FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > the saudi's......
the saudi's......
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *abio OP Man
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
so let me get this straight... the saudis are preparing to say it was an interrogation that went wrong.. but yet it was "rogue killers" in the middle of the saudi embassy... and yet they still felt the need to chop him up!
who was it preforming this... the reservoir dogs?? ooops... took off his ear boss!!!!
so what should the UK govt do if the saudi's do admit to killing this journalist! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"so let me get this straight... the saudis are preparing to say it was an interrogation that went wrong.. but yet it was "rogue killers" in the middle of the saudi embassy... and yet they still felt the need to chop him up!
who was it preforming this... the reservoir dogs?? ooops... took off his ear boss!!!!
so what should the UK govt do if the saudi's do admit to killing this journalist!"
They should stop selling them arms. I don’t understand why killing a journalist is worse than bombing families and school busses in the Yemen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
resign .... with all the stuff going on with this bunch of retarded righties, it's like the governance of the country has had a massive cataclysmic stroke |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"so let me get this straight... the saudis are preparing to say it was an interrogation that went wrong.. but yet it was "rogue killers" in the middle of the saudi embassy... and yet they still felt the need to chop him up!
who was it preforming this... the reservoir dogs?? ooops... took off his ear boss!!!!
so what should the UK govt do if the saudi's do admit to killing this journalist!"
I doubt they will do anything .
Of course they ‘should’ impose sanctions and deal with it in a proper way , but there is way too much for us to lose if we do , so they won’t .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
The Saudis are killing children, women and men with their weapons in Yemen.
UK personnel are stationed in their command and control centre.
Their weapons come from the UK.
They routinely execute people for "crimes" that would not even be prosecuted here.
No-one seems to care.
Not least the British establishment. Just like Trump, it seems more concerned about the value of their contracts.
The UK even nominates Saudi to chair the UN Human Rights Council.
The country is the midwife of Islamic extremism.
Then, a journalist is dead.
An enemy of the state, just like Skripal.
Journalists don't like journalists being killed, so it begins to top the news agenda.
Politicians have to be seen to responding.
Carry on killing women and children, no-one cares. But kill a journalist?
Sometimes, it takes just a single death to trigger seismic events.
Remember, Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisian street vendor whose self-immolation started the Arab Spring?
Perhaps Jamal Khashoggi will precipitate the fall of the House of Saud.
I somehow suspect our leaders here and in the US won't allow it, however.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"so what should the UK govt do "
.... is a vastly different question to ' what WILL they do?'
... what they will do is talk the usual load of right wing bollocks about condemnation whist simultaniously continuing with the usual retarded righty activity of moving their share dividends resulting from the profits made by the illegal and banned weaponry that they are selling to the saudi's to offshore accounts |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"nothing will happen anyway as they tooo oil rich for anyone to do anything...reminds me of one rule for normal people one rule for celebs etc"
Saudi wants to spend $80 billion on huge new nuclear plant to diversify its energy supply.
China and Russia are the leading vendors, but Trump and his son-in-law are trying very hard to get the US (Westinghouse) on the short-list.
The issue is conflated with Iran.
Saudi has made clear it will seek the bomb as a counter to any Iranian bomb.
The old Sunni versus Shia sectarianism.
Israel, of course, wants neither to get the bomb, so that it retains its strategic superiority.
The US Congress is mulling the conditions of any US involvement in the nuclear construction, e.g. a prohibition on any fuel recycling (proliferation risk) taking place in Saudi.
So the stakes are high.
Which makes me wonder why the death of one single person, amongst many exterminated by the Saudi dictatorship, has emerged as a stick to beat its rulers.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"nothing will happen anyway as they tooo oil rich for anyone to do anything...reminds me of one rule for normal people one rule for celebs etc"
I think your right - but not for moral and human reasons (as it should be). Can you imagine the price of oil if Saudi close the tap? We do too much business in arms sales and rely too much on oil. Bring on the renewable energy and we are no longer dependent on this dictatorship! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There is a company in Canada that is literally making fuel out of CO2 in the atmosphere and they reckon they can do it for less than £ 100/ Barrel. If this isn't an April fool then All our troubles could be over if it is scaled up. Google it. It is actually quite Fascinating what they are doing and if it's right we'll be able to stick 2 fingers up at the Saudi's and save the planet at the same time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
A green solution to the house of saud problem .A non violent and environmentally friendly solution .?
Does anyone seriously think the Tories or the republicans want to stop the billions in arms sales . 
War is money . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abio OP Man
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"I wonder how long this thread takes to become trumps fault lol"
That is why I asked what the UK government should do....
Remember this is the same Saudi government that got into a major diplomatic row with Canada a few weeks ago over a couple of tweets
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think the consensus, yesterday anyway, of the political commentators, was that the newish Prince in charge (name escapes me) is an aggressive leader who brooks no opposition and is utterly ruthless.
For them to reverse the statement that the guy left-alive- by the back door and they did not kill him is huge loss of face- have they?
The Turkish said they had proof of his interrogation and killing from an iPhone? I read that's not possible- any update?
The UK keeps defence companies afloat with Saudi arms sales and post sale servicing. Huge, multi-million pound companies. I'd take a wild guess that that will continue....and we loudly and widely castigate the Orange Idiot for not recognising global warming, because of the jobs and industries affected. ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"so let me get this straight... the saudis are preparing to say it was an interrogation that went wrong.. but yet it was "rogue killers" in the middle of the saudi embassy... and yet they still felt the need to chop him up!
who was it preforming this... the reservoir dogs?? ooops... took off his ear boss!!!!
so what should the UK govt do if the saudi's do admit to killing this journalist!"
What should the UK Government do ?
Nothing, Zilch, NADA.
We're fast becoming like the Americans where we feel the need to intervene in every other fuckers business |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"so let me get this straight... the saudis are preparing to say it was an interrogation that went wrong.. but yet it was "rogue killers" in the middle of the saudi embassy... and yet they still felt the need to chop him up!
who was it preforming this... the reservoir dogs?? ooops... took off his ear boss!!!!
so what should the UK govt do if the saudi's do admit to killing this journalist!
What should the UK Government do ?
Nothing, Zilch, NADA.
We're fast becoming like the Americans where we feel the need to intervene in every other fuckers business "
You could argue that we’re already intervening by selling them arms. Should we continue to intervene in this way? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Do you think labour would stop selling them arms? Putting all those working for Bae etc at risk of redundancy?"
Nope, successive governments have always armed countries with horrific human rights records. At least in my lifetime. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you think labour would stop selling them arms? Putting all those working for Bae etc at risk of redundancy?
Nope, successive governments have always armed countries with horrific human rights records. At least in my lifetime."
Exactly. I don't think the Tories or republucans should be getting any bad press over this, any government would support it's industry in the same way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The UK government should certainly be ashamed of its arms deals its complicity in crimes is undeniable. UK made combat aircraft, missiles and bombs have been sold to repressive regimes .
We are in part the architects of all our terrorist problems. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Do you think labour would stop selling them arms? Putting all those working for Bae etc at risk of redundancy?
Nope, successive governments have always armed countries with horrific human rights records. At least in my lifetime.
Exactly. I don't think the Tories or republucans should be getting any bad press over this, any government would support it's industry in the same way. "
If you are against arms sales to repressive regimes vote labour .
Corbyn is against the arms trade deals with the Saudi government .
He said only last month “If we want to prevent arms being made in Britain being used to kill innocent people and abuse human rights then we have to be prepared to do something about it.”  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you think labour would stop selling them arms? Putting all those working for Bae etc at risk of redundancy?
Nope, successive governments have always armed countries with horrific human rights records. At least in my lifetime.
Exactly. I don't think the Tories or republucans should be getting any bad press over this, any government would support it's industry in the same way.
If you are against arms sales to repressive regimes vote labour .
Corbyn is against the arms trade deals with the Saudi government .
He said only last month “If we want to prevent arms being made in Britain being used to kill innocent people and abuse human rights then we have to be prepared to do something about it.” "
So then who would we sell them to? He has said in the past if he got rid of nukes he would invest in conventional weaponry. So who would he sell it to? If he was going to increase the number of uk forces, who's paying for them? What are they going to all day? Who's paying for all their weapons? What do you do with it all when it goes out of date? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Do you think labour would stop selling them arms? Putting all those working for Bae etc at risk of redundancy?
Nope, successive governments have always armed countries with horrific human rights records. At least in my lifetime.
Exactly. I don't think the Tories or republucans should be getting any bad press over this, any government would support it's industry in the same way.
If you are against arms sales to repressive regimes vote labour .
Corbyn is against the arms trade deals with the Saudi government .
He said only last month “If we want to prevent arms being made in Britain being used to kill innocent people and abuse human rights then we have to be prepared to do something about it.”
So then who would we sell them to? He has said in the past if he got rid of nukes he would invest in conventional weaponry. So who would he sell it to? If he was going to increase the number of uk forces, who's paying for them? What are they going to all day? Who's paying for all their weapons? What do you do with it all when it goes out of date? "
I am sure Jeremy would answer if you emailed him .Personally I think trident is a redundant expensive ineffective weapon .
If we get rid of Trident we save £40 billion minimum maybe double that .That pays for a lot of weapons that we might get to actually use and it pays for the men/women to fire them .Also we don't need to worry about our weapons in the hands of repressive regimes blowing up toddlers and we can all sleep well .
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Do you think labour would stop selling them arms? Putting all those working for Bae etc at risk of redundancy?
Nope, successive governments have always armed countries with horrific human rights records. At least in my lifetime.
Exactly. I don't think the Tories or republucans should be getting any bad press over this, any government would support it's industry in the same way.
If you are against arms sales to repressive regimes vote labour .
Corbyn is against the arms trade deals with the Saudi government .
He said only last month “If we want to prevent arms being made in Britain being used to kill innocent people and abuse human rights then we have to be prepared to do something about it.”
So then who would we sell them to? He has said in the past if he got rid of nukes he would invest in conventional weaponry. So who would he sell it to? If he was going to increase the number of uk forces, who's paying for them? What are they going to all day? Who's paying for all their weapons? What do you do with it all when it goes out of date? "
Clearly you have no military experience - it gets destroyed or sold to the poorer countries of the world (joke) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you think labour would stop selling them arms? Putting all those working for Bae etc at risk of redundancy?
Nope, successive governments have always armed countries with horrific human rights records. At least in my lifetime.
Exactly. I don't think the Tories or republucans should be getting any bad press over this, any government would support it's industry in the same way.
If you are against arms sales to repressive regimes vote labour .
Corbyn is against the arms trade deals with the Saudi government .
