The Politics Thread 2020

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

Why?

Do you think issue has been handled well then?

[1of4]

6 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Do you think issue has been handled well then?

No. You've done an appalling job of trying to smear Starmer.

[G STAR RAM]

Just now, 1of4 said:

No. You've done an appalling job of trying to smear Starmer.

Why is it a smear? It's a criticism of his work? Have I said anything incorrect? Always happy to be corrected.

Will try again, do you think the grooming gangs scandal has been handled well?

[Highgate]

18 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

I think most of us agree that Blair duckedup.

But I struggle to believe that any UK Prime Minister (at least in my life time) wouldn't have backed the US.

I'm sure there are individual politicians (Benn springs immediataley to mind, as does Foot. and who knows, maybe even Kinnock), but no actual Prime Ministers. 

Not that that says it was ok, just that IMHO it was pretty inevitable.

And no way would have that happened without 9/11.

9/11 was the (albeit fragile) building blocks that the entire invasion was built upon.

Without 9/11 it wouldn't have happened.

 I agree the pressure would have been huge but I don't agree that it was inevitable.  I believe Blair, for whatever reason, was convinced that it was a justifiable course of action. Had he been firmly against the invasion, things may have been different but we'll never know.

Yes I agree that 9/11 was the obvious catalyst for the Bush doctrine  It fundamentally changed the US's foreign policy outlook.  However, 9/11 may have made the invasion of Iraq possible but it could never be credibly used as a justification for the invasion itself.  Hence the other pretexts were fabricated..... WMDs, an imminent threat to the West, or even most implausibly of all, a sudden concern in Washington and London for the people of Iraq themselves. 

[1of4]

10 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Why is it a smear? It's a criticism of his work? Have I said anything incorrect? Always happy to be corrected.

Will try again, do you think the grooming gangs scandal has been handled well?

I've no issues with  Starmer's actions while he was DPP

[A Ram for All Seasons]

2 hours ago, Eatonram said:

In the post 9/11 geopolitical environment, the UK, whichever PM, whichever party, was always going to have succumbed to pressure from the USA to stand by them in responding to what was perceived as a threat.

Very true, but it has now come to the point at which UK subordination to US policy on China is actually being written into the new trade agreement with the USA that is now being negotiated, according to reports in the newspapers.

In future, the USA would be able to to prohibit or sanction any trade by Britain with China that it doesn't like, and would be empowered by treaty to do so.

That doesn't sound like taking back control to me.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/12/us-message-to-britain-in-bilateral-trade-talks-its-us-or-china

[Stive Pesley]

40 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Why is it a smear? It's a criticism of his work? Have I said anything incorrect? Always happy to be corrected.

Will try again, do you think the grooming gangs scandal has been handled well?

Plenty of convictions no?

The DPPs job is to decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence for the crown to prosecute someone, and therefore spend public money on pursuing cases. I think most intelligent adults can agree that must be an incredibly difficult job.

Can you provide examples of all the cases you believe that he handled badly? And what you would have done differently if you were the DPP and not just some rando on a football forum

I mean I'm sure you're not just regurgitating a smear, but others may not be convinced

 

[Bob The Badger]

So @G STAR RAM if you 'Couldnt care less if people come round to my way of thinking'

Why are you on here all day trying to persuade people to come around to you way of thinking?

You're really not very good at this debating malarkey, are you?

 

[Andicis]

19 minutes ago, A Ram for All Seasons said:

Very true, but it has now come to the point at which UK subordination to US policy on China is actually being written into the new trade agreement with the USA that is now being negotiated, according to reports in the newspapers.

In future, the USA would be able to to prohibit or sanction any trade by Britain with China that it doesn't like, and would be empowered by treaty to do so.

That doesn't sound like taking back control to me.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/12/us-message-to-britain-in-bilateral-trade-talks-its-us-or-china

It's not taking back control, I admit, but is it a bad thing to sanction China after all they've done? I feel like that is in line.

[A Ram for All Seasons]

2 minutes ago, Andicis said:

It's not taking back control, I admit, but is it a bad thing to sanction China after all they've done? I feel like that is in line.

It's not sanctioning China, it's sanctioning Britain for not sanctioning China. There is a difference.

[Andicis]

2 minutes ago, A Ram for All Seasons said:

It's not sanctioning China, it's sanctioning Britain for not sanctioning China. There is a difference.

Fair point, I didn't click the link but if that is the case that's shocking.

[ramit]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

The same UN that had its wool so flagrantly pulled over its eyes by Dubya's liar-in-chief, Colin Powell. "This is a railway line. It could be used to transport WMD. This is a shed. It could be used for the storage or manufacture of WMD."

