Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 76 to 89 of 89

Thread: Radical Centrists.

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    8,012

    Default

    Exactly what I was talking about earlier...

    Anyone but Trump? Not So Fast. Letís not exchange one reckless president for another.

    Donald Trump is a lawless president and revolting person who richly deserved his impeachment and, in a better world, would be convicted in the Senate and removed from the White House. Thatís my view, as it is the view of a plurality ó albeit a narrow plurality ó of the American people.

    Ergo, every American who feels this way has a moral obligation to vote for whoever winds up being the Democratic nominee, even if the nominee turns out to be Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Right?

    Well, hang on.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/o...rump-2020.html

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Loondon
    Posts
    2,831

    Default

    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-syr...t-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". https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status...33084705726464
    Last edited by DannyL; 26-01-2020 at 10:38 AM.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Loondon
    Posts
    2,831

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john eden View Post
    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.....

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Fear - Dublin
    Posts
    9,066

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DannyL View Post
    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-syr...t-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 arenít shooting civilians in the head to leave while ignoring the Iranian militias currently shooting civilians in the head". https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status...33084705726464
    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?

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    London
    Posts
    8,977

    Default

    Poor Danny. Not his day today.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    London
    Posts
    8,977

    Default

    Bollockings every which way he looks.

    Iím going to make a donation to the white helmets just to cheer him up.

    https://www.whitehelmets.org/en/

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sadmanbarty For This Useful Post:


  8. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Loondon
    Posts
    2,831

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droid View Post
    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 by DannyL; 28-01-2020 at 08:27 AM.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to DannyL For This Useful Post:


  10. #83
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Loondon
    Posts
    2,831

    Default

    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 by DannyL; 28-01-2020 at 08:22 AM.

  11. #84
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Fear - Dublin
    Posts
    9,066

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DannyL View Post
    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 wouldnít have a clue who he is and Iíve never met an Iraqi who has even mentioned Tony Blairís name in passing conversation. The country is not stood in stasis looking backwards at 2003, thatís 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.

  12. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    8,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droid View Post
    ... an army that contains an active neo-nazi battalion...
    ?

  13. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    2,045

    Default

    azov battalion in ukraine i think?

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to yyaldrin For This Useful Post:


  15. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    8,012

    Default

    Yeah, that seems to be it.

    Since its inception, the regiment lost 43 soldiers in the course of the War in Donbass.[8] In 2014, it gained notoriety after allegations emerged of torture and war crimes, as well as neo-Nazi sympathies and usage of associated symbols by the regiment itself, as seen in their logo featuring the Wolfsangel, one of the original symbols used by the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich. Representatives of the Azov Battalion claim that the symbol is an abbreviation for the slogan Ідея Нації (Ukrainian for "National Idea") and deny connection with Nazism.[9] In 2014, a spokesman for the regiment claimed around 10-20% of the unit were neo-Nazis.[10] In 2018, a provision in an appropriations bill passed by the U.S. Congress blocked military aid to Azov on the grounds of its white supremacist ideology.[11] Members of the regiment come from 22 countries and are of various backgrounds including Jews.

    More than half of the regiment's members speak Russian and come from eastern Ukraine,[14] including cities of Donetsk and Luhansk.[15] The regiment's first commander was far-right nationalist Andriy Biletsky, who led the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly and Patriot of Ukraine.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

    IUG3WgC.jpg

  16. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    8,012

    Default


  17. #89
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    19,185

    Default

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by woops
    i hate sigs

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •