Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Irish army is fighting in Afghanistan

13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    whitelines wrote: »
    I think the moral status of a man from The Irish Republic serving in HM's Crown Forces is not clear cut. The Republic was part of The UK not so long ago and Irish men fought for The UK over many a year in many conflicts. Perhaps the off spring of such men are capable of great loyalty to The Crown as well. However, those who just can't get in The Irish Forces for whatever reason, or fancy a crack at The Paras (for whatever reason), well...

    Personally, I would prefer all UK soldiers to be British Citizens, or at least from a Commonwealth country. This would rule out those from The Irish Republic. Given that Ireland had until recently an illegal claim on UK soil, I think it was particularly inappropriate for those from The ROI to serve in The UK military. Some who did, ended up in The IRA (one ended up chief of staff - although he was British!!!).

    You cannot be a British soldier unless you swear allegiance to the Queen.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I disagree with the UN definition and rely instead on the Oxford English Dictionary definition. Is that allowed? :rolleyes:


    adjective

    • primarily concerned with making money at the expense of ethics: she’s nothing but a mercenary little gold-digger

    noun (plural mercenaries)

    • a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army: he had planned to seize power with the aid of a group of mercenaries
    • a person primarily motivated by personal gain: cricket’s most infamous mercenary

    I would disagree strongly with the online Oxford dictionary reference that you cite for the following simple - and rather important - reasons; it
    • uses popular cultural application of the word "mercenary" as innuendo as a definition of the word "mercenary" (anyone spot the infinite loop?),
    • does not give a definition for what it considers a "professional soldier".
    Further, one does not have to be a foreigner to be a mercenary ....

    Whomever precided over that entry into the Oxford dictionary was asleep at the wheel from a literary standpoint.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    Canvasser wrote: »
    Thankfully the Waffen SS no longer exists if people are going to have your attitude

    The troll is strong in this one.

    Godwins rule involed. End of thread.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    whitelines wrote: »
    I think the moral status of a man from The Irish Republic serving in HM's Crown Forces is not clear cut. The Republic was part of The UK not so long ago and Irish men fought for The UK over many a year in many conflicts. Perhaps the off spring of such men are capable of great loyalty to The Crown as well. However, those who just can't get in The Irish Forces for whatever reason, or fancy a crack at The Paras (for whatever reason), well...

    Personally, I would prefer all UK soldiers to be British Citizens, or at least from a Commonwealth country. This would rule out those from The Irish Republic. Given that Ireland had until recently an illegal claim on UK soil, I think it was particularly inappropriate for those from The ROI to serve in The UK military. Some who did, ended up in The IRA (one ended up chief of staff - although he was British!!!).
    That's gas and you managed to get the name of my country correct only once! (in red). Are you confused by the term "Ireland"? Do you confuse the name of the country on my passport with the name of a soccer team? Does reading British propaganda confuse you as to the official name of my country? Fear not! Have a gander at the Constitution (yes, ours is written out in detail, all legal and signed) it''ll refresh your memory.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Lemming wrote: »
    I would disagree strongly with the online Oxford dictionary reference that you cite for the following simple - and rather important - reasons; it
    • uses popular cultural application of the word "mercenary" as innuendo as a definition of the word "mercenary" (anyone spot the infinite loop?),
    • does not give a definition for what it considers a "professional soldier".
    Further, one does not have to be a foreigner to be a mercenary ....

    Whomever precided over that entry into the Oxford dictionary was asleep at the wheel from a literary standpoint.


    The UN is a vested interest in respect of categorising soldiers, their definition may very well be useful to what it sees as 'legitimate' forces, but it is not and doesn't seek to be the oracle when it comes to the meaning of a word. Just becuase it defines 'mercenary' in a certain context and for it's own ends, does not alter the general meaning of the word.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,389 ✭✭✭mattjack


    whitelines wrote: »
    I think the moral status of a man from The Irish Republic serving in HM's Crown Forces is not clear cut. The Republic was part of The UK not so long ago and Irish men fought for The UK over many a year in many conflicts. Perhaps the off spring of such men are capable of great loyalty to The Crown as well. However, those who just can't get in The Irish Forces for whatever reason, or fancy a crack at The Paras (for whatever reason), well...

    Personally, I would prefer all UK soldiers to be British Citizens, or at least from a Commonwealth country. This would rule out those from The Irish Republic. Given that Ireland had until recently an illegal claim on UK soil, I think it was particularly inappropriate for those from The ROI to serve in The UK military. Some who did, ended up in The IRA (one ended up chief of staff - although he was British!!!).

    I'd love you to say that to some Ghurkas.. you know the little guys with the funny knives.

    A Gurkha who single-handedly fought off up to 30 Taliban fighters at his base in Afghanistan has been awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross.

    The honour is just one level down from the Victoria Cross.

    Acting Sergeant Dip Pun, 31, ran out of ammunition and at one point had to use the tripod of his machine gun to beat away a fighter climbing the walls of the compound near Babaji in Helmand Province.

    The soldier fired more than 400 rounds, launched 17 grenades and detonated a mine to thwart the Taliban assault on his checkpoint last September...


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    The troll is strong in this one.

    Godwins rule involed. End of thread.

    Godwins law only applies when the mention of nazi's as a comparison is not appropriate. In this case it is. Scarleh for ye.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The UN is a vested interest in respect of categorising soldiers, their definition may very well be useful to what it sees as 'legitimate' forces, but it is not and doesn't seek to be the oracle when it comes to the meaning of a word. Just becuase it defines 'mercenary' in a certain context and for it's own ends, does not alter the general meaning of the word.

    Erm, the UN is a vested interest in humanity in general, with charters on everything from refugees, to human rights, climate change, and of course conflict. You will also find - for example - that the Geneva convention has a categorisation of everyone that may be found in area of conflict.

    So, trying to dismiss the comprehensive - and blindingly obviously more in-depth & considered - definition provided by the UN because you don't like what it says is sheer arrogance. What "ends" do you speak of the UN having for providing the definition it does? So far you have provided nothing more than innuendo & dishonest sleight of hand as "support" for your argument.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Lemming wrote: »
    So far you have provided nothing more than innuendo & dishonest sleight of hand as "support" for your argument.

    And the OED :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Bambi wrote: »
    And the OED :pac:

    I pointed out why the OED entry falls far short of a definition. I would dare say that the OED has gone downhill in recent years if that entry is indicative of standards across the board.

    I have already said "why" it falls short from both a literary & logical stance. Happyman has not provided the same reasoned arguments why he belives the OED is correct, comprehensive, or conclusive. Simply saying "but it's the OED" is not a response either Bambi.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Lemming wrote: »
    I would dare say that the OED has gone downhill in recent years if that entry is indicative of standards across the board

    So, trying to dismiss the comprehensive - and blindingly obviously more in-depth & considered - definition provided by the UN because you don't like what it says is sheer arrogance

    While we're on about definitions you might look up the term "cognitive dissonance", you could be a sufferer.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Bambi wrote: »
    While we're on about definitions you might look up the term "cognitive dissonance", you could be a sufferer.

    Have an 'F' for attempted insult. Clumsy and schoolboy. I haven't dismissed the OED entry because "I don't like it". I question its reliance because it's a very poor entry (I am actually quite shocked that that is being held up as a bona fide OED entry) that is both logically questionable and questionable from a literary standpoint.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,848 ✭✭✭Andy-Pandy


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    What's pathetic about it?
    If you join an 'army' you are motivated by something. Somebody who joins a foreign army, especially one with the historical relationship with us that the BA has, is NOT motivated by love or the defence of their country but by a love of soldiering for soldiering's sake or by money. They can be justifiaby criticised by those who do love their country and who would defend it. You can be proud as you want, you can't be proud about his service to Ireland though.

    I think it's pathetic because i've actually had to deal with the consequence of that line of thought for my whole life. I dont want to get into it, its to personal for the internet.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Lemming wrote: »
    Erm, the UN is a vested interest in humanity in general, with charters on everything from refugees, to human rights, climate change, and of course conflict. You will also find - for example - that the Geneva convention has a categorisation of everyone that may be found in area of conflict.

    So, trying to dismiss the comprehensive - and blindingly obviously more in-depth & considered - definition provided by the UN because you don't like what it says is sheer arrogance. What "ends" do you speak of the UN having for providing the definition it does? So far you have provided nothing more than innuendo & dishonest sleight of hand as "support" for your argument.

    The UN can do as it wishes to suit whatever agenda it has, like the ICA can define 'Soda Bread' to suit their agendas. It doesn't alter the accepted meaning of the word though.
    A mercenary: a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.

    Innuendo? I couldn't be more clear in my opinion.

    Could you prehaps supply us with your definition of what a national army is? Do they exist just to supply oppurtunities for 'soldiering'?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Andy-Pandy wrote: »
    I think it's pathetic because i've actually had to deal with the consequence of that line of thought for my whole life. I dont want to get into it, its to personal for the internet.

    Why is that a problem for me or for anybody but those personally related to you.
    Your father had the right to believe he was right, as does everybody else.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The UN can do as it wishes to suit whatever agenda it has, like the ICA can define 'Soda Bread' to suit their agendas. It doesn't alter the accepted meaning of the word though.

    Ah, "the accepted" meaning. I see. So you're really only interested in cherry-picking words to suit your opinion. You aren't gathering facts, you're building them as you wish.

    But lets play your game for a moment.
    A mercenary: a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.
    1. What is a "professional" soldier?
    2. Why must he be hired by a foreign army to be considered a mercenary?

    Lets look at #1 for a moment. The important word is the word "professional", and the context in which it is being applied. The "profession" of soldiering is comparatively new (August 1808, Prussia) when stood next to existing "professions" such as carpentry, law, architecture, medicine, etc. Prior to the 1600s, the term "professional" when applied to soldiers was typically in reference to "officers" - with or without formal military training - & judged/paid purely on their battlefield performances. After the thirty-years war in the early 1600s, aristocracy typically conferred positions of command amongst themselves - again with or without formal training - albeit less motivated by the accumulation of personal wealth. What you are attempting to do is apply a modern understanding of the word "professional" to another meaning of the word that originated hundreds of years ago, long before the notion of a 'career soldier' existed.

    In modern (19th Century and up) terms the term was originally applied to distinguish between a civilian who has enlisted or been commissioned into the ranks of an army, following a period of training by said army, vs. someone who has been 'hired in' by an army, sans-ancillary costs, typically for a fixed duration or specific task (oddly enough in direct reference to "officers" stemming back to pre-1600s)

    In civilian terms, this would be the equivalent of comparing an employee to a contractor. So right off the bat, your application of the word "mercenary" to imply that anybody who enlists in another nation's army is one, is incorrect. Completely. They are members of said army - i.e. they are "employees", not 'contractors' brought in. They follow the laws, customs, traditions, & loyalties of that army. They form part of that 'society', i.e. they are not outsiders, unlike the role of a contractor, who does not get "involved" other than is necessary to fulfil their contract, gets paid well above what the employee gets paid, and then moves onto the next contract.

    In keeping with this, I shall point to the rise of the politically correct term Private Military Contractor - or 'PMC' - during the second Iraq war, most notably amongst US political & military circles. These were contracted (hence the name) in to carry out military tasks/functions instead of US military forces, almost always at significantly higher costs. They were not US military, or UK military forces. These were mercenaries, not a lad from Dublin who joined the USMC, or a lad from Galway who joined the Royal Marine Commandos.



    Now, on to point number two. This is a bit of a doozy. Are you ready? Might want to sit down for this one because it's going to fly like a wet kipper across the cheek ....

    drum roll .....

    Mercenaries don't have to be foreign. You can be the same nationality as the army you're fighting alongside and still be a mercenary.

    So. yeah. The above is why your cited "definition" is flawed, and your usage of same is completely incorrect.
    Innuendo? I couldn't be more clear in my opinion.

    The operative word there being "opinion". Not logic or fact, but opinion. I have provided you with a fly-through of history on where the term "professional soldier" comes from & why it was applied, I have provided you with a direct civilian equivalent of soldier vs. mercenary (employee vs. contractor), and all of that is grounded in logic or cold fact, not opinion or rhetoric. To quote Chomsky; "facts matter, even when you don't like what they say".
    Could you prehaps supply us with your definition of what a national army is? Do they exist just to supply oppurtunities for 'soldiering'?

    I fail to see what relevance my definition of a national army is here since I have not brought up the matter of a "national army". You have. I also fail to see the relevance in your question regards soldiering. But, I'll indulge you;

    A national army - as the name would imply - is the de-facto recognised standing army of a nation, hence the term "national". Simple eh? Whether or not that army stands in support of a civilian-led government, or a military dictator is neither here nor there, as that is a matter of national politics, not martial discipline.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭shanered


    I'm quite suprised the OP didn't actually read the article he posted....


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,165 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Canvasser wrote: »
    An Irishman in the paras doing the dirty work of the British in Afghanistan. The paras shot 14 unarmed Irishmen dead in 1972 in Derry. They are nothing but thugs.

    [mod]Christ, you're only just back, and you aren't learning.

    Last ban was two weeks. You're up to three now.
    While we're on about definitions you might look up the term "cognitive dissonance", you could be a sufferer.

    Infraction. Personal abuse.[/mod]


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Lemming wrote: »
    Ah, "the accepted" meaning. I see. So you're really only interested in cherry-picking words to suit your opinion. You aren't gathering facts, you're building them as you wish.

    But lets play your game for a moment.


    1. What is a "professional" soldier?
    2. Why must he be hired by a foreign army to be considered a mercenary?

    Lets look at #1 for a moment. The important word is the word "professional", and the context in which it is being applied. The "profession" of soldiering is comparatively new (August 1808, Prussia) when stood next to existing "professions" such as carpentry, law, architecture, medicine, etc. Prior to the 1600s, the term "professional" when applied to soldiers was typically in reference to "officers" - with or without formal military training - & judged/paid purely on their battlefield performances. After the thirty-years war in the early 1600s, aristocracy typically conferred positions of command amongst themselves - again with or without formal training - albeit less motivated by the accumulation of personal wealth. What you are attempting to do is apply a modern understanding of the word "professional" to another meaning of the word that originated hundreds of years ago, long before the notion of a 'career soldier' existed.

    In modern (19th Century and up) terms the term was originally applied to distinguish between a civilian who has enlisted or been commissioned into the ranks of an army, following a period of training by said army, vs. someone who has been 'hired in' by an army, sans-ancillary costs, typically for a fixed duration or specific task (oddly enough in direct reference to "officers" stemming back to pre-1600s)

    In civilian terms, this would be the equivalent of comparing an employee to a contractor. So right off the bat, your application of the word "mercenary" to imply that anybody who enlists in another nation's army is one, is incorrect. Completely. They are members of said army - i.e. they are "employees", not 'contractors' brought in. They follow the laws, customs, traditions, & loyalties of that army. They form part of that 'society', i.e. they are not outsiders, unlike the role of a contractor, who does not get "involved" other than is necessary to fulfil their contract, gets paid well above what the employee gets paid, and then moves onto the next contract.

    In keeping with this, I shall point to the rise of the politically correct term Private Military Contractor - or 'PMC' - during the second Iraq war, most notably amongst US political & military circles. These were contracted (hence the name) in to carry out military tasks/functions instead of US military forces, almost always at significantly higher costs. They were not US military, or UK military forces. These were mercenaries, not a lad from Dublin who joined the USMC, or a lad from Galway who joined the Royal Marine Commandos.



    Now, on to point number two. This is a bit of a doozy. Are you ready? Might want to sit down for this one because it's going to fly like a wet kipper across the cheek ....

    drum roll .....

    Mercenaries don't have to be foreign. You can be the same nationality as the army you're fighting alongside and still be a mercenary.

    So. yeah. The above is why your cited "definition" is flawed, and your usage of same is completely incorrect.



    The operative word there being "opinion". Not logic or fact, but opinion. I have provided you with a fly-through of history on where the term "professional soldier" comes from & why it was applied, I have provided you with a direct civilian equivalent of soldier vs. mercenary (employee vs. contractor), and all of that is grounded in logic or cold fact, not opinion or rhetoric. To quote Chomsky; "facts matter, even when you don't like what they say".



    I fail to see what relevance my definition of a national army is here since I have not brought up the matter of a "national army". You have. I also fail to see the relevance in your question regards soldiering. But, I'll indulge you;

    A national army - as the name would imply - is the de-facto recognised standing army of a nation, hence the term "national". Simple eh? Whether or not that army stands in support of a civilian-led government, or a military dictator is neither here nor there, as that is a matter of national politics, not martial discipline.

    Lets agree to disagree, one man's professional soldier is another man's mercenary. I can't be bothered discussing this with somebody who just disappears deeper into the definition in dispute. The world is thankfully occupied by far more than those who need to make 'military distinctions'.

    To my mind, somebody who takes a job in a national army other than hs own is being mercenary.
    I'm reclaiming the word for civillian use! ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,043 ✭✭✭twinytwo


    Canvasser wrote: »
    An Irishman in the paras doing the dirty work of the British in Afghanistan. The paras shot 14 unarmed Irishmen dead in 1972 in Derry. They are nothing but thugs.

    by that train of thought... every irish person is a terrorist because the ira went around blowing stuff up. Or every german is a jew killing nazi


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭DipStick McSwindler


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Threads like these are ridiculous and attract the trolls, the simple fact is these bigots will never change their opinion because they are so uneducated and simple to understand we are living in 2012, the Irish Defence Forces can handpick their soldiers/Officers and dash the hopes of men, who like me absolutely 100% would love a military career but cant get in.

    5000 applicants for 21 jobs, many with PHDs ,Masters, Degrees and 600 points in the leaving cert. Normal lads like me who are currently going through college simply just dont stand a chance. These same bigots would rather us sit on the dole here waiting for a recruitment to begin than join the second closest army to home which is full of Irish.

    Morons I Say!!

    Do whatever you wish, but call it what it is and don't call yourself an 'Irish soldier', you weren't able to be one of those and it has nothing to do with your Irishness.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Do whatever you wish, but call it what it is and don't call yourself an 'Irish soldier', you weren't able to be one of those and it has nothing to do with your Irishness.

    What sh*tebucket have you just fallen off? Somewhere out there is a bridge that is feeling lonely without you sitting back under it.

    Of course they're "Irish soldiers". Why? Because they're soldiers that are Irish nationals. QE f*cking D. Quite a bit different from "Irish Army soldier", or "Member of the Permanent/Reserve Defense Forces" now isn't it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    To be honest I do think the term "Irish soldier" does have strong implications that the person in question is a soldier in the defence forces, and as such, I do think it's ambiguous and misleading when used regarding Irishmen within the British Armed Forces or other foreign militaries. In those instances I'm happiest with not describing them as Irish soldiers, though they are Irish, and soldiers.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Lemming wrote: »
    What sh*tebucket have you just fallen off? Somewhere out there is a bridge that is feeling lonely without you sitting back under it.

    Of course they're "Irish soldiers". Why? Because they're soldiers that are Irish nationals. QE f*cking D. Quite a bit different from "Irish Army soldier", or "Member of the Permanent/Reserve Defense Forces" now isn't it?

    Again: It's an Irish person who is a soldier in the ****** Army.

    You only become a 'soldier' when you are a member of an 'army'.
    You only become an 'Irish Soldier' when you are a member of the 'Irish' Army.


    * fill in nation of your choice.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭DipStick McSwindler


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    I thought they were mercenaries not soldiers?

    Yes, I never said they weren't soldiers.
    Mercenaries = soldiers who are mercenary


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,165 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Lemming wrote: »
    What sh*tebucket have you just fallen off? Somewhere out there is a bridge that is feeling lonely without you sitting back under it.

    [mod]A little more civility and decorum is requested, please.[/mod]

    I'm beginning to think this thread is going nowhere and am about to lock it, unless someone can give me a convincing reason not to.

    Due to the vagaries of the English language, both sides are correct. One has to take context into account to determine if "Irish Soldier" means "soldier under Irish colours" or "Irish national in an army." Please try to avoid taking too much umbrage if your usage of the term doesn't necessarily match with the other guy's.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭DipStick McSwindler


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,232 ✭✭✭neilled


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Yes, I never said they weren't soldiers.
    Mercenaries = soldiers who are mercenary

    Happyman, the term mercenary is quite clearly explained by lemming earlier in the thread. Definitions of the accepted usage are those as defined by the ICRC and the UN through the protocols of the Geneva Convention and the convention on Mercenaries.

    Those who are at the sharp end of international relations ie soldiers use those definitions to define who is and isn't a mercenary and treat them accordingly. Similarly those in the legal profession who are involved in dealing with warcrimes, crimes against humanity etc also use the same definitions do define who is a mercenary.

    It might be noted that the concept of the nation state and its standing army is rather new - in the majority of recorded history, soldiers were raised by the sovereign for a particular campaign from whereever they might be from and disbanded thereafter. Lets take the french for example - right up until the 16th century the most common language in france wasn't actually french. it was only when the monarch began centralizing power so the state could collect tax more efficiently that the modern nation state began to form - latter these would create a collective memory or narrative of history outlining where the people that inhabited a particular state came from.

    Skipping back a bit further, in the aftermath of the 100 years war and the demobilisations that followed it, the soldiers left unemployed formed the "Free Companies" - where we got the term Company from and hired themselves to any power looking for their services. Other historically famous groups included the "Black Band" and the various swiss regiments of pikemen. These were mercenaries in the classic sense - they arrived pretrained, with their own arms and equipment and command structure and fought alongside the forces raised by whoever might be able to afford them for the duration of a specific contract.

    Similarly, PMC's today are armed and equipped by themselves with their own command structures and for a specific duration. An example of this would be Blackwater/XE or Custer Battles who were PMC's (all american) who carried out specific military taskings on behalf of the US in the aftermath of the Iraq war. They were not of another nationality - they were the same nationality as those they were fighting alongside.

    A X National who voluntarily enlists in the PDF taking an oath to be "faithful to Ireland and loyal to the Constitution" does not meet the criteria of a mercenary, similarly this would not apply to other countries either.

    As stated earlier, the definitions who what constitutes a mercenary are well defined and used by those who are dealing at the sharp end (that where lead and other high velocity projectiles fly) of international relations and will continue to be the ones used in the "real world."

    No amount of primordial nonsense about place of birth will change that.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement