Page 16 of 16

Re: Jeremy Corbyn

PostPosted: 01 Jul 2017, 17:21
by StarWatcher009
Corbyn's pacifism is one of the best things about him in my opinion. I found it sad that during the campaign and particularly during one of the quasi debates (I think the Paxman one), he was hounded over his inability to say that he would push the nuclear button. However, there was one lady in the audience who said that what they were talking about is murdering huge numbers of innocent people. As such, to me personally, I cannot find any circumstance in which I would push the button. Ever.

However, does that make Corbyn a 'godsend' for the middle east. No. They do not need someone who will refuse to fight. I believe it has got to the point where nothing but diplomacy will work. However, diplomacy needs something hanging over it. There has to be something beholding both sides to commit to any deal. For most countries economic sanctions should work. However, this is not the end all. Saddam used US sanctions to become even more authoritarian and even more anti-west. When Madeleine Albright said that starving children was 'worth it'; that kind of rhetoric turns people against the west. Thus the possibility of military action should not be firmly kept of the table. Despite how great it would be, it is impossible to be completely pacifist.

Re: Jeremy Corbyn

PostPosted: 01 Jul 2017, 22:06
by Bromley86
It's funny, but I've just discovered that I've been unfairly maligning Albright (in my head, at least) for years. I thought it was her who failed to communicate to Saddam that an invasion of Kuwait would be met with force, but it turns out it was April Glaspie. Still, a good example of where pacifism wasn't the best policy.