Salisbury, Skripal, Poison and Russia.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 minute ago, katieakita said:

Sadly perhaps they will which says a lot about the British press on both sides of the political spectrum

It does which is why I chose not to read them. Generally rely on local media and the BBC is still reasonable mostly. 

[leicsmac]

Just now, breadandcheese said:

In which case, why is Corbyn not more critical of Russia, Hezbollah, etc?

 

I'll reply as someone who is ok with the situation you describe.  It is not that I am delighted with Saudi Arabia's human rights record (far from it), or Trump as president, but I am prepared to maintain our relationships as it defends our country's interests and more importantly, our security.  Cosying up with anti Western elements does not do this. 

 

...because he thinks they're against UK interests as well? Not really sure on that one tbh.

 

Regarding your second paragraph, I'll then repeat what I said above: The UK simply cannot ally with such nations and then look to claim any kind of moral high ground; I'd rather they just be honest and say "look, these abuses are alright because it's our side doing them."

 

Because, at the end of the day, that's all this seems to come down to. And I'd rather folks be honest about that than trying to dress it up in the ridiculous good guy/bad guy dichotomy BS.

 

1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said:

I suppose the question is if we take say £50 billion out of the economy to stop trade with a country with poor human rights records, who here is going to be worse off to pay for that? Do we remove that from the NHS, Schools, its a tough call. 

Yeah, I agree. It's a dilemma.

 

But again, my point here is that the UK can't be taking money from a country like Saudi and then try to hold themselves up as some kind of paragon of virtue, and I'd rather they didn't try - it's dishonest and hypocritical.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

...because he thinks they're against UK interests as well? Not really sure on that one tbh.

 

Regarding your second paragraph, I'll then repeat what I said above: The UK simply cannot ally with such nations and then look to claim any kind of moral high ground; I'd rather they just be honest and say "look, these abuses are alright because it's our side doing them."

 

Because, at the end of the day, that's all this seems to come down to. And I'd rather folks be honest about that than trying to dress it up in the ridiculous good guy/bad guy dichotomy BS.

 

Yeah, I agree. It's a dilemma.

 

But again, my point here is that the UK can't be taking money from a country like Saudi and then try to hold themselves up as some kind of paragon of virtue, and I'd rather they didn't try - it's dishonest and hypocritical.

We take Money from Saudi and Russia, I think we will take money from anywhere as sadly it speaks volumes.

 

I think Human rights issues in Sovereign nations are a matter for the Sovereign nations or global action. 

 

An attack of any kind on British soil I feel does give us a little more of a reason to be slightly pissed at a nation seen as the perpetrator though. 

 

What Russia do in Russia is largely their business, as is what Saudis do I Saudi, but when they start bringing murder to British shores I think its correct that we have a problem with that. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said:

We take Money from Saudi and Russia, I think we will take money from anywhere as sadly it speaks volumes.

 

I think Human rights issues in Sovereign nations are a matter for the Sovereign nations or global action. 

 

An attack of any kind on British soil I feel does give us a little more of a reason to be slightly pissed at a nation seen as the perpetrator though. 

 

What Russia do in Russia is largely their business, as is what Saudis do I Saudi, but when they start bringing murder to British shores I think its correct that we have a problem with that. 

That's fair.

 

IMO you either get a response going to various abuses in all nations, or none at all. Picking and choosing just looks hypocritical.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

13 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

We take Money from Saudi and Russia, I think we will take money from anywhere as sadly it speaks volumes.

 

I think Human rights issues in Sovereign nations are a matter for the Sovereign nations or global action. 

 

An attack of any kind on British soil I feel does give us a little more of a reason to be slightly pissed at a nation seen as the perpetrator though. 

 

What Russia do in Russia is largely their business, as is what Saudis do I Saudi, but when they start bringing murder to British shores I think its correct that we have a problem with that. 

Arent Saudi supposed to have funded 9/11?

