Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

It's the hypocrisy of it all that dismays me. How many kids have died in Yemen to Saudi (British supplied) bombs? Are those kids any less dead than the ones gassed in Syria? Did they die less horribly? I read today that 8,000 civilians died during the retaking of Mosul - many of them blown apart by British and American bombs. Were their deaths cleaner than the ones in Syria? Are the ones who still live but with no legs happier than the ones choking in Syria?

 

I don't know what the answer is in Syria, but I do know that more killing isn't it.

No, but the point is a single bomb with regular ordinance does way less human damage than a single bomb tipped with chemical weaponry.

Posted
Just now, Beechey said:

No, but the point is a single bomb with regular ordinance does way less human damage than a single bomb tipped with chemical weaponry.

 

It's just a matter of degree, and meaningless when it's not single bombs being dropped.

 

I'm not defending the use of chemical weapons but to the kids involved everywhere, dead is dead regardless.

Posted
Just now, Buce said:

 

It's just a matter of degree, and meaningless when it's not single bombs being dropped.

 

I'm not defending the use of chemical weapons but to the kids involved everywhere, dead is dead regardless.

Don't get me wrong I totally agree with you, the civilian deaths are abhorrent, but even if it was 100 bombs at once, more people will die from nerve agent than will die from explosives, they're just far more deadly.

Posted
18 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

It's just a matter of degree, and meaningless when it's not single bombs being dropped.

 

I'm not defending the use of chemical weapons but to the kids involved everywhere, dead is dead regardless.

You're right, but the problem I have is that it equivocates and potentially normalises chemical weapons as no different to regular bombs.

 

I think we have to look back in history. Our great grandparents generation faced gas attacks in the first world war and determined them to be worse than regular ordnance. They enshrined it into International law for a reason and as they faced the gas menace, I respect their judgement. 

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

You're right, but the problem I have is that it equivocates and potentially normalises chemical weapons as no different to regular bombs.

 

I think we have to look back in history. Our great grandparents generation faced gas attacks in the first world war and determined them to be worse than regular ordnance. They enshrined it into International law for a reason and as they faced the gas menace, I respect their judgement. 

 

I get you. 

 

It nonetheless saddens me that blowing kids apart is itself ‘normalised’. I’m not seeing any moral highground in that. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

You're right, but the problem I have is that it equivocates and potentially normalises chemical weapons as no different to regular bombs.

 

I think we have to look back in history. Our great grandparents generation faced gas attacks in the first world war and determined them to be worse than regular ordnance. They enshrined it into International law for a reason and as they faced the gas menace, I respect their judgement. 

I think the main part of it today is that chemical weapons possess an indiscriminate threat to civilians, in the same way that napalm and other banned weapons do. They're neither as a widespread killer instantly over a large area as a nuclear weapon nor as potentially far-reaching as a biological one, though.

 

Posted

The whole situation is a shambles and a shambles that Theresa May really shouldn't be getting us involved in. The use of a chemical weapon is disgusting and inhumane, Assad is an animal, as Mr. Trump says. However this war has gone on for 8 years now, millions of lives have been obliterated, the opposition are not going to win, the Syrian army with the backing of the Russian army is far too strong. Dropping bombs on Syrian army strongholds will literally just prolong the agony and cause a reaction from Assad which will lead to more deaths, will create more refugees (which I'm sure we'd be unwilling to take in) and will ruin lives. Please just learn from the mistakes of Iraq and Libya, western intervention doesn't work, we can't police things.

 

If she goes ahead with this then I would say that that'll be the beginning of the end for Mrs. May. The majority of the British public just don't have the appetite for war anymore, Tony Blair put pay to that.

  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Webbo said:

Please give me your nuanced argument. Why is free trade with Europe good and free trade with the rest of the world bad?

No.

  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Countryfox said:

 

This is not a good page for Webbo at all ....

 

He has been accused of too much classic whataboutery and goal post shifting (love that one Alf), and called a racist, a roguish old troll and someone who sits back and claps his hands like a toddler ! ...    lol ...    and post shitposts ! ...    lollol

 

Keeps me smiling on a gloomy day ...    :) 

The racist thing was just a sarcastic callback to some of the good times we had in the pre-ref thread, nonetheless I'm glad I could contribute in some small way to brightening your day CF :thumbup: 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Webbo is not racist, he sucks my cock every night

 

Apologies to webbo, this was supposed to be a secret, actually I'm sorry if I offended him

Edited by Dr The Singh
Posted
12 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

This anti semistidm thing is going too far.  Although I'm not a pro labour but I fail to believe large part of anybpeole are anyway racist or prejudice

Are you anti dictionary?

Posted
Just now, Dr The Singh said:

I speak beer language which has no dictionary

I've had a few myself singhy, I completely comprehend. 

Posted
41 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

The racist thing was just a sarcastic callback to some of the good times we had in the pre-ref thread, nonetheless I'm glad I could contribute in some small way to brightening your day CF :thumbup: 

Carl my old China, I knew you werent being serious, I didn't take offence.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

Apologies mate if i offended you about my previous post.  :thumbup:

Can you wash it next time, it tastes a bit cheesy?

  • Haha 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm not sure that many normal people (as opposed to freaks like us lot in this thread) think in terms of "victory/defeat" re. Brexit, or even of "success/failure".

