M573 – Diplomatic Relations with Iran motion Watch

This discussion is closed.
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#61
Report 1 month ago
#61
(Original post by Glaz)
Not Labour then
Yeah think it's quite widely reported that the Labour party hates Jews.

Your party are arab-loving, Palestinian-jizzing fetishists.
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#62
Report 1 month ago
#62
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
Yeah think it's quite widely reported that the Labour party hates Jews.
I as a Labour member do not hate Jews :nah:
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#63
Report 1 month ago
#63
(Original post by Glaz)
I as a Labour member do not hate Jews :nah:
Supporting a two state solution is antisemitic.
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#64
Report 1 month ago
#64
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
Supporting a two state solution is antisemitic.
:hmmmm:
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#65
Report 1 month ago
#65
(Original post by Glaz)
:hmmmm:
You obviously don't possess the intellectual nuance to answer my statement and are resorting to emojis.

:hmmmm:
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#66
Report 1 month ago
#66
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
You obviously don't possess the intellectual nuance to answer my statement and are resorting to emojis.

:hmmmm:
:holmes:
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#67
Report 1 month ago
#67
(Original post by Glaz)
Not Labour then
They have diversified into Islamophobia of late
https://order-order.com/2020/01/06/l...-stain-planet/
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
Supporting a two state solution is antisemitic.
Do you mean the Palestinian idea of a two state solution (namely, one state apart from a token area for Jews)?
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#68
Report 1 month ago
#68
after a week, do we have enough information that going to war would benefit the UK because i'm not about throwing millions x millions of pounds and possibly British lives at some 'morally right' decision here. war is expensive AF and we need to do a cost/benefit analysis. would rather wait before we start spending the UK military budget because we simply cannot afford to get involved in every battle in the world. taxpayers wouldn't have it.
Last edited by Joleee; 1 month ago
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#69
Report 1 month ago
#69
(Original post by SnowMiku)
Mentioning my "weak" history knowledge - no need to do so. at all. I'm facing 18+ yr olds in debate here. Anyway, that's not important to the discussion.

At least taking something through the government means multiple people have their say. Heck, might as well do a referendum on the issue of Trump while we're at it.
(Nuclear weapons still weren't needed IMO - just because it was POTENTIALLY seen to sort out the germany issue. I know it ended the wars etc, still isn't nice (cough cough cold war nearly destroyed everything))
Plus, we don't know if japan would have needed invading - sure, your estimates do approach nuclear limits but that's bad enough in itself. My point isn't the amount of people dying - it's that people still died. FOR A WAR STARTED IN GERMANY.
The issue was that there was radiation and such in the first place and even though there might not be a significant increase, there still IS an increase. Alpha radiation causes cells to mutate ergo still defects - maybe not a massive increase, but an increase for defo.

I understand we're all trying to discuss the ramifications of Iran vs USA atm but this is getting off-topic.
You're kinda the one that brought it up and "you're older" is a lazy excuse that ignores the fact that above a certain age (lower than 18) if you take any two people you will almost certainly find the younger to greater than the older at something non-trivial

You also have no excuse for not knowing the US were at war with the Japanese because the Japanese attacked them...
De facto active involvement in the war started after the Germans attacked the USS Greer, in response US ships were ordered to attack U-boats on sight and for actual declarations you had Pearl Harbor first; beyond that the war in Asia was started by Japan in 1937 when they invaded China, and if you don't want to include the Second Sino-Japanese war as part of WWII it's still Japan because the Pacific Theatre, as it is generally recognised, opened on 7/12/41, it wasn't just the Americans that were attacked, it was the British, Dutch, and Australians too. While both the European and Pacific wars are both part of WWII they are also largely independent from each other, both starting for different reasons but with common combatants.

If you're aware of the highly ionising nature of alpha particles I'm sure you're also aware that they have very low penetration depth, skin or a few inches of air being sufficient stop them; the fact of the matter is that plenty of research has been done, both on Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, and those exposed to increased levels of radiation for other reasons, and no increases have been discovered; the only exception being microcephaly which did see an increased incidence but at the same time the gestation period this effect is most likely to be observed is one during which the exposure will result in miscarriage, also far more likely in Hiroshima than Nagasaki, hypothesised to be due to the differing designs. When it came to pregnancies post bombing no increases in any deformation have been observed.

And let's finish off the digression with the fact that you'd have to be mad to think that in the absence of MAD we wouldn't have already seen WWIII.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#70
Report 1 month ago
#70
(Original post by Joleee)
after a week, do we have enough information that going to war would benefit the UK because i'm not about throwing millions x millions of pounds and possibly British lives at some 'morally right' decision here. war is expensive AF and we need to do a cost/benefit analysis. would rather wait before we start spending the UK military budget because we simply cannot afford to get involved in every battle in the world. taxpayers wouldn't have it.
And once again we seem to live in a world where either there is no involvement whatsoever or there is all out war, the other thing to point out is when we're talking something like the military, or government in general, millions is nothing; if the government lost £1m somewhere it would be like the average person losing about 40p down the back of the sofa.

