Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

Hey British ppl, just out of curiosity, how would Hillary Clinton compare to Margaret Thatcher?

They are very different kinds of leaders. Thatcher led Britain out of economic paralysis, pushing Britain through one war that should have been impossible to win, pushing Britain from an industrial society to a financial centre of the world, surviving close assassination attempts, correctly gauged that the European Community was moving from a trade union to an attempt at subverting the nation state to create a European superstate, kept the UK out of the exchange rate mechanism (which turned into the euro, meaning today of all EU countries only the UK still controls its currency, the rest are controlled by Germany) despite critics saying this would kill the British economy (London says no, get rekt), dealt a deathblow to communism in the UK which still has not fully recovered to this day. More controversial moves she made as well, like crushing the trade unions that were trying to prop up the ailing industries Thatcher was replacing with the services sector and pissing off the Oxbridge academics (always a good thing). She even had voice coaching to command the respect of Parliament, and had no shortage of witty banter at her disposal. She very much earned her moniker, the Iron Lady, crushing obstacles in her path. Despised by feminists despite being a woman who clawed her way to the top at a time she believed men were too prejudiced to vote for her. Confrontational, bold and confident, she was ultimately undone from within her own party, as a result of a large portion of tories discontent with Thatcher's staunch opposition against European Integration - the tories who today are led by a Prime Minister in favour of European integration, whilst the party is discontent with the Prime Minister's support of European Integration.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand is a slippery fish. Like el Teflon, no criticism sticks on her due to her mastery human rights' advocacy and women's rights advocacy to win over the ilk of Oxbridge academics, the exact opposite of Thatcher's inability to manipulate the public. Though she did not hesitate to use military force, she also emphasized the US using economic means, aid, technology and progressive narratives as well as media dominance to neutralize obstacles, just as she adopted social media to neutralize her own obstacles. Likewise the underlings she attracts are very shrewd fellows, just as shrewd as she, capable of making foes fight amongst foes for her benefit. Though she has not yet taken command of a nation, it is interesting to note that both President Clinton and President Obama both made use of and were reliant on Hillary Clinton's extensive network of interconnected networks of powerful and experienced people, just look at her super PAC juggernaut to see she has connections. And while she has not yet commanded the USA in a time of war, her defence of her vote to authorize the Iraq war and her speech that accepted responsibility for the Benghazi attack that simultaneously did not cause demoralization would mark her out to be a capable military leader as well. One thing I do not like about her is actually one of her strengths that I respect her for, her slippery character. Whilst Thatcher was confrontational and blunt, Clinton is a more refined Trump, having mastered rhetoric better than Obama, and having a mastery of deflecting, spinning and redirecting to progressive narratives, where before she had mastered redirecting to neocon narratives. She is the Teflon Lady. Should she win the race to Presidency, she will not be taking over an economically dire USA as Thatcher did with the UK, as the USA is still the wealthiest country in the world. But she would be taking over a USA that is definitively no longer the unipolar world-leader it once was, and she may find some trouble from Bernie remnants within the democrats. I doubt she'll have much problem at all handling a defeated Republican party, or hauling the democrats through a victorious Republican party. Should be interesting to see what she gets up to, she does not seem tethered to any philosophies or political leanings beyond practicality. Oh, and she's quite careless when it comes to security. I'm not just talking Benghazi, I mean her use of her private emails. As one whose career is built upon security, this is quite silly. Hopefully she has learned from these errors.

[Loud Whispers]

When Thatcher died, "ding dong the witch is dead" shot up the UK music charts, should show you how popular she was lol, and yeah when she shut down British industries - some of them were still profitable when they were axed. Also deepening the north-south divide, completely valid points, from which there is no defence. Even after the wounds have healed, the scars remain. Though I do think an industrial Britain would not have been able to survive on its own the same way a financial Britain has just dominated Europe with its visions of stability and security in an unstable Europe. I wouldn't even say it's trickle down economics as London is self feeding (or self cannibalizing, unfortunately). I do agree with diversification, both in economic sectors and in trying to get Birmingham up to par with London, with the caveat I believe such development should be focused more upon energy, intellectual property and high-tech manufacturing as there's just no point in trying to compete with the Chinese on their playing field as the Italians are trying to do. I mean hell, what few manufacturing jobs we still have are mostly all being moved overseas or already have been moved overseas as it's cheaper to hire Indians or Chinese to do the same jobs and bring the products back to the UK, so we would've only been delaying the inevitable. Also that 5-10% of our population that we couldn't feed with our own produce, yeah we should make that 0%. On the topic of posh tories loving her, I actually knew some rich English gentleman who fit every stereotype and loved her with far too much passion to merely be a political admiration, ha! But when you look at the Unions, they toppled Callaghan and they would've toppled Thatcher too were she as weak. As a what if, I wonder if UK as an industrial country could have any chance of standing up to a unified industrial Germany, whereas a financial UK comes out on top no question every time. Also when the Unions are toppling parliament, it really was a matter of time before parliament toppled the Unions

Also I'd say appearances are deceiving with Hillary, you know in that sense that water has no toughness yet it cuts through and around mountains all the same. She did not turn politics into identity politics, that happened from the ground up through progressive academia and progressive America in general. She has masterfully caught the winds of change in her sail to power herself through, she does not command the wind though (so you can see a noticeable shift in her rhetoric from pandering to Evangelical neocons to Progressive liberals, as one took over the mantle from the other). She doesn't have strong policies yes, but that is because she holds no loyalty to any party politics or philosophy, she is very much a true neutral statesman (though of course, not neutral). And of course she is establishment, but let's face it if she can get into power off of being a woman and the current year she would be a fool not to exploit the current year's ethos, and she may be careless but she is no fool. Agreed that she is not principled, but with that utter lack of principle comes a total embracement of possibility, she can fulfil any agenda she wishes as long as she has the power for it. I find it detestable, but I can at the very least respect an able leader when I see one, and I would not expect to be writing something like this, probably the closest I'll get to endorsing Hillary, ha. Is Hillary's influence on politics overall going to be good? No, but she is capable enough to not run the USA down into the ground, hopefully capable enough to also not bring Europe down. She has her ruthlessness, and she has a mastery of her public image. Consider all the demerits on her record and how all the interviewees focus on "but woman!" Underestimate her talent at your peril, her ability to adapt and deflect is not through luck, and one can always appreciate the skill of a skilful villain

Also yeah, I don't find them similar at all too. Very different in almost every way except for the fact that they're both women who studied law

Also pls no bully Nick Clegg, he's suffered enough

Spoiler: His smile and optimism: gone (click to show/hide)

[SirQuiamus]

Hillary, by contrast, doesn't appear strong at all. She seems to have pitched her lot in with the victimization-crowd, turning politics into 'identity politics' and parroting silly slogans about the wage gap and similar nonsense to get votes. That doesn't come off as strong to me.

Don't be fooled by the rhetoric. Someone who calmly and pragmatically puts up with Bill's antics for decade after decade is not much of a feminist, let alone a trigger-happy "SJW."

...also,

thatcher making fast rap magic in malvinas

have some cheeki trollisseys.

[Loud Whispers]

Aye, just look at the UK - you know your Bernie, we have a guy like that in the UK called Corbyn who actually took control of our left-wing opposition party, causing a ruinous schism that at the very least was entertaining if disheartening. Anyways during this rift he got shit because he promised to make half of his cabinet women, and in the end he did, only all the positions of real power were given to men who shared his philosophy. The sexism card was played, but it didn't stick, not any average joe can play identity politics like a pro, Clinton's mastered it

*EDIT

These polls are getting silly

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Graknorke]

I don't know, the stuff the Tories did within a day of winning a majority made me think that perhaps Clegg wasn't as useless as we thought he was.

[redwallzyl]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/05/465699842/gone-mot-the-french-uproar-over-removing-some-circumflex-accents

people are apparently freaking out but it doesn't seem like something worth getting worked up about. seems like its as if English dropped all the random silent letters. simplifying yes. dumping down no. could we get a Frenchmen in here to have some input?

[Loud Whispers]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/05/465699842/gone-mot-the-french-uproar-over-removing-some-circumflex-accents

people are apparently freaking out but it doesn't seem like something worth getting worked up about. seems like its as if English dropped all the random silent letters. simplifying yes. dumping down no. could we get a Frenchmen in here to have some input?

Cucking millipede strikes again, commies need to stop trying to engineer people through language, it didn't work with the USSR and it didn't work with China and it hasn't worked with PC, it fucking fails in doing anything but make sexy language into stupid language

True enough. Much as I dislike her, I shouldn't paint her as incompetent; as you've said, she definitely is shrewd. But I stand by my opinion that she's not strong - she's a leader who'll react and sail through, rather than one who will plot a course and lead. Given how entrenched corruption and lobbying is in Washington, is that what America needs right now? (We all know what America really needs, and it's unstumpable).

Fair enough, she is a puppet, but if the USA wants to be a puppet that is not our choice to make

I also largely agree with your assessment of where the UK should diversify itself (though there's more UK north of Birmingham, you cheeky southerner).

My sides are in orbit

There is, but cities like Birmingham are already major financial centres of the world, have massive workpools of skilled workers already, have decent enough infrastructure, and have the added symbolism of being the past industrial centres of Britain, the perfect place to start a neo-industrial revolution. Manchester as well is high up there for the same reasons as Birmingham, the more Northwards you go the more the fields to focus on change to focusing on elite quality and marketing (and educating, the North was famous for being an intellectual centre of the world, and it still is - it would be great if EU students didn't get a free ride whilst everyone from NI Wales and England got shafted heh). The North could also do with some cultural enrichment and incentives to increase population, but having learned from the failed cultural enrichment from the past, efforts should focus on attracting skilled workers, incentivizing local families to have more kids, and using the North's prestigious education and financial incentives to attract bright students from around the world. Skilled workers arriving are skilled workers, less likely to be criminal due to socioeconomic factors (because they'll be well-off) and so the risk of any imported violence would just be political, and the benefits would most likely overcome the downsides. Incentivizing local families makes sense as it preserves the local culture and produces more Britons, native or of immigrant descent otherwise, who'll be born into the culture and will uphold their hometowns with fervour. Incentivizing students to come around to study in the northern cities will also make them feel attached to their city after 3-4 years of studying, partying and reveling, so they'll have an emotional connection that will mean they won't just immediately take a flight home or take up a job in London as opposed to trying to work out in their adopted city - even better if it's some course that offers job training/job placements within the course. I don't see much opposition to this kind of cultural enrichment, because it'd actually be all the good things previous social engineers said would happen, that didn't happen, because social engineers a shit.

I'd also add high-tech research along with the manufacturing, as we still manage to compete with the best despite being such a small country. There's still a place for low-end manufacturing though, I think, even if we have to subsidise it. It'd have to be limited, obviously, but I think the social benefits would be worth it. I'd rather spend my tax money subsidising a factory in Newcastle than paying for more cultural enrichment, or giving foreign aid to countries with their own space programs, or funding the BBC to do a self-congratulatory review on themselves for not hiring any paedos for the last six months.

Oh yeah, that's true. I was wrong to conclude that all low-end manufacturing couldn't compete with China, because though that's true we could always subsidize low-end manufacturing that is vital to key areas of our state. Things like making the steel for our tanks and fleet, or the parts for our aircraft, those are things we cannot rely on foreign countries for the sole purpose that it defeats the purpose to have an armed force that can force nothing. Just look at Argentina, where their fleet is rusting to pieces because they were reliant on the UK for replacement parts we don't give them xD
There is definitely room for unprofitable industries that are nonetheless vital, just as the NHS is unprofitable - the purpose is not to profit, but to benefit the people of the UK. I think we should still continue sending our foreign aid, even to countries with space agencies (Nigeria's space agency is not exactly NASA), when other nations suffer, so too does us all - we have a duty to help all people of the commonwealth or else there'd be no point in having it at all. One of these days we may need their help, and they will remember how generously, or how frugally we gave them when they were in need.

