Pathetic interview with Russian politician

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well therecklessone, I would recommend that this country not place itself in the position of developing deep trade ties with countries that are commiting serious and widespread abuses of human-rights e.g. China. I strongly oppose the attempts of Irish and other EU governments to deepen such ties, because it may place us in the kind of difficulties I mentioned with regard to balancing our economic-wellbeing with human-rights considerations.

Now we're getting somewhere. So you don't want us to have economic ties to China (a huge market, fresh for Irish profit-making) but are happy to keep schtum when its existing economic partners (the US and UK spring to mind) who are commiting human rights abuses. Double standards? I think so!

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I got my figures on the 90% statistic from a human-rights website, though I have read so many in the last few days that I am uncertain which it was, but if an when I find it again I will post the link. It is highly suspicious that an army is making a decision like this.

I didn't question the 90% figure, I questioned your conclusion. Are you basing your conclusion (i.e "bodies in mass graves") on fact or is it speculation? Isn't it plausible that the designation of that much of the territory as environmentally unsafe could be due to the use of particular types of munitions?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

In our own country, we should have no fear of criticising human-rights abuses. We are not going to lose business or jobs by such criticisms.

I must apologise. What I meant when to ask when I mentioned domestic law was do you favour one rule for the rich and one rule for the poor when it comes to domestic crime? Because that was the impression I got when you were discussing international human-rights abuses. I shouldn't have introduced it anyway, its off topic. Feel free to ignore.

arcadegame2004

Now we're getting somewhere. So you don't want us to have economic ties to China (a huge market, fresh for Irish profit-making) but are happy to keep schtum when its existing economic partners (the US and UK spring to mind) who are commiting human rights abuses. Double standards? I think so!

Do you seriously believe that the US and the UK are on the same part of the human-rights scale as China and Russia? :rolleyes:

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Do you seriously believe that the US and the UK are on the same part of the human-rights scale as China and Russia? :rolleyes:

And are you denying the US and UK have been guilty of human rights abuses?

You are either in favour of human rights or you are not. You can't be in favour of them until it hurts our economic interests then disregard them to your hearts content.

Levels of abuse are immaterial here. If you can be bought off by the US then you can be bought off by the Chinese or Russians. Or do you have a problem with those two countries for other, unstated reasons, and are using human rights abuses as a conveniant cover. You certainly seem to have a pathological hatred of the Russian state, and a very low opinion of its people.

arcadegame2004

And are you denying the US and UK have been guilty of human rights abuses?

You are either in favour of human rights or you are not. You can't be in favour of them until it hurts our economic interests then disregard them to your hearts content.

Levels of abuse are immaterial here. If you can be bought off by the US then you can be bought off by the Chinese or Russians. Or do you have a problem with those two countries for other, unstated reasons, and are using human rights abuses as a conveniant cover. You certainly seem to have a pathological hatred of the Russian state, and a very low opinion of its people.

These 2 countries are guilty of human-rights abuses. But genocide they are most certainly NOT guilty of (in our times at least).

I don't agree with you that levels of abuse are immaterial. You can hardly compare 1 killing to genocide. Who exactly was ultimately behind Abu Ghraib is not totally clear, beyong Lynndie England etc. So should our Government condemn the Bush administration for Abu Ghraib? That is unwise. We should, however, condemn what happened in the prison.

I find it extremely hard to believe though that Putin didn't have some act or part in what happens to the Chechen people. He has banned the Western media from going to Chechnya without military minders, where the journalists are forbidden from talking to the Chechen people. Why? He must have planned this.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

These 2 countries are guilty of human-rights abuses. But genocide they are most certainly NOT guilty of (in our times at least).

Where did I say they were?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I don't agree with you that levels of abuse are immaterial. You can hardly compare 1 killing to genocide.

