FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > tonights debate
tonights debate
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
"only really started this as the other one was getting too long to scroll through and read all the entrys now my thoughts 1. GB is an ugly sod whos should stick to sound bites 2. Cameron was on my waver list but he got slapped back when he pulled that smirky face at that nice mr Clegg 3. that nice mr Clegg is utterly shaggable vote so far is for Nice Mr Clegg 2 more debates to go "Cameron scares me a little. He is like a kid dancing round waiting for the ice cream van. I just don't know if he is able to do the job. | |||
 | |||
 | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
XXXX | |||
| |||
| |||
"What really scares me Nick Clegg is such a grey man I wouldn't recognise him in the Street !!!!!!!!!!!!" Does it matter if he does a good job? | |||
"What really scares me Nick Clegg is such a grey man I wouldn't recognise him in the Street !!!!!!!!!!!! Does it matter if he does a good job? "If I don't know him, how can I trust him ??? I'm not saying it's his fault but the party has not sold him at all well. As a potential leader of this country his face should have been plastered all over the press | |||
| |||
"What really scares me Nick Clegg is such a grey man I wouldn't recognise him in the Street !!!!!!!!!!!! Does it matter if he does a good job?
If I don't know him, how can I trust him ??? I'm not saying it's his fault but the party has not sold him at all well. As a potential leader of this country his face should have been plastered all over the press "It has been | |||
| |||
| |||
"it was interesting.... Winner for me was Nick Clegg by a mile... it was interesting that he was speaking to the camera, and did put up on the fact that the other two were taking potshots at each other... when the other parties are saying when they were agreeing with you.... and remembering the names of all the questioners at the end was a brilliant touch for me... GB looked very nervous at the beginning, actually got more confident as it got along.... he was the one i was expecting least from, and actually did better than i expected... Cameron actually disappointed me... came across as a bit too smooth virgin on smarmy to me..... not convinced... i think he was the biggest loser for me.... now.. interesting to see what Clegg does from here.... the council across the water from us is lib dem run, and have to say there are some admiring glances..... if they can make huge inroads into the big northern cities then game on and hold onto the london, southern and southwestern seats they have... game on...." I was looking for Cameron to convince me and he didn't. I figure he and his lot would do the best for me personally but there is a bigger picture and they just didn't convince me. Clegg was very confident and i was a little surprised how well he came across. Bet Labour and the Torys wish they had him as leader. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Cameron made an ass of it at one point when he couldn't find the chap that asked a question and made himself look stupid and not paying attention. " To be fair, Clegg did the same thing and both men's views were impeded by the camera. I think it showed humility to actually ask who asked the question. | |||
| |||
"Cameron made an ass of it at one point when he couldn't find the chap that asked a question and made himself look stupid and not paying attention. To be fair, Clegg did the same thing and both men's views were impeded by the camera. I think it showed humility to actually ask who asked the question." I missed that one with Clegg, must had went for a pee
| |||
"I have been waiting to hear someone state that they would scrap the totally pointless replacement for Trident so well done Nick Clegg!" Why don't you send our soldiers out to fight with empty rifles while you're at it. Same effect. | |||
"I have been waiting to hear someone state that they would scrap the totally pointless replacement for Trident so well done Nick Clegg! Why don't you send our soldiers out to fight with empty rifles while you're at it. Same effect." no  | |||
"I have been waiting to hear someone state that they would scrap the totally pointless replacement for Trident so well done Nick Clegg! Why don't you send our soldiers out to fight with empty rifles while you're at it. Same effect." Just what has convential weaponery got to do with Trident? | |||
"I have been waiting to hear someone state that they would scrap the totally pointless replacement for Trident so well done Nick Clegg! Why don't you send our soldiers out to fight with empty rifles while you're at it. Same effect. Just what has convential weaponery got to do with Trident? " nuthin whatsoever | |||
| |||
"I have been waiting to hear someone state that they would scrap the totally pointless replacement for Trident so well done Nick Clegg! Why don't you send our soldiers out to fight with empty rifles while you're at it. Same effect. Just what has convential weaponery got to do with Trident? " Can you not see the analogy? We scrap our nukes. Korea develops theirs. All we have is an army firing bullets. Hardly a defence against nuclear weapons in the hands of nutter, is it. | |||
