Corbyn is Rustled
Military coup imminent in the event of Corbyn as PM
>Shortly after Corbyn was elected Labour leader, an unnamed serving general was quoted claiming that the armed forces could stage a mutiny, or even a coup, if Corbyn became prime minister because there was so much opposition to his policies.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/08/rmed-forces-chief-jeremy-corbyn-defence-trident
forgot second link
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-army-could-stage-mutiny-under-corbyn-says-senior-serving-general-10509742.html
>>55258512
I knew Dan Jarvis should have stood as labour leader.
>>55258512
>Unnamed serving general
>Unnamed
Probably never happened.
The military is a joke now anyway. The Tories are cutting them so much they will be fucking useless in any foreign intervention. Cameron has some nerve saying they are the party of national security.
>>55259185
Because obviously they are going to release the name of the general who is threatening a military coup. He surely won't lose his job.
>>55258880
He's only been in politics for 4 years. And there's no reason to believe he'd be a good PM. The only thing going for him is his military service, which Labour realise immunises him from (possibly justified) claims that he is a kuck.
>>55259372
Of course, but given that there's no evidence that anyone said anything... I think the Guardian might just be bullshitting. The media do this all the time.
>>55258512
It'd be worth having Corbyn as Prime Minister for the lelz factor that would ensue.
>>55259430
I thought the graun and it's readers were all red, why would they post something anti commie?
>>55259542
>Why would the Guardian claim that Corbyn is being victimised by nutty generals?
>>55259528
>meanwhile the middle easten population knocks on dovers door
Well, more like knock down dovers door
>>55259528
I have lived through the 1970's Labour mate and it was not good . .. . there is no Lulz. It's Union hijack and spending a few days a week without electricity because of Union strikes is not much fun.
>>55259902
This guy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson
>in the late 1940s, Wilson had been on trade missions to Russia and cultivated a friendship with Anastas Mikoyan and Vyacheslav Molotov. He continued these relationships when Labour went into Opposition, and according to material from the Mitrokhin Archive, his insights into British politics were passed to and highly rated by the KGB.
>>55258798
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz2Gdh4b4As
>>55259902
It's because the IMF were cunts about public spending in Britain. I come from union families in Worksop, and there was no selfishness about it. You had to do what you had to do. And thus, the Winter occurred.
>>55260856
I know Worksop very well mate, I met my wife there, even though I am a Southerner but you are very much misguided and lead a life of traditional voting rather than logic and sense!
>>55258798
>He believes the death of Bin Laden was a tragedy
Horribly out of context. He said it was part of an endless cycle of bloodshed which ought to be stopped. Totally reasonable.
>He describes terrorist groups as friends
The government describes many evil dictators as friends. You have to be polite when negotiating with people. You could argue that we should not negotiate with Hamas or Hezbollah but that's a different issue.
>>55260794
That generation of Labour politicians was riddled with Communist sympathisers. Michael Foot (Labour leader 1980-83) was one of the worst.
If the UK had a far right military coup like Ukraine would America support our new government?
bbbut corbyn supports are troops too!
>>55261273
The US wants the EU to become more and more powerful, it wants us to accept globalisation and mass immigration, and it wants us to help in its foreign wars. If the new regime opposed any of these things the US would probably treat us like Cuba.
>>55261307
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/david-cameron-poppy-picture-was-photoshoppped-onto-older-image-a6718436.html
>>55261416
I don't know if you know this (and Americans would never admit it) but the USA does not hold the strings over Britain . . . in fact Britain's opinion on world affairs is held in high regard in the Whitehouse!
The recent 'boots on the ground' in Syria is an example of this!
>>55261188
Traditional voting had little to do with it my friend, it was a clear-cut case of the North-South divide. All the wealth is south, and we were Labour because we knew what was best for us - the workers - supporting a party that (back in those days) genuinely had a heart for us. That's why the Tories are disliked round here: they just don't care about human beings. They're desperate for their wallets coughing with cash.
>>55261307
Everyone pays their respects a different way, you prat. You didn't see this earlier today, did you?
"After laying a wreath at the Cenotaph, Jeremy Corbyn remained on Horseguards parade, among the crowd, to applaud the veterans' march past, and to talk to them - respecting the living and the dead."
If you look closely, Corbyn's poppy is photoshopped on. How unpatriotic and disrespectful.
>>55258880
Nah m8.
>>55261839
Sorry Duck . . .but the Tories are disliked because of local tradition and you can't tell me otherwise, - I have spent enough time around you lot, to understand how you work and function.
Stand back from your stupid 'Them and Us' traditions and take a real close look at what people stand for and their policies!
>>55261770
>The recent 'boots on the ground' in Syria is an example of this!
Have the Americans ever wanted boots on the ground? The 50 pairs they have now don't really count. You're right that Obama has taken us quite seriously, but that's only because he wants to appear to be part of a coalition. Bush never gave a fuck, he didn't even ask us to help invade or occupy Iraq.
I was exaggerating a bit over their response to a coup but they would not like a nationalist Britain one bit. The CIA would do their best to organise a counter-coup.
>>55262010
They look like they've just caught and caged him.
No wonder they are so happy, probably haven't tortured a commie since malaya
>>55258512
>because there was so much opposition to his policies.
Then he wouldn't be Prime Minister so this whole scenario wouldn't happen.
Holy fuck PMQs have been shit since Corbyn became leader.
