cassie

Permit me to make myself clear: I do not agree with the Liberal Party's policy of dismantling all weapons of mass destruction the scope of which, by your own admission, you are not sure. Beyond that I am not implying anything! Quite simply, I do not agree with that policy and feel no compulsion to debate it. I would rather support a political party or group which has appropriate policies. I feel no especial need to convert you or the Liberal Party ~ no offence intended.

However, I would observe that by keeping as much abreast of the latest developments Western governments could, if nothing else, enable themselves to devise counter measures for any such weapons, whether they be nuclear, chemical, bacteriological or electronic or whatever. To adduce in support of a position the fact that the money could be expended elsewhere instead of on weapons is begging the question.

I divine that it is pointless debating the issue with you because you are emotionally committed to your position as evidenced by your resorting to history rather than looking at current alternatives. It is rather akin to taking up a particular chess position because Garry Kasparov did in 1990 (say).

To respond directly to your final questions in like order:

1) This is just a variation of the 'two wrongs make a right' argument which is so frequently trotted out to bolster a weak position,

2) I adjudge that the simple answer 'NO' will occasion least offence here.

3) I think I covered my position in the first and third paragraphs above.

I am sorry if my stance seems rather arrogant, but I did not mention it in order to try and engage your agreement. I was more concerned to say that this particular Liberal Party policy deters me and, I suspect, many others.

Tom Wilde

A pity! That was just getting interesting, and defence is (or should be) one of the most important policy areas for any party.

Turned out I'd only signed up for the five-minute argument. I should have gone for the full half-hour.

cassie

Yes it is a pity, and you have resorted to the tactic employed by too many here who profess to want to debate issues, but fail to concentrate on the cores of those issues, move onto other ground and, eventually, resort to the personal as you have done. Were I as inadequate as some here, I would now be bitching about a 'personal attack' or something similar. However, I do not need to do that!

Instead, I make two points:

(1) It says little for others here that you feel so reliant upon me to try and inject some wisdom into you and the Liberal Party in the matter of Defence policy. I note that no one else has jumped into the breach and it seems that I am not alone in my position.

(2) You have been unable to define what is meant by "all weapons of mass destruction" as used by the Liberal Party.

Unless particular terms are defined, how can one be sure that we are considering the same thing? Haven't you noticed how the BBC enjoys using vague descriptions? For example, it ran a potboiler series for the hoi polloi about who was/is the 'Greatest Briton'. Now what was meant by the word 'greatest'? So what was the point of such a programme other than filling a little of the huge amount of superfluous broadcasting time available?



__________________

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?

cassie

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?

Tom Wilde

All right - which weapons of mass destruction would you like Britain to keep?


I'm hazy about how having weapons of mass destruction will help Britain deal with the problems you outline above, ie mass immigration, unrepresentative politicians, inadequate health services etc. Could you clarify that too? Cheers!

cassie

You've clearly misunderstood the main thrust of what I said. So why should I bother to answer your questions? How will my answering your questions change my position in respect of the Liberal Party?

G'day!

Tom Wilde

Sadly, this is true. Although I read through your postings several times, I still can't see what your main thrust is. That is why I asked the questions in my last post. I thought your answers might make your position clearer to me.

In order that I can understand your position more clearly? Of course, it maybe that you aren't bothered whether I understand you or not - and that's fine - but I think you should at least give me credit for trying!

I've no idea. Probably not at all, I suspect. I'm not trying to persuade you to join the Liberal Party - given your general political views and preoccupations I'm sure you are right in thinking that one of the English nationalist parties is better for you. I'm only trying to understand your position and to answer the points which you raised about Liberal policy.

cassie

I've reproduced Posting #21 for your benefit.

Funny how so many politicians start off as members of CND, but relinquish membership and those beliefs once they have acquired political prominence. The lesson here is that, no matter how desirable or highly principled a particular policy might be, it is a handicap if it is widely opposed, and worse, prevents other policies which do attract wider support from being given effect. This is realpolitik!


_________________________

mkpdavies

Quote:

This is realpolitik!

I hate that term. It is an excuse for politicians to lie and ********.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems