Is Harvard part of the American security establishment?
Was she employed by the US government or a US security agency?
She gave lectures!
It is utter misrepresentation to present that as being part of the 'American security establishment'.
Is Harvard part of the American security establishment?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.
East coast American Universities have a reputation as being bastions of conservative neoliberal thinking.Is Harvard part of the American security establishment?
No, once you even talk to those people you are part of them. Are you seriously suggesting that a brilliant woman who spent her life studying and educating people would suddenly start giving lectures and informing people in power about what she has learned just because they asked her to? That's crazy talk.It is utter misrepresentation to present that as being part of the 'American security establishment'.
He's brought his office into disrepute all by himself.Not a capital crime, but it is disrespectful, to him, to his office, and to the many people who do respect him.
He's also done that all by himself.And it makes no argument, it just lines up the people who don't like him against the people who do.
Morality is not the preserve of the left.I tend to agree, although when people probe the moral dimension, that cannot just be shrugged off.
What evidence do you base that belief on?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.
When did Dan O'Brien join the Government?
That's an opinion piece in a Newspaper. While I agree with it and find our current status cowardly, hypocritical and shameful neither I nor the author have any control over the current debate though I suspect that since he's a Jesuit priest and professor of philosophy he's secretly pro-war. He also lectures in Loyola University where they ask you what pronouns you would like people to use when talking to you. That shows how conservative they are.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 Ukrainewww.irishtimes.com
That's nonsense.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? Really? Does that include the existing recipients who have asked that the word "Empire" be removed from the award?Anyone who accepts a gong as member of the British empire or dame or whatever is clearly comfortable with the idea of empire.
I am saying that it frames the current government's approach to discussing our security/neutrality situation. I am saying that let us discuss these matters, but if the government choses a person who is an integral part of the US security establishment to chair the forum, lets not pretend the forum is operating in a vacuum.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?
This is true and should never be forgotten.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.
Our situation is not Finlands, Finland's policies may well be realistic for Finland, that does not make them realistic for us.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.
I agree especially on the cybersecurity issue. I have made exactly this point previously in this thread.However, while we're not on the physical frontline, we are on the cyber and undersea infrastructural frontline.
Time to get real indeed.Time to get real and get into some alliance that will bolster our defences.
Yes, of course, but that would require us to act in an adult-like manner and take our responsibilities seriously. Unfortunately, our politicians prefer to live in pretend-land where neutrality masquerades as something positive and noble. Far from being lauded and admired internationally, it's seen as a bit of a joke.Isn’t it better to have some level of national preparedness and some level of support rather than to continue on a wing and a prayer?
It isn't, and it shouldn't.I am saying that it frames the current government's approach to discussing our security/neutrality situation. I am saying that let us discuss these matters, but if the government choses a person who is an integral part of the US security establishment to chair the forum, lets not pretend the forum is operating in a vacuum.
That must indeed go on the balance sheet. However, when you compare even the worst excesses of the US to those of communism (Soviet Union, China, Kymer Rouge, North Korea) they are not within an asses roar of equivalence.This is true and should never be forgotten.
It is also true that it brought death and destruction to Vietnam, most of central America, maybe most tragically of all to Chile, and of course Iraq.
Again, perspective, comparisons and context is important. Much more blatant lies are regularly told to the security council by Putin and China. On balance the US has been a force for good. On balance, Russia hasn't.From the Marshall Plan to lying to the UN Security Council about non existent WMD, its not a good direction of travel. I think you need to keep some perspective on your American friends.
The details are different. Obviously. The principle is similar. We face threats. We need to defend ourselves. That's easier done in alliance with like minded democracies.Our situation is not Finlands, Finland's policies may well be realistic for Finland, that does not make them realistic for us.
We should and we could. But it also makes sense to hook up with other countries facing similar threats.In fact I think this whole discussion could be reduced to that one point, we are not Finland.
I agree especially on the cybersecurity issue. I have made exactly this point previously in this thread.
I think we should and could build up our own cybersecurity defence capability. It is needed and it is realistic.
I'm not one of those people. It's a pragmatic (although not ideal) solution that has worked well so far. It's a little bit feeble though, isn't it, that we yield responsibility for our national security to the will of another country. Which will, rightly of course, always prioritize its own interests over ours.Why do people who think it is terrible that we allow the RAF to patrol our skies (a regrettable necessity in my opinion, one that is not worth billions trying probably unsuccessfully to fix) think we should enter a cybersecurity alliance with NATO or connected parties.
Time to get real indeed.
1 We are not Finland
2 We need a cybersecurity defence system
Nonsense. Russia's crimes vastly exceed NATOs. And NATO had a (disputable) UN mandate for Iraq. Russia has not even the slightest claim to a mandate for invading Ukraine.3 NATO (yes I know it was some NATO countries plus Australia rather than NATO proper) is as guilty of war crimes in Iraq as Russia in Ukraine. Lets not ally with them
But that hasn't happened so it shouldn't be a concern.I am saying that it frames the current government's approach to discussing our security/neutrality situation. I am saying that let us discuss these matters, but if the government choses a person who is an integral part of the US security establishment to chair the forum, lets not pretend the forum is operating in a vacuum
We face cybersecurity threats from our neighbours as well.We should and we could. But it also makes sense to hook up with other countries facing similar threats.
Did any of them bring down a major government system, with consequences for the day to operations of provision of services in this country? Oh wait, no, that was Russian hackers.We face cybersecurity threats from our neighbours as well.
The American NSA and Denmark were spying on Germany, even tapping Angela Merkel's phone. I really doubt that both the US and UK are not spying on us. After all does Russia care that much about what we are up to.
We've moved on a long way from the world of "gentlemen don't read each others letters" I'm afraid. I've absolutely no doubt that our friends gather intelligence on us and each other. Tapping Merkel's phone was quite a rational action for the US, albeit a little naughty. After all, Merkel vetoed Ukraine's NATO application back in '08 and was quite the appeaser in her attitude to Russia. The US was rightly concerned about this, and subsequent events amply demonstrate the folly of her appeasement.We face cybersecurity threats from our neighbours as well.
The American NSA and Denmark were spying on Germany, even tapping Angela Merkel's phone. I really doubt that both the US and UK are not spying on us. After all does Russia care that much about what we are up to.
In the 1851 Census he declared his birthplace as Ireland.You say he was proud of his Irishness, have you any reference as to that or what it meant to him to be Irish.
Yes, of course, but that would require us to act in an adult-like manner and take our responsibilities seriously. Unfortunately, our politicians prefer to live in pretend-land where neutrality masquerades as something positive and noble. Far from being lauded and admired internationally, it's seen as a bit of a joke.
Let's get real. War crimes is the greatest nonsense. Has anybody fought a war without committing war crimes? (War of Independence?, Civil War?) Has anybody ever been convicted of war crimes, having not lost the war? We never hear of Ukraine's war crimes and they do have a wing of their army which is openly neo Nazi. Russia's "collateral" civilian deaths are measured in the dozens maybe hundreds, the allies killed 57,000 French civilians by blanket aerial bombardment in the liberation of France.3 NATO (yes I know it was some NATO countries plus Australia rather than NATO proper) is as guilty of war crimes in Iraq as Russia in Ukraine. Lets not ally with them
Launching the war in Iraq was the inexcusable crime there.Let's get real. War crimes is the greatest nonsense. Has anybody fought a war without committing war crimes? (War of Independence?, Civil War?) Has anybody ever been convicted of war crimes, having not lost the war? We never hear of Ukraine's war crimes and they do have a wing of their army which is openly neo Nazi. Russia's "collateral" civilian deaths are measured in the dozens maybe hundreds, the allies killed 57,000 French civilians by blanket aerial bombardment in the liberation of France.
But let's get real. It is fine for high school and UNI debates to take the high moral ground but really our Presie has been on the planet long enough to know how self indulgent that is.
So, as I say, let's get real. One version of reality, which I am not totally opposed to, is that the only realistic threat that we can be prepared for or do anything significant about is internal - so keep enough in reserve to put down any IRA style insurrection.
More honourable would be to recognise that the geopolitical reality is that our way of life is under constant threat from Russia et al and we most certainly are very grateful that NATO is there to defend our whole way of life and really the fact that its members fight their wars as dirty as anyone else is an unfortunate reality. Of course, there are those who might prefer the Russain way of life to our own; Micky D was certainly in that camp in his youth.
No, because we are protected by NATO.Do you really think our way of life, here in Ireland, is under threat from Russia
It was inexcusable alright, as was the US invasion or Grenada, the Suez crisis, British involvement in Yamen in the 1950's and 60's, the oppression of pan-Arab nationalism from the 1920's onward which resulted in so much fundamentalism and oppression and in particular the support of the Wahabi's and not the Hashemites in the war over who controlled Arabia, the support of dictators and suppression of democracy in Africa during the Cold War... the list goes on.Launching the war in Iraq was the inexcusable crime there.
Do you really think our way of life, here in Ireland, is under threat from Russia
“The Irish population are better informed on Palestine, because we have our soldiers going there and they come home and they talk to the schools and everything about it,” the President said.
Karl Marx was the son of Jewish parents but I suspect that Mick D and Marxie have similar views about Jews.For Higgins and his fellow travellers, one Jewish state on a piece of land the size of Munster is one Jewish state too many.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?