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.
Cowardice, complicity - potato, potato.
Whilst looking like a homeless man begging for change outside of a tube station. I know it’s superficial, but if you don’t look like someone who takes care of yourself, it’s hard to imagine you taking care of a country.
I mean he is wearing a suit and a coat in the picture, it’s currently winter in the UK. What a dumb comment.
I know it’s superficial, but if you don’t look like someone who takes care of yourself, it’s hard to imagine you taking care of a country.
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.
That’s kind of a problem for a politician who wants people to listen and vote.
“I’m not superficial, I’m just speaking for other superficial people.”
I know it’s superficial, but if you don’t look like someone who takes care of yourself, it’s hard to imagine you taking care of a country.
This is what you said (emphasis added by me). Nothing about other people.
Don’t do this, have the courage of your convictions and stand by the things you say.
You can also just say that it was a superficial comment you shouldn’t have made.
The fact that I recognise it’s superficial is irrelevant, I do have a list of reasons why I don’t like Corbyn as a politician, and his political stances I disagree with.
At some point though I was less politically informed and his presentation probably made me less likely to imagine him leading the country.
Are you saying that makes me a bad person? If so I’ve got really bad news for you; everyone has unconscious biases, the people that recognise them are in the minority.
The fact that I recognise it’s superficial is irrelevant, I do have a list of reasons why I don’t like Corbyn as a politician, and his political stances I disagree with.
Maybe you should have brought those up instead.
At some point though I was less politically informed and his presentation probably made me less likely to imagine him leading the country.
Seems like the past tense here is not warranted, based on your original comment.
Are you saying that makes me a bad person?
I wouldn’t make a childish black and white judgement like that based on this one small interaction.
If so I’ve got really bad news for you; everyone has unconscious biases, the people that recognise them are in the minority.
When you recognize them, you’re meant to try to stop acting on them, which makes those biases go away. You don’t get credit for recognizing it’s bad and doing it anyway, if anything you get negative credit.
In what way did I act on my bias exactly?
Whilst looking like a homeless man begging for change outside of a tube station. I know it’s superficial, but if you don’t look like someone who takes care of yourself, it’s hard to imagine you taking care of a country.
At no point did you mention this “oh no it’s hard FOR OTHER PEOPLE to imagine it” cop-out until after you were called out for it. Also, you said the following in a different comment.
I don’t only judge Corbyn on his appearance, I’m just citing it as a contributing factor.
Let’s be clear, I’m not judging him based on immutable characteristics, just his presentation, everyone does this subconsciously or consciously every day, for some it doesn’t matter but when your trying to win votes and change opinions it’s not a good idea.
You knew it was superficial to judge him based on how he looks and you chose to do it anyway. You then acted as though the existence of bias in other people excused you knowingly indulging your own bias.
And I bet he wasn’t wearing a suit!
Military fatigues would actually be fitting given how badly YourParty is doing.
Because it’s not smart to judge a person only by their appearance. Because I don’t think he looks like a homeless person. Because an older person may have some health problems and they may affect their appearance. And material well-being may not allow solving all health problems, it can be very expensive. But billionaires can always look sharp, but that doesn’t mean they won’t lie to you. This is just my explanation. But I remove my donwvote.
I don’t only judge Corbyn on his appearance, I’m just citing it as a contributing factor. The undeniable embarrassment that has been the launch of “YourParty” is another key indicator in his inability to manage things effectively.
I’m not sure what your point is regarding his age and wealth, as an MP he is well above average earnings, and he has always looked a mess, when he was Labour leader he was always recorded coming out of his house brushing past the weeds and overgrown bushes.
The undeniable embarrassment that has been the launch of “YourParty” is another key indicator in his inability to manage things effectively.
Hey, I know this thread is probably long-dead by now, but I wanted to come back and mention that I actually do agree with you about this one.
I also do actually agree that downvotes have a negative effect overall on online discourse. Unfortunately, they’re widespread and I don’t see them going away soon, so they’re the reality we have to live with.
Brilliant! Let’s not let the downvotes kill the discourse, go on and disagree with people, but just like this, find common ground and go from there. I will try and do the same.
In future I’ll describe Corbyn as someone who looks like he doesn’t have access to regular showers, an iron, haircuts, shaving facilities,a mirror, and has looked this way for so long is the sort of person who doesn’t care about the way he presents himself, which may have a negative impact on his ability to secure votes and create a negative first impression from other world leaders…. maybe someone can suggest a pithy way that can be expressed without disparaging any socio-economic group.
I don’t think I’ve downvoted anyone without saying why, if you’re going to downvote at least provide a reason.
Imagine downvotes causing you this much psychic damage.
Psychic damage because I made a request?
You, by your own admission, said something you knew was superficial. I think it shouldn’t be hard for you to imagine why people were downvoting the comment, you said it yourself in the comment.
Yes. I’ve never seen someone demand to know why they’re downvoted. On my end downvotes are disabled. Studies show it has a negative impact on peoples mental health. The fact that you had to know why you were being downvoted seems to align with those findings.
Regardless, your take is bad. Assessing someone based on their appearance is bad, and you should stop doing it.
I’m just seeing the death of discussion through downvoting, so few comments, and when there are comments (especially in political subs) they tend to be ad hominem attacks.
Let’s be clear, I’m not judging him based on immutable characteristics, just his presentation, everyone does this subconsciously or consciously every day, for some it doesn’t matter but when your trying to win votes and change opinions it’s not a good idea.
and when there are comments (especially in political subs) they tend to be ad hominem attacks
“I know it’s superficial, but if you don’t look like someone who takes care of yourself, it’s hard to imagine you taking care of a country.”
Wait, are you Jeremy Corbyn? I did wonder what you were up to these days.
I’m just seeing the death of discussion through downvoting, so few comments, and when there are comments (especially in political subs) they tend to be ad hominem attacks.
That’s exactly why I like turning them off. I wish I could enforce that on the comms as a federated setting per community. That way people have to comment if they don’t like something.
I doubt you’ll convince dotWorld to change the setting for the instance. I’ll tell you it’s much nicer in spaces without down votes.
With the introduction of AI slop and the usual Mis/disinformation downvotes are sometimes handy. However as we have seen here the downvote button means different things for different people.
The purpose of downvotes are to send an irrelevant comment out of discussion so maybe take the hint.
Wow - passive aggressive reply, maybe discussions would be more forthcoming if we were being nicer to each other?
I’ll add to the discussion, and see where this goes… Minor parties coming out and bashing any government for not being aggressive with condemnation for other countries is pointless, and so is the reporting that try to corner government ministers into using aggressive or provocative language.
The US, Israel, Russia etc. are going to have to justify their actions and the government will need to diplomatically resolve the difference between what has happened and what needs to happen in the future. If they start off from a neutral position before the diplomacy begins they are more likely to reach agreement.
We can all know what the US did is obviously wrong, but foreign policy needs to be more nuanced than a news soundbite would like it to be.
I don’t give a shit about the discussion, I just saw that you don’t seem to know what a downvote is for.
Ok - just had a look through your post history and you just like being an asshole on the internet. Hope that works out well for you.
Yeah it’s been going pretty good so far
