BacktoDemocracy Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I think he's the leader the Tories need, to have a viable opposition. What so that the UK can completey emulate the States and have two parties with barely a whisker of difference between them just to perpetuate the myth that they are a democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BacktoDemocracy Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Is he Anthony Wedgewood Benn's son ? I hadn't realised. You are joking aren't you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 What so that the UK can completey emulate the States and have two parties with barely a whisker of difference between them just to perpetuate the myth that they are a democracy. No difference between Republican and Democratic parties? And no difference between Republican and Democratic Presidents? I suggest you do some research into American politics, and remember too that a US president is limited to two terms, so no "Presidents for life". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BacktoDemocracy Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 No difference between Republican and Democratic parties? And no difference between Republican and Democratic Presidents? I suggest you do some research into American politics, and remember too that a US president is limited to two terms, so no "Presidents for life". Have either party promised gun control, have either said they will force a palestinian settlement, have either said they will address the blatant inequalities in American society, have either suggested they will increase taxation to ensure the poor get housed and fed, have either said that they will introduce a proper social welfare system that provides free healthcare for its citizens, have either party sought to address the horrendous difference in life opportunities imposed by the strata of society you are born into, have either party promised to legislate against the gross inequalities between black and white when I hear one or other party talking about enacting those policies then i will know that America is on its road to becoming a real democracy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newjez Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 You could have said that about fighting Nazism too.I'm happy to deal with this evil first militarily and work on the political situation later. No you couldn't actually. A vast amount of thought went into working out how Germany and Japan would be reconstructed after the war, so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Pity that hasn't continued. But then a lot of people seem to think like you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gbye grey sky Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 What so that the UK can completey emulate the States and have two parties with barely a whisker of difference between them just to perpetuate the myth that they are a democracy. I do disagree with you here though I can see why you may have concluded this. Both parties have been sliding to the right over the decades so the Democrat politicians now appear to hold the ground that the Republicans did pre-Reagan. The Republicans are now full-on dominated by neo-Conservatives and religious extremists who are as scary as Hitler in my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 No you couldn't actually. But then a lot of people seem to think like you. Thank God for democracy. So the majority can decide what the strategy is and the losers can have a good whinge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rallyman Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 We don't learn the lessons of history, everybody stood and did nothing about the Nazi that lead up to WW2 ,we knew what they were about and when we did wake up it was too late and it took a great human cost to achieve peace of a sort in the world . At what point do you get involved in a conflict that will affect the whole of the world , to do nothing you could end up in a position like we did with WW2 or do you engage with direct action as we find ourselves doing now to try eradicate the problem . I dont think bombing is the way forward with out putting troops on the ground and in all honesty I can't see that happening any time soon. If we had known about the concentration camps earlier what would you expect a government to do stand by and do nothing or take direct action to deal with the problem, Having read a lot of coments on here regarding views not to bomb what should we do as yet nobody has come up with a strategy. This is a major problem that is not going to go away and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets any better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 Thank God for democracy. So the majority can decide what the strategy is and the losers can have a good whinge. That philosophy worked so well in Germany circa 1939 didn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 That philosophy worked so well in Germany circa 1939 didn't it? Hitler abolished democracy so no. But in a stable democracy like the UK, obviously the majority get to decide these things and when nearly 70 of the opposition party also vote for it well how can you argue. You do know it was practically 2 to 1 in favour. An emphatic verdict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 Hitler abolished democracy so no.But in a stable democracy like the UK, obviously the majority get to decide these things and when nearly 70 of the opposition party also vote for it well how can you argue. You do know it was practically 2 to 1 in favour. An emphatic verdict. Wasn't there a similar vote to invade Iraq in 2003? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Parliamentary_approval_for_the_invasion_of_Iraq An amendment was proposed urging the government to wait for further UN approval. It removed the text "recognises that Iraq's weapons ... in the Middle East" and replaced it with: This House... believes that the case for war against Iraq has not yet been established, especially given the absence of specific United Nations authorisation; but, in the event that hostilities do commence, pledges its total support for the British forces engaged in the Middle East, expresses its admiration for their courage, skill and devotion to duty, and hopes that their tasks will be swiftly concluded with minimal casualties on all sides... Parliament voted on the amended text in a vote at 9:15 pm, but the amendment was defeated by 396 to 217 votes.[8] At 10 pm, the motion without the amendment was passed by 412 to 149 votes,[5] authorising the invasion. The British military campaign against Iraq, Operation Telic, began one day later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I love how the right always indulge personal attacks on those they disagree with,play the ball not the man, is it because they fail to understand the arguments or simple do not want to be bothered to even try. No, it's because people like Benn and Corbyn always support the other side. Perhaps I'm wrong though. You tell me. What was their position on The Falklands War, or the IRA? Sent from my D6653 using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 You could have said that about fighting Nazism too.I'm happy to deal with this evil first militarily and work on the political situation later. You mean you haven't come to the realisation yet that there will be no military solution? Incredible. Just how many more interventions, losses of face, confounding of situations as to grossly inflate the original problem must continued to be endured, before sense is restored? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Thank God for democracy. So the majority can decide what the strategy is and the losers can have a good whinge. I don't believe the majority do approve. So much for democracy and accountability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Hitler abolished democracy so no.But in a stable democracy like the UK, obviously the majority get to decide these things and when nearly 70 of the opposition party also vote for it well how can you argue. You do know it was practically 2 to 1 in favour. An emphatic verdict. Contrary it shows the sorry state of democracy in UK. As an example Hillary Benn was speaking against bombing a few weeks back. Now a paid up Blair/Toryite. Whatever changed thinking over such a short period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Have either party promised gun control, have either said they will force a palestinian settlement, have either said they will address the blatant inequalities in American society, have either suggested they will increase taxation to ensure the poor get housed and fed, have either said that they will introduce a proper social welfare system that provides free healthcare for its citizens, have either party sought to address the horrendous difference in life opportunities imposed by the strata of society you are born into, have either party promised to legislate against the gross inequalities between black and white when I hear one or other party talking about enacting those policies then i will know that America is on its road to becoming a real democracy I see you assume that because Americans speak English, they ARE English. (Disgruntled Poms make the same mistake with Australians). America is not a Welfare State. It's not a constitutional monarchy. It has a written constitution which (like Australia) is very hard to amend. It has a strict limitation of powers, hence someone as powerful as the President can't bring in gun control or free medical care. You have picked on a few similarities between the two parties, which you could have done for Britain or Australia where the major parties are also similar on many issues. They have to be that way to appeal to the middle ground who will vote for them. If they go too far to the right, or left, they are unlikely to win Govt, see Corbo. Sent from my D6653 using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newjez Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Thank God for democracy. So the majority can decide what the strategy is and the losers can have a good whinge. I think it's more about not repeating problems. After WW1 Germany suffered which sowed the seeds of WW2. During WW2 I think they were pretty keen to prevent WW3. For someone who's pretty keen on arguing this stuff, you don't have much of an argument on anything. Are you just trolling because you don't like Muslims? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 No you couldn't actually. A vast amount of thought went into working out how Germany and Japan would be reconstructed after the war, so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Pity that hasn't continued. But then a lot of people seem to think like you. So the victorious allies made a joint decision to impose democracy on the Axis powers and it worked because they had given a great deal of thought to it and did not want to repeat the mistakes of the past? Except that the USSR was as undemocratic and unpleasant as the Nazis and continued to be so long after WW2. Except that you could be no more sure of democracy "working" in Germany, Italy, or Japan, than in the countries in The Middle East, where many critics say we should have left mini Hitlers like Saddam and Gaddafi in power because there was no anarchy and "the trains ran on time." What if Germany head descended into anarchy, as it did after WW1. What if democracy in West Germany had gone the same way as the Weimar Republic? Would the same people who say we would be better off with the Middle East dictators still in power, be saying the same thing about Germany? Sent from my D6653 using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Love how the losers resort to personal abuse and ridiculous comparisons. So tired and predictable. So are even critising democracy now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newjez Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) No, it's because people like Benn and Corbyn always support the other side. Perhaps I'm wrong though. You tell me. What was their position on The Falklands War, or the IRA? Sent from my D6653 using Tapatalk Could the Tories have brokered a peace with the IRA? Will they broker one with Argentina? Will they broker one with ISIS? Wars rarely end because one side is obliterated. Edited December 3, 2015 by newjez Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newjez Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 So the victorious allies made a joint decision to impose democracy on the Axis powers and it worked because they had given a great deal of thought to it and did not want to repeat the mistakes of the past? Except that the USSR was as undemocratic and unpleasant as the Nazis and continued to be so long after WW2. Except that you could be no more sure of democracy "working" in Germany, Italy, or Japan, than in the countries in The Middle East, where many critics say we should have left mini Hitlers like Saddam and Gaddafi in power because there was no anarchy and "the trains ran on time." What if Germany head descended into anarchy, as it did after WW1. What if democracy in West Germany had gone the same way as the Weimar Republic? Would the same people who say we would be better off with the Middle East dictators still in power, be saying the same thing about Germany? Sent from my D6653 using Tapatalk Firstly, we didn't defeat the USSR - so how could we influence their politics? Secondly, do you think it a coincidence that Japan and Germany are very strong economic powers and are very rich countries? We could have kept them poor, as we did after WW1. Except that didn't end too well. Far better to make them rich, and then they will have nothing to complain about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Could the Tories have brokered a peace with the IRA? Will they broker one with Argentina? Will they broker one with ISIS? Wars rarely end because one side is obliterated. Never. You don't appease terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 Never. You don't appease terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Never. You don't appease terrorists. I'm afraid that one liner will prove totally ineffective into achieving the job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 That philosophy worked so well in Germany circa 1939 didn't it? 1939 was too late for anybody to act, whether in Germany, or outside. 1933 was too late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.