Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Jason74

ukcarper wrote: »

He is a bit like a stuck record on most things

He is indeed, and I make a point of not engaging with him (Clapton) on these forums largely for that very reason. But that doesn't change the fact that on this particular subject, he is (most unusually imho) absolutely right.

ukcarper

Jason74 wrote: »

He is indeed, and I make a point of not engaging with him (Clapton) on these forums largely for that very reason. But that doesn't change the fact that on this particular subject, he is (most unusually imho) absolutely right.

Yes they both have said some unpleasant things but then lifting the arms embargo against Pinochet allowing him to buy arms from UK was also unpleasant.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes they both have said some unpleasant things but then lifting the arms embargo against Pinochet allowing him to buy arms from UK was also unpleasant.

Not many people deny that Thatcher was friendly with Pinochet or deny we did arms deals, as the record speaks for itself.

Moby however, denies that Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott were/are supporters of the IRA even though the record is equally clear.

The rights and wrongs are arguable depending upon your view point but to deny the facts is truely worthy of the worst form of fellow traveller and apologist.

gadgetmind

ukcarper wrote: »

lifting the arms embargo against Pinochet allowing him to buy arms from UK was also unpleasant.

Great, so criticise it, and criticise those who continue to openly support it, and those who portray Pinochet as some noble force for peace.

Generali

gadgetmind wrote: »

Great, so criticise it, and criticise those who continue to openly support it, and those who portray Pinochet as some noble force for peace.

Did anyone actually think that? Thatcher and Reagan saw Pinochet as a bulwark against communism and supported him as their enemy's enemy IMHO. I don't think that Pinochet had any people that actually thought he was doing the right thing, even the army must have had their doubts at times.

martinsurrey

Generali wrote: »

Did anyone actually think that? Thatcher and Reagan saw Pinochet as a bulwark against communism and supported him as their enemy's enemy IMHO. I don't think that Pinochet had any people that actually thought he was doing the right thing, even the army must have had their doubts at times.

in fact

http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/oct/06/pinochet.chile

There is Thatchers 1999 speech about the whole affair.

As you say, its all about the support we got from Chili in the Falklands, how he stopped communism in Chili, and how the law was brushed aside in his attempted extradition.

She accepts that some bad things happened in the wake of the coup, but that they were for Chili to decide upon, not Spain.

Nowhere does she say the killings were justified.

Moby

gadgetmind wrote: »

You're confusing supporting terrorism with undertaking diplomacy, which does sometimes involve dealing with those you don't agree with.

Suppose a senior conservative said this -

"“It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by Augusto Pinochet that brought stability to Chile, and the peace they have now is due to the actions of his Junta.”

Would you perhaps think that this had strayed beyond diplomacy and into supporting violent people with no respect for human life or rights?

Surely you can understand the difference?

Totally agree.....but the question is who defines the difference? We all know now in hindsight Thatcher was negotiating with the IRA while condemning them in public....so was Major. Also you cannot get away from the fact of my previous comments....there are different traditions here. I have been continually struck by the differences between Irish friends and English friends and how they see this history. Many IRA members are regarded as heroes in their own communities.My friends emphasise different aspects of the 'struggle' depending on their perspective/tradition. It's not for me or anyone else in my view to force them into a corner and get them to condemn their own extremists ie the IRA. That is unrealistic and also unhelpful because it would have resulted in continued intransigence. Someone had to cross the divide. People like Corbyn and McDonnell were English but more trusted than the English establishment because they were anti-establishment and because of their political beliefs were not seen as representatives of English imperialism. As such they were listened to by the IRA! Now that is a very different thing to them being terrorist sympathisers. Many will disagree I accept and will label them but that is because of where they are coming from themselves i.e. generally right wing representatives and sympathisers of English imperialism. They generally tend to be people who have little sympathy with the Irish perspective regarding English/Irish history and as such they tend to view things/events by their own criteria/standards.........that is their world view but that does make them right and it does not mean that they have all the facts on their side.
Imo when people start talking about such complicated issues as Irish/English history and then claim that right, principles, facts are on their side.....I know I am listening to an extremist....an extremist every bit as bigotted as the people they are attacking!
If Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness are so beyond the pale........why are Sinn Fein doing so well electorally in Ulster? They have totally displaced the moderate SDLP!
Why is Martin McGuiness, (probably IRA leader who directed campaigns against the UK) now Deputy First Minister no less?
They seem to be acceptable now don't they....despite their history!
It's because they have a large and growing constituency and there was no alternative to dealing with them. It sticks in the craw of the English establishment....but real politic has finally led to an increased level of peace. That was totally the aim of McDonnell and Corbyn!

Generali

Mr Corbyn was never in a position to negotiate with the IRA as he didn't represent anyone. I mean he was even third choice to represent the left wing of his own party and has never been in the shadow cabinet let alone the actual cabinet.

That's the clincher for me. Exactly what could this 'negotiation' achieve? Mr Corbyn and chums had nothing to offer and couldn't accept a peace settlement. It's just a post hoc justification of his actions.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

Totally agree.....but the question is who defines the difference? We all know now in hindsight Thatcher was negotiating with the IRA while condemning them in public....so was Major. Also you cannot get away from the fact of my previous comments....there are different traditions here. I have been continually struck by the differences between Irish friends and English friends and how they see this history. Many IRA members are regarded as heroes in their own communities.My friends emphasise different aspects of the 'struggle' depending on their perspective/tradition. It's not for me or anyone else in my view to force them into a corner and get them to condemn their own extremists ie the IRA. That is unrealistic and also unhelpful because it would have resulted in continued intransigence. Someone had to cross the divide. People like Corbyn and McDonnell were English but more trusted than the English establishment because they were anti-establishment and because of their political beliefs were not seen as representatives of English imperialism. As such they were listened to by the IRA! Now that is a very different thing to them being terrorist sympathisers. Many will disagree I accept and will label them but that is because of where they are coming from themselves i.e. generally right wing representatives and sympathisers of English imperialism. They generally tend to be people who have little sympathy with the Irish perspective regarding English/Irish history and as such they tend to view things/events by their own criteria/standards.........that is their world view but that does make them right and it does not mean that they have all the facts on their side.
Imo when people start talking about such complicated issues as Irish/English history and then claim that right, principles, facts are on their side.....I know I am listening to an extremist....an extremist every bit as bigotted as the people they are attacking!

quote from McDonnell



“It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA.”

Forget your apologist ranting about 'different aspects of the struggle' but use words like KILLING and BOMBING real ordinary people both English and Irish.

If you are afraid to confront your 'friends' who defend violence against ordinary people then that says a lot about you.

Only in the fantasies of madmen would anyone claim that Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott had any influence or indeed input to the Good Friday agreement : in fact if you ACTUALLY knew anything about it you will know they originally opposed anything but a United Socialist Ireland.

I haven't discussed the wrongs and rights of the Irish question : only commented on the wrongs of killing and bombing innocent people and the support given to the IRA by Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott.

Moby

QUOTE=Generali;69494150]Mr Corbyn was never in a position to negotiate with the IRA as he didn't represent anyone. I mean he was even third choice to represent the left wing of his own party and has never been in the shadow cabinet let alone the actual cabinet.

[/QUOTE]
You don't know that! I think I've already explained to you that he was acceptable to the IRA for the reasons given. There was no way the IRA would just negotiate with the English establishment alone! George Mitchell chaired it and Clinton drove the agenda. many parties were involved!

That's the clincher for me. Exactly what could this 'negotiation' achieve? Mr Corbyn and chums had nothing to offer and couldn't accept a peace settlement. It's just a post hoc justification of his actions.

[/QUOTE]Talk to people from the Irish tradition and they speak warmly of McDonnell. These are not terrorist sympathisers by the way.....but as I said people from the Irish tradition!