Also we need to give more money to our space agency. And we are :DDDDDDDD

Getting into completely off-the-deep-end thinking here, I've actually thought for quite a while that one of the best things we could do is foster a stronger alliance with Japan. And I say that as a grown-up, serious person, not the SNES JRPG fanboy of my youth. I just think we have a lot in common; small island nations ostracised from those around us, with a history of being technologically innovative. Both countries have a sense of nationalistic pride, even if it's being daily eroded here. And I think the people of both nations have a certain view of themselves that would make us more amenable to and more effective in such an alliance. Our so-called 'special relationship' with the USA is beneficial, sure, but with the USA being so much bigger than we are it's obvious that we'll never be regarded as equals - never made more obvious than when Blair was mooning around Bush like a dog.

I don't think we need an equal relationship with the USA, particularly whilst the USA is clearly the equal of no other nation on the planet, and China is only equal with the USA whilst it is on home turf. Though I also agree we should not be pursuing Blairite devotion to the USA, just as we declined the quagmire of Vietnam, independence is valuable for a reason, and Obama was just taking the mick selling our nuclear serials to Russia :|. It would be interesting to formalize our friendliness with Japan, but I think informal friendliness is better. Japan already has the protection of the USA, so ours is quite unnecessary, and we would have to complicate our relationships with Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and China in order to formally side with Japan. All the whilst our informal cooperation with Japan is already incredibly extensive, there are three cities whose fates are intertwined irregardless of their governments' regimes: New York, London and Tokyo, the illuminati triangle that surrounds the world in high-tech finance shenanigans. If we must deepen our formal ties, then I would continue to reaffirm our alliance with Australia, Singapore, Malaysia and New Zealand, whilst cooperating extensively both with Japan and China. The five waifus are strong m9

There's a lot that's different between ourselves and Japan, of course, and there are some worrying facets of Japanese society that I wouldn't like to see us import (their work-life balance is atrocious). And the caveat, of course, that they're halfway around the world from us. That doesn't exactly make trade easy.

Doesn't stop us with Singapore or Aussieland lol, the Suez canal is a gift to commerce. Plus in the event of the north thawing, we'll be neighbours! Ha, let's hope that doesn't happen.

Still, it's an avenue I'd love to explore. Entering into more joint ventures with them could allow us both to remain competitive in high-tech research and manufacturing in the long-term. And anything that makes us less reliant on trade with the EU is a good thing. Plus they drink tea and dislike immigration. Sounds pretty English to me.

I want to disable the EU's ability to control the United Kingdoms, but I do not want the EU as an enemy, and I am quite saddened they committed suicide so violently. We're already on good terms with Japan and doing joint-military exercises with them, so for all intents and purposes we're with them, though we don't have to piss of China publicly whilst doing so. Also do note, there is a difference between being self-reliant and declaring an embargo on Germany xD!
Recently we sent our defence secretary to Japan to meet theirs so at the very least we can say the Tories are Nippon friendly, and heck, Xi Jinping just visited the UK last year so the Tories are also Sino friendly. We should try to make sure both China and Japan are as wealthy and stable as possible, because when they are, so are we!
Also we should try and rescue Portugal and the Netherlands lol, but that's up to the Portuguese and Dutch to decide and we only to help

I could perhaps somewhat forgive Clegg, or at least temporarily forget about him, if not for the fact that I actually know good, intelligent people - people I went to uni with, for example - who voted for him again in the last election. My mind can't even process it, and all I can do is blame ol' Cleggy. (Actually, for that matter, Cleggy from LotSW would have been a better party leader than Nick Clegg).

Clegg was a chunder for the blunders, a gromit for vomit, cheese and crackers for cracked... Sick. He was a talented man without sufficient wisdom, ripipip in peace
The only thing I really, really, really hate him for was the fact that he set cacti on fire, fuck you you don't attack cacti like that. Of all progresiv and toleran, he is the one I respect the most. Funny, the guy spoke five languages, he would've made a good MP for any country that wasn't Britain, but needed to subjugate Britain. I fear if he had pursued a career in the European parliament and not in the British parliament, we would have no greater foe who understood how to crush British nationalism better.

[Vilanat]

What kind of aid the UK give to Israel, and how, considering Israel is the only stable country in the middle east, it destabilizes the middle east?

[Baffler]

What kind of aid the UK give to Israel, and how, considering Israel is the only stable country in the middle east, it destabilizes the middle east?

The UK gives Israel ~8 billion pounds of aid, mostly in the form of favorable contracts for military hardware export licenses. There may be more, but if there is it's peanuts by comparison.

Israel is widely believed (I don't feel like examining the claim, but anyway all that matters here is that it's taken seriously) to take covert action against its neighbors, especially in the Middle East, and is known worldwide for openly taking bites out of them. If the Arab states can look beyond their own borders, it's fairly likely to be with an eye toward Israel; at least in the Israeli perception which is again all that really matters. The mistrust is both a cause and effect of Israel's actions, but with Israel so much more able to act things end up being a little bit disproportionate. They above all others stand to gain from a certain level of chaos in the area.

[Loud Whispers]

Easy there mate, there's the North and there's Scotland. One's the ancestral home of a proud, noble and dour people. The other's full of Scottish people.
SRSLY DOE, I partially disagree here. Places like Leeds and York are already very attractive cities to students, and make a good deal of their money from catering to those students and all their bacchanal desires. Appealing the educated elite is important, but it's already being done. Too much. The part we're falling behind in is working class adults. We can't just close our eyes and pretend the uneducated jobless masses don't exist, we have to deal with them (and not import any more of them). They're not going anywhere. Importing more skilled workers wouldn't be to the benefit of the people who've lived there for generations. It'd amount to gentrification, pretty much. And there've been plenty of examples in recent years of how that turns out. God knows I don't want to turn us into San Francisco.

True, Lord knows the academic elite have caused so much destruction across the world, but that's something that can be changed! It's not an appeal to them, it's an appeal to foreign students, who have loadsa money and lots of potential to become highly-skilled movers and shakers of tomorrow. Bringing in a few thousand doctors and engineers wouldn't make much of a difference if they're assimilated over time by a much larger native population, my ideal is not the "more more more" of uneducated foreign working class labour wanted. Also take a look at the great class survey, where the Beeb reckon old class definitions are a bit buggered so they made new ones. I'd be less worried about our current working class (not disrespectful or dismissive), and alongside saving our steel industry, focus on figuring out how to either get working class English kids on the right path to a technical trade, some financial work placement like brokerage, or if they've got the talent for it - academics (bring back grammar schools?). Things aren't perfect now, with unemployment falling, but there's a big thing where English kids are failing in London, and if that is replicated on the national level with all of the kids of the United Kingdom, well then the present will be fine whilst the future is fucked and the only competent people will be affluent minorities. A little wealth inequality is all right, but I don't want to push people's patience and tolerance you know?

And I'm wary of more 'cultural enrichment'. Poor kids aren't kept on the straight and narrow by theaters and museums - those are for the chattering classes - they're kept on it by prospects of a job, a trade that can go somewhere. And local initiatives like youth clubs, boxing clubs, football teams, etc. They don't need to be conned into getting a degree that'll do them absolutely no good, either. If there's a specific field they're interested in that requires one, sure, but when I was at uni there were plenty of people there, often the first ones in their family to go to university, who'd always been told that with a degree they were guaranteed a job - it didn't matter what KIND of degree, of course; EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION, right Mr Blair? - who came out of there and couldn't compete against the schoolleavers who'd been stacking shelves for three years.