[breadandcheese]

27 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Regarding your second paragraph, I'll then repeat what I said above: The UK simply cannot ally with such nations and then look to claim any kind of moral high ground; I'd rather they just be honest and say "look, these abuses are alright because it's our side doing them."

 

Because, at the end of the day, that's all this seems to come down to. And I'd rather folks be honest about that than trying to dress it up in the ridiculous good guy/bad guy dichotomy BS.

 

The answer I would give to that is that I do consider us one of the better countries, despite having an alliance with Saudi Arabia.  I'm proud of our country and our Western values.  It's no surprise that when people need to escape persecution, they look to Britain, Europe, America for asylum.  We should be proud of that, especially in comparison to other countries, and prepared to stand up and shatter the moral relativism that exists trying to equate us with some hideous regimes.  I appreciate this is not always easy, when we have to make some nasty alliances, and there are alliances I wouldn't have made (which other former PMs have) but I don't think this discredits us or makes us a pariah nation.

 

The flipside of this is that it requires all of us to be vigilant to ensure that our country retains its values and this is where I have a respect for those on both sides of the political divide who do this.  However, I really don't have any respect when it comes to Corbyn as he seems too grounded in his belief that everything is always the West's fault when it comes to foreign policy.

[Buce]

32 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I suppose the question is if we take say £50 billion out of the economy to stop trade with a country with poor human rights records, who here is going to be worse off to pay for that? Do we remove that from the NHS, Schools, its a tough call, I wouldn't want to be the one to make it. 

 

Globally how many countries could we trade with that have unquestionable records? No many including our own I would say!

 

I'm pretty sure we took a huge financial hit when we unilaterally abolished slavery.

 

You can't put a price on integrity.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

6 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

The answer I would give to that is that I do consider us one of the better countries, despite having an alliance with Saudi Arabia.  I'm proud of our country and our Western values.  It's no surprise that when people need to escape persecution, they look to Britain, Europe, America for asylum.  We should be proud of that, especially in comparison to other countries, and prepared to stand up and shatter the moral relativism that exists trying to equate us with some hideous regimes.  I appreciate this is not always easy, when we have to make some nasty alliances, and there are alliances I wouldn't have made (which other former PMs have) but I don't think this discredits us or makes us a pariah nation.

 

The flipside of this is that it requires all of us to be vigilant to ensure that our country retains its values and this is where I have a respect for those on both sides of the political divide who do this.  However, I really don't have any respect when it comes to Corbyn as he seems too grounded in his belief that everything is always the West's fault when it comes to foreign policy.

Is he though?  Or does he just focus on the UK's ills because thats his house?

 

I mean that in a Jordan Petersonesque, clean your own room before changing the world sort of thing

[breadandcheese]

7 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Is he though?  Or does he just focus on the UK's ills because thats his house?

 

I mean that in a Jordan Petersonesque, clean your own room before changing the world sort of thing

I would compare Corbyn's responses to Trump's domestic policy statements and Putin's to suggest not. All situations with nothing to do with the UK. Different responses from Corbyn.

 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

The answer I would give to that is that I do consider us one of the better countries, despite having an alliance with Saudi Arabia.  I'm proud of our country and our Western values.  It's no surprise that when people need to escape persecution, they look to Britain, Europe, America for asylum.  We should be proud of that, especially in comparison to other countries, and prepared to stand up and shatter the moral relativism that exists trying to equate us with some hideous regimes.  I appreciate this is not always easy, when we have to make some nasty alliances, and there are alliances I wouldn't have made (which other former PMs have) but I don't think this discredits us or makes us a pariah nation.

 

The flipside of this is that it requires all of us to be vigilant to ensure that our country retains its values and this is where I have a respect for those on both sides of the political divide who do this.  However, I really don't have any respect when it comes to Corbyn as he seems too grounded in his belief that everything is always the West's fault when it comes to foreign policy.

