Defence under a Corbyn Government
Pardon me saying so Racedo but that's a bit of a Marxist analysis.
Is the US less likely to collapse than Russia? or China??
Is the US less likely to collapse than Russia? or China??
That is pretty much history repeating itself but at a breakneck pace.
US was land of the free and home of the braves until 1492 when someone landed there.
US grew from the work of the landless poor / persecuted people of Europe be it Highland clearances, persecution of Presbetyrians in Ireland who are the Scots Irish who made up the backbone of Washingstons army, followed later by the Irish famine survivors or the various wars and pogroms around Europe. This took place over centuries but now mass media showing what US is supposed like encourage people to leave but media ignores the dead and dying living on the streets in the US.
US is on the verge of collapse as Debt, migration and a divided people fight verbally among themselves, with a desire to oust anybody who doesn't agree with a particular viewpoint, it doesn't take much to move it from it from verbal to a bit more. The swamp are out in force telling the people they decide what elected people should do and at their bidding.
Uk is pretty similar but it kept all the trappings of power to the gilded rich, the poor can live in Grenfell tower and other places.
Media spin one narrative but that comes undone so now they want control.
Politicians need to be brave to stand up for their country, there are few I see capable of this.
Most will think short term and for personal enrichment only, a nigerian friend, well educated family said in Africa the issue always was that leaders sought personal power and wealth because they knew once out of power it could be taken from them. The viewpoint was there was never enough money so they would grab more and more, sadly in 20 odd years I see UK politicians using every means possible to do the same where Salary is not enough so use of expenses and fiddles is the means to enrich onself.
US was land of the free and home of the braves until 1492 when someone landed there.
US grew from the work of the landless poor / persecuted people of Europe be it Highland clearances, persecution of Presbetyrians in Ireland who are the Scots Irish who made up the backbone of Washingstons army, followed later by the Irish famine survivors or the various wars and pogroms around Europe. This took place over centuries but now mass media showing what US is supposed like encourage people to leave but media ignores the dead and dying living on the streets in the US.
US is on the verge of collapse as Debt, migration and a divided people fight verbally among themselves, with a desire to oust anybody who doesn't agree with a particular viewpoint, it doesn't take much to move it from it from verbal to a bit more. The swamp are out in force telling the people they decide what elected people should do and at their bidding.
Uk is pretty similar but it kept all the trappings of power to the gilded rich, the poor can live in Grenfell tower and other places.
Media spin one narrative but that comes undone so now they want control.
Politicians need to be brave to stand up for their country, there are few I see capable of this.
Most will think short term and for personal enrichment only, a nigerian friend, well educated family said in Africa the issue always was that leaders sought personal power and wealth because they knew once out of power it could be taken from them. The viewpoint was there was never enough money so they would grab more and more, sadly in 20 odd years I see UK politicians using every means possible to do the same where Salary is not enough so use of expenses and fiddles is the means to enrich onself.
The methods used don't stand up to scruitiny but media are not interested in that, they hate the incumbent so any end justifes the means.
IF they succeed then any future elected President is in for same. Then you have people believing that their vote no longer counts if they vote for a candidate that an unelected group don't like.
Julius Caeser was removed from within, not in a battle. But Rome fell because it imported cheap labour, Romans became too comfortable, they lost the will to fight and spent more time arguing about trivialities than governing while putting on entertainment to keep the masses happy while their treaury was empty.
Russia and China would use raw military power to crush an uprising from within, US would not as too many lawyers would be involved.
Rome lasted for a good 500 years after the death of Caesar. The "fall of the Roman Empire" as described has some elements of truth but actually sounds more like Asimov's "Foundation" analysis to me
A collapse could be in 100 years or less than 10, I would hope for way longer than the former but fear the latter as people break away into smaller governable areas with like minded people. The more urbanised the world becomes the more easier it is to control / destroy.
In Roman times, North Africa was the breadbasket of the empire for growing things, now it is no chance. Climate change has been around for a long time.
There is an abscence of leadership in the west, that is not going to change.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to the SNP, Corbyn doesn’t even have to be elected to remove our nuclear deterrent. Ms Sturgeon has stated removing Trident is a red line for SNP support in a hung parliament. Any election outcome other than a Tory majority ensures the end of UK nuclear deterrent.
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thread's title is an oxymoron.
There would be no Defence under a Corbyn government.
Any current or aspiring Service person who votes for Labour this election, is a turkey who is voting for Christmas.
He is popular among those who don't know how economies work, and his shopping list would make Brown's spending deficit in 2010 look like pennies.
Defence will be the first department that gets cut when the Tories are elected again to sort the mess out, because Defence doesn't win elections in this country.
If you want our country to be defended, vote for a Party that is led by a patriot. Not a little cretin who gets in to bed with your enemies and would happily send you to prison for pulling the trigger.
Corbyn isn't even the worst - John McDonnell is a whole new level of evil.
There would be no Defence under a Corbyn government.
Any current or aspiring Service person who votes for Labour this election, is a turkey who is voting for Christmas.
He is popular among those who don't know how economies work, and his shopping list would make Brown's spending deficit in 2010 look like pennies.
Defence will be the first department that gets cut when the Tories are elected again to sort the mess out, because Defence doesn't win elections in this country.
If you want our country to be defended, vote for a Party that is led by a patriot. Not a little cretin who gets in to bed with your enemies and would happily send you to prison for pulling the trigger.
Corbyn isn't even the worst - John McDonnell is a whole new level of evil.
BVRAAM,
False or fake news! You are posting an opinion as a fact, a fact simply not backed up by the evidence. There is precious little difference in the defence commitments of the main parties. All promise to spend at least 2% on defence as a minimum (though the current mob only actually managed 1.8%) all promise to remain on NATO and all promise to maintain the nuclear deterrent, although Lib Dems would shrink the fleet from 4 to 3 new vessels.
Precious little difference in all of them.
Service personnel will benefit from a Labour Govt in having the public sector pay cap lifted and an immediate pay rise. The Tories have committed to increase the 2% annually over and above inflation by 0.5%, no other party has promised that, though they failed last time round to even manage 2%.
The rest of your post is emotive Tory propaganda.
False or fake news! You are posting an opinion as a fact, a fact simply not backed up by the evidence. There is precious little difference in the defence commitments of the main parties. All promise to spend at least 2% on defence as a minimum (though the current mob only actually managed 1.8%) all promise to remain on NATO and all promise to maintain the nuclear deterrent, although Lib Dems would shrink the fleet from 4 to 3 new vessels.
Precious little difference in all of them.
Service personnel will benefit from a Labour Govt in having the public sector pay cap lifted and an immediate pay rise. The Tories have committed to increase the 2% annually over and above inflation by 0.5%, no other party has promised that, though they failed last time round to even manage 2%.
The rest of your post is emotive Tory propaganda.
True, the manifesto commitments are similar, but Mr Corbyn’s support of terrorist organisations, including the IRA, over the course of his career are a matter of record. I do not accept the “he was seeking an agreement / peace” line; various ministers, civil servants and agencies were doing that- he was supporting those who were engaged in killing British soldiers in Ireland and civilians on the streets of English cities. No party that includes him will ever get my vote, whatever his manifesto says.
Timelord,
Oh come on! You go and Trump BVRAAM's fake news with even worse examples! There is not ONE single jot of evidence that Corbyn supported terrorism, the man is a pacifist for goodness sake! Sure he met Adams and McGuinness, but he also met Paisley and Trimble, in an attempt to find a peaceful solution to the troubles. He has condemned terrorism of all kinds, and has specifically condemned major terrorism atrocities by the IRA, INLA, PIRA etc etc etc.
He met these people openly at the exact same time that the Conservative Government was meeting them covertly.
He supports a United Ireland, as do many people, but he does NOT support terrorism.
I am sure he will miss your vote, and I am no Corbyn fan, but please do not peddle these untruths as your reason, you must be better than that.
Oh come on! You go and Trump BVRAAM's fake news with even worse examples! There is not ONE single jot of evidence that Corbyn supported terrorism, the man is a pacifist for goodness sake! Sure he met Adams and McGuinness, but he also met Paisley and Trimble, in an attempt to find a peaceful solution to the troubles. He has condemned terrorism of all kinds, and has specifically condemned major terrorism atrocities by the IRA, INLA, PIRA etc etc etc.
He met these people openly at the exact same time that the Conservative Government was meeting them covertly.
He supports a United Ireland, as do many people, but he does NOT support terrorism.
I am sure he will miss your vote, and I am no Corbyn fan, but please do not peddle these untruths as your reason, you must be better than that.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
BV &Timelord,
I share your opinions.
