| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Jeremy Corbyn 'Systematically' Attacked By British Press The Moment He Became Leader, Research Claim | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 26 2015, 09:41 PM (1,559 Views) | |
| Cymru | Nov 26 2015, 09:41 PM Post #1 |
|
Alt-Right
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/26/jeremy-corbyn-media-coverage_n_8653886.html We do not have a free press, we have a press where one is free to say what one wishes within the limitations set by an establishment which on the one hand does not want to appear to be silencing all dissent because that would make their power obvious, but on the other hand will not allow popular upstarts like Corbyn to become a genuine threat to them. This establishment prefers the manufactured opposition they act out their 'disagreements' with for the public's benefit. |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Rich | Dec 3 2015, 02:09 AM Post #201 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I found the following archives to be of interest and quite educational, the workers then were fed up with carrying dead wood. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/alevelstudies/1969-cabinet-conclusion.htm# |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Dec 3 2015, 08:57 AM Post #202 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Cheers, it further backs up my claims on the situation made repeatedly on this forum, and on the old Forum. And repeatedly ignored by RJD. |
![]() |
|
| skwirked | Dec 3 2015, 09:00 AM Post #203 |
|
On Enforced Vacation
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That paper points to workers "who felt they were only marginally better off than the unemployed". It also points to a breakdown in communication between all sides. If that's not a big indictment of tge way society was run then just what is? |
![]() |
|
| ACH1967 | Dec 3 2015, 09:58 AM Post #204 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How long before RJD states that it backs his claims
|
![]() |
|
| C-too | Dec 3 2015, 10:05 AM Post #205 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Good question, he may attempt to shift the goalposts a little but I suspect he won't even try to deny the points I have made. Nor will he answer the question on the Nostalgia thread. |
![]() |
|
| Pro Veritas | Dec 3 2015, 10:26 AM Post #206 |
|
Upstanding Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You couldn't be more wrong. I would fully support any and all actions, including a full invasion of Syria, if I thought it would work. The reason I oppose bombing is because it has, every time it has been used so far, been entirely ineffective. You want to stop ISIS you need to hit them where it really hurts - their cash flow. 1) Send in a fully supported, manned and equipped UN force to completely seal the Syria / Turkey border to prevent oil sales. 2) Apply full trade and diplomatic sanctions to Saudi Arabia until it stops funding Wahhabist terrorist groups - including ISIS. 3) To secure the global oil supply send in a UN force to seize Saudi oil fields. Continue to supply oil to the global markets and bank all revenues (minus costs) in a bank account for Saudi Arabia. 4) Apply full trade and diplomatic sanctions to any and ALL nations whose governments are sending aid in any form to ISIS. 5) Make supporting ISIS directly, via funds or materials, carry a full life sentence no matter where the individual is on the planet. 6) Likewise for fighting for ISIS. 7) Once all this is in place and ISIS has been choked of men, materials and funds then send in planes, armoured divisions etc to prevent ISIS spreading / escaping from its current areas of control. 8) Dig in for a siege. 9) Wait for 1 year. 10) Sent in ground troops to mop up whats left. Yes, civilians will die using my approach - but at the end of it ISIS will be broken and destroyed. We bombed ISIS in Iraq, because none of the points I made above were in place so they simply displaced and moved to Syria. If we bomb ISIS in Syria without those control measures in place they will simply displace to somewhere else, spend a year or so establishing strongholds and areas of control and a year after that there'll be another idiotic vote about bombing yet another country and still we will not have weakened ISIS one bit. I have no problem at all if we have to go full on Von Clausewitz "total war" to beat ISIS, and yes I know that will cause many thousands of civilian deaths, but it will defeat ISIS. The current, half-hearted, limp-wristed, approach of bombing from the air but doing nothing on the ground will also cause many thousands of civilian casualties, and it will not defeat ISIS because we already know it DIDN'T defeat ISIS in Iraq. So no, I am not a member or supporter of the StWC, I believe that War is only justifiable if it is carried out in a manner guaranteed to be effective; we already know that just bombing isn't effective. All The Best Edited by Pro Veritas, Dec 3 2015, 10:27 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Rich | Dec 3 2015, 11:50 AM Post #207 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Above. I do not think that western governments and military leaders would disagree with your synopsis, however, the problem lies in getting the peoples of the war torn countries to fight their own battles. |
![]() |
|
| skwirked | Dec 3 2015, 12:08 PM Post #208 |
|
On Enforced Vacation
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Great post PV, a novel approach if I may say so. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Dec 3 2015, 01:40 PM Post #209 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Best not ask me questions which no doubt will give me some homework, just put up your claims so that I can knock them down, that is much more fun. |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Dec 5 2015, 11:27 PM Post #210 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Almost all 'Magic Wand Brigade' stuff. It's an --- if only --- scenario full of dream time ideas. In order to produce alternative methods one has to work out feasible and workable alternatives. As for bombing; Afghanistan was a NATO commitment that achieved it main aim, i.e. the destruction of the openly used terrorist training camps. The Afghans are building up their military in order to defend themselves from the extremist invaders who conquered them when the Russians were defeated. Decrying the invasion of Iraq is meaningless unless you can come up with a workable alternative to the situation that existed there at the time. |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Dec 5 2015, 11:40 PM Post #211 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The points made were; The post WWII Labour government faced a problem of a shortage of steel. As part of an export led recovery plan they gave steel priority to industry involved in exports. It led to the UK becoming the major exporter of cars in the world. With many top class designs and innovations. The 1951/64 Tories opted to open up the home markets at the expense of the exports. By 1964, after 13 years of Tory administration this country had the second largest trade deficit ever recorder up to the time. The question for you is. "Was that trade deficit down to trade unions" ? Or, "Was it down to misguided Tory policies" ? Edited by C-too, Dec 5 2015, 11:41 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




8:28 AM Jul 11