I'll start by coming straight out and just saying it: I HATE this man with a passion! He wishes to rid the UK of its nuclear deterrent and his party has a Maoist streak running through it which puts the Grand Canyon thoroughly to shame. His pacifistic proclivities often manifest as terrorist-sympathetic tantrums that strongly condemn the actions of our military and our allies in the war on terror while simultaneously being an apologist for ISIS' murdering of our citizens.
Yes, I REALLY dislike this cretin, but what actually scares me is the sheer number of do-gooder sheeple who support him! In the run-up to the leadership election 60,000 voters suddenly joined the Labour party just to vote for him, leading to him winning the election. What's not widely known is that the vast majority of those 60,000 voters were from ethnic minorities who he'd pandered to. Being vocal about wanting an open-door policy on immigration, and telling everyone to come to the UK and bring their families instantly won over a section of society whose numbers are massively underestimated by official figures.
This clown, Comrade Corbyn, is a threat to the traditional British way of life and should be removed by any means neccasary, end of. What's your thoughts?
Corbyn is proving to be even more terrible than I expected (and my expectations were low low low), but to claim he's anything other than an embarrassing soon-to-be-irrelevance risks running into tinfoil territory.
First - what will do Corbyn in isn't ideology it's incompetence. He simply just isn't upto the job. The utter, utter debacle that was the Syria vote (which would have led to resignations if adults were in charge) was just the latest balls-up. Mcdonnels and Livingstones various dribblings, shoot-to-kill, and a determination to pack the party with various Trot/Class War nutters. And that's from the last month!
But he does have a base of support- one that likes him very much. But it is a small one. 350K votes for leader do not a General Election win - and there is the problem - he's given no indication whatsover that he's interested in leading a government. I think the Corbynites really would rather struggle on in glorious, permanent opposition.
Still reckon none of this would ever have happened if the other leadership candidates hadn't been so poor.
We've just had a by-election where Labour won a larger share of the vote than they did in the General Election (for that seat). Of course one shouldn't read too much into by-election results but this could be an indication that Corbyn isn't as disliked as the media would like us to think.
I don't agree with everything Corbyn does but I think he's a breath of fresh air in an environment where the only discernible difference between different politicians is what colour their tie is.
Corbyn's greatest strength is probably also the reason why he won't make it to the next General Election, he actually wants to change things in a meaningful way.
Just on the Syria thing, Corbyn has said in recent weeks that he believes we should be tracking down the people that fund ISIS and those who buy their oil. This will hurt them much more than dropping even more bombs on innocent civilians. Cameron doesn't want to do this though and it's about time people started asking why.
I wish he'd stick to domestic social issues. I want him tacking taxation of the rich and large companies that avoid tax debts, addressing wages, protecting union rights, rental/house prices. These are things that matter to many people and are left wing issues worth fighting.
Instead he continually brings up the non-issue of Trident (which will be renewed before the next election - with a contract almost impossible to cancel I suspect). His logic is stupid. He says that trident was made for a time that doesn't exist any more because the threats today are not from nations. Yet he then thinks it should be scrapped because this threat won't ever change. The way Russia is behaving, that's wrongheaded for our future.
His opposition to action against terrorism borders on sympathising, some of the donors and advisors he works with are definitely sympathisers. He opposes bombing in Syria without offering alternatives beyond talking out a political solution (with ISIS, people only interested in murdering, enslaving and raping until they carve up enough of the Middle East to set up a new state). He made a valid point about what the end game plan was for bombing, but saying there's some political settlement we can reach with ISIS is a joke.
Huge disappointment. A left wing opposition that prattles on all the time about not renewing trident instead of tackling the things that really affect our society. Total waste of an opposition. Ideally I'd like a economically left wing government that addresses equality in society and puts through welfare, employment and housing reforms but isn't simultaneously full of woolly minded hippy thinking bent on gutting our armed forces and any standing we have in world affairs (leaving the nuclear club would diminish is quite a bit) and likely throw open our borders to mass migration instead of securing the future of people already here.
under various previous administrations we never acted against the USA despite a significant amount of their population (and the odd politician) raising money and otherwise supporting the terrorist organisation the IRA.......
Bombing as we're doing now is pretty irrelevant except to provide moral support to the other counties involved (not necessarily a bad thing, but in no way is it going to do anything to 'fix' the situation). Better to have left it to them and gone after the countries funding Isis by buying their stolen oil (even if we are technically allies)
Trident will indeed be renewed before he has any chance to block it, but I don't think it will be impossible to stop, as all of these big projects run late & go massively over budget leading to the contractors being given more time & money, if he was in power all he'd have to do is say no and the contactor would bite his hand off to cancel the unbreakable contract by mutual agreement
(while I think a nuclear deterrent is probably still worth having especially with Russia becoming more aggressive, I'm not sure a submarine based one is as the only real advantage is it gives you better first strike capability and we've we wouldn't do that)
Muhr wrote: This clown, Comrade Corbyn, is a threat to the traditional British way of life and should be removed by any means neccasary, end of. What's your thoughts?
I think you need some perspective and some chill pills
Grey Templar wrote: Submarines aren't just about first strike. They're also about ensuring your opponent can never know for sure exactly where your ICBMs are.
Fair enough that is true, (although with all the satellites, undersea monitoring stations there are now I wonder how true that is any more)
I guess an enemy could, in theory, target and destroy any UK fixed instillations without us being able to launch anything in response (although I'm certain they'd not be able to do so to all of our nuclear armed allies)
Grey Templar wrote: Submarines aren't just about first strike. They're also about ensuring your opponent can never know for sure exactly where your ICBMs are.
Fair enough that is true, (although with all the satellites, undersea monitoring stations there are now I wonder how true that is any more)
I guess an enemy could, in theory, target and destroy any UK fixed instillations without us being able to launch anything in response (although I'm certain they'd not be able to do so to all of our nuclear armed allies)
Plus, maybe we need to nuke someone ourselves, it would obviously be more accurate if we fired from their doorstep.
Personally, I dislike Corbyn. I'm not not fond of that many politicians to be honest, but some of his ideas are extremely silly.....
Muhr wrote: Yes, I REALLY dislike this cretin, but what actually scares me is the sheer number of do-gooder sheeple who support him! In the run-up to the leadership election 60,000 voters suddenly joined the Labour party just to vote for him, leading to him winning the election. What's not widely known is that the vast majority of those 60,000 voters were from ethnic minorities who he'd pandered to. Being vocal about wanting an open-door policy on immigration, and telling everyone to come to the UK and bring their families instantly won over a section of society whose numbers are massively underestimated by official figures.
This clown, Comrade Corbyn, is a threat to the traditional British way of life and should be removed by any means neccasary, end of. What's your thoughts?
I would advise you that dismissing everyone that has a different view to you as 'do-gooder sheeple' isn't likely to get people to pay much attention to you. And surely getting more people involved in politics is a good thing? If they suddenly feel like they actually have someone to speak for them then surely they should be allowed to express that by voting for them?
Could you supply some evidence for that ethnic minority statement? Because there was a *lot* of support for him and his policies among students. Besides which, why would the voters being ethnic minorities be bad? Also, why is the ethnic minorities thing a problem? They're, British citizens; they get a vote.
As to your final point; what traditional British way of life? Sitting down for a picnic in the park with your butler? Invading every country on the planet? Pandering to corporations? Having everyone in charge of the country come from the same school?
Grey Templar wrote: Submarines aren't just about first strike. They're also about ensuring your opponent can never know for sure exactly where your ICBMs are.
Fair enough that is true, (although with all the satellites, undersea monitoring stations there are now I wonder how true that is any more)
I guess an enemy could, in theory, target and destroy any UK fixed instillations without us being able to launch anything in response (although I'm certain they'd not be able to do so to all of our nuclear armed allies)
Even with satellites and monitoring stations they can't even begin to cover the ocean. Its a freaking huge place.
I don't agree with everything Corbyn does but I think he's a breath of fresh air in an environment where the only discernible difference between different politicians is what colour their tie is.
Exactly, its also doubtful if a Labour government under Corbyn could make such a massive arse of things as the Tories have under Cameron and its also distinctly dubious calling Corbyn unelectable.
He is unelectable on 'conventional logic' given that is based upon the usual homogenised right of centre career politicians who have come to dominate politics over the last few decades. That certainly doesn't mean that 'conventional logic' is accurate, not least because a third of the electorate routinely doesn't vote.
What attack? Russia isn't to be nuking the UK, there is no rational tactical nor strategic need to and nukes are going to be no deterrent to an irrational attack. Trident's truly vast drain on the public purse could be much better spent elsewhere.
You really need to look up what Communist means OP.
I think the clear rift between Corbyn and the people he chose for his own cabinet would make things very difficult to run an effective government. Great for debate in opposition, but there needs to be more unity and purpose in order to run the country.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I think the clear rift between Corbyn and the people he chose for his own cabinet would make things very difficult to run an effective government. Great for debate in opposition, but there needs to be more unity and purpose in order to run the country.
Indeed, presumably at least some of the shadow cabinet was chosen to provide some kind of link to the old/new labour years?
Silent Puffin? wrote: What attack? Russia isn't to be nuking the UK, there is no rational tactical nor strategic need to and nukes are going to be no deterrent to an irrational attack.
But... must have big shiny expensive explody things! Think of the children!
Silent Puffin? wrote: What attack? Russia isn't to be nuking the UK, there is no rational tactical nor strategic need to and nukes are going to be no deterrent to an irrational attack.
But... must have big shiny expensive explody things! Think of the children!
As it stands no large nuclear powers have ever gone to war vs each other.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I wish he'd stick to domestic social issues. I want him tacking taxation of the rich and large companies that avoid tax debts, addressing wages, protecting union rights, rental/house prices. These are things that matter to many people and are left wing issues worth fighting.
Instead he continually brings up the non-issue of Trident (which will be renewed before the next election - with a contract almost impossible to cancel I suspect). His logic is stupid. He says that trident was made for a time that doesn't exist any more because the threats today are not from nations. Yet he then thinks it should be scrapped because this threat won't ever change. The way Russia is behaving, that's wrongheaded for our future.
His opposition to action against terrorism borders on sympathising, some of the donors and advisors he works with are definitely sympathisers. He opposes bombing in Syria without offering alternatives beyond talking out a political solution (with ISIS, people only interested in murdering, enslaving and raping until they carve up enough of the Middle East to set up a new state). He made a valid point about what the end game plan was for bombing, but saying there's some political settlement we can reach with ISIS is a joke.
Huge disappointment. A left wing opposition that prattles on all the time about not renewing trident instead of tackling the things that really affect our society. Total waste of an opposition. Ideally I'd like a economically left wing government that addresses equality in society and puts through welfare, employment and housing reforms but isn't simultaneously full of woolly minded hippy thinking bent on gutting our armed forces and any standing we have in world affairs (leaving the nuclear club would diminish is quite a bit) and likely throw open our borders to mass migration instead of securing the future of people already here.
Hitting the nail on the head.
Corbyn is only part of the problem. Labour as a whole is not the party which instituted the NHS and the provision of welfare. Attlee and Bevan would surely look positively right wing compared to the current crop of Polytechnic politicians currently proliferating among the ranks.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I think the clear rift between Corbyn and the people he chose for his own cabinet would make things very difficult to run an effective government. Great for debate in opposition, but there needs to be more unity and purpose in order to run the country.
A leader with a grasp on reality would be a start. Maybe a career which hasn't been based around student bar theorising 'if I ran the country......'.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I think the clear rift between Corbyn and the people he chose for his own cabinet would make things very difficult to run an effective government. Great for debate in opposition, but there needs to be more unity and purpose in order to run the country.
A leader with a grasp on reality would be a start. Maybe a career which hasn't been based around student bar theorising 'if I ran the country......'.
That applies to all the modern politicians, though. None of them have ever had a real job. A lot of them (on the Conservative side) have never even had a 'real' life.
He's doing fairly well given the traitorous New Labour scum briefing against him constantly despite his huge mandate to lead them, and the incredibly biased and hostile press.
He's made mistakes, but I'd take Corbyn over just about any other UK politician any day.
He's doing fairly well given the traitorous New Labour scum briefing against him constantly despite his huge mandate to lead them, and the incredibly biased and hostile press.
He's made mistakes, but I'd take Corbyn over just about any other UK politician any day.
Corbyn is doing the best he can, but I think he is outmatched out gunned and has a dogged determination to hold onto ideology no matter what the situation is. IMO he will continually back himself into corners of his own making.
You could probably enjoy a drink with him, until the rough starts him spouting political dogma.
I despise his Marxist values and political goals, but I can respect him for one thing at least. He's explicitly honest and up front about his views, which makes him a breath of fresh air compared to Teflon Dave (Cameron), and the 'Blair Creature' as Peter Hitchens puts it. Deception and political spin were their MO.
I was really interested in Corbyn and then I saw his comments about how discussion should be opened over the Falklands being shared with Argentina, despite a recent vote by the people on the island being 99% against anything than British rule, and started to get worried. He thinks smoothing over relations with other countries should be more important than the democratic wishes of our people. The problem with doggedly being a pacifist is that you end up folding to threats and betraying the security of your own people to every country that makes aggressive demands. If we lose control of the Falklands, Spain will start up about taking over Gibraltar.
I've not been impressed since by Corbyn. He seems too keen on negotiating with filth like ISIS and giving way to every threat that faces us rather than defending the soverignty of our lands and the people on them. It's not right to meet every threat half way, eventually you end up with nothing. If you give ISIS an inch they'll take the lot.
I don't think he's said much about negotiating with ISIS, rather that we should be focusing on cutting off their cash and weapon supplies by asking our "allies" Turkey and Saudi Arabia to stop buying oil and selling weapons.
The people 99% want to belong and be ruled by the uk.
Argentina invaded, occupied and mistreated the islands. Last time it took cobbling a task force we now could not even form. A next time we have no carriar at mo. And a weak navy.
We cannot afford to lose it. As we would struggle to reclaim it. We have to Stand firm and not leave any doubt its uk territory
Da Boss wrote: I don't think he's said much about negotiating with ISIS, rather that we should be focusing on cutting off their cash and weapon supplies by asking our "allies" Turkey and Saudi Arabia to stop buying oil and selling weapons.
He is right about ISIS (or rather Daesh) though. As 'Dave' himself said on the 4th of October about the Russian bombing "Russia's bombing campaign Syria will lead to "further radicalisation and increased terrorism", obviously British bombs are magic and will avoid all these problems a scant month later.
It has a population of about 3k (I think about 25% of the population are military) and doesn't export much that isn't wool. OK there may be oil reserves there but the UK is surrounded by oil; a dose of reality never hurts.
Silent Puffin? wrote: Either way Argentinian sovereignty of the Falklands wouldn't damage much more than pride.
Plus we could rabble rouse over it and totally use it to distract the plebs about rampant corruption in politics/government and how the entire country has fallen to bits. Then we could invade and take over because "we totally owned the place anyway - it was always ours"...
It has a population of about 3k (I think about 25% of the population are military) and doesn't export much that isn't wool. OK there may be oil reserves there but the UK is surrounded by oil; a dose of reality never hurts.
Yet the dose of reality doesn't extend to the human rights act and the vast fortune the UK spends defending terrorists against deportation.
I find it telling that Corbyn is heavy on the propagation of PC dogma, but is quite happy to sell out the Falkland islanders as if they had no human rights whatsoever. Why? Because Thatcher profited by them.
I watched the debate on the Syria bombing and Corbyn for all his weakness got visibly angry in defence of Syrian asylum seekers. He is dogmatised to the core, and will defend some on principles at all costs yet will discard others who wish to be protected by the same principles. In the light of that I cant even credit him with much actual honesty, the only card his party has to play for him.
jhe90 wrote: North sea production last saw was downward...
It peaked years ago.
There are untapped reserves off the west coast of Scotland.
Either way Argentinian sovereignty of the Falklands wouldn't damage much more than pride.
How about national security? It'd send out the message that Britain cannot defend its territory. Gibraltar would follow, and any other overseas territories in similar situations regarding disputes over sovereignty.
And of course it'd be a betrayal of the British people, because it'd prove that our British government(s) and ruling class lacks the competence, the will and the courage to defend the freedom of British citizens. Our Government OWES all British citizens a duty to protect them from foreign aggression and occupation. That includes the Falklands.
jhe90 wrote: North sea production last saw was downward...
It peaked years ago.
There are untapped reserves off the west coast of Scotland.
Either way Argentinian sovereignty of the Falklands wouldn't damage much more than pride.
It's more than pride. It's ours, not argentinas's. It's been ours since before Argentina existed. They have no right or claim to it legally whatsoever. Geography is not the sole basis for nationality.
If we start conceding territory for no good reason, you open a dangerous precedent.
What's not widely known is that the vast majority of those 60,000 voters were from ethnic minorities who he'd pandered to.
Who?!? Not the Normans again, or was it the fething Romans and their obnoxious 'one god' religion? Or those Vikings with their smelly foods or the Saxons with their awful music...
This clown, Comrade Corbyn, is a threat to the traditional British way of life and should be removed by any means neccasary, end of. What's your thoughts?
I'm as British as a Branston and Cheddar sandwich on Hovis with a mug of Yorkshire tea and my ancestors have fought and bled for the sceptred isle for hundreds of years and I bloody love him. I'll take him over the Blairs and Camerons of this world any fething day of the week. He represents no threat to the British way of life, it's people like you with your vague allusions to dislike of 'ethnics' that reek of the jackboots my family shed blood and lots life fighting against, you're the threat to the British way of life, you're the ones that are warping the idea of national pride in beautiful Britannia into a sly fascism and xenophobia. Now slither off to your National Front meeting.
Nope. Its economically dead and its inhabitants are reputed to be inbred hillbillies by those who have actually been there. Its pride given that its one of the few remaining bastions of 'Empire', mixed in with a bit of sabre rattling of course.
I'm not saying that Argentina has some kind of realistic right to the Malvinas but in reality is an economically dead, sparely populated rock in the south Atlantic. Virtually no one would care what flag it flew.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: He represents no threat to the British way of life, it's people like you with your vague allusions to dislike of 'ethnics' that reek of the jackboots my family shed blood and lots life fighting against, you're the threat to the British way of life, you're the ones that are warping the idea of national pride in beautiful Britannia into a sly fascism and xenophobia. Now slither off to your National Front meeting.
You misundertand. The fact that the UK has a mass immigration problem at the moment is undeniable, which, understandably, concerns me a great deal. How on earth does that make me a racist, which is what you're implying. My girlfriend of nearly three years is Nigerian and two of my friends are Muslim, so the implication that I'm a racist is as laughable as it is groundless and pathetic. What you've just done is used a tactic to silence a concerned member of the public, accusing them of racism for voicing concerns about a runaway immigration crisis being inneffectively handled, which would be made FAR worse if Comrade Corbyn were in charge.
I've been accused in this thread of being nasty to anyone who disagrees with me. Also not true! Bullying, intimidating, abusing and threatening others with different opinions is Corbyn's inner circles favourite habit and, it seems, yours, not mine. Someone else also patronizingly said I didn't know what communism really was. Again, not true! As I've said earlier, there's an undeniable Maoist streak running through Comrade Corbyn's inner circle. One of his closest allies said on national tv a few years ago about Chairman Mao: "I think, on balance, he did more good than harm", this about a man under whose rule 60 million people were killed!
And one more thing! Some idiot on here said that I'm probably another "ill-advised Tory". I certainly am not a Tory! I voted for UKIP which is my right to do so. I don't hate immigrants, I just happen to think we have more than enough of them here and should close our borders to any more, as well as leaving the EU. I'm sick of Brussels throwing its weight about with us.
So what? There are British citizens living there. It is a British territory. National Security applies there too. Or do you not think the citizens of the Falklands are entitled to the protection of the British government?
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Muhr. I'd say comparing you to jack booted Nazi's is pretty nasty.
So what? There are British citizens living there. It is a British territory. National Security applies there too. Or do you not think the citizens of the Falklands are entitled to the protection of the British government?
.
This is why it is one of the most heavily garrisoned (by population) places on earth then?
So what? There are British citizens living there. It is a British territory. National Security applies there too. Or do you not think the citizens of the Falklands are entitled to the protection of the British government?
.
This is why it is one of the most heavily garrisoned (by population) places on earth then?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that it was invaded just a few decades ago, and may well be invaded again in the future?
Crazy right? The idea that we should protect British citizens...
I like the part where upgrading trident is more important, than say the NHS, the Police, Tax Credit, actually funding our armed forces. But yeah that damn commie how dare he actually spare a thought for actual people and not those funding his party, the absolute fether.
Or something, I haven't read the Sun in a while so my right wing rhetoric is probably a little off, apologies for letting people down.
We won't have to,because they live in one of the most heavily garrisoned places on earth.Take that garrison away, and what do you think would happen?
In fact, thats precisely what lead to the first Falklands War. The islands were poorly defended, which tempted the Argentine Junta into invading to distract its population from domestic troubles. A military conflict and quick victory stoked up Nationalist sentiment and anti-British xenophobia, which would have helped prop up the regime had our armed services not kicked their arses.
Now its heavily defended, and it hasn't been invaded or attacked in 30 years. Go figure.
And I have spent the last couple of hours restating the same statement repeatedly while watching this evening episodes of the Bridge when I can be bothered to glance at the computer.
Yet the dose of reality doesn't extend to the human rights act and the vast fortune the UK spends defending terrorists against deportation.
Whaaaa?
You're an ork?
Intelligent input required.
Well if we didn't insist upon extraditing them to countries who routinely use torture as part of their 'judicial' process thing would undoubtably be a lot smoother. Damn the rule of law for filthy terrorists amirite?
Well if we didn't insist upon extraditing them to countries who routinely use torture as part of their 'judicial' process thing would undoubtably be a lot smoother. Damn the rule of law for filthy terrorists amirite?
Hey, that's our greatest export you're talking about there.
Now its heavily defended, and it hasn't been invaded or attacked in 30 years.
The lack of the Argentinian Junta may have played some role.....
What does this have to do with Jeremy Corbyn?
It's related to him because British citizens living on more distant territories can expect no loyalty from him regardless of their wishes, Corbyn puts making easygoing relations with other nations higher than the security of the communities living in these territories. There's no real reason to make friends with Argentina and they have no genuine claim to the Falklands, but Corbyn has still made it clear he thinks they should be shared all the same, despite 99% of the inhabitants not wanting that. So much for democracy. It's a worrying attitude to have to world affairs that you would abandon your own people and territory because another country sabre rattles a bit.
It's a bit like the way Corbyn has said he wouldn't use trident even if we were attacked. Using the option of Nuclear deterrent is a choice to be made at the time, a time that will likely never happen simply because of mutual destruction. It's ok to decide that you wouldn't do it, the bluff of the threat you would is enough, no one is going to test it. But don't make it clear to the world in your first week that you're bluffing and would never use it if targeted for nuclear war. What's the point of that other than to make us vulnerable to nuclear bullies in the world?
It's related to him because British citizens living on more distant territories can expect no loyalty from him regardless of their wishes,
Mr Corbyn said in an interview with the BBC in 2013 that a "degree of joint administration" might resolve the conflict over the Falkland Islands. He has not stepped back from the suggestion since making it.
He said: "Other situations like this, for example the dispute between Finland and Sweden over the Aman Islands, was sorted out by some degree of joint administration while maintaining nationality.
"It was done with Hong Kong, it has been done to some extent with Gibraltar. There is a way forward.
Clearly, he is a fifth columnist. Aside from the tiny little fact that Corbyn has never actually said that the Falklands would ever be given to Argentina there is no way that parliament would allow it anyway. Storm in a teacup, just like most of the Corbyn 'controversies'.
There is if the price is giving them a foothold on territory that they have no right to and the people don't want them there. It's like being scared of some spoilt brat kicking you in the shin so you share half your sweets with them.
there is no way that parliament would allow it anyway. Storm in a teacup, just like most of the Corbyn 'controversies'.
Except it shows again the huge division between Corbyn and his party. There needs to be a clear united focus on shared values and purpose. We don't have that, there's Corbyn doing his own thing and many of his own cabinet and party doing something completely contrary. God knows what a government would look like with the party blowing one way and another all the time and the opposition party effectively getting to choose what gets passed.
Corbyn did win on a large mandate from party members. But this gets brought up again and again in relation to trident and similar. I thought the focus of his campaign in which he won was on domestic economic issues and resisting unfair austerity. But the debate has hugely been about trident since and Corbyn keeps choosing to bring it up. I despair at this, he fuels distractions to the actual problems we face economically and socially so he can push high profile, unrealistic pacifist rhetoric.
And I have spent the last couple of hours restating the same statement repeatedly while watching this evening episodes of the Bridge when I can be bothered to glance at the computer.
Whats your excuse?
I disagree with your opinion. You keep posting it. If you don't want people responding to and disagreeing with your opinions, maybe you shouldn't post them. Everyone has the right to reply in a public forum.
Its not unrealistic though. We both know that nuclear weapons will not be used by the UK, quite possibly by any state ever again. By far the closest that we ever came to nuclear Armageddon was the cold war and even then the sheer devastation that a nuclear war would have caused for no gain prevented their use. The only people mad enough to actually use nuclear weapons are terrorists. On that basis the money would be far, FAR better spent elsewhere, like reversing the Tory's ideologically driven austerity for example.
Thats beside the point though, Corbyn did push the issue at the Labour conference because it is a long standing aim of his. Since then it has been the SNP that have been focusing on Trident , precisely because they know how divisive it is with Labour and they want to ensure that Scottish Labour sinks with all remaining hands in the Scottish elections next year.
The Falklands thing is a total red herring, just like the "Corbyn supports the IRA!" hysteria. (By that standard, the rest of the UK political establishment supports the UVF and the UDA).
Corbyn and a few others voted against the Welfare Bill. The rest of the pseudo-Tories in the Labour parties were so focused on triangulating to the Right that they went and voted against.
That's just one issue, bombing Syria is another, where New Labour shows itself to be right wing and closer to the Tories than their membership. Stuff like that is why Corbyn won the leadership contest, and why I support him. Sure, he's a sort of unrealistic old lefty at times, but god damnit I prefer that to an unrealistic Neo-Con promising that bombs are going to make things better in the Middle East.
The New Labour wing voted to cut benefits to the poorest and most vulnerable because "the whip said so" and then kicked up murders when they were going to be asked to vote against a dubious and badly thought out bombing campaign, the essence of gesture politics at it's most cynical. If the British government really wanted to do something about ISIS they would put pressure on their noble allies Saudi Arabia to stop their citizens funding and supporting them and exporting their crazed Wahhabist brand of Islam across the world, and pressure on their NATO ally Turkey to stop bombing the Kurds and buying ISIS oil and allowing ISIS fighters through their border with Syria. But instead we get a bombing campaign with no clear strategic goal in sight, because bombing people is more politically comfortable than confronting the scummy behaviour of an ally.
New Labour look to me like they're trying to prove they are a macho party - taking "hard decisions" to hurt the poor and bomb people who are far away for the optics of it, rather than for any principle. They disgust me.
I used to think that Britain had one of the most odious left wings in Europe. Corbyn gives me hope for the decency and compassion of the British Left who were smothered in the Blair years. I'm cheering you guys on.
You misundertand. The fact that the UK has a mass immigration problem at the moment is undeniable [...]
No, it isn't. You're one of the richest countries in the world. You have huuuuuge assets, you're just not willing to use them on refugees or immigrants, but trying to claim that your way of life is about to collapse because of the immigration is utter nonsense.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: He represents no threat to the British way of life, it's people like you with your vague allusions to dislike of 'ethnics' that reek of the jackboots my family shed blood and lots life fighting against, you're the threat to the British way of life, you're the ones that are warping the idea of national pride in beautiful Britannia into a sly fascism and xenophobia. Now slither off to your National Front meeting.
My girlfriend of nearly three years is Nigerian and two of my friends are Muslim, so the implication that I'm a racist is as laughable as it is groundless and pathetic.
