Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Does anyone genuinely believe the BS about Corbyn? Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    You do realise they edit what is on TV, and in the media, so that you hear mainly the bits they want you to hear and see, and not those they don't want you to hear and see.
    More than you know.

    lol dude, he said a full sentence from start to finish. That's all he needed to say, there is no context surrounding it. It wasent cut or edited anywhere.

    He backed up his views later on.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    More than you know.

    lol dude, he said a full sentence from start to finish. That's all he needed to say, there is no context surrounding it. It wasent cut or edited anywhere.

    He backed up his views later on.
    Obviously the view whatever it was was one you disagree with. Can't argue with that.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I was getting ready to rage for a minute there as I read the title. Then I realised you, like me, are a Corbynite. Phew.
    Have you heard that they are waiting on a high court judgement today to try, yet again, to be rid of poor Mr. Corbyn. Apparently he must have the backing of MPs, so even if over half of Labour want him as their leader, if they're not MPs they don't count. This would be a step away from democracy and towards dictatorship, the rich again running the country for their own benefit as the working classes struggle to pay for food for the week. Ignoring the pleas of the lower classes for a great ruler like Corbyn to ensure they get as much money in the bank at the end of the day as possible and lead a no-longer Labour party but some pallid and weak reflection of the Conservatives.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Obviously the view whatever it was was one you disagree with. Can't argue with that.
    I can't actually find a youtube clip of it.

    The funny thing is, in this case, it's not whether I personally agree/disagree with his view. It's actually what he says.

    He was being interviewed by the BBC on live television and said somthing like:

    "If I were PM I would never use nuclear weapons under any circulstances."

    :facepalm2:

    I actually face palmed when I heard this on tv. It was an incredibly stupid, damaging and dangerous thing to say. So yeah, he's shown in a single TV interview what an unelectable moron he is.

    He's also put his principles above the security of the entire country and everyone in it. This could be considered arrogant and self-righteous.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    I can't actually find a youtube clip of it.

    The funny thing is, in this case, it's not whether I personally agree/disagree with his view. It's actually what he says.

    He was being interviewed by the BBC on live television and said somthing like:

    "If I were PM I would never use nuclear weapons under any circulstances."

    :facepalm2:

    I actually face palmed when I heard this on tv. It was an incredibly stupid, damaging and dangerous thing to say. So yeah, he's shown in a single TV interview what an unelectable moron he is.

    He's also put his principles above the security of the entire country and everyone in it. This could be considered arrogant and self-righteous.
    He was being honest about something everyone knew was his position even before he was voted in. In reality no leader could justify pushing the button, and everyone in the nuclear arena knows it. We say we would only push the button in retaliation, but if one was ever used against us the 'deterrent' would have failed and there would be no point in retaliating, it would just add more death. Other politicians just pretend they would, but no one in there right mind would do it. So we are left with a choice between someone honest, a liar or someone not in their right mind.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    He was being honest about something everyone knew was his position even before he was voted in. In reality no leader could justify pushing the button, and everyone in the nuclear arena knows it. We say we would only push the button in retaliation, but if one was ever used against us the 'deterrent' would have failed and there would be no point in retaliating, it would just add more death. Other politicians just pretend they would, but no one in there right mind would do it. So we are left with a choice between someone honest, a liar or someone not in their right mind.
    You've missed the point and partly got it at the same time.

    It doesn't matter about his views, whether he is for or against, whether he would or would not push the button. That isn't the issue. What matters is he doesn't tell everyone in the entire world by international broadcast!

    Unpredictibility is the entire concept on which deterrance is based. The enemy or potential aggressor has to believe nuclear retalitation is a possible outcome, no matter how small. He undermined that in a single sentence, well done Corbyn. If he came to power the deterrant would have already failed because he said he wouldn't use it.

    He is the only party leader in the history of UK politics who has failed to understand the concept of deterrance or nuclear weapons
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    You've missed the point and partly got it at the same time.

    It doesn't matter about his views, whether he is for or against, whether he would or would not push the button. That isn't the issue. What matters is he doesn't tell everyone in the entire world by international broadcast!

    Unpredictibility is the entire concept on which deterrance is based. The enemy or potential aggressor has to believe nuclear retalitation is a possible outcome, no matter how small. He undermined that in a single sentence, well done Corbyn. If he came to power the deterrant would have already failed because he said he wouldn't use it.

    He is the only party leader in the history of UK politics who has failed to understand the concept of deterrance or nuclear weapons
    He hasn't failed to understand it, he simply understands that it has no credence. The logic says we shouldn't use them. It is actually highly unlikely that any country will use them aggressively either. It is not a weapon you can use to win anything, only destroy things. They don't stop conventional armed conflicts as they are going on all the time. We have created a dangerous fiction that will only ever be used by madmen. lets hope they don't fall into the hands of madmen.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    He hasn't failed to understand it, he simply understands that it has no credence. The logic says we shouldn't use them. It is actually highly unlikely that any country will use them aggressively either. It is not a weapon you can use to win anything, only destroy things. They don't stop conventional armed conflicts as they are going on all the time. We have created a dangerous fiction that will only ever be used by madmen. lets hope they don't fall into the hands of madmen.
    He doesn't understand anything, if he did, he woudn't have said what he did, even if he does disagree with it. What he said was beyond irresponsible.

    Logic? There is, once again nothing to say we should or should not use them, their weapon potential is their deterrent effect, not their actual use. If all goes well, they are never used and are never used against us. All that matters is we have the ability to use them, not if we actually do. So that's the moral argument crushed.

    Would you feel safe if the west disarmed and chucked all its nuclear weapons? So only Russia and China remained with them? Russia could essentialy do what they wanted.

    In this scenario are we more or less likely for nukes to start flying?

    I'm not sure that's a very good idea....

    Sorry dude, climbing into the liberal utopian clouds again.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    He doesn't understand anything, if he did, he woudn't have said what he did, even if he does disagree with it. What he said was beyond irresponsible.

    Logic? There is, once again nothing to say we should or should not use them, their weapon potential is their deterrent effect, not their actual use. If all goes well, they are never used and are never used against us. All that matters is we have the ability to use them, not if we actually do. So that's the moral argument crushed.
    It has more to do with the belief that we would use them, It is not reasonable to believe that we would. This is where the 'do we say it don't we say it', argument collapses. It is not a moral argument it is a logical one.

    Would you feel safe if the west disarmed and chucked all its nuclear weapons? So only Russia and China remained with them? Russia could essentialy do what they wanted.

    In this scenario are we more or less likely for nukes to start flying?

    I'm not sure that's a very good idea....

    Sorry dude, climbing into the liberal utopian clouds again.
    What is it you think Russia and China want? No one not even Russia or China wants to use nuclear weapons. They simply have them for the same reason we do. It is not Utopian it is logical, to not want nuclear weapons.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    . In reality no leader could justify pushing the button, and everyone in the nuclear arena knows it. We say we would only push the button in retaliation, but if one was ever used against us the 'deterrent' would have failed and there would be no point in retaliating,
    You don't seem to understand the nature of the nuclear deterrent, nor how a country (or PM) can make an impact.

    The nuclear deterrent is intended to deter, not just nuclear attacks, but all military attacks. NATO (and British) defence doctrine is that a country that attacks us could very well suffer a first strike, regardless of whetehr that attack is a nuclear one.

    If you have a weapon in your hands and you are threatened by someone more powerful than you it is not commonsense to brandish it while saying "I have a gun but I could never use it". You brandish it and look as if you mean to use it (even if you don't).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    It has more to do with the belief that we would use them, It is not reasonable to believe that we would.
    On the contrary, it is entirely reasonable to expect we would. Our leaders are not all naive schoolgirls.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You don't seem to understand the nature of the nuclear deterrent, nor how a country (or PM) can make an impact.

    The nuclear deterrent is intended to deter, not just nuclear attacks, but all military attacks. NATO (and British) defence doctrine is that a country that attacks us could very well suffer a first strike, regardless of whetehr that attack is a nuclear one.

    If you have a weapon in your hands and you are threatened by someone more powerful than you it is not commonsense to brandish it while saying "I have a gun but I could never use it". You brandish it and look as if you mean to use it (even if you don't).
    Even more reason to get rid of them if we are considering first strike use, before we actually do it. Never thought we would engage in a war of aggression until Iraq. The next Blair that comes along might even decide to use them on a dictator they don't like.
    Who are these countries that want to invade us?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    On the contrary, it is entirely reasonable to expect we would. Our leaders are not all naive schoolgirls.
    The context of my quote has been lost further up the post. I was referring to a situation where we had already been nuked, rendering the deterrent a failure.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    The context of my quote has been lost further up the post. I was referring to a situation where we had already been nuked, rendering the deterrent a failure.
    But the knowledge that it will be used is why it is a deterrent against an attack.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Who are these countries that want to invade us?
    That varies. Russia have been keen to invade our allies for many decades and we have mutual assistance pacts with them. China is getting more and more aggressive.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    What is it you think Russia and China want? No one not even Russia or China wants to use nuclear weapons. They simply have them for the same reason we do. It is not Utopian it is logical, to not want nuclear weapons.
    Go and educate yourself on the Budapest Memorandum, then understand what happens to well intentioned but ultimately naive people who throw their weapons away.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budape...ity_Assurances

    While you're at it, go and read about the Seven days to the Rhine plan the soviets had.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_...he_River_Rhine

    Russia and China have long histories of bullying their neighbors. Both of them are actively doing it now, Russia with Ukraine and China with the South China Sea.

    China isn't a threat to us at the moment, the're more interested in trade but are seeking to expand their territory and military power.

    Russia certainly is. They have seized new territory recently and Putin has said on many occasions about countries and cities being targets for nukes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobSausage)
    I was getting ready to rage for a minute there as I read the title. Then I realised you, like me, are a Corbynite. Phew.
    Have you heard that they are waiting on a high court judgement today to try, yet again, to be rid of poor Mr. Corbyn. Apparently he must have the backing of MPs, so even if over half of Labour want him as their leader, if they're not MPs they don't count. This would be a step away from democracy and towards dictatorship, the rich again running the country for their own benefit as the working classes struggle to pay for food for the week. Ignoring the pleas of the lower classes for a great ruler like Corbyn to ensure they get as much money in the bank at the end of the day as possible and lead a no-longer Labour party but some pallid and weak reflection of the Conservatives.
    Right, this is long but I do feel it's very important There is a lot I want to get off my chest. You seem to share some of my views...if you get any time to go through it, no rush......let me know what you think.


    I don't know I'm a Corbynite per se, on all issues. I haven't really looked into all policies. I have some doubts about his age and even wonder why he wants to do it. However I definitely admire that he has the courage to try and take Labour somewhere where it should be on economics, to really be serious about inequality, and his dignity and steadfastness in opposing all the stupid media and Blairites against him that I loathe, after the legacy of 1997-2010, and their general scummy behaviour. I also think he is honest and has genuine beliefs and wants to change something, so naturally this correlates with being pilloried(Ed Miliband wanted to shift economics left from Blairite consensus so how he ate a bacon sandwich became the key political issue, along with how he 'stabbed his brother in the back'- if we are going to move away from consensus on the economy, do it with conviction, and I think Corbyn is worth way more than Miliband or Owen Smith or suchlike on this) But generally, I think it is also about something wider than whether you have his politics or completely different politics. It's about the role of the media in propagandizing, the way anyone outside a certain political spectrum(neoliberalism, or social and economic liberalism, in my view)gets treated by them, and how it debases any grown up, honest or more reflective debate. It's also hugely damaging to have whole Labour party and media, and, most bizzarely of all, a lot of Tory Party supporters who want Labour to be so much closer to them on policy and oppose Corbyn for these reasons. This is damaging for democracy and has gone on too long, this oppressive consensus and terms of debate, largely bleated out by politicians who seem closer to automaton than human.

    The other point I'd like to make is that it's also about what we saw in the referendum, a political and media class telling people what they want, trying to control the narrative, and telling them , whether subliminally or not, that they are stupid for wanting anything else, even when the evidence on the ground is different, what they want may be very different, and they will vote for something else. This is a case of belief cascade, once people realise the narrative and hectoring is false, and people privately believe the same stuff they do privately, the possibilities change. 'Unelectable' just means 'doesn't believe in an intertwined corporate, political and media classes worldview and doesn't support there interests. Or alternatively 'can't get enough corporate and media support'.

    But it doesn't mean people won't elect them or that they can't give people better policies, that it can't be worth backing, even just for the sake of greater democratic engagement and the chance of real change by continued involvement of such people. As if some change in policy on any end of the spectrum is terrifying, when what's more terrifying is the end of democracy, and real beliefs supplanted by groupthink and indoctrination.

    I think there is a further matter of principle here- when this is the most members Labour has ever had, they just recruited as many in 48 hours than the Tory parties total membership. This is about democracy, in it's purest from, not ideology(in fact it's the existing consensus that is more an ideology and a regime) and that it goes against the myopic and arrogant political class and overly interfering, biased media, it becomes a righteous thing to me to keep backing him.Too many are viewing Corbyn through a prism of solely what policies they want short term from an elected PM or media spin, and not getting the much wider picture, that it is about democracy and the people vs the media and political class.They can still vote for the Tories or Lib Dems and get pretty much Blairism/Neoliberalism they want anyhow, so why do they actively want the end of all democratic choice at elections controlled by a power crazed, dumbed down media, simple because of long redundant, fake tribal party identities?


    This is about whether we spark change of the whole paradigm, or we validate the elites in their complacent assumptions and the status quo. It's not about where you are on the spectrum, if this paradigm continues you will have less and less democracy, by validating the media and mainstream politicians. We should support this for all sides of the political spectrum in the name of honest debate, the opposition to propaganda, and the restoration of representative, varied, adversarial politics from people who genuinely believe in things. Corbyn, and his supporters defiance has greater repercussions, precipitative effects that could mean all sides that have hitherto been shut out of debate, from staunch Libertarians defending civil liberties to Social Conservatives who believe in the nation state, to radical Greens, may start getting a bigger say and knocking out the old identities in elections. You may start getting much more democratic and unpredictable elections and coalitions, and real policy change. I may be dreaming here- but at the very least I think you could change the political paradigm and get rid of this stagnant consensus, that is well within the bounds of possibility. Even though I don't believe any Labour candidate would do better than Corbyn in election in these times(I think the NuLab apparatchiks have still not got it), I'd rather have him unelected than support a Blairite, get them elected and go back to more of the same. This could shake up our whole politics in a way so desperately needed. I wouldn't personally mind if Labour split - they are clearly two parties already, and I'm not sure the NuLab lot have any difference from the Tories, apart from the genuinely socially conservative ones, of whom there are few. There were also be an anti-globalization, more conservative old left Labour party, by conservative I mean being about solidarity and the nation state, not the neo con/neo liberals found now that call themselves conservative.

    Edit- This is a personal thing, but I think a NuLab remain candidate, especailly with an election soon, would keep us in the EU-they are the globalists and the neo-liberals so it makes sense. Corbyn and his wing of the party are in my view more interested in moving on and being independent then dealing with inequality. Corbyn might be too old in time, but it's about the wider movement and grass roots and democracy, that goes along with him. If the movement continues and our politics changes, there will be a young imaginative radical to come through after, not another off the Blairite conveyer belt. Plus the party and maybe all parties will operate differently. He's seen as for the past, but it is NuLab that are the past, technology is changing everything and politics is getting more grass roots in this case, and it's quite invigorating. I don't buy that another Labour leader would do better electorally right now, because the old labour(or what would have been) votes that went in Brexit are going to go a lot to May because they just want Brexit to go through properly and don't trust Labour remain. I think actually Corbyn is more associated with Bennites and real Labour and seen as embracing Brexit and getting on with it. And in the future, after more years of the Tories, the appetite will not be for a politically similar Labour leader, it will be for someone further left, and genuinely adversarial politics.

    There is a dilemma though in that he will cop the electoral flak for the people who want to push Brexit through voting Tory, even though no Labour leader could change that, and especially not a keen remainer. In this sense it might be seen as justified to shift back to the 'old' new Labour spectrum again. Whereas, if a Blairite or Owen Smith(whatever he is) got in and then truly tanked in an election, that would be a prize humiliation and proof Blarites were wrong, and an even greater expansion of the leftist grass roots and democratic change. So it is a complex, mixed bag this issue, what do you think? Owen might end up being a gift to momentum and Corbynites/Bennites, people further left.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    Go and educate yourself on the Budapest Memorandum, then understand what happens to well intentioned but ultimately naive people who throw their weapons away.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budape...ity_Assurances
    The Russian action in the Ukraine was in response to a coup against the democratically elected government. Nuclear weapons would and could not have been deployed in this instance anyway.

    While you're at it, go and read about the Seven days to the Rhine plan the soviets had.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_...he_River_Rhine
    Your example seems to be an exercise in response to a NATO first strike, not an attack on our country.

    Russia and China have long histories of bullying their neighbors. Both of them are actively doing it now, Russia with Ukraine and China with the South China Sea.

    China isn't a threat to us at the moment, the're more interested in trade but are seeking to expand their territory and military power.

    Russia certainly is. They have seized new territory recently and Putin has said on many occasions about countries and cities being targets for nukes.
    These suggestions are a long way from any possible invasion of the UK. They don't really apply to the conventional weapons scenario either as they both have nukes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    But the knowledge that it will be used is why it is a deterrent against an attack.
    Then they obviously didn't care about it being used so the deterrent aspect failed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    That varies. Russia have been keen to invade our allies for many decades and we have mutual assistance pacts with them. China is getting more and more aggressive.
    Which allies do they want to invade and more aggressive against who?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.