I'm gonna have to disagree; I think moral relativism is extremely important, as considering it is a key part of the vigilance you suggest. If you're going to do the good guy/bad guy dichotomy, you need to know where you stand morally relative to the "bad guys", after all. Too many people do ignore the darker side simply because they know bringing it up would mean that they have to question the moral concepts that they have. I wouldn't say that such things discredit the work that the UK is trying to do, but it should make it clear that the UK and her allies aren't exactly pure as the driven snow either, as some people would like to claim.

 

By international metrics in terms of freedoms and development, the UK is certainly ahead of a lot of states that would be considered nasty, and that's good. However, is it purely coincidental that the same nations that top those tables consistently are ones who also happen to not really take a side (apart from in the loosest possible sense) in the whole realpolitik game at all?

[IrememberBobHazell]

Russian politics has been a brutal business, from the Tsar's through Communism and into today. In 1940 the Russian secret service followed Leon Trotsky to Mexico City and buried an ice pick in his head. That was similarly public, unsubtle and brutal

 With a host of major world leaders including (although not exclusively) those of Canada, United States, Germany and France backing the idea the Russian Government is involved there seems only that noted Moon Howler Mr Corbyn taking another line. Of course we shouldn't be surprised at that, only despair!

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, IrememberBobHazell said:

Russian politics has been a brutal business, from the Tsar's through Communism and into today. In 1940 the Russian secret service followed Leon Trotsky to Mexico City and buried an ice pick in his head. That was similarly public, unsubtle and brutal

 With a host of major world leaders including (although not exclusively) those of Canada, United States, Germany and France backing the idea the Russian Government is involved there seems only that noted Moon Howler Mr Corbyn taking another line. Of course we shouldn't be surprised at that, only despair!

Its not about him saying they're not involved. He says it is probably them

 

His attitude is more about exercising caution to avoid exacerbating already troubled diplomatic relations

 

Its about moving forward with consideration, instead of charging forward clumsily. Only media spin has painted it as anything different

[breadandcheese]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm gonna have to disagree; I think moral relativism is extremely important, as considering it is a key part of the vigilance you suggest. If you're going to do the good guy/bad guy dichotomy, you need to know where you stand morally relative to the "bad guys", after all. Too many people do ignore the darker side simply because they know bringing it up would mean that they have to question the moral concepts that they have. I wouldn't say that such things discredit the work that the UK is trying to do, but it should make it clear that the UK and her allies aren't exactly pure as the driven snow either, as some people would like to claim.

 

By international metrics in terms of freedoms and development, the UK is certainly ahead of a lot of states that would be considered nasty, and that's good. However, is it purely coincidental that the same nations that top those tables consistently are ones who also happen to not really take a side (apart from in the loosest possible sense) in the whole realpolitik game at all?

That's a fair point and I guess different people need different points around which to calibrate.  For me, I'm quite confident that the internal checks and balances we have as a country allow the moral introspection to occur. We don't have censorship like they do in places like Russia or China, so the discussions occur. But I don't trust Corbyn to have the same checks and balances, which is why he should be one voice in a discussion, rather than the official opposition with a chance to lead the country. There are plenty of people on both sides of politics who support Western values and try to keep the country on track not allowing one side to pull too far in any one direction.

 

With regards your second point, I don't consider any nation not to take a side. Unwittingly or not, they enjoy enhanced benefits through the benign nature of the Western nations.  For example, very few nations in Europe have a large military or nuclear weapons. This is because they rely on and get a free benefit from the United States. If you are Switzerland, you know that your security and prosperity is protected by Western Europe/America. Switzerland can then afford to step off the world of real politik and not engage.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

That's a fair point and I guess different people need different points around which to calibrate.  For me, I'm quite confident that the internal checks and balances we have as a country allow the moral introspection to occur. We don't have censorship like they do in places like Russia or China, so the discussions occur. But I don't trust Corbyn to have the same checks and balances, which is why he should be one voice in a discussion, rather than the official opposition with a chance to lead the country. There are plenty of people on both sides of politics who support Western values and try to keep the country on track not allowing one side to pull too far in any one direction.

 

With regards your second point, I don't consider any nation not to take a side. Unwittingly or not, they enjoy enhanced benefits through the benign nature of the Western nations.  For example, very few nations in Europe have a large military or nuclear weapons. This is because they rely on and get a free benefit from the United States. If you are Switzerland, you know that your security and prosperity is protected by Western Europe/America. Switzerland can then afford to step off the world of real politik and not engage.

I would agree that both balance and openness are key to any well-functioning country as I think you're suggesting here. Just need to keep using that same openness to hold those in power accountable for what they do.

 

I might view your second paragraph a little differently to the way you do: while I agree that everyone seems to "take a side" (though some take more of it than others, so to speak), I'd posit that the countries that are more neutral (the Nordics and the Swiss spring to mind) can do so not just because of the Western benevolence as you put it, but because of the whole principle of MAD. And the whole idea of MAD relies on two (or more) players with opposing ideologies to maintain stability - if, for example, the US and NATO had unrivalled military supremacy everywhere, would they be as benign as they are (or are said to be) now? I'm unsure. So in that picture, the Russians and the Chinese do have their own part to play (if unintentionally/indirectly).

[Wymsey]

Over 130 other people were apparently in small ways contacted by the nerve agent.

So, it could be claimed that this was an indirect terrorist attack?

[Rogstanley]

15 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Over 130 other people were apparently in small ways contacted by the nerve agent.

So, it could be claimed that this was an indirect terrorist attack?

No it was a botched assassination attempt.

[The Fox Covert]

So far, the response from Mrs May has been largely huff-and-puff. Russian diplomats have been regularly expelled from the UK for spying for as long as the Russians have had an embassy in this country.

The Russians won't care. The fuss will soon die down and they will eventually be allowed to send more to replace them.

The New York Times writes that there may be more serious retaliation on the way.

 

Britain Hints at Tougher Blow Against Russia: Stripping Tycoons’ Assets

 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/britain-hints-at-tougher-blow-against-russia-stripping-tycoons’-assets/ar-BBKhfOq

 

The article goes into considerable depth about the extent of Russian dirty money in the UK, the businesses owned by Russians and where they got their money from.

IMO Mrs May has a serious justification for the government to seize Russian property in the UK which has been purchased with money obtained by corrupt means or criminal activity.

Just for starters it is undesirable for foreign nationals from a hostile power to own influential parts of the British media, also power utilities.

[Countryfox]

58 minutes ago, The Fox Covert said:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/britain-hints-at-tougher-blow-against-russia-stripping-tycoons’-assets/ar-BBKhfOq

 

The article goes into considerable depth about the extent of Russian dirty money in the UK, the businesses owned by Russians and where they got their money from.

IMO Mrs May has a serious justification for the government to seize Russian property in the UK which has been purchased with money obtained by corrupt means or criminal activity.

Just for starters it is undesirable for foreign nationals from a hostile power to own influential parts of the British media, also power utilities.

 

They could start by taking Chelsea back off Abramovitch and selling all their key players before Saturday ..      

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

3 hours ago, Buce said:

 

I'm pretty sure we took a huge financial hit when we unilaterally abolished slavery.

 

You can't put a price on integrity.

Ok so lets stop trading with China, Russia, Saudi, Spain, Turkey, etc. etc. tomorrow. 

 

Who is funding the public services.

 

Its not that I disagree with you per se I just think there is a lot at stake for a lot of people. Do you take the money and fund some good here, or do you let more people suffer here when apparently too many are already suffering? 

 

I think that stopping an abhorrent act in our own country is different to not trading with a country because we disagree with what they do. 

[Dr The Singh]

21 hours ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

But we have the Gurkha's, can we not have a similar set up? With equal rights and wages though, although maybe the gurkha's finally got that (excuse my ignorance).

 

I know the Sikh's have a fearsome reputation stretching way back.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/sikh-regiment-plan-in-british-army-dropped-again/story-bXGjkgPQ587lSDjhP6VoSJ.html

 

Read for yourself pal

[Dr The Singh]

UK is weak, we've got people from our country in 3rd world jail's without any evidence being tortured and our government does shit or can do shit.   Who would have thought the mighty empire gets bitch slapped by 3rd world shit.

[breadandcheese]

18 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I would agree that both balance and openness are key to any well-functioning country as I think you're suggesting here. Just need to keep using that same openness to hold those in power accountable for what they do.

 

I might view your second paragraph a little differently to the way you do: while I agree that everyone seems to "take a side" (though some take more of it than others, so to speak), I'd posit that the countries that are more neutral (the Nordics and the Swiss spring to mind) can do so not just because of the Western benevolence as you put it, but because of the whole principle of MAD. And the whole idea of MAD relies on two (or more) players with opposing ideologies to maintain stability - if, for example, the US and NATO had unrivalled military supremacy everywhere, would they be as benign as they are (or are said to be) now? I'm unsure. So in that picture, the Russians and the Chinese do have their own part to play (if unintentionally/indirectly).

An interesting take in your second paragraph. I don't have a problem with a multi-polar world, providing both poled have the same belief in freedom and human rights. It's impossible to test your theory that had the US and Nato been so dominant, whether they would have been less benign, as there's nothing to compare over an extended period of time. The closest we can see is the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when American power was unrivalled. At that time, they were fairly benign with an active role in peace talks and attempts to broker peace in the Middle East and the talks with North Korea. Admittedly, this is a short window of time in the grand scheme of things so can't be relied upon for certainty, but it does provide a bit of optimism as to whether utter dominance leads to aggressive policies.

 

But I'm getting woefully off topic so I'll take on board our discussions and steer it back round to topic. Putin bad. We're super awesome. 

[simFox]

On 3/16/2018 at 04:25, Dr The Singh said:

That picture was in France, its sad however, these soldiers were gladly with there turbans allowed to service France, but today Sikhs with turbans cannot even attend government schools , public buildings etc.

 

If these soldiers were aware of this, would they have caught?

Eh? What utter shite you talk. Of course they would fight, they're soldiers and soldiers love to fight, that's why they joined. They didnt give two hoots about France much like we don't give a toss about Iraq/Afghanistan/Bosnia or any other shit holes the British Army fight in, so let's not confuse ourselves too much about the reasons soldiers go to war.

 

I doubt I'm the only ex soldier on this forum, so I'd love to hear if anyone else who joined (any army) had a choice about where they were sent.

 

You take the king's mate and your life is no longer your own.

[Dr The Singh]

1 hour ago, simFox said:

Eh? What utter shite you talk. Of course they would fight, they're soldiers and soldiers love to fight, that's why they joined. They didnt give two hoots about France much like we don't give a toss about Iraq/Afghanistan/Bosnia or any other shit holes the British Army fight in, so let's not confuse ourselves too much about the reasons soldiers go to war.

 

I doubt I'm the only ex soldier on this forum, so I'd love to hear if anyone else who joined (any army) had a choice about where they were sent.

 

You take the king's mate and your life is no longer your own.

I have many soldiers in my household, I have 6 current, and over 20 within 2 generations and more over 6 generations

 

If you think soldiers do not have a moral compass then I'm afraid, your taking out of your backside.  Soldiers are trained to fight and follow orders, but they trust those that give them the orders.  In this case where the French obviously have no regard for there Sikh population, why would those Soldiers risk there life.

 

My grand dad faught in world war 2 for the British, and I asked him would he fight for the British, knowing what they did, he said he faught, because he believed the Germans were an evil that needed destroying.  He actually volunteered to fight.

 

My cousin faught for the indiam army, he today regrets ever wearing the uniform for them, knowing now the genocide attacks the Indian government did against the Sikhs in the 80's.

 

How many soldiers today are having mental and psychological trauma due to fighting a immoral war in Iraq?  

[breadandcheese]

I thought this was a well written opinion piece. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/16/putin-lies-action-moscow-salisbury-attack