Business interests advocate a yes vote

baaaa

Does this worry people or not and why?

ei.sdraob

baaaa wrote: »

Does this worry people or not and why?

Declan Ganley is chairman of Rivada and "chairman" of Libertas

who have large contracts with US military (190 million+ euro) and have among the directors on board, the generals close to Bush who were responsible for the Iraq war

does that worry people? especially since we still dont know where the Libertas NO campaign money came from

---

to answer your question, im happy that companies and business associations such as IBEC, that provide large employment and tax revenue here in Ireland can see the benefits of Lisbon

as a business owner myself im quite happy with Lisbon and think that there positive points such as common energy policy that will make a positive difference

last thing the business community and the people they employ is more uncertainty that would arise from a NO vote

/

baaaa

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Declan Ganley is chairman of Rivada and "chairman" of Libertas

who have large contracts with US military (190 million+ euro) and have among the directors on board, the generals close to Bush who were responsible for the Iraq war


/

Personally,when I found out just who Declan Ganley really was my heart skipped a beat.Absurd as it sounds,I would vote the opposite way to whatever he and his business associates would,and I wouldn't even need to see what I was voting on,these guys are pure evil,but operate at a level that most don't even know exists and so people don't really know who they are.

I do still think that it's legitimate to question the broader business communities advocation of a way to vote though.It's true that big majority of business are for good but we do operate in capitalism and there are those who are forces for "bad" and they do have a lot of power?

meglome

baaaa wrote: »

Does this worry people or not and why?

It's a fair question and might be a concern if it was only business interests calling for a Yes vote. However it's most of our politicians, our unions, our labour organisations, our academics, our media and our business leaders. And of course we can read the treaty or one of the guides if we're worried.

bleg

Those big bad damn business interests that provide jobs are taking us ordinary workers for a ride! [/Higgins]

ei.sdraob

bleg wrote: »

Those big bad damn business interests that provide jobs are taking us ordinary workers for a ride! [/Higgins]

could be worse

http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/

The Communist Party of Ireland is an all-Ireland Marxist party founded in 1933. Its aim is to win the support of the majority of the Irish people for ending the capitalist system and for building socialism—a social system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are publicly owned and utilised for the benefit of the whole people.

someone should point out cuba and north korea on the map for these people or buy them a history book

bleg

ei.sdraob wrote: »

could be worse

http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/

You'd think they'd have put a less scary picture on the front page. Old men wearing black and red. Good call lads!

ei.sdraob

bleg wrote: »

You'd think they'd have put a less scary picture on the front page. Old men wearing black and red. Good call lads!

i wonder do they intend to replace the tricolor with this


hmm i scrolled down and lookit here

http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/cillmhor.jpeg

glaston

baaaa wrote: »

Does this worry people or not and why?

Dont really know what you are getting at.
Like it or not ''business interests'' should be Irelands Interests.
Stimulating business helps the economy grow, provides jobs, adds to the tax coffers and overall welfare of the country.

sdanseo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i wonder do they intend to replace the tricolor with this


hmm i scrolled down and lookit here

http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/cillmhor.jpeg

€180 billion? Can't be any truth in that figure surely?

meglome

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i wonder do they intend to replace the tricolor with this


hmm i scrolled down and lookit here

http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/cillmhor.jpeg

I'm hoping that one day someone will be able to explain where these figures of €180 billion or €200 billion or €300 come from. The nearest I can find in real life is less than 5 billion.

ei.sdraob

sdonn wrote: »

€180 billion? Can't be any truth in that figure surely?

its yet another lie from the NO side

and do note that Coir have 200billion on their posters


Scofflaw demolished that myth in style here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055314533&highlight=fishing

meglome

sdonn wrote: »

€180 billion? Can't be any truth in that figure surely?

meglome wrote: »

I looked it up and foreign boats have taken more fish out of Irish waters than the Irish boats have. Although the share the Irish boats take has steadily risen since we joined the EU. The total value of the catch landed by the foreign boats is about 4.7 billion euro since 1973. (Click show tabular data).

And as for our farmers, the EU props them up. To suggest the EU is screwing them is bull****. Irish farmers 71% reliant on subsidies

Now the EU have given us 41 billion euro for free since 1973 (Page 19). I don't seem to be seeing the 'screwing' here.

meglome wrote: »

Now I'm no expert on fishing but I can use simple logic.

The Irish landed catch since 1973 is 2.4 billion and the landed catch by foreign boats is 4.7 billion.

The Spanish landed catch since 1973 is 2 billion euro and the catch landed by foreign boats is 2 billion euro.

Now the figure of 200 billion euro that's quoted is 83 times more than all Irish fishing boats have landed since 1973, which (and to put it mildly) seems unlikely. Now as I said I'm no fishing expert but this value of 200 billion seems to have no basis in any reality that I can find.

Since this figure is so often quoted maybe someone can find out where it came from?

That's the best I can do on the subject.

bleg

sdonn wrote: »

€180 billion? Can't be any truth in that figure surely?

What makes you think that?

ei.sdraob

bleg wrote: »

What makes you think that?

see here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055314533&highlight=fishing

ilovelamp2000

baaaa wrote: »

Does this worry people or not and why?

Yes it does worry me.

It would worry me a lot less if we could directly elect the Commission.

ei.sdraob

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Yes it does worry me.

It would worry me a lot less if we could directly elect the Commission.

why not do away with them altogether?

Lisbon 1 would have reduced this useless beuracracy


and a Commissioner does not represent his country but whole of EU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission

There is one Commissioner per member state, though Commissioners are bound to represent the interests of the EU as a whole rather than their home state.

sdanseo

bleg wrote: »

What makes you think that?

Well the entire US economic bailout was to the tune of €700bn, very hard to imagine one part of one sector of the Irish economy being worth a third of that tbh.

meglome

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Yes it does worry me.

It would worry me a lot less if we could directly elect the Commission.

What exactly have they done that worries you so much?

ilovelamp2000

ei.sdraob wrote: »

why not do away with them altogether?

Lisbon 1 would have reduced this useless beuracracy


and a Commissioner does not represent his country but whole of EU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission

Erm ... are you serious ?

If there was no Commission nothing would happen in the EU.

I'm well aware that a Commissioner is obliged to act independently of national interests, which is why I was a bit miffed when the Government tried to make out that keeping a Commissioner was a big victory for Ireland.

ei.sdraob

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Erm ... are you serious ?

If there was no Commission nothing would happen in the EU.

I'm well aware that a Commissioner is obliged to act independently of national interests, which is why I was a bit miffed when the Government tried to make out that keeping a Commissioner was a big victory for Ireland.

EU would function quite well without the commission, all they are is a drain and a waste

im all for giving more power to directly elected MEPs in the EU Parliament

Commission's job can be done by other organs of the EU, as the EU grows they have to invent new Commissioner posts and portfolios, what a joke

bleg

sdonn wrote: »

Well the entire US economic bailout was to the tune of €700bn, very hard to imagine one part of one sector of the Irish economy being worth a third of that tbh.

sarcasm doesn't work on this thing!

Scofflaw

meglome wrote: »

I'm hoping that one day someone will be able to explain where these figures of €180 billion or €200 billion or €300 come from. The nearest I can find in real life is less than 5 billion.

The process goes roughly like this - we start with the traditional claim that "foreign vessels are taking 2 billion a year from Irish waters". This has a long history:

Dáil Éireann - Volume 478 - 30 April, 1997

Written Answers. - Fish Stocks.

148. Mr. H. Byrne (FF, Wexford) asked the Minister for the Marine if his attention has been drawn to the £2 billion worth of fish which is taken from Irish waters by EU boats each year and that Ireland's share from Irish waters is £100 million; if his attention has further been drawn to the fact that Ireland has 16 per cent of EU water and only a 2.9 per cent quota, with a 2.5 per cent fleet; the proposals, if any, he has to redress the balance to somewhere near equity; if he will provide funding to update and upgrade the fleet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11567/97]

The Minister (a Fine Gael one) on that occasion replied that the maximum estimate was in fact closer to £700 million, with the Irish share being £139m.

Trevor Sargent repeats the same thing more or less word for word 4 years later in 2001, attacking Fianna Fail this time:

The members of the fishing community constantly remind me that the fisheries have suffered because of our membership of the EU. It has been said many times that £2 billion worth of fish was taken out of Irish waters by EU boats every year and Ireland's share is about £100 million.

And so on. Interestingly enough, the figure becomes 2 billion euro, as opposed to punts, when the currency changes. It ought to have become €2.5 billion, but it doesn't, because it's not a real figure. It's a verbal 'factoid' which has repeatedly been shown not to be the case, and which has never been demonstrated as true at all - literally, not ever. Nobody has ever pulled up figures that add up to £2bn or €2bn of fish.

What happened to that figure is that it was multiplied by the convenient figure of 35 years (since we joined the EU) to give another nice round number of €70bn.

