Richard Seymour - vile human being.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
  Hrolf The Ganger  06 Sep 15 7.38pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
The Falklands situation went way above party politics. It was a vote winner as it turned out but it is to the Left's eternal shame that some of them still try to make political gain from the loss of life during that conflict.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| leggedstruggle Croydon 06 Sep 15 8.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Sep 2015 3.28pm
Quote Red Al at 05 Sep 2015 1.38pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Sep 2015 11.06am
Quote Red Al at 05 Sep 2015 10.23am
Quote suicideatselhurst at 05 Sep 2015 1.49am
Quote Red Al at 04 Sep 2015 10.32pm
I can't quite believe what bile some people post on here. Seymour's comments about Simon Weston are completely unacceptable and do not represent anything but that writers own views, but that hasn't stopped some bloggers on here tarring virtually all left wingers with the same brush. No evidence is given to support such claims but when did evidence or reasoned argument ever matter? Has anyone actually looked at what Simon Weston is supposed to have responded to? This is a right wing rant against Jeremy Corbyn cooked up by the Telegraph based on comments made by Corbyn over two years ago, that don't actually represent Labour Party policy and also don't state that Corbyn wants to hand the Falklands over to Argentina. He simply suggested that seeking negotiated solutions to international problems is better than fighting wars - but then printing the reality behind some concocted rubbishing of a left wing politician would be a step too far for our right wing bigoted press. As for gassing anyone who expresses views you might disagree with, that's a comment that is beneath contempt!
"Personally, I'd gas Bloggers, columists and opinion piece writers on the basis that they offer nothing of value beyond stroking their own ego. But I've been told that would be against the law." - JamieMartin721
With regard to your support of Corbyn's stance on "negotiated solutions, rather than fighting wars"... in 1982 we had no choice - Argentina invaded the Falklands and refused to leave despite being told to do so by the UN. In 1939 Neville Chamberlain tried your approach by "appeasing" Adolf Hitler and securing Peace in Our Time Hitler reneged on his promise and showed Chamberlain to be a naïve, dangerous politician that nearly led us to defeat by the Nazis. Thanks heavens Winston Churchill was there to pick up the pieces. Corbyn is dangerous too - he naively believes that abandoning our nuclear deterrent is a good thing whilst unstable countries like North Korea and Iran continue to arm themselves.
The willingness to go to war that is often displayed in the UK (particularly by the right wing press) seems to ignore the humanitarian and the political consequences of war. The wars in the Middle East, the instability in Egypt. Iraq, Libya and Syria and the refugee crisis we are now seeing are all the direct consequence of western aggression and warmongering. But it seems that those arguing for a peaceful resolution are considered to be the dangerous ones! What kind of twisted logic is that? I don't think we had much of a choice, and the decision was the correct one. The lives and rights of British citizens was imperilled by a Fascist Junta, that had already killed at least 80,000 of its own citizens. I know this is an unpopular view on the left, but the imperative of any state is to protect the rights, well being and life of its people. I suspect many of the left hold resentment on the decision because it ended up profiting the political life of Thatcher, but she was right. A nation that doesn't stand up an protect its people in 'their hour of need' isn't a nation. You genuinely puzzle me Jamie. At times you see things so clearly, as in this post. Then at other times you come out with some leftie nonsense. There is hope for you yet - I was very left in my youth - now look at me!
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 06 Sep 15 8.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
There was no big anti-Falklands War sentiment in 1982 from any significant political group or leaning. It was generally felt to be a just war at the time. It was the sinking of the Belgrano that cast a shadow.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 06 Sep 15 8.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Oliver at 06 Sep 2015 5.22pm
Plus she had a General Election to win Seven more days of conflict and she'd have lost that election. Whilst I always felt that militarily the UK had an edge in the Falklands conflict, the Argentine ground forces only 'had to hold out', as the UK's capacity to rearm and resupply was far more limited. Tactically the UK was at a disadvantage, they were on a logistic time limit, assaulting a sea position without 'real air cover' against an Argentine military which whilst it relied on raw military conscripts had a pretty effective air force with a reasonably effective anti-ship capability. Had the landing at San Carlos gone another way, and the Argentines had more 'fortune' with their converted bombs (13 of which hit ships but failed to detonate) the outcome could have been very different. Whilst it meant a great election victory for Thatcher and the Conservatives, it was in no way a forgone conclusion. The balls of the men on those decoy Navy ships cannot ever be measured.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 06 Sep 15 9.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 06 Sep 2015 8.28pm
There was no big anti-Falklands War sentiment in 1982 from any significant political group or leaning. It was generally felt to be a just war at the time. It was the sinking of the Belgrano that cast a shadow.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 06 Sep 15 9.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
It is of course nonsense to say that Thatcher won the 1983 General Election primarily because of the Falklands victory. People don't vote for a government to reward the leader of a recent war, witness Churchill after World War II. They voted Tory because they did not want a Michael Foot led Labour government. It would have been like voting for a softly spoken Arthur Scargill. The electorate will take the same view of another softly spoken Scargill - Jeremy Corbyn - if he leads the Labour party.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 06 Sep 15 10.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Sep 2015 9.19pm
It is of course nonsense to say that Thatcher won the 1983 General Election primarily because of the Falklands victory. People don't vote for a government to reward the leader of a recent war, witness Churchill after World War II. They voted Tory because they did not want a Michael Foot led Labour government. It would have been like voting for a softly spoken Arthur Scargill. The electorate will take the same view of another softly spoken Scargill - Jeremy Corbyn - if he leads the Labour party.
Was Foot (and the highly effective and successful demonisation of him in the media) something to do with it? Yes.Was the formation of the SDP something to do with it? Yes.Was the Saatchi Bros' dominance of how to run a successful campaign something to do with it? Yes. But all somewhat lesser factors than the Falklands.If the Falklands had "gone wrong",she'd have likely been out the door. People reward successful war leaders in elections generally.Churchill was the exception not the rule,and that because of people's memories of the 30's and the high profile role of some Labour members of the wartime coalition government.Not to mention Churchill's inane suggestion during the election campaign that electing Labour would be akin to having the Gestapo.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 06 Sep 15 10.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 06 Sep 2015 10.23pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Sep 2015 9.19pm
It is of course nonsense to say that Thatcher won the 1983 General Election primarily because of the Falklands victory. People don't vote for a government to reward the leader of a recent war, witness Churchill after World War II. They voted Tory because they did not want a Michael Foot led Labour government. It would have been like voting for a softly spoken Arthur Scargill. The electorate will take the same view of another softly spoken Scargill - Jeremy Corbyn - if he leads the Labour party.
Was Foot (and the highly effective and successful demonisation of him in the media) something to do with it? Yes.Was the formation of the SDP something to do with it? Yes.Was the Saatchi Bros' dominance of how to run a successful campaign something to do with it? Yes. But all somewhat lesser factors than the Falklands.If the Falklands had "gone wrong",she'd have likely been out the door. People reward successful war leaders in elections generally.Churchill was the exception not the rule,and that because of people's memories of the 30's and the high profile role of some Labour members of the wartime coalition government.Not to mention Churchill's inane suggestion during the election campaign that electing Labour would be akin to having the Gestapo. This is all very subjective. I would say that Labour would have lost the election anyway. Foot, much like Kinnock and Milliband was too easy to mock and far too weak in personality to become PM. The trend was against them in any case.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 06 Sep 15 11.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 06 Sep 2015 10.23pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Sep 2015 9.19pm
It is of course nonsense to say that Thatcher won the 1983 General Election primarily because of the Falklands victory. People don't vote for a government to reward the leader of a recent war, witness Churchill after World War II. They voted Tory because they did not want a Michael Foot led Labour government. It would have been like voting for a softly spoken Arthur Scargill. The electorate will take the same view of another softly spoken Scargill - Jeremy Corbyn - if he leads the Labour party.
Was Foot (and the highly effective and successful demonisation of him in the media) something to do with it? Yes.Was the formation of the SDP something to do with it? Yes.Was the Saatchi Bros' dominance of how to run a successful campaign something to do with it? Yes. But all somewhat lesser factors than the Falklands.If the Falklands had "gone wrong",she'd have likely been out the door. People reward successful war leaders in elections generally.Churchill was the exception not the rule,and that because of people's memories of the 30's and the high profile role of some Labour members of the wartime coalition government.Not to mention Churchill's inane suggestion during the election campaign that electing Labour would be akin to having the Gestapo. It is in fact very easy to argue that the Falklands wasn't the single greatest factor ensuring the Tories election victory in 1983. The 1983 Labour manifesto, advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament and higher personal taxation and intrusive state control and interference in peoples' lives. The manifesto also pledged that a Labour government would abolish the House of Lords and nationalise banks. (It also called for our exit from the EU - so would have got my support on that one.) This manifesto was described as "the longest suicide note in history." - and that was by the senior Labour man, Gerald Kaufman. We are in for a rerun with Corbyn.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 06 Sep 15 11.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I understand your point,but I'm in no doubt Maggie won above all else because of the Falklands...so we will have to agree to disagree on that. Edited by legaleagle (06 Sep 2015 11.34pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 07 Sep 15 7.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 06 Sep 2015 11.31pm
I understand your point,but I'm in no doubt Maggie won above all else because of the Falklands...so we will have to agree to disagree on that. Edited by legaleagle (06 Sep 2015 11.34pm) Of course you are. it is entirely predictably what you 'believe'. Obviously the electorate in 1983 were poised to elect a far left government, but reluctantly changed their minds to reward a right wing Tory because she was the prime minister during a war that had just concluded in our favour.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| bright&wright 07 Sep 15 8.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Never heard of this c*nt before. Apparently, he's described as a Marxist, he writes for The Guardian and he's a friend of George Galloway. When people wanting to bring back Capital Punishment put forward their argument I would just say 2 words - Richard Seymour.
'We are going to make a little bit of history here’ Mr. J. Ertl. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.