Do you really wan t this man in charge of the button

ivavoucher

Cameron the clown.

Cameron Says China Uncertainty Requires U.K. Nuclear Deterrent

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-15/cameron-says-china-uncertainty-requires-u-k-nuclear-deterrent.html

markharding557

I would say cameron is right as is brown on the same policy,it is clegg who is wrong,if china ever gets a hitler syle leader we will be in massive trouble because with their immense industrial base they could equip an army of massive proportions that could make hitlers army look puny

PrivatisetheNHSnow

miliband is the idiot too - he's supposed to be foreign secretary, he doesn't realise that iran and china (and russia) are linked because they're allies - iran supplies oil for china's industry.

if you attack iran, you are in effect attacking china. let's hope the us and uk stop their aggression against iran, we don't want ww3

Blacklight

ivavoucher wrote: »

Cameron the clown.

Cameron Says China Uncertainty Requires U.K. Nuclear Deterrent

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-15/cameron-says-china-uncertainty-requires-u-k-nuclear-deterrent.html

What he really means is he wants to put £30bn back into the economy to drive the nation forward. Would you rather have him print money instead?

It's got nothing to do with nuclear anything, it would be the same if they were making sandwiches instead of submarines.

[edit] look at it the other way round. Clegg would remove this £30bn industry from the economy leaving a big hole. Then fill it with what? Where's everyone going to work?

GDB2222

The one thing that is absolutely clear is that we can't rely on other countries to go to nuclear war to save Britain. Nobody raised a finger when Russia invaded Georgia. I don't know whether that really means that we need our own independent nuclear bombs, or whether we should save the money and keep our fingers crossed?

A._Badger

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

miliband is the idiot too - he's supposed to be foreign secretary, he doesn't realise that iran and china (and russia) are linked because they're allies - iran supplies oil for china's industry.

if you attack iran, you are in effect attacking china. let's hope the us and uk stop their aggression against iran, we don't want ww3

Is that supposed to be humour? The UK and the US being 'aggressive' towards a rabid theocratic state busily developing nuclear weapons, lying about it and being run run by a lunatic who is on record as having threatened to annihilate Israel (and who knows who else)?

I suppose you would have supported Chamberlain after Munich, too, because he didn't upset 'that misunderstood Herr Hitler'?

headcone

"It's got nothing to do with nuclear anything, it would be the same if they were making sandwiches instead of submarines"



Old Chinese proverb "Man who answers question about nuclear deterrent must first consider the Subway deal of the day"

ivavoucher

Blacklight wrote: »

It's got nothing to do with nuclear anything, it would be the same if they were making sandwiches instead of submarines.

I am not so sure that its good for a British potential leader to be naming China as a good reason to spend big on nuclear weapons.

Blacklight

ivavoucher wrote: »

I am not so sure that its good for a British potential leader to be naming China as a good reason to spend big on nuclear weapons.

Sorry to say, but you sound very naive. Either tax payers money comes back into the pockets of UK workers (somehow) or UK workers get the money from abroad.

The government spending money on a submarine is excellent news for the economy. The reasons for building it are totally irrelevant. It's exactly the same reason why war makes money - tax payers money back in the hands of those who make the bullets.

PrivatisetheNHSnow

A._Badger wrote: »

Is that supposed to be humour? The UK and the US being 'aggressive' towards a rabid theocratic state busily developing nuclear weapons, lying about it and being run run by a lunatic who is on record as having threatened to annihilate Israel (and who knows who else)?

I suppose you would have supported Chamberlain after Munich, too, because he didn't upset 'that misunderstood Herr Hitler'?

LOL

What evidence is there that iran is developing weapons of mass destruction - you believe the western propaganda? it's the same 'evidence' that iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

you are a gullible idiot - It's israel, not iran that is the aggressor - israel has had illegal nuclear weapons for decades, israel has invaded egypt, syria etc in the past

Iran poses no danger to uk or us whatsoever - so why are we interfering? because we want to secure more oil supplies from the middle east maybe? put it this way - iran's military budget is $4.8billion, the us is $780 billion.

If you think attacking a country that is an ally of russia and china, and supplies vital oil supplies to china is a good idea, you deserve to be locked up - you're the kind of person who will start a nuclear war.

Wheezy_2

ivavoucher wrote: »

I am not so sure that its good for a British potential leader to be naming China as a good reason to spend big on nuclear weapons.

As long as China is a dictatorship with nuclear capability it's a perfectly good reason.