I don’t think that most Iraqis viewed us as that ruthless considering they spent many years under the boots of the likes of Sadam and Urday. In fact in that region of the world I think you will find that our morels could be viewed as weakness.
As for US invading Iraq to physically steal the oil, that is just comical especially as after the invasion Iraq could not even produce petroleum & US forces were shipping in to as a top priority to try keep the locals happy.
@dogfondler1989 You are such a simple soul, my friend. prior to the invasion Sadam was selling Iraq's oil only on European exchanges (in Euros - which undermined the $ hegemony over international oil sales), with an embargo on sales to the US for obvious reasons. So the Neocons stirred up a phoney war to get rid of him, and now Iraqi oil is flowing to the US, paid for in dollars.
No other reason for us being there, certainly not any humanitarian considerations...
@motherlodeuk cheers, im was well aware of the situation actualy :-) hence i said physically. in 2003 the U.S buget defecit was 413 billion and trade defecit 551 billion. why didnt the US dollar & economy collapes? oil purchace, oil was traded pretty much world wide in dollars. yeah the ecconomic argument makes sence (doesnt mean I belive it as it is therory, i actualy did some work on this for a freind of mine for collage).
@blue06lt Ever wondered why no one ever invites you to parties or wants to come round and check out your vintage clock radio collection? Could it be because you're a murderous, trigger-happy loon at heart, I wonder?
@TheAMVV12 They didn't shoot because they knew they were up against unarmed peace protesters, not a crack-Red army commando unit. They didn't shoot because they are not totally mindless idiots, unlike you, apparently.
@TheAMVV12 Like that makes a difference - if you knew anything about the law of the sea you'd know that sinking someone's boat (which is what happens when you pump bullets into an inflatable RIB, as I recall) amounts to the same thing. and RIBs are tiny anyway, if you shot at one with 3 or 4 people in it someone would be killed or seriously injured.
Are y'all too naive to believe that somehow world peace is kept by threat of nuclear retaliation? We had a real chance for a real peace after the USSR went bust. Poppy Bush made sure that that peace wouldn't last. The Russians asked for help accounting and safe disposal of nuclear material from the US. They got ZIP. The US is safe from all but ICBMs and u-boat launched cruise & IRBMs. Who could successfully attack the US from abroad? As Lincoln commented "no enemy shall drink from the Ohio R."
Nah Tucker, don't come on my page with your high-grade, witty repartee and forensic criticism - your analysis is too powerful for me - I can't take it.
motherlodeuk the U.S is keeping the peace around the world or atleast trying...If no country is willing to appreciate all the shit we did for them then we should let all of them rot in hell..Even if we get into a war(because of another country)and we beat them(like usual) we go in and help them rebuild everything that we have destroyed.
Very generous of the US to try and force a 'Pax Americana' on the rest of the world purely for its own economic benefit! Thankfully those Bush administration clowns have exposed US military limitations for all to see. Now hopefully you can stop trying to 'save' the world for US capitalism and go back to doing what the US does best - gazing at its own navel.
@sk8erpro11693 thats rich im sure yer keeping the peace (not a sad grasp at oil thats dragged the uk into another war in iraq) its not your place to keep the peace. "we beat them (like usual)"hmmmm vietnam rings a bell...aint that the one u LOST!
Sure can pal, but unlike you I'm a realist. The real threat's the proliferation of nuclear material around the world (much from the crumbling Russian armoury) - it can easily be made into suitcase bombs ideal for terrorist puposes.
No small nuclear nation like N Korea would risk launching one of their 3 or 4 ICBMs at the West (even if it could reach) - it would be military suicide. Much more likely is a terrorist style attack - George Soros rates this the biggest threat we face outside...
of climate chance, and I totally agree with him. We have to dramatically reduce the amount of nuclear material easily accesible in this way, otherwise it's just a mattter of time...
You seem incredibly complacent with your bland assurance that our nukes will keep us safe - stop re-fighting a cold war that finished 20 years ago.
Wake up to the real threat, and keep your pathetic Hitler jibes to yourself please - like I said, I'm a realist, not a pacifist.
so N Korea are developing longer range missiles and there leader is not exactly mentaly stable!
yes nuclear proliferation is considered a great threat and most inteligance experts belive that somewhere around the globe within 14 years terrorists will have gained and used a WMD!
but we canot see the threats that develop in the future and we canot predict what to use to counter them, therefore we need a independant deterant!
seems all of us military in the UK should stop doing everything to protect freedom and democracy and become Smelly unwashed Pot smoking hippies, what a wonderful world this would be ??? Peace man ???
Reality is obviously subjective, just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I reject your stated reality as being outdated and irrelevent to the most serious issue that we face in this area - namely proliferation. You seem happy to have an ever-increasing nuclear capacity with no incentives for any nations to make reductions, and big incentives for non-nuclear powers to acquire nukes of their own asap.
Why don't you try that with a country who doesn't view nuclear weapons as a last line of defence?. Go and try that in Russia, North Korea or Iran. You people never seem to understand that they are a defence for our country against people who aren't as well meaning as you. I'm sure you would have been in favour of appeasing Hitler in the 30's and peace at any cost after Dunkirk.
"I'm sure you would have been in favour of appeasing Hitler in the 30's"...
Fuck off you arrogant twat. I'm not a pacifist, and I'm a damned sight more of a realist than most of the squaddie buffoons on here who demand that peope with the guts to stand up for what they believe in should be shot as 'terrorists'. This country has as proud a record of political dissent as it does of military service - and both are essential in a modern democracy. Just wish some of you bozos could understand that.
I tried to put forward a legitimate point and you start your reply with fuck off - debate is alive and well obviously. I completely agree that peaceful dissent has a place in the political process and admire anyone who stands up for what they believe. If you could respond to my point without rhetoric then we can talk.
If you speak reasonably to me, I'm happy to respond in kind. You told me that I was "in favour of appeasing Hitler", which I found totally offensive - based as it was on no sound logic whatsoever, it just made you sound foolish.
This is obviously a touchy subject for many people - like you I'd prefer reasoned debate where possible.
The subject of nuclear proliferation and WMD is probably the most serious we face after climate change - we need action now to reduce the nuclear threat.
motherlodeuk....... We are not the bullies in the world if you didn't notice other countries try to get away with shit on us which never works and we turn around and kick their ass. And also how aren't other countries afraid of us anymore what crack are you smoking we are the superpower of the world and will always be....
"We are not the bullies in the world", you say, then spend the rest of your comment talking about "kicking ass" and being "the superpower of the world".
Someone should kick your deluded ass until you realise that nukes can only be offensive weapons, they can start wars but they can't win peace. And which countries are trying to "shit on us" - would that be N Korea or Iran? Where is their strategic interest in attacking us - please explain?
Nukes were never intended for use, they're just...
...there to use up our surplus wealth, so we don't have to spend it on educating and improving the economic situation of the people - of which you appear to be a classic case in point.
why are they on the submarine they should have been shot as terrorists. Is that not what they are - we read in news all the time about the people who try to invade our country who want to cause damage to people and these compete monkeys are climbing over a submarine that houses nuclear weapons nice on you retards.
They should have been shot they trespassed on military grounds. Go get a life and realise why we need these weapons to keep u safe and your future safe. Even my kids know that!
they should be shot. if anyone they approached a normal warship, they would of been ordered to go away an if they didnt they WOULD be shot. what makes this so different.
