Jeremy Corbyn

[anonymous-user]

mybrainhurts said:

Breadvan72 said:

Mash uncannily real as ever:-

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-he...

"In place of Labour a range of new parties will be formed next year, with the two biggest being The Nice Middle Class People and Angry About Everything All The Time."

I'd risk a little bet the biggest splinter party will be the Green With Envy Party...

There are many valid criticisms of various types of left wing thought, but one that always seems to me wide of the mark is the idea that people adopt a political position because of envy for what others have. Some people have misguided views about ensuring greater fairness by levelling down rather than levelling up, but that is not the same thing as envy.

[anonymous-user]

Wacky Racer said:

Breadvan72 said:

I used to have a bike that I kept at work and never rode. My clerks called it Terry Waite, because it was always chained up in the cellar.

Stick to the day job Bv....

Yeah, and the veal is rubbish as well.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

wide of the mark is the idea that people adopt a political position because of envy for what others have.

You've been at the Glenmorangie again.

[anonymous-user]

Nasty stuff. Dalwhinnie or Macallan, maybe, but I prefer Rye or Irish, mostly.

[Derek Smith]

turbobloke said:

Derek Smith said:

turbobloke said:

Agreed. Corbyn is a pacifist incapable of making contextual judgements in these matters.

Being an RAF Pilot, an RAF Pilot on active service in a war zone, shot down then captured and held, means that Nichol demands the greatest of respect and admiration for his skill, courage and selfless service. It doesn't mean he has or gives the right answers.

As opposed to keyboard warriors?

The only 'right answer' he gave was that an attack on Syria should be part of a greater strategy as just bombing alone would create more problems that it might solve. He brought up examples to support his contention.

You'll excuse me if I give favour him rather than those whose support for bombing is based on political desires or blind political support.

s2art said:

V6Pushfit said:

People who are captured and held etc etc like Nicol, Waite, McCarthy etc tend to be anti war as a result. Quite apart from being utterly exceptional people part of the healing process is to forgive and not bear the expected grudges or all consuming hatred of their enemy. I can't think of one ex captive who has sworn revenge.
That healing enables them to stand better than the bds that held them

Andy McNab? Held in Iraqi jail and treated badly. Stated if he ever came across his jailers again he would 'slot them'.

Fair point but does 'tend to be' not allow for exceptions?

Derek's own keyboard warrior post got me to consider my time as a Flt Lt and whether it was in the wrong role and so insufficient for me to be worthy of holding a personal opinion. It didn't take long, as periods of reflection go.

CMD's speech made a compelling case and I agree with him on that basis not because of his politics. That should be obvious from my posts, and if not, I'm not a CMD fan by any means. I'm not a fan of Corbyn either...

I was brought up immediately post war, surrounded by people with varying experiences. My father-in-law was a prisoner of war of the Japanese and the person camp he was sent to had Korean guards. He had a hatred of the Japanese and Koreans that lasted him for the balance of his life. He was mild mannered but you didn't want to be oriental in front of him.

I spoke with a Fleet Air Arm chap a couple of times. He was murdered by the PIRA. If you see the photograph of the Ark Royal in the Med, with a tremendous list, and a Swordfish flying past, he's the pilot. He was interned in a French PoW camp in N Africa. He told the story of them being released by the allies, Americans I think, and taken to a boat to be taken home, the boat sailing the following morning. He said that during the night there were a couple of splashes and in the morning they were told that the commandant of the camp had been murdered.

There were some WWII cases of prisoners turning on their guards immediately before, during and after being liberated.

As I said, the bloke's comments were very interesting and, coming from someone whose experience of the region and of fighting there were fairly recent, I felt that what he said was well worth listening to. He's done it. His other comments were hardly anti-war. Read his blog.

The point I made in another thread still stands for me though: the attacks in France demand, in only for political reasons, a response, and the most obvious one would be an air strike as it would be well publicised. The public needs to be satisfied. The political imperative for some kind of retaliation is all by overwhelming. Notwithstanding that, our experience has shown that unless we have a sensible strategy, going to war for the sake of it is nonsensical.

Edited by Derek Smith on Saturday 28th November 08:53

[arp1]

Johnnytheboy said:

arp1 said:

Smollet said:

The Fire Brigade Union is obviously very happy with Corbyn
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34946967

Don't believe everything you read - not all FF's happy with this move...

Tell us more...

Based on the fact that they screwed us over ten years ago, plus the political situation UK wide, Labour is not a popular choice with all those within the service - I don't want my subs going to the Liebor party certainly!

[irocfan]

Langweilig said:

The EU and Comrade Corbyn say we really must do this or we will all be branded as racists.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/622567/Eu-L...

IF that's true then I'm afraid I'm a racist in the eyes of these lackwits. If you have fought for daesh then you don't get to come back, ever. That's it. fk off.

[johnxjsc1985]

irocfan said:

IF that's true then I'm afraid I'm a racist in the eyes of these lackwits. If you have fought for daesh then you don't get to come back, ever. That's it. fk off.

according to the Poll 99% are racist with you.

[johnxjsc1985]

now he is asking his lefty members to get him out of a hole and he will try to force the PLP to vote no because the membership vote no. ~On this basis MP's can be sacked and we can just have phone in votes .
Does he understand that he became "LEADER" of his party and he needs to show leadership

[mybrainhurts]

Breadvan72 said:

mybrainhurts said:

Breadvan72 said:

Mash uncannily real as ever:-

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-he...

"In place of Labour a range of new parties will be formed next year, with the two biggest being The Nice Middle Class People and Angry About Everything All The Time."

I'd risk a little bet the biggest splinter party will be the Green With Envy Party...

There are many valid criticisms of various types of left wing thought, but one that always seems to me wide of the mark is the idea that people adopt a political position because of envy for what others have. Some people have misguided views about ensuring greater fairness by levelling down rather than levelling up, but that is not the same thing as envy.

Remove your blinkers, unplug your ears, listen to lefties. It's rife.

Start with Chancellor Denis "tax them 'til the pips squeak" Healey, work your way up to Prescott and listen to Labour councillors in between.

Get inside their heads, it's not just envy, it's downright vindictive hatred.

[hidetheelephants]

freshkid said:

I may be going slightly insane...brain addled on jingoism and warfare by proxy perhaps...but it reads like some of you think the Syrian people will welcome a bombing campaign.

If we bomb Syria even more than its already being bombed surely that will mean more fleeing refugees, more displaced people, widespread suffering, death, infrastructure damage, wider ISIS dispersion, increasing violence on both sides, proliferation of terrorist counter-attacks...need I go on?

Can someone explain why bombing Syria is a good idea?

It might be helpful to remember why CMD sent the RAF in to Iraq in the first instance, all those months ago in 2014; it was to bomb the st out of IS to discourage them from raping, murdering, torturing and enslaving the Yazidi people, which rapidly grew to include bombing in support of the Iraqi army and the Peshmurga, who were taking a bit of pasting as IS had lots of heavy weaponry recently liberated from Iraqi army arsenals and the Peshmurga had AK47s, rpgs and handgrenades, and Erdogan blocked every effort to arm them with anything better. Joe civilian isn't any less likely to have his st fked up by IS just because he's in Syria rather than Iraq, as far as IS are concerned it's all the same big unhappy caliphate anyway, just waiting to be liberated into the great islamic future.

Edited by hidetheelephants on Friday 27th November 23:34

[turbobloke]

freshkid said:

Can someone explain why bombing Syria is a good idea?

Cameron has already done that, his speech is on the web if you missed it.

[anonymous-user]

It's one of life's ironies: so many small-scale conflicts with non-descript enemies over the past decade or two, and now one of the rare cases of a clear-cut enemy that absolutely detests us, that needs to be destroyed without pity and people are afraid to react because of the potential negative consequences. It's like a political equivalent of the boy that cried wolf.

I can't ever remember wishing before that a government bombed the absolute st out of somebody - yet now I really do.

[freshkid]

Symbolica said:

It's one of life's ironies: so many small-scale conflicts with non-descript enemies over the past decade or two, and now one of the rare cases of a clear-cut enemy that absolutely detests us, that needs to be destroyed without pity and people are afraid to react because of the potential negative consequences. It's like a political equivalent of the boy that cried wolf.

I can't ever remember wishing before that a government bombed the absolute st out of somebody - yet now I really do.

Ok ISIS is a clear cut enemy...fine accepted. But why do you think bombing Syria will incapacitate them?

[s2art]

freshkid said:

Ok ISIS is a clear cut enemy...fine accepted. But why do you think bombing Syria will incapacitate them?

For instance bombing the crap out of ISIS controlled oil production will remove a major source of their funding. That will hurt. Also bombing the crap out of ISIS bases prevents them from organising properly. May not incapacitate them, but it will weaken them and buy us time to get the grand coalition in place.

[freshkid]

Aren't sanctions as effective as bombing in the long term? Yes some smuggling and local trade will continue but revenue will be many times lower. Surely less likely to kill or radicalise the local population and therefore net result is better.

[Axionknight]

There is almost certainly always someone out there who will be willing to give/sell weaponry to them, America, for example, so sanctions against what is essentially a terrorist organization and not a nation state may not be that effective.

[freshkid]

I mean sanctions on selling oil as the poster above stated that reducing revenue from oil sales is a reason for bombing Syria.

[s2art]

freshkid said:

Aren't sanctions as effective as bombing in the long term? Yes some smuggling and local trade will continue but revenue will be many times lower. Surely less likely to kill or radicalise the local population and therefore net result is better.

It isnt that simple. A lot of oil is simply smuggled out in trucks to various 'black market' intermediaries in Turkey. Plus see;

http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-oil-revenue-islamic-st...

[mybrainhurts]

Can we get back to pulling Jeremy Corbyn's pants down, please?

The poor bloke will be feeling all neglected. He's not made of stone, you know.



.............:sob: