Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Are Mick Wallace and Clare Daly Irelands greatest shame?

145679

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 827 ✭✭✭farmingquestion


    This is the truth.

    Mick is just pointing a mirror at us.

    The US go on about sovereignty and borders yet they've bombed how many countries at this stage?

    But somehow when the US do it, it's "different".

    The US don't spend so much on the military just for defence!



  • Registered Users Posts: 827 ✭✭✭farmingquestion


    Do you support democracy or not?

    Like it or not, he got the votes to be elected.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Do you think 49.7% turnout is a healthy representation of the Democratic process? IIRC in the UK it was even lower and under 40%.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,337 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    I'm sure Pixel does, based on who they tend to praise I'm not so sure about those two however...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,600 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    Quick look over there!!


    Do you think the America’s Middle East policies gives justification for Putin and his merry band to bomb, rape, murder torture etc etc women and children in Ukraine???????



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,422 ✭✭✭mikethecop


    maybe your right but on the other hand i don't like him because he is a fraudster a thief a liar and and criminal, also a paid propaganda mouthpiece for a number of the worlds worst despots.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,298 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    If Russia invade the Left call for peace and end to NATO.


    If Russia was invaded they would call for solidarity and an international brigade.


    If the Red Army starts moving through Ukraine more quickly it'll be quite on the peace calls.



  • Registered Users Posts: 827 ✭✭✭farmingquestion


    Choosing not to vote is democracy too. It's not like 50.3% of people were locked up on polling day.

    Remember local elections happen on the same day AFAIR so am I allowed to ask how an elected councillor can and should be removed from their position because I don't like them?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,216 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    He doesn't. He creates simplistic narratives whereby the same basket of countries are always the villains of every situation.

    I protested the Iraq war. People like Wallace are fanatics and Putin apologists who have no objectivity, all they do is echo the same cherry-picked historical excuses, reductionism and victimhood of dictatorships and tyrannical regimes the world over.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,489 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout



    If Mick Wallace is going to hold a mirror up to anyone, it should be himself. That's not a jibe at the way he chooses to present himself. It's a jibe at a man who puts himself on a moral platform while there is clear evidence that his own morals are highly suspect - especially with regard to his personal finances and those of his companies, past and present.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,489 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout



    No. It's not. People despise him because of the gargantuan blind-spot he has for various odious authoritarian regimes. That's not brave. That's being a hack.

    Contrast him instead with someone like Bernie Sanders. He calls out tyranny regardless of what "side" they are on. He's been openly critical of American allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia for their crimes whilst also calling out Russia, Iran Syria and China. Bernie Sanders actually has integrity. He stands for principles.

    Mick Wallace hears a story and first thing he asks is "Who did that" so that he can position himself depending on that rather than the facts of the incident. That's not integrity. That's partisanship.

    I respect Bernie Sanders. I despise Mick Wallace.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,868 ✭✭✭Economics101


    Putin's war of aggression is in a different league to anything done by the US. The 2nd Iraq war may have been a bad mistake, but it was done to depose a regime with a proven record of aggression and the use of chemical weapons. Current US involvement in Syria is an attempt to counter Islamic State and to protect Syrians who don't want to be ruled by Assad. And who supported Assad by bombing cities, hospitals and so forth? - Putin's Russia, that's who.

    So enough of the whataboutery: no major power is without fault, but one in particular seems to have no redeeming features whatsoever.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    The issue is whether:

    A big power posed a threat to another big power? The US advancing NATO to Russians borders was considered a threat by Russia. We only have to consider how the US would respond,where the roles reversed to obtain our answer. The answer is: You bet.

    The question then is whether Russia has the right to defend herself in the event a neighbouring little power (Ukraine) is complicit in enabling the US to pose a threat to Russia. Again, the answer has to be, of course she has

    Russia is a gang member cornered in an alleyway by 3 members of an opposing gang. Ought the lone gang member strike first if that offers advantage? Or ought they wait for the 3 to pounce.


    I know what I'd do if I was the lone gang member. And I suggest that you'd be a deceased lone gang member if you figured differently!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    "Keeps attacking who?

    I think Clare and Mick see the West as the party who keeps attacking others - at least that's the objective demonstrable situation.

    You ever see a map of US military bases? Like strings of pearls around the neck of Russia and China.

    Seems only fair that they ought be allowed do the same thing. No?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,868 ✭✭✭Economics101


    This is total b*ll*x. NATO is already on Russia's borders in the form of the Baltic states, for one very simple reason - they fear for their lives. Poland is already on Russia's border (Kaliningrad). Why isn't Russia invading the Baltics and Poland? The reason is that Putin's ideology regards Ukraine as not a real country, just a part of Russia which has strayed, and whose existence as a successful liberal democracy would prove a lethal example for the Russian people.

    What Ukraine, Poland the Baltics the Finns have in common is a desperate need to defend themselves against a big predatory neighbour. The idea that somehow the US is pushing NATO's expansion is absurd: the push comes from those who are in mortal danger.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭McFly85


    Are the US invading other countries surrounding Russia and China and putting up military bases? Because if not then it’s not the same thing at all.

    The amount of truth stretching by some to justify a country invading and attacking another sovereign nation is astonishing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,216 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Hitler used the same excuse, that Germany was being "surrounded". The reality of course was that countries were creating a defensive pact because they directly feared an attack from Hitler's Germany, which was his real agenda, and precisely what occurred.

    Putin (and useful idiots like Wallace) use that type of rhetoric to portray Russia as a victim. The reality of course is the opposite.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,235 ✭✭✭realdanbreen


    Mick Wallace is also the guy who (through his company) pocketed the pension contributions his employees made,how funking low is that btw. Mick Wallace is the guy who's company was folded( while he lived it up ) owing hundreds of thousands of euros to small businesses many of which had to close.mick Wallaces rantings are regularly shown on Russian media in an effort to bolster the Russian atrocities in Ukraine. Mick Wallace is at best a hypocrite.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    In 2008, then ambassador to Russia, now head of the CIA, William Burns wrote a memo. It was entitles "Nyet means Nyet"

    A Nato move for Ukraine, he said, represented a red line for Russia. This after constant encroachment towards Russia by Nato following the breaking of a US promise to Gorbachov not to move so much as an inch eastwards.

    White man still speak with forked tongue.

    Russia gave no one reason to fear for their lives in the East. Sure, they swatted Georgia when Nato threatened entry via that channel bit hey, let's remember Cuba, huh?

    And you think Nato advanced eastwards because they gave a flying fart about protecting impoverished little nothing countries in the East. Latvia? Estonia? Romania?

    The objective reality is that the US wouldn't dream of letting a south American country (and there are many who have OBJECTIVE, DEMONSTRABLE reasons to fear the US) place Russian missiles on their soil. Have their armies trained and equipped to a standard that could go toe to toe with the US army.

    No. Way.

    And since no great power is going to let another advance as it likes, Nato knew that it's (your words) "desire to protect some little countries" from no discernible threat was going to bring it toe to toe with Russia.

    And here we are. With Nato scrabbling around to find ammo for goodness sake.

    You can hardly expect Russia to have sucked it up. I certainly don't. And so, whilst no great fan of Putin, I hope Nato gets shown the door.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,216 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    If Ukraine had joined NATO this war wouldn't be happening.

    No one wants to invade nuclear armed Russia. No one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    One man's freedom fighter (the US coming to protect impoverished little countries out of the goodness of its heart) is another man's terrorist.

    Reality: no big power will let another big power set up camp in its back yard. Ask Cuba.

    Russia is as entitled to act now as the US was then.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,216 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Russia is not entitled to invade Ukraine.

    Pointing to another invasion that took place decades or more ago doesn't validate it in any way shape or form. This is the type of whatboutery that Wallace and his ilk engage in.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,868 ✭✭✭Economics101


    @antiskeptic: you say: "A Nato move for Ukraine, he said, represented a red line for Russia. This after constant encroachment towards Russia by Nato following the breaking of a US promise to Gorbachov not to move so much as an inch eastwards.

    White man still speak with forked tongue.

    Russia gave no one reason to fear for their lives in the East. Sure, they swatted Georgia when Nato threatened entry via that channel bit hey, let's remember Cuba, huh?".

    Was there a promise to Gorbachev not to expand NATO? No, but there was a promise not to deploy non-German NATO forces in the former GDR - a totally different matter. This and related points can easily be confirmed: for example see: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

    I remember Cuba allright it was a bit like NATO installing nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in Finland, only about 100 miles from Petersburg.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,715 ✭✭✭corks finest


    Nearly as bad as MM and Leo the langer



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Yes the US has lots of bases everywhere but they react appallingly when the same happens to them, eg the Cuban missile crisis.

    The west is in a proxy war with our Russian friends so they are fighting Russia.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    One wonders (but not very much) if a coup has just happened in Muldova and if the US is behind it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,868 ✭✭✭Economics101


    How do you expect the US to react when the USSR installed nuclear-capable ballistic missiles 100 miles from Florida? Just roll over and accept a huge increase in threat levels and vulnerability? As I said above, the analogy might be with Finland allowing IRBMs within 100 miles of Leningrad. How would you expect the USSR to react?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    There actually WAS a promise not to advance NATO eastwards.

    That promise only relates to the moral element though..since promises can be broken.


    Ultimately, a big power can simply decide, for current reasons, that they don't want another big power on their doorstep. Its not a right and wrong thing or a legal thing. It's big power doing what big power does..

    You might also look up 'no means no', William Burns, US ambassador.

    That was a 2008 memo from the US ambassador to Russia warning his masters in the US that Ukraine was a redline. A warning from one big power to another. No means no.

    The US pressed ahead ... and here we are.

    Morally speaking I'm with Russia. The US is a demonstrable war mongering empire and anything that counters a war mongering empire is my friend.

    Simples..

    Post edited by antiskeptic on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,216 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    The US is a demonstrable war mongering empire and anything against that is my friend. Simples..

    This is exactly how Daly and Wallace think. Distilling countries down into "personalities" that are good or bad. Rishi Sunak, who's been UK PM for 18 minutes, is a hypocrite because Britain used to colonise nations. Biden can't criticise Russia because two decades prior someone from another party took a bad foreign policy decision. Germany can't stand against invasion because "Germany" invaded half of Europe.

    It's the equivalent of someone who "hates" a football team and supports anyone who plays against it. It's that level of tribal stupidity.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,868 ✭✭✭Economics101


    You are interpreting that NSA document as meaning the effectively the former East Germany would be de-militarised. ("No NATO"). I don't think anyone expected that.

    As for Ukraine being a red line, what do you think the annexation of Crimea and parts of the Donbas would cause? A scramble by Ukraine to seek whatever security it could from the West. Russia effectively pushed Ukraine into seeking NATO membership, just as it pushed Finland and Sweden more recently. These countries seek protection from a much bigger and not very friendly neighbour. The idea that they threaten to invade Russia is totally laughable: for a start their people would not stand for it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,414 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Russia signed the NATO Russia Founding Act which allows sovereign European nations to decide their own security arrangements.

    Russia also signed the Budapest Agreement with Ukraine as a sovereign nation.

    Therefore Russia has recognised the right therefore of Poland Ukraine etc to join NATO.

    So if you want to talk about broken promises - those signed treaties they trump and dwarf that.

    But that was probably hypocritical faux concern about promises.

    What Russia has done in Ukraine is imperial war mongering. It is a war of conquest and land grab. Textbook undeniable imperial war mongering.

    If they are your friends... then you are on the side of warmongers and empire.

    Anyone who is in favour of Russia is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Blinded by hatred of the US into siding with a country threatening nuclear war on Europe.

    Post edited by odyssey06 on

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,404 ✭✭✭✭vicwatson


    Certainly up the top



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,414 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Your understanding of geography is as lacking as your understanding of history.

    NATO was already in its back yard. Look at a map of the border of Russia and NATO countries.

    The NATO Russia Founding Act was designed to avoid a Cuba situation and reduce risk of escalation from stationing of offensive weapons systems.

    Russia freely signed it.

    Russia is not entitled to act precisley because of that treaty.

    That Russia has stripped its forces from NATO borders to fight in Ukraine shows it has no real fear of a NATO invasion. Proof positive it is a pack of lies used for propaganda purposes.

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/09/28/russia-ukraine-war-nato-eastern-flank-military-kaliningrad-baltic-finland/

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    "Whataboutery" is a cool Internet discussion forum catchall.

    It will go the way of once-popular phrases like 'intellectual dishonesty' and 'cognitive dissonance' (you'd have to be active in the 00's to remember them :) )

    They too were escape hatches...


    .....


    For those others, who are more rigorously inclined than seeking easy escape hatches..


    The Law (and a lot of the discussion rests on things like law and morality) is built on the concept of Precedence. What is seen as right then, is seen as right forever..

    And so, how the US responded back then is applicable now and forever. It was always so, long before and long after Cuba.

    The US had pushed Russia ever since the collapse of the USSR. You can even see it on a map.

    But they pushed just that bit too far and their opponent snapped back. Now, you could say the US wants this (perma war is their way - Heck, when they lose this war they'll say they need to build up the military for the threat that was bigger than even they imagined)

    But whether a Ukraine loss suits them or not, there is little doubt the US stuck a stick into a snakes den.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,489 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    I have noticed on both here and twitter that people who seem to propagate general disinformation and specifically Russian propaganda often have usernames that project an image that they are actually extremely sensible and logical. Basically any variations on:

    • truth /truthseeker /truthfinder
    • logic
    • reality
    • scientific/science
    • Analysis / Questioning / Skeptical

    I don't know if they are being aspirational or what but the irony of it always amuses me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,414 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Precedence...

    Russia had invaded countries of Europe including Ukraine how far back into history...

    And Russia via the USSR occupied how many of them even more recently than Cuba.

    So that means any country Russia has ever invaded or harmed or occupied has the perpetual right to do likewise.

    I think we can quite easily see your understanding of law to be fundamentally wrong. Slavery was once viewed as natural and right. So by your argument it must ever be thus.

    What a ridiculous argument, you contradict your own faux concerns in the same post.

    A justification for 'Perma War' if ever there was one.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Ditto the US. The only thing to break the stalemate is to perhaps distinguish what happened in the 12th century with more recent history.

    I've this game. It involves thinking of war where the major player was the US or Russia. You pick a war with the most deaths and work from there.

    Want to play?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,600 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    Who invaded Russia???


    What gives Russia the right to invade another country?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    If you mean me, I've been spouting Russian propaganda predominately in the Christian/Atheist forum for the last 10 years or so.

    (Yeah...didn't think you'd really investigated this issue.. like scientifically)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    What do you say to the actual transcript of the discussion as cited from the US national archives. Me, I tend not to dismiss the words that fall from a person's lips.

    Speaking of: a Mod on another forum said that 'no air' would be given to the view of anyone who took a contra pro-ukrainian view. He then banned me for trolling.

    I take the words that fell from his lips rather than the device he opted for in banning me

    Words matter. If not an inch eastwards then all the Harvard spinmeistering matters not a jot.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,414 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    It is obvious this is just a game to you alright and the fate of Ukrainians means nothing to you.

    You are unable to engage seriously when actual treaties such as the NATO Russia Founding Act or Budapest Agreement - treaties designed to deescalate risk of nuclear war - are mentioned. The most directly relevant treaties to the current situation.

    Instead you want to indulge these in these whataboutery games as intellectual excercises.

    The lack of foundation and seriousness to your argument is clear.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,383 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    When can we expect the next Russian invasion of Finland?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    I'll enquire into your claims re treaties signed. Its often complicated - but worth a look. I know folk who'd be able to dig into it

    But just let's say the US drove a coup in Ukraine in 2014 (which I presume is post-this treaty signed with Russia)


    Would you THEN consider the arrangement to be with a sovereign Ukrainian government (I.e one free to make independent decisions).

    Like a US led coup government in Ukraine would sorta rip up any treaty. No?


    [Before you answer: I'd ask that you include the audio evidence of Victoria Nuland discussing picking the next Ukrainian president/PM post-coup... in your musings. Along with her remark "**** the EU" (if they took exception to the US view of things...)]



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭fash


    Considering your claim that the united states' apparently promised Gorbachev that it would refuse entry into NATO of the terrified and traumatized countries in proximity to Russia desperate for protection, it is surprising that Gorbachev himself can't recall it. No doubt you know better.

    Gorbachev:

    “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

    Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” 




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,414 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    No. Russia violated Budapest by putting Ukraine under economic pressure not to sign EU treaty... effectively a customs blockade was threatened. This was a violation of Ukraines sovereignty and ability to make independent decisions.

    Ultimately this put the Ukrainian president into a position violating his mandate and opposed to parliament and people. There was no US coup. The US could not drive what wasnt there. The Ukrainian people drove it.

    The US did not pick the president or PM. They helped broker the deal to end the standoff between president, parliament and people.

    Ukraine has had free democratic elections since that Maidan revolution.

    If your 'people' cant see sometimes it isnt complicated you need better 'people'. Russia is wrong in its motives which are to plunder Ukraine, in the act of invading and in how it has carried out this war with atrocity, deliberate targeting of civilians, executions, abductions of children, and indiscriminate use of heavy weapons.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,372 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Morally speaking I'm with Russia


    Big fan of the virtuous raping and torture?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,414 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    If you stand with Russia morally speaking then you stand for Bucha.

    This was not an aberration but would have been repeated across Ukraine if Russia had subjugated it. Roundups and executions.

    This is what Daly and Wallace and those of like minds here stand for if they stand for Russia.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,372 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    How do you feel about them smashing the skulls of the erstwhile comrades with sledgehammers?

    Is it still ok to do the oul murdering if they are murdering other Russians?



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement