Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[tunnie]

the Lib Dems suggested the Trident money would go into better equipment for front line troops. Hope they would invest it in the armed forces / navy for a possible Falkland Islands II 

Cause it was our Subs which proved vital then too

[Marks DTM Calib]

the Lib Dems suggested the Trident money would go into better equipment for front line troops. Hope they would invest it in the armed forces / navy for a possible Falkland Islands II 

Cause it was our Subs which proved vital then too

Which they would buy from abroad so better to keep ploughing it ino trident then!

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Lib dems it is then.!! The great British public won't be swayed by written documents, track records etc but by a series of three very stilted TV "debates".

As for Trident. Does Britain actually need its own nuclear deterrent? Let the EU do it and pay for it. If it does and it is a big IF then why not keep the existing one. Hide them somewhere rather than wear them out uselessly patrolling the oceans and pocket the £100 billion saved (sorry £200 billion as the estimates are always way under actual outurn.

European history I think has proved that Britain cannot rely on Europe providing security for itself, let alone the  British nation!

Britain should keep it's powder dry and in stock to meet all eventualities, and if we were to give up our independent nuclear deterent, it must only be after the rest of the world has.  The British nation has only survived by way of the strength of our military, and especially the senior service, the Royal Navy with always the capability to take on other nations.  95% of our goods still come in by sea, and never should we be in a position of not being able to protect these supplies or being blackmailed by a nuclear power when (heaven forbid) we have not got that capability.  We must never be seen as 'weak'.

[Varche]

Lib dems it is then.!! The great British public won't be swayed by written documents, track records etc but by a series of three very stilted TV "debates".

As for Trident. Does Britain actually need its own nuclear deterrent? Let the EU do it and pay for it. If it does and it is a big IF then why not keep the existing one. Hide them somewhere rather than wear them out uselessly patrolling the oceans and pocket the £100 billion saved (sorry £200 billion as the estimates are always way under actual outurn.

European history I think has proved that Britain cannot rely on Europe providing security for itself, let alone the  British nation!

Britain should keep it's powder dry and in stock to meet all eventualities, and if we were to give up our independent nuclear deterent, it must only be after the rest of the world has.  The British nation has only survived by way of the strength of our military, and especially the senior service, the Royal Navy with always the capability to take on other nations.  95% of our goods still come in by sea, and never should we be in a position of not being able to protect these supplies or being blackmailed by a nuclear power when (heaven forbid) we have not got that capability.  We must never be seen as 'weak'.

I think in this modern age we can move on from history. Slave trade, Imperialism, nazism , Boer war etc all history and should be consigned to the bin as such. We have the UN, our special friends in the US and of course the Uk is part of the EU. Let the EU provide a credible defence force paid for in equal part by its member constituents to defend the EU.

Long gone are the days when little Britain can afford to pretend to be a superpower even though we get involved in wars all over the globe at the drop of a hat. You don't see the Germans doing that. They have survived despite "losing", in fact arguably they are stronger than ever. Time has moved on.