Jeremy Corbyn

droid

Well-known member
Typical Guardian liberal, though more radical than the likes of Wheen.
 
Last edited:

droid

Well-known member
lol. Dont make me start defending him. There's been some appalling hatchet jobs about him the last while.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
lol. Dont make me start defending him. There's been some appalling hatchet jobs about him the last while.

Everything I've read by him makes him sound like the sort of notionally anti-war journalist who in fact just fucking loves war, because the more chaos and misery there is the Middle East, the more right it makes him about the wrongness of the Iraq invasion and the incomparable evil of "The West" in general.

He's as bad as Pilger is (or has become) regarding Russia.
 

droid

Well-known member
Yeah sure. He obviously loves war, which is why he went against 90% of the British and American press and his own newspaper by opposing the Iraq war.

Lot of guff being written about Russia which completely ignores NATO and US provocation and their attempts to neutralise their military threat - going back 2 decades. The fact that Putin is a c*** doesnt change this fact.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Lot of guff being written about Russia which completely ignores NATO and US provocation and their attempts to neutralise their military threat - going back 2 decades. The fact that Putin is a c*** doesnt change this fact.

Right, but if you believe Pilger, poor li'l old beleaguered Putin is merely defending his country against totally unilateral aggression by America and the EU and was left with literally no choice but to annex parts of Ukraine that should probably belong to Russia anyway. Any and all anti-Russian forces in the region are either Western puppets or neo-Nazis. Or both.

So, guff on both sides, as is often the case.
 

droid

Well-known member
Sure, but what would the reaction be if Mexico signed a defense pact with Russia, and Russian missiles were placed near the US border ala Poland & Romania in '08 and the current plans for Lithuania, Estonia & Latvia?
 

droid

Well-known member
The big problem here is that Russia is acting like *us* after the relative restraint of the USSR during the late cold war.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Sure, but what would the reaction be if Mexico signed a defense pact with Russia, and Russian missiles were placed near the US border...?

Probably something a bit like what happened - or nearly happened - when this exact scenario occurred 50-odd years ago, but with Cuba instead of Mexico...

Look, I'm not defending American expansionism here - whereas Pilger is most blatantly defending Russian expansionism. And in the broader picture, doesn't Ukraine have the right, as a sovereign state, to align itself with whichever allies it chooses? Surely it's no big puzzle as to why the country might prefer to be part of NATO rather than fall (further) back under Russia's sphere of influence.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
The big problem here is that Russia is acting like *us* after the relative restraint of the USSR durng the late cold war.

Haha, I love the all-important qualifier "late" in this sentence. I.e when their economy had completely collapsed, the government didn't have two brass kopeks to rub together and most everyone had lost any enthusiasm for the Soviet project anyway.
 
Last edited:

droid

Well-known member
Haha, I love the all-important qualifier "late" in this sentence.

:D I almost left it out but I didn't want to start another digression.

BUT

Its a simple matter to compare the historical record from 1945 on, or certainly post Korea. No matter how you swing it, the USSR was a model of restraint IN COMPARISON (before you say it) to a rampant, provocative US and NATO. had the shoe been on the other foot we all would have died in a nuclear hellstorm sometime in the 80's if not sooner.
 
Last edited:

droid

Well-known member
Probably something a bit like what happened - or nearly happened - when this exact scenario occurred 50-odd years ago, but with Cuba instead of Mexico...

Look, I'm not defending American expansionism here - whereas Pilger is most blatantly defending Russian expansionism. And in the broader picture, doesn't Ukraine have the right, as a sovereign state, to align itself with whichever allies it chooses? Surely it's no big puzzle as to why the country might prefer to be part of NATO rather than fall (further) back under Russia's sphere of influence.

Why are we talking about Pilger anyway? I haven't seen the piece you're referring to, but the point stands - US/NATO putting missile defence systems designed to facilitate a first strike on Russia = no need for evil Putin to throw his toys out of the pram, but Russian missiles in mexico = a threat to civilisation and armageddon is a preferable alternative etc.
 

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
Why are we talking about Pilger anyway? I haven't seen the piece you're referring to, but the point stands - US/NATO putting missile defence systems designed to facilitate a first strike on Russia = no need for evil Putin to throw his toys out of the pram, but Russian missiles in mexico = a threat to civilisation and armageddon is a preferable alternative etc.

But to look at it the other way, if you've been vocally critical of US actions in South and Central America during the Cold War, shouldn't you be equally critical of Russian "preemptive self defence" in Eastern Europe now?

The fact that Western governments and media are inconsistent one way doesn't oblige you to be inconsistent the opposite way.
 

firefinga

Well-known member
:D I almost left it out but I didn't want to start another digression.

BUT

Its a simple matter to compare the historical record from 1945 on, or certainly post Korea. No matter how you swing it, the USSR was a model of restraint IN COMPARISON (before you say it) to a rampant, provocative US and NATO. had the shoe been on the other foot we all would have died in a nuclear hellstorm sometime in the 80's if not sooner.

Hungary 1956, Berlin Wall Crisis, Crushing of the Chech uprising of '68, Aethiopia (Mengistu), Poland 1981, Afghanistan 1979-1988, The Baltic states, arming Egypt, The Iraq, Syria ....

yeah a model of rapant restraint indeed.
 
Last edited:

firefinga

Well-known member
Sure, but what would the reaction be if Mexico signed a defense pact with Russia, and Russian missiles were placed near the US border ala Poland & Romania in '08 and the current plans for Lithuania, Estonia & Latvia?

All these countries have been invaded/ovccupied by Russia repeatedly in their past. Not surprising they have different views than you, namely that NATO to them means protection instead of provocation.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
...but Russian missiles in mexico = a threat to civilisation and armageddon is a preferable alternative etc.

And if the USA were to try to forestall this by supporting anti-government rebels, annexing parts of the country or attempting to instigate a coup, left-wing commentators would be screaming "IMPERIALISM!!!" until they were coughing blood - and justifiably so. But when it's Russia engaging in what you might call 'assertive defence', the boot is most assuredly on the other foot.
 
Last edited:

Sectionfive

bandwagon house
Well watching the charlatan's that make up the British media throw their collective toys from pram is entertaining, is it not. Put it this way. It's not Milne's opinions on foreign policy they are worried about. It's the fact his appointment is another breach of boundary of acceptable choice they work so hard to police.

There are much more mundane reasons too. Think off all the hacks who woke up on the 12th September to suddenly find their contact book worthless. They wouldn't have crossed the road to speak to someone like Corbyn six months ago. Instead the people whose arses they spent so long kissing aren't within a sniff of influence. From a professional point of view this is not a welcome development and Milne being put in charge of the Labour Party press office just underlines how much they have been wrongfooted. Long may it continue.
 
Top