Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?


Sugar Ape
 Share

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?  

218 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?



Recommended Posts

Just now, Rico1304 said:

His stint on Iranian propaganda TV.  He got £20k. Nice work if you can get it. 

It is, but what he has said is the same he said about any form of conflict the country might be trying to get involved in. 

 

Its not as if he has changed his outlook or view on our possible intervention in the Gulf. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

What actions? 

 

JC has to keep his former employers sweet, never know when he might need a job. 

Just issuing the statement and helping escalate matters, nothing else at this point.  Wasn't meaning we've dived in with the military at this point or anything.

 

Corbyn is acting pretty consistently with the Salisbury attack again, first reaction is scepticism, but with evidence he would probably again accept it (even if it's unlikely he'd support military intervention).  Hunt's jingoistic "don't ask questions" response just left me exasperated (even if it was coincidentally quite predictable and pathetic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

What actions? 

 

JC has to keep his former employers sweet, never know when he might need a job. 

Stupidest fucking post ever.

 

On the one side you've got US chickenhawks doing what they've promised to do and what they've done many times before; on the other side you've got the bloke who was right about Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. saying (again) that "Bomb first, ask questions later" is no basis for a foreign policy... but some of his policies might not benefit you financially, therefore he must be opposed at all times.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

It is, but what he has said is the same he said about any form of conflict the country might be trying to get involved in. 

 

Its not as if he has changed his outlook or view on our possible intervention in the Gulf. 

 

 

 

He got paid £20k. We know this because he declared it. There’s no conspiracy or controversy.  The TV channel lost its UK licence as it was a mouthpiece of the Iranian government.  That’s not disputed either.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Pidge said:

Just issuing the statement and helping escalate matters, nothing else at this point.  Wasn't meaning we've dived in with the military at this point or anything.

 

Corbyn is acting pretty consistently with the Salisbury attack again, first reaction is scepticism, but with evidence he would probably again accept it (even if it's unlikely he'd support military intervention).  Hunt's jingoistic "don't ask questions" response just left me exasperated (even if it was coincidentally quite predictable and pathetic).

So no actions?  

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the statement.  Not exactly warmongering is it?

 

Following our own assessment the UK concludes that:

  • It is almost certain that a branch of the Iranian military - the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - attacked the two tankers on 13 June. No other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible.

  • There is recent precedent for attacks by Iran against oil tankers. The Emirati-led investigation of the 12 May attack on four oil tankers near the port of Fujairah concluded that it was conducted by a sophisticated state actor. We are confident that Iran bears responsibility for that attack.

The Foreign Secretary said:

I condemn yesterday’s attacks on two vessels in the Gulf of Oman. Our own assessment leads us to conclude that responsibility for the attacks almost certainly lies with Iran. These latest attacks build on a pattern of destabilising Iranian behaviour and pose a serious danger to the region.

In targeting civilian shipping, international norms have been violated. It is essential that tankers and crews are able to pass through international waters safely. We call on Iran urgently to cease all forms of destabilising activity. The UK remains in close coordination with international partners to find diplomatic solutions to de-escalate tensions.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really good take from Skwawkbox on this.

 

https://skwawkbox.org/2019/06/15/hunt-dredges-up-tired-corbyn-iran-smear-to-play-to-tory-members-but-exposes-own-weakness-and-hypocrisy/

 

Jeremy Hunt has rushed to prop up the US narrative on events in the Strait of Hormuz, where the Trump administration has blamed attacks on oil tankers on Iran. Hunt immediately stated publicly that the attacks were ‘almost certainly’ carried out by Iran.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called for caution and evidence before leaping to any conclusions – and was immediately attacked by a now-hawkish Hunt for not immediately agreeing with the US.

But Hunt’s own record shows that he warned only seven months ago, during a visit to Iran as Foreign Secretary, that any conflict with Iran could trigger a world war

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pistonbroke
3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

If it was a flying explosive this exonerates Iran?

It's more about the false news/acquisitions flying about without any concrete information. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

If it was a flying explosive this exonerates Iran?

Well, it would mean the US warmongering liars have to come up with a better story - why should anyone believe that Iran, a country with decent relations with Japan, would attack a Japanese tanker for no reason? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, moof said:

Well, it would mean the US warmongering liars have to come up with a better story - why should anyone believe that Iran, a country with decent relations with Japan, would attack a Japanese tanker for no reason? 

It has happened 6 times in as many weeks. 

 

The reason might be money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...