Green Goose

Pato, You have said that with a great deal of passion. I can fully understand, joining the EU has been spectactularly beneficial for Spain over many years and even today Spain is a net beficiary when contributions are compared to receipts. After Germany, the UK is the next largest contributor to the EU finances. On net terms we lose out by billions every year. On balance the majority of the people in the UK decided that the EU just was not worth the cost and they voted to leave. It was not just a matter of money but more a matter of sovereignty. In 1974 Britain joined a Common Market, not a political, economic, montary and judicial union with ever closer political integration that will result in a federal system. The UK is a great trading nation with a strong sense of individuality and independence. Germany and France had been at war over the last 2 centuries. That influenced their thinking in terms of forming the original common market alliance as a means of avoiding future conflicts. The UK came to the assistance of Europe during two world wars but we do not see any sense in loosing our independence and soveignty for the sake of further integration in Europe. Spain was on the margins of Europe for many years due to Franco's fascist orientation but once he was gone, Spain was totally transformed by joining the EU. We have been diminished by it. It has cost us money. Please respect our right to vote the way we want.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > Your last sentence seems a bit muddled. > > This from a chap who gave us the sentence > "Altruisma and philanthropy are nor often the > prime motivation." Sorry teacher but my old arthritic fingers are not so good at touch typing as they used to be. For "nor" read "not" and for "altruisma and" read altruism and". Kindly don't be too intolerant of age-related considerations. Please Teacher, but didn't you promise not to respond to any of my posts just two days ago. Never mind, many politicos break promises, so welcome back. > I meant I would assume that those of you on the > right would see rich philanthropists as justifying > a position that the wealthy can be relied on to do > their bit for humanity. Clear now? You assume incorrectly. Philanthropists don't have to justify their actions or give reasons. But the Left see that wealth (however it is achieved) should be heavily taxed, as the solution to all society's ills and to assuage their own ingrained resentments. That is until they get on the gravy train as MPs or whatever then they insist on having all the trimmings like private education for their kids > Was Al Capone a leftie then? No, Capone was only chosen as an example of what happens if you don't pay your taxes - even though you've been untouchable in all other respects. > It's true, the rich tend to be rightwing as that > political side tend to favour them, and so > proportionately one would expect those in a > position to be philanthropists on a notable scale > to be more of the right. There are contradictions everywhere as you prove when you went on to counter your own assertion, as follows.. > Amongst current > "mega-philanthropists" Bill Gates is notable for > his Democratic party leanings, as is the > vehemently anti-Trump Warren Buffet.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It never fails to amuse that those on the right > refuse to believe that there is such a thing as > philanthropy which is undertaken for no ulterior > motive. Judging everyone by their own "what's > mine is mine and I shouldn't have to share and I > don't think I should even have to pay a reasonable > amount of tax" standard I guess. One would have > thought that rich philanthropists would be a > justification of their worldview rather than > otherwise, but it seems not. We were discussing donations to political parties. So a bit of a knee jerk there by you. Philanthropy has no link whatsoever with donations to political parties. There are not too many genuine philanthropists in comparison with other donors. On the other hand the vast majority of philanthropic donors have been committed capitalists with a right wing bent. And I can't think of one who objected to paying tax. It was Al Capone who didn't pay his taxes. Your last sentence seems a bit muddled.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Alan Medic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Should wealth be redistributed is an interesting > question. Those > > who say it should are probably not wealthy. > > This is simply not the case. If it were then the > Labour Party would not have any wealthy > supporters. Quite a few, if not most, donors to political parties do not do so for altusitic motives. No, they do so because they want to secure some influence on policy (like a certain mr Ecclestone) or they want to get a knighthood or peerage. Plus of course it is tax deductable. Altruisma and philanthropy are nor often the prime motivation. Believe me.

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which, presumably, might be why I wrote 'Do not > confuse Lenin with Stalin'? (patronising git that > I am). Never have but both had a lot in common when it came to employing force and terror tactics. Lenin set up the Cheka and used brutality on the population as a whole so as to protect the Party. Stalin used Terror against members of own party and against Politburo so as to further his ambitions. Not forgetting the 20 million he killed as mentioned earlier. Mao achieved about the same headcount if you count the deaths through famine caused by failure of his agriculatural policies. Very similar to where Stalin went wrong.

pato Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > someone already did it few months ago.. i d like > to remind you the story with the EU and UK as lots > of people have short memory.. > > UK: Can we join? > EU: nope.. > UK: Go on, pls > EU: ok then > UK: We want a rebate.. > EU: here is Your rebate He Pato, you told us onlyy half the story. Here's the full version... UK: Go on, pls ECM: OK then UK: You are ripping us off. We want a refund. ECM: here is your ?rebate? EU: We changed our name to European Union UK: OK EU: We want an exchange rate mechanism. UK: Sorry but that would have major problems (for UK, Greece, Italy, Spain.) EU: OK you can opt out. EU: We want a common currency. UK: Sorry, but that will have problems because you don?t control spending in each country. EU: OK, you can opt out. EU: We want open borders across Europe. UK: Bad idea. Not keen on that. EU: OK you can opt out. EU: Come for a jolly to Lisbon and sign this new agreement. Gordon Brown: I daren?t tell the UK about this. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/52947/Sold-out-to-Europe-Brown-makes-Queen-sign-away-our-sovereignty EU: Your legal system is no longer sovereign. We have supremacy on legal matters. UK: Gordon Brown keeps quiet. UKIP say we should have a referendum. EU: We have new rights to social security, housing assistance, health care and environmental protection UK: Gordon Brown keeps quiet. UKIP say we should have a referendum. EU: We now national employment policies, and laws dictating workers' social security and social protection rights and working conditions. UK: Gordon Brown keeps quiet. UKIP say we should have a referendum. EU: Our unelected commission will propose all new legislation. UK: Gordon Brown keeps quiet. UKIP say we should have a referendum. EU: We have an economic crisis in Greece. We will impose our power to apply austerity. UK: Gordon Brown keeps quiet. UKIP say we should have a referendum. EU: We will have ever closer union i.e. more powers to Brussels. UK: David Cameron keeps quiet. UKIP say we should have a referendum. EU: The UK military will come under Brussels control. Bugger NATO. UK: David Cameron keeps quiet. UKIP say we should have a referendum. EU: You must pay more money to fund Brussels corruption and our gravy train. UK: David Cameron keeps quiet. UKIP say we should have a referendum. EU: The Euro is going pear shaped. Can we have more money? UK: Sorry, but I have got to let the UK have a referendum. The natives are rebelling! EU: If they vote out, then you can swing it on a second referendum. We?ve done that before. UK: OK sounds good. We will have a vote. EU: They voted out. Quelle surprise! EU: We will make you sorry, ?pour encourage les autres? UK: Sounds like Hotel California.. ?You can check out, but you can never leave.?

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Take the value of your house, subtract building > cost equals land value. Apply initial rate of > 0.85% rising to 3%, so typically ?500,000 for ED > but let's be be generous and say ?400,000 = ?3,500 > for first year rising to ?12,000 pa . Sounds > sensible, eh? Happy with that, Helen Hayes, and > subsequent collapse of housing market? Is Corbyn > mad or just seriously deluded? Let's just be kind and say that he does not have a clue about economics and market forces. He wants to hit the property owners but he forgets about the fct that they also own the properies that tenants live in. He hasn't realised that rents would have to go up to compensate. On the day his launched his Party's new policy on childcare, he didn't have a clue on what it would cost. Just like Diane Abbott's 10,000 fantasy policemen. And 3,00 extra firemen and 20,000 teachers. They are happy though because the Magic Monet Tree will be like the golden Goose and provide the where-with-all to do it. Plus of course pay for nationalising the rail companies, National Grid, the Water, Gas and Electricity providers. Plus pay for the University fees. I could go on but the list is far too long. He is seriously deluded.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's the Tory narrative of course. If you work > hard then you can succeed. If you work hard you > might succeed. If your born in a certain time and > place and have a few lucky breaks professionally > you can succeed with little effort. It's not a > level playing field and there is a lot if luck > involved in diced. The idea of our living in a > meritocracy is nonsense. It has never been a level playing field and it can never be made into a level field by social engineering and handouts. The migrants I mentioned ( and myself included) overcame the life chances that were handed out. The harder I studied the easier it got. As American Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said ??.. ?I?m a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it.? I found that too. Plus, when I started out as a humble apprentice, I was given one real valuable piece of free advice and that was?. ? If you see some task or item of work being done by someone else and you think you can do it better or faster, then go to your boss and say that you?d like to take it on and add it to your job?. It certainly always worked for me. Also if you register an interest in taking on the next level of responsibility up the greasy pole then it sticks in Management?s mind and the next time vacancy comes up or there is a re-organisation, you are already ahead of the game. Now I fully appreciate that is anathema to union diehards (who believe in demarcation and other such hindrances to progress) and possibly yourself as I imagine you are a vehemently caring and benevolent Socialist ?albeit a rather na?ve one. But it is the way to overcome the perceived vagaries of life?s chances. It?s what you make of it yourself. The meritocracy we live in allows this to happen. Been there and done it.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The idea that people 'get what they deserve' is > hopelessly naive and ignores the fact that your > life chances, if you grow up on an estate in a > deprived area of wales say, are hugely limited > compared to the kid who goes to a private school > in the SE. I have worked with plenty of pretty > slow, rather lazy, but successful people. On most > objective measures I could consider myself to be > reasonably successful, but I don't for one minute > think there aren't smarter or harder working > people out there who are struggling to get by. > This is the problem with the Conservative > perspective. No, I did not mention the word ?deserve?. It?s about what a person makes of it. I do agree that life?s chances can be a factor ? but not an insurmountable barrier. I see lots of people who have emigrated here and to the USA where they have arrived penniless, with a language barrier to other prejudices to overcome. They have overcome life chances and pulled themselves up to become hugely successful. Look at the Ugandan Asians for example. The deprived from Wales can be just as mobile as those who migrate here. It was only in places such as the USSR where you did not have the right to move to a different part of the country or even emigrate for that matter. So, I don?t go along with the inherent prejudice that often leads to resentment agaist achievement just because one grows up in a deprived area. I came from a deprived area that is a match for the Welsh valleys any day and I reckon I did OK. I went to a State school and didn?t go to university either. Plus my accent could have been construed as a barrier but my view was, "what the hell", it?s what I put into the job that counts. Resentment towards those who have achieved more than others is a very quaint British characteristic. The Aussies encapsulated it with their labelling of the Brits as Whinging Poms. They are of the view that those who couldn?t/didn?t make a go of it in the UK and then didn?t make a go of it in Oz that they were rightly labelled as Whinging Poms. Australia (and the particularly the US) don?t have quite such a benevolent security system and that prompts some Poms to bitch about it. As to your last sentence, what I would say is that perspective is an entirely subjective aspect and I would imagine, you would never be a Conservative. Ipso facto you could never know what the Conservative perspective is. You are just reinforcing your inherent political prejudice. Most people don't change their political orientation and those who do do so in later lfe when they have had the benefit of hindsight. It might even happen to you one day.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I question the idea that we live in a meritocracy > where only the brightest and most hard working > succeed (and by implication that the poor are > somehow mentally or morally deficient and / or > lazy and fecklessness). Also the US is classless? > Hmmm. Yes, I think it's fair to say that this is a > naive worldview. You naturally will infer whatever you want from my use of the word meritocracy. I didn?t mention laziness of fecklessness ? you did; but certainly these characteristics aren?t going to do any one any good unless the lives under an extremely benevolent system in a country that can afford - that is it without having to borrow to fund the budget deficit. In the UK the class barriers started to disintegrate with WW1 and continued to steadily disappear in subsequent decades. So come the 1980?s and after the Big Bang, jobs in the City (the last bastion of class) for example were opened up to bright, numerate traders irrespective of their backgrounds. In the past virtually all such jobs in the City had been allocated by virtue of ?connections? and the old school tie. Certainly today, anyone with a STEM degree can get a well paid job in any sector without having to break down any class barriers. It is useful not to confuse ?class? with ?wealth? and assume they are the linked. Also please do not confuse academic attainment with class. The legacy of the class barriers of the past are still imprinted in the Socialist psyche and exaggerated and exploited by all those of a left-wing disposition. As an illustration, in the UK, when someone drives past in a flashy new gold coloured Bently convertible, some will say ?there goes a filthy, exploitative, capitalist b*st*rd?. Whereas in the USA, when the flashy pink Cadillac convertible rolls by, many will say ?my, he?s done well, good on him, he?s living the American dream. One day I?m gonna have a car just like him?. I?ve been to the States several times and worked with Americans and I can assure you from first hand experience there is no class barriers there. They take you as they find you. They are characterised by their positive, can-do attitude. In many ways, this is attitude is shared with the Australians who are well known for referring to us a whinging Poms. Who is it that are the whingers? The grafters or your feckless.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > By the way, in response to your nonsense above, I > cycled and walked everywhere I needed to go today, > I don't have a TV, I have a wind-up alarm clock, I > use a broom not a vacuum cleaner, What about the car that you mentioned in a previous post? Or is it a magic carpet that is carbon-neutral?

