Neutrality

[Purple]

Spot on.

Unfortunately I do not accept the good faith of those in Irish politics who would have us buy our own dog and shotgun.

That's really what it comes down to. I do accept the good faith of our elected leaders, other than the Shinners and they are more prone to support people like Putin so they won't be joining NATO.

Tony Blair offered George W Bush a blank cheque in support of the invasion of Iraq. I would not trust the Irish politics class not to be even more willing to do so.

I think that's a massive leap and a completely groundless concern.

I don't like dogs or shotguns and I think a home invasion is unlikely.

I love dogs and while I don't like guns I accept that their ownership is sometimes necessary.

 

[cremeegg]

We are tangentially involved in most wars, just like everyone else.
Should we say no to all the American FDI that pays for our hospitals, schools and very generous welfare system?

America invades Iraq, bad, we should not be involved.

America manufactures medical devices, pharmaceuticals, iPhones, good, happy for us to be involved.

 

[cremeegg]

Yes, my mistake, it was O'Connell.
His Irishness was within a broader British identity, just like the Unionists in NI. Their Irishness is very different to mine but nonetheless they are no less Irish than me.

You say Unionists are no less Irish than you.

That is you speaking for them, many of them would not agree with you. Many of them would say that they are not Irish.

Doug Beattie leader of the UUP and former British soldier (I follow him on twitter, a very interesting chap) is emphatic that he is Irish as well as British. He is clear that in the event of Irish reunification he would remain living here.

Arlene Foster on the other hand takes a different view, in the event of the people of NI voting for a United Ireland she says that she would leave Ireland.

Arlene's party gets a lot more votes than Doug's. Of the DUP membership, http://brianjohnspencer.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/the-irishness-of-ian-paisley.html (1.4%) self-identify as Irish. Jim Wells for instance guffawed at a suggestion in the Stormont Assembly that he was Irish. https://sluggerotoole.com/2016/05/29/ian-paisley-we-are-irish/

 

[Purple]

America invades Iraq, bad, we should not be involved.

America manufactures medical devices, pharmaceuticals, iPhones, good, happy for us to be involved.

We take a cut of the profits that many of their companies made from the invasion of Iraq.

America also stopped the mass murder of Muslims in Europe in the 1990's. We were proud to stand on the side-lines of that one as well.
We took the high moral ground during the Rwandan Genocide, even through as signatories of the UN Genocide Convention we were legally and morally obliged to intervene.
We even signed the Book of Condolences for poor old Adolph.

Yes, we are always on the right side of history, just like Micky D.

 

[Purple]

You say Unionists are no less Irish than you.

That is you speaking for them, many of them would not agree with you. Many of them would say that they are not Irish.

The would say they are British Subjects/Citizens but they are Irish, just like Welsh people are Welsh and British.

Doug Beattie leader of the UUP and former British soldier (I follow him on twitter, a very interesting chap) is emphatic that he is Irish as well as British. He is clear that in the event of Irish reunification he would remain living here.

Yes, he is an interesting fellow.

Arlene Foster on the other hand takes a different view, in the event of the people of NI voting for a United Ireland she says that she would leave Ireland.

Arlene's party gets a lot more votes than Doug's.

She still says she's Irish but within the context of being British. I'm from Dublin but I'm also Irish. That's the way most Unionists see it and have for hundreds of years.

 

[cremeegg]

The would say they are British Subjects/Citizens but they are Irish, just like Welsh people are Welsh and British.

Yes, he is an interesting fellow.

She still says she's Irish but within the context of being British. I'm from Dublin but I'm also Irish. That's the way most Unionists see it and have for hundreds of years.

I really don't think that is the way most Unionists see it these days.

Ian Paisley – “We are Irish!”

Of the DUP membership, 1.4% self-identify as Irish. Yet the founder of the DUP was 100% Irish. This is not speculation or conjecture or troublemaking, this is a statement of fact based upon unequivocal and repeated testimony from Ian Paisley. Ian paisley wrote in 2012 on the centenary of the...

sluggerotoole.com

 

[cremeegg]

This seems to be meandering, I dont follow. What is the moral aspect of neutrality?

Not being part of a military alliance with a history of wars of aggression is a positive moral choice in my opinion.

Ukraine was neutral, then invaded, why is the moral position to be neutral?

In my opinion our support for Ukrainian refugees is a positive moral position.

I don't see any contradiction in looking after the moral responsibilities of the state and not joining a military alliance.

These two statements directly contradict each other, IMO. The interests of the state are not only internal. It is also a diminution of the capacity of the state to contribute to global peace and security, in general.

The state must act in the interests of the country, not as global policeman.

 

[cremeegg]

That's really what it comes down to. I do accept the good faith of our elected leaders, other than the Shinners

Post of the thread !

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

We are like a small bungalow in the country living next door to a much bigger house with very good security, thereby acting as a deterrent from breaking into us. This is, IMO, a discussion about us buying a dog, installing some CCTV and getting a padlock for the front gates.

Let us develop the analogy. The bungalow is in fact in the middle of the country estate, far removed from the external forces that threaten the estate's very way of life. It has really not much going for it but its occupants have educated themselves well and do very nicely indeed from the estate. Now it is a tad galling that the Head of the bungalow lectures the estate on the conduct of its defence. He even goes further and eulogises sworn enemies of the estate on their demise. And he is not alone. Quite a few of the inhabitants of that bungalow indulge themselves in these virtue wallowings.

 

[odyssey06]

Let us develop the analogy. The bungalow is in fact in the middle of the country estate, far removed from the external forces that threaten the estate's very way of life. It has really not much going for it but its occupants have educated themselves well and do very nicely indeed from the estate. Now it is a tad galling that the Head of the bungalow lectures the estate on the conduct of its defence. He even goes further and eulogises sworn enemies of the estate on their demise. And he is not alone. Quite a few of the inhabitants of that bungalow indulge themselves in these virtue wallowings.

Or a more humdrum analogy. The groundskeeper keeps pests from the bungalow's land, pests the bungalow doesn't have to deal with and wouldn't be able to. And lectures the groundskeeper for having blood on his hands.

 

[Itchy]

Not being part of a military alliance with a history of wars of aggression is a positive moral choice in my opinion.

Not being part of an alliance is not a moral position in and of itself.

In my opinion our support for Ukrainian refugees is a positive moral position.

Misdirection. What of the citizens that are are IDPs, defenders or those that couldn't leave? Why is neutrality the moral position?

The state must act in the interests of the country, not as global policeman.

Disingenuous of course. Nobody thinks our interest is to be global policeman, but we do have an interest in global peace and security.

 

[cremeegg]

Not being part of an alliance is not a moral position in and of itself.

Of course not. What I said was a military alliance with a history of wars of aggression.

Misdirection. What of the citizens that are are IDPs, defenders or those that couldn't leave?

Talking about Irelands response to Ukrainian refugees is misdirection ?

I think I have been clear that I am glad Ireland is supporting Ukraine, I don't think that support should include military support. You may not agree but you are going to have to live with that.

Disingenuous of course. Nobody thinks our interest is to be global policeman, but we do have an interest in global peace and security.

From misdirection to disingenuous ! Indeed.

Not joining a military alliance is a good move toward global peace.

 

[Itchy]

Of course not. What I said was a military alliance with a history of wars of aggression.


Talking about Irelands response to Ukrainian refugees is misdirection ?

Yes it is. You’re deflecting to what we do at home. I’m trying to tease out the rationale for the moral case to stay neutral in a conflict you don’t support? Hungary don’t support the conflict and are not taking sides and they are in NATO. Are our positions both moral, why, why not?

I don’t understand why it’s moral to support a Ukrainian woman in Ireland but not her husband in Ukraine? He’s upholding the UN charter like us.

I think I have been clear that I am glad Ireland is supporting Ukraine, I don't think that support should include military support. You may not agree but you are going to have to live with that.

I’m not trying to change you’re mind. I’m trying to understand your point of view?

Not joining a military alliance is a good move toward global peace.

Could you tease that out a bit more? The empirical evidence would seem to be completely contrary to your statement? Collective defence is an entirely logical strategy in the face of a superior belligerent.

In fact multilateral cooperation in all spheres, political, social, economic & military has more impact on global peace and the development of humanity than unilateral action. If you ignore the military aspect, you diminish the other elements. Military force or the threat of force is a legitimate tool to secure peace. The UN is a military alliance in pursuit of global peace.

 

[Purple]

For anyone with a subscription Lucinda Creighton wrote a superb piece on Micky D's behaviour, his hypocrisy in describing himself as an intellectual and his contempt for his office in yesterday's Business Post.
She points out his lifelong support for anti-democratic Marxists who murdered their own people and suppress political opposition and freedom of speech, people like Hugo Chavez and, worse, Castro. He even had the audacity to issue a statement as President on behalf of the people of Ireland when his hero Castro died saying that he was "a giant among global leaders whose view was not only one of freedom for his people but for all of the oppressed and excluded peoples on the planet". It takes a special kind if ideological blindness to the facts to believe that.
Creighton points out the Higgins belongs in the same category as Trump and the Brexiteers when it comes to his opposition to facts and data that run counter to his archaic extremist political beliefs.

 

[Right Winger]

He even had the audacity to issue a statement as President on behalf of the people of Ireland when his hero Castro died saying that he was "a giant among global leaders whose view was not only one of freedom for his people but for all of the oppressed and excluded peoples on the planet". It takes a special kind if ideological blindness to the facts to believe that.

Mind you, looked at from Michael D's perspective, everyone must seem like a giant.

Creighton points out the Higgins belongs in the same category as Trump and the Brexiteers when it comes to his opposition to facts and data that run counter to his archaic extremist political beliefs.

Ah, the arrogance of the left! They really believe they are not just correct but morally superior to the right. Such beliefs are like religion - completely impervious to facts and data. Environmentalism is similar except it displays even higher levels of priggish self-righteousness and self-indulgence. Naturally Higgins is onboard there too.

 

[Right Winger]

For anyone with a subscription Lucinda Creighton wrote a superb piece on Micky D's behaviour.....

Any chance you could cut and paste?
In the interests of scholarly research. I'm sure Lucinda wouldn't mind.

 

[cremeegg]

Mind you, looked at from Michael D's perspective, everyone must seem like a giant.


Ah, the arrogance of the left! They really believe they are not just correct but morally superior to the right. Such beliefs are like religion - completely impervious to facts and data. Environmentalism is similar except it displays even higher levels of priggish self-righteousness and self-indulgence. Naturally Higgins is onboard there too.

@Purple. This is the company you are keeping.

 

[Right Winger]

@Purple. This is the company you are keeping.

A Micky D fan, then? Why?

 

[Purple]

@Purple. This is the company you are keeping.

That's the great thing about free speech and being guided by data rather than dogma, you get to agree on some topics and disagree on others.

 

[Purple]

A Micky D fan, then? Why?

He's a pseudo intellectual hypocrite and has a history of supporting extremists, terrorists, murderers and those who oppose democracy, but possibly worst of all he's a man bereft of humility.