403 Forbidden
www.commondreams.org

Independent British Member of Parliament Jeremy Corbyn on Tuesday accused United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer of “cowardice” for refusing to condemn the US bombing of Venezuela and abduction of its president, acts that experts agree were flagrant violations of international law.

Hours after the US attack—as leaders in the region and worldwide voiced horror and outrage—Starmer issued a statement welcoming Nicolás Maduro’s ouster, declaring that “we regarded Maduro as an illegitimate president and we shed no tears about the end of his regime.”

Starmer later insisted, as the Trump administration laid out plans to control the Venezuelan government indefinitely, that the situation was “complicated,” adding that it was “for the U.S. to justify the action that it has taken.”

Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party now helmed by Starmer, countered in Tribune magazine that “it’s really not that complicated: Bombing a sovereign nation and abducting its head of state is illegal.”

“It is absolutely staggering that a prime minister with a background in law cannot bring himself to say something so obvious,” Corbyn wrote. “It’s not that he doesn’t understand. He understands full well. That is the true abomination: He is choosing to desecrate the meaning of international law to avoid upsetting Donald Trump. This is the true meaning of the so-called ‘special relationship’ that government ministers are so desperate to protect: one where the United States tells us to jump, and we ask how high.”

“Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to cement the UK’s status as a vassal of the United States.”

The UK, according to the government’s foreign secretary, has been in close contact with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the role it can play in Venezuela, citing the “work we have done over many years to build up relationships and dialogue with Venezuelan opposition parties and with the current authorities in the regime and of course our relationship with the US.”

Corbyn argued that the government’s approach is in some ways reminiscent of its conduct in the lead-up to the disastrous and illegal US invasion of Iraq more than two decades ago.

“Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to cement the UK’s status as a vassal of the United States,” Corbyn wrote. “Unlike Iraq, the UK says it is not involved in the bombing of Venezuela. Like Iraq, however, the UK is proving once again that it has no interest in standing up for international law.”

From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.

  • manualoverride@lemmy.world
    1·
    4 days ago

    I don’t recall relinquishing ownership of my stance.

    I think you think what I was saying is akin to racism, sexism, ageism etc. which got you coming out of the gate a bit aggressive.

    • LeninWeave [any]@lemmy.ml
      2·
      4 days ago

      I don’t recall relinquishing ownership of my stance.

      If you know it’s superficial, why did you say it?

      Just because it’s superficial doesn’t mean it’s not important, many others will think the exact same thing, will not take him seriously and won’t vote for him.

      This seems like a pretty clear way to try to imply you were only speaking for others as a matter of practicality rather than being superficial yourself.

      I think you think what I was saying is akin to racism, sexism, ageism etc. which got you coming out of the gate a bit aggressive.

      I haven’t been particularly aggressive, but frankly your disparaging of the homeless (who have enough of a hard time already) in your first comment was unpleasant and more than a bit classist.

      • manualoverride@lemmy.world
        1·
        4 days ago

        This seems like a pretty clear way to try to imply you were only speaking for others as a matter of practicality rather than being superficial yourself.

        As you read it back, it’s not actually what I said, your use of “imply” shows you are now realising it’s clearer I was just saying it’s important because he needs votes. (From many people)

        I haven’t been particularly aggressive, but frankly your disparaging of the homeless (who have enough of a hard time already) in your first comment was unpleasant and more than a bit classist.

        Maybe the point I agree with the most, even though the intention was obviously not to disparage the homeless, I’ll be careful not to use that analogy in future.

        • LeninWeave [any]@lemmy.ml
          2·
          4 days ago

          As you read it back, it’s not actually what I said, your use of “imply” shows you are now realising it’s clearer I was just saying it’s important because he needs votes. (From many people)

          From many people including yourself, because you choose to allow your superficial judgement of his appearance to impact your judgment of him even though you know it’s superficial. That’s my whole point here, you’re being shallow and you know it. That’s why people were upset at you and downvoted you.

          If his appearance didn’t matter to you at all, but you were concerned about how it mattered only to other voters, that’s what you would have said in the first place.

          Maybe the point I agree with the most, even though the intention was obviously not to disparage the homeless, I’ll be careful not to use that analogy in future.

          Thank you.

          • manualoverride@lemmy.world
            1·
            4 days ago

            I voted for him in… was it 2019? Can’t remember exactly. I can’t be expected to put every tiny detail in every post I make on Lemmy.

            I’m beginning to regret ignoring your obvious pivot to “you hate homeless people!” now.

            • LeninWeave [any]@lemmy.ml
              2·
              4 days ago

              I’m beginning to regret ignoring your obvious pivot to “you hate homeless people!” now.

              TBH I debated not including that but decided to because I felt it was important. I respected that you just accepted that that was wrong and decided to apologize, but if you were thinking of arguing about it perhaps that respect was premature.

              I don’t think this discussion is going anywhere. I think you’re shallow, and you admitted so yourself in your first comment. So, presumably, did the downvoters. That’s it, that’s all I really have to say.

              • manualoverride@lemmy.world
                1·
                4 days ago

                It may have been insensitive, but to say I was disparaging the homeless is not correct. Just try to temper your language with people who are conversing with you, because you tend to go for the extremes.

                My opinion (without the pedantry this time) is how you present yourself is a choice, having a view of someone based on their choices does not make me shallow.

                Using that as the only basis for your opinion of someone could be shallow, but always best to check.

                • LeninWeave [any]@lemmy.ml
                  2·
                  4 days ago

                  It may have been insensitive, but to say I was disparaging the homeless is not correct.

                  I meant that you were using the appearance of homelessness as a negative descriptor, which is naturally disparaging.

                  Just try to temper your language with people who are conversing with you, because you tend to go for the extremes.

                  I will point out to you that you came into this thread with a comment that bothered many people and not a single person, as far as I can tell, had a positive reaction. I saw your other comment about online discourse, but in this case you might want to consider that the common factor in these interactions, which frankly I don’t think are as extreme as you’re making them out to be (or at least as you’re making this one out to be), is your behavior in this thread.

                  My opinion (without the pedantry this time) is how you present yourself is a choice, having a view of someone based on their choices does not make me shallow.

                  In my opinion, thinking that deliberately choosing to present oneself in a way that doesn’t conform to social expectations for politicians (formal attire, upper-class coded) is, if not shallow, erroneous. But that’s my personal judgement, you disagree and think it’s a valuable metric, which is your right.

                  I chose to say shallow because I did think your first comment was shallow and you self-described it as superficial, though I suppose there is some minor difference between the two (I used them more or less interchangeably in this thread).