US bounty on Charles Taylor

Vader

I've talked to about 100 americans out of a country of a few 100 million so I admit I may not have met a very proportional segment of the population but of those I have met all but about 10 or 15 were arrogent and self rightous.
Generalizations are unfortunatly a neccessity of debating.

Sorry I rechecked my source and it reads 24.3 percent of New Yorkers in the period 1997-1998 lived below the poverrty line and then it give percentages of each ethnic backround and the one I read was 55% of african americans in NY live below the poverty line. Sorry it was early in the morning. I was right however when I said 13% of americans nationwide live below the poverty line.

I said amongst the worst in the world and I'm right. If you cant afford to go private you'd be on some of the longest waiting lists in the world. Hospitals and schools are ridiculously under funder and under staffed for a country the siza and wealth of the USA.
People die in america because they dont have insurance or adequet cover. The US is wealthy enough to give free healthcare to the poor, Ireland is a poor country and we can do it.

Ireland is the most corrupt country in western europe. I know that. But Ireland doesnt go about shouting its political system is clean.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Man
Vader, you should meet more americans, or perhaps spend some time there.
Half my family tree are americans and are very nice people, and not Bush supporters. I've spent a lot of time there and quite frankly have not met any higher a percentage of arrogant people there than here.
You are making a generalisation which you could just as easily make of Irish people. Doing so in either case is wrong from my personal experience.

I agree ... i think it is important to differenciate between the current American government, and neo-con movement, and Americans in general. I know a ton of Americans who think Bush is the worst thing to happen to their country in a long time.

Don't forget this country produced The Simpsons, Mark Twain, Martain Luther King, Half-Life etc etc ... the American culture is rich and diverse. Most anti-war movements start in the US.

It is just a section that we notice over here. It is the conservative anglo-saxon groups (WASPs) that tends to get into power in the States, so the US government policies tend to reflect that groups conservative and self-serving beliefs. But it should always be remember that they are not the only group in America.

American governments love war. It is good for getting them re-elected, and good for the businesses that support them. It doesn't mean ALL American's support war (even though quite a few seem to at the moment)

Originally posted by Vader

Generalizations are unfortunatly a neccessity of debating.

No they are not Vader, generalisations, leave an argument weak.
When statements are backed up with references and facts they are no longer generalisations.
You are telling me by your experience, 85-90% of Americans are arrogant.
Thats a crazy thing to say,and is as invalid as someone in England saying Paddy and all the rest of the Irish are stupid to be honest.
Or for instance, meeting someone who is grumpy and complaining of the cold, and then deducing from that, that the people of Iceland or Greenland are grumpy because it is always cold there.

mm

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
Are you saying that American foreign policy doesnt reflect a country that feels superior to the rest of the world?
American foreign policy is in short one of interventionism. What gives America the right to intervene?Superior morals? Because it can? Because those who die or suffer as a result arnt as important as supplying comfort to Americans at home?
Why shouldnt the US have to act in accordance with international law? Why should the US obey the UN? Why should US soldiers be exempt from war crime tribunals?

You use the word intervene as if USA has no right to do so at all. Personally, I do not like the word intervene or intervention which has a connotation that foreign policy is only one directional. However, a country must and should protect its international and domestic interests. Those same interests of my country also involve the coutnry or countries signed or in agreement with the same shared interests through their domestic legislative process.

Why do I think Americans are arrogent?
1)From personal experience. Ive met a lot of americans. I frequent major tourist destinations and do a bit of traveling abroad.

I too have traveled but never in my entire time do I judge a country based on the people whom I encounter. I have met the most personal individuals, full of life and experience, and who have different political opinions. If they ask me my honest opinion on something, then I will give it. However, when traveling, I tend to shy away from political discussions and concentrate on culture, shared history, and habits.

3)Americans fail to see that their country is one of the worst places to live. Inequality is a fact of life. 55% of ppl in NY[edit] should be 20 something[/edit] live below the poverty line, 13% nationwide.Capitalism is built on the exploitation of the workers. Political freedoms are very limited, elections are stolen, the media is a joke, education and healthcare are amongst the worst in the world and social welfare is a pittance. Instead they proclaim to be the leaders of the free world and a land of riches.

Ah, socialism and Karl Marx. In the US, you have freedom of capital movement. I have met individuals who have come from poverty and have been successful. 11% of small businesses are operated by immigrants. 65% own homes if I recall, but I think the number may be a little low. Anti-discrimation laws dominate every aspect of society. Hardly the work of exploitation, Vader. You also have employee owned companies like Delta and United Air Lines, just to name a few. But I think one of the other posters is right that if you want to continue on this direction, a different thread should be started. The US has approximately 1 million new immigrants and roughly 300k to 500k of undocumented workers. I do not think it is as bad as a place as one would think.

4) Bibel bashers

Every major religion is represented in the USA. I personally have friends who are Muslim, Buhdist, shintoist, Daoist, and Christain. I will not tell you what my religious beliefs are for simply they are not open to this forum.

6)Americans use "make-it-y-up-y" words and then my WP automatically changes my correct words and spellings into new US versions.:D

It is called dialects, Vader. Yes, there is the Queen's English and American English just as there is Cantonese and Mandarin (Chinese) as well as Castillian Spanish, Bosque Spanish, Latin American Spanish, Mexican Spanish, and Puero Rican Spanish. So, which Spanish, English, or Chinese should one use.

Yes. When sombody is not open to debate, when they are presented with proof they are wrong but still continue with their course of action; because they know they are right.
When sombody starts applying duel standards in order to explain why they are right.
If sombody is working off a premis which is proven to be faulty.
When sombody places no limits to the things they are capable of.

And who determines who wins and who loses a debate, Vader. And how does one decide who is faulty or not. And what you call proof I could call it false information. How does one decide which info is right and which one is wrong? Is it simply by the web site presented or authors used? Sometimes I have played "devil's advocate" on a position taken. This does not mean I agree with the premise that I have taken in a discussion, and I have made little indication what I believe in this political forum.

It is never pointless to discuss; thats one of my arguements. Americans in general(and Im allowed to generalise for the purpose of debating) dont exaust all negotiative possibilities before going to war.
I never said americans were soft or oil hungry and generalizations are standard in any debate. Racism is to treat a person less favourably because of their ethnic backround. I treat you the same as everyone else and have accorded you much civilty and stuck to very logical arguements.

The analogy I was making Vader were similar statements of historical political focus but have also been proven completely wrong. I never said you said it. It is very similar to a statement "Any good Injun is a dead Injun." Gross generalizations that tend to be very racist and full of misinformation.

No it doesnt thats just complete bull. If you make a statement be prepared to back it up; dont go into hidding or start ignoring ppl when you are proved wrong(not looking at any two in particular).
If you try to defend your statement and you then start applying double standards, lying, misquoting or just spouting total nonsense(you know what I mean) then you've shown the fallacy of making such a statement.

[/QUOTE]

Double standards based on what argument Vader or under whose authority or assumption? Further, I am not going to give you my itenary when I am gone on a job or my work is a little too busy for me to join in this fun filled affair. That is none of your business, Vader and has no part in this discussion as well as calling someone a liar or anything else.

To be fair I have just as much info available to me as you have to you and am just as entitled to air my veiws as you are to air yours.

It is called interpretation of the information, Vader. And who decides which information is above the other. Who is right and who is wrong on which info is presented. This is not a court of law Vader, but a forum of opinion.

Why america went to war last time round, how they conducted that war and how often they go to war has every bearing on the arguement "weather or not America likes going to war".

Just because someone goes to the restroom all the time does not mean that person likes to go to the restroom. Let me explain the anology. You are viewing a person who goes to the restroom a lot. However, a medical explaination would more likely explain the occurance, not the gross generalization implied in the analogy. With the "America likes War" statement, other factors determines the use of military action or the non-use of military action in given international affairs. The analysis of that specific event or chain of events within a relative short time frame along with the combination of social, economic, political, and cultural factors will more accurately determine how, why, and to what extent the reason for use or non use of military force.

Vader

Hmm. The americans I've met and talked with for the most part are arrogent.

The US public usually returned presidants that are arrogent: Clinton felt he was entitled to lie to congress, Bush's foreign policy speaks for itself.

All US foreign policy is based on interventionism. Interventionism is arrogant as it implies you know better or have superior morals which history would suggest america doesnt. If the majority of americans were against interventionism it would stop being american policy.

So it is logical for me to feel americans in general are arrogent but that doesnt cut it with you; you need somone more creditable than me to say it or back it up with a reference.

When statements are backed up with references and facts they are no longer generalisations

The BBC is the most creditable news service in the world, it produced a program during the summer: "What the world thinks of America". It involved a huge survey, 11000 ppl in 11 countries.
What the world thinks of America
I felt the discussion of the results was lacking but if you want a reference heres a few:
65% of those interveiwd felt americans are arrogent
and of those americans interveiwed 54% felt americans are arrogant.


You dont believe generalisations are a neccessity of debating?
Then you are disagreeing with nearly all debating societies. Do you think you know better than them?

Now if you will accept that generalizations are an acceptable debating tool then I will accept that they are not always the most valuable. I dont make a habbit of spouting unfounded generalizations and I suppose my points would be stronger with specific reference but that is time consuming and I thought this one was pretty standard.

Vader

Sorry Geromino Ive been looking for that reference for Man and typing off line. Ive only seen your reply now whan I connected to post my reply. I dont have time to read yours or reply now but I will.

sceptre

Originally posted by Vader
You dont believe generalisations are a neccessity of debating?
Then you are disagreeing with nearly all debating societies. Do you think you know better than them?

Generalisations are dangerous and get shot down by any half-decent debater unless there's something concrete to back it up. In other words, abstract generalisations based on limited experience are very very bad. They may be an acceptable debating tool up to the point in the debate that someone points out that it's a generalisation and that they've an example that can be counted as an exception to the generalisation, at which point they may become entirely irrelevant to the debate. Assuming that there's someone competent enough to do that on the other side, it's safer not to generalise at all (or at least about the important things) as it can make a perfectly valid argument appear to have a possibility of sandy foundations.

(and as an ex-auditor of a college debating society, ex-auditor of a college law society, judge at a number of reputable international debates and a worlds debating championship competitor in 1997 I should know something about it, though I wouldn't classify myself anywhere near the expert category)

Originally posted by Vader
I suppose my points would be stronger with specific reference but that is time consuming and I thought this one was pretty standard.

What you are doing Vader is associating all americans with the actions of Bush.
But at the same time you recognise that he "stole" the election, ie that he didn't have a majority.
The two concepts don't go together, as the latter means a majority of Americans who voted did not want the Bush agenda.
In fact it's about as standard in my view as When in the 70's a lot of the British people associatied all or most Irish people with the IRA campaign of the 70's eg the Guilford and Birmingham bombs etc.
Irish people got an awfull hard time in the UK then even though a majority never supported that campaign, indeed only a tiny minority nationwide did...


As regards the BBC poll, that you have linked to....
On Politics, it states that 57% of respondents in the UK had a favourable view of the U.S but a very poor opinion of Bush.
That underlines my opinion , that the U.S is not all just GWB, you know, he's made enough mistakes methinks also, to seal his fate.
One shouldn't blindly base ones opinion of the U.S people on one president who got into power on a minority vote and whose popularity there is by now slipping fast.
To do so is only to look at some of the picture and that would be an unfairly skewed analysis.

65% of those interveiwd felt americans are arrogent

I think you should read the poll results again as the devil is in the detail as they say....
The choice in the poll is: Are they Arrogant or humble, ie the poll only asked for a decision on the opposite extremes, there was no question regarding the middle ground.

And again if you take the results from the respondents from each individual country on america, you will notice that , 63% of those from the U.K think americans are Friendly and that even more of the French interviewee's thought Americans were friendly than thought they were Antagonistic.

Thats hardly conclusive

Regarding debating tools, no debater worth his or her salt, that I've ever heard has ever presented sweeping generalisations as part of their arguments without evidence or back up...

How can one debate without backing up ones arguments...Such a discussion would not be a debate at all.
It would be a walk over for the side that did back up it's arguments.

mm

Sand

There is a difference between a sympathizer and a rank and file member. You have just said quite clearly that you dont see such a difference; that is very interesting and if it is a veiw representative of Pro-Americans in general it would explain a lot.

Is there? - You go off and murder people, I know youre doing it, indeed Im helping you by storing your gear for you and making sure you have a place to stay . When the cops come round looking for you I cover for you. Youre an activist, Im a sympathiser. Were both murderers.

Quick english lesson: "Offical" and "Actual" have two different meanings.
The Irish Defence Forces are the official armed forces of the republic because they are the forces sanctioned and funded by the current Dáil.
The PIRA are the actual army of the Irish Nation because they act on its behalf. They are the ones who have fought Irelands wars.

Reality Check: The Army of the Irish Republic are the armed forces of the Republic, who are servants of Dail Eireann - the elected representives of the citizens of the Irish Republic. They are paid for and staffed by the people of the Irish Republic. They are the one and only milatary force which accepts and serves the will of the people of the Irish Republic.

The PIRA are a bunch of scumbags from Belfast who murder children to make a political point, who are a law totally unto themselves and represent no more than one tribe of the most malevolent denizens of the North. The PIRA are an illegal crinimal organisation who regularly deal with other crinimal organisations to make profits to line their own pockets. They have only ever fought their own wars, they have never accepted the right of the Irish people to control their actions thus they have forgone the right to claim to represent the Irish people.

Before you or someone else says that the IRA has never avted on your behalf; Ireland is free and Independant.

Ah yeah the good ol IRA. Wasnt it they who rejected the authority of Dail Eireann and waged a divisive and destructive civl war against the elected representives of the people of the Irish Free State which later became ( peacefully, you know - without the need for Omaghs ) the Irish Republic? Youre right, we owe them all a great debt of gratitude - if it hadnt been for them being such lousy fighters the Free State mighnt have won.

It was made very clear as to why the Republic of Ireland's sovereignity would be challenged by placing a price on the head of Gerry Adams. In this scenario, Mr Adams is in the republic and either the British army or a subersive group is attempting to abduct/ kidnap him.

If the British Army were to cross into Ireland after him it would be a challenge to our sovereignity - othwerwise its just a close ally placing a price on the head of scumbag. All credit to them I say. Im sure the Irish security forces would be happy to hand over Adams - we extradite plenty of crinimals.

The Irish defence forces are no match for the British army or subersive groups. Irish sovereignity has been violated before by the British army and the RUC and the institutions of the state were powerless to stp it.

LOL and the IRA were? Pffft, 30 years on and the British are still in Northern Ireland despite all the murder and chaos caused by the terrorist campaigns. Lets all hold a victory parade for the most self defeating and ineffective "milatary" campaign in history. Oh wait, now I see their tactical masterstroke --- they went to the negotiating table to get a deal like Sunningdale. Hurray for them.

The PIRA are a better trained and organised army than the Defence forces, to paraphrase the Minister.
Yes the PIRA did launch campaigns in mainland Britain. It had the effect or removing voter apathy and created an atmosphere more open to negotiation and compromise.
The PIRA was also involved in community protection. It protected unions, protestors, businesses and housing estates. It didnt charge protection money or oops insurance like loyalists.
The British army or police force didnt do that, and I dont remember the irish army doing anything apart from the occasional grumble.

The PIRA isnt even in the same league as the Army of the Irish Republic. Its laughable that youd suggest a gang of crinimals whose best weaponry ( small arms at that ) is either inoperative or over 20 years old and stored in bogs can match even a badly equipped Army such as the Army of the Irish Republic.

As for the PIRA involved in community protection? They killed more Catholics than any other group, they continue to beat Catholics to a pulp for looking at them the wrong way? If they were a purely defensive organisation then you could at least give them some credit but they happily threw petrol onto the fires of hatred up there by engaging in tit for tat killings - theyd kill say, a group of prodestants mourning their war dead, and then the UVF or whoever would retaliate by killing some random catholics - rarely IRA members or their family - so then the IRA would kill some random prodestants and so on and so forth for 30 years of sheer pointless slaughter.

And ask the family of Gerry McCabe how the IRA funded their operations. Ask the victims of the recent Limerick violence where the gangs are getting their weapons. Ask the same of the increasingly violent Dublin drug gangs. Pffft.

Vader

Originally posted by Geromino
You use the word intervene as if USA has no right to do so at all. Personally, I do not like the word intervene or intervention which has a connotation that foreign policy is only one directional. However, a country must and should protect its international and domestic interests. Those same interests of my country also involve the coutnry or countries signed or in agreement with the same shared interests through their domestic legislative process.

I believe the only justifiable foreign policy is one that is in keeping with international law and is approved by the UN.

I too have traveled but never in my entire time do I judge a country based on the people whom I encounter. I have met the most personal individuals, full of life and experience, and who have different political opinions. If they ask me my honest opinion on something, then I will give it. However, when traveling, I tend to shy away from political discussions and concentrate on culture, shared history, and habits.

Those are great reasons to travel and good things to do abroad. I would include politics in culture and the US shares so much history with so many countries that I would imagine it hard to avoid politics.
I gave 7 reasons as to why I feel Americans arrogant, I didn’t say my only basis for judging America was from the 100 or so Americans I talked to.

Ah, socialism and Karl Marx.

I support the Labour Party first (Not SF as Im sure Sand would love to point out. Although I do transfer my votes to SF before FG the PD or two of the FF in my constituency) and am a member of two coops.
The state is the largest employer in Portlaoise (the town where I live) with a government department building, the ESB (soon to be private alas), two hospitals, two prisons (no smart comments Sand), the County Council, a post office, county mail sorting centre (yes it’s different to the post office), SDS, Train Station, Town Link(bus), Fás Centre, Library and a large Garda Barracks. We had a telephone exchange and TSB but they were privatized. Why wouldn’t I support a system that creates so many jobs locally and improves the standard of living?
So yes I suppose I could be called a socialist although I don’t think Im quite a Marxist yet; a healthy balance between state and enterprise is preferable.

In the US, you have freedom of capital movement. I have met individuals who have come from poverty and have been successful. 11% of small businesses are operated by immigrants. 65% own homes if I recall, but I think the number may be a little low.

People can go from poverty to success in Ireland as well but the gap between rich and poor is narrower.

Anti-discrimation laws dominate every aspect of society. Hardly the work of exploitation

Social welfare services in America are a disgrace even before you take the immense wealth of the country into account, Intel a huge American MNC doesn’t recognize trade unions and there are all types of hidden ways to discriminate against people. Ppl who talk about glass ceilings aren’t paranoid.

Every major religion is represented in the USA. I personally have friends who are Muslim, Buhdist, shintoist, Daoist, and Christain. I will not tell you what my religious beliefs are for simply they are not open to this forum.

I have no problem with Muslim, Buddhist, Shintoist, Daoist, Taoists, Jews, Sheiks, Hindu, Christians, Jedi or pagans so long as you don’t try to force that religion on others or proclaim yours to be 100% right and others 100% wrong.

It is called dialects, Vader. Yes, there is the Queen's English and American English just as there is Cantonese and Mandarin (Chinese) as well as Castillian Spanish, Bosque Spanish, Latin American Spanish, Mexican Spanish, and Puero Rican Spanish. So, which Spanish, English, or Chinese should one use.

There was a smiley beside that point so it wasn’t meant to be taken to seriously. There is an easy way to change the dialect on most WPs.

And who determines who wins and who loses a debate, Vader. And how does one decide who is faulty or not.

Maybe that’s a feature that should be added to this forum, perhaps the Mod could judge threads of note.

The analogy I was making Vader were similar statements of historical political focus but have also been proven completely wrong. I never said you said it.

That’s grand

Double standards based on what argument Vader or under whose authority or assumption? Further, I am not going to give you my itenary when I am gone on a job or my work is a little too busy for me to join in this fun filled affair. That is none of your business, Vader and has no part in this discussion as well as calling someone a liar or anything else.

Double standards is when in your argument you apply two different sets of standards to two different sets of people. It doesn’t matter if one uses a different set of standards to me so long as one is consistent.
You could say at the end of a post “Gone off for a few days” and save me the bother of replying or waiting for a reply.
I didn’t call you a liar. I listed a set of circumstances when a person is being over confident. Did you feel some of them applied to you?

It is called interpretation of the information, Vader. And who decides which information is above the other. Who is right and who is wrong on which info is presented. This is not a court of law Vader, but a forum of opinion.

You said “……to question decisions in which one has no knowldedge or little knowledge of nor has all the information to make those decisions at that time when the decision was made.” You didn’t say I interpreted info wrong you said I lacked info.

Just because someone goes to the restroom all the time does not mean that person likes to go to the restroom. Let me explain the anology. You are viewing a person who goes to the restroom a lot. However, a medical explaination would more likely explain the occurance, not the gross generalization implied in the analogy. With the "America likes War" statement, other factors determines the use of military action or the non-use of military action in given international affairs. The analysis of that specific event or chain of events within a relative short time frame along with the combination of social, economic, political, and cultural factors will more accurately determine how, why, and to what extent the reason for use or non use of military force.

So the man needs to go to the restroom a lot or he could suffer some sort serious problem like a Kidney infection and die? If Americas world position cant be maintained without war then it deserves to die.

Originally posted by sceptre
Generalisations are dangerous and get shot down by any half-decent debater unless there's something concrete to back it up. In other words, abstract generalisations based on limited experience are very very bad. They may be an acceptable debating tool up to the point in the debate that someone points out that it's a generalisation and that they've an example that can be counted as an exception to the generalisation, at which point they may become entirely irrelevant to the debate. Assuming that there's someone competent enough to do that on the other side, it's safer not to generalise at all (or at least about the important things) as it can make a perfectly valid argument appear to have a possibility of sandy foundations.

If you had seen the line below what you had quoted you would have seen I agree with you but for simple things which nobody will argue they’re handy. I misjudged weather ppl would accept this one or not, I put in a reference. You should read my posts more closely.


I havnt had time to read Sands and Mans last posts yet so if anyone has any Qs to ask me or points to debate with me could they please wait till Ive replied to those two and cought up on my posting. Thank you.

Zombrex

Don't mean to act as a mod (since I am not one) but considering I kinda brought this onto the thread in the first place I should really say that I think we should stick to the the theme of the thread header and leave the debates about the IRA vs the Defence Forces for another thread.

Vader

Originally posted by Man
What you are doing Vader is associating all americans with the actions of Bush.
But at the same time you recognise that he "stole" the election, ie that he didn't have a majority.

I realized that and that’s why I referred to Clinton as well.
While the majority of Americans did not vote for Bush, 75% of ppl in America supported the war in afganistan and in Iraq. This figure is beginning to dip as US casualties rise but that shows more that they are opposed to a lasting occupation than a foreign policy based on interventionism.

In fact it's about as standard in my view as When in the 70's a lot of the British people associatied all or most Irish people with the IRA campaign of the 70's eg the Guilford and Birmingham bombs etc.
Irish people got an awfull hard time in the UK then even though a majority never supported that campaign, indeed only a tiny minority nationwide did...

And if somebody wanted to support that reasoning they might point out that Haughty, after being associated with the arms crisis went on to become one of the most popular and successful politicians in Irish history. While there were other reasons why he was elected and in hindsight many of his supporters now despise him the link could be made.

As regards the BBC poll, that you have linked to....
On Politics, it states that 57% of respondents in the UK had a favourable view of the U.S but a very poor opinion of Bush.
That underlines my opinion , that the U.S is not all just GWB, you know, he's made enough mistakes methinks also, to seal his fate. One shouldn't blindly base ones opinion of the U.S people on one president who got into power on a minority vote and whose popularity there is by now slipping fast.

The next election will be the test of his popularity, we must wait and see if he is elected(note the fact I didn’t say re-elected) or if somebody else with the same agenda is elected.

I think you should read the poll results again as the devil is in the detail as they say....
The choice in the poll is: Are they Arrogant or humble, ie the poll only asked for a decision on the opposite extremes, there was no question regarding the middle ground.

Maybe you should examine it as well; they were given the choice of neither ie a balanced people.

Regarding debating tools, no debater worth his or her salt, that I've ever heard has ever presented sweeping generalisations as part of their arguments without evidence or back up...

How can one debate without backing up ones arguments...Such a discussion would not be a debate at all.
It would be a walk over for the side that did back up it's arguments.

If they disagreed with those generalization and the team overused that tool.
It’s a tool that’s available, choose to use it or not, I have said that its not always the most valuable.

Originally posted by Sand


Is there? - You go off and murder people, I know youre doing it, indeed Im helping you by storing your gear for you and making sure you have a place to stay . When the cops come round looking for you I cover for you. Youre an activist, Im a sympathiser. Were both murderers.

Well we'll both get different prison sentences. Anyway when I said sympathizer I meant one wouldn’t hinder an operation or volunteer info to the police. If you store gear then your registered with the quartermaster and you’re a member, your just not on active service. I can see now where you were getting confused.

