Starmer's vision quest
- Thread starter mjr
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
icowden
Pharaoh
Why 9 countries do have nuclear weapons is open to conjecture and doesn't prove that they are safer than those who do not have nuclear weapons.
You are simply being a pedantic dipshit who is annoyed that he isn't winning his point.
Given that we cannot know which is safer, the 186 without or 9 with, the majority would seem to be the key indicator.
spen666
Über Member
The claim was made by the Greens that the countries without nuclear weapons were safer.
All I repeatedly asked is for the evidence to back up that claim.
You are now proving my point by stating there is no evidence.
The numbers either way are irrelevant
The fact you resort to personal insults for me asking for evidence to support a claim says more about you than anything else
icowden
Pharaoh
Yes
I provided it.
No - you are refusing to accept my evidence.
there are 195 places you can live. 184 of them don't have big explodey things that can destroy the entire country. 9 have explodey things that can destroy the entire country. Which would you say is safer? To have explodey things or not to have explodey things?
No, it says a lot about you.
Pblakeney
Squire
You are missing the bigger picture. The 184 that don't have them in the main cannot afford them, or mostly are simply not allowed them.
There is a current war in the Middle East about this very subject. The countries that have nukes decide who is allowed nukes.
There are some notable exceptions, but they are few.
spen666
Über Member
You have provided any evidence to support the greens claim.
Not a single thing you have posted supports the claim that countries without nuclear weapons are safer than those with it.
You have however said its not possible to prove it either way.
Now you are contradicting yourself by claiming you've proved something you said can't be proved either way.
CXRAndy
Epic Member
briantrumpet
Timewaster
Sadiq Khan in the Graun directly saying Labour needs to drop the Reform rhetoric. Apparently up to 80 MPs are similarly minded, enough to threaten to rebel over the immigration bill. Khan isn't calling for Starmer to go, but to change course.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...r-reform-progressives-gorton-and-denton-party
"A political strategy of taking liberal, progressive voters for granted is clearly flawed. The national Labour party and government doesn’t just need to reflect on this result, but fundamentally rethink its approach.
Many people who voted Labour in July 2024 are now angry and frustrated. They are impatient to see the change promised at the last general election, including better public services and a growing economy, and they want a Labour government that shares their values. People need to know what this Labour government really stands for and be able to believe that it still holds true to the core beliefs the party was established to promote – equality, fairness, social justice and internationalism – while governing with economic competence and pragmatism."
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...r-reform-progressives-gorton-and-denton-party
"A political strategy of taking liberal, progressive voters for granted is clearly flawed. The national Labour party and government doesn’t just need to reflect on this result, but fundamentally rethink its approach.
Many people who voted Labour in July 2024 are now angry and frustrated. They are impatient to see the change promised at the last general election, including better public services and a growing economy, and they want a Labour government that shares their values. People need to know what this Labour government really stands for and be able to believe that it still holds true to the core beliefs the party was established to promote – equality, fairness, social justice and internationalism – while governing with economic competence and pragmatism."
Stevo 666
Guru
I have a squadron of pigs on standby.
Psamathe
Legendary Member
I saw Starmer making a his statement on TV. He said
My understanding was that Iran was at the negotiating table and mid negotiations when Trūmp just Wag the Dog'd.
Starmer didn't raise how US/Israel could end it now and a lot quicker and easier.
briantrumpet
Timewaster
I read somewhere that the reason that Oman intervened shortly before the strikes was because they feared that the US negotiators were simply out of their depth and not understanding what was being negotiated/proposed. Given the incompetence that seems to be a requirement to be a member of Team Trump, it sounds highly plausible. Of course, it's also possible that the negotiations were simply a smokescreen in the run up to a planned assault. As with all these wreckers (including Johnson & Frost etc from 2019), if you can wreck deliberately or by incompentence, it doesn't really matter, as the wrecking is the objective, and it doesn't really matter how you achieve it.
CXRAndy
Epic Member
Intelligence lead to a accelerated strike by Israeli and US miltary.
They tried to contact you Brian, but you weren't available. They couldn't trust Starmer not to snitch to his Islamic brothers. So decided against their better judgement, seen as you didn't give the go ahead.
They tried to contact you Brian, but you weren't available. They couldn't trust Starmer not to snitch to his Islamic brothers. So decided against their better judgement, seen as you didn't give the go ahead.
Pblakeney
Squire
It must be remembered that the US negotiators are/were Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
Steve Witkoff - A real estate guy.
Jared Kushner - Donnie's son in law.
Obviously the top team and Middle East experts.
