Is the Whole US Military Shannon thing a bit exaggerated

Mazikeen

I was having a chat over a few pints with a mate of mine yesterday evening about the whole US Military Shannon stopover debacle and we both had to concede that that outside of some logistical nuts and bolts and some, naturally, military personnel passing through, there’s no evidence (and TBH, Indiemedia doesn’t count) of anything that could really be considered as the traffic there having constituted any serious contribution to the war in Iraq.

If that is the case, why are those planes any different to military planes that land and naval vessels that dock here all the time? I’m not saying that they’re not, only that I’ve seen no credible evidence whatsoever other than the tin-hat-wearing veriety.

AmenToThat

I actually posted a thread on this very topic just recently.
Its not only what we would regard as regular military equipment and personel that are going through Shannon.
The two private jets the Americans use to illegally (no extradition process or trial) transport people to countries for torture and murder regularly stop over in Shannon on their journeys and to me that is a big deal.

DadaKopf

No, because it's actually against Irish law for uniformed personnel, military planes, vehicles and weapons to pass through Irish territory, unless justified on the basis of something like a multilateral UN action. Since the Iraq war has been deemed an illegal war in various courts, the Government is in a tricky position on Ireland's collusion in US foreign policy which involves invading other countries they don't like.

Of course there's evidence for Ireland's role in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The curious timing of military traffic is a tell-tale sign - why else would there be a swell of US military traffic through Shannon? The green planes with military insignia and sightings of fully uniformed and armed US soldiers walking around by protestors are about as clear-cut as you can get. And this didn't happen just once.

What else were they doing there? Going on an trip to Trabolgan?

Mazikeen

And this proof is? Photos? Documents? This is kind of what we were discussing yesterday, that a lot of this is innuendo and conspiracy journalism, and there's very little in the way of proof - direct or even circumstantial.

bonkey

Mazikeen wrote:

there’s no evidence (and TBH, Indiemedia doesn’t count) of anything that could really be considered as the traffic there having constituted any serious contribution to the war in Iraq.

What constitutes a serious contribution? Indeed...what contributes contribution at all?

If assisting in the transport of over 100,000 troops (from memory - a number I saw in the Clare Chamion in late Jan / early Feb) doesn't constitute a major contribution, what does?

Also, I believe the US refused to pay some airport charges (from same article), which means that as well as contributing logistical support, our government (who paid the airport in their stead) has directly contributed to the funding the military operations in Iraq (assuming the information I recall reading was correct).

Does any of this constitute contribution? If so, how much further would we have to go before it would constitute serious contribution?

jc

mycroft

Mazikeen wrote:

I was having a chat over a few pints with a mate of mine yesterday evening about the whole US Military Shannon stopover debacle and we both had to concede that that outside of some logistical nuts and bolts and some, naturally, military personnel passing through, there’s no evidence (and TBH, Indiemedia doesn’t count)
.

Indymedia is the place where the planespotters who are in shannon documenting the arrivals and departures of US miltary aircraft.

Aprrox 100,000 troops have passed through shannon, we don't know the exact number because our government refused to check or even ask.

And from one of those conpiracy theorists and cranks you claim populate the site.

There is this article.

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=67865&topic=antiwar&type=feature

And excert of which reads.

It has also come to my notice that N313P, the other aircraft, mentioned in my previous letter, along with a photograph of it, is recorded as having
landed at Shannon this year. This aircraft, which has been tracked to some
of the same locations and military bases as N379P/N8068V should also be
investigated by the Garda Síochána.

You should read carefully the enclosed translation of the Swedish documentary series Kalla Fakta (Cold Facts). They have done a few episodes on this topic.

The translation script was sent to me today by Fredrik Laurin, one of
the researchers for the programme. The English translations are available on the
TV4 website at http://www.tv4.se/kallafakta.

It is also possible to watch these episodes on the internet on the same website.

The most recent broadcast was Monday, 22 November 2004. It interviews Robert
Baer, a former CIA agent who gives us his informed opinion of the activities
surrounding this aircraft. There are also interesting contributions from American investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, on the military unit operating the aircraft as well as the researchers from Kalla Fakta
itself. (see highlighted sections on pages 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15)

I'm sure it's not beyond your capacity to obtain a copy of the video from Swedish Television, or perhaps the Swedish Police, who probably have a copy of it.

If I manage to get a copy I will forward it to you.

In particular I would like to draw your attention to the following, from page 12 of the translation.

Robert Baer, former CIA agent.

- "There is a rule inside the CIA that if you want a good interrogation and you want good information you send the suspect to Jordan, if you want them to be killed or tortured to death, you send them either to Egypt or
Syria, never see them again"

and on page 5, I would direct you to the paragraph reading :

"January 10th 2002: A man in chains and with a hood over his head is taken
out onto the strictly guarded runway of the Halim airport in central Jakarta. Muhammad Iqbal is taken into custody by disguised men and taken aboard as the plane takes off for Egypt. A few days later the plane N379P
returns from Cairo to the US. According to rumours in the intelligence communities in the west, Iqbal died during interrogations in Egypt"

On page 12, I would direct you to the following quotes from the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan.

"The CIA does have a fairly large presence in Tashkent... N379P has for the last two years also landed in Uzbekistan on several locations. All in all there have been at least seven trips with the city of Tashkent as the destination"

Mazikeen

mycroft wrote:

Indymedia is the place where the planespotters who are in shannon documenting the arrivals and departures of US miltary aircraft.

Aprrox 100,000 troops have passed through shannon, we don't know the exact number because our government refused to check or even ask.

You may consider Indymedia reilable, but in the real World it's not. I'm not saying that it's not correct, only that it does not fit the bill for credible.

As for 100,000 troops - I find it difficult to believe that with such authorative estimates that no one to a snapshot. honestly - wheres the proof?

bonkey

Mazikeen wrote:

You may consider Indymedia reilable, but in the real World it's not. I'm not saying that it's not correct, only that it does not fit the bill for credible.

Did you read beyond the bit where indymedia was mentioned? The bit where it turns out that the indymedia article is little more than a reference to a program done by the Swedish?

Are you saying that the explicit links that are trivial to verify are made up? Or are you saying that because indymedia linked to it, the Swedish producers' credentials are automatically rendered suspect?

Man...that's some power....just reference anything from anyone you want to discredit..and bam....they're immediatley untrustworthy because indymedia quote them as a source.

As for 100,000 troops - I find it difficult to believe that with such authorative estimates that no one to a snapshot. honestly - wheres the proof?

I believe the Clare Champion reporter got his/her figures from Shannon Airport, but again...if you really want to find out whether or not it was just a tinfoil-hat-wearer's opinion piece, I'd suggest you contact them directly yourself. I'm sure they'll know who the reporter was, and possibly forward your questions to him/her.

The same article also had a 1/2 page picture of the bar in Shannon airport rather full of people wearing US military outfits. Of course, now I've told you where to find a snapshot, I assmue you'll point out that the snapshot you asked for actually proves nothing (which it doesn't, of course).

jc

mycroft

You may consider Indymedia reilable, but in the real World it's not.

And you own the monopoly on the real worlds opinion. Let me break down how the troops through shannon story broke. Indymedia carried, it the Govt at first denied that any troops were moving through shannon. Indymedia then published photos of troops in Shannon. Then the mainstream press picked up on the story.

For starts the 100,000 didn't turn up on day. Troops rarly leave transports, while they're refueling. Occasionally if theres a problem the get out n stretch their legs.

FIGURES released this month by the Dept of Foreign Affairs show that 158,549 US troops passed through Shannon Airport in 2004 (compared to 125,855 in 2003)

Thats dept of foreign affairs estimatess

gandalf

Well do you believe the Irish Independent?

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1291021&issue_id=11719

130,000 US military stopped over at Shannon

THE number of US troops passing through Shannon airport for the first 10 months of this year has surpassed the troop numbers going through the airport for the whole of 2003.

As hostilities in Iraq continue, the Department of Foreign Affairs has also confirmed that the number of military aircraft given permission by the Government to overfly Ireland this year is set to reach 3,110 up to the end of October.

The airport yesterday confirmed that 129,103 troops on 1,230 aircraft stopped over at Shannon for the first 10 months of this year.

It is estimated that Shannon airport has secured €15.5m from the US business in 2004.

Fianna Fail senator Timmy Dooley said yesterday that the troops "are a welcome and much-needed business at a time when Shannon is facing certain pressures".

Personally I would suggest that 130,000 troops (and this was is for the first 10 months of 2004) is a very substaintial contribution to the US war effort. Couple this with the fact that no checks are made on any of the US Aircraft that are using Shannon so we do not know they are not transporting weapons (I will try and locate this info as well).

gandalf

Are you comfortable with our facilities being used for transportation to torture maybe.

From the Sunday Business Post
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/09/26/story704656221.asp

Aircraft used for al-Qaeda suspects landed at Shannon
Sunday, September 26, 2004
By Paul T Colgan
A jet chartered by the United States military, which is known to have abducted and transported al-Qaeda suspects, has landed at Shannon Airport several times, The Sunday Business Post has learned.

It is unclear whether the plane, a Citation jet with the call sign N379P, has contained any al-Qaeda suspects when in Ireland.

The jet was spotted at Shannon in 2001. At the end of that year, the plane picked up two al-Qaeda suspects in Sweden and ferried them to Cairo in Egypt for interrogation.

The plane has also landed in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where Camp X-Ray, run by the US military on one of its bases, houses several hundred al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects.

Premier Executive Transport Services, the Massachusetts private charter company, which owns the jet, has an agreement with the US military to land at its facilities around the world, including the Guantanamo Bay base.

The plane is on a permanent charter to the US Department of Defense.

Concerns have been raised that as Shannon Airport is used regularly as a refuelling point for the US military planes, the jet may have landed in the Republic while transferring suspects to Cuba. The plane is normally based at Dulles airport in Washington DC.

Described by the CIA in an article in the Washington Post newspaper as ``extraordinary renditions'', the plane's operations are designed to transfer suspects to countries where they can be interrogated without the protection of Western law.

According to security analysts, the number of ``renditions'' have increased dramatically since the September 11 attacks.

Two Egyptian suspects, Ahmed Agiza and Muhammed al-Zery, were reportedly ``abducted'' from Sweden on N379P in December 2001 by US government officials.

Both men, who had been granted asylum in Sweden, were taken on the Gulfstream jet from Bromma airport, Stockholm, to Cairo where they claimed to have been brutally interrogated.

Agiza and Zery were taken to Bromma by Swedish police in handcuffs and shackles before being handed over to American agents.

On boarding the flight, it was reported in a documentary by Swedish journalist Fredrik Laurin, that they were chained to a harness, blindfolded and hooded.

The two men claimed to Swedish diplomats that they were subject to repeated torture by electrical shocks. Zery was released from custody in October 2003 after the Egyptian authorities failed to uncover any terrorist links.

Agiza was found to be a member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment in Egypt in April.

The Swedish government has since called for an international investigation to probe the role played by US agents in their apprehension.

It maintains that it received assurances from the US that the two men would not be mistreated.

The plane is believed to have left Shannon Airport on January 18, 2003 - shortly before an anti-war demonstration.

Neither Shannon Airport police nor the gardai investigated the contents of US aircraft passing through the airport despite having the authority to do so.

The jet was also reportedly used to ferry a Yemeni student, Jamil Gasim, in chains from Karachi in Pakistan to Amman in Jordan two months before the Swedish incident.

Legal observers said the abduction and ferrying of terrorist suspects around the world is in breach of international conventions against torture and the European convention on human rights.

Asked earlier this year about the possibility that planes carrying al-Qaeda suspects may be passing through Shannon, justice minister Michael McDowell said: ``[Any] person who is on the soil of Ireland is entitled to the protection of our constitution.

"No person can be brought through the soil of Ireland in the custody of any other state except in accordance with international law.''

McDowell said that he would ``respond immediately'' to any claims that suspects had been transmitted through Irish territory en route to Guantanamo in unlawful custody.

``It would cause me grave concern if I thought people were being smuggled through Irish territory in circumstances that amounted to unlawful detention in Irish law or in international law for that matter,'' he said.

gandalf

Oh and heres a interesting one on the airport charges

http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=6232&lang=ENG&loc=1715

Dinner

Oh for Gods sake, they're landing to get fuel, withouyt fuel planes crash and people die. (yes I knoiw they could go somewhere else).

Its doing the Irish people no harm, the more planes that land, the more fuel they buy, the more money for the economy. The only harm that comes to the Irish people as a result of this when crazy people run out onto the tarmac (dangerous and stupid in itself) and batter planes with a hammer.

AmenToThat

Arabel wrote:

Oh for Gods sake, they're landing to get fuel, withouyt fuel planes crash and people die. (yes I knoiw they could go somewhere else)..

Yes but the two none military style jets (although owned bu the CIA) are carrying prisoners who have had no trial and in many cases have been illegally abducted to countries like Syria and Eygpt for torture, murder and prolonged periods of illegal detention.

bonkey

Arabel wrote:

(yes I knoiw they could go somewhere else).

Yes. Thats exactly the point. The biggest ally of the US is right next door, and they could have done the favours. We did not need to get involved, but we chose to.

Victor (I think) posted something up here way back about how in the old days, ships could dock to a very limited extent at neutral ports. Anything more than that extent was considered a breach of neutrality as the port was providing significant material assistance to one participant.

I find it hard to fault that logic. If you choose to help one side to a significant extent, then you forgo any claim to neutrality in the issue.

The Swiss (as I've often pointed out) went so far as to refuse air-space access to war-related flights (typically to/from the US bases in Germany). That is what they considered necessary to preserve their neutrality - again a stance consistent with the maritime situation of old.

Its doing the Irish people no harm, the more planes that land, the more fuel they buy, the more money for the economy.

Nothings better for business then war, eh!

I'm not sure what this line of reasoning has to do with whether or not we gave significant aid, though. It did us no harm???

The only harm that comes to the Irish people as a result of this when crazy people run out onto the tarmac (dangerous and stupid in itself) and batter planes with a hammer.

Surely thats financial loss incurred as opposed to harm, by the standards that you just applied?

jc

Dinner

The woman did us harm because she is making the Irish look like a buch of uncontrolable people. If you want to protest fine, but to commit illegal crime. Any country supporting or against the war isnt going to say thats great, she commited a crime.




I agree there are better circumstances to get money, but right now those are the circumstances. Letting aircraft land is not significant aid, it is just being nice. Significant aid is letting them land, re fuel, re arm and train here.

Whats the differance to a ship docking and probably re fueling and taking on food, and an aircraft landing and re fueling.

Slutmonkey57b

well, god forbid we don't all stay in line and do what we're told. I'm no fan of the hippies, but equally, there's no use pretending to be neutral while letting these levels of troop movements through the country. As has already been said, RAF bases are only a few miles away.

The truth however is probably as simple and mundane as this: the government flogged landing rights in return for post - Sept. 11th airspace cover from RAF and USAF jets.

AmenToThat

Arabel wrote:

I agree there are better circumstances to get money, but right now those are the circumstances. Letting aircraft land is not significant aid, it is just being nice. Significant aid is letting them land, re fuel, re arm and train here.

Whats the differance to a ship docking and probably re fueling and taking on food, and an aircraft landing and re fueling.

Again you seem to be conveniantly forgetting that fact that some of those planes are carry men who are being sent to countries like Egypt and Syria for the purposes of torture and in some cases murder without ever having seen the inside of a court.

true

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

. As has already been said, RAF bases are only a few miles away.

The truth however is probably as simple and mundane as this: the government flogged landing rights in return for post - Sept. 11th airspace cover from RAF and USAF jets.

Good points and well said. In previous conflicts, when the going gets rough, we are always happy to shelter under these countries umbrella ( WW2, the cold war etc ).

We should remember who our friends are in the world. Only 10 or 15 years ago our gratuates were leaving in thousands to get jobs in the USA and UK.
These countries are our economic partners now too. and our nearest neighbours to west and east. Most of our diaspora are in these countries. If there are 40 million people in America of Irish origin, and 100,000 troops have passed through shannon, then it is fair to assume the number of Irish American who passed through goes well in to the five figures. I wonder what do they think of the cead mile failte at Shannon for them ?

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

AmenToThat

true wrote:

We should remember who our friends are in the world. Only 10 or 15 years ago our gratuates were leaving in thousands to get jobs in the USA and UK.
These countries are our economic partners now too. and our nearest neighbours to west and east. Most of our diaspora are in these countries. If there are 40 million people in America of Irish origin, and 100,000 troops have passed through shannon, then it is fair to assume the number of Irish American who passed through goes well in to the five figures. I wonder what do they think of the cead mile failte at Shannon for them ?

Your basically saying that as long as the economics are right then who cares about the human rights violations.

Nuttzz

ziggy67 wrote:

. When your neutrality is written into the constitution and you still do it (for money!) then that is unforgivable.

but its not..... its merely government policy.

bonkey

true wrote:

We should remember who our friends are in the world.

Yes we should. And we should remember how they (in the case of the US) are treating us with their "with us or against us" logic, and (unless our politicians lied to us) their barely-hidden implications of economic reprecussions should we choose not to support them.

We should remember that as friends and not allies, we would expect them to honour our neutrality rather than ask us to discard it in order to provide assistance that their military allies and partners-in-war who live next door could just as easily have provided

We should, in short, remember that we are supposed to be their friends and not their vassals, and that when they treat us as the latter, we should seriously reconsider what the implication of being the former really means.

jc

Mazikeen

Bonkey:

Did you read beyond the bit where indymedia was mentioned? The bit where it turns out that the indymedia article is little more than a reference to a program done by the Swedish?

It pointed to a Swedish site, not even a specific article. There may be an article there, but I can’t tell cos I don’t speak Swedish.

Are you saying that the explicit links that are trivial to verify are made up? Or are you saying that because indymedia linked to it, the Swedish producers' credentials are automatically rendered suspect?

I’m saying that without seeing proof you’d have to take Indymedia’s word for it and mainstream society won’t. It would take the Swedish documentary series or the indo seriously and maybe even the Clare Champion but not Indymedia. Sorry, but that’s just how things are.

Man...that's some power....just reference anything from anyone you want to discredit..and bam....they're immediatley untrustworthy because indymedia quote them as a source.

I never said they were. Or that your article for the Clare Champion was bogus. Only that from what I have here, it’s not verified. It’s just more stuff some guy on the internet said. To verified that I’d have to find myself a Swedish speaker or phone up the Clare Champion.

mycroft:

And you own the monopoly on the real worlds opinion.

Don’t get so defensive. Indymedia is not viewed as a credible source of information in mainstream Society. It may be in time, but it aint right now. That’s all.

gandalf:

Are you comfortable with our facilities being used for transportation to torture maybe.

No. That’s a horrible thing to say. All I’m asking for is credible proof because it came up in a conversation with a friend the other evening. Why is everyone so defensive?

And thanks for the articles. v good.

RicardoSmith

DadaKopf wrote:

....it's actually against Irish law for uniformed personnel, military planes, vehicles and weapons to pass through Irish territory, unless justified on the basis of something like a multilateral UN action.

Thats all thats important.

D'Peoples Voice

bonkey wrote:

What constitutes a serious contribution? Indeed...what contributes contribution at all?

If assisting in the transport of over 100,000 troops (from memory - a number I saw in the Clare Chamion in late Jan / early Feb) doesn't constitute a major contribution, what does?

Also, I believe the US refused to pay some airport charges (from same article), which means that as well as contributing logistical support, our government (who paid the airport in their stead) has directly contributed to the funding the military operations in Iraq (assuming the information I recall reading was correct).

Does any of this constitute contribution? If so, how much further would we have to go before it would constitute serious contribution?

jc

Were every single one of these 100,000 troops, combat troops?
Lets be honest, nayone who is familar with the ways armies work will know that you will loads of troops whose role is in delaing with logistics, distribution, interpreters,catering troops, medical staff.
I think 100,000 as a number is a bit sensationalist!

Anyway, as regards being accused of giving a contribution,
all we are doing is selling back the oil we got ourselves "probably" from the middle east. So maybe Iraq should take issue with other middle east countries for helping America. We are only the middle man

Occidental

Just for information, yesterdays troop movements at Shannon.

7 flights, 3 eastbound, 4 westbound. Capacity of 1500+. Troop flights have increased heavily since Christmas, when World Airways began using Shannon as a refueling point, with an average of 3-4 flights per day.

The USAF, US Marines and US Navy also transit Shannon on exec flights and on mail/supply duties (but no fighters).

bonkey

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

Were every single one of these 100,000 troops, combat troops?

Does it matter? Is the guy responsible for loading the M1A with shells any less of a contributor to the war than the guy inside the M1A who fires them off at the Iraqis?

Lets be honest, nayone who is familar with the ways armies work will know

....that combat troops are only a small part of any invasion force.

However, such people would also know that one does not refer to the combat troops as the active participants in the war, and the support-forces as innocent bystanders who aren't involved. As a result, I would suggest that the distinction you are making is one of convenience rather than of accurate merit.

I think 100,000 as a number is a bit sensationalist!

If you wish to distinguish between active combatant and personnel involved in carrynig out a war, then yes, it is indeed sensationalist.

Such a distinction is somewhat convenient though....given that we're discussing what constitutes significant aid.

Are you saying that the people who load tanks, feed troops etc are not making / did not make a significant contribution to the war effort? Or, if they are, are you saying that there is a distinction between ferrying the troops wot kill people and the troops wot help the other troops kill people when it comes to determining the significance of our involvement?

all we are doing is selling back the oil we got ourselves "probably" from the middle east.

Selling back to who? To the US? How are we selling something back to someone we didn't buy it off in the first place.

Your argument is beginning to sound like one of denial rather than of rationale, methinks - that you feel we didn't give significant aid because you don't want us to have done so, rather than because you can explain solidly that we didn't.

So maybe Iraq should take issue with other middle east countries for helping America. We are only the middle man

Ah right. The good ol' "They're guiltier than we are, so we're not really guilty" line of reasoning. Not too far removed from "He killed more people than me, y'r honour, so I didn't do anything wrong".

Hey, why don't you just conclude that we didn't give any significant aid because we weren't the ones who supplied troops.....and that its the troop-suppliers (but only combat-troops, remember...ancillary staff don't count in your book) who the Iraqis should take issue with.

Nuttzz

Personally I think to say we are neutral is a nonsense, we arent neutral nor have we even been, we gave better treatment to allied airmen who crashed here during WWII than we did to the germans, we have been allowing the US to use shannon as a transit point for troops since the 50's or 60's, the USSR were allowed to use shannon but to a much lesser extent. A better description would be non-alined.

I would like to see the government make a decision one way or the other with regard to military alliances and deployments, we are committed to the EU rapid reaction force yet a UN mandate is required to before we deploy our troops, the idea behind the RRF is not to sit around an talk about it but to act rapidly. So they are keeping both ends happy, the EU is happy because we commit to the RRF and the people here are happy as the UN mandate is required and the government are very happy as they know that there is little chance of a deployment under the triple lock rule. What we need is a public debate on the matter and decide once and for all what to do. I personally dont have a problem with the US using shannon but if the majority of the people opposed it (via a public vote for example) then I wouldnt have a problem with denying them access either.

ionapaul

A public vote on this matter (or a similar situation) would be farcical IMHO and would lead us down the road to mob rule - if we had a vote to reduce income tax, I'm quite sure it would pass, despite the immediate or longterm consequences! We do not live in a perfect democracy, and I for one am happy we do not.

Another point: although in the instance of US military flights through Shannon, although we reaped economic benefits in the short-term, war is not (as commonly believed) good for the macro economy. Certain segments benefit
(particularly on the winning side!), but overall war is terrible for the world economy.

Back to the topic (sort of), I agree with Nuttzz, our neutrality needs to be carefully examined and discussed publicly and in the corridors of power. We are clearly not neutral with regards our dealings with the US, UK and other Western nations. Equally, we (and Switzerland and others) are happy to reap certain benefits due to our relationships with other friendly nations, without contemplating recognised reciprocal actions or arrangements. This all needs to be examined in depth - otherwise we will continue down the path of 'covertly' helping out the US and UK when asked and seeing a growth in public anger, confusion and frustration.

mycroft

Mazikeen wrote:

It pointed to a Swedish site, not even a specific article. There may be an article there, but I can’t tell cos I don’t speak Swedish.


Are you saying that the explicit links that are trivial to verify are made up? Or are you saying that because indymedia linked to it, the Swedish producers' credentials are automatically rendered suspect?

I’m saying that without seeing proof you’d have to take Indymedia’s word for it and mainstream society won’t. It would take the Swedish documentary series or the indo seriously and maybe even the Clare Champion but not Indymedia. Sorry, but that’s just how things are.

How about Vincent Browne's "the village?" They ran an article on the story after Indymedia did.

Don’t get so defensive. Indymedia is not viewed as a credible source of information in mainstream Society. It may be in time, but it aint right now. That’s all.

Thats your opinion. Care to back that up with facts or statistics?

Nuttzz

i suspose what i meant by a public vote was a referendum on neutrality, that sort of idea

bonkey

ionapaul wrote:

A public vote on this matter (or a similar situation) would be farcical IMHO and would lead us down the road to mob rule - if we had a vote to reduce income tax, I'm quite sure it would pass, despite the immediate or longterm consequences!

I wouldn't be too sure.

The Swiss have such votes, invluding such things as taxation increases/decreases, and you'd be surprised what the majority often decide when both sides put their case.

The government over here, for example, spell out what they will have to do in order to keep their books in order. When told straight up that the impact of (as was just the case...in the last two weeks) that a proposed vut of 10% of the current cantonal tax would result in the Bernese canton having to cut expenditure in health, education, public employee salaries and benefits amongst other things.....the public don't always think as blindly as you might expect.

