If Ireland does indeed get bullied into accepting the Lisbon treaty...

ei.sdraob

worldrepublic wrote: »

RSF receives a substantial amount of funding from private companies... including one owned by George Soros, who has been convicted for insider trading.

Any real evidence?

you asked for evidence and it was provided, still dont believe us

then go for a visit there see for yourself

Ive been to Russia and some other exUSSR states since early 90s on several occasssions

great people but things have took a turn for the worse unfortunately

worldrepublic

tlev wrote: »

Wait so you are saying that the RSF is being influenced by private companies? Where is YOUR evidence of this?

And surely by your logic, then if RSF is being influenced then the Russian media companies can just as easily be manipulated.

No, but based on your logic (or extreme-lack there of) "all of Russia's media is in Putin's pockets. If This is the case, they why go ahead and say that FOX News is in the pockets by Rupert Murdoch and therefore is manipulating its audiences, or that the BBC stands for British Brainwashing Corporation....

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

No, but based on your logic (or extreme-lack there of) "all of Russia's media is in Putin's pockets. If This is the case, they why go ahead and say that FOX News is in the pockets by Rupert Murdoch and therefore is manipulating its audiences, or that the BBC stands for British Brainwashing Corporation....

First of all, I never said that 'all of Russia's media is in Putin's pockets' that point was made by another poster, I was just assisting in finding evidence for that point. And of course all those networks will have their own agenda's but the point being made, in case you missed it, was that Russian media is censored and manipulated to far greater extent than in other countries. There is little freedom of press.

Kama

Mhmm, problem for me rather than the 'whose line do you believe' is how bad a precedent the whole 'omg terrorists I cans invade now!' approach of the Bush doctrine. Russian Tat for American Tit, leaving aside the respective rights and wrongs of each side.

Scofflaw

I'm reluctant to stop anyone enjoying themselves, but does this still have any relevance to the thread topic...?

moderately,
Scofflaw

tlev

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm reluctant to stop anyone enjoying themselves, but does this still have any relevance to the thread topic...?

moderately,
Scofflaw

Could be something to do with Irish media in cahoots with the Russians who don't want Lisbon as it would damage their supplier power of gas over the EU?
Sorry...back on topic now..:D

worldrepublic

Kama wrote: »

Mhmm, problem for me rather than the 'whose line do you believe' is how bad a precedent the whole 'omg terrorists I cans invade now!' approach of the Bush doctrine. Russian Tat for American Tit, leaving aside the respective rights and wrongs of each side.

ALL European heads of state have explicitly stated that the War on Terror is a key factor in shaping policy. This is not a joking matter. It may well not be feasible to continue tolerating those who question the reality of the War on Terror, Al qeada, terrorists, and a variety of social and political dissidents. The term invasion is unnecessarily provocative, whereas "peace-keeping" is the terminology used in the text, and consolidated texts, of the Lisbon Treaty.

Red Sleeping Beauty

There's plenty of mentions of "terrorism" and the fight against it in the Lisbon Treaty.

Articles 28B, 61H, 69B, 69G.

"

ARTICLE 28 B

1. The tasks referred to in Article 28 A(1), in the course of which the Union may use
civilian and military means, shall include joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and
rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping
tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making and post-conflict
stabilisation. All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by
supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories.

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

ALL European heads of state have explicitly stated that the War on Terror is a key factor in shaping policy. This is not a joking matter. It may well not be feasible to continue tolerating those who question the reality of the War on Terror, Al qeada, terrorists, and a variety of social and political dissidents. The term invasion is unnecessarily provocative, whereas "peace-keeping" is the terminology used in the text, and consolidated texts, of the Lisbon Treaty.

Oh so as long as we call it peace keeping instead of invasion it is okay? Right so America 'peace keeped' Iraq and Afghanistan.

But Ireland is already involved in many 'peace keeping missions' so it shouldnt mind if Lisbon would want to take a more active role in 'peace keeping' the threat of terrorism in Europe. Lisbon will become ratified one way or another and Ireland has to accept that.

Scofflaw

tlev wrote: »

Oh so as long as we call it peace keeping instead of invasion it is okay? Right so America 'peace keeped' Iraq and Afghanistan.

But Ireland is already involved in many 'peace keeping missions' so it shouldnt mind if Lisbon would want to take a more active role in 'peace keeping' the threat of terrorism in Europe. Lisbon will become ratified one way or another and Ireland has to accept that.

