luka

Well-known member
John Eden is about to stage an intervention. He can't watch Danny slide any further right. At some point a mate has to take action. We've all been there. It's difficult. But it has to be done.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
What exactly do you mean by 'international commitments'?

Since yr asking..... a few things that would've been under threat from a Corbyn premiership (sourced from here: https://capx.co/on-salisbury-and-syria-the-labour-leadership-got-off-lightly/)

Funding for the White Helmets in Syria
UK Training for Ukrainian troops
EU sanctions on the Nicaraguan dictatorship


The situations you cite are obscenities but the idea that a man of Corbyn's vast incapacities would be able to impact on them is I think, bollocks. I suspect that we would've simply see a foreign policy switch to backing the positions of other global and regional powers like Russia and Iran. This is what has happening with LOTO's policy on Syria after all, where they get very exercised about entirely symbolic bombings of empty airbases while remaining absolutely silent on Russia bombing hospitals. This got to the point where it was apparently a resigning matter for one of Corbyn's top team. See also the recent STW protests about the assassination of Soleimani which managed to frame it as entirely about US aggression while neglecting to mention his many, many crimes. This is ultimately what fucks me off about him - the foreign policy is based on campism not the consistent application of principles of Human Rights.

Incidentally, The Sunday Times has an exclusive today that as part of Corbyn trying to cement his legacy, he's (possibily) planning a trip to Iraq! I'm just going to nick Oz Katerji's tweet as he's said it pithily: "If he does go, it will be to tell the Americans who aren’t shooting civilians in the head to leave while ignoring the Iranian militias currently shooting civilians in the head".
 
Last edited:

DannyL

Wild Horses
It IS possible to do all these things and more.

It might not have been likely that Labour under Corbyn managed to do them.

But these are things that can be done, with the right forces at play.

This goes back to language games, Hats you wear etc. I kinda think in the limits of what seems possible when thinking about parliamentary politics. Which is perhaps a bit stupid given the response that is needed to climate change but.....
 

droid

Well-known member
What exactly do you mean by 'international commitments'?

Since yr asking..... a few things that would've been under threat from a Corbyn premiership (sourced from here: https://capx.co/on-salisbury-and-syria-the-labour-leadership-got-off-lightly/)

Funding for the White Helmets in Syria
UK Training for Ukrainian troops
EU sanctions on the Nicaraguan dictatorship


The situations you cite are obscenities but the idea that a man of Corbyn's vast incapacities would be able to impact on them is I think, bollocks. I suspect that we would've simply see a foreign policy switch to backing the positions of other global and regional powers like Russia and Iran. This is what has happening with LOTO's policy on Syria after all, where they get very exercised about entirely symbolic bombings of empty airbases while remaining absolutely silent on Russia bombing hospitals. This got to the point where it was apparently a resigning matter for one of Corbyn's top team. See also the recent STW protests about the assassination of Soleimani which managed to frame it as entirely about US aggression while neglecting to mention his many, many crimes. This is ultimately what fucks me off about him - the foreign policy is based on campism not the consistent application of principles of Human Rights.

Incidentally, The Sunday Times has an exclusive today that as part of Corbyn trying to cement his legacy, he's (possibily) planning a trip to Iraq! I'm just going to nick Oz Katerji's tweet as he's said it pithily: "If he does go, it will be to tell the Americans who aren’t shooting civilians in the head to leave while ignoring the Iranian militias currently shooting civilians in the head".

So, just to clarify, in your opinion, the issues you mention (including financial and military support for an army that contains an active neo-nazi battalion) trumps any possibility of amending a foreign policy alignment that has directly and indirectly resulted in 10's of millions of deaths since WWII, has supported (and continues to support) multiple authoritarian and genocidal regimes, has deliberately eroded international law, foments and escalates conflict through the sales of arms and perpetuates the continued threat of nuclear conflict?
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
So, just to clarify, in your opinion, the issues you mention (including financial and military support for an army that contains an active neo-nazi battalion) trumps any possibility of amending a foreign policy alignment that has directly and indirectly resulted in 10's of millions of deaths since WWII, has supported (and continues to support) multiple authoritarian and genocidal regimes, has deliberately eroded international law, foments and escalates conflict through the sales of arms and perpetuates the continued threat of nuclear conflict?

It hugely weakens any moral case that they (i.e. Corbyn, STW) might have. It looks like campism - picking one side over another - with wilful blindness 'cos that's what it is. To take a current example, I think to support democracy in the ME we should support the current wave of pro-democracy protests taking place in Iraq and Iran. But where's the Left's position on that? Do they even notice its happening? And the anti-war left will be even worse, balls deep in conspiracy thinking if they even notice - "US regime change" and all the usual shite. (Oz K on Corbyn's mooted visit to Baghdad: "They wouldn’t have a clue who he is and I’ve never met an Iraqi who has even mentioned Tony Blair’s name in passing conversation. The country is not stood in stasis looking backwards at 2003, that’s just the Corbynite left"). To take a different case, divesting from the arms trade, stopping selling arms to Saudi - how do you tackle that outside of Parliament? And how can that be done without a united party? MPs and members together, not as Corbyn has done, leveraging the latter against the former. I agree with you currently that it's off the agenda, out of sight, out of mind, business as usual and I don't think that's good or acceptable but I would have much more time for the STW positions on this stuff if they seemed to acting from moral principle rather than the aforementioned campism
 
Last edited:

DannyL

Wild Horses
Just to move things on a bit - I don't just want to trade arguments from the same positions all day - who do you think is worth reading and following re. these ongoing campaigns and conflictts? What have you read that's particularly shaped your worldview on these things? I really like Rasha Al Aqeedi for journalism from Iraq as well as others like Kareem Shaheen and Mustafa Salim. As Luke has made clear, I'm up for radicalisation.
 
Last edited:

droid

Well-known member
It hugely weakens any moral case that they (i.e. Corbyn, STW) might have. It looks like campism - picking one side over another - with wilful blindness 'cos that's what it is. To take a current example, I think to support democracy in the ME we should support the current wave of pro-democracy protests taking place in Iraq and Iran. But where's the Left's position on that? Do they even notice its happening? And the anti-war left will be even worse, balls deep in conspiracy thinking if they even notice - "US regime change" and all the usual shite. (Oz K on Corbyn's mooted visit to Baghdad: "They wouldn’t have a clue who he is and I’ve never met an Iraqi who has even mentioned Tony Blair’s name in passing conversation. The country is not stood in stasis looking backwards at 2003, that’s just the Corbynite left"). To take a different case, divesting from the arms trade, stopping selling arms to Saudi - how do you tackle that outside of Parliament? And how can that be done without a united party? MPs and members together, not as Corbyn has done, leveraging the latter against the former. I agree with you currently that it's off the agenda, out of sight, out of mind, business as usual and I don't think that's good or acceptable but I would have much more time for the STW positions on this stuff if they seemed to acting from moral principle rather than the aforementioned campism

We could also discuss the willful blindness of the NATO left on the genocidal campaign in Yemen, impossible without UK arms and technical air support, or indeed the appalling legacy of UK intervention around the globe. Perhaps we could talk about the convenience of the pro-interventionists ignoring an invasion which caused a million deaths and destabilised the entire region based on anecdotal evidence of conversations with Iraqis. Lastly, we could ponder the dismissal of attempts to make radical changes to UK foreign policy based on impracticality and doubts about motives and outcome - but this could highlight some uncomfortable ironies in relation to precisely the same concerns about intervention in Syria.

But sure, let's move on.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
The presence of ultra-nationalist elements in the Ukrainian military, although obviously not exactly admirable, is hardly surprising. Nothing brings out the nationalist in people like having part of their country annexed (yet again) by a much larger and more powerful neighbour. So I don't think this regiment delegitimizes the Ukrainian struggle against Russian imperialism any more than the IRA's murder of apolitical civilians delegitimizes the Irish Republican cause in general, or that the brutality of Hamas means we should write off the Palestinian struggle for self-determination.
 
Top