Now sure...such discipline may not come immediately upon implementation of such a system, and there is the almost-certainty of some hard lessons having to be learned, I would point out that it can work.

We are clearly not neutral with regards our dealings with the US, UK and other Western nations.

Up until our facilitation of troop-movements, I would have said that Ireland was militarily neutral, whilst politically very much not so. Now, I would say that our militaristic naetrality is - at best - of a questionable nature. While we did not get listed amongst the coalition of the willing, we did give substantive physical aid to one of the combatant sides.

Equally, we (and Switzerland and others) are happy to reap certain benefits due to our relationships with other friendly nations, without contemplating recognised reciprocal actions or arrangements.

The Swiss government, to overwhelming public support (the Swiss are very quick to use their right to demand a referendum when they are strongly moved, and there was no hint of one to force Calmy-Rey to resign her post in reprecussion for the stance the Swiss took regarding this particular aspect of foreign policy.

Strange as it may seem, the Swiss put their neutrality before their economy. They simply were not influenced by the however-possible financial reprecussions it may have had.

This all needs to be examined in depth - otherwise we will continue down the path of 'covertly' helping out the US and UK when asked and seeing a growth in public anger, confusion and frustration.

The reason I mention the Swiss just above is because I think the reality is that despite how much fear, uncertainty and doubt was spread around at the time, the Swiss case shows that the rumours of our (Irish economy's) demise were almost certainly grossly exaggerated.

Despite Bush's bold, populist declaration, the US don't truly believe that you must be with them or against them. They respected the right of the Swiss to remain apart, and there was nothing said or done when they sided with those who opposed military action. While the French and others were villified for not taking their usual place on the field, the Swiss stood where they've tried to stand for some time now - on the sidelines, peacefully opposing conflict simply by objecting to it.

That's neutrality, and it was accepted. To do otherwise would, at the very least, have proven counter-productive. The US, fighting for freedom and democracy cannot be seen to try and bully or punish a democratic and free nation for choosing to retain its claim to neutrality.

While I would not suggest that the use of Shannon has put Ireland on a slippery slope where we will inexorably lose any claim to neutrality, but we have most certainly damaged the stability of the platform on which we stand apart.

jc

<edit>
fixed broken formatting
</edit>

Essey

Hi Bonkers! you quoted information from the Clare Champion (but couldnt remember what issue) Here is a link to previous issues for Jan/Feb:
http://tinyurl.com/4o3nl
I'd love to read your source!

BTW - speaking of Shannon: I read recently that Martians were spotted passing through there ecorted by IRA millitary personnel - beleive that I read this was quoted in alqaeda.com - can someone help find me the link?

bonkey wrote:

What constitutes a serious contribution? Indeed...what contributes contribution at all?

If assisting in the transport of over 100,000 troops (from memory - a number I saw in the Clare Chamion in late Jan / early Feb) doesn't constitute a major contribution, what does?

Also, I believe the US refused to pay some airport charges (from same article), which means that as well as contributing logistical support, our government (who paid the airport in their stead) has directly contributed to the funding the military operations in Iraq (assuming the information I recall reading was correct).

Does any of this constitute contribution? If so, how much further would we have to go before it would constitute serious contribution?

jc

uberwolf

http://www.clarechampion.ie/clch/www/index.asp?magpage=1&issid=34&issdate=Friday%2C+11+March+2005&issarch=0&topcatid=&catid=&id=2940

:rolleyes:

in particular

Figures released by the Department of Foreign Affairs show that 158,549 US troops passed through Shannon Airport in 2004 compared to 125,855 in 2003. The figures indicate that these troops arrived on 1,502 charter flights and that there were also 753 military aircraft carrying munitions.

&


Firstly, there’s the €3 million in air traffic control fees that the Pentagon refused to pay last year, and which was paid instead by the Department of Transport. Then there’s the extra security for the military.
“The new cameras and motion detectors are not cheap and the extra Garda and army overtime cost is estimated at over €20 million - about half of which was on the weekend of the Bush visit to Clare.



edit: well I'm surprised to see that our sceptic has been silenced.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Moriarty

We're historically "non-aligned" rather than neutral. Personally, I'd favour Ireland changing it's policy and joining NATO and any EU forces that come into being but I recognise that a lot of people disagree with that[1]. I'd like to see a serious debate and referendum about it some time though.


[1]: although I'm honestly not exactly sure why they support a continuation of non-alignment policy other than "because it's what we've always done". For those that support neutrality/non-alignment, why do you?

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Is the Whole US Military Shannon thing a bit exaggerated

No, it is underplayed. I got a phonecall from Shannon recently from a member of the American military, separately he confirmed they were carrying personal weapons (pistols and rifles) in the cabin which while permissable, probably didn't have Irish government approval, which they required.

AmenToThat wrote:

The two private jets the Americans use to illegally (no extradition process or trial) transport people to countries for torture and murder regularly stop over in Shannon on their journeys and to me that is a big deal.

Phoenix Magazine (current edition) reports that Iraqi registered aircraft are now being used.

DadaKopf wrote:

No, because it's actually against Irish law for uniformed personnel, military planes, vehicles and weapons to pass through Irish territory, unless justified on the basis of something like a multilateral UN action.

There is legal fuzziness, but I understand under Irish law (as opposed to internation law), its a matter for the government to approve. Of course, the government simply doesn't look.

The same article also had a 1/2 page picture of the bar in Shannon airport rather full of people wearing US military outfits.

Quite possibly the first beer they've had in 12 months. But ultimately we have sold our souls.

For starts the 100,000 didn't turn up on day. Troops rarly leave transports, while they're refueling. Occasionally if theres a problem the get out n stretch their legs.

On a 12-15 hour trips are you saying you wouldn't get off the plane? What with beer within a stones throw having been dry for 12 months?

Its doing the Irish people no harm, the more planes that land, the more fuel they buy, the more money for the economy.

How about we sell more cocaine to teenagers then? Should we really prostitute ourselves?

The only harm that comes to the Irish people as a result of this when crazy people run out onto the tarmac (dangerous and stupid in itself) and batter planes with a hammer.

Yes, giant inflatable hammers. :rolleyes:

Victor (I think) posted something up here way back about how in the old days, ships could dock to a very limited extent at neutral ports. Anything more than that extent was considered a breach of neutrality as the port was providing significant material assistance to one participant.

Something like once every three week IIRC, although I don't recollect what the basis for this limit was (fresh water maybe??). I don't know how that was applied to aircraft. Regarding aircraft in WWII, it was down to whether the aircraft came down on the east or west coast. East coast meant war zone, west coast meant emergency landing. All very convenient that the Germans tended to land on the east coast only, but logical just the same.

The Swiss (as I've often pointed out) went so far as to refuse air-space access to war-related flights (typically to/from the US bases in Germany).

As did Austria.

The woman did us harm because she is making the Irish look like a buch of uncontrolable people. If you want to protest fine, but to commit illegal crime. Any country supporting or against the war isnt going to say thats great, she commited a crime.

It's not a crime to stop a bank robber.

I agree there are better circumstances to get money, but right now those are the circumstances. Letting aircraft land is not significant aid, it is just being nice. Significant aid is letting them land, re fuel, re arm and train here.

I disagree, letting them land here as opposed to say Germany, materially increases their range while carring cargo. It is a force multiplier (X palnes can do the job of X+Y planes) and as such is significant aid.

Whats the differance to a ship docking and probably re fueling and taking on food, and an aircraft landing and re fueling.

It's about how often it happens and whether the country is at war or not. During the Vietnam War, American planes landing at Shannon weren't on their way to Vietnam.

The truth however is probably as simple and mundane as this: the government flogged landing rights in return for post - Sept. 11th airspace cover from RAF and USAF jets.

Ironic that the main reason we needed to protect it was GWB.

In previous conflicts, when the going gets rough, we are always happy to shelter under these countries umbrella ( WW2, the cold war etc ).

Remind me which side had the most nukes pointed at Ireland?

We should remember who our friends are in the world. Only 10 or 15 years ago our gratuates were leaving in thousands to get jobs in the USA and UK.

Are you saying those countries are poorer for having received trained graduates? :rolleyes:

Victor

More spam ...

Were every single one of these 100,000 troops, combat troops?

"Every Soldier a Rifleman"?

Equally, we (and Switzerland and others) are happy to reap certain benefits due to our relationships with other friendly nations, without contemplating recognised reciprocal actions or arrangements.

Actually the Swiss have treaty obligations not to go to war or aid others (Swiss mercenaries were casuing problems for/to neighbouring countries).

true

Victor wrote:

Are you saying those countries ( USA / UK ) are poorer for having received trained graduates? :rolleyes:

It was not just graduates who left Ireland 15, 20, 50, 60 , 100 years ago : it was all sections of society, from west of Ireland rural folk to city drop outs with no education. The UK and US gave many of them good jobs, and opportunities. Also there are many Irish people holding down well paid jobs in American multi-nationals here in Ireland. America and its allies are bringing elections and democracy to Iraq : would you prefer Saddam Husseins form of democracy ?

We should remember our economic interests , if you cannot see the moral argument in defeating Saddams regeime.

Memnoch

true wrote:

It was not just graduates who left Ireland 15, 20, 50, 60 , 100 years ago : it was all sections of society, from west of Ireland rural folk to city drop outs with no education. The UK and US gave many of them good jobs, and opportunities. Also there are many Irish people holding down well paid jobs in American multi-nationals here in Ireland. America and its allies are bringing elections and democracy to Iraq : would you prefer Saddam Husseins form of democracy ?

We should remember our economic interests , if you cannot see the moral argument in defeating Saddams regeime.

The same saddam hussain that was put in power with the help of the cia?
the same saddam hussain that was supported for over a decade by the US and the UK and the western world turned it's back while he committed unspeakable crimes?

America and it's allies have supported many dictators and corrupt regimes and terrorist organisations for a long time now and continue to do so to this day. They have proved that they are not interested in democracy or freedom. The current situation in iraq is not democracy, but conquest, and plunder.

However there will always be people who fail to realise the truth, and ironically despite your name you are one of them. Be blinded by false american propaganda, and be impervious to the lessons of history that show america's intent.

If economic interests are what count, then i guess you think it should be able to rob people and murder others for money.

Rock Climber

Memnoch wrote:

If economic interests are what count, then i guess you think it should be able to rob people and murder others for money.

No.
But money talks,its what has got so many people to come back to Ireland and its what has stopped the tide of emmigration from this country, theres no doubt that America has played a large part in that and that politicians here consequently are very warey of upsetting our benefactors lest we lose too many jobs as a result.

I'd be more interested in finding out if a poster with views such as yourself would be prepared to leave this country in protest over our tacit support for the U.S war effort? Otherwise I'd be inclined to think you too put a price on staying here and the price isnt high enough to avoid paying taxes to a government that subsidises U.S landing charges at shannon.
What country could you go to, to best avoid any support for the U.S regime or at least the lowest possible? Switzerland probably.
I hear Bonkey in another thread say Ryanairs fairs have came down a lot, but you may go by timber boat(and close your eyes along the rest of the route as I cnat rule out an america free rest of your trip) because they use boeing planes and theres lots of taxes there going to the U.S war effort.

Dreadfull isnt it?

true

Memnoch wrote:

The same saddam hussain that was put in power with the help of the cia?
the same saddam hussain that was supported for over a decade by the US and the UK and the western world turned it's back while he committed unspeakable crimes?.

Saddam Hussein was considered the lesser of two evils when Iraq was at war with Iran, which is a long time ago. And what crimes did Hussein commit then , that we knew of then , that would not have occured anyway ?

Memnoch wrote:

America and it's allies have supported many dictators and corrupt regimes and terrorist organisations for a long time now and continue to do so to this day.
.

LOL. The US , along with other allies like the UK and Australia, have in the last 100 years opposed and seen off the worlds most evil regimes, namely Nazism and Stalinism / communism as in the cold war. They also booted Hussein out of Kuwait in Gulf war one, but they stopped that war too early and learnt their lesson, as Gulf war 2 was just finishing the job. Also Galteri was booted out of the Falklands with some US satellite / intelligence info etc: Argentina was hardly a hotbed of democracy at the time, with thousands of disappeared etc. In fairness to the US and UK, does that happen there ?
I am not saying the US and its allies are infallible - far from it - but they are the best the world has got and think of how the world would be without them.

Memnoch wrote:

They have proved that they are not interested in democracy or freedom. The current situation in iraq is not democracy, but conquest, and plunder.
.

LOL. Plunder? It is cost them billions, plus hundreds of lives.

Memnoch wrote:

However there will always be people who fail to realise the truth, and ironically despite your name you are one of them. Be blinded by false american propaganda, and be impervious to the lessons of history that show america's intent.

If economic interests are what count, then i guess you think it should be able to rob people and murder others for money.

No I do not think anyone should be able to rob people and murder others for money : that is why the world needs a policeman. In the absense of anyone else having the balls to oppose people like Bin Laden and Hussein, America and its allies have to do the dirty work. Appeasment does not work : history shows that - look at Hitler. Appease men like Bin Laden you get more 9/11's, appease men like Hussein and besides torturing and killing his own citizens, he becomes a danger to the world - not just Kuwait - when he develops nuclear weapons, and because he controls so much oil. Yes, the dirty word oil, and you will be the first to complain when there would be none for your heating or your car.

FTA69

Saddam Hussein was considered the lesser of two evils when Iraq was at war with Iran, which is a long time ago. And what crimes did Hussein commit then , that we knew of then , that would not have occured anyway ?

The lesser of two evils? If asked to choose between a secular oppressive dictatorship and a Muislim oppressive dictatorship I'd pick neither to be honest. In fact the last thing I would do would be to arm one side with weapons of mass destruction which would be used to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent teenage conscripts.

LOL. The US , along with other allies like the UK and Australia, have in the last 100 years opposed and seen off the worlds most evil regimes,

Yes, Australia over the past 100 years really has been a bastion of freedom hasn't it? Ask the "Forgotten Generation" of Aboriginies who were torn from their homes to cowtow as servants to white families about "freedom" and "deomcracy". Not to mention England and America's actions over the past 100 years, the countries India, Egypt, Grenada, Jamaica, Chile, Nicaragua and Kenya come to mind.

Argentina was hardly a hotbed of democracy at the time, with thousands of disappeared etc

If we want to talk about democracy maybe you might want to refer to the democratically-elected president of Chile Salvador Allende who was murdered by a US-backed right wing coup?

think of how the world would be without them.

I'd imagine it would be a lot better off.

Plunder? It is cost them billions, plus hundreds of lives.

It cost the American exchequer and the American working class billions of dollars and hundreds of lives. The American capitalists however, eg Cheney's Haliburton, made a killing. Nobody is pretending the American government acts for the American people, it acts for the wealthy and powerful corporate sector who really govern the US.

true

FTA69 wrote:

The lesser of two evils? If asked to choose between a secular oppressive dictatorship and a Muislim oppressive dictatorship I'd pick neither to be honest. In fact the last thing I would do would be to arm one side with weapons of mass destruction which would be used to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent teenage conscripts..

What "weapons of mass destruction " did America arm anyone with in the Iran / Iraq war? Gas was available in Iraq already was it not ? And besides, the Iran Iraq war was a long time ago, the west has striven to learn from its past mistakes.

FTA69 wrote:

Yes, Australia over the past 100 years really has been a bastion of freedom hasn't it? Ask the "Forgotten Generation" of Aboriginies who were torn from their homes to cowtow as servants to white families about "freedom" and "deomcracy". ..

Yeah, coming from "free West Waterford" you would know a lot about Aboriginies in Australia. What does being alledgedly "torn" from their homes 100 years ago to alledgedly "cowtow" as servants to white families have to do with anything?

FTA69 wrote:

If we want to talk about democracy maybe you might want to refer to the democratically-elected president of Chile Salvador Allende who was murdered by a US-backed right wing coup?.

Many other things also happened in Chile; none of these events had a hundreth or a thousanth as big a bearing on world freedom and democracy as WW2 and the cold war for example, subjects you conveniently ignore because you know the US and UK were right.

FTA69 wrote:

I'd imagine it would be a lot better off..

What, where would all our emigrants have gone if there was no US or UK ? And no money to be sent home from these countries ? And no secend biggest contributer to EC funds, whichIreland has benefitted massively from ? And no inward investment from US based factories , bringing billions of euros in to the Irish economy each year. Not to mention nobody to protect us from Nazi facism , or Stalinist Russia. Oh maybe you would like our Jews, our homosexuals, our communists and our gyspies to be sent to concentration camps, which happened in the neutral countries in Europe Hitler invaded.

FTA69 wrote:

It cost the American exchequer and the American working class billions of dollars and hundreds of lives. The American capitalists however, eg Cheney's Haliburton, made a killing. Nobody is pretending the American government acts for the American people, it acts for the wealthy and powerful corporate sector who really govern the US.

LOL "Nobody is pretending the American government acts for the American people". The ordinary americans are as downtrodden and impoverished and lack opportunity more so than any other country in the world. All they need is a NARA ( Native American Republican Army ) and those nasty imperialists who stole the land and gerrymandered , and who brought the English language and took away the native language, and who took away the native religion and culture, should go home, along with the "wealthy and powerful corporate sector who really govern the US". The three birdwatchers from Columbia are probably there now as we speak doing some consultancy work. Yanks out, peace in ! America for the native americans.

mycroft

true wrote:

Yeah, coming from "free West Waterford" you would know a lot about Aboriginies in Australia. What does being alledgedly "torn" from their homes 100 years ago to alledgedly "cowtow" as servants to white families have to do with anything?
.

Rolls eyes.....

And coming from, I'm assuming, Ireland, or at least Western Europe you have a right to preach about whats good for the middle east?

As for the alledgedly, the, behaviour of the australian government to the indignious people of its country has long been documented, and there is an impressive body of historical documents, facts, films, books, etc....

Familys were driven apart, children taken away, and forced to act as servants to landed gentry.

I would suggest you try to take your revisionism elsewhere.

monument

true wrote:

It was not just graduates who left Ireland 15, 20, 50, 60 , 100 years ago : it was all sections of society, from west of Ireland rural folk to city drop outs with no education.

Low-skilled workers were needed, and are still needed in the US - there is a reason the US leaves the Mexican boarder unguarded, for all but a little window dressing.

true wrote:

The UK and US gave many of them good jobs, and opportunities.

The US and UK needed them to fill the jobs.

true wrote:

Also there are many Irish people holding down well paid jobs in American multi-nationals here in Ireland.

American multi-nationals don’t set up shop in Ireland for our 'economic interests' or employment interests, but their own economic interests.

FTA69

What "weapons of mass destruction " did America arm anyone with in the Iran / Iraq war?

That would be all the chemical weapons given to Iraq at that time a chara, the photos of Rumsfeld and Hussein shaking hands with hugs and smiles are there for all to see.

Gas was available in Iraq already was it not ?

Chemical weapons aren't made of Calor canistors that can be bought down the shop, they are highly complex agents, agents that were supplied en masse by the American government.

And besides, the Iran Iraq war was a long time ago, the west has striven to learn from its past mistakes.

