Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Ubik said:
Won't need to do all 54%, just 5-10 will do.
Click to expand...

Right now, excluding that extra 10% (presumably don't knows) it's currently 54-36. More than 5-10 needed if we go with don't knows being split evenly...with the possibility as well that there may be a few Eagle/Smith supporters who dislike the one who ends up being chosen enough to not go for the other instead.

All this while the party bans many other members, presumably with the majority of them being Corbyn supporters, from voting, too.:lol::lol::lol:
 
Dobba said:
Oh thank goodness. I can sleep safe tonight knowing that, if we were nuked by an enemy, we'd use the remaining time to ensure their innocent civilians were killed too.
Click to expand...

I think the idea is that they're less likely to nuke us in the first place; it's supposed to be more a deterrent than a vengeance thing. But yeah, if we're nuked; we're nuked -what good is there in maiming, killing, burning and frying more innocent people? The thought of the carnage makes me want to cry - babies, toddlers, kids, women, men, pets, little old ladies: everybody, burned alive.
 
Cheesy said:
Right now, excluding that extra 10% (presumably don't knows) it's currently 54-36. More than 5-10 needed if we go with don't knows being split evenly...with the possibility as well that there may be a few Eagle/Smith supporters who dislike the one who ends up being chosen enough to not go for the other instead.

All this while the party bans many other members, presumably with the majority of them being Corbyn supporters, from voting, too.:lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...
I wasn't being serious.
 
The fact a supposedly left wing politician such as Owen Smith would come out and say he'd use nuclear weapons is beyond disgusting. The day 2 countries engage in nuclear war is the end of humanity as we know it.
 
17 Van der Gouw said:
I think the idea is that they're less likely to nuke us in the first place; it's supposed to be more a deterrent than a vengeance thing. But yeah, if we're nuked; we're nuked -what good is there in maiming, killing, burning and frying more innocent people? The thought of the carnage makes me want to cry - babies, toddlers, kids, women, men, pets, little old ladies: everybody, burned alive.
Click to expand...

If there's any consolation, I'm pretty sure none of us would actually feel a thing. We'd all just be eliminated from existence in a mere second. Not that it's much of a consolation, but still...
 
Flamingo Purple said:
The fact a supposedly left wing politician such as Owen Smith would come out and say he'd use nuclear weapons is beyond disgusting. The day 2 countries engage in nuclear war is the end of humanity as we know it.
Click to expand...

There's nothing left wing about Owen Smith. He might be to the left of Blair and Skeletor, but definitely not your genuine everyman leftie.
 
Ubik said:
I wasn't being serious.
Click to expand...

Ah right, sorry. Who do you think the opposition candidate will be, out of interest? I'd have presumed it would've definitely been Owen Smith up until now, but Eagle being ahead of him looks quite interesting. Surely Smith's the better choice though, considering how poor Eagle is (like Corbyn, admittedly) when she's speaking?
 
Cheesy said:
If there's any consolation, I'm pretty sure none of us would actually feel a thing. We'd all just be eliminated from existence in a mere second. Not that it's much of a consolation, but still...
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, chances are good for most in the inner cities it'd be over in a flash.

Not long ago though, I saw a documentary about the immediate aftermath of Hiroshima - and take in mind that the weapons are much, much more powerful now, and for some people just outside the direct 'ground zero' of the blast, death was truly awful. Stories of people running towards the sea, burning, all of their skin melted off and teeth shattered, families trapped beneath red hot burning rubble. Then the skies turned black with ash turning day into night, and then an hour later it rained black, tarry, viscous radioactive soot - leaving a legacy of cancer for many of their survivors.


...

:(
 
Cheesy said:
If there's any consolation, I'm pretty sure none of us would actually feel a thing. We'd all just be eliminated from existence in a mere second. Not that it's much of a consolation, but still...
Click to expand...
Depends how far from the epicentre you are I think, you can be far enough away that you don't get vaporised but do get horrifically burned. Then further out, you've got the fallout...
Cheesy said:
Ah right, sorry. Who do you think the opposition candidate will be, out of interest? I'd have presumed it would've definitely been Owen Smith up until now, but Eagle being ahead of him looks quite interesting. Surely Smith's the better choice though, considering how poor Eagle is (like Corbyn, admittedly) when she's speaking?
Click to expand...
I still expect it to be Smith, who'll essentially run on the "Ed Miliband without being weird" ticket. If that gets rejected by the membership, I expect the party to die reasonably quickly.
 
Flamingo Purple said:
The fact a supposedly left wing politician such as Owen Smith would come out and say he'd use nuclear weapons is beyond disgusting. The day 2 countries engage in nuclear war is the end of humanity as we know it.
Click to expand...
To paraphrase a line from someone infinitely more talented than me, Owen Smith leans more to the right than a man who's just had his right leg blown off.
 
Ubik said:
I still expect it to be Smith, who'll essentially run on the "Ed Miliband without being weird" ticket. If that gets rejected by the membership, I expect the party to die reasonably quickly.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine a rejection of Smith would more be due to his shadier side: the fact he's seemingly been plotting against Corbyn for months upon months, and supposedly flip-flopping over issues like Iraq.
 
DenisIrwin said:
The threat of mass murder to be used as a bargaining chip.
Click to expand...
Eh? It's there to stop states thinking they could get away with a first-strike on us (i.e. the unprovoked murder of millions of our citizens) without risk of reprisal. Not to be used as a "bargaining chip".
Cheesy said:
I'd imagine a rejection of Smith would more be due to his shadier side: the fact he's seemingly been plotting against Corbyn for months upon months, and supposedly flip-flopping over issues like Iraq.
Click to expand...
Given Corbyn's own shady history with regards to foreign policy and his consistent disloyalty to almost every leader he served as MP under, I would be unsympathetic to that reasoning.
 
Ubik said:
Eh? It's there to stop states thinking they could get away with a first-strike on us (i.e. the unprovoked murder of millions of our citizens) without risk of reprisal. Not to be used as a "bargaining chip".
Click to expand...
The problem is that there isn't a state in the world which would contemplate using nuclear weapons - except the United States, maybe.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
The problem is that there isn't a state in the world which would contemplate using nuclear weapons - except the United States, maybe.
Click to expand...
As Mike said earlier, literally no way of knowing whether that'll be the case in 20-30 years time.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
The problem is that there isn't a state in the world which would contemplate using nuclear weapons - except the United States, maybe.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you're right about that. Plenty of Russian generals are up for it, in 2008 there was very real talk about hitting Poland over the NATO missile bases there. It's not just one guy either, Kremlin staff and Putin himself have rattled their swords about using nuclear weapons against Turkey and even Saudi in recent times. You know your military is hawkish when Putin is your balancing voice of reason.

I also think it only takes one nuclear armed despot in the middle east to go full Jihad and try to wipe out Tel Aviv; Saddam didn't have the capabilities but tried to rain down the SCUDs on Israel during the Gulf War - and I'm pretty sure given his holy-war state of mind and attitude to the Jewish state, he'd have used nukes if he had them. He wasn't afraid to indiscriminately kill civilians with chemical weapons and didn't seem the type to pull his punches.

Then there's Pakistan vs India, persistently on a knife edge and with hugely unstable and transitional government in the former. Who knows what kind of nutter might end up in power there in the next decade?

Not to mention North Korea, if you think Americans are hawkish and crazy, just consider how rational and balanced Hilary and Obama seem compared to Kim Jong-Un.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
The problem is that there isn't a state in the world which would contemplate using nuclear weapons - except the United States, maybe.
Click to expand...

A friend says hello.:smirk:

ee8ed0d666012b8e518608e65c88b5fc
 
17 Van der Gouw said:
I'm not sure you're right about that. Plenty of Russian generals are up for it, in 2008 there was very real talk about hitting Poland over the NATO missile bases there. It's not just one guy either, Kremlin staff and Putin himself have rattled their swords about using nuclear weapons against Turkey and even Saudi in recent times. You know your military is hawkish when Putin is your balancing voice of reason.

I also think it only takes one nuclear armed despot in the middle east to go full Jihad and try to wipe out Tel Aviv; Saddam didn't have the capabilities but tried to rain down the SCUDs on Israel during the Gulf War - and I'm pretty sure given his holy-war state of mind and attitude to the Jewish state, he'd have used nukes if he had them. He wasn't afraid to indiscriminately kill civilians with chemical weapons and didn't seem the type to pull his punches.

Then there's Pakistan vs India, persistently on a knife edge and with hugely unstable and transitional government in the former. Who knows what kind of nutter might end up in power there in the next decade?

Not to mention North Korea, if you think Americans are hawkish and crazy, just consider how rational and balanced Hilary and Obama seem compared to Kim Jong-Un.
Click to expand...
Russians won't ever use nuclear weapons first. The reason is that America, though possessing fewer warheads, is the most expansive and technologically advanced military in history.

The general quoted in that piece is posturing, similar to the way the US posture every time they want to send a warning shot across Russian bows.

Cheesy said:
A friend says hello.:smirk:

ee8ed0d666012b8e518608e65c88b5fc
Click to expand...
Again, no chance. Entirely dependent upon the Chinese, who in turn are dependent upon the US. Their capacity to project power is also non existent. The United States has more military power in Korea than the North Koreans.

Ubik said:
As Mike said earlier, literally no way of knowing whether that'll be the case in 20-30 years time.
Click to expand...
True, but the more nuclear weapons, the better chance it has of not existing.
 
Cheesy said:
If there's any consolation, I'm pretty sure none of us would actually feel a thing. We'd all just be eliminated from existence in a mere second. Not that it's much of a consolation, but still...
Click to expand...

Nope, AFAIK it depends on how far you are from the centre of the blast. What I do know for sure is that you can modify the mixture of isotopes in the bomb to change the ratio of explosion damage (instant death) and radiation (lifelong suffering)
 
Dobba said:
Oh thank goodness. I can sleep safe tonight knowing that, if we were nuked by an enemy, we'd use the remaining time to ensure their innocent civilians were killed too.
Click to expand...

So if someone nukes us, they should not face any retribution?

By this logic we should (a) not have nuclear weapons and (b) be subservient to anyone that does have them.

So South Korea, for instance, should just grin and bear the fact that North Korea has nukes and could annihilate them at any time should they so choose.
 
Honest John said:
So if someone nukes us, they should not face any retribution?

By this logic we should (a) not have nuclear weapons and (b) be subservient to anyone that does have them.

So South Korea, for instance, should just grin and bear the fact that North Korea has nukes and could annihilate them at any time should they so choose.
Click to expand...

South Korea don't have nukes.
 
Honest John said:
Their allies do though. And they would be prepared to use them. Which is not too removed having them yourself.
Click to expand...
would america actually launch. for anything short of an attack on the USA... I have my doubts

If you hit the militarised border area and the wind is blowing in the wrong direction then soul takes a hell of a lot of the fallout anyway... if you go for pyongyang you would risk dalin in china getting the brunt of the fallout... to put it in perspective Dalin has more people living there than Chicago (and not far off LA) and i suspect China would not be too happy about that
Short of North Korea nuking the south and having a missile capable of hitting the US mainland and saying they will then I don't see America launching on them purely from a practical point of view (that said if trump wins he may do it as he is a nutter - though actually I could see him and Kim getting on)
 
Honest John said:
So if someone nukes us, they should not face any retribution?

By this logic we should (a) not have nuclear weapons and (b) be subservient to anyone that does have them.

So South Korea, for instance, should just grin and bear the fact that North Korea has nukes and could annihilate them at any time should they so choose.
Click to expand...

Who said they shouldnt face any retribution militarily or politically?

The post you've responded to clearly takes issue with the idea that we should respond to an attack by killing other innocent people. If russia released a chemical weapon in central London is the only reasonable response to then release one in Moscow to ensure we're even on the kill count?

Im 50/50 on trident but id hope in the case that we were 'wiped out' (we wouldnt be) that the orders were to join our allies and not 'kill them all'.
 
Ubik said:


Hard couple of months coming up.
Click to expand...


That's actually less than i thought Corbyn would have. If they unite behind Smith i still think as his profile increases he could run it close.

Hillary Benn seems to be supporting Eagle "because its time Labour had a female leader". Well thats a good reason isnt it.

I'm starting to wonder whether they actually thought they could beat him following the referendum result or it was a career move to disassociate themselves from his leadership.

I mean if he's as useless as they believe then surely more and more members would have wanted rid of him but then maybe they'd have been tarnished. Why else jump the gun?
 
If they lose despite essentially pricing out Corbyn's main voter base, then they really ought to pack it up and call it a day, or start filling out some Tory or Lib Dem application forms. Out of touch won't even begin to describe it.
 
Kaos said:
If they lose despite essentially pricing out Corbyn's main voter base, then they really ought to pack it up and call it a day, or start filling out some Tory or Lib Dem application forms. Out of touch won't even begin to describe it.
Click to expand...
Surely the corbynhipsters spend £25 on a couple of super skinny soy uber ethical vegan moca frappe etc
 
sun_tzu said:
Surely the corbynhipsters spend £25 on a couple of super skinny soy uber ethical vegan moca frappe etc
Click to expand...

Its alright as all those who are so deeply concerned about Labours electability will pay the £25 to join and oust Corbyn. I mean there's apparently a lot of them so how could Corbyn possibly end up winning?
 
Smores said:
Its alright as all those who are so deeply concerned about Labours electability will pay the £25 to join and oust Corbyn. I mean there's apparently a lot of them so how could Corbyn possibly end up winning?
Click to expand...
Im voting corbyn as I want the party to split so we can bin the union leftys and form a party that at least has a chance moving forwards
 
sun_tzu said:
Im voting corbyn as I want the party to split so we can bin the union leftys and form a party that at least has a chance moving forwards
Click to expand...
That is the Conservative Party isn't it?

Though I hope, if the party does split, that the anti-membership party has its big launch in Baghdad after all their efforts in making it the peaceful city it is today.
 
This thread's become a good example of why the party's about to die, really.
 
Here's another detail of that poll



That is one pretty big change in the makeup of the membership.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.