Netanyahu in Shannon

ynotdu

wes wrote: »

What are you on about? How would extraordinary rendition have helped in that instance? Seriously care to explain how it would have helped? As what your saying doeesn't make any sense whatsoever, and you seem to be despretately trying to excuse one groups actions by invoking the others, when both are clearly wrong.



Well, thats one way of looking at it, but putting on a uniform, when the other guy has overwhelming miltary superiority, could also be considered stupid btw.

Wes You cannot have misunderstood that intellectually I was not defending extraordinary rendition,In circumstances of Losing your 'own' though most armys would/have done it.
I am not excusing it in the least,I am just trying to understand it{These things are easy to intelectualise when NOT in a war zone,Not so easy to be 'politicly correct'about if it is Your own that are dying by sinister methods.

The Taliban member who killed five troops and injured at least four others{the news channels are just showing the wounded arriaving back in England} is said by the Taliban to be 'safely'back in their hands?
So What do the Taliban want? obviously NOT what is best for their Country{a properly elected Govt with the support of its population and army?}
They want power of the Country again in order to return it to the most oppressed Country on Earth and a production line for World terrorism religious oppression and drugs(as it was when they controlled it)

for Evil to triumph all it takes is for 'good'people to ignore it.

lucernarian

The Saint wrote: »

Wow. I don't think I've seen such a fundamental lack of understanding of what the UN is and how it works here in quite a while.

A typical flustered post as seen on the politics forum. Lots of indignation instead of offering an actual countering argument. Instead of treating people like they're ignorant, why don't you prove your own lack of it??

wes

ynotdu wrote: »

Wes You cannot have misunderstood that intellectually I was not defending extraordinary rendition,In circumstances of Losing your 'own' though most armys would/have done it.

I am not excusing it in the least,I am just trying to understand it{These things are easy to intelectualise when NOT in a war zone,Not so easy to be 'politicly correct'about if it is Your own that are dying by sinister methods.

Political correctness has nothing to do with it.

The US signed up to adhere to various treaties and laws etc, and they have there own laws etc to adhere to. What they did, with extraordindary rendition and torture, went against standards and laws they helped come with. I am judging the US by there own self proclaimed standards, not standards that I invented, but one they came up with. Standards that they have in the past used to justify invading/sanctioning etc other countries over. By doing what they did the US destroyed there own legitimacy, as well as being the best recruiter for there enemies.

It really is rather simple, if you start acting like a 3rd world dictatorship, by running around kidnapping and torturing innocent people, then don't be surprised when people feel you no better than them. Having wonderful values is worthless if there abandoned at the drop of a hat.

ynotdu wrote: »

The Taliban member who killed five troops and injured at least four others{the news channels are just showing the wounded arriaving back in England} is said by the Taliban to be 'safely'back in their hands?
So What do the Taliban want? obviously NOT what is best for their Country{a properly elected Govt with the support of its population and army?}

I am not saying the Taliban shouldn't be fought, just that the US shouldn't be kidnapping innocent people, which doesn't help against the Taliban and in fact helps swell there ranks.

ynotdu wrote: »

They want power of the Country again in order to return it to the most oppressed Country on Earth and a production line for World terrorism religious oppression and drugs(as it was when they controlled it)

The Taliban got rid of the drugs actually, opium has made a big come back after the US invasion.

Again, I fail to see how extraordinary rendition or torture of innocent people help figth the Taliban. Those things just seem to help them more than anything.

ynotdu wrote: »

for Evil to triumph all it takes is for 'good'people to ignore it.

How does kidnapping and torturing innocent people fight "evil"? Hell, it kind of seems "evil" to kidnap and torture innocent people imho. Shouldn't we therefore oppose the "evil" or kidnapping and torture of people, as well as the "evil" of the Taliban then?

**EDIT**
Taught I would throw in my own quote:

“What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.”
W. H. Auden

ynotdu

Wes when the USA troops were 'caught' breaking the rules of war in Iraq and Afghanistan they were 'brought to task' I am sure MANY voilations of the rules went undiscovered by the US,but how can you deal with an 'enemy' that has no rules?

I accept your point that the Taliban was NOT encouraging drug pushing when they were in power{women wearing the Bhurka,girls could not go to school etc,etc about their 'morality'} Stangely though drugs and terrorism were still 'getting by' the Taliban 'moral police'

What would You have done about the Taliban?

wes

ynotdu wrote: »

Wes when the USA troops were 'caught' breaking the rules of war in Iraq and Afghanistan they were 'brought to task' I am sure MANY voilations of the rules went undiscovered by the US,but how can you deal with an 'enemy' that has no rules?

Your ignoring the fact that no one has been put in prison, for extraordinary rendition and torture in Guantanamo. These things were known about, at the highest levels.

As for a enemy with that has no rules, well when you have the US deciding certain rules don't apply when it suits them, I don't see much of a difference.

ynotdu wrote: »

I accept your point that the Taliban was NOT encouraging drug pushing when they were in power{women wearing the Bhurka,girls could not go to school etc,etc about their 'morality'} Stangely though drugs and terrorism were still 'getting by' the Taliban 'moral police'

The Taliban did nothing to stop terrorism btw.

They did however, do a lot to stop the drugs when in power. They of course couldn't stop all of it, they aren't all powerful. Western nations with a hell of a lot more money can't stop drugs, so the Taliban not stopping it completely should come as no surprise.

ynotdu wrote: »

What would You have done about the Taliban?

Well, for one I wouldn't kidnap innocent people and torture them, and as a result help swell the ranks of the Taliban. I, also wouldn't have engaged in a illegal war of aggression against Iraq, in a futile search for imaginary WMD's and to fight some DC comics super villans.

What I would have done, was follow international law while fighting the Taliban and build stronger relations with allies, and get them to provide more help in fighting the self same Taliban, and using all the extra cash to help build up Afghanistan, to turn the average guy on the street against the Taliban, as when he has a job and can feed his family, people are less bothered about fighting for some pointless cause.

**EDIT**
Just to add, I could care less about the Taliban, there a bunch of scum bags imho. However, just because there scum bags, doesn't give other people the right to start acting that way as well.

ynotdu

wes wrote: »

Your ignoring the fact that no one has been put in prison, for extraordinary rendition and torture in Guantanamo. These things were known about, at the highest levels.

As for a enemy with that has no rules, well when you have the US deciding certain rules don't apply when it suits them, I don't see much of a difference.



The Taliban did nothing to stop terrorism btw.

They did however, do a lot to stop the drugs when in power. They of course couldn't stop all of it, they aren't all powerful. Western nations with a hell of a lot more money can't stop drugs, so the Taliban not stopping it completely should come as no surprise.



Well, for one I wouldn't kidnap innocent people and torture them, and as a result help swell the ranks of the Taliban. I, also wouldn't have engaged in a illegal war of aggression against Iraq, in a futile search for imaginary WMD's and to fight some DC comics super villans.

What I would have done, was follow international law while fighting the Taliban and build stronger relations with allies, and get them to provide more help in fighting the self same Taliban, and using all the extra cash to help build up Afghanistan, to turn the average guy on the street against the Taliban, as when he has a job and can feed his family, people are less bothered about fighting for some pointless cause.

Guantanomo was/is a disgrace,as Donald Rumsfeld said it's full of unknown unknowns:){his batty way of excusing the excess's of SOME troops.
The Bush administration did many outrageous and stupid things.Colin Powell would not serve a second term because he knew he was given misinformation to feed the UN about WMD's in Iraq.

Allies chose their own response,it made no diffrience Bali,Spain,UK,USA and more all got a taste of what AQ/Taliban would like to do the west in general: ie WIPE it out!

I know the Taliban did NOTHING about terrorism except to encourage it btw.

International Law is fine and should be respected.....easior said than done though by a soldier who has seen his buddy's guts hanging out.

The Saint

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

A typical flustered post as seen on the politics forum. Lots of indignation instead of offering an actual countering argument. Instead of treating people like they're ignorant, why don't you prove your own lack of it??

Well I thought it was pretty self-evident.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I think I will question the jobs and agendas of bueraucrats who are thousands of miles from every situation they may be of use in (except Yugoslavia, and still made no difference anyway). Oh whoops, what did I just do...

Firstly, the UN are on the ground and have field offices in many of these places that you say they should be operating in many capacities; WFP, UNICEF, UNRWA, OCHA, etc.

Secondly, from your post you infer that the UN should be taking actions against attrocities in different parts of the world, ie. Yugoslavia/Bosnia. This is where the most blatant misunderstanding of the UN lays. The UN has no power to take military action. It has to be mandated by the Security Council. That is the member states of the Security Council, not the UN itself. This is why the UN didn't do anything in Bosnia, Russia threatened a veto for UN mandated intervention (Sharon, as foreign minister under Netanyahu, also opposed intervention in Kosovo incidentally saying that it would never support the establishment of an Albanian state. In an interview in Belgrade he stated that "we stand together with you against the Islamic terror"). Anyway, the vested interests in this context are the permanent members of the Security Council.

Lastly, do you dismiss every report from the UN because you believe, for some reason, that they are serving the interests of bureaucrats? Why don't you look at the validity of the reports themselves instead of dismissing them out of hand. Thesse reports tend to be written by people operating in the areas they are investigating so say that they are compiled/investigated/written by bureaucrats thousands of miles away is just not true.

wes

ynotdu wrote: »

Guantanomo was/is a disgrace,as Donald Rumsfeld said it's full of unknown unknowns:){his batty way of excusing the excess's of SOME troops.
The Bush administration did many outrageous and stupid things.Colin Powell would not serve a second term because he knew he was given misinformation to feed the UN about WMD's in Iraq.

The fact still remains that the US has brought no one to justice for Iraq or Guantanamo.

ynotdu wrote: »

Allies chose their own response,it made no diffrience Bali,Spain,UK,USA and more all got a taste of what AQ/Taliban would like to do the west in general: ie WIPE it out!

Neither has the capability to wipe out the West, and have been spectacular failures all round.

ynotdu wrote: »

I know the Taliban did NOTHING about terrorism except to encourage it btw.

That they did.

ynotdu wrote: »

International Law is fine and should be respected.....easior said than done though by a soldier who has seen his buddy's guts hanging out.

Then perhaps they shouldn't be soldiers if they can't handle it.

Of course, once again this can be turned around. Lets say some dirt poor farmer whose brother was "renditioned" off to parts unknown and tortured to death. Maybe, he might go looking for a spot of revenge against those responsible.

lucernarian

I'm well aware of Security Council issues and weaknesses. But they're a fundamental organ of the UN, which is a basis for my point to show how ineffectual the UN's mandate are. You can't say that the UN would be good but for one body, when that body happens to be the main decision-making body when it comes to direct intervention in conflicts.

Field offices are useless when they're for observation and for reporting back to said bueraucrats in NY/Geneva.

Your last point is more valid, but they are self-serving in that when different wings/divisions are competing for the same scarce resources, their own story is going to be hyped up or dramaticised in order to keep them in jobs/busy/in funding for whatever research they do. I'm not saying that all the work is faulty or fraudulent. Saying that self-serving interests aren't present in the creators of the multitudes of reports would be naive however.

dlofnep

ynotdu wrote: »

The OP,s question was about Netanyahu.He is the Democraticly elected Leader of Israel, even if it puts a sour taste in Irish peoples mouth that He should be made welcome in this Country well TOUGH!

So, on that premise - Should Adolf Hitler have been welcomed in Ireland? Afterall, he was also a democratically elected leader. I'm not sure where your logic comes from.

Netanyahu should not be welcomed. Not when he routinely breaks international law with settlement expansion, breaches of basic human rights, and implementing policies resulting in the slaughter of innocent civilians.

Welcome me hole.

dlofnep

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Only problem I have with this kind of thing my friend is when people assume that you are dealing with like minded people.

The fact is that there are countrys all over the Globe that are piss poor, where the women do any work that there is and the men go round acting the big fellas with their AK 47's or whatever.

Then you have the "mad cleric" types spreading hate and whipping these fellas into a frenzy with promises of all sorts of afterlife goodies.

Look at Zimbabwe - transformed from being the breadbasket of Africa to a fear ridden poverty stricken state while Bobby Boy lives it up in luxury at the expense of "his people"..

There are plenty of very good reasons for America or indeed any country with balls to go in and take out these scumbags....

I see you conveniently looked over the fact that these men were never found guilty of anything, and were not convicted by a jury. They were snatched from their families, where many have already proven to have been innocent (RE: Gitmo)

ynotdu

about Hitler Dlofnep, ask a descendant of Devalera who signed the book of condolences upon hearing of his death.
That must have been 'our finest hour' as a Democracy:rolleyes:

There have been far shadior characters 'welcomed to Ireland'

The Saint

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I'm well aware of Security Council issues and weaknesses. But they're a fundamental organ of the UN, which is a basis for my point to show how ineffectual the UN's mandate are. You can't say that the UN would be good but for one body, when that body happens to be the main decision-making body when it comes to direct intervention in conflicts.

Yes it is an inherent weakness in the UN. However, it was purposely structured like this in San Francisco by the victorious powers of WWII. You can't blame the UN for actions not taken by permanent SC members. I believe that the Security Council needs fundamental reform. While the SC is the organ of the UN that deals with international peace and security, it isn't the only organ of the UN, many of which do vital work.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Field offices are useless when they're for observation and for reporting back to said bueraucrats in NY/Geneva.

Why? How are the decision makers supposed to get information to base policy on then? That's like saying that a minister for health can't make policy unless they live and work in a hospital all the time. How would you propose it should work? Also these operations also deal with provision of food, services, protection, etc.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Your last point is more valid, but they are self-serving in that when different wings/divisions are competing for the same scarce resources, their own story is going to be hyped up or dramaticised in order to keep them in jobs/busy/in funding for whatever research they do. I'm not saying that all the work is faulty or fraudulent. Saying that self-serving interests aren't present in the creators of the multitudes of reports would be naive however.

Can you provide any evidence to illustrate your assertion that these reports are hyped up? Any evidence at all from a credible source would be appreciated. Surely if this were the case then these reports would soon lose credibility and would damage the image organisation. I'm not saying it never happens but I would think it is very rare. UN reports tend to be quite sober and not full of hype. They tend to deal with facts and tend to be quite dull to read. I know, I've read enough of them.

bonkey

dlofnep wrote: »

So, on that premise - Should Adolf Hitler have been welcomed in Ireland? Afterall, he was also a democratically elected leader. I'm not sure where your logic comes from.

He should certainly have been allowed in (if not welcomed), up until the point when WW2 broke out. There was no international embargo on his nation, there was no war...there was no reason to prevent him access.

Furing WW2, we would have had / should have had two choices - allow the leaders of any and all nations entrance to teh country, or allow none. Either option, as a neutral party, would have been valid.

After WW2 is a moot point...Hitler was dead.

There is no valid reason for Ireland, as a neutral nation, to not allow Netanyahu in.

dlofnep

bonkey wrote: »

He should certainly have been allowed in (if not welcomed), up until the point when WW2 broke out. There was no international embargo on his nation, there was no war...there was no reason to prevent him access.

Furing WW2, we would have had / should have had two choices - allow the leaders of any and all nations entrance to teh country, or allow none. Either option, as a neutral party, would have been valid.

After WW2 is a moot point...Hitler was dead.

There is no valid reason for Ireland, as a neutral nation, to not allow Netanyahu in.

You'll notice the I stated welcomed, not 'allowed'. As a global leader, he can enter Ireland if he pleases. That wasn't not my point. My point was that he should not be welcomed, and the Irish people should protest where possible to outline their utter disgust at his treatment of the Palestinian people.

diverdriver

So, on that premise - Should Adolf Hitler have been welcomed in Ireland?

I invoke Godwins law, ergo you have lost the argument. Your views on Israel are well known but your comparison is invalid.

Don Diego

diverdriver wrote: »

I invoke Godwins law, ergo you have lost the argument. Your views on Israel are well known but your comparison is invalid.

Fail. Godwin's law doesn't say whether a reference/comparison to Hitler is valid, only that it becomes more likley the longer the discussion. It's a bit of a cop out to use it like that to avoid argueing the point.