|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 31, 2022 14:21:32 GMT
The Saudis also hire British ex RAF pilots as trainers. Shouldn't be allowed to. If the UK were as smart as we once were, it could provide all the energy it needs via wind and solar, and the cost would keep on falling to way below the oil price and using technology which is far superior. To give you an example, hydrogen has 3x the energy density of petrol. We can so arrange matters that we generate the energy when the wind blows and the sun shines then we store it as heat energy or convert into hydrogen and store that. The arguments currently used to argue against the green technologies are scientificality wrong. It's just we have not been thinking properly and we copy some shit from way back like windmills and don't think about the rest. In short we are crap at inventing the technology we need because we can't think of it, rather we copy something from the past and try and adapt it. Even the wind farms we currently have operating are nearly all foreign-owned. Don't you agree we need to up our act and get ahead in this technology?
Oil is the only reason we need to trade with the Saudis. To give then their due, they are pretty straight dealers in business. It's just our social warriors might have fits about how they treat women, but oddly my Maltese woman was educated in Saudi Arabia and she liked the place. She's trying to make contact with a long lost school friend from that country now. She has fond memories of her time there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2022 22:30:35 GMT
The Mail is notoriously unreliable in it's content. And in any case, that's a bit rich coming from you. The seriously and shockingly inept handling of security by the Tories in recent years completely ignored by you. No answer to it. No justification for it. No minimising of it. Nothing but what about the other lot, the most intellectually feeble line of attack imaginable by someone who has nothing else. Cannot defend the indefensible so attack the other lot instead. And most of your pathetic whataboutery is either straw man bullshit like Labour's policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament which exists only in your own head, or an individual potentially dodgy character who was never anywhere near high office. And thus in no way is on the same level as Tory shenanigans of late anyway. Truly pathetic effort.I agree your support for labours fuck ups over nukes and their involment with CND are a Truly pathetic effort Your pathetic whataboutery, last feeble gambit of those without any defence of the indefensible, convinces no one except your fellow knuckle dragging ignoramusses. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 31, 2022 22:31:51 GMT
I agree your support for labours fuck ups over nukes and their involment with CND are a Truly pathetic effort , last feeble gambit of those without any defence of the indefensible, convinces no one except your fellow knuckle dragging ignoramusses. Oh the irony......LOL.....LOL |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2022 8:46:18 GMT
Supporting a nuclear ban is not the same as disarming. Why don't you support a total ban on nukes?Who in the right mind would when we have nutters like putin and rocket man araound. Oh let me guess LABOUR would.. Why not just answer the question? Of course, you don't have to, but I must assume you don't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2022 9:49:22 GMT
Who in the right mind would when we have nutters like putin and rocket man araound. Oh let me guess LABOUR would.. Why not just answer the question? Of course, you don't have to, but I must assume you don't. To be fair, the question makes no sense, because it cannot be done. It's just virtue signalling and attempting to demonise those who understand they cannot really be banned, at least not globally - it's Pandora's box.
Question: Would the world be a more peaceful place without them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2022 10:12:48 GMT
Why not just answer the question? Of course, you don't have to, but I must assume you don't. To be fair, the question makes no sense, because it cannot be done. It's just virtue signalling and attempting to demonise those who understand they cannot really be banned, at least not globally - it's Pandora's box.
Question: Would the world be a more peaceful place without them?
Still people make excuses for not answering the question. Until people start speaking out as one it will never happen. The other alternative is global destruction. I remember when I was a caveman and my good friend Ug said "I wonder if we will ever get to the moon". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2022 10:28:30 GMT
To be fair, the question makes no sense, because it cannot be done. It's just virtue signalling and attempting to demonise those who understand they cannot really be banned, at least not globally - it's Pandora's box.
Question: Would the world be a more peaceful place without them?
Still people make excuses for not answering the question. Until people start speaking out as one it will never happen. The other alternative is global destruction. I remember when I was a caveman and my good friend Ug said "I wonder if we will ever get to the moon". Perhaps they see the intention behind the question as virtual signalling, which hasn't had much thought.
What people say makes no difference.
Or not. Theoretically, if every country had nukes there'd be no invasions, no war and a permanent state of diplomacy - something that may even unify the world toward something better. We understand this, because the main nuclear armed powers are limited to having proxy wars in non-nuclear armed areas of the world. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2022 10:50:22 GMT
Still people make excuses for not answering the question. Until people start speaking out as one it will never happen. The other alternative is global destruction. I remember when I was a caveman and my good friend Ug said "I wonder if we will ever get to the moon". Perhaps they see the intention behind the question as virtual signalling, which hasn't had much thought.
What people say makes no difference.
Or not. Theoretically, if every country had nukes there'd be no invasions, no war and a permanent state of diplomacy - something that may even unify the world toward something better. We understand this, because the main nuclear armed powers are limited to having proxy wars in non-nuclear armed areas of the world. We will never change things by doing the same things. A lot of people have a problem with the difference between global disarmament and unilateral disarmament. This is quite obvious by the reticence to declare for a total ban. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2022 11:02:31 GMT
Ukraine agreed to give up their nuclear arsenal on the agreement that they can remain independent and not face a military threat. Now Ukraine has been invaded and the people bombarded with missile strikes. Just one example that exposes the flaw in the argument.
There's no way a total ban can happen, because there's no power on Earth that has that level of authority.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2022 13:53:41 GMT
Ukraine agreed to give up their nuclear arsenal on the agreement that they can remain independent and not face a military threat. Now Ukraine has been invaded and the people bombarded with missile strikes. Just one example that exposes the flaw in the argument. There's no way a total ban can happen, because there's no power on Earth that has that level of authority. Obviously, the guarantees they were given were worthless and the countries involved should be held to account. You do know that Ukraine's nukes were controlled by Russian and not Ukraine. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2022 14:16:45 GMT
Ukraine agreed to give up their nuclear arsenal on the agreement that they can remain independent and not face a military threat. Now Ukraine has been invaded and the people bombarded with missile strikes. Just one example that exposes the flaw in the argument. There's no way a total ban can happen, because there's no power on Earth that has that level of authority. Obviously, the guarantees they were given were worthless and the countries involved should be held to account. You do know that Ukraine's nukes were controlled by Russian and not Ukraine. Sure, so why would anyone do it? A gesture of good will?
Actually, they took control over them and prevented Russia from using them. If you look you will see that they were controlled by an intergovernmental organisation after the collapse of the USSR. They were Ukrainian nukes, and they could have easily gone rogue. They chose to abide to an agreement and destroy them, believing it to be a good will gesture and not face hostility from both west and east.
They could arm themselves again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2022 8:05:30 GMT
Obviously, the guarantees they were given were worthless and the countries involved should be held to account. You do know that Ukraine's nukes were controlled by Russian and not Ukraine. Sure, so why would anyone do it? A gesture of good will?
Actually, they took control over them and prevented Russia from using them. If you look you will see that they were controlled by an intergovernmental organisation after the collapse of the USSR. They were Ukrainian nukes, and they could have easily gone rogue. They chose to abide to an agreement and destroy them, believing it to be a good will gesture and not face hostility from both west and east.
They could arm themselves again.
They cannot. |
|
|
|
Post by sword on Nov 2, 2022 17:48:40 GMT
Ukraine agreed to give up their nuclear arsenal on the agreement that they can remain independent and not face a military threat. Now Ukraine has been invaded and the people bombarded with missile strikes. Just one example that exposes the flaw in the argument. There's no way a total ban can happen, because there's no power on Earth that has that level of authority. Yes and they wouldn't allow their country to be used as a threat to its neighbours,how did that work out? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2022 17:56:17 GMT
I referred to Ukraine because of its nuclear disarmament. It was an example. I'm uninterested in propaganda.
|
|
