Thanks for the point by point there, but you basically just confirmed my initial opinion that you really have no clue beyond your own media-infused bias of the situation.
I don't think we have to introduce your head to your ass, because I think they're well acquainted with each other.
>Thanks for the point by point there, but you basically just confirmed my initial opinion that you really have no clue beyond your own media-infused bias of the situation.
Ironic, coming from a citizen of the same country where 80% of the people believe in "miracles" ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1240075... ) and a large percentage cannot point their country on a map, much less a foreign country. Heck, it's the country the Presidents and political candidates are even know to do grave mistakes on international affairs, even confusing whole countries with others on camera.
>Boo hoo, US evil, blah blah.
I don't believe in "evil". I'm rational. US is just ruthlessly pursuing it's interests, and fuck everybody else (literally). Including fuck them with illegal and unethical means (from invading a sovereign country to drone murders). You can afford it when you are top dog. It's not like European colonial powers on their day behaved any better.
No the irony here is you again completely proving my point by you assuming I'm American just by my "defending" them. I'm British, and I live in Canada. But again, your head has already met your own ass very intimately.
That's a complete non-answer, which is usually done by a person with the same issue you're accusing the parent of.
Trident is a sore point for the UK for several reasons:-
> It's not an independent nuclear deterrent, we're on a US leash even if we try to sell it otherwise.
> They're based in Scotland, a country within the UK which has fairly low support for nuclear weapons, which the primary elected party are dead against having them, going as far to make it a platform for the independence vote in 2014.
> We need to buy them and pay for upkeep. Theres talk of £100bn costs to renew the things, and I believe the lions share of that goes right back to the US.
I can't tell you whether or not it was subsidised, but I doubt it was when you get down to it and the comparison you are making isn't completely apt.
I don't think we have to introduce your head to your ass, because I think they're well acquainted with each other.
Boo hoo, US evil, blah blah.