Netanyahu in Shannon

carrickmilo

According to Haaretz Netanyahu will be stopping over at Shannon airport next Sunday November 8th.

After the Goldstone report do we really want him in this country?

Agent Smith

Why not? we have full diplomatic relations with Isreal.

carrickmilo

Because he leads a country found guilty of comitting war crimes in Gaza last winter.

Karadzic in on trial for similar charges. Why is 'justice' selectively applied?

Happy Monday

carrickmilo wrote: »

Because he leads a country found guilty of comitting war crimes in Gaza last winter.

Karadzic in on trial for similar charges. Why is 'justice' selectively applied?

Could apply that logic to a lot of leaders in the world who come to Ireland.

Should we cut relations with the US who use Shannon to illegally deport young Arabs or China whose human rights record is absymal.

FlutterinBantam

Happy Monday wrote: »

Could apply that logic to a lot of leaders in the world who come to Ireland.

Should we cut relations with the US who use Shannon to illegally deport young Arabs or China whose human rights record is absymal.

Use Shannon to illegally deport young Arabs???

Presume you have proof, and if so, have you advised the proper authorities??

"We" seem to be extremely selective in whom "we" want in the country around here.

Strange indeed.

Happy Monday

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Use Shannon to illegally deport young Arabs???

Presume you have proof, and if so, have you advised the proper authorities??

The UN with Amnesty International has concrete evidence of this practice below and Ireland has been hauled up before them for questioning below.

http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/UN-human-rights-panel-drills,3309

Please tell me - who are the proper authorities to inform?

wes

Well, as much as I dislike the man, I think as long as he is here on official diplomatic business, he should of course be allowed to come here. The way I see it, it costs nothing to talk.

It will also provide a oppurtunity for protest as well against the man and his odious policies, much like people in the US protesting against Ahmadinejad, when he goes to the UN.

Nodin

carrickmilo wrote: »

After the Goldstone report do we really want him in this country?

Didn't want him here before it, tbh.

Manic Moran

Ireland either claims to be neutral, or it is not. The country has requirements and procedures in place for the Shannon Stopover (or indeed, a stopover at any Irish airport), and it must (and as far as I know, does) enforce them equally to aircraft of all nationalities.

NTM

FlutterinBantam

Happy Monday wrote: »

The UN with Amnesty International has concrete evidence of this practice below and Ireland has been hauled up before them for questioning below.

http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/UN-human-rights-panel-drills,3309

Please tell me - who are the proper authorities to inform?

I did say concrete evidence, not the opinion of vested interests.

proper authorities... the gárdaí of course.

Have we now come to a situation where splinter groups can wind up and try to dictate about whom we allow into the country and who we don't.??

Let's get a grip here , and don't make idiots of ourselves

callig

carrickmilo wrote: »

Because he leads a country accused of comitting war crimes in Gaza last winter.

FYP

Happy Monday

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I did say concrete evidence, not the opinion of vested interests.

The Human Rights Commitee of the United Nations - a vested interest!!

Now I know your not serious - no one would question the intergrity and impartiality of that body.

In the same way that people didn't contest the findings of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission led by Hans Blix when they concluded that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Except Uncle Sam - in violation of international law at every turn.

lucernarian

Happy Monday wrote: »

The Human Rights Commitee of the United Nations - a vested interest!!

Now I know your not serious - no one would question the intergrity and impartiality of that body.

In the same way that people didn't contest the findings of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission led by Hans Blix when they concluded that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Except Uncle Sam - in violation of international law at every turn.

I think I will question the jobs and agendas of bueraucrats who are thousands of miles from every situation they may be of use in (except Yugoslavia, and still made no difference anyway). Oh whoops, what did I just do...

The Saint

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I think I will question the jobs and agendas of bueraucrats who are thousands of miles from every situation they may be of use in (except Yugoslavia, and still made no difference anyway). Oh whoops, what did I just do...

Wow. I don't think I've seen such a fundamental lack of understanding of what the UN is and how it works here in quite a while.

ArmaniJeanss

Happy Monday wrote: »

The UN with Amnesty International has concrete evidence of this practice below and Ireland has been hauled up before them for questioning below.

http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/UN-human-rights-panel-drills,3309

Reading the article it looks as if the Irish government, diplomatic service and Attorney General played an absolute stormer over this issue.
Seek guarantees and assurances from the US, then don't look too closely to see if they abide by them.

So you don't annoy your important Americans friends and neither can anyone accuse you of actively helping with rendition.

So whatever about any moral questions, for once kudos to the Irish Government for a nice bit of wellplayed realpolitik.

Joey the lips

I am biased I am a B.I.G supporter so hate what the man stands for......




# I know i have confused a few people here!

Happy Monday

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Reading the article it looks as if the Irish government, diplomatic service and Attorney General played an absolute stormer over this issue.
Seek guarantees and assurances from the US, then don't look too closely to see if they abide by them.

So you don't annoy your important Americans friends and neither can anyone accuse you of actively helping with rendition.

So whatever about any moral questions, for once kudos to the Irish Government for a nice bit of wellplayed realpolitik.

Unless you happen to be the poor sod or sods on the plane lifted from your home country and bagged and tagged by aggressive CIA types.
Not to mention the impact this may have had on their wives and children back home.
But as long as Uncle Sam's long noise is not put out of joint.......

FlutterinBantam

Or unless you happen to live in the USA and expect your country to take steps to prevent brainwashed and idealistic fanatics who have nothing to lose but their miserable lives from plotting and acting to destroy you.

Bit like expecting the Gárdaí to ignore threats from across the Border from dissidents bent putting people in this state in harms way.

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Or unless you happen to live in the USA and expect your country to take steps to prevent brainwashed and idealistic fanatics who have nothing to lose but their miserable lives from plotting and acting to destroy you.

You seem to be under the impression that these people actually had a trial and were found guilty of being "brainwashed and idealistic fanatics". No force has the right to go to another sovereign country and kidnap a person from their family. That is the sort of thing that America "should" stand against, being the land of the free and all that. But contradicts everything it stands for when it kidnaps people.

As for Netanyahu, he is a disgusting human being. The amount of nonsense he is currently getting away with is nothing short of amazing. I hope there is a large protest against his policies.

FlutterinBantam

As far as I am concerned the US has every right to protect it's citizens.

In my opinion the US is correct to not wait till the violence hits their shores again, but take proactive steps based on intelligence to strike at the source of the terrorism.

I certainly would not welcome political and social unrest coupled with fanatical leadership in inherently unstable countries.

Certain areas of the world are extremely unstable and have to potential to ruin western standards of living.

wes

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

As far as I am concerned the US has every right to protect it's citizens.

In my opinion the US is correct to not wait till the violence hits their shores again, but take proactive steps based on intelligence to strike at the source of the terrorism.

Surely this applies the other way round as well then, right? Using the same logic shouldn't Iran have the right to attack the US (international law be damned), to defend its people then? The US is known to invade countries looking for imaginary WMD's and to stop some DC comics super villans called Gog and MaGog.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I certainly would not welcome political and social unrest coupled with fanatical leadership in inherently unstable countries.

US intervention has hardly helped in this situation. Take Iraq for example, that country has become for more unstable since the US invaded. There was no significant Al Qaeda presence (except in Dick Cheny's imagination) in that country, and after the US invade, a whole load of them flock to the place, causing all kinds of trouble.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Certain areas of the world are extremely unstable and have to potential to ruin western standards of living.

Western intervention has a way of ruining other countries standards of living. So by your own logic, these guys have every right to attack the West then, and things like international law shouldn't come into it, as you can justify anything, as long as you claim self defense.

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

As far as I am concerned the US has every right to protect it's citizens.

It does not however, have the right to abduct citizens of another country, in that said country - without that person ever having a trial. It is illegal and immoral.

Fulton Crown

dlofnep wrote: »

You seem to be under the impression that these people actually had a trial and were found guilty of being "brainwashed and idealistic fanatics". No force has the right to go to another sovereign country and kidnap a person from their family. That is the sort of thing that America "should" stand against, being the land of the free and all that. But contradicts everything it stands for when it kidnaps people.

Only problem I have with this kind of thing my friend is when people assume that you are dealing with like minded people.

The fact is that there are countrys all over the Globe that are piss poor, where the women do any work that there is and the men go round acting the big fellas with their AK 47's or whatever.

Then you have the "mad cleric" types spreading hate and whipping these fellas into a frenzy with promises of all sorts of afterlife goodies.

Look at Zimbabwe - transformed from being the breadbasket of Africa to a fear ridden poverty stricken state while Bobby Boy lives it up in luxury at the expense of "his people"..

There are plenty of very good reasons for America or indeed any country with balls to go in and take out these scumbags....

ynotdu

The OP,s question was about Netanyahu.He is the Democraticly elected Leader of Israel, even if it puts a sour taste in Irish peoples mouth that He should be made welcome in this Country well TOUGH!

as said the UN HQ is in the USA and America has often had to allow its arch enemies in because of that.

There is such double standards in this Country of ours,any leader that might bring money into our Economy is welcome despite any breach of human rights He/She may have comitted.

Those who can bring nothing except to explain their bad image.............Well then us Irish find the 'courage' to take the 'moral' high ground.

wes

ynotdu wrote: »

Those who can bring nothing except to explain their bad image.............Well then us Irish find the 'courage' to take the 'moral' high ground.

So we are just like the rest of the world, looking after our own interests?

ynotdu

wes wrote: »

So we are just like the rest of the world, looking after our own interests?

Yes wes We are and You know it!{like extraordinary rendition at Shannon was not known about by our Govt/security forces at Shannon:)?}

wes

ynotdu wrote: »

Yes wes We are and You know it!{like extraordinary rendition at Shannon was not known about by our Govt/security forces at Shannon:)?}

It wouldn't surprise me if they were well aware of it, but turned a blind eye to it.

ynotdu

wes wrote: »

It wouldn't surprise me if they were well aware of it, but turned a blind eye to it.

Well Wes after the incident yesterday that five UK troops were killed by a guy they were training in order that Afghanistan could at least try to Govern itself..........................these 'overeactions'(extraordinary rendition) by armys begin to be more understandable. What a Sneaky prick He was!

a coward IMO,at least when You put on a uniform You are saying 'What side you are on'

wes

ynotdu wrote: »

Well Wes after the incident yesterday that five UK troops were killed by a guy they were training in order that Afghanistan could at least try to Govern itself..........................these 'overeactions'(extraordinary rendition) by armys begin to be more understandable. What a Sneaky prick He was!

What are you on about? How would extraordinary rendition have helped in that instance? Seriously care to explain how it would have helped? As what your saying doeesn't make any sense whatsoever, and you seem to be despretately trying to excuse one groups actions by invoking the others, when both are clearly wrong.

ynotdu wrote: »

a coward IMO,at least when You put on a uniform You are saying 'What side you are on'

Well, thats one way of looking at it, but putting on a uniform, when the other guy has overwhelming miltary superiority, could also be considered stupid btw.

FlutterinBantam

And likewise taking on the "other guy" with conventional means might be considered stupid too;)

wes

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

And likewise taking on the "other guy" with conventional means might be considered stupid too;)

Regardless of it being clever or not, both sides are violating the law, but only one side is ever considered wrong for doing so by some people. Something being brave or stupid is irrelevant, when it comes to legality.

Also, the US legitimacy comes from being a democracy that follows the law, and this has been a pretty big asset to them for the most part. The US tends to get more trouble, when it abandon's there proclaimed values, again the example of the Iraq war is apt here, basically a lot of people decided to take up arms against US soldiers based on the Iraq war, kidnapping people and shipping them to Guantanamo and other violations of international law. So, I would argue that the US using breaking the law is actually not clever at all, as it has actually increased people wanting to take up arms against the US. So basically go around acting like the evil empire, and people will start to believe it.

ynotdu

wes wrote: »

What are you on about? How would extraordinary rendition have helped in that instance? Seriously care to explain how it would have helped? As what your saying doeesn't make any sense whatsoever, and you seem to be despretately trying to excuse one groups actions by invoking the others, when both are clearly wrong.



Well, thats one way of looking at it, but putting on a uniform, when the other guy has overwhelming miltary superiority, could also be considered stupid btw.

Wes You cannot have misunderstood that intellectually I was not defending extraordinary rendition,In circumstances of Losing your 'own' though most armys would/have done it.
I am not excusing it in the least,I am just trying to understand it{These things are easy to intelectualise when NOT in a war zone,Not so easy to be 'politicly correct'about if it is Your own that are dying by sinister methods.

The Taliban member who killed five troops and injured at least four others{the news channels are just showing the wounded arriaving back in England} is said by the Taliban to be 'safely'back in their hands?
So What do the Taliban want? obviously NOT what is best for their Country{a properly elected Govt with the support of its population and army?}
They want power of the Country again in order to return it to the most oppressed Country on Earth and a production line for World terrorism religious oppression and drugs(as it was when they controlled it)

for Evil to triumph all it takes is for 'good'people to ignore it.

lucernarian

The Saint wrote: »

Wow. I don't think I've seen such a fundamental lack of understanding of what the UN is and how it works here in quite a while.

A typical flustered post as seen on the politics forum. Lots of indignation instead of offering an actual countering argument. Instead of treating people like they're ignorant, why don't you prove your own lack of it??

wes

ynotdu wrote: »

Wes You cannot have misunderstood that intellectually I was not defending extraordinary rendition,In circumstances of Losing your 'own' though most armys would/have done it.

I am not excusing it in the least,I am just trying to understand it{These things are easy to intelectualise when NOT in a war zone,Not so easy to be 'politicly correct'about if it is Your own that are dying by sinister methods.

Political correctness has nothing to do with it.

The US signed up to adhere to various treaties and laws etc, and they have there own laws etc to adhere to. What they did, with extraordindary rendition and torture, went against standards and laws they helped come with. I am judging the US by there own self proclaimed standards, not standards that I invented, but one they came up with. Standards that they have in the past used to justify invading/sanctioning etc other countries over. By doing what they did the US destroyed there own legitimacy, as well as being the best recruiter for there enemies.

It really is rather simple, if you start acting like a 3rd world dictatorship, by running around kidnapping and torturing innocent people, then don't be surprised when people feel you no better than them. Having wonderful values is worthless if there abandoned at the drop of a hat.

ynotdu wrote: »

The Taliban member who killed five troops and injured at least four others{the news channels are just showing the wounded arriaving back in England} is said by the Taliban to be 'safely'back in their hands?
So What do the Taliban want? obviously NOT what is best for their Country{a properly elected Govt with the support of its population and army?}

I am not saying the Taliban shouldn't be fought, just that the US shouldn't be kidnapping innocent people, which doesn't help against the Taliban and in fact helps swell there ranks.

ynotdu wrote: »

They want power of the Country again in order to return it to the most oppressed Country on Earth and a production line for World terrorism religious oppression and drugs(as it was when they controlled it)

The Taliban got rid of the drugs actually, opium has made a big come back after the US invasion.

Again, I fail to see how extraordinary rendition or torture of innocent people help figth the Taliban. Those things just seem to help them more than anything.

ynotdu wrote: »

for Evil to triumph all it takes is for 'good'people to ignore it.

How does kidnapping and torturing innocent people fight "evil"? Hell, it kind of seems "evil" to kidnap and torture innocent people imho. Shouldn't we therefore oppose the "evil" or kidnapping and torture of people, as well as the "evil" of the Taliban then?

**EDIT**
Taught I would throw in my own quote:

“What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.”
W. H. Auden

ynotdu

Wes when the USA troops were 'caught' breaking the rules of war in Iraq and Afghanistan they were 'brought to task' I am sure MANY voilations of the rules went undiscovered by the US,but how can you deal with an 'enemy' that has no rules?

I accept your point that the Taliban was NOT encouraging drug pushing when they were in power{women wearing the Bhurka,girls could not go to school etc,etc about their 'morality'} Stangely though drugs and terrorism were still 'getting by' the Taliban 'moral police'

What would You have done about the Taliban?

wes

ynotdu wrote: »

Wes when the USA troops were 'caught' breaking the rules of war in Iraq and Afghanistan they were 'brought to task' I am sure MANY voilations of the rules went undiscovered by the US,but how can you deal with an 'enemy' that has no rules?

Your ignoring the fact that no one has been put in prison, for extraordinary rendition and torture in Guantanamo. These things were known about, at the highest levels.

As for a enemy with that has no rules, well when you have the US deciding certain rules don't apply when it suits them, I don't see much of a difference.

ynotdu wrote: »

I accept your point that the Taliban was NOT encouraging drug pushing when they were in power{women wearing the Bhurka,girls could not go to school etc,etc about their 'morality'} Stangely though drugs and terrorism were still 'getting by' the Taliban 'moral police'

The Taliban did nothing to stop terrorism btw.

They did however, do a lot to stop the drugs when in power. They of course couldn't stop all of it, they aren't all powerful. Western nations with a hell of a lot more money can't stop drugs, so the Taliban not stopping it completely should come as no surprise.

ynotdu wrote: »

What would You have done about the Taliban?

Well, for one I wouldn't kidnap innocent people and torture them, and as a result help swell the ranks of the Taliban. I, also wouldn't have engaged in a illegal war of aggression against Iraq, in a futile search for imaginary WMD's and to fight some DC comics super villans.

What I would have done, was follow international law while fighting the Taliban and build stronger relations with allies, and get them to provide more help in fighting the self same Taliban, and using all the extra cash to help build up Afghanistan, to turn the average guy on the street against the Taliban, as when he has a job and can feed his family, people are less bothered about fighting for some pointless cause.

**EDIT**
Just to add, I could care less about the Taliban, there a bunch of scum bags imho. However, just because there scum bags, doesn't give other people the right to start acting that way as well.

ynotdu

wes wrote: »

Your ignoring the fact that no one has been put in prison, for extraordinary rendition and torture in Guantanamo. These things were known about, at the highest levels.

As for a enemy with that has no rules, well when you have the US deciding certain rules don't apply when it suits them, I don't see much of a difference.



The Taliban did nothing to stop terrorism btw.

They did however, do a lot to stop the drugs when in power. They of course couldn't stop all of it, they aren't all powerful. Western nations with a hell of a lot more money can't stop drugs, so the Taliban not stopping it completely should come as no surprise.



Well, for one I wouldn't kidnap innocent people and torture them, and as a result help swell the ranks of the Taliban. I, also wouldn't have engaged in a illegal war of aggression against Iraq, in a futile search for imaginary WMD's and to fight some DC comics super villans.

What I would have done, was follow international law while fighting the Taliban and build stronger relations with allies, and get them to provide more help in fighting the self same Taliban, and using all the extra cash to help build up Afghanistan, to turn the average guy on the street against the Taliban, as when he has a job and can feed his family, people are less bothered about fighting for some pointless cause.

Guantanomo was/is a disgrace,as Donald Rumsfeld said it's full of unknown unknowns:){his batty way of excusing the excess's of SOME troops.
The Bush administration did many outrageous and stupid things.Colin Powell would not serve a second term because he knew he was given misinformation to feed the UN about WMD's in Iraq.

Allies chose their own response,it made no diffrience Bali,Spain,UK,USA and more all got a taste of what AQ/Taliban would like to do the west in general: ie WIPE it out!

I know the Taliban did NOTHING about terrorism except to encourage it btw.

International Law is fine and should be respected.....easior said than done though by a soldier who has seen his buddy's guts hanging out.

The Saint

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

A typical flustered post as seen on the politics forum. Lots of indignation instead of offering an actual countering argument. Instead of treating people like they're ignorant, why don't you prove your own lack of it??

Well I thought it was pretty self-evident.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I think I will question the jobs and agendas of bueraucrats who are thousands of miles from every situation they may be of use in (except Yugoslavia, and still made no difference anyway). Oh whoops, what did I just do...

Firstly, the UN are on the ground and have field offices in many of these places that you say they should be operating in many capacities; WFP, UNICEF, UNRWA, OCHA, etc.

Secondly, from your post you infer that the UN should be taking actions against attrocities in different parts of the world, ie. Yugoslavia/Bosnia. This is where the most blatant misunderstanding of the UN lays. The UN has no power to take military action. It has to be mandated by the Security Council. That is the member states of the Security Council, not the UN itself. This is why the UN didn't do anything in Bosnia, Russia threatened a veto for UN mandated intervention (Sharon, as foreign minister under Netanyahu, also opposed intervention in Kosovo incidentally saying that it would never support the establishment of an Albanian state. In an interview in Belgrade he stated that "we stand together with you against the Islamic terror"). Anyway, the vested interests in this context are the permanent members of the Security Council.

Lastly, do you dismiss every report from the UN because you believe, for some reason, that they are serving the interests of bureaucrats? Why don't you look at the validity of the reports themselves instead of dismissing them out of hand. Thesse reports tend to be written by people operating in the areas they are investigating so say that they are compiled/investigated/written by bureaucrats thousands of miles away is just not true.

wes

ynotdu wrote: »

Guantanomo was/is a disgrace,as Donald Rumsfeld said it's full of unknown unknowns:){his batty way of excusing the excess's of SOME troops.
The Bush administration did many outrageous and stupid things.Colin Powell would not serve a second term because he knew he was given misinformation to feed the UN about WMD's in Iraq.

The fact still remains that the US has brought no one to justice for Iraq or Guantanamo.

ynotdu wrote: »

Allies chose their own response,it made no diffrience Bali,Spain,UK,USA and more all got a taste of what AQ/Taliban would like to do the west in general: ie WIPE it out!

Neither has the capability to wipe out the West, and have been spectacular failures all round.

ynotdu wrote: »

I know the Taliban did NOTHING about terrorism except to encourage it btw.

That they did.

ynotdu wrote: »

International Law is fine and should be respected.....easior said than done though by a soldier who has seen his buddy's guts hanging out.

Then perhaps they shouldn't be soldiers if they can't handle it.

Of course, once again this can be turned around. Lets say some dirt poor farmer whose brother was "renditioned" off to parts unknown and tortured to death. Maybe, he might go looking for a spot of revenge against those responsible.

lucernarian

I'm well aware of Security Council issues and weaknesses. But they're a fundamental organ of the UN, which is a basis for my point to show how ineffectual the UN's mandate are. You can't say that the UN would be good but for one body, when that body happens to be the main decision-making body when it comes to direct intervention in conflicts.

Field offices are useless when they're for observation and for reporting back to said bueraucrats in NY/Geneva.

Your last point is more valid, but they are self-serving in that when different wings/divisions are competing for the same scarce resources, their own story is going to be hyped up or dramaticised in order to keep them in jobs/busy/in funding for whatever research they do. I'm not saying that all the work is faulty or fraudulent. Saying that self-serving interests aren't present in the creators of the multitudes of reports would be naive however.

dlofnep

ynotdu wrote: »

The OP,s question was about Netanyahu.He is the Democraticly elected Leader of Israel, even if it puts a sour taste in Irish peoples mouth that He should be made welcome in this Country well TOUGH!

So, on that premise - Should Adolf Hitler have been welcomed in Ireland? Afterall, he was also a democratically elected leader. I'm not sure where your logic comes from.

Netanyahu should not be welcomed. Not when he routinely breaks international law with settlement expansion, breaches of basic human rights, and implementing policies resulting in the slaughter of innocent civilians.

Welcome me hole.

dlofnep

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Only problem I have with this kind of thing my friend is when people assume that you are dealing with like minded people.

The fact is that there are countrys all over the Globe that are piss poor, where the women do any work that there is and the men go round acting the big fellas with their AK 47's or whatever.

Then you have the "mad cleric" types spreading hate and whipping these fellas into a frenzy with promises of all sorts of afterlife goodies.

Look at Zimbabwe - transformed from being the breadbasket of Africa to a fear ridden poverty stricken state while Bobby Boy lives it up in luxury at the expense of "his people"..

There are plenty of very good reasons for America or indeed any country with balls to go in and take out these scumbags....

I see you conveniently looked over the fact that these men were never found guilty of anything, and were not convicted by a jury. They were snatched from their families, where many have already proven to have been innocent (RE: Gitmo)

ynotdu

about Hitler Dlofnep, ask a descendant of Devalera who signed the book of condolences upon hearing of his death.
That must have been 'our finest hour' as a Democracy:rolleyes:

There have been far shadior characters 'welcomed to Ireland'

The Saint

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I'm well aware of Security Council issues and weaknesses. But they're a fundamental organ of the UN, which is a basis for my point to show how ineffectual the UN's mandate are. You can't say that the UN would be good but for one body, when that body happens to be the main decision-making body when it comes to direct intervention in conflicts.

Yes it is an inherent weakness in the UN. However, it was purposely structured like this in San Francisco by the victorious powers of WWII. You can't blame the UN for actions not taken by permanent SC members. I believe that the Security Council needs fundamental reform. While the SC is the organ of the UN that deals with international peace and security, it isn't the only organ of the UN, many of which do vital work.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Field offices are useless when they're for observation and for reporting back to said bueraucrats in NY/Geneva.

Why? How are the decision makers supposed to get information to base policy on then? That's like saying that a minister for health can't make policy unless they live and work in a hospital all the time. How would you propose it should work? Also these operations also deal with provision of food, services, protection, etc.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Your last point is more valid, but they are self-serving in that when different wings/divisions are competing for the same scarce resources, their own story is going to be hyped up or dramaticised in order to keep them in jobs/busy/in funding for whatever research they do. I'm not saying that all the work is faulty or fraudulent. Saying that self-serving interests aren't present in the creators of the multitudes of reports would be naive however.

Can you provide any evidence to illustrate your assertion that these reports are hyped up? Any evidence at all from a credible source would be appreciated. Surely if this were the case then these reports would soon lose credibility and would damage the image organisation. I'm not saying it never happens but I would think it is very rare. UN reports tend to be quite sober and not full of hype. They tend to deal with facts and tend to be quite dull to read. I know, I've read enough of them.

bonkey

dlofnep wrote: »

So, on that premise - Should Adolf Hitler have been welcomed in Ireland? Afterall, he was also a democratically elected leader. I'm not sure where your logic comes from.

He should certainly have been allowed in (if not welcomed), up until the point when WW2 broke out. There was no international embargo on his nation, there was no war...there was no reason to prevent him access.

Furing WW2, we would have had / should have had two choices - allow the leaders of any and all nations entrance to teh country, or allow none. Either option, as a neutral party, would have been valid.

After WW2 is a moot point...Hitler was dead.

There is no valid reason for Ireland, as a neutral nation, to not allow Netanyahu in.

dlofnep

bonkey wrote: »

He should certainly have been allowed in (if not welcomed), up until the point when WW2 broke out. There was no international embargo on his nation, there was no war...there was no reason to prevent him access.

Furing WW2, we would have had / should have had two choices - allow the leaders of any and all nations entrance to teh country, or allow none. Either option, as a neutral party, would have been valid.

After WW2 is a moot point...Hitler was dead.

There is no valid reason for Ireland, as a neutral nation, to not allow Netanyahu in.

You'll notice the I stated welcomed, not 'allowed'. As a global leader, he can enter Ireland if he pleases. That wasn't not my point. My point was that he should not be welcomed, and the Irish people should protest where possible to outline their utter disgust at his treatment of the Palestinian people.

diverdriver

So, on that premise - Should Adolf Hitler have been welcomed in Ireland?

I invoke Godwins law, ergo you have lost the argument. Your views on Israel are well known but your comparison is invalid.

Don Diego

diverdriver wrote: »

I invoke Godwins law, ergo you have lost the argument. Your views on Israel are well known but your comparison is invalid.

Fail. Godwin's law doesn't say whether a reference/comparison to Hitler is valid, only that it becomes more likley the longer the discussion. It's a bit of a cop out to use it like that to avoid argueing the point.