BNP no longer a registered political party

[Mister M]

Luckily it is really only that idiot Corbyn who is trying to do that. If he ever got in power we would be in big trouble. He would probably try to disarm the army, send them to war with nice words and gifts to win hearts and minds. Silly hippie.

 

I'm sure he's not thought of that. Why don't you write him a nice email and suggest it to him. By the way, I wouldn't sign the email off as from 'Silly hippie', otherwise he might not take you seriously.

[Eric Arthur]

But when you look at what that very wide ranging concept equates to in policy you struggle to get a fag paper between Corbyn and Griffen on many foreign policy issues.

 

It causes ructions to remind people that Britain's fascist movement has it's roots firmly embedded in the Labour Party and left wing politics.

 

Oswald Mosely was a Labour MP for about 15 years until he resigned to form the British Union Of Fascists.

 

 

It would be interesting to compare the BUF's policies with Corbyns.

[runningman1]

I'm sure he's not thought of that. Why don't you write him a nice email and suggest it to him. By the way, I wouldn't sign the email off as from 'Silly hippie', otherwise he might not take you seriously.

 

It's a serious problem that this guy actually thinks we would be safe without trident. Foolish man. From what I've seen it is only the pseudo intellectuals and the workshy and the benefits brigade who support Corbyn. I am relatively certain that you are one of these.

[sgtkate]

It's that good old horseshoe diagram you learn at school that shows fascism and communism almost joining. And yes, of course you can be left-wing and racist, and right-wing and not racist. I was also surprised when I look at the BNP policies a few years ago and was kinda horrified how many of them I actually agreed with...so I would also concur that the BNP are effectively nationalist socialists. Which other party of the 20th century was called that, oh someone remind me...had a guy in charge with a little moustache. It's a certain blend of politics that are dangerous. I'd be massively against any nationalistic party first and then right/left wing second as I view extreme nationalist policies as far more dangerous.

 

---------- Post added 09-01-2016 at 12:06 ----------

 

It's a serious problem that this guy actually thinks we would be safe without trident. Foolish man. From what I've seen it is only the pseudo intellectuals and the workshy and the benefits brigade who support Corbyn. I am relatively certain that you are one of these.

 

Yet multiple countries around the world with smaller armies and more power than us have no nuclear weapons yet don't seem to be being attacked on a daily basis. I've no issues ring-fencing that money from trident for military defensive purposes but I don't not support Trident one bit as I cannot understand it's purpose. Our biggest threat for the foreseeable is from low level war and guerrilla fighting, like against ISIS for example. Trident will not help us win that or act as any form of deterrent. Trident *might* be a deterrent against another nuclear state but who do you think is going to use it? Russia? Not against us as the fallout would bugger them too? The US? North Korea!?!?!

[Mister M]

It causes ructions to remind people that Britain's fascist movement has it's roots firmly embedded in the Labour Party and left wing politics.

 

Oswald Mosely was a Labour MP for about 15 years until he resigned to form the British Union Of Fascists.

 

 

It would be interesting to compare the BUF's policies with Corbyns.

 

I don't think it causes many Labour people ructions; those Labour people that I've spoken with have values that are internationalist, broadly progressive and non racist.

It does seem to cause ructions with those on the right of the political spectrum who maybe embarrassed by organisations with whom they've had recent affiliation with such as the 'Monday Club'. After all, it tends to be right wingers who dredge this subject up. Perhaps there's a bit of projection going on, I dunno....

 

It's a serious problem that this guy actually thinks we would be safe without trident. Foolish man. From what I've seen it is only the pseudo intellectuals and the workshy and the benefits brigade who support Corbyn. I am relatively certain that you are one of these.

 

So if it's a serious problem, why can't you give a serious reply? By the way it's good to know that you automatically dismiss the views of people claiming benefits. I'm not one of them, and haven't done for over 20 years - still it gives an insight into your fetid psyche

Edited January 9, 2016 by Mister M

[runningman1]

 

Yet multiple countries around the world with smaller armies and more power than us have no nuclear weapons yet don't seem to be being attacked on a daily basis. I've no issues ring-fencing that money from trident for military defensive purposes but I don't not support Trident one bit as I cannot understand it's purpose. Our biggest threat for the foreseeable is from low level war and guerrilla fighting, like against ISIS for example. Trident will not help us win that or act as any form of deterrent. Trident *might* be a deterrent against another nuclear state but who do you think is going to use it? Russia? Not against us as the fallout would bugger them too? The US? North Korea!?!?!

