Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[aRdja]

11 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

@viRdjil

I didn't see that you had made light of Rico's response.

 

If you think Boltons comments on regime change are war mongering you definitely need to revisit Khomeinis rhetoric (and actions - especially the idea of martydom which is the foundation of Islamic terrorism) in the late 70's. Today pales in comparison. 

Iran was gagging for war - he himself has said as much.

They probably would have been the outright aggressors too if he wasn't busy executing his own army at the time.

Go back a couple of decades maybe when you blokes actually successfully executed a regime change, overthrowing the democratically elected secular leader? Iran never started any wars. How many countries have the US meddled in since World War 2? I just wish you would just leave the rest of the world (and their oil reserves) be for once.

[TheHowieLama]

4 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

 

Go back a couple of decades maybe when you blokes actually successfully executed a regime change, 

That was us blokes pardner - British Petroleum, remember them?

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

2 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

It would be nice to have irrefutable proof. It does seem strange that no other theory for that boats particular action has not been put forward. Would seem to be pretty easy to do that.

 

 

Fair point. But, many people aren't saying it definitely wasn't Iran. If they were, then you'd want them to put forward a different version of events. 

 

Given that the situation could lead to something more serious, a lot of people are (rightly, IMO) saying that "it was Iran" isn't really sufficient and that they'd like to see something a bit more concrete than a poor quality video clip. 

[aRdja]

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

That was us blokes pardner - British Petroleum, remember them?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup

[TheHowieLama]

2 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup

You need to read a few more articles pal -- it was led by Churchill, based on the financial gains of BP.

Probably the last time Britain was at the forefront of any world politic.

 

In fact Truman opposed it

[TheHowieLama]

4 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

a lot of people are (rightly, IMO) saying that "it was Iran" isn't really sufficient

Yea, it's not

[aRdja]

3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

You need to read a few more articles pal -- it was led by Churchill, based on the financial gains of BP.

Probably the last time Britain was at the forefront of any world politic.

 

In fact Truman opposed it

Sure mate, i’ll ignore the declassified CIA documents.

[TheHowieLama]

15 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

Sure mate, i’ll ignore the declassified CIA documents.

Do you remember Attlee -- Labour fella him

 

Do you read the links you post?

 

Britain, and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, latterly known as BP. But the UK needed US support. The Eisenhower administration in Washington was easily persuaded.

British documents show how senior officials in the 1970s tried to stop Washington from releasing documents that would be "very embarrassing" to the UK.

 

 

I will help you with the timeline

 

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/iran/2017-08-08/1953-iran-coup-new-us-documents-confirm-british-approached-us-late

 

 The British Foreign Office approached the Truman administration on more than one occasion in late 1952 to propose a coup to overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, according to freshly declassified State Department documents

[Strontium]

23 minutes ago, moof said:

You’re the exact type of gullible idiot they are trying to dupe with that pinkwashing exercise. 

 

How utterly disgusting to describe treating gay people with respect as pinkwashing.

[SasaS]

1 hour ago, viRdjil said:

I’ve read enough Chomsky and watched enough Pilger unfortunately, to understand that to think that we’ve been lied to only once is extremely naive.

If you regularly watch Pilger you've definitely been lied to more than once.

[aRdja]

14 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Do you remember Attlee -- Labour fella him

 

Do you read the links you post?

 

Britain, and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, latterly known as BP. But the UK needed US support. The Eisenhower administration in Washington was easily persuaded.

British documents show how senior officials in the 1970s tried to stop Washington from releasing documents that would be "very embarrassing" to the UK.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to make me concede here champ. I’m happy for it to have been UK led, but the US played a major role too. Like they did in Chile, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Vietnam...but I’m sure this time it’s different right?

[aRdja]

11 minutes ago, SasaS said:

If you regularly watch Pilger you've definitely been lied to more than once.

Yeah I don’t know mate, i’d probably take Chomsky’s word over erm... yours.

 

Noam Chomsky said of Pilger: "John Pilger's work has been a beacon of light in often dark times. The realities he has brought to light have been a revelation, over and over again, and his courage and insight a constant inspiration”

[Captain Howdy]

Is Chomsky the defining word on everything? Who decided that?

[TheHowieLama]

20 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

I’m not sure what you’re trying to make me concede here champ. I’m happy for it to have been UK led, but the US played a major role too. Like they did in Chile, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Vietnam...but I’m sure this time it’s different right?

 

Nobody (especially me) is looking for any concession. I made a suggestion that accepting any source as "truth" is misguided. Based on your response I then suggested you review the issues leading up to the Iraq-Iran war because it seemed you did not have a grasp on that.

 

There has never been a period in history where the dominant world powers have ever done anything but protect their interests. Historically the worst offender is actually the "Empire". The creation of the United States is an uncomfortable reminder of this, yea?

I also mentioned their (or in the vernacular, YOUR) leadership of a particular event (that occurred at a time when Britain was the worlds strongest military) you referenced and then further pointed out that Britain no longer wields that power -- if they did they (read you)would still be at the forefront.

[aRdja]

5 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

Nobody (especially me) is looking for any concession. I made a suggestion that accepting any source as "truth" is misguided. Based on your response I then suggested you review the issues leading up to the Iraq-Iran war because it seemed you did not have a grasp on that.

 

There has never been a period in history where the dominant world powers have ever done anything but protect their interests. Historically the worst offender is actually the "Empire". The creation of the United States is an uncomfortable reminder of this, yea?

I also mentioned their (or in the vernacular, YOUR) leadership of a particular event you referenced and then further pointed out that Britain no longer wields that power -- if they did they would still be at the forefront.

Iraq invaded Iran. You could dress it up how you like it. With all due respect, your last paragraph is just you making excuses for US’s hawkish foreign policy.

[TheHowieLama]

3 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

Iraq invaded Iran. You could dress it up how you like it. With all due respect, your last paragraph is just you making excuses for US’s hawkish foreign policy.

Heh heh -- read some other stuff than Chomsky mate. Its a big world.

 

Until then we can agree on Britains natural position as the States lapdog I guess.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

4 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

What? When did I say that. I’ve got mates who’ll be sent there if it kicks off so don’t start with that bollocks. 

Sorry.

 

"Rico wants to stick the boot in on anyone who says we should check the evidence and think twice before dropping bombs on it."

 

Better?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

It's almost like a lot of people judge cases on their individual merits instead of writing them all off because we were lied to once.

Why would you assume that anyone who wants to see credible evidence isn't judging this on its merits?

[Rico1304]

6 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Sorry.

 

"Rico wants to stick the boot in on anyone who says we should check the evidence and think twice before dropping bombs on it."

 

Better?

No, just another lie. Again. The standard. 

 

The UK statement is not warmongering at all. It’s there, I’ve posted it.  Stop fucking lying and misrepresenting what’s really being said. 

 

 

[Rico1304]

And the assessment comes from the Foreign Office - JC rubbishes it.  He could be PM in a few months - how stupid is that? 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Just now, Rico1304 said:

No, just another lie. Again. The standard. 

 

The UK statement is not warmongering at all. It’s there, I’ve posted it.  Stop fucking lying and misrepresenting what’s really being said. 

 

 

I never said it was warmongering. 

 

All I've been arguing is that people are wrong to claim that Corbyn is wrong to want more evidence before rushing to condemn Iran (and thereby to align themselves with powerful American sociopaths who have long been spoiling for a full-scale military attack on Iran) on the basis of the flimsy and inconclusive shit that has been offered by the American hawks.

[Strontium]

4 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

And the assessment comes from the Foreign Office - JC rubbishes it.  He could be PM in a few months - how stupid is that? 

 

Very Trumpian.

[aRdja]

Well as of now, Trump has yet to start any war so you might be on to something.

[Rico1304]

5 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

I never said it was warmongering. 

 

All I've been arguing is that people are wrong to claim that Corbyn is wrong to want more evidence before rushing to condemn Iran (and thereby to align themselves with powerful American sociopaths who have long been spoiling for a full-scale military attack on Iran) on the basis of the flimsy and inconclusive shit that has been offered by the American hawks.

What the fuck? The imminent war thread that’s 11 years old? 

 

There are tankers on fire, there’s pics of Iranian boats.  

 

If someone set fire to a labour office and was

filmed arriving in Mays car I’m sure you’d be looking for balance.