"National Security can't come at the cost of Social Security" - WTAF?

[Binnyforthewin]

Surely our PM releases that without National Security there is no Social Security? One is entirely dependent on the other.

That's of course up to you. Ive been able to reply to you politely despite disagreeing with you. Thats an old fashioned education for you.

The report was in the Times and the Telegraph. Although you may prefer the Guardian of course and I don't know whether they were carrying the story too.

Why? The Times covered it.

You’ll have to say more on why.

I haven’t been impolite to you. I have just reached the end of having a discussion about facts when you consistently ignore them. I have read the article but it doesn’t answer the questions raised by your conspiracy theory, which is why I asked them of you.

It’s clear that your ideology won’t allow you to consider objective information. Up to you entirely but I don’t find that interesting.

Reading is free.

Ok fine if you can’t articulate the differences there probably aren’t any that stand up to scrutiny.

Fair enough

Delighted that you think I’m the authority on the matter and you can’t learn anything for yourself.

I don’t think you are that. I do think some people misunderstand the differences, and what’s put up doesn’t stand against scrutiny.

reading comprehension.

I did say not working.

And only about 30-35% of all benefits recipients are in any type of employments. This includes part, even a few hours a week, jobs. Means 65-70% of benefits recipients don't work at all. Google the stats

There you go again, conflating high private wealth creation with a strong economy.

Google would not exist if it weren’t for public sector investment into research and development both for the existence of the internet and the existence of search engines.

Ok lets just agree to disagree on this.

Google is a private company.

Anyway my company would not exist if it wasnt for roads and the Internet and the legal framework etc. That doesn't mean the wealth I create is created by the public sector too. The public sector financed by taxation has enabled me to create that wealth.

We can afford all of it. Let’s not set up another false binary of children or pensioners in poverty, so disabled are not.

How does body count relate to winning or losing?

Hopefully we’ll not know anyway, but it’s better to look to Ukraine for what to fund. It’s still incredibly expensive even if they have fewer casualties.

Poor people on both sides.

It doesn’t lower the need for a bigger defence budget to use a different strategy on where it goes.

That’s because UC is intended to be a short term aid when you are between work. It cannot have escaped you that Job Seekers part of UC is the most commonly claimed benefit apart from those that are too sick, disabled or with a child too young to be able to work?

Definitely. I wouldn’t want to conscript millions of young men and women and then not purchase the best most up to date weapons systems, tanks/fighter jets.

Russia tends to have so many people that they treat their soldiers as disposable cannon fodder.

These are all someone’s child.

How can it be intended for that when more on it are long term claimants than jobseekers?

Obviously it’s not its intention. Or if it is there’s not much stopping it being used long term.

It’s incredibly distressing, they’re often forced. Poor people. Ukrainians for not deserving any of it and the Russians made to face the superior kit.

You've chipped in misunderstanding the point. We were discussing the need for an army and whether wars are still conducted using troops.

I think we need soldiers in those barracks rather than men of fighting age from enemy countries. Its terrifying that barracks are empty.

The number of armed forces personnel has fallen by 42k since 2010, it would be extraordinary if there weren’t empty barracks.

We wouldn’t be fighting yesterday’s war that needed vast numbers of boots on the ground, modern warfare is completely different.

Yes thats my point. The barracks are empty. They shouldn't be. Thats scary.

No we need boots on the ground as Ukraine has shown unfortunately. Hence the need for their conscription and the vast casualty rate showing men and women are still fighting on the modern battlefield. We were fooled that wars can be fought without soldiers. You cannot take or recover territory without it. Particulalrly if your lines of first defence fail and you are invaded. Drones are insufficient Nukes wont be used in a European war with Russia as there's not enough space. Its still going to be tanks and guns and planes and drones.

But who wants to take our territory, and for what purpose? Russia doesn't want our land; our tiny little island is not as significant as people like to think it is. We have no space and no valuable resources. In terms of physical landmass, the UK is worthless.

If Russia comes for us, it will be to disrupt our economy and government and prevent us from arming Ukraine, whose land they do want, and they can do that without leaving their living room.