They give free tuition for Nursing courses and the MOD offer scholarships. We should definitely raise more scholarships, or even go so far as to make STEM degrees in selective Unis free for students. The UK's always been on the cutting edginess of technology, we should keep it that way. Looking at earnings for trades by Union stats, the most profitable trades are Mining and Quarrying, followed by Finance and Insurance, IT, Electricity/Gas work, Scientific/Technical activities, public admin and defence e.t.c. in that order. All growing fields, and I don't know what more else you can do to make a promising situation a perfect one. Get foreign investment? More money, more jobs, that's how it usually goes.

As for importing skilled workers... I think if you're importing enough for it to be even worth mentioning as a policy, then you'd be importing too many to practically limit it to actual skilled workers only. It's something to try, perhaps, but the answer to poverty in the North isn't turning Manchester into Bradford (seen the news from Keighley today, by the way? It's Rotherham 2: Electric Boogaloo).

Rotherham-tier gangs was everywhere, unless they found a second gang in Keighley... They haven't have they? Also Singapore and the pre-9/11 USA are/were very successful in attracting just skilled workers. Also think of Aussieland's points based system.

So yeah, open a few more factories. And more vocational colleges (as opposed to prestigious universities needing 3 A's at A-level and such), really get back to the roots of the workers educating themselves in the Industrial Revolution. Give the English working class the opportunity and the tools to improve themselves, don't just write them off. All that talk about the 'Lost Generation' a couple of years back seriously irked me, because the response of the baby boomers was pretty much to shrug their shoulders, say 'Oh what a pity!', and then go back to moaning about the pension timebomb.

I was quite saddened by how vocational schools were so gutted. BOOMERS!

Yeah, I've got no problem with spending it on OUR space agency. That'll pay off hugely in the future, if we're smart about it and don't let Richard Garriott start steering the rocket ship. I just don't want to pay for India's.

If we don't pay for India's poor, their government likely won't. For starters there's fucking loads of them, whilst India's tax base is quite small and they do not want to harm their ludicrously expanding economy by scaring away their moguls with wealth distribution (which they can't effectively enforce, lacking a powerful justice system relatively free from corruption as the UK). There are also shadows of the caste system looming overhead, so their elite will not help their undercastes whilst foreigners have no issue. India is of the Commonwealth, its citizens are in need whilst its government is still developing and centralizing the country - this is the UK-USA path I was talking about earlier. India is rapidly growing, but it has not yet reached its full potential, it cannot yet fully support its own citizens. If we drop that aid, the risk of instability from central and western asia or southeast asia spreading into India would be the greatest horror in humanitarian catastrophe since the last Chinese civil war or WWII.

As for the rest, I have mixed feelings. I'd like to support the Commonwealth - we have ties that are worth preserving if we can. They've helped us in the past, and perhaps they'll help us in the future. But being allies in a world war is different than us handing out pocket money. And it's hard to shake the feeling that in the modern age, we, as a country, are laughed at for being a soft touch. We're giving money to China and India, both countries with huge economies. And we're giving money to a myriad of smaller countries who are more a nuisance to us than anything resembling a help.

"A lion doesn't concern himself with the opinion of a sheep." - Trywin Lannister
The Germans in WWI laughed at the British until their rifles opened fire. Not all problems can be solved by sending in the lads though, you can't grasp a butterfly in the grip of an iron fist, and Billy no mates die fast whilst the British still remain. Currently there are tens of millions of children already who have benefited off of British aid, the knock on effects of these kids growing up well and working for their nations will give them more wealth and allow them to provide for their own families and by extension, reach a point where their governments can provide for them. When you see they can't afford water, pencils, paper, soap - having to borrow a little more money to provide it for them keeps our civil servants busy and our humanitarian mission alive. Let the Germans call us racist, let the Russians call us cheeki monkeys, let the Chinese call us the setting sun, let the Americans forget we even exist. When millions of children every year can pick up a book they actually have the literacy to read, when they aren't dying from voiding their bowels or coughing up their lungs - who gives a fuck if we aren't thanked for it, we've undisputedly done the right thing. Plus some of our aid goes not towards making people dependent on us or their governments, but towards giving them the basic tools they need to stand on their feet and hold their government accountable for their actions. No poor nation can get foreign investment coming in in meaningful amounts with a corrupt government, and a corrupt government cannot be purged without either an authoritarian leader like Ataturk or Lee Kuan Yew or a grassroots movement by the people, who with access to the global economy can project their own power and link up with other like minded people.

We still act as if we're the empire we once were, and we're not. We need to make our peace with being a small island nation and start living like it. It's not an absolute rule - there are cases where aid does buy us 'soft power' that we can use (or increase stability, preventing problems for us down the road), but I think we should drastically cut it down.

If that doesn't persuade you, for every sterling we send abroad, a Swedecuck remains unmolested. You can't put a pricetag on that

Especially when we're giving money and resources away when it goes directly counter to our interests. Like giving aid to Israel, while it's actively destabilising the Middle East (I had sources for this about 20 pages ago, too lazy to go back and find them. I imagine you read them then, anyway).

Ah yes, but to be fair and allow me to be the devil's JIDF here, they are doing the same as Iran, Saudi and Turkey, and we work extensively with all but Iran there. Once the hardline Zionist Warlords, the neo-Ottoman Imperialists and Salafist Fundamentalists die out and lose power, there will be much opportunity to rebuild without causing WWIII. Giving aid to Jihadists is hard to excuse, other than saying the US did it too, but I do know buying Israeli safety for aid is preferable to a Sampson option, in a similar way the US chucking aid at North Korea keeps them happy. Don't need to like them to know keeping them strong and stable is a good thing in the grand scheme of things, their implosion would be pure chaos.

You're saying he's not going to follow the rest of our backstabbing politicos and head off for a cushy EU position someday soon? I know it's been a bit cliché since Blair did it, but the oldies are still goodies.

Lol could you imagine poor Clegg getting barraged by the Farage in the Brussels banter circle? Nah, dude is a toxic brand now because of the "I'm sorry song" and all its baggage. And he's broken. Could not even handle one barrage right now. Maybe give it some time, or maybe after he immigrates to a European country (Nick for Swede President 2020).

[Vilanat]

What kind of aid the UK give to Israel, and how, considering Israel is the only stable country in the middle east, it destabilizes the middle east?

The UK gives Israel ~8 billion pounds of aid, mostly in the form of favorable contracts for military hardware export licenses. There may be more, but if there is it's peanuts by comparison.

So, not aid at all then but a military trade agreement?
Or you suggest the UK let Israel sell them obsolete or redundant equipment? they buy intentionally overpriced stuff from Israel? they sell Israel military equipment at cheaper prices?

Sorry, but your argument is extremely, for lack of better word, ignorant. you have no idea what Israel sells to the UK, what the UK sells to Israel, what the market prices for the same quality of products are and what other financial elements have been introduced into those deals.

The only thing you can know for sure is that both the UK and Israel are technological advanced and have a lot to gain financially and technologically from mutual military trade agreements. It could very well be that the UK sell Israel cheap flight engines in return for cheap visual identification chips, automated drone chips and drone weapon systems. i don't know any specifics, i am just guessing here.

Israel is widely believed (I don't feel like examining the claim, but anyway all that matters here is that it's taken seriously) to take covert action against its neighbors, especially in the Middle East, and is known worldwide for openly taking bites out of them. If the Arab states can look beyond their own borders, it's fairly likely to be with an eye toward Israel; at least in the Israeli perception which is again all that really matters. The mistrust is both a cause and effect of Israel's actions, but with Israel so much more able to act things end up being a little bit disproportionate. They above all others stand to gain from a certain level of chaos in the area.

Duh, everyone takes covert actions against everyone else. the US and the UK have taken covert actions against Israel, Iran takes covert actions against everyone. Saudi Arabia and Qatar take covert actions against Israel, Syria, Iran and i guess that the US as well. i bet that if you look closely you'd see that the US take or taken covert actions against the UK. So what?

The question whether Israel has to gain from chaos in the middle east or not is not important, the important question is whether Israel caused or influenced the current chaos in the middle east and the answer is very simple: No.

