Dafur calls for immediate discussion! watch

(Original post by vienna95)
and the rest?

WEll i thought the rest was complete drivel to be honest. I certainly never advocated complete halt in defense spending. But from my view the current spending is outrageous - much of it on systems and equipment no longer useful in modern warfare. Defense spending should be dropped loads. Even more stupid is all the money on 'son of star wars' etc. I mean what are the odds of pakistan or N Korea launching weapons against the US. Even if they decided to attack, they would simply pass a bomb on to terrorists, have them use one of the good old drug running boats (which obviously the yanks and every country in the world are more than incapable of stopping, and the deliver it on ground toa city.
And the idea that you look at the environment as soon as it starts threatening. Its like looking into defense as soon as you see a plane drop a bomb. An analogy i'm sure you'll be able to relate to better
J

(Original post by foolfarian)
WEll i thought the rest was complete drivel to be honest. I certainly never advocated complete halt in defense spending.

i didnt assert that.

i said "You argue that americans should put the environment before all consideration, reduce defense spending to this effect"

based on your comments 'Whats the point of defence if you have nothing left to defend....We all instead say that economy won't be worth squat if they trigger a new ice age/reduce crop yields due to pollution damage". your reference to 'we' encompassing Jonatans comment that "The problem is that if you adopt that attitude there will no resources left for healthcare, education, treatment for elderly etc etc"

But from my view the current spending is outrageous - much of it on systems and equipment no longer useful in modern warfare.
Defense spending should be dropped loads.

there is a difference between spending in the right areas and not spending at all.

Even more stupid is all the money on 'son of star wars' etc. I mean what are the odds of pakistan or N Korea launching weapons against the US.

Iran and N.Korea against US interests? high. Iran against Israel? high. N.Korea against Japan? high.

Even if they decided to attack, they would simply pass a bomb on to terrorists, have them use one of the good old drug running boats (which obviously the yanks and every country in the world are more than incapable of stopping, and the deliver it on ground toa city.

youre proving my point. these countries wont attack conventionally because they know they cannot challenge US might. at the same time you use this to counter me, you are criticising the same argument and the Americans, for overspending and making defence a priority.

And the idea that you look at the environment as soon as it starts threatening. Its like looking into defense as soon as you see a plane drop a bomb. An analogy i'm sure you'll be able to relate to better
J

you look at the environment as soon as you start to see that action should be taken. there is no valuable relation between the two scenarios you describe.

(Original post by polthegael)
France, I am proud to say, have always supported Ireland over England since the Revolution. She has sent troops before and offered to do so since. I believe that the Irish have a closer sense of camaraderie with the French people than an Monarchistic country like England can ever hope to attain.

As for Las Malvinas, who is saying they were/should be/have any right to be "your" soil? I have read pieces by natives of the islands who say they should be Argentine. Irish people were instrumental in the creation of the state of Argentina. William Browne from Mayo (a wee town on Castlebar-Ballina road called Foxford) not only defeated the Spanish/English/etc but also sailed as an old man into Rio to bosh the Brasilians for having invaded the Argentine. His actions were to allow England maintain a hold thousands of miles away in South America about as much as the IRA have been fighting to keep Ireland Occupied.

I think the sentiments expressed by some people on these fora are disgusting. There is no reason why anyone should allow the English to artifically prop up a poor region so that, everytime someone asks the majority what they want, they remember which side their bread's buttered on and side with England. Look at the Occupied Territories in north-eastern Ireland. It's the same thing.

If Ireland was really nasty and went around claiming other people's countries and killing civilians the world over I would condemn her and feel ashamed to be Irish.

Why don't you lot feel that way about Britain which has acted throughout the years as a merciless tyrant (and continues to do so - Ireland, Iraq, Afganistan, etc...)?

Paradoxically, you appear blind to the fact that such nationalistic views as the ones you hold are the reasons why the oppression over many Catholics in the whole of Ireland and then only in the North contined for so long. I think you will find that Catholics were finally granted equal political rights by the Belfast Agreement supported by over 75% of nationalists/republicans, thus it is absurd to call todays situation occupation. More importantly John Major declared in the Downing Street Declaration, what was long known, the British sovereignty remained in NI not because the UK had any interest there strategically but because a majority of the Irish population there wished to remain in the Union. The fact many people in NI (a small number of them Catholics) choose to remain inside of Britain due to its prosperity and more open secular society compared with the Irish Republic (something I would accept is/has changing/ed) is no fault of ours. Strange thing is, i'm guessing that you are Irish/have Irish roots and thus you/your descendants illustrate this in practice. I'd accept the centuries of persecution of the Irish is a great historical wrong, but it can't be put right through petty nationalism, rather through common sense and dialogue.

It's a paradox to avoid saying that the Irish brought it all on themselves...?! Oh, I'm sorry - if all Catholics had converted to the Church of Ireland they would have got food during the "famine". I would have done, but I hate all religion as it's just an excuse to control people's actions by those with political power.

It's like this... pre-1798 all non-CoI people were persecuted, not just Catholics. After the rising and the advent of General Humbert with his French troops, the Establishment got scared. So they accepted the Presbytarians, etc. into their club (Orange Order) and, to teir shame, many shunned the ideals of uniting Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter under the common man of Irishman in favour for a share of the Orange goodies.

Had everyone converted, a new division would have been set up (who knows, the real issue of class may actually have come into it...).

Do you remember the Spitting Image thing where FW De Klerk says he's getting rid of black and white and then goes on to say "dark greens tpo the back of the bus, light greens to the front of the bus".

Divide and conquer is the name of the game for England and her minnions in Ireland. Don't take your eye off the ball on that one!

As for Omagh - I have explained on many occasions (and so did a TV documentary I guess none of you slogan shouters watched), Omagh was an accident. Just ask yourself - would any sane person think that planting a bomb to slaughter loads of people including their supporters benefit their cause? Of course not. Omagh was a failed attack on the Courthouse - a major symbol of British Ruke in the town. A series of things went wrong (as were highlighted on that documentary and the tragedy which occured was due to those.

Such things are truly awful, but not unique to the Irish - what about the Yanks bombing a wedding party? What about the British soldiers killed by "friendly fire"? Neither those nor Omagh were terrorist attacks. They were all military mistakes.

If you really want to go pointing fingers though - Bloody Sunday was terrorism. Dresden was terrorism. The rape of hundreds of Kenyan women by occupying British soldiers was terrorism. Allowing over a million people to die and another two million to emigrate FROM YOUR OWN COUNTRY (UK of GB and Ireland, as it was in the 1840's) whilst actively exporting food from it is most definitely terrorism on a par with anything the Nazis ever did (would you rather starve to death or be gassed?).

EDIT: I find it a tad funny to be criticised on my morals by someone who compares himself with a Stanley Kubrick 100% pure evil psychopath...

The irish potato faime was caused more by the over population of ireland, its inability to industralise and its relience on the potato crop than any british action.

(Original post by Incomplete)
The irish potato faime was caused more by the over population of ireland, its inability to industralise and its relience on the potato crop than any british action.

The crisis was caused by this yes, however it was British (and include the Irish in this term when referring to this time/context) who ignored the crisis and allowed so many of our own people to die needlessly.

(Original post by Incomplete)
The irish potato faime was caused more by the over population of ireland, its inability to industralise and its relience on the potato crop than any british action.

I'm not arguing over cause (Ireland used to have a population half that of England, now we have about 5.5 million [almost half that of 1841] to England's 50-odd million.).

British action did not cause the potato blight, I agree - but the British sat back and allowed those people to die whilst actively exporting crops INCLUDING POTATOES out of Ireland. Would Tony Blair get away with it if he was inactive as a million people in the South East of England died of hunger whilst he did nothing to help them and sold all their intact crops?

But maybe the, say, Sikh church would have loads of stored food would give food to anyone who became a Sikh...

(no offense meant to Sikhs - I know they would give food out equally and that they are possibly the most tolerant religion in the world - I was just making a point about what the Church of Ireland did during the famine.)

EDIT: of course, as England's population has grown so much, the number of people would have to be increased five or six fold to make it comparable.

Its a cruel world, lifes a *****. We cant save the world even tho you liberal robin hoods think we can.

(Original post by AntiLiberal)
Its a cruel world, lifes a *****. We cant save the world even tho you liberal robin hoods think we can.

Is that your philosophy? Deep...

(Original post by an Siarach)
The crisis was caused by this yes, however it was British (and include the Irish in this term when referring to this time/context) who ignored the crisis and allowed so many of our own people to die needlessly.

ignored it? What exactly were the brits meant to do? They sent aid

(Original post by polthegael)
British action did not cause the potato blight, I agree - but the British sat back and allowed those people to die whilst actively exporting crops INCLUDING POTATOES out of Ireland. Would Tony Blair get away with it if he was inactive as a million people in the South East of England died of hunger whilst he did nothing to help them and sold all their intact crops?

where did you get that from?

Peel removed the corn laws among other things to help. I can personally see what the brits were meant to do about a situation that was a freak and exagerated by the state of teh country rather than lack of action.

(Original post by Incomplete)
where did you get that from?

Peel removed the corn laws among other things to help. I can personally see what the brits were meant to do about a situation that was a freak and exagerated by the state of teh country rather than lack of action.

A freak over about four years. In England they would have kept the English food in England and/or imported more.

(Original post by polthegael)
It's a paradox to avoid saying that the Irish brought it all on themselves...?! Oh, I'm sorry - if all Catholics had converted to the Church of Ireland they would have got food during the "famine". I would have done, but I hate all religion as it's just an excuse to control people's actions by those with political power.

It's like this... pre-1798 all non-CoI people were persecuted, not just Catholics. After the rising and the advent of General Humbert with his French troops, the Establishment got scared. So they accepted the Presbytarians, etc. into their club (Orange Order) and, to teir shame, many shunned the ideals of uniting Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter under the common man of Irishman in favour for a share of the Orange goodies.

Had everyone converted, a new division would have been set up (who knows, the real issue of class may actually have come into it...).

Do you remember the Spitting Image thing where FW De Klerk says he's getting rid of black and white and then goes on to say "dark greens tpo the back of the bus, light greens to the front of the bus".

Divide and conquer is the name of the game for England and her minnions in Ireland. Don't take your eye off the ball on that one!

As for Omagh - I have explained on many occasions (and so did a TV documentary I guess none of you slogan shouters watched), Omagh was an accident. Just ask yourself - would any sane person think that planting a bomb to slaughter loads of people including their supporters benefit their cause? Of course not. Omagh was a failed attack on the Courthouse - a major symbol of British Ruke in the town. A series of things went wrong (as were highlighted on that documentary and the tragedy which occured was due to those.

Such things are truly awful, but not unique to the Irish - what about the Yanks bombing a wedding party? What about the British soldiers killed by "friendly fire"? Neither those nor Omagh were terrorist attacks. They were all military mistakes.

If you really want to go pointing fingers though - Bloody Sunday was terrorism. Dresden was terrorism. The rape of hundreds of Kenyan women by occupying British soldiers was terrorism. Allowing over a million people to die and another two million to emigrate FROM YOUR OWN COUNTRY (UK of GB and Ireland, as it was in the 1840's) whilst actively exporting food from it is most definitely terrorism on a par with anything the Nazis ever did (would you rather starve to death or be gassed?).

EDIT: I find it a tad funny to be criticised on my morals by someone who compares himself with a Stanley Kubrick 100% pure evil psychopath...

1) The anti-hero of Alex in Kubrick's A clockwork Orange was meant to be much more than just an evil character. Watch the film and looka bit deeper. Personally I'd prefer an avatar of the star child from 2001, but can't find it.

2) Terrorism -The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Hence you talk ********. We knew that already, but this particular ******** is:-
-rape of hundreds of Kenyan women. These are deplorable acts, however they aren't being commited by a group with the intention of changing the position of the kenyans. These are acts by rapist thugs.
-Dresden. Big fan of the Nazis aren't you? Dresden of cause was horrific, the firestorming of a city of proportions equalling a nuclear bomb. However we were legally at war, and though I don't believe civilians should be targetted in war, things were different back then weren't they.
-Bloody Sunday. Did the paras shoot first or didn't they? It was an extreme over reaction to the percieved threat. But you can't call it terrorism. Its like saying the police shooting a man wielding a replica gun is terrorism. Or even the shooting of Fred Barras was 'terrorism'. Rubbish
The oklohoma bombing was terrorism, the canary wharf bombing was terrorism, the IRA firing mortar bombs at police stations was terrorism, or leaving bombs in lunch boxes outside army bases (where they are then picked up by kids), leaving a nail bomb in a gay pub is terrorism, letting off sarin on the tokyo underground is terrorism.
AS for the whole 'was the potato famine an act of genocide' well frankly thats crap. THere have been many OPINIONS over the years, but on balance it has been said that although the British not sending ENOUGH aid exacerbated the problem, it would never have insulated the irish from the famines. Frankly the catholic policy of 8.2 children had worked against them as had relying on one crop.

History will also teach you that it is a myth that the rebellions started in Ireland. In fact it was the emigrants to America who founded the republican movements not least with propoganda. Later generations of republicans portrayed Queen Victoria as the 'Famine Queen' (who according to myth had only donated a miserly 5 shillings to famine relief; In fact it was the modern day equivalent of €700,000!).

But to be honest this is all a moot point. Because when push comes to shove this is over a century in the past. All people involved in this, and most of their children and childrens children are dead.

