• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

we use them against Russia every day, just by having them they do their job

AD doesn't work on its own, the M is essential

Their destruction doesn't have to be assured by us though, it can be assured by the USA via NATO. We can't launch them without Yanks giving the nod anyway and I assume we'd be buying the hardware from them too.

I am guessing that the USA is the main reason why Russia doesn't go wandering into Western European countries that don't have nuclear weapons. If we didn't have them, we'd be just like those countries.
 
Their destruction doesn't have to be assured by us though, it can be assured by the USA via NATO. We can't launch them without Yanks giving the nod anyway and I assume we'd be buying the hardware from them too.

I am guessing that the USA is the main reason why Russia doesn't go wandering into Western European countries that don't have nuclear weapons. If we didn't have them, we'd be just like those countries.

best to have your own stick rather relying on someone else to swing theirs
 
best to have your own stick rather relying on someone else to swing theirs

Probably. But questionable value for money -- a multi-billion pound stick to poke the bully with, when big brother is standing right behind us with a trillion dollar baseball bat.
 
Probably. But questionable value for money -- a multi-billion pound stick to poke the bully with, when big brother is standing right behind us with a trillion dollar baseball bat.

I dunno, it's more about the bully knowing we might fight back and thinks twice than it is going and provoking him

also, can we really trust big brother to step in when standing by and watching makes more long term financial sense

it's not just Russia either, and who's to say the U.S. will always be a mate
 
Maybe, but when can we ever use them anyway? If it's against Putin's Russia, then all launching a nuke would do would be to commit suicide for the entire country, once they launch theirs in retaliation. If we didn't have them and Russia thought they could launch a nuke our way, they'd be committing suicide because the yanks would lob some their way (as we are in NATO). It's all a bit 'Yes Prime Minister' really.

I'm not too fussed either way (renewal or not) but I think it's a bit silly when people start talking about our nukes and Putin, like it really makes any difference for us. It's all about the yanks.

If you don't mind being pushed around then disarming is the way forward. I know I wouldn't like to be Putin's bitch, and it's not only Putin that it is an effective deterrent to. I can't see any other quick fix solution to overcome the need for a nuclear deterrent, yes sitting on bean bags and having a nice chat would be cheaper but I can't see that working
 
Not having nuclear weapons does not equal being Putin's bitch. See any other Western European country that doesn't have nuclear weapons and isn't Putin's bitch. The reason is NATO and the military power of the USA that leads it (and will always lead it because it furthers their interests).

There's no utopian romanticism here. We simply don't need a nuclear deterrent in the same way that Germany doesn't, Holland doesn't, Canada doesn't etc. etc.
 
Well that won't, although I hardly think it's the time to be getting rid of trident with Putin playing playground bully. We are effectively in another cold war.

It would make no difference, we waste too much money on war and the rubbish that we need a deterent because of Russia. Everyone one in politics bitches about our deficit and the state of our country, however if Blair had not wasted billions on taking us into a illegal war maybe we would not be as bad off.
 
It would make no difference, we waste too much money on war and the rubbish that we need a deterent because of Russia. Everyone one in politics bitches about our deficit and the state of our country, however if Blair had not wasted billions on taking us into a illegal war maybe we would not be as bad off.

What illegal law? There was not an illegal war. In that, it wasn't illegal.
 
We disagree over that and going to war ( which cost us billions) on a lie is something that no PM has a right to do.

But it wasn't an illegal war. I did a 10,000 word dissertation on the Iraq war during my law degree as public international law was one of my elected specialisms. So if you disagree, on what basis do you think the Iraq war was illegal?

Also, what lie was used as a basis of going to war?
 
But it wasn't an illegal war. I did a 10,000 word dissertation on the Iraq war during my law degree as public international law was one of my elected specialisms. So if you disagree, on what basis do you think the Iraq war was illegal?

Also, what lie was used as a basis of going to war?

Wasn't it something to do with Iraq supposedly having the capability to attack British troops in Cyprus with WMD within 45 minutes (evidence that was subsequently proven to be "sexed up.")?
 
But it wasn't an illegal war. I did a 10,000 word dissertation on the Iraq war during my law degree as public international law was one of my elected specialisms. So if you disagree, on what basis do you think the Iraq war was illegal?

Also, what lie was used as a basis of going to war?

Sorry mate I am not doubting what you have said, however I have been involved in lots of debates about the illegal war over the years and this is not the place to get it going again. Needless to say there are two sides for and against it and both sides believe what they will and have their opinions on it.

The point is we bitch about the reasons for the countrys debt and the fact we spend billions on arms, wars foreign aid is one of the main reasons for the debt.
 
Weapons of mass destruction. None were found and the 'intelligence' that was used as evidence was shown to be anything but that. A classic case of the big lie. More to do with stabilising the M-E to protect western oil interests.
 
Weapons of mass destruction. None were found and the 'intelligence' that was used as evidence was shown to be anything but that. A classic case of the big lie. More to do with stabilising the M-E to protect western oil interests.

Where was the lie though? A lie is an intentional deceit.

