Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

Napster said:

I;ll have to find the quote again.

Click to expand...

here it is - NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...d-taxation-are-lucrative-and-hard-to-suppress

Napster said:

So what's the alternative?

ps I don't see Zimbabweans or North Koreans bombing innocents in foreign countries...

Click to expand...

The question was about intervention with certain regimes not how to deal with terrorists. The two missions are completely different. I am not against killing the likes of Jihadi John with a drone.

We invaded Iraq because a man in a cave in Afghanistan with a cell phone and a computer used some Saudis to attack the Pentagon with a commercial airliner. And nobody saw it coming (yeah Jimmy Hill).

Just to sex it up a bit we lied and said Saddam has lots of weapons of mass destruction that he intends to use on the west. After lots of death to Iraqi women and children and plenty of old tribal wounds opened up we were in a situation where we had no exit strategy. As we had found none of these chemical weapons or even any terrorists that had anything to do with 9/11, our political masters decided that the war had all been for regime change.

Even last year we couldn't decide whether to bomb or support the Syrian rebels fighting Assad. We have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that we don't have a clue when it comes to the Middle East. When we have stepped in we have only made things a lot worse and far more people have died and will continue to do so.

One thing is certain though if you create a lawless un governed country then the terrorists will flourish. We certainly have to be stricter with who we let into Europe, who leaves Britain and who we allow to walk the streets. As has proved in Paris these people were known to authorities.

South Korea has been bombed by the North

londonblue said:

It would also appear that you haven't learnt how well an intervention can work, such as the 2nd World War. I would say that was pretty successful.

How about Rwanda as an example of where intervention was needed but didn't come?

Click to expand...

I mentioned three specific examples of recent interventions which haven't worked out.It's completely specious to mention others that did.

rigsby said:

The question was about intervention with certain regimes not how to deal with terrorists. The two missions are completely different. I am not against killing the likes of Jihadi John with a drone.

We invaded Iraq because a man in a cave in Afghanistan with a cell phone and a computer used some Saudis to attack the Pentagon with a commercial airliner. And nobody saw it coming (yeah Jimmy Hill).

Just to sex it up a bit we lied and said Saddam has lots of weapons of mass destruction that he intends to use on the west. After lots of death to Iraqi women and children and plenty of old tribal wounds opened up we were in a situation where we had no exit strategy. As we had found none of these chemical weapons or even any terrorists that had anything to do with 9/11, our political masters decided that the war had all been for regime change.

Even last year we couldn't decide whether to bomb or support the Syrian rebels fighting Assad. We have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that we don't have a clue when it comes to the Middle East. When we have stepped in we have only made things a lot worse and far more people have died and will continue to do so.

One thing is certain though if you create a lawless un governed country then the terrorists will flourish. We certainly have to be stricter with who we let into Europe, who leaves Britain and who we allow to walk the streets. As has proved in Paris these people were known to authorities.

South Korea has been bombed by the North

Click to expand...

Really - or was it one shell? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34001126

rigsby said:

One thing is certain though if you create a lawless un governed country then the terrorists will flourish. We certainly have to be stricter with who we let into Europe, who leaves Britain and who we allow to walk the streets. As has proved in Paris these people were known to authorities.

Click to expand...

The two sides don't equate. They were mostly French or Belgian nationals, so immigration control wouldn't have worked.

Napster said:

The two sides don't equate. They were mostly French or Belgian nationals, so immigration control wouldn't have worked.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about more control within our borders. They should have been locked up in the first place. The watch list is to long to police. We have people crying out for human rights and for Bombing at the same time. The two are a dangerous mix.

100 pages. Who said Corbyn would never achieve anything?

rigsby said:

Perhaps you could become one of President Trump's advisers when he wins the election. Of course as long as you have an equal interventionist policy I won't mind. I mean would hate to see only Arab despots removed just because they have lots of oil.

How about Kim Jong-un (Jong-un the wrong-un) or Robert Mugabe. Plenty of work in Central America and Haiti needs a dose of Interventionism.

If anyone's thinking of going into business they may want to consider headstones for military personnel looks like a lot of work to be had in the future.

Click to expand...

No thanks for Trump, yes please for overthrowing all of the dictators.

You agree with Corbyn on this then do you?

Napster said:

I disagree. Yes the supply of fanatics is important, but whereas Al Qaeda was geographically not tied down to any one place - ISIS are. They yearn for stability and a place of influence. Decimate that area and they will dissipate.

ps its financial strength mainly comes from taxing/punishing the locals - so again, capture the area, they lose the economic benefits.

Click to expand...

They yearn for stability? I thought it was the apocalypse they yearned for eg http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

londonblue said:

It would also appear that you haven't learnt how well an intervention can work, such as the 2nd World War. I would say that was pretty successful.

How about Rwanda as an example of where intervention was needed but didn't come?

Click to expand...

60 million died in WWII. The extent to which it can be considered a success has to be qualified somewhat.

Shrimpers are Magic said:

Has anyone considered that IS could well be suffering heavy loses and are on the verge of being destroyed?
Kurdish forces seem to be winning back more and more ground. The Paris attacks very possibly were a act of desperation rather than a show of strengh.
Perhaps the media need to start reporting on IS as the desperate murderous cowards they really are rather than playing up to them are referring to them as a "state" which they clearly are not. A point made by a muslim female audience member on QT last week.

Click to expand...

Let's hope they are on the verge of being destroyed and that destruction doesn't martyr them.

We should probably stop calling them Islamic as well. Call them something that marks them out as a distinct wing of Islamic theology rather than identifies with all Muslims.

Yorkshire Blue said:

It appears UKIP cost the Tories that seat. Both Tories and Labour lost votes to UKIP, but the Tories slightly more. There was only a handful of votes in it.



How can you impose democracy? What if people vote to restore the previous regime or, more likely, a similarly violent and barbaric opposition.

Democracy needs to come from the people, otherwise it lacks legitimacy. If the West impose democracy it will lack legitimacy, the government and the system will both be tainted as western puppets.

I agree with Corbyn's message, but he needs to do a better job of getting it out there.



How does intervention stop that? You have a very Blairite view on things.



No, it's strength is categorically not geographical. It's strength is ideological fanaticism and economic. Cut off the supply of fanatics (stop doing things that polarise as it leads to radicalisation), cut off the economic funding and IS will die. Capturing territory won't kill it - it will just move it.

Click to expand...

That always was and seemingly still is the UKIP danger for the Tories.

Impose democracy - yes, I said it was an oxymoron so I self criticised to save anyone else the bother!

Blairite - not on many things but on this I pretty much am.

Another Surrey Shrimper said:

No thanks for Trump, yes please for overthrowing all of the dictators.

You agree with Corbyn on this then do you?

Click to expand...

You will need to draw up an extensive list then. Perhaps we could start by ending the NHS service to pay for your wars. Or how about cutting working tax credits I bet no ones thought of that.

I wouldn't know if I agree with Compo, I've never listened.

rigsby said:

You will need to draw up an extensive list then. Perhaps we could start by ending the NHS service to pay for your wars. Or how about cutting working tax credits I bet no ones thought of that.

I wouldn't know if I agree with Compo, I've never listened.

Click to expand...

It's as if you just want to disagree with me but the reason changes with every post!

The dictatorship overthrow is hyperthetical and in the hypothesis other nations would be involved so scrapping the NHS wouldn't be part of my grand pretend plan.

If you are at all interested in politics I posted up Compo's stance word for word so if you want to scroll back a bit it's there to be seen. Or if not interested then....don't

Another Surrey Shrimper said:

It's as if you just want to disagree with me but the reason changes with every post!

The dictatorship overthrow is hyperthetical and in the hypothesis other nations would be involved so scrapping the NHS wouldn't be part of my grand pretend plan.

If you are at all interested in politics I posted up Compo's stance word for word so if you want to scroll back a bit it's there to be seen. Or if not interested then....don't

Click to expand...

And there's me thinking it was an adult debate.

I was just pointing out the problems and the cost if you want to be the worlds policeman. Don't forget every country you invade there would be a backlash in Britain, some people actually support their chosen dictator. It would probably be best to introduce internment just to be safe.

Overthrowing dictators is not hypothetical for the 500,000 dead in Iraq.

rigsby said:

And there's me thinking it was an adult debate.

I was just pointing out the problems and the cost if you want to be the worlds policeman. Don't forget every country you invade there would be a backlash in Britain, some people actually support their chosen dictator. It would probably be best to introduce internment just to be safe.

Overthrowing dictators is not hypothetical for the 500,000 dead in Iraq.

Click to expand...

So you agree with the Corbyn stance do you?

Tangled up in Blue said:

Absolutely not.I recognise that IS needs to be destroyed but believe this can only be done via the UN route.

Click to expand...

So you agree nothing should be done knowing full well Russia and China veto anything from the west and vice versa.
Pointless and spineless and too many people dying to wait around for.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...m-in-opposing-syria-air-strikes-a6751056.html

Back on topic - shots fired
Only a matter of time now...

Shrimpers are Magic said:

So you agree nothing should be done knowing full well Russia and China veto anything from the west and vice versa.
Pointless and spineless and too many people dying to wait around for.

Click to expand...

It's far from certain that Russia would veto anything after recent events.China might -but that's an issue that needs to be faced.

What's absolutely certain is that if the British parliament votes for a bombing campaign in Syria next week, then a lot more people will be dying and not only in Syria,either.

Shrimpers are Magic said:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...m-in-opposing-syria-air-strikes-a6751056.html

Back on topic - shots fired
Only a matter of time now...

Click to expand...

Your anti-Labour,not to mention anti-Jeremy Corbyn hysteria, is truly remarkable.

rigsby said:

I'm talking about more control within our borders. They should have been locked up in the first place. The watch list is to long to police. We have people crying out for human rights and for Bombing at the same time. The two are a dangerous mix.

Click to expand...

Very true,

We still cannot understand when British folk want to go to Syria yet the government go into complete meltdown trying to stop them or bring them back.

Let them go but never to return,simple.

Tangled up in Blue said:

Absolutely not.I recognise that IS needs to be destroyed but believe this can only be done via the UN route.

Click to expand...

Even though you agreed with me previously that it is nigh in impossible to get the UN to agree on anything? That's a risk I, and I suspect a lot of people, wouldn't be prepared to take.

It also seems this puts you at odds with Corduroy himself because I doubt he, being a pacifist, will ever be persuaded to vote for war. Good job his days seem to be numbered. He's already doing more harm than good.