Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

Far more concilatory speech that I thought she would give, in reality it opens the door for a Brexit that is neither hard or soft, I think it will annoy both the Mogg and the Soubry wing of the party, it gives her a lot of leeway and she was right to point out the hypocrisy of the EU as cherry picking goes, unfortunately pointing that out doesn't really solve anything.

 

Glad to see her mention that the UK's constitution will not be weakened for anyone or anything and that technology will be use for the Irish border issue - we need to get some more detail on this though pretty sharpish.

 

As for those Tweets, there was a simpler time where if a shadow chancellor was found to have a plaque on his wall presenting to him by a IRA bomber he that serious questions would be asked (or at least he would take it down) - unfortunately those times appear to have passed and it's now seen as fairly normal.

 

On the McDonnell thing it is almost comedic the way people go on about these things. In order to reach the good Friday agreement Thatcher held back door tells with the ira and the likes of Adams and mcguiness were brought in from the cold to power share. You can't have a political process without talking to the opposition/enemy.

 

On May's speech, I read a minute by minute log and it read relatively well. If she got ALL of that it would be, as you say, a middle ground option. If we got ALL of that she might just see it through to the next election.

 

It will be interesting to see the EU's formal response. There are some bits I'm not sure they'll go for but let's see.

Edited 2 March 2018 by Guest

[Buce]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Wow, no idea where to start with that. Would you stick up for a Tory if they had a plaque on the wall presented by Johnny Adair? Are you actually comparing normal members of the armed forces to people who deliberately murder the innocent?

 

If a British soldier had been sentenced to 20 years for murder I can assure you no one would be calling them a hero and you certainly wouldn't defend them if someone did.

 

I was answering a very specific tweet that described them as 'cold-blooded murderers of British soldiers'.

 

And to answer your second point, the soldier who executed the Taliban soldier in cold blood was described precisely as that by his supporters and the right wing media, before he was released. British soldiers are not heroes.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Wow, no idea where to start with that. Would you stick up for a Tory if they had a plaque on the wall presented by Johnny Adair? Are you actually comparing normal members of the armed forces to people who deliberately murder the innocent?

 

If a British soldier had been sentenced to 20 years for murder I can assure you no one would be calling them a hero and you certainly wouldn't defend them if someone did.

With respect Matt, I think this is rather missing the point.

 

Though the investigation cleared those involved (whitewash, perhaps?) the soldiers involved shot and killed innocent, unarmed people - while it wasn't an act of murder I would think it certainly falls under the purview of culpable manslaughter at the very least. And that was hardly the first nor the last such incident involving British soldiers in Ireland.

 

I think Buce was drawing something of a parallel there - the ugliness happened on both sides in that ugly war, and yet people see fit to deify or disparage only one.

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

On the McDonnell thing it is almost comedic the way people go on about these things. In order to reach the good Friday agreement Thatcher held back door tells with the ira and the likes of Adams and mcguiness were brought in from the cold to power share. You can't have a political process without talking to the opposition/enemy.

No one is criticising him for speaking to them.

 

Its the "hanging gifts on your wall from convicted terrorists that murder innocent people" bit that is being questioned. 

 

But he obviously needs to do it to show his support for the peace process.

Edited 2 March 2018 by MattP

[Beechey]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

I was answering a very specific tweet that described them as 'cold-blooded murderers of British soldiers'.

 

And to answer your second point, the soldier who executed the Taliban soldier in cold blood was described precisely as that by his supporters and the right wing media, before he was released. British soldiers are not heroes.

Well that surely depends on their actions, no?

 

A soldier who sacrifices his life for civilians in your eyes would not be deemed a hero, solely because they're British?

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

I was answering a very specific tweet that described them as 'cold-blooded murderers of British soldiers'.

 

And to answer your second point, the soldier who executed the Taliban soldier in cold blood was described precisely as that by his supporters and the right wing media, before he was released. British soldiers are not heroes.

Ridiculous comparison. 

 

One shot a man on a battlefield who was already dying that contravened law, the other blew up an innocent person going about his normal day. 

