Internationalist or pacifist, you can't be both

Hmm, interesting. Thanks for that, thatbags.

bags I would appreciate a summary if it isn't too much bother!! Only I am finding it too disjointed to be able to follow it.

So is the thesis that you can't be a pacifist and an internationalist? Why is what I would like to understand.

Basically, if you want to be part of the crowd you have to be prepared to fight for the crowd. Is that right? I assumed Corbyn believed in talk/negotiation not war rather than turning away and playing neutral like Switzerland (except they weren't really were they)

mollie has explained it, ww. Essentially it means that in extremis you have to be willing to stand up and fight for what you want to protect from evil. It doesn't mean you want war, only that it certain circumstances (Nazi Germany was one), it may be necessary. As a internationalist one needs to be able to accept that.

Pacifism is an is an ideal (a good one) but we don't live in an ideal world. It's the usual problem of things not being simple black and white.

Thanks mollie grateful for that - had Mum today and exhausted!! So brain not functioning as well as it should.

Yes I think that is a misunderstanding of Corbyns stance. He most certainly isn't a pacifist, but neither is he a hawk. His instinct is always to try to negotiate the way out of a situation rather than throw bombs at it first and then give talking a go. I believe his position is similar to Churchills,

I think that the vast majority of people would agree with this stance. The gutter press of course are trying their level best to trash him, and with the polls narrowing we can expect them to pull as many rabbits out of their scruffy hats as possible.

So yes, the thesis is that you can't be both an internationalist and a pacifist. So, Jeremy Corbyn is not an internationalist. He's an isolationist.

Only if you accept that he is a pacifist and I dont

x posts, ww. Please tell us how you know JC isn't a pacifist because he certainly goves the impression that he is.

Have a look at my post above 17.49 -

The reason is that he has consistently said that he would use military action "in the last resort" and I think that most people would agree with that. As would I argued Churchill.

He recognises that a governments primary responsibility is to keep its citizens secure.

He understands the need for a well equipped. And trained army.

Corbyn is against Trident. As are many throughout the UK including Tory and Labour MPs. We have no control whatsoever over a weapon on which we are prepared to spend untold millions -madness.

Thank you.

It would seem that Hurst does think Corbyn is a pacifist or at least not as much of a "defencist" as he would like. He also does not regard Corbyn as an internationalist. That is problematic.

The argument of people in favour of Trident is that is our best defence: the knowledge that it exists is all the 'threat' that is needed to hold back lunatic attackers. Which, I believe, is the whole idea. I don't think anyone wants to use nuclear weapons.

There lies the conundrum. There may be an argument that it holds back aggressive nations for fear of retaliation, but not sure that argument would stand up when considering lunatics.

I take the moral stance as I feel that they should be on a par at the very least with chemical and biological weapons. They simply shouldn't exist.

And an example of lunatic (for a lack of evidence to the contrary) is the North Korean leader... I also think Trump might be tempted to hit the button just to prove a point.

The argument for trident being a deterrent is dodgy. If we have them how can we stop unstable regimes from having them. Wouldn't it be better if we all stepped back rather than challenge? I wonder how things would be if women were in total charge?

The nuclear deterrence stance is not immoral. I accept that it is in your opinion but that doesn't make it so per se.

Priti Patel is tweeting that Jeremy Corbyn voted against every anti-terrorism since 1983. She claims he 'boasted' about this in 2011. Boasting aside (opposing party claptrap), is it true that he said what she claims and that he voted as she claims? And if so, why?

I'm asking for information if anyone has it, or even links to accessible information. Cheers.

Dodgy, I'll accept. Immoral, no.

Please don't turn this into another love/hate JC (character assassination or praisefest) thread. I'm interested in the facts about JC's stances on national defence, on internationalism, and on pacifism. Other people's interpretation of those things too.

i.e. about the ideas that drive his voting behaviour, not the man who holds the ideas.

I don't care two hoots about JC. I care about what he stands for.

Well bags I must put my hand up and say that I only know what JC stands for by his rhetoric.
So what I think he stands for may not be entirely correct.
So I get that he is for multi-lateral disarmament.
I understand that he sees military intervention as a last resort.
I understand that he has learned that war and violence almost always has to end in dialogue, so his logic is why not start from that point if at all possible.

That's a start!!

You mean 'jaw jaw not war war'. That didn't work well last time.
Both parties have to want to talk. I can't see Kim Jun Ill wanting to chat any more than Hitler or any other dictator would.

The argument that you can't be an Internationalist and a pacifist is completely flawed. It only works if you assume that all Germans supported Hitler and there was therefore no means of removing him except by going to war. There was of course considerable anti- Hitler feeling in Germany way before war even became an option and had anyone been willing to work with this opposition the war might never have happened. In fact of course there were elements in this country who believed much the same as Hitler and who failed to recognise the danger before it was too late. A true Internationalist would be sharing information and offering help so Internationalism and pacifism could have prevented the war. The problem is that people regard pacifists as being unable and unwilling to take action to deal with problems. This is completely wrong of course. They are willing to act but do not believe war can solve any problems.

I am puzzled by Corbyn's statement about only committing soldiers to a cause if we know it is going to lead to a long term solution to a problem.

How can you know in advance that an intervention will lead to a long term solution? Surely if you do know a long term solution can be found the problem can be solved by diplomacy anyway.

Does it mean that we will not have anything to do with peace keeping operations, the famous 'blue berets' of UN peace keeping forces, because they are only a temporary expediency while a solution is looked for?

Surely Blair and Bush both believed that their interventions in both Afghanistan and Iraq would provide permanent solutions to the problems they perceived.

How many military operations have been initiated by parties who either knew it would not solve the problem or did not see it as an action of last resort.

Bear in mind that just because an individual/party/government thinks that the military action initiated by another individual/party/government is not an action of last resort or likely to solve the problem does not mean that the initiator is not themselves entirely convinced that the military intervention is unavoidable and essential, so if Jeremy Corbyn were prime Minister he could still commit our forces to another Afghanistan or Iraq because he believed it was unavoidable and would provide a permanent solution, even though most of the country disagreed.

Who is this guy. He can't actually write (which appears to be his job) so why would we listen to him.

Would it be possible to have a link to the original article?