UK Politics Thread III: Thready McThreadface (+ Jo Cox)

[Souseiseki]

to use a more specific example, how would you feel about a political party that had a track record of arming brutal dictators, up to and including genocidal ones?

I fail to see your question? If they are elected, then the will of the people must be heard and respected.

i don't see where the problem is. how would you feel about a political party that had a track record of arming brutal dictators, up to and including genocidal ones? is that not a question?

not everything a government does is in their manifesto. being democratically elected with 30-40% of the votes does not give you free reign to do whatever you want.

[Lamadia]

I fail to see your question? If they are elected, then the will of the people must be heard and respected.

So you're saying that genocide is OK so long as a show election gives the government perceived legitimacy?

No, of course not, don't twist my words.
I wouldn't support any political party who supported genocide, who would kill vast numbers of civilians directly or otherwise, of course. Isn't that obvious?
*Sorry- autocorrect!

[Souseiseki]

So you're saying that genocide is OK so long as a show election gives the government perceived legitimacy?

No, of course not, don't twist my words.
I wouldn't support any political party who supported genocide, who would kill vast numbers of civilians directly or otherwise, of course. Isn't that obvious?
*Sorry- autocorrect!

so you'd never support a party that knowingly supplied a genocidal dictator with weapons knowing full well they'd be used on civilians? or helped the "moderate" elements of the khmer rouge "chop people up"? or would help train the security services of a brutal theocracy?

[The Nihilistic view]

No it's because people have been too freely given antibiotics and have also not been properly finishing the course often enough when given a course to take. Leading to the bacteria to build resistance. It has nothing to do with pharmaceutical companies, they are not responsible for irresponsible use by doctors or patients.

yes an that was a mistake by the health service and government. But that does not excuse the pharma companies for not producing new drugs to combat the super-bugs. What is the pharma companies fault is refusing to research new drugs because of the limited returns they promise It was a mistake to over-prescribe old drugs but that does not mean people should die for it, which they will unless someone starts producing new antibiotics.

Why? They solved the issue and moved on to solving other things like cancer. They have finite resources. Given that catching something like Gonorrhoea is something pretty easy to prevent with safe sex practices it is not exactly as big a concern as many other things which are not so easily preventable in the first place. But I guess personal responsibility is less attractive than blaming somebody else for not instantly solving the problem. If it is that big of a worry then maybe the government should fund the research now over other grants that they give out.

[Lamadia]

No, of course not, don't twist my words.
I wouldn't support any political party who supported genocide, who would kill vast numbers of civilians directly or otherwise, of course. Isn't that obvious?
*Sorry- autocorrect!

so you'd never support a party that knowingly supplied a genocidal dictator with weapons knowing full well they'd be used on civilians? or helped the "moderate" elements of the khmer rouge "chop people up"? or would help train the security services of a brutal theocracy?

I am going to end this conversation, and move on to something else.
Both ends of the spectrum do things, directly & indirectly, which often have bad results.

[Souseiseki]

so you'd never support a party that knowingly supplied a genocidal dictator with weapons knowing full well they'd be used on civilians? or helped the "moderate" elements of the khmer rouge "chop people up"? or would help train the security services of a brutal theocracy?

I am going to end this conversation, and move on to something else.
Both ends of the spectrum do things, directly & indirectly, which often have bad results.

would i be correct in guessing the reason you're ending the conversation is because you know exactly where it is going and it makes you very uncomfortable?

e: for the record i think "but both sides..." is a meaningless non-response which dodges any responsibility

[Lamadia]

I am going to end this conversation, and move on to something else.
Both ends of the spectrum do things, directly & indirectly, which often have bad results.

would i be correct in guessing the reason you're ending the conversation is because you know exactly where it is going and it makes you very uncomfortable?

If you wish, we can carry on?
What is your point? That the Republicans have backed dictators? That the Conservatives did not want to embargo South Africa for risk of hurting common people? That Labour pushed towards invading Iraq, killing civilians? That the Democrats pursued bombing Iraq, before 9/11, in 1998?

