Politics The General Election 2015

[Scouse]

Ok, ok. You are saying the most important thing is that some nutcase is right or wrong (or not actually right or wrong, just agrees with you)

I am saying the most important thing is that a democratic decision is reached.

No. I'm saying the decision whether or not to bomb (regardless of who is right or wrong) is the important one.

I'm also agreeing that it is important that a democratic decision is reached - but disagreeing that that is the most important thing.

Whether we kill people or not is more important than whether we've done it democratically.

 

[Raven]

Do you have some inside information that none of us are privy to because you seem adamant you know behind the scenes he has secretly forced them all to follow his decision. Surely you are not just going by the unnamed sources the media talked about this morning?

No, just the named and quoted MPs, some of whom are shadow cabinet.

Do you think everyone's favorite racist would come out and start telling everyone that they shouldn't speak for themselves was just a random statement?

 

[Scouse]

The ones shouting for his head on a pike and to have him removed are surely the ones you should be annoyed at as they are the ones trying to destroy democracy

True.

He got in because labour further democratised their system of choosing a leader

Fixed.

 

[Scouse]

And you're *still* talking about the nonsensical (and moot) point of how a vote is arrived at.

Better that than talk about whether we should sanction the murder of innocents in repeatedly pointless fashion to no achieveable end eh @Raven?

 

[Raven]

ahaha, democratic.

So getting a bunch of unions with a vested interest to vote for him, rather than MPs, who are voted for by the people, is democratic?

Oh my, I think someone needs to do a little research.

 

[Raven]

And you're *still* talking about the nonsensical point of how a vote is arrived at.

Better that than talk about whether we should sanction the murder of innocents in repeatedly pointless fashion to no achieveable end eh @Raven?

Nope, because I personally don't think we should because there is not a lot of point really, its not going to achieve much. Certainly not just laying waste to Raqqa.

My personal opinion doesn't matter though, the democratic opinion does and just because I personally don't want something to happen doesn't mean I want to block the democratic process.

 

[Scouse]

My personal opinion doesn't matter though, the democratic opinion does.

Best stop talking about it completely then eh? There's going to be a free vote...

 

[Raven]

There is now, there wasn't this morning, he has backed down.

 

[Raven]

Whether we kill people or not is more important than whether we've done it democratically.

You realise this is the general election thread, not the IS thread?

 

[Scouse]

You realise this is the general election thread, not the IS thread?

We no longer allowed to go slightly off topic?

 

[Talivar]

When they have a free vote i will be curious to see how much hate he gets if he loses the vote, will the same people who want Democracy applaud him for taking this to a vote or will they laugh and say he is a weak leader for not having total control of his parties decisions?

 

[Raven]

I don't think he is weak at all, in fact I admire his honesty and the fact that he does have an opinion that may not be popular. That doesn't mean I don't think he is a buffoon though... If he wasn't so nuts he would be the best thing to happen to politics in decades.

 

[Raven]

Also, I used to quite like Tom Watson until he turned into a malicious ballag.

Abbot is a racist and half the rest are filthy commies.

They haven't got a lot going for them really.

 

[DaGaffer]

We worked in Afghanistan, the Americans didn't, the problem with war is democracy.

We like to go into an area and sort the issue and leave ASAP so parties can get elected on the basis of 'I'll bring your kids home'

We need to INVEST properly into the middle east if we want to sort it out, or as you say, let them kill each other.

No we didn't "win". All the hearts and minds stuff was an utter waste of time and the Americans ended up taking over Helmand from the British.

 

[Gwadien]

No we didn't "win". All the hearts and minds stuff was an utter waste of time and the Americans ended up taking over Helmand from the British.

So you're saying the American tactics are the tactics we should emulate?

 

[Raven]

No, he isn't.

 

[DaGaffer]

So you're saying the American tactics are the tactics we should emulate?

No, I'm taking issue with your view that boots on the ground, just done in the "right" (eg British) way is somehow a solution for Syria. It isn't. Boots on the ground in Syria would be an absolute disaster, for all the same reasons as Iraq and Afghanistan, just x1000. And it doesn't matter whether it's snarling Americans or Brits pretending they're just Bobbies on the beat, "Christian" troops shouldn't be anywhere near the place.

The only way the west can defeat ISIS on the ground is via their supply lines, and that means a hard line with Turkey (NATO member or not) and the Gulf states and Saudi. Won't bloody happen though.

 

[Raven]

Yup. We are in for the long haul. Bombing the crap out of the place will look good on the news but the only way to beat them is to stop giving them money. Ie, becoming non dependant on oil. If we stop giving them money then they will soon run out. The Saudis are quite happy throwing money at psychopaths so long as they still get to drive a different Ferrari each day but their priorities will soon change when the oil teat is redundant.

So long as we are reliant on oil the cunts that supply the cunts with cash and weapons know there is very little we can do about it.

Having said that, we have a moral obligation as human beings to stop IS from being sickening barbarians... however, that is not what the western governments care about.

 

[Gwadien]

It is quite interesting that our media makes a point of Putin bombing the non-IS Rebels, but not the Turks killing the Kurds.

Humf.

 

[Gumbo]

In the case of Afghanistan. I do wonder if we had managed to drag the bodies of Osama, Mullah Omar and Ayman al-Zawahiri out of Tora Bora in the spring of 2002, whether we'd have come straight home, job done. The fact that we couldn't find the head of the snake meant that we were stuck looking, whilst the whole thing slowly transformed into a failed attempt at nation building that lasted nearly a decade and a half.

I can't see a case for western troops, beyond special forces embedded with the Kurds and the FSA, to be on the ground. We'd just be committing to the same mistakes again, and there is no appetite for that. Certainly in the UK.

In my ideal world. We get realistic. We help the Russians to help Assad get control of the country again. We have certain capabilities which will be very beneficial to a coalition, and I do think it's right to get involved. If Putin wants to use ground forces then we should let him, and offer air support to help him. The price that we pay for this is ultimately selling out the FSA, and ensuring that the future Syria acknowledges a portion of territory as a Kurdish free state. Much like we tolerate Scotland .

We then allow Assad to slip into exile once we have found a similar strong individual to assume the reigns of power. That individual would have to understand that if he wants our help, he has to reign in the torture and the persecution to a Chinese/Saudi level of abuse. He wouldn't be allowed to go the full Pol Pot.

We have to understand that some parts of the world are just not ready for democracy, any more than Britain was 500 years ago. I've been called racist for saying that before, but it's not a colour of skin thing, or an ethnic background, it's just the developmental stage of their society. I'm being Societist perhaps? I'll accept that. The facts are before us though. When we try to impose it, psychopathic quasi religious nutjobs move into the vacuum and the innocents suffer far more than they would have under a strong if a bit despotic, individual leader. Worse still, the quasi religious nutjobs then spread their hate to our homes. And don't tell me it's just because of what we did before. Perhaps it is, but without a time machine, we can't undo that. Even if we hung Blair in public, it won't stop them wanting to come and kill us on our streets. Not for the next century at least.

So lets get realistic about the whole thing, stop trying to pander to everyone from the far left to the far right. All that is doing is making it worse and making the worlds suffering last longer.

When there was a strong if slightly unhinged and a bit torturous on a bad day leader was in charge of Syria, we had perhaps a few hundred dissidents fleeing Syria a year. It was also pretty easy to do as it was a prosperous country with open borders, easy travel etc. So if you wanted to you could leave.

Now we have millions fleeing and more dying there each day. How is that better?

I ought to get up and get breakfast and start my day really.

 

[Job]

Corbyn is a PR disaster, but I find myself in his corner the more he comes under attack, he is quite simply correct about bombing campaigns, but is his own worse enemy for attacking theatrical protocol, which he fails to grasp the importance of in an intellectual dualism.
He should stand firm against the mob, it could be the making of him.

 

[Talivar]

I think he is starting to realise that the "Labour Party" he thought existed does not or has not ever existed. He is starting to see that none of them truly care for the average person and instead are just engaged in a never ending game of one up-manship with each other. He looks so bad and out of place because he is. Everything he says is taken out of context and twisted beyond belief because they want him gone ASAP. He is not willing to play the game and they dont want that. He does a small bow and spends a weekend talking to Vets and is accused of disrespect. He suggests we avoid bombing until we have a solid plan of how to deal with the long term problem and he is accused of not wanting to face ISIS ect ect

 

[Gumbo]

I've said for a while that I can see the Labour party splitting into the regular Labour party and the loony left Labour party. It would be completely accepted that if the two of them got enough votes, they would work in coalition, but in between they are separate organisations appealing to a different set of voters.

 

[Talivar]

Off topic a bit but this helps explain the complexity of Syria, i accept the site will have its own bias and no doubt doesn't paint a full picture but it might still be useful
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...war_n_8672068.html?ncid=fcbklnkukhpmg00000001

 

[Gwadien]

I've said for a while that I can see the Labour party splitting into the regular Labour party and Tory-lite party. It would be completely accepted that if the two of them got enough votes, they would work in coalition, but in between they are separate organisations appealing to a different set of voters.

Fixed.

It amazes me that people get upset about the Labour party having socialist agendas, they are THE socialist party.

As soon as the 'masses' wake up and see that everything isn't actually immigrants fault and they don't blindly follow UKIP, Labour will have a resurgence, I'm not saying under Corbyn, but I think they'll go more to the left still from their more serious leaders.

I appreciate in the last 20 years or so many people have backed away from the Labour party, and started to follow the Tories, but if the Tories do their standard making poor people poorer, I believe the tides will change, the Tories have an oppurtunity to stay in power for a VERY long time, hence why they did a U-turn on their Autumn statement.

I apologise if we continue this conversation and I type words that make no sense, I'm at my parents laptop where I type a sentence and it turns up in one go, it's like being in the early naughties

 

[Raven]

They haven't been the socialist party for about 25 years...

They stopped being socialist when Kinnock resigned, and in fact he probably started the big move away from being true socialists because he recognised that it doesn't actually work and nobody actually wants it.

 

[Gwadien]

They haven't been the socialist party for about 25 years...

No, they haven't been a socialist party, but they've been a party which under Blair they were (rightly) the victims of ridicule and blame.

They're trying to re-invent theirselves to distance theirsleves from that, and Corbyn was an answer to that - when people say oh I wish it was the 'regular Labour party' - Do they mean this same Blair New Labour Party?

The options are either;

New Labour
Tory-Lite
Corbynism

A modernised Corbynism will be a winner in 10 years time, if as I say - the Tories isolate the working classes. (But not Corbyn at the helm.)

 

[Raven]

No he wasn't because virtually nobody from Labour actually voted for him. He got foisted onto them by the unions and militant students, due to Labour's new hilarious voting system.

Also, you do realise the working class died out about 20 years ago...right?

What you call working class is actually people who don't work and don't vote, so who fucking cares what they think? Anyone who works wants to earn as much as they can for themselves, so either vote Tory or (again) don't bother voting.

Many voted Blair because he offered the same as the Tories but came accross as less of a twat.

 

[Talivar]

I like how the Syria debate in the commons seems to almost mimicked our own debate over it lol

 

[Job]

Cameron is handing victory to Corbyn...calling him a terrorist sympathise was idiotic, the country is 50/50 split on bombing.