You criticize Joe Biden for being too soft on this issue, and Joe Biden looks like General MacArthur compared to Corbyn.
You criticize Joe Biden for being too soft on this issue, and Joe Biden looks like General MacArthur compared to Corbyn.
I actually agree with that. I’m just trying to figure out how you square your support for this sort of thing with your support for Jeremy Corbyn, a man who literally wants to disband NATO.
Would PM Jeremy Corbyn have done that? Or would he have laughed you out of his office for suggesting it and called you a warmonger? You’re fooling yourself if you think he wouldn’t have been one of the loudest voices speaking out in opposition to a move like that.
Even the US is actually still sending weapons. It’s tailing off, it should be more, but shipments haven’t stopped. You’re making it sound like it’s a one way thing, and it can never get better. It’s never too late to start sending more.
The current labour party is a shit party for twats, and even they are better on Ukraine than Corbyn. Pretty embarrassing for the guy you claim is the future of British politics.
So you support closing Ukrainian airspace by military force and you’re a die hard Corbyn supporter. Fascinating.
Or, closer to home, establishing a consensus that Democratic candidates who support arming Israel will get primaried from the left and lose. That and Ukraine are my two biggest political issues going forward, and I think there are promising signs that it’s already starting to work.
I’m not sure anything short of direct military confrontation would have prevented Putin from invading Ukraine at some point. Jeremy Corbyn would have had us dissolve NATO though, which very obviously would have been a step backwards on this front.
Of course, there will be a negotiated settlement. The question is, will it be a negotiation from a position of strength and territorial gains, or from the position of even further losses because they ran out of weapons. Withholding arms only worsens their negotiating position.
You keep dodging the central issue though. It’s clear from your previous statements that the issue of Ukraine is important to *you.* I’m trying to figure out why you had so much smoke for Joe Biden over this, but you’re willing to let old Jezza absolutely slide on this issue.
For another, I think it’s critical that going forward, we banish people from politics who stake out indefensible positions on key moral issues like this. Jeremy is completely morally compromised by his rancid position on this issue, treating him as the savior of UK politics is bananas.
You’re making excuses to accept an indefensible position from a mediocre politician you don’t want to criticize. For one thing, it’s not over, that that’s not our decision to make. It is Ukraine’s decision.
He may be right about that. He’s wrong about Storm Shadow. Why can’t you acknowledge that?
As long as the people of Ukraine want to continue. They very clearly prefer a continued struggle to disarmament. We should respect that decision and give them all the tools necessary to prevail on the battlefiel. Withholding weapons only worsens their negotiating position.
That’s their call, not Jeremy’s. Ukraine alone gets to decide when to fight and win to negotiate.
He’s pretty clearly just against weapons shipments to Ukraine at all. Nowhere has he said that he would support more weapons in concert with a different diplomatic approach, he just says he’s against weapons shipments.
The thing is, you’re inserting this nuance around his position on arming Ukraine, which simply is not there in his actual statements. He’s making broad rhetorical gestures at “diplomacy“ but nowhere in any of his statements does he say anything close to “we should keep arming them as well.”
Many other NATO countries are building factories specifically to do that very thing. If Jeremy actually cared about Ukraine, he would be saying the UK should follow their lead. It would be a win-win for him, as it would create jobs as well.
Hope is not a course of action. Military aid is. Every member of NATO should continue to arm Ukraine at the maximum rate practical, for as long as Ukraine chooses to fight. If they choose to go to the negotiating table, better that they do so from the greatest possible military advantage.
It is universally the people who think of themselves as unflinching bastions of objectivity and rational thought who turn out to be the most biased, irrational, and prejudiced. Kinda just seems like you have an axe to grind with the humanities.
It seems you have misdiagnosed how we got into this position, and also misdiagnosed what the powerful critics of academia are trying to achieve. These rules would be a foolish response to the moment we actually find ourselves in.
I mean… or you could demand more from your supposed saviors in the new “left” party, and try to make sure they don’t just fill the party with cranks?
I feel like now would be the time to say “I won’t vote for a party that wants to sell out Ukraine and cut off their weapons” not “daddy Jezza can do no wrong.”
sure would be great if there was a left alternative that wasn’t founded by cranks and weirdos who can’t find their way out of a moral paper bag, huh?
He’s wrong in saying the U.K. should not send Storm Shadow to Ukraine. Thats my fundamental point.
He has made it very clear he prefers a peace of unlimited Russia tyranny over occupied Ukrainian land to a war of liberation that Ukrainians themselves support at a rate of over 85%.
What he’s saying here is fundamentally evil. He’s advocating for further abandonment of Ukraine. He could very easily confirm your view and say “it’s a shame the west is slow rolling military aid, we should send them 100,000 155mm rounds tomorrow” but he’ll never do that.
You are willfully misconstruing his statement because you can’t accept that he’s really terrible on this issue. He’s against weapons for Ukraine. He says he wants “diplomacy” but he doesn’t make it at all clear how Ukraine will fair better at the negotiating table disarmed than armed.
What? Corbyn gets a pass because Reform are also bad on this? What are you even saying? Labour are vastly better on this issue than he is. He’s too stuck in his cold war era mindset to see that Ukraine needs weapons to fight for its freedom.
Corbyn opposed those precise measures! He didn’t want the UK to send Storm Shadow at all! What the hell are you even saying??
I’ve roundly criticized Biden for not providing enough aid. I don’t support him. If the guy you’re claiming is the future of politics in Britain had his way, there would have been zero military aid and Ukraine would be in an even worse spot!
But you’re sitting there supporting a guy who is on record saying we shouldn’t have given them any weapons, and using his influence to argue that military aid should end!
What pressure do you suggest then?
He’s advocating for a frozen conflict, because a “cease-fire“ would just give Putin time to regroup and rearm before beginning his campaign of aggression again. Ukraine knows this, and are fully capable of engaging in diplomacy without useless western lefties tying one hand behind their backs.
If that truly is what he believes, why isn’t he pushing vehemently the other way and calling for more funding and for us to actually give them the arms that they need to win? Instead, he demands we withdraw their ability to fight back against aggression and accept permanent occupation.
it is purely up to the people of Ukraine, whether they want to fight or surrender. They know firsthand what will happen if Putin is allowed to occupy Ukrainian territory. Torture, displacement, ethnic cleansing, and cultural genocide. That’s not Jeremy’s call to make.
What pressure do you think Russia will respond to at this point that has not been applied, besides force of arms? This is the fundamental problem with his line of thinking. He’s either hopelessly naïve about what will and won’t actually work against Russia, or he’s a useful idiot.
prove me wrong. Find me one quote where he recants his previous position and admits that the people of Ukraine have the right to armed struggle in the face of genocide, and calls for the government to provide them with the means to defend themselves and win.
uk.news.yahoo.com/jeremy-corby...
bylinetimes.com/2022/08/03/w...
www.theguardian.com/politics/202...
it’s the same thing he’s always said. He blathers on about “targeting their oligarchs“ and how he would’ve solved the crisis ahead of time by prohibiting Ukraine from joining NATO or the EU, two institutions that he hates very much. He never once mentions support for arming Ukraine.
The fact that he pals around with noted transphobes isn’t ok simply because those transphobes happen to be muslim. And he is legitimately really fucking bad on Ukraine. He opposes arming them in their existential struggle against genocide.
Damn, too bad. at least Ukraine will have his cheap words to comfort them as the Russian bombs fall around their ears. www.theguardian.com/politics/202...
so surely he supports sending the money and weapons, right?
Bernie doesn’t make excuses for Putin and his “legitimate security interests,” so no. He’s got problems, but he’s been pretty consistently good on Ukraine, which Jeremy Corbyn really really has not been.
yeah, this isn’t actually remotely the same as saying even one of these senators would vote to impeach a president from their own party over for this issue. this just shows how far over your skis you are talking about American politics. You’re just missing a ton of important context.
His record on Ukraine is worse than almost anybody who isn’t an open Nazi. He’s worse than a bunch of Republicans in the US! He literally opposes the existence of NATO and opposes all funding for weapons to Ukraine!
Everything else aside, it is incredibly fucking funny after you preemptively jumped up my ass because you imagined that I defended Obama‘s legacy on Ukraine, to find out that you’re a fucking Jeremy Corbyn supporter. Just perfect comedy.
The problem with this whole """debate""" is no one is (apparently) willing to have an honest conversation about the reality, which is - we can't gain air parity (much less superiority) over the Strait, so - an air denial approach makes the most sense *for operational reasons*
yeah “giving a shit about real problems that are actually occurring” being made into a political liability is just an extraordinarily grim development. you’re incentivized to avoid trying to actually address real things because there’s no upside at all politically.
This was literally two days ago, but go off about how Corbyn's the greatest and he's totally going to save the left from the transphobes and the bigots!
hahahahaha of course you're a Corbyn deadender. You mean his new transphobic tankie party? And you seriously think it's the most popular party in the country. Man, UK lefties are so fucking odd.
This might be the most insane thing you've said so far. You're seriously suggesting that Democrats in Congress would impeach Harris for not engaging in ethnic cleansing? You've cooked your brain.
lol you live on TERF island where your libs are the monsters the left pretends the Democrats are, and you want to lecture ME about MY country's politics? Glass houses, friend. I'm muting now, later.
Just kinda confused why I should trust people who speak and behave like you do to overhaul our entire justice system. Your behavior kinda makes it seem like you care more about scoring points on the libs for cheap internet clout than making the world a better place.
You're not beating the allegations that you're a deeply unserious person only interested in posturing here. You know that, right?
Especially not today, after it's become clear that Trump will abet the wholesale ethnic cleansing of Gaza to help his buddy Bibi out, a thing Kamala Harris very clearly would not have done.
I mean, yes, people who helped get Trump elected are kinda evil. He's obviously worse on Gaza, and he's incalculably worse on every single other thing, so the calculus that Harris was the better choice was incredibly obvious. I don't feel bad holding that bad decision against anyone.
These are all pretty straightforward truths that most people would have been fine discussing, as long as we're all on the same page that what we want is more aid for Ukraine and not less.
Cool, so do most people who care about this issue in the US. It's not really some secret thing you have to whisper about. Obama fumbled 2014, Biden was above replacement level on Ukraine but still behind where he ought to have been, and western Europe took way too long getting their ass in gear.
What is the thing you were trying to imply by saying he'd give nazis a good faith reading and not you? Say it with your full voice!
Is that why you jumped up my ass over something you imagined that I said about Obama?
Please continue to lecture me about Kamala Harris while Trump burns the world down. It's super productive, and definitely going to change lots of minds! I'm sure your political instincts from *checks notes* being on Twitter a lot last year are infallible, and qualify you to comment on this!
Schatz is very much the front runner for senate majority leader after Schumer retires and he has very clearly cooked his brain on twitter
Dude what the hell are you talking about? I've talked about this issue at length in the past. Go search my profile. I very clearly agree with you on this. Where did you get the idea that I need lecturing on this issue? I never said anything either way about Obama?
Piss off. This is MAGA propaganda.
I've been actively involved in politics here since I was in high school. I literally worked for my congresswoman. I don't really need your amateur pontifications on how all our problems are actually really straightforward.
It's really fascinating the extent to which foreigners feel entitled to explain the politics of my own country to me, especially when it's pretty clear your understanding of the issue is pretty weak?
??? Pick a lane! Are we all horrible MAGAts for having a bad president, or was Harris bad and we shouldn't have voted for her? I swear, some people think they know what's going on in US politics because they see some tiny slice of the country on twitter and think that's the gospel truth.
This conversation is getting weirder by the minute. I never said any of those things? In fact my biggest beef with Biden was his failure to live up to the moment and provide Ukraine with the support they needed to win!
Your assertion is that this is because of Israel?
Israel isn't the reason we don't have universal healthcare, and cost isn't the reason either. It's a fundamentally ideological problem, and there are genuinely millions of voters who earnestly believe that universal healthcare would be a bad thing, often for racist reasons.
Don't lecture me about Ukraine. That's been my primary political issue since February 2022, and a core reason I stood firm behind Kamala Harris when all the Gaza people were saying we should ditch her last year.
Honestly, I think a lot of politicians on both sides of the Atlantic got psyoped into viewing salt of the earth bigots as more authentic and worthy than them and thinking therefore they must ritually cleanse their sin of education by rolling in the gutter.
What the hell do you think is going to happen if not that? You think the government that bombed every last standing structure in Gaza to a pile of rubble is going to be like "cool, war's over, let's rebuild here!" The genocidal intent could not be more obvious.
Police abolition progressives backing themselves into supporting revenge killings the way anti-gentrification progressives backed themselves into supporting segregation.
I'm fucking pinning this skeet, goddamn.
The south would love to have community based restorative justice back. They loved that shit.
Talk like this is incitement to genocide, and it can and has been punished at the ICC when it results in mass displacement or the deaths of hundreds of thousands of noncombatants. You know, like what's happening in Gaza right now.
Foreign aid to Israel is obviously about Israel, and this is what AIPAC exists to push. Trying to tie this to our healthcare issues, or some other unrelated political problem that has nothing to do with foreign affairs, *that* starts to smack of conspiracy mindset.
"I'm not a nazi so I'm not entitled to a good faith reading." Break that down for me. You're suggesting that OP has shown some willingness to hear nazis out, to find the good point they're making. You're attempting to smear them as cozy with the far right.
"Offensive options" they're talking about displacing millions of people from their homeland to a different *continent.* That's not a wartime strategy, it's ethnic cleansing! We bombed Serbia for far less.
We should cut Israel off because they're a horrible partner and are currently committing a genocide. Tying this issue to all the other unrelated dysfunction in our government is unnecessarily conspiratorial and flirts with antisemitic tropes about zionists controlling the government.
Tread lightly before you accuse me of ignorance of the threat posed by Trump to my country. I'll say it again: we spend a tiny, tiny fraction of our federal budget on foreign aid. That's *all* foreign aid. It is a rounding error compared to what M4A would cost.
waiting patiently for Bibi to come out strongly against the genocidal ramblings of his core governing coalition partners I'll be waiting a long fucking time.
This is incredibly fucking offensive. You wandered into the thread here to basically accuse OP of either being a Nazi or sympathizing with them because they're skeptical of your (insane) take on public safety reform that would poll well below 1% in the bluest state in the country. Unserious.
The Navy loves to rehash the glory of the Pacific theater in WWII and all its iconography and has, institutionally, *completely* memory-holed how fucking brutal that campaign was and would be if we were to repeat it with modern weapons.
Why should that be off the table in a scenario where they strike sovereign US territory in Guam?
The war ends, and then Israel forcibly resettles the remaining Gazans to some camp in Africa, which is what they're currently discussing. Ethnic cleansing.
Our healthcare situation is screwed up because of decades of insurance industry lobbying and because MAGA is a death cult. The amount of monetary or military aid that goes to Israel is a tiny fraction of the amount it would take to pay for universal healthcare. They're not really related at all.
Israel fundamentally has nothing to do with the healthcare debate in this country and it makes you sound like a weird conspiracy theorist when you make these sweeping claims. Not everything in politics is bad because of Israel.
The state and city mandates were incoherent in most places by the third month of the pandemic. The core controversy here is that a bunch of red state governors and Trump wanted to gin up COVID-related reasons to shut down BLM when everyone had been turning a blind eye to the rules beforehand.
I mean, no? Not remotely? You're using 100% made up numbers, the civilian death toll is quite obviously higher than that and will continue to grow as long as starvation continues to be used as a weapon of coercion against the civilian population. The IDF is obviously lying about their "moral war."
(The concrete justice system being proposed here as a model for the US is a system of ritualized blood feuds among nomadic Bedouin tribes)
No dude, that's not how the laws of war work. Combatants are bound to abide by the laws of war regardless of whether or not their opponent does. The fact that Hamas has killed noncombatants does not permit Israel to turn around and do the same. Certainly not at the scale of demolishing entire cities
They're a fucking shit "ally" that keeps doing insane and evil shit and we should cut them loose and sanction them within an inch of their lives.
If Israel was actually a "puppet state" it wouldn't keep doing whack-ass insane bullshit all the time that actively harms our interests in the region and beyond. An actual "puppet state" or even ally wouldn't force us to expend hundreds of SM3s and THAAD interceptors for some looney-tunes-ass reason
Public health officials largely spoke out against weaponizing public health restrictions to quash the BLM protests when things like Sturgis and rampant low-level violations of said guidance were ignored or even encouraged prior to BLM.
Are you sure you want to do the whole "appeal to authority" thing with what the UN does and doesn't think about the status of various territories Israel occupies? Surely you're going to take them all seriously, not just pick and choose the handful of UN positions that favor your side? Right?