BrianWade4
Well-known member
Foreigners out
Fair play , at least you've owned up to misjudging your audience quite a few times on here.
As David Cameron arrives in Riga, a columnist for the Washington Post writes about the inward turn of the UK
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...tain-resigned-as-a-global-power-10269098.html
All can be traced back to Thatcher selling everything off to the highest bidder and shutting our industry down. Now Cameron is going to work, mopping up the working classes that Labour managed to help get retrained, re educated and re invigorated , Labour got those very people back to work and making Britain great again after Thatcher threw us to the dogs and now the Tories are throwing them on to the scrapheap. Britain will never be great again under Tory rule, we will never be a global force while Cameron is selling us down the river. And he's fooled the very people he's destroying, into voting for him. Hold tight, this is going to be rough.
Not long now surely Nibbs, you must have packed your bags…I know I'm boring lol
Dave the WINNER.
As David Cameron arrives in Riga, a columnist for the Washington Post writes about the inward turn of the UK
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...tain-resigned-as-a-global-power-10269098.html
Christ on a bike you are exceptionally ****ing boring beyond belief now. It would perhaps be better if a sub NSC forum was created for people who continuously attack the UK. I suppose the biggest irony is you get free speech yet favour a country totally against free speech not that long ago.
I am afraid 'the left " have lost its way in many areas .
Europe being one of the the prime examples of this.
I think it is a reflex .Nationalists and xenophobes are anti EU
so we must be pro.It is a variation of the fallacy the enemy of my
enemy is my friend .
Democracy is weak and ineffective at a national level.
At an EU wide level the voter turn out tells the story.
The free movement of capital and labour is great for capital
not so good for labour.
None of that poem rhymes Kev
Only one side had nuclear weapons in 1945 and it wasn't the Russians so World War III would have been rather brief and wouldn't have involved the Western Allies being 'thrown out' of anywhere.
You could count the US nuclear arsenal on the fingers of one hand in 1945, and two of those were expended.
It might have been as many as a dozen by mid-1946.
All in the 10-20kt range. When you see pictures of what conventional airpower did to places like Hamburg, and Berlin, it's a difference of degree, not a difference of nature.
I think the Russians had a very exact idea of the size of the US arsenal, thanks to the great job the USSR did penetrating the Manhattan project.The Russians didn't know that and I would bet that just one more dropped on Moscow might have finished the job.
I think the Russians had a very exact idea of the size of the US arsenal, thanks to the great job the USSR did penetrating the Manhattan project.