Did you honestly just pull the "I have a black friend, I can't be racist!" card? I'm starting to think we should add that one to the Dakka bingo.
Muhr wrote: I don't hate immigrants, I just happen to think we have more than enough of them here and should close our borders to any more, as well as leaving the EU. I'm sick of Brussels throwing its weight about with us.
I think Monty Python can make my point for me here:
Yet the dose of reality doesn't extend to the human rights act and the vast fortune the UK spends defending terrorists against deportation.
Whaaaa?
You're an ork?
Intelligent input required.
Well if we didn't insist upon extraditing them to countries who routinely use torture as part of their 'judicial' process thing would undoubtably be a lot smoother. Damn the rule of law for filthy terrorists amirite?
It took eleven years to remove Hamza and extradite him to the US. So, no, not right at all.
Cases where there is genuine risk are often flatly refused, this I have no complaint about. However most cases involve a lot of red tape, exceptional leave to remain on 'humanitarian reasons' due to dogma.
Canada processes and extradites in a week, and doesn't have a negative rep for doing so. The UK system is long winded inefficient and not fit for purpose. Oftw the system is unable to actually deport people who have failed to gain asylum also.
It took eleven years to remove Hamza and extradite him to the US. So, no, not right at all.
Because of the severe issues with the US prison system and its use of indefinite solitary confinement. If the US had a more humane prison regime then he would have been extradited years earlier, probably within months of his extradition being granted. Its almost as if the British legal system requires some kind of humane standard for the treatment of prisoners.
Muhr wrote: You misundertand. The fact that the UK has a mass immigration problem at the moment is undeniable
Citation needed.
How on earth does that make me a racist, which is what you're implying.
That'd be the bit where, in a sentence that roundly criticises those that voted for him as "do-gooder sheeple", you felt the need to point out that "the vast majority of those 60,000 voters were from ethnic minorities who he'd pandered to". You're criticising the voters for voting for him, and then feel the need to point out that they're from Ethnic minorities. Why? Why does them being ethnic minorities have any effect whatsoever? They're just as british as you or I, but for some reason you feel the need to single them out as if their votes are somehow suspect. That is why people are hinting that you might be a bit racist.
My girlfriend of nearly three years is Nigerian and two of my friends are Muslim, so the implication that I'm a racist is as laughable as it is groundless and pathetic.
I've been accused in this thread of being nasty to anyone who disagrees with me. Also not true! Bullying, intimidating, abusing and threatening others with different opinions is Corbyn's inner circles favourite habit and, it seems, yours, not mine.
That'd be because you described anyone that supports him as "do-gooder sheeple". It's odd, but immediately dismissing the opinions of those that disagree with you tends to not promote calm, polite discussion. You also insist on referring to him as "Comrade Corbyn" which, again, kinda suggests that maybe you don't want a discussion, and are actually here to rant about the left.
And one more thing! Some idiot on here said that I'm probably another "ill-advised Tory". I certainly am not a Tory! I voted for UKIP which is my right to do so.
"I'm not a tory! I am in fact even *more* right wing than the tories!"
I don't hate immigrants, I just happen to think we have more than enough of them here and should close our borders to any more, as well as leaving the EU. I'm sick of Brussels throwing its weight about with us.
Personally, I feel that we reached our limit back in 1066 when the Norman's invaded. It's all gone downhill from there.
Seriously though, the recent rhetoric regarding immigration has been terrifying. There was an article run in the Telegraph a couple of weeks ago that was advocating that the Rivers of Blood speech wasn't incorrect, and that Enoch Powell was right. Enoch "the face of British racism" Powell is being lauded as correct. How does that not terrify people?
I think that the time isn't right for Corbyn in a nutshell
Corbyn's agenda involves a socialist approach to the domestic system involving more benefits, more spending, more quality of life stuff, when the furor about immigrants supposedly arriving en masse in this country is at one of its peaks
He wants to talk about Trident in a period where David Cameron can spend all day talking about national security and drawing attention to stuff like ISIS
Oh and pretty much all of the media want his head to the point that they have no problem with literally cutting his sentences in half to completely change the meaning of what he says.
This is particularly damning when he talks about how it would have been better to put Osama Bin Laden on trial, which is a fair point, but he's then quoted as saying it was a "tragedy" to imply he's a "terroist sympathizer" . One of the things I most agree with as someone that doesn't often hold unmalleable beliefs on things in politics is that we should actually figure out what the point of view of the people we're bombing and calling terroists is. Its not an immediate suggestion you agree with them at all if you just talk to them. Calling Hamas "friends" though was somewhere between a political £%^" up and a total oddity, I'll admit. Obviously, that sort of attitude is easily seen as abhorrent when it comes to ISIS. I can see why. The thing is though, ISIS wins the propaganda victory every single time someone like Hilary Benn stands up and says that Islamic State must be destroyed. That's so easy for these people to twist into an attack on Islam that it becomes less unbelievable that people flock from all over the planet to this organisation. In that case though we'll never be able to find compromise because their beliefs are so utterly ridiculous and suicidal. We could use more tact, perhaps.
Basically, Cameron's going to walk all over him. I'd be hard pressed to say Corbyn will be the next Prime Minister even if the next Tory candidate for the position is total gak and David Cameron does a terrible job in the rest of his time. That's how easy his job is going to be.
Would I vote for him? No. I don't have enough confidence he'll do a good job, especially with the way he parades his pacifism, which I think will compromise his judgement and weaken the position of the country pointlessly. But I think that his approach is refreshing and in some ways there's noticeable merit in it.
Did you honestly just pull the "I have a black friend, I can't be racist!" card? I'm starting to think we should add that one to the Dakka bingo.
And yet it's true. Can't you see how that could be a good point when arguing against some moron who accuses me of racism? Mass immigration has caused huge problems in the UK. Only someone who wishes to deny those problems for reasons of their own, or who knows next to nothing about what's going off in the UK at the minute, would ever say that. Look at Germany, for example. Merkel was stupid enough to announce to the world that immigrants were all welcome. Suddenly 800,000 immigrants/refugees swarmed into Germany. German citizens have being known to be evicted from their houses because they were single people living in a house just so a group of immigrants could move in. The situation has driven parts of Germany to the brink of civil war. If you're intending on denying that as well you should do your research first because what I've just mentioned is well-known fact.
People like you will always try to trash someones reputation if they speak out by saying enough is enough regarding immigration. It sounds as if you'd allow another Germany to take place in the UK if you were in charge. Good job you're not. I'm not racist and saying I am just on the strength of a couple of my comments is pathetic. You don't know me and have never met me so stick your racist accusation where the sun don't shine, sunshine!
Another reason I think immigration needs an iron fist is that ISIS can take advantage of the situation by sending their fighters into Europe as refugees. The Paris attacks were perpetrated by terrorists who posed as refugees. If Comrade Corbyn were in charge he'd fling the doors to the UK wide open and welcome any and all 'refugees' with open arms. It doesn't take a genius to realise what would happen next. Misguided altruism is destroying Europe, breaking it apart at the seems. The entire EU is desperately struggling to cope with the sheer number of people descending on it, not just the UK. All the lefti luvvies want free movement across the Eurozone, but anyone with any sense can see how dangerously naive that is given ISIS' existence.
Comrade Corbyn, if he were in charge, would see the UK become Europes immigrant/refugee capital and he would see us without a nuclear deterrent at a time when the world is at its most dangerous. He'd also savagely cut our military down to a fraction of its current size, even more than what the current government has done. Different times call for different kinds of leaders. Churchill was the right man for the job during a time when the world was at war. When peace was achieved he wasn't nearly as adept a PM. Comrade Corbyn isn't the man for the job at the moment because of his pacifistic tendencies. I think it was a Roman general who once said "If you want peace prepare for war". Comrade Corbyn doesn't have what it takes to lead this country through what's to come with ISIS, he's too soft and dithers. I can't ever imagine him sanctioning the use of force...ever! If peace ever reigns and the whole country and world resembles Tellytubby land then maybe he'd be the man for the job. The sooner he goes the better.
motyak wrote: "The Paris attacks were caused by terrorists posing as refugees"
Wasn't that debunked?
No it was a partial explanation. Some of the attackers were recent refugees, some were not.
'some' being 1 out of the 8 attackers, I believe? The rest being French or Belgian nationals. So 'partial explanation ' in so much as the smaller part of my pinky finger is a 'partial hand'
Edit: Evidence here is saying that six of the people involved were French or Belgian nationals, which is more than half of the 11 main perpetrators. So more like saying 2 fingers is a partial fist.
Did you honestly just pull the "I have a black friend, I can't be racist!" card? I'm starting to think we should add that one to the Dakka bingo.
And yet it's true. Can't you see how that could be a good point when arguing against some moron who accuses me of racism? Mass immigration has caused huge problems in the UK. Only someone who wishes to deny those problems for reasons of their own, or who knows next to nothing about what's going off in the UK at the minute, would ever say that. Look at Germany, for example. Merkel was stupid enough to announce to the world that immigrants were all welcome. Suddenly 800,000 immigrants/refugees swarmed into Germany. German citizens have being known to be evicted from their houses because they were single people living in a house just so a group of immigrants could move in. The situation has driven parts of Germany to the brink of civil war. If you're intending on denying that as well you should do your research first because what I've just mentioned is well-known fact.
I'm going to say it again, and I'm going to make sure I use big letters so that you actually read it, and then I'm going to explain why afterwards.
Citation Needed.
You know why? Because it's not 'well known fact'. If you're making that sort of claim, you don't make some sort statement and qualify it by telling the person that you're arguing that they're ill-informed. The burden is on you to prove your assertions. Supply some goddamn evidence for these sweeping claims about imminent German civil war, or just stop talking.
motyak wrote: "The Paris attacks were caused by terrorists posing as refugees"
Wasn't that debunked?
No it was a partial explanation. Some of the attackers were recent refugees, some were not.
'some' being 1 out of the 8 attackers, I believe? The rest being French or Belgian nationals.
Two are known to have entered the EU posing as refugees. One was known to be in the EU already. Three had left the EU but returned by unknown means. The other three are unknown.
The point is, that to the hardcore anti-immigration mind, the fact that half the Paris attackers were EU citizens or Muslim/Arab descent merely shows it was a mistake to allow Muslims, Arabs and other outsiders to settle in EU (white) countries, and they should be deported.
This of course ignores the point that there are many French citizens of Algerian descent because France colonized Algeria in the 19th century, and got kicked out in the 1950s and for one reason or another this brought a lot of Muslim, Arab Algerians to mainland France. Their children and grandchildren have every right to live in France, and practice their religion, profession and politics within the law.
El Torro wrote: We've just had a by-election where Labour won a larger share of the vote than they did in the General Election (for that seat). Of course one shouldn't read too much into by-election results but this could be an indication that Corbyn isn't as disliked as the media would like us to think.
I don't agree with everything Corbyn does but I think he's a breath of fresh air in an environment where the only discernible difference between different politicians is what colour their tie is.
Corbyn's greatest strength is probably also the reason why he won't make it to the next General Election, he actually wants to change things in a meaningful way.
Just on the Syria thing, Corbyn has said in recent weeks that he believes we should be tracking down the people that fund ISIS and those who buy their oil. This will hurt them much more than dropping even more bombs on innocent civilians. Cameron doesn't want to do this though and it's about time people started asking why.
Because Cameron likes sucking up to the saudi's. And they are into this up to their necks.
Crazy right? The idea that we should protect British citizens...
You mean what is actually happening?
At the end of the day though the Falklands are essentially a small village several thousand miles away. 'National security' only goes so far.
National security isn't just a matter of defending stuff that is within convenient reach. In a globalised world, British interests lie all over the place, and our trade routes in and out.
Crazy right? The idea that we should protect British citizens...
You mean what is actually happening?
At the end of the day though the Falklands are essentially a small village several thousand miles away. 'National security' only goes so far.
National security isn't just a matter of defending stuff that is within convenient reach. In a globalised world, British interests lie all over the place, and our trade routes in and out.
We can't even protect British interests in Scotland, when Russian subs start hanging around the Trident base, never mind the far corners of the globe!
MrDwhitey wrote: I read that Britain has to ask for sea patrol planes from NATO allies when russian subs lurked.
On the face of it that's not good, and I hope that the decision to scrap the planes is reversed and new ones obtained.
I know, it was absolutely disgusting when Corbyn got rid of them, the bloody coward.
Wait, what do you mean they were gotten rid of in 2010 by George Osborne? I thought Corbyn was the one that was going to get rid of the military and lead us to lose our military presence?
If you're wondering about my viewpoint on Corbyn by the way, my first post sort of expressed it. It was directed at how I would respond to the original poster, and not how I would describe Corbyn, if that helps.
Orlanth wrote: I'm going to say it again, and I'm going to make sure I use big letters so that you actually read it, and then I'm going to explain why afterwards.
Citation Needed.
You know why? Because it's not 'well known fact'. If you're making that sort of claim, you don't make some sort statement and qualify it by telling the person that you're arguing that they're ill-informed. The burden is on you to prove your assertions. Supply some goddamn evidence for these sweeping claims about imminent German civil war, or just stop talking.
Type the following into Google: "Angela Merkel's open door refugee policy will lead to civil war after thousands march through one city holding crucifixes during anti-Islam protest".
It'll lead you to an article describing the level of unrest that's been stirred up because of Merkel's misguided altruism. There's been reports of 'refugees' throwing stones at passing cars and fighting in the streets between refugees and discontent Germans. Let me make it clear that I'm NOT against having refugees in the UK, like a lot of you are wrongly accusing me of. I'm simply very concerned about the problems that an open door policy would bring to the UK, which is something that Comrade Corbyn is very keen on promoting. Given the threat that ISIS pose to the West, having free movement across the Eurozone is wildly naive. EVERY border should be heavily guarded!
A great deal of you have been very nasty and abusive to me because of this opinion, which doesn't surprise me because Comrade Corbyn's supporters are fast earning a reputation for acting badly towards anyone who thinks differently to them. Anyone who ACTUALLY KNOWS me would laugh at the notion of me being racist. Having genuine concerns about unchecked mass immigration does not make someone a racist. The lefties just love to throw the racist card at their opponents because it has such a negative stigma attached to it.
