Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Ok so you honestly think huad we just let Korea be an independent country that Stalin wouldn't have just puppeted Korea as he did with Eastern Europe following WWII? Eastern Eutpe was granted it's independence in 1945 but look what happened to it within about a year. Why did he block offers for The Marshall Plan in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and North Korea then when the US offered it aid?

 

At the same time many of the things the West had to leave to Stalin was as appeasement to the Soviet Union playing the biggest role in the war and because it was economically on its knees after the red of millions of deaths and homeless following the Nazi invasion, but they instead rejected Western financial aid and continued to puppet Eastern Europe and South East Asia for it's resources.

 

Again, if you are Truman discussing post-war treaties with Stalin? What would you have done with Korea instead? It's so easy to just say these things are bad without offering an alternative. Realpolitik is a fact of lif.e. Denying its essentialness is far more dangerous than partaking in it.

That might well have happened, and if it had that then would have been the sole culpability of Stalin and the USSR at the time, as was Eastern Europe. 

 

However, if the US and Russia had any conscience, any at all, they would have done the above and granted Korea its own state. That they didn't was a failure on the part of both parties. That is the alternative that I offered, and it would have been viable if one big nation or another were not so guided by self-interest.

 

A question: do you think that the path taken by the big powers regarding Korea resulted in less death and suffering up to today than if they had left Korea alone as its own state post-WWII? If so, I'd love to hear the reasons why.

 

While realpolitik in the form of MAD has kept humanity from disappearing in a firestorm of war for the last seventy years, IMO it's still much too often an excuse for the powerful to get off on treating nations and human lives like pieces on a board, and that's a pretty sad indictment of humans, really.

[Sampson]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That might well have happened, and if it had that then would have been the sole culpability of Stalin and the USSR at the time, as was Eastern Europe. 

 

However, if the US and Russia had any conscience, any at all, they would have done the above and granted Korea its own state. That they didn't was a failure on the part of both parties. That is the alternative that I offered, and it would have been viable if one big nation or another were not so guided by self-interest.

 

A question: do you think that the path taken by the big powers regarding Korea resulted in less death and suffering up to today than if they had left Korea alone as its own state post-WWII? If so, I'd love to hear the reasons why.

 

While realpolitik in the form of MAD has kept humanity from disappearing in a firestorm of war for the last seventy years, IMO it's still much too often an excuse for the powerful to get off on treating nations and human lives like pieces on a board, and that's a pretty sad indictment of humans, really.

Yes I do think ultimately it has caused less death and destruction than turning Korea into a Stalinist or Maoist puppet state would have done and I believe the people of South Korea live much better lives now than if we'd just sat back and let Korea descend into the inevitable puppeting which would be befallen the whole nation rather than just the North. Or had the US not aided both the rebuilding of Japan and South Korea in trying to "de-fascitise" both nations. I'd bet the overwhelming majority of South Koreans would feel that way too.

 

Secondally, who's to say this wasn't even a compromise? We all know Stalin claimed he "only wanted Poland" as a sorry for the atrocities Russians had caused Poles over the centuries and was happy to let the rest of Eastern Europe in Operation Yalta (which turned out to be a lie on both accounts).

 

Korea was only occupied in 1945 while both countries were negotiating for an independent unified Korea but talks broke down in 1948 because both the Soviet Union and the USA had opposing ideas at what that should look like - even after the UN supervised elections in the South in 1948 elected an anti-Communist leader and the Kim dynasty were simply appointed by Stalin in the North - even though the part of Korea which were allowed elections clearly rejected a Communist government. If the USA just said "fine we'll back down" then yes, it almost certainly would've been s Stalinist puppet state.

 

It sounds like when you say "then that would be on Stalin as Eastern Europe was" you're advocating standing back and letting corrupt, murderous regimes who are well known to sanction thousands of deaths of their own people every single day and then murdered officials for not having a long enough list of people they murdered that day as Stalin's was - just waltz on in, gain more resources and dominate more citizens, solely so you can take the morale high ground and say "it's on the other guy".

