For video of the Faslane protest from Grampian TV, visit:

 http://northtonight.grampiantv.co.uk/content/default.asp?page=s1_1_1&newsid=6956

Scroll to the bottom of the page.

The UK subs with their nukes are protecting your freedom of speech. Its a kind of magic: Even if you will never understand it, you are still protected!

Why dont you try to protest against for example Red China Subs? You say: China is too far away,,, but hear: the Chinese Embassy situated in London cant be that far, eh?

If I agreed with you, I should also agree with all those who claim we should all carry guns in order to protect ourselves. We should also be supervised at all times through CCTV's, our DNA, fingerprints, eye colour, structure of teeth...should be available for all police organisations worldwide, there should be police officers on streets searching everyone's bags without suspicion. Wouldn't all those things be there to protect us?

The question is: Do we need those things to protect us? The answer is NO. There are several countries in the world that do not possess nuclear weapons, and have chosen to protect their inhabitants by different means. Why can't the rest join them?

You know,there's a problem with weapons of all kinds. Apart from NOT solving the problem of poverty and unnecessary deaths, it is very difficult to decide who should be the one to decide WHO can, and who cannot posses these weapons. In my opinion, every single country that has weapons of mass destruction on their grounds shouldn't be trusted. They have used them before, and they will use them again.

We should be protected by peace, not by the threat of war.

SHUT DOWN FASLANE!

I think we have very different views on those matters...

But you didnt answer my question, what about Red China Subs? Have you protested against them? Why not, not PC enough?

Allong with ALL nuclear weapons in Uk, USA, France, Israel, Pakistan, India and any other country that has these illegal weapons.
Nuclear weapons are not there to protect free speech, they are there to protect the interests of the ruling oligarchy.

Democracies (UK, US, France etc) have the rights to defend themselves with all means, including nuclear weapons.

Totalitarian countries like Red China have no rights at all. Period.

We can discuss this in a civilised manner. Try to discuss it in Red China, with filters on the internet excluding words like democracy, and oppression.

You see the difference?

Tory may be on to something. If all the UK anti-militarists protest Chinese nukes, then we in the US can protest UK nukes and the Chinese can deal with ours. Silly silly Tory

.

"If all the UK anti-militarists protest Chinese nukes, then we in the US can protest UK nukes and the Chinese can deal with ours"

That remind of the old story of the 80ies:

One American and one Russian having a dicussion. -We live in a free society, the american says, I can walk in the streets of New York carrying a banner with the text "Get rid of Reagan".
The Russian prodly replies: "I can do exactly the same in Moscow"

.

It's good to get some healthy debate going :).

Let me first disabuse you of some misconceptions you appear to be suffering under. First of all, the idea of a liberal democracy.
It is a measure of the sophistication of what professor Noam Chomsky of MIT calls "the doctrinal system" that you actually believe that places like the UK and USA are really democratic. China is abusive of human rights and uses heavily repressive tactics against its own people simply because it has not, as yet, been able to institute a system of indoctrination as effective as those established in Western "Democracies". We do not live in a democracy but in an economic totalitarian state where everything is subordinated to the needs of profit. The power structures are so amazingly well established that you can actually criticize them as much as you like, openly (i.e. freedom of speech), and yet it won't make a scrap of difference.
We have a one party system: it's called the Capitalist Party. Oh yes, there are different factions within the Capitalist Party, they are called Tory, Labour or Lib Dems but essentially, apart from cosmetic differences, they all stand for the same thing. Most other parties are marginalized or, if they become too powerful, are co-opted into the Capitalist system.
A good illustration of how freedom of speech is completely irrelevant to the decision making process is how the UK entered the Iraq war. There was a huge grass roots groundswell of antipathy towards the war in Iraq, which was completely ignored by the decision making oligarchy. Why was this? Because it was not in the interests of the American, and to a lesser extent British, multinational alliance of companies that actually owns and rules this country; companies such as Microsoft, Honeywell, Boeing, MacDonald-Douglass, Mobil, Exxon, Texaco, Shell, BP, GM, Chrysler-Benz and many many more. It is THEIR interests that Trident defends, not free speech. Their interests are to make money AT ANY COST no matter how many people are maimed, no matter how many children have to die, no matter how much poverty is created and sustained. They do not have my or your interests as a citizen at heart unless we are making money for them. All other considerations are subordinated to their needs, including irritating little things like the will of the people, which is what democracy means.

It's good to get some healthy debate going :).

*The same to you, Adam. You certainly know your Chomsky ;-)

Let me first disabuse you of some misconceptions you appear to be suffering under. First of all, the idea of a liberal democracy.
It is a measure of the sophistication of what professor Noam Chomsky of MIT calls "the doctrinal system" that you actually believe that places like the UK and USA are really democratic.

*Yeah, I plead guilty! I belive in the system we all live in!

China is abusive of human rights and uses heavily repressive tactics against its own people simply because it has not, as yet, been able to institute a system of indoctrination as effective as those established in Western "Democracies".

* I think I prefer the more subtle “oppression” showed by the west. If you have a different opinion I suggest you move to Red China.

We do not live in a democracy but in an economic totalitarian state where everything is subordinated to the needs of profit.

* Everything, really? Family life, your political opinions, how are they subordinated to the needs of profit? But of course, everyone seeks to get some profit: workers and enterprises alike.

The power structures are so amazingly well established that you can actually criticize them as much as you like, openly (i.e. freedom of speech), and yet it won't make a scrap of difference.

* You seem to think that democracy means that things must be like you think they should be. But you are wrong. Democracy means that you have the right to express your opinion (with Indymedias help for example…) and influence the decisions.

We have a one party system: it's called the Capitalist Party. Oh yes, there are different factions within the Capitalist Party, they are called Tory, Labour or Lib Dems but essentially, apart from cosmetic differences, they all stand for the same thing. Most other parties are marginalized or, if they become too powerful, are co-opted into the Capitalist system.

* Marginalized indeed, communist and neonazis are. Thank God! (Even if they are less marginalized in Europe than in the US).

A good illustration of how freedom of speech is completely irrelevant to the decision making process is how the UK entered the Iraq war. There was a huge grass roots groundswell of antipathy towards the war in Iraq, which was completely ignored by the decision making oligarchy. Why was this?

* The opinions vary relating to how the questions are formulated. And still people have the right to vote Blair out of office. Like the Spanish did: they replaced a pro-iraqiwar government with a anti-iraqi war government, and the Spanish left Iraq. Is Spain not a part of the capitalist conspiracy (starting from the point when they left Iraq)? Did Spain changed from a economic totalitarian state to something else when they fled Iraq?

Because it was not in the interests of the American, and to a lesser extent British, multinational alliance of companies that actually owns and rules this country; companies such as Microsoft, Honeywell, Boeing, MacDonald-Douglass, Mobil, Exxon, Texaco, Shell, BP, GM, Chrysler-Benz and many many more.

*But it is easy to falsify this statement. The French stayed out of Iraq, despite heavy (heavier than the UK´s anyway) french investments in the area. Denmark is participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Norway is not. Does the level of influence of “multinational alliance of companies” vary between those countries?
And by the way how can something multinational be “American, and to a lesser extent British”?

It is THEIR interests that Trident defends, not free speech. Their interests are to make money AT ANY COST no matter how many people are maimed, no matter how many children have to die, no matter how much poverty is created and sustained. They do not have my or your interests as a citizen at heart unless we are making money for them.

* You can put it another way: McDonalds wouldn’t survive a day longer if the customers choose not to visit their restaurants. And maiming and killing future consumers, in Europe and other parts in the world, doesn’t seem to be a good business concept in the long way.

All other considerations are subordinated to their needs, including irritating little things like the will of the people, which is what democracy means.

*Easy to oppose this. In Sweden the big enterprises was strongly in favour of the EMU. In the referendum the pro-EMU side was financially much much stronger than the anti-EMU side. But still the anti-EMU won a land slide victory in the referendum.