I’m Not A Pacifist, Says Corbyn, And If You Say I Am I’ll Smash Your Face In
Jeremy Corbyn may be accused of many things but not being prepared to use nuclear weapons is surely a good thing? Apparently not according to most of the media. ‘Mr Corbyn, would you press the nuclear button and kill millions of innocent people if circumstances required it?’ ‘No? then you are a danger to Britain.’ What a crazy notion – calling a man more dangerous if he wouldn’t nuke Russia/N Korea/Iran than if he would. Over a twenty year period Trident will cost £100billion, maybe more, roughly the amount needed to eradicate WORLD poverty, But, the hawks say, if we don’t have nuclear weapons we are vulnerable to attack. From whom? If it was Russia they have around 68,000 more warheads than the UK. The only people left would be the Royal family, a few politicians and some generals cowering away in a bunker somewhere under London. The post-nuclear world will be populated by the progeny of these blithering idiots. Further, the argument goes, not having nuclear capability would mean we didn’t dine at ‘the top table’ with other nuclear powers….instead we could end tuition fees, save the environment, have a living wage for all, tell Brussels to go f**k themselves and have the best Health Service in the world. Hmm, which way to turn? Corbyn believes (and the Green party do) that military action should always be the last, the very last, resort. For this he is even castigated, by those who see war as a first, second or third resort. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria – in what way has bombing and invading these countries improved matters? Increased terrorism, mass migration, massive displacement of populations, increased surveillance within Western countries and ‘collateral damage’ to millions of innocent people. Give Corbyn a break – on this matter he is 100% right.