Fianna Fail get away with it again...

hobie

Couldn't help but notice the statement in Belfast just a couple of days ago .... "We have ridden out the unexpected controversy of EI pulling out of the Shannon - LHR route and are now moving on" .....

Don't you just love a story with a happy ending .... :cool:

Liam Byrne

ninty9er wrote: »

Not really, I'm sure you couldn't give a sh1t about US troops in Shannon if it meant the difference between your kids eating or not due to economic implications, whereas I'm sure you wouldn't go out selling coke or heroin to ensure they eat!!

You have a partial point, and it's called active vs passive involvement.

But it's still an involvement, it's still illegal and it's still causing deaths.

If you want to break it down in court terms as murderer vs accessory to murder, go ahead, but someone could just as easily argue that the people buying cocaine and heroin have made that choice while those being or that have been murdered in Iraq have no choice.

Xennon

you've implied that profit and economic considerations should come before truth, honesty, integrity, ethics and human life.....probably the same thinking that has drug dealers worldwide justifying their actions.

Not just drug dealers, but industry, governments, countries, religious deities, throughout history profit and economic considerations have come before humanitarian interest. Why should it be different now. Its in our nature to be greedy, its part of our animal instincts, its what drives us as so-called civilized human beings. To accumulate is our right, to take for ourselves what we 'need' is our right or so we seem to believe.

Why weren't we given the opportunity to vote on the American use of Shannon?
What would the backlash be if we said no?
Would we say no?
Are we now guilty by association for crimes the Bush administration may be found guilty of?
Do we really care?

The western world (including Ireland) needs oil, they have oil.

ninty9er

Xennon wrote: »

Are we now guilty by association for crimes the Bush administration may be found guilty of?

Would anybody care if it was a Democrat administration?

Delphi91

Liam Byrne wrote: »

...Plus, on a deeper level, you've implied that profit and economic considerations should come before truth, honesty, integrity, ethics and human life.....

I haven't implied that profit and economic considerations should (my emphasis) come before truth, etc at all - that's your interpretation. I don't think that they should.

But lets not kid ourselves here. Answer me this - why haven't we stopped US planes landing in Shannon? What reason do you think the Government has? Do you think the Government compared truth, honest, integrity, ethics and human life against profit and economic considerations? If it did, what conclusion do you think they came to?

The US have said that all they need is a base on this side of the Atlantic to refuel. They've said many times that they could land in Scotland. How come they haven't done so?

Just out of curiosity, does anyone have a figure for the amount of revenue generated by the US troop planes landing in Shannon? I'm not just talking about landing fees. I'm talking about the secondary spinoffs - employment, goods and services purchased, hotel rooms booked, cars rented, etc, etc. I would imagine that the figure is reasonably large.

Xennon

In answer to a previous post slamming those who voted FF or didn't vote at all (I am one of the latter), who exactly are we to vote for? The list of munkees (I used a different spelling so as not to insult our close relatives) that was presented to me on the ballot paper meant I couldn't vote as I had no belief in any of them.
Now had there been a 'none of the above' box, My big X would be there. Democracy has a flaw, it doesn't count those who are not happy with the line up of candidates. Spoiling the ballot does not give a representation of such feelings, so I didn't vote.
What professional capable of doing a decent job, would bother with getting into politics? They'd be far more successful in the private sector, so all we seem to get in the political sector are chancer's. Thats been my experience thus far anyway.

ninty9er

Xennon wrote: »

They'd be far more successful in the private sector, so all we seem to get in the political sector are chancer's. Thats been my experience thus far anyway.

Many of our politicians have been successful in the private sector....John McGuinness from Kilkenny is a very wealthy man who got into politics and is doing very well as minister for Trade.

I'm actually tempted to go into politics, but sometimes the public attitude would sicken you. If any other employer fu<ked you over as much as the public do to politicians (of all parties) they'd be in front of a tribunal pronto!

Xennon

And in return if any employee behaved like some of our political representatives they would be fired and probably sued.