Jeremy Corbyn

So who does the UK need to fear?

Anyone who encourages cutting back on the lucrative arms trade?

Surely, it the dominant superpowers cut back on weapons, tensions would decrease, rather than escalate as they do when you have vast military investment, nuclear or otherwise.

When was the last time the UK (or US for that matter) were invaded or attacked by another countries army?

When was the last time the UK (and US) didn't have any active military forces in overseas conflicts?

Who supplied the weapons that sparked and fuelled those conflicts?

Who supplied the weapons that sparked and fuelled those conflicts?

The Queen ?

jivehoneyjive - Member
So who does the UK need to fear?
Anyone who encourages cutting back on the lucrative arms trade?

Surely, it the dominant superpowers cut back on weapons, tensions would decrease, rather than escalate as they do when you have vast military investment, nuclear or otherwise.

When was the last time the UK (or US for that matter) were invaded or attacked by another countries army?

When was the last time the UK (and US) didn't have any active military forces in overseas conflicts?

Who supplied the weapons that sparked and fuelled those conflicts?

I do like that, we need nukes cause we keep selling the world all their weapons! 😆

Because they have mostly been wars between non-nuke states

Except, or course, the Falklands War, where our nukes were of no use whatsoever. "What nuke for liberating Port Stanley?"

Well apparently they were useful in the Falklands, but not in the way you are thinking, see this link

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/22/books.france ]Guardian[/url]

[quote=ernie_lynch said]
The Queen ?

I believe Prince Phillip runs the arms business side of the family.

see this link

[i]"the psychoanalysis of François Mitterrand"[/i]

Yeah OK.

The British public didn't believe that Britain would use nuclear weapons, the Argentine government and people didn't believe that Britain would use nuclear weapons, the US administration, the UN, and the rest of the world didn't believe that Britain would use nuclear weapons.

I doubt very much that François Mitterrand believed that Britain would use nuclear weapons, whatever someone who wants to sell a book likes to claim.

Quite apart from the obvious stupidity of such a move in 1982 the Monroe Doctrine was still very much alive. The Argentine fascist military dictatorship owed its very existence to the US administration - the Monroe Doctrine decreed that Argentina was part of America's Backyard.

There is absolutely no way that the US would have allowed the UK to drop a nuclear device in its Backyard.

And just to prove the US's dominance of its own Backyard over all others, including its allegedly closest ally the UK, a year after the Falklands War Ronald Reagan order the attack, invasion, and occupation, of a British Commonwealth country, Grenada, without even bothering to inform the British government beforehand.

[img] [/img]

Well its a good job Lynch that Great Britain gave the Argie Junta a good conventional ass whipping then isn't it....
I wouldn't trust Corbyn with the responsibilty of defending our country or any other ally we have....
The first obligation of any PM is the defence and security of the UK
Thanks but no thanks Comrade Jez

The first obligation of any PM is the defence and security of the UK

How's that working out with Hameron? Are we more secure now he's busy bombing Iraq and Libya? Or has it created a big danger for us, maybe?

I'd rather surrender completely than be nuked.

Thanks but no thanks Comrade Jez

Yeah but to be fair nora you are a self-confessed UKIP supporter. You can't expect all UKIP supporters to warmly welcome Jeremy Corbyn's victory in the Labour Party leadership election. I would be worried if they did.

Bloody nora is john Wayne and I claim my ass whiping from him.

you are a self-confessed UKIP supporter

Is he 😀 ❓

Oh, I must have missed that! 😆

😆

And a bit more...

😆

Yes Nora has on here urged people to vote UKIP. Although TBF I think he/she leans a bit towards the EDL/BNP.

Maybe just getting a little less racist in his dotage.

Is he against immigration and allowing foreign companies to operate here too?

Amazing where you find UKIPers isn't it?

Oooh, there's the passive aggressive switcheroo. 😀

Can't we just sell some or all of our nuclear deterrent by auction(I'm sure the Yanks would pay top dollar to stop the Ayatollah ,Goldfinger, or god forbid, Richard Branson getting their mits on them) and then use the cash to give drama lessons and buy violins for under privileged kids in the North ?

PayPal Gift?

Slight hijack.

Was watching BBC or Channel 4 documentary last night about migrants ...

Now, I don't know about you lot but I would give that "innovative" bloke who jumped/moved/attached to different family by pretending to be husband, uncle, cousin whatever a citizenship or an Oscar immediately. His acting skill was so good he was able to move around without being caught. This person used his brain so he deserved to be let in.

😛

The scenario that would lead to someone supposedly having to push the button is incomprehensible to anyone, its a really silly and pathetic question, anyone who says that they would is talking absolute pipe.

its a really silly and pathetic question

It is a particularly silly and pathetic question when it is proposed that the yes or no answer, when a microphone is thrust under a person before TV cameras, will determine the effectiveness of Britain's "nuclear deterrent". As if potential nuclear armed enemies base their calculations on such an event and are waiting on the edge of their seats for the answer, ffs.

And it is a particularly silly and pathetic question when asked to a life-long opponent of nuclear weapons. Can you imagine the furore had Corbyn actually said "yes"? ffs

What do those who criticise Corbyn expected him to say ? No was wrong, saying yes would have been wrong. Was he suppose to say nothing, just stare blankly and kept everyone guessing? ffs, seriously, ffs.

Angela Eagle should be ashamed of herself for publicly criticising Corbyn for giving the only answer that he could give. Some Labour MPs need to accept that 60% of Labour Party members and supporters backed Corbyn a couple of weeks ago, and that it's them who are of touch with their own party.

I mean, we really need to examine just how psychotic this guy who's not too keen on pushing a button to kill millions of people actually is. Clearly, he's a massive danger to us all if he doesn't want to do that.

Daily Mash

ANY future prime minister must be willing to guarantee the total destruction of the UK in a nuclear war.

As Jeremy Corbyn pledged never to use nuclear weapons, voters made it clear they will reject anyone who will not cause them to be vaporised.

Donna Sheridan, from Stevenage, said: “We should definitely kill millions of enemy civilians because it might cheer us up a bit before we die.

“Retaliation would ultimately be pointless because widespread destruction would be inevitable and they might just send more missiles to finish us off. So we need to be led by someone who isn’t very good at thinking logically.”

She added: “It would help if they had a total disregard for human life and a fixation with apocalyptic vengeance. It’s a shame they killed Bin Laden because he’d be perfect.”

Tom Booker, from Hatfield, said: “A few people would probably survive so fighting back would boost morale. And morale is vitally important when you’re scavenging in the ruins with your teeth falling out.”

I keep imagining the scenario in the Kremlin had he said "yes"......."President Putin, the BBC have just reported that the leader of the Labour Party has said that he [i]would[/i] press the nuclear button".

Putin responds with, "Bollocks, I thought he was supposed to be a life-long opponent of nuclear weapons?"

"Well yes, but apparently he's changed his mind"

"Well ****it, that changes everything......it's really not the answer I wanted to hear, what an arsehole"

The question 'would you press the nuclear button' and the reaction to the answer must surely be the most ridiculous question ever asked to Jeremy Corbyn, and quite possibly one of the most ridiculous questions ever asked to a politician by a TV interviewer.

Was never going to happen though was it - deep cover agents like him and agent Boot would never go against orders from the Kremlin would they?

Angela Eagle should be ashamed of herself for publicly criticising Corbyn

Compared with her namesake, Maria and the other colleagues in the shadow cabinet, Angela seemed relative restrained in her expression of dismay.

Still Jezza is all about open dialogue and ability to stand up for personal believes even if they clash with the leader. It's the new old order.

What do those who criticise Corbyn expected him to say ? No was wrong, saying yes would have been wrong.

Which is why he was such a bad choice as leader. He has this problem on countless issues.

Well only 6 - 8 really critical ones.

As the NS noted (and linked above) all part of the nirvana fallacy

The nuclear question – perhaps the most serious question of our age - does not yield easily to idealism. To grapple with it, you have to put to one side your wish for a world in which nuclear weapons don’t exist, and think hard about the one in which they do.

Start from the wrong place, and you will generally fail to get to where you want to get to!

All this criticism for Corbyn because he has principles, is honest and sticks to them, yet openly admits that he wants a democratic process to set policy, rather than his own personal agenda, makes me think that the right wingers of this country don't actually want a democratically elected government, they want an autocratic dictator, or a personality cult. Putin would probably fit the bill; don't let the door hit you on the way out...

Which is why he was such a bad choice as leader. He has this problem on countless issues.

re the "Nirvana fallacy" is that what Jesus did or would do THM? Did he accept reality and went with it or did he change it for the better?
It really is possible for principled people to change the world for the better you just need to have a little more faith.
Given the 10 commandments [ you are not meant to kill ] I can only assume you would not be pressing the button either so why are you using this to attack him?

Start from the wrong place, and you will generally fail to get to where you want to get to

I would also contend that believe in the afterlife/god/religion etc is the ultimate nirvana fallacy so its a bit rich for you to lecture us on it.

