Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
An Irish Re-Elect "George W" Canpaign
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
given that you've expressed a desire to run down protestors for exercising their rights, I'm not really surprised that you show our forum rules equal respect.
I have retracted my previous posts!
Is there actual support for the terror campaign on innocent US citizens and our allied forces in the Middle East,
As a proud supporter of AMERICA I can only marvel at the country building US and coalition forces are doing in the middle east.
(I will respond in due course to some of the outlandish comments being made.)0 -
-
Originally posted by thejollyrodger
Is there actual support for the terror campaign on innocent US citizens and our allied forces in the Middle East,
Its possible for both sides to be wrong, you know.
As a proud supporter of AMERICA I can only marvel at the country building US and coalition forces are doing in the middle east.
Good for you. I'm glad you're so quick to gloss over all of the bad parts because you see the ideal result as being so attainable.
Bit idealistically Maciavellian, though, don' t you think?
jc0 -
Originally posted by thejollyrodger
I have retracted my previous posts!
Is there actual support for the terror campaign on innocent US citizens and our allied forces in the Middle East,
As a proud supporter of AMERICA I can only marvel at the country building US and coalition forces are doing in the middle east.
(I will respond in due course to some of the outlandish comments being made.)
How can you 'marvel' at something that
a.) hasn't happened yet, so we've no idea if it will work
b.) Has never, to my recollection, ever been successful (Vietnam?)
With regards the "terror campaign"
They wouldn't be in danger if they they hadn't invaded in the first place.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
How can you 'marvel' at something that
a.) hasn't happened yet, so we've no idea if it will work
b.) Has never, to my recollection, ever been successful (Vietnam?)
With regards the "terror campaign"
They wouldn't be in danger if they they hadn't invaded in the first place.
a) did you watch the resolution being put forward by the US and UK!
b) they didnt want to be helped and were/are happy to go round in their push bikes and slope head straw hats for the next 1,000 years!!
(I admit the US tatics and conscript US army were dum)
but I would have bombed the sh1t out of those commies if i was around.
communism , like dah!!
did anyone actually like belive that a doctor is going to work for like the same wage as a bin man ? .:D:D:D:D:D: AHHAHAHAH
Ever visit eastern Europe, pure funny the way, like, no one has opinions of their own, or can think for themselves no matter how hard they try!!
Some of those Islamic crack pots would have hit Europe anyway, better in Iraq than the EU!!
I dont care what ANYONE SAYS ILL be out there support Mr Bush with my MASSIVE U.S FLAG !! GO USA GO USA !! CAPITALISM IS KING !!! KEEP FIXIN OUR ROADS !! SADDAM SUCKS + SO DOES BIN LSleipnir:- Apologies to thejollyrodger for my 'troll' post. Won't happen again.
sure thing !! 0 -
-
-
Originally posted by thejollyrodger
a) did you watch the resolution being put forward by the US and UK!
b) they didnt want to be helped and were/are happy to go round in their push bikes and slope head straw hats for the next 1,000 years!!
(I admit the US tatics and conscript US army were dum)
but I would have bombed the sh1t out of those commies if i was around.
communism , like dah!!
did anyone actually like belive that a doctor is going to work for like the same wage as a bin man ? .:D:D:D:D:D: AHHAHAHAH
Ever visit eastern Europe, pure funny the way, like, no one has opinions of their own, or can think for themselves no matter how hard they try!!
Some of those Islamic crack pots would have hit Europe anyway, better in Iraq than the EU!!
I dont care what ANYONE SAYS ILL be out there support Mr Bush with my MASSIVE U.S FLAG !! GO USA GO USA !! CAPITALISM IS KING !!! KEEP FIXIN OUR ROADS !! SADDAM SUCKS + SO DOES BIN L sure thing !!
Well, you just come across as the typical trigger-happy yank who cannot see anything other than through the sights of a gun.b) they didnt want to be helped and were/are happy to go round in their push bikes and slope head straw hats for the next 1,000 years!!
You're right, they were happy. Maybe they didn't want to look like a whale, sit and watch T.V. all day, go to their schools and shoot their classmates and generally not wander the world feeling marvelous while the rest of the planet laughs at them.
So America decided to bring "democracy" and "civilisation" and in failing to do so killed hundreds of thousands of people. Good call?
But, having said all that, in my opinion you debate like a schoolboy and don't appear capable of putting forward any real argument.
You just bomb the world and whatever else tickles your fancy. I'm all dumbed out.0 -
b) they didnt want to be helped and were/are happy to go round in their push bikes and slope head straw hats for the next 1,000 years!!
I meant that in a good way.
anyway
I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue posting on this topic.
im signing off,
THE JOLLY RODGER
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
What i understand in my incredibly limited capacity is that there must be a balance between the above and the nuisance it causes. Given that it's one day, a saturday, i don't see any constitutional breach going on here.
Protests calculated to cause a general nusiance arent constitutionally protected - so those slow cyclists who cause traffic jams to protests against cars on the road arent protected - they can protest against cars, but not in a fashion that causes a general nusiance - which they do. The same goes for reclaim the streets. The same goes for protests which childishly refuse to co-operate with the police. The same goes for people marching in such a fashion as to cause traffic jams - no one has as yet given a good reason for why they cant march in single file, or even protest in an open area off the streets.
Of course - for any of these constitutional nicities to matter a damn you have to have a government with the balls to enforce them. So its a moot point, beyond recognising that protests of the above nature are not your right.But my reason for marching is this; if a huge crowd turned out [not just the usual rent a protest yobos] it would make american news. If even a few american people who see it question why it is that people in foreign countres are out on the street marching against their president - particularly in a country like ireland, which receives so much benefit from america - then it's a successful day.
Actually one of the complaints the usual yobos have is that the Murdoch empire doesnt publicise their protests beyond them being violent and dangerous. So I wouldnt get your hopes up.
But Id imagine if an American was to look at the protests, and then think back to the hysteria that greeted Clinton on his visit, theyd be mightily confused as to the difference in reaction - Ill come back to this.Ok so you guessed wrong. On the inconvenience thing, i was taking a dig at the armchair critics who moan about this sort of thing all the time. You should respect those who march, on a saturday, in the capital city, just like i respect your right not too march.
Yeah, I do return an equivalent amount of respect - problem is i dont get the impression from your posts that you actually do respect what you claim to respectThis all started because that user chap was upset at the inconvenience the march would cause him. I disagree, I think its brilliant, whether I march or not, that people get up and march on all issues. It shows me & anyone else who reads the papers or watches the news that people feel passionate about things and publicise it in a very effective manner.
To a certain extent I agree, but it is wasted effort. People get so hyped up about protests, and yet when the time comes to vote those hundred thousand people who were voting with their feet reckon theyve done their part and the same shower get in again. All that passion and effort and nothings changed.
Protest movements are useless without follow through in the elections that provides a mandate - until then the politicians can say, correctly, that theyve been elected by the people, and they answer to the people, not to a mob, no matter how many thousands are in it, they are not the electorate. A fairly and democratically elected politician will always have more legitimacy than a protest.I agree that the whole bush is satan arguement is a bit childish when put in a world context. But I do dislike many aspects of the bush administration, from its tax breaks for rich people to the patriot act. That administration has made several mistakes. I disagreed with the iraq situation, just like France & Germany did. I dislike that government. I will march about it when he comes to town.
Okay Im coming back to the Clinton - Bush thing. Clinton was welcomed as a god by the adoring Irish, Bush will be hounded by a mob burning his effigy. Why?
Bush started wars willy nilly and over ran the UN?
Clinton invaded Haiti, bombed Iraq, Sudan and invaded Kosovo, bombing Serbia. That last bit is important becuase the US (oh and all their Euro allies ) invaded Kosovo *without* a UN mandate because they wouldnt get it. Thats right - the west pissed all over the UN charter and national sovereignty. He even had Koffi Anan cheerleading the underminging of the UN, claiming that that sometimes the UN had to be worked around to achieve the best result!!!!
Bush didnt do anything Clinton and Europe hadnt done already - he wouldnt get a mandate so he ignored it. The *only* difference was that Europe and Anan suddenly did a complete philisophical 180 - now the UN was *the* authority on just war! The UN has *never* been the authority on just war, ever. A multitude of conflicts have ranged around the world and no one asks the UN for permisson. The actual idea that the UN should be the final authority on war isnt the norm - its revolutionary!
Bush and the US regime has engaged on a dangerous policy of unilaterlism?
Again, theres been no change in philosophy from Clinton - The Bush administration lives up to the doctrine coined by Madeline Albright, acting multilaterally where possibly, unilaterally when necessary - sounds like something Rumsfeld would say, doesnt it? I.E. allies are nice, but not required if they feel it important enough to go it alone.
The Bush borked the Kyoto Treaty?
This is crazy - Clinton *signed* the Treaty, but he never got it ratified by the American Congress, because it would be like tossing a lamb into a lion pit. Clinton simply wimped out of the harsh reality that a deal which was so much against US interests would never be passed by US lawmakers. Bush simply accepted reality and courted some political support from those opposed to it in the first place.
And indeed ratifying the treaty is only a token effort - Last I heard Ireland, who ratified the deal, was way over its target emissons. Which is worse? Rejecting a deal, or ignoring it?
Bush is the pawn of big business?
This is great - I didnt know this, but when I found it out I learned I wasnt cynical enough. The top three contributors to Al Gores campaign in 2000......were the also the top three contributors to George Bushs campaign. Talk about hedging your bets! It would stand to reason that if Bush is a slave to his backers, and directs policy on their behalf, then Gore - Clintons VP - would also be a slave to his backers, and thus would have directed exactly the same policy on his behalf.
Bush is attempting to cement US world domination? Have you read that Project for a New American website?
Seriously - should he be planning towards losing American domination? Was this what Clinton was doing? Planning for the US to lose its massive edge and become militarily and economically weaker? So the US wants to be the eternal hegemon - best of luck to them. The world needs a hegemon, that is so powerful that no one can contemplate war against them, especially a hegemon that is fairly benevolent and is idealogically at least for free trade and economic/personal liberties.
The other options are an uneasy peace between several great powers, such as prior to WW1? Or perhaps another hegemon instead of the US, such as China - which is neither benign or idealogically for free trade and economic or personal liberties. Europe will never rival the US in our life times for hegemonic status, so we all better be hoping the US succeeds in cementing its role as the unchallenged superpower. The other options are far worse.
I mean when you look at it, when you compare Bush to Clinton and see the wildly opposing views on them its incomprehensible. You can only say that people hate Bush because hes Republican, plays up his Texan and religious values, and has an amusing speech impediment. The level of vitrol and pure hate just doesnt make any sense on a rational level.0
Advertisement