Reality Check: The Army of the Irish Republic are the armed forces of the Republic, who are servants of Dail Eireann - the elected representives of the citizens of the Irish Republic. They are paid for and staffed by the people of the Irish Republic. They are the one and only milatary force which accepts and serves the will of the people of the Irish Republic.

"It is a recognized principal that a revolutionary may, with honour at least, assume responsibility for interpreting the national will even against apparent national wishes, provided he sincerely and selflessly believes it to be in the national interest to do so". Not my words but those of Dughlas Hide, "..a man of national pride, vision and impeccable honour" according to Mary Robinson. I'm going to work off the premises that if his reasoning is acceptable to a woman who went on to become UN Commissioner for Human Rights then his reasoning put into practice is not immoral.

The PIRA are a bunch of scumbags from Belfast who murder children to make a political point, who are a law totally unto themselves and represent no more than one tribe of the most malevolent denizens of the North. The PIRA are an illegal crinimal organisation who regularly deal with other crinimal organisations to make profits to line their own pockets. They have only ever fought their own wars, they have never accepted the right of the Irish people to control their actions thus they have forgone the right to claim to represent the Irish people.

Now that seems like a troll if ever I saw one. I entertained the idea of the hypothetical Gerry Adams scenario because it was relevant to national feelings which could flock to Taylor. I explained the issue of sovereignty because it is central to the topic and I even gave a few reasons why I could sympathize with the IRA because I noticed you were having difficulties understanding what a sympathizer is but I think that’s cleared up now.
But the internal and external dealings of the IRA, its goals and means are defiantly unrelated to this thread. I have explained these things before, in detail, with reference and facts and with a logical and open mind. If you want to hear them again start a new thread and conduct a serious debate.

Ah yeah the good ol IRA. Wasnt it they who rejected the authority of Dail Eireann and waged a divisive and destructive civl war against the elected representives of the people of the Irish Free State which later became ( peacefully, you know - without the need for Omaghs ) the Irish Republic? Youre right, we owe them all a great debt of gratitude - if it hadnt been for them being such lousy fighters the Free State mighnt have won.

The IRA fought on both sides in the civil war, regulars and irregulars. The RIRA was responsible for Omagh and it was condemned by all, even the CIRA as being contry to the goal of a united Ireland.

If the British Army were to cross into Ireland after him it would be a challenge to our sovereignity

Which they have done before (not Adams but others). The British Army, RUC, and undercover agents have crossed into the republic and executed Irish citizens. That is illegal under international law. The Irish army couldn’t stop it. The IRA exacts its own form of justice.

othwerwise its just a close ally placing a price on the head of scumbag. All credit to them I say. Im sure the Irish security forces would be happy to hand over Adams - we extradite plenty of crinimals.

We don’t extradite political leaders who have served time for past offences. Scumbags or not.

LOL and the IRA were? Pffft, 30 years on and the British are still in Northern Ireland despite all the murder and chaos caused by the terrorist campaigns. Lets all hold a victory parade for the most self defeating and ineffective "milatary" campaign in history. Oh wait, now I see their tactical masterstroke --- they went to the negotiating table to get a deal like Sunningdale. Hurray for them.

But could the Irish army have done any better? The deal that the IRA fought for was the Good Friday Agreement. It’s a good deal based on equality and peace. There is no mention of a united Ireland but the IRA is happy. Shows your understanding of the IRA.

The PIRA isnt even in the same league as the Army of the Irish Republic. Its laughable that youd suggest a gang of crinimals whose best weaponry ( small arms at that ) is either inoperative or over 20 years old and stored in bogs can match even a badly equipped Army such as the Army of the Irish Republic.

They were revolutionary in areas of weapon design and logistics.

As for the PIRA involved in community protection? They killed more Catholics than any other group, they continue to beat Catholics to a pulp for looking at them the wrong way? If they were a purely defensive organisation then you could at least give them some credit but they happily threw petrol onto the fires of hatred up there by engaging in tit for tat killings - theyd kill say, a group of prodestants mourning their war dead, and then the UVF or whoever would retaliate by killing some random catholics - rarely IRA members or their family - so then the IRA would kill some random prodestants and so on and so forth for 30 years of sheer pointless slaughter.

It’s a case of nationalist and unionist, not catholic and protestant and the IRA. As for that tit for tat business that is all very simplistic. Are you a simpleton?

And ask the family of Gerry McCabe how the IRA funded their operations. Ask the victims of the recent Limerick violence where the gangs are getting their weapons. Ask the same of the increasingly violent Dublin drug gangs. Pffft.

Might he tell me taxing criminal gangs, robbing banks, smuggling, counterfeit, gifts from friendly governments, political donations and wise investments?
Might the Limerick violence be fueled by CIRA weapons or new ones?

Your questions on the IRA are answered, although some sound the Troll Alert alarm in my WP. If you have more start a new thread.

Originally posted by Vader
I realized that and that’s why I referred to Clinton as well.
While the majority of Americans did not vote for Bush, 75% of ppl in America supported the war in afganistan and in Iraq. This figure is beginning to dip as US casualties rise but that shows more that they are opposed to a lasting occupation than a foreign policy based on interventionism.

People in the US believed their President, thats what they generally do in times of conflict.
His administration convinced them easily with respect to Afghanistan, but less easily regarding Iraq.

Haughty, after being associated with the arms crisis went on to become one of the most popular and successful politicians in Irish history.

He was popular among the countries 40% core of FF supporters, but despised by as many more, neither were a majority, and indeed Charlie never got an overall majority.

But that wasn't my point, I was merely pointing out that, you were making the same mistake with regard to Americans as many British made with repect to the Irish in the 70's, ie you are tarring them all with the one brush.

On this board, at the moment, for instance you will often get, a rush of posts, which are anti the current government. Yet if this board is representative of society, then a good percentage of the posters must have changed their minds since the last election.
Or at least, a good percentage of the electorate must have done so.
Since that election was less than 18 months ago, it's not long since these voters were singing a different tune.

The same is true believe it or not for Americans. They were given a plausible story ( to them ) in a time of crisis for their own security and they bought it.
In the same way that the electorate here obviously bought the FF story at the last election.
These things happen, but I wouldn't condemn a whole race of people for it.
In the case of America, I'd put the case against the politicians who advance the policies I disagreed with and their associated reasoning.
I'd be inclined to give the American people the benefit of the doubt.

if they disagreed with those generalization and the team overused that tool.

Regarding the use of generalisations as a debating tool...
I think Sceptre summed it up well.
The only thing that I would add is, you can use almost any tool you like when you are in a debate, but if you want to win a debate generalising is not one of them.
Having said that, please note, I'd regard this as more of a friendly discussion than a debate

mm

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
I believe the only justifiable foreign policy is one that is in keeping with international law and is approved by the UN.

That is the difference between you and me. I believe in national sovereignty as primary and UN as secondary, not the other way around. Most nations follow national sovereignty laws regardless what the UN say or does not say.

Those are great reasons to travel and good things to do abroad. I would include politics in culture and the US shares so much history with so many countries that I would imagine it hard to avoid politics.
I gave 7 reasons as to why I feel Americans arrogant, I didn’t say my only basis for judging America was from the 100 or so Americans I talked to.

You should never include politics when you travel Vader. It spoils the conversation quickly and makes the instigator as one who is snobby. Contrary to what you believe, avoiding politics in casual conversation when traveling is quite easy. And when you talk about indiginous culture, you should never bring in politics. You could put yourself in a bad situation if you do.

I support the Labour Party first (Not SF as Im sure Sand would love to point out. Although I do transfer my votes to SF before FG the PD or two of the FF in my constituency) and am a member of two coops.
The state is the largest employer in Portlaoise (the town where I live) with a government department building, the ESB (soon to be private alas), two hospitals, two prisons (no smart comments Sand), the County Council, a post office, county mail sorting centre (yes it’s different to the post office), SDS, Train Station, Town Link(bus), Fás Centre, Library and a large Garda Barracks. We had a telephone exchange and TSB but they were privatized. Why wouldn’t I support a system that creates so many jobs locally and improves the standard of living?
So yes I suppose I could be called a socialist although I don’t think Im quite a Marxist yet; a healthy balance between state and enterprise is preferable.

I was more interested in the economic theories of Karl Mark and Socialism, not political. Economically, socialism is very inefficient, promotes stagnation, and lack of capital freedom (too much taxes). However, I do believe in having specified regs so that no one person or group can "corner the market" so to speak.

People can go from poverty to success in Ireland as well but the gap between rich and poor is narrower.

You are what you make of yourself where I come from.

Social welfare services in America are a disgrace even before you take the immense wealth of the country into account, Intel a huge American MNC doesn’t recognize trade unions and there are all types of hidden ways to discriminate against people. Ppl who talk about glass ceilings aren’t paranoid.

Considering that the poor are by most international standards "rich," your statement does not take into consideration of the different avenues. Most programs are privately sponsored through non-profit organizations like the United Way, Salvation Army, and other various religious and non religious organizations. Besides, you really have to be poor in order to qualify for the programs and put on a track to get yourself off. However, there are some people who want to use and abuse the system as a means of perputual support. Also keep in mind that Medicare and Medicaid are the two biggest programs in the country with one means tested and the other not, I could hardly say the social welfare services are not a disgrace.

I have no problem with Muslim, Buddhist, Shintoist, Daoist, Taoists, Jews, Sheiks, Hindu, Christians, Jedi or pagans so long as you don’t try to force that religion on others or proclaim yours to be 100% right and others 100% wrong.

Then please explain the bible thumper statement.

Double standards is when in your argument you apply two different sets of standards to two different sets of people. It doesn’t matter if one uses a different set of standards to me so long as one is consistent.
You could say at the end of a post “Gone off for a few days” and save me the bother of replying or waiting for a reply.
I didn’t call you a liar. I listed a set of circumstances when a person is being over confident. Did you feel some of them applied to you?

Please list specifically where I made a double standard? I

You said “……to question decisions in which one has no knowldedge or little knowledge of nor has all the information to make those decisions at that time when the decision was made.” You didn’t say I interpreted info wrong you said I lacked info.

You were quoting sources that can be best described as "tabloid" IMHO. That is interpretation. The internet has a lot of data, not info. The info comes from our own understanding, or lack thereof.

So the man needs to go to the restroom a lot or he could suffer some sort serious problem like a Kidney infection and die? If Americas world position cant be maintained without war then it deserves to die.

The anology I was using Vader was that if one only sees what he wants to see easily identifiable and thus draws that conclusion, then that conclusion is totally flawed. Depending on which situation you are looking into depends on why the events unfolded. It does not fit into a nice little mold that fits into a political idealogy of one's accord. That is revisionist history Vader.

Victor

Originally posted by Geromino
That is the difference between you and me. I believe in national sovereignty as primary and UN as secondary, not the other way around. Most nations follow national sovereignty laws regardless what the UN say or does not say.

So once your neighbour beats his wife and children inside the house, not outside, it's OK then? Domestic matter, move along please. There is a time when a neighbour, not only can or should intervene, but **must** intervene.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
That is the difference between you and me. I believe in national sovereignty as primary and UN as secondary, not the other way around. Most nations follow national sovereignty laws regardless what the UN say or does not say.

Funny...I coulda sworn you supported the US invasion of another nation's national sovereignty.

Weren't you in favour of removing Saddam because he was such an oppressive ruler within the limits of his national sovereignty ?

Or by "national" do you mean "American" exclusively?

jc

Vader

Originally posted by Gerominiminnomino
That is the difference between you and me. I believe in national sovereignty as primary and UN as secondary, not the other way around. Most nations follow national sovereignty laws regardless what the UN say or does not say.

Really? Then for reasons of national sovereignty Saddam was correct to flout UN resolutions and proceed to develop WMD’s as part of his nations defense strategy if he so wished.
What reason of national sovereignty did Bush II have to invade Iraq? He didn’t like us? He didn’t want to give us his oil? He was unpredictable? While we’re at it what part of national sovereignty gave America the right to topple the governments of South America or to put Saddam in control of Iraq in the first place? But, but, but the Russians were at it too. The sneaky Ruskies would have done it if they had the chance and its better our guy than theirs! Two different political systems that have had the same effects on the local populace. That doesn’t to say one was better than the other. We have a right to protect ourselves from all conceivable threats! Pre-emptive attacks on innocents can hardly be called self defense. That’s why pre-emptive attacks are not permitted by the UN, or the US when it suits their propaganda purposes.
Do you mean that because America and its client states such as Turkey, Israel, Columbia and Indonesia etc continue campaigns of genocide, or to stock pile WMD’s that that’s OK. Let me try and grasp the logic. America doesn’t obey the UN, America is always right so disobeying the UN is alright. Was not one of Bush II reasons for invading Iraq that Saddam had constantly violated UN resolutions.
Don’t bother pointing out that America vetoes UN resolutions rather than disobey them because it’s the same thing. The power of veto is undemocratic and it’s the same as violating it. People say that the UN doesn’t work; that’s probably because so long as some countries have the power of veto it will be a tool in their back pocket. At the moment it is useful for providing neutral peace keeping cores but since US peace keepers are now above the law and the US gives relatively little funding for peace keeping initiatives then yes, it is a dying organization. Remove the power of veto and its institutions work.

America doesn’t believe in national sovereignty, it believes in divine rights.

You should never include politics when you travel Vader. It spoils the conversation quickly and makes the instigator as one who is snobby. Contrary to what you believe, avoiding politics in casual conversation when traveling is quite easy. And when you talk about indiginous culture, you should never bring in politics. You could put yourself in a bad situation if you do.

If your country has a history of imperialism, you are an arrogant bustard or are totally ignorant of local circumstances then yes, you should avoid politics. Do any of those apply to you?

I was more interested in the economic theories of Karl Mark and Socialism, not political. Economically, socialism is very inefficient, promotes stagnation, and lack of capital freedom (too much taxes). However, I do believe in having specified regs so that no one person or group can "corner the market" so to speak.

You have twice now referred to capital freedom being the big advantage of capitalism. There is more or less capital freedom in Ireland. Socialism according to Marx is the middle stage between capitalism and communism where wealth is still distributed unequally. I was talking about socialism and Ireland is a socialist country. What do you mean you were talking about economic socialism not political socialism? The two are mutually inclusive. Political socialism is the implementation of socialist economic theories, just because they’re not straight out of Das Capital doesn’t mean they’re not socialist.

You are what you make of yourself where I come from.

So your son then starts better off in life than your neighbours son, his son is better off than the neignbours grandson and so on and so. I thought all men were created equally where you come from. And what if somebody is unlucky or gets a bad break in life? Well then after 6 months and they are living like animals we’ll give them a measly pittance and if they need medical attention and cant afford insurance, well, then they die. Its not like they were contributing much to society anyway. It is possible to reward enterprise and hard work and still share the wealth. There are cooperative as well as competitive business relationships. There is no reason why 13% of the population of the richest country in the world should live below the poverty line.

Considering that the poor are by most international standards "rich,"

Whos been peddling you that shít? 13% of your population live below the international poverty line.

your statement does not take into consideration of the different avenues. Most programs are privately sponsored through non-profit organizations like the United Way, Salvation Army, and other various religious and non religious organizations. Besides, you really have to be poor in order to qualify for the programs and put on a track to get yourself off.

Why cant the gov for the people by the people help the people, why must it fall to the private sector? The US gov can afford it.

However, there are some people who want to use and abuse the system as a means of perputual support. Also keep in mind that Medicare and Medicaid are the two biggest programs in the country with one means tested and the other not,

A McGregor Theory X man are we? Poor people are lazy scum who don’t like work and think the world should support them; these free loafers are usually Islamofascist Commi-Nazis..

I could hardly say the social welfare services are not a disgrace

Thanks for admitting your wrong about something.

Then please explain the bible thumper statement.

The term is bible “basher” and it referrers to Christians so sure that the bible is truth and believe that the bible is not open to interpretation or fault. That would be grand only they refer to everyone else as cultish, show no respect to non-Christians, and sometimes none to Christian denominations that use too much interpretation. They believe in conversion by any means necessary and that rights are reserved only for other Christians.

Please list specifically where I made a double standard?

Look back at my first point in this reply Re: National Sovereignty and skip forward to my last point Re: lessons of history.

quote:

You said “……to question decisions in which one has no knowldedge or little knowledge of nor has all the information to make those decisions at that time when the decision was made.” You didn’t say I interpreted info wrong you said I lacked info.



You were quoting sources that can be best described as "tabloid" IMHO. That is interpretation. The internet has a lot of data, not info. The info comes from our own understanding, or lack thereof.