"I have been waiting to hear someone state that they would scrap the totally pointless replacement for Trident so well done Nick Clegg! Why don't you send our soldiers out to fight with empty rifles while you're at it. Same effect. Just what has convential weaponery got to do with Trident? Can you not see the analogy? We scrap our nukes. Korea develops theirs. All we have is an army firing bullets. Hardly a defence against nuclear weapons in the hands of nutter, is it. "we have powerful alies not an issue in the real world | |||
"I have been waiting to hear someone state that they would scrap the totally pointless replacement for Trident so well done Nick Clegg! Why don't you send our soldiers out to fight with empty rifles while you're at it. Same effect. Just what has convential weaponery got to do with Trident? Can you not see the analogy? We scrap our nukes. Korea develops theirs. All we have is an army firing bullets. Hardly a defence against nuclear weapons in the hands of nutter, is it. "So out of the blue the North Koreans are going to launch a nuclear attack on Britain? The biggest threat to the UK from nuclear weapons is a terrorist attack, it won't be coming from any missile so who are we going to aim these Trident missiles at? | |||
"We are currently fighting a war against the Taliban without the use of nuclear weapons, since 1945 we have had our troops fighting in several wars and conflicts where nuclear warheads have had absolutely no part in the proceedings....so where is the 'empty rifle' connection?" Er... we don;t need nukes against the Taliban as they don't have them either. Since 1945 we've had nukes and THAT has meant that anybody we fought who had them too daren't use them. Do you not get what nuclear weapons are? They are a deterent. Nobody sane will actually use the things but a nutter might. So that's why we have them, as an insurance. | |||
"I have been waiting to hear someone state that they would scrap the totally pointless replacement for Trident so well done Nick Clegg! Why don't you send our soldiers out to fight with empty rifles while you're at it. Same effect. Just what has convential weaponery got to do with Trident? Can you not see the analogy? We scrap our nukes. Korea develops theirs. All we have is an army firing bullets. Hardly a defence against nuclear weapons in the hands of nutter, is it.
So out of the blue the North Koreans are going to launch a nuclear attack on Britain?
The biggest threat to the UK from nuclear weapons is a terrorist attack, it won't be coming from any missile so who are we going to aim these Trident missiles at?"Oh ffs. Korea was used as an example. Jesus. Pick a country, any country, a communist one, a hardline Muslim state who hates us and the yanks. Any bleedin country that has nukes or is developing them. We have ours to protect us from them. ffs! | |||
| |||
| |||
"Why do you have to talk to people like they are stupid and you are all knowing? Try having a debate without all the 'Er's'...... " only does it to us girlies carnt think why | |||
| |||
| |||
"Why do you have to talk to people like they are stupid and you are all knowing? " After tonight's debate I was hovering between the Libs and the Tories. Not now. This glib nonsense about removing our nuclear deterent has pushed me firmly back into the Blue corner. If we become an anti0nuke state, as Clegg wants us to be, we also have to tell the Americans that they can't launch, base or pass any nukes through our territories. What do you think that will do to our relationship with the US? They will simply regard us the same as they do the French, or the Spanish, or the Italians. Whether we like it or not we benfit enormously from our relationship with America and one of those benefits is the sharing of information. Their network of satellites is far superior to ours and our nuclear submarines/ships would not know where to strike without info from the US. We'd all love to live in a peaceful world but the hard fact is that it isn't a peaceful world. And we need our own defence systems to combat any current threat... and any unforeseen threat in the future. How many people predicted the World Trade Centre tragedy? | |||
| |||
| |||
"1963 The Bay of Pigs. If it wasn't for nuclear weapons we would have had World War 3. It became a stand off and neither nation the US or the USSR were prepared to press the button, as both nations realised the consequences. Unfortunately since the end of the COLD WAR, there are other nations not friendly to us that have developed nuclear weapons. As a result we have to be able to defend ourselves. I think it is a derisory arguement that we should depend on our allies to defend us, as we are, whether you like it or not part of NATO. Having said that Trident is a tried and trusted system, so why should we spend 100's of billions replacing it?" Spot on with the ww3 bit. Why replace? Well i guess because the Americans can zap them mid flight | |||
| |||
| |||
