Metropol

Sput wrote:Sadly he means 55% of everyone signed up to metro, which makes it more than 370

I'm not anticipating much of a problem exceeding that quota.

That's what David Cameron said.

Chie wrote:

Hymagumba wrote:So now, we're stuck with a few countries holding nuclear weapons, lording it over other countries who try to get them. And I'm sorry, who the hell are we to have the utter gall to tell Iran / North Korea they can't have them when we're wanting to replace ours.

I can't abide the CND hypocrisy of wishing for global nuclear disarmament in one breath, followed by endorsing an increase in the number of nuclear weapons that exist by using the old 'but if we're allowed to have nuclear weapons then they should too' argument in the next.

I don't believe I'm advocating anything of the sort.

Hymagumba wrote:I don't believe I'm advocating anything of the sort.

But you don't mind if Iran and North Korea build nuclear weapons as long as we've got them. Isn't that a step backwards in terms of global disarmament?

Chie wrote:

Hymagumba wrote:I don't believe I'm advocating anything of the sort.

But you don't mind if Iran and North Korea build nuclear weapons as long as we've got them. Isn't that a step backwards in terms of global disarmament?

I think he's talking about not being a hypocrite, leading by example, that sort of thing. It's a valid point, really: why IS it alright for us to bang on about why people shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons when we have them?

Sput wrote:I think he's talking about not being a hypocrite, leading by example, that sort of thing. It's a valid point, really: why IS it alright for us to bang on about why people shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons when we have them?

We set myriad examples in lots of areas of life, Sput. Does North Korea follow them? Does Iran? Do either of them have any intention of ever doing so? Somehow, I don't think they do.

The legal difference is that both ourselves and Iran are signed up to the UN nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We don't proliferate warheads because we just refurbish old ones, thereby maintaining or gradually reducing our stockpile. Iran would be breaching the UN treaty if they started manufacturing nuclear weapons.

With North Korea you've got a nation of paranoid schizophrenic communist automatons who clearly cannot be trusted with weapons of any description. They've been selling chemical weapons to the Middle Eastern state of Syria for the last few years and recently torpedoed an innocent South Korean warship. They're now promising all out war if the South Koreans instigate tougher economic sanctions against the North as a consequence for the attack. Why the South Koreans don't just turn around and punch the bastards square in the face once and for all, remains a mystery to me.

Does that answer your question?

Frankly no it doesn't. Ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect, Chie?

There's nothing clever about making excuses for states like North Korea, Sput.

There are many references dotted around the internets claiming an archaic law that means in Chester, its legal to shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow inside city walls after midnight.

If I was to murder a Welshmen using the appropriate tools at the appropriate time and place, and you were to do the same to the Scotsman, I would be a hypocrite to demand your execution for murder.

Doesn't make either of us right.

Chie wrote:There's nothing clever about making excuses for states like North Korea, Sput.

I could not ask for a more fitting response!

Hymagumba wrote:There are many references dotted around the internets claiming an archaic law that means in Chester, its legal to shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow inside city walls after midnight.

If I was to murder a Welshmen using the appropriate tools at the appropriate time and place, and you were to do the same to the Scotsman, I would be a hypocrite to demand your execution for murder.

Doesn't make either of us right.

This is why I don't go to Chester........