Support NeoGAF

[travisbickle]

Corbyn's comments shouldn't surprise anyone. The man is on record saying the Kosovo genocide was fabricated.

At the time, he signed a motion that the intervention was based on misleading numbers of how many people died. It was a "weapons of Mass Destruction" moment but the information Corbyn believed was incorrect.

But there's no space for nuance now political discussion about conflict is basically "so if Putin went all Hitler are you a Neville Chamberlin or Winston Churchill?"

 

[ultratruman]

At the time, he signed a motion that the intervention was based on misleading numbers of how many people died. It was a "weapons of Mass Destruction" moment but the information Corbyn believed was incorrect.

Wrong. This was in 2004, after the intervention and after all the evidence had been revealed. Corbyn signed his name to a statement that said the genocide in Kosovo 'never really existed', and he has never walked back that statement. In fact, despite making repeated reference to the Rwandan genocide, he has yet to publicly mention the Kosovo genocide at all.

 

[Cerium]

At the time, he signed a motion that the intervention was based on misleading numbers of how many people died. It was a "weapons of Mass Destruction" moment but the information Corbyn believed was incorrect.

Is this explanation supposed to make Corbyn look better?

Wrong. This was in 2004, after the intervention and after all the evidence had been revealed. Corbyn said the genocide in Kosovo 'never really existed' and has never walked back that statement. In fact, despite making repeated reference to the Rwandan genocide, he has yet to publicly mention the Kosovo genocide at all.

Wow yeah Trump would be proud.

"There's something going on with those numbers! Many people are saying it. Something is going on."

 

[Azzanadra]

Is this explanation supposed to make Corbyn look better?

Well the west (including the person in your avatar) denies Israel is an apartheid state even though the evidence is all there, so Corbyn's genuine slipup based on faulty information makes him a saint compared to "enlightened western leaders" like Clinton or Blair.

 

[Piecake]

Wrong. This was in 2004, after the intervention and after all the evidence had been revealed. Corbyn signed his name to a statement that said the genocide in Kosovo 'never really existed', and he has never walked back that statement. In fact, despite making repeated reference to the Rwandan genocide, he has yet to publicly mention the Kosovo genocide at all.

Has he clarified his opinion towards Venezuela?

I know in 2015 he gave a speech that was supportive of the government, but that is last instance that I could find that he has commented on the country.

 

[Cerium]

Well the west (including the person in your avatar) denies Israel is an apartheid state even though the evidence is all there, so Corbyn's genuine slipup based on faulty information makes him a saint compared to "enlightened western leaders" like Clinton or Blair.

"NATO ally being attacked" is pretty much code for "overthrow middle eastern ruler we don't like"

I can see why your party is such a mess.

Y'all would make even Bernie blush.

 

[Piecake]

Well the west (including the person in your avatar) denies Israel is an apartheid state even though the evidence is all there, so Corbyn's genuine slipup based on faulty information makes him a saint compared to "enlightened western leaders" like Clinton or Blair.

how is it a genuine slip-up if he has never admitted that he was fooled by incorrect figures and has never stated that he actually believes a genocide took place?

 

[ConfusingJazz]

To play devils advocate here, "NATO ally being attacked" is pretty much code for "overthrow middle eastern ruler we don't like"

Do you know what NATO is?

 

[Quixzlizx]

Do you know what NATO is?

If I can take his other posts at face value, and I don't see why I shouldn't, it's some sort of Zionist front.

 

[Azzanadra]

Do you know what NATO is?

Correct me if I am wrong, but NATO was involved (in some capacity) in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Correct me if I am wrong, but NATO was involved (in some capacity) in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, but that's not "Defending your ally from being attacked"

 

[Quixzlizx]

Correct me if I am wrong, but NATO was involved (in some capacity) in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was the only country where Article 5 was invoked, and Iraq was not a NATO operation at all.

And the original question to Corbyn was about whether he would honor Article 5 if Russia invaded a NATO member, so your ranting about the Middle East doesn't really have anything to do with anything.

 

[travisbickle]

Wrong. This was in 2004, after the intervention and after all the evidence had been revealed. Corbyn signed his name to a statement that said the genocide in Kosovo 'never really existed', and he has never walked back that statement. In fact, despite making repeated reference to the Rwandan genocide, he has yet to publicly mention the Kosovo genocide at all.

Military intervention was based on belief in mass genocide of up to 200,000 Kosovan men. That is proved untrue to this day (I thought more mass graves were found). Like it says 3,000 graves have been found by NATO. You can't start a war for an estimated 3,000 dead, because the same amount could die through military intervention.

