Topics about the Labour Party
:sunglasses: 44.4 % ❤ 5.6 % :thumbsup: 5.6 % :grinning: 33.3 % 😟 5.6 % :cry: 5.6 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
#565884
Andy McDandy wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:30 pm
"WHARRABOUTIRAAAAAAQ?" loses some of its punch when it's almost universally regretted and condemned.
Just not by any of the people involved, and not by a fair whack of parliament who are keen to continue to intervene in the middle east where it serves their personal interests.
#565886
This is the tony blair thread. Show me when he's ever shown contrition for his wanton bloodlust.
#565901
He probably hasn’t. But then no one is here arguing Blair isn’t a monumental twat.

The point 2 pages back was, he talks a lot of sense on Brexit and is a PM whose domestic record of reducing inequality and improving the living standards of people is really quite excellent, but what he’s said is being ignored and drowned out because of his Iraq adventure. I wish there was someone else delivering the message, but that’s the fucking state of things just now - a lousy PM and a lousy ‘opposition’ dragging us off a cliff.

Which leads to the other point: Corbyn is an apologist for dictators and is friends with some very questionable characters, almost all of his ‘life-long struggle for peace’ is just speeches and sign waving, and his default ‘never lift a finger’ policy would have led to deaths. Granted he’s not had a chance to start a war (or in his case, fail to prevent one), but he’s got no claim on the moral high ground either or any sort of elder statesman wisdom. And he has *no* record on domestic policy.

They’re different sides of the same shitty, arrogant coin. Only, one is in charge now, and determined to have his own fucking adventure into needless misery. So sure, by all means hate Blair for what he did. But don’t give Corbyn a free pass when his fuck-up can still be prevented.
Last edited by crabcakes_windermere on Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
lord_kobel liked this
#565902
Winegums wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:59 pm
This is the tony blair thread. Show me when he's ever shown contrition for his wanton bloodlust.
You do write some childish bollocks, don't you?
#565906
Winegums wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:59 pm
This is the tony blair thread. Show me when he's ever shown contrition for his wanton bloodlust.
Attachments
Blairapology.jpg
Blairapology.jpg (143.61 KiB) Viewed 1440 times
lord_kobel liked this
#565954
It'd be easier to accept Corbyn's Iraq opposition if he knew that all the vidence wasn't accurate rather than just voting against because of what he always does. He had no idea whether they'd find a chemical weapons facility somewhere on the outskirts of Baghdad, and had they done so he'd have been known in history as the guy who supported the chemical weapon owning dictator.

I don't think I've ever seen so much revisionist bullshit about a single, trivial event as I have about Corbyn's vote against the Iraq war.
Andy McDandy liked this
#565957
Winegums wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:45 pm
Funnily enough I read an interview with an Iraqi not that long ago, who said their lives were demonstrably worse since the invasion of Iraq. Like things weren't great under Saddam, but there was the basis of a functional society. Now it's a hellhole. Also you forgot about Afghanistan, and Syria, and probably a few other interventions that I can't even recall.

I'm actually embarrassed to be talking to real humans, not politicians, who are defensive of our foreign policy. We invade countries, help the US asset strip them, and install governments friendly to the west. That's it. It's violent imperialism to further economic and power interests, it's never been about doing the right thing.

Care to offer me a hot take on Venezuela?

You could have bigged up Ken Clarke and Charles Kennedy on the warnings about the consequences of Iraq. Corbyn was a minor bit part player who has the same answer in his back pocket whatever the facts are about foreign interventionism.

I'm not keen on Europe poking its nose into Venezuela's affairs but not due to any of Corbyn's persuasiveness. You know what he was going to say before he opened his mouth regardless of the circumstances.
#565962
Yup, just like with apartheid it was the likes of Peter Hain who did the heavy lifting. Corbyn showed up about the same time as Riggs and Murtaugh.

He can't see a bandwagon of a certain flavour without jumping on it. Same as with some Americans, just label whatever you're doing as "freedom and democracy", and they can't not support it. Or to paraphrase Bin Laden, he'd send one of his lads to a beach to wave a flag on film, and the US would have to divert an aircraft carrier to investigate.
#565975
It strikes me that Corbyn is a great case of that thing where ignorance and/or the context breeds over-estimation. Not because Corbyn hasn't done good things, or because he's never had a good position on things (apartheid; Iraq, etc), but that by virtue of his position and the ideological obsessiveness regarding Tory contamination, his position is elevated above all others on all matters. An easier example is Trump fans believing the claim that his is the greatest presidency. Of course it is. The facts are irrelevant. It's Trump.

See also how certain zeitgeist issues come from nowhere, and the public, entirely content beforehand with knowing fuck all about it, suddenly become aware of a terrible/brilliant new thing that has to be confronted/celebrated and yet... it isn't new at all. Novelty is a kind of celebrity. Discourse works like this: what we decide is important and what we decide is unimportant is not some rational, objective thing. It's a function of ignorance as much as anything. 'I never knew anything about X. Now I know Y about X. Y must be quite important.'

It's not even about disagreeing with Corbyn necessarily, it's about proper historical estimation of his character and positions, and then reflecting on the obvious fact: no fucker is always on the right side of history, no fucker is always at the forefront. Let alone the fig-leafs: 'let's have dialogue; I'm off to stick my head in the sand'.

Going full ramble: the dialogue thing for me is a bit like the magic word 'debate'. People are always calling for a debate. What they often mean is not a pre-arranged airing of views with responses and that. What they mean is, in effect, a polemic. 'Debate' is used by people like Bannon to appeal to people with good sentiments - debate is good, we must hear people out, we must be fair and rigorous - to acquire the sheen of intellectual rigour and prestige. But few people are actually interested in debate at all. Are Bannon's fans, for instance, generally capable or interested or that fussed about anything but their own views? They just feel as though their view isn't being given enough air-time, and that the Grand Evil Globalist Jewish Liberal Cabal is repressing them. Debates don't need to happen when there's a mortal enemy at the door.

That's different to Corbyn, but the use of the word struck me as similarly insincere.
#566003
certain zeitgeist issues come from nowhere, and the public, entirely content beforehand with knowing fuck all about it, suddenly become aware of a terrible/brilliant new thing that has to be confronted/celebrated
I think you've just described Brexit.
  • 1
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 45
Meanwhile In Russia

https://twitter.com/DarthPutinKGB/status/115360353[…]

Boris Johnson

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAKEa2BWkAA1Gv6.png

The LibDems, generally

Didn't they actually do stuff in the Coalition o[…]

The DUP

Dear Mr Johnson Thank you for your kind donation. […]