Young Labour vote for UK to leave NATO

[Giz]

It appears the youthful side of the party is even more bonkers than Corbyn and McDonnell.

From article:

Young Labour demanded the UK ditch the military alliance after voting to support a motion called “support Corbyn and internationalism, oppose Trump and NATO”.

The motion said: “From Guyana to Vietnam to Iraq, the Labour Party all too often been complicit in American overseas aggression. NATO has been the lynchpin and institutional expression of American imperialism.”

Labour’s youth section called for an end to the UK’s membership to the alliance claiming NATO’s “continual aggression” made us less safe.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...-Young-Labour-vote-Donald-Trump-Jeremy-Corbyn


A lot of silly youngsters seem to have swallowed fake news. Bigly.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Quite right. NATO keeps poking it's nose in to wars it shouldn't be having anything to do with.
Why is NATO involved in anything that isn't a direct defensive action to protect NATO territory from aggression?

Shouldn't be pissing around bombing in the middle east for example. If America want to bomb in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc then they should do it under their own name and persuade any allies they can find to join them. It shouldn't be done in the name of NATO.

 

[Belz...]

Was NATO supposed to be entirely defensive?

 

[Giz]

Quite right. NATO keeps poking it's nose in to wars it shouldn't be having anything to do with.
Why is NATO involved in anything that isn't a direct defensive action to protect NATO territory from aggression?

Shouldn't be pissing around bombing in the middle east for example. If America want to bomb in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc then they should do it under their own name and persuade any allies they can find to join them. It shouldn't be done in the name of NATO.

Afghanistan

I seem to remember Afghanistan being involved in an attack on NATO territory.

Similarly for areas in Eastern Europe or the Mediterranean basin, if there is a coup, conflict or a failed state brewing.... that is a legitimate security/stability concern for nearby NATO territory.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Corbyn the Internationalist that is in favour of Brexit and against the free movement of labour and immigration.

 

[dudalb]

Was NATO supposed to be entirely defensive?

In Afghanistan, NATO was responding to an attack on a NATO member's home soil. Remember 9/11?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Still there and still responding.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Was NATO supposed to be entirely defensive?

Yes.
And in 1995, the Alliance, all 16 nations in it at the time, Changed Their Minds and made "out of area operations" OK. This was a political decision in 16 capitals.
See Bosnia
See bombing Serbia
See supporting Kosovars
See a variety of other sequels, to include ISAF. (Still a sitcom running on most major networks, unless you prefer to call it a sittrag).

You are about 22 years late to the party, my friend. Do catch up, will you?

 

[theprestige]

Indeed, the role of NATO had to expand from pure mutual defense to broader underwriting of regional security and peacekeeping. The Soviet Union kept the lid on a lot of civil unrest in Eastern Europe, even as it posed an existential threat to Western Europe.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I have very mixed feelings about this whole NATO "non Article V" operations thing, even though I was involved in more than one, and some years later when I was working some OEF operations, I was surely glad to see and work with some of our Allies in that effort.

 

[Craig B]

Indeed, the role of NATO had to expand from pure mutual defense to broader underwriting of regional security and peacekeeping. The Soviet Union kept the lid on a lot of civil unrest in Eastern Europe, even as it posed an existential threat to Western Europe.

So much for pure defence. You may have noticed that the USSR has been out of existence for three decades, so didn't exist in 9/11. And now NATO is extending into former Soviet territory. So maybe the Young Labourites aren't so bonkers after all.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Craig, what do you mean by "former Soviet Territory" in that post. Poland, for example, was not Soviet Territory ... or was it? (The damned fool attempt to try and include Georgia in 2008 failed).

Are you referring to the Baltic States, who did not appreciate being appropriated by the USSR in the 40's?

 

[Oystein]

It appears the youthful side of the party is even more bonkers than Corbyn and McDonnell.

From article:

Young Labour demanded the UK ditch the military alliance after voting to support a motion called “support Corbyn and internationalism, oppose Trump and NATO”.

The motion said: “From Guyana to Vietnam to Iraq, the Labour Party all too often been complicit in American overseas aggression. NATO has been the lynchpin and institutional expression of American imperialism.”

Labour’s youth section called for an end to the UK’s membership to the alliance claiming NATO’s “continual aggression” made us less safe.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...-Young-Labour-vote-Donald-Trump-Jeremy-Corbyn


A lot of silly youngsters seem to have swallowed fake news. Bigly.

Which of the three interventions mentioned in the OP did the UK participate in as part of a NATO operation?

 

[Craig B]

Craig, what do you mean by "former Soviet Territory" in that post. Poland, for example, was not Soviet Territory ... or was it? (The damned fool attempt to try and include Georgia in 2008 failed).

Are you referring to the Baltic States, who did not appreciate being appropriated by the USSR in the 40's?

Were these states part of the USSR or not? No, they didn't appreciate being incorporated into that empire. Who said they did? No attempt was made in 2008 to include Georgia (or any other place) into Soviet Territory.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Craig, I was referring to the abortive attempt by the West to reach out and try to get a consensus in NATO to bring Georgia in to NATO, which failed at the political level. I was not referring to the kerfluffle between Georgia and Russia. The damned fool attempt I was referring to got a lot of vocal support on this side of the pond among neocons.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

I missed the bit where the Labour Party sent troops to Vietnam.

Basically, this is student poltics and is, as expected, a dumpster fire of self indulgent idiocy completely detached from the world of grown-ups.

The only worry is the amount of influence Momentumentalists seems to have on what could be the next governing party.

 

[Craig B]

Craig, I was referring to the abortive attempt by the West to reach out and try to get a consensus in NATO to bring Georgia in to NATO, which failed at the political level. I was not referring to the kerfluffle between Georgia and Russia. The damned fool attempt I was referring to got a lot of vocal support on this side of the pond among neocons.

I was referring to the fact that in 2008 there was no longer any such thing as Soviet territory for neocons or anyone else to encroach upon.

 

[Information Analyst]

I missed the bit where the Labour Party sent troops to Vietnam.

The reference to "Guyana" was puzzling, as well, but presumably refers to this:

BBC News: 1953 - Britain sends troops to Guiana

Still puzzling, though, given that that was British intervention in an existing colony, with no apparent American angle (although the CIA was subsequently "helpful"), just as Vietnam was an American affair with minimal UK involvement (IIRC the US at one point was seeking to prosecute British firms for "trading with the [North Vietnamese] enemy"!).

Bloody students...

 

[Belz...]

Yes.
And in 1995, the Alliance, all 16 nations in it at the time, Changed Their Minds and made "out of area operations" OK. This was a political decision in 16 capitals.
See Bosnia
See bombing Serbia
See supporting Kosovars
See a variety of other sequels, to include ISAF. (Still a sitcom running on most major networks, unless you prefer to call it a sittrag).

You are about 22 years late to the party, my friend. Do catch up, will you?

Late to the party? What are you on about? I asked a question about the intended role of NATO.

 

[Mikemcc]

Quite right. NATO keeps poking it's nose in to wars it shouldn't be having anything to do with.
Why is NATO involved in anything that isn't a direct defensive action to protect NATO territory from aggression?

Shouldn't be pissing around bombing in the middle east for example. If America want to bomb in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc then they should do it under their own name and persuade any allies they can find to join them. It shouldn't be done in the name of NATO.

It isn't. Just because some NATO members are involved doesn't make it a NATO operation.