So if you are still calling me an armchair quarter back then your saying now that its not that I don’t have any info, its that my info contradicts American philosophy and so must be wrong. The easiest way for you to explain this is that I read tabloids and other questionable sources of data and that I’m, in your humble opinion, not intelligent enough to interpret these facts. Interesting. If I had such poor taste in news papers and websites I most probably would spend as much time on boards. The notion that I cant form my own opinions is absurd which is evident from the sheer volume of topics I’ve gebated about and the quality to which I conduct debates. Granted I have once or twice been guilty of human error by misquoting a source but I concentrate mostly on the post not the poster and am open to the suggestion that I could be wrong. And finally I don’t believe that if your time was as precious as you say it is that you would bother debating(call it what you will) with me if you had such a low appreciation of my abilities.
Just to set your curiosity at rest, I read the Leinster Express, Sunday Independent and Sunday Tribune. I watch political satire (my list of favorites are posted on the satire board) and rarely research topics over the Web. My preferred method of research is either a college or local library(the local Library will let me keep the book longer and has a wide selection by Chomsky, probably the most credible source by any standards) which surprise surprise is state funded.

Vader

sorry it has to be in 2 posts, that whole 1000 character thing

The anology I was using Vader was that if one only sees what he wants to see easily identifiable and thus draws that conclusion, then that conclusion is totally flawed. Depending on which situation you are looking into depends on why the events unfolded. It does not fit into a nice little mold that fits into a political idealogy of one's accord. That is revisionist history Vader.

You used an analogy whereby you compared America to a faulty kidney/bladder. I agreed with you and said that America is faulty and that this fault should not be tolerated. You cannot say I only see what I want to see when I look into your analogies and see something you didn’t. Are you saying that looking at history in hindsight wont tell you weather in hindsight a course of action was right or wrong? Of course it will, that’s why your so opposed to it. You see evidence which you both agree with and understand that tells you that you or your country was wrong about something. I wasn’t trying to rub it in, I was saying that we should draw lessons from history. You cant accept this reasoning, you don’t admit that you or America were wrong but at the same time say that the opponents of America’s course of action were only lucky to be proved right.

So on a completely different note, did you have a nice trip? Go anywhere interesting? Did you get me anything?

Victor

Originally posted by Vader
That’s why pre-emptive attacks are not permitted by the UN.

Pre-emptive attacks are permitted when attack is inevitable.

Vader

I must of missed that bit anyway if you could just point it out to me I'd be much abliged.

If the attack is inevitable? What do you mean inevitable? If they have declared war then yea its inevitable but thats not preemtive. If they're lining troops up along the boarder then its not really preemptive, although on must ask the question why are they doing that.

Victor

Originally posted by Vader
I must of missed that bit anyway if you could just point it out to me I'd be much abliged.

Look for pre-empt in the UN charter.

Originally posted by Vader
If the attack is inevitable? What do you mean inevitable? If they have declared war then yea its inevitable but thats not preemtive. If they're lining troops up along the boarder then its not really preemptive, although on must ask the question why are they doing that.

In 1967 or was it 1973, the Israelis knew that the Egytpians and Syrians were going to attack - IIRC they intercepted the orders and got the first blow in destroying the Egyptian air force on the ground.

Vader

I dont own a copy of the charter:rolleyes:

sovtek

Originally posted by Victor
Look for pre-empt in the UN charter. In 1967 or was it 1973, the Israelis knew that the Egytpians and Syrians were going to attack - IIRC they intercepted the orders and got the first blow in destroying the Egyptian air force on the ground.

It was '67 and '73 and I can provide links to members of the Israeli government that state that they "knew" that Egypt wasn't going to attack. As well they were the same people calling for expansion of Israel.
They also did thinks like cross over into Egyptian terroritory and attack their forces...well before the build up of Egypt.

Sand

I dont own a copy of the charter

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

Id use a :rolleyes: , but its just been so devalued through overuse that it wouldnt accurately describe the :rolleyes: brought about the exscuse.

Time from seeing exscuse to finding charter ....15 seconds.

As for actually finding the part Victor mentions - thats up to you or Victor, but Im guessing you mostly.

Vader

Originally posted by Victor
Pre-emptive attacks are permitted when attack is inevitable.

Originally posted by Sand
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

Id use a :rolleyes: , but its just been so devalued through overuse that it wouldnt accurately describe the :rolleyes: brought about the exscuse.

Time from seeing exscuse to finding charter ....15 seconds.

As for actually finding the part Victor mentions - thats up to you or Victor, but Im guessing you mostly.

I asked Victor to provide a link because I cant find any mention in the Charter as regards to the validity of preemptive attacks. Its not up to me to find the reference, if he wants to prove me wrong he must find it. What you said Sand is just stupid. Of course I could find a copy, but it might take a lot more than 15 seconds to read it, in fact I could read the whole thing and I'll bet I still wouldn't find anything backing up the validity of preemptive attacks.

The only justified use of force according to the Charter, Article 51, is in self defence-ie if you have been invaded, untill the Security Council can deal with the situation.

Victor

http://home.eircom.net/content/reuters/worldnews/2084317?view=Eircomnet

Interpol issues arrest notice for Liberia's Taylor
From:Reuters
Thursday, 4th December, 2003

PARIS (Reuters) - International police organisation Interpol says it has issued a notice for the arrest of former Liberian President Charles Taylor, indicted for war crimes in Sierra Leone.

Interpol, based in Lyon, France, said the notice -- which is not an arrest warrant but can be used by national police to make a provisional arrest -- was issued at the request of the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

Taylor has gone into exile in Nigeria.

As with all its "red notices", a photograph of Taylor appeared on Interpol's Web site, accompanied by the caption: Taylor, Charles Ghankay. Born on 28 January 1948. Nationality Liberia. Age today: 55 years old.

Taylor, long seen as the mastermind behind years of intertwined conflicts in West Africa, was indicted on June 4 for war crimes in Sierra Leone by the U.N.-backed Special Court.

Taylor is accused of arming rebels during Sierra Leone's long civil war in return for diamonds. The rebels became notorious for hacking off civilians' limbs, mass rape and the recruitment of child soldiers.

The Sierra Leone court served a warrant for the arrest of Taylor on the Ghanaian authorities on June 4, when the Liberian president was attending a summit in Accra. The warrant was transmitted to Interpol then.

In its statement, Interpol said member countries complied with their own national laws in deciding whether its notice represented a valid request for a provisional arrest.

Some countries allow the wanted person to be arrested pending extradition formalities, while others saw it simply as a request for information on the individual.

Taylor, a former warlord, was elected president in 1997 after launching a seven-year civil war in his homeland which killed 200,000 people.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
Really? Then for reasons of national sovereignty Saddam was correct to flout UN resolutions and proceed to develop WMD’s as part of his nations defense strategy if he so wished.
What reason of national sovereignty did Bush II have to invade Iraq? He didn’t like us? He didn’t want to give us his oil? He was unpredictable? While we’re at it what part of national sovereignty gave America the right to topple the governments of South America or to put Saddam in control of Iraq in the first place? But, but, but the Russians were at it too. The sneaky Ruskies would have done it if they had the chance and its better our guy than theirs! Two different political systems that have had the same effects on the local populace. That doesn’t to say one was better than the other. We have a right to protect ourselves from all conceivable threats! Pre-emptive attacks on innocents can hardly be called self defense. That’s why pre-emptive attacks are not permitted by the UN, or the US when it suits their propaganda purposes.
Do you mean that because America and its client states such as Turkey, Israel, Columbia and Indonesia etc continue campaigns of genocide, or to stock pile WMD’s that that’s OK. Let me try and grasp the logic. America doesn’t obey the UN, America is always right so disobeying the UN is alright. Was not one of Bush II reasons for invading Iraq that Saddam had constantly violated UN resolutions.
Don’t bother pointing out that America vetoes UN resolutions rather than disobey them because it’s the same thing. The power of veto is undemocratic and it’s the same as violating it. People say that the UN doesn’t work; that’s probably because so long as some countries have the power of veto it will be a tool in their back pocket. At the moment it is useful for providing neutral peace keeping cores but since US peace keepers are now above the law and the US gives relatively little funding for peace keeping initiatives then yes, it is a dying organization. Remove the power of veto and its institutions work.

Ah, how about those same UN resolutions Vader as reason for national sovereignty. UN resolution 686 and 1441. Oh what a tangled web we live in Vader. For those reasons, as well as terrorism in general, were the reasons for going into Iraq. You seem to forget that every nation wanted Saddam out of power. The question was how? And with someone like Saddam, the only way was by force. The UN Inspections were from 1991 through 1998 and from 1998 to 2002, the weapon inspections were, for the most part, irrelevant. We should have went to war back in 1998 Vader, but the UN security council was more concerned with outdoing other countries than with keeping current UN resolutions. The UN has now become another League of Nations.

Second, have you ever heard of the start treaties. Of course you did not. Otherwise you would not have made a rediculous statement like you did about stockpiling WMD's. Mutually Assured Destruction is the defense doctrine during teh 1950's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and present. However, the US is part of the nonproliferation treaty as a whole and there are certain conditions to have weapons as long as you do not sell those secrets.

Third, the UN is not a government, at lest that was Kofi Annan keeps stating. It is a cartel and its decisions have very little legal weight. The WTO has more legal weight than the World Court. You want a world government Vader. If Ireland cannot accept the EU laws wholeheartedly, then how in the world would you expect to keep UN laws. A world government will be a bad idea Vader and countries like Russia, China, US, England, France, England, and some others would leave the UN faster than you can say whatever.

America doesn’t believe in national sovereignty, it believes in divine rights.

When you are a leader in the world, then certain expectations are assumed. It takes a leader to make hard choices and decisions that some or most would not agree with. However, a leader needs to make those decisions and accept the specific consequences with those decisions. This is not to say that if the decision did not turn out the way it was expected, the leader should resign. Hell, if we had that, then every company or government would not have anyone left above file clerk to make any decisions.

If your country has a history of imperialism, you are an arrogant bustard or are totally ignorant of local circumstances then yes, you should avoid politics. Do any of those apply to you?

No Vader, avoiding politics is a necessity when traveling. I would be very angry, probably down right rude, if someone came up to me out of the blue and asked me my political idealogies without any reference or reason. And when you start talking about politics, you can find yourself in peculiar circumstances and can be greeted with the utmost contempt in that region, village, community, or nation. And it will not matter if the country is best friends with your country or even the reverse. You are a novice when it comes to international traveling and international politics. You have a lot to learn Vader and you are very far from even getting to understanding the basic principles of international politics.

You have twice now referred to capital freedom being the big advantage of capitalism. There is more or less capital freedom in Ireland. Socialism according to Marx is the middle stage between capitalism and communism where wealth is still distributed unequally. I was talking about socialism and Ireland is a socialist country. What do you mean you were talking about economic socialism not political socialism? The two are mutually inclusive. Political socialism is the implementation of socialist economic theories, just because they’re not straight out of Das Capital doesn’t mean they’re not socialist.

Capitalism creates ingenuity, innovation, change, and opporturnity. Socialism does not. However, in a complex society, checks and balances need to be in place so that no one can take advantage of other weaknesses. These regulations are needed. What is not needed are regulations that allow individuals

So your son then starts better off in life than your neighbours son, his son is better off than the neignbours grandson and so on and so. I thought all men were created equally where you come from. And what if somebody is unlucky or gets a bad break in life? Well then after 6 months and they are living like animals we’ll give them a measly pittance and if they need medical attention and cant afford insurance, well, then they die. Its not like they were contributing much to society anyway. It is possible to reward enterprise and hard work and still share the wealth. There are cooperative as well as competitive business relationships. There is no reason why 13% of the population of the richest country in the world should live below the poverty line.

Everyone has an equal opportunity to make or brake themselves Vader. And it is not dependent on who your father is, your sir name, your grandmother, your uncle, or even an ancestor. We have no heriditary titles in my country. We have no lord of the mannor, so to speak. Personal issues ranging from alcoholism to drug use to domestic abuse can play very much in the effect of how one lives or not live. And in economic terms, you cannot get rid of poverty given human emotion. Eliminate human emotion, then we might have a chance. But then again, eliminate human emotion and we beocme robots and lose our humanity.

Geromino

Whos been peddling you that shít? 13% of your population live below the international poverty line.

Why cant the gov for the people by the people help the people, why must it fall to the private sector? The US gov can afford it.

A McGregor Theory X man are we? Poor people are lazy scum who don’t like work and think the world should support them; these free loafers are usually Islamofascist Commi-Nazis..

To try to explain to you what Constitutional Law is in only a short sentene or two is going to be impossible. My suggestion to you is to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. This would give you a good beginning of the American Constitution. If you want other references after that, then I could happily point them out. The best organization to help those in need (poor) are nonprofit organizations like Red Cross, Feed the Children, churches, civic groups, etc. Government should and only should help in providing the ability, not the sole support. And because of the thousands of organizations that can offer to help, then that is where I make my reference.

The term is bible “basher” and it referrers to Christians so sure that the bible is truth and believe that the bible is not open to interpretation or fault. That would be grand only they refer to everyone else as cultish, show no respect to non-Christians, and sometimes none to Christian denominations that use too much interpretation. They believe in conversion by any means necessary and that rights are reserved only for other Christians.

Apparently, you have never met a fundamentalist Hindu, Muslim or Buhdist, have you. However, when it comes to faith of any religion, one will be absolutely sure that his/her religion is the true religion.

Look back at my first point in this reply Re: National Sovereignty and skip forward to my last point Re: lessons of history.

So if you are still calling me an armchair quarter back then your saying now that its not that I don’t have any info, its that my info contradicts American philosophy and so must be wrong. The easiest way for you to explain this is that I read tabloids and other questionable sources of data and that I’m, in your humble opinion, not intelligent enough to interpret these facts. Interesting. If I had such poor taste in news papers and websites I most probably would spend as much time on boards. The notion that I cant form my own opinions is absurd which is evident from the sheer volume of topics I’ve gebated about and the quality to which I conduct debates. Granted I have once or twice been guilty of human error by misquoting a source but I concentrate mostly on the post not the poster and am open to the suggestion that I could be wrong. And finally I don’t believe that if your time was as precious as you say it is that you would bother debating(call it what you will) with me if you had such a low appreciation of my abilities.
Just to set your curiosity at rest, I read the Leinster Express, Sunday Independent and Sunday Tribune. I watch political satire (my list of favorites are posted on the satire board) and rarely research topics over the Web. My preferred method of research is either a college or local library(the local Library will let me keep the book longer and has a wide selection by Chomsky, probably the most credible source by any standards) which surprise surprise is state funded.

Newspapers and Chomsky are not sources that I would call outstanding sources. There are some on the web that I do prefer, but I do read seveal books a year. I also use a web site called Questia which is an online book source. However, you have not lived as long as I have, or at least I think from your posts. Experience is the best teacher Vader.

Originally posted by Vader
You used an analogy whereby you compared America to a faulty kidney/bladder. I agreed with you and said that America is faulty and that this fault should not be tolerated. You cannot say I only see what I want to see when I look into your analogies and see something you didn’t. Are you saying that looking at history in hindsight wont tell you weather in hindsight a course of action was right or wrong? Of course it will, that’s why your so opposed to it. You see evidence which you both agree with and understand that tells you that you or your country was wrong about something. I wasn’t trying to rub it in, I was saying that we should draw lessons from history. You cant accept this reasoning, you don’t admit that you or America were wrong but at the same time say that the opponents of America’s course of action were only lucky to be proved right.

Vader, you got the anology completely around. The anology was not the kidney disease to constrast American policy in particular. It was was an anology on those who observe and draw conclusions that fit into a nice neat box. And as you could see, there was more than one reason, some even a bit obscure that could bring light why that was happening, but it was not as straightforward as one would suggest.

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
Ah, how about those same UN resolutions Vader as reason for national sovereignty. UN resolution 686 and 1441. Oh what a tangled web we live in Vader. For those reasons, as well as terrorism in general, were the reasons for going into Iraq. You seem to forget that every nation wanted Saddam out of power. The question was how? And with someone like Saddam, the only way was by force. The UN Inspections were from 1991 through 1998 and from 1998 to 2002, the weapon inspections were, for the most part, irrelevant. We should have went to war back in 1998 Vader, but the UN security council was more concerned with outdoing other countries than with keeping current UN resolutions. The UN has now become another League of Nations.

And what about 242? Hmmmmmm?

Second, have you ever heard of the start treaties. Of course you did not. Otherwise you would not have made a rediculous statement like you did about stockpiling WMD's. Mutually Assured Destruction is the defense doctrine during teh 1950's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and present. However, the US is part of the nonproliferation treaty as a whole and there are certain conditions to have weapons as long as you do not sell those secrets.

And the Non Proliferation Treaty that Bush threw out the windown when they decided that only America can only make new nukes. Then we have the "Axis of evil" speech which makes just about every small country in the world think about developing nukes should the US want some natural resource or "open" a market.

Third, the UN is not a government, at lest that was Kofi Annan keeps stating.

No it's not a government. It's an org to arbitrate between countries.

It is a cartel and its decisions have very little legal weight.

It's been turned into a cartel because the big 5 don't want to give up their power. Otherwise it's a democratic system to deal with international relations.

The WTO has more legal weight than the World Court.

The WTO...a bastion of "national soveignty". I guess Bush dropped them there steel tariffs because he wanted to.

You want a world government Vader.

See above.

If Ireland cannot accept the EU laws wholeheartedly, then how in the world would you expect to keep UN laws.

Yea... like allowing US soldiers using it's international airport in support of an illegal war against the will of its people.

A world government will be a bad idea Vader and countries like Russia, China, US, England, France, England, and some others would leave the UN faster than you can say whatever.

OK so you agree that the UN isn't a world government. I suppose these same countries would also leave the UN should it actually become a truely democratic system instead of a tool for strategic dominance in whatever part of the world they have vested interest.

When you are a leader in the world, then certain expectations are assumed. It takes a leader to make hard choices and decisions that some or most would not agree with. However, a leader needs to make those decisions and accept the specific consequences with those decisions. This is not to say that if the decision did not turn out the way it was expected, the leader should resign. Hell, if we had that, then every company or government would not have anyone left above file clerk to make any decisions.

So national sovereignty again eh?

No Vader, avoiding politics is a necessity when traveling. I would be very angry, probably down right rude, if someone came up to me out of the blue and asked me my political idealogies without any reference or reason. And when you start talking about politics, you can find yourself in peculiar circumstances and can be greeted with the utmost contempt in that region, village, community, or nation.

As said before...if your an arrogant bastard...yea ya might want to avoid telling people how great your country is and how f$cked up theirs is.

And it will not matter if the country is best friends with your country or even the reverse.

Actually I've found that, outside of the US that is, that most people will be willing to talk politics if you show a certain amount of respect. In America it's hit or miss. Might even get you arrested.

You are a novice when it comes to international traveling and international politics.

Firstly you don't have a clue about Vader's international prowess. Just because you went to Asia to exploit the people for business purposes doesn't mean that any number of us in here haven't seen and done some things in this world. I'm sorry but if anyones a novice here...judging by posts anyway...it ain't Vader.
If you want to argue politics it's better to back up your arguments rather than say "I know more than you".

You have a lot to learn Vader and you are very far from even getting to understanding the basic principles of international politics.

See above Mr Omnipresent.

Capitalism creates ingenuity, innovation, change, and opporturnity. Socialism does not. However, in a complex society, checks and balances need to be in place so that no one can take advantage of other weaknesses. These regulations are needed. What is not needed are regulations that allow individuals

It also provides for exploitation, oppression of the less fortunate, creates cartels and monopolies, demands more and more resources at the expense of the evironment, brings about the destruction of public space...etc.
I find it amazingly inaccurate to call a country that heavily subsidizes, and gives tax breaks to it's major industries...capitalist.

Everyone has an equal opportunity to make or brake themselves Vader. And it is not dependent on who your father is, your sir name, your grandmother, your uncle, or even an ancestor.

Unless, of course, your dad can bail your out of every bad million dollar business deal you make.

We have no heriditary titles in my country. We have no lord of the mannor, so to speak. Personal issues ranging from alcoholism to drug use to domestic abuse can play very much in the effect of how one lives or not live.

That's rich when you consider El Presidente Bush. LOL
He couldn't get accepted into University of Texas law school but he gets accepted by, where was it? YALE?

And in economic terms, you cannot get rid of poverty given human emotion. Eliminate human emotion, then we might have a chance. But then again, eliminate human emotion and we beocme robots and lose our humanity.

Yea but you can do alot toward reducing it and making it's effects less drastic. Compare Germany and US for a prime example.

Geromino

Originally posted by sovtek
And what about 242? Hmmmmmm?

Not in the best interests of the United States and its sovereignty. Again the tangled web that is woven.

And the Non Proliferation Treaty that Bush threw out the windown when they decided that only America can only make new nukes. Then we have the "Axis of evil" speech which makes just about every small country in the world think about developing nukes should the US want some natural resource or "open" a market.

The NPT does allow testing and development. From the UN web site: "The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. A total of 187 parties have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty's significance. "

No it's not a government. It's an org to arbitrate between countries.

Is not that what I said.

It's been turned into a cartel because the big 5 don't want to give up their power. Otherwise it's a democratic system to deal with international relations.

Look at the history of the UN and understand why it was set up that way. Then you would understand why your statement looks so rediculous.

The WTO...a bastion of "national soveignty". I guess Bush dropped them there steel tariffs because he wanted to.

News Flash: Bush dropped the tarriffs. On a similar note, it has been advocated by Gephardt, Dean, and Edwards that tariffs are required to save American jobs and the steel industry. Not exactly a Republican agenda exclusively.

See above.

See above.

Yea... like allowing US soldiers using it's international airport in support of an illegal war against the will of its people.

A majority of Iraqis want Saddam gone. Now, this is not to say that they want American troops there either. Those are mutually exclusive, Sovtek, unless you really believe the Iraqis want Saddam back in power.

OK so you agree that the UN isn't a world government. I suppose these same countries would also leave the UN should it actually become a truely democratic system instead of a tool for strategic dominance in whatever part of the world they have vested interest.

That is what I said all along, Sovtek. However, it it becomes a government, no matter what political system is in place, many countries would leave. The single important issue of any nation is national sovereignty. I do not think you would be willing to have someone who is of French, British, or Italian citizen to make decisions for Ireland's resource uses when they are not going to use those resources at all nor have any direct bearing on the use of those resources.

As said before...if your an arrogant bastard...yea ya might want to avoid telling people how great your country is and how f$cked up theirs is.

Politics, my dear, is not about telling how great your country is nor how messed up theirs is.

Actually I've found that, outside of the US that is, that most people will be willing to talk politics if you show a certain amount of respect. In America it's hit or miss. Might even get you arrested.

There is a huge difference between traveling, whether for personal or business, and living in another foreign country. I have been exclusively dealing with traveling, Sovtek when to discuss and when not to discuss politics in any region or country.

QUOTE]Firstly you don't have a clue about Vader's international prowess. Just because you went to Asia to exploit the people for business purposes doesn't mean that any number of us in here haven't seen and done some things in this world. I'm sorry but if anyones a novice here...judging by posts anyway...it ain't Vader.
If you want to argue politics it's better to back up your arguments rather than say "I know more than you".[/QUOTE]

There are some things Sovtek that are learned by experience and cannot be taught by books nor found on the internet. However, we are all guilty of "not providing links" while stating our opinions and thus are novices, at least by your defintion or does it not apply to you. However, I was speaking exclusively at traveling and talking international politics. And again, generally you do not discuss such things no matter which country you are from. It does not matter which citizen you are or even which color of your skin, there are groups who will not like you for one reason or another.

It also provides for exploitation, oppression of the less fortunate, creates cartels and monopolies, demands more and more resources at the expense of the evironment, brings about the destruction of public space...etc.
I find it amazingly inaccurate to call a country that heavily subsidizes, and gives tax breaks to it's major industries...capitalist.

This is so priceless with the SWP propoganda. First of all, the Sherman Anti-trust Act prohibits monopolies and cartels. Cartels do not include trade associations nor does it include chamber of commerce organizations. Even bank holding companies are not cartels. Name one cartel or monopoly that is US based. However, the Maastricht Treaty allows government ownership of private industry. You do not have that in the United States. And government ownership is the most direct way of government subsidizing.

Unless, of course, your dad can bail your out of every bad million dollar business deal you make.

You must not have had a loving father then Sovtek.

That's rich when you consider El Presidente Bush. LOL
He couldn't get accepted into University of Texas law school but he gets accepted by, where was it? YALE?

President Bush did not go to law school at Yale. He went there for undergraduate work. Second, althoug the Univesity of Texas is an excellent school, so is Yale and Harvard. Sen Clinton went to Yale Law School after she graduated from Wheaton. So, does that make Sen Clinton igonorant too?

Yea but you can do alot toward reducing it and making it's effects less drastic. Compare Germany and US for a prime example.

Again, the question is how. Germany also has one of the highest tax incidences in Europe. A tradeoff between trying to reduce poverty and the willingness to be taxed, have less purchasing power, and rely more on government for the most basic necessities. I would rather have my family take care of me, not government, when I am ill.