All this criticism for Corbyn because he has principles, is honest and sticks to them, yet openly admits that he wants a democratic process to set policy, rather than his own personal agenda

That's contradictory. You can't have principles and stick to them *and* set policy with a democratic process unless by fluke the majority of the people in the democratic process agree with your preferred policies. Over multiple issues is not the case in the Labour party today, nor in any other party AFAIK.

Why is this his fault?

It's not.

That's contradictory

Except obviously it's not, as one of his KEY principles is the belief in a true democratic process.

Ok, so one principle outweighs all the others, so the principled thing to do is to drop all the other principles to support the *really* important one.

Except it's not. The principled thing to do where the majority of your principles must be abandoned to fit in with the views of everyone else is to resign.

EDIT: Mind you, is it principled to resign when 60pc of your party have just voted for you? I'd say not.

I don't see a principled way out of his predicament. Whatever he does is wrong.

You can't have principles and stick to them *and* set policy with a democratic process

Agreed - not contradictory. He tells you what HIS principles are, but that he won't dicatate to the party, and the party policy will be arrived at by consensus.

Remarkable that so many people have a problem with that. I'm glad I don't have to work with some of you!

60% of his party voted for him [i]knowing[/i] his principles, whilst not maybe agreeing with every single one. I'm not a vegetarian, but I'm happy to vote for one, and I suspect that although he is a vegetarian, he's not going to insist we all give up meat. He's a democratic leader, NOT a dictator.

outofbreath - Member
Whatever he does is wrong.

We'll put you in the "not the target demographic Labour should be looking at" column, shall we? 😆

Btw the decision whether or not to press the button is only contradictory if the party disagree with it, when he gets the actual power to press the button.

Until then it doesn't matter, and Jeremy obvious thinks he can change party policy before that happens.

This is the good thing about being in opposition, you can have disagreements. They do become a bit more serious when you are in government I'd argue, but currently this is a luxury he has, imo.

How is he going change party policy in the next 5 years? A move towards giving the grassroots the ability to select their own candidates would be a step in the right direction.

There are obvious disagreements within the PLP, but the PLP and PLP opinion isn't a constant.

Agreed - not contradictory. He tells you what HIS principles are, but that he won't dicatate to the party, and the party policy will be arrived at by consensus.

Remarkable that so many people have a problem with that.

Ok I think we've exhausted the 'is it principled' argument without any of us changing our mind.

Next question is let's say you turn up at an election openly acknowledging that you think many (most) of your policies are wrong, but are the policies your party chose for you.

How does that go down with voters? Interviews are going to be a bit farcical. "Mr Corbyn, can you talk us through why you think your policy on [insert policy] is deeply flawed.".

I don't think any credible leader would push it, tbh. If it was going to be pushed it'd have been done during the cold war.

"Mr Corbyn, can you talk us through why you think your policy on [insert policy] is deeply flawed.".

Mr Corbyn, can you talk us through why you think THE PARTY'S policy on [insert policy] is deeply flawed?

Cannot see a problem here. Do you realyl want Blair back?

Next question is let's say you turn up at an election openly acknowledging that you think many (most) of your policies are wrong, but are the policies your party chose for you.

Tbh, I too like to throw out highly improbable hypothetical situations when I'm not sure where my argument is going next. Gives me time to think.

...he won't dicatate to the party, and the party policy will be arrived at by consensus.

Remarkable that so many people have a problem with that.

Not really imo. For too long the opposite was the norm so this new situation quite understandably is weird and unfathomable to some.

After Tony Blair became leader of the Labour Party he did what he called "changed the structures", which basically means that he purged all democracy from the party.

Tony Blair didn't have to worry about the opinions of the party, or the wider public for that matter, he only had to decide how he himself felt about something.

This attitude went unquestioned and it was widely accepted that the party leader had the right to dictate party policy - the party was his personal fiefdom.

Now that the anti-democratic right-wing has lost their stranglehold on the party a radical change has occurred. We have had in effect "regime change" in the Labour Party. It's not entirely surprising if some people don't quite understand the new way of doing things.

We'll put you in the "not the target demographic Labour should be looking at" column, shall we?

Probably best to wait for some policies before deciding that.

I'd sooner listen to Corbyn speaking than most other politicians. No PR scripted hand movements, animated head stuff, and generally there's actual content.

And he's obviously a hit (or was) with the ladies, so we won't have to worry about porcine necrophilia coming to light.

Judging by the latest election results looks like he's falling flat in Scotland though. The Tories may actually supplant Labour in the next Holyrood election.