Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

if there was an election tomorow

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slaw92)
    If you actually ready the replies I have sent to you, you will find which statements ere false, I am not repeating everything over and over again.
    Err, I've read them. And nothing you've said has countered the claims I made. That's because my claims have the material advantage of being factually accurate.

    You can try justifying the real life MURDER of thousands of innocents by your favoured party, but I see no reason that this should be justified.
    Ok.

    To have good relations with them, I can accept, we need to be in a position to have the opportunity to open dialogues with them regarding the human right of citizens living in their country as well as those in Yemen, who are being murdered also.
    That's not actually the point I made. My justification was based on two factors: (1) that we need security in an area where we get our oil and (2) that in order to have at least some degree of influence in the area, we need to pick a mate out of a swathe of deeply problematic countries.

    I could have made the point that in order to try and get some sort of discussion re human rights, we need to get them on side by selling them arms and having a working relationship with them. But that's not as strong a point as the ones I made. It's why I didn't actually make the point, contrary to what this comment implies.

    There is absolutely zero justification for the sale of arms to the Saudis, at least on moral grounds. Only on the grounds of greed, does this make sense. It os disgusting and to try and turn it around so that the decision by the Tories is somehow genius and or the sole move they can make is just mind blowing.
    Not genius at all. In fact, the result of decades of short-term decision making by consecutive UK governments. As a result of our addiction to oil, we need a certain level of security in the area which means we need to deal with people like the Saudis.

    Interestingly, you haven't actually substantiated your point that it is wrong to suggest current UK government policy to continue the alliance with Saudi Arabia is the 'sole move they can make'. You've said it is 'mind blowing' to suggest it is, but you haven't actually qualified it.

    You almost seem smug about the fact you think you have managed to convincingly justify the murder of innocents basically by our government.
    Wouldn't you be?

    And no, the murder isn't 'basically by our government'. I get the sense even you think that's a ridiculous assertion.

    We are giving aid to Yemen, its sick, It's like those scenes in mafia movies where you see a monster beat up some guy then throw a pile of cash on them for the hospital bill. It's like that but on a much bigger, much dirtier and much more horrifying way.
    Ok.

    What makes us better than the dictators or the terrorists of this world if we are doing the same thing except not for god, but for profit.
    Ah, this is another reason you are saying I've given. I haven't. I gave two reasons for UK support to Saudi Arabia and have explained very carefully that the support is morally problematic but can be justified as pragmatic foreign policy. This particular reason does not feature in my argument at all.

    [QUOTEI feel much more shame for the government for these actions and I think many others would agree. I can guarantee with only a little bit of digging I could come up with far more examples of despicable actions by the Tories on innocent people, and that is just internationally.[/QUOTE]

    Interestingly, you haven't engaged at all with my point that the government represents a nations which is hooked on oil and must therefore act in the national interest to get some kind of security in the region to ensure our oil supply. As the saying goes, beggars can't be choosers. Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand, hasn't had his arm forced at all. He doesn't represent the government or the country. He didn't take money from the propaganda outlet of Iran because he needed to. He chose to. Would do you make of that?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Iirc I usually agree with you but I saw this and thought I'd challenge it.

    (Original post by ibzombie96)

    You see, this is the problem. You are trying to compare the actions of a government with the actions of one man.
    One man who is the foreign secretary. That's kinda a big deal. Whilst it's not the be all and end all, the fact that he has been chosen does given an indication of the governments intentions.


    Let me tell you something: a sovereign government will almost always need to have sordid friends. It's called Realpolitik. For a variety of reasons - from deplorable ones like our desperate need for stability in the region where we get our oil, to the entirely sensible ones like wanting to maintain good communications with the least-worst player in a geopolitical space - we are friends with Saudi Arabia. For the reasons I've just stated - and many others - our alliance with the Saudis is far from being morally perfect. But it is, in essence, the pragmatic policy a government needs. Just like Nixon reached out to communist China - a serial human-rights abuser - in order to stop it becoming pals with the USSR, we in the West have come to regard Saudi Arabia as a morally-bankrupt but stable nation in the ME. In the name of Realpolitik, then, we have good relations with it.


    There are some things that governments can just about get away with. I think the government can just about get away with its support for Saudi Arabia (though we seriously need to think about alternatives to oil if we are ever going to be able to become independent of these nations),.
    I broadly disagree. Yes we need oil but we will be able to buy it without having to prop up and be responsible for a deplorable regime that commits war crimes, oppresses its people and sponsors terrorism globally. It's one thing to buy oil from them, quite another to sell torture equipment and guns to like Mr Fox would have us or laughably support then joining the UN HR chair.

    This isn't a left or right wing thing - I commended Michael Gove for preventing us selling prison contracts to these people.

    It is deplorable ethically, short sighted and against our long term national interests to continue backing these people.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'm suprised that knowledge of Corbyn and his ties to Iran and co are not well known. This is a man who its suspected will allow Galloway back into party (we know of course that Galloway hates Jews and have a weekly slot on Russia Today).

    That said i've seen lefties on here defend Castro because as communist countries go, Cuba turned out mildly delapidated instead of a hellhole.
    It turns out, in fact, that far from just wanting a bit more peace, love, and sharing around the world, these guys just don't much like the West.

    When it comes to other nations, it doesn't really matter how many rights they disrespect, how many people they silence, or how many innocents they execute. If the government is sufficiently anti-West - or, as they say, 'anti-imperialist' - it gets a free pass from the Western left.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Iirc I usually agree with you but I saw this and thought I'd challenge it.



    One man who is the foreign secretary. That's kinda a big deal. Whilst it's not the be all and end all, the fact that he has been chosen does given an indication of the governments intentions.
    I was talking about Jeremy Corbyn, not Boris Johnson!



    I broadly disagree. Yes we need oil but we will be able to buy it without having to prop up and be responsible for a deplorable regime that commits war crimes, oppresses its people and sponsors terrorism globally. It's one thing to buy oil from them, quite another to sell torture equipment and guns to like Mr Fox would have us or laughably support then joining the UN HR chair.

    This isn't a left or right wing thing - I commended Michael Gove for preventing us selling prison contracts to these people.

    It is deplorable ethically, short sighted and against our long term national interests to continue backing these people.
    But it's not just about buying oil from them, the government needs to ensure a medium-term predictable supply of the stuff.

    I completely agree that it is deeply problematic that we need to support a state which exports Wahhabism around the region, but beggars can't be choosers.

    I also agree that it is against our long-term interest. Our long term interest is to ween ourselves off of the the black stuff so that we can become independent from the geopolitics of the ME. But since our governments have, for decades, proven themselves completely unwilling/unable to do so, it at least makes sense that they properly protect the supply of oil.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Nope. I'm no great Corbyn fan, but anything he proposed would be moderated by the PLP quite heavily if he wanted it to actually pass - I certainly prefer that to the current government and nobody else has any prospect of coming close to winning.
    Weak:

    80% of Corbyn colleagues think he is unfit to be leader- why on earth will look the public?

    They want to keep trident but never use it. Keeping the cost but losing its purpose entirely.

    Infighting;

    The moderates and momentum lot hate each other more than the Tories. We are endlessly hearing about deselection.

    Insular

    Corbyn is not going to win over tories- plain and simple- which is what labour need to win: the momentum brigade are not interested to put it mildly and proclaim that Ed miliband and
    Tom Watson are Blairite scum.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'm suprised that knowledge of Corbyn and his ties to Iran and co are not well known. This is a man who its suspected will allow Galloway back into party (we know of course that Galloway hates Jews and have a weekly slot on Russia Today).

    .
    The regressive left is literally going full retard on anti Semitism- I've seen so many of them go 'I'm not anti Semitic, some if my best friends are Jewish' it's literally beyond parody.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Weak:

    80% of Corbyn colleagues think he is unfit to be leader- why on earth will look the public?