>PRIME MINISTERS QUESTIONS, MR JEREMY CORBYN
>Thank you mr speaker, my first question comes from Mrs C Ouncilestate of Wentworth-on-the-bog and she asks this: "The new tax credit cuts stand to make me lose £14 trillion a year and my luxury yacht to be reappropriated into a floating wine celler for the tory backbenchers, can you guarantee that I won't be worse off when I decide to queef out my 13th child with some mug off the estate?"
>MR DAVID CAMERON
>Thank you Mr. Speaker, and what I'd say to my trotskyist commie nazi opponent is that we're raising the minimum tax bracket and we're introducing a living wage of 17 freddo bars each day that will allow people like the human garbage you deign to provide infinite welfare for to actually lift a finger if they want to get money
>Repeat 5 more times
>Irrelevent scots cunt starts banging on about devolution, nobody listens
>Even more irrelevent irish cunt wants more power for leprechauns to decide what the correct ratio of cereal to candy should be in boxes of lucky charms
>>55262136
Most traditions are rooted in reason, I won't deny that it is somewhat tradition. You can't tell me however that the Tories care about the North though, right?
>>55262281
kek
>>55262136
>Tories
>Good
They are not even truly conservative. They stand for mass immigration and the EU, despite their rhetoric. They see British workers as interchangeable cogs in the global economy. They are currently selling out our steel and nuclear industries to the Chinese. Their handling of the economy has been horribly incompetent. When Northerners get tired of Labour they take a look at the Tories... then turn away again. If they were any good they would be embraced regardless of tradition.
>>55262432
Most people say they don't like PMQs banter. Corbyn is just trying to look mature, although of course he loves tribal politics.
>>55262493
I can't say that any party cares for the North beyond its potential voter base. Politics and the media are Southern-centric.
>>55262493
I think you are naive to think that the Tories care about a North/South divide. It's not above geography, it's about what is best for the country!
>Labour leader
I thought that ugly jew who looked like shit in every single picture was the Labour leader?
>>55258512
If there was so much opposition to his policies, why was he elected?
>>55258512
Unnamed, therefore bollocks.
If this is a lie by the Guardian, then great, that's another paper turning into tabloid shite with no redeemnig qualities. The Guardian used to be quite good.
>>55262530
>They stand for mass immigration
And Labour doesn't? . . .Please tell me who engineered the mass immigration policy during the Labour Government and the reasons for doing so? . .. . . .be VERY careful here, because I know the reasons and the people responsible!
>>55258512
What a complete joke, these are just welfare queens assmad because someone responsible wants to put taxpayer money into something more useful.
The UK is just a small regional power and has little to no relevance is much of Asia, Africa, Latin America and most of the Middle East. There is no reason whatsoever for the UK to spend billions on a nuclear deterrent or even on a military capable of attacking another nation, especially since they have the protection NATO. There is no reason why another nation would invade the UK anyway. The UK could cut its military budget by 75% and scrap most of its boats and planes and literally nothing bad would happen.
>>55262956
>And Labour doesn't?
I never implied that. Labour and Conservative are not the only options. If you want to you can just abstain, which is what millions of working class people do.
>>55262858
Get with the times, lad. Miliband resigned when Labour lost the election, then the party elected a hardcore leftie, who for all his faults is at least not perceived as a weirdo.
>>55262951
>that's another paper turning into tabloid shite with no redeemnig qualities
Every paper does this, they always have. Journalists need a steady supply of controversy.
>>55262936
His policies are very popular among the Labour Party's heavily socialist membership, which elected him as Party leader. Not so much among the general population, and not at all with the military.
>>55262775
>Tories wanting what's best for the country
kek, are you sure you live here?
>>55263291
If you don't use your vote, they'll just take it away. It's ludicrous not to use it. You will get no change whatsoever if you abstain. You're deluded.
>>55263291
Abstaining from a vote is shit . . .I don't know who shills this crap.
>>55258798
Oh anon, i know i am on /pol/, but a tad of honest would be refreshing.
>>55263384
>>55263488
I'm not advocating abstention, merely saying it's an option. I do what most British /pol/acks do, which is vote UKIP. Don't tell me that I'm wasting my vote, because I refuse to support the Tories as the lesser of two evils. And voting UKIP does work - the rise of UKIP has already got Cameron to stiffen up on immigration.
>>55263661
>supporting a meme party that hasn't been relevant since May
>>55263761
Welp, I guess I should just take Tory cock up my arse forever then. Thanks for the info m8.
>>55263567
those are all true mate
>>55263661
UKIP is literally in its death throes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3308767/Ukip-brink-going-bust-Party-hit-huge-fall-members-flop-Election.html
>>55263661
Abstaining from a vote is NOT an option . . .. FFS man, do you think that lefties abstain? . . .NO! most of them are hard-core and do what Face-book/ Twitter/Reddit/etc. tells them.
I have to vote Tory in my area, to keep out Liberals (although I vote UKIP in EU elections) . . .but I think that the time is right now to go for UKIP vote in Generals as liberal is dead and Labour is divided!
Jeremy Corbyn: "9/11 was manipulated to make it look like Osama Bin Laden was responsible"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11892383/Jeremy-Corbyn-911-was-manipulated.html
MUST SEE: Labour MP Michael Meacher On Money Creation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq51BT5SPWM
>Meacher was one of 36 Labour MPs to nominate Jeremy Corbyn as a candidate in the Labour leadership election of 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Meacher
10/10
Woulld vote for. Even though im an ethnic nationalist.
>>55263886
Or you can vote for a real alternative. His initials indicate he is literally the messiah.
