The EU Referendum - Thursday 23 June (with voting poll)

by Nico the gman Thu Jun 30, 2016 10:14 pm

First topic message reminder :

Munchkin wrote:
Nico the gman wrote:Whether people like it or not the country voted to leave the EU and I don't think there's a cat in hells chance of a 2nd Referendum, those who did fail to vote and wanted to remain have in my opinion no argument.

I don't think a 2nd referendum will happen. I do think a 2nd referendum would vote Remain, even if the exact same voters come out.

Quite possibly.

by SecretFly Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:35 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:Also, to those who believe that there was no justification for removing Saddam, do remember the atrocities committed by his regime. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, the use of torture was widespread and, let's not forget, he was responsible for invading Kuwait and starting a war.

Just imagine if Theresa May instructed the Army to murder 250,000 UK civilians and torture countless more. Would we really believe that there would be no justification for the US and EU removing her?

There are, of course, at least two sides to this extremely complex situation, but I do take issue with those who say that there was "no justification" for the invasion.

I think her own army should do that in such a scenario. There is a time for obeying the commands of your Elected (or otherwise) Leader and then there are times to realise you are engaging in War crimes.

If more Generals and soldiers in this world just downed tools and refused 'orders' to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture or 'regime change' then it might be a better old world we live in.

Perfect fantasy though of course, as this old clap trap about Soldierly Duty and obedience to the chain of command is what will always allow men to climb out of a stinking trench and proceed in orderly lines to their death.

by lostinwales Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:10 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:Letwin is seen by Tories as a bright and capable man, albeit one better to be kept behind the scenes, coming up with ideas and drafting stuff, rather than fronting anything. From recollection he also claimed a whole bunch of stuff in the expenses scandal.

I do wonder how many people turned this down before they arrived at Letwin.

£2k for repairs to a water pipe underneath his tennis court. Money for servicing the Aga at his cottage. (And lets remember, when it comes to cooking, if you haven't got an Aga.....) Life's tough. With all these stresses and strains its no wonder he ended up dropping confidential paperwork in public bins on the way to work...

It would be absolutely hilarious if you were on the outside looking in. You couldn't make it up.

by SecretFly Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:23 pm

Letwin - looks like a character from a Dickens novel.

But of course, recent British politics is exactly such a novel already in the writing.

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:25 pm

SecretFly wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:Also, to those who believe that there was no justification for removing Saddam, do remember the atrocities committed by his regime. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, the use of torture was widespread and, let's not forget, he was responsible for invading Kuwait and starting a war.

Just imagine if Theresa May instructed the Army to murder 250,000 UK civilians and torture countless more. Would we really believe that there would be no justification for the US and EU removing her?

There are, of course, at least two sides to this extremely complex situation, but I do take issue with those who say that there was "no justification" for the invasion.

I think her own army should do that in such a scenario. There is a time for obeying the commands of your Elected (or otherwise) Leader and then there are times to realise you are engaging in War crimes.

If more Generals and soldiers in this world just downed tools and refused 'orders' to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture or 'regime change' then it might be a better old world we live in.

Perfect fantasy though of course, as this old clap trap about Soldierly Duty and obedience to the chain of command is what will always allow men to climb out of a stinking trench and proceed in orderly lines to their death.

I'm not sure allocating a share of the blame to the men and women of the armed forces who fought in Iraq on the orders of the government and their superior officers is particularly fair. I'm also not sure how an army could function without "this old clap trap" about obedience to the chain of command.

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:35 pm

lostinwales wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:Letwin is seen by Tories as a bright and capable man, albeit one better to be kept behind the scenes, coming up with ideas and drafting stuff, rather than fronting anything. From recollection he also claimed a whole bunch of stuff in the expenses scandal.

I do wonder how many people turned this down before they arrived at Letwin.

£2k for repairs to a water pipe underneath his tennis court. Money for servicing the Aga at his cottage. (And lets remember, when it comes to cooking, if you haven't got an Aga.....) Life's tough. With all these stresses and strains its no wonder he ended up dropping confidential paperwork in public bins on the way to work...

It would be absolutely hilarious if you were on the outside looking in. You couldn't make it up.

I did think he was one of the worst offenders. One of the arguments I hated most around that was "well, our behaviour was within the rules and it's the rules that need to change". It is nothing short of remarkable that a man who claimed £2k from the public purse is still involved in such an important role in public service.

The other issue created by the expenses scandal that bothers me is the notion that those MPs who didn't abuse the system deserve credit. I've seen numerous Facebook memes and updates pointing out that Corbyn claimed something like £8 in expenses, and therefore deserves to be put on some moral pedestal. That's a non sequitur for me, and does nothing to mitigate the fact that he's incompetent.

by SecretFly Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:49 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:Also, to those who believe that there was no justification for removing Saddam, do remember the atrocities committed by his regime. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, the use of torture was widespread and, let's not forget, he was responsible for invading Kuwait and starting a war.

Just imagine if Theresa May instructed the Army to murder 250,000 UK civilians and torture countless more. Would we really believe that there would be no justification for the US and EU removing her?

There are, of course, at least two sides to this extremely complex situation, but I do take issue with those who say that there was "no justification" for the invasion.

I think her own army should do that in such a scenario. There is a time for obeying the commands of your Elected (or otherwise) Leader and then there are times to realise you are engaging in War crimes.

If more Generals and soldiers in this world just downed tools and refused 'orders' to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture or 'regime change' then it might be a better old world we live in.

Perfect fantasy though of course, as this old clap trap about Soldierly Duty and obedience to the chain of command is what will always allow men to climb out of a stinking trench and proceed in orderly lines to their death.

I'm not sure allocating a share of the blame to the men and women of the armed forces who fought in Iraq on the orders of the government and their superior officers is particularly fair. I'm also not sure how an army could function without "this old clap trap" about obedience to the chain of command.

Did I mention the British army in Iraq?

You see - this is often the problem; people seeing what they want to see in the written word. Tony Blair saw what he wanted to see and acted on it - and now his detractors are reading things in isolation in that Chilcot report and using such words to beat him over the head with too.

But on to your actual points. Absolving troops from the details of their own conscience in time of war is an excuse that allows the concept of war to still have far too much 'Respect' in human contemplation.
Medals, memorials, talk of bravery etc etc - it's all a procession to keep War defined as a noble pursuit.
I say War and armies are inevitable - it's evolution - we'll never get out of the habit of having both. So my opinion on what is fair or otherwise is meaningless. War will happen again and again, and soldiers will keep saying "Yes, sir". There is nothing fair or unfair in it - it's the human condition.

In general terms though, lest I be accused of picking out the 'men and women of the armed forces who fought in Iraq' again, in general terms, obeying orders to commit war crimes simply because of obedience to the old clap trap of superior officers and chains of command is no valid excuse for committing such acts. If May ordered her soldiers to murder 250,000 UK citizens, they should say "No".

by kingraf Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:50 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:We should have removed Bashar al-Assad as well, but that's another debate.

Horrendous idea.

Create another power vacuum in a volatile nation state, whilst arrogantly assuming ourselves to be a bastion of moral superiority who should dole out international justice? The evidence, the recent evidence, shows how awful such a state of affairs has been in Libya and Iraq. Being ignorant of history is one thing, but being ignorant of recent history is another matter entirely.

It couldn't possibly be any worse than it now is, Duty. That evil tyrant is responsible for the near genocide of his own people.

Blair should never have agreed to go into Iraq. I really can't understand those that think it was justified.

My question would be why we seem to deem some evil tyrants to be our enemies and some evil tyrants our allies. Hence why I do not trust the reasoning given for the conquests in the Middle East.

All depends on who stands in the way of wealth, and who helps contribute to the wealth of the Western powers, however, Assad is a particularly evil tyrant. His actions against his own people are deplorable. The US was all talk about taking action to stop him, long after he had already slaughtered many thousands, but stopped in its tracts by Russia, yet Russia simply strolled in.

I don't think it "all depends" on that, there's also the question of what is feasible from a military perspective. North Korea is the example that is oft cited in the "why cherry pick" rationale for standing by and doing nothing. It is stating the obvious that the "West" would like to disarm North Korea and see a regime change there and yet would glean little to no financial benefit from it, but without the full co-operation of China it would be impossible to achieve. In fact, given the presumed nuclear capability of North Korea, I wonder if it would be possible even with Chinese support.

Zimbabwe would be my example. Still, no oil over there!

I completely agree, Mugabe should have been removed years ago. My suspicion is that there was little regional support for this from South Africa and the other neighbouring African countries. The situation in Zimbabwe, whilst utterly horrific, is also contained. This was certainly not the case in Iraq where Saddam had used his military strength to invade another country. Still, I would have supported regime change in Zimbabwe 100%.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/27/tony-blair-military-intervention-zimbabwe-claim

so what is your theory then on the apartheid government not being overthrown then?

by Coxy001 Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:25 pm

Can we stay on topic and all keep calling the leavers various names and hitting them with the FT?

by Guest Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:27 pm

In fact, given the presumed nuclear capability of North Korea, I wonder if it would be possible even with Chinese support.

Have we learned nothing? Never mind the truth, facts just get in the way.

by SecretFly Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:31 pm

Coxy001 wrote:Can we stay on topic and all keep calling the leavers various names and hitting them with the FT?

You're right, Coxy. Apologies for my part in the diversion away from the topic.

If May ordered her soldiers to murder 250,000 'Leave' voters, they should say "Yes, sir".
.

by Guest Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:35 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Coxy001 wrote:Can we stay on topic and all keep calling the leavers various names and hitting them with the FT?

You're right, Coxy. Apologies for my part in the diversion away from the topic.

If May ordered her soldiers to murder 250,000 'Leave' voters, they should say "Why so few, sir?".
.

by SecretFly Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:45 pm

DAVE667 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Coxy001 wrote:Can we stay on topic and all keep calling the leavers various names and hitting them with the FT?

You're right, Coxy. Apologies for my part in the diversion away from the topic.

If May ordered her soldiers to murder 250,000 'Leave' voters, they should say "Can we include some Remainers and Chelsea fans, sir?".
.

by Guest Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:51 pm

SecretFly wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Coxy001 wrote:Can we stay on topic and all keep calling the leavers various names and hitting them with the FT?

You're right, Coxy. Apologies for my part in the diversion away from the topic.

If May ordered her soldiers to murder 250,000 'Leave' voters, they should say "Can we all just shoot Cristiano Ronaldo, sir?".
.

by Coxy001 Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:52 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Coxy001 wrote:Can we stay on topic and all keep calling the leavers various names and hitting them with the FT?

You're right, Coxy. Apologies for my part in the diversion away from the topic.

If May ordered her soldiers to murder 250,000 'Leave' voters, they should say "Yes, sir".
.

At least it would be relevant to Brexit.

by SecretFly Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:57 pm

..and morally understandable.

by lostinwales Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:01 pm

SecretFly wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:Also, to those who believe that there was no justification for removing Saddam, do remember the atrocities committed by his regime. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, the use of torture was widespread and, let's not forget, he was responsible for invading Kuwait and starting a war.

Just imagine if Theresa May instructed the Army to murder 250,000 UK civilians and torture countless more. Would we really believe that there would be no justification for the US and EU removing her?

There are, of course, at least two sides to this extremely complex situation, but I do take issue with those who say that there was "no justification" for the invasion.

I think her own army should do that in such a scenario. There is a time for obeying the commands of your Elected (or otherwise) Leader and then there are times to realise you are engaging in War crimes.

If more Generals and soldiers in this world just downed tools and refused 'orders' to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture or 'regime change' then it might be a better old world we live in.

Perfect fantasy though of course, as this old clap trap about Soldierly Duty and obedience to the chain of command is what will always allow men to climb out of a stinking trench and proceed in orderly lines to their death.

I'm not sure allocating a share of the blame to the men and women of the armed forces who fought in Iraq on the orders of the government and their superior officers is particularly fair. I'm also not sure how an army could function without "this old clap trap" about obedience to the chain of command.

Did I mention the British army in Iraq?

You see - this is often the problem; people seeing what they want to see in the written word. Tony Blair saw what he wanted to see and acted on it - and now his detractors are reading things in isolation in that Chilcot report and using such words to beat him over the head with too.

But on to your actual points. Absolving troops from the details of their own conscience in time of war is an excuse that allows the concept of war to still have far too much 'Respect' in human contemplation.
Medals, memorials, talk of bravery etc etc - it's all a procession to keep War defined as a noble pursuit.
I say War and armies are inevitable - it's evolution - we'll never get out of the habit of having both. So my opinion on what is fair or otherwise is meaningless. War will happen again and again, and soldiers will keep saying "Yes, sir". There is nothing fair or unfair in it - it's the human condition.

In general terms though, lest I be accused of picking out the 'men and women of the armed forces who fought in Iraq' again, in general terms, obeying orders to commit war crimes simply because of obedience to the old clap trap of superior officers and chains of command is no valid excuse for committing such acts. If May ordered her soldiers to murder 250,000 UK citizens, they should say "No".

Nobody is whiter than white in all this but interestingly the level of Britain's cooperation with the US on the ground was severely limited for some time because US treatment of captives didn't meet UK standards.

by SecretFly Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:04 pm

lostinwales wrote:

Nobody is whiter than white in all this but interestingly the level of Britain's cooperation with the US on the ground was severely limited for some time because US treatment of [Brexiters] didn't meet UK standards.

Sorry for modifying your post, Lost. But you simply must keep on Topic from here on in!

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:13 pm

kingraf wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:We should have removed Bashar al-Assad as well, but that's another debate.

Horrendous idea.

Create another power vacuum in a volatile nation state, whilst arrogantly assuming ourselves to be a bastion of moral superiority who should dole out international justice? The evidence, the recent evidence, shows how awful such a state of affairs has been in Libya and Iraq. Being ignorant of history is one thing, but being ignorant of recent history is another matter entirely.

It couldn't possibly be any worse than it now is, Duty. That evil tyrant is responsible for the near genocide of his own people.

Blair should never have agreed to go into Iraq. I really can't understand those that think it was justified.

My question would be why we seem to deem some evil tyrants to be our enemies and some evil tyrants our allies. Hence why I do not trust the reasoning given for the conquests in the Middle East.

