South Korea wont or they already would have done. They don't want nukes going off on their doorstep.

agree with all of that, and I think you have hit the nail on the head with: "but, as soon as he threatened to trade oil in euros (after GW#1), which would've partly crashed the us dollar, and completely if others had followed? he became enemy #1. get an US friendly gov't in there asap? (similar to the politics surrounding the libyan 'spring'?)." and that seems to me to be the basis of the Libya deposement and destabilisation as well. Gadaffi wanted to set up and oil backed 'gold type system' replacing the debt based dollar systems. For Syria, its simply the last real Russian ally and outpost in the area. IS is blatantly just an excuse. Syria falling would leave Iran alone and more vulnerable, hence more likely to be compliant. If the mightiest military power in the world, along with 59 other countries can only bomb a path for the expansion of IS, in Iraq, Libya and Syria ... when Russia/Syria hits them hard on day 1 of their strikes in Syria and the French (based on French intelligence not US instructions) take out a training camp on day one of theirs in Syria yet the yanks can only squeal - you hit some 'free Syrain army' (aka some IS supporting militant group who the yanks are supplying), and NATO member Turkey ignores IS and bombs Kurds and IS affiliates expand in Iraq under the US noses while 'official' Iraq moves to join Assad and Putin as their best bet- says it all really Even 2 TORY security council members are saying we should be working with Assad to defeat IS. The Yanks wouold appear to have no desire whatsever to defeat ISIS - quite the opposite it would seem.

I dont think the Israeli's see it as their issue, and I can't think of any other country who would do an 'opera'.

Only one at sea - so not a sitting target, and I believe we actually have the smallest nuclear arsenal of all the nuclear powers, with the possible exception of Israel - which is entirely unconfirmed. Just imagine if the North Korean nutter with the haircut was the last nuclear power on the planet !!!

I think you will find that we CAN, and always could control the warheads should we choose, but the delivery systems (Trident) are always under US final control. So we could nuke ourselves at the launchpads if we desired.... Which means to me there should be three options: Disarm US Trident UK independent nuclear deterrent maybe we are smarter than the Yanks realise and we have replaced their control systems with ours without them knowing, but I doubt it. For balance: The UK gov claims differently (see last line below) , but recent leaks have put this under doubt. I do sincerely hope the leaks and previous statements questioning this are false. UK nuclear deterrence policy consists of 5 main principles: preventing attack - the UK’s nuclear weapons are not designed for military use during conflict but instead to deter and prevent nuclear blackmail and acts of aggression against our vital interests that cannot be countered by other means the UK will retain only the minimum amount of destructive power required to achieve our deterrence objectives - this is known as ‘minimum deterrence’ we deliberately maintain some ambiguity about precisely when, how and at what scale we would contemplate use of our nuclear deterrent. We do not want to simplify the calculations of a potential aggressor by defining more precisely the circumstances in which we might consider the use of our nuclear capabilities (for example, we do not define what we consider to be our vital interests), hence, we will not rule in or out the first use of nuclear weapons the UK’s nuclear deterrent supports collective security through NATO for the Euro-Atlantic area an independent centre of nuclear decision-making enhances the overall deterrent effect of allied nuclear forces: separately controlled but mutually supporting nuclear forces create an enhanced overall deterrent effect; the UK deterrent is operationally independent, and the UK does not require US or NATO authorisation to use its deterrent - UK nuclear weapons remain under political control at all times; only the Prime Minister can authorise the firing of UK nuclear weapons

You seem to have missed my point unclebulgaria, It is my understanding that we physically CANNOT launch without US physical authorisation (ie they have to press a button too), unlike France who could. Nothing to do with 'agreements' saying we won't. We CAN'T. eg We press the button - nothing happens until the US says OK and presses their 'launch UK missiles' button.. To further detail France has a truly independent nuclear deterren, the use of which is bound by agreements, but is their decision. The UK has some US nuclear missiles which can physically ONLY be used if the US says so and physically authorises it. Hence is only actually a tool of US policy, not UK policy

Its my understanding that the UK CANNOT (that is cannot - not will not) launch anything without the approval of the USA anyway, although its unclear whether the USA could launch our missiles without our OK. Given that - I would have no great issues with it being got rid of as it stands. I would rather we had an independent nuclear deterrent fully under our control (like France) if we have one at all. If all we are is a base for American nuclear weapons, at our expense, then I fail to see the justification.

You didn't ask a question, you stated your own assumptions. If your unclear remarks are aimed at me: I have not said we should not strike first, or that I have any sympathy whatsoever for the two terrorists if you bother to read my posts, only that it should be legal and open to the british public, and also that it should not fly in the face of clearly stated parliamentary wishes, neither should we think we have some sort of automatic right to depose or define who rules other countries Soldiers generally do as instructed, the politicians are the ones who should reap the punishments, but they almost always don't - unless they lose the war. The results of actions we should not be making in other countries should be laid squarely at the feet of those who instigate them, not me. You sound and post exactly like conniff. Now if we are talking about war crimes, what about those reporters mown down in a civilian street by the American helicopter as shown in the infamous US helicopter footage? - apparently justified by the camera tripods they were carrying looking a bit like maybe weapons. And all the extra rounds fired at them and the children in the vans while they tried to stand up and surrender with their hands up? an act worthy of any terrorist group.

Is there any reasonable reasoning or justification for this weird interjection or are you just adding to the trolling ? I'm not even sure who you are aiming that at, just as is so often the case with Conniffs posts. Are we to assume that having visibly lost all the discussions, you 'pair' are just trying to get the thread closed? - before the developing news stories make the truth of these matters even more evident?

Putin will be addressing the UN tomorrow, alongside growing european and regional support for Assad to be part of the solution (including Merkel) Cameron should think himself lucky that the UK parliament, including many of his own party, wanted to keep us out of the American/Saudi destruction of the region. Incredibly, we still have a chance of not only retaining any remaining UK credibility we have in the area, but of improving it - as long as the Tories continue to help keep Camerons 'Americas puppy syndrome' under check. France has done it - are they now so much better than us? Regarding certain peoples constant attempts to derail threads, I would suggest we all stop responding, and rather all just flag/report the posts, despite so many's obvious beliefs (including me) that such blatant propaganda and derailing should be answered. We may have no reason to believe that would have any effect, but we are effectively helping to derail the threads ourselves, which is also a win for those wishing to do that.

and IRAQ now signs deal with Assads Syria/Russian/Iran alliance against ISIL http://www.dw.com/en/iraq-cooperating-with-russia-iran-and-syria-to-counter-islamic-state/a-18743989 Now that was a bit of a surprise to me despite the 'sense' of it. I think it should be clear now to anyone with an open mind that the Americans and all those who ally with them (except possibly France who are doing it as right as they dare) in this possibly Saudi driven endeavor are doing irreparable damage to the Wests influence in the region and credibility in the wider world.

I think it would be the utmost in stupidity to assume anything about someone who suggested nuking some undefined 'them' at all, let alone disgrace themselves with assuming who that 'them' is that YOU think would deserve nuking so badly that the thousand, or even millions of others immediately affected would in any way justify it. So who and where are these 'them' you think it would be any way justifiable to use a nuclear weapon on conniff? Or do you lack any courage whatsoever in your 'convictions'?

Because not enough people voted for them conniff.

Seems to me if that is the first notification of that you have had, after they have charged you thousands of pounds for being in Montenegro, thats a major issue - and their issue at that.

All your other rubbish aside conniff, I'm still waiting to hear who this 'them' is you would Nuke. Stating a grid reference, a town, a region or even a country would do given the devastating impact zone/radius of even a small air-blast nuke. or is it a specific house or sand dune somewhere you have in mind?

Guilty as charged it would seem. No sign of anything other than picking a short half-baked rant justification for your superficial opinion there. Why would 'looking at the whole picture' NOT include considering more tax contributions from those who would still be super rich from the sytem, let alone make the concept rubbish? 'Looking at the whole picture' would also include benefits - just not exclusively.

+1 ... and exclusively whatever he claims. Even in his own words although I cant be bothered to look it up, something like Conniff stating : 'The conservatives are always right and Labour always wrong

.. and we are now getting confirmation on Western News Channels of what everyone not blind to reality already really knew - that US trained and supplied fighters ('free Syrian army' groups) were and still are supplying terrorist groups with ammunition and materials which continue to be supplied to them by the US coalition.

Well apart from 'new labour is dead' that seems reasonable. But its still interesting to comment on opinion of the potential policies of all parties. I think most of the current Labour MP's would disagree that New Labour is dead.

Well you Cameron fans really take the bacon don't you.

Android phones have data usage limiting and reporting as standard as have many Nokia phones since symbian OS days. My phones are all set up to limit data usage using built in sw and I use the control bars on the android phones to switch on/off data/gps/wifi etc at the touch of an icon on the home screen as needed - also standard android features. None of which would address THIS issue. Also most network operators have a feature to call a number or to txt for current bill/usage - only problem is that it sometimes takes days to update with usage. .. To be fair VF seems to be less expensive than o2 and/or 3 - not that that justifies anything. But all that aside there does seem to be unfair charging by voda here. £3 per MB rather than about 75p which they can be seen to be charging in Montenegro.

This issue nothing more, or less, than Tory style corporate greed.

So Corbyn will get rid of the benefits cap - Gaining benefits beneficiary votes and losing many others, and in my view supporting something which is the downfall of any possibility of any real, manageable economic stability. Scrap Trident and Britains' nuclear deterent Mixed feelings about this. Heart says good, Mind thinks yes please, but overall view is mixed - but will get him SNP support Nationalisation of the Railways Cant be worse can it as long as prior lessons are learned. In fact add or replace with renationalisation of water companies. Reintroduce 50% tax rate for top 1% To damn right - and some more, and impose MAJOR fines on fiddlers Rent Controls No + Get rid of benefits that support high rents and replace with one off moving allowance. Mandatory living wage Yes, with a reduction in benefits supporting employers profits Iraq War The most justifiable action in my view both legally and morally, unlike Libya and Syria. (That is not saying it was fully legal or completely moral - just the lessor of many potential evils) Stop selling social housing NO NO NO The long term tenants deserve some return on their investment, and the proceeds of any sale would more than pay for a replacement brand new social house if used for such supporting construction and jobs in the UK. + many other benefits including acting against the growth of social housing benefits ghettos Lend to build A real discussion creator, but Corbyns stated plans would be a good way to borrow and build under low interest/growth periods unlike Tory plans which borrow to generate guaranteed profit for few at massive expense to the majority of the nation.. A little reminder http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/election-2015-what-labour-conservatives-other-parties-are-promising-british-voters-1494215

£3 per MB outside the EU for Voda isn't it? Although Montenegro is considered part of Europe if not the EU. http://www.vodafone.al/vodafone/Montenegro_3415_2.php Which seems to show Voda charging considerably less than a pound a MB in Montenegro.

It always seemed to be OK for some ... and I accept that the abysmal coverage is improving particularly with the takeover, as has their custom software which they apply to phones - which now seems to cause less issues ... but very importantly it would seem to be that the atrocious people/policy/practices side remains the same for when problems do occur. Great news for the OP, and impressively well done. I would have suggested raising the point that if the phone included the custom 3 software on it, 3's suggestion that the phone was nothing to do with them might have held even less than the existing splash of water. It would seem to be worth checking for existing 3 customers to check the terms of their contracts and who it is with? CPW and 3 both seemingly claiming differently to how the customer understood it here.