Corbyn leadership in serious trouble as general warns of mutiny

Lemming

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Works both ways, your postings on Corbyn epitomise 'hysteric theatricals'

I've spelled out several times over why he is dangerous; socially, economically, and from a soverign defence perspective along with thus far showing a mindset deeply unsuited to being any sort of leader of a nation. That is not hysterical theatrics. Hysterical theatrics would be claiming that he'll enact pogroms against minorities he dislikes and build gulags.

Don't see you (or any of the others for that matter) clamouring to denounce Russia's announcements regards building fifty new/additional TU-160 nuclear bombers by the way.

ZeroThreat

Lemming wrote: »

I've spelled out several times over why he is dangerous; socially, economically, and from a soverign defence perspective along with thus far showing a mindset deeply unsuited to being any sort of leader of a nation. That is not hysterical theatrics. Hysterical theatrics would be claiming that he'll enact pogroms against minorities he dislikes and build gulags.

Don't see you (or any of the others for that matter) clamouring to denounce Russia's announcements regards building fifty new/additional TU-160 nuclear bombers by the way.

Why would Russia waste money manufacturing an obsolete relic of a plane from the 1980s? It's not even stealthy (which is a basic requirement of any modern combat aircraft) FFS....

Lemming

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Why would Russia waste money manufacturing an obsolete relic of a plane from the 1980s? It's not even stealthy (which is a basic requirement of any modern combat aircraft) FFS....

You trying to imply that I'm lying?

dubscottie

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Why would Russia waste money manufacturing an obsolete relic of a plane from the 1980s? It's not even stealthy (which is a basic requirement of any modern combat aircraft) FFS....

As one article put it.. "chest thumping Tarzan style from Putin"..

I hope it means the UK start Vulcan production again also.. A plane, that is to a point, stealthy..

The US said the Vulcan's tail gave it away.. Maybe that is why the B-2 looks a bit like a tail-less Vulcan? (great book and declassified docs on how Vulcan's could have nuked the East coast US)

demfad

Lemming wrote: »

I've spelled out several times over why he is dangerous; socially, economically, and from a soverign defence perspective along with thus far showing a mindset deeply unsuited to being any sort of leader of a nation. ....

The Iraq war caused the deaths of over half a million civilians: men, women, children babies. This is not hypothetical, these people died. Do you believe that Corbyn who would NOT have brought the UK into this corrupt war, is more dangerous than the likes of Blair or Cameron who clearly would?

Isn't it time that the UK released itself from it's post colonial morally bereft position as an aggressive warring nation?

BoatMad

demfad wrote: »

The Iraq war caused the deaths of over half a million civilians: men, women, children babies. This is not hypothetical, these people died. Do you believe that Corbyn who would NOT have brought the UK into this corrupt war, is more dangerous than the likes of Blair or Cameron who clearly would?

Isn't it time that the UK released itself from it's post colonial morally bereft position as an aggressive warring nation?

You have no idea whether Corbyn would take the UK into another war situation. What he " might" have done , "if" he was in power , "'at a particular historical point" is utterly ridiculous. That's not policy. That's 20 20 hindsight.

When another involvement were to raise its head and comrade Corbyn, decided to support military intervention ,I'm sure it would be spun and spun.

demfad

BoatMad wrote: »

You have no idea whether Corbyn would take the UK into another war situation. What he " might" have done , "if" he was in power , "'at a particular historical point" is utterly ridiculous. That's not policy. That's 20 20 hindsight.

When another involvement were to raise its head and comrade Corbyn, decided to support military intervention ,I'm sure it would be spun and spun.

Nothing to do with hindsight: the players who instigated that war knew there was no WMDs at the time. They were the ones who invented that lie after all.

This was not just another war situation this was a war situation where the leaders of the USA and the UK lied about the premise for the war to gain UN support.

Corbyn has distinguished himself throughout his political career as a man of integrity and anti-war. It is quite certain that he would not enter a war he fundamentally disagreed with; a war which would most likely see the deaths of millions of people; and absolutely certain that he would not corruptly invent and lie to the UN and the world about the premise for waging such a despicable war .

Would you mind not prefixing his name with "comrade"?
Its indicative of the lack of integrity of debate on those who feel threatened by him.

As long as the UK continues as a kind of nightmarish bloodthirsty imperial husk then millions will continue to die.

BoatMad

Corbyn has distinguished himself throughout his political career as a man of integrity and anti-war. It is quite certain that he would not enter a war he fundamentally disagreed with a war which would most likely see the deaths of millions of people, absolutely certain that he would not corruptly invent and lie about the premise for doing so to the UN and the world.

