Support NeoGAF

[Coriolanus]

So you believe that by talking to IS, you are saying Corbyn will demand unconditional surrender.

So he's presumably going to continue the WoT until he's defeated ISIS and they'll surrender.

if one is as silly as to think that's the only way to tackle the problem, sure.

As i've already said, you're in a bitch eating crackers situation.

 

[Spuck-uk]

Any kind of snap poll on the Corbyn speech?

From just before the speech, but relevant:

 

[D4Danger]

So you believe that by talking to IS, you are saying Corbyn will demand unconditional surrender.

So he's presumably going to continue the WoT until he's defeated ISIS and they'll surrender.

you assume that's the only option. Either talk to IS or continue our useless war on terror.

what if instead we begin to work with countries in the region to stamp out these groups (who by the way have killed far more muslims than they have westerners) instead of treating everyone in that region as a terrorist.

 

[TimmmV]

Someone needs to make one of those Farron pictures their avatar

 

[Huw_Dawson]

if one is as silly as to think that's the only way to tackle the problem, sure.

OK, so your leader says that the War on Terror has failed, but he'll continue the failing War on Terror to beat ISIS, but it'll be futile because the War on Terror has failed, so he'll simply ask for their unconditional surrender instead.

Is that Jeremy Corbyn's foreign policy?

 

[twofoldd]

*SNIP*

The Facebook live thing is a joke, right?

Also the Yougov poll is unfinished and unweighted - final weighted results will be available at the end of the day.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

OK, so your leader says that the War on Terror has failed, but he'll continue the failing War on Terror to beat ISIS, but it'll be futile because the War on Terror has failed, so he'll simply ask for their unconditional surrender instead.

Is that Jeremy Corbyn's foreign policy?

I can't read this in any other way than a Trump tweet these days

Edit:

Corbyn's a peacenik so he probably intends to airdrop delicious homemade jams and jellies over the general area until the enemy are won round.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

I can't read this in any other way than a Trump tweet these days

This is all the failing NYT's fault.

 

[Spuck-uk]

Someone needs to make one of those Farron pictures their avatar

It needs to be Huw, obviously

 

[Huw_Dawson]

It needs to be Huw, obviously

I was going to do the May/Farage mashup. But I cannae be bothered.

 

[Screaming Meat]

By "War on Terror" we mean utilising military measures - and a giant government initiative, like the "War on Drugs" - to actively defeat terrorist groups.

Isn't The War on Terror referring to a specific initiative? In the broadest sense, military measures to combat Terror have existed since terrorism has. What you seem to be asking - and correct me if I'm wrong - is whether he will use military measures or talk IS down, when he could, in fact, use a mixture of both tactics and everything in between.

Either way, you keep presenting false dichotomies that take out all the nuance. This is a complex situation, surely it stands to reason that the answer will be a little more complicated than "Do we shoot them or do we speak to them? You can only choose one!" Didn't you say you studied International politics or something...?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

OK, so your leader says that the War on Terror has failed, but he'll continue the failing War on Terror to beat ISIS, but it'll be futile because the War on Terror has failed, so he'll simply ask for their unconditional surrender instead.

Is that Jeremy Corbyn's foreign policy?

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Either way, you keep presenting false dichotomies that take out all the nuance. This is a complex situation, surely it stands to reason that the answer will be a little more complicated than "Do we shoot them or do we speak to them? You can only choose one!" Didn't you say you studied International politics or something...?

My entire point is that Corbyn's view is too simplistic. My goal with this is to demonstrate how problematic it is when you start saying things like "the War on Terror has failed" and "conflict ends in talking."

Everyone here is right - there's nuance, there's room for intelligent debate. But to drop a speech like this, four days after a terror attack, and present oversimplified assertions and platitudes is fundamentally wrong.

Is he wrong that Western foreign policy has done calamitous things? No. Is he wrong that we can do far more better at home? No. But he's wrong to use this as a platform to vent this oversimplified, almost utopian, view of international politics in the age of terror.

As a PM he would be forced to be a realist. The fact that he does not appear to subscribe to realist international political philosophy is extremely concerning.

 

[Pandy]

My entire point is that Corbyn's view is too simplistic. My goal with this is to demonstrate how problematic it is when you start saying things like "the War on Terror has failed" and "conflict ends in talking."

Everyone here is right - there's nuance, there's room for intelligent debate. But to drop a speech like this, four days after a terror attack, and present oversimplified assertions and platitudes is fundamentally wrong.

Is he wrong that Western foreign policy has done calamitous things? No. Is he wrong that we can do far more better at home? No. But he's wrong to use this as a platform to vent this oversimplified, almost utopian, view of international politics in the age of terror.

It's your view of Corbyn's view that's too simplistic here, and I'm having a hard time believing you'd be taking the same stance if Farron had come out in support of the speech.

 

[Screaming Meat]

My entire point is that Corbyn's view is too simplistic. My goal with this is to demonstrate how problematic it is when you start saying things like "the War on Terror has failed".

Everyone here is right - there's nuance, there's room for intelligent debate. But to drop a speech like this, four days after a terror attack, and present oversimplified assertions and platitudes is fundamentally wrong.

You're oversimplifying from what I can see. What oversimplified assertions and platitudes has he made?

I don't recall him renouncing the possibility of military action in its totality, so why is it problematic to say "the War on Terror has failed"? It seems obvious to me that he is talking specifically about the post-2001 initiative, especially in the context of the rest of the speech.

Is he wrong that Western foreign policy has done calamitous things? No. Is he wrong that we can do far more better at home? No. But he's wrong to use this as a platform to vent this oversimplified, almost utopian, view of international politics in the age of terror.

What "utopian" view? He made it sound like its going to be hard bloody work, if anything!

As a PM he would be forced to be a realist. The fact that he does not appear to subscribe to realist international political philosophy is extremely concerning.

You'll have to forgive my ignorance here; what does a "realist international political philosophy" look like?

 

[*Splinter]

It sounds like you're simplifying his position and then accusing him of being too simplistic.

Edit: double ninja'd, lol

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Everyone here is right - there's nuance, there's room for intelligent debate. But to drop a speech like this, four days after a terror attack, and present oversimplified assertions and platitudes is fundamentally wrong. It makes the debate more highly strung, it makes it more controversial, it makes it less deep.

In the middle of a general election campaign, it makes any debate actually impossible. People will do what you and others did above. "You're only attacking this because he's the enemy in the General Election!"

That's not the intelligent and reasoned debate that's needed. It is the definition of politicisation that Farron thought was wrong in the quote that many of you recoiled against as hypocritical, wrong, or opportunistic.

You have all fundamentally proven my point.

To extend the Shakespeare quote used by Lord Carlisle on BBC News earlier:

There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

 

[Pixieking]

I have a hard time reconciling this argument:

My entire point is that Corbyn's view is too simplistic. My goal with this is to demonstrate how problematic it is when you start saying things like "the War on Terror has failed" and "conflict ends in talking."

with this statement in Corbyn's speech:

We must support our Armed Services, Foreign Office and International Development professionals, engaging with the world in a way that reduces conflict and builds peace and security.

and this statement (in the same speech):

I have spent my political life working for peace and human rights and to bring an end to conflict and devastating wars. That will almost always mean talking to people you profoundly disagree with. That's what conflict resolution is all about. But do not doubt my determination to take whatever action is necessary to keep our country safe and to protect our people on our streets, in our towns and cities, at our borders.

Especially when you consider that this is actually just meat-and-potatoes stuff. This isn't crazy talk, it's generic political spiel, almost, just with a bias towards non-intervention.

 

[chromatic9]

As a PM he would be forced to be a realist. The fact that he does not appear to subscribe to realist international political philosophy is extremely concerning.

There is no path to peace. Peace is the path, as your avatar once said.

Also some would argue now is the best time for a speech like this, home truths and stark reality.

 

[Pandy]

Everyone here is right - there's nuance, there's room for intelligent debate. But to drop a speech like this, four days after a terror attack, and present oversimplified assertions and platitudes is fundamentally wrong. It makes the debate more highly strung, it makes it more controversial, it makes it less deep.

In the middle of a general election campaign, it makes any debate actually impossible. People will do what you and others did above. "You're only attacking this because he's the enemy in the General Election!"

That's not the intelligent and reasoned debate that's needed.

To extend the Shakespeare quote used by Lord Carlisle on BBC News earlier:

The Greens and SNP seem to be okay with agreeing with the points Corbyn made, despite them being 'enemies'.

And as I said earlier, UKIP had already broken the political silence yesterday in a hateful manner. I'm glad someone was able to redress that today, whatever party they were from.

 

[Maledict]

I'm sorry Huw but your party colours are showing a bit too strongly right now. I deeply dislike Corbyn (check my post history), and don#t agree with a lot of his foreign policy stances, but the fact is the speech was reasonable and going out there and saying it was "fundamentally wrong" is coming across less that you dislike the speech and more of a panicked reaction because he did something decent that's going to hurt lib dem chances in the lib / lab marginals.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

There is no path to peace. Peace is the path, as your avatar once said.

Take a three year course on International Politics and try and explain that to your lecturers.

International politics is a bag of starved cats and nuclear weaponry.

 

[TrutaS]

I didn't feel like he said anything any bit controversial or inappropriate for the time. It was calm considerate, and reflection is a good thing. Spinning this speech into something inappropriate is a reach, I think, and actually the real opportunism from conservatives and lib dem - I hope a lot of others think the same as most of us here seem to do...

 

[Ghost]

My entire point is that Corbyn's view is too simplistic. My goal with this is to demonstrate how problematic it is when you start saying things like "the War on Terror has failed" and "conflict ends in talking."

Everyone here is right - there's nuance, there's room for intelligent debate. But to drop a speech like this, four days after a terror attack, and present oversimplified assertions and platitudes is fundamentally wrong.

Is he wrong that Western foreign policy has done calamitous things? No. Is he wrong that we can do far more better at home? No. But he's wrong to use this as a platform to vent this oversimplified, almost utopian, view of international politics in the age of terror.

As a PM he would be forced to be a realist. The fact that he does not appear to subscribe to realist international political philosophy is extremely concerning.

Don't see how it's worse than the platitudes the other leaders are dropping, in fact it seems much better because at least he's prepared to say 'there has to be a better way' the government's approach is to put the army on the street to make people think they are safe and then go back to business as usual in a couple of weeks.

He was also completely 'real' about Syria and Libya, he opposed action because there was no plan for what would happen after the bombs, and that's what he said today, he wouldn't support action where there was no thought through plan, no end result beyond 'we bombed that', why do you think that wouldn't be achievable?



As with tax, I think the speech as Corbyn made it showed he's already become the 'realist' he'd need to be in government but people are too hung up on his previous attitudes and trying to cram them into his position as he laid it out today.

 

[chromatic9]

Take a three year course on International Politics and try and explain that to your lecturers.

International politics is a bag of starved cats and nuclear weaponry.

Tell that to Corbyn. Close second favourite to run the country.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I'm sorry Huw but your party colours are showing a bit too strongly right now. I deeply dislike Corbyn (check my post history), and don#t agree with a lot of his foreign policy stances, but the fact is the speech was reasonable and going out there and saying it was "fundamentally wrong" is coming across less that you dislike the speech and more of a panicked reaction because he did something decent that's going to hurt lib dem chances in the lib / lab marginals.

I don't think it's that. He's just trying to back up what Farron said.

 

[PJV3]

I think libdems were expecting Corbyn to say something more radical and won't back down over it.

 

[Screaming Meat]

In the middle of a general election campaign, it makes any debate actually impossible. People will do what you and others did above. "You're only attacking this because he's the enemy in the General Election!"

Well, I don't think I've made any such accusations, but okay.

Like, if you want intelligent debate, you have to debate intelligently. I'm genuinely trying to understand your position, but you keep offering up false dichotomies as if they mean anything and then accusing Corbyn of oversimplifying and utopianism (which I really can't see).

You're either being unintentionally ironic or working on levels I can't possibly understand

Especially when you consider that this is actually just meat-and-potatoes stuff. This isn't crazy talk, it's generic political spiel, almost, just with a bias towards non-intervention.

Exactly. It's the least controversial position I can think of.

International politics is a bag of starved cats and nuclear weaponry.

That sounds like a good time.

 

[D4Danger]

I think libdems were expecting Corbyn to say something more radical and won't back down over it.

yeah I think everyone had their attacks ready to go because they were expecting him to say or do something stupid but the speech was perfectly reasonable. Obviously that didn't stop the spin but whatever.

 

[Jackpot]

Corbyn's comment was that all conflicts end in talks - does that include IS?

I have spent my political life working for peace and human rights and to bring an end to conflict and devastating wars. That will almost always mean talking to people you profoundly disagree with. That's what conflict resolution is all about. But do not doubt my determination to take whatever action is necessary to keep our country safe and to protect our people on our streets, in our towns and cities, at our borders.

My entire point is that Corbyn's view is too simplistic.
.
.
.
Everyone here is right - there [should be?] nuance, there's room for intelligent debate. But to drop a speech like this, four days after a terror attack, and present oversimplified assertions and platitudes is fundamentally wrong.

I'm sorry, but speaking as an LD supporter you are not doing yourself any favours.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

yeah I think everyone had their attacks ready to go because they were expecting him to say or do something stupid but the speech was perfectly reasonable. Obviously that didn't stop the spin but whatever.

Even I don't have a problem with this speech. Some of his past decisions and associations sure, but this particular speech seemed fine from the transcript.

 

[kmag]

Corbyn's comment was that all conflicts end in talks - does that include IS?

Probably. Unless you're planning to kill everyone of them or anyone associated with them. Is that official Lib Dem policy? IS aren't particularly unique as far as violent ideologies go, they're relatively analogous to say the Tamil Tigers (although that was ethnic rather than religious) You can't kill an ideology through violence, you need to remove the drivers which makes the ideology attractive to would be followers. If you fail to do that you're simply in the business of limiting operational effectiveness. Although in the case of ISIS one of the major drivers (and funders) of the ideology is our notional ally Saudi Arabia, so any real negotiation would probably be forcing them to properly act.

Again none of this is particularly controversial.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

I think libdems were expecting Corbyn to say something more radical and won't back down over it.

Perhaps, but I'm not sure what they can do other than go for an all-out attack on Labour at this point. The way the polls have shifted towards Labour in recent weeks is really bad news for them, as they were hoping for a Conservative landslide and a Labour wipeout so they could position themselves as 'the new opposition'.

 

[chromatic9]

Could be a real vote winner. I've heard a lot of right and left people say we shouldn't be intervening over the decades. I think some underestimate the feeling.

 

[Spaghetti]

It was pretty good!

stuff

That's encouraging. I'll have to watch the video back when I've got time tonight, but I'm glad a pushback against the "bomb 'em all and let god sort them out" approach is being taken well from the anecdotal evidence.

 

[Madchad]

Im going to have to reluctantly vote Labour.

Wont make much difference either way cons have held this seat for over 20 years.

Would rather diaf than vote tory.

Edit: I said over 20 years i just looked at its closer to 100 years lol

 

[sasliquid]

Nothing he said was controversial but we will see how the media and the tories endless funding will tackle it

Idk if posted before but more details on the current generational split in voting intentions. #eattheold

https://mobile.twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/868001170656296960

 

[PJV3]

Perhaps, but I'm not sure what they can do other than go for an all-out attack on Labour at this point. The way the polls have shifted towards Labour in recent weeks is really bad news for them, as they were hoping for a Conservative landslide and a Labour wipeout so they could position themselves as 'the new opposition'.

Well they are making it very difficult for me to give them my tactical vote at the moment. They should have been the strongly pro EU party that accepted the result, but would look to rejoin as soon as possible.

They are going to achieve bugger all at this rate, libdems being upset by reasonable speeches is not what I expect from them.

 

[Ashes]

Old people vote. Will be mighty interesting to see Labour rhetoric in the coming days.

 

[pswii60]

From just before the speech, but relevant:

To be fair, the people watching Corbyn's speech this morning will be mostly people out of work sat at home, typical Labour supporters

Spoiler

heh

.

Joking aside, Corbyn has always had a loyal following in the real world (ie outside of the media), the question is whether he is only preaching to the converted or whether (as the latest YouGov poll suggests) he is finally gaining some real traction.

Honestly, I think everyone is simply sick to death of May and her 'strong and stable' nonsense.

 

[Beefy]

Katie Hopkins To Leave LBC Radio After ‘Final Solution’ Tweet

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_5927ef98e4b06f6080538666

 

[Screaming Meat]

Katie Hopkins To Leave LBC Radio After ‘Final Solution’ Tweet

m.http://huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_5927ef98e4b06f6080538666

Bye bitch

.

 

[ExitPotato]

What's this weird strawman argument about talking to Isis? They are, and correct me if I'm wrong, effectively a stateless army. They have conquered areas but their hold isn't exactly strong enough to say they are a state. They aren't growing in a way a nation does - having and raising children. Definitely on a long term that model works, but for such a young organisation it can't work.

It's spoken about all the time in the UK, radicalisation. Is that not how they expand in the Middle East? I know that it will seen unfavorably in the public eye, but foreign aid and investment in the vulnerable areas is surely the only way expansion via radicalisation can be prevented.

German and Japan became world leaders after being devastated in the Second World War because of aid and investment from their enemies during the war. Yet wars in the Middle East have devastated the region and the investment in those countries after western powers have pulled out is hardly comparable.

So no, it's not about talking to Isis, it's about talking to and investing those areas that Isis is targeting and showing them a better option.

I'd love to hear others opinions on this, if anyone thinks I'm wrong please let me know.

 

[jelly]

Weird response on the BBC, I thought he said something awful the way they reported it and Fallon, Farron made it out to be worst thing ever. Thought it was fine myself. I know he is more or a less a pacifist but he wasn't that wrong in this speech which was fairly broad strokes and I'm sure he wouldn't be calling up every awful person for a peace chat.

 

[jelly]

Katie Hopkins To Leave LBC Radio After ‘Final Solution’ Tweet

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_5927ef98e4b06f6080538666

But she has bills to pay. HAHAHAHA. Hope she isn't married to a rich guy.

 

[Daffy Duck]

FFS, a friend on Facebook who is rather clever and switched on politically calls out Corbyn for his speech today being politically motivated by the attack on Monday.

I thought he was better than that.

 

[JonathanEx]

Let's be honest, when we have Corbyn painted for months as a 'threat to national security', our political debate isn't really in good faith so it seems weird to think Corbyn would be taken seriously discussing this another time.

 

[Ashes]

Seems like a fair decision by LBC. Call for a 'final solution,' and you stop working there.

So fair, that it feels like I am being sarcastic. But no. That's exactly why they fired her.

 

[hodgy100]

FFS, a friend on Facebook who is rather clever and switched on politically calls out Corbyn for his speech today being politically motivated by the attack on Monday.

I thought he was better than that.

I'd just say that we need to discuss a solution to this problem. We can't keep avoiding the topic, we are letting the right set the level of discourse and any opposing opinion is shouted down as being opportunistic.

Seems like a fair decision by LBC. Call for a 'final solution,' and you stop working there.

So fair, that it feels like I am being sarcastic. But no. That's exactly why they fired her.

Well "final solution" has some pretty fucking massive connotations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution

 

[hodgy100]

EDIT: oops double post!