Keir Starmer - Labour Party leader

[west country boy]

Originally Posted by SE25 exile

America and the Russians?

PRC is hardly blameless either, and nor are India/Pakistan.

[Adlerhorst]

Originally Posted by west country boy

PRC is hardly blameless either, and nor are India/Pakistan.

Soviet Union invade Afghanistan and 2 million people died. North Korea (and China) invaded South Korea and that’s another 1.5m dead.

Everyone forgets 5 million people died after North Korea (and China) invaded South Korea.

Obviously that self proclaimed socialist states invaded their neighbours is all NATO’s fault.

[stevek]

Originally Posted by cockneyrebel

NATO represents the imperialist interests of its leading nations. Who have been the biggest war mongers since WW2.

NATO was always about defending Europe from the threat from the Soviet Union. Arguably, its raison d'etre was therefore weakened after the fall of the USSR. But it is clear that is no longer the case - and that is why Sweden and Finland now want to join. Whatever you may argue about the alleged 'imperialist interests' of some of its members, NATO itself is clearly a defensive alliance.

[cockneyrebel]

Originally Posted by legaleagle2

EFA

This just isn’t true. Look at a list of wars and coups since WW2 and the US and U.K. are top of the list. But yes Stalinism and capitalise Russia are also terrible.

NATO isn’t there for peace. Afghanistan being a point in case.

[Hpalace]

Originally Posted by stevek

NATO was always about defending Europe from the threat from the Soviet Union. Arguably, its raison d'etre was therefore weakened after the fall of the USSR. But it is clear that is no longer the case - and that is why Sweden and Finland now want to join. Whatever you may argue about the alleged 'imperialist interests' of some of its members, NATO itself is clearly a defensive alliance.

The NATO mission in Afghanistan was not a defensive manoeuvre. I agree NATO was set up as a defensive alliance and I am supportive of NATO but there’s no point in pretending it’s purely defensive when it’s demonstrably untrue.

[cockneyrebel]

Originally Posted by stevek

NATO was always about defending Europe from the threat from the Soviet Union. Arguably, its raison d'etre was therefore weakened after the fall of the USSR. But it is clear that is no longer the case - and that is why Sweden and Finland now want to join. Whatever you may argue about the alleged 'imperialist interests' of some of its members, NATO itself is clearly a defensive alliance.

Nothing alleged about it. NATO represents imperialist interests and will go along with whatever that is. The leading countries in it have caused more wars than anyone else since ww2 and have supported dictators and coups all over the world. The idea that NATO stands separate from all that is totally wrong.

[Adlerhorst]

Originally Posted by Hpalace

The NATO mission in Afghanistan was not a defensive manoeuvre. I agree NATO was set up as a defensive alliance and I am supportive of NATO but there’s no point in pretending it’s purely defensive when it’s demonstrably untrue.

It’s the only time article 5 has ever been used.

[west country boy]

Originally Posted by Adlerhorst

Soviet Union invade Afghanistan and 2 million people died. North Korea (and China) invaded South Korea and that’s another 1.5m dead.

Everyone forgets 5 million people died after North Korea (and China) invaded South Korea.

Obviously that self proclaimed socialist states invaded their neighbours is all NATO’s fault.

PRC borrowing Tibet was down to Nato too, of course.

[Hpalace]

Originally Posted by Adlerhorst

It’s the only time article 5 has ever been used.

Yep. And it was used to invade a foreign nation that had limited at best involvement in 9/11. It wasn’t defensive - Afghanistan were not a military threat to any NATO ally. A terrorist threat maybe but there have been a lot of other terrorists from a lot of other countries and article 5 has, as you say, never been used in defence against any of them.

[Adlerhorst]

Originally Posted by Hpalace

Yep. And it was used to invade a foreign nation that had limited at best involvement in 9/11. It wasn’t defensive - Afghanistan were not a military threat to any NATO ally. A terrorist threat maybe but there have been a lot of other terrorists from a lot of other countries and article 5 has, as you say, never been used in defence against any of them.

Strictly speaking the Article 5 related to the terrorist act. The Taliban were asked to give up Bin Laden. They refused. So I get the rationale for military intervention to eliminate terrorist bases. Whether that is best achieved by a full scale invasion with regime change is another matter.

It remains NATOs only offensive (non peacekeeping) action though, in 70 plus years.

[Philipw]

Originally Posted by cockneyrebel

Odd that you vote for this horrific government and then zone in on being concerned about others criticising Starmer.

You might want to assess why you think this horrific government would be worse than a left social democratic one.

I don't need any self reflection thanks as perfectly happy with my decision making.

The bit you miss is that is voters like me who helped keep Blair in power in the 2000s. So, if labour wants to get back into power (as opposed to just offering theoretical/dreamy alternatives that JC offered and are not going to win elections), they need to figure out how to win over floating voters. And I can tell you with certainty that if party members spend their time infighting (and publicly slating KS), their chances will be very severely diminished.

[Baffled Bob 2]

Originally Posted by stevek

NATO was always about defending Europe from the threat from the Soviet Union. Arguably, its raison d'etre was therefore weakened after the fall of the USSR. But it is clear that is no longer the case - and that is why Sweden and Finland now want to join. Whatever you may argue about the alleged 'imperialist interests' of some of its members, NATO itself is clearly a defensive alliance.

Yep. And at the risk of Spindle calling me thick as dogshit again, I do get why apolitical people voted against a potential prime minister that spent his 40 years in parliament opposing it.

Regardless of what was in the manifesto.

[cockneyrebel]

Originally Posted by Philipw

I don't need any self reflection thanks as perfectly happy with my decision making.

The bit you miss is that is voters like me who helped keep Blair in power in the 2000s. So, if labour wants to get back into power (as opposed to just offering theoretical/dreamy alternatives that JC offered and are not going to win elections), they need to figure out how to win over floating voters. And I can tell you with certainty that if party members spend their time infighting (and publicly slating KS), their chances will be very severely diminished.

I think people need to be convinced to change their views if they have views like yours, not pandered to, otherwise mass suffering will continue.

If you feel comfortable voting for this rancid administration over Scandinavian type social democracy that’s up to you, but personally I’m not really bothered about you pontificating over what labour members should or shouldn’t do.

[cockneyrebel]

Originally Posted by Baffled Bob 2

Yep. And at the risk of Spindle calling me thick as dogshit again, I do get why apolitical people voted against a potential prime minister that spent his 40 years in parliament opposing it.

Regardless of what was in the manifesto.

Yes better to vote for a candidate who was a security risk by pandering to Russian oligarchs.

[El Aguila]

Some of what Johnson is doing now was already predictable once he started sacking Tory MPs who disagreed with him, though. And it was already clear that Corbyn wasn’t up to that sort of totalitarian shit. So I do think Tory voters have to “own” that - they have to accept that they chose authoritarianism and the anti-democratic path.

[Baffled Bob 2]

Originally Posted by cockneyrebel

Yes better to vote for a candidate who was a security risk by pandering to Russian oligarchs.

I didn't vote Tory. I never have.

I was positing a suggestion that not all people who vote Tory are thick, selfish or racist.

I still believe it too.

[Philipw]

Originally Posted by cockneyrebel

I think people need to be convinced to change their views if they have views like yours, not pandered to, otherwise mass suffering will continue.

If you feel comfortable voting for this rancid administration over Scandinavian type social democracy that’s up to you, but personally I’m not really bothered about you pontificating over what labour members should or shouldn’t do.

If you honestly think the general public viewed Corbyn and his politics as akin to Scandinavia, you really are living in a different world. Anyway, if labour party members carry on slating Starmer, they’ll be playing straight into Tory hands and make the job of getting into power that much harder. Pretty odd strategy imo but hey ho

[Spindle]

Originally Posted by Baffled Bob 2

Yep. And at the risk of Spindle calling me thick as dogshit again, I do get why apolitical people voted against a potential prime minister that spent his 40 years in parliament opposing it.

Regardless of what was in the manifesto.

I get why too. They have thick as dogshit level geopolitical insight

[Spindle]

Originally Posted by Baffled Bob 2

I didn't vote Tory. I never have.

I was positing a suggestion that not all people who vote Tory are thick, selfish or racist.

I still believe it too.

No, the rest are rich.

[Ogilvy]

I don’t want a fat lying old Etonian that I helped vote in.
I don’t believe in Brexit.
I don’t want a far left IRA cuddling scumbag.
I don’t want to be represented by Diane Abbot on a world stage.
I don’t want to protest vote some empty Lib / Green bunch of Yoga fans.
I truly believe Blair is a war criminal and harmed this country more than Thatcher.

Kier - for the moment, for me he’s not Johnson, and seems to have some integrity, however I am hardly likely to vote for a party that seems to hate its own leader.