I've had a debate on here before about whether God was dead or not, and that wasn't nearly as nasty as this thread is. Jeez...
Crazy right? The idea that we should protect British citizens...
You mean what is actually happening?
At the end of the day though the Falklands are essentially a small village several thousand miles away. 'National security' only goes so far.
National security isn't just a matter of defending stuff that is within convenient reach. In a globalised world, British interests lie all over the place, and our trade routes in and out.
Which is why it is heavily garrisoned, as I believe I have mentioned already. In reality though if Argentina somehow managed to overrun the Falklands it won't make all that much difference in the world at large. At worst it would bring down the UK government and that's about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Muhr wrote: ......when the world is at its most dangerous.......
*runs back to keyboard* and before anyone starts on me about the crucifixes and anti-Islam slant on the article I've cited, I'll say this: I don't necessarily agree with the religious views of the protesters, I was asked to effectively "put up or shut up" by a thread contributer regarding proof of civil unrest in Germany. They said that I was talking rubbish when I mentioned there was civil unrest regarding mass immigration and they demanded proof, hence the article I cite in my last post. The point I'm making is that misguided altruism by idiotic Merkel has driven parts of Germany to the brink, end of.
Thank you for *finally* providing a source for some of your claims. Or at the very least telling someone else how to find your source because you could be bothered to type out the title of the article, but not to copy and paste the link, for some reason. It only took three requests.
As to the actual content of the link; right wing party leader makes claim that immigration is bad. More news at 10. Would you give it the same credence if Britain First or the BNP made that claim? I mean, it's Pegida. They're a political party whose entire purpose is to oppose islam. Are you really surprised that they're saying that islamic immigrants are bad? If there's a civil war due to immigration, they'll be the ones that are starting it.
Have you considered that the reason people are being rude to you is because you're being dismissive of them? Referring to him as Comrade Corbyn, *immediately* going on about how all of Corbyn's supporters are terrible people, and using the term "lefties", which generally isn't used in a positive manner.
Also, I'm not impling that you're racist because of your stance on mass immigration, I'm implying that some of your views may have a slight racist bias specifically, and solely, due to the fact that you singled out ethnic minorities whilst complaining about Corbyn supporters.
If I were to say "Well, obviously all of these people are wrong to support him. He's a buffoon that got in by pandering to the left, and appealing to incompetent fools. And I hear that half of them are gay" then the immediate assumption, based on the context, is that I believe that being gay is a negative attribute, seeing as it is listed among other criticisms of their supporters.
Crazy right? The idea that we should protect British citizens...
You mean what is actually happening?
At the end of the day though the Falklands are essentially a small village several thousand miles away. 'National security' only goes so far.
National security isn't just a matter of defending stuff that is within convenient reach. In a globalised world, British interests lie all over the place, and our trade routes in and out.
Which is why it is heavily garrisoned, as I believe I have mentioned already. In reality though if Argentina somehow managed to overrun the Falklands it won't make all that much difference in the world at large. At worst it would bring down the UK government and that's about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Muhr wrote: ......when the world is at its most dangerous.......
You really don't know much history do you?
Actually I do. I'm aware that this is supposed to be one of the most peaceful times in world history, but I was referring to the threat that ISIS pose and the cauldron of ill feeling that the Middle East is currently experiencing. Add to that the fact that nuclear weapons exist and surely you can see why I said that. Being sarcastic or facetious isn't very conducive to a healthy debate, by the way...
Muhr wrote: They said that I was talking rubbish when I mentioned there was civil unrest regarding mass immigration and they demanded proof, hence the article I cite in my last post.
Did I? I seem to recall my statement actually asking for evidence for what is a fairly outlandish claim.
The point I'm making is that misguided altruism by idiotic Merkel has driven parts of Germany to the brink, end of.
This is the thing I'm talking about with you coming across as not actually wanting a discussion. For some reason you feel the need to attach puerile insults to the name of anyone you disagree with, as if it somehow strengthens your argument. We get it, you don't like them. That comes across perfectly well without you calling them names.
Being sarcastic or facetious isn't very conducive to a healthy debate, by the way...
He says, making a point of attaching insults to the name of any political figure he disagrees with, and using disparaging terms for political opponents.
Goliath wrote: Thank you for *finally* providing a source for some of your claims. Or at the very least telling someone else how to find your source because you could be bothered to type out the title of the article, but not to copy and paste the link, for some reason. It only took three requests.
As to the actual content of the link; right wing party leader makes claim that immigration is bad. More news at 10. Would you give it the same credence if Britain First or the BNP made that claim? I mean, it's Pegida. They're a political party whose entire purpose is to oppose islam. Are you really surprised that they're saying that islamic immigrants are bad? If there's a civil war due to immigration, they'll be the ones that are starting it.
Have you considered that the reason people are being rude to you is because you're being dismissive of them? Referring to him as Comrade Corbyn, *immediately* going on about how all of Corbyn's supporters are terrible people, and using the term "lefties", which generally isn't used in a positive manner.
Also, I'm not impling that you're racist because of your stance on mass immigration, I'm implying that some of your views may have a slight racist bias specifically, and solely, due to the fact that you singled out ethnic minorities whilst complaining about Corbyn supporters.
If I were to say "Well, obviously all of these people are wrong to support him. He's a buffoon that got in by pandering to the left, and appealing to incompetent fools. And I hear that half of them are gay" then the immediate assumption, based on the context, is that I believe that being gay is a negative attribute, seeing as it is listed among other criticisms of their supporters.
I didn't cut and paste the link for one very simple reason: I don't know how to do that on my Kindle Fire. It's not the same as a lap top or PC otherwise I would've done what you said. About the thing you mentioned regarding people being nasty to me. If I've come across as dismissive to anyone I apologise. That certainly isn't what I intended. I was expecting the debate to possibly get a little heated, but I didn't want it to descend into abuse and nasty accusation, neither of which I'm guilty of, apart from indirectly calling someone a moron and idiot, that is (to which I apologise...being called a racist isn't pleasant).
When I've used the term 'leftie' I mean it as someone who is a dove as opposed to a hawk but to an extreme. I see 'Comrade' Corbyn as one such leftie. His refusal to wear a red poppy until forced to was, I found, very offensive. He's closely affiliated to the Stop The War group, which has described ISIS fighters as "freedom fighters" as well as western governments as the real enemy. Again, that really winds me up. We're (the West) far from perfect, and we've made some horrendous mistakes that, in part, have been responsible for the rise of ISIS, but Corbyn's attitude has an unmistakable slant that shows understanding towards ISIS terrorists and condemnation for the West. As a potential PM he...scares the living daylights out of me, probably why I seem so passionate in my wording. I've yet to hear him even admit that ISIS need stopping, which is something that the vast majority of us can agree on.
If I found you surrounded by a group of people who were clearly about to set about you, I'd get involved and help you as much as I could. I'm not the piece of dung that you guys seem to think I am. I've worked for the Samaritans for five years as well as a qualified nurse for more than ten years. My instinct is to help others not hurt them, which is why seeing me as a waste of space racist is so wide of the mark. We're living in a very dangerous time, and the more protection the UK has the better, which is precisely why I get concerned when a hard-left MP takes control of the Labour Party. Corbyn's policies almost always cause me concern: the scrapping of our nuclear deterrent, wanting unchecked mass immigration, talking about the Falklands as if he would rather give it to Argentina, hearing Diane Abbot say about Charman Mao "I think, on balance, he did more good than harm" knowing that the dictator was responsible for 60 million deaths, he wants the UK's close relationship with the US to come to an end and wants us to then "get into bed" with Russia etc etc. The man terrifies me and I dread to think what would happen to the UK were he in charge. If we found ourselves in a situation where military force was obviously needed, such as the Falklands was invaded by Argentina, can you honestly say that Corbyn would fight for the Falklands people? No, he wouldn't, and everyone knows that.
Here's a prediction for you: if Corbyn ever becomes PM, Argentina will invade the Falklands, knowing that Corbyn will dither and refuse to send in the military like Thatcher did in '82. I genuinely fear for my country if he became PM. That doesn't make me a racist.
I can back Muhr up on that. I have a Kindle Fire and they're a fething pain in the arse when you need to copy and paste. Usually I can't be arsed myself when I'm using it.
Muhr wrote: the cauldron of ill feeling that the Middle East is currently experiencing. Add to that the fact that nuclear weapons exist and surely you can see why I said that. .
So no real change since the late 40's then.
Islamic terrorism is an issue but lets not pretend that a handful of misguided idealists living in a dystopia of their own making are going to be starting WWIII or will be able to seriously have any impact on the Western world without getting squashed flat.
The world is safer today than it has ever been. No amount of scaremongering is going to change that; by you, the cretins at Britain First or by Daesh.
A view from Germany on the refugee crisis:
I reckon most people over here think Merkel's comments were a little ill judged and some are certainly worried about the country's capacity to cope with the influx.
But what commentators outside of Germany miss out on I think is that many older Germans have direct, personal experience of being refugees. Many had to flee Poland at the end of the second world war, and others fled the GDR. People of the older generation have more sympathy for others in that situation because of this experience.
That's not to say people aren't unhappy about it though- some definitely are. Pegida are not really a political party - they're a collection of grumpy retirees and some younger folk. They're most popular in the East, where there is a lot more economic stagnation but actually far fewer immigrants than the West of Germany. Outside of a few cities in the East, most Pegida demonstrations are drowned out by gigantic counter demonstrations, which to be honest the British press is very bad at reporting.
I reckon at lot of Germany's problem with migrants (and this will probably be true of the Syrians too) is that they've tended to just let them "fall where they may" leading to a lot of the migrant population being concentrated in poorer neighbourhoods or regions. Comparing the situation in (relatively) economically depressed Lower Saxony to that in car-company central Baden-Wurtenberg clearly shows the impact of a large number of migrants on economically depressed regions, and I can definitely see why Germans who see their inner cities sort of hollowed out by this sort of thing get annoyed.
It's a complex issue alright. But I find it mind boggling that people can be pro-bombing Syria and not accept that the poor bastards that just want to have a life out there and get it in the neck from Assad, Isis, the russian bombs and (much more rarely) the odd stray western bomb have just had enough and are legitimately fleeing war and in some cases genocide. The response of the EU has been poor - though the response of the filthy rich Gulf states has been even worse, but who's shocked?
In short - there is no civil unrest in any meaningful sense in Germany, and most people are cautiously concerned about the refugees and the challenges they bring for Germany in the future.
That's my view as an Irish ex-pat over here anyhow - I speak enough german to understand what people are saying in the streets, my partner is German and I have many german friends.
None of this really has much to do with Corbyn though- he's more about economic justice than anything else.
motyak wrote: "The Paris attacks were caused by terrorists posing as refugees"
Wasn't that debunked?
No it was a partial explanation. Some of the attackers were recent refugees, some were not.
'some' being 1 out of the 8 attackers, I believe? The rest being French or Belgian nationals. So 'partial explanation ' in so much as the smaller part of my pinky finger is a 'partial hand'
Edit: Evidence here is saying that six of the people involved were French or Belgian nationals, which is more than half of the 11 main perpetrators. So more like saying 2 fingers is a partial fist.
It means there is a case to answer for. Either the terrorists infiltrated Europe amongst refugees, or were radicalised swiftly by other Jihadists already in France and Belgium.
Here's a prediction for you: if Corbyn ever becomes PM, Argentina will invade the Falklands, knowing that Corbyn will dither and refuse to send in the military like Thatcher did in '82. I genuinely fear for my country if he became PM. That doesn't make me a racist.
Argentina might not need to. They could simply ask for the islanders to be betrayed and Corbyn would allow joint sovereignty 'for peace'. Once the Argies were legally on the islands they would go to the UN and ask for joint sovereignty to be revoked.
My view on the refugee immigration from Syria is like this, not in order of importance.
1. There are legal procedures for refugees. Once someone has got safely to Turkey for example, they don't have a legal right to re-refugee themselves to the EU.
2. Much of western Europe is already quite crowded and we will have difficulties absorbing large numbers of foreigners.
3. 11 million people, half the population, have been dislocated from Syria by their civil war. Can they all come to Europe?
4. If they do, what about the populations of Iraq and Libya, about 40 million between them? Can half of them fit into Europe? What happens if Egypt has a train crash, there are 82 million there.
5. If Europe could absorb all these people, what happens in the countries they left behind? Who is going to rebuild, when everyone with money, skills, ambition and energy, has come over to the EU?
I don't think the realistic solution is for Europe to accept any numbers of people from anywhere. Their own countries need to become places that people want to stay in and make a successful, happy life.
Orlanth wrote: They could simply ask for the islanders to be betrayed and Corbyn would allow joint sovereignty 'for peace'. Once the Argies were legally on the islands they would go to the UN and ask for joint sovereignty to be revoked.
Kilkrazy wrote: My view on the refugee immigration from Syria is like this, not in order of importance.
1. There are legal procedures for refugees. Once someone has got safely to Turkey for example, they don't have a legal right to re-refugee themselves to the EU.
2. Much of western Europe is already quite crowded and we will have difficulties absorbing large numbers of foreigners.
3. 11 million people, half the population, have been dislocated from Syria by their civil war. Can they all come to Europe?
4. If they do, what about the populations of Iraq and Libya, about 40 million between them? Can half of them fit into Europe? What happens if Egypt has a train crash, there are 82 million there.
5. If Europe could absorb all these people, what happens in the countries they left behind? Who is going to rebuild, when everyone with money, skills, ambition and energy, has come over to the EU?
I don't think the realistic solution is for Europe to accept any numbers of people from anywhere. Their own countries need to become places that people want to stay in and make a successful, happy life.
I have no idea how to achieve this.
My thoughts exactly. Europe simply can't integrate that many people. The EU is already pretty close to falling apart. The only real solution is to make Syria and Iraq stable again, so the people can go back to rebuild. This really should be the main issue for British and European politics. There is nothing more important right now.
Orlanth wrote: They could simply ask for the islanders to be betrayed and Corbyn would allow joint sovereignty 'for peace'. Once the Argies were legally on the islands they would go to the UN and ask for joint sovereignty to be revoked.
So what exactly is your wondrous insight based upon? It certainty doesn't seem to be reality.
WHY would Corbyn give Argentina the Falklands? WHAT proof do you have that he would ever do this?
If you can answer these 2 absolutely vital questions satisfactorily then I may begin to take your preposterous statement seriously. As it is though its pure fantasy.
Muhr wrote: I'll start by coming straight out and just saying it: I HATE this man with a passion! He wishes to rid the UK of its nuclear deterrent and his party has a Maoist streak running through it which puts the Grand Canyon thoroughly to shame. His pacifistic proclivities often manifest as terrorist-sympathetic tantrums that strongly condemn the actions of our military and our allies in the war on terror while simultaneously being an apologist for ISIS' murdering of our citizens.
You don't know what Maoism is, do you?
And has the War on Terror been anything but a massive drain on resources and an incomprehensible failure?
Muhr wrote: I'll start by coming straight out and just saying it: I HATE this man with a passion! He wishes to rid the UK of its nuclear deterrent and his party has a Maoist streak running through it which puts the Grand Canyon thoroughly to shame. His pacifistic proclivities often manifest as terrorist-sympathetic tantrums that strongly condemn the actions of our military and our allies in the war on terror while simultaneously being an apologist for ISIS' murdering of our citizens.
You don't know what Maoism is, do you?
And has the War on Terror been anything but a massive drain on resources and an incomprehensible failure?
I confess that I'm certainly no expert on Maoism, but I know that Corbyn's inner circle have very anti-establishment tendancies. The Socialist Worker Party and Unite's Red Len often say outrageous things that no sane person would agree with. If I'm honest it's numerous sources I've read that have claimed that a Maoist streak runs through Corbyn's party. Upon reading that I heard about Diane Abbott (I think her name is) saying that she thought Chairman Mao did more good than harm. Then there was yet another MP (I think it was a fella named McDonell, though I may be mistaken in the actual name) who threw a copy of Chairman Mao's little red book across the Despatch Box for George Osbourne to pick up. He said that Osbourne could benefit from the wisdom found in its pages.
I've gone out of my way to try and be more reasonable with you guys but you still seem determined to be condescending towards me. If you've read my earlier discussions with certain other contributors you'll see how I/we worked out how not to be as catty with each other. I'd appreciate it if you afforded the same courtesy.
Yes the War on Terror certainly has been a huge drain on resources, I agree with you on that, but does that mean we should just give up? I've no idea how we could best combat the mess we now find ourselves in. ISIS seem to be similar to the Alpha Legion - you cut one head off, two grow back in its place, but we can't NOT fight them because they're hell bent on seeing us destroyed. The ONLY way I can see how we'll stop them is by force of arms carefully applied, which is precisely why Corbyn isn't the man for the top job - he's a pacifist who simply wouldn't ever give the order to fight back. He'd try negotiating and reasoning with ISIS, and I think we all know how far that would get us...
Radical Islam is a cancer that MUST be stopped, but exactly how we could best do that escapes me; however, that doesn't mean we should declare our effort a failure and just give up.
Muhr wrote: Radical Islam is a cancer that MUST be stopped, but exactly how we could best do that escapes me; however, that doesn't mean we should declare our effort a failure and just give up.
So you don't know how it can be stopped, but you're sure that it involves killing enough Bad People and anyone who opposes this plan is wrong. And you don't know if it's even possible to win this fight, admit that killing ISIS is like cutting heads off a hydra, but insist that even if Doing Something About The Problem means making the problem worse it's still better than doing nothing at all.
When doing nothing means we suffer more terrorist attacks, or possibly even having to contend with an aggressive military power a century down the road, yeah its better than doing nothing.
We can at least ensure they never advance beyond their current level of organization and resources. If left unmolested they pose the very real threat of taking over established countries, gaining enough resources to form an army capable of attacking beyond the general area, and maybe even nuclear weapons. They will continue to radicalize people in neighboring countries and increase their base of sympathy.
Radical Islam is a cancer that MUST be stopped, but exactly how we could best do that escapes me; however, that doesn't mean we should declare our effort a failure and just give up.
What would your reaction be if your loved ones were killed by Daesh forces?
Now why do you expect any different reaction by others when our forces do the same?
We cannot bomb an idea out of existence. By engaging Daesh on their terms, with violence, we are contributing massively to their success.
The only we to effectively "kill" Daesh is to stop creating desperate people for them to recruit from. We stop creating desperate people by not dropping bombs on their homes.
Kilkrazy wrote: My view on the refugee immigration from Syria is like this, not in order of importance.
1. There are legal procedures for refugees. Once someone has got safely to Turkey for example, they don't have a legal right to re-refugee themselves to the EU.
2. Much of western Europe is already quite crowded and we will have difficulties absorbing large numbers of foreigners.
3. 11 million people, half the population, have been dislocated from Syria by their civil war. Can they all come to Europe?
4. If they do, what about the populations of Iraq and Libya, about 40 million between them? Can half of them fit into Europe? What happens if Egypt has a train crash, there are 82 million there.
5. If Europe could absorb all these people, what happens in the countries they left behind? Who is going to rebuild, when everyone with money, skills, ambition and energy, has come over to the EU?
I don't think the realistic solution is for Europe to accept any numbers of people from anywhere. Their own countries need to become places that people want to stay in and make a successful, happy life.
I have no idea how to achieve this.
I have a radical solution. Lets stop bombing them, Let's allow them to live in their own house, in their own villages. Without the fear that every jumped up tom, dick or harry with a bomber, is going to rain lethal gak on them. Enough with the bomb them into democracy crap. Stop trying to do regime changes.
Kilkrazy wrote: My view on the refugee immigration from Syria is like this, not in order of importance.
1. There are legal procedures for refugees. Once someone has got safely to Turkey for example, they don't have a legal right to re-refugee themselves to the EU.
2. Much of western Europe is already quite crowded and we will have difficulties absorbing large numbers of foreigners.
3. 11 million people, half the population, have been dislocated from Syria by their civil war. Can they all come to Europe?
4. If they do, what about the populations of Iraq and Libya, about 40 million between them? Can half of them fit into Europe? What happens if Egypt has a train crash, there are 82 million there.
5. If Europe could absorb all these people, what happens in the countries they left behind? Who is going to rebuild, when everyone with money, skills, ambition and energy, has come over to the EU?
I don't think the realistic solution is for Europe to accept any numbers of people from anywhere. Their own countries need to become places that people want to stay in and make a successful, happy life.
I have no idea how to achieve this.
My thoughts exactly. Europe simply can't integrate that many people. The EU is already pretty close to falling apart. The only real solution is to make Syria and Iraq stable again, so the people can go back to rebuild. This really should be the main issue for British and European politics. There is nothing more important right now.
The problem is that Syria and Iraq never really were stable. The idea that these places were ever meaningful states in the first place was, well, silly. They were lines drawn in the sand by people from entirely different civilizations and thousands of miles away who had no idea what these places were actually like and never intended them to be anything but rump states for their own purposes. The Kurds for instance never really considered themselves "Iraqi", and "Iraqi" Kurdistan is never going to bow to Baghdad ever again without being conquered. These states kind of worked for a time, when they were either propped up by imperialist powers of one sort or another (the UK, France, the US, the USSR, etc) that created them or saw uses for them, or when they could internally control information & the means of force well enough for strongmen to impose their singular will, but such times have passed, and they're now re-ordering themselves along more natural lines, ableit in a far nastier manner than had such been done when the Ottoman Empire was dismantled following WW1.
This unfortunately just isn't something the rest of the world can fix or stabilize really, its going to have to play out. The rest of the world may be able to mitigate some of the worst aspects and try and care for those that want to escape, but largely it's in a very similar place to Europe in the early 20th century, and Europe took two massive world wars and the blood of millions to work its problems out. The middle east's issues are much the same, and the solution unfortunately is likely to be much the same.
Grey Templar wrote: When doing nothing means we suffer more terrorist attacks, or possibly even having to contend with an aggressive military power a century down the road, yeah its better than doing nothing.
You know those trillions of dollars and thousands of lives spent destabilising the region and allowing these extreme groups to form and seize power? Imagine instead if they had been spent building bridges (literal and metaphorical), hospitals, schools, trade and cultural links, etc.
Hell, even throw in a bone to the paranoid nutcases in "government" (ie their not so secret sources of lobby money) and beef up domestic cyber and boarder security.
That is doing something, but doing something positive. And I guarantee that it would have given better results than war in all but name and responsibility...
If you can answer these 2 absolutely vital questions satisfactorily then I may begin to take your preposterous statement seriously. As it is though its pure fantasy.
You need to learn to think. Don't flatly dismiss as fantasy what can be easily and credibly souced. It makes you look ignorant.
It also makes sense.
Try some quotes for you.
Galloway has called for it, and Corbyn and Galloway have a lot of common ground:
Jeremy Corbyn has been accused by veteran Simon Weston of "repugnant surrender" to Argentina for suggesting it should be given the right to jointly govern the Falklands Mr Corbyn, who opposed the invasion, said that there has to be a move towards "real peace" and that Britain must open a "dialogue" with Argentina over the future of the islands.
He said that under the arrangement the Falklands could retain their British nationality while a joint administration is put in place.
So you think that Corbyn will give the Falklands to Argentina based upon his opposition to military action in 1982 and that he has said in the past that there could be some kind of 'joint administration'? Given that one of the example he gave for joint administration is Gibraltar he is far more likely to mean something along the lines of the Cordoba agreement with its giant Spanish power grabs such as:
Flights between Spain and Gibraltar
More phone lines into Gibraltar
Lifting of limits on dialling Gibraltar from Spain and mobile roaming in Spain for Gibraltar mobile phones
Dispute over pension payments to Spaniards who once worked in Gibraltar resolved
Spain promised to reduce its border controls and ease movement across the frontier
As for your 'sources' I especially like how the first 2 aren't even about Corbyn. Well played. You have also failed to provide any realistic reason as to WHY he would give the Falklands to Argentina.
I can think perfectly clearly thank you very much, I like to base my thinking on something a little more concrete than you apparently do though.
As for the SYrian airstrikes, Frankie Boyles column in the guardian sums my view up very well. Link
feeder wrote: What would your reaction be if your loved ones were killed by Daesh forces?
Now why do you expect any different reaction by others when our forces do the same?
We cannot bomb an idea out of existence. By engaging Daesh on their terms, with violence, we are contributing massively to their success.
The only we to effectively "kill" Daesh is to stop creating desperate people for them to recruit from. We stop creating desperate people by not dropping bombs on their homes.
People don't join ISIL because they're desperate, they join ISIL because they're sick feths who want to remake the Middle East in their own image. That is the idea of ISIL: that they can create a theocratic dictatorship that spans from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, built on the corpses of the Shia and everyone else who doesn't buy into the ISIL dream. And you can bomb that idea out of existence, because eventually people will stop believing these jackasses when they promise that no, really, this time it will work and not just lead to their slow and messy deaths.
So you think that Corbyn will give the Falklands to Argentina based upon his opposition to military action in 1982 and that he has said in the past that there could be some kind of 'joint administration'? Given that one of the example he gave for joint administration is Gibraltar he is far more likely to mean something along the lines of the Cordoba agreement with its giant Spanish power grabs such as:
Flights between Spain and Gibraltar
More phone lines into Gibraltar
Lifting of limits on dialling Gibraltar from Spain and mobile roaming in Spain for Gibraltar mobile phones
Dispute over pension payments to Spaniards who once worked in Gibraltar resolved
Spain promised to reduce its border controls and ease movement across the frontier
None of the above are joint administration there is NO joint administration deal over Gibraltar. Joint administration is jas it says, as in the whole region is administered 'jointly'.
As for your 'sources' I especially like how the first 2 aren't even about Corbyn. Well played. You have also failed to provide any realistic reason as to WHY he would give the Falklands to Argentina.
This is what is known as multiple sourcing and background sourcing. Corbyn isnt the only one saying this.
Also the second article is about Corbyn. You just need to think it through. Why are the Argies happy with Corbyn's election? The answer is in the article.
I can think perfectly clearly thank you very much, I like to base my thinking on something a little more concrete than you apparently do though.
Which is why you have produced no evidence whatsoever, and are still spouting even when evidence was given that refutes everything you are saying on this topic.
I'm a military man, but a labour supporter...Until corbyn was voted in, now I feel labour doesn't represent me anymore, but neither do the conservatives, so what about people like me, currently neither of the big parties seem to care about us.
feeder wrote: What would your reaction be if your loved ones were killed by Daesh forces?
Now why do you expect any different reaction by others when our forces do the same?
We cannot bomb an idea out of existence. By engaging Daesh on their terms, with violence, we are contributing massively to their success.
The only we to effectively "kill" Daesh is to stop creating desperate people for them to recruit from. We stop creating desperate people by not dropping bombs on their homes.
People don't join ISIL because they're desperate, they join ISIL because they're sick feths who want to remake the Middle East in their own image. That is the idea of ISIL: that they can create a theocratic dictatorship that spans from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, built on the corpses of the Shia and everyone else who doesn't buy into the ISIL dream. And you can bomb that idea out of existence, because eventually people will stop believing these jackasses when they promise that no, really, this time it will work and not just lead to their slow and messy deaths.
Bombing didn't seem to stop the Afghan mujahadeen. It hasn't stopped the Kurds. It didn't wipe out the ideals of the VIet Cong or NVA despite having more ordnance dropped on them than on both Germany & Japan in WW2 combined. Something like IS cannot simply be bombed out of existence. I can't think of a single ideologically driven fighting group that has been stopped and destroyed by bombing.The way such groups are most effectively actually defeated by outside powers (aside from internal collapse or another local group eventually defeating them) is to round up the population into concentration camps to deny the groups a populace to hide in and draw support from, and then simply obliterate everything outside said concentration camps and continually sweep areas with infantry patrols (or, alternatively, to simply massacre the entire population in detail). Either way, it's a very long, very bloody, very oppressive task that no modern government is going to want to undertake or be seen as having any part in.
This is what is known as multiple sourcing and background sourcing.
Even when your sources are at best weak and/ or irrelevant? Personally I would call your statement unsupportable based upon the available evidence and Occam's razor of course.
I also can't stand this man. He has openly supported murder of innocents in northern Ireland and yet has the balls to pretend he is some kind of pacifist. A horrid horrid squalid little man who stands proudly opposed to everything that is Britain.
Knockagh wrote: I also can't stand this man. He has openly supported murder of innocents in northern Ireland and yet has the balls to pretend he is some kind of pacifist. A horrid horrid squalid little man who stands proudly opposed to everything that is Britain.
I'm British to the core (whatever the hell that means) and Corbyn is the closest person in mainstream politics to representing my views.
Knockagh wrote: I also can't stand this man. He has openly supported murder of innocents in northern Ireland and yet has the balls to pretend he is some kind of pacifist. A horrid horrid squalid little man who stands proudly opposed to everything that is Britain.
Source? I know just about squat about British politics, so I'm curious to read what your talking about.
This is what is known as multiple sourcing and background sourcing.
Even when your sources are at best weak and/ or irrelevant? Personally I would call your statement unsupportable based upon the available evidence and Occam's razor of course.
Silent Puffin, you are just trolling now.
You have provided NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to back up your claims. Yet you still dismiss press reports as weak or irrelevant. What is relevant to you?
Aren't even quotes from Corbyn not enough as to his policy.
Which is why you have produced [i]no evidence whatsoever[i]
I don't have to, you are the one making the crazy assertion so the onus is on you to prove it. You haven't even come close so far.
1. The assertion is not crazy, its backed up with multiple sourced evidence. We even had the Mirror and Daily Mail echoing the same story, which is telling enough.
2. You made the flat challenge that the evidence is false, been called out on it and are still spouting the same nonsense.
3. Why do you insist on the belief that an opinion contrary to your own is a form of mental illness? Also why do you persist with this tone when you have nothing to back up dismissing the argument as so, but face plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Truly, you are deluded. The evidence is plain to see, given from sourced from the left and right and also the foreign press and even the actions of foreign governments. You just don't want to see it. It is the hallmark of the brainwashed fanatic to be so deaf to reason, I hope the majority of the left have more mental integrity than you are showing.
Knockagh wrote: I also can't stand this man. He has openly supported murder of innocents in northern Ireland and yet has the balls to pretend he is some kind of pacifist. A horrid horrid squalid little man who stands proudly opposed to everything that is Britain.
Source? I know just about squat about British politics, so I'm curious to read what your talking about.
This appears to be part of it. While this bit does not rise to the level of Corbyn "openly supporting the murder of innocents," it's not hard to read between the lines if something like this happens:
In a telephone interview during the recent leadership campaign, Mr Corbyn was repeatedly asked by a BBC interviewer whether he condemned the murders by the IRA.
He five times refused to answer the question directly, saying: “I condemn what was done by the British Army as well as the other sides” before the line went dead.
If someone thinks that question is a gotcha and not a softball question, they're either extremely paranoid about letting soundbytes out into the public, or they're an IRA supporter. If someone thinks that question is a gotcha and cannot bring themselves to say anything more on topic than "I condemn what was done by their enemies as well as the other sides, his sympathies are as clear as if he'd "I (heart) IRA" tattooed on his forehead.
feeder wrote: What would your reaction be if your loved ones were killed by Daesh forces?
Now why do you expect any different reaction by others when our forces do the same?
We cannot bomb an idea out of existence. By engaging Daesh on their terms, with violence, we are contributing massively to their success.
The only we to effectively "kill" Daesh is to stop creating desperate people for them to recruit from. We stop creating desperate people by not dropping bombs on their homes.
People don't join ISIL because they're desperate, they join ISIL because they're sick feths who want to remake the Middle East in their own image. That is the idea of ISIL: that they can create a theocratic dictatorship that spans from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, built on the corpses of the Shia and everyone else who doesn't buy into the ISIL dream. And you can bomb that idea out of existence, because eventually people will stop believing these jackasses when they promise that no, really, this time it will work and not just lead to their slow and messy deaths.
Agreed. Someone a little higher up on this page actually believed that ISIS would stop attacking us if we "left them alone", in effect. How naive can you get!? If we all just packed up and came home and left ISIS to it except for invites to the negotiating table, they'd only use the space we'd given them to bolster their resources and further plan our downfall. Believing they would stop attacking the West and go home for tea and biscuits is hilariously naive. They want us dead or converted, but preferably dead. A crazed serial killer doesn't stop what they're doing, ever, until they themselves are stopped by an outside agency. ISIS is exactly the same.
They've fallen so far that only force will ever put them down like the dogs they are, it's just that that said force will have to be applied in a VERY careful way. Corbyn still thinks they can be reasoned with, which is why he's the wrong man to lead this fight. If he were PM ISIS would have a field day! They'd take full advantage of the fact that he dithers and dallies when the application of force is required.
The fact that application of force has shown to never work in stamping out ideals doesn't matter to you? It must work THIS time, because they're just such big bad baddies?
Our forces are over there, killing women and children. Their forces are over here, killling women and children.
But we are White Hats and they are Black Hats? How fething mindlessly tribal are you?
feeder wrote: The fact that application of force has shown to never work in stamping out ideals doesn't matter to you?
It worked on the Nazis. And before you argue, yes, Nazism and Islamism are the same thing:
The Nazis believed in uniting all "true" Germans under a single nation, the Greater German Reich, while purifying this nation with absolute submission to the state and the persecution of those "unworthy" to be a part of that nation: Jews, the disabled and the like.
The Islamists believe in uniting all "true" Muslims under a single nation, the caliphate, while purifying this nation with absolute submission to God and the persecution of those "unworthy" to be part of that nation: "idolators", "apostates" and the like.
Nazi Germany ended with Hitler despairing at Nazism's failure and ordering Nazi Germany to destroy itself because by failing to fulfill that ideological objective of uniting the "true" Germans it had forfeited its right to exist, before committing suicide himself. I do not believe that ISIL's ideology is any more resilient than the Nazis' was.
feeder wrote: The fact that application of force has shown to never work in stamping out ideals doesn't matter to you?
It worked on the Nazis. And before you argue, yes, Nazism and Islamism are the same thing:
Simple bombing didn't work, it required the deaths of millions of soldiers from many nations, over several years, the destruction of most of Europe, driving the population to the brink of starvation and slaying huge numbers of the adult population, long term occupation, and *massive* post-war population transfers/ethnic cleansing (depending on one's point of view) of the German population from places many had lived for hundreds of years out of anywhere anyone else could possibly stake a claim to, in order to resolve that. Lets also not forget that the occupiers in this case also were relatively similar in terms of cultural & religious background.
I'm not sure an equivalent effort is something any nation on earth is willing to invest in or take responsibility for. The lid has finally been taken off the pressure cooker that was the old Ottoman Empire, and the region is finally resorting itself, and it's likely that the reason that it's as bad as it is, is because of the multiple repeated interventions that only made things worse.
feeder wrote: The fact that application of force has shown to never work in stamping out ideals doesn't matter to you? It must work THIS time, because they're just such big bad baddies?
Our forces are over there, killing women and children. Their forces are over here, killling women and children.
But we are White Hats and they are Black Hats? How fething mindlessly tribal are you?
You cannot kill an idea. However, you can kill every single one active supporter of said idea and any physical manifestation of it (with enough time and dedication).
feeder wrote: The fact that application of force has shown to never work in stamping out ideals doesn't matter to you? It must work THIS time, because they're just such big bad baddies?
Our forces are over there, killing women and children. Their forces are over here, killling women and children.
But we are White Hats and they are Black Hats? How fething mindlessly tribal are you?
Of course it matters to me! So what's your plan on how we should stop ISIS? Going after their financial supporters and sorting Turkey out regarding their suspicious activity with ISIS aside, what would you have us do, hmm? So let's play your scenario out shall we? We pull all our forces out of the Middle East and come home. What then? ISIS will continue attacking us at home, bombing our cities and murdering our citizens whenever they get the chance. What then? Do we just sit back with our todger in our hands while we wait and hope that our 'diplomatic' efforts bare fruit? How many deaths of OUR citizens will it take before people like you and Corbyn finally get it through your skulls that ISIS won't stop killing people wholesale, ever, until they're stopped physically?
I'm not ignorant to your side of the argument. The trouble is you're ignorant to my side of the argument. Violence begets violence, true, but ISIS are immune to all forms of diplomacy. They're psychopathic and sociopathic to the point of madness. They're cutting people's heads off in the streets and having little kids kick them around for fun, for gods sake! They HAVE to be stopped and the only language they understand is force, unfortunately. Corbyn is utterly blind to this fact. He honestly believes they can be reasoned with! Are you as naive as him?
2. You made the flat challenge that the evidence is false, been called out on it and are still spouting the same nonsense.
I really can't be arsed responding to you but I will challenge this.
I never said that the evidence was false, I said it was either very weak or inappropriate; certainly no where near strong enough to even suggest that Corbyn would be handing the Falkalnds over the Argentina.
You cannot kill an idea. However, you can kill every single one active supporter of said idea and any physical manifestation of it (with enough time and dedication).
feeder wrote: The fact that application of force has shown to never work in stamping out ideals doesn't matter to you?
It worked on the Nazis. And before you argue, yes, Nazism and Islamism are the same thing:
The Nazis believed in uniting all "true" Germans under a single nation, the Greater German Reich, while purifying this nation with absolute submission to the state and the persecution of those "unworthy" to be a part of that nation: Jews, the disabled and the like.
The Islamists believe in uniting all "true" Muslims under a single nation, the caliphate, while purifying this nation with absolute submission to God and the persecution of those "unworthy" to be part of that nation: "idolators", "apostates" and the like.
Nazi Germany ended with Hitler despairing at Nazism's failure and ordering Nazi Germany to destroy itself because by failing to fulfill that ideological objective of uniting the "true" Germans it had forfeited its right to exist, before committing suicide himself. I do not believe that ISIL's ideology is any more resilient than the Nazis' was.
Fine post, well said. I was having trouble coming up with the right words while trying to reason with him, then you came along and put it better than I could have.
feeder wrote: The fact that application of force has shown to never work in stamping out ideals doesn't matter to you? It must work THIS time, because they're just such big bad baddies?
Our forces are over there, killing women and children. Their forces are over here, killling women and children.
But we are White Hats and they are Black Hats? How fething mindlessly tribal are you?
We don't aim to kill women and children, we hit their supplies and strongholds. Civilians die because they are used as human shields, some willing some not. Some civilians have died as a result of mistakes made on our part. But we don't target innocents for destruction.
ISIS are barbaric killers. They deliberately target civilians for rape, enslavement, torturing and execution, specifically to terrorise populations. They revel in it by putting it on the Internet to show how horrific they are. Any member of ISIS captured by western forces will have a much nicer time than anyone captured by ISIS.
Yes, we are the White hats, because we don't target civilians and when things like the hospital bombing happened it was admitted to be a mistake. ISIS would actually like to bomb a hospital or go around and shoot all the unarmed people in their beds, they like soft targets where they can massacre people easily. Do we go into villages and sort the men from the wonen and they behead or shoot them all in the head? No, so I don't think you can get on this 'how fething tribal are you' high horse.
You cannot kill an idea. However, you can kill every single one active supporter of said idea and any physical manifestation of it (with enough time and dedication).
No, you can't.
Of course, a more realistic approach would be to first prevent them from getting money.
So I was just taking a look at the day's news when I saw an article about Comrade Corbyn. He's only gone and quoted a communist dictator at the Labour Party Christmas do, hasn't he. The man who Corbyn referred to as "a tough ruler" was none other than a pleasant chap called Enver Hoxha, the communist leader of Albania from 1944 until his death in 1985. Enver was responsible for the torture, murder and imprisonment of 100,000 Albanians. This unfortunate source of inspiration comes just weeks after Corbyn's inner circle MP, John McDonell, quoted Charman Mao in the Commons.
Before any of you Corbyn supporters start flinging vitriol at me, claiming I'm making it up type "Jeremy Corbyn uses his Labour Christmas Party speech to quote an Albanian dictator responsible for death and imprisonment of 100,000 people" into Google and click on the Daily Mail Online article to read about it yourself. I don't know, his actions are questionable at best! He's been known to be an apologist for the IRA as well. And to think that people actually vote for this chump *shakes head*. Dear oh dear...
No doubt some folk will try claiming he's been set up by a hostile press. And his voters try claiming him to be an honest man of integrity....
Jeremy Corbyn quoted the words of a Communist dictator of Albania at Labour's Christmas party last night.
The hard-left Labour leader dismayed attendees at the staff party when he quoted the words of Enver Hoxha, blamed for the deaths, torture and imprisonment of 100,000 Albanians.
The outrage comes just weeks after John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, quoted from Chairman Mao's Little Red Book in the Commons chamber.
Hoxha was chairman of the Democratic Front of Albania and commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces from 1944 until his death in 1985.
In his speech to staff, Mr Corbyn said Hoxha had been a 'tough ruler'.
He went on to use the dictator's phrase that 'this year will be tougher than last year'.
I don't like Corbyn or what he stands for but quoting Hoxha for humorous intent is hardly endorsing the murder of tens of thousands of your own citizens. Ill advised at best. But one thing Corbyn doesnt have is a staff of spin doctors sculpting his every word.
The only outrage here is created by the Daily Mail.
The problem with being ill advised is that he's the leader and the buck stops with him. If he's niave enough to take advice and stil go through with it it just shows him as compliant wih it or incompetent.
The only way that Corbyn is a thorn in the side of Britain is that he does not represent a serious opposition to the encombe t party.
Don't get me wrong I voted conservative but any governing partyh needs a strong opposition to scrutinise their activity. I can't hep feeling that the recent welfare reform debarcle came about more from internal opposition than from the Labour Party. Corbyn is weak seemingly too dependent on a cabal of committee members who are no less barmy than he seems to be (and feth me have seen his brother? Jeremy got the common sense it seems! )
So long as they don't get out of hand or complacent the Conservatives will walk the next election. Dave looks like a stable pair of hands in comparison.
Yes indeed you are right. Corbyns support for despotic dictatorships show his contempt for pluralist democracy.
I'm not talking about him, I'm talking about you.
The characteristic of a pluralist democracy is that it allows all voices to be heard. You don't want that. You don't want Corbyn's voice, which represents a significant number of people, to be heard.
Yes indeed you are right. Corbyns support for despotic dictatorships show his contempt for pluralist democracy.
I'm not talking about him, I'm talking about you.
The characteristic of a pluralist democracy is that it allows all voices to be heard. You don't want that. You don't want Corbyn's voice, which represents a significant number of people, to be heard.
Oh I'm sorry I didn't think I said I didn't want his voice to be heard, I was just expressing my dislike of his politics and the hypocrisy of his so called pacifism which allows violence from dictators or terrorist groups but not from democratic states. He can speak away that's one of the cornerstones of any democratic society to allow free speech. Civilised society must though as a consequence suffer those who would try to bring down the very system that gives them the freedom to voice their unpalatable beliefs.
Howard A Treesong wrote: He opposes bombing in Syria without offering alternatives beyond talking out a political solution (with ISIS, people only interested in murdering, enslaving and raping until they carve up enough of the Middle East to set up a new state). He made a valid point about what the end game plan was for bombing, but saying there's some political settlement we can reach with ISIS is a joke.
So he should, bombing Syria is an expensive, counter-productive measure. It literally only benefits ISIS and BAE Systems.
He made a big deal about trying to tackle the real issues first: ISIS is getting a lot of money from somewhere, probably via Turkey for oil. Cut off ISIS funding and it'll die out pretty quickly without having to blow up any civilians.
I have to admit I find him to be a much better leader than Cameron ever will be, even if it's just because he seems to be one of the 'little people' he's meant to be representing. The entire Tory party seem so out of touch with reality it'd be funny if it weren't so fething tragic.
Corbyn's views on the IRA are a bit more nuanced than outright support - he merely highlights that the IRA's violence stemmed from suppression of the rights of the Catholic minority in the North for a long period and misgovernment. He also highlights that there were two sides to the conflict, which is often ignored in the British press. It is, again, a bit of a red herring though.
(Note: I do not support the IRA or terrorist violence, but I do feel that the narrative with regard to them is a bit one sided)
As to supporting dictatorships - how is Cameron getting along with Saudi Arabia these days? Been condemning their public beheadings and floggings, has he? That's good then.
Muhr wrote: We pull all our forces out of the Middle East and come home.
Quite frankly, we have about twelve planes involved at the moment. It's not like many people would notice the actual physical effect.
What then? ISIS will continue attacking us at home, bombing our cities and murdering our citizens whenever they get the chance.
Probably. For a short period of time. The reason we get attacked over places like say, Iceland, is because we have an extensive history of meddling (or indeed bombing) places in the Middle-East. It would require a time period of ten to fifteen years in which we ignored the region during which the risk of terrorism would remain high, and then would slowly decrease after that.
How many deaths of OUR citizens will it take before people like you and Corbyn finally get it through your skulls that ISIS won't stop killing people wholesale, ever, until they're stopped physically?
This is something of a fallacy. ISIS wants us to attack them because allows them to spin a narrative of 'East vs West', 'Crusader vs faithful', 'Christian vs Muslim'. That's one of the reasons they attack us in the first place and hope that we drop missiles on them, it's a very solid old school propaganda technique to allow you to bind forces and peoples more local to yourself in order to fight the big baddy outsider.
If we ignored them (and I mean all of them, the Iraqi and Kurdish lot as well), there would be a lot of blood shed, but the borders would stabilise on their own. And as that time period progresses, without that 'outsider attacking us/puppeteering the opposition' narrative, they would find recruitment and domestic discontent to be much larger factors and checks on their own expansion. ISIS is not eternal, this is the Middle East, where regimes can collapse overnight. The odds are strongly inclined towards it not making it to twenty years, let alone fifty.
They're psychopathic and sociopathic to the point of madness. They're cutting people's heads off in the streets and having little kids kick them around for fun, for gods sake! They HAVE to be stopped and the only language they understand is force, unfortunately. Corbyn is utterly blind to this fact. He honestly believes they can be reasoned with! Are you as naive as him?
You appear to have fallen for ISIS propaganda. You are scared (as is the purpose of terrorism), and this is twisting your responses into one of 'fight or flight'. They've turned into this irrational, psychotic monster that stands outside of the normal state of things for you, and so you advocate kicking their heads in without stopping to consider the why's, the hows, or any long term strategical effect.
Unfortunately, you are not alone in this. Although in Government's case, their knee-jerk reaction is to let Cameron stamp his 'International Statesman' card this year.
Alexholker raised earlier that 'force' worked on the Nazi's. This is incorrect. 'Force' alone ended WW1, but did little to resolve the social and economic issues raised in the interwar period. What truly eliminated the Nazi's was a combination of prolonged occupation, large amounts of wealth infused into the economy immediately afterwards, an effective cultural genocide undertaken towards the concept of Nazism, and a large enemy (the Soviets) to rally against.
I am not necessarily against force in the Middle-East, but it needs a long term strategic goal, which is currently lacking. The aerial campaign will not do anything to defeat ISIS. It will hurt their finances, it will kill the occasional few fighters, and it will make large scale operations more awkward. That is all. In exchange for the above, it costs us the guilt of whatever civilians are caught in the crossfire as collateral (and there will be), and the not inconsiderable cost of the munitions. On the domestic fronts, it allows our politicians to look as if they are taking action/pose for the cameras and gives us some flight time training experience in exchange for a heightened risk of terror strikes.
It will not resolve anything though.
There are three ways to eradicate ISIS and it's kin.
1. Genocide. Kill everything that moves in the Middle-East,
2. Cultural genocide. Move in, occupy the region for a good fifty years. Indoctrinate the youth in Western values, micromanage their economies, and do a postwar Japan/Germany.
3. Ignore/isolate the place as best as possible. Do everything short of building a fence around ISIS. We here in Britain haven't seen a revolution in an extremely long time. We've outlasted Hitler, Napoleon, and many other threats. ISIS? They'll be buried by the vagaries of time and history in the end. What follows might be better or worse. If its better, reconsider, if its worse, maintain the policy.
One and two are no longer regarded as acceptable (death/colonialism rarely are these days), but due to the short term nature of our political leaders, they feel they must do something to show the masses. So instead we get a knee-jerk reaction that maintains the staus quo.
The anti-ISIS air campaign and Cameron's overnight U turn regarding Syrian refugees show he is rather pliable on issues that attract public and media attention and can be headed off quite easily by by ensuring that something is seen to be done.
As my brother mentioned to me,one of the big drivers behind the UK bombing Syria is us keeping the French on side. With a lot of joint defence projects, sending a few planes to join in is a small price to pay to keep them happy.
It's a gesture of support, to be sure, but I don't really see the French kicking BAe out of the Airbus consortium because we refused to send some planes to bomb Syria. It isn't their decision alone, anyway.
Remember the amount of resistance the French put up to Gulf War 2 (rightly, IMO) ?
Ketara wrote: Alexholker raised earlier that 'force' worked on the Nazi's. This is incorrect. 'Force' alone ended WW1, but did little to resolve the social and economic issues raised in the interwar period. What truly eliminated the Nazi's was a combination of prolonged occupation, large amounts of wealth infused into the economy immediately afterwards, an effective cultural genocide undertaken towards the concept of Nazism, and a large enemy (the Soviets) to rally against.
Even before the denazification of Germany started, Hitler himself denounced Nazi Germany as a failure that had forfeited its right to exist as a nation. Hitler. That is what force alone did to Nazism.
The country voted in the election and showed it wanted a more right wing/conservative government.
Labour was accused of being too much like the Tories and gave of an air of incompetence. People would ask Labour MP hopefuls what their manifesto was and they just didn't know.
So the Conservatives won and Labour decides that it needs to be more distinct from the Tories.
They seem to be suffering an identity crisis, they've elected a left wing leader but aren't truly a left wing party.
They aren't coming across as a united party and aren't really able to challenge the Tories. They were happy to claim credit for the tax credits defeat, but it wasn't anything that they did that stopped it. If anything it was the Lib Dems in the House of Lords. I didn't agree with the way the tax credits were handled it was a mistake and deserved to be shut down but I don't really agree with how it was done.
Right now peoples wages are going up, unemployment is coming down, taxes are down but more tax revenue is being received. Things appear to be getting better rather than worse.
People who voted for the Conservative government aren't going to be looking to try Labour any time soon.
I don't think Corbyn is anything to worry about. Labour doesn't have enough seats and a third of those seats don't look like they agree with him. His advantage is that the SNP will most likely side with him on anything against the conservatives but even with the recent vote on Syria and all 55 SNPs against it he wasn't successful
My prediction for the next election is that the Conservatives will win but will have a similar number of seats as it does now.
I think that Labour will definitely lose seats to the Lib Dems and possibly gain 1 or 2 seats from green party voters. But the result will be that Labour has less seats than it has right now.
Corbyn will be made to resign as leader and then Labour will go back to be a more centrist political party.
obsidianaura wrote: The country voted in the election and showed it wanted a more right wing/conservative government.
Bits of it did
Anyway, Labour has always (IMHO) has the air of saying whatever is required to get votes under Milliband; like they'd no idea what they were doing or having any ideals to stick to. Not that the Tories are any better in terms of knowing what to do but they don't seem to change their stance much from the "punish the poor" approach. Last election Labour really suffered from just being "Red Tories".
Jeremy Corbyn quoted the words of a Communist dictator of Albania at Labour's Christmas party last night.
The hard-left Labour leader dismayed attendees at the staff party when he quoted the words of Enver Hoxha, blamed for the deaths, torture and imprisonment of 100,000 Albanians.
The outrage comes just weeks after John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, quoted from Chairman Mao's Little Red Book in the Commons chamber.
Hoxha was chairman of the Democratic Front of Albania and commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces from 1944 until his death in 1985.
In his speech to staff, Mr Corbyn said Hoxha had been a 'tough ruler'.
He went on to use the dictator's phrase that 'this year will be tougher than last year'.
I don't like Corbyn or what he stands for but quoting Hoxha for humorous intent is hardly endorsing the murder of tens of thousands of your own citizens. Ill advised at best. But one thing Corbyn doesnt have is a staff of spin doctors sculpting his every word.
The only outrage here is created by the Daily Mail.
Thanks for the link. I can't facilitate a link to the article because I'm using my Kindle Fire.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Conservatives scored only about 25% of the electorate, about 36% of votes cast. This is not a ringing mandate.
The reason Cameron is PM is because of the first past the post system.
It'd would have won under either system
Under a more proportional system Cameron would have needed to include a large number of coalition partners in his Cabinet. If unable to form a working coalition, he could have formed a minority government, or called another general election.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Conservatives scored only about 25% of the electorate, about 36% of votes cast. This is not a ringing mandate.
The reason Cameron is PM is because of the first past the post system.
It'd would have won under either system
Under a more proportional system Cameron would have needed to include a large number of coalition partners in his Cabinet. If unable to form a working coalition, he could have formed a minority government, or called another general election.
Imagine it, a government where they actually have to work together, the absolute horror, I'm glad we have a system in place that allows for the potential to swap between left/right every 5 years, that on't impact anything at all.
Ketara wrote: Alexholker raised earlier that 'force' worked on the Nazi's. This is incorrect. 'Force' alone ended WW1, but did little to resolve the social and economic issues raised in the interwar period. What truly eliminated the Nazi's was a combination of prolonged occupation, large amounts of wealth infused into the economy immediately afterwards, an effective cultural genocide undertaken towards the concept of Nazism, and a large enemy (the Soviets) to rally against.
Even before the denazification of Germany started, Hitler himself denounced Nazi Germany as a failure that had forfeited its right to exist as a nation. Hitler. That is what force alone did to Nazism.
If it were that simple, every Nazi would have ceased to be one the minute the German Government surrendered. In reality, the racist and facist tenets that nazism embodied would quite possibly (and probably)have continued to prevail among the German populace regardless if we had done as we did after WW1, and just handed them a bill and left. The same applies for the racist and militaristic cultural tendencies that had taken grip of Japan in that era.
To hammer the point home, America used force to conquer Iraq. All that resulted however, is the situation we see today. Force, whilst capable of dethroning a government and seizing territories, is incapable of killing ideas. To do so requires either physical genocide (killing those who hold them), cultural genocide (brainwashing the descendants of those who follow them whilst suppressing them vigorously in the short-term) , or the passage of time (because ideologies are a bit like fashion, they mutate, grow, and are gradually supplanted as time progresses).
Even before the denazification of Germany started, Hitler himself denounced Nazi Germany as a failure that had forfeited its right to exist as a nation. Hitler. That is what force alone did to Nazism.
Nazism still exists. All that force does against opposing ideologies, assuming that it is successful in terms of military victory, is drive whatever elements it was combating underground and out to the fringes where it could be potentially more dangerous.
When applied correctly force most certainly has its place against the likes of Daesh but it can only ever be of any meaningful use as part of a coherent and well resourced whole. Chucking a few bombs will never be more than an irritation against an organisation as entrenched and organised as Daesh and it feeds into their 'Us Vs the Infidels' narrative.
AlexHolker wrote: Even before the denazification of Germany started, Hitler himself denounced Nazi Germany as a failure that had forfeited its right to exist as a nation. Hitler. That is what force alone did to Nazism.
{citation needed}
Did Hitler denounce Nazi ideology as a failure and repent of his crimes, or did he merely blame Germany for losing the war and betraying Nazi ideology? Bombing Germany sufficiently that Hitler says "you losers have failed to defend our racial purity, you forfeit your right to exist" is hardly a stunning success.
Silent Puffin? wrote: Nazism still exists. All that force does against opposing ideologies, assuming that it is successful in terms of military victory, is drive whatever elements it was combating underground and out to the fringes where it could be potentially more dangerous.
How many people did Nazis kill in the six years between 1939 and 1945? How many people did Nazis kill in the sixty years between 1945 and 2005? Tell me, which one do you think was more dangerous?
AlexHolker wrote: Even before the denazification of Germany started, Hitler himself denounced Nazi Germany as a failure that had forfeited its right to exist as a nation. Hitler. That is what force alone did to Nazism.
{citation needed}
Look up the Nero Decree. I haven't found an online cite that spells out that this was an act of self-loathing on a national scale and not simply spite, but the act itself is well known.
Did Hitler denounce Nazi ideology as a failure and repent of his crimes, or did he merely blame Germany for losing the war and betraying Nazi ideology? Bombing Germany sufficiently that Hitler says "you losers have failed to defend our racial purity, you forfeit your right to exist" is hardly a stunning success.
Does it matter? Everything the Nazis stood for, Hitler tried to destroy. The Allies' plan to cripple Germany's capacity to act as a nation for a century to come, Hitler tried to do himself. He and dozens of Nazi Party members committed suicide, including dozens of generals and 11 admirals.
If we found out tomorrow that Abu Bakr and his leadership had committed seppuku and detonated the booby traps they have set throughout ISIL territory, I would call that a success, even if they did not first denounce any future attempts to establish the caliphate. If they die believing that they did the right thing, I don't care, they're dead.
It wasn't just raw naked force that did these things. The German nation was basically rebuilt from the ground up and occupied for decades to become an entirely difference society over many years. It wasn't just a "oh, well they lost, now they're different" thing. It took many years of occupation and social engineering. Force was a tool to get things to a point where other tools could enact change, but on its own, force didn't destroy the Nazi ideology.
As for Hitler's statements regarding if Nazi Germany had a right to exist or whatnot, we're talking about someone who likely had several physical and mental health issues and a substance abuse problem coupled with an extreme social darwinist worldview, I wouldn't put too much stock in his late-life rantings.
Of course, we did have a huge vested interest in occupying Germany after the war. If the Cold War hadn't been a thing Germany might not have gotten rebuilt as it did. Really Germany was only rebuilt because we needed to rebuild it in the face of Communism. The fact that it made Germany stable was really secondary in the face of that.
Without the USSR looming over the area, I doubt we would have occupied or put as much effort into rebuilding Germany.
Grey Templar wrote: Of course, we did have a huge vested interest in occupying Germany after the war. If the Cold War hadn't been a thing Germany might not have gotten rebuilt as it did. Really Germany was only rebuilt because we needed to rebuild it in the face of Communism. The fact that it made Germany stable was really secondary in the face of that.
Without the USSR looming over the area, I doubt we would have occupied or put as much effort into rebuilding Germany.
Germany being prosperous and stable was important for just about everyone. Having a ruined wasteland in the middle of Europe wasn't going to do anyone any good. Everyone wanted that great economic engine back in gear to restart trade and pay reparations. Beyond communism, there were tons of economic reasons for the rebuilding effort. One might make the claim that the "oomph" of foreign aid might not have been quite as extensive in some aspects, but overall, mot everyone wanted Germany rebuilt, if for nothing else than to pay reparations, but really it was (as it is today) the economic center of Europe, not only producing lots of stuff but sitting in the middle of a bunch of trade routes across the continent.
How many people did Nazis kill in the six years between 1939 and 1945?
They still exist however. Fundamentalist Islam has been under armed attack for decades to varying degrees, including being routinely and comprehensively beaten on the open battlefield. If anything it is stronger now than it ever has been.
Force most certainly has a role, but it is only a part of the much bigger whole that will be required to beat Daesh and which ever group of nutter that will rise from its ashes, and then the next group, and the next etc etc etc..
AlexHolker wrote: Look up the Nero Decree. I haven't found an online cite that spells out that this was an act of self-loathing on a national scale and not simply spite, but the act itself is well known.
Lol what? Since when is "destroy everything as you retreat so that the enemy can not capture it and use it against us" the same as "Hitler denounced Nazi ideology"?
Does it matter? Everything the Nazis stood for, Hitler tried to destroy. The Allies' plan to cripple Germany's capacity to act as a nation for a century to come, Hitler tried to do himself. He and dozens of Nazi Party members committed suicide, including dozens of generals and 11 admirals.
Of course it matters, because your claim was that bombing and invading Germany did anything to stop Nazi ideology. Hitler never, as far as we know, abandoned his racist beliefs. And he committed suicide because the Soviets probably would have tortured him to death once they took Berlin, not because he felt that he deserved to die for his crimes.
If we found out tomorrow that Abu Bakr and his leadership had committed seppuku and detonated the booby traps they have set throughout ISIL territory, I would call that a success, even if they did not first denounce any future attempts to establish the caliphate. If they die believing that they did the right thing, I don't care, they're dead.
Yes, and shortly after they die someone else will take their place. Which is the whole point I'm trying to make, individual people are irrelevant and what matters is the ideology they represent. If we kill a bunch of Bad People and just move ISIS elsewhere under a different name (with plenty of eager recruits thanks to all the people we killed) then we haven't accomplished very much.
Muhr wrote: I'll start by coming straight out and just saying it: I HATE this man with a passion! He wishes to rid the UK of its nuclear deterrent and his party has a Maoist streak running through it which puts the Grand Canyon thoroughly to shame. His pacifistic proclivities often manifest as terrorist-sympathetic tantrums that strongly condemn the actions of our military and our allies in the war on terror while simultaneously being an apologist for ISIS' murdering of our citizens.
You don't know what Maoism is, do you?
And has the War on Terror been anything but a massive drain on resources and an incomprehensible failure?
I confess that I'm certainly no expert on Maoism, but I know that Corbyn's inner circle have very anti-establishment tendancies. The Socialist Worker Party and Unite's Red Len often say outrageous things that no sane person would agree with. If I'm honest it's numerous sources I've read that have claimed that a Maoist streak runs through Corbyn's party. Upon reading that I heard about Diane Abbott (I think her name is) saying that she thought Chairman Mao did more good than harm. Then there was yet another MP (I think it was a fella named McDonell, though I may be mistaken in the actual name) who threw a copy of Chairman Mao's little red book across the Despatch Box for George Osbourne to pick up. He said that Osbourne could benefit from the wisdom found in its pages.
I've gone out of my way to try and be more reasonable with you guys but you still seem determined to be condescending towards me. If you've read my earlier discussions with certain other contributors you'll see how I/we worked out how not to be as catty with each other. I'd appreciate it if you afforded the same courtesy.
Yes the War on Terror certainly has been a huge drain on resources, I agree with you on that, but does that mean we should just give up? I've no idea how we could best combat the mess we now find ourselves in. ISIS seem to be similar to the Alpha Legion - you cut one head off, two grow back in its place, but we can't NOT fight them because they're hell bent on seeing us destroyed. The ONLY way I can see how we'll stop them is by force of arms carefully applied, which is precisely why Corbyn isn't the man for the top job - he's a pacifist who simply wouldn't ever give the order to fight back. He'd try negotiating and reasoning with ISIS, and I think we all know how far that would get us...
Radical Islam is a cancer that MUST be stopped, but exactly how we could best do that escapes me; however, that doesn't mean we should declare our effort a failure and just give up.
Objectively, Mao did do more good than bad- as a theorist, he developed the concepts of guerilla war that were used in Vietnam, defeated a failed regime and strengthened China after a hundred years of weakness and division. Any leftist should know what Mao wrote as well as what Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg, Kropotkin and Bakunin wrote. It's not surprising that he read it. Doesn't mean he's a Maoist. It was a joke anyway.
Maoism is a form of Marxism-Leninism that emphasises the fact that the peasantary too is a revolutionary class, not just the proletariat. It discusses the third world, anti-Imperialism, permanent revolution and the community. Corbyn's Labour don't want to do that, nor do they want to nationalise the economy or give the means of production to the workers to form workers councils.
The reason why radical Islam is prominent is because other forms of political expression have been crushed, thanks to western intervention crushing the radical left. Couple that with alienation and poor material conditions, you have a recipe for disaster. So you invade IS territory - what then? They're not going to disappear. Most of the top officers are ex baathist anyway, who've been around for 12 years in hiding.
Why not try negotiating? It worked in Northern Ireland with much more popular and better funded organisat ions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You've also totally misrepresented McDonell's point. You can find the video on YouTube, see for yourself.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The SWP also isn't associated with Corbyn.
Objectively, Mao did do more good than bad- as a theorist, he developed the concepts of guerilla war that were used in Vietnam, defeated a failed regime and strengthened China after a hundred years of weakness and division.
You believe these gains are 'objectively' worth more than the lives of 40,000,000 people?
I think you need to look up the meaning of the word 'objective', because morally speaking, the opposite would generally appear to be true, and objectively, neither could be stated to be superior, as the inherent value in any of those achievements is predicated upon the subjective judgement values of the person doing the assessing.
Objectively, Mao did do more good than bad- as a theorist, he developed the concepts of guerilla war that were used in Vietnam, defeated a failed regime and strengthened China after a hundred years of weakness and division.
You believe these gains are 'objectively' worth more than the lives of 40,000,000 people?
I think you need to look up the meaning of the word 'objective', because morally speaking, the opposite would generally appear to be true, and objectively, neither could be stated to be superior, as the inherent value in any of those achievements is predicated upon the subjective judgement values of the person doing the assessing.
40 million is veering on the higher end on the number of deaths caused by Mao, and anyway, these deaths were arguably caused by mismanagement rather than a Maoist scheme to murder people - the deaths weren't by design. Assume that 40,000,000 is true - how many millions of lives were improved by Maoist policies, especially in comparison to how someone would have lived in Imperial China or under the Nationalist regime, in a country of hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people? Then consider the effect of Maoism elsewhere. Maoist guerilla tactics were used to great effect against both French and American forces in Vietnam and they helped liberate the people of Nepal. Currently, Kurdish forces in Syria are using modified tactics in their attempt to establish an Anarchist, self governing region.
Though it's true that there's no such thing as absolute truth. I suppose it depends on what you prioritise.
Objectively, Mao did do more good than bad- as a theorist, he developed the concepts of guerilla war that were used in Vietnam, defeated a failed regime and strengthened China after a hundred years of weakness and division.
You believe these gains are 'objectively' worth more than the lives of 40,000,000 people?
I think you need to look up the meaning of the word 'objective', because morally speaking, the opposite would generally appear to be true, and objectively, neither could be stated to be superior, as the inherent value in any of those achievements is predicated upon the subjective judgement values of the person doing the assessing.
40 million is veering on the higher end on the number of deaths caused by Mao, and anyway, these deaths were arguably caused by mismanagement rather than a Maoist scheme to murder people - the deaths weren't by design. Assume that 40,000,000 is true - how many millions of lives were improved by Maoist policies, especially in comparison to how someone would have lived in Imperial China or under the Nationalist regime, in a country of hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people? Then consider the effect of Maoism elsewhere. Maoist guerilla tactics were used to great effect against both French and American forces in Vietnam and they helped liberate the people of Nepal. Currently, Kurdish forces in Syria are using modified tactics in their attempt to establish an Anarchist, self governing region.
Though it's true that there's no such thing as absolute truth. I suppose it depends on what you prioritise.
Fanatical adherence to his own tenets and fear of working against Maoist teachings inspite of evidence to the contrary (starvation as an example). Mao and his crony's were responsible for more than mismanagement their ideals caused death by design.
Mao and Stalin are very much in the same vein,
Objectively, Mao did do more good than bad- as a theorist, he developed the concepts of guerilla war that were used in Vietnam, defeated a failed regime and strengthened China after a hundred years of weakness and division.
You believe these gains are 'objectively' worth more than the lives of 40,000,000 people?
I think you need to look up the meaning of the word 'objective', because morally speaking, the opposite would generally appear to be true, and objectively, neither could be stated to be superior, as the inherent value in any of those achievements is predicated upon the subjective judgement values of the person doing the assessing.
40 million is veering on the higher end on the number of deaths caused by Mao, and anyway, these deaths were arguably caused by mismanagement rather than a Maoist scheme to murder people - the deaths weren't by design. Assume that 40,000,000 is true - how many millions of lives were improved by Maoist policies, especially in comparison to how someone would have lived in Imperial China or under the Nationalist regime, in a country of hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people? Then consider the effect of Maoism elsewhere. Maoist guerilla tactics were used to great effect against both French and American forces in Vietnam and they helped liberate the people of Nepal. Currently, Kurdish forces in Syria are using modified tactics in their attempt to establish an Anarchist, self governing region.
Though it's true that there's no such thing as absolute truth. I suppose it depends on what you prioritise.
Fanatical adherence to his own tenets and fear of working against Maoist teachings inspite of evidence to the contrary (starvation as an example). Mao and his crony's were responsible for more than mismanagement their ideals caused death by design.
Mao and Stalin are very much in the same vein,
If that's true, then why did the famine only affect one area of China and not the whole country? Regardless, by the time of the Great Leap Forward, Maoism as a distinct ideology from Marxism-Leninism hadn't quite developed. Though some deaths were by design, I highly doubt that Mao and his friends developed a plot to mass murder his own people. Why teach them to read only to kill them?
I would say that Stalin was much more pragmatic by abandoning the idea of world revolution (and therefore the core of a lot of Marxist teachings) as well as entering into the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, as well as pursuing a rather un-Marxist economic policy by nationalising everything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote: Nah, he's his own brand of fruit cake, just with some of the other nuts thrown in.
Because selling off the Royal Mail, bombing Syria, introducing legislation that makes it more difficult to stay in a council home and attempting to cut tax credits is certainly better than nationalising the railways and building social housing, isn't it?
I certainly don't think Corbyn could do a worse job than Cameron. At least Corbyn seems to genuinely care about, well, anything, beyond just trying to make his Uni buddies rich.
notprop wrote: in that scenario I reckon he'd meet with a little accident and Oberst Fuhrer Abbot and Commissar Livingstone would battle it out for power.
notprop wrote: in that scenario I reckon he'd meet with a little accident and Oberst Fuhrer Abbot and Commissar Livingstone would battle it out for power.
Then the 40M people would be off'd.
Thats 40m better off'd........
The 40 million would agree they are better off because the alternative is to be on record criticising the regime.