Again, where did I say that? Human rights abuse is not a term used exclusively to describe genocide.

arcadegame 2004 wrote:

I find it extremely hard to believe though that Putin didn't have some act or part in what happens to the Chechen people. He has banned the Western media from going to Chechnya without military minders, where the journalists are forbidden from talking to the Chechen people. Why? He must have planned this.

Where's your proof? I could say the same of Donald Rumsfeld in the US administration. He (and his boss Bush) has ultimate responsibility for the actions of the US army in Iraq. So tell me why we shouldn't criticise the US for their behaviour in Iraq?

I'll return to the hypothethical for a moment. How far are you willing to allow our major trading partners to go down the road of human rights abuse before you shout stop? I'm not referring to specifics here, so don't spout some nonsense about the US not being guilty of genocide blah blah blah, just answer that one simple question.

arcadegame2004

I'll return to the hypothethical for a moment. How far are you willing to allow our major trading partners to go down the road of human rights abuse before you shout stop? I'm not referring to specifics here, so don't spout some nonsense about the US not being guilty of genocide blah blah blah, just answer that one simple question.

To allow? I am hardly able to stop them. I believe that where genocide is occurring, we should condemn it and they Government behind it, including our major trading-partners, because in that situation the worst of all crimes is being committed.

My posts on this thread have made it clear that in the here and now, it cannot be fairly said that any of our biggest tradeing-partners are committed grave human-rights abuses. I was addressing the here and now situation. I would recommend that we avoid becoming too cosy in trade-terms with those countries with the big human-rights problems, because otherwise we may find ourselves in the unwelcome position of haveing to choose between Irish jobs and ethical considerations.

MadsL

So would you support Chechen asylum-seekers? (assuming they teleported here directly)

If yes, then why do you feel that Moldovian's fleeing a totalitarian regime, are 'abusing the system'?

pete

arcadegame2004 wrote:

in the here and now, it cannot be fairly said that any of our biggest tradeing-partners are committed grave human-rights abuses.

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa

arcadegame2004

Pete, no country is perfect. And I obviously condemn totally the abuses by American soldiers in Abu Ghraib and the lack of openess regarding the seemingly arbitrary holding of at least some of the Guatanamo prisoners, together with the unusual arrangements for trying them.

In the case of the US though, it is very unclear as to whether members of Bush's Cabinet were behind the abuses. There have been competing claims on this issue in the media, and as such while we condemn the abuses, it is unclear if the Bush Government specifically ordered the abuses at Abu Ghraib. It would seem unlikely that Rumsfeld or Bush actually ordered prisoners to be murdered or raped etc.

In Chechnya however, the massive scale of the human-rights abuses makes it very difficult to argue convincingly that Putin does not have knowledge of the massacres his troops are inflicting on the helpless civilian population. I personally feel he ordered them, especially considering similar abuses in Ingushetia.

SCALE is extremely important. Our most vocal condemnation should be for the countries committing the worst human-rights abuses. In the event that the US or other Western countries were engaged in such abuses, then even I would call for them to be condemned. It's just that the US cannot be fairly described as one of the worst human-rights abusers in the world.

Anti-Americans in this country steadfastly refuse to criticise the US's traditional rivals for wars or human-rights abuses by them e.g. Russia and China. In doing this they are demonstrating that as far as they are concerned, the US really is the Great Satan (or whatever the Irish anti-Americans consider it to be).

I remember during the Kosovo war to liberate the Albanians from a similar fate to the Chechens, SF put up "Stop the War" posters. I supported that war of liberation. While others would prefer to debate in the UN till the cows come home while the Albanians were systematically exterminated, I believe that a higher moral principle that we must do all in our power to prevent another Rwanda/Bosnia/Holocaust overrides international law, where the latter refuses to do what needs to be done.

If breaking international-law is the only way to stop genocide, then it is necessary. Besides asking what is and is not legal under international law, we should also ask questions like "Should it be legal/illegal?"

So would you support Chechen asylum-seekers? (assuming they teleported here directly)

If yes, then why do you feel that Moldovian's fleeing a totalitarian regime, are 'abusing the system'?

Moldova's Communist government was actually elected, believe it or not. It was elected in place of the existing non-Communist government, unless you think the previous government rigged the elections against itself, which would seem a rather odd thing to do :rolleyes:

I don't believe in exact sciences. I feel that there are principles which apply in most cases though not all. I feel that where genocide is being committed against a people, that exceptions need to be made for refugees from such massacres, such as the Chechens. I personally want Ireland to recognise Chechnya as an independent state. I couldn't give a damn what the Russians would think of that. Putin is a tyrant and we owe him nothing.

MadsL

Moldova's Communist government was actually elected, believe it or not. It was elected in place of the existing non-Communist government, unless you think the previous government rigged the elections against itself, which would seem a rather odd thing to do

Whatever about the election - answer the question, would you deny Moldovan dissidents asylum?

I don't believe in exact sciences. I feel that there are principles which apply in most cases though not all. I feel that where genocide is being committed against a people, that exceptions need to be made for refugees from such massacres, such as the Chechens. I personally want Ireland to recognise Chechnya as an independent state. I couldn't give a damn what the Russians would think of that. Putin is a tyrant and we owe him nothing.

Assuming that happens - how many Chechen refugees should Ireland accept. Will they get free houses, be allowed to work? It would seem churlish to recognise their struggle and then call them "citizenship-tourists" "spongers" etc

arcadegame2004

Whatever about the election - answer the question, would you deny Moldovan dissidents asylum?

No I would let them stay in the first EU state they enter. They are then safe aren't they?

On the Chechen issue, the reason I make exception for them is because they are the only people in the world currently being exterminated and I feel that as a country with a parallel history (except that we were ruled by a foreign state for 700 years compared to 180 years for the Chechens) we have a moral responsibility to make a stand and tell Russia that small nations will not be bullied by large fascist countries with vampire-like bloodthirst.

DapperGent

arcadegame2004 wrote:

On the Chechen issue, the reason I make exception for them is because they are the only people in the world currently being exterminated

Darfur?

MadsL

fascist countries with vampire-like bloodthirst.

wtf??
When were Britain and Russia Fascist??? Totalitarian and Imperialistic maybe - but Facist???

In fact, one of the major issues with the famine was the Whigs slavish devotion to laissaiz-faire economics (much like the politics you support)

On the Chechen issue, the reason I make exception for them is because they are the only people in the world currently being exterminated and I feel that as a country with a parallel history (except that we were ruled by a foreign state for 700 years compared to 180 years for the Chechens) we have a moral responsibility to make a stand and tell Russia that small nations will not be bullied by large fascist countries with vampire-like bloodthirst.

So you would accept them. So how many are you prepared to accept??? Aren't you worried they will pollute the bloodline. What about Irish jobs?* Irish Culture???* How about those Imams preaching extremism that you warned us about?* How about all the STDs???*
*dire warnings issued by AG2004 in the immigration threads
How would you avoid all of these 'problems' - have them sheep dipped? Given a e-learning course in the great Civil War and the Quest for a United Ireland?
Insist that they become Catholic and lie on the census about where they were born so that it looks like they have 'assimilated'?

What about other 'genocides' eg: Cote d'Ivoire - the killings of perhaps 120 citizens attempting a peaceful protest in Abidjan on 25-26th March 2004, or in Rwanda - the 13th August 2004 Burundi massacre of 160. Are you going to offer asylum to Rwandans and Ivory Coast citizens? (Thought not.)

What about the Transdniestrians? Who - well your little 'parallel history' argument would seem to apply to a territory one-sixth the size of Moldova currently seeking independance - perhaps you would like the Irish govt to give a declaration on Transdniestria??


You see the world is not a chocolate box selection, you can't just say "Oh, the Chechens look like nice chaps lets give them asylum". You have been baying for total immigration controls and sh1te about the 'first EU country' and yet the second a cause opens up that jingles the huge chip on your shoulder about the British, then off you go making 'exceptions' for the 'parallel history' Admit it, you are full of sh1t. you just can't come up with a coherent policy can you?

arcadegame2004

When were Britain and Russia Fascist??? Totalitarian and Imperialistic maybe - but Facist???

Russian moves towards Fascist dictatorship:

A:Putin has passed a media-law to prevent the truth coming out in Russia about Chechnya, e.g. the law bans the media from reports that are of propaganda value to "terrorists". The interpretation of this effectively means that the war-crimes committed by Russia are ignored by the Russian press. Not unlike Nazi censorship of the media.

B:Putin has set up "Putin Youth" movements, like Mussolini and Hitler did (Fascist Youth and Hitler Youth).

C:Putin's army are exterminating the Chechen people. Parallels with Nazi Germany.

D:Putin's calls yesterday for changes in the electoral-system, parallels with Mussolini's Acerbo law which handed 2/3rds of the seats in the Italian parliament to the party that comes first, and which led ultimately to Mussolini establishing a dictatorship in Italy. Parallels too with Hitler's Enabling law after Hitler used the Reichstag fire as an excuse to curb freedoms of the press, freedom of assembly, e.g. the right to protests and to extend his power.

---

Regarding the UK, I would call Cromwell's genocide of 1/3rd of the entire Irish population fascist. And the artificial famine in a country overflowing with food. The British effectively turned Ireland into a giant concentration-camp by the Royal Navy's blocking of American ships carrying aid from landing. Also, the mass evictions of Irish peasants to die in the biting cold was an form of fascism as far as I am concerned, not to mention the rack-renting by the British=imposed system of landlordism.

NB I meant to include Darfur before, although Chad is a place of safety where most have gone and they seem out of danger there, and there is no movement for independence there.

pete

I'm surprised you have a problem with moves in that directiont...

The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems.

Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin.

Fascism creates "enemies of the fatherland" in order to gain public support. These "enemies" usually include liberals, socialists, trade unionists, and conspicuous minority groups.

Fascism also met with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, the lumpenproletariat. A key feature of fascism is that it uses its mass movement to attack the organizations of the working class - parties of the left and trade unions.

Sound like anyone you know?

From: http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm ; http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Fascism ; http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Politics/fascism.htm

arcadegame2004

The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems.

Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin.

But foreigners are not part of "the population" of our country. If you are going to argue (and if this isn't what you're arguing then please explain what you are accusing me off precisely) that my views on asylum and citizenship are "fascist", in the racist sense, then I reply that they are not. Otherwise, 140 countries in the world must be "fascist" on the basis of not allowing automatic citizenship to the babies of foreigners where those babies are born in the relevant country.

Also, the foreigners aren't citizens of this country at all, and therefore do not fall into the category of "citizens" of this country being discriminated against. It is simply not feasible to grant the entire population of the world citizenship of Ireland and you should know that! :rolleyes:

I would interested in getting answers from members of this forum on this question:

A: Do you believe that Russia is commiting serious human-rights abuses in Chechnya?

B: Do you believe these abuses are to the extent of constituting genocide?

C: Do you believe Putin when he says that the war in Chechnya is not about a war of independence but rather is about Islamic terrorism and that alone, and that ALL rebel groups are terrorist INCLUDING those which do not target innocent civilians (If so then so is George Washington and all other freedom fighters)?

Do you think Ireland should recognise Chechen independence? I do. If Russia is offended by this then I say: imperial powers will get no support from me, especially when they slaughter innocent people on a vast scale while claiming moral high-ground over those who murder far less than themselves (though admittedly Beslan was sickening).

E: What solution do people here think is the best idea for solving the Chechen problem?

My prescription is clear. A Kosovo-style solution, including a UN/NATO/EU peacekeeping force to protect the helpless Chechen civilians recover from the nightmare Putin has sent them into.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

But foreigners are not part of "the population" of our country.

Really? So there wasn't a single non-Irish-born-to-Irish-parents on the last census? Thats amazing, cause I coulda sworn recently you were vehement about the whatever-percent-it-was who listed themselves as non-Irish.

And what happened to the need to "keep a majority" on our own island? If there's no foreigners in "the population", then who the hell are we supposed to be keeping a majority against?

Also, the foreigners aren't citizens of this country at all,

I thought - again - your objection was that they should not be allowed to become citizens. If they aren't citizens, and there are none of them...one has to again ask what the hell you've been vociferously complaining about for the last what-seems-like-forever.

It is simply not feasible to grant the entire population of the world citizenship of Ireland and you should know that! :rolleyes:

And for the nth time (where n is a number far larger then should be feasible on a boards system), I ask you to show me where anyone has suggested this.

Whatever about trying to fool people by making up or misrepresenting facts and figures....you're really stretching it if you think that you can convince those here opposed to you that they've been proposing something that they haven't been.

A: Do you believe that Russia is commiting serious human-rights abuses in Chechnya?

Yes, but that doesn't describe the full situation no more than saying that the problem in the North of Ireland was because of human rights abuses by the British Government.

B: Do you believe these abuses are to the extent of constituting genocide?

No. There is no indication that the intent is to destroy the Chechen people as a people.

C: Do you believe Putin when he says that the war in Chechnya is not about a war of independence but rather is about Islamic terrorism and that alone,

No.

and that ALL rebel groups are terrorist INCLUDING those which do not target innocent civilians

Bit like what the Americans claim about Iraqi "dissidents", though, isn't it. Putin is only following Dubya's lead in :

a) Cast it as terrorism
b) Cast terrorism as the greatest threat to world stability today
c) Use a and b above as an excuse to try and do whatever the hell you like.

He'll also have been encouraged to see that when Sharon used this tactic shortly after 9/11, and when the Russians ended the previous major hostage crisis that the US steadfastly and unquestionly supported this line of argument.

Do you think Ireland should recognise Chechen independence?

No. At least, not without clear policy definition of how we will determine and acknowledge independance of "splinter" nations like Chechnya. As someone pointed to you previously, you are conveniently making an exception for a case which is hardly unique. Why? Why would we recognise this case, and not the myriad of other nations who are also seeking independence from their "owner".

E: What solution do people here think is the best idea for solving the Chechen problem?

The same solution all similar problems have. The parties involved - on both sides - need to learn that killing will not resolve the issue, and when they have learned that they can start working towards some other solution.

My prescription is clear. A Kosovo-style solution, including a UN/NATO/EU peacekeeping force to protect the helpless Chechen civilians recover from the nightmare Putin has sent them into.

Dream on. I suppose your solution to Tiannamen Square would have been for a NATO force to go into China and protect the innocents there as well?

Such an action, in the absence of agreement from the nation who's territory the action is occurring on, is called an invasion not a peace-keeping mission.

You might be blasé about invading one of the handful of declared nuclear nations with a force from one or more of hte other declared nuclear nations....but I would see it as close to (to quote Mr. Goldblum) the worst idea in the history of bad ideas.

jc

arcadegame2004

arcadegame2004 wrote:

A:Putin has passed a media-law to prevent the truth coming out in Russia about Chechnya, e.g. the law bans the media from reports that are of propaganda value to "terrorists". The interpretation of this effectively means that the war-crimes committed by Russia are ignored by the Russian press. Not unlike Nazi censorship of the media.

B:Putin has set up "Putin Youth" movements, like Mussolini and Hitler did (Fascist Youth and Hitler Youth).

C:Putin's army are exterminating the Chechen people. Parallels with Nazi Germany.

D:Putin's calls yesterday for changes in the electoral-system, parallels with Mussolini's Acerbo law which handed 2/3rds of the seats in the Italian parliament to the party that comes first, and which led ultimately to Mussolini establishing a dictatorship in Italy. Parallels too with Hitler's Enabling law after Hitler used the Reichstag fire as an excuse to curb freedoms of the press, freedom of assembly, e.g. the right to protests and to extend his power.

Sure you can draw parallels with Nazi Germany, but at the same time you can draw the same comparisons with Stalin and the Communist Regime of the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's.

Stalin, excluded and censored media coverage within the Soviet Union for decades.

Stalin encouraged the creation of groups which promoted the loyalty to the "Soviet" ideals and nation

Stalin, exterminated millions of Jews, Gypsies, and Prisoners of War (German Troops)

I don't have an example of the last one, since Stalin ruled in absolute power and didn't need to use a ploy to gain power.

Your examples don't give reasons why you believe Russia to becoming more facist. The same can be described of any nation that has a leader with absolute power.

A: Do you believe that Russia is commiting serious human-rights abuses in Chechnya?

Yes, I do. As an opposite, do you belive that Chechnyian (sp?) rebels are committing serious human-rights abuses? I'm not excusing Russia, just curious whether your beliefs are one-sided.

B: Do you believe these abuses are to the extent of constituting genocide?

No I don't. They're not intentionally trying to exterminate the Chechnyian people. They've occupied the area, and while there is no resistance, there are no murder squads. Without the resistance, there's just the "normal" corruption, prevelent with many eastern European countries.

C: Do you believe Putin when he says that the war in Chechnya is not about a war of independence but rather is about Islamic terrorism and that alone, and that ALL rebel groups are terrorist INCLUDING those which do not target innocent civilians (If so then so is George Washington and all other freedom fighters)?

I don't. He's taking the "War on Terrorism" party bull**** line. The same line that Bush takes as regards Iraq. Its politically acceptable to say this ****e nowadays, since everyone has accepted it from the US admin.

Do you think Ireland should recognise Chechen independence?

No I don't. Its not for us to involve our nation in. The UN is a different matter completely.

E: What solution do people here think is the best idea for solving the Chechen problem?

I don't think there is a solution. Just as I don't think there's a solution thats acceptable to all, in Palestine. Same bull**** all round.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

To allow? I am hardly able to stop them. I believe that where genocide is occurring, we should condemn it and they Government behind it, including our major trading-partners, because in that situation the worst of all crimes is being committed.

Is that not a contradiction in itself?

"I am hardly in able to stop them" vs. "we should condem it and they (sic) Government behind it"

Why? Surely we're not in a position to stop it?

Now answer the question put to you and stop your blustering.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

and as such while we condemn the abuses, it is unclear if the Bush Government specifically ordered the abuses at Abu Ghraib. It would seem unlikely that Rumsfeld or Bush actually ordered prisoners to be murdered or raped etc.

In Chechnya however, the massive scale of the human-rights abuses makes it very difficult to argue convincingly that Putin does not have knowledge of the massacres his troops are inflicting on the helpless civilian population. I personally feel he ordered them, especially considering similar abuses in Ingushetia.

You have no conclusive proof to tie senior members of either administration to those breaches of human rights, yet you give the benefit of the doubt to the US. I wonder why that is?

arcadegame2004

You have no conclusive proof to tie senior members of either administration to those breaches of human rights, yet you give the benefit of the doubt to the US. I wonder why that is?

The organisation required to slaughter 300,000 Chechens would seem to prove that Putin, as Commander-in-Chief of the Russian army, has a hand in this. Under international-law, you are still guilty if you turned a blind eye to war-crimes that you could have prevented. Personally, I believe he planned it, especially after that Newsnight episode a few months ago in Ingushetia where the Russians are reported by families to have taken away and shot many men. It is hardly a coincidence. Putin wants to stir up another war so he can say "You need a hard man like me in a crisis". Hiundreds of thousands must die, it seems, for the political future of one man.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Hiundreds of thousands must die, it seems, for the political future of one man.

Remove the "hundreds" and we could be talking about Dubya Bush...

MadsL

A little balance to AG2004 ravings about the 'fascist' British. Given that he seems to have gleaned all his information about Irish history from SF and/or a Primary School book of the 50s. His simplistic analysis reflects his inability to make a coherent argument on these boards.

Regarding the UK, I would call Cromwell's genocide of 1/3rd of the entire Irish population fascist.

Do not forget that the response of Cromwell was in many ways fueled by the Irish Rebellion of 1641 - when reports of massacres by the Catholics reached Westminster. Yes they were exaggerated. But I expect that they had the same effect on Cromwell as Beslan will have on Russia. Don't forget that Britain had just had a bloody Civil War of it's own, and was hardly likely to be merciful to 'rebellion'.
War crimes - 4,000 Confederates were massacred at Droghedand the body-count at Wexford was about 2,000. In Kilkenny, the officers and soldiers were shown mercy (after a bribe) and allowed to march out.

However 616,000 people died in the 12 years of the war. Died during war - that is to say through a combination of battle, disease (plague was ravaging europe at this time) and hunger.

Cromwell did not 'kill' a third of the Irish people, the population at this time was about 2.1 million. Yes, there massive casualties in this war, but the majority died from the by-products of war - hunger and disease. Plague was especially rampant.

And the artificial famine in a country overflowing with food.

I presume you mean "the Great Famine"
Let's assume that we leave aside massive population growth from around 2 million people to 8.2 million before the famine, common practices of sub-dividing the land beyond sustainable positions, the massive cholera epidemic, other major outbreaks of diseases such as Typhus, which are estimated to have killed more than died of starvation - well then let's have a look at an empirical study of what happened.

“No Government, Whig, Tory, or Repeal could have insulated the Irish poor against the effects of the potato blight. The massive shock inflicted on the rural economy could not have been met, even with the best will in the world, without some excess mortality. In any assessment of the role of politics and ideology, that point must not be forgotten.”-p125 Ireland Before and After the Famine. Cormac O’Grada
Ireland was scarcely 'overflowing with food' - potato production dropped "production of potatoes fell from 14.8 million tons in 1844 to 2-4 million tons of potatoes between 1846-9" (Daly, The Famine in Ireland) -

Oh, the English "stole the corn", forgot that - except "From the initial crop failure in 1845 until the massive corn imports in 1847, only 430,000 tons of grain were exported from Ireland. This would only have made up one-seventh of the shortfall caused by the potato blight. " The Great Famine and other famines. Cormac O’Grada.

In 1847 900,000 tons of corn were imported into Ireland, and £100,000 spent on Indian corn and meal in the USA in November. (It was not then know that corn meal would be empty of important nutrients and that it would combine with other ailments to produce dysentery and cause more to die--a point missed by many historians.)
A relief commission was set up and formed local committees for relief. Local contributions were supplemented to the extent of two thirds by government grants. This all from the people of England. (Although one can argue about quantities, one cannot argue that the issue was avoided and the cause neglected.)
Up to 140,000 persons were employed on relief projects. Such relief projects are often ridiculed in popular accounts (canals with no water, famine roads going nowhere). But there were also very important functional projects such as docks and roads which are still in use today.
The Protective Tariff on grain was repealed: The Repeal of the Corn Laws was a step designed to lower the cost of grain to the Irish. This decision was not popular in England and and cost Peel his office.

Hardly the actions of a fascist power intent on genocide.

The British effectively turned Ireland into a giant concentration-camp by the Royal Navy's blocking of American ships carrying aid from landing.

"Britain did not blockade Ireland, or foment the potato blights, or undertake public policies aimed at weakening the Irish economy. "
Amartya Sen 1998 Nobel Laureate in Economics here

Perhaps you would like to be more explicit about the event/events you are refering to as a 'blockade'.

