Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem
Our foreign policy leaves the world where it is - who's to say whether things would have been better (or even worse) had our foreign policy been different. A nation which lets others determine its foreign policy isn't a nation so what concessions is the idiot Corbyn prepared to offer? No concessions will be enough for the likes of ISIS so where would that leave Corbyn at the head of the UK?
|
I don't think he is arguing we make concessions to ISIS but that we have a less interventionist foreign policy as recent attempts seem to have increased instability as well as providing propaganda for ISIS.
I don't actually agree with a lot of it. I think we overestimate the role we play in these matters is if there isn't a large amount of history in the region that we're ignorant of. We can't fit every problem in the world into a Western-centric view of the world. I also believe that there are consequences to not intervening, what happens in one place can come and impact us. Even if it didn't you can't in good conscience leave people to a terrible fate if you can stop it. Would Corbyn have intervened in Rwanda? Sierra Leone? Bosnia? No. That isn't a progressive, liberal or humanitarian position to take. Nor is the constant apologism for Russia as they continue to interfere in Western democracies.
But still his argument today was a reasonable position to take rather than an offensive one. A insular United Kingdom that doesn't seek to exert itself on the world stage would be a poorer one in my mind but it's a view plenty of 'normal' people hold.