Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Wilde
Hi cassie,
Mildly distressed by your last posting; I had thought that I was indeed concentrating on what you saw as the core issue, but plainly not. I'll return to that in a sec. I'm also puzzled by your comment that I have resorted to the personal. That was not my intention! I often get involved in debates here where at some point I don't feel I have anything more to add. At that point, I generally just stop posting to them. I think this is normal - nobody should feel that they are under an obligation here to continue with some discussion that has been started. My expression of regret that our conversation appeared to have come to an end just when it was getting interesting was therefore genuine, and not in any way intended as a criticism of you! Also, I thought you might enjoy the Monty Python clip, which is one of my favourites.
Is this what you meant by the 'core issue', which you felt I was avoiding? Actually I agree with you about the need to define contentious terms. I even agree that the term 'weapons of mass destruction' is open to varying interpretations. We saw this clearly after the Iraq war, when US weapons inspectors searched the countryside for WMD, to retrospectively justify their invasion. They only found a few 1980s-vintage gas-filled shells and some raw chemicals well past their sell-by date, but some US Govt spokespeople said that these were WMD, and their critics denied this, and so on. So clearly there is room for interpretation here. However, I thought I had dealt with this point already, when I said:
And I then went on to discuss each of those classes of weapons.
I don't think I can say much more about the use of this phrase in the Liberal policy document you are quoting because I didn't write the document, but the phrase in this context seems rather clearly to mean what I indicated above. If this still bothers you, perhaps you could tell me more exactly what weapons you are worried about it including or not including?
|
Well, you quoted me and attached a very pointed video, but I can live with it! I won't go into a Paddy as some people . . .
Permit me to keep it simple. I would not support a political party which in the vital sphere of Defence wishes to "dismantle all weapons of mass destruction". As an ideal, it is laudable . . . if
all entailed that. If you say it does, then it is hopelessly impracticable. If it doesn't mean literally that, then it can only be construed as unilateral. Regardless of what is or can be included in the Liberal Party's policy here, whether it be some or all of nuclear, chemical, biological, electronic (and any we can't imagine), I would not want in power in the UK a government with that policy and that outlook.
In 1996, I thought outlawing handguns was a good idea. Now, I have grave doubts. We have been disarmed by our government which has allowed many foreign born people to come here with different standards of living and conduct, different customs, different ways of driving etc etc.
There are 60 million people in the UK, including all the foreigners who have come here during the last thirty or so years. The world population is estimated to be of the order of 6,600 million ie more than 110 foreigners for every one of us. China with 1,500 million people has nuclear weapons, and India with 1,100 million. Even Pakistan, which is now also a nuclear power, has 165 million people. In the Korean War, it was superior weapons which held Chinese troops at bay, which died in vastly greater numbers than the Allied troops.
We still have deluded clowns who say we should take in even more foreigners. Whether or not they have their way, it seems very likely that the effects of climate warming in various parts of the world with their accompanying tragedies ~ sunamis, flash floods, extensive flooding, hurricanes, volcanic explosions, severe and prolonged drought, extensive forest and scrub fires etc etc ~ will result in even greater numbers of people feeing these situations and seeking to invade the British Isles! Already, Africans are travelling into the EU in increasing numbers via the Canary Isles, Malta and the Adriatic Coast of Italy with the express intention of coming to the UK (ie England) in particular. Remember the population of Africa is over 800 million!
Already we have unrepresentative politicians wringing their hands about lack of housing, inadequate Health Services with unhygienic infection spread wide, overcrowded public transport, gridlocked roads, gang violence with shootings, widespread drug problems and drug-related crimes . . . all nothing to do with foreigners coming here of course! They only enhance our society, it is alleged.
Faced with this promising situation, we have the Liberals wanting to disarm us as a state even further! Well, my answer is: no thanks.
I trust that makes my position clearer?