"Having said that Trident is a tried and trusted system, so why should we spend 100's of billions replacing it?" Trident is 25 years old already so if we keep it for another 25 years without updating it I'd hate to ne the man with his finger on the button if we ever need it in case it blows up in his face and wipes out our own cities. You don't keep a jumbo flying for 50 years so I'd take even less chances with a nuclear weapon! | |||
| |||
"I don't get your argument that if we scrap Trident we won't be allowed to permit the US to launch missiles from within our territories, base them here or allow them to pass through....I never heard Nick Clegg say that, he just said what millions of British people believe in this day and age...that being we don't need to spend up to £20 Billion on a new Trident system. His argument that that money would be better spent on our convential forces made a lot of sense to many people in this country, which I am sure will be proven at the General Election." No one can claim to know what millions of people in this country are thinking, without having a referendum. That is a sweeping statement. If Nick Clegg gains power and scraps Trident or any other form of nuclear deterent because he is against nuclear weapons, which the Lib Dems have arged for decades, then it is only a natural progression for them to ban the placement of US nuclear weapons on our territory. | |||
" a small organisation such as Al Queda." One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day! | |||
" a small organisation such as Al Queda. One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day!" Its all if and buts i guess we don't know if trident works till we have to use it. Even if it doesn't at that time the button is pushed the world is fucked any way as someone will have some that do | |||
" a small organisation such as Al Queda. One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day! Its all if and buts i guess we don't know if trident works till we have to use it. Even if it doesn't at that time the button is pushed the world is fucked any way as someone will have some that do "As a deterent nukes do their job. As a weapon, I hope we get one off before we get wiped out ourselves. As you say, if it ever reaches a point where someone somewhere has pressed the button, I'd rather have a few to send their way than none at all. The biggest threat to a peaceful world is a pacifist. | |||
" a small organisation such as Al Queda. One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day!" You miss my point, we wouldn't even know who smuggled a nuclear weapon into London and detonated it.....so how would we retaliate? What country would you have us Nuke if Al Queda were suspected of being the guilty party....Pakistan?, Afghanistan? Uzbekistan?, Chechnia?, Yemen?, Sierra Leone?, Nigeria?, Sedan?...... | |||
| |||
| |||
" a small organisation such as Al Queda. One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day! Its all if and buts i guess we don't know if trident works till we have to use it. Even if it doesn't at that time the button is pushed the world is fucked any way as someone will have some that do
As a deterent nukes do their job. As a weapon, I hope we get one off before we get wiped out ourselves. As you say, if it ever reaches a point where someone somewhere has pressed the button, I'd rather have a few to send their way than none at all.
The biggest threat to a peaceful world is a pacifist."I work on the idea that it doesn't matter if they do work or not but as long as people think they do is enough to deter. Well i hope so!! | |||
"if it makes you guys proud, the americans are actually quite jealous of how the 1st uk debate went, love to see what the viewing figures are for this in the morning... the larger the number, the bigger the bounce for clegg???" Which scares me stupid following on from the previous threads | |||
" The biggest threat to a peaceful world is a pacifist." Don't confuse resistance to Trident 2 with Pacifism...... I fully support our armed forces, I have immediate family and close friends in Helmand in the past, present and going back out this summer. So not a pacifist, just a non believer in a nuclear weapon system... | |||
" a small organisation such as Al Queda. One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day! You miss my point, we wouldn't even know who smuggled a nuclear weapon into London and detonated it.....so how would we retaliate? What country would you have us Nuke if Al Queda were suspected of being the guilty party....Pakistan?, Afghanistan? Uzbekistan?, Chechnia?, Yemen?, Sierra Leone?, Nigeria?, Sedan?......" All of them if need be | |||
" a small organisation such as Al Queda. One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day! You miss my point, we wouldn't even know who smuggled a nuclear weapon into London and detonated it.....so how would we retaliate? What country would you have us Nuke if Al Queda were suspected of being the guilty party....Pakistan?, Afghanistan? Uzbekistan?, Chechnia?, Yemen?, Sierra Leone?, Nigeria?, Sedan?...... All of them if need be" That's perfect.....kill millions of people, whether they are guilty or not. | |||