Yep, that definitely sounds like the authentic voice of the 'land of the free and the home of the brave' speaking - shoot unarmed people first and ask questions afterwards - get's you a long way in this man's world, doesn't it? Just look at the big success you guys are having in Iraq. Only one word for you pal - cocksucker...
in case you hadn't noticed, after your pathetic showing in Iraq and the collapse of your economy, no-one is afraid of the US anymore (either militarily or economically), so why don't you just take your sad bully-boy threats and piss off...
have had alook at this base on google maps its fucking stupid a terrerist could quite easerly do a surgical strike on this base a could even make those nukes go bang but area 51 and chyanne mounting have been blocked out so much for Top Secret in the MODs hands
er, you are indeed 'having a laugh' as they say if you imagine Japanese whalers (or any seamen) are scared by anything Greenpeace does. Your 'terrorist' analaogy is just plain stupid, ha ha...
sorry but are you saying that the Oxford English dictionary is incorrect?... yeah and i'm stupid.... also i think that they would be intimidated just as workers have before when they turned up to work and there was a mob of greenpiss activists preventing them from access... also ramming a boat isnt intimidation? fine then physical violence! happy now?
Er, that's just a downright lie, or proof that you don't undertand english.
Check your dictionary and you'll find something like "A terrorist is someone who uses violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."
Greenpeace has NEVER committed a violent act against a person in it's 30 year history (although violence has often been committed against its activists)...
It's core principal is non-violence, and 'bearing witness' - shining the light of publicity into areas that government's and companies want to keep secret.
OK, so you have a problem with that. That's your right - making stupid, bullshit claims of this kind just makes you look like an idiot, I'm afraid.
they are terrorists they damage property and use fear and intimidation to get others to bend to their will
Oxford English dictionary - "A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized."
also wikipeida "At present, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism."
I think most reasonable people would agree that it's hard to 'use fear and intimidation' unless you threaten violence, which Greenpeace never has and never will...
Like I said before, making stupid, bullshit claims of this kind just makes you look like an idiot, I'm afraid.
hey ho, you've come over all erudite and full of respect for the minutiae of our glorious language all of a sudden, haven't you? A bit of a leap from your first post which went something along the lines of
"stuff the warning shots shot (sic) the b*stards! their(sic) friggin terrorists! "
as I recall. Didn't bother with a dictionary when you wrote that stirring piece of prose, I imagine.
A+ for keeping on subject! You can't think of anything to say so you criticize typos? Also why bother doing (sic) when you have quotation marks?With shot it's quite obvious I missed a 'o' you'd have to be stupid not to realize.. or not be very good at English. If your going to reply TRY to keep on subject!
Don't like being outed as an 'educated' person masquerading as a chav, eh? Then why pretend in the first place?
As for keeping on the subject, why exactly? I've already made the point I wanted ie Greenpeace is clearly not a 'terrorist' organisation by any rational criteria. Given that we've been through a phony 'war on terror' in the past few years GP would now be a proscribed organisation if anone in a position of power agreed with you.
I just thought I would add, I assume everyone has heard of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Even though the Cold War is over the philosophy of MAD still exists today. Because we own nuclear missiles/warheads we are less likely to be attacked by other world powers with a nuclear deterrent. So I believe that the Greenpeace argument is defunct. We unfortunately do not live in a perfect world. Also, commenting on the actual video. They should have had warning shots fired at the protesters.. TBC
There is a reason that Greenpeace will not attempt this in America now. Our security measures are in place and the would be killed/shot unless the Marines just wanted to wing um'. Deadly force IS authorized.
lol ive always wondered that. hummmmmm, screw them somili pirates. we get ourselves an old Frigate and were the bigest fish in the sea! :-) lets go plunder some black gold!
Why do you guys always have to talk such macho shit? You would never shoot anyone unless an order was given to do so - which would never happen in a case like this. Thank god your commanders are smarter than you are...
Submarines are most vulnerable on the surface. A single hit could breach the pressure hull and quickly flood the boat. You know the USS Cole was hit by a small boat and lives were lost because of it. It is 100% fair to protect military forces caring live weapons, especially live nuclear weapons from idiots who run into the restricted area without concern.
If you tried to rush the president while screaming like a madman, the secret service would likely shoot you too.
You obviously don't know about rules of engagement for armed guards----don't think I can post them on net. Its up to the guard and as long as the rules of engagement are followed then all is well.
@steelangelopera You must be really tough dude - not many people would have the guts to shoot unarmed peaceful protesters. It says a lot about you, it really does, but none of it complimentary.
Sorry to say it but they can. Faslane naval base in located in fairly shallow waters in nautical terms making diving imposable and manoeuvring a sub complicated at best making what this lot do highly dangerous to the crews.
Haha!you wanna get rid of it just for the weather,thats not a selfish reason now is it.dont know why your moaning but if your sandown get them to send you down to hunt,i'm sure you can get it done cause your a bloke.
motherlodeuk- if i had my way i would deport all the fanatics ect who dont like our way of living and make this country secure. forget about trying to help these countrys and make our own country a better place to live. and as for the ones who stay would be made to abide by laws from their countrys of origin ( get hands cut off for stealing ect) then they would realize how easy they have it here
Yeah, thought you might. Deporting anyone who disagrees with you or who's face doesn't fit would be right up your street. That's called fascism, by the way. We fought a couple of wars to try and prevent it conquering the world, as I remember...
Right..we also deported thousands of foreign nationals and interned hundreds of thousands of ethnic Japanese and Germans in massive, isolated camps. We routinely executed Japanese POWs and starved German POWs. We firebombed German and Japanese cities and starved their populations. We nuked the Japanese twice and would have gassed them if they hadn't surrendured. FDR was one of the biggest fascist presidents the US has ever had!
Soldier It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate, It is the soldier, not the lawyer, Who has given us the right to a fair trial. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, Who serves under the flag, And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protester to burn the flag.
Also might I point out that that the only use of Nuclear weapons against a foreign power was against Japan in World War 2 and is credited with reducing the casualties of the war and speeding up the wars end.
I also found your message to message to me quite insulting and suggest you go do your research. You will find the Kalashnikov has killed more people than nuclear weapons so why don't you go protest in countries in which they were used.
I never advocated the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states... nor has Britain ever used Nuclear weapons. I would never wish for them to be used but I don't believe we should be complaisant when it comes to our freedoms. UK territory is not threatened but Israel is, I may not particularly like Israel as a country but if the President of Iran states his wish to 'wipe them off the map', I do believe we should be part of a deterrent.
gazza9651 - if you really think that UK territory is threatened by Iraq and Iran then you're a bigger idiot than I took you for. A) they are nowhere near having the capability; and B)all they want is for us to fuck off out of their territory. Given that we are only there for the oil and don't care how badly we fuck them up to get it, this doesn't seem too unreasonable...
Well Iran continues to develop offensive nuclear strike capability, continues to destablize the region and is the most flagrant state sponsor of terrorism. The only thing the Iraqis have is oil; the wealthy countries of the world want it. They can profit from this fact or return to being the backwater of the backwater of the world.
I may be wrong, but you seem to be a scot, in which case you could probably identify with rich bastards coming into your territory and taking all your oil - how do you like it? make you angry - thought so.
Freedom of speech has been paid for by sacrifice and won only because some people were willing fight for it ... if you had had your way we would be speaking German or Russian and living under some form of dictator!
There was genuine necessity and honour in the way Britain acted in WWII. To compare that to using nuclear weapons against the civilians of non-nuclear states because we want to control their oil is a grotesque insult to the memory of all the UK servicemen and women who died fighting for a genuinely noble cause. Shame on you!
Oil is life. Plain, simple, stubborn fact. It's an incredible energy dense substance that is relatively abundant and cheap. It has many uses and is of enormous importance to modern economies. Most wars are about economics/resources. Given that perspective, what's your big objection to the war in Iraq?
and you do something before insult people, I recomend you get a job because insult is free like love from this persons breathing love, love, a word u need learn, I hope... u gonna die for nothing,
I don't care how calm the sea is, what you are doing is dangerous. If you know so much about Faslane you would know that submarines have to stay surfaced until they leave the shallow waters, often making leaving port difficult.
Student of military history- RMA Sandhusrt guys knock spots off you... also instead of just rating my posts try to respond to them.
I'm a vanilla flavoured muppet. Anyway, firstly the inland sea isn't flat. There are things called waves on the surface of the loch. So shut it you muppet.
A lake doesn't have a connection with the sea. And to have a naval base there it must have. That lake part is wrong and your a muppet yourself. And actually im not the sad one, its you. For wasting my time in this argument.
Its good that its someone who agrees with me on the subject. When i first saw i had a comment reply, i thought it was some greenpeace arse who wanted to save the world. They should realise that their lives are a waste of time. I mean hindering operations to keep the country secure isn't going to save the world, but make it even more insucure.
Nuclear weapons provide a deterrence against attack. They would complicate an enemy attack and their defensive planning. We need the potential to be able to deter any future hostile governments with access to either Nuclear or other WMD's.
The Nuclear deterrence has worked in the past, it has kept the United Kingdom and most of Western Europe and indeed most of the western world free democratic.
I'm the same type of person who would have stood and fought for Britain in the second world war, the same type of person who would have stood and fought against Hitler and if necessary Stalin. Since when did I state that I would be willing to gun down unarmed citizens? Well.... Ok but only if they get in the way. = )
"Sorry kid we live in a democracy, not a military dictatorship, and peaceful protest and the expression of individual opinions is a fundamental part of that democracy." Sorry emptyhand17 the only but only reason that's true is because people like me and these sumariners are willing to put our lives on the line to keep it that way.
And who precisely do these nuclear weapons protect us from? The Americans? The French? The Scots?
Democratic rights evolve from an informed citizenship, a free press, and a determined few who are willing to stand up to oppressive authority.
The men with weapons, in the pay of the state, who believe they have the right to gun down unarmed citizens are the last people I'd trust to determine what democracy is.
all i can say is im hoping to a become a member of the submarine service within the next couple of months being the start off my training...all i can say to greenpaece is get a grip will u...its doogooders like you who try and change things "for the better" that end up causing things to be worse...
Maybe it's because we live in a shit world. In an ideal world nuclear weapons wouldn't exist, and unfortunately now the genies out of the lamp and simply disarming our own won't stop others from getting their own. It's a pretty shit state of affairs.
Thats right you eco terrorists. Piss off the big nasty ARMED submarine...see where it'll get you. Sure there's a need to protect the enviroment to some extent but the tree huggers take it WAY to seriously
Sorry kid we live in a democracy, not a military dictatorship, and peaceful protest and the expression of individual opinions is a fundamental part of that democracy.
Possibly if you could pay attention to the politics that govern your life, you too might be able to contribute to the soceity you live in, instead of writing pointless posts of You Tube critiscising people who do.
Until Im old enough to vote, then all I can really do is write the pointless posts on youtube. Sorry for ruining your tree hugging greenpeace, go and talk about the interesting life of Lichen or whatever, I will not impose anymore
No government allows its people free reign to disrupt the activities of the armed forces or trespass on restricted military property.
If you think that the right to peaceful protest and expression includes the right to trespass and disrupt the operations of the military, then you are a simple fool.
And so brave people risk their freedoms to demonstrate the truth of what they believe in. We live in a democracy with laws. If you are found guilty of trespass then you get arrested. It is not acceptable for the armed forces to gun down its own citizens.
When the operations of the military are illegal under those laws, then it is to disrupt the activities of the military. The possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction is illegal and the construction of new ones violates the NPT.
that's subjective, but yes, unfortunately it's important but as far as I'm concerned is not to civilians. The Soviets; nukes; swept through Europe? how many 007 movies do you have dude? that's the past, now it's time to forget about nuclears weapons, there are bigger quests on the schedule..
What a pile of bollocks. Just because your history teacher fed you this propaganda, doesn't make it true.
The Soviet Union was a barely industrialized economy consistently on the verge of collapse. The CIA consistently exaggerated Soviet military capability to justify extravagant military spending and to keep the US population obedient.
Badly mauled after WWII, Soviet policy in Europe was to simply maintain a buffer zone of friendly states between themselves and the aggressive West.
Here is a nice FACT: The Soviets outnumbered NATO in tanks 5-1.
Also, if the West had not had nuclear weapons, then the Soviets would have anyways and the whole issue of conventional forces would have been moot because one side would attack with nukes and the other could do nothing about it.
In the 80's NATO had about 800K troops deployed against the Soviets. The Pact had just under 1 million. An imbalance, but not a big one.
NATO argued the Pact outnumbered it by about 3:1 in tanks (not 5:1). However these figures have been shown to be significantly exaggerated by the intelligence agencies. Military defense analysts also acknowledge that NATO forces have a significant technological edge over the Pact, specifically in close combat operations.
Modern conventional war depends on air superiority, and where the Soviets may have has numerical superiority (NATO claimed 2;1) NATO's technological edge becomes even more significant.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies, at the time, concluded 'the conventional military balance is still such as to make general military aggression a highly risky undertaking for either side'
DJ Klown, try researching your facts, and avoid arguing with students of military history.
Oh and one more: Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, their strategic plans for the invasion of the West have been published. All of these plans presume that such an invasion would follow a preemptive nuclear attack by the West on the Soviet Union.
The Soviet's were expecting us to attack them, not vice versa. Probably because they've been victims of such attacks throughout history. They had the same fears of war and nuclear Armageddon as we did, and wanted to avoid such a war at any cost.
Why is it that the Yanks spend 20 times what the rest of the world spends on weaponry, year on year, and still somehow seem to contrive to live in constant fear of attack? That sure is some high-grade paranoia - y'all need to stop smokin that FoxTV/Bill O'Reilly/Sean Hannity shit guys, it's blowing your tiny minds...
@lode99 Gee... maybe because of 9/11, the underwear bomber, the times square bomber, USS Cole bombing, and the numerous other planned attacks such as the one that proposed blowing up the fuel depot at JFK in NYC.
The area they got to was only the outer boom, to get to the weapons they would still have to travel about 100m in te water, get into the submarine and then through the boat, they really were nowhere near them.
but other countries need their weapons coz of us. These people have the weapons to act as a deterent against countries like america invading them. The trident submarines are a deterant as well, are these countries really so different?
As I recall we LET them come into Gare Loch; to voice their protest, but they insisted on pushing it. Praise the Tug crews that rammed the Greenpeace ship after warnings to move away from the boom. The "Peace" Camp supports so many causes now, that if we moved the base I am sure they wouldn't notice. BTW, the area you can see in the background already has "no nuclear weapons". They're kept at Coulport.
PLEASE REMEMBER PEOPLE, WE ARE ALL ENTITLED TO AN OPINION.
That's an interesting question. At Faslane there are usually 1-2 Vanguard class submarines. The MoD at the time told Greenpeace they'd manage to sneak one sub out past the Arctic Sunrise the night before.
These are the subs that carry the Trident missile system, and they are routinely accompagned by 2 hunter killers.
So I'm genuingly interested as to how to Royal Navy shuttles nuclear warheads between subs in port?
"OUR" taxes. you dont pay tax you dont work and you live in a caravan its us "NORMAL" working class peoples tax and we are not against nuclear explosives!!!!!!!!!!
what is the point in protesting and blockading? We have had these nukes for 33 years now and we always will! time to wipe your noses and find something else to whine about dont you think? I agree with UK nuclear deterrent and the Royal Navy is an oustanding force, it's people ready to sacrifice themselves to keep you safe. I too will be one of those fine people on December 2nd. Long live the Royal Navy!
lol !!!! no point really they wont stop for a couple of boats
JamTBo 1 year ago
I don’t think that most Iraqis viewed us as that ruthless considering they spent many years under the boots of the likes of Sadam and Urday. In fact in that region of the world I think you will find that our morels could be viewed as weakness.
As for US invading Iraq to physically steal the oil, that is just comical especially as after the invasion Iraq could not even produce petroleum & US forces were shipping in to as a top priority to try keep the locals happy.
dogfondler1989 1 year ago
@dogfondler1989 You are such a simple soul, my friend. prior to the invasion Sadam was selling Iraq's oil only on European exchanges (in Euros - which undermined the $ hegemony over international oil sales), with an embargo on sales to the US for obvious reasons. So the Neocons stirred up a phoney war to get rid of him, and now Iraqi oil is flowing to the US, paid for in dollars.
No other reason for us being there, certainly not any humanitarian considerations...
Cheers,
motherlodeuk 1 year ago
@motherlodeuk cheers, im was well aware of the situation actualy :-) hence i said physically. in 2003 the U.S buget defecit was 413 billion and trade defecit 551 billion. why didnt the US dollar & economy collapes? oil purchace, oil was traded pretty much world wide in dollars. yeah the ecconomic argument makes sence (doesnt mean I belive it as it is therory, i actualy did some work on this for a freind of mine for collage).
dogfondler1989 1 year ago
I would have shot at the Greenpeace boats if they wouldn't have gotten the hell out the way...
blue06lt 1 year ago
@blue06lt Ever wondered why no one ever invites you to parties or wants to come round and check out your vintage clock radio collection? Could it be because you're a murderous, trigger-happy loon at heart, I wonder?
motherlodeuk 1 year ago
I'm surprised the MOD Police didn't shoot at their boats.
TheAMVV12 1 year ago
@TheAMVV12 They didn't shoot because they knew they were up against unarmed peace protesters, not a crack-Red army commando unit. They didn't shoot because they are not totally mindless idiots, unlike you, apparently.
motherlodeuk 1 year ago
@motherlodeuk I said the boats, not the people.
TheAMVV12 1 year ago
@TheAMVV12 Like that makes a difference - if you knew anything about the law of the sea you'd know that sinking someone's boat (which is what happens when you pump bullets into an inflatable RIB, as I recall) amounts to the same thing. and RIBs are tiny anyway, if you shot at one with 3 or 4 people in it someone would be killed or seriously injured.
motherlodeuk 1 year ago
Yes, US is a superb country, but it does gaze massively at that pretty porno-blonde navAL. If only my loved USA could make porn like the Jerries...
transonicbuoy1 2 years ago
Wow you guys are lucky you didnt get shot at!
sterfire 2 years ago
yep, if the navy had any money left for bullets after paying off their gigantic Trident debt, we'd have been in trouble!
motherlodeuk 2 years ago
Are y'all too naive to believe that somehow world peace is kept by threat of nuclear retaliation? We had a real chance for a real peace after the USSR went bust. Poppy Bush made sure that that peace wouldn't last. The Russians asked for help accounting and safe disposal of nuclear material from the US. They got ZIP. The US is safe from all but ICBMs and u-boat launched cruise & IRBMs. Who could successfully attack the US from abroad? As Lincoln commented "no enemy shall drink from the Ohio R."
aellacyning 2 years ago
well said
motherlodeuk 2 years ago
F off man
hippies dont realise that the only thing stopping nuclear war is the fact that there are nuclear bombs
no leader is crazy enough to launch one
i apreciate green peace's efforts across the world but they can fuck off when they come to scotland and start fucking with the submarines
TUCKERMCGRAW 2 years ago
Nah Tucker, don't come on my page with your high-grade, witty repartee and forensic criticism - your analysis is too powerful for me - I can't take it.
motherlodeuk 2 years ago
motherlodeuk the U.S is keeping the peace around the world or atleast trying...If no country is willing to appreciate all the shit we did for them then we should let all of them rot in hell..Even if we get into a war(because of another country)and we beat them(like usual) we go in and help them rebuild everything that we have destroyed.
sk8erpro11693 2 years ago
Very generous of the US to try and force a 'Pax Americana' on the rest of the world purely for its own economic benefit! Thankfully those Bush administration clowns have exposed US military limitations for all to see. Now hopefully you can stop trying to 'save' the world for US capitalism and go back to doing what the US does best - gazing at its own navel.
motherlodeuk 2 years ago
@sk8erpro11693 thats rich im sure yer keeping the peace (not a sad grasp at oil thats dragged the uk into another war in iraq) its not your place to keep the peace. "we beat them (like usual)"hmmmm vietnam rings a bell...aint that the one u LOST!
lachiekirky 1 year ago
Sure can pal, but unlike you I'm a realist. The real threat's the proliferation of nuclear material around the world (much from the crumbling Russian armoury) - it can easily be made into suitcase bombs ideal for terrorist puposes.
No small nuclear nation like N Korea would risk launching one of their 3 or 4 ICBMs at the West (even if it could reach) - it would be military suicide. Much more likely is a terrorist style attack - George Soros rates this the biggest threat we face outside...
motherlodeuk 2 years ago
of climate chance, and I totally agree with him. We have to dramatically reduce the amount of nuclear material easily accesible in this way, otherwise it's just a mattter of time...
You seem incredibly complacent with your bland assurance that our nukes will keep us safe - stop re-fighting a cold war that finished 20 years ago.
Wake up to the real threat, and keep your pathetic Hitler jibes to yourself please - like I said, I'm a realist, not a pacifist.
motherlodeuk 2 years ago
so N Korea are developing longer range missiles and there leader is not exactly mentaly stable!
yes nuclear proliferation is considered a great threat and most inteligance experts belive that somewhere around the globe within 14 years terrorists will have gained and used a WMD!
but we canot see the threats that develop in the future and we canot predict what to use to counter them, therefore we need a independant deterant!
Shakeyboat1 2 years ago
seems all of us military in the UK should stop doing everything to protect freedom and democracy and become Smelly unwashed Pot smoking hippies, what a wonderful world this would be ??? Peace man ???
chavychase 2 years ago
I admire your ideals just cant understand your complete denial of reality
maramoto1 2 years ago
Reality is obviously subjective, just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I reject your stated reality as being outdated and irrelevent to the most serious issue that we face in this area - namely proliferation. You seem happy to have an ever-increasing nuclear capacity with no incentives for any nations to make reductions, and big incentives for non-nuclear powers to acquire nukes of their own asap.
Sleepwalking to disaster, basically...
motherlodeuk 2 years ago
Comment removed
Shakeyboat1 2 years ago
Why don't you try that with a country who doesn't view nuclear weapons as a last line of defence?. Go and try that in Russia, North Korea or Iran. You people never seem to understand that they are a defence for our country against people who aren't as well meaning as you. I'm sure you would have been in favour of appeasing Hitler in the 30's and peace at any cost after Dunkirk.
maramoto1 2 years ago
"I'm sure you would have been in favour of appeasing Hitler in the 30's"...
Fuck off you arrogant twat. I'm not a pacifist, and I'm a damned sight more of a realist than most of the squaddie buffoons on here who demand that peope with the guts to stand up for what they believe in should be shot as 'terrorists'. This country has as proud a record of political dissent as it does of military service - and both are essential in a modern democracy. Just wish some of you bozos could understand that.
motherlodeuk 2 years ago
I tried to put forward a legitimate point and you start your reply with fuck off - debate is alive and well obviously. I completely agree that peaceful dissent has a place in the political process and admire anyone who stands up for what they believe. If you could respond to my point without rhetoric then we can talk.
maramoto1 2 years ago
If you speak reasonably to me, I'm happy to respond in kind. You told me that I was "in favour of appeasing Hitler", which I found totally offensive - based as it was on no sound logic whatsoever, it just made you sound foolish.
This is obviously a touchy subject for many people - like you I'd prefer reasoned debate where possible.
The subject of nuclear proliferation and WMD is probably the most serious we face after climate change - we need action now to reduce the nuclear threat.
motherlodeuk 2 years ago
motherlodeuk....... We are not the bullies in the world if you didn't notice other countries try to get away with shit on us which never works and we turn around and kick their ass. And also how aren't other countries afraid of us anymore what crack are you smoking we are the superpower of the world and will always be....
sk8erpro11693 2 years ago
"We are not the bullies in the world", you say, then spend the rest of your comment talking about "kicking ass" and being "the superpower of the world".
Someone should kick your deluded ass until you realise that nukes can only be offensive weapons, they can start wars but they can't win peace. And which countries are trying to "shit on us" - would that be N Korea or Iran? Where is their strategic interest in attacking us - please explain?
Nukes were never intended for use, they're just...
motherlodeuk 2 years ago
...there to use up our surplus wealth, so we don't have to spend it on educating and improving the economic situation of the people - of which you appear to be a classic case in point.
motherlodeuk 2 years ago
how do you know it was the SBS? Police use those black boats (called a rigid i think)
lukemidson 2 years ago
why are they on the submarine they should have been shot as terrorists. Is that not what they are - we read in news all the time about the people who try to invade our country who want to cause damage to people and these compete monkeys are climbing over a submarine that houses nuclear weapons nice on you retards.
They should have been shot they trespassed on military grounds. Go get a life and realise why we need these weapons to keep u safe and your future safe. Even my kids know that!
0iangell 2 years ago
they didnt get on the submarine
lukemidson 2 years ago
they should be shot. if anyone they approached a normal warship, they would of been ordered to go away an if they didnt they WOULD be shot. what makes this so different.
bakedpork 2 years ago
good shit!! greenpeace got balls !!
xTheDarkPilgrimx 2 years ago
Damn lucky it wasn't a US boat. We owuld have shot the assholes!
Subforfun 2 years ago
Yep, that definitely sounds like the authentic voice of the 'land of the free and the home of the brave' speaking - shoot unarmed people first and ask questions afterwards - get's you a long way in this man's world, doesn't it? Just look at the big success you guys are having in Iraq. Only one word for you pal - cocksucker...
motherlodeuk 2 years ago
以一发沉下！
CHNPower 2 years ago
hes right though the A mericans would have shot em and so rightly they should of daft greenpeace idiots
nobbynooby 2 years ago
why did the police show up? Royal Navy should have shot at them
lukemidson 2 years ago
hey pal - your boys had a Trident submarine at their disposal - why didn't they try lobbing a couple of nukes at them?
motherlodeuk 2 years ago
lol
lukemidson 2 years ago
Try this crap in Kings Bay or any other US Navy facility. You will get your tails shot up and you would deserve it
dfitz01 2 years ago
in case you hadn't noticed, after your pathetic showing in Iraq and the collapse of your economy, no-one is afraid of the US anymore (either militarily or economically), so why don't you just take your sad bully-boy threats and piss off...
motherlodeuk 2 years ago
have had alook at this base on google maps its fucking stupid a terrerist could quite easerly do a surgical strike on this base a could even make those nukes go bang but area 51 and chyanne mounting have been blocked out so much for Top Secret in the MODs hands
littleohah 2 years ago
Where was the Royal Navy when this happened. Can anyone board their ships without even a verbal challenge?
ClockworkHobo 2 years ago
greenpeace boats are easy to blag
rebelyell250 2 years ago
er, you are indeed 'having a laugh' as they say if you imagine Japanese whalers (or any seamen) are scared by anything Greenpeace does. Your 'terrorist' analaogy is just plain stupid, ha ha...
motherlodeuk 2 years ago
sorry but are you saying that the Oxford English dictionary is incorrect?... yeah and i'm stupid.... also i think that they would be intimidated just as workers have before when they turned up to work and there was a mob of greenpiss activists preventing them from access... also ramming a boat isnt intimidation? fine then physical violence! happy now?
english62 2 years ago
Mod Plod, slot the lot.
industrialfun 2 years ago
They should have had warning shots fired at the protesters as they are armed for a reason and it is military property. NOT CIVILIAN!
Splatish 2 years ago
stuff the warning shots shot the b*stards! their friggin terrorists!
english62 2 years ago
"their (sic) friggin terrorists" ????
Er, that's just a downright lie, or proof that you don't undertand english.
Check your dictionary and you'll find something like "A terrorist is someone who uses violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."
Greenpeace has NEVER committed a violent act against a person in it's 30 year history (although violence has often been committed against its activists)...
slowdazzles 2 years ago
It's core principal is non-violence, and 'bearing witness' - shining the light of publicity into areas that government's and companies want to keep secret.
OK, so you have a problem with that. That's your right - making stupid, bullshit claims of this kind just makes you look like an idiot, I'm afraid.
slowdazzles 2 years ago
they are terrorists they damage property and use fear and intimidation to get others to bend to their will
Oxford English dictionary - "A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized."
also wikipeida "At present, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism."
english62 2 years ago
I think most reasonable people would agree that it's hard to 'use fear and intimidation' unless you threaten violence, which Greenpeace never has and never will...
Like I said before, making stupid, bullshit claims of this kind just makes you look like an idiot, I'm afraid.
slowdazzles 2 years ago
hey ho, you've come over all erudite and full of respect for the minutiae of our glorious language all of a sudden, haven't you? A bit of a leap from your first post which went something along the lines of
"stuff the warning shots shot (sic) the b*stards! their(sic) friggin terrorists! "
as I recall. Didn't bother with a dictionary when you wrote that stirring piece of prose, I imagine.
slowdazzles 2 years ago
A+ for keeping on subject! You can't think of anything to say so you criticize typos? Also why bother doing (sic) when you have quotation marks?With shot it's quite obvious I missed a 'o' you'd have to be stupid not to realize.. or not be very good at English. If your going to reply TRY to keep on subject!
english62 2 years ago
Don't like being outed as an 'educated' person masquerading as a chav, eh? Then why pretend in the first place?
As for keeping on the subject, why exactly? I've already made the point I wanted ie Greenpeace is clearly not a 'terrorist' organisation by any rational criteria. Given that we've been through a phony 'war on terror' in the past few years GP would now be a proscribed organisation if anone in a position of power agreed with you.
They don't, because it isnt - end of story.
slowdazzles 2 years ago
dont you mean a chav masquerading as an educated person? unless your saying i'm smart but trying not to be ? besides everyone in power is a moron
english62 2 years ago
I just thought I would add, I assume everyone has heard of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Even though the Cold War is over the philosophy of MAD still exists today. Because we own nuclear missiles/warheads we are less likely to be attacked by other world powers with a nuclear deterrent. So I believe that the Greenpeace argument is defunct. We unfortunately do not live in a perfect world. Also, commenting on the actual video. They should have had warning shots fired at the protesters.. TBC
Splatish 2 years ago
There is a reason that Greenpeace will not attempt this in America now. Our security measures are in place and the would be killed/shot unless the Marines just wanted to wing um'. Deadly force IS authorized.
kclm1996 2 years ago
lol ive always wondered that. hummmmmm, screw them somili pirates. we get ourselves an old Frigate and were the bigest fish in the sea! :-) lets go plunder some black gold!
Shakeyboat1 3 years ago
arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhh give e'm a broadside!
Shakeyboat1 3 years ago
They could just hoist the jolly roger and declare themselves pirates for the afternoon
Solidboat123 3 years ago
It's times like these that I think modern subs should still have a deck gun...
Solidboat123 3 years ago
In one of our bases we would have shot the bastards. That's a huge security violation.
steelangelopera 3 years ago 3
Why do you guys always have to talk such macho shit? You would never shoot anyone unless an order was given to do so - which would never happen in a case like this. Thank god your commanders are smarter than you are...
motherlodeuk 3 years ago
why do you have to protest outside the base? I'm sure a smart person such as yourself could think of somthing more constructive!
Shakeyboat1 3 years ago
Deadly force - authorized to protect assets vital to national Security. It's more of a judgement call when it comes to nuclear missiles.
steelangelopera 3 years ago
Submarines are most vulnerable on the surface. A single hit could breach the pressure hull and quickly flood the boat. You know the USS Cole was hit by a small boat and lives were lost because of it. It is 100% fair to protect military forces caring live weapons, especially live nuclear weapons from idiots who run into the restricted area without concern.
If you tried to rush the president while screaming like a madman, the secret service would likely shoot you too.
DrBuzz0 3 years ago
You obviously don't know about rules of engagement for armed guards----don't think I can post them on net. Its up to the guard and as long as the rules of engagement are followed then all is well.
Nano200852 3 years ago
@steelangelopera You must be really tough dude - not many people would have the guts to shoot unarmed peaceful protesters. It says a lot about you, it really does, but none of it complimentary.
motherlodeuk 1 year ago
The boat shown in the first pic is clearly not ready to leave the wall.. what exactly where they blocking in?
superbiffda 3 years ago
You did this for a whole year and did it make a blind bit of difference to the United Kingdoms policy on the nuclear deterrent NO.
Shakeyboat1 3 years ago
ha check the boats Greenpeace are using burning all that fossil fuel! trying to block a nuclear sub.
hathome 3 years ago
Sorry to say it but they can. Faslane naval base in located in fairly shallow waters in nautical terms making diving imposable and manoeuvring a sub complicated at best making what this lot do highly dangerous to the crews.
Shakeyboat1 3 years ago
It's a submarine, you cannot "blockade" a sub from the surface...
pi0101 3 years ago
Just because you say (I've) written it down doesnt make it false!
Shakeyboat1 3 years ago
So where was the sub then?
ukchris64 3 years ago
In a hangar behind the security boom I think.
jim0203 3 years ago
lol they should be shot for doing that.
MRBRESK 3 years ago
With all the problems in Georgia now... and Russia having threatened to aim nukes at us, I think its wise to keep them!
Shakeyboat1 3 years ago
It's not even a Trident. Greenpeace can't do anything right. =(
Spazzer 3 years ago
Not quite sure what you mean there. Greenpeace were trying to prevent a Vanguard-class sub leaving the sub pen. Trident is the type of missile.
jim0203 3 years ago
Haha!you wanna get rid of it just for the weather,thats not a selfish reason now is it.dont know why your moaning but if your sandown get them to send you down to hunt,i'm sure you can get it done cause your a bloke.
j567mws 3 years ago
If only deadly force was allowed against these idiots.
danny842003 3 years ago
motherlodeuk- if i had my way i would deport all the fanatics ect who dont like our way of living and make this country secure. forget about trying to help these countrys and make our own country a better place to live. and as for the ones who stay would be made to abide by laws from their countrys of origin ( get hands cut off for stealing ect) then they would realize how easy they have it here
gazza9651 3 years ago
Yeah, thought you might. Deporting anyone who disagrees with you or who's face doesn't fit would be right up your street. That's called fascism, by the way. We fought a couple of wars to try and prevent it conquering the world, as I remember...
motherlodeuk 3 years ago
Right..we also deported thousands of foreign nationals and interned hundreds of thousands of ethnic Japanese and Germans in massive, isolated camps. We routinely executed Japanese POWs and starved German POWs. We firebombed German and Japanese cities and starved their populations. We nuked the Japanese twice and would have gassed them if they hadn't surrendured. FDR was one of the biggest fascist presidents the US has ever had!
dmcfarli 2 years ago
Shakeyboat1 3 years ago
Just because you've written it down, it doesn't make it true.
jim0203 3 years ago
whats that ment to mean anyway???
Shakeyboat1 3 years ago
Also might I point out that that the only use of Nuclear weapons against a foreign power was against Japan in World War 2 and is credited with reducing the casualties of the war and speeding up the wars end.
I also found your message to message to me quite insulting and suggest you go do your research. You will find the Kalashnikov has killed more people than nuclear weapons so why don't you go protest in countries in which they were used.
Shakeyboat1 3 years ago
I never advocated the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states... nor has Britain ever used Nuclear weapons. I would never wish for them to be used but I don't believe we should be complaisant when it comes to our freedoms. UK territory is not threatened but Israel is, I may not particularly like Israel as a country but if the President of Iran states his wish to 'wipe them off the map', I do believe we should be part of a deterrent.
Shakeyboat1 3 years ago
gazza9651 - if you really think that UK territory is threatened by Iraq and Iran then you're a bigger idiot than I took you for. A) they are nowhere near having the capability; and B)all they want is for us to fuck off out of their territory. Given that we are only there for the oil and don't care how badly we fuck them up to get it, this doesn't seem too unreasonable...
motherlodeuk 3 years ago
Well Iran continues to develop offensive nuclear strike capability, continues to destablize the region and is the most flagrant state sponsor of terrorism. The only thing the Iraqis have is oil; the wealthy countries of the world want it. They can profit from this fact or return to being the backwater of the backwater of the world.
dmcfarli 2 years ago
I may be wrong, but you seem to be a scot, in which case you could probably identify with rich bastards coming into your territory and taking all your oil - how do you like it? make you angry - thought so.
motherlodeuk 3 years ago
Freedom of speech has been paid for by sacrifice and won only because some people were willing fight for it ... if you had had your way we would be speaking German or Russian and living under some form of dictator!
Shakeyboat1 3 years ago
There was genuine necessity and honour in the way Britain acted in WWII. To compare that to using nuclear weapons against the civilians of non-nuclear states because we want to control their oil is a grotesque insult to the memory of all the UK servicemen and women who died fighting for a genuinely noble cause. Shame on you!
motherlodeuk 3 years ago
Oil is life. Plain, simple, stubborn fact. It's an incredible energy dense substance that is relatively abundant and cheap. It has many uses and is of enormous importance to modern economies. Most wars are about economics/resources. Given that perspective, what's your big objection to the war in Iraq?
dmcfarli 2 years ago
and you do something before insult people, I recomend you get a job because insult is free like love from this persons breathing love, love, a word u need learn, I hope... u gonna die for nothing,
we are gonna die fighting for a dream....
elgatolopezsudaca 3 years ago
Who is "we" and what dream you going to die fighting for ?
ADZ01982 3 years ago
Your lucky you didn't get your heads blown off by any soldier....
lewisduncan93 3 years ago
oh now that tony blair is sucking up to goerge bush , he thinks he can build nuclear weapons?
LOL
1Nayla1 3 years ago
I don't care how calm the sea is, what you are doing is dangerous. If you know so much about Faslane you would know that submarines have to stay surfaced until they leave the shallow waters, often making leaving port difficult.
Student of military history- RMA Sandhusrt guys knock spots off you... also instead of just rating my posts try to respond to them.
Shakeyboat1 3 years ago
Greenpeace are that stupid that they decided to block the area at the time of a stormy sea.
comeralli 3 years ago
What flavour muppet are you?
That sea looks as flat as a pancake.
Oh and it's a loch
emptyhand17 3 years ago
I'm a vanilla flavoured muppet. Anyway, firstly the inland sea isn't flat. There are things called waves on the surface of the loch. So shut it you muppet.
comeralli 3 years ago
Nope you're still a fool.
It's a Loch (as in lake) off the Firth of Clyde (river mouth) on the west coast of Scotland (shielded from the Altantic by various Islands)
It's hard to imagine a more sheltered area, which is why there's a naval base there.
And the weathers calm, so no it's not a 'Stormy Sea'
Use your eyes, watch the video the Loch is really flat.
You sad and ignorant Muppet
emptyhand17 3 years ago
lol
Sorry im blind.
A lake doesn't have a connection with the sea. And to have a naval base there it must have. That lake part is wrong and your a muppet yourself. And actually im not the sad one, its you. For wasting my time in this argument.
-_-
comeralli 3 years ago
P.S
Open your eye. Because it is flat... as your spotty clever mouth face.
comeralli 3 years ago
Lets cut it short. People in Greenpeace are hippies or assholes.
comeralli 3 years ago
Totally agree. My colleagues in the Fleet Protection Group should have done us all a favour and shot them.
BOOTNECK42CMDO 3 years ago
Its good that its someone who agrees with me on the subject. When i first saw i had a comment reply, i thought it was some greenpeace arse who wanted to save the world. They should realise that their lives are a waste of time. I mean hindering operations to keep the country secure isn't going to save the world, but make it even more insucure.
comeralli 3 years ago
Greenpeace cant save the world and never will. There will always be military ops and I'll still have a job. :)
BOOTNECK42CMDO 3 years ago
im not a part of greenpeace, yet. but i do find what they do to have some meaning.
kinda makes me want to jump in a boat and start taking on Goliath, :) however, as im from the prarries, it's best i stay away from water. :(
friskykitty137 3 years ago
Nuclear weapons provide a deterrence against attack. They would complicate an enemy attack and their defensive planning. We need the potential to be able to deter any future hostile governments with access to either Nuclear or other WMD's.
Shakeyboat1 3 years ago
The Nuclear deterrence has worked in the past, it has kept the United Kingdom and most of Western Europe and indeed most of the western world free democratic.
Shakeyboat1 3 years ago
I'm the same type of person who would have stood and fought for Britain in the second world war, the same type of person who would have stood and fought against Hitler and if necessary Stalin. Since when did I state that I would be willing to gun down unarmed citizens? Well.... Ok but only if they get in the way. = )
Shakeyboat1 3 years ago
"Sorry kid we live in a democracy, not a military dictatorship, and peaceful protest and the expression of individual opinions is a fundamental part of that democracy." Sorry emptyhand17 the only but only reason that's true is because people like me and these sumariners are willing to put our lives on the line to keep it that way.
Shakeyboat1 3 years ago
And who precisely do these nuclear weapons protect us from? The Americans? The French? The Scots?
Democratic rights evolve from an informed citizenship, a free press, and a determined few who are willing to stand up to oppressive authority.
The men with weapons, in the pay of the state, who believe they have the right to gun down unarmed citizens are the last people I'd trust to determine what democracy is.
emptyhand17 3 years ago
all i can say is im hoping to a become a member of the submarine service within the next couple of months being the start off my training...all i can say to greenpaece is get a grip will u...its doogooders like you who try and change things "for the better" that end up causing things to be worse...
deanfyfield84 3 years ago
Hmm, really, then why does the world need nuclear weapons then?
stedav 3 years ago
Maybe it's because we live in a shit world. In an ideal world nuclear weapons wouldn't exist, and unfortunately now the genies out of the lamp and simply disarming our own won't stop others from getting their own. It's a pretty shit state of affairs.
DAVEtheMAGICIAN 3 years ago
Thats right you eco terrorists. Piss off the big nasty ARMED submarine...see where it'll get you. Sure there's a need to protect the enviroment to some extent but the tree huggers take it WAY to seriously
pottsykp123 3 years ago
Sorry kid we live in a democracy, not a military dictatorship, and peaceful protest and the expression of individual opinions is a fundamental part of that democracy.
Possibly if you could pay attention to the politics that govern your life, you too might be able to contribute to the soceity you live in, instead of writing pointless posts of You Tube critiscising people who do.
emptyhand17 3 years ago
Until Im old enough to vote, then all I can really do is write the pointless posts on youtube. Sorry for ruining your tree hugging greenpeace, go and talk about the interesting life of Lichen or whatever, I will not impose anymore
pottsykp123 3 years ago
No government allows its people free reign to disrupt the activities of the armed forces or trespass on restricted military property.
If you think that the right to peaceful protest and expression includes the right to trespass and disrupt the operations of the military, then you are a simple fool.
dkrustyklown 3 years ago
And so brave people risk their freedoms to demonstrate the truth of what they believe in. We live in a democracy with laws. If you are found guilty of trespass then you get arrested. It is not acceptable for the armed forces to gun down its own citizens.
When the operations of the military are illegal under those laws, then it is to disrupt the activities of the military. The possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction is illegal and the construction of new ones violates the NPT.
emptyhand17 3 years ago
I'm just reminding everyone that weaponry is important to individuals as well as nations.
Without the nuclear deterrent, the Soviets would have swept through Europe with their massive conventional army.
I suppose history is lost on idiots like motherlodeuk and Athrek.
dkrustyklown 3 years ago
that's subjective, but yes, unfortunately it's important but as far as I'm concerned is not to civilians. The Soviets; nukes; swept through Europe? how many 007 movies do you have dude? that's the past, now it's time to forget about nuclears weapons, there are bigger quests on the schedule..
Athrek 3 years ago 2
What a pile of bollocks. Just because your history teacher fed you this propaganda, doesn't make it true.
The Soviet Union was a barely industrialized economy consistently on the verge of collapse. The CIA consistently exaggerated Soviet military capability to justify extravagant military spending and to keep the US population obedient.
Badly mauled after WWII, Soviet policy in Europe was to simply maintain a buffer zone of friendly states between themselves and the aggressive West.
emptyhand17 3 years ago
emptyhand17
Here is a nice FACT: The Soviets outnumbered NATO in tanks 5-1.
Also, if the West had not had nuclear weapons, then the Soviets would have anyways and the whole issue of conventional forces would have been moot because one side would attack with nukes and the other could do nothing about it.
Get your facts straight you uneducated peasant.
dkrustyklown 3 years ago
In the 80's NATO had about 800K troops deployed against the Soviets. The Pact had just under 1 million. An imbalance, but not a big one.
NATO argued the Pact outnumbered it by about 3:1 in tanks (not 5:1). However these figures have been shown to be significantly exaggerated by the intelligence agencies. Military defense analysts also acknowledge that NATO forces have a significant technological edge over the Pact, specifically in close combat operations.
{cont}
emptyhand17 3 years ago
Modern conventional war depends on air superiority, and where the Soviets may have has numerical superiority (NATO claimed 2;1) NATO's technological edge becomes even more significant.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies, at the time, concluded 'the conventional military balance is still such as to make general military aggression a highly risky undertaking for either side'
DJ Klown, try researching your facts, and avoid arguing with students of military history.
emptyhand17 3 years ago
Oh and one more: Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, their strategic plans for the invasion of the West have been published. All of these plans presume that such an invasion would follow a preemptive nuclear attack by the West on the Soviet Union.
The Soviet's were expecting us to attack them, not vice versa. Probably because they've been victims of such attacks throughout history. They had the same fears of war and nuclear Armageddon as we did, and wanted to avoid such a war at any cost.
emptyhand17 3 years ago
Your information is nothing but leftist propaganda.
In your fantasy, you have the Soviets cowering in fear from being victimized by the west.
Get real you red sympathizer.
dkrustyklown 3 years ago
Actually virtually all the above information comes from a 1988 congressional report.
Go figure
emptyhand17 3 years ago
Why is it that the Yanks spend 20 times what the rest of the world spends on weaponry, year on year, and still somehow seem to contrive to live in constant fear of attack? That sure is some high-grade paranoia - y'all need to stop smokin that FoxTV/Bill O'Reilly/Sean Hannity shit guys, it's blowing your tiny minds...
lode99 2 years ago 2
@lode99 what if greenpeace take ova da world...them dudes are out of control
Houseofthe7gayboys 1 year ago
@lode99 Gee... maybe because of 9/11, the underwear bomber, the times square bomber, USS Cole bombing, and the numerous other planned attacks such as the one that proposed blowing up the fuel depot at JFK in NYC.
Topher56ify 1 year ago
hey krusty - try taking your head out of your ass you fascist twat
motherlodeuk 3 years ago
Such language. I know it's your post but we (or at least) I want a civil debate.
dmcfarli 2 years ago
Greenpeace just show what a joke the protection of your strategical weapons are!!!
Who want a terrorist to target those and spread nuclear waste over a large area????
Protect this shit before it will cause a lot of harm.........
magnus308 3 years ago 2
The area they got to was only the outer boom, to get to the weapons they would still have to travel about 100m in te water, get into the submarine and then through the boat, they really were nowhere near them.
etjbrown 3 years ago
but other countries need their weapons coz of us. These people have the weapons to act as a deterent against countries like america invading them. The trident submarines are a deterant as well, are these countries really so different?
miniphreeb 3 years ago
IT IS JUST A SHAME THEIRS IS WRONG!
kingprawnqed 4 years ago
As I recall we LET them come into Gare Loch; to voice their protest, but they insisted on pushing it. Praise the Tug crews that rammed the Greenpeace ship after warnings to move away from the boom. The "Peace" Camp supports so many causes now, that if we moved the base I am sure they wouldn't notice. BTW, the area you can see in the background already has "no nuclear weapons". They're kept at Coulport.
PLEASE REMEMBER PEOPLE, WE ARE ALL ENTITLED TO AN OPINION.
kingprawnqed 4 years ago
That's an interesting question. At Faslane there are usually 1-2 Vanguard class submarines. The MoD at the time told Greenpeace they'd manage to sneak one sub out past the Arctic Sunrise the night before.
These are the subs that carry the Trident missile system, and they are routinely accompagned by 2 hunter killers.
So I'm genuingly interested as to how to Royal Navy shuttles nuclear warheads between subs in port?
kingprawnged? I guess you work there?
emptyhand17 4 years ago
Well we are recruiting. Pop along to your local office (we are in the phone book), get a haircut, and in about six months you can see for yourself.
Who says they are acompanied? Again, come join the mob and all will become clear.
kingprawnqed 4 years ago
its a good job greenpeace did that in the uk, if they tryed that in the likes of the usa they would have been shot dead.
xissx 4 years ago 5
Ah yes the Land of the Free. The champions of Freedom of Speech and democracy rights.
quote: In the USA they would have been shot dead?
Xissx you are a facist
emptyhand17 4 years ago
Yes but im right and you know it!
xissx 4 years ago 2
You're right in that in the USA the forces of law and order would gun down unarmed citizens?
Dunno, seems a bit stupid to me?
emptyhand17 4 years ago
Yeah, it's stupid, but it's also how our pretend-dumbass politicians want us to be...dumbass patriots who cannot see a foot past our noses!
gbail9566 4 years ago
Nice ship wounder how much fuel you use a 1 min ?
Seanjust 4 years ago
If you'd like to make a donation, I'm sure there's something on their website?
emptyhand17 4 years ago
We should have silent guardians on standby so that we can cook your heads when you get too close.
stenmicro 4 years ago
No the thieves who want to put 30billion of our taxes into updating the trident missle programme should be shot.
Psycarne 4 years ago
"OUR" taxes. you dont pay tax you dont work and you live in a caravan its us "NORMAL" working class peoples tax and we are not against nuclear explosives!!!!!!!!!!
jonnim1 4 years ago
This hypocrite fool wants to shoot us, proving he's no pacifist. So, why don't we nuke him?
High noon, maggot infested hippie creep -- you bring your .22, we'll bring our nukes.
massived3 4 years ago
Were you born a murderous asshole, or were you forced into it by the recession?
motherlodeuk 4 years ago
I respect your whole no nuclear war idea, but this is NOT the way to get it across. You guys should have been shot.
TStackinator 4 years ago
fuksake!! y don't u just get a real fukin job!!. Save the world my ass! its fuked anywayz.
When I first arrived at Faslane Naval Base for duty I saw ur little peace camp,
fukin scrubbers!! thats all I have 2 say about that.
Can't believe u bring kids up there nethier thats just wrong. Ur a fuking disgrace to ur familyz and ur children. Vangaurd Class all the way.
KINGASH1ST 4 years ago
It's not only flakey parents, it's the whole education system, Hollywood and the Big Media.
What I dislike about these types is their arrogance and self-righteousness. At heart, they'll control freak fascists with beards.
massived3 4 years ago
I'm very impressed you can type since you obviously lack opposable thumbs
motherlodeuk 4 years ago
There are plenty of intelligent creatures that lack opposable thumbs. Also, isn't the thumb only used to depress the space bar?
dmcfarli 2 years ago
should have been shot as potential terrorists when they approached.. you got off lightly
andycbriggs 4 years ago
what is the point in protesting and blockading? We have had these nukes for 33 years now and we always will! time to wipe your noses and find something else to whine about dont you think? I agree with UK nuclear deterrent and the Royal Navy is an oustanding force, it's people ready to sacrifice themselves to keep you safe. I too will be one of those fine people on December 2nd. Long live the Royal Navy!
stenmicro 4 years ago
haha fuck green peace ! YOUS ARE THE FREAKS and get a fucking life ROYAL NAVY ALL THE WAY
jonnim1 4 years ago
Im thinking the french tactic!!! ha, Remember the rainbow warrior!
Shakeyboat1 4 years ago