Yes, the situations are almost exactly the same.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn refuses to say he would defend NATO ally being attacked.
- Thread starter Hazzuh
- Start date
- Status
Yes, the situations are almost exactly the same.
We reached this terrible point in history where a fullblown armed conflict involving the west is ancient history and the memory of the effectiveness of a defensive coalition is fading, too. I've heard too many alarming things from European politicians in the last years that I didn't think were possible, not only from the left. Pretty concerning to be honest.
shinra-bansho
Member
I'm glad we both agree you concocted a dumb scenario to facilitate your whataboutism.
ClosingADoor
Member
So because the Soviet Union changed to Russia, we can ignore everything they did before 1991?
Pretty much. We in the West have a few generations now that pretty much don't know war or oppression or even the possibility for it. So we don't see how it can pretty quickly return if things go bad.
excelsiorlef
Member
And this relates to UK how?
benjipwns
Banned
Well, no. That would contradict some of Russia's legal claims on certain territories...
shinra-bansho
Member
As lovely as that picture is, I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean.
The thread is not about the US. Or eagles. Or eagles inhumanely painted with flag colours.
I am not in the US. I am not an eagle. Or a flag.
The thread is not about the US. Or eagles. Or eagles inhumanely painted with flag colours.
I am not in the US. I am not an eagle. Or a flag.
What I find interesting is how so many self-proclaimed liberals are willing to give Russia the right to determine what does and doesn't happen in neighbouring sovereign states. Think of US foreign policy what you will, and there are plenty of criticisms to be had here, but surely there can be little defence for the Kremlin's insistence that they and they alone determine what happens in neighbouring countries rather than the people in them.
ClosingADoor
Member
Bigger countries have larger contributions? I'm shocked!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Right, but the point of the question is to find out if Corbyn would keep the policies already in place, a quite reasonable question given he has been on record in the past as calling for NATO abolishment. He refused to say. So I wouldn't really say it was implicit - I'm still very unsure as to what he'd actually do, for one.
Sephiroth503
Member
Well to be fair where I live - Ireland - we're not even a NATO member yet we benefit from NATO protection
The Hamburglar
Banned
goodlife and his other comrade are hilarious, they are literally the definition of whataboutism.
Stalin would be proud.
Stalin would be proud.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Well to be fair where I live - Ireland - we're not even a NATO member yet we benefit from NATO protection
To be fair, just geographically Ireland is pretty unlikely to be attacked by anyone unless a particularly angry whale pod comes by.
CyclopsRock
Member
Same could be said for Iceland. I mean, they don't even have a military so I dunno what the fuck they're bringing to the table.
ClosingADoor
Member
Strategic position to control the arctic I guess. And pretty much halfway between Europe and America.
Exactly! Hasn't anyone read Red Storm Rising!?! Wake up sheeple!
benjipwns
Banned
This only happens because of Western capitalist sympathizers undermining the proven scientific process of Marxism that a people's democratic dictatorship would bring about.
Plus the U.S. genocided the Indians and people starved during the Dust Bowl.
While I don't know a lot about this guy, I can't believe how hostile some people here are towards anti-war sentiments.
If it was up to me, every single military institution would be disbanded, fuck war and militarism, it's always people in third world countries that suffer the consequences of super powers going at it, and nobody ever fucking cares.
Russia and it's allies' proxy wars with the US and its allies has destroyed the lives of millions of people around the world, maybe you don't give a shit because you're privileged enough to not live in one of those third world countries that get affected, those proxy wars happen because those super powers aren't actually brave enough to go into direct war with each other, they'd rather use third world countries as their playground to advance their imperialist interests.
If it was up to me, every single military institution would be disbanded, fuck war and militarism, it's always people in third world countries that suffer the consequences of super powers going at it, and nobody ever fucking cares.
Russia and it's allies' proxy wars with the US and its allies has destroyed the lives of millions of people around the world, maybe you don't give a shit because you're privileged enough to not live in one of those third world countries that get affected, those proxy wars happen because those super powers aren't actually brave enough to go into direct war with each other, they'd rather use third world countries as their playground to advance their imperialist interests.
If it was up to everyone of course we'd go for world peace. But it isn't, we have irrational state actors like Russia invading their neighbours and seizing their land. To back out of mutual defense pacts increases the chances of conflicts.
Murica too. Both are terrorist states. How many millions of lives were ruined because of those two countries and their allies?
I'm just tired of diet-nationalism on the internet, the only lives that matter are the lives of people living in one's country, and if one happens to be courteous enough, the lives of people living in other first world countries.
All the whataboutists coming out the woodwork.
ClosingADoor
Member
America is a terrorist state? Sure buddy.
Please tell, which countries has NATO fucked up exactly? Which countries did NATO use as their playground? Which millions of people in third-world countries has NATO hurt?
You are aware that it is a defensive alliance formed to keep mostly Europe safe from the Soviet Union and now sadly Russia, right?
You can be against the US interference in other countries, but still support NATO. Because NATO has little to do with those things.
Not whataboutism, just hypocrisy, both countries should be condemned for all the misery they have caused around the world. They continue to play chess in third world countries, they support bloody dictatorships that advance their interests (Russia with Syria, US with the Gulf States), and dispose of dictatorships they're not happy with.
While you sit in your privileged first world armchair, who ends up being the victim? Us of course, I doubt your tone would be the same if you have to live under US or Russian supported dictatorships, or living in a proxy warzone setup by Russia & Murica.
Please find evidence that I don't also condemn the US for its overseas "adventures". Go ahead, I'll wait.
benjipwns
Banned
The Soviet Union wasn't a threat to Europe, it was the people of Europe's greatest ally, peacefully trying to help establish true democracies where the working class campaigned for them. NATO was an imperialist counterrevolutionary force that imposed capitalist hell and social fascism on western Europe after the Great Patriotic War.
It was a "defensive" alliance against the liberation of the European working class from capitalist imperialism.
How many civilians have they killed in Pakistan with drones?
The Gulf States? I happen to live in one. They're extremely stable of course, they're the most stable countries in the Middle East, do you know why?
In my country, the top "police advisers" were setup by the US & the UK, look up John Yates & John Timoney. Under them, people are tortured to death for opposing the government.
What Russia is doing with Bashar is exactly what Murica is going with the Gulf States, how much longer is Saudi Arabia going to be allowed to ban women from driving or force them into covering their head?
None of this has anything to do with democratic governments who voluntarily joined a defensive alliance against their historical oppressor.
Edit: It's true what a previous poster said. All of the people ranting about US interference in the Middle East just equate NATO to the US, so the reality distortion field keeps them from saying anything coherent about this particular situation.
I never said you didn't. I said my statement isn't whataboutism, Russia & America are linked together in their destructive foreign policies.
My post wasn't about this particular situation, my post was about the hostility towards anti-war sentiments in this thread.
Which isn't here either.
NATO is a defensive alliance. It has been activated ONCE, after 9/11. No-one in this thread is calling for an invasion of Russia, or indeed anywhere that I can see. It's been a guarantor of peace for the west since it formed - there's a reason so many countries that escaped Russian domination immediately wanted to join it.
Conflating NATO with american interference in south America and the Middle East is a complete straw man argument that has no relation to the crux of the issue - would Jeremy Corbyn order Britain to go to war if Poland or Lithuania were invaded?
That's it. that's all that matters. That's what he was asked, that's what he failed to answer. There are a million ways you can answer that question whilst still stressing diplomacy, first and last, and war only as the ultimate last resort. But he didn't - because he wouldn't.
Jeremy Corbyn is unfit on every level to lead the UK, or indeed anything.
I don't know, the more I google him, the more I like him. I don't get the hostility towards him?
Then again, I am a far left person. I am an Arab far left person living in a far right region, am I an appropriate Trump comparison?
QuicheFontaine
Member
I was in Iceland last week, and I can safely say the answer is: 'fermented shark'.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
This guy is the Bernie Sanders of U.K.
NATO != US. That's why we're talking about the leader of a UK political party. Why are you trying to derail and deflect by bringing up the US in a thread about an article that made zero mention of them?
I was addressing the hostility towards anti-war sentiments. Anyway, let's get back on topic, which is about this Corbyn guy, he's actually a very fascinating person, I like him.
shinra-bansho
Member
WhateverItTakes
Banned
Corbyn's big problem is that he seems incapable of working people in the political sphere. Yes, he gets unfair media treatment, and yes, many in the party didn't support him from the start, but as a leader, he needs to be able to nullify that. He hasn't. He has a fanbase of supporters which is impressive, but at the same time, it doesn't look likely that fanbase will win a general election, or any chance of real power. I'd love to be proven wrong, but the hostility is there because the dude keeps pulling these frustrating moves that pretty much ensures a conservative government for the next decade.
Any reasonable person would have stepped aside and kept fighting from their fringes. Instead he's thrown a spanner in the works of achieving any incremental progress.
benjipwns
Banned
Everyone in NATO nations is a puppet of the imperialist US.
ClosingADoor
Member
I don't know. You got a number for me?
Certainly not millions I think. Of course every death is one too much, but NATOs mission in Afghanistan was a legitimate one. Unfortunately that conflict spread to Pakistan also with the Taliban and such going back and forth over the border.
You are confusing the actions of separate countries with those of NATO.
Yes Russian is threatening to invade neighboring countries they used to rule with an iron fist as favor to the world to deal with the evil United States Foreign Policy.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked