Corbyn: Falkland residents should not have a veto over deals with Argentina - Polidicks

Corbyn: Falkland residents should not have a veto over deals with Argentina

73 replies, posted
In This Thread

I want to vote Labour but I'm not doing it while they are in their current state. Under Corbyn they can't decide what their policies are and seems like someone's quitting or getting kicked out every other week. He's extremely left (and I'm pretty left..) and I don't think he would have what it takes to defend the UK if push came to shove. He simply will not budge on any kind of defence issues at all. Would 100% take Cameron over this guy. Miliband was okay but not great, I was very torn in the last election so I decided not to vote. Labour needs a good leader and sooner rather than later.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49550469]He thinks that the death of Osama bin Laden is a 'tragedy' .[/QUOTE] That was taken out of context, he said it was a tragedy he was not captured and bought to justice and punushed through a court system, not that Osama should have been free to carry on doing what he was doing.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49552070]Never attack? But they did before. Hong Kong should have had Veto power. Instead the UK let PRC drive in their tanks.[/QUOTE] Isn't Hong Kong a completely different story though. Something something treaty, something something 99-year lease.

[QUOTE=angelangel;49556900]Isn't Hong Kong a completely different story though. Something something treaty, something something 99-year lease.[/QUOTE] Half right. Only the New Territories were on a 99 year lease - Hong Kong Island and Kowloon had been ceded to the UK.

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;49554532]Why do you think Corbyn has made Labour unelectable? More importantly, why would you want Labour to be unelectable? I don't like Labour, but I'd much rather have them elected than the tories, it's pretty much the best outcome of an election we're going to get until we fix this 100% bullshit voting system. Unless you're a supporter of the conservative party, I don't understand why you'd be happy that Labour isn't a viable alternative (although I'm not sure if Corbyn has really made them less electable). Even if you want the tories to stay in, surely you'd rather the opposition was as reasonable as possible, not an extremist, which is what the media constantly asserts Corbyn is. That way if your chosen party doesn't win, you're not stuck with a government you hate. [sp]like any sensible person is now, considering the conservatives are gutting the NHS, as well as scrapping a bunch of welfare programs and generally making everything more shit[/sp][/QUOTE] See thread title for answer. Also, I voted conservative last year, which I still support as a good decision. I believe over the next 5 years the economy will be stabilized, which paves the way for a party further on the left to take power. I don't believe the conservatives are for the people, but I do believe they are the only party with the integrity to move the country forward in it's current state. It's important that the next government leans more towards the left. I don't think Labour in it's current state is ready for that yet though, but if they can stabilize and become less extreme they have my vote in 2020.

[QUOTE=Mallow234;49550445]I'm just glad that corbyn has pretty much made labour unelectable[/QUOTE] The conservatives are SO much better right?

[QUOTE=rhx123;49556665]That was taken out of context, he said it was a tragedy he was not captured and bought to justice and punushed through a court system, not that Osama should have been free to carry on doing what he was doing.[/QUOTE] [url]http://daviddpaxton.com/2015/12/20/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden-part-1-killcapture/[/url] [url]http://daviddpaxton.com/2016/01/07/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden-part-2-tragicomedy/[/url] A rather excellent two-part article on why this is bogus. [QUOTE]On the 27th May 1942, in the culmination of Operation Anthropoid, Reinhart Heydrich was attacked in Prague by Czechoslovakians Jozef Babcik and Karel Svoboda. He died 6 days later in hospital thus rendering the operation a success. Heydrich had recently earned the sobriquet ‘The Butcher of Prague’ to go with his others, “The Hangman”, “The Blond Beast”, and the “Young Evil God of Death”, and he was one of the key architects of the final solution. His death meant that he never got to sit at trial in Nuremberg with his colleagues. I invite you to ask yourself if the following statement sounds reasonable: 'Heydrich’s assassination was yet another tragedy on a tragedy. The Holocaust was a tragedy. And so it will go on and this will just make the world more dangerous and worse and worse and worse.' When it was revealed that Jeremy Corbyn said something almost identical about the killing of Osama bin Laden, many were keen to clamber to his defence and much of that defence was abject nonsense. There are perhaps objections to my above analogy based on scale of crime but it is the other possible objections to it that I wish to examine. Here is what Corbyn said: 'This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy. The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy… This will just make the world more dangerous and worse and worse and worse. The solution has got to be law, not war.' Even if you happen to believe that a trial was a better outcome than his death in his bedroom, it doesn’t render many of the objections to what happened either well reasoned or moral. The wider reaction to the killing, including Corbyn’s effort, is a telling case-study in the lengths so many are willing to go to in their attempts to demonstrate sophistication-via-masochism. The tactics of soldiers were second guessed without realistic alternatives being proposed, laypeople suddenly become legal experts of the sort happy to contradict legal experts and, of course, with it came the ubiquitous and self-flagellating cries of ‘we are no better than the terrorists’. There was a lot of it, from various quarters, and I shall endeavour to unpack it here.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][B]Context[/B] Any quote or excerpt is, by definition, out of context. The moral component comes with the question as to whether the exclusion of context deliberately changes the meaning. But if the context is important let’s have the full context. Jeremy Corbyn was appearing on Press TV, an Iranian government channel of low repute and one on for whom he has been a presenter. The editorial line of that channel, which they stick to, seems to go against all the principles Corbyn professes belief in. But they are deeply anti-West. They also pay. Corbyn’s parliamentary register shows the contractual (not to say lucrative) nature of the relationship, with four payments totaling up to £20,000 between 2009 and 2012. The particular program in which he was appearing when he made his comments was titled: Why is Obama Reluctant to Show the Final Moments of Osama bin Laden’s Life? The title hints at the conspiratorial ramblings so popular on Press TV. The entire text of all Corbyn’s contributions of that episode are to be found here after being lovingly transcribed by myself. Here is another transcript provided by the Daily Mirror. In them is plenty of context. For example: '…the president has to explain why he’s not confirming evidence of the death, why the burial at sea, if there was indeed a burial at sea and if it was Bin Laden. Because Bin Laden may well have been dead a year or two for all we know.' I couldn’t help but chuckle at the “if there was indeed a burial at sea and if it was Bin Laden”. It reminds me of South Park’s Johnnie Cochran and “ladies and gentleman of this supposed jury”. There is more context: 'Well, I can’t answer the question of why, we can only guess there is something fishy here.' And yet more: 'Right and the next stage will be an attempted assassination on Gaddafi…' This is the context of Corbyn’s ‘perfectly reasonable and civilised objections to the extrajudicial killing of Osama bin Laden’. He was on the propaganda network of the Iranian regime spouting conspiratorial bollocks. For money. Though, before it seems like I’m suggesting he said it JUST for money, let me be clear: It’s worse. He believes it. The context of his ‘tragedy’ remark does not help him. If he has been taken out of context he should be thankful for it. Still though, there is the question of whether he said the lack of a trial was a ‘tragedy’ or Bin Laden’s killing/death was. [B]He Said It[/B] I’ve heard this a lot: 'Corbyn didn’t say killing OBL was a tragedy, he said not putting him on trial was.' Sure, but it’s the same thing. If not achieving Outcome A (a trial) = Tragedy then Outcome B-Z (not a trial) = Tragedy. There’s not a lot you can do against that. If Jeremy Corbyn said that not putting Bin Laden on trial is a tragedy then all other outcomes are, to him, a ‘tragedy’. This saves somebody like Cameron from the accusation of a ‘lie’. Is that too lawyerly? Too sneaky? Perhaps you think in accusing him of calling the killing a ‘tragedy’people are allowing the uninformed audience to assume that Corbyn was lamenting the death of a close chum or something. This would mean we were being asked to think Corbyn felt the absence of a living Bin Laden was the tragedy rather than Western civilisation’s missed opportunity in putting the man on trial. In this regard I wonder if Cameron have been less criticised if he had said ‘the killing’ of Bin Laden rather than ‘the death’? Regardless, if this is the case it is, at worst, a bit of sharp practice. Though I for one never thought that this is what was meant or insinuated and nor was it why Corbyn’s comments angered me. I need no strawmanning. What Corbyn said is worthy of condemnation when steelmanned. It sounded bad when Cameron and so many others said it because it is bad. If you do object to an apparently misplaced implication in the criticism of Corbyn, if that is the basis of your defence of him, then it demands us to ask ourselves what he did in fact mean. [B]Tragedy Upon Tragedy Upon a Tragedy[/B] Here’s the rub, Corbyn didn’t just call the absence of an ‘attempt to arrest him’ a tragedy. He called it a tragedy like 9-11 was. Therein is where all known defences of Corbyn fall to shit. He said: 'This was an assassination attempt and is yet another tragedy upon a tragedy upon a tragedy. The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack in Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy.' How exactly is the result of the raid on Bin Laden a tragedy like 9-11? If they are all tragedies then what is the tragic strand that unites them? What is the underlying and consistent theme of tragedy? This needs to be answered by anybody stating he was taken out of context. If you have no reasonable explanation for this you are best to keep quiet when tempted to say you understand what Corbyn meant and that the rest of us are being unfair to him. Hitchens’ ill-considered stab at Cameron provides us with a nice point to work around. And, for what it’s worth, I think Cameron was being clever. Hitchens said: 'The false and cheap suggestion that Mr Corbyn does not regard the events of September 11, 2001 as a tragedy – when he specifically said that he did – was a disgrace for which Mr Cameron should quickly make amends.' Ok. But Corbyn called them both tragedies. Cameron suggested 9-11 was a tragedy because of human reasons such as: 'A tragedy is nearly 3,000 people murdered one morning in New York. A tragedy is the mums and dads who never came home from work that day. A tragedy is people jumping from the towers after the planes hit.' There is a choice. Did Corbyn call Bin Laden’s death a tragedy due to the sadness and horror of the act or did he call a 9-11 a tragedy due to the ‘perfectly reasonable and civilised objection’ to its lawlessness? You can have one or the other. And I suggest you want neither. Cameron knew what he was doing. The 9-11 reference wasn’t ‘false and cheap’, it was a move of wit and sophistication from a politician making a political speech. It spoke a truth about Corbyn and it left open the chance for people, who were so keen to have a crack at Cameron they couldn’t be bothered to consider what Corbyn actually said before they leapt to his defense, to be reduced to spouting nonsense. Further analysis ends up making him look worse and his defenders silly while all the while keeping the conversation on Corbyn and security. You may have preferred if Cameron had taken the time to lay all this out at length and in depth. But he was making a podium speech to his troops which excuses brevity and some level of simplicity. Does it excuse lying and falsehoods? No. But I think I have demonstrated that that simply didn’t occur. In short – Corbyn said Bin Laden’s death was a tragedy like 9-11. If he thinks it was a tragedy in the way Cameron describes 9-11 then he wasn’t being misrepresented or taken out of context, smeared, or slandered. He is guilty as hell and all the shit slung his way was well deserved. [B]Cycles of Violence[/B] There is but one way in which Corbyn’s comments have a semblance of coherence. Though it isn’t one his defenders seem to acknowledge as his actual intention. I don’t blame them. Corbyn often speaks in terms of cycles of violence. It’s the most sophisticated thought he has and he applies variations of the logic wherever he can. You know the drill, if we don’t want nuclear war the West must give up their missiles because our enemies only want theirs because of us. Peace by bending over. Our inaction will invite their inaction. If we prefer fascists to stop murdering their way through the Middle-East we must resist shooting at them so they will embrace folk guitar-music. Or something. The U.S. attacked Bin Laden and killed him. This is an outrage which will feed the cycle, as were the attacks on September 11, 2001, the war in Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan. He lumps them together because each to him is a missed opportunity to be unilaterally peaceful and thus spontaneously usher in multilateral peace. Can’t we learn some lessons from this, that we’re just going to descend deeper and deeper… …and so it will go on and this will just make the world more dangerous and worse and worse and worse… This is Corbyn’s foreign policy mantra. The reason jihadists are a bit coarse and boorish is because of us. It’s all reaction. If we were only willing to talk, to show that we care, the death cult would start talking and we move onwards and upwards in cycles of peace. It is a coherent idea. The only problem with it is that it’s bollocks. Jaw jaw might well be better than war war and one outrage might well begat another. But it doesn’t mean one side’s perpetual unwillingness to take military action will bring peace. I’ll spare you the full explanation of this because you know it already, it’s a triumph of slogans over experience and who but a few fringe-hippies still believe this nonsense? It’s bollocks in general terms and as a prescription but it gets worse when you consider it in this particular context. Here it is another example of what Yasmin Alibhai-Brown ejaculated into debate. It’s been 5 years since Bin Laden’s camouflage alarm call and how many jihadists have listed “the Sheik didn’t get his day in court” on their grievance list? Would this have made the murderously angry any the less murderous than keeping him in a U.S. prison? I doubt even Bin Laden was offended by the manner of his death but Corbyn is on his behalf. He insists that shooting a man famous for ordering civilians killed without trial will lead to more violence and that it is part of a descent into barbarism like 9-11 was. I struggle to believe that people sawing heads off on HD video, which they publish as an advertisement for their way of life, are truly to be riled in this way. This is such an unreasonable proposition that mere stupidity isn’t a good enough explanation. It is that squalid fetish once again. To follow it is to essentially render us powerless to take any action in our own defence which has its own immorality and, perhaps worst of all, it sets up a ready-made exculpatory analysis for future terror. If anything were to follow it the event would be our fault again and not that of the fascist thugs. This is your brain on sophistication-via masochism.[/QUOTE] I don't really have the time to make this argument in my own words, and he does it better than I can, but hopefully, if you have the time, I would recommend reading what I quoted in particular. Though its quite a long read and I don't blame you if you can't be bothered.

[QUOTE=Shadow801;49557065][B]See thread title for answer. [/B] Also, I voted conservative last year, which I still support as a good decision. I believe over the next 5 years the economy will be stabilized, which paves the way for a party further on the left to take power. [B]I don't believe the conservatives are for the people, but I do believe they are the only party with the integrity to move the country forward in it's current state. [/B] It's important that the next government leans more towards the left. I don't think Labour in it's current state is ready for that yet though, but if they can stabilize and become less extreme they have my vote in 2020.[/QUOTE] 'Corbyn: Falkland residents should not have a veto over deals with Argentina' - Hardly makes him unelectable. I honestly don't understand why there is so much media attention on the Falklands, when the war was very short, and an incredible decisive victory in our favour. Let me tell you right now that as a voting British citizen, I don't care about the Falklands. At no point when I'm considering which party to vote for, and the issues that affect me, does the Falklands even come close to entering my mind. The Falklands war guaranteed tory re-election in 1983. There's a lesson to be learned there, that we shouldn't let patriotic ideals lead us into electing offensively right-wing government into power. A government which divided the country and has done so much lasting damage to certain communities, that they still haven't recovered today. That is the end of the lesson of the Falklands, and also the end of their relevance to modern day politics. The war is over, there won't be another one, so a leader's stance on the issue doesn't matter, or at least, not to the extent that it makes them unelectable. On the subject of your support for the conservatives, I have no idea what you mean by 'not for the people', but 'the only party with the integrity to move the country forward'. Forward where? To a place where we no longer have the NHS, the one thing that makes us stand out as a nation: good, universal healthcare? Or perhaps we'll move forward to where the divide between rich and poor is the largest it's ever been, nobody can afford to live, and also nobody ever wants to come live here because we have nothing to offer them over other, more interesting, more progressive, left-wing European countries?

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;49565095]'Corbyn: Falkland residents should not have a veto over deals with Argentina' - Hardly makes him unelectable. I honestly don't understand why there is so much media attention on the Falklands, when the war was very short, and an incredible decisive victory in our favour. Let me tell you right now that as a voting British citizen, I don't care about the Falklands. At no point when I'm considering which party to vote for, and the issues that affect me, does the Falklands even come close to entering my mind. The Falklands war guaranteed tory re-election in 1983. There's a lesson to be learned there, that we shouldn't let patriotic ideals lead us into electing offensively right-wing government into power. A government which divided the country and has done so much lasting damage to certain communities, that they still haven't recovered today. That is the end of the lesson of the Falklands, and also the end of their relevance to modern day politics. The war is over, there won't be another one, so a leader's stance on the issue doesn't matter, or at least, not to the extent that it makes them unelectable. On the subject of your support for the conservatives, I have no idea what you mean by 'not for the people', but 'the only party with the integrity to move the country forward'. Forward where? To a place where we no longer have the NHS, the one thing that makes us stand out as a nation: good, universal healthcare? Or perhaps we'll move forward to where the divide between rich and poor is the largest it's ever been, nobody can afford to live, and also nobody ever wants to come live here because we have nothing to offer them over other, more interesting, more progressive, left-wing European countries?[/QUOTE] You seem to be missing the point. The issue isn't about the Falkland Islands themselves - it's about Corbyn demonstrating his refusal to listen to the wishes of the islanders. They have very clearly stated that they wish to remain a BOT and so for Corbyn to say that they, the people who live there, shouldn't have a veto on what happens and that discussions on their sovereignty should continue regardless of what they think is an insult to democracy. It demonstrates that Corbyn is adamant on putting his own ideals before that of the people he should be representing.

[QUOTE=David29;49565192]You seem to be missing the point. The issue isn't about the Falkland Islands themselves - it's about Corbyn demonstrating his refusal to listen to the wishes of the islanders. They have very clearly stated that they wish to remain a BOT and so for Corbyn to say that they, the people who live there, shouldn't have a veto on what happens and that discussions on their sovereignty should continue regardless of what they think is an insult to democracy. It demonstrates that Corbyn is adamant on putting his own ideals before that of the people he should be representing.[/QUOTE] I don't think this one interview is proof that he's 'adamant on putting his own ideals before that of the people', but rather that he's attempting to be more diplomatic on the issue. We jumped to war before, and sure, we won, but lives were still lost. It was a lot more costly for Argentina, but we still lost people, and many would see that as unnecessary. Now here we are, and apparently Argentina are still not happy about it. It's easy to go, 'get fucked you lost haha', but obviously diplomacy doesn't work like that. Just because he wants to reach a resolution in which all parties are satisfied without even more pointless hostilities over national pride, doesn't mean that he's a delusional lefty who will piss all over democracy and throw the islanders under the bus to satisfy Argentina, as you seem to believe.

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;49565450]I don't think this one interview is proof that he's 'adamant on putting his own ideals before that of the people', but rather that he's attempting to be more diplomatic on the issue. We jumped to war before, and sure, we won, but lives were still lost. It was a lot more costly for Argentina, but we still lost people, and many would see that as unnecessary. Now here we are, and apparently Argentina are still not happy about it. It's easy to go, 'get fucked you lost haha', but obviously diplomacy doesn't work like that. Just because he wants to reach a resolution in which all parties are satisfied without even more pointless hostilities over national pride, doesn't mean that he's a delusional lefty who will piss all over democracy and throw the islanders under the bus to satisfy Argentina, as you seem to believe.[/QUOTE] The only realistic outcomes are either A) We give them the Falklands or B) We keep the Falklands. What I got out of what Corbyn said is that if it came down to giving them the Falklands against the Islanders wishes or fighting Argentina he would give them the Falklands. That would be stupid and is a slippery slope. [editline]19th January 2016[/editline] I would not vote for a man that would willingly throw 1500+ of our own citizens under the bus just to prevent a conflict with a country we could easily beat.

[QUOTE=Morgen;49565713]The only realistic outcomes are either A) We give them the Falklands or B) We keep the Falklands. What I got out of what Corbyn said is that if it came down to giving them the Falklands against the Islanders wishes or fighting Argentina he would give them the Falklands. That would be stupid and is a slippery slope. [editline]19th January 2016[/editline] I would not vote for a man that would willingly throw 1500+ of our own citizens under the bus just to prevent a conflict with a country we could easily beat.[/QUOTE] I know what you mean about there only being two outcomes, and it's a good point. Personally I don't think it would ever come to that however; I'm not crazy familiar with the circumstances which lead to the Falklands war, but I'm pretty sure it was stupid bravado and patriotism on both sides (Argentina for thinking they could take them, the conservatives for very quickly declaring war). I think that Corbyn was trying to imply that he wouldn't let it escalate to that point. Again though, it's a pointless hypothetical unless Argentina are actually bothered about the Falklands still, which would be a bad idea, as even Corbyn wouldn't sell out the islanders to avoid war, as much as this article makes out like he would do. The guy is left-leaning but I find it very hard imagining a situation in which he'd give Argentina the Falklands.

Hi, I am Andres Kramack from [url]http://www.cathybarryadultstore.com/[/url]. It's a 'pleasure' serving the public if you know what I mean. Here at Cathy Barry Adult Store, we offer a wide variety of dildos that come in all sizes from goblin-sized dicks to black-man draconic dicks. I know at Facepunch everyone loves good old dicks which is why [B]I[/B] personally offer anyone with an association with Facepunch Forums a 50% discount code "DIL4FACEPUNCH". Don't forget, this offer lasts until the next Garry's Mod update which we so much love. Here are pictures of our products just for you! [IMG]http://www.cathybarryadultstore.com/shop/images/3bangsjnrred.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://www.cathybarryadultstore.com/shop/images/3bangsforyourbutt-flesh.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://www.cathybarryadultstore.com/shop/images/latex-peni-whip.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.cathybarryadultstore.com/shop/images/mr-ed-horse-penis.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.cathybarryadultstore.com/shop/images/red-goose2.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BKX0mMJCAAAnUji.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/L1XRETxHBhA/maxresdefault.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://cdn4.image.youporn.phncdn.com/200708/31/56961/640x480/8/largest-dildo-ever-inserted-8.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://49.media.tumblr.com/ac5f2d4651b5b29a3b550bead63c1666/tumblr_n7hgb5DOon1t078dbo1_500.gif[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/86zgdV8.gif[/IMG] Our wonderful sponsors: [IMG]http://landt.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Dermatologists-Hate-Her.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ug26o7i.jpg?1[/IMG] [IMG]http://snaughty.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/trainers-hate-him.jpg?w=497[/IMG] Rubat approved: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/lhulQdU.png[/IMG]

Also I think it's silly to say that you wouldn't vote for a man who would throw all the islanders under the bus to prevent war, when that's not really what he said at all. This is pretty much just the media twisting him into some weak pacifist dictator who would instantly give away the Falklands, ignoring anybody's concerns for the British citizens there. I don't even like the guy, but I would rather have him in office making some left-wing changes to undo the damage that 10 years of conservatives have forced on us. Maybe he is too left-wing, maybe he wouldn't be able to get that much done, but it's a damn sight better than the current regime.

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.