Support CaB

Subscribers don't see this.

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

August 10, 2022, 06:45:50 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Starmer VIII: Labour will set you free

Started by pancreas, March 16, 2022, 08:54:56 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Buelligan

I mean, do the Saudis need arms, to save them from the aggressions of Yemenis?


Quote from: BlodwynPig on August 06, 2022, 10:36:46 AMThe conditions for tyrants to emerge do not happen in isolation. Onward Christian Soldiers...

Yup. 

Quote from: shoulders on August 06, 2022, 12:44:41 PMThere isn't a totally correct side, no.

If a military option was to be deployed then the best strategy would have been to present a wall of resistance among many nations that shocked Putin into abandoning....


How would this of actually worked in practice though? Care to elaborate?

shoulders

Quote from: Mrs Wogans lemon drizzle on August 06, 2022, 02:05:26 PMHow would this of actually worked in practice though? Care to elaborate?

You should know, as that's the only aspect of my opinion you seem to agree with.

Also it's 'have worked' not 'of worked'. People who say 'would of' are mishearing the contraction 'would've'.

#2404
Ok thanks.  How would your idea have worked in practice then?  I'm interested to know more because I don't think you've really thought it through properly from what you've said. 

Buelligan


Bernice

Quote from: pancreas on March 16, 2022, 08:54:56 AMNew thread.

Yes, it's actually now VIII threads, if I've counted correctly.
Tffr.     T.   R. 2,w.  CV.      . B t s


Buelligan

Heheh.  I saw and what's worse, it looks like he's put them on specially.  Like in the car, he thought, need trainers because I'm talking to ordinary types.

Quote

Tory Lord John Mann's wife gets the nod as Labour's Parliamentary candidate for his old seat in Bassetlaw.

Buelligan

What an amazing fucking shit show.  At least it's unlikely, though not impossible, that the electorate of Bassetlaw will have quite such an enormous cunt for an MP again.

Quote from: Buelligan on August 06, 2022, 06:46:25 PMHeheh.  I saw and what's worse, it looks like he's put them on specially.  Like in the car, he thought, need trainers because I'm talking to ordinary types.

lol, dad trabs.

thugler

Quote from: shoulders on August 06, 2022, 12:44:41 PMThere isn't a totally correct side, no.

If a military option was to be deployed then the best strategy would have been to present a wall of resistance among many nations that shocked Putin into abandoning the invasion, and he could have come up with some bullshit to save face. As it is, he has found it slightly harder than he expected but not enough to actually stop.

All that arming and funding Ukraine since then has achieved is a slow grinding campaign destroying its infrastructure and the agriculture Europe depends on, the denial of gas supply wrecking the economy, the displacement of 10 million people. All needless. Yes, Putin bears a grave, overwhelming responsibility for that, but hard choices are coming up.

If you are honestly telling me that further devastation is preferable to a diplomatic one, even a bitter settlement, I have to disagree.

You ask what stops Putin from doing this again, but what are you actually proposing? We aren't invading Russia and Putin is going nowhere. Come to terms with the fact this isn't toppling some tinpot dictator and any such attempt means World War 3. Is that what we're going to put the world through, is that proportionate?

Get around the negotiating table now and stop this before it goes any further. Put everything possible in place to disincentivise any further aggression.

I'm not clear what a wall of resistance looks like in practice, or how it would have worked?

Arming them isn't wonderful, but is the alternative not just allow Russia to take them over entirely and install another puppet? Given their elected leader has decided to resist against that anyway, either we say our hands are tied or arm them.

If Russia was successful in this campaign, and no action was taken to arm Ukraine, yes perhaps the conflict is shorter and that's better in one sense. Does having nukes mean effectively you can invade non nuclear countries with no consequences (yes obviously Russia is not the only one to have done this)

About the 'getting around the negotiating table' part, what would they be negotiating other than giving up parts of their country and handing over power, with threat of obliteration being the bargaining chips.

Funnily enough almost sounds like the standard starmer soundbite when there's a strike on 'i urge both sides to get around the negotiating table and sort this one out'

shoulders

Well then can you describe how the conflict realistically ends in a way that saves Ukraine from devastation and greater political control by Russia. If you can't do that you aren't in position to demand the conflict continues nor criticise others for proposing alternatives to destroying a country's economy, agriculture, infrastructure and displacing its people.

'We can't just let Russia get away with it'. We haven't, have we? But in reality a large powerful country with a nuclear arsenal weren't going to be put off by Ukraine's military plus sporadic Western money and arms. They'd have been put off if all neighboring countries acted like Ukraine were already NATO members at the outset. That is how power works and that is how Putin works.

There were a series of acceptable outcomes for Russia here shy of total control of the nation and people need to accept that this isn't a superhero film and that Russia are going to get one form of those or another. Not accepting that only prolongs the pain and suffering of the people we profess to care about.



Johnny Yesno

First I heard of this was today when someone on twitter posted it in response to it being Alexei Sayle's 70th birthday:


'Labour - The Big Lie': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQXxvZ7fRQY

Buelligan

Thanks for that, Johnny, that's brilliant.  Here is a link to their gofundme page if anyone wants to support continued production.  Help tell the truth and shame these terrible cunts - https://www.gofundme.com/f/labour-the-big-lie 

Maybe think about sharing the links, even if you can't donate - and of course, as they ask at the end, share your stories with them if you have one to tell.

thugler

Quote from: shoulders on August 07, 2022, 07:10:04 AMWell then can you describe how the conflict realistically ends in a way that saves Ukraine from devastation and greater political control by Russia. If you can't do that you aren't in position to demand the conflict continues nor criticise others for proposing alternatives to destroying a country's economy, agriculture, infrastructure and displacing its people.

'We can't just let Russia get away with it'. We haven't, have we? But in reality a large powerful country with a nuclear arsenal weren't going to be put off by Ukraine's military plus sporadic Western money and arms. They'd have been put off if all neighboring countries acted like Ukraine were already NATO members at the outset. That is how power works and that is how Putin works.

There were a series of acceptable outcomes for Russia here shy of total control of the nation and people need to accept that this isn't a superhero film and that Russia are going to get one form of those or another. Not accepting that only prolongs the pain and suffering of the people we profess to care about.




By choosing to fight back and not just let them take over they have chosen to 'prolong the conflict' regardless of the rights and wrongs of doing that, either they are assisted in doing that or they are not. One of the outcomes is surely that they fight off the invasion at least to an extent. Is it not? Am i being naive? I'm not convinced 'russia wins totally' is the only thing that can happen here, if it was would Ukraine not have surrendered some time ago?

Just because the only 'logical' endpoint of bigger country invades neighboring smaller country is they will likely win eventually, the logical extension of that is noone ever standing in the way of the bigger military powers so as not to prolong conflict. There are however examples in our history of the smaller force managing to repel invasion though are there not?

Buelligan

What if our world was different.  Instead of people rubbing their little tummies at the thought of someone's BRAVE BOYS killing someone else's.  We could start, at the very beginning with nice chat.  And then know, absolutely know, that total sanctions would be applied in the event of something untoward. 

Or even, why not dream of a world were there were no borders..?  Where we could all just live and not fight, endlessly, pointlessy, tragically, over coin.

Why do we have to be led by backwards-facing belligerent cunts?  Why do we have to make life so hard and cruel?

Replies From View

Quote from: Buelligan on August 02, 2022, 10:00:38 AMIs anyone saying that above? 

But I do think you're slightly wrong.  He is a revolutionary or at least a catalyst for revolution.  He started this current fire of Hope.  It's up to us to be the revolutionaries.  Guard its flame from the hisses and stamping feet of the establishment be they tories or Labour or anyone else.  Carry it forward, spread it, support unions and everyone else who stands up and shows which side they're on.

How though?  Just kind of suddenly start stamping forwards with steel-capped boots on and hope there's enough of us to make the walls of Westminster collapse?

What's anyone supposed to do?  Everyone lives a different distance from Westminster anyway so we will all arrive at different times probably.

shoulders

#2419
Quote from: thugler on August 07, 2022, 10:35:17 PMBy choosing to fight back and not just let them take over they have chosen to 'prolong the conflict' regardless of the rights and wrongs of doing that, either they are assisted in doing that or they are not. One of the outcomes is surely that they fight off the invasion at least to an extent. Is it not? Am i being naive? I'm not convinced 'russia wins totally' is the only thing that can happen here, if it was would Ukraine not have surrendered some time ago?

Just because the only 'logical' endpoint of bigger country invades neighboring smaller country is they will likely win eventually, the logical extension of that is noone ever standing in the way of the bigger military powers so as not to prolong conflict. There are however examples in our history of the smaller force managing to repel invasion though are there not?

We can't really have a productive discussion if your interpretation of the argument I presented is the most extreme.

Besides,  my request above, which I repeat below hasn't been met:

Quote from: shouldersWell then can you describe how the conflict realistically ends in a way that saves Ukraine from devastation and greater political control by Russia. If you can't do that you aren't in position to demand the conflict continues nor criticise others for proposing alternatives to destroying a country's economy, agriculture, infrastructure and displacing its people.

It's up to you to justify why devastation of a country and its people is worth it. 'We can't just let Putin get his own way' seems both hollow in that we were never doing that, and inconsistent when you look at what we're prepared for other countries to do all the time.


Paul Calf

It seems clear that Putin has plans for extranational states with significant Russian populations. Does that include London?

Seriously, though, if the choice is between letting Putin take the Baltic states and possibly Finland and Sweden and a nuclear confrontation, what will the world actually do?

Replies From View

Quote from: Paul Calf on August 08, 2022, 03:00:45 PMIt seems clear that Putin has plans for extranational states with significant Russian populations. Does that include London?

Seriously, though, if the choice is between letting Putin take the Baltic states and possibly Finland and Sweden and a nuclear confrontation, what will the world actually do?

Emergency wanking resource kits will be immediately furnished.  Eye masks and earplugs will arrive within the week after that, and we will all be invited to stroll out into the middle our nearest roads for a lovely lie-down.

thugler

Quote from: shoulders on August 08, 2022, 02:36:43 PMWe can't really have a productive discussion if your interpretation of the argument I presented is the most extreme.

Besides,  my request above, which I repeat below hasn't been met:

It's up to you to justify why devastation of a country and its people is worth it. 'We can't just let Putin get his own way' seems both hollow in that we were never doing that, and inconsistent when you look at what we're prepared for other countries to do all the time.



I'm just trying to figure out at what point your argument changes, as you suggest my interpretation is extreme that points to it not being a blanket prescription for every situation? Please go ahead and try to explain it to me.

I'm neither justifying it, or saying it's not justified. But they (or their democratically elected leaders) have decided to do it regardless. In their eyes presumably accepting every demand would also lead to devastating consequences of a different kind. Maybe that's a futile thing for them to do, but they're doing it anyway.

I have no idea if this is a hopeless endeavor, even if you're suggesting it will lead to more death in the long run, which may well be true, there's a non zero chance they could repel being entirely taken over isn't there?

'What we're prepared for other countries to do all the time'

Not sure i follow here? If you mean UK/USA, yes they are also bad, but I'm not defending their actions either.

Buelligan

I think the workers need to build awareness (and solidarity) together.  The borders that divide us were not declared by us.  They are constructs of the ruling class and yet it is us, always us, who get to tighten our belts, lay down our lives, to protect them.

Every time, forever, that there's war, the weapons sellers profit and the leaders do fine, the people always die.  This needs to stop.

We have allowed them to build nuclear arsenals, at our expense, that we now live in fear of.  What is rational about that?  What rational good-hearted person would think it reasonable to tolerate organisations, whose business and profit is war, to embed themselves, as if they're benign, within our societies, our politics, our policies and our attitudes, towards other human beings?

Paul Calf

Quote from: Replies From View on August 08, 2022, 03:21:09 PMEmergency wanking resource kits will be immediately furnished.  Eye masks and earplugs will arrive within the week after that, and we will all be invited to stroll out into the middle our nearest roads for a lovely lie-down.

You sound like a Tankie. I know you're not, so what gives?

Replies From View


Paul Calf


Psybro

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/aug/09/uk-energy-bills-forecast-to-hit-4266-from-january?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

The fact Labour have a leader that committed to energy nationalisation, but now of all times the grown-ups will send you to bed with a smacked botty for trying to start a serious conversation about it, makes me pretty darn cross.


phantom_power

Apropos of nothing much, but has anyone who, in a non-sarcastic way, talks about the presence or absence of "the grown-ups" and their position in relation to "the room" not been a massive fucking shrieking, to use their parlance, cockwomble?