Nobody made a thread when Corbyn said he'd talk with ISIS either so ¯_(ツ_/¯
I don't recall that; links?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn refuses to say he would defend NATO ally being attacked.
- Thread starter Hazzuh
- Start date
- Status
I don't recall that; links?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...lomatic-back-channels-with-isis-a6817181.html
(To be clear, I don't really have a huge problem with what he said here or what Smith said about ISIS, other than it sounding awful)
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
Because that didn't happenNobody made a thread when Corbyn said he'd talk with ISIS either so ¯\_(ツ
No, it doesn't depend upon your 'pov'. What sort of bullshit, hallucinogenic thinking is that?
There is an objective reality. Russia conquered numerous countries in Eastern Europe. Literally at the first opportunity, those countries then voted to join NATO. There is no fucking 'pov' unless you somehow equate Russia Today with the bloody BBC. The fact that Russia writes shit about the west means nothing.
Gods Corbyn's cult is frustrating.
ClosingADoor
Member
Good thing Russia doesn't get to say shit over what other countries decide. And their different view would be the wrong one. How this is still a discussion for some is beyond me. Pick up a history book and it is pretty clear why those countries want to join NATO.
And damn, all this talk about countries not backing NATO is getting dangerous.
Well consider me corrected.
I hope if coffee morning's with ISIS are confirmed that the British left at least brings Crunch Creams.
The Hamburglar
Banned
Yeah Russia does have a different view on that. When was the last time the Russia people were truly free? They've been ruled by authoritive rulers since the past what 500 years? They got some brief respite in 1991 but since putin took over back to the same old bullshit just dressed up nicely.
Russia and Russians don't know what freedom of choice really is, of course they will have a different view. They can't wrap their heads round that a country would freely choose to join nato, to Russia it is probably some 'plot'.
rokkerkory
Member
Sounds remarkably like crazy trump
Alkastelca
Member
Some of you really want another WW1 to happen.
Due to alliance countries declaring war on each other and shit.
You don't want Georgia or any other country with russian minority in NATO. When they start fucking with minority the Russia will intervene to protect them and then what ? All out war because your allies are stupid ?
Due to alliance countries declaring war on each other and shit.
You don't want Georgia or any other country with russian minority in NATO. When they start fucking with minority the Russia will intervene to protect them and then what ? All out war because your allies are stupid ?
Yeah, because that's the only possible situation where Russia would intervene. To 'protect'.
Seriously, I cannot believe we are back in the fucking 70s and 80s with the hardcore left taking over labour and defending Russia.
Worth remembering that even the 1983 Labour manifesto supported the UKs membership of NATO. This is the most extreme position on defence Labour has had since the 1930s when it was led by a literal pacifist, George Lansbury. Lansbury even opposed economic sanctions against Italy for invading Ethiopia because it was "economic warfare" lol.
ClosingADoor
Member
But Georgia isn't in NATO.
And we already have the Baltics in NATO, which have some Russian minorities. And we should protect those countries if it comes to that. Otherwise Russia is free to grab whatever they want.
Having political leaders from a major NATO nation basically stating they would not back their allies is crazy. NATO and nukes are the reason we don't have World War 3 happening. Any threat towards NATO should know that if they pull something, they will get fucked. That is stopping a new world war.
And guess what, NATO is a defensive alliance. So if one of the allies did something stupid like attacking someone themselves, they are on their own anyway.
Alkastelca
Member
And I can't believe we are back in the 50s with all this anti-russian crap.
Do some of you even listen to yourself ? McCarthy would be proud.
They invaded Georgia. They invaded the Ukraine. They are currently engaged in clandestine warfare in several states, as well as propping up a lunatic butcher in syria.
Oh and they used deadly radioactive materials to assassinate a journalist in my fucking city. Jesus Christ they used POLONIUM IN A PUBLIC RESTAURANT IN LONDON TO KILL SOMEONE. Do you not understand how freaking insane that is?
On the scale of "defends stalin" -- > Joseph McCarthy there is some middle ground.
excelsiorlef
Member
What?!
This isn't a communists are everywhere scare this is a specfic government committing specfic acts things.
ClosingADoor
Member
Anti-Russian crap? Did you look at what Putin is doing right now? Dude just invaded his neighbor. But sure, we are anti-Russian.
How's the weather in St. Petersburg there? Having fun at the troll factory?
Alkastelca
Member
Yes I know but they would like to be in NATO.
Yes on paper that is. It's also used for other things and also represents political alliance under the banner of USA or ''west''.
Prime crotch
Banned
Everything that I don't like is everything else I dont like.
Oh man, if only a candidate ran on a pacifist or diplomatic route instead of warmongering that'd be nice.. as long as we could still bomb shit, that'd be good
Oh man, if only a candidate ran on a pacifist or diplomatic route instead of warmongering that'd be nice.. as long as we could still bomb shit, that'd be good
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Article 10 requires that any country applying to join NATO must have legal provisions for fair treatment of minorities, which was always coded language for "don't fuck with your Russian minorities". Breaching that principle would result in suspension.
It's also perfectly possible to oppose some NATO policies and support others; these things aren't all or nothing. In general, stopping Russia annexing Lithuania has always seemed like a reasonable policy to support.
It's also perfectly possible to oppose some NATO policies and support others; these things aren't all or nothing. In general, stopping Russia annexing Lithuania has always seemed like a reasonable policy to support.
ClosingADoor
Member
As far as I know Georgia has no sight on a full NATO membership in the near future. So I don't see the problem here.
And of course NATO represents an alliance with the US being the biggest and most influential member. But have they taken any action - with NATO - that has wronged Russia in any way? I don't see it.
Prime crotch
Banned
No fear mongering at all, no sireeee
"war is bad mmkay"
"HE'S A COMMIE!"
"war is bad mmkay"
"HE'S A COMMIE!"
Yes, to keep resources people deemed acceptable, wouldn't want too many people to move up the ladder.
He didn't say war is bad. He refused to agree with the UKs standing policy on NATO membership and defence that has existed since we formed it in the first place. He is the only leader to ever have done so. No-one has said he's a communist.
These strawman defenses of the glorious leader really are desperate.
Have you like, paid attention to what putin has been doing recently?
Alkastelca
Member
Amassing military forces and missiles on its borders ?
When Russia well Soviet Union back then did that we almost had WW 3.
You want to play in their backyard and you're suprised ? Same as USA considers South America their backyard.
Look at China expanding and how concerned USA is because they thought those parts to be ''theirs''.
Prime crotch
Banned
No, people are just calling him "Left Trump" or being in cahoots with Putin for being remiss to jump into war and disagreeing with NATO policies.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Can't we do both? What's wrong with the statement:
"War is horrific, and we should avoid it wherever possible. As long as an alternative remained, I would attempt to use diplomatic means to prevent a hostile attack on a NATO ally. However, if there was no alternative, I would commit forces to protect the democratic freedom of our allies."
Why only give the first part of that, and not the second?
I don't think that's true. Neoliberalism, had its meaning change a lot, especially in the transition from spanish politics to English politics. As have the terms progressive, and left, and liberal.
Regardless, I don't think holding up what Europeans think of a term vs what Americans think is meaningful. What matters is people use the term, and only use the term when critisizing those they don't think are progressive enough.
And Neoconservativism was actually rather quickly championed by those it was used to defame. They specifically stated it was a liberal who faced the reality of the situation.
Neoliberal is a label forced by others on the left to create a BS purity test, something the neoconservative label never did.
Edit: Crab put it far more eloquently than I ever could.
Let me get this straight.
Countries on Russia's borders, after decades of oppression and tyranny, join NATO at the first possible opportunity to try and avoid Russia from doing the same again.
Ergo, Russia now has NATO forces on its borders.
Ergo, Russia is now justified in attacking and engaging in clandestine warfare with western countries, and releasing deadly radioactive materials in a crowded city, and we should not respond. It's their right.
What about the rights of Polish people, or Lithuanian people, to live without fear of another Russian invasion? Maybe, you know, if Russia wasn't such an aggressive, murdering autocratic state people wouldn't want to join an alliance specifically created to defend against them?
ClosingADoor
Member
And the US is wrong to consider it their backyard also.
The Eastern European countries are their own nations and they can damn well do as the please in their own land. If that is building defensive capabilities, then so be it.
Guess what, if the Soviets didn't oppress and occupy them for 50 years maybe they didn't feel the need to do that. And if Russia didn't invade Ukraine, they wouldn't be afraid to be next.
Prime crotch
Banned
A commitment to preventive measures is more representative of Corbyn's policies than chin-wag. The second part is implicit with the policies already in place.
shinra-bansho
Member
Flat-Earthers have a different view on the shape of the planet. That doesn't change its shape.
Russia's "point of view" is irrelevant.
It genuinely surprises me that people can't see it.
America, the leader of the West, has had a fucked up foreign policy for years. Even under Obama you're killing hundreds of civilians in sovereign countries (pakistan etc). You've got thousands of nukes and you got the world's largest defense spending program.
If I was Russia I'd be a little bit worried if you lot rocked up in my surrounding countries (even under the guise of NATO)
There must be a little bit of you that could see that?
Cuba was it's own nation
benjipwns
Banned
If they aligned that party with the Liberal Democrats that could be a potentially major electoral force. I literally see no way this couldn't work.
shinra-bansho
Member
Yes, Russia is clearly only invading other countries and annexing parts of them out of dismay at US foreign policy in the Middle East, where Russia is clearly not an interfering actor. Vladimir Putin is the hero we need.
excelsiorlef
Member
Russian apologists are fucking hilarious.
The world is not black and white, I'm not saying America = evil, Russia = good.
But a lot of people in this thread seem to be saying the opposite and that's that.
Russia has got lots of problems and have had foreign policy disasters.
But so has America
ClosingADoor
Member
So? I didn't defend the US actions with Cuba. They are unrelated to the current day situation anyway. Whataboutism in it's finest form right there.
This thread isn't about America.
shinra-bansho
Member
So, basically, whataboutism. Right out of the Soviet playbook. Good show.
The thread is about a defensive pact and a terribad politician's ineptitude. Not US foreign policy failures.
The thread is about a defensive pact and a terribad politician's ineptitude. Not US foreign policy failures.
No link? Nothing of your own?
Ok.
Russia decides to set up a "defensive alliance" of their own.
Mexico decides they want to join up.
I'm pretty sure that would all be about Russia.
excelsiorlef
Member
Please stop.
The fact you think this at all an appropriate analogy just shows how utterly blinded you are.
You are Russia did set up a "defensive alliance"? It was called the Warsaw Pact. They ruled it through fear and tyranny, and after multiple rebellions they eventually got their freedom and immediately joined NATO.
Tell me, how often have American tanks been sent into the streets of London?
ClosingADoor
Member
So you are now making up stuff for what purpose exactly?
If Mexico wants to have closer ties to Russia, they are free to do so. I can approve of diplomatic incentives to convince them otherwise - for example further trade and economic ties to show they have more benefits with aligning themselves with the US instead. I will not approve of military talk or action.
Difference is, Russia bullies its way when it comes to their "allies". I haven't seen the US do that when it comes to Eastern Europe. Those countries want to align themselves with NATO, the EU, US, etc, because it benefits them. If Russia shows that closer ties with them is beneficial towards the population of those countries, they are free to do so.
Not often enough Comrade
shinra-bansho
Member
If I set up an alliance with the Moon people and we attacked the Mole people it would be all about one of these fictional people in this similarly stupid scenario.
Tell me more about the Warsaw pact that Russia signed?
Was it different to the one signed by the Soviet Union in 1955?
benjipwns
Banned
This is one of those Dick Cheney style "Iraq" and "9/11" confluences.
THE MOLE PEOPLE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOON PEOPLE LAURIE MYLORIE
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked