Forum menu
That was Agent Orange
That smashed trees did it?
not questioning the act ernie as I agree, i would have thought what you just posted was common knowledge. But is that top image real? looks like cgi?
It's US carpet bombing. If you think you can find a better pic of B52 carpet bombing of Vietnam fine.
The point that Sandwich makes is irrelevant anyhow......whatever tactics were used the fact remains that the US had its ass whipped in Vietnam and were humiliated. And I have no doubt that had the US been the only country in the world to have nuclear weapons they would have used them in Vietnam.
They proved their willingness to use nuclear weapons less than 30 years earlier when they were indeed the only country in the world to possess them. A fact which JY in his rush for 'brevity' apparently forgot 😉
Yes I forgot about the two bombs in Japan and god bless the oracle that is google
Saddam threatened to use CW in the Gulf War (1)
we threatened retaliation up to and including nuclear
He didn't use themJob Jobbed
You are still arguing it all ways
The deterrent stops the threat - he threatened- in fact you said you expected them to be used so you accepted the deterrent failed.
In that case it stops the actuality when the reality is he had **** all WMD to use [ or threaten us with*]so the example is rubbish.
Its a bit double speak this for me so I am out.
* have you got a dossier on this ?
[quote=gofasterstripes said]That was Agent Orange
That smashed trees did it?
Use google images on the photo - all matches state it was agent orange.
That smashed trees did it?
You want better pictures of the effects of defoliants ?
Is this for real ?
Here are the effects of Agent Orange on a rubber plantation.......hope you like it
[img] 
[/img]
never let it be said i don't rise to a challenge! 😀
b52 carpet bombing vietman:
[img] 
[/img]
btwthe other image was cgi, you follow it back to google you end up on the deviant art site.
According to the US air force museum, that B52 was bombing Cambodia
I stand corrected! 😆
how's this?
I am not sure AO blasted the trees like that, I thought it was a herbicide.
Nonetheless it's horrible.
Not really sure why we're posting pictures of this horrific shit anyway...
I agree with JC - no reason to have or use weapons of mass destruction.
I've had a look but there's not many photo's of 'carpet bombing' over Vietnam.
I Googled 'Linebacker Raids', cos thats what they were named.
Thank you seosamh. I accept full responsibility for the poor use of pictures 🙂
The point I was making was that the US threw everything at Vietnam, no matter how horrendous the consequences - they were desperate to win. And you have to be pretty naive to believe that they wouldn't have used nuclear weapons if they had thought they could get way with it, as they had 20 odd years earlier. What stopped them was the knowledge that the USSR and China, Vietnam's allies, also possessed them.
And my further point was that while unilateral disarmament is a sensible for the UK multilateral disarmament more generally between West and East is the sensible way forward. In other words proper implementation of the non-proliferation treaty. The UK abandoning its nuclear weapons would be a step in the right direction and increase the pressure on others to do the same.
It would be to the UK's credit if it set an example, as other have before.
It's unlikely, impossible in fact, for that to happen under a Tory government.
agree entirely with that ernie.
EDIT: Should have read the previous page
The UK abandoning its nuclear weapons would be a step in the right direction and increase the pressure on others to do the same.
How would it increase pressure on other countries to do the same then?
Believe me I'd love to see EVERY country in the world say, 'right that's it, no more nukes, theyr'e banned, for everyone'.
What stopped them was the knowledge that the USSR and China, Vietnam's allies, also possessed them.
Hurrah, we're all in agreement, deterrence works
while unilateral disarmament is a sensible for the UK multilateral disarmament more generally between West and East is the sensible way forward. In other words proper implementation of the non-proliferation treaty. The UK abandoning its nuclear weapons would be a step in the right direction and increase the pressure on others to do the same.
thats a bit of a leap - I completely agree that multilateral disarmament is the goal (and what everyone has agreed to) its far more logical that the countries with the largest armouries reduce first, perhaps until we are all at a similar level, and then we all phase out together. One of the key important factors here being that the UK (and French) nukes guarantee that Europe cannot be left to 'stand alone' in the face of an attack (eg. by anything from a resurgent Russian federation to a possible future islamic caliphate)
How would it increase pressure on other countries to do the same then?
Well don't you think it's a tad harder to make the case for the full implementation of the non-proliferation treaty when you are not fully complying yourself? Don't you think it's a tad harder to make the case against nuclear weapons when you got the latest version yourself despite not even needing them?
The UK getting rid of its nuclear weapons won't suddenly make the world nuclear free but it will do two things, firstly it will save us a hell of a lot of money (we haven't got much apparently), and secondly it will say to others "we've got rid of ours, now it's your turn to do something to rid the world of most horrific WMDs in human history".
The world with less nuclear weapons is a better safer place than a world with more nuclear weapons.....every little helps, as they say.
when you are not fully complying yourself?
How are we not fully complying with the NPT?
I'd like to see the UK abandon the Trident Nuclear programme or Quadrant if it is to upgraded but unfortunately I feel it's a bit late for us as a Nation to start wearing Daisy chains in our hair and start dancing round half naked with all the other peacefull Nations who don't want to harm any one else.
The reality is that no other Nation is seeking to abolish Nuclear weapons in fact it's quite the opposite, so why put our once great Nation out there as an example of Humanity when in reality we have pissed off just about every Nation on all continents at some point or another including our closest neighbours Scotland Wales and Ireland. One mans ideology echoed by others is nothing short of a dictatorship, he has his views and like him or loathe him he is going to weasel himself into a position of great power to express those on the people of this country.
Personally I think the bloke is a spineless coward who sucks up to which ever Terrorist organisation is En Vogue at that moment in an attempt to not get bullied, a lot like a wimp In the school playground.
He's got a couple of weeks tops before he steps down. Either that or take him to the Tower of London and seperate his head from his body before he does actually commit treason.
Yeah I know you repeatedly trot out the Tory line that the non-proliferation treaty is being fully implemented ninfan, but it's nonsense of course. But hey, what's new?
but it's nonsense of course
[u]You[/u] are the one that alleged the UK wasn't fully complying
Go on then
how?
OK Ro5ey - yours at 490!
Sounds good on paper Ernie but not every country with nukes has a stable government/someone who isn't a fruitcake in charge, & as I've said, I don't trust any politician in the whole wide world. But that's probably just me being me.
Personally I think the bloke is a spineless coward who sucks up to which ever Terrorist organisation is En Vogue at that moment in an attempt to not get bullied, a lot like a wimp In the school playground.He's got a couple of weeks tops before he steps down. Either that or take him to the Tower of London and seperate his head from his body before he does actually commit treason.
& this, he's dangerous basically.
The reality is that no other Nation is seeking to abolish Nuclear weapons in fact it's quite the opposite
There's plenty of examples of nations abandoning their nuclear weapons, or nuclear weapons programmes, or putting their nuclear weapons beyond deployment capabilities, or committing themselves not to developing them.
There are plenty of countries in the world which are perfectly capable of developing and deploying nuclear weapons, even small insignificant countries such as Argentina, but they realise that the world would not be safer place for them, in fact they fully recognise the stupidity of them. We should too.
Personally I think the bloke is a spineless coward who sucks up to which ever Terrorist organisation is En Vogue at that moment in an attempt to not get bullied, a lot like a wimp In the school playground.
Well that's convinced me.
I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just voicing my opinion. Just like everyone else, I just don't think abondoning our subs and Nuclear capability will bring about world peace. I think the lunatics who are running the asylum will sell off the hardware to the highest bidder in a foolhardy attempt to broker Middle East stabilisation. With all good intentions I'm sure after all the Nobel Peace Prize has to go to some one next year, meanwhile the de stabilised nation who purchased the shiny kit hasn't ruled out the UK as an enemy and totally dis regards the peace process as the deal that was brokered behind the arms trade was to start looking for and drilling Oil & Gas.
I'm sure the Argentines love being associated with being small and insignificant. 1982,
Moving on to present day and they are still wanting the Falkland Islands. Maybe that will make them that bit bigger.
There are plenty of countries in the world which are perfectly capable of developing and deploying nuclear weapons, even small insignificant countries such as Argentina, but they realise that the world would not be safer place for them, in fact they fully recognise the stupidity of them.
Are you suggesting that its impossible that a small, insignificant country such as Argentina would suffer a sudden change of government?
Perhaps to a fascist military Junta?
stranger things have happened...
If, as you say, they are [i]perfectly capable of developing and deploying nuclear weapons[/i] then doesn't it make your suggestion that we ought to disarm unilaterally even more foolish?
Are you suggesting that its impossible that a small, insignificant country such as Argentina would suffer a sudden change of government?Perhaps to a fascist military Junta?
Are you suggesting that nukes would stop this happening in Argentina?
Please answer with reference to ****stan and their two [ or is it three i forget] military coups as a nuclear state and show your working
If you must troll ernie at least try and make sense as that is both a straw man [ he never said that did he] and also wrong as well.
Making up straw men that dont even prove your point is especially tragic
they are perfectly capable of developing and deploying nuclear weapons then doesn't it make your suggestion that we ought to disarm unilaterally even more foolish?
they are not making them so we are not at risk from them nuking us with weapons they dont have. Its not the deterrent at wokrrk here is it
That makes no more sense than your first point.
more reading I found interesting. This time on the game theory of nuclear threat.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/09/jeremy-corbyn-and-nirvana-fallacy
they are not making them so we are not at risk from them nuking us with weapons they dont have.
But Ernie's point was that they easily [u]could [/u]if they wanted to
all it takes is a sudden change in government
Nobody is suggesting that nuclear weapons could [u]stop[/u] a coup, that would be silly - the issue is clearly that in the event of a coup, they could go down the line of making them, because, like Ernie said, they could do it easily...
at which point, our decision to disarm unilaterally would have been proved to be downright 'king foolish.
This is the problem with nuclear disarmament, its utopian - the technology is there and understood, you can't put it back in the bottle - if nobody had them, then the first country with a fascist junta to secretly make one could hold the rest to ransom. and as Ernie concedes, a great many countries [i]could[/i] make them. disarmament increases instability rather than reducing it.
Yes a little country with one nuke could hold the world to ransom
Probably ask for 1 million dollars I would imagine
Was I meant to take what you said seriously ?
[img] 
[/img]
If, as you say, they are perfectly capable of developing and deploying nuclear weapons then doesn't it make your suggestion that we ought to disarm unilaterally even more foolish?
Well using that logic makes what you said less than hour ago really foolish.
ninfan - MemberI completely agree that multilateral disarmament is the goal (and what everyone has agreed to) its far more logical that the countries with the largest armouries reduce first, perhaps until we are all at a similar level, and then we all phase out together.
Posted 58 minutes ago # Report-Post
If you believe in multilateral disarmament and that "we all phase out together" how would you deal with a "fascist military Junta" ?
Make your mind up geezer........do you want multilateral nuclear disarmament or do we need nuclear weapons to deal with a nuclear armed Argentina ? You can't have it both ways.
Btw according to what has been reported only last week in newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph there is the prospect of the military taking power in the UK, should people vote incorrectly next general election.
So it might be a good idea to get rid of nuclear weapons in case of what might happen in the UK in the future, although it's obviously to late in the case of the next few years.
And you are probably unaware that due to the completely different situation in Argentina today, and indeed throughout South America, there is no reasonable prospect of any military coup. There is for obvious and understandable reasons far greater determination and safeguards to prevent such an occurrence in Argentina than there is in the UK.
Indeed it's probably fair to say that a military coup is more likely in the UK than in Argentina.
EDIT : Btw, a successful military coup in South America would require, as always, full approval and support from the United States. US influence South America is pretty much nonexistent these days, unsurprisingly.
all it takes is a sudden change in government
No, it would require a change in law (and more than likely the constitution, I'm not sure) it would also require violating signed international treaties. And of course it would require a nuclear weapons programme.
A "sudden change in government" wouldn't make Argentina nuclear armed ffs.
Have we done Yes Minister yet?
You understand the difference between
and an achievable outcome - just likethe goal
of the NPT is disarmament, while we remain fully in adherence with the NPT without disarming?the goal
And you are probably unaware that due to the completely difference situation in Argentina today, and indeed throughout South America, there is no reasonable prospect of any military coup.
no reasonable prospect? between now and 2050?
phew - can I you PM me details for where to get one of those crystal balls you bought please?
And of course it would require a nuclear weapons programme.
like you said: [i]There are plenty of countries in the world which are [u]perfectly capable of developing and deploying nuclear weapons[/u], even small insignificant countries such as Argentina[/i]...
Yes ninfan I am fully aware that Argentina is capable having a nuclear weapons programme. That doesn't take away the fact that "all it takes is a sudden change in government" is a ridiculous comment with regards to Argentina having nukes.