The question whether Israel is right to mistrust its arabic neighbours is redundant. of course it does, those same neighbours keep saying Israel should mistrust them.

[martinuzz]

I f you live in Munich, please go to your local bloodbank and donate blood.
Two trains crashed in a full speed frontal collision. At least 8 peope died, 150 people got injured, many critical. The Munich bloodbank is making an emergency appeal to residents to donate blood, because they don't have enough.

German authorities have no idea how this could happen. A very fatal track switch error. The trains collided in a curve in the woods, so they didn't even see each other coming, and didn't slow down. Both train drivers and machinists are dead, so we won't hear from them how this could have happened.

[Loud Whispers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35530538
Low speed head-on collision between two trains at Munich, all casualties have been removed from the trains, wedged together

[Baffler]

What kind of aid the UK give to Israel, and how, considering Israel is the only stable country in the middle east, it destabilizes the middle east?

The UK gives Israel ~8 billion pounds of aid, mostly in the form of favorable contracts for military hardware export licenses. There may be more, but if there is it's peanuts by comparison.

So, not aid at all then but a military trade agreement?
Or you suggest the UK let Israel sell them obsolete or redundant equipment? they buy intentionally overpriced stuff from Israel? they sell Israel military equipment at cheaper prices?

Sorry, but your argument is extremely, for lack of better word, ignorant. you have no idea what Israel sells to the UK, what the UK sells to Israel, what the market prices for the same quality of products are and what other financial elements have been introduced into those deals.

The only thing you can know for sure is that both the UK and Israel are technological advanced and have a lot to gain financially and technologically from mutual military trade agreements. It could very well be that the UK sell Israel cheap flight engines in return for cheap visual identification chips, automated drone chips and drone weapon systems. i don't know any specifics, i am just guessing here.

What argument? Slow your roll, dude. You asked what the UK does for Israel, I Googled "UK aid to Israel" and found this. Plus a bunch of nonsense.

Israel is widely believed (I don't feel like examining the claim, but anyway all that matters here is that it's taken seriously) to take covert action against its neighbors, especially in the Middle East, and is known worldwide for openly taking bites out of them. If the Arab states can look beyond their own borders, it's fairly likely to be with an eye toward Israel; at least in the Israeli perception which is again all that really matters. The mistrust is both a cause and effect of Israel's actions, but with Israel so much more able to act things end up being a little bit disproportionate. They above all others stand to gain from a certain level of chaos in the area.

Duh, everyone takes covert actions against everyone else. the US and the UK have taken covert actions against Israel, Iran takes covert actions against everyone. Saudi Arabia and Qatar take covert actions against Israel, Syria, Iran and i guess that the US as well. i bet that if you look closely you'd see that the US take or taken covert actions against the UK. So what?

The question whether Israel has to gain from chaos in the middle east or not is not important, the important question is whether Israel caused or influenced the current chaos in the middle east and the answer is very simple: No.

The question whether Israel is right to mistrust its arabic neighbours is redundant. of course it does, those same neighbours keep saying Israel should mistrust them.

Again, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not Israel is actually destabilizing the region. The Arabs think they are, so they act accordingly. But that's only a tangent anyway. Since you seem to be looking for an argument, explain to me how being one of the area's most important regional powers with openly hostile relations with most of their neighbors somehow negates any possibility of malicious action on their part.

[Sergarr]

Arabs hate of Israel has nothing to do with Israeli's policies, it has everything to do with Israel being full of the Mortal Enemy - Jews, and them owning Jerusalem with a couple of Islam's holy places in it, which will, accordingly to Arab preachers, will be destroyed by Jews very soon™, due to them being the Enemy of all "honest" Arab people everywhere.

And when Jews try to stop Arabs from throwing them off to the sea, the Arabs cry a bunch that "boo-hoo the evil Israel has totally been attacking us unprovoked". And since the lingering anti-Jewish attitudes haven't actually gone anywhere since WW2, this cry gets amplified and spread all over the world.