Jeremy Jew hater

[wilts rover]

I doubt you intended your final para to refer to the actions of the PLP Billy - but thats what it does.

As you know I wont be voting come September so the conversation wont affect me personally but I can appreciate the difficult choice you will have. Voting for a self-confessed terrorist appeaser - or Jermy Corbyn!

Citizen Smith - I think you have lost most of the readership there Foxy.

[Copps is Magic]

The irony of Smith declaring himself an isis apologist in the midst of this discussion can't be lost to anyone.

[BillyStubbsTears]

An ISIS "apologist"?

Give me f**king strength. You can't argue with attitudes like this.

[Copps is Magic]

Perhaps Anjem Choudary could be lead negotiator on some of the main issues including the coming apocalypse and annihilation of man.

[wilts rover]

An ISIS "apologist"?

Give me f**king strength. You can't argue with attitudes like this.

To paraphrase a post someone wrote earlier in this thread, its not what you think about Smith's desire to negotiate with IS - but what the rest of the country assess the thinking behind that sort of judgement.

[Copps is Magic]

"listen lads, we can work on you wanting to wipe out the Sh'ites but can we please stop this jihad"

[BillyStubbsTears]

When the double act has run out of steam, you might care to reflect on the bleeding obvious issue again (going to have to get a quick key link for that phrase).

Smith has suggested doing what always happens in armed conflicts. For the record, I think he is both wrong in principle on this one (in thinking that anything good can come out of it) and naive on the politics (in thinking that those who chortled about him being a Red Tory wouldn't flip round and accuse him of being a mad beheaders' friend).

What he hasn't done is what Corbyn and in particular, McDonnell did for decades, which was to support both the aims and the operational approaches of groups taking up arms against the British State, and to praise them for doing so.

A world of difference there once you've sobered up.

[Sammy Chung was King]

Neither will get labour elected. I am still waiting for somebody, who links the whole party, and the public see as the better alternative, to tory rule.
I feel unfortunately, we are going to have years of 'posturing', the leadership passing through many hands, until the person comes along, who can be prime minister.

[Glyn_Wigley]

The irony of Smith declaring himself an isis apologist in the midst of this discussion can't be lost to anyone.

At least Jezza's shown off his cast-iron consistency again by underlining how he would refuse to negotiate with a terrorist organisation that considers innocent civilians, women and children as legitimate murder targets.

Oh, wait a mo....

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yep. Corbyn wouldn't have ISIS round the table. He said so clearly yesterday.

Although if you take the table away, he WOULD have discussions with them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-says-there-could-be-benefits-to-opening-diplomatic-back-channels-with-isis-a6817181..html

He'd talk to them, but it wouldn't exactly be "dialogue" exactly, sort of, kinda.

So it'd be talking without actually calling it "talking".

This New Politics eh? Looks an awful lot like the Old Politics, only clumsier.

[The Red Baron]

I'm not making this point with reference to either of the Labour leadership contenders, but anyone who thinks you can hold talks with ISIS is deluded.

British Governments held covert talks with the IRA, directly or via intermediaries, from the 1970s onwards. That is essentially because there were always concessions that could be given to the IRA that would cause them to cease terrorist activities. The fact that those concessions would have been unacceptable meant progress was not made, but there was always some basis for talking.

I'd love to know what you could offer to ISIS that would make them pack up and go home?

[BillyStubbsTears]

I also previously thought that TRB, but I'm starting to think I'd been too...ahh...fundamentalist.

What if the public front insisting that the goal is the destruction of the West and the imposition of a Caliphate is just a front? What if there are power and money hungry people high up in ISIS who can be bribed or corrupted or turned?

If that can be done in a way which weakens their ability or incentive to fight, or even better, results in internal frictions which eat them up from inside, then great.

Whether it's politically sensible to talk openly about doing that, as both Smith and Corbyn have done, is another issue altogether.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I'm not making this point with reference to either of the Labour leadership contenders, but anyone who thinks you can hold talks with ISIS is deluded.

British Governments held covert talks with the IRA, directly or via intermediaries, from the 1970s onwards. That is essentially because there were always concessions that could be given to the IRA that would cause them to cease terrorist activities. The fact that those concessions would have been unacceptable meant progress was not made, but there was always some basis for talking.

I'd love to know what you could offer to ISIS that would make them pack up and go home?

That's exactly what people said about the Taliban, and guess what...?

[The Red Baron]

I also previously thought that TRB, but I'm starting to think I'd been too...ahh...fundamentalist.