That's why genocide is in inverted commas on the statement, the inverted comma mean what NATO described did not happen not literally a genocide didn't happen. Its not that they believe there wasn't people killed but that NATO lied about the numbers involved in genocide taking place in Kosovo.

Now the big problem is did NATO make it up because they believe military intervention was the right thing to do no matter the number killed, (like Tony Blair now says regarding Iraq) or did they make it up because they are part of a military complex that gains profits from the in perpetuity of conflict?

 

[Xe4]

Correct me if I am wrong, but NATO was involved (in some capacity) in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.

None of those are NATO allies. A NATO ally being attacked is referring to the Balkans Latvia, Romania or any of those countries. Russia will annex those if they think NATO will not retaliate, which is exactly what Trump/Corbyn promise to do.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Well the west (including the person in your avatar) denies Israel is an apartheid state even though the evidence is all there, so Corbyn's genuine slipup based on faulty information makes him a saint compared to "enlightened western leaders" like Clinton or Blair.

What does this have to do with Russia invading an Eastern European NATO member?

 

[Azzanadra]

None of those are NATO allies. A NATO ally being attacked is referring to the Balkans Latvia, Romania or any of those countries. Russia will annex those if they think NATO will not retaliate, which is exactly what Trump/Corbyn promise to do.

Sorry, I think I failed to articulate this properly but my main point with the middle east is that, broader than the scope of NATO war and violence are sanctioned by the west in the region and if Corbyn is against the idea of war in general, than he is my guy. Add to that overall I have become very skeptical of very skeptical of western foreign policy, I see Corbyn as the future if a world of peace, justice and freedom is to truly exist. And even if you are against his position, should he become prime minister I sincerely doubt he would actually not do anything. He is, after all, an elected leader among many and not a dictator.

I think all he is saying is that we should consider diplomatic solutions rather than going war as the first option and that war is something that should be avoided. Trump is a puppet if the rumors are true, so I feel like it is important to consider the motivations. Corbyn wants to avoid the bloodshed and evils of war, whereas Trump just wants to enact the wills of his foreign master.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Sorry, I think I failed to articulate this properly but my main point with the middle east is that, broader than the scope of NATO war and violence are sanctioned by the west in the region and if Corbyn is against the idea of war in general, than he is my guy. Add to that overall I have become very skeptical of very skeptical of western foreign policy, I see Corbyn as the future if a world of peace, justice and freedom is to truly exist. And even if you are against his position, should he become prime minister I sincerely doubt he would actually not do anything. He is, after all, an elected leader among many and not a dictator.

I think all he is saying is that we should consider diplomatic solutions rather than going war as the first option and that war is something that should be avoided. Trump is a puppet if the rumors are true, so I feel like it is important to consider the motivations. Corbyn wants to avoid the bloodshed and evils of war, whereas Trump just wants to build enact the wills of his foreign master.

That's all fine and dandy, most people on this forum would probably agree that we need to stop intervening so much.

But that's not what he refused to say.

 

[Valhelm]

Correct me if I am wrong, but NATO was involved (in some capacity) in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's now what this is about. Certain members of NATO participated in those invasions, but NATO as an organization wasn't mobilized for the defense of a member state.

Trump and Corbyn have troubling views on foreign policy because, despite the US and Britain being very important NATO members, they suggest that they wouldn't defend other NATO countries in the event of a large war.

NATO really only exists to protect Western countries against Russia and potentially China, so this pussyfooting undermines the whole purpose of the alliance.

 

[Armaros]

That's now what this is about. Certain members of NATO participated in those invasions, but NATO as an organization wasn't mobilized for the defense of a member state.

Trump and Corbyn have troubling views on foreign policy because, despite the US and Britain being very important NATO members, they suggest that they wouldn't defend other NATO countries in the event of a large war.

NATO really only exists to protect Western countries against Russia and potentially China, so this pussyfooting undermines the whole purpose of the alliance.

NATO without US/UK support is almost meaningless, they are 1# and #2 in NATO contributions respectively. And then everyone else far below.

 

[kame-sennin]

For some reason both left and right seems to like Putin.

It's pathetic that being against Cold War alliance systems with automatic war triggers is conflated with 'liking Putin' by liberals.

Yes, I'm a kooky leftist who loves Dear Putin because I don't want marines to die for fucking Lithuania.

 

[Armaros]

It's pathetic that being against Cold War alliance systems with automatic war triggers is conflated with 'liking Putin' by liberals.

Yes, I'm a kooky leftist who loves Dear Putin because I don't want marines to die for fucking Lithuania.

Actually, your last sentence is exactly what Putin is counting on.

So whatever your 'feelings' toward Putin, you are playing right into his hands.

 

[BajiBoxer]

Correct me if I am wrong, but NATO was involved (in some capacity) in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Lybia the U.N. Security Council voted to intervene by implementing a no fly zone. NATO took over responsibility for the no fly zone later on.

 

[Cerium]

I don't want marines to die for fucking Lithuania.

Yes, I'm a kooky leftist who loves Dear Putin

Checks out.

 

[kame-sennin]

Far left being toxic isn't new. It's that when your party bleeds moderate votes your extreme flank can wrest control, and the results aren't pretty, no matter if you're on the left or right. GOP's current issues are exacerbated by the fact that they lost millennial voters to the dems and are on track to lose a second generation as well. Labour's lost moderates on top of the UK having a much more homogenous population.

When you have the extreme flank take over on the right, you get Trump. On the left, the sort of awful behavior and bad/outdated political/economic theory you see limited mainly to activist groups on college campuses and the internet suddenly finds itself brought to the forefront, and the results aren't pretty.

Yeah, the world is much better off with neoliberalism, clearly.

Actually, your last sentence is exactly what Putin is counting on.

So whatever your 'feelings' toward Putin, you are playing right into his hands.

No, what plays into Putin's hands in Nato expansion and Western aggression. That's what allows him to convince otherwise moderate Russians that it makes sense to restart the Russian Empire.

Edit:

Liberals love to frame their arguments in terms of rationality, implicitly asserting that their opponents are irrational. So lets talk rationally; we're not fucking going to war with Russia. That shit is not going to happen. Russia has nukes. We have nukes. We can't go to war with each other because it would be an existential disaster. These Cold War treaties are outdated and we're going to have to rethink how we view the global balance of power - a viewpoint that doesn't involve U.S. tank battalions racing around the Caucasus.

 

[Cerium]

neoliberalism

We made it 75 posts in this thread without that word, I'm impressed!

 

[Xe4]

Sorry, I think I failed to articulate this properly but my main point with the middle east is that, broader than the scope of NATO war and violence are sanctioned by the west in the region and if Corbyn is against the idea of war in general, than he is my guy. Add to that overall I have become very skeptical of very skeptical of western foreign policy, I see Corbyn as the future if a world of peace, justice and freedom is to truly exist. And even if you are against his position, should he become prime minister I sincerely doubt he would actually not do anything. He is, after all, an elected leader among many and not a dictator.

I think all he is saying is that we should consider diplomatic solutions rather than going war as the first option and that war is something that should be avoided. Trump is a puppet if the rumors are true, so I feel like it is important to consider the motivations. Corbyn wants to avoid the bloodshed and evils of war, whereas Trump just wants to enact the wills of his foreign master.

I agree that the US is too militaristic, and the wars in Afghanistan, and even more Iraq were a mistake. We need to reduce the size of the US milady and make it into a well trained force thst can easily scale in times of war.

However, as others have said, Corbyn wasn't being pro peace, he was saying he would not defend our allies upon a Russian attack. That is not acceptable, anti war or not. The US and Britain are the only ones keeping the eastern edge of Europe together.

 

[Piecake]

No, what plays into Putin's hands in Nato expansion and Western aggression. That's what allows him to convince otherwise moderate Russians that it makes sense to restart the Russian Empire.

Those aren't reasons for Russia's expansionary plans. Those are pretexts. Putin would have found another pretext if there was zero NATO expansion.

 

[travisbickle]

We made it 75 posts in this thread without that word, I'm impressed!

What does this mean:

On the left, the sort of awful behavior and bad/outdated political/economic theory you see limited mainly to activist groups on college campuses and the internet suddenly finds itself brought to the forefront, and the results aren't pretty.

Other than 60-70s politics that came before the New Liberalism of the '80s?

 

[kame-sennin]

We made it 75 posts in this thread without that word, I'm impressed!

"I don't like people naming my ideology!"

"I drop snippy comments in lieu of substantive arguments!"

"I unironically sport a Hillary Clinton avatar!"

That last one is apropos of nothing, but that shit's gross.

Those aren't reasons for Russia's expansionary plans. Those are pretexts. Putin would have found another pretext if there was zero NATO expansion.

I half agree with this. But without those pretexts, it would have been a much harder sell to the Russian people.

 

[Cerium]

"I unironically sport a Hillary Clinton avatar!"

That last one is apropos of nothing, but that shit's gross.

And yet, she will be the next President.

 

[TAJ]

Even if this is the way you're leaning you don't actually say it in it public. That's like an engraved invitation to Russia. Has this guy never played poker before?

 

[Madness]

Defending an ally from an expansionist Russia isn't "warmongering", lol.

The pacifist left needs to get a clue.

This is precisely why Europe is becoming not just center or center right, but full on far right and ultranationalist. It is like these people do not realize the world they still live in. It is the ivory tower syndrome. People thought oh China would never dare try to challenge the US and Japan and yet you have them literally spend tens of billions of dollars to build unsinkable naval bases and landing strips on a small coral reef reclaiming land in the South China Sea in violation of every major international law.

People believed Russia would never dare until they openly invaded Ukraine, and annexed the Crimea and then helped Assad bomb the hell out of rebels. There is only one constant in the world, power, those who have it and wield it, those who want it and would do anything to get it. In a limited resource world, where freshwater may soon become the next gold or oil, where authoritarianism is just as prevalent on the global stage as democracy, it is foolish to think humans are not emotional or irrational enough to come to a world war again or that logic prevails over emotion.

If Britain won't come to the aid of a NATO ally when attacked, this is one of the largest and you could say most powerful military in Western Europe (sorry France), and if they won't intervene, NATO is truly a paper tiger and should be scrapped.

 

[Piecake]

I half agree with this. But without those pretexts, it would have been a much harder sell to the Russian people.

I doubt it. Russian state-controlled media is straight up conspiratorial bullshit. They have been stoking the anti-west, and anti-American hatred for a while. Its not hard to take a clip of Obama praising the overthrow of Putin's puppet in Ukraine, make up some evidence, and call the whole maiden revolution a CIA plot to overthrow the lawfully elected Ukrainian government, and that Russia needs to rescue Ukraine and Crimea and ethnic Russians living there from the evil clutches of US imperialism.

Hell, that basically was their reason for invading/annexing Crimea and Ukraine.

 

[Xe4]

"I don't like people naming my ideology!"

"I drop snippy comments in lieu of substantive arguments!"

"I unironically sport a Hillary Clinton avatar!"

That last one is apropos of nothing, but that shit's gross.



I half agree with this. But without those pretexts, it would have been a much harder sell to the Russian people.

No one uses neoliberalism as an ideology no one calls themselves neolberals. It is a slur to insult liberals you disagree with. It has a dozen definitions and is useless outside of discussing the politics of 1980's Chile.

 

[Xe4]

"I don't like people naming my ideology!"

"I drop snippy comments in lieu of substantive arguments!"

"I unironically sport a Hillary Clinton avatar!"

That last one is apropos of nothing, but that shit's gross.



I half agree with this. But without those pretexts, it would have been a much harder sell to the Russian people.

No one calls themselves neolberals. It is a slur to insult liberals you disagree with. It has a dozen definitions and is useless outside of discussing the politics of 1980's Chile.

 

[travisbickle]

No one uses neoliberalism as an ideology no one calls themselves neolberals. It is a slur to insult liberals you disagree with. It has a dozen definitions and is useless outside of discussing the politics of 1980's Chile.

Neoiberal is a definition of the times we are in. This period in Western countries will go down in the history books as neoliberal, I can't see it any other way? It's an economic and political period that replicates 19th century liberalist attitudes to roles of the individual, capital and the state.

 

[Giant Panda]

"I don't like people naming my ideology!"

"I drop snippy comments in lieu of substantive arguments!"

"I unironically sport a Hillary Clinton avatar!"

That last one is apropos of nothing, but that shit's gross.



I half agree with this. But without those pretexts, it would have been a much harder sell to the Russian people.

Why does Russia's opinion matter on NATO expansion? If the country wants to join, and NATO will have them, Russia's opinion plays zero role. It's funny how once you become left enough you circle back around to regressive views.

 

[pigeon]

Liberals love to frame their arguments in terms of rationality, implicitly asserting that their opponents are irrational. So lets talk rationally; we're not fucking going to war with Russia. That shit is not going to happen. Russia has nukes. We have nukes. We can't go to war with each other because it would be an existential disaster. These Cold War treaties are outdated and we're going to have to rethink how we view the global balance of power - a viewpoint that doesn't involve U.S. tank battalions racing around the Caucasus.

I mean, this is an argument for expanding NATO as much as possible so that it's not us going to war with Russia but Russia going to war with us.

 

[MartyStu]

I was as bitter at Sanders as anyone but I don't think this comparison is fair.

When everything was on the line and his supporters were ready to tear the party apart at the convention, Bernie put his country above his ego and did everything he could to unite the Democrats behind Clinton. I can't imagine Corbyn ever being so graceful.

Corbyn is Left Trump.

Very true.

Sanders is willing to fight hard for his beliefs. Even beyond what many think is acceptable in terms of general party decorum.