A journalist called Prendiville got hold of that figure, and decided to multiply it to give the "value to the economy", which included his estimates of a notional processing industry and so on, resulting in a figure of €200bn. He claimed his "catch data" came from Eurostat, but Eurostat do not produce a figure for Irish waters - their figures are for the "North-East Atlantic", which covers Irish, French, Spanish, Portugese, Belgian, Dutch, German, Danish, Swedish and Finnish EU waters, as well as Icelandic and Norwegian waters.

Other people have simply multiplied that figure again, on the basis that "surely these are low estimates". They're not, of course - indeed, they're not estimates at all. They're completely notional figures with no attachment to reality, which derive solely from opposition attacks on whoever happens to be the Minister for the Marine of the day.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

Scofflaw wrote: »

The process goes roughly like this - we start with the traditional claim that "foreign vessels are taking 2 billion a year from Irish waters". This has a long history:

The Minister (a Fine Gael one) on that occasion replied that the maximum estimate was in fact closer to £700 million, with the Irish share being £139m.

Trevor Sargent repeats the same thing more or less word for word 4 years later in 2001, attacking Fianna Fail this time:

And so on. Interestingly enough, the figure becomes 2 billion euro, as opposed to punts, when the currency changes. It ought to have become €2.5 billion, but it doesn't, because it's not a real figure. It's a verbal 'factoid' which has repeatedly been shown not to be the case, and which has never been demonstrated as true at all - literally, not ever. Nobody has ever pulled up figures that add up to £2bn or €2bn of fish.

What happened to that figure is that it was multiplied by the convenient figure of 35 years (since we joined the EU) to give another nice round number of €70bn.

A journalist called Prendiville got hold of that figure, and decided to multiply it to give the "value to the economy", which included his estimates of a notional processing industry and so on, resulting in a figure of €200bn. He claimed his "catch data" came from Eurostat, but Eurostat do not produce a figure for Irish waters - their figures are for the "North-East Atlantic", which covers Irish, French, Spanish, Portugese, Belgian, Dutch, German, Danish, Swedish and Finnish EU waters, as well as Icelandic and Norwegian waters.

Other people have simply multiplied that figure again, on the basis that "surely these are low estimates". They're not, of course - indeed, they're not estimates at all. They're completely notional figures with no attachment to reality, which derive solely from opposition attacks on whoever happens to be the Minister for the Marine of the day.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thank you Scofflaw for the first explanation I've seen of that €200 billion figure which makes any sense. Well, in that the figure doesn't make any sense.

dresden8

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Declan Ganley is chairman of Rivada and "chairman" of Libertas

who have large contracts with US military (190 million+ euro) [/URL]

/

Anybody know the value of Intel contracts with the US military? I'd say they'd piss on Ganley's.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Anybody know the value of Intel contracts with the US military? I'd say they'd piss on Ganley's.

Quite possibly - on the other hand that's far from Intel's only, or even major source of income. You should probably try the "they're getting off anti-monopoly cases" line instead.

amused,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

Quite possibly - on the other hand that's far from Intel's only, or even major source of income. You should probably try the "they're getting off anti-monopoly cases" line instead.

amused,
Scofflaw

Hardly, many posters are slagging off Ganley about his connections to the US military. If Intel share the same contacts/values/greater value of transactions that's one major attack against him taken out.

The amount of suspicion about the US on here is majorly ironic/odd/funny given Ireland's habit of kissing America's ass.

marco_polo

dresden8 wrote: »

Hardly, many posters are slagging off Ganley about his connections to the US military. If Intel share the same contacts/values/greater value of transactions that's one major attack against him taken out.

The amount of suspicion about the US on here is majorly ironic/odd/funny given Ireland's habit of kissing America's ass.

The don't really feature much though. The vast majority of Military hardware is highly specialised and certainly does not use off the shelf x486 Quad Core processors, barring office PCs / Servers that I am sure they have much like any other orgainsation.

Not even in the top 100 in 2002 anyway.
http://www.govexec.com/top200/02top/s3chart1.htm

And considering their revenues are roughly in the region of 30-40 billion per year even if they were in 101st place on that list it would barely be a drop in the ocean.

Sam Vimes

dresden8 wrote: »

Hardly, many posters are slagging off Ganley about his connections to the US military. If Intel share the same contacts/values/greater value of transactions that's one major attack against him taken out.

