Re: FREEDOM!!!! [4]

by Mrs Figg Tue Sep 29, 2015 5:44 pm

Bluebottle wrote:
Mrs Figg wrote:actually Britain is not in a financial crisis, we are doing quite well at the moment.

I'd say a country that keeps cutting it's basic services because of a stated debt problem is in a financial crisis. Whether the banks the states bailed out a couple of years ago putting themselves deeper into debt are making money again I see as less important..

we are not in a financial crisis. end of story. cutting welfare is Conservative policy because that's what they do when in power, and did in the 80s when everything was hunky dory.

Mrs Figg wrote:It should not be scrapped.

I guess we disagree on that then.

yup.

Mrs Figg wrote:But anyway its nothing to do with others thinking we are wanting Trident for purposes of throwing our weight about.

Oh, who could think that surely..

well any country with a chip on their shoulder or axe to grind would think that..

Mrs Figg wrote:its for purely practical reasons. while the world has North Korea, Isis, and assorted mad dictators we need to have a deterrent, to stop said mad dictator from taking the piss. the world is very dangerous and we need to be protected if only in theory. Hopefully it will never ever be used, but in a volatile world who knows. what do you do say for example isis has taken over much of N Africa, has infiltrated Europe with assassins, bombings every day of hospitals, schools and public transport millions dead? what if its like the IRA x 1000? what do you do? do you tell to Isis stop killing or we will blast you off the face of the earth, or do you send an angry memo. ((((I prefer the blasting into smithereens option)))), but if you have a deterrent you have room for consequences to be paid for, and room to threaten your enemies. make no mistake, they want to murder us and its no good being noble when you are in danger of destruction.

I'd say that's the sort of rhetoric I'd expect from a right wing politician. And, for all the fear mongering, I do not buy it. I.e. I do not accept your premise.

whats right wing about being realistic? you may not have noticed but we are having a bit of a 3rd WW at the moment.

Not that I'd think nuclear weapons would be solution anyway. (To a problem that will never exist.)

nuclear weapons stopped the 2nd WW. its horrible but true.

I do however agree that the seeming lack of values like humanity and basic human rights in parts of modern Islam is troubling.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Sep 29, 2015 5:56 pm

A Scottish way to deal with folk preaching hate on the streets-

by David H Tue Sep 29, 2015 6:02 pm

I personally think that nukes are the legacy of a generation that survived WWII and came to the conclusion that whoever could destroy the most civilization wins. Yes, the mutually assured destruction argument works at certain times and places in history, but only if the opponents understand each other, like chess players that have faced each other a hundred times. WWI and WWII had given us that. But as our understanding of our opponents becomes less, the danger of a "misunderstanding" goes way up.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
2. ISIS ect- hopeless, totally useless against them or as a deterrent- the US is bristling with nukes and it didn't stop nutters flying two jet liners into two of the US's most iconic landmarks, landmarks full of people.
In the UK we have had everything from the IRA to the London Bombings- did nukes factor onto any of it? As either deterrent or realistic threat? No, not once. Utterly useless.
........
With nukes? You do nothing at all- they are not practicable in this situation- where are you going to target? Who are you going to bomb? By their very nature these groups survive by not being easily identifiable from ordinary innocent citizens.
The modern terrorist cell is a direct result, an adaptation of warfare, specifically because of a world in which some powerful countries have ultimate military power- in such a world the only sort of war the small man can fight is a terrorist war.

Yeah, it's been figured out long ago how to fight an opponent who relies on fear and threats to win. Berserkers, Kamikaze pilots, suicide bombers, 911 hijackers are all from an an ancient mold of warrior who is immune to fear. Internet ideology has added a new dimension to the recruitment and decentralization though. It seems to me that nuclear weapons may soon be the ultimate target for such people, which changes the game completely. pale

by Eldorion Tue Sep 29, 2015 6:31 pm

Bluebottle wrote:Well, discussing whether one should have nuclear weapons at all and discussing whether the UK should make a major investment in Trident are obviously two quite different things.

My thoughts on Trident are pretty clear. It's a massive waste, and really a bad idea for a country in a financial crisis. It should be scrapped. Nay, it should not even have been considered built. A lot of it seems down to national pride, and the UK playing the superpower they were a hundred years ago.

The UK might not be a superpower but they are still a great power by any conceivable definition. But on the other hand, I can see the argument that since the UK is in alliance with the US already, having their own nukes is redundant and they should focus even more on conventional forces.

As for nuclear weapons in general, I can obviously see that they play a role in superpower politics. But I would also hold that they only make sense in that context. Only in a reality were these powers needs to be kept "pussyfooting" around each other are they necessary, and the pussyfooting is to a large degree necessary because of the nuclear weapons themselves. Only in a world where imperialism and world domination, winning an international conflict, are even concepts do they make sense. In many ways they create the situation they supposedly alleviate.

So you mean ... the way our world has been for at least the last 5000 years, since Akkadians invented the concept of empire? The alternative to nuclear-motivated "pussyfooting" is more great power wars. I'm at a loss as to why you think nukes are to blame for the concepts of imperialism, world domination, or winning international conflicts considering that nukes are only 70 years old.

I for one think we need a world that functions in a different way. And I don't see how nuclear weapons help in one way or the other. That is perhaps idealism, but it's my opinion.

I think most people would agree that a world without conflict or aggression would be preferable to the one we live in, and certainly increased cooperation and understanding should be one of the major goals of any country's diplomacy. But that is a very gradual and uneven process. Certainly mutual disarmament can be an meaningful step when various diplomatic goals are met, but unilaterally getting rid of your nukes isn't going to remove the causes of conflict or tension.

by azriel Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:31 pm

This world scares the crap outa me. For every modest person with no more hopes than to live a quiet life there are what seems like 50 nutters. Technology has moved quicker than my brain cells can keep up with. Once, the term "nukes" spread so much fear it was palpable, now ? I dont know ? Has it now become passée ? people have heard it all before & dont feel as threatened by it anymore, especially as no launched punishment has been dished out. Chernobyl was the intake of breath that bothered people but even tho its liable to cook open air chickens for the next unbelievable length of time even Chernobyl is now forgotten, & that was an accident ! not intentional. I dont feel I can agree with Figgs ( sorry ) about our financial state. I agree the politicians have secured a formidable nest egg for themselves, thats bloody obvious but, this country at this moment in time is fucked ! Debt is the norm, going hungry is the norm, food banks ? when did we last need food banks ? Parasites springing up stating they will help you with your debt problems, choosing between food or fuel, rise in charity shop buying. I remember when not one man would set foot in a charity shop now they all do. There is 2 worlds living on this planet, the Rich & the Poor, thats it. what mentality that is contained inside either of those 2 groups is anyones imagination.

by Mrs Figg Tue Sep 29, 2015 8:18 pm

I agree the poor have undoubtedly got poorer and that's not in question, because they have. But the country itself has recently recovered and its doing ok. I mean the economy is recovering, but the gap between rich and poor is probably larger. so theres no financial crisis probably due to management and ruthless cuts of the welfare bill. Osbourne is a very good politician as far as the economy is concerned but a totally ruthless one if you happen to be vulnerable or poor. Mad

by Bluebottle Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:58 pm

Eldorion wrote:So you mean ... the way our world has been for at least the last 5000 years, since Akkadians invented the concept of empire? The alternative to nuclear-motivated "pussyfooting" is more great power wars. I'm at a loss as to why you think nukes are to blame for the concepts of imperialism, world domination, or winning international conflicts considering that nukes are only 70 years old.

Do I mean that by changing something that's wrong we should go back to something equally wrong? Not really, no.

I think most people would agree that a world without conflict or aggression would be preferable to the one we live in, and certainly increased cooperation and understanding should be one of the major goals of any country's diplomacy. But that is a very gradual and uneven process. Certainly mutual disarmament can be an meaningful step when various diplomatic goals are met, but unilaterally getting rid of your nukes isn't going to remove the causes of conflict or tension.

Oh, I wouldn't go that far. It seems aggression and conflict is something inherently human. Doesn't mean we shouldn't fight that tendency. And particularly international relations is one place one where we should do our best to keep that clear confrontationist from playing to much of a role.

Actually, I think the original founding principles for the UN would be a good foundation for a less confrontational approach to international relations. After the atrocities of the second world war I think a lot of nations were ready to take more pragmatic and idealistic approach to international relations. That idealism was quickly pushed aside by the realities of superpower politics, but they still ring true for me as a basis for a more stable international community.

http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/preamble/index.html

Also, this might be a bit law heavy for the layman, I read this article recently that suggest changing the basic principles of international law from an approach of state acceptance and consent to a more state obligation based system. (Well, in reality he claims that to be the case. (Whatever people might have thought for the last 70 odd years.) Razz

)

https://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u32/r_dworkin_a_new_philosophy_for_international_law_ccfls_2013.pdf

Scholars have long debated whether states are obligated to follow international law.1 In a posthumously published article, Professor Ronald Dworkin recently contributed to this debate, arguing states have a prima facie obligation to follow international law.2 Professor Dworkin suggests that this obligation arises not because the international legal system is based on consent (as many have suggested), but instead because states are obligated to improve their political legitimacy, and international law can help to do so by correcting the shortcomings of the state-sovereignty system. That is, international law can help provide a check against states that would abuse their own citizens, or can help compensate for the fact that states acting alone cannot solve global problems requiring coordination. Professor Dworkin argues that this theory has the advantage of both justifying the sources of international law—such as customary international laws states cannot opt out of—and providing a principle to guide international law’s interpretation.

https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/page/reply-dworkins-new-theory-international-law

by halfwise Thu Oct 01, 2015 1:09 pm

Unfortunately the ultimate basis of any real law is overwhelming force. Morality may be based on nice principles, but if someone goes against law, someone stronger has to stop them. This is usually done by groups of people consenting to form a government, which becomes powerful enough that nobody who follows has the choice of consent.

The problem with international law is the 'consenters' have wildly uneven power, so that one country or a small alliance of powerful countries can dominate the rest. It's closer to a tribal system where the strongest becomes chief. We'd need a lot more countries than we have to form a real world government in order to balance the few powerful ones. I don't think it can really happen in our world.

by Bluebottle Thu Oct 01, 2015 1:18 pm

Mrs Figg wrote:
Bluebottle wrote:
Mrs Figg wrote:actually Britain is not in a financial crisis, we are doing quite well at the moment.

I'd say a country that keeps cutting it's basic services because of a stated debt problem is in a financial crisis. Whether the banks the states bailed out a couple of years ago putting themselves deeper into debt are making money again I see as less important..

we are not in a financial crisis. end of story. cutting welfare is Conservative policy because that's what they do when in power, and did in the 80s when everything was hunky dory.

Cutting welfare might be conservative policy, but in this case they are using the debt crisis as an excuse to make cuts even Tatcher didn't dare. As I said whether the economists numbers show that large scale economics are up and running again, a country that must still cut essential services is to me in an economic crisis. Whether it's one by economists definitions or not.

Mrs Figg wrote:It should not be scrapped.

I guess we disagree on that then.

yup.

Well, I hope we can remain friends.

Mrs Figg wrote:But anyway its nothing to do with others thinking we are wanting Trident for purposes of throwing our weight about.

Oh, who could think that surely..

well any country with a chip on their shoulder or axe to grind would think that..

Well, it does all tie in with the quite scary wave of nationalism that seems to be sweeping your country. I'll quote Stephen Maturin.

“But you know as well as I, patriotism is a word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country, right or wrong, which is infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile.”

I don't really see the value in all the us/them rhetoric.

Mrs Figg wrote:its for purely practical reasons. while the world has North Korea, Isis, and assorted mad dictators we need to have a deterrent, to stop said mad dictator from taking the piss. the world is very dangerous and we need to be protected if only in theory. Hopefully it will never ever be used, but in a volatile world who knows. what do you do say for example isis has taken over much of N Africa, has infiltrated Europe with assassins, bombings every day of hospitals, schools and public transport millions dead? what if its like the IRA x 1000? what do you do? do you tell to Isis stop killing or we will blast you off the face of the earth, or do you send an angry memo. ((((I prefer the blasting into smithereens option)))), but if you have a deterrent you have room for consequences to be paid for, and room to threaten your enemies. make no mistake, they want to murder us and its no good being noble when you are in danger of destruction.

I'd say that's the sort of rhetoric I'd expect from a right wing politician. And, for all the fear mongering, I do not buy it. I.e. I do not accept your premise.

whats right wing about being realistic? you may not have noticed but we are having a bit of a 3rd WW at the moment.

What is right wing about being "realistic" is the building up of images that are more or less based on reality to carry public opinion in a particular direction. Then you might call it realism or anything else. I doesn't make it so.

Not that I'd think nuclear weapons would be solution anyway. (To a problem that will never exist.)

nuclear weapons stopped the 2nd WW. its horrible but true.

Nuclear weapons did not stop the second world war.

An equally sweeping statement that also has some truth to it.

I do however agree that the seeming lack of values like humanity and basic human rights in parts of modern Islam is troubling.

by Bluebottle Thu Oct 01, 2015 1:23 pm

halfwise wrote:Unfortunately the ultimate basis of any real law is overwhelming force. Morality may be based on nice principles, but if someone goes against law, someone stronger has to stop them. This is usually done by groups of people consenting to form a government, which becomes powerful enough that nobody who follows has the choice of consent.

The problem with international law is the 'consenters' have wildly uneven power, so that one country or a small alliance of powerful countries can dominate the rest. It's closer to a tribal system where the strongest becomes chief. We'd need a lot more countries than we have to form a real world government in order to balance the few powerful ones. I don't think it can really happen in our world.

Well, that's why we need an international organization like the UN was originally conceived. Smile

Powerful nations can only be curbed by the international community functioning as an.. err.. international community. And one way to secure that is by a strong system of international law that binds the nations to the principles confirmed in the UN charter.

It sounds idealistic, I know. But you have to start with ideals, and then apply them to reality. And most likely both the ideals and reality will change in that meeting. Well, at least that's the theory.

by halfwise Thu Oct 01, 2015 1:46 pm

Reality happened to the UN in the form of the Big Five veto power. It couldn't have gone any other way because the powerful nations would have just said 'nuts to you!' and walked out, and nobody could stop them.

I don't think we'll ever have a real world government based on an alliance of weaker nations to balance the strong - throughout history superpowers keep arising as others fall. So instead we keep uneasy truces where one or two superpowers throw their weight around behind the scenes with no way to slap their wrists and make them stop.

If we happen upon a time in history with no real superpower, a world government may happen; but since the time Spain ruled the world we've never been without a superpower that will look after it's own interests and resist a world government not based on itself. I think it more likely that an uber superpower will take over to form a world government than weaker countries will manage to coalesce enough to overcome stronger countries.

Much as I'd like the US to back the United Nations in a meaningful and selfless way to give it some teeth, there are too many politicians looking after the US's selfish interests to let it happen. It will only happen by turning the UN into a puppet, I'm afraid, and then the puppeteer somehow dramatically losing power as the UN survives.

by David H Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:01 pm

Not that I'd think nuclear weapons would be solution anyway. (To a problem that will never exist.)

nuclear weapons stopped the 2nd WW. its horrible but true.

Nuclear weapons did not stop the second world war.

Alan Turing stopped WWII

by halfwise Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:34 pm

And Navaho code-talkers. Nod

Figgy - I used to believe nukes ended WWII (as most Americans are taught to believe) but Petty patiently dug up the evidence to show me that Japan's only sticking point was honorable treatment of the emperor, and the Bomb was dropped mainly to make Russia back off, not to get Japan to surrender.

by azriel Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:15 pm

"Alan Turing stopped WWII"..........
And with a little help from Gordon Welchman

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:19 pm

Well Corbyn is in Scotland today- I hope he has been briefed for a change as so far almost everything he has said regarding Scotland has been wrong.
For example he accused the SNP if not really being a party of austerity because they had privatised the Cal-Mac ferry services.
Problem is Cal-Mac was privatised 20 years ago by the Tories, and kept that way every since by a succession of governments, Scottish and National level including Labour- for the very good reason that subsidised businesses fall foul of EU competition rules.

And perhaps he will clear up the complete shambles that is the Labour parties stance on Trident.
In an interview yesterday Corbyn said there were no circumstances under which he would use nuclear weapons, he is morally opposed to them on every level.
But his party have yet to decide if they want to change policy from what it is- which is to renew Trident- and the much hyped debate to settle the matter at the Party Conference didn't even happen as the Defence Industry Unions mobilised to block it even getting on the agenda much less a vote.

So his party have not decided if they are for or against, with most of his own cabinet for keeping them. And Corbyn has said he will never use them no mater what.
So if he were PM how can we keep them? He'd be leading party (and a Cabinet) who want to keep Trident and would be spending billions renewing it, and the same time it would be pointless as it cant be a deterrent if you tell everyone you would never use them!

So disastrous so far.

But he also seems to have failed to spot he is walking into his enemies obvious trap- if he wont use them and his party votes to renew them, then he has to resign on a point of principle if he feels so strongly against them.

I am starting to think there are very good reasons why Corbyn never got of the back benches for the last thirty years.

---NEWS FLASH UPDATE!!!------
Doesn't look like anything is going to get any clearer any time soon-

'Jeremy Corbyn has said Labour may have to go into next year's Holyrood elections (Scottish Parliament) without having a clear position on Trident.
The Labour leader, who is visiting Scotland, said he hoped the position would have been resolved by then.
But he told BBC Scotland that he could give no guarantee.'- BBC

by Bluebottle Thu Oct 01, 2015 7:39 pm

Well, the party obviously needs to reach a decision.. Which is why i don't like parties. They tend to suppress opinions even within their small membership.

by Bluebottle Thu Oct 01, 2015 7:42 pm

halfwise wrote:Reality happened to the UN in the form of the Big Five veto power. It couldn't have gone any other way because the powerful nations would have just said 'nuts to you!' and walked out, and nobody could stop them.

I don't think we'll ever have a real world government based on an alliance of weaker nations to balance the strong - throughout history superpowers keep arising as others fall. So instead we keep uneasy truces where one or two superpowers throw their weight around behind the scenes with no way to slap their wrists and make them stop.

If we happen upon a time in history with no real superpower, a world government may happen; but since the time Spain ruled the world we've never been without a superpower that will look after it's own interests and resist a world government not based on itself. I think it more likely that an uber superpower will take over to form a world government than weaker countries will manage to coalesce enough to overcome stronger countries.

Much as I'd like the US to back the United Nations in a meaningful and selfless way to give it some teeth, there are too many politicians looking after the US's selfish interests to let it happen. It will only happen by turning the UN into a puppet, I'm afraid, and then the puppeteer somehow dramatically losing power as the UN survives.

I'm not sure I was arguing for a world government. Razz

Just an UN that does what it says on the tin.

The big five thing has always been a legitimacy problem as far as living up to the foundational principles of the UN are concerned. It's letting special interests play a role in an area where they really should not. As is the role the Security Council plays.

It's all rather interesting though. Nod

by halfwise Thu Oct 01, 2015 8:11 pm

If Russia and the US had bombed each other all to heck early in the cold war, we'd probably have a world government by now.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Oct 01, 2015 9:20 pm

Well, the party obviously needs to reach a decision.. Which is why i don't like parties. They tend to suppress opinions even within their small membership. - Blue

But for the system to work at all they have to. The public have to know what it is they are supposed to be voting for.
If Labour under Corbyn continue as is- anyone can vote as they like including his Cabinet, then how can they present a manifesto?
Whats Corbyn say in it about Trident- "As leader of Labour I pledge to remove all nuclear weapons from UK soil, but it probably wont happen as most of my Cabinet and backbenchers will probably vote against me.'

Right now its like that on everything- whats Labours immigration policy? Whats their defence policy? What's their Health policy? What's their business policy? Where do they stand on Scottish Independence?Its all up the air with different members of his Cabinet and party all saying different things. Just yesterday, his Defence minister, whom he appointed, called his comments about Trident 'unhelpful'.

The SNP of course are having a field day, challenging him to say where the party stands on Trident and Independence, and using the effective line of questioning who if Corbyn leads the Labour party or the other way round.

by Bluebottle Thu Oct 01, 2015 9:51 pm

I don't know. I feel a healthy open and public party debate would be a lot more helpful for the electorate. Shrugging

by Mrs Figg Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:22 pm

what a mess. I want to like Corbyn but he is making it very difficult for his MPs.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:40 am

I feel a healthy open and public party debate would be a lot more helpful for the electorate.- Blue

Nothing wrong with a good healthy debate before you come to your policy decisions to present- thats democracy- debate it, put it to a vote, majority decisions stands- but we aren't even getting to the discussions half the time,let alone the vote or a policy.
Trident is a classic example, the party stance right now is for Trident- and any debate which might change that in the Labour party has been stifled and stopped by the defence industry unions- so we have the same policy being kept by default, no debate over it, and the Leader of the Party at complete odds with his own party and cabinet including the defence secretary he appointed.

At some point you have to stop talking and make actual decisions one way or another. It isn't a student debating society where you can sit there while the bombs fall debating that on the one hand this and on the other hand that. You have to act.

'I want to like Corbyn but he is making it very difficult for his MPs.'- Figg

I am much in the same boat- it would be great for someone with genuinely alternative political ideals to come forward and shake things up and Corbyn is a cnvction politician and seems a nice enough fellow with his heart in the right place- but so far its more shambolic and incompetent than it is a new politics. Its all a bit embarrassing so far.

by Mrs Figg Fri Oct 02, 2015 12:28 pm

they cant get rid of him either as he would just be re-elected. it will be almost impossible for him to compromise after 30 years of protest. he should stick to protecting the poor, that should be his number one priority.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:46 pm

Good to see nothings changed at Scottish Labour- its still a joke!

According to reports in the Herald newspaper Scottish Labour has been told by Westminster Labour (from whom the new Scottish leader claims autonomy and only yesterday in Scotland Corbyn was saying she is in charge of Labour in Scotland) that they have to stop using the word 'Scotland' but instead only refer to individual places, like Glasgow or Edinburgh. As saying 'Scotland' plays into the nationalist agenda.

As it typical here the fact Scottish Labour recently announced in the event of another referendum Labour MSP's can vote as they choose seems to have either been ignored or completely missed by Westminster Labour. Who are so far out of touch with Scottish politics and so far behind the debate they think not saying 'Scotland' will help! Unbelievable!

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:43 pm

Blimey its all go on the politics scene!

Seems Corbyn, and the Scottish Labour leader Dugdale have struck a deal for a more 'autonomous' Scottish Labour party-

'Scotland's Labour leader Kezia Dugdale has told MPs that a more autonomous party north of the border would improve its electoral chances.
It is understood the MSP told the gathering the move was not about creating an independent Scottish Labour Party but about having a "strengthened" party.
Ms Dugdale added that greater autonomy was the "the key to turning around Labour's fortunes in Scotland".- BBC Scotland

However the meeting she gave this too of the Parliamentary Labour Party seem to have responded with mixed views-

One MP said the plan could potentially mean the "end of Labour as a Unionist party"
Birmingham MP Stephen McCabe expressed concerns about what would happen in the event of a major policy difference on a matter not devolved to Holyrood
Ealing North MP Stephen Pound said there were no specifics from the meeting, adding "we don't know what the plan is"
Nottinghamshire MP John Mann and Paul Flynn, the MP for Newport West, said they were in full agreement with the proposal.
The MP for Dudley North, Ian Austin, said Ms Dugdale had performed "brilliantly".

I am inclined to agree to with those who say it weakens the Union (especially as Dugdale as basically already given a green light to any Scottish Labour MP voting and campaigning as they choose in the event of another referendum) and the point about what happens with a difference of policy is a crucial one for UK elections- what if Scottish Labour oppose Trident renewal and National Labour support it?
If you vote in Scotland- which policy are you getting?