Paul Walters has just made a reference to Chris Huhne's position on Trident.....he quotes from Lynne Featherstone who observes on the recent hustings: "Chris then speaks and sets out exactly, clearly and coherently what position he takes on Trident which is that in the end, and dependent on the outcome of the multi-lateral disarmament talks in 2010, it is inconceivable that we would need to replace Trident in exact form and at the gargantuan cost of billions and billions" she neglects to mention the other part of his argument.........that of a belief that we may need "Son of Trident" .........this for me illustrates beautifully how completely out of touch Chris is. He may have missed this, so I will say it loud and clear, THOSE OF US WHO OPPOSE TRIDENT DON'T DO SO BECAUSE IT COSTS A LOT OF MONEY. WE DO IT BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IT IS MORALLY WRONG. WE DON'T LIKE CHEAPER SON OF TRIDENT EITHER.........BECAUSE THAT IS MORALLY WRONG TOO. GET IT???
So, sorry Chris and Nick, I totally disagree with you both on this. Its a bit like it being better to be killed by a US missile than Saddam Hussein, whichever way you cut the mustard you still end up dead.
3 comments:
I'm still keeping an eye on you Linda lol
So you prefer the candidate who says we should replace Trident with a new version, not because you disagree with the other candidate's policy, but because he supports it for a different mix of reasons to yours?
How is the pinhead today?
No, because he still wants a nuclear deterrent, I disagree with both candidates on this. Frankly whether it is Trident or Son of Trident, or Baby Trident, it is still a belief that it is OK to have nuclear weapons. Chris's position is almost entirely in line with party policy, he complains of a fudge and then continues to fudge! Great that he doesn't want a Trident renewal, but he still wants something. He made it perfectly clear on TV this morning that he is not a unilateralist. If anyone is dancing on pins I fear it is Mr H!
Post a Comment