There is only integrity in what you do , not what in what you say you would do

given his avowed socialism , Im sure he'd be happy with the moniker "Comrade". I could switch to " Brother" or " Leftist Corbyn", after that they much more derogatory

demfad

BoatMad wrote: »

There is only integrity in what you do , not what in what you say you would do

given his avowed socialism , Im sure he'd be happy with the moniker "Comrade". I could switch to " Brother" or " Leftist Corbyn", after that they much more derogatory

Corbyn's political career did not begin with his Labour leadership election. He has been acting with integrity for decades.

You are using the word 'comrade' in order to invoke the negative associations of that word in order to bolster your argument. You're basically saying that a valid argument against a socialist is to call him a Commie.

This is no more an argument than name calling is.

A Dub in Glasgo

BoatMad wrote: »

You have no idea whether Corbyn would take the UK into another war situation. What he " might" have done , "if" he was in power , "'at a particular historical point" is utterly ridiculous. That's not policy. That's 20 20 hindsight.

When another involvement were to raise its head and comrade Corbyn, decided to support military intervention ,I'm sure it would be spun and spun.

It is very clear that Corbyn would not have led the UK into the Iraq war

healthy_cynic

demfad wrote: »

The Iraq war caused the deaths of over half a million civilians: men, women, children babies. This is not hypothetical, these people died. Do you believe that Corbyn who would NOT have brought the UK into this corrupt war, is more dangerous than the likes of Blair or Cameron who clearly would?

Isn't it time that the UK released itself from it's post colonial morally bereft position as an aggressive warring nation?

by being a warring nation , the uk can remain an economically powerful nation , most voters are most concerned with maintaining their level of wealth , i doubt corbyn expects to become PM , i think he hopes to influence public opinion and begin a debate about politics

blair was a far more dangerous PM than thatcher , thatcher went to war with a country who actually invaded british soverign territory , compared to blair , she was entirely reasonable

Skylinehead

healthy_cynic wrote: »

by being a warring nation , the uk can remain an economically powerful nation

The word "Germany" blows that argument out of the water. How do they manage it?

demfad

Skylinehead wrote: »

The word "Germany" blows that argument out of the water. How do they manage it?

After WW2 they rejected imperialism forever and started to look at the rest of the world in terms of trade. Inwards this shift meant a more co-operative approach with a more modern collaborative work ethic between management and worker. The world was finally opening up and imperial manipulation and control of trade had weakened. That meant a relatively open market for German produce.

The British mind set remained in the old imperial system where all that was needed was a British product and the imperial system would supply a guaranteed closed market in the form of the colonies, dominions, commonwealth etc. The money then flows in and is distributed in time old fashion between the classes.

The world had moved on however and British products would have to compete on an even footing with those of Germany outside and within the commonwealth and even within the UK itself. The advent of workers rights meant massive industrial unrest in the out of date imperial based working conditions of the UK. The decimation of the British car industry at the hands of the Germans is an ample metaphor for how Britain dealt with all this.

Britain still acts the maggot, still "keeps her army strong" (as the Waterboys said) mainly to benefit from supporting America in its resource wars.

In Ireland the idea of having to bow to another human being, say president Higgins, seems absurd, laughable, appalling if a reality.

Yet this is still the case in the UK, there is still an aristocracy and most appallingly millions of non-British people die violently just so that Britain can claw on to its self perceived "greatness". And someone who identifies this, who points oot the absurdity and monstrosity : he is the one denounced as "dangerous". Britain needs someone like him.

The underlying world view of Imperialism (and indeed the 3rd reich) was that certain peoples had the inherent right to more, at the expense of other, lesser peoples. I don't see how Britain's external warring and internal bowing is in principle any different from this old obscene world view.

Sam Russell

How did nuclear weapons prevent Russia from annexing the Crimea?

How did nuclear weapons prevent Russia from destabilising Ukraine by arming the eastern rebels?

How will nuclear weapons prevent Russia from creating a land corridor to the annexed the Crimea?

Russia is dangerous because they have a very large army, not just because they have nuclear weapons. They are prepared to use the army, not so sure about the nukes.

Britain may have nuclear weapons but I doubt they would ever actually use them even if they were warned there was a nuclear attack under way. Who would press the button knowing the consequences? Would the Americans allow them to go it alone? And if they would not, what is the point of them having their own deterrent?

Remember, Russia invaded Crimea by stealth - it was all over before anyone knew it had even started. Even the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail missed the scoop.

karma_

Sam Russell wrote: »

How did nuclear weapons prevent Russia from annexing the Crimea?