>>55264038
>I have to vote Tory in my area
Because The Daily Mail tells you to.
>>55263975
They're polling at 15%, which is an improvement from the election.
>>55264038
>Abstaining from a vote is NOT an option
The guy I was replying to was suggesting that I had to vote for the Tories or for Labour, which I'm trying to disprove. Abstention is in fact an option, although not one I'd endorse.
>I have to vote Tory in my area, to keep out Liberals
Fair enough, assuming you live in a swing seat.
>but I think that the time is right now to go for UKIP vote in Generals
Many will agree with you. I think that the seeming inevitability of a Tory win, plus the death of the Lib Dems, means that tactical voting will be much less significant next time.
>>55264130
Sorry NL bro but even the Tories faked Corbyns leadership, he is the worst meme leader ever . .. . don't take it seriously, because the British public doesn't! . . .he was elected to destroy the Labour party . .. lots of /pol/acks voted for him . . .just for the lulz!
>>55258512
>>>55263775
Brit/pol/ thread going on here senpaitachi.
Same shit
>>55263975
>>55263761
sounds like self fulfilling bull shit.
>>55264038
every election is important, you will never get a chance to change your leadership with out risking a labour win.
>>55264038
>FFS man, do you think that lefties abstain?
Actually they do, lol. The polls were wrong in May because the students and unemployed stayed home, while the pensioners turned out.
>>55264389
NO . . . .that Prick with Anime pictures has started to try and pretend that Brits approve this sort of thing is a complete Wanker . . . .He will post his anime shit until the cows come home . . .we should ignore his threads . . .he is a cunt!
>>55264477
Nope . . .you lie!
>>55264130
>Woulld vote for. Even though im an ethnic nationalist.
>I'd vote for an Merkel-tier advocate of open borders, even though I'm diametrically opposed to such policies
I agree that he is pretty based in some ways, though.
>>55264615
Young people and poor people tend to be left-wing, also they tend not to vote. It's common knowledge.
>>55264038
You realise the groups with the highest voting turnout, people over 65, homeowners and people in the highest social class, all overwhelmingly vote for tories. The people who most likely would vote left (young adults, renters, minorities) are the least likely to actually vote.
>>55258798
sounds like he's just a normal leftist
Secretly even most of the tories hold these views
>>55264551
What, Karen Kujo?
I see nothing wrong with her; she's always been on Brit/pol/ threads.
>>55264746
No it hasn't . . .it's some prick that screams after anime . . .there is nothing British about it at all!
>>55258512
That could spark a full civil war. It would be amazing lol.
I hate Corbyn so fucking much. Trust a leftist to tbe totally illiterate on defence
>>55265058
Name one good reason for nukes, buddy.
>>55262530
It's a nice new twist on the PMQ's, but in the end its making him look weak because he cant even think of his own questions, he has to get the public to give him ideas.
>>55265146
deterrence
>>55265146
Name a reason to get rid of them whilst on-edge leaders e.g based ching chang kim jong is hovering his finger over the button whilst developing parkinsons
>>55265146
Deterrent . . .you pasty-faced, sandal-wearing . . .gay-boy ponce!
>>55265150
Does he do that call-in shtick every week? I though it was just a one-off. He is still 100 times better than Miliband though. I'm convinced that Labour lost millions of votes because of his adenoids.
>>55265207
>>55265228
We need an independent nuclear programme. That probably means bomber-delivered nukes because the US controls the rocket-targeting satellites.
>>55260794
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6v1VxB5Lss
>>55265207
Japan, Brazil, Australia, Canada, none have nukes, none have wars. If we got rid of nukes and instead had a standing army, we wouldn't be invaded on day fucking 1, if ever. This is the new world, not Medieval Europe.
>>55265316
Nice ad-hominem attack there, care to make a real point?
>>55265228
kek, you think anyone - even China - would consider those fucks a threat?
>>55265146
So that the conventional forces don't get taken out by tactical nuclear weapons in the first six hours of a real war.
>Corbyn picking a fight with the military on remembrance Sunday
It's like he doesn't want to get elected. These next 4 years are going to be so much fun
>>55265451
>Nice ad-hominem attack there,
It's only Ad Hom . . .if it applies to you! . . .and I think it does!
>>55265468
Then someone else - probably America - would use nukes right back at whoever tac-nuked them.
>>55265589
Quit being a cry-baby bitch and square up, nigga. Defend your point of view instead of just being a wanker.
>>55265845
if you felt it was a personal attack then . . ..bigger shame on you!
Incase you never realised, was taking the piss out of that sort of thing . . .. you have just shot yourself in the foot!
>>55266014
>you pasty-faced, sandal-wearing . . .gay-boy ponce!
>Not a personal attack
You're obviously too cantankerous to actually talk to... have a good evening, sir.
>>55265558
Interesting the press didn't report that he snubbed the VIP dinner to instead go talk to WWII veterans he supposedly hates.
>>55258880
Dan Jarvis is based and a man's man. Sadly Labour don't give a fuck about the working class and would rather appeal to the Paki community in the UK.
Dan Jarvis also declined early on. Labour missed a trick with him.
>>55266201
You're actually mad about getting called a ponce on 4chan
Lmao. You're a fag m8. The other guy is right, we need nukes
>>55265592
>Then someone else
Methinks we have a leftist.
Question: Since you obviously wouldn't nuke anyone for your own country, what makes you think the Americans are going to nuke anyone for us?
Also: Losing the entire armed forces six hours into a war is not a good plan.
The better plan is that we stand on our own two feet, I suspect that's a bit right wing for you though.
>>55266201
You make me laugh . . .. Nobody wanted to debate with me at Uni either because I made them look the shallow twats that they are!
They said I bullied them! .. . I still laugh at it now!
>>55266213
point scoring
>>55265451
Only because America is their deterrence you outrageous cluck
>>55266213
Well why would he turn down the chance to talk with some folks who actually fought alongside Stalin?
>>55266369
Look at this rattled faggot. kek
This is for all you shitskin cunts who think of Karen as a disease!
>>55266377
To piss off teenage dweebs like you no doubt.
>>55263761
>supporting on any other party ever
jesus christ why even bother breathing
>>55266369
>>55266303
I think you've both missed the point: if anyone used tactical nuclear warfare, you'd set off a nuclear war, which was my point. It's not a case of "Oh, we'll let someone else do it for us"
>>55266288
The other guy was constantly avoiding whatever arguments I made, not because he called me a fucking ponce.
>>55266449
>id
>POZ
>>55266287
Corbyn will be out on his arse before the next general election and they'll be practically begging people like Jarvis to run and make the party electable.
>>55265451
an appalling argument
>>55258512
It will never happen.
The armed forces swear allegiance to HM. The PM is HM's top lackey. If he's given the job, it's with her say so. Ergo, if someone tries to throw a coup, it's treason and they will be shot.
>>55266600
Go on,
>>55266645
Not that guy but are you actually >implying we should try to be more like Brazil?
>>55266645
>these countries don't have nuclear weapons and are not currently at war therefore nuclear weapons are not a deterrent
>>55266603
>they will be shot
You realise you're unironically talking about the British Army right
>>55258512
>Wasting billions of Trident
>Deterrant
It sure is deterring all those shitskins from coming here in waves
Sick of hearing about this useless submarine
>>55266868
>hurr
>>55266546
How can you have a tactical nuclear exchange if only one side has tactical nuclear weapons? Your argument is predicated on someone having nuclear weapons and being willing to use them on our behalf. So your argument is "Oh, we'll let someone else do it" because if there isn't a someone else to do it then there is no reason not to use tactical nuclear weapons against the UK: there will be no retaliation and so nothing to fear.
Your autism is showing.
>>55266868
Yeah the fire extinguishers don't get rid of them either........best get rid of those too.
>Apples and oranges fallacy
>Autism
>>55266939
Literally the only reason it's still there is jobs. They managed to finally get the answer out eventually
Nobody wants to use nukes anymore. If we scrapped the project we could at least have a decent standing army instead of the ravaged corpse the Tories have turned it into
>>55266806
The Queen is the highest rank in the armed forces. Nearly all soldiers would view an attempted coup as disregarding an order from a senior rank. Those who took part would quickly be rounded up and dealt with.
Most people don't realize this, but MI5 & MI6 are so far down on the Military Intelligence list because the lower numbered departments are concerned with investigating threats within the military (always the greatest concern for any head of state). There is no way it could be kept secret, and anyone involved will get their head spiked at the Tower (figuratively).
>>55267079
>ravaged corpse the Tories have turned it into
Forgetting what the previous Labour Government did . .. . .boy you have a short memory!
>>55266722
The idea of a deterrent is to prevent a war against you.
>>55266699
No, I'm not. My point was no one is warring with (or looking to war with anytime soon) Brazil.
>>55266944
My argument is all nuclear weapons are bad for all participants. If anyone attacks any NATO country with nukes, the WORLD is fucked.
>>55266998
My argument is that nuclear weapons are a relic of a bygone era.
Who is going to nuke us? Russia? to incur the wrath of America?
The most likely scenario is terrorists and how exactly is a nuclear program going to prevent that and how do we even respond to it? Who do we target with a weapon so widely condemned even the Americans don't use them after dropping 2.
>>55266303
Shouldn't you withdraw from NATO then if the US can't be even trusted to defend an member state under attack?
>>55267079
Nice idea, in practice it would mean total dependence on US and France the minute Russia or anyone else shows the slightest aggression
Hard to escape the cluckold state of mind
>>55267079
>Nobody wants to use nukes anymore.
Weasel words.
>If we scrapped the project we could at least have a decent standing army
Japan had a decent standing army. The Americans dropped two nuclear weapons and the Japanese realised that a decent standing army wasn't going to save them.
>>55266603
Who is going to shoot the British army? The police force and some plastic spoons?
>>55267223
Only if NATO retaliates with nukes. If it doesn't NATO ceases to exist within hours and the other side gets whatever it started the war for.
>>55267382
So... you don't think NATO would retaliate with nukes?
>>55267227
Ukraine surrendered it's nuclear weapons and decided to be a none nuclear state, lets take a look at what happened there...
Oh look, they got invaded by Russia.
>>55267223
That's because Brazil is an irrelevant 3rd world shit hole.
You know which of the USA's allies would be the first for the chop if the cold war heated up with Russia? I'll give you a clue, it's not Puerto Rico.
>>55267334
The fucking army, you dunce. Do you honestly think every single soldier is going to take up arms against Her Majesty's Government because a few traitorous officers tell them to?
They swore an oath, ffs!
>>55267227
>My argument is that nuclear weapons are a relic of a bygone era.
Tell that to the Russians, they're introducing new SLBMs and ICBMs.
>to incur the wrath of America?
>Implying that America is going to nuke the Russians to save us and draw a nuclear attack against themselves.