What if the public front insisting that the goal is the destruction of the West and the imposition of a Caliphate is just a front? What if there are power and money hungry people high up in ISIS who can be bribed or corrupted or turned?

If that can be done in a way which weakens their ability or incentive to fight, or even better, results in internal frictions which eat them up from inside, then great.

Whether it's politically sensible to talk openly about doing that, as both Smith and Corbyn have done, is another issue altogether.

What your saying sounds more like the work of the spooks and Black Ops merchants. I'm sure the CIA, the Mossad etc will use any tool they can to try and divide ISIS from within.

However, for politicians of any stripe to raise the possibility of talks is foolish. It encourages the terrorists to believe that if they continue their campaign they will ultimately be successful. The IRA used to talk of "one more heave." The ISIS leadership probably thinks likewise.

I think Owen Smith said it because he wanted to somehow outflank Corbyn. Therein lies his problem. In order to defeat Corbyn he has to say things that will hang around his neck like an albatross if he does become leader.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

It's irrelevant because he has close to zero chance of becoming leader.

What it did do was to show Corbyn being a bit savvier with his approach than he was in January, when he was doing his thinking on that topic in public.

[The Red Baron]

Bit savvier you say, BST?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/18/party-splits-deepen-as-jeremy-corbyn-endorses-rival-labour-confe/

This pair are an absolute gift for the Tory press. You can see how they will spin it. One wants to appease ISIS, the other wants to appease Putin.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

Aye. And THIS has been my concern about Corbyn all along. He had spent a lifetime being anti-NATO. I suspect that he is one of those on the Left who, as an idealistic young man, leaned towards the Soviet side (for all its faults) and saw America as the enemy. Certainly there were many that I knew in the Labour Party with that opinion in the 1980s and I flirted with it myself.

Corbyn has regularly and vehemently denounced NATO throughout his career. This latest comment is precisely what I'd expected from him. He can't rein back on lifelong beliefs.

But, this is the deeply, deeply dangerous place that you get to when idealistic beliefs trump a realpolitik outlook. He is convincing himself, against all evidence, that Putin is amenable to dialogue and reasoned debate. And in doing that, and suggesting that Article V is not rock-solid, he is taking us into very dangerous waters. Article V works because Putin knows damn well that if he f**ks about with the Baltics, all hell will break loose. And whilst he is a bully and a tyrant, he is not a madman who would risk that.

Corbyn, if PM, is essentially saying to Putin, "The consequences of you invading the Baltics are not necessarily as bad as you think." Which dramatically raises the possibility of Putin starting to think the unthinkable. Which takes us right off the map of how to deal with that issue.

Very, very dangerous thinking. I support many of Corbyn's policies, but I cannot vote for a man whose foreign policy is so dangerously flawed.

[BobG]

Billy: I have some years of very relevant experience in this matter. I endorse your comments and thoughts in the post above completely, entirely and utterly. Corbyn is now more than beginning to look like Neville Chamberlain in the fantasy nature of his thinking about foreign relations. This is unbelievably dangerous. For those that aren't aware, google 'Kalliningrad' and have a look at the info. that's  publicly available about what Russia is doing there. There's plenty to look at. This is just one for starters:

http://www.rferl.org/content/kaliningrad-russia-nato-west-strategic/27079655.html

That place could see the start of something bloody awful - and Jeremy Corbyn is starting to make it easier for Putin to think he might find a chink to exploit. You'll all probably think I've gone off my rocker completely, but Corbyn is now on the way to becoming a danger to the entire western hemisphere.

BobG

[Sprotyrover]

I don't think it's Russia we need to worry about, China and everything south of Russia is far worse a threat.

[Copps is Magic]

Crikey the Russians are already in Goole? Well done Corbyn.

Course, when NATO plays silly buggers we call it 'defence'. You don't need a proclamation to your own intelligence to read between those lines. Funny isn't it? Constantly pointing out your own intelligence?

See, there's something called a geo-strategic balance in power. I don't think we have anything to gain at this point from an escalation is hostilities from either side. A post-Minsk framework needs to be developed in Ukraine, but last I read Ukraine is largely the one preventing that. It seems clear to me that the people in the East have to a legitimate claim to their own political determination.

Once again, sorry for interjecting. Jeremy Jew hating, most dangerous man on the planet....

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps.
"I don't think we have anything to gain at this point from an escalation".