How did nuclear weapons prevent Russia from destabilising Ukraine by arming the eastern rebels?

How will nuclear weapons prevent Russia from creating a land corridor to the annexed the Crimea?

Russia is dangerous because they have a very large army, not just because they have nuclear weapons. They are prepared to use the army, not so sure about the nukes.

Britain may have nuclear weapons but I doubt they would ever actually use them even if they were warned there was a nuclear attack under way. Who would press the button knowing the consequences? Would the Americans allow them to go it alone? And if they would not, what is the point of them having their own deterrent?

Remember, Russia invaded Crimea by stealth - it was all over before anyone knew it had even started. Even the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail missed the scoop.

Russia have used their military less and in the past 15 years have intervened much less than the US, yet we consider them dangerous? Nothing but scaremongering and reminiscent of the Red Scare all over again.

walshyn93

demfad wrote: »

After WW2 they rejected imperialism forever and started to look at the rest of the world in terms of trade. Inwards this shift meant a more co-operative approach with a more modern collaborative work ethic between management and worker. The world was finally opening up and imperial manipulation and control of trade had weakened. That meant a relatively open market for German produce.

The British mind set remained in the old imperial system where all that was needed was a British product and the imperial system would supply a guaranteed closed market in the form of the colonies, dominions, commonwealth etc. The money then flows in and is distributed in time old fashion between the classes.

The world had moved on however and British products would have to compete on an even footing with those of Germany outside and within the commonwealth and even within the UK itself. The advent of workers rights meant massive industrial unrest in the out of date imperial based working conditions of the UK. The decimation of the British car industry at the hands of the Germans is an ample metaphor for how Britain dealt with all this.

Britain still acts the maggot, still "keeps her army strong" (as the Waterboys said) mainly to benefit from supporting America in its resource wars.

In Ireland the idea of having to bow to another human being, say president Higgins, seems absurd, laughable, appalling if a reality.

Yet this is still the case in the UK, there is still an aristocracy and most appallingly millions of non-British people die violently just so that Britain can claw on to its self perceived "greatness". And someone who identifies this, who points oot the absurdity and monstrosity : he is the one denounced as "dangerous". Britain needs someone like him.

The underlying world view of Imperialism (and indeed the 3rd reich) was that certain peoples had the inherent right to more, at the expense of other, lesser peoples. I don't see how Britain's external warring and internal bowing is in principle any different from this old obscene world view.

Are you suggesting that Britain hasn't reinvented its economy? It's the largest financial centre in the world. It's also not this imperialist monstrosity that Corbyn and his ilk would like to think it is. It's in fact one of the most racially tolerant social democracies on the planet and instead of it taking advantage of poorer peoples, poorer peoples are flocking to Britain to take advantage of it. And none of this so-called aristocracy seems to mind.

demfad

walshyn93 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Britain hasn't reinvented its economy? It's the largest financial centre in the world. It's also not this imperialist monstrosity that Corbyn and his ilk would like to think it is. It's in fact one of the most racially tolerant social democracies on the planet and instead of it taking advantage of poorer peoples, poorer peoples are flocking to Britain to take advantage of it. And none of this so-called aristocracy seems to mind.

Britain picked and fought and illegal war resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, children and babies. The reason given to wage this war: WMD was a lie. That means hundreds of thousands of people dead for reasons related to the self interest of the UK and USA. This is indeed a monstrosity. It is the same principle as racial imperialism: It is justifiable to carry out atrocities on lesser peoples if it makes us richer.

The leader of the UK government described peoples trying to enter the UK as "swarms". This is a racially loaded term. He certainly seems to mind.

You may not have realised it, but there is an actual powerful aristocracy in place in the UK high above the common man. There is still a family that must be bent low before, referred to as "majesty". Laughable if it wasn't actually real. If you wonder how you keep their power know that every PM in the UK is offered a knighthood after leaving office.

To name this as absurd, monstrous seems perfectly rational. Yet in 21st century UK anyone who questions the system is regarded as a traitor.

BoatMad

demfad wrote: »

After WW2 they rejected imperialism forever and started to look at the rest of the world in terms of trade. Inwards this shift meant a more co-operative approach with a more modern collaborative work ethic between management and worker. The world was finally opening up and imperial manipulation and control of trade had weakened. That meant a relatively open market for German produce.

The British mind set remained in the old imperial system where all that was needed was a British product and the imperial system would supply a guaranteed closed market in the form of the colonies, dominions, commonwealth etc. The money then flows in and is distributed in time old fashion between the classes.

The world had moved on however and British products would have to compete on an even footing with those of Germany outside and within the commonwealth and even within the UK itself. The advent of workers rights meant massive industrial unrest in the out of date imperial based working conditions of the UK. The decimation of the British car industry at the hands of the Germans is an ample metaphor for how Britain dealt with all this.

Britain still acts the maggot, still "keeps her army strong" (as the Waterboys said) mainly to benefit from supporting America in its resource wars.

In Ireland the idea of having to bow to another human being, say president Higgins, seems absurd, laughable, appalling if a reality.

Yet this is still the case in the UK, there is still an aristocracy and most appallingly millions of non-British people die violently just so that Britain can claw on to its self perceived "greatness". And someone who identifies this, who points oot the absurdity and monstrosity : he is the one denounced as "dangerous". Britain needs someone like him.

The underlying world view of Imperialism (and indeed the 3rd reich) was that certain peoples had the inherent right to more, at the expense of other, lesser peoples. I don't see how Britain's external warring and internal bowing is in principle any different from this old obscene world view.

There are many monarchies of various types all over the world. Those liberal scandalised don't seem to mind having a monarch or two.

Your view is simply anti UK dressed up in a particular rant

demfad

BoatMad wrote: »

There are many monarchies of various types all over the world. Those liberal scandalised don't seem to mind having a monarch or two.

Your view is simply anti UK dressed up in a particular rant

Anti monarchy does not equal anti-British. You need to get your head around that.

I have pointed out the particular power of the UK monarchy, i have pointed out the actual body count from the UK's most recent war. Any chance of actually addressing these points?

Don't you think the unnecessary deaths of 100,000s of people for selfish reasons is something that should be addressed, something that should never be allowed to happen again?

Or do you believe that anyone who asks this legitimate question within the UK is a traitor and without is anti-UK?

Lemming

I find it alarming that you're trying to create moral relativism out of "well this guy [insert country name] killed 100,000 but this other guy [insert country name] only killed 20,000 therefore he's alright". War is war. The use of martial feats ultimately yields the same end result - some poor b*stard dies and some lucky b*stard doesn't - with the only difference being numbers; duration and numbers killed respectively.

BoatMad

demfad wrote: »

Anti monarchy does not equal anti-British. You need to get your head around that.

I have pointed out the particular power of the UK monarchy, i have pointed out the actual body count from the UK's most recent war. Any chance of actually addressing these points?

Don't you think the unnecessary deaths of 100,000s of people for selfish reasons is something that should be addressed, something that should never be allowed to happen again?

Or do you believe that anyone who asks this legitimate question within the UK is a traitor and without is anti-UK?

I think that the monarchy hold no more power then any other constitutional monarchy in Europe.

I think the decision that Blair took was deeply unpopular , remember the huge anti war marches.

I think that wars will always happen , look at Syria, the west is already re involved and will be faced with boots on the ground issues within 6 months.

The world is a messy complicated place and leaders will always find that they have to take real world decisions, not absolutist ones.

I don't see anybody in the uk who was against the Iraqi invasion labelled a traitor.

The uk is a generally left of centre , liberal democracy , i don't think it has any of the characteristic you describe. You are projecting the past into the future

demfad

BoatMad wrote: »

I think that the monarchy hold no more power then any other constitutional monarchy in Europe.

I think the decision that Blair took was deeply unpopular , remember the huge anti war marches.

I think that wars will always happen , look at Syria, the west is already re involved and will be faced with boots on the ground issues within 6 months.

The world is a messy complicated place and leaders will always find that they have to take real world decisions, not absolutist ones.

I don't see anybody in the uk who was against the Iraqi invasion labelled a traitor.

The uk is a generally left of centre , liberal democracy , i don't think it has any of the characteristic you describe. You are projecting the past into the future

Wars will happen? Are you serious. The war in Iraq happenned because the US and UK MADE UP LIES about WMDs so that they could wage war. It didn't just happen.

As a direct results 100,000s people died. Youre OK with this? Did I describe it wrong?


The Syrian war is related to the war on Iraq. ISIS is run by Baathists. Why dont you know this?

johnnyskeleton

demfad wrote: »

Wars will happen? Are you serious. The war in Iraq happenned because the US and UK MADE UP LIES about WMDs so that they could wage war. It didn't just happen.

As a direct results 100,000s people died. Youre OK with this? Did I describe it wrong?


The Syrian war is related to the war on Iraq. ISIS is run by Baathists. Why dont you know this?

Mod Note:

Ok, maybe calm things down a bit. All caps and rhetoric are not really the style of posting desired on this forum.

Skylinehead

demfad wrote: »

ISIS is run by Baathists. Why dont you know this?

That's certainly not true. ISIS are hardline Islamists, Ba'athism at its heart is Arab nationalism where Islam only plays a marginal role in society. Assad is a Ba'athist.

BoatMad

demfad wrote: »

Wars will happen? Are you serious. The war in Iraq happenned because the US and UK MADE UP LIES about WMDs so that they could wage war. It didn't just happen.

As a direct results 100,000s people died. Youre OK with this? Did I describe it wrong?


The Syrian war is related to the war on Iraq. ISIS is run by Baathists. Why dont you know this?

I see so the previous Iran Iraq war wasn't a war. The WMD fiasco was only a cover for public consumption ( that back fired ). The US at the time was going in regardless.

Isis is directly related to the Sunni Shia Schism and arose once the Iranian backing of the Iraqi Shia became apparent. The Sunnis were facing a strong Iranian takeover of the former Iraq

With or without the US involvement , that area would have erupted as the power bases installed by the colonials after Ww2 faded in response to fundamental Islam. In that regard the failure of the west to deliver Arab homelands post ww2 ( as promised by lawerence etc ) contributed to the tinderbox.

You like others , with little grasp of history , simply look at the last conflict , as of that existed in a vacuum.

walshyn93

demfad wrote: »

Britain picked and fought and illegal war resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, children and babies. The reason given to wage this war: WMD was a lie. That means hundreds of thousands of people dead for reasons related to the self interest of the UK and USA. This is indeed a monstrosity. It is the same principle as racial imperialism: It is justifiable to carry out atrocities on lesser peoples if it makes us richer.

The leader of the UK government described peoples trying to enter the UK as "swarms". This is a racially loaded term. He certainly seems to mind.

You may not have realised it, but there is an actual powerful aristocracy in place in the UK high above the common man. There is still a family that must be bent low before, referred to as "majesty". Laughable if it wasn't actually real. If you wonder how you keep their power know that every PM in the UK is offered a knighthood after leaving office.

To name this as absurd, monstrous seems perfectly rational. Yet in 21st century UK anyone who questions the system is regarded as a traitor.

It takes more than questioning the monarchy to be regarded as a traitor. To do that, whilst arguing for the disabling of the countries defences and the opening of its borders to anyone (while the country has very real and known enemies) would have someone regarded as a traitor. Also to attack the financial institutions which provide far more than they receive from government (and he knows it) makes it look as though he wants to weaken his country in every conceivable way.

walshyn93

Skylinehead wrote: »

That's certainly not true. ISIS are hardline Islamists, Ba'athism at its heart is Arab nationalism where Islam only plays a marginal role in society. Assad is a Ba'athist.

Many former members of the Iraqi Ba'ath party are now senior members of ISIS.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/rise-of-isis/how-saddams-former-soldiers-are-fueling-the-rise-of-isis/

"The current head of the group’s military council, for example, is believed to be Abu Ahmad al Alwani, an ex-member of Saddam Hussein’s army. So too was al Alwani’s predecessor. Another member of the military council, Abu Muhanad al Sweidawi, was once a lieutenant colonel in Hussein’s air defense intelligence, but by early 2014 was heading ISIS operations in western Syria, according to the report."

KingBrian2

BoatMad wrote: »

I think that the monarchy hold no more power then any other constitutional monarchy in Europe.

I think the decision that Blair took was deeply unpopular , remember the huge anti war marches.

I think that wars will always happen , look at Syria, the west is already re involved and will be faced with boots on the ground issues within 6 months.

The world is a messy complicated place and leaders will always find that they have to take real world decisions, not absolutist ones.

I don't see anybody in the uk who was against the Iraqi invasion labelled a traitor.

The uk is a generally left of centre , liberal democracy , i don't think it has any of the characteristic you describe. You are projecting the past into the future

Keep saying it and it will be fact. When the Brits get embroiled in a war the veterans come home and you see the societal harm that comes with it. The murder of Lee Rigby, charged cultural tensions between different elements of society.

BoatMad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Keep saying it and it will be fact. When the Brits get embroiled in a war the veterans come home and you see the societal harm that comes with it. The murder of Lee Rigby, charged cultural tensions between different elements of society.

this is true of any conflict from WW1 onwards

it in itself is not a reason to avoid sending in troops, after all soldiers are paid to soldier

20Cent

Disturbing how the idea of a military coup isn't the main concern with the story but how it's a stick to beat Corbyn.