>The most likely scenario is terrorists and how exactly is a nuclear program going to prevent that
It isn't designed to: MI5 and 6 are designed to counter terrorism.
>>55267470
Take away America's nukes and you've still got a pretty fucking strong military with lots and lots of up-to-date tech...
>>55265451
Japan, Australia, and Canada have security treaties with the U.S. They don't need nukes because they fall under the protection of the U.S. nuclear arsenal -- that's right they're basically protectorates. U.K. is free to join them, but that would be a great humiliation, as it stands right now, we at least give them the illusion that they're a #2.
>>55267462
>this fucking daft exaggeration
>>55267441
I wouldn't count on them.
Lets say Slovenia gets nuked tomorrow. Do we enter into full nuclear exchange with Russia to avenge them?
I'd rather not personally.
>>55267572
doesn't make it less true
>>55267275
the nuclear deterrent is not independant, and it is pointed at an area of the soviet union that is now in the EU. All it was was a semi-american base in the north west gap
Its extremely pointless except as a dickwave to pretend we are still a great power.
>>55267550
That's nice. I'm sure it'll help them recapture our smouldering nuclear wasteland of an island.
>>55267243
If we get rid of our nuclear weapons then not only should we leave NATO, we should disband the armed forces. There's no point in the 21st century in having armed forces that aren't protected against nuclear attack.
>>55267601
Typical /pol/ack sees things in black and white and doesn't take into account the myriad of other factors.
>>55267574
this is why russia is going to win ww3
they fire one nuke nato shits its pants and dissolves
everyone is such a fucking cuc kold now in the west
>>55267441
Well the nukes that would be used are ours. Our nuclear force is assigned directly to SACEUR exactly for that purpose. So you're proposing retaliation with nuclear weapons that you want us to get rid of.
Also I'm not willing to bet our national survival on other countries being willing to draw a nuclear attack on themselves for retaliating on our behalf. That's insane.
>>55267662
if they hade nukes it wouldn't have happened.
>>55267532
>Britain gets nuked
>America sits idly by and ignores it
>All member states pull out of NATO
>America condemned almost as much as Russia
So is this hypothetically if Trump becomes President?
>>55267760
if they were in nato they would not have been invaded either. The baltic states are in no risk
>>55267677
My point is we can't rely on big brother America to save our asses. We need to maintain some form of self sufficiency.
Russia are more likely to call nato's bluff and attack a non-nuclear armed nation, than attack a nuclear weapon state.
>>55267641
Pretty much this. I feel like most of the armed forces are redundant in any nation with nuclear arsenals. Any state with nukes, only needs special forces, and maybe a skeleton crew navy. 90% of the army and air force could be disbanded. Who the fuck is gonna invade a state with nukes? That's nuclear peace in a nutshell.
>>55267639
>the nuclear deterrent is not independant,
Even if that were true, that isn't an argument against a nuclear deterrent. That's an argument for making our deterrent independent.
The fact is that the Vanguard boats can launch independently. All it requires is the consent of the captain the XO and the weapons engineering officer.
>>55267804
You do know that the US has air bases on UK land right?
>>55267817
exactly, I agree with you 100%
>>55267760
What would they have done? Attempted to nuke Moscow. End up with the nuke likely being shot down and being blacklisted as a rogue state
Stepping out of protocol - Some jobs are non partisan
The armed forces must be non partisan. General Sir Nicholas Houghton has two options,
1. Resign from the army and join politics or
2. Remain in the armed forces and follow protocol. Otherwise his response to Andrew Marr was not within his docket protocol and a breach of his contract.
>>55267881
I'm well aware of that. His argument was that if Britain got nuked America would just kek out and pretend nothing happened
>>55267508
I can tell you now that the British Army would not fight against the Monarchy!
If the Queen had a complete breakdown and dissolved parliament, it would probably be a civil war type scenario and split the country, there would be a bunch of republican lefty kiddies on one side and the british Army and decent people on the other . .. . I side with the Queen . .. lefties have had their chance and fucked it up .. . I would have no problems in sending them back to the shit-hole squalors they seem to worship!
>>55267804
Put it this way if I were PM and America got nuked I wouldn't be risking the lives of 60 million people to avenge the deaths of 400 million. So I don't see why I would, if I were president, incur 400 million casualties to avenge 60 million dead Brits. It makes no strategic sense.
>>55267841
Yeah, exactly.
>>55267887
Moscow wouldn't have intervined in the first place
>he thinks antimissile defence actually works
>he thinks only one missile would be fired
>he thinks that missile isn't comprised of MIRV
>>55258512
>Corbyn?
>>55267641
>>55267841
on the contrary, nuclear defences have resulted in a major underfunding of the far more useful conventional armed forces.
>>55267878
perhaps it could be. What would it be used for. Where would it be directed?
A nuke is not an instakill superweapon. Its a missile with a strict effective range. Which bases would it be sent around. Cyprus?
Australia need a nuke. We really dont.
>>55267960
That's what I've been telling this idiot, but he's clearly never served. He probably has never even heard of Queen's Reg's and thinks mutiny only applies if you're a pirate!
>>55268015
kek!
>>55268007
>You think missile defence doesn't work
So what do you do anon? Work for a high-tech arms supplier?
>>55268123
ETWE(SM)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM3uxQoLGUk
here's some Russian Proganda on trident. But the guy in the interview knows what he;s talking about
>>55267972
It's you guys forget that the world is ran by jews and everything is about money
>>55259185
>The Tories are cutting them so much they will be fucking useless in any foreign intervention.
Yeah, because it wasn't Labour who scrapped the surface fleet, amalgamated dozens of regiments, cut funding and still embroiled us in a dozen fucking wars.
>>55268025
>nuclear defences have resulted in a major underfunding of the far more useful conventional armed forces.
It's only underfunding if you're planning on WW3 and WW3 isn't going to happen with nuclear deterrence.
>A nuke is not an instakill superweapon. Its a missile with a strict effective range. Which bases would it be sent around. Cyprus?
Yeah so? A SSBN with SLBM can hit any point on the globe. Remember that two missiles on each boat are for tactical use. So in time of war four SSBNs can provide global coverage.
Personally though I'd like to see the RAF reissued with nuclear weapons like W.E 177 just because of the flexibility of it.
>>55268181
Had much practice shooting down nuclear missiles?
They're launched almost every day these days
>>55267508
>They swore an oath, ffs!
Yes. They swore an oath to the Queen and her heirs and successors. They didn't swear an oath to Jeremy fucking Corbyn, you stupid cunt.
>>55268232
The Tories were against all that and then decided to carry on the cutting
>>55268232
its mixed
>>55268276
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2015/november/03/151103-successful-completion-of-at-sea-demo
>>55268296
Oh, shut up you stupid cunt. The PM works for the queen. She appoints him. If they topple him, it's treason, plain and simple.
Now go to bed, Nigel Jnr.
>>55268296
The military has no right to intervene on the government
Only the Queen has that power and if she was unhappy with the government she would call the PM to Buckingham first and ask him to dissolve parliament
These high-ranking officers are acting beyond their station as it stands curently
>>55268025
What exactly are conventional forces useful for? Meddling in the middle east? Fighting somali pirates?
Fuck it, I'd rather have a nuclear deterrent
Based Armed Forces, is there a better bunch on the face of this Earth?
My cousin served and is the most red-pilled guy I know. He'd be gunning down/deporting Pakis in a heartbeat.
>>55268098
It's a sad fact that many kids hold silly views . . .they only realise what the real world is after 5 years in civvy street or 1 year serving!
They get to learn eventually but boy, are they hard to change in the interim?
>>55268271
Well in theory Nuclear deterrence would only deter WW3 from being a nuclear war. Can still have a pretty normal war.
>>55268553
>spent 6 months sat in a tent in the desert playing PS3
>FUCKING CIVVIES MAN, DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT NUFFIN
>>55268271
perhaps. Im just fully sold on its value, and its a lot of risk.
>>55268495
>posts an irishman
>>55268471
Just in case the Argies make another go for muh Falklands.
>>55268405
>>55268430
Kill yourselves, retards
Sometimes violence is needed to fix things.
Is it better to watch the country be destroyed than be guilty of "treason"? Treason to whom tho, if the queen and the PM are committed to treason themselves, how can it be treasonous to revolt against them?
>>55268606
Well one side would have to find itself in a losing position, this tends to happen in war, and then that side would start to think about using tactical nuclear weapons which would probably escalate into strategic weapons.
Both sides understand this so neither side is willing to put the other into a position where it might consider using tactical weapons.
So both sides are left with only being able to fight wars as long as they don't try too hard to win, which is pointless. The choices therefore are: Fight a pointless war that you're not willing to win in case you get nuked or MAD.
Hence there will be no WW3 as long as there is nuclear deterrence.
>>55268642
question: why not just give those rocks to the argies and move those inbred colonials back to britain? is the petroleum worth this conflict that will probably last into the 22 century?
>>55268725
Because the definition of treason is to act against the interests of the crown
It really hasn't taken very long for that libtard leader of yours to kekold you
>>55268805
what conflict?
we won the war.
A military coup? In fucking UK? Don't make me laugh.
After centuries I would think a violent overthrow of the British government is one of the signs of the apocalypse.
>>55268632
Initial drop-out rate for Army basic is 60%.
Wonder which side of that statistic you'd fall on?
>>55268805
Tell you what. We'll swap the Falklands for Hawaii, I feel that this is a fair swap, and then you can give them to Argentina if you like.
>>55268821
the queen & government has a responsibility to the people as well
They've committed to this multi-culti treason long ago, eventually there will come a time when it has to end one way or another.
>>55258512
Guys, America can handle the nukes. Britain doesn't need them. It makes sense for Britain to spend more on conventional forces.
>>55268865
well, pissing contest, let's not argue semantics. my concern is that argentina will grow in strength, perhaps when south america as a bloc grows in power and it backs argentina's claim, what then? if you had to choose between good relations with SA or the rocks -- will you really still be choosing the rocks?
>>55268886
>After centuries I would think a violent overthrow of the British government
Nobody said anything about violence. It would be a British military coup.
>>55268944
>the queen & government has a responsibility to the people as well
90%+ wanted immigration to end, hence why it's the #1 issue here today, why UKIP got 4 million voters and why Cameron pledged to have it down to the tens of thousands. Right now the only people not acting in accordance with the peoples whims are members of parliament and the brainwashed left.
>>55269031
It's an empire thing, you yanks wouldn't under stand.
(you spoiled everything)
>can you imagine the cuc k shitposting on here if we let the argies have them
>>55268894
The side that never apply in the first place because they have a real job
>>55268931
Hawaii has like 1000x the strategic value that the Falklands will ever have. There is no reason to have a presence in SA -- at least for you there isn't.