 

The West and the US have done plenty wrong since WWII but it's absolutely incomparable to Stalin and Mao and their puppet states and the hundreds of millions of murders of their own people that occurred. Absolutely the West was right to stand up against the expansion of Stalinist (and later Maoist during the latter stages of the Korean War) puppet states which almost certainly would have befallen the entire peninsula of Korea otherwise.

 

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

@Sampson of course forgets to mention that the anti-communist who was “elected” in SK was Rhee who systematically oppressed and murdered leftist political figures, was drenched in corruption and jailed opponents in reeducation camps. But the Stalinists were kept out of power in SK, right? 

[breadandcheese]

11 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

@Sampson of course forgets to mention that the anti-communist who was “elected” in SK was Rhee who systematically oppressed and murdered leftist political figures, was drenched in corruption and jailed opponents in reeducation camps. But the Stalinists were kept out of power in SK, right? 

Does that point have any weight of argument when South Korea developed into a functioning democracy, whilst the North today remains a dictatorship with human rights abuses on a daily basis?

Edited 8 April 2018 by breadandcheese

[Sampson]

9 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

@Sampson of course forgets to mention that the anti-communist who was “elected” in SK was Rhee who systematically oppressed and murdered leftist political figures, was drenched in corruption and jailed opponents in reeducation camps. But the Stalinists were kept out of power in SK, right? 

No of course Rhee was an evil man and I would've thought any UN worth it's salt would've intervened had he gained control of the whole country too.

 

But the point is one of non-intervention and the placement of a democratic independent Korea was put in place in the South. How was it the West blocking an independent unified Korea? 

 

Surely even you would agree Korea would've become a Stalinist puppet state under the Kim Dynysty had the West not intervened?

[Sharpe's Fox]

43 minutes ago, Sampson said:

No of course Rhee was an evil man and I would've thought any UN worth it's salt would've intervened had he gained control of the whole country too.

 

But the point is one of non-intervention and the placement of a democratic independent Korea was put in place in the South. How was it the West blocking an independent unified Korea? 

 

Surely even you would agree Korea would've become a Stalinist puppet state under the Kim Dynysty had the West not intervened?

Good post. I doubt the UN would have intervened since if the US saw someone as “their man” they would back him till they would lose faith in them to run the administration. Similar situation in Vietnam with Diem. 

 

The communists were weeks from total victory until the intervention and I believe a united DPRK wouldn’t have a Kim Dynasty, it has been forced into that situation by sanctions and hostility; cornered rats and all that. I think we’d have a similar situation to Vietnam which is integrated into the world economy even though the communists won.

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Sampson said:

Yes I do think ultimately it has caused less death and destruction than turning Korea into a Stalinist or Maoist puppet state would have done and I believe the people of South Korea live much better lives now than if we'd just sat back and let Korea descend into the inevitable puppeting which would be befallen the whole nation rather than just the North. Or had the US not aided both the rebuilding of Japan and South Korea in trying to "de-fascitise" both nations. I'd bet the overwhelming majority of South Koreans would feel that way too.

 

Secondally, who's to say this wasn't even a compromise? We all know Stalin claimed he "only wanted Poland" as a sorry for the atrocities Russians had caused Poles over the centuries and was happy to let the rest of Eastern Europe in Operation Yalta (which turned out to be a lie on both accounts).

 

Korea was only occupied in 1945 while both countries were negotiating for an independent unified Korea but talks broke down in 1948 because both the Soviet Union and the USA had opposing ideas at what that should look like - even after the UN supervised elections in the South in 1948 elected an anti-Communist leader and the Kim dynasty were simply appointed by Stalin in the North - even though the part of Korea which were allowed elections clearly rejected a Communist government. If the USA just said "fine we'll back down" then yes, it almost certainly would've been s Stalinist puppet state.

 

It sounds like when you say "then that would be on Stalin as Eastern Europe was" you're advocating standing back and letting corrupt, murderous regimes who are well known to sanction thousands of deaths of their own people every single day and then murdered officials for not having a long enough list of people they murdered that day as Stalin's was - just waltz on in, gain more resources and dominate more citizens, solely so you can take the morale high ground and say "it's on the other guy".

 

The West and the US have done plenty wrong since WWII but it's absolutely incomparable to Stalin and Mao and their puppet states and the hundreds of millions of murders of their own people that occurred. Absolutely the West was right to stand up against the expansion of Stalinist (and later Maoist during the latter stages of the Korean War) puppet states which almost certainly would have befallen the entire peninsula of Korea otherwise.

 

 

Perhaps I'm not being clear about this, however once again...

 

...the choice for Korea between being a state protected by the US or a Stalinist or Maoist puppet state in the late 40's is a false dichotomy and one that I reject. The option for all the big nations to simply leave them alone post WWII with their own state (perhaps offering bilateral support) was available. You're not telling me that the US, the USSR or both were mindless machines set to "massive imperial nationalist" setting, so...why didn't they take it?

 

They could have agreed to leave Korea alone and simply not interfered. They didn't, and both decided to make it the first proxy battleground of the Cold War. The choice was theirs, the culpability was theirs too.

 

Both Koreas held elections in 1948, btw - and because either side of the ideology refused to take part in the elections in the other country it made the victors of both pretty obvious. Also, as it turns out, before that there was actually an agreement at Yalta for joint US/USSR trusteeship of Korea and there were some token efforts to restore Korea as a single country by combined US-USSR efforts, but they failed - mostly due to the Soviet intransigence, it must be said. It's a dreadful shame it didn't happen, as I think it would have prevented many many more deaths than what happened with the path that was taken.

 

Just to be absolutely clear here...I think there was another way - a way that involved no direct ideological control from the US, Russia or anyone else, and the powers that be were either too lazy, too incompetent, or too malicious to make it work, and everything you see on the Korean peninsula from then to now stems from that.

 

4 hours ago, breadandcheese said:

Does that point have any weight of argument when South Korea developed into a functioning democracy, whilst the North today remains a dictatorship with human rights abuses on a daily basis?

Depends on whether or not you think there was a shorter, less bloody way for SK to become a functioning democracy than the path that was taken.

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps I'm not being clear about this, however once again...

 

...the choice for Korea between being a state protected by the US or a Stalinist or Maoist puppet state in the late 40's is a false dichotomy and one that I reject. The option for all the big nations to simply leave them alone post WWII with their own state (perhaps offering bilateral support) was available. You're not telling me that the US, the USSR or both were mindless machines set to "massive imperial nationalist" setting, so...why didn't they take it?

 

They could have agreed to leave Korea alone and simply not interfered. They didn't, and both decided to make it the first proxy battleground of the Cold War. The choice was theirs, the culpability was theirs too.

 

Both Koreas held elections in 1948, btw - and because either side of the ideology refused to take part in the elections in the other country it made the victors of both pretty obvious. Also, as it turns out, before that there was actually an agreement at Yalta for joint US/USSR trusteeship of Korea and there were some token efforts to restore Korea as a single country by combined US-USSR efforts, but they failed - mostly due to the Soviet intransigence, it must be said. It's a dreadful shame it didn't happen, as I think it would have prevented many many more deaths than what happened with the path that was taken.

 

Just to be absolutely clear here...I think there was another way - a way that involved no direct ideological control from the US, Russia or anyone else, and the powers that be were either too lazy, too incompetent, or too malicious to make it work, and everything you see on the Korean peninsula from then to now stems from that.

 

Depends on whether or not you think there was a shorter, less bloody way for SK to become a functioning democracy than the path that was taken.

But the South Korean election certainly had several different parties available - even if Communist Party's did not stand - there was still several options available to the people of South Korea which they could change based on ideaology.

