Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Neutrality and dangerous alliances
Veteran journalist, Robert Fisk, has been an eyewitness to many global conflicts. In his most recent article, Fisk observed that the war in Iraq- now claiming officially 4,000 US lives and many multiples of that number of Iraqi casualties- has shown the true value of neutrality.
Chris Donnelly @ 08:07 PM
“Hence the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war is being analysed with cool - albeit slightly smug - detachment in Ireland.” .. Fisk
‘Rendition’ jets back in Shannon
Neutrality can also be interpreted as standing idly by.
Supporting the formation of the PRM can hardly be portrayed as the Republic’s finest act.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 09:11 PMTypical British idealism from Robert Fisk. He wants everybody to believe in an eye for an eye and no compromise just so that he can feel that justice has been done.
An eye for an eye leaves us all blind. It doesn’t answer Bloody Sunday, Fallujah, Iraq in general, or Palestinian problems. John Hume was right. Dialogue and compromise is always needed. Or else we get what we had here, an unending Apocalypse of violence.
For more information on the literal Apocalypse in the North, click on my name and then “Revelation”. Northern Ireland is not just a failed political entity, but a Biblical hotpot.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 09:23 PMHe wants everybody to believe in an eye for an eye and no compromise just so that he can feel that justice has been done.
Actually, if you read or listened to Fisk regularly, you’d know this simply isn’t true John.
For more information on the literal Apocalypse in the North, click on my name and then “Revelation”. Northern Ireland is not just a failed political entity, but a Biblical hotpot.
Oh, I simply can’t wait John! Will I find it in this episode if Gerry ‘666’ Adams is still tempting people with forbidden fruit- maybe, dare I say it, ORANGES???
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 09:33 PMI don’t understand why this piece concluded “so much for the flags in St Patrick’s cathedral” other than Fisk just wanted to write it. A bit of a mess overall, really, switching backwards and forwards between praising and condemning some types of violence and some types of neutrality.
May I make a request here that the numerical nutter be banned? The only number he needs is the number for Purdysburn.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 09:45 PMJohn you are deluded to think that Fisk is spouting British Idealism.
“An eye for an eye leaves us all blind” is i believe a quote from Ghandi
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 09:47 PMTo Chris Donnelly - Given the thousands of people your organisation (Sinn Fein PIRA) murdered and injured across the British Isles and further afield, you obviously believed (or still believe?) in the principle of murdering people if it furthers your objectives.
Yet your post above talks about the true value of neutrality. Most Unionists don’t think the RoI was neutral when it came to the setting up of SF PIRA to murder people. Most Unionists don’t think the RoI was neutral when it came to bringing members of SF PIRA to justice. Indeed the RoI allowed terrorists like Owen Carron to be teachers in their schools while on the run from another EU country. Polluting the minds of another generation ...
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 09:58 PMA very disappointing piece by Fisk. He’s clearly deluding himself if he believes that the 26 Counties is neutral in regards to the US-led occupation of Iraq.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 10:25 PMPeaceandJustice
Well said.
SRR
The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
Chris Donnelly
Oh, I simply can’t wait John! Will I find it in this episode if Gerry ‘666’ Adams is still tempting people with forbidden fruit- maybe, dare I say it, ORANGES???
I know you simply don’t care, Chris, that your leader will one day be regarded as the Antichrist by everyone, even by republicans, many of whom still go to Mass, though in truth never really understood, like you, the difference between an eye for and eye and Christian forgiveness.
And what is it about these republicans. All they ever do is try to out-evil people but they never accept that the source of that evil is in their ideology. Republicanism is all about out-eviling people, through violence but also through psychology and they think that I’m wrong to put that number on Gerry Adam’s name. Get real.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 10:31 PMWe have no air defence capability and a fishery protection navy, who are we trying to fool? Ireland is a country which has been able to play at being nuetral thanks to its favourable geographic position and the implicit protection of NATO. Really neurtral countries, Sweden and Switzerland for example, have conscription and large defence budgets.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 10:38 PMA comparator for Ireland (and we’re busy copying each other’s Navy at the moment) might be New Zealand. Both have populations of 4.3 Million, strategic maritime / fishery protection interests and while neutral/anti-nuclear and therefore not in ANZUS / NATO remain “very very good friends” with the US.
The Kiwis have sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Ireland spends more than New Zealand on defence (mostly salaries I’d guess).
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 10:50 PMJohn
Will you please keep going? My sides are starting to hurt....
PJ
and on and on and on.....Do you ever stop to consider that you are vulnerable to similar ripostes about unionist/ loyalist/ British state attitudes to violence throughout the decades/ centuries?‘Murdering people to further objectives’ was how an Empire was established and maintained, and unionism/ loyalism has been similarly willing to resort to arms to further its objectives in Ireland.
Now care to discuss the main points raised by Fisk?