Also, the mass evictions of Irish peasants to die in the biting cold was an form of fascism as far as I am concerned, not to mention the rack-renting by the British=imposed system of landlordism.

Clearly, there were "rationalisations" and landlords (not all protestant I might add) who seized the opportunity to grab back massively segregated portions of land. The moral implications are of course horrendous to the modern eye, but don't forget that much of this happened after the famine ended. As to this being a "British imposed system" Landlords existed well before the "British" - in fact I would describe the Normans as being the 'bad guys' (French, not 'Brits'.)


And the High Kings response to famine...

There was a terrible famine in A.D. 665, long before any such nation as Britain, or even England, existed. Responding to it, the High Kings called an assembly of all Ireland at Tara, where, under the encouragement of Abbot Fechin of Fore, the Gaelic warlords who ruled the country prayed to the Lord to send some sickness that would "relieve the nation of part of the burdensome multitude of inferior people, so that the rest might live more easily ... the excess of numbers being the cause of the famine."


Talking of fascist, which country has a major political party that once had a psuedo-fascist uniformed wing? And don't get me started on WWII Irish Govt policy.

MadsL

Oh and I forgot your response - was it yes or no to asylum rights here for Transdniestrians???

arcadegame2004

Ireland was scarcely 'overflowing with food' - potato production dropped "production of potatoes fell from 14.8 million tons in 1844 to 2-4 million tons of potatoes between 1846-9" (Daly, The Famine in Ireland) -

But seversl other countries had equally devere potatoe blight and there was not famine in them The underlying cause of the Famine were the policies that made Irish people too poor to buy food, an thus caused the Irish to have to depend on the potato to survive.

The suibdivision of land was part of the Penal Laws.

MadsL

potatoe

- are you any relation to Dan Quayle??

the policies that made Irish people too poor to buy food,

Specifically?? And Fascist, how??

The suibdivision of land was part of the Penal Laws.

Which were repealed in July 1782.

arcadegame2004

The Penal Laws were repealed in 1832, by which time the damage was long done! Heard of the Catholic Emancipation Act 1932 and Daniel O'Connell (known as the Liberator).

Oh and I forgot your response - was it yes or no to asylum rights here for Transdniestrians???

Transdniestre is not ruled over by Moldova, but rather by a pro-Moscow puppet regime backed by thousands of Russian troops. So they are not being persecuted by Moldova!

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The Penal Laws were repealed in 1832, by which time the damage was long done! Heard of the Catholic Emancipation Act 1932 and Daniel O'Connell (known as the Liberator).

Was that before or after Fianna Fail came to power under DeVelara?

Anyway:

in 1778 Gardiner's Act allowed them to take leases of land for 999 years, and also allowed Catholic landlords to leave their estates to one son, instead of having, as hitherto, to divide between all.

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11611c.htm#III

arcadegame2004

n 1778 Gardiner's Act allowed them to take leases of land for 999 years, and also allowed Catholic landlords to leave their estates to one son, instead of having, as hitherto, to divide between all.

Even so, the damage had already been done and helped set the seeds of the Famine.

Also, several other European countries had potato blight at the time of our Famine, yet did not have famine themselves. It was the British-induced poverty that forced us to depend almost totally on the potato for food.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Even so, the damage had already been done and helped set the seeds of the Famine.

I missed the bit where you admitted you were wrong about your dates and promised to check your facts more thoroughly next time...

Also, several other European countries had potato blight at the time of our Famine, yet did not have famine themselves. It was the British-induced poverty that forced us to depend almost totally on the potato for food.

You're starting at the wrong end of the equation. Other countries did not depend on the potato alone for their dietary needs, so they did not suffer as much when their potato crop failed.

Ireland was almost wholly dependant on the crop. And it was not British-induced poverty that forced us to depend on the potato, it was the high-yield nature of the crop that enabled us to have larger families, leading to a population increase that was unsustainable without the potato.