Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Just now, A Red said:

He didn't put pulling Trident to conference. Didn't even try to get it into his manifesto.

Point?

[House of Dirk]

9 minutes ago, A Red said:

It is better actually because in terms of the UK we at least have some form of protection by being in NATO and we have a nuclear deterrent.

 

I'm not blaming Corbyn for anything because he hasn't done anything

Some form of protection. Lolz. We are fucked mate. 

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, House of Dirk said:

Some form of protection. Lolz. We are fucked mate. 

Fucking hell Dirk “lolz” you’re letting the side down here! A Diane Abbot moment

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Incidentally, the UK's "independent nuclear deterrent" is not independent nor a deterrent. It's a massive drain on our resources and makes the country weaker and less safe. 

 

But that's for another thread.

[SasaS]

5 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

You could be right with some of those scenarios. Serbia, Bosnia and Kosovo aren't NATO members, so I don't think NATO makes a difference there. As long as Hungary and Romania are EU members it is (economically and politically) practically impossible for them to go to war with each other. The other potential conflicts would need some serious peace-keeping structures in place, if NATO were disbanded.

I don't think EU would survive without some form of military power in the new world, in which there is no NATO and what Russia is now trying to do becomes normal. In the west Balkans, (the existence of) NATO makes all the difference, the fact some countries are not members is not particularly relevant.

People tend to forget (or they never were aware of) several little know shorter conflicts and all-out wars between European countries in the years after the WWI and leading up to WWII. Mainly because WWII in its aftermath created a Cold War theater in which regional and individual interests were (often forcibly) subjugated by the superpowers in Europe. But it all always simmers underneath.

[A Red]

Just now, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Point?

The ex leader of CND who campaigned against nuclear weapons all his adult life, who campaigned for unilaterally giving them up didn't even try to put scrapping Trident in his manifesto.

 

Could be for 1 of 3 reasons that I can see -

 

1. He realised it was a ridiculous stance that was great in theory

2. He didn't want conference to vote it down and make him look weak

3. He didn't want to risk losing a General Election as he knew it was a vote loser

 

We're not talking about nationalising the railways here. Man of principle my arse.

 

[Section_31]

If people don't think nukes are a deterrent just ask why Kim Jong Un hasn't been hung on YouTube yet. 

[Bjornebye]

Would ex-Labour leader Corbyn have been better off appearing on Russia Today the day of the invasion to plug a book like the ex-Lib Dem leader rather than posting a video of himself condemning the attack and calling for peace? 

[A Red]

9 minutes ago, House of Dirk said:

Some form of protection. Lolz. We are fucked mate. 

You may be right

[Jairzinho]

9 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

If people don't think nukes are a deterrent just ask why Kim Jong Un hasn't been hung on YouTube yet. 

He got them from a carboot sale, didn't he? You could throw a stone further.

[Arniepie]

So corbyn is wrong to be against putting American missiles on brotish soil,this ensuring we would be totally wiped from the face of the earth?

He is then wrong to say he wouldn't be happy pushing a button which could trigger armageddon?

He is also wrong about not over ruling his party in their stance on nuclear weapons.

 

It's almost as if certain people will criticise him whatever he says.

[Bjornebye]

6 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

So corbyn is wrong to be against putting American missiles on brotish soil,this ensuring we would be totally wiped from the face of the earth?

He is then wrong to say he wouldn't be happy pushing a button which could trigger armageddon?

He is also wrong about not over ruling his party in their stance on nuclear weapons.

 

It's almost as if certain people will criticise him whatever he says.

I do understand the shout that a lifelong pacifist has no place leading a big power in the modern world (a grim reality unfortunately) but like you say, he even condemns it and calls for peace and people jump on him. I wonder why. 

 

Let's put it this way, if ALL leaders where as compassionate a human being as Corbyn we would all live a very happy and peaceful existence. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

26 minutes ago, A Red said:

The ex leader of CND who campaigned against nuclear weapons all his adult life, who campaigned for unilaterally giving them up didn't even try to put scrapping Trident in his manifesto.

 

Could be for 1 of 3 reasons that I can see -

 

1. He realised it was a ridiculous stance that was great in theory

2. He didn't want conference to vote it down and make him look weak

3. He didn't want to risk losing a General Election as he knew it was a vote loser

 

We're not talking about nationalising the railways here. Man of principle my arse.

 

4. Politics is the art of the possible.

 

You say it's "a vote loser" and you're probably right: as long as people keep using nonsense phrases like "independent nuclear deterrent" the argument against nukes has clearly not been won. His job as leader was to try to get Labour into power (despite the best efforts of some in Party HQ and the PLP). Once in power, that would be the time to open an honest, informed, national debate about the pros and cons of nuclear WMD.

 

Contrary to accusations thrown around on this thread, Corbyn was prioritising getting into power over ideological purity.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

34 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

If people don't think nukes are a deterrent just ask why Kim Jong Un hasn't been hung on YouTube yet. 

Because of decades of absolute oppression, preventing any opportunity for a North Korean resistance movement.

[Numero Veinticinco]

48 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

You go with the positions supported by the Conference, etc. 

That’s the policy line you take, that’s not speaking for the entire party. I take the point you’re making in reference to your previous post though. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

56 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Incidentally, the UK's "independent nuclear deterrent" is not independent nor a deterrent. It's a massive drain on our resources and makes the country weaker and less safe. 

 

But that's for another thread.

Please post details of this in a relevant thread. I haven’t had to put that one to bed in years.

[Strontium]

Wasn't the issue with Corbyn not that he was explicitly pro-Putin, but that he surrounded himself with people who were? Seumas Milne and Andrew Murray, for instance.

[Gnasher]

12 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

My only real question about that video is, unfortunately, probably the most pertinent one. He says that the solution to the current crisis will be peace achieved through political pressure on Russia and that there's no military solution; theoretically, that's true. But that takes time. How do you achieve peace now.

Tell Putin if he pulls out his forces immediately he will have a guarantee Ukraine will not be allowed to join Nato.

Quote

Any Ukrainian civilians in the path of Russian armed forces need them to be stopped tonight. Maybe it's just my lack of expertise and/or imagination, but I see footage of that massive Russian convoy and all I can think is "somebody needs to bomb the fuck out of that".

Unfortunately no perfect outcome visable for Ukraine here, not unlike Poland towards the second world war.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

 I haven’t had to put that one to bed in years.

Bless.

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

10 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Tell Putin if he pulls out his forces immediately he will have a guarantee Ukraine will not be allowed to join Nato.

Three problems with that.

 

1. Hasn't there already been a promise that Ukraine wouldn't be allowed to join NATO? Why would Putin believe it now?

 

2. If the Ukrainian people were in two minds about the benefits of joining NATO before, Putin has just convinced them that they would have been better off not having to fight alone.

 

3. Giving aggressors the very thing that they're starting wars for is never a good solution.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Three problems with that.

 

1. Hasn't there already been a promise that Ukraine wouldn't be allowed to join NATO? Why would Putin believe it now?

 

2. If the Ukrainian people were in two minds about the benefits of joining NATO before, Putin has just convinced them that they would have been better off not having to fight alone.

 

3. Giving aggressors the very thing that they're starting wars for is never a good solution.

Agreed, although regarding point 3 I don’t believe that’s the reason he started the war. 
 

7 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Bless.

 

Way easier than the alternative of actually backing your claims up, I guess. 

[Gnasher]

1 minute ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Three problems with that.

 

1. Hasn't there already been a promise that Ukraine wouldn't be allowed to join NATO? Why would Putin believe it now?

No not really, Zelensky put in a proposal to join the EU this week.

1 minute ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

2. If the Ukrainian people were in two minds about the benefits of joining NATO before, Putin has just convinced them that they would have been better off not having to fight alone.

Horrible to say, but the Ukrainian people are in real danger of being flattened, a treaty that leads in Russia pulling out its forces is paramount.

1 minute ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

3. Giving aggressors the very thing that they're starting wars for is never a good solution.

 

This is true, especially as the war has gone so badly for Russia it'll be irksome to let them off the hook, however the Ukrainian peoples heroic response to the Red army has proven the folly of Putins actions and how badly he's miscalculated. 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

24 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Way easier than the alternative of actually backing your claims up, I guess. 

I just thought it was cute you coming out with exactly the same sort of dismissive thing that sends you into a hissy fit when I do it.

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I just thought it was cute you coming out with exactly the same sort of dismissive thing that sends you into a hissy fit when I do it.

It was an illustrative response to your assertion. It’s clear you’d sooner make up stuff about hissy fits than back it up though; fair enough.

[Captain Willard]

1 hour ago, Strontium said:

Wasn't the issue with Corbyn not that he was explicitly pro-Putin, but that he surrounded himself with people who were? Seumas Milne and Andrew Murray, for instance.

Seamus Milne was obviously a tory party 5th columnists  hiding in plain sight. Nobody can be that incompetent at their job, it had to be deliberate.