# NATO



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

why is the North Atlanitc Terrorist Organisation creating safe havens / training grounds for Islamic militants


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

why are the people of UK paying a tax of £1 per head to provide a safe meeting place for the North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation to plan their next war mongering move into Easter Europe and the borders of Russia,,,, or is it to decide which country to next invade and execute the leader of , destabalising and providing yet another safe haven / training ground for ISIS type militants.. eg. Libya, Iraq , Syria...


----------



## Callum-TT (Jun 3, 2013)

Why are you so predictably boring?

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

:lol: :lol: ,, well predictable you are,,,,,,,,,,,,,, life is not so boring for the unfortunate populations of the countries which nato get involved in,,,


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

Does Roddy's comma count increase when he gets angry?


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

why would you think that I am angry,, I don't live in one of the countrys which have been turned into a battle field !


----------



## Callum-TT (Jun 3, 2013)

roddy said:


> why would you think that I am angry,, I don't live in one of the countrys which have been turned into a battle field !


How illogical are your arguments going to get?

NATO is a organisation of countries aimed at collective defence.

They only get involved if a military solution is warranted in reaction to non-military failure within the UN or other diplomatic means.

NATO only operate under this name if one of the member countries are attacked hence why the Russians are so opposed against Ukraine joining as they know if Ukraine joined and they attacked them they would have the whole of the alliance against them.

It's an international treaty started after the 2nd world war to ensure the Germans were monitored to prevent another war.

How is this a bad move?

If this alliance or it's earlier group was formed you my friend would be speaking German. It was this alliance and collective defence system that collectively defeated the German war machine.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

nato was formed in 49 as force against the perceived threat from USSR .


----------



## Callum-TT (Jun 3, 2013)

roddy said:


> nato was formed in 49 as force against the perceived threat from USSR .


And your point being?

It was formed to prevent any countries invading another.

So basically your whole post was just pointless

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

roddy said:


> why would you think that I am angry,, I don't live in one of the countrys which have been turned into a battle field !


Unfortunately I think give it a bit of time and the battlefield may be here.

Some of those UK volunteers for IS may come back one day, and then we'll be quite grateful that we have a military and NATO intelligence support.


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Folks why are you wasting your time talking to this "gentleman" you know he has a quite odd some would say worrying outlook on life (although he's allowed his views)

Just "Foe" and be done. :wink:


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Shug750S said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> > why would you think that I am angry,, I don't live in one of the countrys which have been turned into a battle field !
> ...


unfortunately nato is one of the protagonists who have created the ISIS, so to find them in your back garden should be no real surprise.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

" less on welfare , more on armaments ",,, what kind of society are we being led onto , how gullable and how much more will people take ???


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Our forces have been brought to an all time low with budget and personnel cuts. At the moment we don't have a single aircraft carrier due to the very short sighted defence policies of recent years and are relying on the French FFS to provide us with carrier support. We have two carriers being currently built since we've woken up to our shortcomings but our ability to respond to threats is drastically reduced. We're waking up to the fact that to remain a force in the world and to defend ourselves is going to cost money.

All this is wasted on you because in your cosy little world the playground bully never bothers you if you just keep your head down. Sadly delusional - that's the way you become yet another victim.


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

roddy said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> > roddy said:
> ...


whatever


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

thousands of impressionable young " brits " are encouraged to go off and fight against the big bad bogey man in Syria, funded, supported and armed by nato allies, now they are being demonised when the true face of that rag tag group of international mercinaries is obvious to all.
Instead of listening to the same twisted narrative from embedded journalists, self interested industrialists, career politicians and professional aid workers you might just realise who the " school bully " really is..


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

igotone said:


> Our forces have been brought to an all time low with budget and personnel cuts. At the moment we don't have a single aircraft carrier due to the very short sighted defence policies of recent years and are relying on the French FFS to provide us with carrier support. We have two carriers being currently built since we've woken up to our shortcomings but our ability to respond to threats is drastically reduced. We're waking up to the fact that to remain a force in the world and to defend ourselves is going to cost money.
> 
> All this is wasted on you because in your cosy little world the playground bully never bothers you if you just keep your head down. Sadly delusional - that's the way you become yet another victim.


Whilst I can't really agree with Roddy's regurgitated David Icke nonsense, I don't really understand this concept either. The notion that we need to 'remain a force in the world' is more to do with pride than any real threat. and surely the whole point of alliances like NATO is to ensure that we don't need to be able to stand alone?