Whilst Corbyn has not openly supported terrorism, he has habitually sided with those who engage in terrorism. Entertaining the IRA in London soon after the Brighton bombing by the IRA is one example; rather akin to having tea with the SS whilst our own troops were dying elsewhere.
And Corbyn's views on NATO, expressed in a recent BBC interview, were most certainly (IMO) not those of someone that I would entrust with our Defence.
I share your opinions.
Whilst Corbyn has not openly supported terrorism, he has habitually sided with those who engage in terrorism. Entertaining the IRA in London soon after the Brighton bombing by the IRA is one example; rather akin to having tea with the SS whilst our own troops were dying elsewhere.
And Corbyn's views on NATO, expressed in a recent BBC interview, were most certainly (IMO) not those of someone that I would entrust with our Defence.
And my recollection of his “condemnation” of terrorist actions is that it is always couched in language that equates the atrocity to the actions of UK govt or forces. Ie “ I condemn all acts of violence including those by UK forces” or ‘ this act is caused by UK or US foreign policy.” If Pr00ne can find one statement by him supporting or defending UK armed forces in action I will happily delete my post.
If he becomes Prime Minister though, the ultimate judgement will by by our (former?) allies in the 5 eyes agreement.
If he becomes Prime Minister though, the ultimate judgement will by by our (former?) allies in the 5 eyes agreement.
It really should come as no surprise that the quality of our MPs is predominantly rubbish when the electorate, as represented in some of the above posts, can do no better than parrot such glib, unsubstantiated nonsense . Typically, the 'cut-and-pastes' don't even carry attribution ... (I wonder why?) Original thought, a little research into FACTS - nah, can't be arsed with all that poncy stuff - 's wot it says in the Mirror/ Sun/Torygraph, innit? It is no surprise that the likes of Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Francois et al can be elected into positions of influence when all they need is to appeal to this sort of unthinking 'opinion'! Possibly more worrying is the quote from a retiring CONSERVATIVE MP (a military historian, no less!) assessing his latest Leader - "The one thing you can rely on with Boris is that he will always let you down "(my emphasis).
Well isn't that nice? ... just unfortunate that, like so many of the Tory Party 'Faithful', he couldn't manage to air his viewpoint while relying on his colleagues to support him in his sinecure! SUCH nice people!
Well isn't that nice? ... just unfortunate that, like so many of the Tory Party 'Faithful', he couldn't manage to air his viewpoint while relying on his colleagues to support him in his sinecure! SUCH nice people!
Last edited by Cornish Jack; 25th Nov 2019 at 21:57.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Claptrap CJ
Like most, I form my opinions after researching and considering relevant facts. I don't find the need to regurgitate them each time I make an expression. Go easy with that tar brush.
Like most, I form my opinions after researching and considering relevant facts. I don't find the need to regurgitate them each time I make an expression. Go easy with that tar brush.
Claptrap CJ
Interesting choice of terminology - 'Claptrap' - defined as a form of words contrived to elicit applause ... really? I fancy I'd be on pretty short commons if that was the aim in this forum!
- and your relevant FACT consideration on my previous quote from a 'loyal Tory MP' re the trustworthiness/reliability of your 'Leader' would lead to what sort of opinion?
Interesting choice of terminology - 'Claptrap' - defined as a form of words contrived to elicit applause ... really? I fancy I'd be on pretty short commons if that was the aim in this forum!
- and your relevant FACT consideration on my previous quote from a 'loyal Tory MP' re the trustworthiness/reliability of your 'Leader' would lead to what sort of opinion?
Those who are virulently anti Labour/ JC ,would require an adjustment,akin to deprograming to deny Boris ‘the anointed one’. Socialism isn’t a dirty word, which some of the bloviating, swivel eyed Tory politicians might have you believe!
Tories are still blaming the Labour Party for the crash of 2008,obvs they had control of the sub-prime con & Lehmans in the US!
Johnson is despised by more people in his own party than JC in his! They aren’t warm & fuzzy one nation Tories anymore, they are further right than they have ever been. Johnson is a philanderer,proven liar,racist & gaff prone ;Piccaninies,water melon smiles, reciting the road to Mandalay in Myanmar,to the absolute dispair of the ambassador; His stupidity as foreign secretary is legend & cost a British citizen in Iran,her liberty.
His foreign secretary, a disgraced former cabinet member involved in secret meetings in Israel. To say Johnson’s character is beyond suspect, is beyond doubt!There is room for debate about whether he is a scoundrel or mere rogue, but not much about his moral bankruptcy, rooted in a contempt for truth.
Max Hastings,His former boss said,
“I’ve known Johnson since the 1980s, when I edited the Daily Telegraph and he was our flamboyant Brussels correspondent. I have argued for a decade that, while he is a brilliant entertainer who made a popular maître d’ for London as its mayor, he is unfit
for national office ,because it seems he cares for no interest save his own fame and gratification.”
His worse vice is cowardice, reflected in a willingness to tell any audience, whatever he thinks is most likely to please,not caring that an hour later he will contradict himself!
Tories are still blaming the Labour Party for the crash of 2008,obvs they had control of the sub-prime con & Lehmans in the US!
Johnson is despised by more people in his own party than JC in his! They aren’t warm & fuzzy one nation Tories anymore, they are further right than they have ever been. Johnson is a philanderer,proven liar,racist & gaff prone ;Piccaninies,water melon smiles, reciting the road to Mandalay in Myanmar,to the absolute dispair of the ambassador; His stupidity as foreign secretary is legend & cost a British citizen in Iran,her liberty.
His foreign secretary, a disgraced former cabinet member involved in secret meetings in Israel. To say Johnson’s character is beyond suspect, is beyond doubt!There is room for debate about whether he is a scoundrel or mere rogue, but not much about his moral bankruptcy, rooted in a contempt for truth.
Max Hastings,His former boss said,
“I’ve known Johnson since the 1980s, when I edited the Daily Telegraph and he was our flamboyant Brussels correspondent. I have argued for a decade that, while he is a brilliant entertainer who made a popular maître d’ for London as its mayor, he is unfit
for national office ,because it seems he cares for no interest save his own fame and gratification.”
His worse vice is cowardice, reflected in a willingness to tell any audience, whatever he thinks is most likely to please,not caring that an hour later he will contradict himself!
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
Johnson is not racist, he has made some clumsy gaffs (as ever) but there has been some remorse to those gaffs. Whereas Corbyn has made little attempt to apologise for anti-semitism in his party, or act on it and is the only other party, other than the BNP, to be investigated for such behaviour. He has called Hamas and Hezbollah “friends” - something that he has apologised for recently (there are some things that you knowingly do, with intent, that an apology just will not do). His latest ‘neutral’ stance on Brexit is another shambolic way of trying to win votes rather than lead for a cause. His stance on NATO and the IND is equally wishy-washy (for his own means too). It just shows that you cannot trust Corbyn whereas you might be able to trust Johnson. So the choice is obvious to many.
PS. Then there is this bombshell in the news today (good timing): General election 2019: Chief Rabbi attacks Labour anti-Semitism record https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50552068
PS. Then there is this bombshell in the news today (good timing): General election 2019: Chief Rabbi attacks Labour anti-Semitism record https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50552068
I am no fan of Johnson or the current Conservative party and I agree with much of what woptb posts above, although I believe the “disgraced former cabinet minister involved in secret meetings.........” is actually the Home Secretary. My beef with JC is this: Disagreeing with your nations policy is fine, supporting its enemies is not.
During the Vietnam war millions of Americans opposed the war, They organised, demonstrated, protested and refused to serve. All perfectly honourable. Jane Fonda, on the other hand, went to Hanoi and was photographed smiling and supporting N Vietnamese troops. That is not fine, and it earned her the undying contempt of US servicemen who served there. JC is the same, believing in a United Ireland and peace is fine but entertaining IRA in the Houses of Parliament and demonstrating in favour of the terrorists conspiring to kill British soldiers is not.
I accept that that can be a narrow distinction, but perhaps Pr00ne and CJ can respect my point of view as I do theirs without impugning my intelligence or gullibility .
During the Vietnam war millions of Americans opposed the war, They organised, demonstrated, protested and refused to serve. All perfectly honourable. Jane Fonda, on the other hand, went to Hanoi and was photographed smiling and supporting N Vietnamese troops. That is not fine, and it earned her the undying contempt of US servicemen who served there. JC is the same, believing in a United Ireland and peace is fine but entertaining IRA in the Houses of Parliament and demonstrating in favour of the terrorists conspiring to kill British soldiers is not.
I accept that that can be a narrow distinction, but perhaps Pr00ne and CJ can respect my point of view as I do theirs without impugning my intelligence or gullibility .