More than anything I'm delighted by the upsurge of optimism, and the fact that the campaign was fought without the kinda dirty tricks bullshit beloved of Dacre, Crosby et al. Politics in this country and internationally normally leaves me feeling demoralised, angry and depressed. It's nice to have that drop aside for once.
Jeremy Corbyn
- Thread starter glasshand
- Start date
droid
Well-known member
Im slightly stunned that anyone sane could be so opposed to Corbyn's foreign policy. He opposed intervention in Iraq and Libya, he wanted military disengagement from NI, he opposes arms deals with the Saudis, he opposes the apocalyptic insanity of nuclear brinkmanship. He is virtually the only major UK politician to even propose a change to the centuries of rapacious global atrocities that constitute British engagement with the world and his views are mostly in line with the global consensus and UN and international human rights agreements.
He said Syria was a "regime change" war which is totally false. There was a revolution out there - it just doesn't fit in with the campist notion that Assad is some kinda socialist/bulwark against US imperialsim. All of the Syria activists I know dislike Corbyn's foreign policy stance. He called for "full investigation" into the Khan Sheikoun gassing when it was overwhelmingly obvious Assad did it. The Times even published a story identifying the pilot. Then you get Seamus Milnes saying shit like a focus on Russian war crimes "is a dsitraction". Just shit like that. The list goes on.
Edit - link didnt' show:
This guy is great on Syria. His book (with Lelia Al-Shami) "Burning Country" is well worth reading.
Edit - link didnt' show:
This guy is great on Syria. His book (with Lelia Al-Shami) "Burning Country" is well worth reading.
Last edited:
Someone like Jo Cox is a much better model - Alison McGovern is her nearest heir in the party as far as I'm aware. Never checked this out but I believe he opposed the bombing of ISIS forces when they had Yezidis surrounded on Mount Sinjar. 40,000 people would be dead if it wasn't for that intervention.
This is good, from someone who's been studying the revolution for years. There' a new piece of his I'm trying to find, give me a moment: https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/c...reign-policy?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=sf
droid
Well-known member
Syria is far more complex than you suggest, and there have been multiple statements from the West supporting the assertion that they were most interested in regime change. I could argue the toss about Russia as well.
Regardless, in broad strokes Corbyn's anti-interventionist, anti-militaristic stance, had it been enacted would have lead to a more stable, less dangerous world. The catastrophe of Iraq alone should be enough to convince. British is a rogue state, a sponsor of terror regimes and one of the leading seller of arms to repressive dictatorships. Any moves to ameliorate this should be welcomed.
Regardless, in broad strokes Corbyn's anti-interventionist, anti-militaristic stance, had it been enacted would have lead to a more stable, less dangerous world. The catastrophe of Iraq alone should be enough to convince. British is a rogue state, a sponsor of terror regimes and one of the leading seller of arms to repressive dictatorships. Any moves to ameliorate this should be welcomed.
droid
Well-known member
A million people are dead because of Iraq. ISIS wouldnt exist if Iraq had not happened.
"Oh, it's complex" is actually the first box on the Corbyn Defender Syria discussion scratchcard bingo! Way to go dismissing a revolution. Please try and actually engage with some of the sources I've posted. Corbyn's position is retrogressive here - he's applying a Cold War template to an thoroughly different situation - the "Axis of Resistance" vs the Evil US. He talks the same sort of bullshit about Libya as well. Doesn't it bother you that he'd pigeonhole 4 very different conflicts as exactly the same? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. No nuance or specificity.
Luckily for both of us, I have a baby to look after, so I can't engage is arguing all day but I'll post some more links later.
Luckily for both of us, I have a baby to look after, so I can't engage is arguing all day but I'll post some more links later.
I wasn't defending the invasion of Iraq. I think it was a criminal act. But different conflicts are just that - different. They may not fit our pre-existing ideological templates.
droid
Well-known member
Youre completely missing the point. If Corbyn's foreign policy principles, the principles you find 'abhorrent' had been applied, they would have been no invasion of Iraq, no displacement of millions of people, no prison camps, no ISIS. And in a wider sense a stronger framework of international law and less rampant US.
droid
Well-known member
But Syria is complex. It cant be denied. What started as a popular revolution was hijacked by a patchwork of Islamist and anti-democratic forces compounded my multiple regional actors exploiting the situation to advance long standing geo political aims whilst global players poured in arms and money in pursuit of morally indefensible political and military goals as a murderous Islamist cult takes advantage to attempt to form a state within a state.
Painting Syria as a glorious democratic revolution is deeply reductive and crude, and applying that logic to Libya - an ostensible ally with the least repressive regime in the region with a relatively prosperous and educated civil society - well thats precisely the kind of thinking that led to Iraq in the first place, and the consequences of intervention there may well lead to just as devastating a result.
droid
Well-known member
Congratulations!
droid
Well-known member
A simple question. If Corbyn had been PM at the time and Britain had refused support to the US on Iraq, potentially tanking the entire invasion - would the region, and the world be a better place today?
Thanks! I'll try and post some more later today but hopefully you get where I'm coming from in my criticisms of Corbyn.
On Iraq, we should never have gone in. I marched against it at the time and think there are grounds for trying Blair as a war criminal. One of the many side efffects of Iraq - pretty low down the hiearchacy of horror - is that people now assume any foreign intervention is wrong by definition.
A counter question - was it right or wrong to bomb Isis forces when they had Yezidis surrounded on Mount Sinjar?
firefinga
Well-known member
Let's assume there would have been an "Arab Spring" like uprising in 2011 in an Iraq still under Saddam (or Saddam's sons') rule, the carnage would have been gigantic.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
It's true, you know. Droid is the most modest person in the world. He even has an enormous golden trophy in his living room to prove it.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
"Brinkmanship"? The UK isn't enlarging its nuclear arsenal, isn't developing new weapons or delivery systems and isn't seeking to place missiles in new places - there are countries unfriendly to the UK doing all those things. The only debate here is whether to replace a small, ageing nuclear fleet with new vessels and missiles of the same number and capability as the existing ones.
I really hope that one day there are no nuclear weapons owned by any countries, but I think it's totally fallacious and naive to assume that one country undergoing unilateral disarmament while the other established nuclear powers keep their weapons, and while a new (to say nothing of isolated, paranoid and generally utterly dysfunctional) member of the club is undertaking an aggressive development programme, is going to make either itself or the world in general a safer place. And I can think of few things that would delight Putin more than for one of only two nuclear-armed countries in Europe outside Russia to give up its capability.
Last edited: