General Election 2017

[peterms]

8 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.

You really need to read a little more widely around the whole subject.  Well, a lot more widely, that is to say.

[magnkarl]

Just now, peterms said:

You really need to read a little more widely around the whole subject.  Well, a lot more widely, that is to say.

Thanks for your input Peter, I'll take it into consideration. What should I be reading in your opinion? Johnny Got His Gun? What Would You Do?

Just because someone has a different opinion to you doesn't mean that you have to try to belittle them.

[peterms]

9 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

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. 

Check this out.

Quote

A chemical plant which the US says is a key component in Iraq's chemical warfare arsenal was secretly built by Britain in 1985 behind the backs of the Americans, the Guardian can disclose.

Documents show British ministers knew at the time that the £14m plant, called Falluja 2, was likely to be used for mustard and nerve gas production.

Senior officials recorded in writing that Saddam Hussein was actively gassing his opponents and that there was a "strong possibility" that the chlorine plant was intended by the Iraqis to make mustard gas. At the time, Saddam was known to be gassing Iranian troops in their thousands in the Iran-Iraq war.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more

But ministers in the then Thatcher government none the less secretly gave financial backing to the British company involved, Uhde Ltd, through insurance guarantees.

Paul Channon, then trade minister, concealed the existence of the chlorine plant contract from the US administration, which was pressing for controls on such exports.

He also instructed the export credit guarantee department (ECGD) to keep details of the deal secret from the public.

The papers show that Mr Channon rejected a strong plea from a Foreign Office minister, Richard Luce, that the deal would ruin Britain's image in the world if news got out: "I consider it essential everything possible be done to oppose the proposed sale and to deny the company concerned ECGD cover".

The Ministry of Defence also weighed in, warning that it could be used to make chemical weapons.

But Mr Channon, in line with Mrs Thatcher's policy of propping up the dictator, said: "A ban would do our other trade prospects in Iraq no good".

The British taxpayer was even forced to write a compensation cheque for £300,000 to the German-owned company after final checks on the plant, completed in May 1990, were interrupted by the outbreak of the Gulf war.

The Falluja 2 chlorine plant, 50 miles outside Baghdad, near the Habbaniya airbase, has been pinpointed by the US as an example of a factory rebuilt by Saddam to regain his chemical warfare capability.

Last month it featured in Colin Powell's dossier of reasons why the world should go to war against Iraq, which was presented to the UN security council.

Spy satellite pictures of Falluja 2 identifying it as a chemical weapons site were earlier published by the CIA, and a report by Britain's joint intelligence committee, published with Tony Blair's imprimatur last September, also focused on Falluja 2 as a rebuilt plant "formerly associated with the chemical warfare programme".

UN weapons inspectors toured the Falluja 2 plant last December and Hans Blix, the chief inspector, reported to the security council that the chemical equipment there might have to be destroyed.

But until now, the secret of Britain's knowing role in Falluja's construction has remained hidden.

Last night, Uhde Ltd's parent company in Dortmund, Germany, issued a statement confirming that their then UK subsidiary had built Falluja 2 for Iraq's chemical weapons procurement agency, the State Enterprise for Pesticide Production.

A company spokesman said: "This was a normal plant for the production of chlorine and caustic soda. It could not produce other products".

The British government's intelligence at the time, as shown in the documents, was that Iraq, which was having increasing difficulty in obtaining precursor chemicals on the legitimate market, intended to use the chlorine as a feedstock to manufacture such chemicals as epichlorohydrin and phosphorous trichloride. These in turn were used to make mustard gas and nerve agents.

Paul Channon, since ennobled as Lord Kelvedon, was last night holidaying on the Caribbean island of Mustique. He issued a statement through his secretary, who said: "He can't object to the story. So he's got no comment."

 

[Dodgyknees]

For a 'journalist' she doesn't get it a lot of the time. It's either she is a very shit journalist, or she knows exactly what she is doing.

 

[magnkarl]

8 minutes ago, peterms said:

Check this out.

 

Oh wow, you found an article from the Guardian stating something negative about a Tory backed war - jee wizz.. I have about 20 other articles saying that Donald Rumsfeldt brokered the deal. Anyway, this is the general election thread and we're going off track my friend.

Edited May 26, 2017 by magnkarl

[peterms]

15 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Thanks for your input Peter, I'll take it into consideration. What should I be reading in your opinion? Johnny Got His Gun? What Would You Do?

Just because someone has a different opinion to you doesn't mean that you have to try to belittle them.

I don't belittle you because you have a different opinion to me.  I quite like people having a different opinion to me.

I belittle you because you affect an air of authority, while spouting nonsense like "the terrorist was a mad nutter, nothing else", which even the most cursory acquaintance with the developing story would tell you is absolutely not the basis on which anyone is approaching this.

Edited May 26, 2017 by peterms
spelling

[Dodgyknees]

Just now, peterms said:

I don't belittle you because you have a different opinion to me.  I quite like people having a different opinion to me.

I belittle you because you affect an air of authority, which spouting nonsense like "the terrorist was a mad nutter, nothing else", which even the most cursory acquaintance with the developing story would tell you is absolutely not the basis on which anyone is approaching this.

Don't ever ask for facts. Just...

Don't.

[magnkarl]

Just now, peterms said:

I don't belittle you because you have a different opinion to me.  I quite like people having a different opinion to me.

I belittle you because you affect an air of authority, which spouting nonsense like "the terrorist was a mad nutter, nothing else", which even the most cursory acquaintance with the developing story would tell you is absolutely not the basis on which anyone is approaching this.

So a radical islamist isn't a nutter? That's a new one to me. Are you trying to dissect his mind? Anyone who blows himself up, kills kids and targets a public space IS a nutter. I have no idea how you can say otherwise.

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

So a radical islamist isn't a nutter? That's a new one to me. Are you trying to dissect his mind? Anyone who blows himself up, kills kids and targets a public space IS a nutter. I have no idea how you can say otherwise.

So your explanation for terrorism is extreme mental illness?  Do you understand that terrorism is not just random violence?  Do you understand that it has a political dimension without which it would not be terrorism?  Do you get that trying to explain incidents like Manchester as the consequence of individual psychopathy is not just laughably ill-informed, but positively dangerous?

[magnkarl]

8 minutes ago, peterms said:

So your explanation for terrorism is extreme mental illness?  Do you understand that terrorism is not just random violence?  Do you understand that it has a political dimension without which it would not be terrorism?  Do you get that trying to explain incidents like Manchester as the consequence of individual psychopathy is not just laughably ill-informed, but positively dangerous?

Yeah I understand that, but I also understand that attributing feelings and language of strength to a cult of terrorists is the total wrong way to go. Acting hysterically and blaming ourselves is wrong. Politically or not, most killers are motivated by something. This killer was motivated by religion and hate. You don't need to analyse that any further to realise we do not want this sort of thing happening again.

And yes, I'll say again, blowing up kids is absolutely psychopathic. You can act outraged at that all you like. 

Edited May 26, 2017 by magnkarl

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours 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?

Did you actually mean 'isolationism'? Whose foreign policy are you writing about, ours or America's?

[magnkarl]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Did you actually mean 'isolationism'? Whose foreign policy are you writing about, ours or America's?

Until approximately 1895 Britain had been the strongest country in the world, it had a successful economy and a very strong navy. As the other countries developed rapidly Britain enjoyed a time of “Splendid” Isolation, which refers to a period in British Diplomacy when the British Government preferred isolation to an alliance or close diplomatic ties which inevitably meant they would not have to intervene in situations which didn’t concern them.

Edited May 26, 2017 by magnkarl

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Yeah I understand that, but I also understand that attributing feelings and language of strength to a cult of terrorists is the total wrong way to go. Acting hysterically and blaming ourselves is wrong. Political or not, most killers are motivated by something. This killer was motivated by religion and hate. You don't need to analyse that any further to realise we do not want this sort of thing happening again.

And yes, I'll say again, blowing up kids is absolutely psychopathic. You can act outraged at that all you like. 

Well I've read the words, and they do form sentences, but I'm struggling to find any meaning in what you've written there.

[magnkarl]

Just now, peterms said:

Well I've read the words, and they do form sentences, but I'm struggling to find any meaning in what you've written there.

Good, now please let these people get on with discussing the general election. We've got differing opinions, there's nothing wrong with that.

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Until approximately 1895 Britain had been the strongest country in the world, it had a successful economy and a very strong navy. As the other countries developed rapidly Britain enjoyed a time of “Splendid” Isolation, which refers to a period in British Diplomacy when the British Government preferred isolation to an alliance or close diplomatic ties which inevitably meant they would have to 

Sorry, but 'would have to' what?

Thank you for the reference, I was unaware of this term. However, I'm confused by what you meant. You seemed to be contrasting Britain's foreign policy pre- and post-1914, with the implication that Britain's foreign policy later was superior because it was less 'isolationist'. I'm struggling to make sense of this term 'isolationism' in this context. Between 1895 and 1914, Britain had an empire that covered every continent on the planet, and fought the Second Boer War and crushed the Boxer Rebellion. 

[peterms]

8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Thank you for the reference, I was unaware of this term.

It's from O level history, circa 1971.

Mr Mooney may be called upon to assist.

 

[snowychap]

17 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

28 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Until approximately 1895 Britain had been the strongest country in the world, it had a successful economy and a very strong navy. As the other countries developed rapidly Britain enjoyed a time of “Splendid” Isolation, which refers to a period in British Diplomacy when the British Government preferred isolation to an alliance or close diplomatic ties which inevitably meant they would not have to

Sorry, but 'would have to' what?

I think the essay goes on thus:

Quote

...intervene in situations which didn't concern them. In the last two decades of the 19th Century Britains comfortable situation came to an end. There was a balance of power in Europe as the triple Alliance and Franco-Russian alliance kept each other in check. All these powers, except Austria-Hungary, wished for gains and glories outside Europe and inevitably they broke into Britains Sphere of influence. Lansdowne the new foreign minister realised Britains policies must change. Britains foreign Imperial aims did not change, as India was still Britains Colonial priority, but now her policies were under threat from France and Russia, and Britain would have to look for other ways to secure the brightest jewel in their crown.

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by snowychap

[magnkarl]

16 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Sorry, but 'would have to' what?

Thank you for the reference, I was unaware of this term. However, I'm confused by what you meant. You seemed to be contrasting Britain's foreign policy pre- and post-1914, with the implication that Britain's foreign policy later was superior because it was less 'isolationist'. I'm struggling to make sense of this term 'isolationism' in this context. Between 1895 and 1914, Britain had an empire that covered every continent on the planet, and fought the Second Boer War and crushed the Boxer Rebellion. 

Sorry, I hit save too early. 

[HanoiVillan]

I confess I'm lost. I don't see what this period of British history, fascinating though it doubtless is, has to do with 'a policy and world order that has drastically reduced deaths around the globe'. For a start, I can think of two fairly significant conflicts in the years subsequent to 1914 without trying particularly hard at all. 

[peterms]

16 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Sorry, I hit save too early. 

No, you hit "copy without attribution" too early.

One giveaway is that it's  "Splendid isolation", rather than "splendid" isolation as in the essay.  But if you dont know what you're talking about, you wouldn't recognise that.

Edited May 26, 2017 by peterms
clarification