I don't buy into Roddy's conspiracy theories, but it's a fact that the only real threats we're facing right now are largely caused by our own (and our allies) military interventions, and the idea that the solution to that should be a military one seems a little illogical.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

" Pride " huh ???   is anybody really proud of what nato have created in Libya,, or what brit / usa have created in Iraq / Syria,, or using the people of eastern Ukraine as pawns ( av 36 dead per day ) in the eternal anti Russian / nato expansionist policy.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> Whilst I can't really agree with Roddy's regurgitated David Icke nonsense, I don't really understand this concept either. The notion that we need to 'remain a force in the world' is more to do with pride than any real threat. and surely the whole point of alliances like NATO is to ensure that we don't need to be able to stand alone?


It's nothing to do with pride it's about harsh realism .In 1939 our allies were overrun in hours for the most part and we would have suffered the same fate had it not been for the water surrounding us. We were facing the most efficient ruthless army the world had ever seen. Winston Churchill wore a path back and forth across The Atlantic begging the Americans to enter the war and even addressed congress virtually begging on his knees - all to no avail. It was Pearl Harbour which brought America finally into the war, not any sympathy with our plight at that time



> I don't buy into Roddy's conspiracy theories, but it's a fact that the only real threats we're facing right now are largely caused by our own (and our allies) military interventions, and the idea that the solution to that should be a military one seems a little illogical.


The most relevant part of that is "right now" That situation can change very rapidly and alliances can and do change.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

if you are concerned with alliances and allegiances you may want to consider our present one with the US, the most war mongering country possibly in history, ( with the possible exception of england ) who firstly fought with the natives until there were precious few of them left, then they fought the French, then the Spanish, then the British, then when there was no one left to fight with they turned on each other, and then they turned their focus abroad.. [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

actually, I think the issue is bigger than just NATO.

A lot of the problems in the Middle East at present were kept under control by the very dictators the West removed in recent 'wars of liberation' (for want of a better phrase)

Tricky one really, but possibly some places need a military dictator to keep the staus quo, and whilst their methods may be debatable to western eyes and morals, is the alternative we now see any better?

Maybe with hindsight the dictators the West removed were doing a good job of keeping these new groups contained. Can't for one minute imagine IS would be so strong if some of the removed regimes were still in place.


----------



## TheVarix (Apr 3, 2013)

I think that IS and what it represents is an abomination of the human race. Absolutely despicable! 
But the west should also acknowledge that there's been a lot of damage done with the ongoing pseudo imperialistic policies of the USA/UK, specially after the 2nd world war.
Iran-Irak war, selling chemical weapons to Saddam to gas the Kurds, Afghanistan (when fighting Russia) El Salvador Nicaragua Chile... They've been supporting the most horrible dictatorships over the years so many people in those countries see the USA as the real threat to peace!
The conflicts in the Middle East are very complicated, with lots of interests by many different countries and unfortunately in my opinion it will remain a very troubled region for generations...


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

igotone said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Whilst I can't really agree with Roddy's regurgitated David Icke nonsense, I don't really understand this concept either. The notion that we need to 'remain a force in the world' is more to do with pride than any real threat. and surely the whole point of alliances like NATO is to ensure that we don't need to be able to stand alone?
> ...


Things have changed massively since WW2. So much so, it seems a little pointless using it as an example that has any relevance to the world today.

Things can, of course, change. But when imagining the scenarios we need to defend against, some sort of common sense needs to be applied.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> igotone said:
> 
> 
> > Spandex said:
> ...


How would we support another Falklands crisis tomorrow without aircraft carriers if our French allies wanted no part of it which they (and roddy) undoubtedly would?

We elect governments to protect us among other things and to keep the armed services at a level where they are able to respond effectively on our behalf. We'd be the first to condemn them if they failed in that duty and they are privy to intelligence and knowledge of very real threats which we are not. We (as individuals) have no real clue what the actual threat level is at any given time.

As for the UK and the Yanks being 'warmongers- yes we removed Sadaam who kept control of the various factions by tyranny, torture and genocide. We also lost a lot of people out there in the process and in training the Iraqi Army to fill the void left behind. In the event the army ran from IS like a bunch of girls leaving millions of pounds worth of weaponry for IS to seize. We may have created the situation but at least we tried to do it right and we did it for the right reasons.

I don't think there is any answer to the Middle East situation - far too many people living cheek by jowl hating each other and more interested in the next life than they are in with getting on with this one.

So do we just stand back and let IS commit genocide on a massive scale, slaughtering those who won't convert to their twisted interpretation of Islam, taking women and children into sexual slavery, burying children alive and beheading hostages? It's none of our business after all.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

igotone said:


> How would we support another Falklands crisis tomorrow without aircraft carriers if our French allies wanted no part of it which they (and roddy) undoubtedly would?
> 
> We elect governments to protect us among other things and to keep the armed services at a level where they are able to respond effectively on our behalf. We'd be the first to condemn them if they failed in that duty and they are privy to intelligence and knowledge of very real threats which we are not. We (as individuals) have no real clue what the actual threat level is at any given time.
> 
> ...


So why does our tiny little island need to have one of the largest military budgets in the world? How do so many modern, developed countries survive with a fraction of our military spending, whilst we should be spending even more to cope with these perceived threats?

As for doing things for the right reasons, I think that's debatable at best. Can we just stand back now? I don't know, but we can't just carry on meddling in these countries, then saying "because of our meddling, the country has collapsed so the humanitarian thing to do is meddle some more". It's a never ending cycle.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Dear igitone,
we can prevent another Falklands " crisis " by not taking over small remote islands on the other side of the world and then " protecting " their soverignty when in fact it has more to do with military strategy and mineral reserves for the oil elite..
we elect a government to protect us , not to put us in an alliance with warmongers and oil elite conglamorites subsequently puting us in the most dangerous situation that we have been in forthe last 50 years .
yes our glorious armed forces heros did a wonderful job of training the Uraqi forces,, perhaps if they had alowed them some airoplanes they could have curtailed ISIS ... oh and the " right reasons ", i thot that was something to do with WMD and even a 17 min threat to london,, is it surprising that we do not know what is really going on when that is the type of " inteligence " that we are " privy to ". miss information and lies more like.
and to suggest that anybody is recomending leaving the ISIS alone really just shows the shallowness of you view point..
anything else you need to know then just ask.. :wink:


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> As for doing things for the right reasons, I think that's debatable at best. Can we just stand back now? I don't know, but we can't just carry on meddling in these countries, then saying "because of our meddling, the country has collapsed so the humanitarian thing to do is meddle some more". It's a never ending cycle.


Well at least you're honest - you don't know. Neither do I.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

roddy said:


> Dear igitone,
> 
> anything else you need to know then just ask.. :wink:


You really should be grasping it by now, I wouldn't ask YOU the time of day.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

igotone said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> > Dear igitone,
> ...


perhaps not,, but the world would be a better and safer place if people like you leaned to tell the time.. [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

roddy said:


> igotone said:
> 
> 
> > roddy said:
> ...


Deal then. When you learn primary school standard spellink and grammar. Shoe laces next


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

that makes about as much sense as your other posts do :? ,,, tbh ,, it is not rocket science,, just take the blinkers of, have a look around you and see the hole which your " friends " have got us into,,so instead of wisening up you just keep on digging ,, i wonder if you even realise the type of misery that millions of people are being subjected to by the north atlantic terrorist organisation,, perhaps not, perhaps you dont care


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

So come the revolution are Scotland withdrawing from NATO as well as the EU and the £ ? Or can we just invade and recolonise ?


----------



## TheVarix (Apr 3, 2013)

Shug750S said:


> actually, I think the issue is bigger than just NATO.
> A lot of the problems in the Middle East at present were kept under control by the very dictators the West removed in recent 'wars of liberation' (for want of a better phrase)
> Tricky one really, but possibly some places need a military dictator to keep the staus quo, and whilst their methods may be debatable to western eyes and morals, is the alternative we now see any better?
> Maybe with hindsight the dictators the West removed were doing a good job of keeping these new groups contained. Can't for one minute imagine IS would be so strong if some of the removed regimes were still in place.