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now you blame the > workers for what happened. But monetarists would > not (read Friedman - 'inflation is always and > everywhere a monetary phenomenon' NOT a union > problem). You are wrong on inflation. When the Labour govt got in in 1974 it increased miners' wages by 35% immediately after the February 1974 election. In February 1975, a further increase of 35% was awarded. That certainly drove inflation. > > you cannot see that > May is a protectionist, reactionary, and > completely out-of-touch do-gooder (no intervention > uncalled for, for I am in the right). Her actual > policies are not at all Conservative. I will surprise you by agreeing. She is not well nd not up to the job. The Tory party will topple her before the end of June, no matter what the election result. > > BTW, in response to your picture, if you were to > look at Althusser's "Lenin and Philosophy" you > would learn something (he condescends, snivelling; > but you would). Do not confuse Lenin with Stalin, > do not think the Soviet Union was socialist (he > lectures; well he does). I've been to the USSR as it used to be and done business there. Seen it and researched it. Did you ever see it in the flesh under communism? I agree that Lenin and Stalin were rather different. Lenin wasn't too deranged and didn't kill too many of his own people but Stalin did it for around 20,000,000. Yes, 20 Million, not to mention the Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians etc etc. The worst was what he did to his fellow Russians who had been taken prisoner by Germany and who therefor became tainted by exposure to Western culture. Roosevelt was naive enough to agrre to let Stalin have them back in return for the Americans who were liberated from German POW camps by the Russians. Many of the Russian POWs committed suicde rather than return to Russia becaus they knew what was in store. Interesting also is the fact that when Russia liberated the American and British prisoners from German POW camps, they held on to them for months as bargaining chips. Also they would not allow them to be repatriated directly to the west but instead via the Black Sea ports to Turkey annd Iran and then on to the UK. I could write a book on Stalin but it wouldn't make pretty reading.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I question the idea that we live in a meritocracy > where only the brightest and most hard working > succeed (and by implication that the poor are > somehow mentally or morally deficient and / or > lazy and fecklessness). Also the US is classless? > Hmmm. Yes, I think it's fair to say that this is a > naive worldview. Time out please, I'm watching Champions League final!

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow, that is an incredibly naive post. OK, elucidate! Counter the logic. I'd love to hear it.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah OK. Democracy itself is at peril if Labour > get in. 🙄 Possibly, but investment, industry, utilities, savings and services are in severe danger. Not to mention the tax burden. Sterling exchange rate will slump immediately and then steadily deteriorate as the national debt soars. Foreign inward investment will cease and there will be a flight of capital to overseas markets. The UK will be stuffed if the unholy alliance of the extreme Labour left and Len McLusky's lot get the levers of power. There will be a repeat of the 70's "Brain Drain" where our brightest and most productive fled overseas rather than be taxed to death by a Labour govt. Industrial strife will return with avengeance. I've been there, seen it, smelled it, felyt it and suffered under it. It stinks. I certainly dont want to see it again. I for one will certainly switch my investments to foreign businesses and with it the tax I pay. But maybe you are too young to remember the 70's and the 3 day week?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're perfectly entitled to your views, but if > you think he's going to usher in a communist > regime, well I think your mistaken (to put it > kindly). Here's a little profile I came across earlier. JC has just drafted in Andrew Murray to bolster his team Murray has been a member of the Communist Party for 40 years. He is an outspoken apologist for the Soviet Union ?even once suggesting that brutal dictator Joseph Stalin had been unfairly maligned ? and expressing 'solidarity' with North Korea, the most repressive dictatorship on Earth.Murray joined the communist party aged 18, in 1976, and after school, he decided on a career in journalism and worked for - where else? - the Soviet state-owned Novosti news agency. He then graduated to the Morning Star - house journal of the British Communist Party. Some of the articles he has written for blogs have now mysteriously disappeared. But even those that remain provide a startling insight into his politics. He also wrote: 'We need urgently to raise the level of our Leninist education. Everything we are talking about, the imperialist crisis, inter-imperialist conflict, war, political strategy and tactics, are Leninist issues. We need to do far more to study Marxism-Leninism.' In another Morning Star article written days after September 11 attacks in America, Murray described them as 'landmarks in world history'. He added: 'Imperialism is the terrorism of the powerful, breeding night and day the revenge of the weak.' In 2006 Murray gave the annual 'Marx oration' at Karl Marx's grave in Highgate Cemetery, north London - in which he railed against the 'world war' he said was being waged by the West against countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria and North Korea, who were being 'threatened' by Western powers.. JC just needs a few more like Murray around him and he will soon have even more in common with Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin et al

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Conservatives are constantly quoting that we need > the businesses & the wealthy as job creators which > is a total bunch of B@##ocks. > > The corollary is also true - the corporations & > the wealthy need us as their consumers & couldn't > operate their businesses without well trained, > well educated workers at all levels. Without us, > the likes of Branson might as well retire > permanently to Necker & grow some vegetable & > raise chickens. > > Wealth is mainly the produce of the land, labour & > technology of all society. > > Land would have little or no value without the > consumption of the produce therefrom & produce > would have no value without consumption. > > The wealthy corporations & individuals need us as > much & possibly more than we need them. Of course > risk & enterprise need to be rewarded in order to > provide incentive but there needs to be a balance > in the distribution of the annual proceeds of > economic activity so a country can prosper & its > people live with dignity & security. > > This idea is anathema to the Toryboy concept of > society - they want, even need an underclass to > propagate their ideal of living & will fight dirty > to achieve that. They have always promoted the > concept of the upper class that have had more > political power than those of lower classes due to > their abundance of resources and influence & they > intend to keep it that way - this is their core > driver. This is just a warped and simplistic interpretation of the realities of the meritocray we live in. It is not just a meritocracy in the UK alone. It is worldwide and the UK has to compete on a worldwide basis with other countries. Take a look at the USA.It is totally classless and those that have ability coupled to the willingness to work, will succeed. Look at Singapore - no land, no resources but highly successful. You are just digging up the class divide that ceased to exist years ago - in the same way that you are regugitating the politics of envy.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We need immigrants, as they do jobs the native > workers do not want to do, like pick fruit and veg > in the fields, drive buses and trains, sweep the > streets, empty the bins, nurse the sick in > hospitals etc. Without these people doing the jobs > they do, parts of this country would quickly grind > to a halt. Who did these jobs before the willing foreign workers arrived?

Rah x3 You are possibly to young to remember the Labour Govt and the Loonie Left in the 70's and the never-ending strikes in the State sector. Now Corbyn wants to take us back to all that by nationalising:- Rail Water Mail National Grid Electricity Suppliers Gas Suppliers To make matters worse he wants to borrow and spend on a scale that would dwarf the borrowing that Gordon Brown did, which knackered the economy and left a massive debt for our kids and grandchilderen to payoff. JC's a nice enough bloke - a pacifist and socialist idealist but I wouldn't even let him manage my childrens pocket money , let alone the Exchequer.

Spot the difference.... http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t643/savedelhi/Public%20Album/Corbyn_zpsuwluzhlo.jpg The one on the left is wearing a tie.

Thought the FT summed it up quite well today.... Mr Corbyn is a fringe figure who has spent his entire political career in opposition ? to his own Labour leadership. Despite his recent media makeover, he is a pacifist relic of the 1970s, in hock to the trade unions, with no grip on economic issues. It is no accident that the arrival of Mr Corbyn and his hard-left supporters in mainstream politics has coincided with a revival of anti-Semitism and misogyny.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > uncleglen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Way back in the 1970s the WRP had a manifesto > > which included setting up a workers' militia > > instead of the police, locking everyone up who > was > > a drug addict or alcoholic- because apparently > in > > their 'utopia' people would not need these > escapes > > - some of the members I met were teachers, > Vanessa > > Redgrave and her late brother, Robert Powell > > popped up at a spring fair fund raiser, and > Mungo > > Jerry (the band) played at the conference. > > These ideas do not go away- their adherents are > > just better than they used to be at hiding > them... > > Way back in the 1960s some Tory candidates > campaigned with the slogan "If you want a nigger > neighbour, vote Labour." These ideas don't go > away, and their adherents don't even bother trying > to hide them. You just can't resist the urge to scratch that itch you have ,can you? Or is pouring salt in your own wounds?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is it with idiots asking for figures off the > top of peoples head at the moment. > I's like business, if you go into a meeting and you havn't got your figures and facts at your finger tips, you are toast. It certainly is in the businees that I'm in. Same with party leaders -they ought to be fully conversant with the numbers and costings. And for heaven's sake, today was the day JC launched his party's child care policy. Given that JC came accross well last night on C4 as a confident orator, but he lost all that cudos today when he couldn't talk the numbers on child care. TM last night recited all the numbers without hesitation. And when it comes to costing manifesto promises, it's the person who knows the numbers that has credibility with the electorate. At least, if JM becomes PM he will most most likely lead a Labour government that will be consistent with all the others in that every previous Labour govt has ended with a financial crisis caused by overspending and overborrowing. Every single one. Then Labour get kicked out by the electorate. Then the Tories get in and impose austerity to balance books and so they become unpopular and get kicked out. And so the cycle repeats itself. Plus ca change.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A friend of a friend is a journalist and filmmaker > from Beirut, currently living in Istanbul had this > to say on Corbyn's foreign policy. > > > > "Firstly, Paxman was f'ing crap, let's get that > out of the way. Looks like his race is run, time > for him to retire. > > Secondly, remember when Donald Trump said he was > going to make a deal with the Israelis and > Palestinians for peace? Remember how he was mocked > for this? Remember how his words weren't just > accepted but they were also scrutinised and found > to be total bollocks? Yeah, Corbyn does that on > Syria and he gets a loud round of applause. > > Again, I'm going to break this down into tiny > detail so the sceptics among you can understand > what is being said. > > Firstly Jeremy Corbyn's approach to combating ISIS > abroad is to "cut of arms and funding" for ISIS. > Let's start unpacking that. The international > coalition against ISIS have been "cutting off arms > and funding" for ISIS since the very beginning of > their campaign against them. What people do not > seem to understand, no matter how many times it is > plainly explained, is that Islamic State do not > receive huge amounts of external funding. > > The vast majority of IS wealth comes from robbery, > extortion, oil revenue, taxation and kidnapping. > Less than 5% of Islamic State's revenue comes from > donations, those donations are from private > citizens and are very difficult to trace. Saudi > Arabia and the Gulf States are categorically not > funding Islamic State, they are part of the > anti-IS coalition and are actively fighting > Islamic State. Anyone found guilty of financing > Islamic State in one of those countries would be > imprisoned for a very long time. So talking about > arms deals to Saudi Arabia doesn't change anything > with regards to ISIS, no matter how many times > leftists write articles about it. > > Now onto arms, ISIS have a lot of weaponry, the > vast majority of it stolen. They have stolen it > from the US-backed Iraqi army, they have stolen > them from Gulf-armed rebel groups, they have > stolen them from the Russian backed Assad regime. > There are no large convoys of arms coming in to > Islamic State territory from neighbouring > governments. If there were, it would require air > strikes to destroy those convoys, air strikes > which Jeremy Corbyn has promised to end. > > Therefore the idea that Jeremy Corbyn is going to > stop ISIS by stopping fantasy revenue funds it > does not receive and arms shipments that do not > exist is as fanciful as trying to chop down an oak > tree by strangling it. It will not work, it is not > grounded in reality. However instead of mocking > his answers the British public loudly applaud him > because they do not understand this. Then, when > this is pointed out by those who understand the > situation, they are then called Tories or > imperialists or war mongers simply for pointing > out the facts. > > NEXT, Syria. > > We are back in the realms of Donald Trump's > fantasy peace deal in Israel here. Jeremy Corbyn's > frequent positions on Syria are as follows, 1) he > wants a negotiated settlement and the restarting > of the peace process which includes Iran. 2) He > thinks all action should be carried out through > the UN. > > Both of these positions are based on fallacies, > neither of them are ever properly scrutinised by > the British press. Firstly, Corbyn has been > talking about involving Iran in the peace process > since the very start of the crisis as if they have > not been involved. In reality, Iran has been > involved in the Syria "peace talks" for many years > now, in fact, they run the show. Iran and Russia > are the bulwark against international > accountability for the Assad regime, they are as > intransigent on diplomacy re:Assad as ISIS would > be re: Baghdadi. > > Iran and Russia are in Syria to preserve the Assad > regime. While Corbyn says there is "no military > solution in Syria", Assad, Putin and Tehran > disagree and are pushing forward with their plan > to cleanse all of Syria. Understanding this is > important, the issue isn't negotiating peace in > Syria, it is negotiating what a future Syria will > look like and what process the international > community can take to hold parties accountable to > those agreements. > > People seem so quick to forget that the Russians > negotiated an aid convoy into Aleppo and then > bombed it before it could enter. This is what we > are dealing with there, this is not a case of the > British government being bad at diplomacy, it is > about the international community being paralysed > by continuously trying to talk their way out of a > conflict in which the party holding the power has > no intention of talking about anything. > > Furthermore, Corbyn has repeatedly refused to call > for Assad to step down or transition out of power. > This is why the rebels are fighting, they want > Assad gone. There is no reality in which rebels > will surrender to Assad and live happily under > Assad. If Corbyn has no position on Assad's > future, unlike the British government who are > still insistent on a transition and refusal to > normalise relations, then Corbyn won't be > negotiating for peace in Syria, he will be > negotiating a victory for the Assad regime. A > victory for Assad will not ensure peace but will > instead fuel the fires of extremism and war for > many decades to come. > > The last point is the UN, and this is critical. > Corbyn continues to push the fallacy that any > military action must be decided through the United > Nations. Corbyn rejected and still opposes the > Libya No Fly Zone. The Libya No Fly Zone was UN > security council mandated. So, in the last example > of the UN backing military action, Corbyn opposed. > He would oppose UN backed military action in Syria > too. Most importantly, if Corbyn was prime > minister he would have a veto at the UN. He can't > have a neutral position on military action, he is > either for it or against it and Britain's vote in > the UNSC is critical to that action. Therefore > there can be no UN-backed military action unless > Jeremy Corbyn either votes for it or abstains. > > This also fails to include the fact that Russia, > which backs Assad and commits near-daily war > crimes in Syria, also has a veto at the UNSC and > have been vetoing any and all meaningful UN action > on Syria, including against chemical weapons, for > nearly 7 years. Pushing Syria towards the UN is > essentially Corbyn giving Vladimir Putin veto > powers over the entirety of British foreign policy > in the Middle East. > > Look, you might not care about this stuff, which I > can accept. But what I can't accept is the > mindless circus applause as if we were all seals > waiting by the side of the pool for someone to > throw us a fish. These are dangerously naive > positions to hold at best and criminally > neglectful positions to hold at worse.To see > people who genuinely don't understand the conflict > continue to push his foreign policy words as > "principled" is deeply frustrating. I know many of > you have your hearts in the right places, but what > you are endorsing is not only stupid but also > massively counterproductive. It is also not in > line with the frequent statements put out by human > rights organisations such as Amnesty > International. > > I know you all care more about what you think will > happen to the NHS and schools and that's fine, I > understand, but that does not give you the right > to start pushing this insidious nonsense to people > when you don't even have the facts to back it up. > Please, for the love of god, scrutinise this man > like you would any other politician. > > Just because you talk a strong game about "peace" > doesn't mean your policy approach won't make > things worse both at home and abroad. > > And, if we have anything to go off, after Donald > Trump carried out a barely significant strike > against an Assad air base, Corbyn asked his own > shadow defence secretary Nia Griffith how the > Labour party should respond. Griffith allegedly > said that Labour should support a proportionate > response, Corbyn overruled this and condemned the > strikes. Corbyn is overruling his own defence > secretary because he thinks he knows best when he > clearly doesn't. This is a troubling precedent to > set." No reflection on the content but I just wish I had the time to spend writing that that lot.

Foxy, No need to respond to RendelHarris's provocations. He is a sad troll. He has got nothing beter to do than provoke people on the EDF that don't agree with his views. If you do respond, he's guaranteed to take the bait. So predictable. He always wants to have the last word. He will flog any topic just the be the last word. Join the club Foxy and link up with Borky, Uncleglen, me and the others. We have all been targets of his biggoted trolling. GG