 

I'm sorry but that argument ranks alongside the "my gran smoked for 90 years and she was ok so I don't believe that smoking is bad for you" thing.

 

Our biggest threat is not from terrorist organisations like ISIS as a full scale war will happen, history shows it so, and the risk to life is far, far, far greater in this event.

 

As the world population grows, competitor for resources escalate. This will result in war. Look at the countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Lebanon, Palestine, etc that have suffered at the hands of foreign armies. None of them would be in the position they are in had they been nuclear armed.

 

In the 50 odd years of nuclear armament, how many of these countries have been invaded or attacked? Compare this to the fate of these countries in previous historical periods and you will see a difference.

[unbeliever]

I'm sorry but that argument ranks alongside the "my gran smoked for 90 years and she was ok so I don't believe that smoking is bad for you" thing.

 

Our biggest threat is not from terrorist organisations like ISIS as a full scale war will happen, history shows it so, and the risk to life is far, far, far greater in this event.

 

As the world population grows, competitor for resources escalate. This will result in war. Look at the countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Lebanon, Palestine, etc that have suffered at the hands of foreign armies. None of them would be in the position they are in had they been nuclear armed.

 

In the 50 odd years of nuclear armament, how many of these countries have been invaded or attacked? Compare this to the fate of these countries in previous historical periods and you will see a difference.

 

 

A conventional war can result in net economic gain for the aggressor. A nuclear war cannot. Therefore nuclear weapons prevent war.

A nuclear war is not necessarily the end of the world. All our nukes are tactical. They're designed to destroy the enemy war machine as much as anything.

 

It was nuclear weapons that kept the USSR out of western Europe. We never stood a chance against them with conventional forces.

 

War is not prevented by pacifism. It's prevented by making it uneconomic.

Free trade prevents wars, because those we might otherwise be at war with can get what they want cheaper by trading for it than by taking it by force. A strong national defence (nuclear or otherwise) prevents wars because a potential energy would lose more than they would gain by starting on us. We can't afford the conventional forces to replace our nukes. 2% of our GDP does not by enough tanks and typhoons etc to do the job.

 

The world is not run on rules, paper and laws. It's run on national enlightened self-interest. Yes you should walk softly. Yes you should be fair. But you'd damn well better also have the big stick.

 

 

The exception is that some governments and states are crazy. Their governments do not behave pragmatically.

This is usually because they are in some way on the brink of revolution or collapse because they are held together with sellotape.

When these people get nuclear weapons, the model breaks down and you have a problem.

Edited January 9, 2016 by unbeliever

[JFKvsNixon]

A conventional war can result in net economic gain for the aggressor. A nuclear war cannot. Therefore nuclear weapons prevent war.

A nuclear war is not necessarily the end of the world. All our nukes are tactical. They're designed to destroy the enemy war machine as much as anything.

 

It was nuclear weapons that kept the USSR out of western Europe. We never stood a chance against them with conventional forces.

 

War is not prevented by pacifism. It's prevented by making it uneconomic.

Free trade prevents wars, because those we might otherwise be at war with can get what they want cheaper by trading for it than by taking it by force. A strong national defence (nuclear or otherwise) prevents wars because a potential energy would lose more than they would gain by starting on us. We can't afford the conventional forces to replace our nukes. 2% of our GDP does not by enough tanks and typhoons etc to do the job.

 

The world is not run on rules, paper and laws. It's run on national enlightened self-interest. Yes you should walk softly. Yes you should be fair. But you'd damn well better also have the big stick.

 

 

The exception is that some governments and states are crazy. Their governments do not behave pragmatically.

This is usually because they are in some way on the brink of revolution or collapse because they are held together with sellotape.

When these people get nuclear weapons, the model breaks down and you have a problem.

 

I disagree, our nukes are very much a strategic second strike weapon and if the military planners follow conventional thinking they'll be a aimed population centres.

[Eric Arthur]

I disagree, our nukes are very much a strategic second strike weapon and if the military planners follow conventional thinking they'll be a aimed population centres.

 

And therein lies the big stick because any potential aggressor doesn't quite know what is in the envelope in the submarine captain's safe, wherever it might be

[JFKvsNixon]

And therein lies the big stick because any potential aggressor doesn't quite know what is in the envelope in the submarine captain's safe, wherever it might be

 

I always said that I believe in deterrence, but not the insane over deterrence that obsessed the Americans and the Soviets during the Cold War. It's enough to be able to destroy a country's way of life to be able to deter, the ability to make the rubble bounce several times is just overkill and a waste of resources.