The Politics Thread 3.0

Our best bits.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:25 am

Preezy wrote:No it's not. It's just saying that the decision will be shown to be correct. Nothing about forgiveness or passes at all, that's your bias clouding things.


But the decision will not be shown to be correct because it was the wrong decision. That's not my bias, that's the way it is.

Look at the way Churchill's memory is increasingly being tarnished by the horrors of Dresden. That's a man that literally defeated the Nazis and people still think he was a war criminal. If your reputation is tarnished when you beat Hitler, Blair stands no strawberry floating chance for beating Saddam.

Preezy wrote:It was a bad way of going about it, but it was justifiable in the sense that Saddam is now dead and the people of Iraq no longer live under his regime.


Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of dead. Tell that to their relatives. Tell that to the people living under ISIS.

Saddam being dead/deposed was a good thing. The way it was done was not. It is not justifiable to kill hundreds of thousands to get rid of one man.

Preezy wrote:But yeah, that's a good analogy and I don't disagree with you, but my point remains. It was the lesser of two evils. To quote our good friend Edmund Burke - “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”


It wasn't the lesser of two evils. There was more than one option and a lot of the other options wouldn't have resulted in so many people dying and wouldn't have resulted in the instability that we still see in the region (let alone inspiring hatred and terrorism elsewhere).

You could argue (quite successfully) that neither Blair or Bush are good men, but they did defeat an evil psychopathic dictator. Sounds cold to say, but the end justified the means.


And some people would say Saddam being a brutal dictator was fine because he kept people in line and that end justified the means.

Killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people is not justified just because a dictator is deposed. There are far better ways of doing it, indeed you agree with one of the alternatives (assassination) and so the ends couldn’t justify the means as those ends didn’t need to die.

User avatar
captain red dog
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol, UK

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by captain red dog » Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:56 am

I was one of those that initially backed the Iraq war. I remember after the invasion when it was clear the West would have troops on the ground for years to come that it would take 15-20 years to know whether it was the right decision.

Well 15 or so years on its clear that it was a strawberry floating disaster and the lies told by the Blair and Bush regime are disgusting. The state of the world today is largely due to the absolute clusterfuck those two made in what was clearly an illegal war.

As for Dresden, I don't think it has tarnished Churchill's reputation any more than it did at the time. The horrors of the bombs dropped on Japan have largely eclipsed it. In retrospect it was a war crime, but in something like WW2 which was a clear and severe existential threat to the free world, it's probably right that it is kind of excused.

User avatar
lex-man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by lex-man » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:13 pm

I thought Churchill was being undone by his actions in South Africa and India more than Dresden.

User avatar
OrangeRakoon
SONM Sec.
Joined in 2015
Location: Reading, UK
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by OrangeRakoon » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:14 pm

Moggy wrote:Look at the way Churchill's memory is increasingly being tarnished by the horrors of Dresden.


Being from Coventry, I'd want to say Churchill did worse to us, but nowadays the consensus seems to be that story is apocryphal

User avatar
Return_of_the_STAR
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Northampton

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Return_of_the_STAR » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:22 pm

I don't think anyone who didn't live through the second world war can really comment on 'war crimes'. it was total war. It wasn't anything like we see today in what amounts to a skirmish by comparison. Civilians were killed in their millions on both sides. It ultimately comes down to the leaders looking after their own and trying to end the war as soon as they can. The start of the war saw very little civilian deaths, people were warned to leave towns and villages before troops entered but fast forward on and entire cities were being flattened just to destroy a factory or depot.

Image

GRAPL Heavyweight Champion 2010, Runner Up 2017, tag team Champion 2011, 2015, Wrestlemania PPV Winner 2012 and your current all time highest GRAPL points scorer.
Fixture feeling champion 2013.

I'm a Paul Heyman guy!
User avatar
lex-man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by lex-man » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:31 pm

I'm slightly worried that we will end up with some very left government. If Corbyn leaves power, I feel like the Labour Party will double down on left wing candidates and the Tories will keep idling to the right until we get some truly horrible PM.

User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Preezy » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:31 pm

Spoilered to hide the big chain...

Moggy wrote:But the decision will not be shown to be correct because it was the wrong decision. That's not my bias, that's the way it is.

Look at the way Churchill's memory is increasingly being tarnished by the horrors of Dresden. That's a man that literally defeated the Nazis and people still think he was a war criminal. If your reputation is tarnished when you beat Hitler, Blair stands no strawberry floating chance for beating Saddam.

Churchill was a war criminal (I don't know how people can dispute that, but that's a different argument for a different day), but again the ends justified the means because Hitler is dead.

Moggy wrote:Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of dead. Tell that to their relatives. Tell that to the people living under ISIS.

Saddam being dead/deposed was a good thing. The way it was done was not. It is not justifiable to kill hundreds of thousands to get rid of one man.

I guess that's just something we'll have to disagree on. Again WW2 - the end justified the means.

Moggy wrote:It wasn't the lesser of two evils. There was more than one option and a lot of the other options wouldn't have resulted in so many people dying and wouldn't have resulted in the instability that we still see in the region (let alone inspiring hatred and terrorism elsewhere).

Hatred and terrorism were there long before the Iraq War. You can trace today's climate all the way back to WW1.

Moggy wrote:And some people would say Saddam being a brutal dictator was fine because he kept people in line and that end justified the means.

Killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people is not justified just because a dictator is deposed. There are far better ways of doing it, indeed you agree with one of the alternatives (assassination) and so the ends couldn’t justify the means as those ends didn’t need to die.

I actually think the assassination option is a bit of a red herring. Let's say they sent in an SAS team instead and they got all the Aces in their deck of cards (Mercenaries :wub: ), you'd still have had a massive bloodbath of a civil war, just as many people would have died and the power vacuum would still have existed, only instead of the entire deck of cards being dead you'd just have the lower cards being promoted and continuing Saddam's regime. At least with the way they did it, the entire regime was wiped out and allowed the democratic process to start, albeit during a sectarian conflict (thanks religion).

I think I've said all I can on that now so don't really want to go round in circles, but if you have any more points I'd be more than happy to respond. We should go for a pint sometime, my treat!

I also had to remove a bunch of double spaces in your quotes, I like to think that you put them in on purpose just to annoy me :P

Image
User avatar
Dual
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Stool Bloke

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Dual » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:36 pm

Knoyleo wrote:
Moggy wrote: people voted Labour last year in spite of Corbyn, not because of him.

:simper:

Nice projection.

I voted for Labour because of Corbyn, and so did plenty of others.


Communist

User avatar
Drumstick
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Vampbuster

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Drumstick » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:40 pm

Moggy wrote:
Hyperion wrote:
Moggy wrote:Other than the Cobynites (I hate that phrase :x ) people voted Labour last year in spite of Corbyn, not because of him.


So what you're saying is that other than the people who voted because of him, people voted in spite of him?


I am saying that you have three groups that voted Labour.

The main group are the people that always vote Labour. Their parents did, their grandparents did and they will do so until the end of time. Some of them will like Corbyn, some of them will dislike him. It doesn’t really matter though as their vote is always going to Labour whether it is Blair or Corbyn in charge.

The second group are those attracted to Labour because of Corbyn. It’s hard to tell how big that group actually is, but opinion polls would suggest it is not all that large. Not very large at all.

The third group are the people that voted Labour to stop the Tories. This is the group you need to win an election, the middle ground as it were. Labour did quite well in 2015, but (as Hexx said) they didn’t do enough to win this group over. This group were not voting for Corbyn, they were voting against May.

In 2015 Miliband got 9,347,273 votes. In 2017 Corbyn got 12,878,460 votes. 3.5million more votes is damn impressive but I don’t think they were because people liked Corbyn particularly but because people disliked the Tories.

I think it'd be a fun experiment to poll the GR folks that voted Labour to see which of those three groups they align closest with. I'm certainly in the latter group.

One man should not have this much power in this game. Luckily I'm not an ordinary man.
Image Image
"economically unviable"
-Oblomov Boblomov
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:43 pm

Drumstick wrote:I think it'd be a fun experiment to poll the GR folks that voted Labour to see which of those three groups they align closest with. I'm certainly in the latter group.


People don't seem to like my polls so I will leave it up to you. ;)

User avatar
<]:^D
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by <]:^D » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:44 pm

:lol:

User avatar
Hyperion
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Beyond the wall

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Hyperion » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:46 pm

Drumstick wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hyperion wrote:
Moggy wrote:Other than the Cobynites (I hate that phrase :x ) people voted Labour last year in spite of Corbyn, not because of him.


So what you're saying is that other than the people who voted because of him, people voted in spite of him?


I am saying that you have three groups that voted Labour.

The main group are the people that always vote Labour. Their parents did, their grandparents did and they will do so until the end of time. Some of them will like Corbyn, some of them will dislike him. It doesn’t really matter though as their vote is always going to Labour whether it is Blair or Corbyn in charge.

The second group are those attracted to Labour because of Corbyn. It’s hard to tell how big that group actually is, but opinion polls would suggest it is not all that large. Not very large at all.

The third group are the people that voted Labour to stop the Tories. This is the group you need to win an election, the middle ground as it were. Labour did quite well in 2015, but (as Hexx said) they didn’t do enough to win this group over. This group were not voting for Corbyn, they were voting against May.

In 2015 Miliband got 9,347,273 votes. In 2017 Corbyn got 12,878,460 votes. 3.5million more votes is damn impressive but I don’t think they were because people liked Corbyn particularly but because people disliked the Tories.

I think it'd be a fun experiment to poll the GR folks that voted Labour to see which of those three groups they align closest with. I'm certainly in the latter group.


So what does this third group do in the next election if not the same, if their point is to stop the Tories?

Image
Ad7 wrote:stop moaning about it
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:47 pm

Preezy wrote:I also had to remove a bunch of double spaces in your quotes, I like to think that you put them in on purpose just to annoy me :P


I sometimes write out posts in Outlook or Word to avoid easy detection from people at work that might see my screen. That'll probably be why the double spaces are there, but I will in future make sure they are there for you. ;)

I think we oddly agree on Iraq/Blair while at the same time are miles apart. Let's call it quits and think about that pint you are going to buy me. :wub:

User avatar
<]:^D
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by <]:^D » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:48 pm

imaginary pints :datass:

User avatar
captain red dog
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol, UK

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by captain red dog » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:51 pm

It's hard to see where the next election will go. The Lib Dems should be recovering by now but the wipeout seems to have really hurt the coverage they get. It's hard to see them recover when they are so easily pushed out of the discussion.

I think it all lies of the initial result of Brexit. If the deal goes badly I think Corbyn could get in. If the Tories manage to get even a slightly acceptable deal I could see them scraping a majority.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:52 pm

Hyperion wrote:
Drumstick wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hyperion wrote:
Moggy wrote:Other than the Cobynites (I hate that phrase :x ) people voted Labour last year in spite of Corbyn, not because of him.


So what you're saying is that other than the people who voted because of him, people voted in spite of him?


I am saying that you have three groups that voted Labour.

The main group are the people that always vote Labour. Their parents did, their grandparents did and they will do so until the end of time. Some of them will like Corbyn, some of them will dislike him. It doesn’t really matter though as their vote is always going to Labour whether it is Blair or Corbyn in charge.

The second group are those attracted to Labour because of Corbyn. It’s hard to tell how big that group actually is, but opinion polls would suggest it is not all that large. Not very large at all.

The third group are the people that voted Labour to stop the Tories. This is the group you need to win an election, the middle ground as it were. Labour did quite well in 2015, but (as Hexx said) they didn’t do enough to win this group over. This group were not voting for Corbyn, they were voting against May.

In 2015 Miliband got 9,347,273 votes. In 2017 Corbyn got 12,878,460 votes. 3.5million more votes is damn impressive but I don’t think they were because people liked Corbyn particularly but because people disliked the Tories.

I think it'd be a fun experiment to poll the GR folks that voted Labour to see which of those three groups they align closest with. I'm certainly in the latter group.


So what does this third group do in the next election if not the same, if their point is to stop the Tories?


What did they do in 2015?

I didn't mean stop the Tories in stopping them whatever happens, they voted to stop the Theresa May Tory party. Some of those 3.5million will change their views over the next few years (both pro and anti Tory), some will find whatever replacement the Tories come up with appealing/better, some will become disillusioned with voting. Etc.

As Hexx said earlier, this was probably the weakest Tory government in the last 50 years (possibly ever!) and Labour didn't win the election. Corbyn does not appeal to enough of the middle ground to ever be able to win, with the only possible exception being if the Tories get even worse.

User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Preezy » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:54 pm

Moggy wrote:
Preezy wrote:I think we oddly agree on Iraq/Blair while at the same time are miles apart. Let's call it quits and think about that pint you are going to buy me. :wub:

Sorry I meant pint of milk.

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:57 pm

captain red dog wrote:I think it all lies of the initial result of Brexit. If the deal goes badly I think Corbyn could get in. If the Tories manage to get even a slightly acceptable deal I could see them scraping a majority.


If Brexit goes badly and the economy is in ruins, then all we will hear from the right wing is all about how terrible Labour are with money, how Corbyn wants to raise taxes, how he is going to borrow to pay for things etc. The Remain side will also be pointing out how Corbyn did nothing to stop it.

If Brexit means a slightly acceptable deal, then the right wing will be pointing out how well the Tories did against the bullies of the EU. She fulfilled the will of the people! Vote for 5 more years of Tory power to stop those Europeans undermining us! Whereas the Remain side will still curse Corbyn for capitulating.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:58 pm

Preezy wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Preezy wrote:I think we oddly agree on Iraq/Blair while at the same time are miles apart. Let's call it quits and think about that pint you are going to buy me. :wub:

Sorry I meant pint of milk.


<]:^D wrote:imaginary pints :datass:

User avatar
Rex Kramer
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Rex Kramer » Tue Jan 09, 2018 1:05 pm

captain red dog wrote:It's hard to see where the next election will go. The Lib Dems should be recovering by now but the wipeout seems to have really hurt the coverage they get. It's hard to see them recover when they are so easily pushed out of the discussion.

I think it all lies of the initial result of Brexit. If the deal goes badly I think Corbyn could get in. If the Tories manage to get even a slightly acceptable deal I could see them scraping a majority.

Oh goody, gooseberry fool flavoured ice cream or ice cream flavoured gooseberry fool. Can't wait.


Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests