Perhaps that ignorant view is why you have a similar type of view regarding Trident.
The view that the vast majority of politicians are oxygen thieving, lying, money grabbing wastes of skin that should be put against a wall and machine gunned? It's the bitter experience of being screwed over by them constantly for pretty much the whole of my professional life (and probably before then too, but I was in school and didn't realise it so much).
The Milosovic situation is one where I think war was justified and that was the example I was looking for. As for other ones; I feel that we could have done more to resolve things.
Like what? The Taleban were never going to hand Osama over, Saddam was never going to withdraw from Kuwait, Hitler would never have withdrawn from Poland, Kaiser Bill wouldn't have pulled out of Belgium and Napolean wouldn't have stopped building his empire. As terrible as war is it is sometimes very necessary and people in this country sleep safely in their beds at night because men are willing, and have been willing in the past, to go and do those terrible things when the politicians have messed up and got us into a war.
Yet another ignorant view. We shouldn't have let Saddam reach that level of power in the first place and his actions are the world's responsibility.
So you're saying that we should have removed him from power before he could do bad things? Haven't you been marching through London protesting about the US and UK doing just that?
Very very weak argument. You cannot compare hospitals which save countless lives to nuclear weapons that can destroy entire countries and/or regions.
You can compare how many lives the nuclear deterrent may have saved in preventing nuclear war throughout the Cold War - so lets start the populations of the United States, Great Britain, Europe, western USSR and then from the fallout the entire world.
You repeat the same argument over and over. There are countless reasons for why we shouldn't have nuclear weapons and only one fundamental reason for why we should (which hasn't actually been proven).
Most things have only one fundamental reason to exist. Not one of the arguments for not getting Trident renewed has actually made any real sense in the real world.
Trident has served the country well in the past when there was a threat of nuclear attacks. Our existing system will last until 2024 and that is sufficient time to hold several NPT conferences and to force other nations to stop their arms policies.
And when we get to 2024 and it turns out that no one else has got rid of their nukes, some more countries have them, we have no nuclear deterrent left and there's no one left in the country who knows how to build one, who shall we go begging to for protection?
My views are backed up with several reasons, examples, figures and public opinion. Other people's views are backed up by repeating the same statement and mocking those who think otherwise.
A poll in the Times last week found that 52% of the country agreed with renewing Trident. Public opinion counts for pretty much nothing anyway - let's all be honest here, the majority of the public are far too stupid to understand anything they haven't read in the Sun anyway.
On an entirely separate point, for those of you who's policy it is to use force where necessary - why haven't we done anything about the political situations in many parts of Africa? I'll tell you why - it is because we have nothing to gain from Africa, but we have oil to gain from the Middle East.
Like what? Invade? Isn't it a bit hypocritical to ask for invasions of some countries while protesting about others being invaded? Having said that, I'm pretty sure Sierra Leone is still part of Africa...