[Vassenor]

That Labour pushed towards invading Iraq, killing civilians?

Blair experienced a significant rebellion from many Labour MPs and in a debate in the House of Commons, he achieved a parliamentary majority with the support of most Conservative MPs and Ulster Unionists.

The invasion also lead to the protest resignation of the then-Foreign Secretary Robin Cook MP, who openly stated that while he agreed with some of Tony's policies, he would not support the war.

[Lamadia]

That Labour pushed towards invading Iraq, killing civilians?

Blair experienced a significant rebellion from many Labour MPs and in a debate in the House of Commons, he achieved a parliamentary majority with the support of most Conservative MPs and Ulster Unionists.

But he still achieved a majority, still was a Labour PM.

[Eastfield Lodge]

yes an that was a mistake by the health service and government. But that does not excuse the pharma companies for not producing new drugs to combat the super-bugs. What is the pharma companies fault is refusing to research new drugs because of the limited returns they promise It was a mistake to over-prescribe old drugs but that does not mean people should die for it, which they will unless someone starts producing new antibiotics.

Why? They solved the issue and moved on to solving other things like cancer. They have finite resources. Given that catching something like Gonorrhoea is something pretty easy to prevent with safe sex practices it is not exactly as big a concern as many other things which are not so easily preventable in the first place. But I guess personal responsibility is less attractive than blaming somebody else for not instantly solving the problem. If it is that big of a worry then maybe the government should fund the research now over other grants that they give out.

Except that the process of creating new drugs can easily take well over ten years, if not twenty. New antibiotics are something we need now, but they aren't available.

Note, this doesn't mean I'm blaming irresponsible doctors and patients for the current extent of the problem. Antibiotic resistance is only a very recent phenomenon which nobody really thought about when the drugs (penicillin and its early derivatives) first came out. It was a wonder-drug that was given out willy-nilly for anything that resembled a bacterial infection. It is just simple natural selection of the bacteria. Also, it doesn't help that a lot of infections require antibiotic use for some time after infection symptoms have subsided, and antibiotics can have bad side effects, so people stop them early. TB's a slightly extreme example, but illustrates the point correctly - you need to continue the course for something like 6 months after symptoms have subsided, and the antibiotics used can be very unpleasant.

Another contributing factor are things like mass antibiotic use in farm animals, especially in places like China where there are strains of bacteria coming out resistant to all known antibiotics. And then there are places like Iran and Eastern Europe where antibiotics are still freely available over the counter.

[Vassenor]

But he still achieved a majority, still was a Labour PM.

And yet you say the party as a whole pushed for it when as I showed the party disagreed on the matter. And as I showed, the majority only came because the Conservative and Ulster Unionist MPs sided with him.

[Souseiseki]

would i be correct in guessing the reason you're ending the conversation is because you know exactly where it is going and it makes you very uncomfortable?

If you wish, we can carry on?
What is your point? That the Republicans have backed dictators? That the Conservatives did not want to embargo South Africa for risk of hurting common people? That Labour pushed towards invading Iraq, killing civilians? That the Democrats pursued bombing Iraq, before 9/11, in 1998?

that the conservatives have backed dictators, aided them in their crimes including and up to genocide and helped shield them from facing trial for their crimes and that this is a black stain that should haunt them forever instead of being brushed off as it almost always is.

i also just realized in response to the both sides comment that i actually can't think of any rape dog dictators that labour or other british parties have supported or defended off the top of my head either. we will use close personal friend of the prime minister as the standard due to the wife variety of colourful characters that margaret thathcer considered her close personal friends. it is possible that i have simply forgotten about them or not learned about them so i would appreciate it if people would refresh my memory.

[Souseiseki]

But he still achieved a majority, still was a Labour PM.

And yet you say the party as a whole pushed for it when as I showed the party disagreed on the matter. And as I showed, the majority only came because the Conservative and Ulster Unionist MPs sided with him.

59% of labour MPs voted for the war. 83% of conservative MPs voted for the war.

just some hot stats

[Lamadia]

If you wish, we can carry on?
What is your point? That the Republicans have backed dictators? That the Conservatives did not want to embargo South Africa for risk of hurting common people? That Labour pushed towards invading Iraq, killing civilians? That the Democrats pursued bombing Iraq, before 9/11, in 1998?

that the conservatives have backed dictators, aided them in their crimes including and up to genocide and helped shield them from facing trial for their crimes and that this is a black stain that should haunt them forever instead of being brushed off as it almost always is.

i also just realized in response to the both sides comment that i actually can't think of any rape dog dictators that labour or other british parties have supported or defended off the top of my head either. we will use close personal friend of the prime minister as the standard due to the wife variety of colourful characters that margaret thathcer considered her close personal friends. it is possible that i have simply forgotten about them or not learned about them so i would appreciate it if people would refresh my memory.

Well, Mrs. Blair isn't innocent, even if she doesn't speak for Labour on a whole; https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 7w7HlZOsAA . At least, using your argument, Mrs. Thatcher was 'supporting her friends'- Mrs. Blair was working for them for money alone!
As for General Pinochet, if that is who you are referring to, he opened free & democratic elections in Chile, and, after the result, backed down accordingly. He also introduced free enterprise. And was Mrs. Thatcher the friend of dictators? She allowed US bombers to use UK air bases to bomb Libyan dictator Gaddafi, whilst also backing the UK coming to the aid of Kuwait in the 1990 Iraq War against dictator Saddam Hussein, and fighting against the Argentine Junta in the Falklands War. Friend of dictators?

[Souseiseki]

that the conservatives have backed dictators, aided them in their crimes including and up to genocide and helped shield them from facing trial for their crimes and that this is a black stain that should haunt them forever instead of being brushed off as it almost always is.

i also just realized in response to the both sides comment that i actually can't think of any rape dog dictators that labour or other british parties have supported or defended off the top of my head either. we will use close personal friend of the prime minister as the standard due to the wife variety of colourful characters that margaret thathcer considered her close personal friends. it is possible that i have simply forgotten about them or not learned about them so i would appreciate it if people would refresh my memory.

Well, Mrs. Blair isn't innocent, even if she doesn't speak for Labour on a whole; https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 7w7HlZOsAA . At least, using your argument, Mrs. Thatcher was 'supporting her friends'- Mrs. Blair was working for them for money alone!
As for General Pinochet, if that is who you are referring to, he opened free & democratic elections in Chile, and, after the result, backed down accordingly. He also introduced free enterprise. And was Mrs. Thatcher the friend of dictators? She allowed US bombers to use UK air bases to bomb Libyan dictator Gaddafi, whilst also backing the UK coming to the aid of Kuwait in the 1990 Iraq War against dictator Saddam Hussein, and fighting against the Argentine Junta in the Falklands War. Friend of dictators?

don't give me this utter pish about pinochet bringing democracy to chile. you are aware chile was a democracy before he came along, right? his opening up elections was a tactical blunder. he vastly over estimated his chances of winning.

i never said she was a friend of all dictators. saddam used to be our ally. she helped the "modeate" elements of the khmer rogue. when pinochet risked trial for his governments crimes. torture. murdering opponents. kidnapping their families, including children. tying their mothers to beds and raping them and electrocuting them, sometimes raping them with dogs. sometimes raping them in front of their family. burning people alive. disappearing thousands of people. she protected him. when suharto was strafing villages and massacring civilians with british weapons, she supported him. she evidently has no problem being friends with dictators as long as they rape and murder the right kind of people. this is just the start.

[Philjia]

If you wish, we can carry on?
What is your point? That the Republicans have backed dictators? That the Conservatives did not want to embargo South Africa for risk of hurting common people? That Labour pushed towards invading Iraq, killing civilians? That the Democrats pursued bombing Iraq, before 9/11, in 1998?

that the conservatives have backed dictators, aided them in their crimes including and up to genocide and helped shield them from facing trial for their crimes and that this is a black stain that should haunt them forever instead of being brushed off as it almost always is.

i also just realized in response to the both sides comment that i actually can't think of any rape dog dictators that labour or other british parties have supported or defended off the top of my head either. we will use close personal friend of the prime minister as the standard due to the wife variety of colourful characters that margaret thathcer considered her close personal friends. it is possible that i have simply forgotten about them or not learned about them so i would appreciate it if people would refresh my memory.

Wasn't Blair friends with Colonel Gadaffi?

[Lamadia]

that the conservatives have backed dictators, aided them in their crimes including and up to genocide and helped shield them from facing trial for their crimes and that this is a black stain that should haunt them forever instead of being brushed off as it almost always is.

i also just realized in response to the both sides comment that i actually can't think of any rape dog dictators that labour or other british parties have supported or defended off the top of my head either. we will use close personal friend of the prime minister as the standard due to the wife variety of colourful characters that margaret thathcer considered her close personal friends. it is possible that i have simply forgotten about them or not learned about them so i would appreciate it if people would refresh my memory.

Wasn't Blair friends with Colonel Gadaffi?

Oh yes, I forgot about that! Thank you- very helpeful!

i never said she was a friend of all dictators

colourful characters that margaret thathcer considered her close personal friends

[Vassenor]

that the conservatives have backed dictators, aided them in their crimes including and up to genocide and helped shield them from facing trial for their crimes and that this is a black stain that should haunt them forever instead of being brushed off as it almost always is.

i also just realized in response to the both sides comment that i actually can't think of any rape dog dictators that labour or other british parties have supported or defended off the top of my head either. we will use close personal friend of the prime minister as the standard due to the wife variety of colourful characters that margaret thathcer considered her close personal friends. it is possible that i have simply forgotten about them or not learned about them so i would appreciate it if people would refresh my memory.

Wasn't Blair friends with Colonel Gadaffi?

Very much so. See also the debacle with the Lockerbie bomber's release.

[Souseiseki]

i am willing to accept blair was a war criminal bastard with the caveat that new labour is a right-wing abomination that thatcher called her greatest achievement

[Souseiseki]

though a statement from blair calling gafaddi a close personal friend and trying to protect him from trial is still missing

[Philjia]

i am willing to accept blair was a war criminal bastard with the caveat that new labour is a right-wing abomination that thatcher called her greatest achievement

If Blair hadn't had such awful foreign policy and had kept a better eye on the banks he'd probably have one of our best prime ministers. However, he didn't.

[Vassenor]

Wasn't Blair friends with Colonel Gadaffi?

Oh yes, I forgot about that! Thank you- very helpeful!

i never said she was a friend of all dictators

colourful characters that margaret thathcer considered her close personal friends

The difference is we're not trying to justify the crap Tony did. We know it was bad, we accept it was bad.

[Lamadia]

Mr. Blair really had his priorities confused;
Saddam Hussein didn't pursue any real action against Britain, and Blair had him ousted; Gaddaffi helped numerous acts of terror against the UK, but he was fine with that. Very odd.

[Vassenor]

Mr. Blair really had his priorities confused;
Saddam Hussein didn't pursue any real action against Britain, and Blair had him ousted; Gaddaffi helped numerous acts of terror against the UK, but he was fine with that. Very odd.

Because Bush had him on a leash. So long as Libya stayed in the US's good books, he wasn't going to do anything.

[Philjia]

Mr. Blair really had his priorities confused;
Saddam Hussein didn't pursue any real action against Britain, and Blair had him ousted; Gaddaffi helped numerous acts of terror against the UK, but he was fine with that. Very odd.

Should have stuck to social policy. He was good at that.