General Election 2017

[Chindie]

8 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Yeah, so much war right. Let me show you some data to show you what that long peace, a universally acknowledged term, looks like.

This is a graph that shows deaths, civilian and servicemen/women from armed conflict since 1940. I don't see your narrative of "war kills all and ends all" on there. Do you?

If you invert this graph to show how this correlates to the amount of people alive today your theory of "so much war" goes down the toilet. The foreign policy and political climate since 1945 has been extremely successful at stopping mass murder and conflict deaths, even though people like Corbyn doesn't like to admit that.

You can argue that there'll be a spike over the last few years due to Syria (estimates around 1million people dead), however you are still waaaay wide of the mark with your comment.

So what your graph says is that WW2 was really, really **** bad, and since then there's been a variety of conflicts rumbling on to one degree or another.

Cool. I look forward to your graph showing me my comment that 'the seems to be rather a lot of war going on' is wrong.

You've pulled a narrative of 'war kills all and ends all' from somewhere. Your arse I suspect. I certainly didn't say it.

Even a cursory glance at a list of conflicts in the 20th and 21st centuries will show a sobering number. So much for a long peace. Europe's had a uncharacteristically peaceful few decades. Rest of the world? Not so much.

[magnkarl]

2 minutes ago, snowychap said:

From armed conflict where?

The whole world.

[Awol]

31 minutes ago, blandy said:

No, I've not read this Alex Massie, Peter.

What I do know is that (as you say) Corbyn supported/supports a United Ireland, that he voted against the Good Friday peace agreement in Parliament, naming that as his reason. I know he attended many Sinn Fein/IRA meetings, that he invited them to Parliament shortly after the Brighton Bombing, that he has never, (to my knowledge) condemned IRA violence - the kneecappings, extortion, intimidation, drug smuggling, punishment beatings and all the rest. He has condemned bombing, though. He had the chance to say the other day in the Sky interview that he condemned the IRA, but he declined to do so. Given his history it was a reasonable and fair question.

I have no idea whether his support for Sinn Fein/IRA helped or was of no impact on the subsequent peace talks. I don't think him voting against the good friday agreement suggested that peace was his sole motive. I think he put his view of a United Ireland above the chance for peace, by his vote.

I think that it's reasonable to say "we are where we are now, for all sorts of reasons, and that people like Martin McGuiness, despite their history with the IRA saw the chance of peace and took it. It is possible to condemn the violence, murdering, etc and still recognise subsequent good acts - condemn the clearly evil and acknowledge the subsequent good. Corbyn hasn't done that. He should...unless he doesn't believe it.

You absolutely do not have to always link "well the Army did bad things" to "the IRA committed atrocities and I condemn them and what they did".

Personally I don't believe that what Corbyn and Abbot and others did helped in the peace talks and subsequent peace, or that it contributed to them at all. It's fine to differ from that, but that's my opinion.

As a tactical thing, aside from the past, in an election campaign, to let the issue be a millstone, and it is when he had a chance to move on, suggests he's a fool.

Further his refusal to condemn the IRA - the IRA ffs!  - suggests to me that people like me who are suspicious of him, who suspect him of duplicity, of being all too willing to turn a blind eye - whether to anti-semitism, to IRA atrocities of the past, to all kinds of nefarious conduct by some of his followers have good grounds for concern. I don't trust him one bit.

Agree with all of that and did know about his sidekick McDonnell's open support for the murder of UK civilians (backing the use of the bomb and the bullet), but I actually didn't realise Corbyn had voted against the Good Friday Agreement. 

Fair enough some people don't care and will vote for him anyway, but I hope his supporters will stop pushing the obvious lie that Corbyn is a peacemaker. He's a lot of things, but not that. 

Imagine, we could have a PM and Chancellor (and whatever serious office Abbott would be gifted) who either publicly supported or refused to condemn the murder of British citizens. Hardly seems credible that it could happen, but it might. 

[snowychap]

Just now, magnkarl said:

The whole world.

Rwanda?

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

So what your graph says is that WW2 was really, really **** bad, and since then there's been a variety of conflicts rumbling on to one degree or another.

Cool. I look forward to your graph showing me my comment that 'the seems to be rather a lot of war going on' is wrong.

You've pulled a narrative of 'war kills all and ends all' from somewhere. Your arse I suspect. I certainly didn't say it.

Even a cursory glance at a list of conflicts in the 20th and 21st centuries will show a sobering number. So much for a long peace. Europe's had a uncharacteristically peaceful few decades. Rest of the world? Not so much.

Okay, so by your standard we should measure the success of foreign policy by the fact that there should be no conflict whatsoever. If I extended that graph backwards it would look even more grim for your outlook. It's so likely to build a world with no conflict whatsoever. We've got so much proof that this is something achievable. Pie in the sky.

[magnkarl]

2 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Rwanda?

Rwanda's on there. 1994, 800.000 dead.

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, magnkarl said:

Okay, so by your standard we should measure the success of foreign policy by the fact that there should be no conflict whatsoever. If I extended that graph backwards it would look even more grim for your outlook. It's so likely to build a world with no conflict whatsoever. We've got so much proof that this is something achievable. Pie in the sky.

No.

What I'm saying is the idea there's a great peace, is nonsense.

Quite simple really.

[magnkarl]

Just now, Chindie said:

No.

What I'm saying is the idea there's a great peace, is nonsense.

Quite simple really.

Okay, you're entitled to your opinion. The whole international relations intellectual community disagrees with you.

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Rwanda's on there. 1994, 800.000 dead.

Your graph hasn't reproduced itself very well then because the top of the bar comes nowhere near the 1m mark on the y axis.

Edited May 26, 2017 by snowychap
near for mear

[Jareth]

Bruce out. Sorry wrong thread.

[Chindie]

4 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Okay, you're entitled to your opinion. The whole international relations intellectual community disagrees with you.

Does it?

Have they not noticed the amount of armed conflicts going on? There's literally been hundreds since 1945. They might have become more localised, and compared to the meat grinders that were the World Wars they are reduced, but there's still been a **** shit load of deaths from conflict.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Chindie

[PaulC]

7 minutes ago, Awol said:

Agree with all of that and did know about his sidekick McDonnell's open support for the murder of UK civilians (backing the use of the bomb and the bullet), but I actually didn't realise Corbyn had voted against the Good Friday Agreement. 

Fair enough some people don't care and will vote for him anyway, but I hope his supporters will stop pushing the obvious lie that Corbyn is a peacemaker. He's a lot of things, but not that. 

Imagine, we could have a PM and Chancellor (and whatever serious office Abbott would be gifted) who either publicly supported or refused to condemn the murder of British citizens. Hardly seems credible that it could happen, but it might. 

My understanding is that he voted against the Anglo Irish agreement in 1985 but for the Good Friday Agreement in 1998

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

Your graph hasn't reproduced itself very well then because the top of the bar comes nowhere mear the 1m mark on the y axis.

Maybe not, but you get the jest. Historically speaking we're in the most peaceful era in modern history. There's no denying that when you look at the facts. How can something that is the best it's ever been be totally bad.

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

Does it?

Have they not noticed the amount of armed conflicts going on? There's literally been hundreds since 1945. They might have become more localised, and compared to the meat grinders that were the World Wars, but there's still been a **** shit load of deaths.

Indeed, there's been plenty of conflicts. But the relative damage to human life is less than for example the relative peaceful time between the first and second world war. Things have to be put in perspective. You can argue that our foreign policy is bad like Corbyn has, but if you look at the numbers, it really isn't.

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, magnkarl said:

Maybe not, but you get the jest.

Get the 'jest'? Are you having a 'gander'?

You can't just write it off as 'maybe not' if it doesn't actually represent the numbers correctly.

[magnkarl]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Get the 'jest'? Are you having a 'gander'?

You can't just write it off as 'maybe not' if it doesn't actually represent the numbers correctly.

Fair point, put your 800k on top of 1994, you'll still see that the trend is in an extreme down facing arrow. Arguing that our foreign policy has been bad since 1945 is like saying the best it's ever been is bad. Colonialism ended, world wars ended, mass executions ended, civil wars like Yugoslavia ended in relative few deaths. Everything's relative, even our foreign policy. It's become a buzzword for Corbyn though, good on him.

Edited May 26, 2017 by magnkarl

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, magnkarl said:

Indeed, there's been plenty of conflicts. But the relative damage to human life is less than for example the relative peaceful time between the first and second world war. Things have to be put in perspective. You can argue that our foreign policy is bad like Corbyn has, but if you look at the numbers, it really isn't.

Ah so, it's a great peace, when peace means there's actually loads of war, but they could be worse. Cool. I'll remember that one.

I also don't think Corbyn, or anyone criticising our foreign policy, is doing so on solely on the basis too many are dead, and therefore arguing that this criticism is void because death tolls dropped, is stupid.

[Chindie]

Given that graphs are a visual representation of data, a graph that, cough, misrepresents, data, is about as useful as a chocolate teapot. Unless you work in propaganda.

[snowychap]

3 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Fair point, put your 800k on top of 1994, you'll still see that the trend is in an extreme down facing arrow.

That was the first year and issue that came to mind. Are you conceding that this wasn't there?

 

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

Ah so, it's a great peace, when peace means there's actually loads of war, but they could be worse. Cool. I'll remember that one.

I also don't think Corbyn, or anyone criticising our foreign policy, is doing so on solely on the basis too many are dead, and therefore arguing that this criticism is void because death tolls dropped, is stupid.

I'm not saying it is void. I'm saying that Corbyn is arguing against a policy and world order that has drastically reduced death tolls around the globe. Isolationism on the other hand worked really well before 1914, didn't it?