FrancieBrady wrote: » Seems somebody disputes that one too Fred.https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weaponshttp://spartacus-educational.com/spartacus-blogURL5.html i.e. He changed or had his mind changed. My last word on your Hero are his own words:
Jawgap wrote: » .....and Roosevelt approved the shipping and stockpiling of chemical munitions in the Italian campaign.....a decision that led directly to the explosion of the John Harvey, 83 military deaths from mustard gas exposure and uncounted civilian casualties..... ......the US also presided over the development and use of Napalm..... .....developed and deployed Agent Orange and other defoliants..... .....not to mention the deployment and use of atomic weapons..... ......and yet despite this legacy Gerry and the Shinners pitch a fit when denied access to the building where decisions taken about these substances were made
FrancieBrady wrote: » You wouldn't be engaging in The Whataboutery Game there would you?
Jawgap wrote: » Ah, 'whataboutery'.......the last refuge of the morally bankrupt Shinner - to be used once the inherent contradiction of their morally dubious but politically convenient positions on matters historical are pointed out Continue.....
Fratton Fred wrote: » You need to look up the word "Lachrymatory" Churchill uses it a lot when he talks of chemical weapons
FrancieBrady wrote: » There is no 'contradiction'. I simply laid out the facts that Churchill was not a career 'hero' but had some extremely dark impulses and was a racist. I made no comment on other leaders or countries so there is no 'contradiction'.
Jawgap wrote: » Absolutely - the word arch-imperialist spring to mind when one considers him..... .......I was merely pointing out that those who would be viscerally against anyone joining the BA, and who deputise Churchill and his political legacy into their argument, seem to have no problem tugging at the coat tails once a year of the holder of the office that has as 'glorious' a record at respecting human rights as the office of Prime Minister of HM Government, First Lord of the Treasury and Minster of Defence...... .......that kind of moral equivocation suggests political expediency is at play.
FrancieBrady wrote: » That would have some relevance if I was a member of SF, I am not.And what I don't do is hero worship any leader. I appraise them all on their record.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I know about that. I also know what was developed at Porton and that Churchill ordered 500,000 Anthrax bombs in 1944 and that you are clutching at straws.
FrancieBrady wrote: » That would have some relevance if I was a member of SF, I am not. And what I don't do is hero worship any leader. I appraise them all on their record.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » and yet somehow you still manage to hold Gerry and his IRA chums in high regard.
Jawgap wrote: » Ah yes.....that old chestnut - based on quotes from Cabinet Minutes taken out of context.....(hint: don't rebut with a quote from the Robert Harris book - it's been debunked)..... ......and of course you conveniently leave out the fact that the manufacturing of such bombs was the sole preserve of the US who had developed the necessary aersolisation technology.
Jawgap wrote: » I believe you.
Jawgap wrote: » that kind of moral equivocation suggests political expediency is at play.
Jawgap wrote: » .....and Roosevelt
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Moral equivalence is the term you're looking for and you did indeed engage in whataboutery when you skewed off in this direction: Also, I see you've tried to employ the 'you're a shinner' method of trying to discredit a person's views instead of actually engaging with thier individual points. You need to raise your discussion game.
Jawgap wrote: » Oh, I tend to eschew such terms - only because when people start tossing them ('moral equivalence' whataboutery, various pig Latin phrases etc) it starts to sound like a first year PhilSoc debate that's spilled over into the common room. Plus, I'm not trying to discredit anyone - just looking for some transparency.
FrancieBrady wrote: » But you decided to ignore some factual transparency on Churchill's career to go on a deflecting and pointless crusade about a comparison I never made with some added 'your a shinner' ranting. OK :rolleyes:
Jawgap wrote: » Factual transparency :D:D And posted without a hint of irony - my hat is doffed to you Anyway, I wonder if the RN is getting a bump in recruitment too from the Republic......those new carriers won't drive themselves.
To reluctantly employ a footballing analogy, it's like a manager investing in two new star strikers at the expense of the rest of the team. That strategy doesn't win trophies.
FrancieBrady wrote: » They might need a few competent sparkies first. They won't power themselves. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/732628/Navy-aircraft-carriers-obsolete-dodgy-wiring-report And they aren't very effective on their own. More money to be found post Brexit. Money trees?
Jawgap wrote: » Not at all - they've got the Type 45s in place, 4 more attack boats are due to enter commission over the next decade, and - most importantly - the 'Tides' are coming on stream, with one undergoing acceptance trials, one just launched and two more in the works. More than enough capacity to keep a CBG on station. 'Big Lizzie' herself will be on sea trials in the first part of this year. Probably best not to get your info from the Daily Express - not exactly known as a bastion of objectivity is it?
FrancieBrady wrote: » You speak of 'objectivity'? On this thread? Carry on. :rolleyes:
Jawgap wrote: » No, I speak of sources - the Daily Express isn't exactly an authoritative one but I can see why it appeals to Shinners......;)
FrancieBrady wrote: » Well you know what you need to do then? Contradict the source. Regardless of the article, it seems all is not plain sailing and it may just be an expensive vanity project. Here is some more reading for those on the strict Ruler Of The Waves diet.https://www.theguardian.com/news/defence-and-security-blog/2015/dec/09/white-elephants-on-the-oceanhttp://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/05/28/us_navys_big_mistake_--_building_tons_of_supercarriers_107984.html
Jawgap wrote: » Plus, how do you think power can be projected from the sea without a carrier force? The army may give you persistence, the Air Force may be give you poise but it's the navy that delivers presence
FrancieBrady wrote: » 'coz the guys with the big boat have no power? You know what they say about big flashy cars being certain anatomical part extensions? Would have been cheaper all round for the Brits to just accept the French are probably the US's new bitch. But of course they will persist.
Jawgap wrote: » Well it's all about the form of power you want to project in the littoral. Difficult, for example, to launch amphibious operations on to a hostile shore off just helicopter carrier (LHA) - or exert influence outside the range of land based aircraft (a sub lurking beneath the waves won't give much presence ) Flat-tops just facilitate the projection of military power. .....and I'm guessing the UK is still the US' bitch given the proposals for inter-operability, the fact they're buying the F-35 from them and the procurement of Trident for the new Dreadnought subs......
FrancieBrady wrote: » As they say, we will see. Plenty of game changers afoot.
