The desperation amongst Labour MPs is so palpable that they're now fantasising about Keir Starmer restoring his popularity through a Thatcher-style "Falklands moment"
The Russian Federation is so much more powerful than the Argentines in the Falklands, that Starmer will get a very rude awakening. It will not be good to watch, as he drags us down with him.
It seems to be assumed by all political parties in the UK that we MUST ramp up spending on weaponry. But why? Move weaponry increases the chances of war. And that is the last thing this world needs. My question ( which I have been thinking about for the last 24 hours ): what should be the response of socialists? Alan Story, THE LEFT LANE https://theleftlane2024.substack.com
I wonder if you’re forgetting that effective US withdrawal is not a net increase but a replacement and even then is not so certain given the dependency on US technology.
So I asked CHAT AI for reasons why a country might oppose the purchase of further armaments. It's reply.
1. Economic Constraints : Countries may face budgetary limitations. Military spending can divert funds from essential services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
2. Diplomatic Relations : Increasing armament purchases can strain relationships with other countries. A nation may prefer to pursue diplomacy and cooperation rather than an arms race.
3. Public Opinion : Citizens may oppose military spending, especially if there are pressing social issues. Governments often take public sentiment into account when deciding on defense budgets.
4. Arms Control Agreements : Some countries are bound by international treaties aimed at arms limitation or disarmament, which can limit their ability to procure more weapons.
5. Ethical and Moral Concerns : There might be a belief that increasing arms contributes to global instability, conflict, and human suffering, leading to a preference for peaceful resolutions.
6. Focus on Defense Spending : There may be a belief that resources should instead be allocated toward enhancing existing military capabilities or investing in non-military security measures.
7. Risk of Escalation : A country may fear that purchasing more armaments could provoke neighboring countries, leading to an arms race and increased tensions.
8. Shift in Threat Perception : If a country believes that its security challenges are more diplomatic or economic rather than military, it may oppose additional military expenditures.
9. Long-term Strategy : A country may have a long-term vision that emphasizes peacebuilding and stability over military buildup, focusing on conflict prevention and resolution.
10. Historical Lessons : Past experiences with arms races or conflicts might lead national leaders to favor restraint and non-proliferation as more effective strategies for ensuring peace.
These considerations together create a complex landscape where the decision to oppose further armament purchases is based on a mixture of economic, political, ethical, and strategic factors.
"...fantasising about Keir Starmer restoring his popularity..."
•••
Starmer hijacked the Labour Party by lying, slandering & backstabbing his betters.
Starmer inherited #10 when the Conservative Party committed suicide.
Starmer "won" fewer votes than Corbyn's Labour ever did.
SIR Keir Starmer is a titled & entitled, wannabe-toff. He has no credentials, ability, or desire to represent the working class. He has no idea how to represent ANY part of the UK, except to ape the Tories (who failed spectacularly, and whom NO ONE voted for Starmer to copy).
What Starmer has NEVER been, is POPULAR.
Why does anyone imagine he can "restore" something he has never had?
It doesn't make any difference to the UK about Russia defeating Ukraine. Ukraine has never been allie. Until the installed gangster regime. Was bribed to become the Anglo/American proxy. Just yesterday the leader of the Polish opposition party took a photograph of the Bandera statue in Lvov. Stating we can never be friends with Ukraine until it gets rid of this extremist Facist ideology. Hero worshipping a psychopathic Nazi responsible for slaughtering at least 100 thousand Polish civilians. Proving beyond doubt who our government is training, arming & funding with tax payers money. Compulsive lying Bojo brought Azov commanders into the houses of Parliament. Spitting on the graves of our WW2 heroes who fought the Nazis. These people ruling over us, never make any decisions to benefit the tax payers. Isn't that what's known as treason? Working in others interests against the wishes of the citizens of your country? While the masses in our country believe main stream media. We will always decline.
The sheer absurdity of this analogy would secure a FAIL if it were submitted in a GCSE History Paper. In 1982 Thatcher ENGINEERED the Falklands War, with CIA collusion, when she sank the Belgrano LEAVING the exclusion zone, in order to win a heavily manipulated election, lay claim to mineral resources in Antarctica and wage war on the domestic labour movement. The results, by way of the miners' strike, fire sale privatizations and the deregulation of the financial sector were catastrophic. The Falklands War also gave rise to Iran Contra. Nothing to celebrate there, mate! By contrast, Trump was aided to power by fellow fascist Putin and a constellation of Oligarchs in both countries, has sold Ukraine and Europe down the river and Starmer is complicit because he won't rejoin the Customs Union, suggest Canada and Mexico do likewise and preempt an INEVITABLE trade war between Europe and a fascist America. The only parallel is that IF Britain sides with Trump in a trade war against Europe, then the same kind of looting of the NHS and public services currently being waged by Musk in the US will be replicated here. It also won't stop Musk and Trump supporting a fascist coup in the UK in less than four years. Starmer would be RIGHT to say that Europe needs to increase defence spending to REPLACE NATO with a European standing army now that TRUMP IS OUR NUMBER ONE ENEMY EVEN INCLUDING PUTIN but not at the expense of cutting services at home and foreign aid. Rather, tax the rich parasites who created this crisis to pay for defence, public services and foreign aid, including SUPPORT for asylum seekers and place the fiscal limits placed as a scorched earth by the previous government of gangsters in the neo-liberal dustbin where they belong.
The Russian Federation is so much more powerful than the Argentines in the Falklands, that Starmer will get a very rude awakening. It will not be good to watch, as he drags us down with him.
If they really believe this then they are more stupid that I gave them credit for.
It seems to be assumed by all political parties in the UK that we MUST ramp up spending on weaponry. But why? Move weaponry increases the chances of war. And that is the last thing this world needs. My question ( which I have been thinking about for the last 24 hours ): what should be the response of socialists? Alan Story, THE LEFT LANE https://theleftlane2024.substack.com
I wonder if you’re forgetting that effective US withdrawal is not a net increase but a replacement and even then is not so certain given the dependency on US technology.
Unlike Thatcher, Keir doesn't have the Tory media on his side.
So I asked CHAT AI for reasons why a country might oppose the purchase of further armaments. It's reply.
1. Economic Constraints : Countries may face budgetary limitations. Military spending can divert funds from essential services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
2. Diplomatic Relations : Increasing armament purchases can strain relationships with other countries. A nation may prefer to pursue diplomacy and cooperation rather than an arms race.
3. Public Opinion : Citizens may oppose military spending, especially if there are pressing social issues. Governments often take public sentiment into account when deciding on defense budgets.
4. Arms Control Agreements : Some countries are bound by international treaties aimed at arms limitation or disarmament, which can limit their ability to procure more weapons.
5. Ethical and Moral Concerns : There might be a belief that increasing arms contributes to global instability, conflict, and human suffering, leading to a preference for peaceful resolutions.
6. Focus on Defense Spending : There may be a belief that resources should instead be allocated toward enhancing existing military capabilities or investing in non-military security measures.
7. Risk of Escalation : A country may fear that purchasing more armaments could provoke neighboring countries, leading to an arms race and increased tensions.
8. Shift in Threat Perception : If a country believes that its security challenges are more diplomatic or economic rather than military, it may oppose additional military expenditures.
9. Long-term Strategy : A country may have a long-term vision that emphasizes peacebuilding and stability over military buildup, focusing on conflict prevention and resolution.
10. Historical Lessons : Past experiences with arms races or conflicts might lead national leaders to favor restraint and non-proliferation as more effective strategies for ensuring peace.
These considerations together create a complex landscape where the decision to oppose further armament purchases is based on a mixture of economic, political, ethical, and strategic factors.
How sane!
Send this to Starmer.
"...fantasising about Keir Starmer restoring his popularity..."
•••
Starmer hijacked the Labour Party by lying, slandering & backstabbing his betters.
Starmer inherited #10 when the Conservative Party committed suicide.
Starmer "won" fewer votes than Corbyn's Labour ever did.
SIR Keir Starmer is a titled & entitled, wannabe-toff. He has no credentials, ability, or desire to represent the working class. He has no idea how to represent ANY part of the UK, except to ape the Tories (who failed spectacularly, and whom NO ONE voted for Starmer to copy).
What Starmer has NEVER been, is POPULAR.
Why does anyone imagine he can "restore" something he has never had?
It doesn't make any difference to the UK about Russia defeating Ukraine. Ukraine has never been allie. Until the installed gangster regime. Was bribed to become the Anglo/American proxy. Just yesterday the leader of the Polish opposition party took a photograph of the Bandera statue in Lvov. Stating we can never be friends with Ukraine until it gets rid of this extremist Facist ideology. Hero worshipping a psychopathic Nazi responsible for slaughtering at least 100 thousand Polish civilians. Proving beyond doubt who our government is training, arming & funding with tax payers money. Compulsive lying Bojo brought Azov commanders into the houses of Parliament. Spitting on the graves of our WW2 heroes who fought the Nazis. These people ruling over us, never make any decisions to benefit the tax payers. Isn't that what's known as treason? Working in others interests against the wishes of the citizens of your country? While the masses in our country believe main stream media. We will always decline.
what is that whirring sound? oh it's Kier Harding spinning in his grave.
The sheer absurdity of this analogy would secure a FAIL if it were submitted in a GCSE History Paper. In 1982 Thatcher ENGINEERED the Falklands War, with CIA collusion, when she sank the Belgrano LEAVING the exclusion zone, in order to win a heavily manipulated election, lay claim to mineral resources in Antarctica and wage war on the domestic labour movement. The results, by way of the miners' strike, fire sale privatizations and the deregulation of the financial sector were catastrophic. The Falklands War also gave rise to Iran Contra. Nothing to celebrate there, mate! By contrast, Trump was aided to power by fellow fascist Putin and a constellation of Oligarchs in both countries, has sold Ukraine and Europe down the river and Starmer is complicit because he won't rejoin the Customs Union, suggest Canada and Mexico do likewise and preempt an INEVITABLE trade war between Europe and a fascist America. The only parallel is that IF Britain sides with Trump in a trade war against Europe, then the same kind of looting of the NHS and public services currently being waged by Musk in the US will be replicated here. It also won't stop Musk and Trump supporting a fascist coup in the UK in less than four years. Starmer would be RIGHT to say that Europe needs to increase defence spending to REPLACE NATO with a European standing army now that TRUMP IS OUR NUMBER ONE ENEMY EVEN INCLUDING PUTIN but not at the expense of cutting services at home and foreign aid. Rather, tax the rich parasites who created this crisis to pay for defence, public services and foreign aid, including SUPPORT for asylum seekers and place the fiscal limits placed as a scorched earth by the previous government of gangsters in the neo-liberal dustbin where they belong.