>>55269124
yes go to university
good goy
>>55268944
>the queen & government has a responsibility to the people as well
The government has responsibility to the queen, not the country (that's why they're called minister, because they minister us for her).
The queen does not have responsibility towards the people. The queen IS the ruler, appointed by God, and we are her subjects.
You should get out of your basement more. Fresh air is good for the brain.
>>55269072
?
Hasn't cameron outed himself numerous times as a closet progressive?
He's the same sort of person as Merkel
He's got a majority, yet has immigration been reduced?
Same shit with our prime minister, of course most of canada loves immigration, so its a little different.
>>55269010
Does Sanders like nukes?
>>55269121
Yeah, let's be honest, the American empire hasn't worked out all that well. We leave law, order, railways. yada yada and they leave McDonald's and something....
>>55269184
yes join the army
good goy
>>55269164
There is a reason, they're ours. Our people live there, their people don't. End of.
>>55269283
prefer submarines bth mate
more money
>>55269330
>prefer submarines
Less rain/mud too.
>>55269243
>American empire
Despite the short reign that America has had so far as a world power, they have never had an Empire . . they are not ready yet!
>>55269388
just wait until mainland europe crumbles in the race war, and murrica russia and china are blown to pieces in a non-nuclear ww3 (thank you deterrence)
that's when the empire will rise again.
>>55269388
>America has had so far as a world power, they have never had an Empire
Depends how you look at it. Hundreds of bases worldwide and a tendency to remove political systems it doesn't like.
>>55269124
>Defending your country isn't a real job
It's THE job, numbnuts. Watch the birds on your lawn. What are they doing more than anything else? That's right, looking for danger.
Ask yourself this before you shit on the military. Would you go get killed on your bosses orders, without question, because you know he's figured out that more of your workmates would die if you don't?
I fucking hate bleeding heart assholes like you who sit at home and smirk at the guys getting their legs blown off to keep you safe.
>>55258512
the general should be court marshaled....they serve the government that serves the people...not the dicks that think us having nukes does anything
>>55268798
What strategic value is there in using the nukes if you are losing? The winners retreating and then just nuking your land?
Also the nukes could and would likely be targeted first to neutralise them before the invading side is 'winning' anyway. The other side can't use them before or during that point else its lands get completely nuked as well.
The whole idea behind MAD is that nukes cannot be used because everyone dies if they do. So it doesn't prevent conventional invasions and such. If you try to defend yourself using nukes you get nuked.
>>55269527
What exactly are you keeping me safe from again?
>>55269581
your stupid opinions, apparently.
>>55269243
Well, we only assert dominance over most of the former british empire and most of the European continent, most of south america, south korea, and japan. i think the american empire is bretty good if you ask me.
>tfw people on /pol/ don't support British nuclear detterance
maybe they were right, perhaps it is time to move to 4 + 4 chan /pol/
>>55269655
>ameican empire
>not Israeli empire
>>55269509
>Hundreds of bases worldwide
Many on 99 year lease contacts from Britain but tell me more!
>tendency to remove political systems it doesn't like.
Not without support from other countries.
America has NEVER won a war or battle unaided . .. . what are you? . . .some sort of proxy or a nigger wannabe?
>>55269639
Right then.
Look pal, I don't hate the military any more than I hate the postman or the binmen. You're a public servant, doing a public service, not a special snowflake.
>>55269546
>Sacking generals will prevent a coup not incite one.
Being heavy handed is not going to help you with a military that's feeling pushed out.
>>55269706
yeah, i would say that the creation of israel was the british empire's greatest fuck up. thanks for that.
>>55269581
I forgot that you actually do want to live in an ISIS controlled caliphate
sorry achmed
>>55269576
>What strategic value is there in using the nukes if you are losing?
Now we get into the vagaries of what people do under stress. I can imagine a situation where one side seeing that its losing decides that a limited tactical nuclear strike would halt its enemy, executes such a strike and then things get out of hand.
In a rational debate it makes little sense but under pressure if the choices are: 1. Lose the war. 2. Give them a bloody nose with tactical nuclear weapons and hope for a negotiated peace there is an increasing risk that they'll pick number 2.
>>55267960
Lel. You genuinely believe every single personal the armed forces gives a shit about the fucking Monarchy?
>>55269782
>this guy again
I'd say it takes a tad more of a man to be a soldier than a trash collector.
>>55269776
>America has NEVER won a war or battle unaided
Actually if you were literate you'd realise that I was pointing out that by some definitions of empire America could be considered to be an empire.
>>55269830
>the British military are keeping you safe from a group the British government funded
Th-thanks
>>55269851
reminds me of this diagram
>>55269830
How are the armed forces going to prevent immigration?
>>55269941
The reason being...?
>>55269903
I'd wager there's barely anyone who doesn't.
>Pseudo-britpol thread appears
>Everyone comes out of the woodwork and starts posting
Is everyone just afraid of making a new britpol thread in case someone else is just about to make one at the same time? Is this the 4chan equivalent of walking past someone in the street and you go left and they go left and then you go right and they go right?
>>55269966
Yeah. Pretty much, Anon. Frightened humans do not always make wise choices, so in a nuclear world it make sense not to frighten them too much.
>>55270024
Then you're a deluded little pig with your head up your arse.
>>55269782
>You're a public servant, doing a public service, not a special snowflake.
Except the postman and binman don't get shot at.
No whinny little cunt in a Uni lecture hall is going to tell me how important my service to my country was, ok? You are just like a pre-schooler lecturing dad on the economic climate. YOU need to understand that, to a serving or ex-serving member of the armed forces, your opinion is automatically discarded simply because you have never put your life on the line for what you believe in.
Now stfu.
>>55270049
I couldn't be bothered to trawl the news to make more links for a full brit/pol/
>>55270149
>Except the postman and binman don't get shot at.
Most people in the armed forces don't either.
>>55269776
hate to be that guy "claiming credit for the achievements of others that came before me" but im pretty sure we decisively won the pacific theatre virtually entirely on our own. we pretty much bankrupted the U.S.S.R by making them spend themselves into an oblivion when they couldn't afford to stock supermarket shelves, much less arm a military. considering, that it damn well be argued that the USSR was a creation by European conflict in world war 1, then you should be eternally grateful for cleaning your mess.
>>55261307
He's the reason why the people of Venezuela have to wait in a line for generic bread.
>>55270184
Just grab the first few headlines off the beeb, nobody cares about them anyway.
>>55269851
Nuclear deterrence only works under rational pretenses. There is nothing stopping a nation just irrationally nuking someone and ignoring 'deterrence'.
Your 2nd choice goes against the whole idea behind deterrence. If you can just throw nukes out to give someone a 'bloody nose' and believe this will start some negotiation then nukes don't deter shit.
>>55270221
lol IRAN
>>55270221
>There is nothing stopping a nation just irrationally nuking someone and ignoring 'deterrence'.
And yet even Best Korea shows restraint.
>>55258512
>UK
>democracy
>>55269010
The money saved wouldn't go back to the armed forces though, it would get sucked straight into welfare. Commie Corbyn would probably scrap the military altogether.
>>55270149
>special snowflake getting mad
Binmen die all the time too, and they're benefiting me directly. Where are their parades?
>>55270383
Corbyn wouldn't be able to disband the entire military anyway. And thinking the billions from Trident would go to welfare is just effing nonsense.
>>55270221
it's a nice thought that even though your entire country has been reduced to a pile of ashes and molten glass with you along with it
that the enemy which nuked you has been reduced to the same state in retaliation.
>>55270442
my bins are only collected once every 2 weeks now
fuck the bin-men
>>55270088
You sound like a reasonable fellow, well educated and probably backed by research.
>>55269951
>I was pointing out that by some definitions of empire America could be considered to be an empire
>>55270196
> im pretty sure we decisively won the pacific theatre virtually entirely on our own
I hope you don't mind guys but I am screen capping this as material for a documentary.
Thanks for your co-operation.
>>55270442
He's part of the new generation of entitled armed forces pricks full of their own self-importance because The Sun tells us that Our Brave Boys® are all heroes defending our freedoms shooting goat herders in far away shit holes.
>>55270221
>Nuclear deterrence only works under rational pretenses. There is nothing stopping a nation just irrationally nuking someone and ignoring 'deterrence'.
Yeah, but we're drifting into the realms of the nirvana fallacy. No system/idea is perfect, things can go wrong but that doesn't mean that the system/idea should be discarded. More often than not deterrence has given world leaders pause for thought and an incentive to find peaceful solutions.
>Your 2nd choice goes against the whole idea behind deterrence. If you can just throw nukes out to give someone a 'bloody nose' and believe this will start some negotiation then nukes don't deter shit.
Yeah, but this is a situation where deterrence has broken down leading to a conventional war. It's not a critique of the concept of deterrence it's an exploration of a hypothetical scenario where deterrence has failed. Yes, if deterrence failed things would get fucked up.
>>55270570
>backed by research.
Which of course, exactly what your sweeping nonsense is?
>>55270508
>my bins are only collected once every 2 weeks now
>fuck the bin-men
Nuke the bastards.
>>55270606
Someone sounds mad that they're too much of a failure to get out and do something worthy of their lives.
Lmao, don't cry about it, just kill yourself?
>>55270472
>it's a nice thought that even though your entire country has been reduced to a pile of ashes and molten glass with you along with it
It isn't unless they launched nukes first. Your lands will be relatively fine and the vast majority of the people other than damage from conventional invasion they would be just occupied by a foreign nation. You launching nukes could make it so your precious land and people will turn to ash.
>>55270195
>Most people in the armed forces don't either.
Only the ones who ended up getting shot.
Tell me, when was the last time a bin man died in the UK? If anything, a binman killed, what was it, 3 people in the UK last christmas?
>>55270727
did you read the second line?
yes, in the scenario where we get nuked first it is a nice thought
>>55270695
>prick full of his own self-importance detected
>>55270574
you couldn't even defend singapore, hong kong, or australia. stop being butthurt and just concede that were it not for the US, Australia too would've been occupied by the time you could muster up a force to take on Japan. I'm arguing from the hypothetical alternate universal where the US didn't enter WW2. Those gooks would've been swimming in aussie pussy and you would've been completely unable to do a thing!
man, i really wish wish those japs and germans could've raped you. ungrateful limey.
>>55270842
>A nobody who is a useless, unworthy failure who cant do anything useful with his life detected
I'm not kidding, why haven't you thought about suicide yet? At least it will take you out of the gene pool. You do want to contribute to the betterment of humanity, right?
>>55270606
>He's part of the new generation of entitled armed forces pricks
lmfao. I'm in my 50's, and served before you were even a slimy little grot in your father's ballsack.
Grow up and stop thinking your entitled to slag of anyone because of your feels.
>>55270764
Trust a dumb, greasy spic to make a completely illogical argument.
Go back to sleep, you lazy faggot.
