Wednesday, 23 September 2009

Huh ?

Only Gordon Brown's Labour Party could come up with a plan to lower the Nation' Defences, after a Government he was part off launched an illegal war, and sent troops to Afghanistan where 'it was hoped that the troops could achieve their mission without firing a shot.



Who is going to go first Scotland or Brown ?


bofl said...

just doing what he is told......
tear down the defences then the eu troops can be welcomed......

meanwhile apparently gordie and the govt. think that BA has been ripping them off!

how the fuck do they think we feel?
100+ tax increases,the worst gold trade of all time,mps and lords on the fiddle....ffs!

so its £ hundreds of thousands for gordon to massage his ego and have another try at touching obamas about delusions of grandeur.

Newgates Knocker said...

Obama and Gorden Brown think that if they can get all the leaders round the table and play
"I'd like to teach the world to sing" for long enough, everything will be just hunky dory.

Are they really both that stupid??

bofl said...

yes they are stupid.......

meanwhile the dollar and the pound are collapsing........

moorlandhunter said...

Brown shows us again and again how utterly useless, dim and stupid he is. Three subs will mean we will not have enough subs to do the job properly (keeping one at sea at all times) but then he does not do the job properly when he and Blair took us to war in Iraq and Afghan. He has under funded, under equipped and cut our forces so much that they are at breaking point.
He blabbers on and on about the good job our forces do (they do) but he and Labour do not do their job well at all, in fact they have destroyed our nation over the last 12 years.

Jack said...

What idiot goes in to arms negotiations telling everyone in advance what he is going to do. This has the smell of Browns gold bullion disposal about it.
As correctly pointed out above the UK already has the minimum possible nuclear force to enable 24/7 operation. With the number of submarines reduced to 3 it will no longer be possible to guarantee that a boat will always be on patrol and available. Brown really is a total fucking retard.

Anonymous said...

but anyone heard the news item regarding the dinner lady that was sacked because she told the parents of a bullied 7 year old girl that she was tied up and whipped by 4 boys? the school dismissed the incident as a skipping rope accident!

Markbaldy said...

I would not be surprised if Brown hasn't offered Libya the "spare "sub already... the man is a total fucking idiot and makes Mr Bean look pretty slick by comparison. New Labour insults my intelligence get them out !!! NOW !!!

Jim said...

I think this is a good idea. The quicker we get rid of our nuclear ‘deterrent’ the better in my book. I have no need for such things, nor do I believe that they add to my defence. Those that feel differently are at liberty to spend their own fucking money on such items as they see fit, but why take my hard earned money from me and spend it on something I don’t want?

Isn’t that the crux of Libertarianism? We should all be free to decide how we all spend our money how we like? If that principle is good enough for schools, hospitals, welfare, roads, transport and everything else, then surely it goes the same for defence?

Why is defence singled out? Could it be that ‘rich’ libertarians can afford education, hospitals, transport and housing for themselves, but can never afford an army or weapons individually, therefore demand that EVERYONE pays to defend them, irrespective of whether or not they wished defended.

I am sick tired of having my wages seized by socialists to pay for things that I have no interested in. Why should I be forced to pay for something I don’t believe in?

What about this for an idea? Why don’t people just FUCK OFF and keep your nose out of my life and I promise to do the same? You want nuclear weapons? Well pay for them, but leave me alone to decide my own course of actions.

Old Holborn said...

Actually Jim, I agree.

The State IS violence. That's why it LOVES big bombs.

However, any state needs to defend it's citizens. That is really the only reason a state should exist. Whether that should include 200 Nuclear warheads is open to debate. Personally, I don't think so.

Let's have a referendum on it. The Swiss can. We can't.

Jim said...


"However, any state needs to defend it's citizens."


"That is really the only reason a state should exist."

Why? Because that is how it has always been? Well that is last Century’s news. The nuclear deterrent was never designed to defend MY house, nor was the army’s job to defend ME either. Both were designed to defend capitalism and the rich. Nothing wrong with that, perfectly decent to defend those things, but let us not pretend that the establishment ever gave a toss about ‘Mrs Petitsworth at number 42’ or the little lad who lives down the lane. If Britain was ever attacked the army would be mobilised to protect the mansions and the better off. As far as that goes, if they want an army or a deterrent then let them pay for it. That way you could do away with tax completely.

Once you do that, you can then decide if what you have is worth defending with trident. If enough people think it is then they can all chip in, if not, well, so what? Freedom is like that.

I don’t need a referendum to tell me what I think on any subject. In a freedom living Country, people should be free to gather what information they want, from the sources they want and come to the conclusions they want. I know what I think about a nuclear ‘deterrent’. I have no interest in debating with you or anyone else on the subject, I have no interest interest in converting you to my way of thinking, you are free to think what you think on the subject, but then so am I.

I have no desire to have the tyranny of a Prime Minister by the tyranny of the majority. A referendum tells me that a given number believe/want something. What does that matter to me? We believe this, so you should believe this too? Is that ‘Libertarianism’, OH? Not in my book it .

You can believe or want what you like, but don’t involve me. I am too busy living my life to care what the ‘majority’ think or want.

Anonymous said...

Why are some groups advocating getting rid of Trident just as countries like N. Korea and Iran are on the threshold of becoming nuclear powers?

Jim said...

Yes, some of the most backward Countries in the World have Nuclear weapons. Races where the Presidents have small penises, big egos and huge authoritarian streaks tend to need them. No one will be surprised that the big socialist Countries, Theocracies and despots either have or want nuclear weaponry. She me a large sprawling authoritarian State and I will show you a Country itching to get nuclear weapons. On the other hand, small, modern States, with a good standard of living and a leadership with a decent sized cock don’t see the need for such weaponry.

Sweden, Norway, Finland all lived right on the border of the Russia yet none needed these weaponry, nor do the Swiss or the Cayman island who would have every right to expect to be prime invasion targets, but somehow they have managed NOT to be invaded or bullied into submission.

Nuclear weapons have proved to be a bigger waste of money since Abi Titmusses dad bought her a pair of pyjamas.

Rogerborg said...

>Why are some groups advocating getting rid of Trident just as countries like N. Korea and Iran are on the threshold of becoming nuclear powers?

Because neither of those countries is a nuclear threat to us. North Korea can't reach us with nukes. Iran will be able to soon, but would be bombed (further) back into stone age and then Regime Stabilised by the US under any circumstances in which we would have retaliated with "our" nukes - which we'd never, ever use without permission from the White House anyway.

Retaliating against any of the newer members of the nuclear club could be done just as well and far cheaper with land based missiles. In fact, having half a dozen missile sites in the arse end of nowhere could draw fire from urban areas, which is better (for you and me) than Trident.

Trident was and remains designed to retaliate against a massive first strike from the Soviet Union. It should be discussed in terms of that threat, not the comedy relief members of the nuclear club.

beness said...

Jim said:

"Sweden, Norway, Finland all lived right on the border of the Russia yet none needed these weaponry, nor do the Swiss or the Cayman island who would have every right to expect to be prime invasion targets, but somehow they have managed NOT to be invaded or bullied into submission".

Jim those countries were protected by the same nuclear weapons as they are today. Just because they were not based in those countries, it does not mean they could not have called on them.

Jim said...

Beness, nor did they have to pay for them either, which is what I am forced to do against my will.

As far as I care, these weapons are nothing but huge cock waving symbols, nothing more nothing less. We can never use them in a real war with another nuclear power of similar size. The only time they have been used was against a Country with none. Not as a 'deterrent' but as a terrorist weapon*.

However, I fully accept that others have perfectly reasonable and legitimate beliefs as to the necessity of such weaponry, but they should pay for it and not me.

Why should I have to pay for something I do not wish to own, have no need for or even believe in? I am sick and tired of playing money from my meagre wages to pay for other people’s beliefs and wishes. Why is it that no political party will stand up and say ‘Okay Jim, you don’t wish to buy something for the Nation, you have the right to opt out’? I would have thought the Libertarian movement would have understood this simple concept, but no; they want me to buy their penis substitute and there you go, money confiscated from my wages to pay for YET ANOTHER thing that I have no interest in owning. Why don’t they fuck to another Country and annoy them and leave me alone?

Why? Who are the people who want to spend my money without even having the decency to ask me if I want an item? What do they get out of that?


*Whether the terrorism was justified or not is a different question, but it was a terrorist attack by any reasonable definition.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain


Related Posts with Thumbnails