MP Griffiths says he is 'ashamed'
Quite right too. If I had voted against my country being properly defended by having a strategic nuclear deterrent, and resigned from government over it, I'd be so ashamed of my daft views on defence issues I'd never show my face in public again.
Appearing in glorious full colour in the News of the World for your extra-curricular activities is small beer in the shame stakes compared to voting to, as Bevan put it, to "send a British Foreign Secretary naked into the conference-chamber" (the NotW would probably publish pictures of that too).
posted by Luke Akehurst at 5:01 pm
15 Comments:
You really are a pathetic *****.
I agree entirely that Britain should have an independent nuclear deterrent. I agree that the opposite point of view is dangerous. But this smug sanctimonious attitude and belittling of other points of view is completely repulsive. Utterly typical of Blairites.
5:13 pm, March 23, 2009
How recently did you have your sense of humour bypass?
5:15 pm, March 23, 2009
Heh - good one, Mr. Akehurst.
What's even more funny is that Gordon Brown was the best man at Giffiths' wedding.
The curse strikes again...
p.s. What is it about Remembrance Day that gets Labour Ministers so hot and bothered? First Prescott, now Griffiths - I'd have thought it would be more of a Lib Dem fetish.
5:41 pm, March 23, 2009
So what do we intend to use a nuclear deterrent for? Our enemies are now terrorist if you believe your own government.
What good would trident do against a plot to bomb London from within.
I'm all for spending money on defence but we are in greater need of armored vehicles, jet fighters and personal equipment than we are WMDs. Not to mention hospitals, education and drugs.......
5:57 pm, March 23, 2009
I know you're not otherwise a fan of Bevan, Luke, so perhaps you haven't read widely enough to know that Bevan wasn't necessarily opposed to unilateral nuclear disarmament, he was just opposed to getting rid of it at that particular time. He said that he wanted the chance to try negotiating to disarm together with other nations, and if that didn't work Britain should engage in unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Not a position you share with him, I imagine.
6:42 pm, March 23, 2009
I was going to post about how you're an idiot but then I saw in the comments that you were trying to be funny. Stick to the day job.
8:08 pm, March 23, 2009
OK Luke, in what sense is Britain's nuclear deterrent 'independent'? We wouldn't use it unless the Yanks allowed us to.
As for Mr Griffiths, I don't think the NoTW account was sufficiently detailed. I demand to know exactly of what the various other 'sex acts' indulged at another location consisted.
11:01 pm, March 23, 2009
This comment has been removed by the author.
12:42 am, March 24, 2009
Nuclear deterrents are a complete waste of time and money. This idea is stupid and idiotic and anyone who supports it are complete prats!
to be a deterrent you must be prepared to use it and if we did and the other side did not retaliate, we would probably get the radio active fall out and possibly cause underwater earthquakes and we would all be flooded out with tsunami's
Money should be spent trying to help people and the environment not on destruction
12:46 am, March 24, 2009
Oh, its nonsense anyway - Trident will be abandoned because we won't be able to afford it in any case.
Mind you, this sort of post is just another reason not to bother to vote Labour. Same policies as the Tories.....
2:44 am, March 24, 2009
Merseymike, I wish I could agree. Unfortunately the powers that be would rather the UK be armed with nukes than have free medical care and education.
There is no wisdom when it comes to nuclear weapons, there are still nutters out there who believe they are a deterrent.
When you see the damage just spent uranium does it scares the hell out of me to think what would be the consequences of unleashing modern nuclear arsenal. They should be banned as their purpose is to kill and destroy civilians and their effects are felt for 1000s of years.
People should remember that it was the Yanks that dropped two bombs. It is the yanks that control the UK deterrent.
7:32 am, March 24, 2009
So for all those unilateralists out there, what are you going to do when Iran gets the bomb - which it will do?
Once it's cleaned up Israel, where do you think it will be heading next?
Personally I think the whole idea of nuclear warfare is obscene. But I am not naive enough to belive that you avert it by ignoring it. Being well armed makes war less likely since the price for any aggressor is high - hopefully too high for them to start anything.
8:48 am, March 24, 2009
If Iran gets 'the bomb' our having it or otherwise will not deter them. We are not talking about rationality here. The only safe bomb would be no bomb. Deterrence theory does not work with those who believe they have a religious mission - and Israel are just as guilty of that as Iran
3:29 pm, March 24, 2009
Opus, If Iran gets the bomb then they will need some way of delivering it. Even if they acquired a long range bomber they wouldn't get close to our air space or Europe.
Unless someone is willing to sell them a sub or long range stealth bomber the threat from Iran is zero.
If Iran gets close to a nuke then it is Israel that we need to worry about....not Iran.
The UK has some of the best fighter pilots in the world. Our air force is more than capable of attacking any country that is considered a risk. Our kill ratios are the best in the world and not even the yanks can match the brits in the air.
Nuclear weapons are the cowards way out. There is no solution to world peace other than to accept that we all have to live on this planet so it is better to do so in peace.
6:39 pm, March 24, 2009
Ashamed!!!!
The Labour Party don't know the meaning of the word
10:26 pm, March 25, 2009
Post a Comment
<< Home