The Politics Thread

[Guest MattP]

No I am not into Corbyn.

 

Come on Ken. You've pretty much defended everything he has said and done, even when he's turned around and done the opposite a couple of hours after.

 

You like the guy, nothing wrong with it, I like Farage as well, that's politics.

Its a fair point but aren't we already there? The conflict in Syria has more sides than a dodecagon!

 

The saddest point about this is unlike other conflicts, we probably can't actually make this one much worse

[Footballwipe]

The principle of Corbyn's poltics I agree with, but it's turning out exactly as I'd expected, a total mess, which is the one reason I didn't want him to win.

 

I consider myself left-of-centre, but there's a great quote in the opening scene of The Newsroom, an Aaron Sorkin masterpiece (or terrible depending on your politics) and even if you never watch it source the scene, it is incredible.

 

If liberals are so ****in' smart, how come they lose so goddamn always?

 

And that's exactly how it feels with the left and Labour at the moment, particularly their ground base support. You can pat yourselves on the back, support your man come what may but you're blind to the fact he's turning the only viable alternative to the Conservative party into a factioned rabble. You've got the hardcore Corbynites who have their mandate to lead. Fine, but they'll lose. It's not much of an opposition when you're best hope is a monumental meltdown a la 1992-1997 Tories in order to get back in.

[Rincewind]

Only upset them more  but when that happens we can just bomb them again. Perfect solution.

[Guest MattP]

I do wish people would stop describing Corbyn as a "pacifist" though, he isn't, he is against the use of force by the West, but the use of force by people whose causes he supports is a different matter.

 

He can't think of a single reason to bomb ISIS, but he'll think of many reasons and excuses as to why they would bomb London.

[RobHawk]

I do wish people would stop describing Corbyn as a "pacifist" though, he isn't, he is against the use of force by the West, but the use of force by people whose causes he supports is a different matter.

 

He can't think of a single reason to bomb ISIS, but he'll think of many reasons and excuses as to why they would bomb London.

 

Thats a bit of a silly thing to say Matt - Do you really think he agrees they should bomb London?

 

He may be able to highlight and discuss the reasons why they would do it, but he has no say or control over their actions. What he can do, as the leader of Labour party is have a huge voice in the discussion about what the UK does. He believes that bombing ISIS will make very little difference and probably make things worse. On the basis on recent history, im not sure how people can argue against that. They may believe that the need to protect our shores is greater, but the biggest argument for bombing ISIS at the moment seems to be "What else can we do?" which isn't the greatest argument in my mind.

[Guest MattP]

No I don't, hence why I didn't say he thinks they should bomb London.

Just sick of the pacifism logo sticking to him, he does believe in use of force providing he agrees with the cause.

[Thracian]

Only upset them more  but when that happens we can just bomb them again. Perfect solution.

 

Only upset them more  but when that happens we can just bomb them again. Perfect solution.

 

 

What would you do Rincey? 

[MooseBreath]

I'm a bit concerned that further bombing of ISIS is an emotive/political response to the Paris attacks rather than a rational one.

Priority number one should be the safety of citizens in this country and bombing ISIS more is only going to increase the risk of more home grown terrorists.

We should have alleviated that threat before by being more selective about who we let into the country but now that ship has sailed it's about damage limitation and for me that means giving people in this country, who may be vulnerable to radicalisation, as few excuses to carry out attacks as possible.

We would have to live with ISIS behaving badly in the middle east, but we successfully ignore many other atrocities around the world on a daily basis so this should be no different.

We don't even need their oil any more so we should leave them to destroy themselves. The minute they start encroaching on a significant regional power in the middle east they'll be destroyed anyway. Let the region fight its own battles for a change. The outcome can barely be worse.

[Webbo]

I'm going on the record to say I don't know whether we should bomb Syria or not.

[Guest MattP]

I'm with you there Webbo, I'm going to watch the whole debate tomorrow to hear the ideas and opinions from all sides.

[Bettsj2]

I can almost gaurantee after tomorrow you wont be any clearer on whether we should bomb or not.

It wont work, if history has taught us anything its that this isnt a solution, more a reaction of what the majority think we should do given the recent attacks in Paris and in some respects, I agree with that point of view.

What I think will happen is they'll bomb, continue to bomb, bomb more, move ground troops in, topple Assad, inflict our kind of democracy, fook off and the place will fall to shit.

In the circumstances though there really doesnt seem to be any choice.

One guy I heard on 5Live suggested we take in as many refugees from the region as possible, put them into military training, arm them and send them back to fight their own battle.

I wish that was actually a solution that could work.

[Strokes]

I'm going on the record to say I don't know whether we should bomb Syria or not.

Yeah I'd rather we focus efforts on our own shores but I don't know enough about it right now.

[fuchsntf]

No bombing, no airstrikes. Its just another descision to prepare for colateral damage.

2015...fuk off, 1815 morelike.

'Moosebreath' post hit the nail...emotive/political descision, not a rational one.

FFS cant we learn from anything.

[Rincewind]

There are some that think rationally but they are lambasted. Some  take two steps back before looking and assessing a situation, others take two steps back and three steps forward and fall off the precipice.

I actually agree with Moosebreath on this occasion. He makes some good points.

 

That picture I posted I got from a lad called Danny on FB  who I know from Blood Bowl night. He is a member of FoxesTalk and says he only occasionally looks into General Chat being put off posting by the content.

He was also a part of the FT Travian team a few years back. I wish I could be disciplined  as  him and not get involved and leave you all to it.

[fuchsntf]

The twat on skynews press prewiew, lied through his teeth , mis-using Colbyns interview to make a political jounalistic

point.Look I dont know the labour leader yet, but misquoting from the press we dont need..

And then Camy calling labour/conservative against bombing as terrorist sympathisers...jesus what an idiot.

Look if we could isolate the IS , and bomb them off the face of the earth, my total support, but bombing an

area knowing civilians are there.... is murder.

[leicsmac]

I'm with Moosey on this one. There's nothing we can do that the Ruskies, French and Americans aren't already doing as far as bombing goes, so why do it?

[Thracian]

Yeah I'd rather we focus efforts on our own shores but I don't know enough about it right now.

 

Yeah I'd rather we focus efforts on our own shores but I don't know enough about it right now.

 

 

But we don't. We have ever increasing "security" but let more and more potential dangers arrive. It's the logic of lunacy.   

[Webbo]

The twat on skynews press prewiew, lied through his teeth , mis-using Colbyns interview to make a political jounalistic

point.Look I dont know the labour leader yet, but misquoting from the press we dont need..

And then Camy calling labour/conservative against bombing as terrorist sympathisers...jesus what an idiot.

Look if we could isolate the IS , and bomb them off the face of the earth, my total support, but bombing an

area knowing civilians are there.... is murder.

So what would you do? Leave Isis alone so they can murder civilians instead?

[Stadt]

I'm with Moosey on this one. There's nothing we can do that the Ruskies, French and Americans aren't already doing as far as bombing goes, so why do it?

I think it's just a token effort, the govt want to be seen as doing something whilst doing as little as possible.

[Guest MattP]

Anyone think Camerons "terrorist sympathisers" comment was deliberate to try and get theLabour MP'S rallying around Corbyn?

Seems a strange thing to say when he already knows he's won the vote.

[Bettsj2]

Anyone think Camerons "terrorist sympathisers" comment was deliberate to try and get theLabour MP'S rallying around Corbyn?

Seems a strange thing to say when he already knows he's won the vote.

You're giving him too much credit. It was a bad comment to make which lacked judgement. I like Cameron generally but you cant say things like that when you're the PM.

[Guest]

Bombing is a waste of time and money.

 

We shouldn't even be bombing in Iraq.

 

Corbyn is good for politics. It's nice to see a completely different view and the result is debate. He would be terrible for Labour going nito an election maybe but I hope he stays around for a couple of years so that the country can once more engage in political discussion.

[davieG]

My simple cynical viewpoint

The military/governments need to keep using up old armoury so they can replace it with the latest without the hassle of decommissioning it with the added benefit of real life 'practice' for the military personnel

[Guest MattP]

You're giving him too much credit. It was a bad comment to make which lacked judgement. I like Cameron generally but you cant say things like that when you're the PM.

 

Maybe, it just seems a very strange thing to come out with when you are already guaranteed to win a viote, it came after the DUP and Lib Dems had already committed support as well.

 

If he meant it then it's deplorable, I have no problem with him describing McDonnell, Livingstone, Corbyn etc as that as they are but to use "a bunch of" so liberally and so vaguely is very wrong.

 

Corbyn is good for politics. It's nice to see a completely different view and the result is debate. .

 

Ever since Corbyn was elected you have been moaning about no one is debating or discussing politics.

[ramboacdc]

both the euro and dollar rates dropping already. i oppose the bombings but not much i can do now to stop it eh?