homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Cameron on Corbyn (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Cameron on Corbyn
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bharat? Saint Reatham?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Quickest way to start a fight with/ostracise yourself from the locals is to mention the M word by the way (just to keep things hellish). They want peaceful co-existence with Argentina, and nothing else. The last referendum, in 2013, had a grand total of 3 people voting to leave Britain.

It would be very interesting if Argentina decided to set up a colony on a previously uninhabited Scottish island and then hold a vote of self-determination on the island's inhabitants.

I remember those 3 people serving me very well in a pub quiz!

Isn't that basically what Spain/Argentina did with Argentina? Except it wasn't uninhabited at the time...

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If it's a Scottish island isn't it by definition part of Scotland...?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870

 - Posted      Profile for Sipech   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If it's a Scottish island isn't it by definition part of Scotland...?

At the moment, yes.

But that's the issue with the Malvinas. They were Argentinian islands. They were colonised by the British who then redesignated them as the Falklands and stated that the population, planted there by the the British, are the only ones who should determine which country the islands belong to.

It's an international case of squatters' rights.

--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile

Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Even if you're right (and I don't think you are) it's no reason not to call the islands the Falklands when writing in English.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If it's a Scottish island isn't it by definition part of Scotland...?

At the moment, yes.

But that's the issue with the Malvinas. They were Argentinian islands.

When? Because it certainly wasn't first....

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If it's a Scottish island isn't it by definition part of Scotland...?

At the moment, yes.

But that's the issue with the Malvinas. They were Argentinian islands.

When? Because it certainly wasn't first....
and when I say "when" - I know there was a when; I think in the great scheme of things they were what, about 5th or 6th to the party?

If you were advocating handing them to France I might think that was the romantically right thing to do...

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58

 - Posted      Profile for Ariel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Xian, Al-Misr, Al-Liban, Deutschland, Espana. Any more for any more?

Actually, Liban is the French version so it's Le Liban, or just Loubnan in the Arabic, and just Misr for the Egyptian Arabic. Sorry. Are we pronouncing Paris as Paree now?
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My memory of left-wing arguments over the Falklands was that they were often geographical. In other words, Hong Kong is Chinese because of geography. Of course, the same argument is used vis a vis N. Ireland.

There were also arguments about colonialism, and I suppose today, it has all been sharpened by the presence of oil.

It was geographical, but there was also a strong element of 'my ciuntry wrong or wrong'. I distinctly reacll a ,lot of people who before March 1982 probably thought that the Falklands were somewhere in the region of the Hebrides suddenly becoming instant experts on the history of the settlement of the South Atlantic in the eraly 1830s.
BTW on the matter of terminiology: if you're writing in Spanish, call them the Malvinas by all means. In French, les Iles Malouines. I will even strecth a point and say that if you are a Spanish speaker writing in English, to write of the Malvinas might be understandable. But in English, the only name is the Falklands, and if you are an English speaker to call them anything else is posturing pretentiousness.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I thought the Arabs attached the definite article to lots of words so, for example, Japan becomes Al-Yaban. (Appreciate the Egyptians do things slightly differently though...)
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58

 - Posted      Profile for Ariel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Depends on the word. Lebanon tends not to be, Jordan usually is for some reason.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, I see. Interesting.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If it's a Scottish island isn't it by definition part of Scotland...?

At the moment, yes.

But that's the issue with the Malvinas. They were Argentinian islands. They were colonised by the British who then redesignated them as the Falklands and stated that the population, planted there by the the British, are the only ones who should determine which country the islands belong to.

It's an international case of squatters' rights.

Even if it is, so what? I think you only establish your claim to land if you do something with it- but then of course I'm bit of a lefty. And it ill-behoves Argentina, a country founded on the appropriation of other people's land by a settler population, to get on this pseudo-legalistic high horse. So, as this is Hell, I feel perfectly free to say fuck off, Argies.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not sure if it was pretentious for the left to call the Falklands the Malvinas; it just seemed to make a political point to me, like calling Derry Derry, and not Londonderry. Well, if you really want to push the boat out, Doire Cholmcille.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alright: let's reserve 'pretentious' for English people who talk about Firenze and Livorno and Savoie and Munchen, and go with wilfully perverse and pro-fascist or at least pro-militaristic-nationalistic posturing instead.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Even if it is, so what? I think you only establish your claim to land if you do something with it- but then of course I'm bit of a lefty. And it ill-behoves Argentina, a country founded on the appropriation of other people's land by a settler population, to get on this pseudo-legalistic high horse. So, as this is Hell, I feel perfectly free to say fuck off, Argies.

Right, according to Albertus, the following British territories are open to anyone who feels like invading:

Rockall and other uninhabited islands in Scotland
The South Sandwich Islands
Several islands in the Caribbean
Most of the British Antarctic

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We have some sort of presence in those places, even if they don't a population; at the very least we take responsibility for navigation and surveying and so forth around them. I mean, I might not avtually live on or even cultivate a piece of land I own but if I see to its fences and drainage and cut the grass occasionally, I reckon that qualifies.
But if you want to bugger off to the South Sandwich Islands and try to colonise them for your foreign regime of choice, matey, I'll gladly wish you bon voyage.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Alright: let's reserve 'pretentious' for English people who talk about Firenze and Livorno and Savoie and Munchen, and go with wilfully perverse and pro-fascist or at least pro-militaristic-nationalistic posturing instead.

Ah yes, imperialism has always said, stick with us, we have liberal principles, whereas your leaders, X, Y, and Z are right-wing nationalists. Very high-minded. I think Napoleon used to use this line.

[ 17. September 2015, 16:21: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But in the case of the Falklands- where we didn't AFAIK evict any native population- we were indeed the comparatively liberal ones, certainly in 1982 when Argentina was under a truly nasty regime. (The fact that Thatch's government had been trying to shunt the islands off Argentina under some dubious 'leaseback' or 'shared sovereignty' fudge in the immediate run-up to the invasion makes no difference to the fact that we were right to geet them back once they had been taken; it just shows up the falsity of Thatch's blustering claims to patriotic glory. Contrast that with Jim Callaghan, solid social patriot and loyal son of the Navy, who quietly saw off the Argies in '77 even though he said later that he recognised quite how big an electoral asset a victorious war could be.)

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
at the very least we take responsibility for navigation and surveying and so forth around them.

Having spent 6 months crashing around the British Antarctic Territory on an icebreaker (among other things rescuing idiot yachtsmen), I can certainly vouch for that.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Course, if a multinational needed a reservoir, or business wanted a railway *cough* HS2 *cough*, and it involved the compulsory purchase of a few thousand homes - we'd just give people grants and move them.

One wonders exactly where the differences lie. Though there is definitely something different about the two situations.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, for a start, moving people off land to make way for stuff is governed by a legislative framework in a way that putting a landing craft in Port Stanley harbour isn't.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Clearly, but the dispute over the sovereignty of the Falklands both pre and post dates the Falklands war.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's no dispute as far as I'm concerned. [Biased]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We could always sell it off to cut the deficit ...

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You need to find some wealthy chum to value it at £Xbillion first, then sell it off do said chum can buy it for £X/2 billion before making a fortune selling it on, oh and giving a nice little donation to party funds in the process.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:

But that's the issue with the Malvinas. They were Argentinian islands.

Well, if you want to be precise, the British control of the Falklands predates the existence of anything called "Argentina".

In other news, the beaker people want their island back.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Well, if you want to be precise, the British control of the Falklands predates the existence of anything called "Argentina".

In other news, the beaker people want their island back.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that is the only deciding factor under international law. I think there are a lot of international disputes around sovereignty of land to which the country feels it has a stake even though it was not a named country at the time.

It seems to me that Argentina was entitled to try to annex the islands by Conquest, and the British were entitled to defend their claim by war.

Again, I could be completely wrong, but it bothers me that we always get the British version of events without any challenge to the view that Argentina had no rights to make a claim.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

It seems to me that Argentina was entitled to try to annex the islands by Conquest, and the British were entitled to defend their claim by war.

Again, I could be completely wrong, but it bothers me that we always get the British version of events without any challenge to the view that Argentina had no rights to make a claim.

As this thread is about politics we shouldn't ignore the political aspects of the 1982 Falklands war. Galtieri, the Argentinian dictator at the time, tried to use the invasion to bolster the failing military regime. When the Falklands venture failed, the military regime failed and Galtieri with it. Meanwhile Margaret Thatcher gained hugely from the British military success in personal terms and it laid the foundation for nearly fifteen years further Conservative government.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais: Galtieri, the Argentinian dictator at the time, tried to use the invasion to bolster the failing military regime. When the Falklands venture failed, the military regime failed and Galtieri with it. Meanwhile Margaret Thatcher gained hugely from the British military success in personal terms and it laid the foundation for nearly fifteen years further Conservative government.
Everyone's a winner!
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais: Galtieri, the Argentinian dictator at the time, tried to use the invasion to bolster the failing military regime. When the Falklands venture failed, the military regime failed and Galtieri with it. Meanwhile Margaret Thatcher gained hugely from the British military success in personal terms and it laid the foundation for nearly fifteen years further Conservative government.
Everyone's a winner!
Except all those dead people, of course.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais: Galtieri, the Argentinian dictator at the time, tried to use the invasion to bolster the failing military regime. When the Falklands venture failed, the military regime failed and Galtieri with it. Meanwhile Margaret Thatcher gained hugely from the British military success in personal terms and it laid the foundation for nearly fifteen years further Conservative government.
Everyone's a winner!
Except all those dead people, of course.
And Galtieri.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870

 - Posted      Profile for Sipech   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais: Galtieri, the Argentinian dictator at the time, tried to use the invasion to bolster the failing military regime. When the Falklands venture failed, the military regime failed and Galtieri with it. Meanwhile Margaret Thatcher gained hugely from the British military success in personal terms and it laid the foundation for nearly fifteen years further Conservative government.
Everyone's a winner!
Except all those dead people, of course.
And Galtieri.
And the British people, who ended up with a further 15 years of the Conservative regime.

--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile

Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, for a start, moving people off land to make way for stuff is governed by a legislative framework in a way that putting a landing craft in Port Stanley harbour isn't.

Trust me, when the islands become one gigantic oil refinery, the people will be removed quicker than you can say "General Belgrano".

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
leftfieldlover
Shipmate
# 13467

 - Posted      Profile for leftfieldlover         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Just after Jeremy Corbyn was elected, David Cameron sent a message out:

"The Labour party is now a threat to out national security, our economic security, and your families security"

You total and utter, immoral pile of foetid shit.

1. Corbyn opposes nuclear weapons. Apparently that is a threat to our national security - more than your continual aggression towards the middle east.

Nuclear weapons are an irrelevance today. They are a way of you syphoning off more money to your cronies, and not to those who need it - the poor in our society. We are not going to nuke Syria, or Afghanistan, or Calais. Scrapping them is NOT a threat to our national security.

In truth, I believe Corbyn would improve our national security, because he is prepared to talk to people he opposes. A far better way.

2. The biggest threat to our economic security as a nation is you, Mr Cameron. Corbyn is a real threat to the economic security of the very rich, including yourself and a number of members of your cabinet. He is a threat to the bankers, the people - in case you have forgotten - who caused the economic crisis in the first place. He is a huge threat to the economic security of the 1%.

But for the country, for the 99%, he is no threat. I am SICK of the constant talk that a socialist approach to economics is a threat. It is different, it has a different set of success indicators, but it can work. Unless you happen to be in the 1%.

And if you happen to be a corrupt, manipulative, lying bastard, then yes, Corbyn is a threat. The sooner you and your cronies get the fucking you deserve, the better.

3. My families security is under severe threat from your policies. It is your austerity measures, your damaging of our economy that threatens my families security. Having to change job, not being able to retire or be declared disabled. It is your policies that mean my children struggle to find good jobs.

Cameron, you suck. You are desperately scared of someone with principles, morals, ideas, someone who is not scared of you, because Corbyn will show up your utter lack of these. Your only response is, once again, to try to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Rot in hell, you loathsome, vile prick. And when you have rotted there, rot some more.

So true!
Posts: 164 | From: oxford | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, for a start, moving people off land to make way for stuff is governed by a legislative framework in a way that putting a landing craft in Port Stanley harbour isn't.

Tell that to the Chagos Islanders. They were deported from their homes in the early 1970's when the UK sold rights to the main island to enable the US to build a military base on Diego Garcia. All strictly "legal" especially if you are in possession of the territory (which is itself disputed).

The Chagossians were dirt poor, working on plantations, when they lived there. Now the dirt has gone they are just plain poor and regarded as stateless outsiders wherever they now live, all thanks to civilised nations operating within international law.

[ 18. September 2015, 10:21: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais: Galtieri, the Argentinian dictator at the time, tried to use the invasion to bolster the failing military regime. When the Falklands venture failed, the military regime failed and Galtieri with it. Meanwhile Margaret Thatcher gained hugely from the British military success in personal terms and it laid the foundation for nearly fifteen years further Conservative government.
Everyone's a winner!
Except all those dead people, of course.
And Galtieri.
Which means that the Argentinian people were winners too. Grim as the next 15 years here were, I think they'd be nothing compared to what might have happened in Argentina under a revivified and victorious junta.
Oh and of course the treatment of the Chagossians has been disgraceful. Makes no difference to the Falklands business, though.

[ 18. September 2015, 14:46: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
From Albertus

quote:
a lot of people who before March 1982 probably thought that the Falklands were somewhere in the region of the Hebrides
I was one - though not the Hebrides exactly. And I had an echo of it recently when visiting the Faroes. I knew it was the Faroes, I knew it was geologically very different, but the Far/l beginning, and the sheep, conspired to keep the southern word bouncing up in my mind. Though fortunately never any further. Oddly, it didn't happen in March, but it did happen in August. That was even odder, because in March the guide kept on and on about the war, and in August it was not mentioned.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
alienfromzog

Ship's Alien
# 5327

 - Posted      Profile for alienfromzog   Email alienfromzog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So, the Right Honourable David Cameron was at his eloquent best yesterday.

quote:
The Prime Minister's Conference Speech:
You only really need to know one thing: he thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a “tragedy”.

No. A tragedy is nearly 3,000 people murdered one morning in New York. A tragedy is the mums and dads who never came home from work that day. A tragedy is people jumping from the towers after the planes hit.

My friends – we cannot let that man inflict his security-threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating ideology on the country we love.

[Eek!] Wow, is that what Mr Corbyn said? Ok, let's have a look:
quote:
Jeremy Corbyn,
There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him, to put him on trial, to go through that process.

‘This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy.’

The World Trade Centre was a tradegy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died. Torture has come back on to the world stage, been canonised virtually into law by Guantanamo and Bagram.

Can’t we learn some lessons over this?

In the same conversation he said that the solution to terrorism was 'law not war'

Now, Mr Prime Minister, I have three problems with this:

1. That's not what tragedy means. A tragedy has something of the unfortunate to it or the unavoidable. Accidents may be tragic or natural disasters. 9/11 wasn't a tragedy it was horrific. It was cold-blooded murder. I know this is semantics but words really matter here.

2. You are implying that Corbyn was making an equivalence argument. He wasn't. His point was more subtle that that. He was arguing that the only proper way to deal with a criminal like Bin Laden is by not stooping to his level. Not least because he believes to do so is to create a spiral of violence. Corbyn was saying (as is made clear elsewhere in the conversation) that death is a tragedy and he felt very strongly that an assassination was the wrong choice. There are lots of factors which I suspect lead to the US policy of capture/kill rather than put on trial and one could argue that it is tragic that we didn't rise above this. That we lowered ourselves to such a level. Furthermore if the use of violence creates the spiral of more terror and more unrest and violence that is clearly a tragedy upon a tragedy.

You may not agree with his analysis but to characterise his position as sympathy with terrorism is blatantly dishonest.

3. Corbyn has a point. This is an area where well-thought-through policy and approach is vital for the security of us all. To indulge in such a sound-bite slur is deeply irresponsible as well as a blatant lie.

So, Mr Prime Minister: [Mad] [Mad] [Mad]

Sadly, I expected nothing less from you.

AFZ

--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]

An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)

Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is a man who despite "being against the death penalty in any form, where ever", just ordered - and boasted about - assassinating two British citizens abroad.

I bet Putin's relieved the heat's off regarding Litvinenko...

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's not surprising that Cameron is lying about Corbyn, it's a matter of constructing a narrative, and hoping that it sticks. Its connection with truth is irrelevant.

No doubt the tabloids will support Cameron's lies, but I suspect that Corbyn still has an appeal under the radar, well, I mean, despite these lies. Also, hopefully, he will begin to challenge them.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Corbyn might well do a simple reiteration of what be actually said, then retaliate with an assessment of how many more people are now living below subsistence level as a consequence of benefit cuts, and the additional early deaths and child mortality that will cause.

As for talking to terrorists, we enthusiastically chum up to China and Saudi Arabia, two of the most violent and oppressive regimes on the planet who routinely kill and mutilate their own citizens. Osborne was out there just a couple of weeks ago and was praised by the Chinese regime for "not stressing human rights issues". What can you say?

If North Korea had the same resources and economic muscle, I'm sure we would suck up to Kim Jong Un too.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I had to laugh at Hunt praising the Chinese for working hard!

It strikes me that Corbyn hasn't got a rebuttal unit in place yet, but that may be deliberate, as he may not want a slick Blairite PR machine in place. But he has to have some kind of rebuttal staff.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I had to laugh at Hunt praising the Chinese for working hard!

It strikes me that Corbyn hasn't got a rebuttal unit in place yet, but that may be deliberate, as he may not want a slick Blairite PR machine in place. But he has to have some kind of rebuttal staff.

It could be part of a cunning strategy. Alot of people I know are geniunely excited about the Corbyn alternative and are engaged in the political process for the first time in ages. Not responding to "Project Fear" could actually work in Corbyn's favour in some circlees. That said, he probably needs to counter some of the more outrageous stuff as some of it's just plain lies. (The fact that this is the best that Cameron can come up with says loads about him and the current state of the Tory party).

The Tories could also be geniuely worried. They sneaked in this time around because the centre Left / Left vote was split between the Greens and Labour. If Corbyn continues to convince them, comes up with some appealing policies AND the Greens still can't find a decent leader, it could be interesting next election. [Big Grin]

Tubbs

[ 08. October 2015, 13:10: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Good points, Tubbs. Part of me feels in despair at times at the amount of lying going on - what kind of example is this to young people? That to govern the country, you need a Ph. D. in mendacity?

Of course, they reckon that you need to fix the image of an opponent early on, and it sticks, thus Corbyn 'refuses to see the Queen' and so on.

But maybe also, it's a sign of worry. Hey boss, shall I smear this guy?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The Tories could also be geniuely worried.

I'm just back from the Conservative Party Conference. The Tories aren't worried about Corbyn. Not at all.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The Tories could also be geniuely worried.

I'm just back from the Conservative Party Conference. The Tories aren't worried about Corbyn. Not at all.
Good. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The Tories could also be geniuely worried.

I'm just back from the Conservative Party Conference. The Tories aren't worried about Corbyn. Not at all.
Good. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
That's right, which is how Ed Miliband swept to victory. Oh, hang on...
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The Tories could also be geniuely worried.

I'm just back from the Conservative Party Conference. The Tories aren't worried about Corbyn. Not at all.
Good. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
That's right, which is how Ed Miliband swept to victory. Oh, hang on...
Ed Miliband was indistinguishable from Cameron and Clegg in too many ways so he didn't have anything like the support Corbyn has within the party and without. Moreover Corbyn won't have to resort to telling a pack of lies to get the party faithful and the country behind him.

Given time the Tories will worry, and their main concern will be who replaces Cameron at the head of their own party. I doubt Labour will worry a lot about that.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Ed Miliband was indistinguishable from Cameron and Clegg in too many ways so he didn't have anything like the support Corbyn has within the party and without.

Yes. Whether or not it was the bacon sandwich what done it, nobody was voting Miliband because
they were excited about him or his policies.

quote:
Moreover Corbyn won't have to resort to telling a pack of lies to get the party faithful and the country behind him.
Whether the country will buy in to Corbyn remains to be seen. He's clearly presenting a very different offering from "We're slightly nicer than the Tories".

My feeling is that there are some individual policies that will be popular, but the whole Corbyn package will be too extreme for Mondeo Man and his fellow floating voters, and that he'll prove to be as popular as Michael Foot. I suspect that the hope of the left that an explosion of millions of disaffected leftist non-voters will turn out to vote Corbyn will turn out to be a damp squib.

But we'll see - five years is a long time in politics.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools