General Election 2017

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, magnkarl said:

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?

This policy has also left enormous swathes of the Middle East in perpetual civil war, has helped foster radicalism, further destabilised a region that was barely held together, left numerous nations barely operational...

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

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

 

Looking at the sources of the graph it looks to have the name of the incident quoted but not correlated on the graph, it's got something like 400.000 people dead attributed which is too few. The point still remains though.

Let's all doom monger about how our foreign policy is killing so many people. No one dare criticise a politician that wants to tear down something that works quite well to replace it with withdrawing to our island and talking to people instead of protecting people from being beheaded for being alive.

[magnkarl]

Just now, Chindie said:

This policy has also left enormous swathes of the Middle East in perpetual civil war, has helped foster radicalism, further destabilised a region that was barely held together, left numerous nations barely operational...

I'm sure you know the answer to this. Can you tell me the last time the Midde-East was stable? You'll need to find a book that describes the Ottoman Empire. 

[snowychap]

6 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Looking at the sources of the graph it looks to have the name of the incident quoted but not correlated on the graph, it's got something like 400.000 people dead attributed which is too few.

So it wasn't in there?

Are there any other wars and deaths that have been left out?

[Chindie]

2 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I'm sure you know the answer to this. Can you tell me the last time the Midde-East was stable? You'll need to find a book that describes the Ottoman Empire. 

You'll note the term 'further destabilised'. Which means it wasn't stable. It was made worse. Less stable. I used this term quite specifically.

The Middle East operates like a rubber sheet with numerous actors pulling on it. They largely balance out, and no-one is ever happy. Western intervention grabbed the sheet and took it off axis. And now vast swathes of it are barely standing.

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

You'll note the term 'further destabilised'. Which means it wasn't stable. It was made worse. Less stable. I used this term quite specifically.

The Middle East operates like a rubber sheet with numerous actors pulling on it. They largely balance out, and no-one is ever happy. Western intervention grabbed the sheet and took it off axis. And now vast swathes of it are barely standing.

It's a total mess alright, but I don't see how that relates to our foreign policy being the main reason why we're getting attacked if it was always, as you say, less stable. Islamic terrorism isn't a reaction to our foreign policy and I think it's a cheap point to try to make. The terrorists might have attacked Russia (which they are) instead of us if we didn't interfere when Saddam was gassing Kurds or Gaddaffi was abducting young women, because there would be other countries reacting if we didn't.

[MakemineVanilla]

18 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

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?

Corbyn is an egalitarian and just like everything else he thinks war should be shared out a bit more evenly.

Edited May 26, 2017 by MakemineVanilla

[Chindie]

6 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

It's a total mess alright, but I don't see how that relates to our foreign policy being the main reason why we're getting attacked if it was always, as you say, less stable. Islamic terrorism isn't a reaction to our foreign policy and I think it's a cheap point to try to make. The terrorists might have attacked Russia (which they are) instead of us if we didn't interfere when Saddam was gassing Kurds or Gaddaffi was abducting young women, because there would be other countries reacting if we didn't.

Good grief...

The only people that seem to be suggesting foreign policy is to blame entirely for terrorism are idiots and Tories. That is patently not the case.

The argument, with merit, is it hasn't helped.

The sects of Islam that promote this action have been around for hundreds of years. Of course that isn't foreign policy's fault.

The point being made is that our meddling made it worse. In the case of IS, it helped create the chaos that gave them the ability to land grab and end up being a far greater threat than they might have otherwise been. Repeat for variety of other reasons for other groups. The chaos that came out of Iraq gave young men all the excuse they need to look at the nation, see it on its arse, and end up in the wrong path. Or use it as an excuse to implement from versions of their faith they might not have otherwise had chance to do.

And it has helped them recruit. It's pathetically easy for those inclined to spin Western actions in the Middle East as crusaders, murdering Muslims, taking Islamic lands, etc etc. If you're disenfranchised young bloke and you're hearing this and seeing it spun as an attack on your faith etc and how there is glory in being a soldier of the faith and that nonsense, you can soon see why some might be attracted. 

The issue isn't even necessarily the intervention itself. It's the fact we left a mess behind because there was no will to fix things after the shock and awe. We went prepared to commit to generations of low level conflict to try to get nations we'd, rightly or wrongly, intervened in, back to operational status. Power vacuums that allowed violent groups to gather strength.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

he has never, (to my knowledge) condemned IRA violence - the kneecappings, extortion, intimidation, drug smuggling, punishment beatings and all the rest.

Well, he has. 

Here, for example.

Quote

"I condemn all acts of violence in Northern Ireland from wherever they came," the Islington North MP said.