Lastly, your precious 'real IRA' might have 'accidentally' slaughtered innocent irish people going about everyday life. But i somehow doubt it. In the conflict to date these acts of terrorism have killed more innocent irish people than anyone else.

"My precious Real IRA"...? I don't think so...

http://www.uk-learning.net/showpost....&postcount=581

Feel free to come and join in on the debate on the "I hate that term" thread...

PS - rape is a crime against a person. Systematic rape, such as the British Army in Kenya or the Serbs a wee bit more recently - is terrorism. The idea behind the policy in Kenya was to turn the people against the Mau Mau. What actually happened (not surprisingly) is that more people joined to fight back and the British Cause was damaged even more.

You make a lot of claims I disagree with about rights to "legally" wage war, claiming I like the Nazis/am a Nazi, the potato blight of the 1840's, etc, but this is not the thread upon which to discuss such things...

See you on the "I hate that term" thread..!

PPS - read a bit of it before you start making more silly accusations!

(Original post by polthegael)
"My precious Real IRA"...? I don't think so...

http://www.uk-learning.net/showpost....&postcount=581

Feel free to come and join in on the debate on the "I hate that term" thread...

PS - rape is a crime against a person. Systematic rape, such as the British Army in Kenya or the Serbs a wee bit more recently - is terrorism. The idea behind the policy in Kenya was to turn the people against the Mau Mau. What actually happened (not surprisingly) is that more people joined to fight back and the British Cause was damaged even more.

You make a lot of claims I disagree with about rights to "legally" wage war, claiming I like the Nazis/am a Nazi, the potato blight of the 1840's, etc, but this is not the thread upon which to discuss such things...

See you on the "I hate that term" thread..!

PPS - read a bit of it before you start making more silly accusations!

See I was referring to the more recent Kenyan rape cases...I now get the impression you (being so minded) are probably talking of the famous case of 1811 or some such like

(Original post by foolfarian)
See I was referring to the more recent Kenyan rape cases...I now get the impression you (being so minded) are probably talking of the famous case of 1811 or some such like

Nope... This stuff was much more recent than 1811...

"More than 650 (800 according to the Times[1]) women in Kenya have reported being raped by British soldiers on military exercises in central Kenya between 1965 and 2002, amounting to an unreported military occupation of parts of Kenya, beginning with women’s bodies. [1]The Times Saturday 27 September 2003, p1]
More than half the survivors described being hunted down and gang-raped by British soldiers. At the time, many women formally reported the atrocities to the Kenyan police and local officials. On numerous occasions these crimes were then reported to the British authorities who promised action. Yet nothing was done until the women took legal action. They are calling for justice and compensation!

In spite of severe trauma, social stigma and official silence, women have come forward to demand that British authorities take responsibility and pay for the upkeep of children born as a result of rape. Women who lost children through miscarriage after being raped must also be compensated for these horrendous crimes and their traumatic consequences.

Many women were attacked while gathering water, firewood and food for their families. Rural African women spend up to 5 hours a day collecting water and fuel on which the community depends...."

from: http://www.womenagainstrape.net

(Original post by Incomplete)
ignored it? What exactly were the brits meant to do? They sent aid

If by telling the Irish to eat grass you mean aid then yes we did all we could. Other than that there was proselytization by the promise of food.

(Original post by Incomplete)
where did you get that from?

Peel removed the corn laws among other things to help. I can personally see what the brits were meant to do about a situation that was a freak and exagerated by the state of teh country rather than lack of action.

Youre forgetting that the present distintion between british and irish did not exist. The Irish were British citizens and deserved to be given all the aid that the English would have recieved had the famine occured over the water.

(Original post by polthegael)
It's a paradox to avoid saying that the Irish brought it all on themselves...?! Oh, I'm sorry - if all Catholics had converted to the Church of Ireland they would have got food during the "famine". I would have done, but I hate all religion as it's just an excuse to control people's actions by those with political power.

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer. I said "Paradoxically, you appear blind to the fact that such nationalistic views as the ones you hold are the reasons why the oppression over many Catholics in the whole of Ireland and then only in the North continued for so long." By this I meant that nationalistic views (nationalism shares certain characteristics whataver type it may be hence why we give it one name) held by the British in seeing Ireland as rightful property of the Crown and even going to extent (as you have rightfully outlined) that some expected the Irish to Anglicise or die are similar to the Irish nationalism you advocate. In this sense what I am saying is that nationalism (of whatever type) was one cause - although i'd accept not the only one - of the oppression of the Irish Catholics. Thus i'm trying to point out to you that these people had in some respects similar nationalistic outlooks as yourself and it these petty medieval views of the world that caused the oppression and the troubles and it these views which we need to move beyond.