Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
DJ Barry Hammond

Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

....because the reason he took that bullet was for a world where his descendants and those who came after him could live in a world where they suffered less and were able to speak their piece - exactly what is happening here?

 

He and his still lost, thankfully.

 

Yes, there is a time and place where things go too far for words (and people always, always use WWII as that example because it may well be the only one that holds much water) but it's pretty obvious that the more advanced humanity gets the choice will one day be between pacifism and civilisational collapse because some idiot pushed "for the insert country type here!" too far.

 

 

Yup. This.

You think WWII is the only war in history which holds water in which the UK going to war in an act of defence for them or their allies?

 

What about when Napolean was rampaging through Europe, the HRE was tearing itself apart and throwing its people out of windows in the 30 years war? or Milosovic was handing out a full-out race genocide in Yugoslavia?

 

The reason the UK joined WWI was not down to a royal family dispute - we originally declined to join the war. We only joined WWI in the end to defend the people of Belgium from an attack from Germany which had nothing to do with the Belgian people. WWI was a needless war, but Britain's entry to it was not and neither was it glorifying war.

 

I have no idea why urban_spaceman's great-granddad took a bullet but I doubt it was to glorify war and I doubt anyone sees remembrance of him and people like him as glorifying war either.

 

No one likes war, but sometimes it absolutely is the lesser evil and that is in a hell of a lot more instances than just WWII - is one of the most unfortunate parts of the world we live in. And to defamate remembering those who died in battle is frankly vile and pretty morally bankrupt.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Sampson said:

You think WWII is the only war in history which holds water in which the UK going to war in an act of defence for them or their allies?

 

What about when Napolean was rampaging through Europe, the HRE was tearing itself apart and throwing its people out of windows in the 30 years war? or Milosovic was handing out a full-out race genocide in Yugoslavia?

 

The reason the UK joined WWI was not down to a royal family dispute - we originally declined to join the war. We only joined WWI in the end to defend the people of Belgium from an attack from Germany which had nothing to do with the Belgian people. WWI was a needless war, but Britain's entry to it was not and neither was it glorifying war.

 

I have no idea why urban_spaceman's great-granddad took a bullet but I doubt it was to glorify war and I doubt anyone sees remembrance of him and people like him as glorifying war either.

 

No one likes war, but sometimes it absolutely is the lesser evil and that is in a hell of a lot more instances than just WWII - is one of the most unfortunate parts of the world we live in. And to defamate remembering those who died in battle is frankly vile and pretty morally bankrupt.

Nope, what I said was that those who say that war is often necessary bring up WWII as an example the vast majority of the time as it's the easiest one to justify and that it "may well" be the only one - though of course, other people have other examples that they're citing now, which is good.

 

I don't think the act of remembrance is glorifying war, either - but, as was said previously, I do think that these soldiers did terrible things (and had terrible things happen to them) for the sake of a future where there was less of such terror (and also for a society where people would have the freedom to judge their part in it), and as such venerating those soldiers while at the same time disparaging either the society of today as being too "soft" or the people today exercising the freedoms that they fought for is the very definition of defamation of their sacrifice, IMO. 

 

And as I hinted to Matt, my problem isn't really with the necessity or thereof of war and sometimes things do go too far for words - it's with the concept that the more fond humans are of it (or believe it to be necessary) combined with the more humans advance technologically, the further things will be pushed towards any war becoming catastrophic in nature, by accident or design.

 

JFK had it right that at some point in the future, "mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind".

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Markyblue
39 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Nope, what I said was that those who say that war is often necessary bring up WWII as an example the vast majority of the time as it's the easiest one to justify and that it "may well" be the only one - though of course, other people have other examples that they're citing now, which is good.

 

I don't think the act of remembrance is glorifying war, either - but, as was said previously, I do think that these soldiers did terrible things (and had terrible things happen to them) for the sake of a future where there was less of such terror (and also for a society where people would have the freedom to judge their part in it), and as such venerating those soldiers while at the same time disparaging either the society of today as being too "soft" or the people today exercising the freedoms that they fought for is the very definition of defamation of their sacrifice, IMO. 

 

And as I hinted to Matt, my problem isn't really with the necessity or thereof of war and sometimes things do go too far for words - it's with the concept that the more fond humans are of it (or believe it to be necessary) combined with the more humans advance technologically, the further things will be pushed towards any war becoming catastrophic in nature, by accident or design.

 

JFK had it right that at some point in the future, "mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind".

Stone age man fought with rocks and sticks as we progressed technically man fought with tanks and planes, when/if man destroys most of the world with nuclear weapons the survivors will eventually fight with rocks and sticks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Markyblue said:

Stone age man fought with rocks and sticks as we progressed technically man fought with tanks and planes, when/if man destroys most of the world with nuclear weapons the survivors will eventually fight with rocks and sticks. 

Like I said to Matt, this may well be right, but I really hope it ain't because it would be a damn shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Markyblue
1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Like I said to Matt, this may well be right, but I really hope it ain't because it would be a damn shame.

Couldn't agree more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

More Chris Williamson hilarity. 

 

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/99001/furious-row-explodes-after-chris-williamson

 

A bitter row has erupted between Labour MP Chris Williamson and an animal protection charity after he was expelled as a member for allegedly campaigning against it.

 

lol

 

Sounds like he thought he had bona fide grounds for complaining about the League Against Cruel Sports. Still an odd one, though - as an animal rights bod, complaining against it hacking the Countryside Alliance?! :blink:

 

Quite moral in a way, if his allegation is true. Mind you, he does seem like a bloke who could start a fight in an empty room - and would enjoy doing so! lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Salisbury Fox said:

It is politicians that direct the military to be used and it is those same politicians that many will have voted for. I suppose that this is where these students cannot be blamed as most will not have voted for a party that sent troops into war.    

 

It is sad that people do not really understand the military covenant that needs to be in place. If the military are ever going to be placed in harms way then there has to be an assurance that if injured or killed then these people and their families should be looked after. I believe that this extends to having a day of remembrance for those fallen out of respect if nothing else.

 

I don't get outraged by this nonsense to be honest, but it is indicative of the loosening of the links with the military which has taken a knock due to falling numbers and what are perceived to be 'unjust' wars. I do however believe that we live in a potentially far more dangerous time in which a strong military is required, which makes the degradation of our capabilities more concerning.

3

I hope that most of those people, rather than not understanding the covenant in place or throwing shade it what it does (taking care of the wounded and vulnerable on their way back from war is a good thing to do after all), are more bemoaning the fact that such a covenant has to exist at all because they can see what it leads to in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's quite crazy how mainstream Tommy Robinson is becoming, crowd were chanting his name at the super league grand final last night. (Ignore the title og course as 80,000 clearly a huge exaggeration)

 

The politicians who failed the young girls and the judge who ****ed up his case have a lot to answer for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I hope that most of those people, rather than not understanding the covenant in place or throwing shade it what it does (taking care of the wounded and vulnerable on their way back from war is a good thing to do after all), are more bemoaning the fact that such a covenant has to exist at all because they can see what it leads to in the future.

As you point out the covenant has to exist if we are to have a military from a moral point of view.  Given that there will always be despots and regimes that will not mind doing us harm either directly or indirectly, no amount of disarmament by us is ever going to change that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MattP said:

It's quite crazy how mainstream Tommy Robinson is becoming, crowd were chanting his name at the super league grand final last night. (Ignore the title og course as 80,000 clearly a huge exaggeration)

 

The politicians who failed the young girls and the judge who ****ed up his case have a lot to answer for.

I was in a pub in Exeter a little while ago, I was outside smoking and a group of EU migrants were chanting his name. Some were from Poland, Latvia and I think one from Montenegro. 

I did ask what it was all about but most of them were ranting about Chem trails, New world order, some shit about LGBT it was pretty extreme tbh.

It did shock me though as my perception was that his followers (and I’m sure they are mostly) we’re just National front, english skinheads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I was in a pub in Exeter a little while ago, I was outside smoking and a group of EU migrants were chanting his name. Some were from Poland, Latvia and I think one from Montenegro. 

I did ask what it was all about but most of them were ranting about Chem trails, New world order, some shit about LGBT it was pretty extreme tbh.

It did shock me though as my perception was that his followers (and I’m sure they are mostly) we’re just National front, english skinheads.

There were a few people chanting his name in the Stamford Arms car park last month.

 

Not the group you would expect either, out of 7-8 at least 3 weren't white. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we could organise a reality TV chant-off between those shouting "Tommy Robinson" and those shouting "Oh, Jeremy Corbyn".

If a clapometer was deployed, we could save on the costs of a general election.

 

It would also allow those who are getting in a sanctimonious lather about the Strictly snogging couple to boycott the programme and watch some other shite.

 

Talking of shite on TV....

I like the Andrew Marr programme, but this morning he had Jackie Stewart on, claiming - unchallenged - that 12 million people in the UK had dementia. You what?! Almost 1 in 5 of the national population are demented. lol

Just Googled it out of curiosity....current figure seems to just under 1 million, but a report suggests that within a few years that could rise to 1.2 million....

Jackie obviously didn't notice the decimal point or the future tense...or maybe he's in the early stages himself?

 

Mind you, given all the Robinson/Corbyn shite, the Strictly snog shite, the Brexit shite, the dementia shite and all the other shite, I'm wondering if he might be right.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Perhaps we could organise a reality TV chant-off between those shouting "Tommy Robinson" and those shouting "Oh, Jeremy Corbyn".

If a clapometer was deployed, we could save on the costs of a general election.

 

It would also allow those who are getting in a sanctimonious lather about the Strictly snogging couple to boycott the programme and watch some other shite.

 

Talking of shite on TV....

I like the Andrew Marr programme, but this morning he had Jackie Stewart on, claiming - unchallenged - that 12 million people in the UK had dementia. You what?! Almost 1 in 5 of the national population are demented. lol

Just Googled it out of curiosity....current figure seems to just under 1 million, but a report suggests that within a few years that could rise to 1.2 million....

Jackie obviously didn't notice the decimal point or the future tense...or maybe he's in the early stages himself?

 

Mind you, given all the Robinson/Corbyn shite, the Strictly snog shite, the Brexit shite, the dementia shite and all the other shite, I'm wondering if he might be right.... 

If you took all that into account poor Jackie’s assessment might look a bit light.

On a side note, I’ve met Jackie Stewart and even been to his house, he is a good guy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

If you took all that into account poor Jackie’s assessment might look a bit light.

On a side note, I’ve met Jackie Stewart and even been to his house, he is a good guy. 

 

Yes, just joking, not seriously having a go at him. He comes across as a nice bloke - and dementia is a serious and growing issue. My Dad had (relatively mild) dementia as part of his Parkinson's.

But I'm surprised that Marr - or someone in his earpiece - didn't pick up on the error, though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yes, just joking, not seriously having a go at him. He comes across as a nice bloke - and dementia is a serious and growing issue. My Dad had (relatively mild) dementia as part of his Parkinson's.

But I'm surprised that Marr - or someone in his earpiece - didn't pick up on the error, though.

Yeah I realised it was a joke, I think we’ve spoken about your dad’s and my grandmas battle with dementia on here before, so I know it’s not something you don’t understand.

Sadly I think I’m on cusp of going through it again with my own dad, it’s not something I relish but having experienced it once before at least I know what to expect.

Dementia is the focus charity of the London Marathon for 2019 so I was disappointed I didn’t get a place in the ballot for it, as it’s something I would have loved to be a part of.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Salisbury Fox said:

As you point out the covenant has to exist if we are to have a military from a moral point of view.  Given that there will always be despots and regimes that will not mind doing us harm either directly or indirectly, no amount of disarmament by us is ever going to change that. 

 

That's where we disagree, purely because I really fvcking hope there's something more from the future besides humans trying to screw each other over for a percentage and the result thereof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MattP said:

It's quite crazy how mainstream Tommy Robinson is becoming, crowd were chanting his name at the super league grand final last night. (Ignore the title og course as 80,000 clearly a huge exaggeration)

 

The politicians who failed the young girls and the judge who ****ed up his case have a lot to answer for.

Sorry but these are Warrington Wolves fans who are clearly chanting 'warri warri warrington'. 

 

It's amazing how people can manipulate others who can't do a simple bit of research.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

lol as if anyone believes they're chanting for tommy robinson ffs lol. 

 

 

 

I did! I'm clearly going senile or have low expectations of humanity....some justification for the latter, in my defence.... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

That's where we disagree, purely because I really fvcking hope there's something more from the future besides humans trying to screw each other over for a percentage and the result thereof.

So do I, but unfortunately I can't see anything changing soon given the planet's diminishing resources, population increases, unpredictable extreme weather and the number of despotic regimes around the world.

 

We need a new planet to mess up quick :P

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

Sorry but these are Warrington Wolves fans who are clearly chanting 'warri warri warrington'. 

 

It's amazing how people can manipulate others who can't do a simple bit of research.

My bad. I saw this and posted with no research lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...