"Well, we're convinced." said the coalition of the willing morons.

I have nothing but contempt for political leaders, so I'm certainly not going to hold up the UN as a paragon of anything, because little countries are too easily influenced by big countries - not by any convincing message, but by the threat (either directly or implied) of sanctions.

Where is the triple clap when you need it?

Iceland was in the "coalition of the willing"  It occurred quite unnaturally, or ordinarily, dependent on one's experience and expectations.  Davíð Oddsson, Iceland's PM at the time got a call from someone, or another, but that it was a yank of some official title, probably a State Department lower level stooge, was good enough for his US lap-doggie aspirations, so he pronounced that yes we were all willing and so grateful to be included.  The matter was never brought up before our foreign affairs committee, as the constitution requires and our befuddled foreign affairs minister was left to explain to the media what had just happened.

Oddsson wanted the NATO base to stay in full operation, so his business friends could continue servicing them and a personal meeting with the US president.  He got neither.

[Bob The Badger]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

The same UN that had its wool so flagrantly pulled over its eyes by Dubya's liar-in-chief, Colin Powell. "This is a railway line. It could be used to transport WMD. This is a shed. It could be used for the storage or manufacture of WMD."

"Well, we're convinced." said the coalition of the willing morons.

I have nothing but contempt for political leaders, so I'm certainly not going to hold up the UN as a paragon of anything, because little countries are too easily influenced by big countries - not by any convincing message, but by the threat (either directly or implied) of sanctions.

Are we even in the same conversation?

I don't disagree with any of that

My point was that that the UN resolution was more than a decade after the USSR break up.

 

[ariotofmyown]

22 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

So @G STAR RAM if you 'Couldnt care less if people come round to my way of thinking'

Why are you on here all day trying to persuade people to come around to you way of thinking?

You're really not very good at this debating malarkey, are you?

 

Well it had the desired effect. Successfully moved the conversation away from the importance of having competent politicians, to a few page debate about right wing conspiracy theories about that old favourite subject, child grooming gangs.

I'm just surprised someone had to create a fake video about Starmer when there is clearly so much evidence against him.

It makes me almost proud to be British though, that right wing types genuinely believe that the UK is so tolerant as a country, that there would be a high level conspiracy to protect grooming gangs of certain ethnicities.  The same sort of people who were also behind the Windrush Scandal, Stephen Lawrence cover up, Hillsborough etc too I presume?

 

[ariotofmyown]

2 hours ago, Uptherams said:

It'll occur in 5 years time

We usually have an election every 18 months or so. And usually because a Tory PM can't control the right wing of their party.

We'll therefore almost certainly have another early one, after the criminal incompetence of the current government has lead to way more deaths than we should have ever had.

[ramit]

48 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

Are we even in the same conversation?

I don't disagree with any of that

My point was that that the UN resolution was more than a decade after the USSR break up.

 

Aren't you forgetting something in between?

From Wikipedia, but it will do for this purpose

Boris Yeltsin, president of Russia 1991-1999

"Yeltsin transformed Russia's state socialist economy into a capitalist market economy by implementing economic shock therapy, market exchange rate of the ruble, nationwide privatization, and lifting of price controls. Economic collapse and inflation ensued. Amid the economic shift, a small number of oligarchs obtained a majority of the national property and wealth,[1] while international monopolies came to dominate the market."

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

[Bob The Badger]

24 minutes ago, ramit said:

Aren't you forgetting something in between?

From Wikipedia, but it will do for this purpose

Boris Yeltsin, president of Russia 1991-1999

"Yeltsin transformed Russia's state socialist economy into a capitalist market economy by implementing economic shock therapy, market exchange rate of the ruble, nationwide privatization, and lifting of price controls. Economic collapse and inflation ensued. Amid the economic shift, a small number of oligarchs obtained a majority of the national property and wealth,[1] while international monopolies came to dominate the market."

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

Are you on the ale?

[ramit]

6 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

Are you on the ale?

Since you missed the point, i will explain it to you like you're 5.  Russia was in no condition to stand up to the USA, only 2 years after Yeltsin had left his ruinous scene, so your over the decade since the fall of The Soviet Union has no relevance.  Did you get that?

[Bob The Badger]

3 minutes ago, ramit said:

Since you missed the point, i will explain it to you like you're 5.  Russia was in no condition to stand up to the USA, only 2 years after Yeltsin had left his ruinous scene, so your over the decade since the fall of The Soviet Union has no relevance.  Did you get that?

No. 

 

[ramit]

7 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

No. 

 

You know you wanna