All depends on who stands in the way of wealth, and who helps contribute to the wealth of the Western powers, however, Assad is a particularly evil tyrant. His actions against his own people are deplorable. The US was all talk about taking action to stop him, long after he had already slaughtered many thousands, but stopped in its tracts by Russia, yet Russia simply strolled in.

I don't think it "all depends" on that, there's also the question of what is feasible from a military perspective. North Korea is the example that is oft cited in the "why cherry pick" rationale for standing by and doing nothing. It is stating the obvious that the "West" would like to disarm North Korea and see a regime change there and yet would glean little to no financial benefit from it, but without the full co-operation of China it would be impossible to achieve. In fact, given the presumed nuclear capability of North Korea, I wonder if it would be possible even with Chinese support.

Zimbabwe would be my example. Still, no oil over there!

I completely agree, Mugabe should have been removed years ago. My suspicion is that there was little regional support for this from South Africa and the other neighbouring African countries. The situation in Zimbabwe, whilst utterly horrific, is also contained. This was certainly not the case in Iraq where Saddam had used his military strength to invade another country. Still, I would have supported regime change in Zimbabwe 100%.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/27/tony-blair-military-intervention-zimbabwe-claim

so what is your theory then on the apartheid government not being overthrown then?

It was overthrown.

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:17 pm

SecretFly wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:Also, to those who believe that there was no justification for removing Saddam, do remember the atrocities committed by his regime. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, the use of torture was widespread and, let's not forget, he was responsible for invading Kuwait and starting a war.

Just imagine if Theresa May instructed the Army to murder 250,000 UK civilians and torture countless more. Would we really believe that there would be no justification for the US and EU removing her?

There are, of course, at least two sides to this extremely complex situation, but I do take issue with those who say that there was "no justification" for the invasion.

I think her own army should do that in such a scenario. There is a time for obeying the commands of your Elected (or otherwise) Leader and then there are times to realise you are engaging in War crimes.

If more Generals and soldiers in this world just downed tools and refused 'orders' to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture or 'regime change' then it might be a better old world we live in.

Perfect fantasy though of course, as this old clap trap about Soldierly Duty and obedience to the chain of command is what will always allow men to climb out of a stinking trench and proceed in orderly lines to their death.

I'm not sure allocating a share of the blame to the men and women of the armed forces who fought in Iraq on the orders of the government and their superior officers is particularly fair. I'm also not sure how an army could function without "this old clap trap" about obedience to the chain of command.

Did I mention the British army in Iraq?

You see - this is often the problem; people seeing what they want to see in the written word. Tony Blair saw what he wanted to see and acted on it - and now his detractors are reading things in isolation in that Chilcot report and using such words to beat him over the head with too.

But on to your actual points. Absolving troops from the details of their own conscience in time of war is an excuse that allows the concept of war to still have far too much 'Respect' in human contemplation.
Medals, memorials, talk of bravery etc etc - it's all a procession to keep War defined as a noble pursuit.
I say War and armies are inevitable - it's evolution - we'll never get out of the habit of having both. So my opinion on what is fair or otherwise is meaningless. War will happen again and again, and soldiers will keep saying "Yes, sir". There is nothing fair or unfair in it - it's the human condition.

In general terms though, lest I be accused of picking out the 'men and women of the armed forces who fought in Iraq' again, in general terms, obeying orders to commit war crimes simply because of obedience to the old clap trap of superior officers and chains of command is no valid excuse for committing such acts. If May ordered her soldiers to murder 250,000 UK citizens, they should say "No".

I see. So in "general terms" soldiers should be free to follow their conscience, rather than obeying orders, but when you said "soldiers" you didn't mean actual real soldiers like those that fought in Iraq, simply hypothetical ones. That's clear, sorry to having simply seen what I wanted to see....

by SecretFly Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:26 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:

I see. So in "general terms" soldiers should be free to follow their conscience, rather than obeying orders, but when you said "soldiers" you didn't mean actual real soldiers like those that fought in Iraq, simply hypothetical ones. That's clear, sorry to having simply seen what I wanted to see....

Well the obvious bit you're not seeing is the actual line or two you wrote in the very beginning that I even took the trouble to Highlight in Bold.

That's the hypothetical, Exiled.

Don't blame me for it then being the subject matter of my reply to you. If May 'ordered' British troops to "murder 250,000 UK civilians", they should without a blink Refuse to follow the order.

The hypothetical situation is yours - not mine. But it's you that took it to Iraq to avoid the hypothetical. You take it wherever you want, I won't be cowed into retracting an opinion or to be warned off dealing with supposed 'sensitive' issues.

We're back to a situation of 'don't mention Israel lest you be called anti-Semitic'?

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:32 pm

SecretFly wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:

I see. So in "general terms" soldiers should be free to follow their conscience, rather than obeying orders, but when you said "soldiers" you didn't mean actual real soldiers like those that fought in Iraq, simply hypothetical ones. That's clear, sorry to having simply seen what I wanted to see....

Well the obvious bit you're not seeing is the actual line or two you wrote in the very beginning that I even took the trouble to Highlight in Bold.

That's the hypothetical, Exiled.

Don't blame me for it then being the subject matter of my reply to you. If May 'ordered' British troops to "murder 250,000 UK civilians", they should without a blink Refuse to follow the order.

The hypothetical situation is yours - not mine. But it's you that took it to Iraq to avoid the hypothetical. You take it wherever you want, I won't be cowed into retracting an opinion or to be warned off dealing with supposed 'sensitive' issues.

We're back to a situation of 'don't mention Israel lest you be called anti-Semitic'?

I think it was your quote below that threw me:

If more Generals and soldiers in this world just downed tools and refused 'orders' to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture or 'regime change' then it might be a better old world we live in.

I thought when you listed those things in your initial reply that you meant to include those in your position re: soldiers not being required to follow orders. You also make it very clear that you were talking about "in general terms", so I didn't think your view was limited to my initial hypothetical scenario. It seemed pretty clear.

As it happens I would agree that should May decide to order the Army to murder 250,000 UK civilians then the Army should decline, politely or otherwise, to follow that particular order.

You can mention Israel all you like with me!

by SecretFly Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:55 pm

None of it changes my opinion that Leavers should be given a damn good public thrashing anyway.... which was my original point all along.... Cool

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:57 pm

SecretFly wrote:None of it changes my opinion that Leavers should be given a damn good public thrashing anyway.... which was my original point all along....

Quite right!

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:31 pm

Gove has gone, leaving a straight shoot for the next PM between Leadsom and May.

by **rodders** Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:40 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:Gove has gone, leaving a straight shoot for the next PM between Leadsom and May.

That such a thing can be deemed good news says a lot about the state of the country right now...

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:45 pm

rodders wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:Gove has gone, leaving a straight shoot for the next PM between Leadsom and May.

That such a thing can be deemed good news says a lot about the state of the country right now...

I can't quite decide whether it's good news or not. I'm going to settle on it being "news".

It's all gone quiet on the Labour leadership front. The plotters should just get on with it and either launch an official challenge or break away and form a new party with the Lib Dems.

by Duty281 Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:04 pm

Go on Mrs. Leadsom!

Mind you, it doesn't matter who the next Tory leader is. I could be the next Tory leader and they would still win a landslide against a pathetic and hapless Labour Party who, unsurprisingly, are closer to 3rd than 1st.

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:12 pm

Duty281 wrote:Go on Mrs. Leadsom!

Mind you, it doesn't matter who the next Tory leader is. I could be the next Tory leader and they would still win a landslide against a pathetic and hapless Labour Party who, unsurprisingly, are closer to 3rd than 1st.

Agreed. I cannot think of a single individual who could contrive to lose a general election for the Tories against Corbyn.

by SecretFly Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:15 pm

Eagle is waiting for the very right time to drop the surprise on Jeremy and his clan. He doesn't know it yet, but she is actually going to stand against him for leadership...................................................sometime................................................................. it'll happen..................................................... it's going to happen soon..............................................................and nobody is going to see it coming.

by **rodders** Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:17 pm

Duty281 wrote:Go on Mrs. Leadsom!

Mind you, it doesn't matter who the next Tory leader is. I could be the next Tory leader and they would still win a landslide against a pathetic and hapless Labour Party who, unsurprisingly, are closer to 3rd than 1st.

Don't believe it, the conservatives are terrified of Corbyn- same with the Blairites and all the rest of Murdoch's cronies.

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:26 pm

I find Eagle quite odd if I'm being honest, and I don't see her making anything better to be honest.

Haven't quite decided who I'd support to replace Corbyn. David Miliband sadly isn't eligible (not being an MP), and Stella Creasy is probably too young for it. Dan Jarvis could use a few more years in Parliament as experience and Chuka Umunna strength of purpose worries me after he flaked out last time. Hilary Benn could be an option, but he's ruled himself out plus the Momentum brigade would spit their collective dummy out big time after Benn repeatedly embarrassed their idol.

Worst case would be McDonnell, followed by Tom Watson.

by funnyExiledScot Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:30 pm

rodders wrote:
Duty281 wrote:Go on Mrs. Leadsom!

Mind you, it doesn't matter who the next Tory leader is. I could be the next Tory leader and they would still win a landslide against a pathetic and hapless Labour Party who, unsurprisingly, are closer to 3rd than 1st.

Don't believe it, the conservatives are terrified of Corbyn- same with the Blairites and all the rest of Murdoch's cronies.

You're being sarcastic right?

Your second point is correct. The Blairites are clearly terrified of Corbyn. He's a one-man wrecking ball to Labour's election prospects, and any chance of Labour actually influencing Government policy. If you became a politician in order to influence government policy and change people's lives, then having Corbyn as team captain is indeed a terrifying prospect.

by SecretFly Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:37 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:I find Eagle quite odd if I'm being honest, and I don't see her making anything better to be honest.

Worst case would be McDonnell, followed by Tom Watson.

Well first things first - Eagle needs to learn that image strength comes from not promising to do something so often without actually doing it. So her Hamlet-ian procrastination kinda hurts her cause.

Please let the Labour party vote in Watson. I envisage tons more fun if he's elected (IF Corby goes, that is)

You find Eagle quite odd....................... hmmm, just my very opinion of Watson. I find him really really odd, and I think his oddness might come back to haunt him if he takes a big job.

by Guest Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:29 pm

I don't find Eagle odd, just very emotional and dithering. Not leadership material at all, but then neither is Corbyn.

All is lost!, Labour, all is lost!!

by Guest Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:31 pm

Also, glad to see Gove booted out of the contest.

Not that May is much better. Just better.

by Guest Thu Jul 07, 2016 7:09 pm

"I love the idea of two women battling it out" - Iain Duncan Smith

Don't we all, Iian, don't we all Cool

by Guest Thu Jul 07, 2016 8:27 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:Also, to those who believe that there was no justification for removing Saddam, do remember the atrocities committed by his regime. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, the use of torture was widespread and, let's not forget, he was responsible for invading Kuwait and starting a war.

Just imagine if Theresa May instructed the Army to murder 250,000 UK civilians and torture countless more. Would we really believe that there would be no justification for the US and EU removing her?

There are, of course, at least two sides to this extremely complex situation, but I do take issue with those who say that there was "no justification" for the invasion.

Yes, he was a brutal dictator, and was responsible for the deaths of around 250,000.

How many Iraqis have died since the West rode in to deliver the world from Saddams WMD's, while also saving the Iraqi's from their evil ruler? 500,000?

How many orphans since then? Roughly between 800,000 - 1million.

How many displaced? Some estimates over 3 million displaced.

I'm not saying that Saddam should have been left in power, clearly not, but that other measures should have been taken, or at least a much more indepth military plan, and level of commitment to the people of Iraq. They have been abandoned.

Listening to the news over the last couple of days, I note the grief and frustration of British relatives of those killed in combat, but very little, if anything, said about the horrors inflicted upon the Iraqi people, and the ongoing suffering since Western military intervention.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:52 pm

Labour have added 128,000 members since June 23..

If you're wondering why Eagle is dithering perhaps that is the answer..

The membership is the highest it has been for decades apparently..

You've got a crap leader that is adored by his electorate against a more electable opponent who knows she'll probably get trashed in a run off..

Boy it is a mess......Must be good to be a Tory.

by Guest Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:34 pm

Yes, it's a mess.

She shouldn't be dithering. She should be showing the membership that she is a credible alternative, and not some weepy, dozy, mare.

Even with the added membership, a poll was carried out with Unite members, and the majority would be happy to see Corbyn replaced.

Is there nobody within Labour that has the nuts to challenge Corbyn? Maybe his Momentum thugs have frightened everyone off?

by doctor_grey Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:05 am

Munchkin wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:Also, to those who believe that there was no justification for removing Saddam, do remember the atrocities committed by his regime. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, the use of torture was widespread and, let's not forget, he was responsible for invading Kuwait and starting a war.

Just imagine if Theresa May instructed the Army to murder 250,000 UK civilians and torture countless more. Would we really believe that there would be no justification for the US and EU removing her?

There are, of course, at least two sides to this extremely complex situation, but I do take issue with those who say that there was "no justification" for the invasion.

Yes, he was a brutal dictator, and was responsible for the deaths of around 250,000.

How many Iraqis have died since the West rode in to deliver the world from Saddams WMD's, while also saving the Iraqi's from their evil ruler? 500,000?

How many orphans since then? Roughly between 800,000 - 1million.

How many displaced? Some estimates over 3 million displaced.

I'm not saying that Saddam should have been left in power, clearly not, but that other measures should have been taken, or at least a much more indepth military plan, and level of commitment to the people of Iraq. They have been abandoned.

Listening to the news over the last couple of days, I note the grief and frustration of British relatives of those killed in combat, but very little, if anything, said about the horrors inflicted upon the Iraqi people, and the ongoing suffering since Western military intervention.

Ok boys, I apologise in advance, but here goes:

Saddam Hussain was an in or out proposition. There was no alternative and no third option. All power was concentrated in his hands. Take him out and there was no political or security structure to replace him. I was there when we went in and we all knew there was nothing behind him. What has happened after was inevitable. In the Muslim Middle East he had a Christian PM and a woman the head of a key part of his military complex. Alcohol was not banned and women had jobs, did not have to cover themselves, and could go out without family members. Moral Ambiguity Point Number 604: Was it worse in Iraq then or now? Should that son of a bitch been left in power? Or should the current sons of bitches be marauding across the country?

And what about Assad? He kept the peace in his country and only fired the occasional weapon towards Israel just to keep his local credentials. Who was better? Him or the other guys? Here is the hint - he will survive this. Only cost a million lives.

I know it is another Moral Ambiguity Point, but we don't have a freakin clue how to manage that part of the world. How does this impact the Brexit (or not) discussion? No idea. If Labour had a competent bipedal humanoid leading the party, they would be running the country already. Every time I think the world is upside down, it flips over on me. Again.

by funnyExiledScot Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:25 am

Munchkin wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:Also, to those who believe that there was no justification for removing Saddam, do remember the atrocities committed by his regime. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, the use of torture was widespread and, let's not forget, he was responsible for invading Kuwait and starting a war.

Just imagine if Theresa May instructed the Army to murder 250,000 UK civilians and torture countless more. Would we really believe that there would be no justification for the US and EU removing her?

There are, of course, at least two sides to this extremely complex situation, but I do take issue with those who say that there was "no justification" for the invasion.

Yes, he was a brutal dictator, and was responsible for the deaths of around 250,000.

How many Iraqis have died since the West rode in to deliver the world from Saddams WMD's, while also saving the Iraqi's from their evil ruler? 500,000?

How many orphans since then? Roughly between 800,000 - 1million.

How many displaced? Some estimates over 3 million displaced.

I'm not saying that Saddam should have been left in power, clearly not, but that other measures should have been taken, or at least a much more indepth military plan, and level of commitment to the people of Iraq. They have been abandoned.

Listening to the news over the last couple of days, I note the grief and frustration of British relatives of those killed in combat, but very little, if anything, said about the horrors inflicted upon the Iraqi people, and the ongoing suffering since Western military intervention.

Completely agree. As I said before, planning for the aftermath was a complete shambles, but when you think of the body count you also have to factor in those who would have died and been tortured had we left him in place.

As for the grief and frustration of the British relatives of those killed in combat, their grief is completely understandable, in particular for those soldiers killed because the Army was not properly equipped. That is completely unforgiveable and wrong. Whilst I supported and continue to support the removal of Saddam, sending troops into conflict without the proper equipment was for me the single biggest failing to the British public (and failing to have a proper plan for the aftermath was the single biggest failing to the Iraqi people we intended to liberate).

by funnyExiledScot Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:27 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Labour have added 128,000 members since June 23..

If you're wondering why Eagle is dithering perhaps that is the answer..

The membership is the highest it has been for decades apparently..

You've got a crap leader that is adored by his electorate against a more electable opponent who knows she'll probably get trashed in a run off..

Boy it is a mess......Must be good to be a Tory.

I do wonder how many of those new members have joined to oppose Corbyn, rather than to elect him. Certainly more recently.

Neither Corbyn nor Eagle are the solution for Labour. The best case for the Tories is that she makes a botched attempt to get rid of him, he then stands and wins again, but with a much smaller mandate from the Party than last time. I don't think the Labour Party would survive that.

by **rodders** Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:35 am

doctor_grey wrote:
I know it is another Moral Ambiguity Point, but we don't have a freakin clue how to manage that part of the world.

Surely it isn't ours to manage. Oh wait they have all the oil....

by funnyExiledScot Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:35 am

doctor_grey wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:Also, to those who believe that there was no justification for removing Saddam, do remember the atrocities committed by his regime. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, the use of torture was widespread and, let's not forget, he was responsible for invading Kuwait and starting a war.

Just imagine if Theresa May instructed the Army to murder 250,000 UK civilians and torture countless more. Would we really believe that there would be no justification for the US and EU removing her?

There are, of course, at least two sides to this extremely complex situation, but I do take issue with those who say that there was "no justification" for the invasion.

Yes, he was a brutal dictator, and was responsible for the deaths of around 250,000.

How many Iraqis have died since the West rode in to deliver the world from Saddams WMD's, while also saving the Iraqi's from their evil ruler? 500,000?

How many orphans since then? Roughly between 800,000 - 1million.

How many displaced? Some estimates over 3 million displaced.

I'm not saying that Saddam should have been left in power, clearly not, but that other measures should have been taken, or at least a much more indepth military plan, and level of commitment to the people of Iraq. They have been abandoned.

Listening to the news over the last couple of days, I note the grief and frustration of British relatives of those killed in combat, but very little, if anything, said about the horrors inflicted upon the Iraqi people, and the ongoing suffering since Western military intervention.
Ok boys, I apologise in advance, but here goes:

Saddam Hussain was an in or out proposition. There was no alternative and no third option. All power was concentrated in his hands. Take him out and there was no political or security structure to replace him. I was there when we went in and we all knew there was nothing behind him. What has happened after was inevitable. In the Muslim Middle East he had a Christian PM and a woman the head of a key part of his military complex. Alcohol was not banned and women had jobs, did not have to cover themselves, and could go out without family members. Moral Ambiguity Point Number 604: Was it worse in Iraq then or now? Should that son of a bitch been left in power? Or should the current sons of bitches be marauding across the country?