    They want to keep trident but never use it. Keeping the cost but losing its purpose entirely.

    Infighting;

    The moderates and momentum lot hate each other more than the Tories. We are endlessly hearing about deselection.

    Insular

    Corbyn is not going to win over tories- plain and simple- which is what labour need to win: the momentum brigade are not interested to put it mildly and proclaim that Ed miliband and
    Tom Watson are Blairite scum.
    I'd be voting for Labour as a party. It's like I said - Corbyn may well have a ludicrous foreign policy, hurt us electorally and keep some unpleasnt mates. But most of the MPs are sensible enough to block him from damaging the nation in such a way. Plus that isn't our Trident policy - the party is explicitly pro-Trident.

    (I absolutely don't think they WILL win while Corbyn's leader, by the way - I'd just prefer it to happen than seeing the Tories in again)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Had to laugh


    https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...f1&oe=587BEEEF
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Err, I've read them. And nothing you've said has countered the claims I made. That's because my claims have the material advantage of being factually accurate.



    Ok.



    That's not actually the point I made. My justification was based on two factors: (1) that we need security in an area where we get our oil and (2) that in order to have at least some degree of influence in the area, we need to pick a mate out of a swathe of deeply problematic countries.

    I could have made the point that in order to try and get some sort of discussion re human rights, we need to get them on side by selling them arms and having a working relationship with them. But that's not as strong a point as the ones I made. It's why I didn't actually make the point, contrary to what this comment implies.



    Not genius at all. In fact, the result of decades of short-term decision making by consecutive UK governments. As a result of our addiction to oil, we need a certain level of security in the area which means we need to deal with people like the Saudis.

    Interestingly, you haven't actually substantiated your point that it is wrong to suggest current UK government policy to continue the alliance with Saudi Arabia is the 'sole move they can make'. You've said it is 'mind blowing' to suggest it is, but you haven't actually qualified it.



    Wouldn't you be?

    And no, the murder isn't 'basically by our government'. I get the sense even you think that's a ridiculous assertion.


    Ok.


    Ah, this is another reason you are saying I've given. I haven't. I gave two reasons for UK support to Saudi Arabia and have explained very carefully that the support is morally problematic but can be justified as pragmatic foreign policy. This particular reason does not feature in my argument at all.

    [QUOTEI feel much more shame for the government for these actions and I think many others would agree. I can guarantee with only a little bit of digging I could come up with far more examples of despicable actions by the Tories on innocent people, and that is just internationally.
    Interestingly, you haven't engaged at all with my point that the government represents a nations which is hooked on oil and must therefore act in the national interest to get some kind of security in the region to ensure our oil supply. As the saying goes, beggars can't be choosers. Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand, hasn't had his arm forced at all. He doesn't represent the government or the country. He didn't take money from the propaganda outlet of Iran because he needed to. He chose to. Would do you make of that?[/QUOTE]

    Your statements were not factually correct regarding the torture or about the channel being owned by the Iranian government. None of these have been proven to be so according to various independent sources I have read. I am not defending the channel before you decide to throw that one at me again, just merely stating the real facts.

    What influence exactly does the UK have over The Saudis then? What is some of the changes for the greater good we have helped implement with this justifiable friendship?

    Yeah, what a great way to go about improving human rights, strike up a deal where they buy weapons en masse to use on their own people and commit war crimes, and then tell them down the line the line that actually they just wasted billions on weapons that they aren't allowed to use anymore because we suddenly care about how they are used? Seems very plausible. Also what about the manufacturers in the UK of these weapons? What will they think? They have been allowed to obviously get into a contract with the Saudis and are making a lot of money, is the government going to tell them at this point to find it somewhere else? You really are naive if you think the sale of arms has anything to do with human rights.

    If you witness a murder and do nothing to stop it, and then help to cover it up (blocking the UN enquiry into war crimes) isn't that essentially accessory to murder?

    What your saying is we need oil, they have it, we are there *****. We are helpless. If you needed money for your family because you are skint, is it moral to rob the old woman walking down the street just because she has plenty of it? Just because we need oil doesn't mean we should be turning a blind eye to blatant human rights abuse and war crimes and definitely doesn't excuse helping these acts being carried out.

    There is never going to be a single argument you can come out with that will convince me this is necessary, not one. I feel you think he same way in regards to Jeremy Corbyn but I know that where I come from the actions of an elected body, put in place to represent the people, has far more responsibility to show the world how things should be done and to provide a moral compass than one man.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'm suprised that knowledge of Corbyn and his ties to Iran and co are not well known. This is a man who its suspected will allow Galloway back into party (we know of course that Galloway hates Jews and have a weekly slot on Russia Today).

    That said i've seen lefties on here defend Castro because as communist countries go, Cuba turned out mildly delapidated instead of a hellhole.
    Cuba has a cool underground illegal internet thing going on which is kind of inspiring.

    There are left wing reasons for "defending" (often it isn't actually defending) Castro Cuba. If you compare Pinochet with Castro, at least Cubans have healthcare.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Your statements were not factually correct regarding the torture or about the channel being owned by the Iranian government. None of these have been proven to be so according to various independent sources I have read. I am not defending the channel before you decide to throw that one at me again, just merely stating the real facts.
    Umm, the interview was broadcast, and it was conducted under duress; and Press TV is owned by the Iranian state.

    How on earth can you deny this?

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...34052249,d.d24
    http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enf...ess-tv-revoked

    The above are reports by the BBC and by Ofcome itself. What evidence have you that I'm wrong?

    What influence exactly does the UK have over The Saudis then? What is some of the changes for the greater good we have helped implement with this justifiable friendship? Yeah, what a great way to go about improving human rights, strike up a deal where they buy weapons en masse to use on their own people and commit war crimes, and then tell them down the line the line that actually they just wasted billions on weapons that they aren't allowed to use anymore because we suddenly care about how they are used? Seems very plausible. Also what about the manufacturers in the UK of these weapons? What will they think? They have been allowed to obviously get into a contract with the Saudis and are making a lot of money, is the government going to tell them at this point to find it somewhere else? You really are naive if you think the sale of arms has anything to do with human rights.
    Do you remember the bit in my last response where I said I didn't make the point that our influence gives us an opportunity for human rights improvements? Because I explicitly said that is a weak point and therefore didn't make it. This is the second time, now, that you're taking a different argument and trying to deal with that. Why don't you deal with the actual arguments I made?

    If you witness a murder and do nothing to stop it, and then help to cover it up (blocking the UN enquiry into war crimes) isn't that essentially accessory to murder?

    What your saying is we need oil, they have it, we are there *****. We are helpless. If you needed money for your family because you are skint, is it moral to rob the old woman walking down the street just because she has plenty of it? Just because we need oil doesn't mean we should be turning a blind eye to blatant human rights abuse and war crimes and definitely doesn't excuse helping these acts being carried out.
    It's called living in the real world where not everyone is as virtuous as you are. It's a fact that we need medium-term control over our supply of oil. It's a fact that we need at least one friend in the region. It's a fact that given all of these countries are some shade of repulsive that the friend we choose is going to be pretty horrible.

    There is never going to be a single argument you can come out with that will convince me this is necessary, not one.
    That surprises me hugely. I thought you had a great appreciation of mature, pragmatic policy-making.

    I feel you think he same way in regards to Jeremy Corbyn but I know that where I come from the actions of an elected body, put in place to represent the people, has far more responsibility to show the world how things should be done and to provide a moral compass than one man.
    This doesn't even make sense as a sentence. Could you rephrase it?

    And for the second time, I ask you to consider the fact that a government of an oil-consuming nation is required to work with unsavoury characters. A backbench MP has no such requirements; he can do what he want, but he chose to take money from Press TV. You haven't addressed this point once.