There is actually a difference between peace-keeping and invasion. I don't think anyone has been foolish enough to claim that the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan were peace-keeping, even though all sorts of other spurious claims were made. The operations that Ireland gets involved in are UN-authorised peace-keeping operations, and only those. Ireland will continue to engage only in that level and type of operation if Lisbon passes, and the more belligerent EU member states (particularly the UK) will continue to get involved in aggressive wars whether Lisbon passes or not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

worldrepublic

Scofflaw wrote: »

There is actually a difference between peace-keeping and invasion. I don't think anyone has been foolish enough to claim that the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan were peace-keeping, even though all sorts of other spurious claims were made. The operations that Ireland gets involved in are UN-authorised peace-keeping operations, and only those. Ireland will continue to engage only in that level and type of operation if Lisbon passes, and the more belligerent EU member states (particularly the UK) will continue to get involved in aggressive wars whether Lisbon passes or not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes Scofflaw but the point I made is that Ireland will have to play a much more pro-active role in the War on Terror and the Lisbon Treaty makes explicit reference to the matter of fighting terrorism, encouraging Europe to fight the Terrorist networks (which are real and exist on a global scale). This does not have to mean literally going to war, but we can contribute through more direct cooperation with the international intelligence agencies, become more attuned to the need for surveillance technologies, and think in terms of a civilian force, the kind that Obama very thoughtfully speaks of.

ei.sdraob

worldrepublic wrote: »

Yes Scofflaw but the point I made is that Ireland will have to play a much more pro-active role in the War on Terror and the Lisbon Treaty makes explicit reference to the matter of fighting terrorism, encouraging Europe to fight the Terrorist networks (which are real and exist on a global scale). This does not have to mean literally going to war, but we can contribute through more direct cooperation with the international intelligence agencies, become more attuned to the need for surveillance technologies, and think in terms of a civilian force, the kind that Obama very thoughtfully speaks of.

what does Ireland have to do with bad joke of a "war on terror"? let the yankees and the brits clean their own mess


or for that matter why did you bring up the "war on drugs"?

what are we the 51st state? bad enough they allowed shannon to be used for questionable uses, so we really need to follow the americans on every fool hearted attempt they make in their quest for more profits and power

i like irelands neutrality quite fine, and im happy Lisbon wont change that

we have our own "terrorists" (criminals and murders would be a better name) right here in ireland to deal with but im not gonna go down that discussion, everyone here knows who im talking about

worldrepublic

ei.sdraob, I am shocked. The Lisbon Treaty and European leaders fully support the War on Terror, as they rightly should, as pointed out by one of our fellow posters:

There's plenty of mentions of "terrorism" and the fight against it in the Lisbon Treaty.

Articles 28B, 61H, 69B, 69G.


Quote:
"
ARTICLE 28 B

1. The tasks referred to in Article 28 A(1), in the course of which the Union may use
civilian and military means, shall include joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and
rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping
tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making and post-conflict
stabilisation. All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by
supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories.

Accepting the Lisbon Treaty also means accepting the War on Terror. and doing what we can to fight the terrorist networks -this is a global issue and Ireland must face the reality that everyone is part of a global community. The point of the War on Terror, as indicated by the Lisbon Treaty, is to bring Peace and Democracy to the world. Not only European leaders, but also President Obama, have spoken many times about the ever-growing problem of terrorism and terrorists.

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

ei.sdraob, I am shocked. The Lisbon Treaty and European leaders fully support the War on Terror, as they rightly should, as pointed out by one of our fellow posters:

There's plenty of mentions of "terrorism" and the fight against it in the Lisbon Treaty.

Articles 28B, 61H, 69B, 69G.


Quote:
"
ARTICLE 28 B

1. The tasks referred to in Article 28 A(1), in the course of which the Union may use
civilian and military means, shall include joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and
rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping
tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making and post-conflict
stabilisation. All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by
supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories.

Accepting the Lisbon Treaty also means accepting the War on Terror. and doing what we can to fight the terrorist networks -this is a global issue and Ireland must face the reality that everyone is part of a global community. The point of the War on Terror, as indicated by the Lisbon Treaty, is to bring Peace and Democracy to the world. Not only European leaders, but also President Obama, have spoken many times about the ever-growing problem of terrorism and terrorists.

No its people like you scaremongering and telling us terrorists are behind every bush and rock that is the problem. Its exactly what the terrorists want for us to be in fear, the best part is they don't even have to do anything. Our own fear will consume us. Please stop bringing up Obama and this anti-terrorist propoganda in each of your posts, it is off topic and tiresome. Ireland isn't equipped to deal with this 'war on terror' and wants to remain neutral, let them. They help out with UN peacekeeping missions across the world, which is enough for a small country such as Ireland.

P. Breathnach

worldrepublic wrote: »

ei.sdraob, I am shocked. The Lisbon Treaty and European leaders fully support the War on Terror, as they rightly should, as pointed out by one of our fellow posters:

There's plenty of mentions of "terrorism" and the fight against it in the Lisbon Treaty.

Articles 28B, 61H, 69B, 69G.


Quote:
"
ARTICLE 28 B

1. The tasks referred to in Article 28 A(1), in the course of which the Union may use
civilian and military means, shall include joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and
rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping
tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making and post-conflict
stabilisation. All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by
supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories.

Accepting the Lisbon Treaty also means accepting the War on Terror. and doing what we can to fight the terrorist networks -this is a global issue and Ireland must face the reality that everyone is part of a global community. The point of the War on Terror, as indicated by the Lisbon Treaty, is to bring Peace and Democracy to the world. Not only European leaders, but also President Obama, have spoken many times about the ever-growing problem of terrorism and terrorists.

There is a not-so-subtle piece of morphing here, from the "fight against terrorism" to the "War on Terror", which latter was a label adopted by the Bush administration for a particular approach which many of us in the western world do not endorse.

djpbarry

worldrepublic wrote: »

Yes Scofflaw but the point I made is that Ireland will have to play a much more pro-active role in the War on Terror...

I think you’ll find that the use of Shannon in the so-called “War on Terror” is considered too great an involvement by many in this country, so I doubt you’ll find too much support for a “much more pro-active role”.

worldrepublic wrote: »

Accepting the Lisbon Treaty also means accepting the War on Terror.

Bollocks.

I tried to come up with a more articulate dismissal of that statement. I really did.

tlev

djpbarry wrote: »

Bollocks.

I tired to come up with a more articulate dismissal of that statement. I really did.

Sometimes the best rebuttal is short and sweet...:D:P

O'Morris

worldrepublic wrote:

Accepting the Lisbon Treaty also means accepting the War on Terror.

It shouldn't be forgotten that two EU member states were the victims of attacks by muslim terrorists. Spain's enemies are our enemies.

worldrepublic

O'Morris wrote: »

It shouldn't be forgotten that two EU member states were the victims of attacks by muslim terrorists. Spain's enemies are our enemies.

Yes, the terrorists actually attacked London as well slaughtering innocents and children, not to mention all the poor dead soldiers coming back to Europe in body bags. It is absolutely vital that Ireland support rendition, peace-keeping, surveillance technologies, and form a civilian force. This will bring us in to line with the European and global agendas, and moreover it will secure oil and energy for our future generations so that they will have hope and change. Britain is actually an exemplary participant in the fight against the terrorists and terror networks that we all just know are everywhere now. It is only a matter of time before Ireland given it's strategic geographical position is infiltrated. We need to start the fight now, and voting yes will allow us to do this in the terms of the Treaty.

BluntGuy

worldrepublic wrote: »

ei.sdraob, I am shocked. The Lisbon Treaty and European leaders fully support the War on Terror, as they rightly should, as pointed out by one of our fellow posters:

There's plenty of mentions of "terrorism" and the fight against it in the Lisbon Treaty.

Articles 28B, 61H, 69B, 69G.


Quote:
"
ARTICLE 28 B

1. The tasks referred to in Article 28 A(1), in the course of which the Union may use
civilian and military means, shall include joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and
rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping
tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making and post-conflict
stabilisation. All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by
supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories.

Accepting the Lisbon Treaty also means accepting the War on Terror. and doing what we can to fight the terrorist networks -this is a global issue and Ireland must face the reality that everyone is part of a global community. The point of the War on Terror, as indicated by the Lisbon Treaty, is to bring Peace and Democracy to the world. Not only European leaders, but also President Obama, have spoken many times about the ever-growing problem of terrorism and terrorists.

I'm sorry, even as "no" voter I would find it hard to cite this as a rationale for voting "no".

"Accepting the Lisbon Treaty also means accepting the War on Terror".

It really doesn't.

In reality, all that article is doing is explicitly stating something that will happen anyway, regardless of the whether the treaty is accepted or not.

worldrepublic

"all that article is doing is explicitly stating something that will happen anyway"

I agree insofar as the War on Terror is global and as such is an inevitability that must take absolute precedence. The Treaty is predicated on and responds to global trends. We to, in Ireland, will join the fight to stop the Terrorists from taking over.

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

Britain is actually an exemplary participant in the fight against the terrorists and terror networks that we all just know are everywhere now. It is only a matter of time before Ireland given it's strategic geographical position is infiltrated. We need to start the fight now, and voting yes will allow us to do this in the terms of the Treaty.

Like the time they shot that unarmed Brazilian man? That was exemplary in its stupidity.

This is paranoia at its finest. Seeing terrorists everywhere, it is exactly the same as the Stasi and KGB seeing anti-communist activists in everyone.

ei.sdraob

tlev wrote: »

Like the time they shot that unarmed Brazilian man? That was exemplary in its stupidity.

This is paranoia at its finest. Seeing terrorists everywhere, it is exactly the same as the Stasi and KGB seeing anti-communist activists in everyone.

That was a shocking and despicable incident

pumping a man full of bullets in front of other people just because he looked "dodgy"

then again why dont they do that here, there are plenty of parts of dublin and limerick where being shot is the least some of the "dodgy looking" scumbag criminals operating there deserve

i kid i kid


anyways i dont get whats @worldrepublic preoccupation with "war on XYZ"? its a yet another pointless exercise by the americans and their dogs

leave Ireland out of it!

Scofflaw

worldrepublic wrote: »

"all that article is doing is explicitly stating something that will happen anyway"

I agree insofar as the War on Terror is global and as such is an inevitability that must take absolute precedence. The Treaty is predicated on and responds to global trends. We to, in Ireland, will join the fight to stop the Terrorists from taking over.

Just a note, worldrepublic - you're pulling rather too much of the discussion on these forums into a discussion of terrorism and the "war on terror". Perhaps you could start a single thread for that discussion?

moderately,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

To everyone who's saying "we're not being forced into voting again, we're voting again because people didn't understand it last time" - do you think that, if the treaty had passed, and the polls afterwards also showed that people didn't understand it, would it be clarified and the people given a chance to reject it once it had been clarified?

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To everyone who's saying "we're not being forced into voting again, we're voting again because people didn't understand it last time" - do you think that, if the treaty had passed, and the polls afterwards also showed that people didn't understand it, would it be clarified and the people given a chance to reject it once it had been clarified?

No.

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

Just a note, worldrepublic - you're pulling rather too much of the discussion on these forums into a discussion of terrorism and the "war on terror". Perhaps you could start a single thread for that discussion?

moderately,
Scofflaw

I wonder what will happen when the EU formulates its policy on terrorism. Will that be anyone who fundamentally disagrees with their EU ideology? The ideology that will not accept anything but the answer they want despite commitments to do otherwise.;)

All the laws are in place and they never have to ask the people again. If they don't get their way by the parliament they can do it by the courts.

If your not with Europe your against it and therefore an ideological terrorist inciting 'hatred of europe' crimes.

oscarBravo

rumour wrote: »

I wonder what will happen when the EU formulates its policy on terrorism. Will that be anyone who fundamentally disagrees with their EU ideology? The ideology that will not accept anything but the answer they want despite commitments to do otherwise.;)

All the laws are in place and they never have to ask the people again. If they don't get their way by the parliament they can do it by the courts.

If your not with Europe your against it and therefore an ideological terrorist inciting 'hatred of europe' crimes.

That whole post fall squarely into my "making stuff up" category.

rumour

oscarBravo wrote: »

That whole post fall squarely into my "making stuff up" category.

Fair enough, but I did think we signed up to a treaty somewhere along the line that siad if all the countries of the EU don't agree it will not go forward. Now it appears that version of europe has been abondoned and someone wants to change it.
We voted and siad 'no', why is that just not acceptable period. Isn't that what the current arrangements say?

I'm not making this up this did happen.

ixtlan

rumour wrote: »

Fair enough, but I did think we signed up to a treaty somewhere along the line that siad if all the countries of the EU don't agree it will not go forward. Now it appears that version of europe has been abondoned and someone wants to change it.
We voted and siad 'no', why is that just not acceptable period. Isn't that what the current arrangements say?

I'm not making this up this did happen.

Oh... it's getting tiring responding to these posts.

Ireland didn't agree to Lisbon. It did NOT go forward.

We voted no. Does that mean we never want any more treaties? Do you really believe the EU is perfect as is and can successfuly manage into the distant future with no changes? Don't you feel you and everyone in Ireland needs to discuss WHY we voted no? Don't you think it is possible to resolve some of the issues people had with the treaty?

The Irish government and the EU have tried to address the concerns most no-voters had and indeed the main one was lack of knowledge.

Did you approve of Ian Paisleys attitude and policy of no negotiation? No means no. Forever. Was that an inspiring way to behave? Should we as a nation aspire to that. Say no... walk away from the table and never speak to the others again?

ix.