I really ought to stick more rigidly to my rule about not wasting my time arguing with you ninfan.
I really ought to stick more rigidly to my rule about not wasting my time arguing with you ninfan
Like deterrence, threats only have value if there is a realistic chance of them being carried out. 😉
So anyway, why would anyone:
a) Attack
or
b) Invade
the UK?
[quote=teamhurtmore said]
Like deterrence, threats only have value if there is a realistic chance of them being carried out.
😆
Of course not the Queen would not allow it and she controls the armed forces of the entire world.
So anyway, why would anyone:
a) Attack
or
b) Invade
the UK?
To benefit from our vast mineral, agricultural and energy resources. Oh, hang on...
Well my arguments with ninfan are about as common as my arguments with Chewwy THM, so I would say it's more than just a case of bluffing. It's hard to argue with someone whose posts you mostly ignore.
Although your comment amused your number one fan on here so perhaps you were being satirical 🙂
Does anyone think Cameron or Milliband would use nukes?
Does anyone think Cameron or Milliband would use nukes?
Against who and why?
Well at least neither have given the game away by saying that they wouldn't.
Cameron would as he is nasty, mean and vindictive like all Tories 😉
I dont think anyone will ever use them first but they will probably all use them to retaliate.
Cameron, like all tories, would Nuke first Scotland, then the North, just to prove a point (as we all know, they have to test any of their evil and destructive plans on Scotland first, just like with the poll tax) They obviously wouldn't Nuke the South, as it might impact on house prices, Calais is a fair bet, but nowhere else in France as it might impact on Champagne supplies - they would obviously Nuke Germany, because, they're well, German - and of course they would Nuke Africa in order to destroy Aids and Ebola (but not South Africa, obviously, because they have too many friends there)
Of course, the other issue is that in the new, democratic Labour party, policies are decided on by the party, not the leader - so when the party decides that they will keep nuclear weapons as a last resort, what does the leader do? Back the new, democratic party line? or just ignore it and, like a petulant teenager, refuse to do it?
Corbyn's partisan internationalism is going to keep on hurting him - [url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/29/lithuania-is-safer-with-nato-mr-corbyn ]see letter in Guardian from Lithuanian ambassador[/url]
Ouch! - that letter is really something, a quite remarkable intervention for an ambassador.
No Ferrero for Jezza then.
One wonders who wrote the letter for him.
Back the new, democratic party line? or just ignore it and, like a petulant teenager, refuse to do it?
See my earlier comment. He reluctantly accepts the party decision to keep trident, but is clear that he wouldn't authorise it's use, and that if the circumstances arose, he would resign his position so someone else could step in who could make an 'objective' decision. It's really that simple.
Does one? I don't. Seems a bit insulting to suggest that the Lithuanian ambassador is a stooge.
The more I read comments on this thread about the usage or not of nuclear weapons, the more I start to think I must be stupid, and have completely misunderstood the principle of MAD...
See my earlier comment. He reluctantly accepts the party decision to keep trident, but is clear that he wouldn't authorise it's use, and that if the circumstances arose, he would resign his position so someone else could step in who could make an 'objective' decision. It's really that simple.
This scenario is absolutely begging for a representation in a Fast Show sketch. Imagine the confusion and rising panic as Jeremy is the only person near enough the red button to make the decision in the 2 minutes we have until the missiles hit. Laugh as deputy Tom Watson staggers along the corridors in a slapstick fashion trying to reach Jeremy before the chance is missed. Cry as terrorist sympathiser John McDonnell has a last minute moral conversion and decides he can't press the button either.
[quote=dazh said]he would resign his position so someone else could step in who could make an 'objective' decision. It's really that simple.
When would he do that though and who would that "someone else" be ?
Shouldn't the ultimate decision to press the button sit with the democratically elected Prime Minister ? If he were going to defer that decision to someone else then that chain of command should be made clear at a General Election.
Seems a bit insulting to suggest that the Lithuanian ambassador is a stooge
Surely their entire role is to be a stooge for the country/government they represent?
Stooge - a subordinate used by another to do unpleasant routine work.
I assume this includes get told of by foreign countries when you do bad etc as in when we call in the ambassador to moan at them for their countries acts.
I am sure its more important than that in general that ,however, they are a stooge.
He did not write it without authority and he may well not even have written himself or been ordered to write it.
Either way pretty damning and an interesting view
I believe you were lecturing us on unwarranted unkind insults used to describe people whose views you dislike 🙄terrorist sympathiser John McDonnell
@JY 'pick your battles'. Four paragraphs of semantics around the word 'stooge' before you get to the final and (only) relevant sentence.
Also, pretty odd to suggest that serving your country makes you a stooge? I don't think I understand your mindset.
Quick edit: re terrorist sympathiser, pretty hard to see why that is an insult given what the man is proven to have said and done. Potentially could argue that he has had a Damascene conversion since his appearance and apology on question time, but still doesn't make my accusation unjustified.
See my earlier comment. He reluctantly accepts the party decision to keep trident, but is clear that he wouldn't authorise it's use, and that if the circumstances arose, he would resign his position so someone else could step in who could make an 'objective' decision. It's really that simple.
Has he actually said this? Sounds [i]awfully[/i] like spin put out there by his supporters to paper over the cracks...
This scenario is absolutely begging for a representation in a Fast Show sketch
If someone fires nukes at us, is it actually to anyone's advantage to obliterate them too?
Depends who it was really doesn't it? But that's not the point is it, the fact you can nuke them prevents them firing them in the first place.
TBH if you've just seen half your country go to up in a mushroom cloud of horrific, grim death than I think you may as well fire back on a point of principle. The human race is ****ed whatever the outcome.
and that if the circumstances arose, he would resign his position so someone else could step in
great advert for leadership: "shit inbound, I'm orf!"
Depends who it was really doesn't it?
Really? You think some innocent civillians are ok to kill, and others aren't?
I think you may as well fire back on a point of principle.
Better to NOT fire on point of principle, surely?
Four paragraphs of semantics around the word 'stooge' before you get to the final and (only) relevant sentence.
well as semantics relates to what words mean it is rather important seeing you used it poorly. Still you have a go at me because you dont like what the word stooge means- one wonders why you used it?
I don't think I understand your mindset.
Its one where I know what words mean and use them correctly without insulting you for using it poorly.
Have you considered it as an approach in debate ?
Its like a marriage they are in charge but id there is a spider in the bath its your job 😉great advert for leadership: "shit inbound, I'm orf!"
Its not a great and coherent position he has on this issue and the tories will beat him to death with it
Better to NOT fire on point of principle, surely?
No, its better to fire on point of principle, because they knew that was the inevitable outcome
you also make the mistake of believing that "all out" is the only form of attack or response, rather than "flexible response" whereby your response is proportionate to the attack.
This scenario is absolutely begging for a representation in a Fast Show sketch.
True but is it any more absurd than saying you can't be Prime Minister unless you are potentially willing to murder millions of innocent civilians by making a phonecall?
As Ernie said above, deterrence is a game of bluff. The players do not need to prove that they would launch, just the capability of doing so is enough. Jeremy Corbyn's comments in a radio interview do not change that, so this entire debate is just another silly media-manufactured furore aimed at discrediting him.
that letter is really something, a quite remarkable intervention for an ambassador.
A very strong letter.
The left wing hand wringers seem to be in denial about how dangerous modern Russia still is.
I agree with a lot of what Corbyn says but just cannot come to terms with his nonsense defense policy.
A lot of people thought Spitfires, Hurricanes and radar stations were expensive and a complete waste of money in 1937.
Better to NOT fire on point of principle, surely?
Better, yes. But a PM who knows his family is about to be inevitably vaporized by (say) Russia might well be unhinged enough by the situation to retaliate against Russia without working through the extra logical step of reminding himself that nuking (say) Russia actually means nuking Russian kids/families/people. Or maybe a situation could arise where by retaliating we could protect an ally. (Eg in say a parrallel universe with where in WW2 German had nuked us, maybe we'd have decided to nuke Germany back to protect Russia/Europe/Africa.)
The proof would be if any 'letter of last resort' ever said, 'fire'. I thought some PMs *had* said to fire although I can't find a source for that now.
There are far better cases against 'independent' nukes for the UK than "We'd never retaliate.".
But by being Prime Minister there are many difficult decisions to make, that's what you get paid for. No one wants to kill innocent people and in an ideal world no one would, but we aren't in an ideal world.
Take Osama Bin Laden, JC still thinks he should have been tried in a court of law, now I accept that would have been the best 'ideal world' solution, but reality is the guy was barricaded in a house with a load of weapons, so you do what you have to do, to minimize casualties all around.
Wonder what JC's response to the Iranian embassy would have been?
A lot of people thought Spitfires, Hurricanes and radar stations were expensive and a complete waste of money in 1937.
Herein lies the truth
Its important to remember that its not nuclear forces [b]or[/b] conventional forces - nuclear weapons take up a small proportion of the defence budget (about 6%, possibly rising to about 9% with restructuring of conventional forces and introduction of trident replacement) conventional forces are hugely expensive (and lets remember that Jezza doesn't see any reason why we need them either, presumably we shouldn't have intervened in, say, Bosnia, or Kosovo, or Sierra Leone, or Cyprus?). Would a 10% bigger conventional military offer the type of deterrent effect that nuclear weapons have done in the past, and will continue to do so in the future?
Is not a policy of conventional weapons, with the terrible bombs raining down, with the missiles, with the aircraft, with the submarines, the torpedoes, with the tanks, also based upon threat of destruction and retaliation?
But by being Prime Minister there are many difficult decisions to make, that's what you get paid for. No one wants to kill innocent people and in an ideal world no one would, but we aren't in an ideal world.Take Osama Bin Laden, JC still thinks he should have been tried in a court of law, now I accept that would have been the best 'ideal world' solution, but reality is the guy was barricaded in a house with a load of weapons, so you do what you have to do, to minimize casualties all around.
Wonder what JC's response to the Iranian embassy would have been?
JC has dropped principles for political expediency over and over again in only a few days of leadership. He doesn't appear to have any red lines at all. So I've no doubt if PM he would have cheerfully defended killing OBL without trial and taking the Iranian Embassy back by force. Consensus politics.
Is not a policy of conventional weapons, with the terrible bombs raining down, with the missiles, with the aircraft, with the submarines, the torpedoes, with the tanks, also based upon threat of destruction and retaliation?
Yes it is, which is why I don't support that and instead would rather the 100bn be spent on health, education, clean energy and communications.
Go on then. Apart from the media-manufactured ones, name some.JC has dropped principles for political expediency over and over again in only a few days of leadership.
Say tomorrow intelligence revealed that Russia was increasing military investment, what is the likely response?
Go on then. Apart from the media-manufactured ones, name some.
I started writing a list that began with Nato, Corbynomics, Trident but everything is up for grabs isn't it? Can you name a couple of lines in the policy sand that he simply won't compromise on? I'm struggling to think of anything.
On the EU and NATO he has changed his stance very quickly after becoming Leader.
On the EU and NATO he has changed his stance very quickly after becoming Leader
He's always said he'd listen to his party. And he's doing it.
Yes it is, which is why I don't support that and instead would rather the 100bn be spent on health, education, clean energy and communications.
100 billion, spread over 35 years to 2050 (although the trident replacement in service cost is actually planned out to 2060) is an annualised average of about 2.9 billion
Government spending is about 750 billion a year, the NHS alone costs about 115 billion a year to run - 2.9 billion wouldn't even cover the agency nurse bill. let alone leave anything left over for education, clean energy or communications.
the cost of Trident replacement is barely even a rounding error.
He's always said he'd listen to his party. And he's doing it.
I don't feel strongly about the terminology we use. If we'd prefer to use "listen to his party" as a euphenism for 'abandon he principles' I'm happy with that.
Here, I'll rewrite my post for you:
"JC has listened to his party for political expediency over and over again in only a few days of leadership. He doesn't appear to have any red lines at all. So I've no doubt if PM he would have cheerfully defended killing OBL without trial and taking the Iranian Embassy back by force. Consensus politics."
Now we're all in agreement.
So the tories on here still dont like him then....what a revelation.
Later shall we discuss if the Lefties like Dave as who could predict that answer to that question.
I don't like him, however, the Labour leader does matter as a stronger Labour party helps democracy works better. Look what that tool Blair got away with while the Tories imploded.
On that note, anyone notice Tom Watson completely 'forgot' to mention Blair and Brown in his speech the other day. Milliband and Smith got mentions, I find this airbrushing of history by certain sections of Labour weird. Are they trying to say Blair and Brown did nothing good for their party at all? In which case why did they support them for so long?