This concept of an illegal war and lies justifying it have more to do with general misunderstanding as to public international law and actually law in general and how it works and also what intelligence is.

I feel I'm well qualified to say this as I am not only legally trained and qualified with a specialist in international law, but I am also a professional investigator.

I deal with intelligence and the NIM every day.

There is even sometimes a mistaken belief that intelligence = evidence, even amongst my peers, so it is no wonder the general public are confused.

Intelligence is not evidence. Intelligence is classified rumour, belief or suspicion.

Intelligence can be reliable or unreliable.

When you have to make a decision based on intelligence alone, you are always facing the possibility of your suspicions being incorrect. Lets be clear about this, there was no evidence of WMD's. There never was. What there WAS, was evidence of Saddam Hussein's intention to develop WMD's, his use of them in the past (nerve agents used on the Marsh Arabs), as well as his inclination to intimidate, attack and otherwise destabilise other nation states.

In addition to this there we the clear evidence of failure to co-operate with the cease fire terms of the Gulf War and mandated UN weapons inspections. This raises the "if you have nothing to hide..." factor. A bit like an innocent man saying "no comment" to every question in an interview under caution. It's not evidence of guilt, but it does raise the question of the motivation behind the behaviour.

In the context of 9/11 and the immediate aftermath, there is also an urgent need to prevent pariah states (let's not beat about the Bush here, Saddam's Iraq was just that, having breached countless treaty provisions and international conventions as well as being in numerous human rights violations.) having access to WMD's and enabling their access to terrorist organisations.

Out of date intelligence documents were used and an attempt was made to update them, but with limited sources_(given Iraq's non-compliance with UN resolutions, inspections and the nature of the country and Saddam regime).

The military capability of Saddam's regime was found to be well below the Gulf war capability and well below that suggested by intelligence sources. That applied not only to WMD's but to their conventional forces to which provided only a token resistance to the coalition invasion.

This happens all the time in law enforcement. Intelligence might be received that a major people smuggling operation is going through a local premises. Law enforcement raid the place and find no evidence of it. Or not enough evidence to do anything about it. Does that make the raid invalid?

In terms of the legality there was a UN security council resolution, valid at the time of the invasion, authorising use of force against Iraq.

Given the standard of evidence required the very fact you acknowledge there are valid arguments for the war being legal, means that it can't be illegal.

It's like a copper going to the CPS to charge someone with murder and saying, in my opinion he killed the bloke, although I acknowledge that DC Plod over there makes valid points as to how he is probably innocent.
 
As to your point about UK defence spending being responsible for the national debt, this is a break-down of UK public spending in 2007 (the year before the 'credit crunch' began when our national deficit went into overdrive):


Function 2007 Total Spending £549.4 billion
Pensions £93.9 billion
Health Care £94.7 billion
Education £73.0 billion
Defence £36.6 billion
Welfare £83.5 billion

As you can see, defence spending is well down the list of causes of our national debt. The vast majority of our current national debt was caused by the huge amount of government resources required to prevent our major financial institutions all becoming insolvent at the same time (thus leading to a mass debt-recall and pretty much every mortgagee in the country being given the choice of repaying their mortgage in full or having their home repossessed).
 
Where was the lie though? A lie is an intentional deceit.

This concept of an illegal war and lies justifying it have more to do with general misunderstanding as to public international law and actually law in general and how it works and also what intelligence is.

I feel I'm well qualified to say this as I am not only legally trained and qualified with a specialist in international law, but I am also a professional investigator.

I deal with intelligence and the NIM every day.

There is even sometimes a mistaken belief that intelligence = evidence, even amongst my peers, so it is no wonder the general public are confused.

Intelligence is not evidence. Intelligence is classified rumour, belief or suspicion.

Intelligence can be reliable or unreliable.

When you have to make a decision based on intelligence alone, you are always facing the possibility of your suspicions being incorrect. Lets be clear about this, there was no evidence of WMD's. There never was. What there WAS, was evidence of Saddam Hussein's intention to develop WMD's, his use of them in the past (nerve agents used on the Marsh Arabs), as well as his inclination to intimidate, attack and otherwise destabilise other nation states.

In addition to this there we the clear evidence of failure to co-operate with the cease fire terms of the Gulf War and mandated UN weapons inspections. This raises the "if you have nothing to hide..." factor. A bit like an innocent man saying "no comment" to every question in an interview under caution. It's not evidence of guilt, but it does raise the question of the motivation behind the behaviour.

In the context of 9/11 and the immediate aftermath, there is also an urgent need to prevent pariah states (let's not beat about the Bush here, Saddam's Iraq was just that, having breached countless treaty provisions and international conventions as well as being in numerous human rights violations.) having access to WMD's and enabling their access to terrorist organisations.

Out of date intelligence documents were used and an attempt was made to update them, but with limited sources_(given Iraq's non-compliance with UN resolutions, inspections and the nature of the country and Saddam regime).

The military capability of Saddam's regime was found to be well below the Gulf war capability and well below that suggested by intelligence sources. That applied not only to WMD's but to their conventional forces to which provided only a token resistance to the coalition invasion.

This happens all the time in law enforcement. Intelligence might be received that a major people smuggling operation is going through a local premises. Law enforcement raid the place and find no evidence of it. Or not enough evidence to do anything about it. Does that make the raid invalid?

In terms of the legality there was a UN security council resolution, valid at the time of the invasion, authorising use of force against Iraq.

Given the standard of evidence required the very fact you acknowledge there are valid arguments for the war being legal, means that it can't be illegal.

It's like a copper going to the CPS to charge someone with murder and saying, in my opinion he killed the bloke, although I acknowledge that DC Plod over there makes valid points as to how he is probably innocent.

I don't want to dis-respect a post that you have put some thought in to -- but is it not the case that George W Bush and his advisers wanted a war with Iraq come hell or high water, and that they would push intelligence giving them the pre-text for said war over intelligence that did not? You are not dealing with dis-passionate, unbiased people when it came to those pushing for this war. Have you seen the state of the Republican party in America? Generally, they want to bomb first and ask questions later.

The war might not have been illegal, but it was not a just war and has proven to be a disaster.
 
Where was the lie though? A lie is an intentional deceit.

This concept of an illegal war and lies justifying it have more to do with general misunderstanding as to public international law and actually law in general and how it works and also what intelligence is.

I feel I'm well qualified to say this as I am not only legally trained and qualified with a specialist in international law, but I am also a professional investigator.

I deal with intelligence and the NIM every day.

There is even sometimes a mistaken belief that intelligence = evidence, even amongst my peers, so it is no wonder the general public are confused.

Intelligence is not evidence. Intelligence is classified rumour, belief or suspicion.

Intelligence can be reliable or unreliable.

When you have to make a decision based on intelligence alone, you are always facing the possibility of your suspicions being incorrect. Lets be clear about this, there was no evidence of WMD's. There never was. What there WAS, was evidence of Saddam Hussein's intention to develop WMD's, his use of them in the past (nerve agents used on the Marsh Arabs), as well as his inclination to intimidate, attack and otherwise destabilise other nation states.

In addition to this there we the clear evidence of failure to co-operate with the cease fire terms of the Gulf War and mandated UN weapons inspections. This raises the "if you have nothing to hide..." factor. A bit like an innocent man saying "no comment" to every question in an interview under caution. It's not evidence of guilt, but it does raise the question of the motivation behind the behaviour.

In the context of 9/11 and the immediate aftermath, there is also an urgent need to prevent pariah states (let's not beat about the Bush here, Saddam's Iraq was just that, having breached countless treaty provisions and international conventions as well as being in numerous human rights violations.) having access to WMD's and enabling their access to terrorist organisations.

Out of date intelligence documents were used and an attempt was made to update them, but with limited sources_(given Iraq's non-compliance with UN resolutions, inspections and the nature of the country and Saddam regime).

The military capability of Saddam's regime was found to be well below the Gulf war capability and well below that suggested by intelligence sources. That applied not only to WMD's but to their conventional forces to which provided only a token resistance to the coalition invasion.

This happens all the time in law enforcement. Intelligence might be received that a major people smuggling operation is going through a local premises. Law enforcement raid the place and find no evidence of it. Or not enough evidence to do anything about it. Does that make the raid invalid?

In terms of the legality there was a UN security council resolution, valid at the time of the invasion, authorising use of force against Iraq.

Given the standard of evidence required the very fact you acknowledge there are valid arguments for the war being legal, means that it can't be illegal.

It's like a copper going to the CPS to charge someone with murder and saying, in my opinion he killed the bloke, although I acknowledge that DC Plod over there makes valid points as to how he is probably innocent.

Your first point (in bold)...thus you exercise such decisions based on the trajectory you want their fallout to take. I think it is pretty safe to say that those involved knew where such a decision would lead. Never forget, Saddam was one of 'ours' in the '70s. We taught him what he knew and helped encourage what he was. We turned a blind eye to his 'previous use' of such 'agents' until it suited us. That last big is especially important.

Your second point (in bold)...let me just say that if we were to take your theory as golden, then buddying up with Musharref and Pakistan was potentially an awful decision, let alone arming some of the rebel groups we have done in the last 15 years. As a matter of fact (and it IS fact, I am sure you know this) the invasion of Iraq was the genesis for the creation/growth of ISIS. This will take another thread to discuss if people want to, thus I will simply leave this here and if people want to get into it, we certainly can.

Your third point...legality...based on the fact that 'there is always a variance with international intelligence' then yes, you would be right. Equally, I could counter and say that the WAY in which that variance was played out angled matters to where those who did not have access to key information, but had access to the resolution vote, felt they were hearing conclusive proof. Thus it was wrong. 'Morally reprehensible' so-to-speak. I think it was illegal as people were deceived. You feel it should be considered the potential variance of international intelligence. But I think most people wouldn't buy that mate.

Interesting discussion BTW and your base of knowledge is very interesting.
 
Back