But as I said earlier, interviewers tend to play the game dictated by tory central office, seeing if they can get him to condemn only IRA violence,  knowing that he will give a more rounded denunciation of violence on all sides, hoping to present that as being in support of IRA violence.

It's a pathetic, childish game.  Don't fall for it.

[magnkarl]

8 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Good grief...

The only people that seem to be suggesting foreign policy is to blame entirely for terrorism are idiots and Tories. That is patently not the case.

The argument, with merit, is it hasn't helped.

The sects of Islam that promote this action have been around for hundreds of years. Of course that isn't foreign policy's fault.

The point being made is that our meddling made it worse. In the case of IS, it helped create the chaos that gave them the ability to land grab and end up being a far greater threat than they might have otherwise been. Repeat for variety of other reasons for other groups. The chaos that came out of Iraq gave young men all the excuse they need to look at the nation, see it on its arse, and end up in the wrong path. Or use it as an excuse to implement from versions of their faith they might not have otherwise had chance to do.

And it has helped them recruit. It's pathetically easy for those inclined to spin Western actions in the Middle East as crusaders, murdering Muslims, taking Islamic lands, etc etc. If you're disenfranchised young bloke and you're hearing this and seeing it spun as an attack on your faith etc and how there is glory in being a soldier of the faith and that nonsense, you can soon see why some might be attracted. 

The issue isn't even necessarily the intervention itself. It's the fact we left a mess behind because there was no will to fix things after the shock and awe. We went prepared to commit to generations of low level conflict to try to get nations we'd, rightly or wrongly, intervened in, back to operational status. Power vacuums that allowed violent groups to gather strength.

I agree with you on much of this, however I don't think our intervention is necessarily what caused the power vacuum in the Middle East. There has been a vacuum in ME since the Ottoman Empire fell. Just because we didn't necessarily see the face of these young men, they were most definitely there under the dictatorships of most of these countries. They were fighting in Afghanistan, against Gaddaffi (like the father of the Manchester Terrorist) or against a number of other factions in the area. The whole apologetic attitude that some people have to this issue is not right, in my opinion. We might have exposed the problem by shifting what these disenfranchised loonies were fighting but I don't think it got any worse because of us.

Edited May 26, 2017 by magnkarl

[peterms]

9 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I don't think our intervention is necessarily what caused the power vacuum in the Middle East. There has been a vacuum in ME since the Ottoman Empire fell.

You do know, don't you, that we were pretty big players in carving up the ME at the time of the fall of the Ottoman Empire?  And playing off states and tribes against each other to maintain a power imbalance for our own benefit?

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

You do know, don't you, that we were pretty big players in carving up the ME at the time of the fall of the Ottoman Empire?  And playing off states and tribes against each other to maintain a power imbalance for our own benefit?

Yeah, it's the point I've been arguing for hours. The situation is age old, not something caused by our foreign policy since ww2.

[Chindie]

16 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I agree with you on much of this, however I don't think our intervention is necessarily what caused the power vacuum in the Middle East. There has been a vacuum in ME since the Ottoman Empire fell. Just because we didn't necessarily see the face of these young men they were most definitely there under the dictatorships of most of these countries doesn't mean that they weren't there. They were fighting in Afghanistan, against Gaddaffi (like the father of the Manchester Terrorist) or against a number of other factions in the area. The whole apologetic attitude that some people have to this issue is not right, in my opinion. We might have exposed the problem by shifting what these disenfranchised loonies were fighting but I don't think it got any worse because of us.

The current vacuum arose with the collapse of the 'strong men' in various states. Rightly or wrongly, we took out the dictator and opened Pandora's box. The dictators had largely cracked down their opposition.

The exposure of it is the issue.

And then the actions as a recruiting tool. Where was the Islamic terror in the UK pre-2001? Of the handful the was, most were related to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, one was essentially nationalist, another has never conclusively been proven any way.

Our foreign policy has made things worse. It's not the whole story, and no-one is saying it is, but put actions have contributed to creating the chains for these groups to grow and have helped foster their recruitment propaganda.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Chindie

[peterms]

1 minute ago, magnkarl said:

Yeah, it's the point I've been arguing for hours. The situation is age old, not something caused by our foreign policy since ww2.

But caused by our foreign policy, before, during and after WW2?  I use "our" to mean us and our allies.

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

The current vacuum arose with the collapse of the 'strong men' in various states. Rightly or wrongly, we took out the dictator and opened Pandora's box. The dictators had largely cracked down their opposition.

The exposure of it is the issue.

And then the actions as a recruiting to. Where was the Islamic terror in the UK pre-2001? Of the handful the was, most were related to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, one was essentially nationalist, another has never conclusively been proven any way.

Our foreign policy has made things worse for the uk. It's not the whole story, and no-one is saying it is, but put actions have contributed to creating the chains for these groups to grow and have helped foster their recruitment propaganda.

Fixed that for you. Just because these people were fighting other things than us, doesn't mean that there weren't suffering under dictatorships in these countries. Is it okay to leave someone in power that uses mustard gas on villages? What should we have done in your opinion?

The Blair/Bush thing was ridiculous, I agree. However, Saddam had done enough wrong to warrant being policed.

[Chindie]

8 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Fixed that for you. Just because these people were fighting other things than us, doesn't mean that there weren't suffering under dictatorships in these countries. Is it okay to leave someone in power that uses mustard gas on villages? What should we have done in your opinion?

The Blair/Bush thing was ridiculous, I agree. However, Saddam had done enough wrong to warrant being policed.

So now you agree our foreign policy made things worse (for anyone, I don't care if it's UK or anywhere)? Good. I haven't wasted my evening then.

I'm not necessarily against intervention. I'd much rather it was done within international law. And I'd much rather we considered the long term effects... if we are going to go around spreading freedom we need to accept that we either are in it for the long haul to get things back to as stable and functional a position as possible, or we accept that sooner or later we might reap things we didn't want to have sown. 

We also, of course, have to acknowledge we helped Saddam when he was 'our boy'. A recurring story.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Chindie

[peterms]

7 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Is it okay to leave someone in power that uses mustard gas on villages? What should we have done in your opinion?

Halabja, 1988?  Didn't we sell him the chemical weapons, WMD?  And fail to do anything about his attack?  And by doing so, tacitly legitimise it?

Please don't pretend that our illegal actions in Iraq were anything to do with  concern for Kurds,  marsh people, political opponents, or anything other than sucking on the degenerate cock of US imperialism.

[magnkarl]

Just now, Chindie said:

So now you agree our foreign policy made things worse (for anyone, I don't care if it's UK or anywhere)? Good. I haven't wasted my evening then.

I'm not necessarily against intervention. I'd much rather it was done within international law. And I'd much rather we considered the long term effects... if we are going to go around spreading freedom we need to accept that we either are in it for the long haul to get things back to as stable and functional a position as possible, or we accept that sooner or later we might reap things we didn't want to have sown. 

I'm not disagreeing with you that intervention is sometimes unsuccessful, I just think saying that ALL our intervention is unsuccessful is ridiculous. I greatly dislike Corbyn trying to shift the blame from a madman to British society on this whole thing. Even if he just did it a bit I find it deplorable. The terrorist was a mad nutter, nothing else.

Someone that has profited and flourished because of our intervention and foreign policy is the Kurds. The Kurds are the biggest nation in the world without a state to call their own and our interventions, albeit in a bit of a round about way, have lead to them being able to stake a proper claim to a land that is theirs. I agree that International Law should be followed, however UN "advisers" have proven many times that they are not able to police international law (Srebrenica, Rwanda) so someone needs to be the one to take action. Sometimes those actions go wrong.

[magnkarl]

12 minutes ago, peterms said:

Halabja, 1988?  Didn't we sell him the chemical weapons, WMD?  And fail to do anything about his attack?  And by doing so, tacitly legitimise it?

Please don't pretend that our illegal actions in Iraq were anything to do with  concern for Kurds,  marsh people, political opponents, or anything other than sucking on the degenerate cock of US imperialism.

If you mean "we" as in USA, you are correct. (you may be American) Donald Rumsfield helped Saddam get weapons. The UK had nothing to do with it. I won't bother responding to your second sentence, the hyperbole of it deserves no answer. Just because someone supports a douche like Saddam for a period doesn't mean that he's in good grace forever. You can be a law abiding citizen at one point and a criminal the next. 

Edited May 26, 2017 by magnkarl

[Chindie]

9 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I'm not disagreeing with you that intervention is sometimes unsuccessful, I just think saying that ALL our intervention is unsuccessful is ridiculous. I greatly dislike Corbyn trying to shift the blame from a madman to British society on this whole thing. Even if he just did it a bit I find it deplorable. The terrorist was a mad nutter, nothing else.

Someone that has profited and flourished because of our intervention and foreign policy is the Kurds. The Kurds are the biggest nation in the world without a state to call their own and our interventions, albeit in a bit of a round about way, have lead to them being able to stake a proper claim to a land that is theirs. I agree that International Law should be followed, however UN "advisers" have proven many times that they are not able to police international law (Srebrenica, Rwanda) so someone needs to be the one to take action. Sometimes those actions go wrong.

Has anyone said all intervention is unsuccessful? Corbyn isn't a great fan of conflicts. But I don't think he's said our foreign policy is entirely unsuccessful.

He also pointedly stated that he wasn't solely blaming foreign policy.

With that, I'm done going round and round.