Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Wait. Hold Up. What?

A Respect thread dedicated to Jeremy Corbyn?


Yes. You read that right kids.

Respect

So he will become the next Prime Minister of the UK?

https://seethingsage.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/sign-letters-someday.jpg

Cheryl Lynn Toblin. Malik Yusef.

Good Morning Good Night: Dawn

Track: 03

**** him.

I'm glad he's getting away from the soundbite politics that seems to dominate everywhere that treat every voter like a total moron.

The man who couldn't answer on whether or not the UK would defend itself if attacked? The guy who wrote "build bridges not walls" on a wall? That guy, the one who keeps getting called out for supporting extremists? Ok

Isn't Corbyn a communist?

Originally posted by Stigma
Isn't Corbyn a communist? He says no publicly but yes at their rallies. I'll put it to you like this, the UK has a Communist Party and chose to not field a candidate and threw their support behind Corbyn.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
He says no publicly but yes at their rallies. I'll put it to you like this, the UK has a Communist Party and chose to not field a candidate and threw their support behind Corbyn.
I see. That's very worrying.

Originally posted by Stigma
Isn't Corbyn a communist?

He's probably as left as Sanders. A bit more on some issues.

Originally posted by jaden101
He's probably as left as Sanders. A bit more on some issues. I'd agree proportionally, but Europe on the whole is farther left than the US on Whole. (there are obvious exceptions)

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
He says no publicly but yes at their rallies. I'll put it to you like this, the UK has a Communist Party and chose to not field a candidate and threw their support behind Corbyn.

Let's not get carried away. I'm not sure how influential their 0 elected representatives and 700 members were.

Originally posted by Stigma
Isn't Corbyn a communist? He's a comrade.

Originally posted by jaden101
Let's not get carried away. I'm not sure how influential their 0 elected representatives and 700 members were. I agree and recind that comment. It wasn't a fair remark, you shouldn't judge someone by the people who follow them.

That said Corbyn has spoken at their rallies.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
The man who couldn't answer on whether or not the UK would defend itself if attacked? The guy who wrote "build bridges not walls" on a wall? That guy, the one who keeps getting called out for supporting extremists? Ok Haha, okay. Aside from him confirming in his campaign that he would write "the letter" to Trident if we were attacked, and all of the "supporting extremists" stuff being nonsense made up by the media. Sure. You clearly know your stuff, mate.


Oh and he wrote something on a wall!? He must literally be Satan.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
I agree and recind that comment. It wasn't a fair remark, you shouldn't judge someone by the people who follow them.

That said Corbyn has spoken at their rallies.
That being said, if you were at a rally with people holding flags and banner with swastikas, and didn't make it a point to denounce the nazi symbolism then and there and just kinda went along with it, you would come off really really sketchy and potentially shoot your political career in the foot.

Originally posted by Scribble
Haha, okay. Aside from him confirming in his campaign that he would write "the letter" to Trident if we were attacked, and all of the "supporting extremists" stuff being nonsense made up by the media. Sure. You clearly know your stuff, mate.


Oh and he wrote something on a wall!? He must literally be Satan. He was straight up asked and couldn't answer the question, I'm sure he came out with an answer when his party saw how autistic he came off. LMFAO at him constantly placating terrorists and extremists as media fiction, he called Castro a man who shot opposition members in ditches a "champion of social justice." Get the f*ck out of here with that bullsh*t. And while you're gone look up irony and ways to remove that stick from your rectumOriginally posted by Emperordmb
That being said, if you were at a rally with people holding flags and banner with swastikas, and didn't make it a point to denounce the nazi symbolism then and there and just kinda went along with it, you would come off really really sketchy and potentially shoot your political career in the foot. agreed? Especially if I was invited by the Nazi party of America and then went on a tangent about socialism and seizing property.

Right-wing loons/Trumpers seem to dislike this Corbyn fellow, so he's probably a decent politician

Yeah right? must be a decent bloke.

Originally posted by Quincy
Yeah right? must be a decent bloke.
Yeah, just like his champion of social justice, Fidel Castro.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Yeah, just like his champion of social justice, Fidel Castro.

I don't know why so many people make such a big deal out of Corbyn's comment about Fidel Castro. If I recall, several world figures said similar things when Castro died, it's simply a matter of courtesy. And Corbyn was calling Castro a champion of social justice in regards to his efforts to bring an end to apartheid in South Africa.



And apparently, South Africans agree. I can't post links, but there are articles which suggest that this is the case. For example, this one from NY Times:

Originally posted by lazybones
I don't know why so many people make such a big deal out of Corbyn's comment about Fidel Castro. If I recall, several world figures said similar things when Castro died, it's simply a matter of courtesy. And Corbyn was calling Castro a champion of social justice in regards to his efforts to bring an end to apartheid in South Africa.
Then they too are bloody idiots, then. I bet they'll praise Robert Mugabe in a similar fashion when he finally kicks the bucket.

Originally posted by lazybones
I don't know why so many people make such a big deal out of Corbyn's comment about Fidel Castro. If I recall, several world figures said similar things when Castro died, it's simply a matter of courtesy. And Corbyn was calling Castro a champion of social justice in regards to his efforts to bring an end to apartheid in South Africa.



And apparently, South Africans agree. I can't post links, but there are articles which suggest that this is the case. For example, this one from NY Times: Same reason the left condemns fascism but accepts communism despite the fact that communism has far far more dead behind it.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Then they too are bloody idiots, then. I bet they'll praise Robert Mugabe in a similar fashion when he finally kicks the bucket. Well, I don't think they're idiots, but rather cautious about saying anything inflammatory (albeit true) as they don't want to damage foreign relations. We've already got a fair share of hostile tinpot dictatorships to deal with, so adding more to the list probably isn't a good idea.

Originally posted by Scribble
Haha, okay. Aside from him confirming in his campaign that he would write "the letter" to Trident if we were attacked, and all of the "supporting extremists" stuff being nonsense made up by the media. Sure. You clearly know your stuff, mate.


Oh and he wrote something on a wall!? He must literally be Satan. it's truly dystopian, a man who would rather solve problems with words is villified. I think if somone said to me would you sanction a nuclear strike. I couldn't give a yes or no answer. Killing millions shouldn't be an easy choice. Not if you're sane anyway.

Originally posted by lazybones
Well, I don't think they're idiots, but rather cautious about saying anything inflammatory (albeit true) as they don't want to damage foreign relations. We've already got a fair share of hostile tinpot dictatorships to deal with, so adding more to the list probably isn't a good idea. Cuba isn't a threat militarily or economically

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
The man who couldn't answer on whether or not the UK would defend itself if attacked?


And by that you mean he wouldn't answer about throwing a nuclear bomb back at a country who threw one first.

Perhaps because getting into a nuclear war would be a really stupid, destructive and ultimately pointless thing to do.


Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
it's truly dystopian, a man who would rather solve problems with words is villified. I think if somone said to me would you sanction a nuclear strike. I couldn't give a yes or no answer. Killing millions shouldn't be an easy choice. Not if you're sane anyway.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
And by that you mean he wouldn't answer about throwing a nuclear bomb back at a country who threw one first.

Perhaps because getting into a nuclear war would be a really stupid, destructive and ultimately pointless thing to do. Holy shit, that has got to be the single dumbest thing I've read in years.

If the UK is getting nuked, it is in a nuclear war. As much as the liberals view MAD as a horrible policy it has allowed us unprecedented peace. When you drop "Mutually" you Assure Destruction.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
When you drop "Mutually" you Assure Destruction. cute.

Corbyn is the man.

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
Corbyn is the man.
He's a tool.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
And by that you mean he wouldn't answer about throwing a nuclear bomb back at a country who threw one first.

Perhaps because getting into a nuclear war would be a really stupid, destructive and ultimately pointless thing to do.
Even if he wouldn't actually retaliate, not saying he'd retaliate is stupid. It's essentially telling other countries with nukes that they could nuke the UK without getting nuked back.

As long as nukes exist, MAD is what prevents their use, and someone who doesn't want nuclear war would be wise to commit to that.

He's not as great as Dennis Skinner I'll grant you. If he was a tool he'd be an industrial sandblaster cleaning away the shi of new labour, renovating and making socialism great again.

Alright, this Corbyn fellow does indeed sound like a decent guy, like he's clearly not going to knee-jerk and immediately launch the UK's nuclear arsenal even if a nuke goes off in the UK before he's weighed all the outcomes

Jesus, even Jill ****ing Stein has a bigger set of balls than Corbyn.

Sticking to your principles = having no balls.

Lel.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Sticking to your principles = having no balls.

Lel.
Sticking to principles of gutlessness is indeed having no balls.

cool story bro, btw, doesn't Jill Stein want to get rid of America's nuclear weapons?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
cool story bro, btw, doesn't Jill Stein want to get rid of America's nuclear weapons?
I don't know her stance on nuclear weapons, but at least she stated that she would order military action in a case of an imminent threat to the US.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Holy shit, that has got to be the single dumbest thing I've read in years.



That's because you're idiotic so can't tell the difference between a dumb comment and a sensible one.


Originally posted by Henry_Pym


If the UK is getting nuked, it is in a nuclear war. As much as the liberals view MAD as a horrible policy it has allowed us unprecedented peace. When you drop "Mutually" you Assure Destruction.


If "Iran" actually did throw a Nuke at the UK (which is what the questioner asked JC), every nation in the UN would immediately bomb (with more regular bombs) Iran until they surrendered. So why exactly do you want to literally slaughter a million Arabs unnecessarily due to an action of their unelected dictatorship?

You see it pays to Think sometimes.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
That's because you're idiotic so can't tell the difference between a dumb comment and a sensible one.

If "Iran" actually did throw a Nuke at the UK (which is what the questioner asked JC), every nation in the UN would immediately bomb (with more regular bombs) Iran until they surrendered. So why exactly do you want to literally slaughter a million Arabs unnecessarily due to an action of their unelected dictatorship?

You see it pays to Think sometimes. Like advertising to your enemies you won't strike back... You also destroyed your own argument...

Re-read your post and find it yourself, Mr sensible.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
That's because you're idiotic so can't tell the difference between a dumb comment and a sensible one.


Realize you're talking to a guy who used 'Hawking's doesn't speak well!' as a retort to someone who was using Trump's very poor grammar and speaking skills to say that Trump's not a genius.

Realize you're talking to a guy who literally said Trump has a genius level I.Q.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I don't know her stance on nuclear weapons, but at least she stated that she would order military action in a case of an imminent threat to the US. She wants to get rid of nuclear weapons, and Corbyn never said he wouldn't order any military action in a case of imminent threat to the UK.

Regardless TIL: not wanting to blow up millions of people makes you a gutless coward. Lmao.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
She wants to get rid of nuclear weapons, and Corbyn never said he wouldn't order any military action in a case of imminent threat to the UK.

Regardless TIL: not wanting to blow up millions of people makes you a gutless coward. Lmao.
Getting rid of nukes is a pipe dream so she best stop dreaming. Did Corbyn explicitly state that he would? That would be interesting to know considering his other statement.

Yeah, that's what MAD entails, unfortunately. If they nuke you, you nuke them right off the face of the planet. In fact, it reminds me on how Europe was too gutless to stop Hitler before the onset of WW2 as that would have entailed the deaths of millions. Then millions died anyway.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Getting rid of nukes is a pipe dream so she best stop dreaming.i agree, cowardly woman.

Saying he wouldn't use nukes as a first resort =/= refusing to defend his country in any way against an attack.

cool, TIL: not wanting to relive WW1, which killed 37 million people, makes you a gutless coward.

Any more truth you want to lay on me?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory


Yeah, that's what MAD entails, unfortunately. If they nuke you, you nuke them right off the face of the planet. In fact, it reminds me on how Europe was too gutless to stop Hitler before the onset of WW2 as that would have entailed the deaths of millions. Then millions died anyway.

That's not a fair assessment at all and I do think you know it.

"Nuking someone off the face of the planet" = would be insanity. eg Let's say crazy Kimmy where to get a nuke and N. Korea nukes downtown Honolulu. The US responding my launching 3-4 nukes at Pyongyang and then nuking every major military base in NK would result in three things, NK being taken out as a threat(the one good here), millions of dead NK innocents that had nothing to do with Kimmy's attack and an environmental disaster that would last generations and likely in time affect the US as well. Radiation travels, through the air and water. edit: Guess a fourth issues would be the risk of shady groups getting access to NK's arsenal and possible a nuke ending up on the black market.

The more sensible response would be to surgically strike NK with missiles, targeting their military bases, thereby neutering their ability to counter retaliate while minimizing civilians deaths and hitting every known bunker that Kimmy and his command circle would/could be hiding in with bunker-busters. After which, you send in the troops if need be, when NK is demoralized and it's army is shit.

Saying Europe was "gutless to stop Hitler" isn't all that fair either, the US also did it's fair share of not holding Germany to the accords of the treaty of Versailles and looking the other way when stories of Jews losing everything to the state and whatnot were popping up. You also have to remember that 1930's is not 2017. It was far easier for Hiitler to hide his expanding army, tanks and air force, especially considering the Nazi party had just about absolute control of Germany's press and were propaganda masters. Though even before Hitler rose to power the Germans were enacting plans to rearm themselves beyond the confines of the agreement.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
i agree, cowardly woman.

