenting voices. They promote debate. They force you to better prepare your counter-arguments. They make you consider a different point of view. This is what is lacking in the politics of the south. Dave, by all means speak up but don’t forget to listen!
Bob Mack 10:55 am
You wrote: “Nuclear weapons may well have stopped another “outright ” world war,but they have not prevented conflict all over the world. Battles rage North,South,East and West on the planet. They have not prevented war,but rather changed the theatres of operation where war is conducted,and the methodology of that conflict.”
You are nearly there Bob. A) The nuclear weapon exists to deter the likes of Russia, China, etc from starting something with the “west”.
B) They do not exist to solve issues in Bosnia, or Kuwait or Syria or Afganistan
Each part of our armed forces armoury is designed to deal with a particular type of threat in a particular type of theatre. So, rather than using Land Rovers to track Russian Submarines – we use more appropriate methods. Similarly, submarines have proved inept at getting about chasing the Taliban in the hills of Afganistan.
You know this Bob. Why are you pretending you don’t?
Then you wrote: “The bomb is not a deterrent to conflict,but has become a big stick with which to threaten those who oppose your dictates.”
Simple question for you Bob. Who have we threatened, when and under what circumstances?
1) We were right to bomb ISIL to stop them murdering the Yazidis
All of this horror alone and for example, is entirely down to the US/British invasion of Iraq. Is it really necessary to point this out to you, dear average Britnat sensible?
O/T to ask that you celebrate with me the 21st birthday of a remarkable young man, Jonathan Fisher, aka the Bold Joff. Against the odds we’re here to say I never want bombs held or used in his name.
Bairns before bombs every time.
https://maycontaintwopercentowl.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/c-1000ctp-arg334x/
Sensibledave 11.08,
I’ve already told you nuclear weapons wouldn’t have saved the folk on the mountain.We’re discussing Chris Cairns excellent cartoon.Pay attention.
Fiona 11:09 am
“sensibledave has his answer but, as ever, he does not even realise he has been answered: or he ignores the fact that he has been answered. He is a troll: ignore”
No Fiona, I don’t have an answer from anyone yet. I have insults, waffle and tosh and fake moral high ground being taken by many – but, as is so often the case – no actual answers to real world dialemmas.
The Yazidis Fiona? – Let them die or bomb ISIL?
… and the Troll thing Fiona? Really?
I have already answered you, sensibledave. That you cannot or will not understand what is said to you is by now no suprise.
Yes, I believe you to be a troll. You do not engage honestly, as we have seen before: you merely reassert your beliefs
sensibledave @ 8 August, 2015 at 11:08 am
You could use the same argument for any part of the world where similar atrocities are occurring.
The question you need to ask is why was there so much media attention to the Yazidis when there was far worse atrocities throughout that particular conflict and in other parts of the world at the same time?
Nobody knows the answer without going into conspiracy theories but it is telling that a Tunisian government official says it is the British governments responsibility to deal with the Deash because they created the conditions from them to exist by establishing the region. With them destabilizing the region it gives them,the US and other pro-US powers a perfect excuse for a continued military presence there for the foreseeable future as well as keeping Russia’s and China’s influence to a minimum.
You know what, it has just dawned on me, maybe we really are too stupid.
It was one of the answers that dismayed me the most when I spoke to certain people before the referendum and asked them to justify Trident they would say we need it to stop the Russians invading!!
Well, Robert P may correct me here, since the Kingdom of Scotland was first recorded as a united country the only country that has invaded and attacked us is our better together neighbour to the south.
And also it was the UN who intervened in the Balkans with a clear mandate but Iraq the actual root of the current problems was not a UN mandated invasion it was a big fucking lie like the big fucking lie that our govts are the good guys
@sensibledave says: 8 August, 2015 at 9:13 am:
“Just on a point of accuracy Heedy, shouldn’t we assume that every voter that voted Conservative, Labour, UKIP, LibDem felt that having nukes might make us safe-r? Including most people in Scotland?”
Pish! Sorry, Dave, but you and, “points of accuracy”, are strangers to each other.
Westminster Establishment and accuracy are very distinctly an oxymoron and only believed by unionist morons or paid lip service to by paid for establishment operatives.
” … You don’t want nuclear weapons – but you want the protection of NATO’s nukes? Or are you proposing the whole of “the West” unilaterally disarms?”
This is a vile and distorted Establishment propaganda claim, Dave, and I expect you know this full well as you seem to be an establishment plant to push their propaganda. As usual the facts shoot such drivel down in flames.
NATO (“North Atlantic Treaty Organization) consists of 28 member states from North America and Europe. NATO was established by the, “North Atlantic Treaty”, on 4 April 1949, and, “Article Five”, of the treaty states that if an armed attack occurs against any one of the member states, it should be considered an attack against all NATO members, and all other members shall assist the attacked member, ”with armed forces if necessary”.
Of the 28 member countries only, (Canada and the United States), are located in North America and 25 are European countries with Turkey being situated in Eurasia. All member states have their own militaries, with the exception of Iceland which only has a coast guard and a small unit of civilian specialists for NATO operations.
Only three NATO’s members are nuclear weapons states, (France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. So the majority of NATO members are not only non-Nuclear states but several are legally declared anti-nuclear states.
Alphabetical List of NATO Countries : –
Albania; Belgium; Bulgaria; Canada; Croatia; Czech Rep; Denmark; Estonia; France; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Iceland; Italy; Latvia; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Netherlands; Norway; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Turkey; United Kingdom and the United States of America.
The great delusion:
Men who claim stockpiling weapons of the most terrify and lasting kind ensure against wars and attempts at genocide the world over are usually held fast in straight jackets or are politicians.
And on 9/11:
With the greatest concentration of weapons of mass destruction to protect its population the world has ever known, the USA was outwitted by a few men with penknives and a pilot’s licence.
Better than me said:
“War does not determine who is right, only who is left.” Bertrand Russell
I don’t know where some of you guys get your patience and tolerance from
Wings over Scotland or the sensiblefuckingdavesite
I hope you;re tolerant enough to excuse my Sweariness
I know that’s not a word (Should be though)
sensibledave may or may not be a troll, however, he falls into the trap that it is his/her job to provide solutions to the worlds problems and that is what fools do.
‘Fools rush in’ being my rationale – I have no evidence for this other than hearsay, but it is an old saying which others may have heard. Actually, I think the great coward John Wayne may even have said it in a movie, anyway, I digress. If it looks like a troll and sounds like a troll….it probably is a troll.
I am a complete and unashamed conspiracy theorist (not unlike the US/UK government) so maybe sensibledave should go and have a wee coffee in the cheap seats at GCHQ.
Let’s stop this nonsense about the bombs being necessary to enable Japan’s surrender. Not even the highest-ranking members of the U.S. military at the time thought so.
That’s the findings of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, July 1946, set up by Harry Truman.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the US Military Forces during WW2, in his memoirs.
That was Admiral William Leahy, highest ranking member of the U.S. Military from 1942-1949, in his memoirs I Was There: William D. Leahy, The American Military Experience
That’s General Douglas MacArthur, quoted in Norman Cousins’ The Pathology of Power.
And that’s just three sources: there are dozens of high-ranking officials, historians, scientists and analysts who completely reject the notion that the bombs were necessary to defeat Japan:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-it-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/5308192
FFS not so sensible Dave, just step away from the keyboard.It’s embarrassing.
O/T but did you see (well, I know you did Rev ‘cos you responded on Facebook ? I think; not FB user but a friend showed me)that the BBC completely ignored 5 by election results. Poss not headline stuff being a summer local council poll with low turn-out, but even the minimal duty of a public broadcaster means they should be covered if only for the record. And why are they failing in their duty? – well it was because Labour won all five. Oh no , sorry it was the SNP holding 4 and gaining one, all with massively increased vote share and huge swings from SLAB.
@ Sensibledave. Imagine if, during any of the European conflicts, technologically and militarily superior Islamic forces with their own agenda had stepped in.
Use of their military superiority hammers the native tribes into unstable submission. Following this they then meddle in European politics, before asset stripping, with the aid of a few local placemen.
How would Europeans have reacted? Would they be thankful? Would the tensions in Europe have been alleviated? Would they have found alternative methods of striking back?
A simplistic argument, but the consequences would have undoubtedly been just as long term and messy.
The Americans decided to drop the bomb because of the attrition rates capturing the islands towards Japan and they knew that the American public would be appalled at the casualty rate so late in the war.
@One_Scot says: 8 August, 2015 at 10:19 am:
” .. he is purely a wind up merchant. Surely everyone knows this by now.”
Is he though? He seems more like a paid for member of the so called 77 Brigade expressly set-up to do exactly what the brainless numptie is attempting to do.
That is to blindly propagate the Establishment’s propaganda upon those the corrupt Establishment perceives as being, “Insurgents”.
What these brainless idiots fail to comprehend is that the democratically elected majority government of Scotland are now independence supporters and thus the truth is the, “Insurgents”, are, by definition, the United Kingdom’s corrupt Establishment.
Dictionary Definition of Insurgent = “a person fighting against a government or invading force; a rebel or revolutionary”.
I’ve been brushing up my debating skills, in particular logical fallacies. I lurk in this site a lot and browse through comments but do not follow particular individuals so I am unaware of Sensibledave’s comment history.
IMHO, just looking at his comments on his particular thread, he is not a troll but a bad debater. All he does is Argumentum ad nauseam/Argument by repetition. Simply repeating the same thing over and over again and ignoring valid points to him doesn’t win the argument.
If he is as claimed by some posters as a paid troll then the British government is true to form in good at wasting money on employing incompetent public-school under-performers.
Thanks Sensible Dave.
You stimulate historical accuracy from the likes of the excellent Taranaich and Robert Peffers, both of whom know their history.
@ Robert Peffers
I do not think so. It may be naive, but I honestly don’t think a paid propagandist would continue where it was clear that the money was being so comprehensively wasted.
Stuff like that might be effective in MSM or social media: it is pointless here, where folk are actually informed
@Taranaich: a case of “informed” writ large. Well said.
Though as I said, even if it were not so, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a war crime and nothing else. Deliberate targetting of civilians is barbaric, no matter how convenient
Well as we all know Trident can’t detect terrorists (but will probably attract them) nor does it seem to act as a deterrent as an example it didn’t stop the Argentinians from invading the Falklands.
Three countries of 28 in NATO have nuclear weapons one being the expendable numptified Scotlandshire. They can’t be relocated to any other site in the UK for a number of reasons and Gibraltar (and Spain close by) told the MoD in January ‘Not on our soil. Take a hike.’
Around ten countries of over 190 Worldwide have nuclear weapons. One hundred and eighty or so don’t seem to need them and are doing their utmost to get the 9/10 warmongers to give them up. Why won’t they? Is the UK as an example more concerned with holding onto its seat on the UN Security Council ….. hanging onto the GREAT British days of yore.
Tridents predecessor was dropped on Hiroshoma and Nagasaki (and a third which has been covered up) in August 1945 even although the Japanese had made overtures to surrender from January 1945 outlining their proposals which were exactly what was accepted after the dropping of bombs on civilians.
‘Great Britain’ has done untold damage Worldwide by, in the main, invading over 80% of countries on the planet for no other reason that to rob them of resources …… and often ensuring that one section of society was at the others throat before leaving which has continued over decades to cause disruption. Distance meant that the disruption and strife abroad didn’t affect ‘us’ but the situation has changed with the chickens coming home to roost.
Now we have Syria. Check out who had been meddling there for quite some time before the Daesh situation. Who has been supplying arms to opposing sides, who actually used chemical weapons on civilians and the real reason behind the US and the UK being involved and it ain’t Daesh.
When all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.
“BBC completely ignored 5 by election results. Poss not headline stuff being a summer local council poll with low turn-out, but even the minimal duty of a public broadcaster means they should be covered if only for the record.”
They’ve gone big with this though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scotland/scotland_politics
Or just another British media day of sensibleUKOKdave style, you’re just a too stupid, small, poor British region but big enough to use as our nuclear weapons dump etc. So shutup and pretend the bomb keeps you safe, annoying silly Scottish types.
sensibledave
Apparently you’ve not been paying attention. Deash is NATO’s Foreign Legion you moron. Arm and trained by the west and funded by reactionary Gulf monarchies.
Why not away and play with yourself. The outcome would be as useful as your input here.
Fiona @ 8 August, 2015 at 1:01 pm
Fair points but there is the possibility that the purpose of paid trolls on sites could also be targeted not on informed members participating on the site but on casual lurkers who do not actively participate and may not be as informed.
For a casual reader, it is possible to miss the many good BTL comments that compliments the article if it is flooded with ‘white noise’ of pointless comments like those of sensibledave as well as having doubts about these goood BTL comments when encountering large amounts of ad hominem/poisoning the well fallacious ones.
@sensibledave says: 8 August, 2015 at 11:08 am:
“To all. Look above … not one single answer from any of you. “
Pish!
Either you are totally blind, cannot comprehend basic English or totally stupid. You have indeed been answered and the answers are summed as. You are blethering pish, your claimed facts are establishment propaganda and several commenters have proven your claims are no more than Establishment lies. Mainly in that your claim the NATO policy is Nuclear deterrence.
I quoted you article 5 and it makes no claim of nuclear attack. It basically says that if any member state is attacked that attack will be regarded by all member states as an attack upon all member states who will join together to defend the NATO alliance members.
As only three of the 28 member states are nuclear powers then 23 of them are non-nuclear states so the large majority are pledging their non-nuclear forces to defend the NATO Alliance.
To date every member state has provided non-nuclear support to NATO defence and not a single NATO nuclear attack has ever been either required or used.
Nuclear deterrence is now and always has been a UK/USA promoted myth. BTW, Dave, You can take it from me as one who spent around 15 years of my life working in a RADIAC Lab, (RadioActivityDetectionIndicationAndComputation).
You can take it as read that if nuclear attack, or nuclear retaliation, with warheads on the current strength of weaponry were to occur then there is no doubt the human race is doomed. Not from direct radiation but from contamination. Suffice to say that so called, “clean”, bombs are not clean.
They create a dessert and they call it peace…
Look at the barbarians, they’re raping, pillaging, chopping off heads, those poor women and children, we must do something,
Yes lets. I know, lets drop bombs on them.
Who the women and children?
No the barbarians.
But, but… won’t the bombs land on the women and children too?
Um, not initially. At the start we’ll bomb the barbarian in his camp, but then when he takes refuge in the towns and cities (and keeps raping and pillaging) we’ll keep dropping bombs there, that’s when the women and children will get it, and if they survive, they’ll have no homes, water, schools, hospitals, etc, but hey. At least we’ll be responding to inhumanity.
And then, within that environment, of kill or be killed, the other side will need guns and weapons, so we can sell them those. Of course by this time, they’ll have been brutalised and with no schooling, etc, they’ll likely be brutalisers too (in fact rumours are they’re now engaging in a bit of rape, pillaging and head chopping), but hey, they’ll be grateful to us yes, cause we dropped bombs on them, to help.
Of course by now their country will be at civil war, totally unmanageable, and those with a little bit of control will be desperate for money – for more weapons – think of the cheap oil we can buy off them through the back door, not to mention the profits we can make through the arms trade. Oops did I say that out loud?
And then, when the inevitable ‘swarm’ of refugees comes heading toward our country, we can blame them for all the austerity troubles here. Fantastic.
Oh, and since the troubles will still be on going, if the home grown electorate start getting a bit wise, we can send in our troops. No criticism then, it would be disloyal to our brave soldiers, serving their country.
And what’s even better, is the home grown electorate will be so worried about it, they won’t notice as we carpet bag all the institutes they’ve built up over the years to make life a bit decent – oh, like a health service for example.
And in the process, we’ll keep our poor areas poor, and make them a bit poorer, excellent recruiting grounds for soldiers, think of the flags we’ll sell.
Only now, some of those in that far away country are seeing the oil being sold out the back door on the qt, seeing the psychos from all countries gather and do deals to perpetually undermine, schooling, jobs, hospitals etc, and they’re getting pissed off, so pissed off in fact that some of them get radicalised and commit… terrorism, in our home land. Such ingratitude, but hey, it does mean we can pass any law we like through parliament without scrutiny. Every cloud.
And round and round it goes. Best description of war and the army I heard recently was in the Film ’71 ‘posh c’nts, getting thick cnts, to kill poor cnts’.
So sensible dave – I actually think your question was valid, and fundamental – and here is your answer, unfortunately not in a yes/no form – armed intervention as proposed by the Carpetbaggers is likely/intended to add to the atrocities.
