Do you support the UK increase in the military budget?

[RD2003]

russia is run by serious people. china is run by serious people. iran is run by serious people.
we are run by fucking idiots. thats the biggeest danger. if we werent run by fucking idiots it would be the equivalent of billions being spent.

We are often told that our political parties must have grown-ups in charge, and yet we mostly get eternal teenagers. The kind of twats who've never experienced war enthusing about the idea of conflicts they'd never dream of sending their own snot-nosed offspring to.

The difference between here and the places you mention is that the people they get, whatever they stand for, have actually experienced life in all its filth. In more stable societes they just get to play at it, and their enrichment comes with little personal risk. Their impossible dream is for the whole world to be like that.

 

[RD2003]

Did I say otherwise? I asked you if you think the UK should do penance for it now 20 years later when hostile states are lined up against us. What good would it do?

Don't really know what you're on about, sorry.

 

[RD2003]

dp

 

[Raheem]

We are often told that our political parties must have grown-ups in charge, and yet we mostly get eternal teenagers. The kind of twats who've never experienced war enthusing about the idea of conflicts they'd never dream of sending their own snot-nosed offspring to.

The difference between here and the places you mention is that the people they get, whatever they stand for, have actually experienced life in all its filth. In more stable societes they just get to play at it, and their enrichment comes with little personal risk. Their impossible dream is for the whole world to be like that.

Okay, let's say their leaders have admirable qualities lacking in ours. Sounds plausible.

And so?

 

[RD2003]

Okay, let's say their leaders have admirable qualities lacking in ours. Sounds plausible.

And so?

I never said anything was admirable. Just highlighted the reality.

 

[Raheem]

I never said anything was admirable. Just highlighted the reality.

Being a serious, experienced person sounds admirable to me, particularly when contrasted to teenage twats. But OK. My question stands, though.

So?

 

[RD2003]

OK, but my question stands.

So?

So it's the way it is.

 

[Raheem]

So it's the way it is.

So you're saying all those words you bothered typing are about nothing more than "we have twats, they have proper men", or thereabouts?

 

[RD2003]

So you're saying all those words you bothered typing are about nothing more that "we have twats, they have proper men", or thereabouts?

No.

 

[Raheem]

No.

Ok, so back to the question.

So?

 

[RD2003]

Ok, so back to the question.

So?

See post 127.

 

[Raheem]

See post 127.

You spend a lot of time answering questions no-one asked with answers that, for the most part no-one reads. I'd have thought being asked a question would be a golden opportunity. Whatever. You carry on.

 

[RD2003]

You spend a lot of time answering questions no-one asked with answers that, for the most part no-one reads. I'd have thought being asked a question would be a golden opportunity. Whatever. You carry on.

Maybe you should stop trying to derail threads by trying to claim that people are saying what you want them to have said, instead of what they did say. Goodnight.

 

[Raheem]

Maybe you should stop trying to derail threads by trying to claim that people are saying what you want them to have said, instead of what they did say. Goodnight.

Sweet dreams.

 

[kenny g]

I voted yes as I believe the military should be an available response to carbon polluters as being a clear and present danger to the safety and security of the United Kingdom.

 

[Chz]

Britain already has 'a capable and competent defence' for the threats it faces. The idea of increased defence spending is dependent on inventing new threats.

For better or for worse, Britain is in an alliance with other countries. Countries that are the main reason why we don't need a huge amount of defence ourselves, because they'll be the ones in the way of any likely attacks. And we do owe them some sort of effort on our part to help defend these other countries, some much, much smaller economically than Britain is. It's the entire reason why we even have tanks and other ground forces - in terms of our own defence, anyone who can successfully invade Britain has already won and there's little point razing the country to the ground then.

 

[Pickman's model]

For better or for worse, Britain is in an alliance with other countries. Countries that are the main reason why we don't need a huge amount of defence ourselves, because they'll be the ones in the way of any likely attacks. And we do owe them some sort of effort on our part to help defend these other countries, some much, much smaller economically than Britain is. It's the entire reason why we even have tanks and other ground forces - in terms of our own defence, anyone who can successfully invade Britain has already won and there's little point razing the country to the ground then.

Obvs anyone who has successfully invaded britain has won, it's like saying blue is blue, painfully obvious. But that's not to say all invasions of Britain are going to be successful. Take harald hardrada for example.

 

[Chz]

Obvs anyone who has successfully invaded britain has won, it's like saying blue is blue, painfully obvious. But that's not to say all invasions of Britain are going to be successful. Take harald hardrada for example.

True, but I think that the MoD decided long ago that enough of a ground force to repel a determined invasion by anyone who can get past the RN and RAF was economically unfeasible. The entire British Army would be roughly the size of what an enemy capable of invading would invade with, and they'd have their ships and aircraft with them. (I'm going on the assumption that landing significant troops on Great Britain is next to impossible so long as the RN and RAF exist)

 

[kenny g]

The coastal defences would just need to be ramped up alongside missile defence.

 

[SpookyFrank]

russia is run by serious people. china is run by serious people. iran is run by serious people.

Note the lack of capital letters. This is because it's hard to hit shift and a letter key at the same time when typing with one hand.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I voted yes as I believe the military should be an available response to carbon polluters as being a clear and present danger to the safety and security of the United Kingdom.

Because tanks and fighter jets famously run on wheatgrass smoothies and quinoa.

 

[Spymaster]

russia is run by serious people. china is run by serious people. iran is run by serious people.

If that's where being 'run by serious people' gets you, bring on the clowns.

 

[Yossarian]

I voted yes because voting was the only way to see what the results are but I would have chosen an 'I don't know' or 'it depends' option if it was available - 10 or 20 years ago, I would have voted no, and I might have gone on to suggest abolishing the military, Costa Rica-style, as penance for taking part in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

I still think it's wrong for a country that isn't even feeding its own people properly to be spending untold billions on the military, but with regimes like those in Russia and China - which would get a high score on any "Is this regime fascist" checklist - in the ascendancy, maybe the wealthy should be taxed enough to fund more military spending as well as more generous social programs.

I don't think Russia etc. are run by "serious people," they're run by a bunch of clowns, unfortunately they are the John Wayne Gacy kind of clowns instead of the funny ones.

 

[kenny g]

Because tanks and fighter jets famously run on wheatgrass smoothies and quinoa.

That's the kind of argument used against against Just stop Oil, " but their hi-viz are made from polyester which is made from oil". Using a missile to take out a coal fired power station is a pretty effective use of carbon to fight carbon.

 

[discokermit]

Note the lack of capital letters. This is because it's hard to hit shift and a letter key at the same time when typing with one hand.

from urbans biggest wanker this is high praise indeed.

 

[discokermit]

If that's where being 'run by serious people' gets you, bring on the clowns.

sunak, biden, scholz, macron, they are on already.
currently funding and arming and excusing a genocide in palestine.

 

[Pickman's model]

Note the lack of capital letters. This is because it's hard to hit shift and a letter key at the same time when typing with one hand.

I note you by contrast are a firm capitalist

 

[Pickman's model]

If that's where being 'run by serious people' gets you, bring on the clowns.

All governments are clowns

 

[Spymaster]

All governments are clowns

Nope. Not the Russian, Chinese, or Iranian ones.

They're run by serious people

 

[Pickman's model]

Nope. Not the Russian, Chinese, or Iranian ones.

They're run by serious people

Clowning is a very serious subject. Do you think eg rishi sunak acts as he does without hours of preparation and practice?