Well he has turned out correct. I would vote for any party this guy joins. He needs to get back into politics. This is the exact type of leader we need. One who is intelligent and backs up his views with well stated facts or concerns. And one who has empathy and an understanding of the world outside of his own normal bubble.
How is it that the UK spends more money on defence than Russia but doesn't have better equipped forces?? Where are or equivalent to S400 AA/ABM missiles. ? What totally indigenous air craft do we design and build? Why don't our Carl-Gustavs not have a thermobaric warhead option? Why doesn't the Royal Navy have a flotilla of Stirling or fuel cell powered submarines for non-blue-water use? I could go on.
The Russians probably do do procurement better, but once you adjust for purchasing power parity the Russian defence budget is about 3x the size of the British Ministry of Defence. They're largely buying things and paying people in rubles, so although Britain spends a larger amount in raw dollars, those dollars go a lot further in Russia than they do in the UK.
The nub of this, for me, is very different. This is the issue, along with the arms trade, that always decides my vote. Brexit can come and go. It is not OK to be violent towards others or to threaten violence. We don't accept it in our homes or our streets, and holding enduring threats over the heads of vast populations isn't better, it's worse. Much worse. I remember Blair saying that he was a pragmatist. He was thoughtful, he addressed the questions he was asked, he seemed to mean to do good - but my heart sunk when he used that word, and sure enough, very bad things sprung from the fact that he was guided by pragmatism rather than principle. The fundamental reason I disagree with these arguments is not that the utilitarian calculation is so often wrong, with the long-term effects of mistrust and trauma tending to be underestimated, and the infectiousness of integrity and constructive support underestimated too - although please, if you are still scribbling on the back of an envelope, note those things! It is simply that it is a fundamental for me to focus on means rather than ends. But my God, the practical arguments about how positively the same resource could be used are not nothing ...
That isn't the argument, I'm a pacifist if you are being raped I will step in front of you, however I can't step in front of a country and I can't ask it of soldiers. That would mean volunteers willing to die and not to kill. That is the focus of his argument that we don't have a pacifist volunteer force and without nuclear deterrent there is only traditional military responses which we are more likely to use and already have in Iraq, Libya and Syria. No the arguments over resources are NOTHING to loss of life, destruction of 1,000's of years of civilisation because those things cannot be replaced at any cost. That happens when we either stand by and watch a country being raped or we use traditional force. Pacifism means never standing by while a person or a country is being raped.
Well he has turned out correct. I would vote for any party this guy joins. He needs to get back into politics. This is the exact type of leader we need. One who is intelligent and backs up his views with well stated facts or concerns. And one who has empathy and an understanding of the world outside of his own normal bubble.
Fully agree.
Gosh, Rory has been proven to be 100% correct and everyone else wrong.
... and NATO has been shown not to be ready. WW3 has begun.
THAT is how you construct an argument.
And we got May Boris and Liz instead of this man!! WTF?
Great Speech. I disagree, but truly a great speech.
He has powerful masters that coach him well.
@james mcbride Try English.
Do you still disagree?
Wow, remember when this class of debate occurred regularly in Westminster 😮🇮🇪
No I'm only 46
Well said Rory!
Keeping Trident is very important
Keep trident if you want... but take it down to Portsmouth and the stock of warheads to Porton Down.
Well put argument
A nonsense argument. there was no missile gap. We engaged in an arms race with the Soviets for nothing.
How is it that the UK spends more money on defence than Russia but doesn't have better equipped forces??
Where are or equivalent to S400 AA/ABM missiles. ?
What totally indigenous air craft do we design and build?
Why don't our Carl-Gustavs not have a thermobaric warhead option?
Why doesn't the Royal Navy have a flotilla of Stirling or fuel cell powered submarines for non-blue-water use?
I could go on.
How much is a russian soildier or a radar operator paid?
I suspect we spend a large margin on spies, R&D which we wouldn't be allowed to see where/how it's spent, and as well, just pay more for soldiers?
The Russians probably do do procurement better, but once you adjust for purchasing power parity the Russian defence budget is about 3x the size of the British Ministry of Defence. They're largely buying things and paying people in rubles, so although Britain spends a larger amount in raw dollars, those dollars go a lot further in Russia than they do in the UK.
@@tehblogger Aged like Milk.
Pretty clear our military equipment is far superior to Russia's.
Right wasn’t he
The nub of this, for me, is very different. This is the issue, along with the arms trade, that always decides my vote. Brexit can come and go. It is not OK to be violent towards others or to threaten violence. We don't accept it in our homes or our streets, and holding enduring threats over the heads of vast populations isn't better, it's worse. Much worse. I remember Blair saying that he was a pragmatist. He was thoughtful, he addressed the questions he was asked, he seemed to mean to do good - but my heart sunk when he used that word, and sure enough, very bad things sprung from the fact that he was guided by pragmatism rather than principle. The fundamental reason I disagree with these arguments is not that the utilitarian calculation is so often wrong, with the long-term effects of mistrust and trauma tending to be underestimated, and the infectiousness of integrity and constructive support underestimated too - although please, if you are still scribbling on the back of an envelope, note those things! It is simply that it is a fundamental for me to focus on means rather than ends. But my God, the practical arguments about how positively the same resource could be used are not nothing ...
What a load of drivel :)
@@gopr3117 Far from drivel, you can disagree but can't dismiss it like that unless you misunderstand the point.
That isn't the argument, I'm a pacifist if you are being raped I will step in front of you, however I can't step in front of a country and I can't ask it of soldiers. That would mean volunteers willing to die and not to kill. That is the focus of his argument that we don't have a pacifist volunteer force and without nuclear deterrent there is only traditional military responses which we are more likely to use and already have in Iraq, Libya and Syria. No the arguments over resources are NOTHING to loss of life, destruction of 1,000's of years of civilisation because those things cannot be replaced at any cost. That happens when we either stand by and watch a country being raped or we use traditional force. Pacifism means never standing by while a person or a country is being raped.
👍👍👍
Send this guy home.
Michael Heery hahah 😂😂
You need to revisit your thought on your comment …see who was right so long ago ..