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 11:37 PMNZ is a country that’s *really* protected by its location and it would be interesting to have the comparitive percentage of GDP figures.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 11:55 PMChris Donnelly
‘Murdering people to further objectives’ was how an Empire was established and maintained, and unionism/ loyalism has been similarly willing to resort to arms to further its objectives in Ireland.
Given that your above statement is true, an eye for an eye is logically therefore the basis of violent (not physical force) republicanism. Wasn’t it therefore just learned stupidity for republicans to continue advocating going down that route.
Isn’t violent republicanism all about blind rage and not about reason, as Mark Durkan has said.
In other words isn’t the reason that the British government are bending over backwards to accomodate Sinn Fein to do with the fact that they are a bunch of emotional cripples and headcases who would have and have destroyed things for everybody else because they don’t get their way. You can’t negotiate with people like Sinn Fein, you can only pretend to accomodate them.
Over 1,800 people were killed by the IRA for Stormont government and an SDLP settlement. It was a good job God intervened (through 666 Gerry Adams, etc., you so mock) to stop this conflict or it would have gone on indefinitely because of Sinn Fein nutters.
Robert Fisk is very sociable and will adapt his views for different audiences. He must think that the Belfast Telegraph is a republican paper.
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 12:17 AMShore Road Resident - “A bit of a mess overall, really, switching backwards and forwards between praising and condemning some types of violence and some types of neutrality.”
Agreed.
Chris Donnelly - “and on and on and on”
I don’t support terrorism. What about you? Do you still support murdering people to further your goals if the circumstances are right - in a later ‘phase of the struggle’? Putting bombs in shopping centres? Murdering men, women and children? How do you explain the joys of terrorism to the kids you teach e.g. Warrington? Maybe you get advice from Owen Carron.
Or perhaps you are ready to apologise to the majority of people on both sides of the border - some of them have had their lives ruined by the actions of SF PIRA death squads.
While we are waiting for your apology, may I suggest you don’t start threads on the true value of neutrality - given your association with murderous gangsters.
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 01:12 AMEamonn,
If we can trust wiki Ireland’s is 0.7% and New Zealand’s “1%”.
New Zealand’s GDP/head is just 63% of Ireland’s though (lot’s of currency effects I’d say).
There’s something nice and symmetrical about defence spending figures which are roughly in line with foreign aid targets rather than grossly exceeding them.
I found this link to NZ’s new UN mission support ship (based on an Isle of Man ferry!) which apparently Ireland has plans to copy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMNZS_Canterbury_(L421)
Ireland’s modern military mission seems (as Fisk implies) like one she should be proud of. I get the impression Fisk wishes the UK would adopt a more similar position.
Not sure how Ireland’s defence forces might adapt in a UI though. Would a use be found for a Northern recruited air assault battalion?
A nerdy question maybe but the Scots Nats played strongly on the loss of Scottish Regiments in Britain’s reoganisation.
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 01:19 AM‘While we are waiting for your apology’
tell you what P&J;you can have an apology, but lets do things chronologically shall we? in other words where is the aopology to nationalists in the north for the years of unionist misrule and for the refusal to accept the democratic will of the irish people by refusing to accept home rule and thus having their nown little sectarian Rhodesia established. any chance???????? didn’t think so.
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 01:27 AM“A nerdy question maybe but the Scots Nats played strongly on the loss of Scottish Regiments in Britain’s reoganisation.”
yes indeed they did. all a bit odd really, as if SF had been campaigning for the retention of Irish regiments or something. yes I know, it’s different but still....
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 01:38 AMRepublicanStones - “where is the aopology to nationalists in the north for the years of unionist misrule”
Where is the apology to the Protestants in the RoI who suffered discrimination, violence and mis-rule. Many were forced to leave.
Now I understand that like Chris Donnelly you have supported Republican death squads in the past. So I don’t expect you to understand my comments to Mr Donnelly about starting threads on the true value of neutrality, given your own association with murderous gangsters.
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 02:10 AM‘neutrality’ my ass. Hiding behind one skirt or the other, while the tiger fill up the coffers. The only time the modern Irishman grows any balls is when he leaves the island. The bunch left behind is an effeminate bunch of poofs. Well written though.
Tsk tsk.Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 03:46 AMEamonn: “We have no air defence capability and a fishery protection navy, who are we trying to fool? Ireland is a country which has been able to play at being nuetral thanks to its favourable geographic position and the implicit protection of NATO. Really neurtral countries, Sweden and Switzerland for example, have conscription and large defence budgets.”
Switzerland is a veritable fortress, with every man of gun bearing age with a gun to bear, not to mention 1000+ rounds a year to practice with a year under dint of law. This says nothing about the fortifications about the place, on top of its natural advantages, what with the mountains and the banks…
jaffa: “There’s something nice and symmetrical about defence spending figures which are roughly in line with foreign aid targets rather than grossly exceeding them.”
A pity about the fact that most of Europe, in NATO and out, are defense free-loaders, not to mention that “soft power” is just appeasement, re-packaged for the 21st century…
That said, there *is* something comforting about a Germany with fat, out-of-shape soldiers addicted to cigarettes…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/06/germany.armedforces?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 04:18 AM*Veteran journalist, Robert Fisk,*
And purveyor of all round codswallop and twaddle, you know only this very week he said there was no connection between Islam and terrorism.
No none at all, absolutely none Bobby, just ask all those “jihadis”, “mujaheddin” and “fedayin” who cry “Allahu Akbhar!” as they fight against the “infidels” and “crusaders”. No Fisky there’s no link whatsoever between Islam and terrorism at least not in your parallel universe.
Clown.
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 04:18 AMDread Cthulhu: so you agree with me.
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 08:03 AM‘Where is the apology to the Protestants in the RoI who suffered discrimination, violence and mis-rule. Many were forced to leave.’
would you like to elaborate here P&J;, are you suggesting that the decline of the percentage of the proteatant population in the south had nothing at all to do with intermarriage, emigration, increased birth rate among them ‘aul fenians, but just your ‘accusations’. I don’t remember the southern govt frog marching protestants to the docks and aiports and forcing them to leave, so what do you mean?. Care to elaborate or just ignore the facts.
and as regards neutrality P&J;, what on earth would you know about it?Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 02:19 PMEamonn: “ so you agree with me. “
Whole-heartedly.
Contrary to popular belief, I do occasionally agree with other posters. I simply wanted to expand on the Swiss commitment to defense, including the entrustment of the tools of violence to the general public.
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 02:34 PMRepublicanStones - “would you like to elaborate here”
The following in from a book review in the New Stateman in 1998 regarding Protestant Unionists in the RoI:
“There were many small farmers, some of them as poor as their Catholic neighbours. After independence, many members ... felt that, in the words of one boarding-house keeper, ‘no Protestant will ever get fair play in the Free State’.
Many Protestants disappeared by absorption, not least thanks to the Vatican’s Ne temere decree (always bitterly resented by Protestants in countries where they were the minority), according to which all children of mixed marriages had to be brought up as Catholics.
Many others, however, had been driven out by brute force, along with some Catholic loyalists who had served in the British army or the Royal Irish Constabulary. But if Catholic loyalists were traitors in republican eyes, Protestants were the tribal enemy.
Protestant small businessmen were run out of Monaghan; Protestant farmers around Carrick-on-Shannon were subjected to ‘continuous persecution’, a contemporary report said, and left for the North; near Clonakilty, a Unionist JP and his son were forced to dig their own graves before they were shot by republicans, who then hanged the JP’s nephew.
That last was in west Cork, the heartland of the republican insurrection which simmered after the Easter Rising and boiled over in the Anglo-Irish Troubles of 1919-21 and the still more brutal Irish Civil War of 1922-23.
The conflict there was at its most brutal, close to ethnic cleansing - and no one can call that phrase excessive ...
... widespread illusions persist about Irish republicanism, whether 80 years ago or today: above all, the illusion that it was or is non-sectarian.
The Irish know better. In an admirable recent article in the New York Review of Books, Fintan O’Toole described the IRA’s campaign of communal violence in Northern Ireland over the past quarter-century. Quite apart from well-publicised bombings in Enniskillen or the Shankhill Road, there was a systematic policy of killing only sons of Protestant farmers in western Ulster, a most effective form of ethnic cleansing.
The story had been similar in west Cork 50 years before the Provisional IRA was even named. More than 200 big houses were burnt throughout Ireland in the lustrum after the first world war, symbols of the ascendancy class swept away in a frenzy of destruction. But the republicans’ principal target wasn’t Anglo-Irish landlords. During 1919-23 they shot 122 people as “spies and informers” in Cork. That number included 17 farmers, 25 unskilled labourers and 23 unemployed.
In the Bandon district of County Cork, for instance, Protestants accounted for one in six of the population until the Troubles. It was there, in and around Dunmanway, on the nights of 27-29 April 1922, that ten people were shot by republicans. They included James Buttimer, an 82-year-old retired draper; Ralph Harbord, curate of Murragh; Alexander McKinley and Robert Nagle, both aged 16; and Jim Greenfield, a “feeble-minded” farm servant. None was rich or propertied. All were Protestants.
The republicans’ justification - if the word applies - was revenge for attacks on Catholics in Belfast, about which southern Protestants were said to have remained silent. As Hart shows, that was untrue: in the months before the massacre, ‘there were frequent Protestant meetings and letters to newspapers condemning the northern pogroms’. This violence, Hart concludes, ‘did not seek merely to punish Protestants but to drive them out’, and it succeeded. A witness reported that ‘for two weeks there wasn’t standing room on any of the boats or mail-trains leaving Cork for England’, while others escaped to Ulster, part of a general exodus that sheds bleak light on those sharply declining Protestant numbers.”
So RepublicanStones, when you are looking at such issues, you might want to take into account the nine-tenths of the iceberg that is south compared to the exposed one-tenth which is north.
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 03:16 PM