What should we do? Get educated, get others educated, get Blair in the Hague, protect our NHS, stand up for our soldiers – not to be sent into illegal wars – stand up against the racism about refugees, the list goes on, but always the default position – one little bit of decency at a time. This is not ‘doing’ nothing.
Best wishes to all.
@ Sensible Dave
As a man with his finger on the pulse, what would you do in the situation? Have you any experience of taking lives? Have you served on the front line in the Middle East. What would you do when a young child approaches you and refuses to stop when you shout at them to do so? Would you pull the trigger? If you haven’t experienced that situation, you won’t know the answer, even though you may think that you would have no hesitation in choosing the correct option.
And as for your third world war comment, there are only nineteen countries on the planet who are not engaged in military activity at the moment, either within the parameters of their own borders or elsewhere. Since WW2, the USA have been directly involved in 72 conflicts, and that is not including all those to whom they sent arms.
They financed, trained and supplied arms to virtually every terrorist organisation, (including the IRA, who targeted your own beloved country). They are responsible for instability where they seek regime change, and all this to bolster the US economy. Westminster, without any thought for the consequences to its own people, bends over backwards to oblige their American puppetmasters.
More people die each year in conflict today than at any time throughout history. Nuclear is no deterrent.
As for outfits such as Daesh, it is well known that the Israelis have been supporting their activities in Syria (which means the US are as well). Teaching people terrorist activities is easy enough, but did you ever stop to wonder how this rag tag bunch of ‘loonies’ managed to capture and control large cities. That takes military high command strategical planning, not something thought up over a campfire out in the desert.
Try looking at the world from outside your bubble. You probably won’t like it, but reality sometimes sucks.
Well said, Daisy Walker!
Taranaich @ 12:17pm
Thanks for attempting to dispel the pernicious myth that vaporising the civilian targets of Hiroshoma and Nagasaki, was somehow morally justifiable.
@Daisy Walker
I like that!
@sensibledave
“Tell me what you would have done. Would the lives of the innocent Yazidis, Kuwaities, libyans, Bosnians, etc just be “collateral damage” in your fluffy, idealogical world?”
“So, the yanks had developed a weapon that was potentially capable of stopping the war – and saving the lives of hundreds and thousands of american and allied troops by bringing the war to an end.”
You have kept banging on about innocent Yazidis, etc, yet you appear to be supportive of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because it “saved allied troops”.
So, not much concern for the innocent Japanese civilians that were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or those that were firebombed to death in Tokyo? Were those hundreds of thousands of innocents perfectly acceptable as collateral damage in the mind of a UKOK fanatic?
@ Daisy at 1:45pm
BRILLIANT, insightful post Daisy. Just about sums it up from beginning to end and one wonders why so many others can’t seem to see what’s going on. Let’s hope that your comments will really help to enlighten the confused, ignorant, brainwashed and so on …
Sensible Dave,
your bashing of anyone who disagrees with your view, your total lack of respect in regard to how your address folk, the way you insist that people answer your questions, having given the acceptable answers (in you mind) yourself and your total lack of ability to understand what other people are saying are the reasons that you are considered a troll.
Who gets to decide which war should be entered to defend the democratic rights of a nation? The Bankers? Those with vested interests? Ordinary citizens who elect those governments? Why doesn’t the west get involved with the wars in countries that don’t have oil reserves or any perceived stategic importance?
Who says that democracy is the right way? The people with the biggest nuclear arsenal? Banks and multinationals have replaced the kings of yesteryear and are growing more powerful. They don’t have a mandate to dictate which war we fight, they do have a vested interest in where and when they sell their WMD and conventional weapons to maximise their profits.
Democracy as we have it at the moment is not democracy at all. Governments are elected by the people and SHOULD be answerable to the people. Their representatives should do just that, represent the people they were elected by. Not the party line or whip. Who chooses the people who will represent the political parties. Why do you think that modern democratic societies are following unelected business ideals? It’s because they are no longer answerable to the electorate. This needs to change. This is the biggest reason I for one support independence.
WMDs have only one use. To make money for politicians and big business. They serve no other purpose. Modern nuclear weapons are so powerful that they make the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs look like firecrackers.
What gives the establishment the right to enforce the will of it’s bankers and businessmen, an unelected super rich of 1% of it’s population on it’s own people?
I don’t expect you to answer these questions and I certainly won’t give you a multiple choice set of answers written to suit my own agenda, but maybe you could take some time to consider why people think the way they do on sites like Wings over Scotland.
@sensibledave –
TBH, I quite enjoy reading your posts at times, especially when you turn on the faux charm with other Wingers and attempt to have banter with ‘Grousey’ and ‘Heedy’.
But then you go and make a total helmet of yourself.
Please make some effort to address some of the excellent comments above, especially those by Fiona (10.45), Daisy Walker (1.35) and Rob James (2.01).
P.S. @Fiona, I can’t find a source for this, but it’s always been my understanding that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were selected for bombing because they are situated on unusually flat land (for Japan) and this would make assessment of the blast effects easier. The civilian populations were an important part of the ‘experiment’, and their evacuation would’ve ‘cost’ the U.S. military priceless data they couldn’t hope to gain otherwise.
It can also be said of Chris’s picture that the proposed £100bn renawl of Trident missiles, will not have any effect on terrorism at all.
It’s the wrong weapon for the job, but I suppose Nato and the US, will be glad to see the UK renew such weapons, as I recall reading that 2% of GDP is too be spent on defence.
@Daisy
Well said.
Scientists aver only cockroaches will survive mankind’s annihilation – hence the one in Chris’s cartoon is right to look triumphant.
This begs the question, what have flora and fauna done to mankind to attract extinction?
Ian: “The civilian populations were an important part of the [Hiroshima and Nagasaki] ‘experiment’”
The most powerful nation is not necessarily the one that holds the most weapons of instant death, though the USA has that dubious distinction.
The key factor is which nation is prepared to use them to affect control over all other nations by fear; and the USA exercised that doctrine first.
Ian Brotherhood @3:10pm
Ian your P.S.@Fiona, that would not surprise me.
How Despicable/Depraved and Inhumane.
Bastirts.
The way I see it
I am sick of humanity, I am sick of religeon, I am sick of wars, I am sick of hearing about countries invading other countries and imposing their will on the people of that particular nation.
I am talking about the “British” Empire that invaded India, Pakistan, various nations in Asia, middle east and all those African countries.
I am talking about the French who also invaded African Countries.
I am talking about the Dutch that invaded African Countries and some in Asia
I am talking about the Spanish that invaded South America.
I am talking about the Portuguese that invaded South America.
I am talking about the Catholic religeon that put people to the sword to convert to the Catholism faith in South America.
I am talking about the Protestant Catholics that slaughtered Roman Catholics and treated them as 2nd class citizens in the UK.
I am talking about the Catholic religeon that tried to convert musliums to the Christian faith
Can anyone tell me if any fuckin South American country that has successfully invaded an European nation?
Can anyone tell me if any African nation successfully invaded an European Nation?
Why just we just blow up the entire world and let that be the end of it.
Mind you it was all in a good cause eh?
https://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/the-effects-of-nuclear-testing/the-united-states-nuclear-testing-programme/
Craig says:
8 August, 2015 at 4:09 pm
“The way I see it”
Craig, pretty much spot on sir.
@Ian Brotherhood
Almost correct Ian, target selection of those two cities was because they had suffered very little damage up till then, no firestorms with B29 delivered incendiaries etc., and so they were much better test sites.
Keep up the good work.
@sensibledave
Re the Yazidis, would they not have been safer had we not removed Saddam?
Yes Saddam was a monster, but in many ways a monster of the West’s making.
We encouraged and armed him to go to war with Iran (the gassing of the Kurds was another result of this war), because the West has taken sides with Sunni Saudi Arabia against Shia Iran.
Reminds of another one of those dilemmas from history. In 1944 the Allies learned of a prison camp in Poland where Jews were being murdered by the thousands every day. Churchill was informed and they had aerial photographs and eye witness testament to what was happening in this awful place.
Now the dilemma is
1 – do you send in a bomber squadron to take out the railway, the gas chambers and crematoria. There will be innocent lives lost but thousands will be saved..
or
2 – Keep schtum, do fuck all and use the barbarism as a good propaganda piece after the war..
Mmmmmmm what did the Brits do?
Craig,
“I am sick of humanity, I am sick of religeon, I am sick of wars, I am sick of hearing about countries invading other countries and imposing their will on the people of that particular nation.”
You have reason to be.
Selfishness is at the core of human nature and it is selfishness which is responsible for creating the state of affairs we live in.
Lead a “Spartan” life, don’t feed the conglomerates.
The more we feed them because of our selfishness (consumerism), the more powerful bullies they become.
If we all curtailed our rampant consumerism, we would soon bring big business down to its knees.
Fantastic how a picture can express a complex idea if you have the talent.
Well done Chris.
Hi Croompenstein.
That’s spooky! I just recently read a book which uses the situation in Poland as its central background plot.
It’s worth a read; fiction(?) based on factual events. Most of the story is set at the Yalta conference. It’s called, “Churchill’s Triumph”, by Michael Dobbs.
ISBN 0 7553 2680 6 (hardback)
ISBN 0 7553 2681 4 (paperback)
Hi Rock.
Seeing as you’re active at the keyboard, how about going back to the “the-day-before-yesterdays-news” 2nd page, and answering my questions to you from Thursday evening (which I have repeated after Thepnr’s post) and Thepnr’s question to you at 2.37am this morning?
Britain has been aerial bombing in the Middle-East ever since it was invented. The world’s first aerial gassing of civilians took place in Iraq by British planes.
Just on a point of accuracy Heedy, shouldn’t we assume that every voter that voted Conservative, Labour, UKIP, LibDem felt that having nukes might make us safe-r? Including most people in Scotland?
Huh? Most people in Scotland voted for anti-nuclear parties.
Keaton, to be specific:
51.3% of Scots voted for explicitly anti-nuclear parties (SNP, Greens, SSP)
24.3% of Scots voted for a party that promotes the ideal of unilateral nuclear disarmament in rhetoric, if not in practice, and with a number of rebel MPs who voted against renewal (New Labour: around 8 of the 40 2010 Labour MPs were anti-trident, or about 20%)
7.5% of Scots voted for a party that wants to reduce the number of nuclear patrols and the overall stockpile, stopping short of complete disarmament (Lib Dems)
Which leaves…
16.5% of Scots voting for parties who want to continue the UK’s nuclear deterrent on the current trajectory (Conservatives, UKIP)
Whichever way you look at it, 51.3% to 58.8% want to see a reduced or completely abolished nuclear deterrent, while another 24.3% voted for a party which has a significant number of abolitionists – including the sole Scottish MP, who says he’d vote against Trident renewal.
So yes, most people in Scotland did vote for anti-nuclear parties.
Funnily enough I’ve been thinking about about this a lot in the past day or so – prompted, I suppose, by Dugdale’s stunningly insensitive and moronic tweet. Two main thoughts have emerged.
1. Kezia probably doesn’t even know what MAD is.
2. Nuclear weapons are utterly pointless and useless and only serve to support the military-industrial complex and the 1%.
Consider: there are only two times to use a nuclear weapon:-
In response to a perceived threat (not yet actualised). In which case it is murder on an horrific scale and an act of utter depravity
OR
In response to someone else firing a warhead at your country. In which case you’re already fucked.
All
Weekend commitments of work and magnificent sport at the Emirates yesterday meant that I was unable to follow through on the debate above.
Whilst this is probably a dead thread, given so many of the comments, I thought I would write a general response.
The point being addressed by me was the theme that all the world’s ills are entirely as a result of our foreign policy. Clearly, our imperial past is responsible for creating many situations that would not be acceptable today and have certainly caused conflicts subsequently.
However, we have to deal with issues and events that we face today based upon what we believe is right today – and that was the point that I was trying to make -and that so many of you simply refused to respond to.
The examples of the Yazidis, libyans, Bosnians etc are examples of where british forces have been sent into areas that geographically have nothing to do with us.
Despite the protestations of many above, very few of you (except Heedy!) actually addressed my questions. The questions are important because all those situations are part of meme that argues we are still imperialists getting involved in situations that end up with no solutions and, indeed, make matters worse.
As you all well know, I was arguing that situations like the Yazidis, Libyans and Bosnians are, of course very complicated – but sometimes they can be distilled down to being very simple.
To me, it is inconceivable that if we become aware of a situation where 10,000 Yazidis (or indeed any innocents) are facing certain death on a mountain top at the hands of barbaric forces, and we are in a position to prevent the murder – that we should do nothing? We had the forces and weapons available to stop the slaughter, and in the end, that becomes the main thing that matters. Same for the Libyans, Bosnians and Kuwaities.
If to some, that is interpreted as meaning that all we have done is created another example of western imperialism and created another faction that hates us – then so be it. There is little I can say to them other than shame on you.
Does that mean that I was in favour of the second Iraq war? No.
One of the things that frustrates me though is the “absolute certainty” of some of the critics of each action. The second Iraq war is a good example. Those of against that second war have every right to argue why we were against it. However, we simply cannot claim that 100,000s of people were killed as a direct result of our actions and not consider what we think would have happened and how many would have been killed or what other wars may have been started had we not got involved a second time. Saddam Hussain would have still been in charge and none of us know what disasters he would have provoked.
We in the West simply do not understand a mindset where one muslim sect sets about another muslim sect – simply because they believe that their version of Islam is the right one. Whilst that mindset continues there will, doubtless, be situations in the future where “innocents” face slaughter unless someone decides to intervene on their behalf. I truly hope that our government (whoever that is) has the guts to still do what is right – regardless of how some may choose to interpret an intervention or argue that we might make more enemies as a result.
The nuclear deterrent has been discussed ad nauseum . Again, I accept that many will argue that there is no problem to which Trident is the solution. They will argue, again with absolute certainty, that our nuclear weapons have had no impact whatsoever, for example, on Russian and Chinese “foreign policy” over the last 70 years. I disagree.
In reality though, none of us “know”. We do know that there hasn’t been a world war for 70 years though.
Robert Peffers 10.10
“Err! No, Dave, we are not in any way blaming ourselves – we are blaming the Southern British Establishment, and its supporters, and its equivalent organs throughout the Western World. How many times must you numpties be told we are NOT all in this together?”
I can’t respond to all my critics individually but I just couldn’t let this one go.
Robert, in a democracy, we elect a government. Those governments (of whatever flavour) make enormous decisions about using, or not using, our armed forces in a given situation. At any time, there will be individuals that do not agree with the government’s chosen action or non-action. That is democracy.
However, you appear to be claiming a direct connection between those want an Independent Scotland and an arrogant and righteous position on any given “event”. Furthermore, you appear to claim that everyone that wants an Independent Scotland is also anti-“Southern British” on almost every important decision.
I have a different view Robert. I am absolutely certain that a very large majority of Scots who understood the plight of the the Yazids, the libyans, the Bosnians, the kuwaities etc. supported the “Southern British” responses.
I am equally sure that they would despise your views that demonstrate such a lack of basic humanity and empathy for your fellow man – the “not my responsibility” attitude.
Inherent in your writings is an earth shatteringly arrogant claim to the righteous, moral high ground on almost any subject.
For the record, if situations arise again that are similar to the Yazidis, the libyans, the Kuwaities, the Bosnians – then I really hope that our government and our armed forces have the courage to do what they can, and what is “right”, to try and save the lives of the innocents involved.
Given our Imperialist past, the easiest option for our government (of whatever flavour) will always be to say that its nothing to do with us and we shouldn’t get involved – simply because we are “ashamed” of our past.
Well I wasnt around then Robert. That imperialist past is nothing to do with me. And I am damned well not going to base my reaction to an event today – on shame and embarrassment for ill deeds of the past by people who are long dead.
I know your 300 year “thing” drives your thoughts on almost everything – but thankfully most of us “Southern British” and the majority of “Northern British” are made of sterner stuff.
And if Robert, some religious fruitcakes, like ISIL or anyone else, were to try and impose their way of life on say, the people of Turkey, and the people of Turkey ask for our help, then I damn well hope that our government, whoever they are, send our armed forces to assist.
I hope whichever party you support makes clear their policy on such matters too.
your worried about the wrong thing. Global warming is going to cause scarcities and hungry and thirsty people are desperate. The middle east currently does not have enough water as it is. Iran has nuclear weapons. What do desperate people do? They do crazy things. We only need 100 of the current nuclear stockpiles to be fired to ensure that as a race we do not survive. Do you think desperate people won’t take us with them? Personally I think they will be willing. Even if it’s not the middle east it may well be China, India, or Pakistan. We are headed towards nuclear war and i don’t think mutual assured destruction will be enough to stop it.