" a small organisation such as Al Queda. One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day! You miss my point, we wouldn't even know who smuggled a nuclear weapon into London and detonated it.....so how would we retaliate? What country would you have us Nuke if Al Queda were suspected of being the guilty party....Pakistan?, Afghanistan? Uzbekistan?, Chechnia?, Yemen?, Sierra Leone?, Nigeria?, Sedan?...... All of them if need be That's perfect.....kill millions of people, whether they are guilty or not." Genetic specific biological weapons would be a distinct possibility. However as they are banned no one would have developed such things would they. | |||
" a small organisation such as Al Queda. One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day! You miss my point, we wouldn't even know who smuggled a nuclear weapon into London and detonated it.....so how would we retaliate? What country would you have us Nuke if Al Queda were suspected of being the guilty party....Pakistan?, Afghanistan? Uzbekistan?, Chechnia?, Yemen?, Sierra Leone?, Nigeria?, Sedan?...... All of them if need be That's perfect.....kill millions of people, whether they are guilty or not." OK it was a flippant statement for which I apologise. Jane I don't mean any offence this is a debate OK. The intelligence gathered by us the US and other members of NATO are well aware of where the threats come from and who is involved. Since 911 the stae of security and security measures have risen immeasurably. We have to have faith in these systems or else the terrorists win. We would literally be in a state of terror. Al Queda is only one potential threat, we still have to be able to defend ourselves from the others. | |||
" a small organisation such as Al Queda. One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day! You miss my point, we wouldn't even know who smuggled a nuclear weapon into London and detonated it.....so how would we retaliate? What country would you have us Nuke if Al Queda were suspected of being the guilty party....Pakistan?, Afghanistan? Uzbekistan?, Chechnia?, Yemen?, Sierra Leone?, Nigeria?, Sedan?......" Plutonium is a very rare substance and it's pretty much known who's got what where. The break up of the USSR meant that the West became suddenly very nervous about the former Soviet satellite states realising they had nukes on their soil. It wasn't about whether they'd use them, it was whether they'd sell them. Anyone trying to smuggle a nuke small enough that it doesn't have to be placed in a missile to reach it's destination will have to smuggle it's component parts into the UK separately. Our border control doesn't even come into the equation as MI5 (homeland security) overide Customs and the Borders Agency in matters of national security and pretty much know who to watch and where the threat is coming from. Since 7/7 MI5 has intercepted numerous potential attacks on the UK mainland from Al-Qaeda. They can do this with assistance and information passed to us from the CIA, and from Mossad. (The British govt were pissed off at Mossad over the recent killing of a palestinian high ranker in a hotel not because they used British passports but because we weren't told about it, it was embarrassing). So you see the threat of a suitcase nuke is pretty insignificant but the threat of someone like Kim Il-sung, who is mad enough to press any fookin button if he knew he was on his last legs, is very real indeed. He is determined to develop nuclear weapons yet his perceived threat for developing them isn't from any of his neighbouring countries (who don't have nukes either) - he just wants to flex his muscles and convince himself that he deserves a place at the world table. Let's take an abstract view and try and think of something in the future that we haven't foreseen. A threat from someone we haven't considered. Argentina. Prosperous country. Kinda don't like us cos of the Falklands. Gets a hardliner in charge. Develops nukes. Invades the Malvinas. We do... what? (don't forget, there are British people living on British soil there.) | |||
"Having said that Trident is a tried and trusted system, so why should we spend 100's of billions replacing it? Trident is 25 years old already so if we keep it for another 25 years without updating it I'd hate to ne the man with his finger on the button if we ever need it in case it blows up in his face and wipes out our own cities. You don't keep a jumbo flying for 50 years so I'd take even less chances with a nuclear weapon!" No you wouldn't keep an airframe flying for 50 years you'd build another one to replace it. So why not the nuclear system we have in place??? | |||
"Having said that Trident is a tried and trusted system, so why should we spend 100's of billions replacing it? Trident is 25 years old already so if we keep it for another 25 years without updating it I'd hate to ne the man with his finger on the button if we ever need it in case it blows up in his face and wipes out our own cities. You don't keep a jumbo flying for 50 years so I'd take even less chances with a nuclear weapon! No you wouldn't keep an airframe flying for 50 years you'd build another one to replace it. So why not the nuclear system we have in place??? " Exactly. But it needs updating and I'm not talking about a lick of paint on the tip of each warhead lol .. Smarter computer systems to control it. Better isotopes that can be dealt with at the end of their life safely. All the infrastructure needed to maintain and deploy them. The submarines that will be needed to house them. Nick Clegg rustled up £19b of savings pretty easily so I'm sure he can find £20b per year to keep us adequately protected defensively. | |||
| |||
"If MI5 are so infallible (spelling?), then how did we suffer the London bus and tube bombings?..... If the American homeland security is so infallible then why did they suffer the Twin Towers attacks?..... Only two days ago the White House deputy national security advisor speaking at the Nuclear Weapons talks stated that Al Qaeda are known to be pursuing the materials to build a nuclear weapon according to US intelligence. If Weapons grade Plutonium is so secure then it begs the question how both the South Africans and Israelis happened to get their hands on it in the past? The argument that UK and US security agencies know where all such material is at any given time seems wishful thinking to me..... " Which gives more credence to the arguement to be able to defend ourselves surely! | |||
" a small organisation such as Al Queda. One that managed to get four very large aircraft into American airpsace, wipe out the two biggest building in America and hit the centre of US Intelligence. On the same day! You miss my point, we wouldn't even know who smuggled a nuclear weapon into London and detonated it.....so how would we retaliate? What country would you have us Nuke if Al Queda were suspected of being the guilty party....Pakistan?, Afghanistan? Uzbekistan?, Chechnia?, Yemen?, Sierra Leone?, Nigeria?, Sedan?...... All of them if need be That's perfect.....kill millions of people, whether they are guilty or not. OK it was a flippant statement for which I apologise. Jane I don't mean any offence this is a debate OK. The intelligence gathered by us the US and other members of NATO are well aware of where the threats come from and who is involved. Since 911 the stae of security and security measures have risen immeasurably. We have to have faith in these systems or else the terrorists win. We would literally be in a state of terror. Al Queda is only one potential threat, we still have to be able to defend ourselves from the others. " A young white British boy managed to make a bomb, climb on a bus and after a 30 mile journey from Plymouth made a failed attempt to explode the bomb in a packed Exeter shopping centre. So excuse me if my faith in MI5 is a little thin......both of my sons were in that Exeter shopping centre on the day of the failed bombing attempt, one actually working in the building next to the cafe where the bomb was detonated (failed thank god). So I know better than most that it only takes one to slip through the net of MI5. | |||
| |||
"If MI5 are so infallible (spelling?), then how did we suffer the London bus and tube bombings?..... If the American homeland security is so infallible then why did they suffer the Twin Towers attacks?..... Only two days ago the White House deputy national security advisor speaking at the Nuclear Weapons talks stated that Al Qaeda are known to be pursuing the materials to build a nuclear weapon according to US intelligence. If Weapons grade Plutonium is so secure then it begs the question how both the South Africans and Israelis happened to get their hands on it in the past? The argument that UK and US security agencies know where all such material is at any given time seems wishful thinking to me..... Which gives more credence to the arguement to be able to defend ourselves surely!" How would Trident help us if someone detonated a nuclear device in London or Manchester? Groups like Al Qaeda couldn't give a damn about our submarine based nuclear missiles, whether we have them or not makes no difference to a ground attack from a nuclear weapon from an unknown source. I say the money is far better spent in our conventional forces, as Nick Clegg stated tonight. | |||
"Since 7/7 and 911 our security services have tightened up and we've been passing more information to the US and Vice Versa that ever before because both nations know that by doing so the security of the UK and the US is stronger " The Exeter bombing attempt came well after both 7/7 and 9/11. Where was our intelligence then? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"No different from the fluid voters amongst us then?" My statement wasn't about the fluidity of the electorate, it was about Labour adopting PR as policy when they've been vehemently opposed to it for decades. It's all well and good deciding that PR is good for the country but if that's what they really thought why didn't Labour reform the way we vote when the Libs proposed it instead of using it as a vote-catcher now? | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Some countries have throughout the centuries probably called us an hostile nation. We built our empire not for the good of those countries we enveloped but for what we could rape and pillage. Oil, gems, spices, silks etc etc etc. Who the hell do we think we are as a country to tell the developing countries that hey, because you're years behind us you can't use a nuclear deterrent to protect yourselves, so tough shit. The money for Trident 2 can be better spent on the here and now." You're referring to a past that was very different to how we live today in terms of understanding the world around us as well as any moral obligation to let others live as they wish. The British Empire was built upon a desire to make life for British people as comfortable as humanly possible, and part of that comfort was to ensure that no other nation could subjugate us. Often that involved identifying a threat and neutralising it, or taking control of a weaker civilisation and educating it so that we could extract the things we needed to make life better for ourselves but at the same time we made life better for them too. The British Empire is the only empire that was not built upon a bedrock of fear. Yes, we put down rebellions mercilessly and yes, we have blood on our hands, but we also breathed life into cultures that had the potential to develop into something far better than they had managed themselves. Not in the British Empire could a subject lose his or her life on a simple whim of their masters. I'm not saying that that didn't happen, of course it did, but those British governors that controlled British territories had to follow guidelines set down by their superiors in order to ensure that the transfer of goods and labour ran smoothly. As each territory decided that they wanted to become independant of British rule we withdrew over a gradual period of time making sure that the transition of power ensured that the new rulers knew how to run their new kingdoms. Canada, India & Australia are perfect examples of how British rule allowed those territories to develop to such an extent that they eventually became countries in their own rights, yet they have opted to remain under the protective auspices of the Commonwealth. It is this history, this vast experience of how to rule successfully, that enables us to make educated decisions about who else should control weapons that have the potential to end life on this planet. We owe not only to ourselves, but to every living thing that this planet provides a home for, the protection from others that would rather destroy than live in harmony if it cannot force it's will on those it seeks to control. It's not about us and NATO saying "hey, we have the big toys and you can't have any", it's about looking at each country that seeks to develop weapons of mass destruction and asking why they need them. But there is another threat that must also be considered. It is a remote threat sure, but it exists all the same. That is the threat of an E.L.I. - a Life Extinguishing Event, or in other words, an asteroid impact. At the moment the only defence this planet has against such an event is nuclear weapons. They are the only thing humanity could launch to counteract our own extinction but to have this safeguard in only one location around the world would be madness. We need nuclear weapons placed strategically all over the world so that they can be launched from wherever it is determined would be the best insurance for our survival. I watch programmes about the solar system all the time, as Space fascinates me, and our planet orbits a star alongside not only 8 other planets and their associated moons but thousands upon thousands of assorted asteroids ranging in size from a suitcase to the size of Mount Everest. An asteroid 1km wide would be enough to wipe out life on Earth and it only needs a nudge from Jupiter's gravitational pull to send it spinning towards us. It has happened before and it will happen again, eventually, assuredly. Nuclear weapons provide us with a means to deal with such a threat, maybe. As man's understanding of physics and the universe increases I'm sure we will develop weapons that will deal with asteroids far easier than nuclear missiles, but those same weapons could also destroy us if they end up in the wrong hands. Which is why a deterent is needed by those countries responsible enough to have them. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The British empire was partly built on enslaving people so if that's not fear i don't know what is. I can only assume the OP played "Jerusalem" as typing the above." Partly. I admitted we had blood on our hands didn't I. But we also gave many countries things they would neverwise have had. India was a country ruled by feudal bloodletting on a regular basis. Maybe we gave them a common enemy to unite against but unite they did and look at India now. | |||
"armegeddon??? bruce willis?? that other fit guy?? and steve tyler singin!!! seriously im still none the wiser!! xx" Watch Wonders of the Solar System by Prof. Brian Cox. You'll understand precisely what's spinning around out there in space. It's quite unnerving. x | |||
| |||
"The British empire was partly built on enslaving people so if that's not fear i don't know what is. I can only assume the OP played "Jerusalem" as typing the above. Partly. I admitted we had blood on our hands didn't I. But we also gave many countries things they would neverwise have had. India was a country ruled by feudal bloodletting on a regular basis. Maybe we gave them a common enemy to unite against but unite they did and look at India now." I do not deny the British Empire to some extent was good. however it was built on the backs of the fallen and enslaved. As for India well as far as i remember its been on the brink of war with Pakistan for decades so i don't think the empire solved issues there. | |||
"The British empire was partly built on enslaving people so if that's not fear i don't know what is. I can only assume the OP played "Jerusalem" as typing the above." I am offended by the racist overtones in your post. I am not a racist and never have been. I was simply trying to establish why we needed nuclear weapons and why we should have them and other, less unstable regimes, should not. | |||
| |||
As far as the threat from an E.L.E. as played out in Armageddon, starring Bruce Willis, Ben Afleck (that other fit bloke), I state the following. An extinction event (also known as: mass extinction; extinction-level event, ELE, or biotic crisis) is a sharp decrease in the diversity and abundance of macroscopic life. They occur when the rate of extinction increases with respect to the rate of speciation. Because the majority of diversity and biomass on earth is microbial, and thus difficult to measure, mass extinctions have little effect on the total diversity and abundance of life, but rather affect the easily observed component of the biosphere.[1]
Over 97% of species that ever lived are now extinct, but extinction occurs at an uneven rate. Based on the fossil record, the background rate of extinctions on Earth is about two to five taxonomic families of marine invertebrates and vertebrates every million years. Marine fossils are mostly used to measure extinction rates because of their superior fossil record and stratigraphic range compared to land organisms.
Since life began on Earth, several major mass extinctions have significantly exceeded the background extinction rate. The most recent, the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, occurred 65 million years ago, and has attracted more attention than all others as it marks the extinction of nearly all dinosaur species, which were the dominant animal class of the period. In the past 540 million years there have been five major events when over 50% of animal species died. There probably were mass extinctions in the Archean and Proterozoic Eons, but before the Phanerozoic there were no animals with hard body parts to leave a significant fossil record.
Estimates of the number of major mass extinctions in the last 540 million years range from as few as five to more than twenty. These differences stem from the threshold chosen for describing an extinction event as "major", and the data chosen to measure past diversity. [Infomation source Wikipedia ] | |||
| |||
" I didn’t watch the debate (I had much better things to do – or rather have done to me) but I did see Cameron being interviewed this morning and being asked how he felt it went. It quickly became apparent he has all the sincerity of an over ripe cantaloupe and I would trust him as far as I could kick Shrek off the sofa. And as for all this “it’s time for change” bollox. The reality is, it’s not a time for HUGE change. Things do need to change, but in the grand scheme of things they are not issues requiring massive changes. I guess because it was a good tag for Obama then ol’ slug slime Cameron thinks he’ll have a piece of that tag line too. " I agree polo, a turn around will take quite some time for any changes to filter down from the top in order for those of us on the ground to see any benefits. Things don't happen over night and we need to be midnful of that. Cameron didn't come across very well but I think from last night's debate it'll be a two horse race between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. | |||
| |||
"We could all go to Wiki and pull data that serves our needs. I was referring to an event that threatens man's existence, not microrganisms. This planet will survive an asteroid impact and over millions of years another species will become dominant. I'm talking about nuclear weapons assisting man in his survival of such an event. " I dare to differ, so called global warming, meteorites, volcanic eruptians, asteroids, nuclear warheads and the like will all have an impact on micro-organisms. These micro-organisms are the very lowest of the food chain and without these, we will lose numerous species. Asteroids etc pepper planets with whatever they contain and this in itself can change the whole planets make-up. Global warming and the melting of the ice caps also have the capacity to do the same. Introducing micr-organisms etc that have not been around for millions if not billions of years. On a lighter note, with reference to your last post it appears woman will be fine  | |||
| |||
| |||
"We could all go to Wiki and pull data that serves our needs. I was referring to an event that threatens man's existence, not microrganisms. This planet will survive an asteroid impact and over millions of years another species will become dominant. I'm talking about nuclear weapons assisting man in his survival of such an event. I dare to differ, so called global warming, meteorites, volcanic eruptians, asteroids, nuclear warheads and the like will all have an impact on micro-organisms. These micro-organisms are the very lowest of the food chain and without these, we will lose numerous species. Asteroids etc pepper planets with whatever they contain and this in itself can change the whole planets make-up. Global warming and the melting of the ice caps also have the capacity to do the same. Introducing micr-organisms etc that have not been around for millions if not billions of years. On a lighter note, with reference to your last post it appears woman will be fine "Those same melting icecaps that are now reforming? I watched with interest how the three leaders of the main political parties didn't mention global warming once on Thursday evening. It's been rebranded 'climate change' but the climater has been changing ever since the soalr system was formed 4.5bn years ago. Interestingly, Nick Clegg, in 2007, argued against scrapping Trident. It appears that for all his polish that he's prepared to sell any policy in return for a Liberal vote. | |||
"We could all go to Wiki and pull data that serves our needs. I was referring to an event that threatens man's existence, not microrganisms. This planet will survive an asteroid impact and over millions of years another species will become dominant. I'm talking about nuclear weapons assisting man in his survival of such an event. I dare to differ, so called global warming, meteorites, volcanic eruptians, asteroids, nuclear warheads and the like will all have an impact on micro-organisms. These micro-organisms are the very lowest of the food chain and without these, we will lose numerous species. Asteroids etc pepper planets with whatever they contain and this in itself can change the whole planets make-up. Global warming and the melting of the ice caps also have the capacity to do the same. Introducing micr-organisms etc that have not been around for millions if not billions of years. On a lighter note, with reference to your last post it appears woman will be fine
Those same melting icecaps that are now reforming?
I watched with interest how the three leaders of the main political parties didn't mention global warming once on Thursday evening. It's been rebranded 'climate change' but the climater has been changing ever since the soalr system was formed 4.5bn years ago.
Interestingly, Nick Clegg, in 2007, argued against scrapping Trident. It appears that for all his polish that he's prepared to sell any policy in return for a Liberal vote."doesnt every politician do that?? and sometimes it can be in the name of progress!! but i wondered where global warmin went in the debate it seems not to be on peoples priority lists now but did see a big bit in the lib dem manifesto about it x | |||
"Interestingly, Nick Clegg, in 2007, argued against scrapping Trident. It appears that for all his polish that he's prepared to sell any policy in return for a Liberal vote. doesnt every politician do that?? and sometimes it can be in the name of progress!! but i wondered where global warmin went in the debate it seems not to be on peoples priority lists now but did see a big bit in the lib dem manifesto about it x" Yes they do but on such an important issue as this nation's defences I think any political party should be absolutely clear on it's position, so that we, the people, can make as much of an informed choice as possible. With regards to global warming, many of the 'experts' that have been receiving funding for years have now siad that the planet is in no danger but that we should be 'erring on the side of caution anyway' - which to my ears, is a major backtrack. The Libs decided their manifesto some time ago and obviously haven't read the latest reports on climate change lol. I'm a sceptic by nature and when I hear professional experts telling me to do this thing or that thing I nearly always do the opposite as I simply don't trust someone who receives funding to prepare reports that coincide with the policies of the fundpayer. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"actually... ahem ... technicality.. Clegg isn't talking about scrapping trident... he is talking about finding the money at the moment to replace it.... doesn 100bn over 25 year make ecomonic sense at the moment.... probably not..... if the ecomony improves then sure, but at this point in time, that sort of money would be potentially better spent elsewhere... " But that's the whole crux of the matter isn't it. They're talking about the economy in 25 years time but addressing a recession that's taking place now. That's a bit short term don't you think. The economy will have many ups and downs over the next 25 years I'm sure, but to relinquish our place at the United Nations Security Council because we don't have our own independent nuclear weapons is a miscalculation at best and pure folly at worst. The UK is one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with France, China, Russia and the United States, and I'm sure they'd look upon us as poor relations if we tried to dicate nuclear policy without having our own nuclear weapons. | |||
| |||