 

Not even in the same ballpark. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Beechey said:

Well that surely depends on their actions, no?

 

A soldier who sacrifices his life for civilians in your eyes would not be deemed a hero, solely because they're British?

It would depend on their actions and (more importantly) the reason they were there in the first place.

 

History is full of war being used for no other reason than to impress superiority by one nation on another and it's a filthy business.

[Beechey]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

It would depend on their actions and (more importantly) the reason they were there in the first place.

 

History is full of war being used for no other reason than to impress superiority by one nation on another and it's a filthy business.

That's not really true though is it? A war of occupation can also cause individual soldier actions of intense humanity as much as a defensive conflict can.

Edited 2 March 2018 by Beechey

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

With respect Matt, I think this is rather missing the point.

 

Though the investigation cleared those involved (whitewash, perhaps?) the soldiers involved shot and killed innocent, unarmed people - while it wasn't an act of murder I would think it certainly falls under the purview of culpable manslaughter at the very least. And that was hardly the first nor the last such incident involving British soldiers in Ireland.

 

I think Buce was drawing something of a parallel there - the ugliness happened on both sides in that ugly war, and yet people see fit to deify or disparage only one.

I can absolutely assure you if a Tory MP, with the knowledge we have now, had a plaque on the wall presentes to him by a UDA soldier or a bloody Sunday killer I would condemn it unequivocally, without hesitation - let alone even think about a defence for it.

 

Your last paragraph if spot on, just not in the way you think it is.

[Buce]

Just now, Beechey said:

Well that surely depends on their actions, no?

 

A soldier who sacrifices his life for civilians in your eyes would not be deemed a hero, solely because they're British?

 

Yeah, let me clarify that.

 

The soldiers who fought Hitler were indeed heroes - they fought to protect our country from invasion and to protect our way of life. Modern day soldiers who go to places like Iraq, Afghanistan are not. They are agents of oppression. And the Paras who murdered civilians on Bloody Sunday most certainly were not.

[Beechey]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

Yeah, let me clarify that.

 

The soldiers who fought Hitler were indeed heroes - they fought to protect our country from invasion and to protect our way of life. Modern day soldiers who go to places like Iraq, Afghanistan are not. They are agents of oppression. And the Paras who murdered civilians on Bloody Sunday most certainly were not.

I think you need to research a bit more about the differences between those two very different conflicts. One was UN approved and installed a democratic government, the other was indeed illegal.

Edited 2 March 2018 by Beechey

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

It would depend on their actions and (more importantly) the reason they were there in the first place.

 

History is full of war being used for no other reason than to impress superiority by one nation on another and it's a filthy business.

Why would you criticise a soldier for a decision made by the people who sent them to war?

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

Yeah, let me clarify that.

 

The soldiers who fought Hitler were indeed heroes - they fought to protect our country from invasion and to protect our way of life. Modern day soldiers who go to places like Iraq, Afghanistan are not. They are agents of oppression. And the Paras who murdered civilians on Bloody Sunday most certainly were not.

There are huge differences between Afghanistan and Iraq, the first war was fully justified.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Beechey said:

That's not really true though is it? A war of occupation can also cause individual soldier actions of intense humanity.

Interesting point, actually - can a good act like that really overcome the awfulness that the occupying force is there (and maybe even caused the situation that meant the act of humanity was necessary) in the first place?

 

I'm inclined to think not.

 

 

Just now, MattP said:

I can absolutely assure you if a Tory MP, with the knowledge we have now, had a plaque on the wall presentes to him by a UDA soldier or a bloody Sunday killer I would condemn it unequivocally, without hesitation - let alone even think about a defence for it.

 

Your last paragraph if spot on, just not in the way you think it is.

That's a more nuanced way of looking at it, thank you, and fair enough.

 

FWIW I don't think that anyone should be glorified from that era.

[Guest MattP]

In fact I'm bowing out, don't think much good can come of this.

 

This is just going to derail the thread.

[Buce]

Just now, MattP said:

There are huge differences between Afghanistan and Iraq, the first war was fully justified.

 

In your eyes, perhaps.

 

What did it have to do with us?

[Beechey]

Just now, Buce said:

 

In your eyes, perhaps.

 

What did it have to do with us?

Maybe you should read about Article V of the NATO Washington Treaty my friend.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

In your eyes, perhaps.

 

What did it have to do with us?

We are a leading member of NATO - we had people killed in the Twin Towers. 

 

We don't shirk our responsibility when the World decides to take action.

 

But as I said - I'm off out, have a good weekend.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

Why would you criticise a soldier for a decision made by the people who sent them to war?

Most of the blame does indeed lie at the top, but at the end of the day if a soldier doesn't like the orders they are given or the posting they are assigned, they are free to quit - it's not like they're conscripts. Anyone with a little self-awareness would know that the actions of the UK in Iraq were entirely unjustified - and that includes the soldiers.

 

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

In fact I'm bowing out, don't think much good can come of this.

 

This is just going to derail the thread.

Fair enough. Agree with the derail, I'll keep this to this post only.

 

1 minute ago, Beechey said:

Maybe you should read about Article V of the NATO Washington Treaty my friend.

Perhaps if NATO hadn't spent as much time deciding if something was legal or illegal they might have stopped to think if it was right or wrong - and what the consequences might be.

 

We can dress it up as much as we like - the idea that the war in Afghanistan was anything other than a war of occupation isn't going to fly with a lot of people who live in that country. And their opinion on the matter is rather pertinent.

 

Anyhow, I'll leave it at that.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, MattP said:

No one is criticising him for speaking to them.

 

Its the "hanging gifts on your wall from convicted terrorists that murder innocent people" bit that is being questioned. 

 

But he obviously needs to do it to show his support for the peace process.

I think its just playing politics tbh. I presume our leaders have received gifts from all manner of despots, dictators, murderers etc. 

 

It would be difficult to accept anything from sein fein or the dup without accepting the giver has some form of relationship or agreement with bad characters.

Edited 2 March 2018 by Guest

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

We are a leading member of NATO - we had people killed in the Twin Towers. 

 

We don't shirk our responsibility when the World decides to take action.

 

But as I said - I'm off out, have a good weekend.

 

Interesting you mention the Twin Towers.

 

All the participating terrorists were Saudi, not Afghani (you know, the same Saudis you are so happy we sell arms to).

[UpTheLeagueFox]

McDonnell. Horrendous man.

[Beechey]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps if NATO hadn't spent as much time deciding if something was legal or illegal they might have stopped to think if it was right or wrong - and what the consequences might be.

 

We can dress it up as much as we like - the idea that the war in Afghanistan was anything other than a war of occupation isn't going to fly with a lot of people who live in that country. And their opinion on the matter is rather pertinent.

 

Anyhow, I'll leave it at that.

Mate, the War in Afghanistan was against a government of the Taliban. You really think people of Afghanistan today miss the era where girls couldn't go to school, music was outlawed, and people were routinely executed and massacred? That's maximum delusion.

 

Yeah, we should have left them to allow Al-Qaeda to plot and execute terror attacks from within their borders in case we hurt your feelings, despite every single UN Security Council member backing a resolution to intervene.

Edited 2 March 2018 by Beechey

[Beechey]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Interesting you mention the Twin Towers.

 

All the participating terrorists were Saudi, not Afghani (you know, the same Saudis you are so happy we sell arms to).

That's a nice little topic change. Doesn't alter the fact that the Taliban were harbouring them though does it?

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Actually I don't have a problem with people liking Labour, Corbyn and McDonnell, really whatever suits your fancy.

 

What annoys me is when people pretend that these guys are normal nice men of the people. They really are not and it unfortunate that people can not through them. They are both pretty nasty angry men. Again if that is what you are into then fine.

 

I suspect if they ever got into government and things went tits up, which they would, we would see an increasing nasty side coming out. You see it in interviews, they are militants and that is what deeply concerns me about them. People may think I am an idiot but they really are the kind of people that end up as despot socialist dictators in developing nations not a first world country.