More importantly, however, is that the costs of military operations cited in the media are massively overstated. Consider for instance the £35,000 per hour to fly a Tornado, using the FY 2014/15 contract value and flying hours a quarter of this figure is the maintenance contract which increases to more than a third for FY 2015/16; I suspect it would also be including some form of amortisation, a rough estimate based on flying hours and assuming nil residual value would have this taking up the bulk a significant portion of the remaining cost, we bought 228, from what I can find they're about £20m ea (not including any upgrade packages that themselves would require depreciating), have flown a bit over 1m hours so a flight hour is about £5,000 just for the base aircraft, not including upgrade packages. Then you have the pilots, support staff, etc who still get paid when sat around doing nothing. Your consumables aren't that expensive.

War looks expensive until you see the cost for peace.
Last edited by Jammy Duel; 1 month ago
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#71
Report 1 month ago
#71
Nay, I do not approve of the UK just bandwagoning blindly with the US and I am uncomfortable with Trump's warmongering.
1
Joleee
Badges: 18
#72
Report 1 month ago
#72
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
And once again we seem to live in a world where either there is no involvement whatsoever or there is all out war, the other thing to point out is when we're talking something like the military, or government in general, millions is nothing; if the government lost £1m somewhere it would be like the average person losing about 40p down the back of the sofa.

More importantly, however, is that the costs of military operations cited in the media are massively overstated. Consider for instance the £35,000 per hour to fly a Tornado, using the FY 2014/15 contract value and flying hours a quarter of this figure is the maintenance contract which increases to more than a third for FY 2015/16; I suspect it would also be including some form of amortisation, a rough estimate based on flying hours and assuming nil residual value would have this taking up the bulk a significant portion of the remaining cost, we bought 228, from what I can find they're about £20m ea (not including any upgrade packages that themselves would require depreciating), have flown a bit over 1m hours so a flight hour is about £5,000 just for the base aircraft, not including upgrade packages. Then you have the pilots, support staff, etc who still get paid when sat around doing nothing. Your consumables aren't that expensive.

War looks expensive until you see the cost for peace.
what peace tho? are we in direct threat? who says the US, and whomever they have as allies, cannot accomplish whatever they are trying to accomplish on their own?

i understand you are passionate about this, and thank you for raising the argument, but i am not quick to jump into bed with anyone in my personal life nor am i into any other country's politics. i think you are being premature.
Last edited by Joleee; 1 month ago
0
yaseen1000
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#73
Report 1 month ago
#73
Aye , we need to play apart in ensuring stability in the world
0
EagleKingdom
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#74
Report 1 month ago
#74
(Original post by SnowMiku)
Not knowing what laid ahead, many of us would think yes.
In 1939, the USA had a rational leader. Trump isn't rational.
Even if he was still in power, what did the US do? Start the arms race that this issue might escalate to. Condemn Japanese citizens (also innocent, mind you) to cancer and birth defects (+ death)
I ought to question the member's definition of a 'rational 'leader'. Was it rational for President Roosevelt to internment over 100,000 Japanese-Americans to camps as a result of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor? Also, Japanese citizens in Japan were not entirely condemned for the actions of Japan given that it would cause unrest amongst the public as a result of the USA's occupation at that time post-Japanese surrender. The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were arguably needed because of the high casualty rate of the Pacific theater and because of Japan's code of no resistance and surrender, meaning that the Japanese were going to continue to fight even after losing a number of naval battles and islands during the war despite knowing the USA's superiority economically and militarily.
0
lyer_in_hellfyre
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#75
Report 1 month ago
#75
(Original post by yaseen1000)
Aye , we need to play apart in ensuring stability in the world
Wouldn't that be ironically de-stabilising?
Last edited by lyer_in_hellfyre; 1 month ago
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#76
Report 1 month ago
#76
lets just pretend money is unlimited. libertarians ammi right?
1
Cabin19
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#77
Report 1 month ago
#77
Prepare for War.
Iran has just announced its sent missiles to US base in Iraq killing an estimated 20 USA servicemen . US has scrambled jets from UAE, Iran has said if these attack Iran then they will attack UAE. How shall the UK respond?
0
EagleKingdom
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#78
Report 1 month ago
#78
(Original post by Cabin19)
Prepare for War.
Iran has just announced its sent missiles to US base in Iraq killing an estimated 20 USA servicemen . US has scrambled jets from UAE, Iran has said if these attack Iran then they will attack UAE. How shall the UK respond?
That's a question for the government.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#79
Report 1 month ago
#79
(Original post by Cabin19)
Prepare for War.
Iran has just announced its sent missiles to US base in Iraq killing an estimated 20 USA servicemen . US has scrambled jets from UAE, Iran has said if these attack Iran then they will attack UAE. How shall the UK respond?
By trying to de-escalate tensions and not blindly follow the US into another a war would be my response.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#80
Report 1 month ago
#80
Now is not the time for wet sponges who are weak on foreign policy to be commenting on such a serious issue. We must stand up to Iran! Ignore the soft loonies!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (479)
66.44%
No (242)
33.56%

Watched Threads

View All