It was hardly comparable to the election "electing" the Kim Dynysty in North Korea - An election in which only 1 person was put forward for every single seat - every single one from the Kim dynysty's party. Much like Mao's old election in all his one-party votes in which no one stood against him (and if they ever entertained the idea they were murdered soon afterwards).

I think you're being very, very naive if you honestly think the US had just left Korea alone that they wouldn't have been puppetted and I think you're creating a bizarre false equivalency between the Western involvement in Korea and the Soviet involvement in Korea and trying to make out they were somehow "equally bad" and the West and South Korea weren't the ones fighting the defensive war. Yes, of course it's an over-simplification to say the West weren't culpable of anything bad in Korea (and any nation fighting a defensive war ultimately descend into bad tactics, because you cannot win if you just let the aggressor's underhand tactics slide and not do anything about it and just sit their twiddling your thumbs) but it's nowhere near as big an oversimplification to say the US and the Soviet Union were on some kind of equal wrong and were just in a pissing contest on some "proxy war".when it was quite bleeding obvious what Stalin's plans were and that we should've just left it be as we did with Eastern Europe just so we could have the moral high ground and say "that was on Stalin not us".- what do you think would've happened if we'd say split, Czechoslovakia or Hungary the same way we did Korea? Do you think more than the tens of millions who died would've died or less would've died? What do you think would've happened had the US not supported the re-build of Western Europe with the Marshall Plan and not offered the same for Eastern Europe only for Stalin to block it? 

But it's also pretty typical of Leftists - (except ironically Sharpe's Fox who at least understands that that's a false equivalency) - just because the West was involved they had to be equally bad or worse, but they were never trying to defend anything - they're always the guilty party.

There's plenty of example where the West has screwed things over and ended up becoming the aggressor - and it's far too early to get any more involved in Syria imo (although that doesn't mean that won't ever be the case or that we should never intervene because of Iraq or whatever - these things have to be taken on a case by case basis - saying we shouldn't intervene because Iraq turned out to be a disaster is such a dangerous attitude to have and could easily end up with us just sitting there ignoring rogue States rising up capable of Nuclear Holocaust or mass genocide) - East Timor for example would've been a much easier example to pick - but trying to spin Korea as being one of them and that somehow Western intervention was some bad in that case strikes me as pretty damn ridiculous.

[Guest]

[Guest]

Police cuts ‘likely contributed’ to rise in violent crime, leaked report reveals

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/08/police-cuts-likely-contributed-to-rise-in-violent-leaked-report-reveals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

But the South Korean election certainly had several different parties available - even if Communist Party's did not stand - there was still several options available to the people of South Korea which they could change based on ideaology.

It was hardly comparable to the election "electing" the Kim Dynysty in North Korea - An election in which only 1 person was put forward for every single seat - every single one from the Kim dynysty's party. Much like Mao's old election in all his one-party votes in which no one stood against him (and if they ever entertained the idea they were murdered soon afterwards).

I think you're being very, very naive if you honestly think the US had just left Korea alone that they wouldn't have been puppetted and I think you're creating a bizarre false equivalency between the Western involvement in Korea and the Soviet involvement in Korea and trying to make out they were somehow "equally bad" and the West and South Korea weren't the ones fighting the defensive war. Yes, of course it's an over-simplification to say the West weren't culpable of anything bad in Korea (and any nation fighting a defensive war ultimately descend into bad tactics, because you cannot win if you just let the aggressor's underhand tactics slide and not do anything about it and just sit their twiddling your thumbs) but it's nowhere near as big an oversimplification to say the US and the Soviet Union were on some kind of equal wrong and were just in a pissing contest on some "proxy war".when it was quite bleeding obvious what Stalin's plans were and that we should've just left it be as we did with Eastern Europe just so we could have the moral high ground and say "that was on Stalin not us".- what do you think would've happened if we'd say split, Czechoslovakia or Hungary the same way we did Korea? Do you think more than the tens of millions who died would've died or less would've died? What do you think would've happened had the US not supported the re-build of Western Europe with the Marshall Plan and not offered the same for Eastern Europe only for Stalin to block it? 

