Gransnet forums

News & politics

Page 3 of 3 | First | Previous | Next | Last
| Flip | Customise |

Internationalist or pacifist, you can't be both

(61 Posts)
Add comment | Report
thatbags Fri 26-May-17 17:08:57

Here's why, by Peter Hurst. He has put into words what I've felt in my guts for ages. I have worried about not being a pacifist, felt I should be one. I shall not worry about that any more.

The argument came in a series of tweets. I copied them and put them together. You'll have to accept the occasional awkwardness of expression caused by Twitter limitations. It's still impressive. And I learned a new word: autarky.

Peter Hurst's thread (@peterleohurst):

Theresa May needs to emphasise that the place Corbyn's anti-war stance comes from is essentially a philosophy of isolationism but she cant Because she is pursuing Brexit ofc but @timfarron can. This is what most Corbynites dont seem to grasp. You can be an 'internationalist' OR a pacifist. You cant be both. Hence why the League of Nations was an abject failure. If you are committed to internationalism but have no teeth, as it were, what do you do when a Hitler comes along? so lets be clear: internationalism is all very well and good but if you are not prepared to go 2war at some stage your 'internationalism' means feck all basically. Hitler demonstrated that in the 1930s. Internationalism without force means feck all. Empty rhetoric. Corbyn understands this tbf to him. He is a Bennite. Bennism in economic terms is autarky. Corbyn has been anti-NATO and anti-EEC/EU for decades. He clearly understands what I am talking about. You can be an internationalist, fine But then you cant be anti-war too. Most Corbynites dont understand this. They think nationalism is neo-fascist AND lean towards pacifism But you cant have both! You can be an internationalist like Blair - he was willing to go to war BECAUSE he was an internationalist btw - OR An isolationist who is anti-war like Corbyn. Now the problem Theresa May has is that the best way to combat Corbyn's speech today would Be to make that connection explicit. Anti-war equals isolationism. Internationalism equals being willing to go war on occasion. But she cant But @timfarron should.

Add comment | Report
whitewave Sat 27-May-17 20:24:32

At what cost -and something that we have no control over. It is ridiculous.

Add comment | Report
norose4 Sat 27-May-17 20:55:12

I am genuinely interested to know what sort of defences we as a country think are acceptable in this day & age &given the unrest &the inequalities &extremism in the world at this present time ?

Add comment | Report
GracesGranMK2 Sat 27-May-17 22:29:03

I don't think any party is saying we don't keep what we have norose, I think the question is whether and what we renew it with.

One of the issues is the huge cost. Someone may have a more up to date one than I have but a quick search brought up a 2015 Independent article saying that new figures had brought it up to £167bn although the base figure seems to be £40bn.

The first argument against would be on ethical grounds which comes from those whose argument would be as described by Andrea Berger of the Royal United Services Institute that the UK should never be a country that is willing to threaten or use nuclear weapons against an adversary, even in the most extreme circumstances and that the humanitarian consequences of doing that would be so grotesque as to be unfathomable.

The second would be from those who object that the UK should not be spending possibly £40bn on a programme that is designed for uncertainty and indeed that an "uncertain future threat environment" may mean no threats arise and so £40bn would have been spent unnecessarily.

The third would be that actually it is not so uncertain and the prospect of a significant threat arising to the UK in the timeline of the successor submarines is so remote as not to be worth taking significant action now.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735

Add comment | Report
rosesarered Sat 27-May-17 22:48:26

Well said Monica
norose Trident is a deterrent, that doesn't mean that it can't be used in retaliation, because it can ( that's the deterrent bit!) Of course, if all countries know in advance,as Corbyn has already forewarned them,that he would never in any circumstances use it, then it loses all deterrent power.That is one ( of many) reasons he should never be PM.

Add comment | Report
paddyann Sat 27-May-17 22:52:19

Trident wont stop rogue terrorists like the Manchester guy,thats what we're up against now ,you cant stop terrorists by bombing them never mind nuking them .Where do we stop ,when we've destroyed the whole world.

Add comment | Report
durhamjen Sat 27-May-17 22:59:55

The Green Party will cancel the Trident replacement, saving £110 billion over the next 30 years. Quite sensible in my opinion.

Add comment | Report
rosesarered Sat 27-May-17 23:01:00

Of course it won't stop 'rogue' terrorists blowing themselves and other people up,
But that isn't what Trident is for.
It's to stop 'rogue' countries with nutcases as rulers, thinking they can do anything they please.

Add comment | Report
durhamjen Sat 27-May-17 23:38:16

Trident is American, roses. Nutcase as ruler thinking he can do anything he pleases?

Add comment | Report
rosesarered Sat 27-May-17 23:41:11

Think North Korea.

Add comment | Report
durhamjen Sat 27-May-17 23:46:02

I'm thinking USA. Trident missiles are made in US and leased from them.
What's to stop trump using them as first choice. He has said he will launch first strike against North Korea.

Page 3 of 3 | First | Previous | Next | Last
| Flip | Customise |