Donate SIGN UP

He Puts A New Meaning On Dumb !

Avatar Image
bazwillrun | 13:43 Sun 17th Jan 2016 | News
69 Answers
Dumb and Dumber..and Jezza

A soon to be released comedy blockbuster...this movie will have you splitting your sides..youll be laughing so much youll be screaming for a doctor...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-says-labour-could-support-building-more-trident-submarines-but-without-nuclear-a6817246.html

Does he understand what the subs are for, or is he really as dumb as most people are giving him credit for...
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 69rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Then we can have rifles without bullets and aeroplanes without missiles. Oh the possibilities are endless.
\\\\\[The submarines] don’t have to have nuclear warheads on them,” Mr Corbyn told the Andrew Marr Show.\\\

That is what he said baz..........they could have missiles, but not warheads, in other words, unarmed missiles. Apparently the Japanese have missiles that can be "primed" at short notice, but do not carry nuclear warheads.

I agree.....you either have nuclear armed missiles in your submarines, or you don't have submarines.
Usual Labour money wasting schemes but rather than concern himself with the security of his country it would seem he is more concerned in appeasing his union paymasters.Under Corbyn we would have the largest military material in the world providing they didn't go bang. !!!
Question Author
If your nuke delivery systems arent armed and ready to go like now....then they are as much use as guns without bullets and shouting bang whilst waiting for somebody to fetch the bullets...
I am becoming more and more convinced that he is a plant by the Conservatives to make the Labour Party look stupid and incapable of understanding the basics of ... Well anything really and ensuring their unable to ility for many a decade to come.

No modern day leader could be this stupid surely?
He's a 70's tribute act.

///No modern day leader could be this stupid surely?///

yes, he really is that stupid, no other reason to make himself look so gormless, so often comes to mind.
The problem is it can't be just him surely. Any true, loyal friend/supporter/advisor would say,"Hang on jezza you can't trot that out you make yourself and the party a laughing stock"!! He is either very arrogant or his so called loyal party members are as thick as he appears to present himself.
This man is certifiable, building more submarines but don't equip them with missiles. We could take this a stage further, build more aircraft carriers but save money by not putting aircraft on them.
http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/105500/Aircraft-Carrier-Golf-Course--105630.jpg
Asked about ammunition for the army he came up blank.
The MOD were shell shocked!
I hesitate to introduce logic into a routine "jezza is a pillock" thread ... but ...

... the time consuming and expensive bit of the equation is not the actual Trident missiles (of which we have more than enough) but replacing the ageing and obsolescent Vanguard subs which carry the Trident missiles.

I quote "The Vanguard-class submarines were built with a 25-year life expectancy, taking them into the 2020s. The Trident II D-5 missiles are expected to continue in service until at least 2042 following an upgrade."

So - building more Subs but not more Missiles is utterly sensible.

Whether we then fit the Tridents into the Vanguards is another debate - but procuring just the subs seems the right thing to do at present.
It's not his decision. the Conservative Party won the UK General Election on a manifesto which included a commitment to maintaining a continuous at-sea deterrent with four Successor submarines. The final decision to commit to the Successor programme is expected in 2016.
Wiki.
//Labour could back the construction of new Trident submarines but not arm them with nuclear missiles, Jeremy Corbyn has said.//

//.. the time consuming and expensive bit of the equation is not the actual Trident missiles (of which we have more than enough) but replacing the ageing and obsolescent Vanguard subs which carry the Trident missiles. //

Even dafter then if he knows what sunny dave does.


I'd go with 'cautious' Togo - build the subs, save the jobs and then see what the overall world situation is before sticking the nukes in the tubes?

A Nuke equipped Sub. is a deterrent
A non Nuke equipped Sub. is not.
We need a deterrent.
No we don't ... we are no longer a useful or important player in the global nuclear sandpit ... just a faded old hasbeen trading on past glories and unwilling to face the harsh truth of 21st century realpolitik ...

... but that is a whole different argument.

Whatever!
\\ just a faded old hasbeen trading on past glories and unwilling to face the harsh truth of 21st century realpolitik ... //
Corbyn to a T
Has the country move to where anyone who doesn't want to kill people is laughed at .Maybe if we had had people like him in the past this would be a safer world now .

1 to 20 of 69rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

He Puts A New Meaning On Dumb !

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.