Saintandy666

I hate to support Dave, but he just used a good analogy. He said you shouldn't 'walk away from burning buildings'. Put the fire out first, then deal with the our future in the EU.

In our delegate-based representative democracy, there's no actual need to have referendums. If you like them so much, you should support a move towards a Switzerland based system, or one like in the US. In our system parliament isn't there to serve and do exactly as the people say, but to use their own judgement as to what is best in the national interest. Like it or loathe it, that's our system. But anyways, of course there should be a Referendum, I think before this parliament is out(and I will vote to stay in), but not now... not when the crisis is as it is.

We need solar panels on every roof, and more importantly tidal power stations all over the UK... it's about time we started exploiting the fact we are a massive Island.

I don't think he is appeasing Guardian readers. I just think he is sensibly recognising that now isn't the time for this referendum. The Referendum should of course happen soon, but not when the whole of Europe is standing on the edge of financial oblivion.

What the guy did was totally unacceptable, but at the same time, the other kid shouldn't have started it and it looked like he fancied himself as a bit of a gangster. That cashier is bloody dangerous though.

True, though I guess they wanted to concentrate on the two were in the interview at the end and probably the two most famous ones as well. I loved the bit about BBC4, spot on!

It was absolutely brilliant. I lol'd all the way through, literally!

Lallana still injured then.

Don't do it. We were on Freeserve which was good, but when it became orange it was just crap to be honest; constant cut outs and what not. BT are alright.

I don't really understand what you mean!

I know the cost of this stuff is hard, but we need to invest now or there will be catastrophe later. We need to stop thinking about the short term. The only way to do this really is massive government investment. There was an interesting report a few years ago that with 2% of world GDP spent on tackling this, we could sort out once and for all. And quite frankly, compared to how much we spend on some things in this country/world, it's not much considering what state we all could be in if this pans out as expected. Just for reference, in the UK this figure would be $45bn. Worldwide, it would be about $1.25tn. Seems like a lot of investment, but if we don't do this, the cost will be much much higher.

Good point on the damage to China's reputation. Was discussing this with my Dad the other day and he said the sad thing is that China's leaders and police will probably care more about how the CCTV got on youtube than about the poor girl. Just makes me glad that I live in a thriving democracy where people don't live in fear.

Good post TopGun. We can argue over the science and facts and cost, but at the end of the day if we don't do anything it'll be a hell of a lot more expensive than if we spend the initial investment now.

The Greenhouse effect is fact, proven fact. We know it is right. We know that the more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere(especially those that have bonds that absorb in the frequencies of the infrared window, though we dealt with CFC's quite nicely) , the more infrared that is absorbed and so the more heat that doesn't escape earth and so the more earth warms. It's fact, and the more people ignore it and try to put short-term issues over the earth's long term future, the more ****ed we are.

So the question is, would we have been able to do the extra 8,000 attack missions by ourselves, plus all the intelligence the US provided. I don't want a smart arse answer, I want a detailed one as I am actually interested... thank-you

I don't think I know everything. I admit that I am deficient in many areas, most areas in fact. But what I do know is that America is vastly superior to us in Military strength and has poured much larger funds in this war than us, but took a back seat in rhetoric due to political awkwardness. But fair enough, I will respectfully retreat from my position and leave you to take this one.

I think that in these situations emotions run high and while I can't condone that video and would rather he was arrested and put on trial, I haven't lived under his vicious dictatorship and all the effects that brings to me, my friends, my family and my life. And I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them, let's give them a chance to do what they want.

Here here.

It was an 'if' question. If without the US.

So you think the UK would have been able to complete this mission by themselves?

The whole milatary operation was US led. The US has spent hundreds of million's of dollars more than us, and without them we wouldn't have been able to do this.

Whatever happens, we'll still be top come Saturday evening!

And our role in this is overstated. Yes, Cameron and Sarkozy pushed it, but America did the majority of the hard firepower stuff.

Not really. If you want to do this kind of debate, what about Kosovo? Or Sierra Leone... Don't forget that the Conservatives voted for both Iraq and Afghanistan and I doubt they would have done much different. I really don't think we should pat ourself on the back too much over our wars, any of them, whether you think they are right or wrong. War isn't good, but sometimes it is necessary. 'War is the health of the state' - Bourne.