 

The vast majority of people took a view (which they mainly still hold and don't challenge) and just get on with their lives, waiting for Brexit to be implemented. I'd see people reacting more to the real effects of Brexit when it happens....though they won't necessarily be seen as effects of Brexit.

 

If, say, jobs are lost, living standards fall, public services suffer further cuts, social deprivation and inequality worsens and the UK has a more testing relationship with other European nations, I don't expect many people will blame Brexit (apart from fervent Remainers).

 

More likely, they'll blame the Europeans, the government, the opposition, immigrants, Remoaners, the elite or whoever - and it could get very nasty indeed. Needless to say, I'd like nothing more than to be massively wrong about all this.

 

Alf my friend... the more I observe people, the more I realise a lot of them just follow what they’re told by their favoured personality / news outlet.

 

All it takes is good presentation skills and some relatability and they spout the same stuff.

 

And so I predict there will be a perception of good / bad on the final deal from most people once it crosses the line - and how things are perceived will depend a lot on the positions of Farage, Johnson, Corbyn, the Beeb, the Mail, the Sun and others you care to think of.

 

To give you an offbeat example - how many people used the ‘ha, ha, Harry Kane has just scored’ on social media last night, even come Madrid’s clinching penalty, despite the fact it was clearly no longer funny because it had already been used a million times? It was copied over and over, because we have loads of sheep like people in this country, especially some of the youth I see. It’s sad really.

 

Farage and Johnson are examples of the vested interests by the way.

Posted
6 hours ago, Buce said:

 

          Trump backtracking now:

 

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job of ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our “Thank you America?”

April 12, 2018
 
Does he ever think before he tweets?

 

Putin reminded him he still has the ‘pee tape’

  • Haha 2
Guest Kopfkino
Posted

It's looking entirely possible that the last few weeks was the calm before the storm for Mrs May. 

 

Looks increasingly that they will lose a CU vote in the Lords as early as the beginning of next week. Was dumb to send it to the Lords first and could cause a headache.

 

She's decided to be Trump's poodle on Syria. I'm not sure how military intervention became the default position with no effort to explain why. No idea why we're getting involved, will achieve nothing and even worse to not put it to parliament (she could have recalled and done it in this time, she'll fail to avoid it now because the response has been slower than first thought). Corbyn and team have been predictably abject as well but the line that May is essentially Trump's puppet plays well and makes it look like they're nailing it. It's a reflection of the last year (Tuesday will be a year since GE called), May and Corbyn hopeless but the Corbyn attacks on her and the Conservatives stick well.

 

And no progress made in London. The campaign is either non-existent or just completely hopeless. Defeat is expected enough that it won't hurt her too much but it will hurt the party and it's only a sign of things to come. It will highlight that the leadership is increasingly out of tune and to win well in future has to reattract a lot of people I know and myself who couldn't possibly vote for the current Conservative party, but who aren't attracted to Corbyn. Cameron managed it (not to a great enough extent maybe) but the current lot and the current likely successors won't do much better. 

 

 

Posted
15 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

It's looking entirely possible that the last few weeks was the calm before the storm for Mrs May. 

 

Looks increasingly that they will lose a CU vote in the Lords as early as the beginning of next week. Was dumb to send it to the Lords first and could cause a headache.

 

She's decided to be Trump's poodle on Syria. I'm not sure how military intervention became the default position with no effort to explain why. No idea why we're getting involved, will achieve nothing and even worse to not put it to parliament (she could have recalled and done it in this time, she'll fail to avoid it now because the response has been slower than first thought). Corbyn and team have been predictably abject as well but the line that May is essentially Trump's puppet plays well and makes it look like they're nailing it. It's a reflection of the last year (Tuesday will be a year since GE called), May and Corbyn hopeless but the Corbyn attacks on her and the Conservatives stick well.

 

And no progress made in London. The campaign is either non-existent or just completely hopeless. Defeat is expected enough that it won't hurt her too much but it will hurt the party and it's only a sign of things to come. It will highlight that the leadership is increasingly out of tune and to win well in future has to reattract a lot of people I know and myself who couldn't possibly vote for the current Conservative party, but who aren't attracted to Corbyn. Cameron managed it (not to a great enough extent maybe) but the current lot and the current likely successors won't do much better. 

 

 

There was an interesting piece in the Guardian this week written by a former tory government advisor. It focused on changes to universal credit that are incoming but was also broader in its discussion of how the chickens could come home to roost in the next few weeks and months.essentially the argument was that austerity has been focused on fringe groups such as the disabled, benefit recipients etc and the government has been fortunate that by avoiding hithing the middle classas it has allowed a public thread to emerge that is that those groups deserved cuts for one reason or another. Austerity will more and more impact on the core public going forward, whether it be cuts to bin collections, NHS failing family members, universal credit changes hitting 3.2 million families negatively (including the self employed). Finally, the middle class might see what is so bad with austerity.

Posted

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/13/jeremy-hunt-referred-to-parliamentary-standards-over-luxury-flats-error

 

"Jeremy Hunt is being referred to the parliamentary commissioner for standards after failing to declare the purchase of seven luxury flats in Southampton. The health and social care secretary, said to have a personal fortune of at least £14m after the sale of an education business, Hotcourses, owns a half share in a company set up with his wife to invest in luxury property. Hunt, who has apologised, insists he was told by the Cabinet Office that he did not need to declare the interest until the company started trading. However, it appears he also initially failed to declare his interest to Companies House, which is a criminal offence. The errors have since been corrected".

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...