2017 GE 1

[ewerk 26511]

8 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

To point it out?

 

How does the notion of stopping it from happening again grab you? Very similar thing happened in Libya and, it could be argued, nearly happened (if not for Miliband) in Syria. At some point we need to stop fucking with other countries.

 

Except it won't stop it again.

[Dr Gloom 19845]

it's just another case of an incompetent leader shooting himself in the foot, failing to capitalise on a situation. i think the mail and the sun will be all over it, yes. 

[Rayvin 4964]

Just now, ewerk said:

 

Except it won't stop it again.

 

Why didn't we go into Syria then? It clearly does stop it at least some of the time. Better than nothing.

[Rayvin 4964]

2 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

it's just another case of an incompetent leader shooting himself in the foot, failing to capitalise on a situation. i think the mail and the sun will be all over it, yes. 

 

I don't think he's been incompetent here - I think he's just honest. Genuinely.

 

In terms of man management, he's definitely incompetent. In terms of his own beliefs, they're well thought through and make sense.

 

But yeah, we'll have to see what those who think on behalf of the working class have to say about it before measuring the damage.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Rayvin

[ewerk 26511]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

Why didn't we go into Syria then? It clearly does stop it at least some of the time. Better than nothing.

 

So does it need pointing out or not? 

[NJS 3986]

1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said:

it's just another case of an incompetent leader shooting himself in the foot, failing to capitalise on a situation. i think the mail and the sun will be all over it, yes. 

If you can't say stuff which is undeniably right just because people don't want to hear it then we're fucked. 

 

 

Maybe he should just have put May's "cry wolf" speech on repeat and not spoken at all. 

[Rayvin 4964]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

 

So does it need pointing out or not? 

 

You win ewerk, on the basis that I have no idea what you're talking about anymore

[Park Life 70]

''More than $14 trillion (£8.9 trillion) was spent on international conflicts in the past year, according to a report by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), which found that Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan were responsible for a surge in war deaths.

The spending represents 13% of global GDP and is roughly the combined value of the economies of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada, Spain and Brazil.

 

Steve Killelea, IEP Chief Executive, said reducing conflict was one way to help the world's economic recovery.

“If global violence were to decrease by 10% uniformly, an additional $1.43 trillion would effectively be added to the world economy,” he said.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11682594/Global-cost-of-war-reaches-14-trillion-says-report.html

[Meenzer 14085]

15 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

To point it out?

 

How does the notion of stopping it from happening again grab you? Very similar thing happened in Libya and, it could be argued, nearly happened (if not for Miliband) in Syria. At some point we need to stop fucking with other countries.

BUT WE ARE BRITAIN AND OUR BENEVOLENT EMPIRE WAS THE BEST THING EVER

 

[ewerk 26511]

25 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

 

The thing is going into Afghanistan to wipe out bin laden was probably justifiable. Going into Iraq on a blatant and obvious lie (millions marched against it, but what did they know?)  is something that can't be blamed on a twisted ideology. That action created Isis. Locking jihadists and senior bathist military officers up in the same prison whilst nicking a sovereign state's oil, after deposing the man who kept a lid on things for 40 years is something that should be pointed out to the British public as a mistake iyam. 

 

21 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

What good would it do?

 

16 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

To point it out?

 

How does the notion of stopping it from happening again grab you? Very similar thing happened in Libya and, it could be argued, nearly happened (if not for Miliband) in Syria. At some point we need to stop fucking with other countries.

 

5 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Why didn't we go into Syria then? It clearly does stop it at least some of the time. Better than nothing.

 

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

You win ewerk, on the basis that I have no idea what you're talking about anymore

 

 

Do try and keep up dear boy. Does we need to continue wringing our hands over Iraq if we're already backing away from international conflicts?

[Rayvin 4964]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do try and keep up dear boy. Does we need to continue wringing our hands over Iraq if we're already backing away from international conflicts?

 

Right, with you now.

 

If we stop talking about it, we might go back to war again. I mean, we do enjoy invading other countries and destabilising them, it might be a hard habit to kick.

[Alex 30492]

It's a fair point though, it's hard to find anyone who doesn't consider our involvement in Iraq to be a huge error of judgement.

[ewerk 26511]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Right, with you now.

 

If we stop talking about it, we might go back to war again. I mean, we do enjoy invading other countries and destabilising them, it might be a hard habit to kick.

 

How often should we be apologising? 

[Dr Gloom 19845]

of course iraq was an error. a massive mistake with huge consequences. should it be blamed for the manchester atrocity? no. 

 

but even if corbyn genuinely believes iraq is to blame for a suicide bombing on home soil, making the point during an election campaign he's trying to win, days after the attack, is lunacy. 

[Park Life 70]

5 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

How often should we be apologising? 

[Rayvin 4964]

9 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

of course iraq was an error. a massive mistake with huge consequences. should it be blamed for the manchester atrocity? no. 

 

but even if corbyn genuinely believes iraq is to blame for a suicide bombing on home soil, making the point during an election campaign he's trying to win, days after the attack, is lunacy. 

 

The Libya campaign could be blamed for Manchester.

 

You see his approach as lunacy because you're in the press though. And I can see why. But judging by the polls a significant number of people are sick of 'the game' that needs to be played and all the nonsense that comes with it. If we reach the point where someone like Corbyn can win while not playing said game, it's a win for society in general.

[Rayvin 4964]

13 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

How often should we be apologising? 

 

You know me - as frequently as possible.

 

It's not about apologising though - it's just about not doing it again.

[Renton 17841]

12 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

You know me - as frequently as possible.

 

 

Gloom keeps harping on about Sweden, but want about Iceland?

 

Etc. 

[Park Life 70]

30 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

The Libya campaign could be blamed for Manchester.

 

You see his approach as lunacy because you're in the press though. And I can see why. But judging by the polls a significant number of people are sick of 'the game' that needs to be played and all the nonsense that comes with it. If we reach the point where someone like Corbyn can win while not playing said game, it's a win for society in general.

Libya was all about Sarkozy and Cameron thinking they were playing on the grand stage. Leaders of the free world and all that bollocks. In reality just a pair of arse clowns who's dabble with adventurism and looking big has massively backfired. Not on them of course. Cameron actually said two or three times that bombing Syria would make us safer at home. I shit you not.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Park Life

[Park Life 70]

4 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

 

Gloom keeps harping on about Sweden, but want about Iceland?

 

Etc. 

Too cold for the Islamics.

[Rayvin 4964]

Corbyn's speech just now was actually pretty fucking good...

 

Will take "Whatever action necessary to keep people safe".

[Dr Gloom 19845]

27 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

The Libya campaign could be blamed for Manchester.

 

You see his approach as lunacy because you're in the press though. And I can see why. But judging by the polls a significant number of people are sick of 'the game' that needs to be played and all the nonsense that comes with it. If we reach the point where someone like Corbyn can win while not playing said game, it's a win for society in general.

 

i would much rather see corbyn win this election than may. i don't think he will, despite a small window of opportunity opening, because he isn't savvy enough to capitalise. playing the game means broadening appeal among the electorate to the point where victory is a genuine possibility. i hope i'm wrong, but i don't see him even trying to do this - see his comments on trident, refusing to confirm he'd take out the leader of isis if he had the chance, and now suggesting the blaming for the manchester attack lies with uk foreign policy.

 

he might be a pacifist by nature, but ffs, he hasn't got a clue. i'd be saying this whether i worked in the media or not btw - it's just common sense. you want to win an election? learn how to compromise some of your beliefs in order to broaden your party base. otherwise remain a principled opposition/6th form debating club

[Rayvin 4964]

1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

i would much rather see corbyn win this election than may. i don't think he will, despite a small window of opportunity opening, because he isn't savvy enough to capitalise. playing the game means broadening appeal among the electorate to the point where victory is a genuine possibility. i hope i'm wrong, but i don't see him even trying to do this - see his comments on trident, refusing to confirm he'd take out the leader of isis if he had the chance, and now suggesting the blaming for the manchester attack lies with uk foreign policy.

 

he might be a pacifist by nature, but ffs, he hasn't got a clue. i'd be saying this whether i worked in the media or not btw - it's just common sense. you want to win an election? learn how to compromise some of your beliefs in order to broaden your party base. otherwise remain a principled opposition/6th form debating club

 

Disagree on the last bit. Now is the time to dig our heels in and ensure that when people just cannot bear the Tories any more, there is an opposition that can actually improve people's lives while forging lasting change - one that isn't going to be compromised by the need to appeal to short termism. I was wavering a bit in the run up to the election until the manifesto came out, and now I'm firmly back in the 'this needs to happen' camp.

 

We needed something that stood apart from the Tories, and we've got it. If the Tories landslide us I'll concede that the time still isn't right, but it's no longer looking so likely that they will. Which means there is quite possibly sufficient appetite for Corbyn's policies, and the need for change. Corbyn won't win, but if he's able to do well enough to paralyse the government (minority rule) then he'll have been a success IMO.

[Park Life 70]

10 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

i would much rather see corbyn win this election than may. i don't think he will, despite a small window of opportunity opening, because he isn't savvy enough to capitalise. playing the game means broadening appeal among the electorate to the point where victory is a genuine possibility. i hope i'm wrong, but i don't see him even trying to do this - see his comments on trident, refusing to confirm he'd take out the leader of isis if he had the chance, and now suggesting the blaming for the manchester attack lies with uk foreign policy.

 

he might be a pacifist by nature, but ffs, he hasn't got a clue. i'd be saying this whether i worked in the media or not btw - it's just common sense. you want to win an election? learn how to compromise some of your beliefs in order to broaden your party base. otherwise remain a principled opposition/6th form debating club

Tbf there were endless warning by the intelligence services with reg to middle east interventions and blow-back.

[Rayvin 4964]

This is the Mail's article on it:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4544384/Corbyn-faces-backlash-bid-exploit-Manchester-bomb.html

 

Check the comments - the most upvoted are in agreement with Corbyn. As I said, he's speaking across the aisle here.

 

I mean the Mail is clearly aware of this as well given that the article is peppered with every conceivable factoid about things Corbyn has said in the past that could make him look weak on terrorism.