RugbyRebels

cashead wrote:Ungodliness and rowan would be the main ones. Imagine how much fun this thread would've been if they were still around.

From what I understand, it would need more than unbanning to bring back Rowan.

Whilst UG would have been very vocal about all of this, he wasn't the only one on here who was pro-Putin at one point or another. There was some admiration of how he was a strong man who looked after his country's interests. And talking about a future Russian threat was just war mongering.

Corbyn is one of those who is unable to recognise that he might have got it wrong and just doubles down when challenged. AS bad as Boris has been, and lets not let that cnut off the hook for being fecking awful, Corbyn would have been far worse.

Stom wrote:

cashead wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:In that vein, here's Jeremy Corbyn giving us a gentle reminder of what might have been...



Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

This shit is usually a dog whistle that Ukraine should surrender and/or cede territory. It also assumes Russia have come to attempts at negotiations in good faith, and, like, just lmao at the notion. Anyone saying this shit now after months of negotiated terms broken by Russia is either a fucking idiot or a Russian propagandist. Which one are you, Jeremy?

Corbyn is little more than a smug, irrelevant has-been, who wasn’t even good at his fucking job to begin with, who isn’t calling for peace - he’s calling for Ukraine to be stripped of their ability to fight back against invading genocidal imperialists. Fuck him.

Corbyn has always had a tremendous inability to read the fucking room. If he can’t read the room, he’s not fit to be a politician, and if he can’t tell the difference between the friendly old socialists and the Russian Disinformation Squad Allstars, then he’s not fit to comment on Russia’s warspecial operation in Ukraine. Fuck off, Jezza, you screeching Putinist hyena.

He's an idiot. He's always been an idiot. But he's a consistent idiot. He can't get past the idea that everyone should be treated equally, even if they show they shouldn't be, and he's a pacifist at heart, so EVERYONE should lay down arms, even those being attacked.

But he is used as a stick by this UK government, and it works. Many voters are crazy about "Anyone but Corbyn", the Labour party is just Corbyn, even if he's not there, how dangerous Corbyn is, and the more time is spent digging up news stories on an irrelevant old man, the more it plays into the Tories' arms.

He's a pacifist at heart, but its always the west that needs to disarm first. He is the definition of a useful idiot.

Corbyn is still very relevant. The U.K. came very close to electing him as PM. Just as lessons need to learned after Boris goes, so lessons need to be learnt about how/why Corbyn came so close to power.
The ‘hysteria’ in the media and by our intelligence services about his associations/friends/acquaintances abroad doesn’t seem quite so hysterical now.

Mellsblue wrote:Corbyn is still very relevant. The U.K. came very close to electing him as PM. Just as lessons need to learned after Boris goes, so lessons need to be learnt about how/why Corbyn came so close to power.
The ‘hysteria’ in the media and by our intelligence services about his associations/friends/acquaintances abroad doesn’t seem quite so hysterical now.

Exactly, and it would be wrong to write him off as an individual - he represented part of the Labour party that is still there today.

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Corbyn is still very relevant. The U.K. came very close to electing him as PM. Just as lessons need to learned after Boris goes, so lessons need to be learnt about how/why Corbyn came so close to power.
The ‘hysteria’ in the media and by our intelligence services about his associations/friends/acquaintances abroad doesn’t seem quite so hysterical now.

Exactly, and it would be wrong to write him off as an individual - he represented part of the Labour party that is still there today.

He didn't represent them (or come close to being PM) because of his associations abroad - in fact another leader with the same policies without that baggage probably would've become PM. I don't think this is a lessons learned situation, unless the lesson to be learned is "a large number of people actually like policies that prioritise the many rather than the few", in which case I think Starmer could do with a remedial course.

While Corbyn's definitely wrong here and his obdurate dogmatic pacifism is unsuitable for purpose against a warmonger like Putin, I don't think pacifism as a whole is a bad thing. He's been right more than wrong in protesting against our past foreign adventuring, no matter how badly he's got this situation wrong.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Corbyn is still very relevant. The U.K. came very close to electing him as PM. Just as lessons need to learned after Boris goes, so lessons need to be learnt about how/why Corbyn came so close to power.
The ‘hysteria’ in the media and by our intelligence services about his associations/friends/acquaintances abroad doesn’t seem quite so hysterical now.

Exactly, and it would be wrong to write him off as an individual - he represented part of the Labour party that is still there today.