It's not really. Firstly Intel makes no attempt to hide the fact that they sell to the military and secondly they're involved in this race because they think it will help the economy and therefore them whereas Ganley is going on about the interests of the Irish people, how we need to keep our commissioner etc, very unselfish and patriotic it seems.

We know why Intel cares so much about the treaty passing but we don't know why Ganley does. He's giving us reasons why he doesn't like the treaty but they're mostly not true so those aren't his real reasons. There is some other reason why he doesn't want this treaty that he's not telling us. Given that, the source of his funding and the vested interests he tries to play down become relevant

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Hardly, many posters are slagging off Ganley about his connections to the US military. If Intel share the same contacts/values/greater value of transactions that's one major attack against him taken out.

Not really - the share of Ganley's income that his US military connections provide is very large, whereas the share of Intel's income they provide is much smaller. Ganley's contacts with them are close and personal, not through a procurement department - and the evidence suggests that Ganley thinks in terms of what we might call personal opportunities, whereas Intel thinks in terms of markets.

dresden8 wrote: »

The amount of suspicion about the US on here is majorly ironic/odd/funny given Ireland's habit of kissing America's ass.

None of us are Ireland, I think. The Bush era hasn't endeared the US to a good proportion of people, either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ghost_ie

If Michael O'Leary wants us to vote yes, there's something in it for him and it won't be good for the rest of us. That's one reason for voting no

Scofflaw

ghost_ie wrote: »

If Michael O'Leary wants us to vote yes, there's something in it for him and it won't be good for the rest of us. That's one reason for voting no

I hated cheap air fares myself - good for O'Leary, awfully bad for the traveller. It was much better when it cost £200 to get to London and only the rich could afford to travel.

amused,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

ghost_ie wrote: »

If Michael O'Leary wants us to vote yes, there's something in it for him and it won't be good for the rest of us. That's one reason for voting no

Wow, just wow. You think that if a massive Irish company that employs many many people in this country thinks it will benefit that can only mean that everyone else in the country will lose out, including his employees and the employees of all the other big companies. Do you not think that there could ever be anything that is in both your interests and Michael O'Leary's

If he was campaigning for more hospitals to open would you fight to have some closed?

ei.sdraob

@ghost_ie and @dresden8


please name a single military officer/admiral/general sitting on the boards of Intel or Ryanair


now lookup at the fine list that are sitting on Declans company as directors

one of them should probably be tried for war crimes along with bush and the rest of his golden circle voulchers


we have people in his company who are directly responsible for a war (and now civil war) that killed more people in a few years than saddam managed to achieve in a few decades


lets not forget Ganley tried to bid on a large military contract in Iraq, but failed, right after the invasion



as Sam said earlier, we know where Intel/Ryanair stand, where their money comes from and how much they are spending

Ganley on the other hand likes to keep a US flag in his office, not Irish flag, not EU flag, not even UK flag

that says more about where his interests lie

and we still dont have a policy document from him, since having a policy means sticking to what you believe in, he flip flops all over the place and jumps on opportunities


once again i dont like the man, i think people like him are highly dangerous

and the fact that he couldn't answer any questions when i asked him here in galway on streets makes the whole thing smell worse

dresden8

marco_polo wrote: »

The don't really feature much though. The vast majority of Military hardware is highly specialised and certainly does not use off the shelf x486 Quad Core processors, barring office PCs / Servers that I am sure they have much like any other orgainsation.

Not even in the top 100 in 2002 anyway.
http://www.govexec.com/top200/02top/s3chart1.htm

And considering their revenues are roughly in the region of 30-40 billion per year even if they were in 101st place on that list it would barely be a drop in the ocean.

I see the Government of Germany is on that list.

Does that make Angela Merkel an agent of the CIA?

Why are the CIA campaigning for a yes vote through the government of Germany?

dresden8

ei.sdraob wrote: »

we have people in his company who are directly responsible for a war (and now civil war) that killed more people in a few years than saddam managed to achieve in a few decades

I think you'll find that the UK also took part in that invasion and civil war. A country that is pushing for a Yes vote from us.

Here is a list of countries that provided troops to Iraq, several that want us to vote yes. (Wiki, I know)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_-_Iraq

ei.sdraob wrote: »

lets not forget Ganley tried to bid on a large military contract in Iraq, but failed, right after the invasion

His CIA and military contacts must be sh1t so.



This CIA/American military angle is a smokescreen/scare tactic.

marco_polo

dresden8 wrote: »

I see the Government of Germany is on that list.

Does that make Angela Merkel an agent of the CIA?

Why are the CIA campaigning for a yes vote through the government of Germany?

Firstly the CIA is a civilian intelligence agency so that statement has fail written all over it.

Any figures for the value Intel military contracts?

Any fact based arguments against the treaty?

ei.sdraob

dresden8 wrote: »

I see the Government of Germany is on that list.

Does that make Angela Merkel an agent of the CIA?

Why are the CIA campaigning for a yes vote through the government of Germany?

once again does Intel have on its

Admirals, Generals and other (ex) US Military people?

including a certain Gen. Myers who is one of the people responsible and gunning for the Iraq war an I sure hope one day pays for his crimes

I dont like the idea of Bush's Neo Cons with deep military connections meddling in the affairs of Ireland thru the likes of Ganley

weve seen how they sent USA down the drain, now they want to **** on EU

ei.sdraob

btw my thinking is supported by Fine Gael and Labour

the 2 major current opposition parties


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0918/breaking75.htm

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0323/1224243267828.html


anyways im getting sick of talking about Ganley, ive better things to do like concentrating on the treaty

im now unsubscribing from this thread

dresden8

ei.sdraob wrote: »

once again does Intel have on its

Admirals, Generals and other (ex) US Military people?

including a certain Gen. Myers who is one of the people responsible and gunning for the Iraq war an I sure hope one day pays for his crimes

I dont like the idea of Bush's Neo Cons with deep military connections meddling in the affairs of Ireland thru the likes of Ganley

weve seen how they sent USA down the drain, now they want to **** on EU

If you really believe the CIA/US/Obama are getting involved in internal Irish and European affairs you really should be outside the US embassy protesting or bending Mickey Martin's ear to get him and the rest of the European governments to sort it out.

This is bullsh1t.

dresden8

marco_polo wrote: »

Any fact based arguments against the treaty?

Oddly enough I wasn't discussing the treaty, only the villification of Ganley for doing business with a friendly government.

It's the conspiracy theorists on here who are saying that the big bad US is out to wreck Europe.

If you believe it to be true, off to the US embassy or Mickey Martin with you.

ei.sdraob

dresden8 wrote: »

If you really believe the CIA/US/Obama are getting involved in internal Irish and European affairs you really should be outside the US embassy protesting or bending Mickey Martin's ear to get him and the rest of the European governments to sort it out.

This is bullsh1t.

Where did i say CIA or Obama?

where did you pull them out of??



im talking about specifically about Neo Cons, George W. Bushes close buddies and their military top brass

all of which are represented in abundance in Declans company and board of directors

dresden8

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Where did i say CIA or Obama?

where did you pull them out of??



im talking about specifically about Neo Cons, George W. Bushes close buddies and their military top brass

all of which are represented in abundance in Declans company and board of directors

Conspiracy theory forum is this way======>

P. Breathnach

dresden8 wrote: »

If you really believe the CIA/US/Obama are getting involved in internal Irish and European affairs you really should be outside the US embassy protesting or bending Mickey Martin's ear to get him and the rest of the European governments to sort it out.

This is bullsh1t.

If you really believe that the US does not play geo-political chess, you do not understand the modern world.

[The fact that they sometimes play it very crudely and badly might be for another thread.]

Sam Vimes

dresden8 wrote: »

Conspiracy theory forum is this way======>

Are you saying that these people are not on his board?

Or maybe that for some unknown reason these people the interests of the Irish people at heart and would like us to vote no for entirely unselfish reasons?

And if that is the case, why does Ganley feel the need to play down these connections and constantly lie about the treaty?

marco_polo

dresden8 wrote: »

Oddly enough I wasn't discussing the treaty, only the villification of Ganley for doing business with a friendly government.

It's the conspiracy theorists on here who are saying that the big bad US is out to wreck Europe.

If you believe it to be true, off to the US embassy or Mickey Martin with you.

Here is a list of all DOD contractors in 2007, with contracts worth more than $25,000 dollars.

http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/resource_library/FY07_Contractors_v2.pdf

The list is particularly interesting for the complete absence of a certain large multinational corporation, and the presence of an certain company named RIVADA PACIFIC, which is very closely related to a certain RIVADA Networks, with known DoD contracts worth in excess of $240m dollars.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0311/1224242664635.html

More on Rivada Pacific here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2008/1029/1225197273403.html

Rivada Networks has a 49 per cent interest in Rivada Pacific, and the rest of the shareholding is held by an Alaskan company, Nana Pacific, according to the Nana Pacific website (www.nanapacific.com).

Nana Pacific is in turn part of the Nana Regional Corporation, a native Alaskan corporation which, as such, has special rights in US law allowing it bid for state contracts without complying with certain aspects of public tendering law.

PopeBuckfastXVI

My theory is as such, all conjecture on my behalf:

Rivada has more contacts within the US military establishment than in any of the EU militaries, evidenced by the board of Rivada. Rivada is likely to benefit from sales where the US engages in missions be they humanitarian, military intervention, peace keeping or otherwise.

Any moves towards more cohesive foreign policy on behalf of the EU would start treading on the toes of the US as world police, perhaps leading to European nations taking the lead in humanitarian or peace keeping missions. This would mean that Rivada's main customers don't have as much to do, and won't need as much equipment.

You don't need to see CIA bogeymen to imagine a material benefit to Rivada, and it's owner, in a 'No' vote to Lisbon.

ei.sdraob

dresden8 wrote: »

Conspiracy theory forum is this way======>

conspiracy?

people need to be aware of the directors and employees in Declans company

lets see who we have

---

* Gen. Richard Myers - one of the masterminds of the Iraq invasion, ex bush's chief of staff

* Lord Charles Guthrie - a former chief of the defence staff in Britain.

* James Tackett - previous Vice president for Homeland Security

* Don N. De Marino - Served under Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2, served on the Personnel Evaluation Team to assess various operations in Iraq

* Admiral James M. Loy

* rear Admiral Robert F. Duncan

* John J. Kelly, Jr. - chairman of various military/industrial organisations

* Lt. General Dennis M. McCarthy - ex guy in charge of all the marines

* John Kneuer - the former principal telecommunications policy adviser to president George Bush

---

sources

http://www.rivada.com/about/keypersonnel.htm

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/libertas-chief-ganley-brings-former-military-chiefs-on-board-1666789.html

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87311

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0520/1211232308995.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0323/1224243267828.html

http://www.comms-express.com/news/networking/rivada-networks-names-new-senior-official-18394231/

/

ei.sdraob

dresden8 wrote: »

I think you'll find that the UK also took part in that invasion and civil war.

its ok Ganley also has

Lord Charles Guthrie - a former chief of the defence staff in Britain.

on his team

dresden8 wrote: »

A country that is pushing for a Yes vote from us.

lookit here UKIP are actually actively campaigning in Ireland on the NO side

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055683358

please name one UK organisation campaigning on the YES side?

dresden8

ei.sdraob wrote: »

conspiracy?

people need to be aware of the directors and employees in Declans company

lets see who we have

---

* Gen. Richard Myers - one of the masterminds of the Iraq invasion, ex bush's chief of staff

* Lord Charles Guthrie - a former chief of the defence staff in Britain.

* James Tackett - previous Vice president for Homeland Security

* Don N. De Marino - Served under Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2, served on the Personnel Evaluation Team to assess various operations in Iraq

* Admiral James M. Loy

* rear Admiral Robert F. Duncan

* John J. Kelly, Jr. - chairman of various military/industrial organisations

* Lt. General Dennis M. McCarthy - ex guy in charge of all the marines

* John Kneuer - the former principal telecommunications policy adviser to president George Bush

---

sources

http://www.rivada.com/about/keypersonnel.htm

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/libertas-chief-ganley-brings-former-military-chiefs-on-board-1666789.html

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87311

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0520/1211232308995.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0323/1224243267828.html

http://www.comms-express.com/news/networking/rivada-networks-names-new-senior-official-18394231/

/

Who are they working for?

The New World Order or the Illuminati?

Businessman packs board with useful contacts shock.

Or less than useful as per previous post.

dresden8

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

My theory is as such, all conjecture on my behalf:

Rivada has more contacts within the US military establishment than in any of the EU militaries, evidenced by the board of Rivada. Rivada is likely to benefit from sales where the US engages in missions be they humanitarian, military intervention, peace keeping or otherwise.

Any moves towards more cohesive foreign policy on behalf of the EU would start treading on the toes of the US as world police, perhaps leading to European nations taking the lead in humanitarian or peace keeping missions. This would mean that Rivada's main customers don't have as much to do, and won't need as much equipment.

You don't need to see CIA bogeymen to imagine a material benefit to Rivada, and it's owner, in a 'No' vote to Lisbon.

In that case he can pack his board with European generals. They're not averse to making a shed load of money as well.

Oh, as per above post, he's already started doing it.

its ok Ganley also has


Quote:
Lord Charles Guthrie - a former chief of the defence staff in Britain.

on his team