Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Hilary Benn Sacked From The Shadow Cabinet - wider political debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
Boss_Blue said:
Koff lad.


That doesn't mean that we have to accept it.


That speech was fantastically delivered and received a rapturous reception from both the Tories and large swathes of Labour as well - that in itself should raise alarm bells.

Dissect the content and I'm inclined to agree with you - I'm not anti-war for the sake of it and no doubt there are scenarios in which it is the correct course.

We have however shown ourselves to be spectacularly poor at achieving the desired results from this course of action both from a humanitarian and political viewpoint.

In short, koff Benn.


Agreed.


No, because he wasn't arsed about the continued havoc being wrought upon the region.

*bomb the middle east, that'll sort out the problem

*problem intensifies

*bomb the middle east


Oh well that's okay then.
Click to expand...


good stuff, bb...big fan of multi-quotes me x
 
Boss_Blue said:
No, because he wasn't arsed about the continued havoc being wrought upon the region.

*bomb the middle east, that'll sort out the problem

*problem intensifies

*bomb the middle east, that'll sort out the problem
Click to expand...

You didn't listen to what he actually said did you? You read a headline somewhere and that was it.

Here it is if you have a spare 15 minutes - worth actually listening to his rationale, because if you did, you'd realise he addressed the very thing you just typed.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ote-speech-full-must-confront-isis-evil-video
 
Tubey said:
You didn't listen to what he actually said did you? You read a headline somewhere and that was it.

Here it is if you have a spare 15 minutes - worth actually listening to his rationale, because if you did, you'd realise he addressed the very thing you just typed.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ote-speech-full-must-confront-isis-evil-video
Click to expand...
Good morning Mr Condescending, I actually watched it live - rewatched it, spent a lot of time considering the issue and came to the conclusion that I disagreed with the proposal as the right course of action for stability in the reason.

Having said that, it took me less than a minute to decide that you were chatting wham.

Make of that what you will.
 
Boss_Blue said:
Good morning Mr Condescending, I actually watched it live - rewatched it, spent a lot of time considering the issue and came to the conclusion that I disagreed with the proposal as the right course of action for stability in the reason.

Having said that, it took me less than a minute to decide that you were chatting wham.

Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...

You agreed with calling it "evil". Bit of a difference from merely disagreeing with it.

That's chatting wham.
 

Tubey said:
You agreed with calling it "evil". Bit of a difference from merely disagreeing with it.

That's chatting wham.
Click to expand...
Advocating the expansion of a policy that has yielded negligible success in bringing about peace and prosperity to the region (not to mention the global ramifications it has caused) after decades of being implemented?

Despite the astonishing cost to civilian lives?

All hail Saint Hilary.
 
Boss_Blue said:
Advocating the expansion of a policy that has yielded negligible success in bringing about peace and prosperity to the region (not to mention the global ramifications it has caused) after decades of being implemented?

Despite the astonishing cost to civilian lives?

All hail Saint Hilary.
Click to expand...

Yeah, again, you agreed with it being called "evil". That word shouldn't be used lightly to describe something. It automatically invalidates your point.

Disagree by all means, loads of reasons to do so and a lot of yours are valid - but do so rationally or you just look stupid.
 
Tubey said:
Yeah, again, you agreed with it being called "evil". That word shouldn't be used lightly to describe something. It automatically invalidates your point.

Disagree by all means, loads of reasons to do so and a lot of yours are valid - but do so rationally or you just look stupid.
Click to expand...

the banality of evil...
 
Yea, but it was a good speech and everyone who had motive or disengaged reason enjoyed it mate.

Boss_Blue said:
Advocating the expansion of a policy that has yielded negligible success in bringing about peace and prosperity to the region (not to mention the global ramifications it has caused) after decades of being implemented?

Despite the astonishing cost to civilian lives?

All hail Saint Hilary.
Click to expand...
 
dholliday said:
the banality of evil...
Click to expand...

He had a rationale behind supporting what he did. Whether you disagree or not, it wasn't evil, as he did not have the intent to murder civiliants - that wasn't the core of his reasoning.

So you are objectively wrong in calling what he said evil, and it invalidates your point.
 

dholliday said:
That is so dangerous but I don't think you'll ever understand why.
Click to expand...

I understand there are people who believe no action should be taken if civilian life is at risk. Fine. Completely understandable.

But it's not "evil" to consider a wider situation and advocate action you believe is the greater good. I can't stress enough how stupid and reactionary using the term "evil" is to describe a reasoned political speech, just because you disagree with it.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top