He didn't represent them (or come close to being PM) because of his associations abroad - in fact another leader with the same policies without that baggage probably would've become PM. I don't think this is a lessons learned situation, unless the lesson to be learned is "a large number of people actually like policies that prioritise the many rather than the few", in which case I think Starmer could do with a remedial course.

While Corbyn's definitely wrong here and his obdurate dogmatic pacifism is unsuitable for purpose against a warmonger like Putin, I don't think pacifism as a whole is a bad thing. He's been right more than wrong in protesting against our past foreign adventuring, no matter how badly he's got this situation wrong.

Puja

I’ve just learnt the lesson that people will still defend a man who will choose the West’s enemy over their ally and will repeatedly state we should just let a dictatorship invade a democracy because they liked his domestic policies/campaign slogan.
You cannot divorce the foreign policy and the domestic policy of the (potential) leader of a major economic and military nation. Dare I say it’s very populist, Trumpian even, to defend a person who wants to retreat from the world stage because you like his domestic policies. What would the response be if I came on here and said “I know the Conservative Party has too many links to loaded Russians, that Boris ennobled the son of an ex-KGB officer despite the objections of our intelligence agencies and ruined diplomatic relations with all our allies but a large number of people actually like policies that prioritise the red wall given his landslide general election victory”.
‘Baggage’ is a very polite way of putting it.
99% of the world want pacifism. Sadly, the 1% who don’t mean the 99% have to spend their taxes defending against the intentions of the nutters. It’s cakeism to look at it any other way.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Exactly, and it would be wrong to write him off as an individual - he represented part of the Labour party that is still there today.

He didn't represent them (or come close to being PM) because of his associations abroad - in fact another leader with the same policies without that baggage probably would've become PM. I don't think this is a lessons learned situation, unless the lesson to be learned is "a large number of people actually like policies that prioritise the many rather than the few", in which case I think Starmer could do with a remedial course.

While Corbyn's definitely wrong here and his obdurate dogmatic pacifism is unsuitable for purpose against a warmonger like Putin, I don't think pacifism as a whole is a bad thing. He's been right more than wrong in protesting against our past foreign adventuring, no matter how badly he's got this situation wrong.

Puja

I’ve just learnt the lesson that people will still defend a man who will choose the West’s enemy over their ally and will repeatedly state we should just let a dictatorship invade a democracy because they liked his domestic policies/campaign slogan.
You cannot divorce the foreign policy and the domestic policy of the (potential) leader of a major economic and military nation. Dare I say it’s very populist, Trumpian even, to defend a person who wants to retreat from the world stage because you like his domestic policies. What would the response be if I came on here and said “I know the Conservative Party has too many links to loaded Russians, that Boris ennobled the son of an ex-KGB officer despite the objections of our intelligence agencies and ruined diplomatic relations with all our allies but a large number of people actually like policies that prioritise the red wall given his landslide general election victory”.
‘Baggage’ is a very polite way of putting it.
99% of the world want pacifism. Sadly, the 1% who don’t mean the 99% have to spend their taxes defending against the intentions of the nutters. It’s cakeism to look at it any other way.

I'm surprised that you have interpreted, "Corbyn's definitely wrong here and his obdurate dogmatic pacifism is unsuitable for purpose against a warmonger like Putin," as "defending a man who will choose the West’s enemy over their ally and will repeatedly state we should just let a dictatorship invade a democracy". I'm very clearly not defending his position on this issue, as was carefully hidden in my wording of "Corbyn's definitely wrong here."

While you cannot divorce the foreign and domestic policy of a potential leader, Corbyn's foreign politics were not what the chunk of the Labour party that followed him were after (in fact a fair few followed in spite of them). Now that he's not a potential leader anymore (or even a member of the Labour party), it seems bizarre to tie them to why he nearly ended up in power and insist lessons must be learned.

Puja

Corbyn's consistency isnt based on any intelligent analysis of each situation though, just on the basis that the west is wrong.

He opposed the Falkland Islands. Got that one wrong.
He opposed the Kuwait liberation in 1990. Wrong again.
Pretty sure he opposed everything in the former Yugoslavia. Pattern forming here. In fact he seemed to suggest that the genocide never existed, which is patently bollocks.
Opposed to Sierra Leone.
Opposed to Afghanistan. Like it or not, the US had every right to take on the Taleban after 9/11.
Opposed to Iraq. Fair enough, but not because he weighed up the issues, but because of his ideology.


Strangely I don't remember him being that critical of the Russian invasion of Georgia back in 2008.

Corbyns pacifism is based entirely on ideology - the west is always wrong. the old USSR played the likes of him for fools for years, now Putin is doing the same. This isnt someone who thinks all war is wrong and condemns everyone equally, its an individual whose world view is that the west is evil and needs to be stopped. That this buffoon was even theoretically close to becoming our PM is a disgrace and one that should worry anyone who realises how dangerous the world is right now.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
He didn't represent them (or come close to being PM) because of his associations abroad - in fact another leader with the same policies without that baggage probably would've become PM. I don't think this is a lessons learned situation, unless the lesson to be learned is "a large number of people actually like policies that prioritise the many rather than the few", in which case I think Starmer could do with a remedial course.

While Corbyn's definitely wrong here and his obdurate dogmatic pacifism is unsuitable for purpose against a warmonger like Putin, I don't think pacifism as a whole is a bad thing. He's been right more than wrong in protesting against our past foreign adventuring, no matter how badly he's got this situation wrong.

Puja

I’ve just learnt the lesson that people will still defend a man who will choose the West’s enemy over their ally and will repeatedly state we should just let a dictatorship invade a democracy because they liked his domestic policies/campaign slogan.
You cannot divorce the foreign policy and the domestic policy of the (potential) leader of a major economic and military nation. Dare I say it’s very populist, Trumpian even, to defend a person who wants to retreat from the world stage because you like his domestic policies. What would the response be if I came on here and said “I know the Conservative Party has too many links to loaded Russians, that Boris ennobled the son of an ex-KGB officer despite the objections of our intelligence agencies and ruined diplomatic relations with all our allies but a large number of people actually like policies that prioritise the red wall given his landslide general election victory”.
‘Baggage’ is a very polite way of putting it.
99% of the world want pacifism. Sadly, the 1% who don’t mean the 99% have to spend their taxes defending against the intentions of the nutters. It’s cakeism to look at it any other way.

I'm surprised that you have interpreted, "Corbyn's definitely wrong here and his obdurate dogmatic pacifism is unsuitable for purpose against a warmonger like Putin," as "defending a man who will choose the West’s enemy over their ally and will repeatedly state we should just let a dictatorship invade a democracy". I'm very clearly not defending his position on this issue, as was carefully hidden in my wording of "Corbyn's definitely wrong here."

While you cannot divorce the foreign and domestic policy of a potential leader, Corbyn's foreign politics were not what the chunk of the Labour party that followed him were after (in fact a fair few followed in spite of them). Now that he's not a potential leader anymore (or even a member of the Labour party), it seems bizarre to tie them to why he nearly ended up in power and insist lessons must be learned.

Puja

So no other Labour MPs have close links to the Stop the War Coalition? Really?

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
He didn't represent them (or come close to being PM) because of his associations abroad - in fact another leader with the same policies without that baggage probably would've become PM. I don't think this is a lessons learned situation, unless the lesson to be learned is "a large number of people actually like policies that prioritise the many rather than the few", in which case I think Starmer could do with a remedial course.

While Corbyn's definitely wrong here and his obdurate dogmatic pacifism is unsuitable for purpose against a warmonger like Putin, I don't think pacifism as a whole is a bad thing. He's been right more than wrong in protesting against our past foreign adventuring, no matter how badly he's got this situation wrong.

Puja

I’ve just learnt the lesson that people will still defend a man who will choose the West’s enemy over their ally and will repeatedly state we should just let a dictatorship invade a democracy because they liked his domestic policies/campaign slogan.
You cannot divorce the foreign policy and the domestic policy of the (potential) leader of a major economic and military nation. Dare I say it’s very populist, Trumpian even, to defend a person who wants to retreat from the world stage because you like his domestic policies. What would the response be if I came on here and said “I know the Conservative Party has too many links to loaded Russians, that Boris ennobled the son of an ex-KGB officer despite the objections of our intelligence agencies and ruined diplomatic relations with all our allies but a large number of people actually like policies that prioritise the red wall given his landslide general election victory”.
‘Baggage’ is a very polite way of putting it.
99% of the world want pacifism. Sadly, the 1% who don’t mean the 99% have to spend their taxes defending against the intentions of the nutters. It’s cakeism to look at it any other way.

I'm surprised that you have interpreted, "Corbyn's definitely wrong here and his obdurate dogmatic pacifism is unsuitable for purpose against a warmonger like Putin," as "defending a man who will choose the West’s enemy over their ally and will repeatedly state we should just let a dictatorship invade a democracy". I'm very clearly not defending his position on this issue, as was carefully hidden in my wording of "Corbyn's definitely wrong here."

While you cannot divorce the foreign and domestic policy of a potential leader, Corbyn's foreign politics were not what the chunk of the Labour party that followed him were after (in fact a fair few followed in spite of them). Now that he's not a potential leader anymore (or even a member of the Labour party), it seems bizarre to tie them to why he nearly ended up in power and insist lessons must be learned.

Puja

Granted that is criticism of Corbyn but the rest was a whataboutism that his policies were popular enough to come second twice so let’s not worry about his troubling views on foreign policy.
If only Corbyn had only been wrong on just this one - his stance on Ukraine isn’t that dissimilar to his stance he held on the Balkans. Foreign policy isn’t just about not wanting the U.K. to go to war in a foreign country - his cosying up to terrorists elsewhere was foreign policy. See Sandy’s response for more examples. Let us not also forget that many Corbyn supporters, and those sympathetic to him, are quite happy to call Blair a war criminal and state his entire legacy is tarnished by that one decision over Iraq, regardless of correct ones elsewhere. What’s good for the goose….

The leader of the opposition isn’t just the leader of the party in opposition, he is privy to classified information, is called in to meetings on major incidents and if effective, which Corbyn wasn’t, can shape govt policy, including foreign policy. Let’s not forget the leader of the opposition stopped the U.K. intervening in Syria so we were able to helplessly watch Putin and Assad use chemical weapons on innocent people. All of which means lessons must be learned. Luckily the Labour Party learned their lesson and a repeat doesn’t seem likely in the near future. Sadly, the Conservative Party seem not to be learning their lesson and are intent on making Boris MkII their next leader.

The issue with a potential PM is that they have to have a good grounding across the board. Supporting them because you like their economics is OK up to a point, but foreign policy stuff will happen, so ignoring that isnt an option.

Sandydragon wrote:The issue with a potential PM is that they have to have a good grounding across the board. Supporting them because you like their economics is OK up to a point, but foreign policy stuff will happen, so ignoring that isnt an option.

Out of interest (I've no interest in defending Corbyn) how does that square with our last 2 PMs? let alone our next one?


Equally, shouldn't all this be in the British politics thread, rather than the Russian invasion of Ukraine (where I'm sure even his ardent and actual supporters are glad he's not leading us on this specific issue)

As someone who supported Corbyn in the past (although never enough to actually vote for him in anything), I'll gladly admit that I was wrong to do so. Back then I looked past his weak foreign policy stance due to a strong preference for his domestic agenda.

It isn't just Corbyn, but others across the 'far-left' worldwide, such as Chomsky. But they aren't all like that. Zizek hasn't been infected by this affliction. Probably because he lived under a commie regime.

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:The issue with a potential PM is that they have to have a good grounding across the board. Supporting them because you like their economics is OK up to a point, but foreign policy stuff will happen, so ignoring that isnt an option.

Out of interest (I've no interest in defending Corbyn) how does that square with our last 2 PMs? let alone our next one?


Equally, shouldn't all this be in the British politics thread, rather than the Russian invasion of Ukraine (where I'm sure even his ardent and actual supporters are glad he's not leading us on this specific issue)

i wouldn't suggest Boris or Truss have any grounding whatsoever. May Im a bit more sympathetic towards. And this is the wrong thread for a wider examination, although Corbyn's latest foot in mouth incident does fit in well here.

cashead wrote:Also, note that Corbyn windbagged on Al Mayadeen, a Beirut-based pro-Russia "news" outlet.

Just imagine him sitting there in 2003, on the third day of the Iraq invasion, talking about how we need to get the African Union to negotiate a peace between the Bush neo-cons and Saddam with that smug look on his face, as if he is the first person in the world who has discovered the one weird secret trick to solve this issue. My brainwormed friend, have you interacted with objective reality in the last 6 months at all?

A bit strange to reference Iraq here, an issue Corbyn was very much on the right side of the argument for.

He's obviously wrong about Ukraine though. We all want peace, but not arming Ukraine would lead to its eventual defeat by Russia, most likely not by a quick surrender but after a prolonged and vicious struggle. And who knows what kind of revenge, what kind of example Putin would ultimately make of a once-defiant Ukraine and its people?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

cashead wrote:Also, note that Corbyn windbagged on Al Mayadeen, a Beirut-based pro-Russia "news" outlet.

Just imagine him sitting there in 2003, on the third day of the Iraq invasion, talking about how we need to get the African Union to negotiate a peace between the Bush neo-cons and Saddam with that smug look on his face, as if he is the first person in the world who has discovered the one weird secret trick to solve this issue. My brainwormed friend, have you interacted with objective reality in the last 6 months at all?

A bit strange to reference Iraq here, an issue Corbyn was very much on the right side of the argument for.

He's obviously wrong about Ukraine though. We all want peace, but not arming Ukraine would lead to its eventual defeat by Russia, most likely not by a quick surrender but after a prolonged and vicious struggle. And who knows what kind of revenge, what kind of example Putin would ultimately make of a once-defiant Ukraine and its people?

A broken clock is right twice a day

I’m no expert but this seems, erm, ill-thought-out.

Mellsblue wrote:I’m no expert but this seems, erm, ill-thought-out.

Also seems a bit of an impossible situation…

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

cashead wrote:Also, note that Corbyn windbagged on Al Mayadeen, a Beirut-based pro-Russia "news" outlet.

Just imagine him sitting there in 2003, on the third day of the Iraq invasion, talking about how we need to get the African Union to negotiate a peace between the Bush neo-cons and Saddam with that smug look on his face, as if he is the first person in the world who has discovered the one weird secret trick to solve this issue. My brainwormed friend, have you interacted with objective reality in the last 6 months at all?

A bit strange to reference Iraq here, an issue Corbyn was very much on the right side of the argument for.

He's obviously wrong about Ukraine though. We all want peace, but not arming Ukraine would lead to its eventual defeat by Russia, most likely not by a quick surrender but after a prolonged and vicious struggle. And who knows what kind of revenge, what kind of example Putin would ultimately make of a once-defiant Ukraine and its people?

Even if he gets it right, he buries it under dumbfuck takes, wrapped in an apparent obstinate belief that everyone can be brought to the negotiating table in good faith. Ah yes, bring in the African Union. That'll make Poots pack it in.

Mellsblue wrote:I’m no expert but this seems, erm, ill-thought-out.

Hmm yes, it's not like Russia has been shelling the fuck out of non-military targets at all. Not to mention they're regurgitating RT talking points.

Mellsblue wrote:I’m no expert but this seems, erm, ill-thought-out.

I'd be interested in the source.
It's not like Amnesty never gets suckered in by propaganda after all - which in no way means that it isn't true, or terrible if it is true.

You know what else has put Ukrainian civilians in harm's way? Russian bombing everything and warcriming like it's going out of style in the territories they've occupied.

Tell the literal children that were raped and murdered in Bucha that it was the Ukrainians putting them in harm's way that got them raped and murdered by raping, murdering bandits masquerading as an army while they rape and murder children.

Mellsblue wrote:I’m no expert but this seems, erm, ill-thought-out.

For clarity, I’m saying this is ill-thought-out by Amnesty International.

Mellsblue wrote: For clarity, I’m saying this is ill-thought-out by Amnesty International.

Fair, and clarity probably was required.

Though I think the subsequent comments were past you, rather than to you.

Mellsblue wrote:I’m no expert but this seems, erm, ill-thought-out.

Shockingly enough, Amnesty, that is what happens when someone invades a country and takes over populated residential cities. I can hardly think Ukraine is doing it on purpose to use human shields, given that the Russian military has amply demonstrated how few fucks they give over murdering civilians, so I'd imagine this is just what happens when you attempt to retake populated areas of your country that someone else invaded.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I’m no expert but this seems, erm, ill-thought-out.

Shockingly enough, Amnesty, that is what happens when someone invades a country and takes over populated residential cities. I can hardly think Ukraine is doing it on purpose to use human shields, given that the Russian military has amply demonstrated how few fucks they give over murdering civilians, so I'd imagine this is just what happens when you attempt to retake populated areas of your country that someone else invaded.

Puja

OK, technically putting military targets in civilian areas and thus exposing non-combatants to harm is a war crime, Amnesty are right there (assuming that this has been deliberate and the use of civilian buildings has been done before the civilians moved out). BUT, when you look at the Ukraine invasion as a whole, there is clearly one side that is doing its best to play by the rules of armed conflict and the other is hell bent on near genocide. Giving the latter any form of moral cover by blaming Ukraine is incredibly naive at best.

The laws of armed conflict are great in theory, but some are almost impossible to adhere to. Fighting in built up areas makes the risk of collateral damage very high even when precision is attempted, and hard to avoid putting legitimate military targets next to non-combatants.