How Pacifism looks to those abroad

Yet we think we have some superior moral vision, some superior example to lecture others on.

Well, Oz certainly does anyway.

I wonder what he’d make of Ukrainian and Russian pacifists, or was the tweet just another attempt to appear morally superior to others who don’t share his political beliefs…

Certainly looks like it 😒

Ukraine was a peaceful country for 30 years of its existence. They chose peace they liked it just like we do. By virtue of their unfortunate geography and geopolitical importance they ended up with war.

Just remember the only reason we live in a peaceful society at this point in time with a remote threat of invasion is because of our favourable geography strategic insignificance and lack of currently belligerent expansionist neighbours. It has nothing to do with any unique pacifist tendencies or clever unique neutrality policy. Long may the sun shine for us and that situation continue.

To have prominent people associated with elected persons in this country wilfully ignore these realities and say that both sides can just choose peace absolutely undermines their credibility when one side clearly has no intention of it.

Prominent people associated with elected persons in a country could well be assumed to be representative of a large body of opinion within that country. I certainly don’t want to be associated with or represented by such clueless naivety.

Just watching the gameplaying going on over Taiwan at the minute and imagining the arguments here when war/conflict inevitaby breaks out in a few years - 'NATO is a defensive organisation', 'The Chinese struck first' etc etc etc when the reality is much more complex and nuanced and the gameplaying by NATO's most powerful is forgotten, wilfully or otherwise.

We don't want to be involved in that - simple. It's not wholly pacifism, it is an attempt to have some semblance of morals in a world not of our making.

That the powerswap have continually watered down our neutrality is another topic really. I wonder if it was put to a plebiscite what our continued policy should be, how that one would go.

100% agree.

I like this tweet from him.

Plenty of these 'fools' as Oz Katerji states here on boards.ie waffling away.

Oh look, more Conspiracy nonsense....

Here is news to you Francie. Taiwan is not part of NATO... but I guess if or when China invades you will be there licking your lips at the thought of another authoritarian regime suppressing a free country.

You would happily see genocide and death in another country so long as FF/FG or the Brits/Americans get a bloody nose, in fact, you would welcome it.

No, quite wrong.

Taiwan is just another tragic pawn in a game, like Ukraine was IMO. Both not being in NATO allows the game to go on without all out war.

I have made clear that Russia as an invader is the worst offender. And I cannot be any clearer about that.

I also never said Taiwan was in NATO, not sure why you are railing about that.

How can it be a 'conspiracy theory' when it is happening right now in front of you?

Jaysus, I'm pro Bejing now.

Ignoring this as you have nothing as a counter argument but invective and bile.

The 'game' is to keep conflict going mark.

And you know how arms companies see conflict...as 'oppurtunities for growth'. I showed you that 'evidence' straight from the horses mouth. I also showed you evidence that these compaines have undue influence on government policy, most notably in those countries engaged in the current game playing over Taiwan.

I'm not sure if 'black suits' are de riguer in the dress code of these companies. I'll have to check.

Good call. Note how he doesn't say a bad word about China and their regime or their war games, but has plenty of nonsense to say about Taiwan and the US.

A democratic country wants to remain free from the outside influence of another country that would take them over if they could and some people think the democratic country should negotiate with the invading country for their freedom. does that sum it up?

his post is misleading , he ignores that the Zelensky regime antagonised Russia. Its' not a commentary on the rights or wrongs of the Russian invasion but his tweet makes it our that Ukraine was just plodding along and Russia invaded "just because".... and this isn't true.

as for the point of the OP , I've no interest in policing the world as per what current thinking believes is correct or not. lets sort our Irelands interests first instead of involving ourselves with other affairs. it's not like we have some deep attachment to ukraine.

I am certainly not saying that. Once Russia invaded in 2014 they should have been treated as a pariah state and shunned by us and everyone else.

But we know that didn't happen. As Reginauld Maudling once remarked about Ireland, 'we have an acceptable level of violence'.

Seems there was 'an acceptable level of invasion' to me. Most notable, when we, trotted over to Moscow looking for a favour off them.

Maybe if the current level of sanctions and reaction had been brought to bear then, the full invasion might have been avoided.

the irony of that seems to be lost on them

so you disagree with those who think that Ukraine should negotiate a peace with russia?

I said so several times on the Sabina thread. The time is not right for negotiations. However if it develops into a stalemate as the IT article Sabina was responding to said, then yes, of course a negotiatied settlement is the right option to save lives. Same as happened here in Ireland, an agreement I fully support to this day.

A ridiculous take. Not worthy of a response tbh.

So not one name of someone who 'wants to keep conflict going'....

Thought so.

Busted flush. That is what happens when Conspiracies meet reality.

Just to put this to bed this is an interesting article on the Conspiracy Theory that all this stuff, about Ukraine and Taiwan, is created by a group who 'want to keep conflict' going.

In the absence of actual proof and evidence to the contrary anyone who spouts the guff about 'keeping the conflict going' is a whacky conspiracy theorist..

Now let's move on to the OP topic at hand.

See my post above. It's clear you are a barking mad conspiracy theorist when it comes to the boogey man of the arms industry and their 'influence'.

Can you repudiate the figures in the OS article. All eyes here if you can.

Quite clear that there is much hypocrisy at play. Which IMO leaves any talk of 'motives' open to question.

I never denied that there is an arms industry, I never denied that.

However, that is not your initial claim.

Your claim is that there is some sort of secret cabal of people out there with huge influence in order to 'keep conflict going'. That somehow they are powerful enough to get the Speak of the House to jet off to Taiwan and get the CCP to conduct war games, to up their share price.

That is your point of view and nothing you have posted has proven this theory. Therefore you're a conspiracy nut.

As the Forbes article mentions 1% of US GDP is tied up in Arms manufacturing. They must not be good at their jobs in this 'keeping conflict going' Francie.