Of course we don't. Which is why, in the current climate, you make it absolutely, unequivocally clear to Putin that doing a Ukraine in the Baltics WILL trigger Article V. That is the way to ensure that any musings about starting trouble get nipped in the bud.

No ifs. No buts. You draw a line and say, "That is the trigger point. Don't activate it."

If you say, "Yeah, well, maybe, possibly we MIGHT intervene if you do something naughty", that is an appalling dangerous route to take. That invites a bully to test your mettle. And then you really are in scary territory.

Frankly, I'm astonished that we're even discussing this. The only leading politician anywhere in NATO who has ever previously suggested that Article V might be negotiable is the be-wigged perma-tanned one in the USA. Have a look here - get past the "grab your attention" headlines and look at the detail. http://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/12247074/donald-trump-nato-war

Now, Trump was saying that because he's a demagogue and a tub thumper. Corbyn is a lot smarter than Trump in terms of geopolitics, but he is saying this for a reason. He knows damn well that you won't contain Putin by asking him to hold hands, drink lemonade and sing Ed McCurdy/Pete Seeger songs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZU-9TBP2NY

Question is, what is Corbyn's REAL motivation here?

[Copps is Magic]

Best not to jump the gun. Most accurate reporting on this will be found by watching the actual video of him answering the question. He didn't answer it, or at least gave a politicians answer.

He actually started by saying 'That's in the NATO treaty, I would hope...'

A part of the quote which has even been omitted by the Guardian, who also falsely imply he said 'no'.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bob

The 1930s parallels are gloomily real.

We've got a Europe and Britain struggling economically after a shockingly mis-judged reaction to an economic crisis.

We've got petty nationalists on the rise across Europe and a rapidly building hatred of the outsider.

We've got both Europe and America having a gut reaction against any military action after the senselessly wrong-headed decision to take us into a badly-judged and badly-run war a few years before.

We've got an ex-superpower that was smashed in a struggle 20-odd years ago, nursing its grievances and turning to a bristling, bullying demagogue to restore their pride.

We've got this demagogue playing the "ethnic brothers being oppressed by foreigners" card to justify some of his games.

We've got a nasty civil war on the extreme edge of the continent, where this demagogue is flexing his muscles whilst the West stands by and watches, wringing its hands.

And now we've got a senior British politician effectively saying that the way to deal with this demagogue is to listen to him and see what he wants and not be prepared to stand up to him.

You never step in the same river twice, but by God this is all scarily familiar stuff.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps.

Three opportunities to say, "Yes, if the nightmare scenario happened, then unequivocally, I would."

Easy to do. What every other politician in the West (bar Trump) would have said.

He ducked it every single time.

You credit him with giving a "politician's answer?" I thought this was the New Politics? I thought we'd donew away with spin and bluster and were being honest about our beliefs? Is that out the window now then?

And regardless of that, you are once again missing the spellbindingly obvious point. Article V works because there is no perception of a chink in its armour. It works because the other side doesn't have to try to interpret what NATO would do in scenario X. It KNOWS what NATO would do, and it doesn't want to precipitate that outcome.

Corbyn is dismantling that certainty and THAT is what is so bloody dangerous about it.

[BobG]

And for anyone who would like a more recent parallel, just think of the actions of the Thatcher government before the Argentinians invaded Las Malvinas.  So far it's a scarily exact parallel. The only difference is that we could bully little old Argentina when our wrong headed weakness bit us on the bum. But Corbyn's got no chance at all of doing that with Russia. I think the dread word 'appeasement' might just be resurrecting itself.

Bob

PS And, I do believe, not even Michael Foot ever questioned Article V. So, as Billy asked, just what is Corbyn's motive eh? Corbyn is the issue here. Nothing else. Corbyn. He's messing about with the future of the planet.

[Sad-Rovers]

the Argentinians invaded Las Malvinas.

You've lost me, Bob. Where is this mythical Malvinas you speak of?

[Bentley Bullet]

the Argentinians invaded Las Malvinas.

You've lost me, Bob. Where is this mythical Malvinas you speak of?

Is it the place the scottish call Falkirk?

[BobG]

Little place off the east coast of Argentina mate. Don't amount to much.

Thought you would have known that tbh given your background.

Cheers

BobG

[Sad-Rovers]

Never heard of it. Is it anywhere near the Falklands, the island we liberated from a right wing military occupation within living memory?

[idler]

Why use the Argentinian name for the Falklands Bob?
I'm sure the residents wouldn't approve.