But it's also pretty typical of Leftists - (except ironically Sharpe's Fox who at least understands that that's a false equivalency) - just because the West was involved they had to be equally bad or worse, but they were never trying to defend anything - they're always the guilty party.

There's plenty of example where the West has screwed things over and ended up becoming the aggressor - and it's far too early to get any more involved in Syria imo (although that doesn't mean that won't ever be the case or that we should never intervene because of Iraq or whatever - these things have to be taken on a case by case basis - saying we shouldn't intervene because Iraq turned out to be a disaster is such a dangerous attitude to have and could easily end up with us just sitting there ignoring rogue States rising up capable of Nuclear Holocaust or mass genocide) - East Timor for example would've been a much easier example to pick - but trying to spin Korea as being one of them and that somehow Western intervention was some bad in that case strikes me as pretty damn ridiculous.

With respect, Sampson, I think we're having a failure to communicate here because quite frankly we're going round and round now.

 

I don't know how else I can put it really that I am not attempting to draw a moral equivalence between the US and Cold War USSR, but rather bemoaning the system that allowed them to rise and carve up Korea (and the world) between them in the first place. The same system that bore communism as a counter to mercantilism (in a Victorian sense), that bore fascism as an counter to communism - and all of them authoritarian and brutal. The idea that there has to be two or more "sides" and that they play off against each other...and somehow, some way, one of them has to "win". If that system had not been in play in this particular situation, both the US and the USSR would have agreed to leave Korea alone politically while offering them what assistance they could.

 

That system is what generated the desire for Russia to covet the entire Korean peninsula, and for the US to respond - merely two moves in a great game that has been going on for a long time. Not any one ideology, but the will to enforce it through coercion, deception and flat-out bloodshedding authoritarianism. 

 

At a fundamental level, that is what it comes down to. "My ideological society is better than yours, and you're going to convert or die."

 

Perhaps that's an extension of good old-fashioned tribalism and therefore human nature rearing its head again?

[Guest]

 

 

[Burmesefox]

On 4/6/2018 at 11:55, MattP said:

Sorry but I think that's conspiracy theory nonsense. The media have barely reported on Lammy doing these things, it's mainly been shared on social media.

 

No idea where you have got the idea we are going to be the worst of the world's leading and emerging economies for a second year running either, we aren't performing great but it's also not a disaster, worth remembering the "experts" got our figures totally wrong in the aftermath of the leave vote as well   - https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/gdp-annual-growth-rate

 

If Corbyn doesn't want the spotlight on him for "anti-semitism rubbish" then maybe he should start acting against it, throw out the anti-semites in the party and take care over who he meets, stop sharing platforms with holocaust deniers and stop speaking out in support of people who engage is Jewish conspiracy theories.

 

Just last night a Labour MP only just won a vote to hold off a motion against her for attending an anti-semitism rally, this is in 2018 - to suggest this isn't a problem at the moment in the party is ridiculous.

The performance of the economy was reported just a few days ago. As for the anti-semetic stuff, it is a targeted smear on JC by the right. 

 

[Innovindil]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

 

Utterly stupid of her to say such a thing. Of course they are having an effect. The argument she should have made was that if it was the only cause of rising violent crime, then violent crime statistics would be rising in line with police cuts in all areas, they aren't.

[Wortho]

I think the Met Police have enough staff. How they utilise them is more the question. PCSO's seem to be doing the 'street' work and the coppers travel around in cars or are doing ridiculous amounts of form filling.

[Strokes]

26 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

 

Ask anyone if they think they could do a better job with more money, err yeah.

[Sharpe's Fox]

3 hours ago, toddybad said:

 

 

 

I love this bloke he is always wheeled out to slag off Theresa May its hilarious. Remember him after those terrorist attacks as well.

[Guest MattP]

On 08/04/2018 at 12:45, Alf Bentley said:

Good to see that the traditional close bonds between the conservative Left and the conservative Right are alive and well, though. I see a role for you as a more humorous Peter Hitchens.

Or maybe Theresa will invite you to take over at No. 11, with @Webbo as Home Secretary and @MattP as Foreign Secretary? A Conservative-Nationalist-Socialist dream team? 

Foreign Secretary? I could probably bring some respect back to that office given the last few months.

 

Although if @Sharpe's Fox was holding higher office than me I think I'd last less time than the uncle Kim Jong Un fed to the dogs. I have the image of waking up and 3am with Chris Williamson peering through the window at me.

[Sharpe's Fox]

29 minutes ago, MattP said:

Foreign Secretary? I could probably bring some respect back to that office given the last few months.

 

Although if @Sharpe's Fox was holding higher office than me I think I'd last less time than the uncle Kim Jong Un fed to the dogs. I have the image of waking up and 3am with Chris Williamson peering through the window at me.

Now that’s a leftist dinosaur...

 

Edited 9 April 2018 by Sharpe's Fox

[Guest MattP]

20 years since the Good Friday agreement today, some of what happened was hard to stomach for many but I don't think anyone could say it hasn't been a force for good since.

 

Newsnight last night had an interview with Bertie Ahern that I would recommend, some of the things he told Evan Davis were quite fascinating, Ian Paisley offered to stand in front of the Irish flag (by accident) for him for photos, he took prayers with Paisley himself before they had breakfast. Sadly his mother died a few days before the agreement was signed, he spoke a lot of sense on the Irish border as well when asked about Brexit.

[Webbo]

A Labour frontbencher has denounced one of the party's key Brexit policies in a recording of a questions session at a think-tank, obtained by the BBC.

Barry Gardiner used colourful language to rubbish the party's pledge to secure the exact same benefits as the single market after Brexit.

Mr Gardiner has already apologised for describing the Good Friday Agreement as a "shibboleth" at the same event.

He said he had not meant the agreement was "outdated or unimportant".

Speaking about the "six tests" Labour set the government to decide whether to support the final Brexit deal in a Commons vote, he said: "Well let's just take one test - the exact same benefits. Bollocks.

"Always has been bollocks and it remains it.

"We know very well that we cannot have the exact same benefits and actually it would have made sense - because it was the Tories that said they were going to secure the exact same benefits - and our position should have been to say they have said they are going to secure the exact same benefits and we are going to hold them to that standard."

He said that should have been the Labour policy rather than saying "we think we can secure the exact same benefits as well".

The shadow international trade secretary made the comments after a speech at a think-tank in Brussels last month. The six tests were set out by shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer in March last year.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43710728

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

20 years since the Good Friday agreement today, some of what happened was hard to stomach for many but I don't think anyone could say it hasn't been a force for good since.

 

Newsnight last night had an interview with Bertie Ahern that I would recommend, some of the things he told Evan Davis were quite fascinating, Ian Paisley offered to stand in front of the Irish flag (by accident) for him for photos, he took prayers with Paisley himself before they had breakfast. Sadly his mother died a few days before the agreement was signed, he spoke a lot of sense on the Irish border as well when asked about Brexit.

That's about the size of it. I wouldn't say that hundreds of years of historical enmity has disappeared entirely, but the Agreement, regardless of the cost at the time, has certainly done a damned good job at least easing it up and preventing more bloodshed than there would have been without it.

[Guest MattP]

First we had the British Communist party standing down candidates to back Labour, now the ex-BNP leader appears to be coming around.

Got to hand it to Jeremy Corbyn, this is quite a coalition of support he's got behind him.

[bovril]

Ah yes, X supports Y so Y must be like X....

[ealingfox]

 

Big Gaz fighting the good fight. Gerremin.