He has shown himself to not be spiteful, generally pretty consistent, and willing to shelve his ego no matter how hard his supporters were trying to stoke it.

It strikes me that being Clinton's opponent and not rolling over when appropriate has unnecessarily soured people against a fundamentally and surprisingly 'decent' politician.

 

[kirblar]

Other than 60-70s politics that came before the New Liberalism of the '80s?

Yes, many of those policy ideas and economic theories were wrong. Economic theory has advanced quite a ton in the last 50-60 years.

We know that communism and socialism don't work. The only people who believe they are valid theories are those who want to believe. They're wedded to what they want to be true, just like poll unskewers.

 

[Silent Chief]

Why does Russia's opinion matter on NATO expansion? If the country wants to join, and NATO will have them, Russia's opinion plays zero role. It's funny how once you become left enough you circle back around to regressive views.

It's really not that simple. What if a country that wants to join NATO has a Russian minority and this minority threatens to secede if the country plans to join NATO?

NATO is a deterrent organization. What if Russia attacks a country before it joins NATO? Existing NATO members will likely oppose the candidacy since it would just amount to declare war on Russia.

 

[kirblar]

This is precisely why Europe is becoming not just center or center right, but full on far right and ultranationalist. It is like these people do not realize the world they still live in. It is the ivory tower syndrome. People thought oh China would never dare try to challenge the US and Japan and yet you have them literally spend tens of billions of dollars to build unsinkable naval bases and landing strips on a small coral reef reclaiming land in the South China Sea in violation of every major international law.

People believed Russia would never dare until they openly invaded Ukraine, and annexed the Crimea and then helped Assad bomb the hell out of rebels. There is only one constant in the world, power, those who have it and wield it, those who want it and would do anything to get it. In a limited resource world, where freshwater may soon become the next gold or oil, where authoritarianism is just as prevalent on the global stage as democracy, it is foolish to think humans are not emotional or irrational enough to come to a world war again or that logic prevails over emotion.

If Britain won't come to the aid of a NATO ally when attacked, this is one of the largest and you could say most powerful military in Western Europe (sorry France), and if they won't intervene, NATO is truly a paper tiger and should be scrapped.

It's the same reason why you lose in Civ to a warmonger CPU if you invest only in science and ignore defense.

Why does Russia's opinion matter on NATO expansion? If the country wants to join, and NATO will have them, Russia's opinion plays zero role. It's funny how once you become left enough you circle back around to regressive views.

Especially when the biggest selling point of NATO today is protecting against Russia.

 

[travisbickle]

Yes, many of those policy ideas and economic theories were wrong. Economic theory has advanced quite a ton in the last 50-60 years.

We know that communism and socialism don't work. The only people who believe they are valid theories are those who want to believe. They're wedded to what they want to be true, just like poll unskewers.

lol. What's your social standing? Did you go to a state school? do you use public transport? Do you like nature? Don't forget Ronald Reagan famously said (paraphrasing) "why do we need trees?". Political dogma has to change, we can't follow one route it doesn't end well. Take the US, the richest country in the world, its businesses are constantly breaking rules that lead to devastation, its population is constantly fighting each other, it's political ambitions leads to death of thousands over seas, massive disparities in wealth ... they are the poster boy for the New Liberal mindset.

 

[commedieu]

Putin won.

 

[Suikoguy]

I don't think Bernie ever came close to suggesting he wouldn't uphold NATO. He'd have been rightly flayed for it if he had.

Dear god, Cerium is defending SANDERS?!?

 

[Cerium]

Dear god, Cerium is defending SANDERS?!?

Most of my anger was directed at his rabid supporters who, frankly, deserved and earned it.

Sanders redeemed himself at the convention in my eyes. Just like Hillary did in 2008.

I wasn't Team Clinton the first time around.

 

[kirblar]

lol. What's your social standing? Did you go to a state school? do you use public transport? Do you like nature? Don't forget Ronald Reagan famously said (paraphrasing) "why do we need trees?". Political dogma has to change, we can't follow one route it doesn't end well. Take the US, the richest country in the world, its businesses are constantly breaking rules that lead to devastation, its population is constantly fighting each other, it's political ambitions leads to death of thousands over seas, massive disparities in wealth ... they are the poster boy for the New Liberal mindset.

Capitalism works.

Many of the changes Reagan made were bad, but that means those tax alterations and such were bad, not that Capitalism doesn't work.

 

[kame-sennin]

Capitalism works.

Not for everybody.

 

[pa22word]

Not for everybody.

Yet it's the best we have.

 

[kirblar]

Not for everybody.

That's what welfare is for.