On the contrary, people in these countries have radicalised themselves and are more anti-west because for decades we've been supporting those oppressive regimes. 
I'll give you an example of how twisted American foreign policy was/is: in Nicaragua, after the Sandinista revolution led by Daniel Ortega to depose the USA-backed dictator Somoza, the USA sponsored (throughout much of the 80's) some right-wing counter insurgency called "the contra's", funded by the CIA. Eventually the congress decided to cut all funding to the contras but Reagan decided to covertly get the funds by selling weapons to Iran, one of its arch-enemies , which was engaged in a war against Irak at the time, with Saddam being a close USA ally (there are pics of Rumsfeld and Bush I shaking hands with their friend easily available online)
So what the Americans did was to sell weapons to Iran (victim of an arms embargo by the USA) to fund the "contra" insurgency. When it was discovered they just got the scape goat, Oliver North, to pay for it and that's it, nothing happened here...
Same happened with Noriega in Panama, so for years he's a useful ally and worked with the CIA, also cooperating channelling funds to help with the "contra" insurgency, etc... and then in 1989, after years of working closely with/for the USA/CIA but when he's not as keen on cooperating and seem to be taking too much power, they accuse him of drug trafficking, they actually INVADE the country and depose him!
The USA and the UK also supported the Shah's regime in Iran (overthrown by the islamic revolution), Suharto in Indonesia and his bloody repression of East Timor, El Salvador's civil war (sponsoring and supporting death squads), Brazil's coup in the 60's, Pinochet in Chile (great friend of Reagan and Thatcher), Palestine, etc, etc...
That's why, as I've said before people in most of the world see the USA as the greatest threat to democracy and peace. 
All this that we need to defend ourselves is nonsense, we in the west are reaping what we've sown. If we stop intervening I'm almost sure hostility would quickly decrease. 
In my country, Spain the only islamic terrorist attack happened only *AFTER* the right wing government we had at the time officially supported the USA/UK invasion of Irak (only country to do so) even though the vast majority of the population did not support the war (I remember seeing in the news a march of almost half a million people in Barcelona for example)
The invasion of Irak was for oil, resources and geopolitical influence. Thinking anything else is, in my opinion too naive. 
I agree, as you guys can say, with Roddy and Spandex in many things, although I don't agree on how Roddy expresses his views. 
In my opinion we don't truly live in a democracy. Every 4 or 5 years they give us the carrot of a general election just to make us think we have a say but all decisions are already taken and politicians are going to look after the interests of the real people in power: large corporations and contractors, energy firms, weapons manufacturers and most importantly large financial organisations (bank/hedge fund conglomerates)
The only solution to conflicts is to promote dialogue and fairness. Conflict will only generate further conflict, same as hate only brings more hate.
Well, that's only what I think...


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

nope,, you are not going to convince anyone by quoting facts and history,, they will just keep on digging until they either fall out the bottom or the sides fall in on them,,,,
ps, i just say it like i see it !!


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Wallsendmag said:


> So come the revolution are Scotland withdrawing from NATO as well as the EU and the £ ? Or can we just invade and recolonise ?


well we have got plenty of oil so i guess we might be a target !


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Interesting reply from Varix above. From Spain it seems, one of the places where losing the dictator (Franco) actually worked for the better.

Or maybe not if you listen to the views of some work colleagues I have in Madrid...


----------



## TheVarix (Apr 3, 2013)

Shug750S said:


> Interesting reply from Varix above. From Spain it seems, one of the places where losing the dictator (Franco) actually worked for the better.
> 
> Or maybe not if you listen to the views of some work colleagues I have in Madrid...


Hi Shug75OS,
I don't know your friends but to say that we lived better under the Franco's dictatorship is ludicrous.
The estimates of people that died during the almost 3 years of war vary widely but some say it is about 600000 people but actually more people died after te war than during the war due to the repression (estimates vary here as well as there are no official figures but I have read that it's close to a million people between 1939 and the mid 40's) 
There are still lots of people's bodies buried in small mass graves next to small village roads all over Spain and right wingers oppose the right of the descendants of those people to identify them and give them decent burials. To this day!!
My grandfather was a member of an anarcho -syndicalist union called CNT and he told me he was tasked with burying a log book of member's details when the war started as he happened to be in an area controlled by Franco, so people did not get in trouble. He got imprisoned as he was a known member of that organisation and was sentenced to 30 years in prison without trial just for having been from that political organisation while some other colleagues were sentenced to death...
We were a country that regressed decades with Franco and went into the dark ages. Franco was a really clever man and got really lucky as well, that's why he lasted for so bloody long...
After the war we were isolated because as you know Hitler had been an ally of Franco during the civil war but during the 50's as the Cold War intensified, Spain happened to be of geopolitical interest (you control the entrance to the Mediterranean)
Franco allowed lots of American military bases to be built and the USA included Spain in the so called Marshall Plan of funds to reconstruct Europe. 
The USA has always favoured dictators as allies as they always keep discontent at bay.
We had no freedom of expression, no political parties, corruption was rampant (worst than today), a higher rate of illiteracy than the rest of Europe we had the salaries and infrastructures of a third world country and we developed the uncontrolled mass tourism we're still suffering from!  The abominations of Benidorm, Tenerife, Magaluf, etc... 
I can't see how that was better than what we have now even though the situation now is quite dire...


----------



## TomBorehamUK (Feb 2, 2014)

roddy said:


> Wallsendmag said:
> 
> 
> > So come the revolution are Scotland withdrawing from NATO as well as the EU and the £ ? Or can we just invade and recolonise ?
> ...


But who is 'We'? And how much is 'plenty'? :wink:

Please tell us the answer Mr. Salmond.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

if you were interested then you would already know. :roll:


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Sooner they get this vote over the better.

If they show Braveheart the night before Salmond will probably get the vote he wants


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

TheVarix said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting reply from Varix above. From Spain it seems, one of the places where losing the dictator (Franco) actually worked for the better.
> ...


I did say "some" and think they were talking after a few beers anyway, and I commented that losing Franco worked for the better, even if the current climate is pretty dire. So chill out matey.

Btw I transited via Madrid airport recently, Iberia fares are a lot cheaper than BA. Really nice airport, and I do see a lot of airports, but some parts like a ghost town..

Agree on the Benidorm & Shagaluf point, that's why my late summer holiday is always a quiet Greek island


----------



## TomBorehamUK (Feb 2, 2014)

roddy said:


> if you were interested then you would already know. :roll:


That's not quite true is it? I'm quite interested in space but f*ck me I'm no astronaut....


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

TomBorehamUK said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> > if you were interested then you would already know. :roll:
> ...


well actually it is,,, we are not talking rocket science here :roll:


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Shug750S said:


> Sooner they get this vote over the better.
> 
> If they show Braveheart the night before Salmond will probably get the vote he wants


have you just woken up from a 20 year sleep ? [smiley=book2.gif]


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

roddy said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> > Sooner they get this vote over the better.
> ...


Yaaaaaawwwwwnnnn

Maybe after your vote they will let London go for devolution, now that would be interesting with all the taxes paid, probably quite a good proposition etc....

Tin hay on, head down, tartan incoming...


----------



## TomBorehamUK (Feb 2, 2014)

roddy said:


> TomBorehamUK said:
> 
> 
> > roddy said:
> ...


No Roddy, no we're not but my analogy still stands....


----------



## TheVarix (Apr 3, 2013)

Hi again Shug75OS,
I have nothing to chill about, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that you had said that, I was saying that what your friends had said was ludicrous (if that made sense...  )


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

TheVarix said:


> Hi again Shug75OS,
> I have nothing to chill about, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that you had said that, I was saying that what your friends had said was ludicrous (if that made sense...  )


No worries Varix, gotcha. Keep smiling


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Wallsendmag said:


> So come the revolution are Scotland withdrawing from NATO as well as the EU and the £ ? Or can we just invade and recolonise ?


What would you invade with....

I can just imagine us Scots rolling aboot laughing when you rock up with a planeless aircraft carrier. [smiley=book2.gif]

Seriously though, Scotland will rejoin NATO the North Atlantic treaty orginsation. Scotland sits on a key position in the north Atlantic and if not in NATO leaves a huge swathe on the NA unguarded. It would be our duty as a country to manage and patrol this area.
Being in the EU is vital to trade relations for Scotland as well as every other EU country that trades with us, as well as beneficial to the EU nationals who live here. It's in everyone's best interest to have Scotland continue as an EU nation. Junker himself has stated he sees no reason we should be kept out. People tell me the UK would veto it. But the economic self harm this would do would be catastrophic for businesses in England, we export nearly £100 billion in trade to England every year. And nearly as much in reverse. Putting up barriers to this is just not going to happen.

The £. Scotland owns 10% of the bank of England, in its vaults we physically have £400 billion sterling, in reserves. To refuse us this share of the pound means having to cash out to us to create our own currency, (most likely Scottish pound pegged to sterling) same as Denmark and similar to Finland do with their currency. Cashing out will devalue £sterling 10% overnight. This may very well bankrupt the UK.. In the last ressesion the pound fell 5% and we very nearly went bust. The UK rely on Scotlands economy to make up its ballance of payments and keep the £ strong. Refusing a currency union is not going to happen, George Osborne is bluffing and we know it.... 
After independence we will have a mandate, the people will decide IF we want a currency union. Not everyone does but I am in favour of it at least in the short term..5-10 years. It's the best common sense option.


----------



## TomBorehamUK (Feb 2, 2014)

brian1978 said:


> Wallsendmag said:
> 
> 
> > So come the revolution are Scotland withdrawing from NATO as well as the EU and the £ ? Or can we just invade and recolonise ?
> ...


Alex, is that you?


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

TomBorehamUK said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > Wallsendmag said:
> ...


Are you disputing any of that, if so can you provide reasons?


----------



## TomBorehamUK (Feb 2, 2014)

I do, but more so I dispute your rose tinted approach to your argument hence my Alex salmond comment.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

TomBorehamUK said:


> I do, but more so I dispute your rose tinted approach to your argument hence my Alex salmond comment.


Please elaborate


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

I think you will be waiting a long time for that Brian


----------



## TomBorehamUK (Feb 2, 2014)

roddy said:


> I think you will be waiting a long time for that Brian


You're not wrong Roddy, I work 14.5 hour shifts so you're likely to be kept waiting 



brian1978 said:


> TomBorehamUK said:
> 
> 
> > I do, but more so I dispute your rose tinted approach to your argument hence my Alex salmond comment.
> ...


Well it's merely the way you present your argument which seems to make only positive assumptions in respect of what would happen if Scotland became independent, it's nice to see a balance (pro's and cons) in a debate and in my opinion gives it more credibility.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

mmm,, 14.5 hrs,, that is a long day.. hope you get well paid for that :wink:


----------



## TomBorehamUK (Feb 2, 2014)

roddy said:


> mmm,, 14.5 hrs,, that is a long day.. hope you get well paid for that :wink:


Not as much as I'd like [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

TomBorehamUK said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> > I think you will be waiting a long time for that Brian
> ...


Fair enough, I could say that Scotland won't get in the EU because the UK will use its veto in a monumental gesture of spite. Or that nato will just take a chance and leave the north Atlantic unguarded. Or that George Osborne will cost UK businesses £1/2 billion in fees to change currency when there is absolutely no logical reason to.

All these things are just poker chips, after a yes vote I'm sure everyone will sit down and openly discuss and achieve what's best for all parties involves, as was agreed on the signing of the Edinburgh agreement.


----------



## TomBorehamUK (Feb 2, 2014)

brian1978 said:


> Fair enough, I could say that Scotland won't get in the EU because the UK will use its veto in a monumental gesture of spite. Or that nato will just take a chance and leave the north Atlantic unguarded. Or that George Osborne will cost UK businesses £1/2 billion in fees to change currency when there is absolutely no logical reason to.
> 
> All these things are just poker chips, after a yes vote I'm sure everyone will sit down and openly discuss and achieve what's best for all parties involves, as was agreed on the signing of the Edinburgh agreement.


Hmmm I've a sneaking suspicion you're being disingenuous [smiley=book2.gif] :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

brian1978 said:


> Or that nato will just take a chance and leave the north Atlantic unguarded.


I think maybe you've confused real life with Risk...


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

I think Spain is a real risk for an EU veto


----------



## TheVarix (Apr 3, 2013)

Wallsendmag said:


> I think Spain is a real risk for an EU veto


Could be, as the current government opposes allowing a referendum to take place in Cataluña.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

terrorist threat.....in response to last weeks threats from the North Atlantic Terrorist Organisations £ 50 m press release ,, ( which the british tax payer paid for,,, mugs !! ) today Puttin has announced a new array of nuclear and conventional weapons ,, would anyone blame him..


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

tonight apparently the third british victim of American / Cameron aggression in mid east .


----------



## TomBorehamUK (Feb 2, 2014)

Show some damn respect Roddy.

It's weak minds like yours that is the target of this extreme propaganda.


----------