Saying he wouldn't use nukes as a first resort =/= refusing to defend his country in any way against an attack.

cool, TIL: not wanting to relive WW1, which killed 37 million people, makes you a gutless coward.

Any more truth you want to lay on me?
Not necessarily cowardly, but a little on the optimistic side, to put it mildly.

He said he wouldn't use nukes in a retaliation to a nuclear attack or did I get that wrong?

Yeah, and look at how that worked out: they got to relive an even worse version of WW1 because they didn't have the stones to stand up to Hitler until it was too late. Corbyn would be proud.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Not necessarily cowardly, but a little on the optimistic side, to put it mildly.

He said he wouldn't use nukes in a retaliation to a nuclear attack or did I get that wrong?


That does make sense in a way. He more then likely wouldn't be able to "retaliate" if THEY hit the UK with Nukes First. Mainly because in the UK would probably be dead thus there would be NO ONE left to "retaliate".

Sound Logic.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's not a fair assessment at all and I do think you know it.

"Nuking someone off the face of the planet" = would be insanity. eg Let's say crazy Kimmy where to get a nuke and N. Korea nukes downtown Honolulu. The US responding my launching 3-4 nukes at Pyongyang and then nuking every major military base in NK would result in three things, NK being taken out as a threat(the one good here), millions of dead NK innocents that had nothing to do with Kimmy's attack and an environmental disaster that would last generations and likely in time affect the US as well. Radiation travels, through the air and water. edit: Guess a fourth issues would be the risk of shady groups getting access to NK's arsenal and possible a nuke ending up on the black market.

The more sensible response would be to surgically strike NK with missiles, targeting their military bases, thereby neutering their ability to counter retaliate while minimizing civilians deaths and hitting every known bunker that Kimmy and his command circle would/could be hiding in with bunker-busters. After which, you send in the troops if need be, when NK is demoralized and it's army is shit.

Saying Europe was "gutless to stop Hitler" isn't all that fair either, the US also did it's fair share of not holding Germany to the accords of the treaty of Versailles and looking the other way when stories of Jews losing everything to the state and whatnot were popping up. You also have to remember that 1930's is not 2017. It was far easier for Hiitler to hide his expanding army, tanks and air force, especially considering the Nazi party had just about absolute control of Germany's press and were propaganda masters. Though even before Hitler rose to power the Germans were enacting plans to rearm themselves beyond the confines of the agreement.
Granted, if we're talking about N. Korea, this kind of an approach makes sense. Crazy Kimmy doesn't have more than a handful of nukes and his delivery systems are antiquated so he's ultimately not an existential threat. But even then, nuking NK military bases would still be an acceptable thing to do to make absolutely sure Kimmy has nothing hidden up his sleeve and can do no more damage to other countries in the region.

However, if we're talking about a serious opponent like Russia, a conventional response to a nuclear attack would be as good as rolling over and dying. And this is where I take issue with Corbyn: you can't just go out there and send a message like that to your potential enemies. You can't compromise MAD in a world like this, sad as it may be.

It's true that the US looked the other way when it came to Hitler, but it was ultimately up to Europe(France and the U.K., chiefly) to actually do something about Hitler, but they took the Jeremy Corbyn approach and Europe paid an immense price for it.

Also, make no mistake, everyone knew what Hitler was doing when it came to his military build-up. Spying and military intelligence existed in the 30's.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
It's true that the US looked the other way when it came to Hitler, but it was ultimately up to Europe(France and the U.K., chiefly) to actually do something about Hitler Why? America was by far the richest country in the world at that time, and by the mid-1930s France and the UK found themselves pitted against a Fascist Japan in the Far-east, Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy and nationalist agitation in their own Empires. The idea that France/UK could keep all those powers in check whilst fighting Hitler in a brutal war is ridiculous. That's one of the reasons why France and the UK didn't want to add yet another foe onto that list and opted for appeasement: their hands were already more than full.

Gross oversimplification. They were several reasons why European powers decided to appease Hitler. Keeping the peace for the sake of preventing mass death and destruction was No.1 for good number of people, but there were other reasons for doing so.

Yeah, and I'm pretty sure one of the prevailing assumptions was that Hitler was preparing to attack Soviet Russia, a country whose ideology Hitler declared as diametrically opposed to his own and that he wished to destroy. Hitler had also talked about his desire for Lebensraum/Living space in the East which would bring him in direct conflict with Russia. The West, of course, abhorred communism, and generally saw it as the greater threat. Therefore, appeasing Hitler for the time being was seen as an act of realpolitik. They would allow Hitler to get into a confrontation with Russia, thus distracting/weakening both of those threats and making a future confrontation far shorter.

Then there was the fact that Britain and France were not on war footing, and therefore any war would not be over quickly. A war would also exhaust the armies of Britain and France, leaving them more vulnerable against any future expansion by Russia (and the many other dictatorships waiting in the wings). What would be the point of a war against Hitler if it provided another despot the opportunity to expand and conquer countries? Then there was also what you call the 'Jeremy Corbyn approach'. The desire by many to prevent another catastrophic war that could cost the lives of millions. After the trauma that was WW1, this outlook was totally reasonable. And while it's easy to look back with benefit of hindsight and judge the actions of those who wanted diplomacy first, it wasn't really such an easy choice at the time.

Wrong. Imperial Japan was expanding in the far-East and threatened British colonies like Signapore and the Raj (jewel in the crown of the British Empire). French colonies in Indochina were also threatened. Then there was Italy, which had moved into Ethiopia and and had made moves into Southern Europe, which put it in a position to attack the Allies in the Mediterranean and North Africa.

And in regards to the Soviet Union, there is no 'perhaps' about it. The Soviet Union wielded a far larger military force than Nazi Germany, and its ideology of Communism was on a direct collision course with West. When Germany first started expanding, it really didn't seem like a greater threat. Propaganda efforts meant that a good many people admired Hitler, and the demands he made weren't all that outrageous, at first.

Again, the Soviet Union seemed much more dangerous at the time. Considerably larger army, more toxic ideology and speeding towards industrialisation.

Like having a bulwark against expansionist communism? Like preventing a war that would have given an open goal to other adversaries? Like buying time to put their countries on a war footing?

Well, yes. But they didn't know it was failing at the time. And keep in mind that the Empire gave Britain access to valuable resources and gave them a good deal of strategic advantages.

And you are, again, criticising with the benefit of hindsight.

Uh no, they didn't. Many people wanted to try diplomacy before rushing into bloodshed. The memory of the carnage of WW1 was still burned in many people's minds.

No, it wasn't. Hitler's primary target was Russia and Communism, the ideology which was diametrically opposed to Nazism. And I'm not sure why you see Hitler moving against the West as a matter of 'strategy, geography and logistics". The Ardennes Forest was seen as impassable for German tanks, and the Maginot Line was seen to be impenetrable. Of course, Germany did end up defeating France rather quickly, but that was a remarkable fluke and one that could not have possibly been predicted.

So again, you are unfairly judging British/French policy with the benefit of hindsight. It was hard to envisage how Germany could break through French lines so quickly, and Hitler's long-standing hatred of Communism made it unlikely that he would attack the West first. and expose his Eastern border to that threat.

Was there really any choice? I'm not seeing an opportunity when France/UK could have toppled Hitler. The Rhineland affair was too early and they simply weren't prepared. If France/UK made it clear they wanted to totally defeat and humiliate Germany, and depose Hitler with force, don't think there wouldn't have been bitter, bitter resistance. Every opportunity before 1939 seemed like too big a risk to take. The fact that they actually tried diplomacy, which actually bought us time to rearm and fight the War more effectively when it came, really isn't all that outrageous.

When, exactly? They could have confronted Germany early on in the Rhineland, but it would be very unlikely that France would have launched an effort to actually depose Hitler at that stage. They weren't on a war footing, and the public support simply wasn't there at all. Therefore, a confrontation at that point wouldn't have changed course all that much. Then there was the Austrian Anschluss, which likely did have support from the Austrian people and was permitted by Italy (now an ally of Germany, which would have made a war against Germany even more of a risk). Then later, there was the incident against Czechoslovakia, but many saw Czechoslovakia as rather distant and the Treaty of Munich as a decent compromise. And again, France and the UK had to weigh up the other threats waiting to strike at them across the globe, and the fact that they had not completed rearmament at that stage.

Yep, and he was seen as a bit of lunatic. We can say now confidently that Britain and France should have probably woke up and smelt the coffee. But back then, the idea that France/UK should strike at Germany was a serious dilemma, for a variety of reasons that have already been laid out.