The labour Leader thread...

[Mr Jack]

Thats good because we dont have it. Iran has 13 million in its 'standing army', thats large

No, it doesn't; it has a standing army of around 545,000 men.

There's a paramilitary force that claims a membership of 12.6 million but actually has far fewer active personnel.

 

[Danthus]

http://www.channel4.com/news/jeremy-corbyn-equates-isis-actions-to-those-of-us-military

Oh dear.

 

[elmarko]

http://www.channel4.com/news/jeremy-corbyn-equates-isis-actions-to-those-of-us-military

Oh dear.

"Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling."

Seems reasonable to me.

What I find amusing in the media is why our politicians snuggle up with Saudi Arabia, Israel or Bahrain nobody bats an eyelid. Politicians meet dictators & allow them to visit here & the press is silent.

 

[Danthus]

I don't recall US soldiers throwing homosexuals of rooftops or cutting peoples heads off.

 

[elmarko]

I don't recall US soldiers throwing homosexuals of rooftops or cutting peoples heads off.

Does the method of killing make it more acceptable?.

 

[atpbx]

Problem you have when discussing standing armies and what conventional assets is this:

Even when NATO was at its peak in the 70s and 80s the general consensus was that the absolute best they could do against the Warsaw Pact in mainland Europe was delay their advance by a couple of days, simply because of the overwhelming numbers that the soviets could field, the west simply couldn't kill enough of them quickly enough to make any difference.
Meaning the ONLY option was nuclear.

Making any kind of decision on numbers of conventional troops based on what Russia might do is a complete waste of time, as it doesn't matter in the end. The only way they would be stopped is nuclear strikes, and that's not going to happen.

 

[Amp34]

Does the method of killing make it more acceptable?.

And it's not even like he is comparing one against another, just pointing out both have done bad things.

I can see et Tony Blair supporters are against it though, it does besmirch his legacy (a failed state and breeding ground of Islamic extremists?).

 

[V F]

"Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling."

Seems reasonable to me.

What I find amusing in the media is why our politicians snuggle up with Saudi Arabia, Israel or Bahrain nobody bats an eyelid. Politicians meet dictators & allow them to visit here & the press is silent.

The press isn't going to upset the apple cart.

 

[Dimi]

I don't recall US soldiers throwing homosexuals of rooftops or cutting peoples heads off.

Your memory seems a little short sighted, I seem to recall American soldiers being filmed deliberately shooting wounded Iraqis and all the other horrendous stuff that took place at Abu Ghraib.

One rule for one and one for another eh?

 

[Tefal]

Does the method of killing make it more acceptable?.

Yeah, massively.

For instance would you support dignitas if instead of a painless overdose they stoned people to death.

 

[Nutella33]

Making any kind of decision on numbers of conventional troops based on what Russia might do is a complete waste of time, as it doesn't matter in the end. The only way they would be stopped is nuclear strikes, and that's not going to happen.

That simply hasn't been true for well over 25 years. Conventionally Russia is the weaker of the worlds major powers, they have relied on their nuclear stockpiles as a method to retain survival/continuation of the state.

On paper Russia would struggle against the EU let alone NATO in a conventional war.

The Wests issue is that they are not united. Recently the populations of germany, italy and france polled that a majority would not advocate a war against russia even if russia had invaded a NATO state. IE, they would not support their NATO commitments even if a fellow european nation was invaded.

This is a massive issue, especially when the same poll suggested all the countries populations would expect the US to do the work for them. Europe has lived under someone elses protection for so long they have forgotten that they are responsible for themselves.

I hope this puts into context just how abjectly stupid saying "others will pick up the slack, we don't need to do anything" is.

-------

Now on actual topic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33983794

Interesting news in the papers backing choices. Scottish going Corbyn and Mirror going Burnham. I wonder if Scotland could become Labour again if he won?

 

[Tefal]

That simply hasn't been true for well over 25 years. Conventionally Russia is the weaker of the worlds major powers, they have relied on their nuclear stockpiles as a method to retain survival/continuation of the state.

On paper Russia would struggle against the EU let alone NATO in a conventional war.

The Wests issue is that they are not united. Recently the populations of germany, italy and france polled that a majority would not advocate a war against russia even if russia had invaded a NATO state. IE, they would not support their NATO commitments even if a fellow european nation was invaded.

This is a massive issue, especially when the same poll suggested all the countries populations would expect the US to do the work for them. Europe has lived under someone elses protection for so long they have forgotten that they are responsible for themselves.

I hope this puts into context just how abjectly stupid saying "others will pick up the slack, we don't need to do anything" is.

-------

Now on actual topic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33983794

Interesting news in the papers backing choices. Scottish going Corbyn and Mirror going Burnham. I wonder if Scotland could become Labour again if he won?

You are completely ignoring production and replacement of losses though.

Russia like America keeps their old stuff stored for quickly being made ready.

Ie tanks they have thousands of older models saved up yeah they sent amazing vs modern ones but they're still effective so say we've got 100 tanks and they've got 150 but for every one we lose we take out two.

Clear win for us right?

No because we can't replace a lost tank quickly at all we'd have to build a new one, for every one we destroy though they can bring up 5 old ones.

And pretty soon all our amazing technical advantage is moot because we just can't sustain and replace lost equipment because we have no old stuff to replace it we have to build a brand new one

 

[Nutella33]

You are completely ignoring production and replacement of losses though.

No I'm not. Russian shipyards are in a ridiculously poor state, to the point of barely functioning, They cant produce decent aero engines for future projects and have been having huge problems with current models (to the extent that India is complaining about QA...which takes a lot) and entire fleets have been grounded for these reasons. That includes types that have thousands of units on the books that potentially should have been used for spares.

They are also suffering recently due to making an enemy of a major supplier of their older parts. This includes rocket engines, tank and aircraft parts (for example virtually their entire airlift force is ukrainian built) whilst having a tanking economy so that the new independent units on order have suffered greatly reduced order numbers. (PAK - FA for example)

It also takes time and money to reactivate old units to replace losses....which the Ukrainians have learnt. Wide scale corruption also cripples any potential "give" in the system (ranked by russia's own prosecutor at about 20% of the defense budget being stolen)

You are assuming as well that you only fight a tank with a tank and not something else.

You are also ignoring the massive manpower deficiency of the modern russian state when compared to its rivals.

Of the 4 great powers, they are the weakest conventionally. Their major leveller is the nuclear weapon, and as thus it is used to protect against conventional attack as the ultimate state guarantor. This comes from Russia's own lips.

 

[Rroff]

One thing history has shown us is that the geopolitical landscape can change frighteningly fast, cutting our military capabilities to the bone just because we can't see a threat today or relying on others to come to our defense is downright stupid.

 

[elmarko]

Yeah, massively.

For instance would you support dignitas if instead of a painless overdose they stoned people to death.

I'm sorry but that is a truly alful comparison & I expect better from you.

One is voluntary, the other is not. A closer comparison would be a doctor killing patients with deliberate overdoses VS smashing a person's head in with a rock.

Saying that the actions of two groups are brutal is perfectly reasonable in this context. The fact the media is attempting to make him out to be crazy for calling out what's known to be an illegal war & other military occupations as brutal & wrong just shows the level of bias. Channel four has become a laughing stock.

 

[scorza]

Corbyn to apologise on behalf of Labour party for Iraq war. Good for him, just wish he'd also apologise for his own support given to Islamic terrorists and organisations like Hamas and the Islamic State.

 

[Tefal]

I'm sorry but that is a truly alful comparison & I expect better from you.

One is voluntary, the other is not. A closer comparison would be a doctor killing patients with deliberate overdoses VS smashing a person's head in with a rock.

Saying that the actions of two groups are brutal is perfectly reasonable in this context. The fact the media is attempting to make him out to be crazy for calling out what's known to be an illegal war & other military occupations as brutal & wrong just shows the level of bias. Channel four has become a laughing stock.

Both in my example are voultary.

Only difference is the method of death can you honestly say it would make no difference to you?

 

[Johno please?]

Does the method of killing make it more acceptable?.

Well believe it or not, civilians were not indiscriminately targeted, they were fighting an insurgency, not trying to commit genocide.

Corbyn to apologise on behalf of Labour party for Iraq war. Good for him, just wish he'd also apologise for his own support given to Islamic terrorists and organisations like Hamas and the Islamic State.

Thats what people like him do best...

 

[StriderX]

You are completely ignoring production and replacement of losses though.

Russia like America keeps their old stuff stored for quickly being made ready.

Ie tanks they have thousands of older models saved up yeah they sent amazing vs modern ones but they're still effective so say we've got 100 tanks and they've got 150 but for every one we lose we take out two.

Clear win for us right?

No because we can't replace a lost tank quickly at all we'd have to build a new one, for every one we destroy though they can bring up 5 old ones.

And pretty soon all our amazing technical advantage is moot because we just can't sustain and replace lost equipment because we have no old stuff to replace it we have to build a brand new one

Americas spare arms are in a desert or inside hangers, not left to rot in humid conditions.

 

[PermaBanned]

The Wests issue is that they are not united. Recently the populations of germany, italy and france polled that a majority would not advocate a war against russia even if russia had invaded a NATO state. IE, they would not support their NATO commitments even if a fellow european nation was invaded.

This is a massive issue, especially when the same poll suggested all the countries populations would expect the US to do the work for them. Europe has lived under someone elses protection for so long they have forgotten that they are responsible for themselves.

You act as if this is a modern social phenomenon. The general public never favours war. It's one of the hardest, riskiest things for a politician to push for. It almost always ends their career. Hell even before WW1 if you had polled the UK you would have found most people would probably want us to ignore our obligations to Belgium and France.