Neutrality

Status
Not open for further replies.
Purple said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you're being a bit hard on Michael D there. He is a good president and represents us well at home and abroad.
Small Story (of my experience):- A few years ago we were in Lake Garda in northern Italy. We were queueing with the people for a boat-trip on the lake and Michael D was in the same queue. He gained lots of admiration from the queueing Italians as the Italian politicians present were being given the A-List treatment and fast forwarded to the boat where they slurped freely on anything they could get their hands on. Michael D stood in for photos and spoke to anybody who wanted to meet him. Well Done to Michael D.
 
Leper said:
I think you're being a bit hard on Michael D there. He is a good president and represents us well at home and abroad.
Click to expand...
In my opinion he's the worst President in my lifetime. He's shown contempt for his office and by extension the Constitution that he's there to protect. His eulogising of terrorists and murderers in his official capacity as President is a national embarrassment and his partisan political diatribes have made it clear that he has no interest in being a President for all the people, but only those who agree with him. I have nothing but contempt for him as the President and as a person.
I could tell you a few stories about him and a few about his wife from people who know them both but I won't. I've more respect for the Shinners and Mick Wallace then I do for Micky D.
 
Purple said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ah yeah, that's all true, but he has his bad side too.
 
You don't have to agree with everything President Higgins says to think smart comments about his height or referring to him as Micky D are unworthy of a serious discussion.

You don't have to be convinced by the arguments of environmentalists to think describing them as priggish, self-righteous or self-indulgent, is inappropriate.
 
cremeegg said:
You don't have to agree with everything President Higgins says to think smart comments about his height or referring to him as Micky D are unworthy of a serious discussion.
Click to expand...
I agree that quips about his height are unworthy as he has no control over that. Abbreviating his name is hardly a capital crime. In my opinion his words and actions have been far more unworthy than anything said here about him.
cremeegg said:
You don't have to be convinced by the arguments of environmentalists to think describing them as priggish, self-righteous or self-indulgent, is inappropriate.
Click to expand...
I am convinced by the data on climate change. I am unconvinced by many of the ideologically driven actions that we are taking to combat it. Not because they are unworthy but because they are ineffective.

I don't like it when ideology gets in the way of data and facts. I don't care if it's Socialist or Marxist or Religious or Neoconservative. It's all equally damaging to a rational debate and an effective outcome.

The current discussion about security in the context of our place in the world should be framed in practical and pragmatic terms. That's what the government is doing and I commend them for it. The dishonest attempt by the President to try to present the discussion as biased before it even starts is contemptable and odious and damaging to the interests of the country.
It's also entirely predictable that he would drag his office through the mud again to further his own political agenda, informed by his warped Marxist ideology which has for decades fetishized terrorists and murderers.
 
It took me a while to find this but I think it's worth a read.
That's right, I never liked Micky D, not as a politician and now as well, still a politician.
I always found him to be a hypocritic elitist who didn't care about ordinary people. If he did he'd celebrate the incredible economic success achieved by the politicians and citizens over the last 40 years, people who achieved what has been achieved for this country precisely because they were opposed to his ideology.
 
Purple said:
I agree that quips about his height are unworthy as he has no control over that.
Click to expand...
Agreed
Purple said:
Abbreviating his name is hardly a capital crime.
Click to expand...
Not a capital crime, but it is disrespectful, to him, to his office, and to the many people who do respect him. And it makes no argument, it just lines up the people who don't like him against the people who do.

Purple said:
The current discussion about security in the context of our place in the world should be framed in practical and pragmatic terms.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree, although when people probe the moral dimension, that cannot just be shrugged off.

Purple said:
The dishonest attempt by the President to try to present the discussion as biased before it even starts is contemptable and odious and damaging to the interests of the country.
Click to expand...
I agree with him that discussion is biased before it starts. I see it as an effort by the government to soften up public opinion ahead of a move toward, or even to join NATO.

Here is why


Gay Mitchell letter to the Irish Times April 19th last. Cant post a link.

Rite & Reason: Political without military support to an invaded neighbour is just gesture politics

Ireland continues to agonise over the moral ambiguity and political implications of neutrality amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine
www.irishtimes.com

The appointment of Louise Richardson is also a clear sign of what way the forum is being framed. While she is undoubtedly highly accomplished, she is also an integral part of the US security establishment. Anyone who accepts a gong as member of the British empire or dame or whatever is clearly comfortable with the idea of empire.
 
I read that and I think it is just a crude hatchet job. Sure Michael D knows nothing about economics, and economics is important, but it is perfectly reasonable to say that as we have prospered Ireland has become a more individualistic society. Máirtín Ó Direáin said the same in the 1940s. That has gone hand in hand with our increased prosperity, just like environmental destruction. It is not hypocritical to probe this.
 
Wow there. Louise Richardson... "an integral part of the US security establishment" ?

"Mickey D" isn't our President. If he wants to speak as our President when addressing the nation, and to be treated with that 'respect' let him follow the proper process. He disrespected the office with his (imo a 'thundering disgrace') comments. He can't have it both ways. If he wants to enter the fray of political debate with a media interview, then he is fair game for criticism. I respect the office, I don't respect the man.
 
Last edited:
cremeegg said:
You don't have to agree with everything President Higgins says to think smart comments about his height or referring to him as Micky D are unworthy of a serious discussion.
Click to expand...
Serious is as serious does. About 15 years ago or thereabouts, Higgins was debating American politics on George Hook's show with a US pundit called Michael Graham. Now, Graham is a controversial talk show host with very firm centre-right views by American standards, but he's also a serious and intelligent (and very funny) radio presenter. He used to be a stand up comedian before doing talk radio. Anyway, he was doing rather well against Micky D's usual bombastic anti-US schtick and this was clearly annoying our diminutive president-to-be. The bould Micky D decided to ratchet the intellectual level up a bit and told Graham he was "...just a (very, very rude word) whipping up fear."
The rules of AAM don't allow mention of this rude word, but it's about the rudest word you can get that begins with the letter W. All good knockabout stuff, and grist to the mill, but if you descend to that level, all bets are off when it comes to respect. Give respect, get respect as the kids are taught at GAA Cúl camps. I would say using the W-word at a political opponent makes you fair game for a spot of verbal rough and tumble, extending to smart comments about height. If he can dish it out, he can take it too.

cremeegg said:
You don't have to be convinced by the arguments of environmentalists to think describing them as priggish, self-righteous or self-indulgent, is inappropriate.
Click to expand...
Ah here now, the likes of just stop oil, tyre deflaters, insulate Britain etc etc, are the very epitome of priggish, self-righteous and self-indulgent behaviour. Whether you believe their arguments fully, partially or not at all, it's their certainty of their own correctness, and their determination to impose their preferred solutions on everybody else that marks them out as such.
 
Have I missed something or are you mixing up your ‘thundering disgrace’ es.
 
cremeegg said:
Have I missed something or are you mixing up your ‘thundering disgrace’ es.
Click to expand...
I meant that his comments were a 'thundering disgrace'. I'll edit my post to clarify.

He is the one who has dragged himself into the muck of political debate, and got personal with regard to Louise Richardson. That is not presidential conduct and will be responded to accordingly.
 
You could as easily make the case that liberalism led to a more individualistic society, people 'free' to make up their own minds and decide for themselves - as opposed to a more community based society, conservative based on social and religious customs.
 
Last edited:
You could, and it would be an excellent point. Just to say we are better off economically and socially as you point out, is no reason not to lament certain things that were lost along the way. And certainly no reason for certain people to call Michael D a hypocrite for doing so.
 
Hmmmm. Perhaps it's the very things that were lost along the way that stopped us from being better off economically and socially for all those dark and gloomy decades. When liberal capitalism lifts you out of poverty, it's a bit much to blame it for not being quite perfect. Especially when you're proposing extreme left socialist and statist policies as a better option. That's worked out well in exactly 0% of countries that have tried it.
 
Just seen Shinner spokesman Matt Carthy on the news saying that it was essential for Ireland to have a UN mandate before sending military forces into action.
The irony was completely beyond him.
 
He is a hypocrite because he is a champagne socialist and does not acknowledge the benefits he enjoyed from the changes.

Also earlier you made remarks about the forum chair being part of the American security establishment. This is a rather bizarre comment to make without explanation.
 
From the FT

As a professor of government at Harvard, Louise Richardson concentrated for many years on international security, with a special focus on terrorism – a relatively obscure academic field until the day George W. Bush declared war on it. At which point Richardson was pitched from the cloisters into the public arena, giving lectures to a variety of audiences – policymakers, the military, intelligence agencies and business communities – as well as testifying before the US Senate.
 
Is there anything actually wrong with that? I'm not quite sure that makes her an integral part of the US security establishment, but even accepting it does for the purposes of argument, are you seriously saying that's a bad thing? The US security establishment (military, intelligence and defense industry) won the Cold War and kept all of Western Europe free of Soviet domination, before eventually, and peacefully, liberating Eastern Europe as well. That includes little neutral old Ireland of course, or perhaps you believe that Stalin would have respected our neutrality and spared us from the gulags and the poverty and immiseration of communism.
That's the thing about neutrality you see. Lovely in theory, nice to have, but totally dependent on its being accepted by the neighborhood bullies. It's a bit like declaring your home to be a burglary free zone. That's fine if the local burglars agree. Ireland has the luxury of not living on the frontline of the neighborhood bully state. Finland, Poland and the Baltic States don't, and have developed much more realistic policies. However, while we're not on the physical frontline, we are on the cyber and undersea infrastructural frontline. And we're incredibly vulnerable on both fronts. Time to get real and get into some alliance that will bolster our defences. Who better to guide our consideration of this than an expert on "international security, with a special focus on terrorism."
 
Wow, imagine politicians and policy makers seeking information, analysis and perspective from an expert.

Do we know what she told them?

Clare Daly spoke at the Forum on the opening day. Does that mean she is now pro-NATO?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register