And what about Assad? He kept the peace in his country and only fired the occasional weapon towards Israel just to keep his local credentials. Who was better? Him or the other guys? Here is the hint - he will survive this. Only cost a million lives.

I know it is another Moral Ambiguity Point, but we don't have a freakin clue how to manage that part of the world. How does this impact the Brexit (or not) discussion? No idea. If Labour had a competent bipedal humanoid leading the party, they would be running the country already. Every time I think the world is upside down, it flips over on me. Again.

All very fair points, particularly the before and after analysis in Iraq. Call me an eternal optimist though, but I just can't believe that to maintain stability in the Middle East (or at least the sort of "stability" on offer from Assad and Saddam, one of whom actually already had the invasion of a sovereign state and a war with the West on his CV) you have to use torture and murder hundreds of thousands of your citizens. Is there really no alternative and middle ground out there between ruthless dictator or ISIS?

I'm going to take a punt that you know an awful lot more than I do about the complexity of the Middle East, but my faith in humanity insists that some sort of democratic peaceful state must be possible without murder and torture being its corner stone.

by lostinwales Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:43 am

What strikes me as critical in that area is Iran. A country which is working and has a working democracy (to a degree). Of course its also dominated by the usual bunch of religious nutters but I do feel its a country we should reach out to rather than demonise, especially as the 'demonisation' only really plays into the hands of those same religious nutters. They are also a source of high tech military equipment and training for allied militia in the area. The US is not in a position to attack them so maybe its worth trying other routes to bring them on side. So what if they don't follow the US model of how to run things..

by funnyExiledScot Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:43 am

rodders wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:
I know it is another Moral Ambiguity Point, but we don't have a freakin clue how to manage that part of the world.

Surely it isn't ours to manage. Oh wait they have all the oil....

Where there is widespread murder and torture within a country, I do actually think the global community has a responsibility to step-in and manage the situation, regardless or whether it is in our financial interests to do so. If we had done it more effectively in the 20th Century, rather than propping up these lunatics for financial gain, then the world would be a much more stable and peaceful place.

My great hope is that the 21st Century, my generation, will be the ones to look back on 20th Century foreign policy with absolute disgust and start to protect the citizens of the world from genocide, famine, epidemics, murder and torture regardless of whether or not we stand to make financial gains. It starts at the top, and it starts with Russia and China. If the superpowers can start to sing from the same hymn sheet then everything is possible. What can I say, I'm a dreamer.

by funnyExiledScot Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:54 am

lostinwales wrote:What strikes me as critical in that area is Iran. A country which is working and has a working democracy (to a degree). Of course its also dominated by the usual bunch of religious nutters but I do feel its a country we should reach out to rather than demonise, especially as the 'demonisation' only really plays into the hands of those same religious nutters. They are also a source of high tech military equipment and training for allied militia in the area. The US is not in a position to attack them so maybe its worth trying other routes to bring them on side. So what if they don't follow the US model of how to run things..

That was pretty much Obama's take on it. If you can't fight them work with them. Unfortunately if we get Trump then I fear he US (and by extension the "West") will go rapidly backwards on this. Trump has said he'd rip up the deal and reinstate full economic sanctions (although as with all Trump policies his advisers have "clarified" that he meant that he wouldn't actually rip up the deal, but rather renegotiate it and make it "better" for the US - quite how we don't know, but let's vote for him anyway...).

I'm never very clear as to how effective economic sanctions actually are. My gut feeling is that the people you want to hurt and bring to their knees (the government) get by fine, and it's actually the citizens of the country who actually feel the pain. That said, Iran were mighty keen for the sanctions to be eased, so maybe they have more teeth at the top than I first thought.

by SecretFly Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:06 am

funnyExiledScot wrote: It starts at the top, and it starts with Russia and China. If the superpowers can start to sing from the same hymn sheet then everything is possible.

What starts with Russia and China. Exiled?

by Guest Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:10 am

my generation, will be the ones to look back on 20th Century foreign policy with absolute disgust and start to protect the citizens of the world from genocide, famine, epidemics, murder and torture regardless of whether or not we stand to make financial gains.

Given we've just seen footage of a woman doing a video stream of her dead boyfriend and continues vlogging whilst in the back of a Police Car whilst her young child requires comfort, I'd wager your dreams of a caring utopia are as far away as they've ever been.

by lostinwales Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:10 am

A french mate of mine who lives in the US thinks Trump may win for exactly the same reasons as BREXIT won - that same disenchantment with mainstream politics.

Its hard to say what will happen in this country although it increasingly seems we will somehow muddle through in typical fashion. Trump on the other hand is genuinely scary. A very wealthy con artist who has somehow managed to hoodwink a large proportion of the population in the US.

by Sponsored content