He said only last month “If we want to prevent arms being made in Britain being used to kill innocent people and abuse human rights then we have to be prepared to do something about it.”
So then who would we sell them to? He has said in the past if he got rid of nukes he would invest in conventional weaponry. So who would he sell it to? If he was going to increase the number of uk forces, who's paying for them? What are they going to all day? Who's paying for all their weapons? What do you do with it all when it goes out of date?
I am sure Jeremy would answer if you emailed him .Personally I think trident is a redundant expensive ineffective weapon .
If we get rid of Trident we save £40 billion minimum maybe double that .That pays for a lot of weapons that we might get to actually use and it pays for the men/women to fire them .Also we don't need to worry about our weapons in the hands of repressive regimes blowing up toddlers and we can all sleep well .
"
When you say "saves 40 billion" where do you think that cash goes? And are you saying you'd rather see uk forces involved in conventional warfare? Or running around in a huge show of strength on the Russian boarder every 12 months? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"so let me get this straight... the saudis are preparing to say it was an interrogation that went wrong.. but yet it was "rogue killers" in the middle of the saudi embassy... and yet they still felt the need to chop him up!
who was it preforming this... the reservoir dogs?? ooops... took off his ear boss!!!!
so what should the UK govt do if the saudi's do admit to killing this journalist!
What should the UK Government do ?
Nothing, Zilch, NADA.
We're fast becoming like the Americans where we feel the need to intervene in every other fuckers business
You could argue that we’re already intervening by selling them arms. Should we continue to intervene in this way?"
What a ridiculous statement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Do you think labour would stop selling them arms? Putting all those working for Bae etc at risk of redundancy?
Nope, successive governments have always armed countries with horrific human rights records. At least in my lifetime.
Exactly. I don't think the Tories or republucans should be getting any bad press over this, any government would support it's industry in the same way.
If you are against arms sales to repressive regimes vote labour .
Corbyn is against the arms trade deals with the Saudi government .
He said only last month “If we want to prevent arms being made in Britain being used to kill innocent people and abuse human rights then we have to be prepared to do something about it.”
So then who would we sell them to? He has said in the past if he got rid of nukes he would invest in conventional weaponry. So who would he sell it to? If he was going to increase the number of uk forces, who's paying for them? What are they going to all day? Who's paying for all their weapons? What do you do with it all when it goes out of date?
I am sure Jeremy would answer if you emailed him .Personally I think trident is a redundant expensive ineffective weapon .
If we get rid of Trident we save £40 billion minimum maybe double that .That pays for a lot of weapons that we might get to actually use and it pays for the men/women to fire them .Also we don't need to worry about our weapons in the hands of repressive regimes blowing up toddlers and we can all sleep well .
When you say "saves 40 billion" where do you think that cash goes? And are you saying you'd rather see uk forces involved in conventional warfare? Or running around in a huge show of strength on the Russian boarder every 12 months?"
Well that £40 billion was just the running costs of £2 billion a year over 20 years.The figure for construction and running costs and decomissioning could be as high as £200 billion .
Regarding your assertion we would need a show of force on the border. We take part in joint exercises on the Russian border regularly.So there is no additional costs there.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you think labour would stop selling them arms? Putting all those working for Bae etc at risk of redundancy?
Nope, successive governments have always armed countries with horrific human rights records. At least in my lifetime.
Exactly. I don't think the Tories or republucans should be getting any bad press over this, any government would support it's industry in the same way.
If you are against arms sales to repressive regimes vote labour .
Corbyn is against the arms trade deals with the Saudi government .
He said only last month “If we want to prevent arms being made in Britain being used to kill innocent people and abuse human rights then we have to be prepared to do something about it.”
So then who would we sell them to? He has said in the past if he got rid of nukes he would invest in conventional weaponry. So who would he sell it to? If he was going to increase the number of uk forces, who's paying for them? What are they going to all day? Who's paying for all their weapons? What do you do with it all when it goes out of date?
I am sure Jeremy would answer if you emailed him .Personally I think trident is a redundant expensive ineffective weapon .
If we get rid of Trident we save £40 billion minimum maybe double that .That pays for a lot of weapons that we might get to actually use and it pays for the men/women to fire them .Also we don't need to worry about our weapons in the hands of repressive regimes blowing up toddlers and we can all sleep well .
When you say "saves 40 billion" where do you think that cash goes? And are you saying you'd rather see uk forces involved in conventional warfare? Or running around in a huge show of strength on the Russian boarder every 12 months?
Well that £40 billion was just the running costs of £2 billion a year over 20 years.The figure for construction and running costs and decomissioning could be as high as £200 billion .
Regarding your assertion we would need a show of force on the border. We take part in joint exercises on the Russian border regularly.So there is no additional costs there.
"
No i was just trying to work out what to do with all your extra soldiers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you think labour would stop selling them arms? Putting all those working for Bae etc at risk of redundancy?
Nope, successive governments have always armed countries with horrific human rights records. At least in my lifetime.
Exactly. I don't think the Tories or republucans should be getting any bad press over this, any government would support it's industry in the same way.
If you are against arms sales to repressive regimes vote labour .
Corbyn is against the arms trade deals with the Saudi government .
He said only last month “If we want to prevent arms being made in Britain being used to kill innocent people and abuse human rights then we have to be prepared to do something about it.”
So then who would we sell them to? He has said in the past if he got rid of nukes he would invest in conventional weaponry. So who would he sell it to? If he was going to increase the number of uk forces, who's paying for them? What are they going to all day? Who's paying for all their weapons? What do you do with it all when it goes out of date?
I am sure Jeremy would answer if you emailed him .Personally I think trident is a redundant expensive ineffective weapon .
If we get rid of Trident we save £40 billion minimum maybe double that .That pays for a lot of weapons that we might get to actually use and it pays for the men/women to fire them .Also we don't need to worry about our weapons in the hands of repressive regimes blowing up toddlers and we can all sleep well .
When you say "saves 40 billion" where do you think that cash goes? And are you saying you'd rather see uk forces involved in conventional warfare? Or running around in a huge show of strength on the Russian boarder every 12 months?
Well that £40 billion was just the running costs of £2 billion a year over 20 years.The figure for construction and running costs and decomissioning could be as high as £200 billion .
Regarding your assertion we would need a show of force on the border. We take part in joint exercises on the Russian border regularly.So there is no additional costs there.
"
Where do you think all that money goes though? Seriously, where do you think 200 billion quid for example, actually goes? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Do you think labour would stop selling them arms? Putting all those working for Bae etc at risk of redundancy?
Nope, successive governments have always armed countries with horrific human rights records. At least in my lifetime.
Exactly. I don't think the Tories or republucans should be getting any bad press over this, any government would support it's industry in the same way.
If you are against arms sales to repressive regimes vote labour .
Corbyn is against the arms trade deals with the Saudi government .
He said only last month “If we want to prevent arms being made in Britain being used to kill innocent people and abuse human rights then we have to be prepared to do something about it.”
So then who would we sell them to? He has said in the past if he got rid of nukes he would invest in conventional weaponry. So who would he sell it to? If he was going to increase the number of uk forces, who's paying for them? What are they going to all day? Who's paying for all their weapons? What do you do with it all when it goes out of date?
I am sure Jeremy would answer if you emailed him .Personally I think trident is a redundant expensive ineffective weapon .
If we get rid of Trident we save £40 billion minimum maybe double that .That pays for a lot of weapons that we might get to actually use and it pays for the men/women to fire them .Also we don't need to worry about our weapons in the hands of repressive regimes blowing up toddlers and we can all sleep well .
When you say "saves 40 billion" where do you think that cash goes? And are you saying you'd rather see uk forces involved in conventional warfare? Or running around in a huge show of strength on the Russian boarder every 12 months?
Well that £40 billion was just the running costs of £2 billion a year over 20 years.The figure for construction and running costs and decomissioning could be as high as £200 billion .
Regarding your assertion we would need a show of force on the border. We take part in joint exercises on the Russian border regularly.So there is no additional costs there.
Where do you think all that money goes though? Seriously, where do you think 200 billion quid for example, actually goes?"
Tell me Clem how much goes into the pockets of honest salt of the earth hard working brits who live in semis and drink in weatherspoons .?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you think labour would stop selling them arms? Putting all those working for Bae etc at risk of redundancy?
Nope, successive governments have always armed countries with horrific human rights records. At least in my lifetime.
Exactly. I don't think the Tories or republucans should be getting any bad press over this, any government would support it's industry in the same way.
If you are against arms sales to repressive regimes vote labour .
Corbyn is against the arms trade deals with the Saudi government .
He said only last month “If we want to prevent arms being made in Britain being used to kill innocent people and abuse human rights then we have to be prepared to do something about it.”
So then who would we sell them to? He has said in the past if he got rid of nukes he would invest in conventional weaponry. So who would he sell it to? If he was going to increase the number of uk forces, who's paying for them? What are they going to all day? Who's paying for all their weapons? What do you do with it all when it goes out of date?
I am sure Jeremy would answer if you emailed him .Personally I think trident is a redundant expensive ineffective weapon .
If we get rid of Trident we save £40 billion minimum maybe double that .That pays for a lot of weapons that we might get to actually use and it pays for the men/women to fire them .Also we don't need to worry about our weapons in the hands of repressive regimes blowing up toddlers and we can all sleep well .
When you say "saves 40 billion" where do you think that cash goes? And are you saying you'd rather see uk forces involved in conventional warfare? Or running around in a huge show of strength on the Russian boarder every 12 months?
Well that £40 billion was just the running costs of £2 billion a year over 20 years.The figure for construction and running costs and decomissioning could be as high as £200 billion .
Regarding your assertion we would need a show of force on the border. We take part in joint exercises on the Russian border regularly.So there is no additional costs there.
Where do you think all that money goes though? Seriously, where do you think 200 billion quid for example, actually goes?
Tell me Clem how much goes into the pockets of honest salt of the earth hard working brits who live in semis and drink in weatherspoons .?
"
You're avoiding the question. People talk of figures like "40 billion quid" like that's it, Its gone. It hasn't gone, it's turned into wages , it runs companies, it pays dividends to share holders who turn it into other products. And it gets taxed by the government most of the way. So who cares how much it costs? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Do you think labour would stop selling them arms? Putting all those working for Bae etc at risk of redundancy?
Nope, successive governments have always armed countries with horrific human rights records. At least in my lifetime.
Exactly. I don't think the Tories or republucans should be getting any bad press over this, any government would support it's industry in the same way.
If you are against arms sales to repressive regimes vote labour .
Corbyn is against the arms trade deals with the Saudi government .
He said only last month “If we want to prevent arms being made in Britain being used to kill innocent people and abuse human rights then we have to be prepared to do something about it.”
So then who would we sell them to? He has said in the past if he got rid of nukes he would invest in conventional weaponry. So who would he sell it to? If he was going to increase the number of uk forces, who's paying for them? What are they going to all day? Who's paying for all their weapons? What do you do with it all when it goes out of date?
I am sure Jeremy would answer if you emailed him .Personally I think trident is a redundant expensive ineffective weapon .
If we get rid of Trident we save £40 billion minimum maybe double that .That pays for a lot of weapons that we might get to actually use and it pays for the men/women to fire them .Also we don't need to worry about our weapons in the hands of repressive regimes blowing up toddlers and we can all sleep well .
When you say "saves 40 billion" where do you think that cash goes? And are you saying you'd rather see uk forces involved in conventional warfare? Or running around in a huge show of strength on the Russian boarder every 12 months?
Well that £40 billion was just the running costs of £2 billion a year over 20 years.The figure for construction and running costs and decomissioning could be as high as £200 billion .
Regarding your assertion we would need a show of force on the border. We take part in joint exercises on the Russian border regularly.So there is no additional costs there.
Where do you think all that money goes though? Seriously, where do you think 200 billion quid for example, actually goes?
Tell me Clem how much goes into the pockets of honest salt of the earth hard working brits who live in semis and drink in weatherspoons .?
You're avoiding the question. People talk of figures like "40 billion quid" like that's it, Its gone. It hasn't gone, it's turned into wages , it runs companies, it pays dividends to share holders who turn it into other products. And it gets taxed by the government most of the way. So who cares how much it costs? "
So lets piss 200 billion up the wall if it doesn't matter ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you think labour would stop selling them arms? Putting all those working for Bae etc at risk of redundancy?
Nope, successive governments have always armed countries with horrific human rights records. At least in my lifetime.
Exactly. I don't think the Tories or republucans should be getting any bad press over this, any government would support it's industry in the same way.
If you are against arms sales to repressive regimes vote labour .
Corbyn is against the arms trade deals with the Saudi government .
He said only last month “If we want to prevent arms being made in Britain being used to kill innocent people and abuse human rights then we have to be prepared to do something about it.”
So then who would we sell them to? He has said in the past if he got rid of nukes he would invest in conventional weaponry. So who would he sell it to? If he was going to increase the number of uk forces, who's paying for them? What are they going to all day? Who's paying for all their weapons? What do you do with it all when it goes out of date?
I am sure Jeremy would answer if you emailed him .Personally I think trident is a redundant expensive ineffective weapon .
If we get rid of Trident we save £40 billion minimum maybe double that .That pays for a lot of weapons that we might get to actually use and it pays for the men/women to fire them .Also we don't need to worry about our weapons in the hands of repressive regimes blowing up toddlers and we can all sleep well .
When you say "saves 40 billion" where do you think that cash goes? And are you saying you'd rather see uk forces involved in conventional warfare? Or running around in a huge show of strength on the Russian boarder every 12 months?
Well that £40 billion was just the running costs of £2 billion a year over 20 years.The figure for construction and running costs and decomissioning could be as high as £200 billion .
Regarding your assertion we would need a show of force on the border. We take part in joint exercises on the Russian border regularly.So there is no additional costs there.
Where do you think all that money goes though? Seriously, where do you think 200 billion quid for example, actually goes?
Tell me Clem how much goes into the pockets of honest salt of the earth hard working brits who live in semis and drink in weatherspoons .?
You're avoiding the question. People talk of figures like "40 billion quid" like that's it, Its gone. It hasn't gone, it's turned into wages , it runs companies, it pays dividends to share holders who turn it into other products. And it gets taxed by the government most of the way. So who cares how much it costs?
So lets piss 200 billion up the wall if it doesn't matter ? "
But it's not being pissed up the wall is it? Its not going down the drain. It's being redistributed. Isn't that what the socialists want? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
i'm sure the billions we're handing over to the americans for trident will be well spent on americans wages .... especially the extra billions that are now payable because the retarded righties in charge of this shithole of a country have ballsed up the economy and massively devalued sterling against the dollar |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Do you think labour would stop selling them arms? Putting all those working for Bae etc at risk of redundancy?
Nope, successive governments have always armed countries with horrific human rights records. At least in my lifetime.
Exactly. I don't think the Tories or republucans should be getting any bad press over this, any government would support it's industry in the same way.
If you are against arms sales to repressive regimes vote labour .
Corbyn is against the arms trade deals with the Saudi government .
He said only last month “If we want to prevent arms being made in Britain being used to kill innocent people and abuse human rights then we have to be prepared to do something about it.”
So then who would we sell them to? He has said in the past if he got rid of nukes he would invest in conventional weaponry. So who would he sell it to? If he was going to increase the number of uk forces, who's paying for them? What are they going to all day? Who's paying for all their weapons? What do you do with it all when it goes out of date?
I am sure Jeremy would answer if you emailed him .Personally I think trident is a redundant expensive ineffective weapon .
If we get rid of Trident we save £40 billion minimum maybe double that .That pays for a lot of weapons that we might get to actually use and it pays for the men/women to fire them .Also we don't need to worry about our weapons in the hands of repressive regimes blowing up toddlers and we can all sleep well .
When you say "saves 40 billion" where do you think that cash goes? And are you saying you'd rather see uk forces involved in conventional warfare? Or running around in a huge show of strength on the Russian boarder every 12 months?
Well that £40 billion was just the running costs of £2 billion a year over 20 years.The figure for construction and running costs and decomissioning could be as high as £200 billion .
Regarding your assertion we would need a show of force on the border. We take part in joint exercises on the Russian border regularly.So there is no additional costs there.
Where do you think all that money goes though? Seriously, where do you think 200 billion quid for example, actually goes?
Tell me Clem how much goes into the pockets of honest salt of the earth hard working brits who live in semis and drink in weatherspoons .?
You're avoiding the question. People talk of figures like "40 billion quid" like that's it, Its gone. It hasn't gone, it's turned into wages , it runs companies, it pays dividends to share holders who turn it into other products. And it gets taxed by the government most of the way. So who cares how much it costs?
So lets piss 200 billion up the wall if it doesn't matter ?
But it's not being pissed up the wall is it? Its not going down the drain. It's being redistributed. Isn't that what the socialists want?"
Is this the trickle down economics of the industrial war complexes that makes Britain great!
We must supply weapons to keep the poor plebs in employment .The fact that our weapons are used by repressive regimes on innocent civilians is of no consequence to the masses .They are greatful that they get eat at the end of the week in a harvester on Sundays ...
Unfortunately to be able to eat at a harvester Mohammed and his family must be shredded to ribbons by British bombs in the Yemen. . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
so redistributing the record massive amounts of dosh that the tories have borrowed, to the americans, in return for a missile system which they haven't managed to get to work properly yet and which has an operating system so far out of date that a 9 year old in vladivostok could hack with a zx81, is taking back sovereignty? ..... good work |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you think labour would stop selling them arms? Putting all those working for Bae etc at risk of redundancy?
Nope, successive governments have always armed countries with horrific human rights records. At least in my lifetime.
Exactly. I don't think the Tories or republucans should be getting any bad press over this, any government would support it's industry in the same way.
If you are against arms sales to repressive regimes vote labour .
Corbyn is against the arms trade deals with the Saudi government .
He said only last month “If we want to prevent arms being made in Britain being used to kill innocent people and abuse human rights then we have to be prepared to do something about it.”
So then who would we sell them to? He has said in the past if he got rid of nukes he would invest in conventional weaponry. So who would he sell it to? If he was going to increase the number of uk forces, who's paying for them? What are they going to all day? Who's paying for all their weapons? What do you do with it all when it goes out of date?
I am sure Jeremy would answer if you emailed him .Personally I think trident is a redundant expensive ineffective weapon .
If we get rid of Trident we save £40 billion minimum maybe double that .That pays for a lot of weapons that we might get to actually use and it pays for the men/women to fire them .Also we don't need to worry about our weapons in the hands of repressive regimes blowing up toddlers and we can all sleep well .
When you say "saves 40 billion" where do you think that cash goes? And are you saying you'd rather see uk forces involved in conventional warfare? Or running around in a huge show of strength on the Russian boarder every 12 months?
Well that £40 billion was just the running costs of £2 billion a year over 20 years.The figure for construction and running costs and decomissioning could be as high as £200 billion .
Regarding your assertion we would need a show of force on the border. We take part in joint exercises on the Russian border regularly.So there is no additional costs there.
Where do you think all that money goes though? Seriously, where do you think 200 billion quid for example, actually goes?
Tell me Clem how much goes into the pockets of honest salt of the earth hard working brits who live in semis and drink in weatherspoons .?
You're avoiding the question. People talk of figures like "40 billion quid" like that's it, Its gone. It hasn't gone, it's turned into wages , it runs companies, it pays dividends to share holders who turn it into other products. And it gets taxed by the government most of the way. So who cares how much it costs?
So lets piss 200 billion up the wall if it doesn't matter ?
But it's not being pissed up the wall is it? Its not going down the drain. It's being redistributed. Isn't that what the socialists want?
Is this the trickle down economics of the industrial war complexes that makes Britain great!
We must supply weapons to keep the poor plebs in employment .The fact that our weapons are used by repressive regimes on innocent civilians is of no consequence to the masses .They are greatful that they get eat at the end of the week in a harvester on Sundays ...
Unfortunately to be able to eat at a harvester Mohammed and his family must be shredded to ribbons by British bombs in the Yemen. . "
I appreciate you belive the uk defence industry is evil and should stop exporting. However, no government, no matter what its favourite colour is, will ever do that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"so redistributing the record massive amounts of dosh that the tories have borrowed, to the americans, in return for a missile system which they haven't managed to get to work properly yet and which has an operating system so far out of date that a 9 year old in vladivostok could hack with a zx81, is taking back sovereignty? ..... good work "
Where abouts in the USA are those new submarines being built ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you think labour would stop selling them arms? Putting all those working for Bae etc at risk of redundancy?
Nope, successive governments have always armed countries with horrific human rights records. At least in my lifetime.
Exactly. I don't think the Tories or republucans should be getting any bad press over this, any government would support it's industry in the same way.
If you are against arms sales to repressive regimes vote labour .
Corbyn is against the arms trade deals with the Saudi government .
He said only last month “If we want to prevent arms being made in Britain being used to kill innocent people and abuse human rights then we have to be prepared to do something about it.”
So then who would we sell them to? He has said in the past if he got rid of nukes he would invest in conventional weaponry. So who would he sell it to? If he was going to increase the number of uk forces, who's paying for them? What are they going to all day? Who's paying for all their weapons? What do you do with it all when it goes out of date?
I am sure Jeremy would answer if you emailed him .Personally I think trident is a redundant expensive ineffective weapon .
If we get rid of Trident we save £40 billion minimum maybe double that .That pays for a lot of weapons that we might get to actually use and it pays for the men/women to fire them .Also we don't need to worry about our weapons in the hands of repressive regimes blowing up toddlers and we can all sleep well .
When you say "saves 40 billion" where do you think that cash goes? And are you saying you'd rather see uk forces involved in conventional warfare? Or running around in a huge show of strength on the Russian boarder every 12 months?
Well that £40 billion was just the running costs of £2 billion a year over 20 years.The figure for construction and running costs and decomissioning could be as high as £200 billion .
Regarding your assertion we would need a show of force on the border. We take part in joint exercises on the Russian border regularly.So there is no additional costs there.
Where do you think all that money goes though? Seriously, where do you think 200 billion quid for example, actually goes?
Tell me Clem how much goes into the pockets of honest salt of the earth hard working brits who live in semis and drink in weatherspoons .?
You're avoiding the question. People talk of figures like "40 billion quid" like that's it, Its gone. It hasn't gone, it's turned into wages , it runs companies, it pays dividends to share holders who turn it into other products. And it gets taxed by the government most of the way. So who cares how much it costs?
So lets piss 200 billion up the wall if it doesn't matter ?
But it's not being pissed up the wall is it? Its not going down the drain. It's being redistributed. Isn't that what the socialists want?
Is this the trickle down economics of the industrial war complexes that makes Britain great!
We must supply weapons to keep the poor plebs in employment .The fact that our weapons are used by repressive regimes on innocent civilians is of no consequence to the masses .They are greatful that they get eat at the end of the week in a harvester on Sundays ...
Unfortunately to be able to eat at a harvester Mohammed and his family must be shredded to ribbons by British bombs in the Yemen. . "
yr right in what yr saying bob but to be honest Mohammed and his family will still be bombed it would just be by Chinese or Russian bombs or whoever but it still doesn’t make it right tho I would be happy to cut all the ties with the whole Middle East and let them crack on they will be still killing each other in s thousand yrs from now |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Where abouts in the USA are those new submarines being built ?"
what submarines? i didn't mention submarines .... what have submarines got to do with the billions we have borrowed to pay america for some shonky out of date missiles? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Where abouts in the USA are those new submarines being built ?
what submarines? i didn't mention submarines .... what have submarines got to do with the billions we have borrowed to pay america for some shonky out of date missiles?"
Ok sorry, i thought you knew what you were talking about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ok sorry, i thought you knew what you were talking about.
and you were correct in that thought... for the first time ever on the forums
Bless you . "
i'll save that for the next time i sneeze .... how's ted by the way?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"so let me get this straight... the saudis are preparing to say it was an interrogation that went wrong.. but yet it was "rogue killers" in the middle of the saudi embassy... and yet they still felt the need to chop him up!
who was it preforming this... the reservoir dogs?? ooops... took off his ear boss!!!!
so what should the UK govt do if the saudi's do admit to killing this journalist!"
.
Unfortunately there's not that much they can do, firstly this Saudi doing all the killing that's been going on there for quite awhile now is the LIBERAL Saudi, he's the left wing Saudi, he's the best Saudi there is!, remember that when you think we should overthrow him?.
Secondly they hold trillions in Western stock markets, at any one time they could collapse any Western country they wish to by simply pulling there cash.
Thirdly they supply 21% of the world oil supply, they could simply stop and collapse the entire world economy overnight.
Fourthly they produce the cheapest oil in the world, at any time they could just pump pump pump and collapse any attempt by Western countries to diversify there energy (eg all our renewable energy gone overnight).
Fifthly they buy all our weapons which employs tens of thousands in the West.
Quite honestly they hold all the cards and we (the West just have to take it up the arse) all we can do is use diplomatic niceness in the hope of influencing they're future decisions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok sorry, i thought you knew what you were talking about.
and you were correct in that thought... for the first time ever on the forums
Bless you .
i'll save that for the next time i sneeze .... how's ted by the way?
"
He seemed fine. But i did get a cheaper quote. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ok sorry, i thought you knew what you were talking about.
and you were correct in that thought... for the first time ever on the forums
Bless you .
i'll save that for the next time i sneeze .... how's ted by the way?
He seemed fine. But i did get a cheaper quote.
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"so let me get this straight... the saudis are preparing to say it was an interrogation that went wrong.. but yet it was "rogue killers" in the middle of the saudi embassy... and yet they still felt the need to chop him up!
who was it preforming this... the reservoir dogs?? ooops... took off his ear boss!!!!
so what should the UK govt do if the saudi's do admit to killing this journalist!
They should stop selling them arms. I don’t understand why killing a journalist is worse than bombing families and school busses in the Yemen."
Fabio, the west will be worrying over any crude oil disruption.
The saying "money talks, ethics walk" applies here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
Quite honestly they hold all the cards and we (the West just have to take it up the arse) all we can do is use diplomatic niceness in the hope of influencing they're future decisions."
You say that like it's a bad thing
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
If we get rid of Trident we save £40 billion minimum maybe double that .That pays for a lot of weapons that we might get to actually use and it pays for the men/women to fire them .Also we don't need to worry about our weapons in the hands of repressive regimes blowing up toddlers and we can all sleep well .
"
I don't think the UK will save a penny. It's an ethical argument, rather than a financial.
The Royal Navy has built 30 nuclear powered submarines.
Twenty are long retired, but none have been dismantled fully.
The Royal Navy has been strangely coy about the cost of cutting each one up, packaging the radioactive waste and sending it for deep geological disposal.
That is just the delivery vehicle.
Now the warheads.
Aldermaston and Burgfield are on a par with Sellafield for the cost of cleaning up and dismantling.
So long as they continue churning out warheads, no-one pays any attention to the liability.
Stop operations and they need to calculate the liability.
My guess would be you'll get little change out of £100 billion.
Then you have to figure out what to do with the stock of plutonium that forms the warheads.
From the late 1940s, the entire nuclear programme in the UK was optimised to create plutonium.
The UK now has the largest stock of any country in the world - 100 + tonnes - and still hasn't found a way to get rid of it.
Decommissioning the UK's WMD will create a huge amount of work, probably more than it's operation. But it won't save any money, quite the opposite.
On ethical grounds, I would decommission it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The UK government should seek international sanctions against them, whilst unilaterally attacking them appropriately.
Immoral behaviour is always that, whether friend or foe who perpetrates it. The UK should lead. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Well, President Trump has said SA should be presumed innocent until there is proof because, you know, Kavannah was innocent all the way . Is personal opinion REALLY a way to profess democracy and diplomacy, not to even begin to consider truth, fairness and accountability? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
If you are against arms sales to repressive regimes vote labour .
Corbyn is against the arms trade deals with the Saudi government .
He said only last month “If we want to prevent arms being made in Britain being used to kill innocent people and abuse human rights then we have to be prepared to do something about it.” "
It's very easy for Corbyn to say anything like this while he has no power to do anything about it.
If he got into Government then frankly I wouldn't hold my breath that anything Arms wise would change much. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
If you are against arms sales to repressive regimes vote labour .
Corbyn is against the arms trade deals with the Saudi government .
He said only last month “If we want to prevent arms being made in Britain being used to kill innocent people and abuse human rights then we have to be prepared to do something about it.”
It's very easy for Corbyn to say anything like this while he has no power to do anything about it.
If he got into Government then frankly I wouldn't hold my breath that anything Arms wise would change much."
He's the only politician who even acknowledges our complicity in this and most decent people are against what the Saudis are doing in Yemen and would welcome his position on a ban of sales to them.
The unions would be against a ban on sales to the Saudi goverment and Its them he'll need to persuade .Lets see when he's in power if he'll be true to his word. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Would the unions really be in favour, though? Arms sales are a double-edged sword: keeps huge firms in the UK afloat but results in death elsewhere. It seems the object is to sell to what we see as countries that are either 'benign' (to the UK), or have something we need. It's morally bankrupt but it keeps people in jobs..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Think the tape will be released? I wonder if he had a suspicion that something may happen - Apple watch certainly has blown things up, but why didn't they take it off him? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *.M.FMan
over a year ago
Riyadh, KSA |
Some logic please !!
Some people are already blaming Saudi Arabia for “killing” that guy even though we don’t know the truth yet.
But there’s no blam for what’s happening in Syria. There’s no blam for what’s happening in Libya. There’s no blam for what's happening in Iraq.
Do you know why??
Sure because it’s from western countries so it’s accepted and it’s for a reason to fuck other middle eastern countries up.
Media has barianwashed you guys. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Autocratic ruler (Putin) assassinates a citizen in a foreign country.
Outrage, sanctions, expulsions, shouty, shouty.
Autocratic ruler (Saud) assassinates a citizen in a foreign country.
Let's not rush to judgement, where is the evidence? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Autocratic ruler (Putin) assassinates a citizen in a foreign country.
The lefties shout "Putin is innocent! It was probably the UK government!".
Autocratic ruler (Saud) assassinates a citizen in a foreign country.
The lefties shout "stop uk government's selling arms to the Saudis. It was obviously them! Let's go to war with these friends of the West!"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abio OP Man
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Think the tape will be released? I wonder if he had a suspicion that something may happen - Apple watch certainly has blown things up, but why didn't they take it off him?"
will the tape be released..... the government intelligence depts yes! to the wider public no!
I don't think people really need to hear the sound of someone being tourtured!
they probably didn't realise he had an apple watch on until it was too late, smartest thing he could do as a journalist because with the health app and the voice recording it would upload all that straight to the icloud, especially since he left his iphone outside with his girlfriend |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If we didnt sell weapons to saudi arabia,france or russia would but we like to beat ourselves up over it all the time and blame ourselves,the worlds in a mess best get what you can while you can ,it would need Armageddon to sort this all out .thats why humans have world wars im afraid
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Things changing all the time with this but I haven't seen questioned how did the Turkish authorities manage to record visual and audio proof if it's not possible to do so via an iPhone? Must have been spying internally all along... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If you knew you were "going into the lion's den" - surely you would have taken out an "insurance" of some sort? A sovereign state disposing of one of its "militant " citizen's on its "own " territory - something which the UK has never done - or any other nation except Russia, North Korea perhaps? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well they’ve admitted that he was murdered now . So what next ? "
I assume the UK and the US want to keep selling them arms. My guess is both governments will make some bold statements and then do nothing. And everything will continue as it has. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
