comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 11 hours, 24 minutes ago
Well again that's vague.
US and UK policy has virtually nothing to do with 'bringing peace' or any other such benign policy goals. A cursary glance through the declassified internal records will show as much. So it's difficult to find many examples where peaceful means to ending conflicts have been genuinely tried, let alone exhausted.
We do however have Northern Island as sort-of case study. We didn't send fighter planes to drop bombs in Belfast and Boston (source of funding), and rightly so. Exploring peaceful means can work (though rarely explored), and should always be the first point of call for anyone reasonable and wh is opposed to violence except as a last resort and/or self defence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ni is a different situation though Berba, namely the peace process was successful because the UK made several concessions to the the various military groups and I wouldn't say it's been an unprecedented success either.
There is still activity by numerous groups on both sides of the divide for starters. More of the funding now comes from various nefarious activities and the violence that still exists is mostly over these funding opportunities namely drugs but others as well. What looks like gang war, is still very much a continuation of the conflict, although less effective.
Secondly you cannot underestimate the effects of 9/11 on the NI situation. Numerous groups in the US that had supported various groups stopped having fundraising events for the cause. In particular in New York and Boston. Presidents had previously been to these events so they were very high profile and raised huge funds. It's almost a completely different situation to the Middle East.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
That's all fine. But that doesn't negate what I said.
I'm finding it hard to believe that anyone same of mine would attempt to disagree that violence should be a last resort here.
Which brings us back to Corbyn. He's an anti war activist. That fact alone should propel him to the front of the queue ahead of apologists for war crimes like Burnham, Cooper and those wielding power - Cameron et al.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
That's all fine. But that doesn't negate what I said.
I'm finding it hard to believe that anyone same of mine would attempt to disagree that violence should be a last resort here.
Which brings us back to Corbyn. He's an anti war activist. That fact alone should propel him to the front of the queue ahead of apologists for war crimes like Burnham, Cooper and those wielding power - Cameron et al.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not disagreeing, I was just saying that the NI situation is completely different to the Middle East for a variety of reasons. I also stated that the conflict there is far from ended, or peaceful at the moment, although it has lessened to a large degree.
Of course violence should be a last resort one would hope.
He's an anti war activist.
..............
I would rather someone who is prepared to defend our country or it's interests if need be.
I have no problem with anti war people, and prefer them to war mongers. But sometimes you have to be prepared for people like Putin who wouldn't think twice about flexing his military might, also that fat bad haircut guy in N Korea.
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 2 hours, 1 minute ago
The biggest difference in NI was the PIRA giving up violence as a means to an end.
................
All very coincidental to 9/11 by the way. Their funding dried up from the Boston area.
VC,
'If needs be' being the operative phrase. That hasn't been relevant post 1945 for the UK. All of our military engagements have been entirely geostrategic/economically motivated since.
Like I've said many times, violence is a last resort, either when peaceful means have been exhausted or as self defence. Neither apply to anything the UK has been involved in post-1945. In fact the opposite is true - the US/UK have been (and still are), the major aggressors. Surely none of us can be happy about that, so if we're serious about genuine change then it makes sense for us to back people like Corbyn as at the very least a decent starting point.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 5 minutes ago
You didn't support the Kosovo intervention then?
................
And the first Gulf war. The UK had close ties with Kuwait.
The NATO bombing exacerbated the atrocities, as was predicted and as often happens, so no, there was no serious justification for bombing Kosovo if humanitarianism was the primary goal. At exactly the same time, the UK and US were increasing support for the Indonesian genocide in East Timor.
There was vastly more justification for military action against Indonesia, except that Suharto's brutal regime was was a favoured dictator of the West, whom we helped install (with murderous consequences). Point being, with alarming consistency, the 'west' backs violence done by our favoured client states with no talk of intervention, and intervenes when it's own strategic interests are threatened, rather than enhanced. Kosovo falls into the latter category quite comfortably, as does the first gulf war.
There were also peaceful means that could have been explored with regards to the gulf war, but I wasn't joking earlier when I said I'm doing a Robb and in holiday right now, so might come back with more details later. Depends how much showering the gf will partake.
I'm not sure what interests the UK (or the US for that matter) had in Yugoslavia collapsing and how that interest was threatened.
Very interested to see what you come back with here Berba as I am genuinely stumped. It has no oil to speak of and we definitely had no interests there in terms of military bases etc. they are all in Turkey/Cyprus?
Just quickly, oil isn't everything. Serbia was the last country in Europe, essentially, to carry out US imposed neoliberal reforms (socially, economically etc). We have documentation from the highest level of the Clinton administration on this. Take a look at John Norris (he has a book, but you'll find summaries online), who was Director of Communications. It's endorsed by Strobe Tallbot, who ran the state department intelligence joint committee.
And like I mentioned before, the history is completed inverted - the atrocities took place *after* the NATO bombing. Again, we have rich documentation for investigations by the Dutch parliament, the British gov and various other reports, OSCE records etc... So we have a lot if high level evidence from the very top of the run up to, and consequences of the bombing.
That wasn't such a quick point after all!
But the British Government at the time had a clear position, Douglas Hurd actually stated that we had no commercial or military interests in the region at the time and the decision to intervene was actually made by the Prime Minister for completely different reasons. The head of the JIC stated that there was no real threat to British interests.
Anne Lane wrote about it and it's included in a book edited by Lori Maguire. I'm not sure you can say that the UK intervened in Yugoslavia for any particular interests it had in the region, although there were a number of other reason that it took part in the action, which I believe at the time was also UN backed, not just NATO. I seem to remember the Security Council issued a few resolutions including sanctions and enforcement orders.
You should really go and check on your missus - no-one can be in the shower this long.
henrys
I suspect that comment might be on the wrong thread, or very Macca late if it is for this one.
No, no, right thread - Berba said he was on holiday and only commenting as his missus (or 'a certain somebody' at least) was in the shower. Maybe 17 odd hours is 'Macca late', but it's also why I'm concerned.
Just quickly, oil isn't everything. Serbia was the last country in Europe, essentially, to carry out US imposed neoliberal reforms (socially, economically etc).
Just on that point alone, it was a quote from Noam Chomsky, who was mis-quoting something from the John Norris Book you mentioned. The actual book doesn't say that at all...
Direct quote form the book
"Many outsiders accuse western countries of selective intervention in Kosovo--fighting on a hair-trigger in the Balkans while avoiding the Sudans and Rwandas of the world. This was hardly the case. Only a decade of death, destruction, and Milosevic brinkmanship pushed NATO to act when the Rambouillet talks collapsed. Most of the leaders of NATO's major powers were proponents of "third way" politics and headed socially progressive, economically centrist governments. None of these men were particularly hawkish, and Milosevic did not allow them the political breathing room to look past his abuses."
Sign in if you want to comment
Jeremy Corbyn
Page 8 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 18/8/15
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 11 hours, 24 minutes ago
Well again that's vague.
US and UK policy has virtually nothing to do with 'bringing peace' or any other such benign policy goals. A cursary glance through the declassified internal records will show as much. So it's difficult to find many examples where peaceful means to ending conflicts have been genuinely tried, let alone exhausted.
We do however have Northern Island as sort-of case study. We didn't send fighter planes to drop bombs in Belfast and Boston (source of funding), and rightly so. Exploring peaceful means can work (though rarely explored), and should always be the first point of call for anyone reasonable and wh is opposed to violence except as a last resort and/or self defence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ni is a different situation though Berba, namely the peace process was successful because the UK made several concessions to the the various military groups and I wouldn't say it's been an unprecedented success either.
There is still activity by numerous groups on both sides of the divide for starters. More of the funding now comes from various nefarious activities and the violence that still exists is mostly over these funding opportunities namely drugs but others as well. What looks like gang war, is still very much a continuation of the conflict, although less effective.
Secondly you cannot underestimate the effects of 9/11 on the NI situation. Numerous groups in the US that had supported various groups stopped having fundraising events for the cause. In particular in New York and Boston. Presidents had previously been to these events so they were very high profile and raised huge funds. It's almost a completely different situation to the Middle East.
posted on 18/8/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 18/8/15
That's all fine. But that doesn't negate what I said.
I'm finding it hard to believe that anyone same of mine would attempt to disagree that violence should be a last resort here.
Which brings us back to Corbyn. He's an anti war activist. That fact alone should propel him to the front of the queue ahead of apologists for war crimes like Burnham, Cooper and those wielding power - Cameron et al.
posted on 18/8/15
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
That's all fine. But that doesn't negate what I said.
I'm finding it hard to believe that anyone same of mine would attempt to disagree that violence should be a last resort here.
Which brings us back to Corbyn. He's an anti war activist. That fact alone should propel him to the front of the queue ahead of apologists for war crimes like Burnham, Cooper and those wielding power - Cameron et al.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not disagreeing, I was just saying that the NI situation is completely different to the Middle East for a variety of reasons. I also stated that the conflict there is far from ended, or peaceful at the moment, although it has lessened to a large degree.
Of course violence should be a last resort one would hope.
posted on 18/8/15
He's an anti war activist.
..............
I would rather someone who is prepared to defend our country or it's interests if need be.
I have no problem with anti war people, and prefer them to war mongers. But sometimes you have to be prepared for people like Putin who wouldn't think twice about flexing his military might, also that fat bad haircut guy in N Korea.
posted on 18/8/15
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 2 hours, 1 minute ago
The biggest difference in NI was the PIRA giving up violence as a means to an end.
................
All very coincidental to 9/11 by the way. Their funding dried up from the Boston area.
posted on 18/8/15
VC,
'If needs be' being the operative phrase. That hasn't been relevant post 1945 for the UK. All of our military engagements have been entirely geostrategic/economically motivated since.
Like I've said many times, violence is a last resort, either when peaceful means have been exhausted or as self defence. Neither apply to anything the UK has been involved in post-1945. In fact the opposite is true - the US/UK have been (and still are), the major aggressors. Surely none of us can be happy about that, so if we're serious about genuine change then it makes sense for us to back people like Corbyn as at the very least a decent starting point.
posted on 18/8/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 18/8/15
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 5 minutes ago
You didn't support the Kosovo intervention then?
................
And the first Gulf war. The UK had close ties with Kuwait.
posted on 18/8/15
The NATO bombing exacerbated the atrocities, as was predicted and as often happens, so no, there was no serious justification for bombing Kosovo if humanitarianism was the primary goal. At exactly the same time, the UK and US were increasing support for the Indonesian genocide in East Timor.
There was vastly more justification for military action against Indonesia, except that Suharto's brutal regime was was a favoured dictator of the West, whom we helped install (with murderous consequences). Point being, with alarming consistency, the 'west' backs violence done by our favoured client states with no talk of intervention, and intervenes when it's own strategic interests are threatened, rather than enhanced. Kosovo falls into the latter category quite comfortably, as does the first gulf war.
There were also peaceful means that could have been explored with regards to the gulf war, but I wasn't joking earlier when I said I'm doing a Robb and in holiday right now, so might come back with more details later. Depends how much showering the gf will partake.
posted on 18/8/15
I'm not sure what interests the UK (or the US for that matter) had in Yugoslavia collapsing and how that interest was threatened.
Very interested to see what you come back with here Berba as I am genuinely stumped. It has no oil to speak of and we definitely had no interests there in terms of military bases etc. they are all in Turkey/Cyprus?
posted on 18/8/15
Just quickly, oil isn't everything. Serbia was the last country in Europe, essentially, to carry out US imposed neoliberal reforms (socially, economically etc). We have documentation from the highest level of the Clinton administration on this. Take a look at John Norris (he has a book, but you'll find summaries online), who was Director of Communications. It's endorsed by Strobe Tallbot, who ran the state department intelligence joint committee.
And like I mentioned before, the history is completed inverted - the atrocities took place *after* the NATO bombing. Again, we have rich documentation for investigations by the Dutch parliament, the British gov and various other reports, OSCE records etc... So we have a lot if high level evidence from the very top of the run up to, and consequences of the bombing.
That wasn't such a quick point after all!
posted on 18/8/15
But the British Government at the time had a clear position, Douglas Hurd actually stated that we had no commercial or military interests in the region at the time and the decision to intervene was actually made by the Prime Minister for completely different reasons. The head of the JIC stated that there was no real threat to British interests.
Anne Lane wrote about it and it's included in a book edited by Lori Maguire. I'm not sure you can say that the UK intervened in Yugoslavia for any particular interests it had in the region, although there were a number of other reason that it took part in the action, which I believe at the time was also UN backed, not just NATO. I seem to remember the Security Council issued a few resolutions including sanctions and enforcement orders.
posted on 18/8/15
You should really go and check on your missus - no-one can be in the shower this long.
posted on 18/8/15
henrys
I suspect that comment might be on the wrong thread, or very Macca late if it is for this one.
posted on 18/8/15
No, no, right thread - Berba said he was on holiday and only commenting as his missus (or 'a certain somebody' at least) was in the shower. Maybe 17 odd hours is 'Macca late', but it's also why I'm concerned.
posted on 18/8/15
Just quickly, oil isn't everything. Serbia was the last country in Europe, essentially, to carry out US imposed neoliberal reforms (socially, economically etc).
Just on that point alone, it was a quote from Noam Chomsky, who was mis-quoting something from the John Norris Book you mentioned. The actual book doesn't say that at all...
Direct quote form the book
"Many outsiders accuse western countries of selective intervention in Kosovo--fighting on a hair-trigger in the Balkans while avoiding the Sudans and Rwandas of the world. This was hardly the case. Only a decade of death, destruction, and Milosevic brinkmanship pushed NATO to act when the Rambouillet talks collapsed. Most of the leaders of NATO's major powers were proponents of "third way" politics and headed socially progressive, economically centrist governments. None of these men were particularly hawkish, and Milosevic did not allow them the political breathing room to look past his abuses."
Page 8 of 8
6 | 7 | 8