    I look forward to your reply.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Labour 100%. Im fed up of the way the media portrays Corbyn. Yes he's a hard left socialist, since when has that been a bad thing? He stands up for what he believes and I'm sure if most people weren't so easily swayed by the way Labour has been portrayed recently in the media, they would get off the band wagon and actually realise that he has good intentions and is democratic! more than can be said about a lot of other politicians these days.
    I would never vote tory, the fact that probably the majority of them went to eton makes me think how can these people run our country if they don't know how the average person lives?? Yes they may play on the fact that they have 'strengthened' our economy, but at the cost of our NHS, education etc.
    UKIP are an absolute joke and i would probably leave this country if they were even close to running our country. oh wait, that'll be hard now we've left the bloody EU!
    Green, yes they have some nice ideas, but they're not a party thats ever going to gain enough momentum to get into running our county.
    Lib Dems are way too easily swayed so not trustable in my eyes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Umm, the interview was broadcast, and it was conducted under duress; and Press TV is owned by the Iranian state.

    How on earth can you deny this?

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...34052249,d.d24
    http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enf...ess-tv-revoked

    The above are reports by the BBC and by Ofcome itself. What evidence have you that I'm wrong?



    Do you remember the bit in my last response where I said I didn't make the point that our influence gives us an opportunity for human rights improvements? Because I explicitly said that is a weak point and therefore didn't make it. This is the second time, now, that you're taking a different argument and trying to deal with that. Why don't you deal with the actual arguments I made?



    It's called living in the real world where not everyone is as virtuous as you are. It's a fact that we need medium-term control over our supply of oil. It's a fact that we need at least one friend in the region. It's a fact that given all of these countries are some shade of repulsive that the friend we choose is going to be pretty horrible.


    That surprises me hugely. I thought you had a great appreciation of mature, pragmatic policy-making.



    This doesn't even make sense as a sentence. Could you rephrase it?

    And for the second time, I ask you to consider the fact that a government of an oil-consuming nation is required to work with unsavoury characters. A backbench MP has no such requirements; he can do what he want, but he chose to take money from Press TV. You haven't addressed this point once.

    I look forward to your reply.
    An interview was conducted, but from what I read it seems to be more a question of interviewing someone while in prison rather than torture. I also stated, several times, that it is Iranian owned, like many other channels there, but Press TV is independently managed.

    So we are not allies to somewhere down the line, teach them human rights, it is purely for financial reason. If you think it is mature and pragmatic to allow and supply a regime who commits war crimes and human rights breaches of their own citizens then there is no point debating with you, your moral compass is clearly on a completely different level to mine. What exactly have we bombed Libya for? There must have been a financial incentive because clearly acts against human rights and dictatorships aren't enough to this government.

    To dismiss this as "living in the real world" is troubling. The world is what those in power choose to make it. This "real world" is the way it is because of choices not just because it is. Like I have said, allowing pain and suffering in the world is something you can never justify to me. It is the exact same as trying to justify murder to me, I know there is nothing anyone can say to justify it, because morally there is no justification. I think you are trying your best, trying to say its our only option. For me it isn't even an option. Invest in our own country, create jobs through the pursuit of green energy, find more moral and sustainable alternatives. Perhaps the world would be a safer place if we set an example instead of being part of the problem.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slaw92)
    An interview was conducted, but from what I read it seems to be more a question of interviewing someone while in prison rather than torture. I also stated, several times, that it is Iranian owned, like many other channels there, but Press TV is independently managed.
    And is managed as a mouthpiece for the Iranian regime. You're beginning to sound like either a troll or a naive defender of a blatantly propagandistic TV channel.

    So we are not allies to somewhere down the line, teach them human rights, it is purely for financial reason. If you think it is mature and pragmatic to allow and supply a regime who commits war crimes and human rights breaches of their own citizens then there is no point debating with you, your moral compass is clearly on a completely different level to mine. What exactly have we bombed Libya for? There must have been a financial incentive because clearly acts against human rights and dictatorships aren't enough to this government.

    To dismiss this as "living in the real world" is troubling. The world is what those in power choose to make it. This "real world" is the way it is because of choices not just because it is. Like I have said, allowing pain and suffering in the world is something you can never justify to me. It is the exact same as trying to justify murder to me, I know there is nothing anyone can say to justify it, because morally there is no justification. I think you are trying your best, trying to say its our only option. For me it isn't even an option. Invest in our own country, create jobs through the pursuit of green energy, find more moral and sustainable alternatives. Perhaps the world would be a safer place if we set an example instead of being part of the problem.
    Britain has little power in the world anymore. You can hardly, therefore, try and argue successfully that we can choose how the ME looks now. Our clout is medium-sized and certainly can't change much on its own. Not being able to change the world, then, the UK Government ought to cater its policy to how the world works, not how it wishes the world to work.

    Again, I'd like to point out how sad it is that a hopelessly idealistic naif would lower himself/herself to defending the televisual mouthpiece of a fascistic, women-oppressing, gay-killing regime. All, presumably, due to a twisted belief that all things anti-Western are virtuous.

    And, again, you haven't actually tackled the point that Jeremy Corbyn took the money from this channel because he wanted to - even after it was banned by Ofcom. There was nothing resembling anything like force making him do it. Could you address this point, please? This is the third or fourth time I've raised it and you haven't answered it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    And is managed as a mouthpiece for the Iranian regime. You're beginning to sound like either a troll or a naive defender of a blatantly propagandistic TV channel.



    Britain has little power in the world anymore. You can hardly, therefore, try and argue successfully that we can choose how the ME looks now. Our clout is medium-sized and certainly can't change much on its own. Not being able to change the world, then, the UK Government ought to cater its policy to how the world works, not how it wishes the world to work.

    Again, I'd like to point out how sad it is that a hopelessly idealistic naif would lower himself/herself to defending the televisual mouthpiece of a fascistic, women-oppressing, gay-killing regime. All, presumably, due to a twisted belief that all things anti-Western are virtuous.

    And, again, you haven't actually tackled the point that Jeremy Corbyn took the money from this channel because he wanted to - even after it was banned by Ofcom. There was nothing resembling anything like force making him do it. Could you address this point, please? This is the third or fourth time I've raised it and you haven't answered it.
    I'm not a troll for stating facts I have read about how it was run at the time of Jeremy's appearances. I'm also for the 600th time not defending the program, I am just picking up your points on it and relaying information I have read.

    Aww little, insignificant Britain has no power? Tell that to the UN who they successfully managed to block. Or to Libya. To Iraq. To Afghanistan. Perhaps if we used this "little" power we have for steps towards world peace instead of the destruction of it, the world would be a safer place. It is the decisions of "small" countries like the UK that has shaped the world as we see it.

    Well thank you for you kind words, sir. I'm sorry if I have upset you in any way during what I thought was a non-personal debate. I don't take this personally, if you are feeling slightly agitated may I suggest going away and cooling off before replying? I don't see the point in name-calling.

    Jeremy took it over a period of three years. It isn't actually that much he was paid if you break it down to each individual payment. It was used on his constituency office. That's about all the man has said on the matter. If you would like to keeping guessing his motive, feel free, but it I just that, guessing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    SNP as always.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by New- Emperor)
    if there was an election tomorrow who would you vote for? I think I would vet for
    Lib Dem as they want to take us back in to the EU.

    The Tories seem to have got worse after Cameron (pig fancier) left office and
    now seem quite elitist.
    Labour are in disarray.

    I can't see/want UKIP in power so it seems to me that Lib Dem is my only option
    I'd vote for the Labour-momentum party.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Me
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know why this is even a question. Labour would be decimated if there was a general election held tomorrow, the tories would increase their majority and UKIP might even gain a few red seats.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Labour

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Do you have exam superstitions?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.