The Politics Thread 3.0

Our best bits.
User avatar
Knoyleo
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Knoyleo » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:24 am

Rex Kramer wrote:
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.

Serious question, would you usually vote Labour?

I've voted Labour, Lib Dem (pre-coalition), and Green in the past. I joined Labour to vote Corbyn, and remain a member, because I want a socialist Labour Party in government.

pjbetman wrote:That's the stupidest thing ive ever read on here i think.
User avatar
Hypes
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Beyond the wall

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Hypes » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:27 am

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?

User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009
Location: SES Hammer of Vigilance

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Preezy » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:29 am

Moggy wrote:
Preezy wrote:I don't think I'd label Tony Blair as evil, that's a bit strong. Does that opinion come from the Iraq War?

Other than Derren Brown, he is the closest thing to the devil that we have.

I guess calling Blair evil is a little strong, but then he was directly responsible for tens/hundreds of thousands of deaths so strawberry float him.

:lol: I miss the Parapod :(
While he may be responsible for those deaths (along with G. Dubya), it was still the right move to get rid of Saddam. Allowing Saddam to remain in power would have been immoral. Yes it's been a gooseberry fool show ever since, but history will come to show it was the right decision.

User avatar
<]:^D
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by <]:^D » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:33 am

are you sure about that :?
dont want to get into a massive debate about foreign policy but Saddam was keeping Iraq under 'control' and by proxy much of the Middle East & neighbouring countries.
removing stable leadership has caused massive problems throughout the middle east - i mean ISIS has its roots in the Iraq conflict...

User avatar
Errkal
Member
Joined in 2011
Location: Hastings
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Errkal » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:34 am

<]:^D wrote:are you sure about that :?
dont want to get into a massive debate about foreign policy but Saddam was keeping Iraq under 'control' and by proxy much of the Middle East & neighbouring countries.
removing stable leadership has caused massive problems throughout the middle east - i mean ISIS has its roots in the Iraq conflict...


Yeah he needed to be, sure he had gooseberry fool under control but the way it was done was no acceptable. It would be like going "yeah hitler is a banana split, but he is doing a great job with time tables"

Letting a dictator be a banana split like that is wrong, end of.

User avatar
<]:^D
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by <]:^D » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:37 am

no im playing devils avocado here a bit but if dictators being a banana split is your trigger then we should be invading about 20 countries right now :lol:
is that really a sensible foreign policy?
remember Saddam wasnt removed by the West for being a banana split, it was the mysterious WOMD that did it, i dont think there wouldve been any support if they hadnt been invented.

Last edited by <]:^D on Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:37 am

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.

User avatar
Errkal
Member
Joined in 2011
Location: Hastings
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Errkal » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:38 am

We should be working with them to end their cuntery through diplomacy if possible and if that doesn't work we should be getting rid of them to make sure democracy is put in its place.

User avatar
<]:^D
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by <]:^D » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:39 am

no offence Erks but thats a very naive view of the world; we'd be bankrupt inside the first year doing that!

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:42 am

Preezy wrote:While he may be responsible for those deaths (along with G. Dubya), it was still the right move to get rid of Saddam. Allowing Saddam to remain in power would have been immoral. Yes it's been a gooseberry fool show ever since, but history will come to show it was the right decision.


There were far better ways of removing Saddam than by directly causing the deaths of tens/hundreds of thousands of people.

Removing Saddam is a good thing. Killing 100,000 people is not. You don’t get a free pass on the second one just because the first one was good.

User avatar
Errkal
Member
Joined in 2011
Location: Hastings
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Errkal » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:42 am

By "We" I meant more the democratic world rather than just the UK, however I do think the UK should be pushing for that and trying to create the proper joined up proactive approach and not just waiting for them to do something to piss us off then taking action.

Its part of why I think a joined up EU military is actually a good thing, it can be used to do this sort of thing and "spread" the cost over multiple nations and not have one person taking the hit.

User avatar
<]:^D
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by <]:^D » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:44 am

Errkal wrote:By "We" I meant more the democratic world rather than just the UK, however I do think the UK should be pushing for that and trying to create the proper joined up proactive approach and not just waiting for them to do something to piss us off then taking action.

Its part of why I think a joined up EU military is actually a good thing, it can be used to do this sort of thing and "spread" the cost over multiple nations and not have one person taking the hit.


ok no i agree with that a lot more. and thats also part of the reason the EU forces dont go invading everywhere (along with a lot of other reasons).
i think the UN and EU are a lot busier doing this sort of thing than most people think but its not easy!

User avatar
Errkal
Member
Joined in 2011
Location: Hastings
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Errkal » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:45 am

<]:^D wrote:
Errkal wrote:By "We" I meant more the democratic world rather than just the UK, however I do think the UK should be pushing for that and trying to create the proper joined up proactive approach and not just waiting for them to do something to piss us off then taking action.

Its part of why I think a joined up EU military is actually a good thing, it can be used to do this sort of thing and "spread" the cost over multiple nations and not have one person taking the hit.


ok no i agree with that a lot more. and thats also part of the reason the EU forces dont go invading everywhere (along with a lot of other reasons).
i think the UN and EU are a lot busier doing this sort of thing than most people think but its not easy!


They probably are, it really should be shouted about more to make it clear, its like the EU if it was said more what they do in the UK etc. then people may not have had such a down view on them.

User avatar
<]:^D
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by <]:^D » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:48 am

good point

User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009
Location: SES Hammer of Vigilance

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Preezy » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:50 am

Moggy wrote:
Preezy wrote:While he may be responsible for those deaths (along with G. Dubya), it was still the right move to get rid of Saddam. Allowing Saddam to remain in power would have been immoral. Yes it's been a gooseberry fool show ever since, but history will come to show it was the right decision.


There were far better ways of removing Saddam than by directly causing the deaths of tens/hundreds of thousands of people.

Removing Saddam is a good thing. Killing 100,000 people is not. You don’t get a free pass on the second one just because the first one was good.

No of course not, and I don't believe I ever said he gets a pass for all the deaths, did I? Obviously there's blood on his hands, but you can't make a regime change omelette without breaking a whole bunch of Iraqi eggs.

What other ways could they have gotten rid of him? Assassinations of heads of state is still illegal, last time I checked (that would have been my preferred method btw). Trying to turn the population against him would have taken too long (with no guarantee of success) and every day spent doing that would have cost more Iraqi lives living under his brutal regime.

User avatar
<]:^D
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by <]:^D » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:53 am

reminder that the US-invasion of Iraq was deemed illegal by the Secretary-General

User avatar
<]:^D
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by <]:^D » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:56 am

also reminder that the whole point of the UN being set-up was to stop countries invading others to get rid of regimes that they dont like the look of; by historical precedent (both recent and throughout history) its a bad idea.
the only reason George Bush & Blair aren't in prison right now is because the US and UK have vetoes over anything the ICJ would do.

Last edited by <]:^D on Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:58 am

Preezy wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Preezy wrote:While he may be responsible for those deaths (along with G. Dubya), it was still the right move to get rid of Saddam. Allowing Saddam to remain in power would have been immoral. Yes it's been a gooseberry fool show ever since, but history will come to show it was the right decision.


There were far better ways of removing Saddam than by directly causing the deaths of tens/hundreds of thousands of people.

Removing Saddam is a good thing. Killing 100,000 people is not. You don’t get a free pass on the second one just because the first one was good.

No of course not, and I don't believe I ever said he gets a pass for all the deaths, did I? Obviously there's blood on his hands, but you can't make a regime change omelette without breaking a whole bunch of Iraqi eggs.

What other ways could they have gotten rid of him? Assassinations of heads of state is still illegal, last time I checked (that would have been my preferred method btw). Trying to turn the population against him would have taken too long (with no guarantee of success) and every day spent doing that would have cost more Iraqi lives living under his brutal regime.


Your point was that history would show it to be the correct decision. That’s not quite a free pass, but it is saying that Blair will be forgiven. We are 15 years on from the invasion and I still don’t see many signs of Blair being redeemed for it…

Saddam was a monster, that is true. But so are many other world leaders, why did we not invade those countries? Lives are being lost every day over the entire world and we don’t do anything, why was Saddam so special?

Assassination may well be illegal, but that would have been the better option (and it’s not like the US/UK are clean of doing that). The whole Iraq war was based on lies (WMDs being the biggest) and led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. That is not in any way justifiable and especially isn’t when you have no plans for the aftermath of the invasion.

The way Saddam was removed was like knowing where a serial killer lives and blowing up the entire town around him. Sure you get to kill the bad guy, but you also kill thousands of innocents. History will not be kind just because the bad guy died in the omelette along with those eggs.

User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009
Location: SES Hammer of Vigilance

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Preezy » Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:16 am

I live for this, Moggy :mrgreen: :wub:

Moggy wrote:Your point was that history would show it to be the correct decision. That’s not quite a free pass, but it is saying that Blair will be forgiven.

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.

Moggy wrote:Saddam was a monster, that is true. But so are many other world leaders, why did we not invade those countries? Lives are being lost every day over the entire world and we don’t do anything, why was Saddam so special?

I completely agree, and I'd support regime change in any country with a brutal dictator. The fact that we are in 2018 and there are still brutal dictatorships out there is a travesty, especially when you consider that the UK and its allies have the means to obliterate these regimes in a weekend. But not going after Saddam just because there are other dictators out there is not a strong moral position to take.

Moggy wrote:That is not in any way justifiable and especially isn’t when you have no plans for the aftermath of the invasion.

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.

Moggy wrote:The way Saddam was removed was like knowing where a serial killer lives and blowing up the entire town around him. Sure you get to kill the bad guy, but you also kill thousands of innocents. History will not be kind just because the bad guy died in the omelette along with those eggs.

Mission Accomplished! :lol:

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.”

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.

User avatar
<]:^D
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by <]:^D » Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:24 am

im sure Moggy can handle himself but i think youve failed to address most of his points there; the main point is that arguably the end hasnt justified the means with the current state of Iraq and the wider Middle East.

Last edited by <]:^D on Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 134 guests