Monday, December 18, 2006

trident pt II

The "debate" still rumbles on, and as our beloved leader draws to the end of his time he seems yet more determined to push through the big military spend on a replacement for trident. I ranted about this way back in august but it seems that little has changed, save that the promised “full and open debate” has changed into a white-paper recommending renewal; Brown backs the scheme. Logic is still on holiday, as nicely evinced by this post from Jack on the big debate forum:

If we give up our nuclear detterent and then North Korea attack us, I dare say the people against Trident are going to blame Mr. Blair for it. Once again Mr. Blair has made the right decision, the only mistake was downsizing, we must bring the total of subs upto 6. This provides jobs, security, etc. May I also add that the trident missile and submarines are built in Great Britain. Terrorism; what are they fighting for? nothing. Except to see their own religeon reign supreme, so you may wonder how we would use a detterent to combat terrorism when they have no specific cpuntry, EXCEPT THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST. If they attack us we nuke the Middle east. that would destroy any reminants of terrorism and certainly be a rettalliation. You may wonder what would then do for fuel, We turn to renewables. Better for our economy and better for the plannet. Only good comes from replacing Trident

Yes folks, it’s all fine, just fine round here. If any shit happens it’s good to know we could still nuke a region of the world and damn the consequences… oh, and it’s good for the economy too, so that’s alright then. Just like BAE systems and the Saudi bribery ‘accusations’. As far as the evidence goes it’s all true, only Lord Goldsmith, Blair et al have derailed the investigation as being “against the national interest”. Jobs might be at risk don’tchaknow? It’s worth taking a moment to consider the precedent this is setting – as far as I can tell it basically means that crime is ok as long as it’s good for the economy and, by extension, the government. By this logic, presumably, most organised crime is fine too, or perhaps only organised crime that involves members of the government? It’s so confusing these days, just remind me again, is it the rule of law that’s importation, or is it just what the government tells you?


Post a Comment

<< Home