If you are so keen to forget the past then why are you bringing up the glorious "100 year old" record of the UK, US and Australia?

Yeah, coming from "free West Waterford" you would know a lot about Aboriginies in Australia. What does being alledgedly "torn" from their homes 100 years ago to alledgedly "cowtow" as servants to white families have to do with anything?

Oh sorry a chara, I forgot you were as "experienced" on the subject of Australia as you were Ireland. My comments refer to the fact that Aboriginies were rounded up and kept in state controlled reservations and orphanages. In the aforementioned orphanages children of a lighter complexion were taken away to be adopted as servants in upper class households, children of a darker complexion were deemed unacceptable and were detained in these compounds.

Many other things also happened in Chile; none of these events had a hundreth or a thousanth as big a bearing on world freedom and democracy as WW2 and the cold war for example, subjects you conveniently ignore because you know the US and UK were right.

You think I know "I'm right" on the killing of a democratically elected president? Not really son, the only person with trouble admitting things is your good self. I raise the issue of Chile as you are the one portraying America and England as our saving grace over the past "100 years", and as I said above, the people of Guatemala, Cuba, Jamaica, Grenada, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Colombia, Argentina, Peru, Panama, Egypt, India, Australia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Ireland, South Africa, Kenya, Afghanistan and Iraq would probably disagree with you.

All they need is a NARA ( Native American Republican Army ) and those nasty imperialists who stole the land and gerrymandered , and who brought the English language and took away the native language, and who took away the native religion and culture,

Is this your patronising slur against the American Indian Movement? The USA is one of the most complex political structures in existence but that does not change the fact that the US was founded on precisely the same principles you outlined. The Native Americans were butchered, exterminated, downtrodden and infected with smallpox but yet you seek to belittle their suffering, you should be ashamed of yourself.

should go home, along with the "wealthy and powerful corporate sector who really govern the US". The three birdwatchers from Columbia are probably there now as we speak doing some consultancy work. Yanks out, peace in ! America for the native americans.

Ah yes, you now seek to drag my political affiliation kicking and screaming into this discussion, maybe you might want to address and argue on the basis of the posts you have already made as opposed to previous threads. Anyway, regards your above comment, you still haven't addressed the fact that the US Vice President has major interests in a company making massive profits in the reconstruction of Iraq.

true

FTA69 wrote:

If you are so keen to forget the past then why are you bringing up the glorious "100 year old" record of the UK, US and Australia?

I am not keen to "forget" the past as you alledge : I made the point that the US and its allies eg the UK and Australia were involved in opposing some of the biggest threats to world democracy in the last century. eg the threat of Nazi facism, the threat in the Pacific region as demonstrated by the Japanese attack in WW2, and the threat posed by Russia in the cold war. Not to mention the threat to middle east stability as posed by the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq , which I think had the third or fourth largest army in the world at the time. Someone said we would be better off without the US, UK etc, but my point was what sort of state would the world be in.

FTA69 wrote:

Oh sorry a chara, I forgot you were as "experienced" on the subject of Australia as you were Ireland. My comments refer to the fact that Aboriginies were rounded up and kept in state controlled reservations and orphanages. In the aforementioned orphanages children of a lighter complexion were taken away to be adopted as servants in upper class households, children of a darker complexion were deemed unacceptable and were detained in these compounds..

This does not take away from Australian democracy today. You cannot blame the current generation of people for things done three generations ago. Besides not ALL Aboriginies were rounded up as you imply.

FTA69 wrote:

You think I know "I'm right" on the killing of a democratically elected president? Not really son, the only person with trouble admitting things is your good self. I raise the issue of Chile as you are the one portraying America and England as our saving grace over the past "100 years", and as I said above, the people of Guatemala, Cuba, Jamaica, Grenada, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Colombia, Argentina, Peru, Panama, Egypt, India, Australia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Ireland, South Africa, Kenya, Afghanistan and Iraq would probably disagree with you..

First of all I am not your son. In fact I was in Australia before you were even born. Chile is Chile and the people of all the countries you mention have one thing in common : a lot of people from each of these countries have wanted to emigrate to the US and UK etc. Now, if the US and UK were as bad as you make out would this be the case ?

FTA69 wrote:

Is this your patronising slur against the American Indian Movement? The USA is one of the most complex political structures in existence but that does not change the fact that the US was founded on precisely the same principles you outlined. The Native Americans were butchered, exterminated, downtrodden and infected with smallpox but yet you seek to belittle their suffering, you should be ashamed of yourself..

It was not a patrionising slur against the American Indian Movement, I just said "All they need is a NARA ( Native American Republican Army ) and those nasty imperialists who stole the land and gerrymandered , and who brought the English language and took away the native language, and who took away the native religion and culture, should go home, along with the "wealthy and powerful corporate sector who really govern the US". The three birdwatchers from Columbia are probably there now as we speak doing some consultancy work. Yanks out, peace in ! America for the native americans."

FTA69 wrote:

Ah yes, you now seek to drag my political affiliation kicking and screaming into this discussion, maybe you might want to address and argue on the basis of the posts you have already made as opposed to previous threads. .

Your political affiliation is quite obvious without anyone having to drag it kicking and screaming in to the discussion. America is not perfect, nobody ever said it was, but their system of free enterprise and democracy could be a lot worse, and it is a shining beacon of hope for millions of people in the world. . Maybe you would prefer Hitlers way of doing things, or Stalins or Saddam Husseins ? Oh , I forgot, they should'nt be there, they are oppressing the Native Americans for less time than the Brits have been here. All should go home.

FTA69

I am not keen to "forget" the past as you alledge : I made the point that the US and its allies eg the UK and Australia were involved in opposing some of the biggest threats to world democracy in the last century. eg the threat of Nazi facism, the threat in the Pacific region as demonstrated by the Japanese attack in WW2, and the threat posed by Russia in the cold war.

And at the same time they were oppressing countries the world over, little more than a decade after WW2 the brits were torturing people in Cyprus. As was pointed out above, the US and England did and do not become embroiled in wars across the world over out of some egalitarian love for democratic values, they do it because there is money to be made and capital at stake eg Suez, Iraqi oil etc.

Not to mention the threat to middle east stability as posed by the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq , which I think had the third or fourth largest army in the world at the time. Someone said we would be better off without the US, UK etc, but my point was what sort of state would the world be in.

Maybe we could look at that other threat to stability in the Middle East, Israel? A country that recieves $6 billion a year in subsidies so it can maintain its oppression of the Palestinian people. As I said above, peace and democracy are the last things on the minds of the "good ole boys" when they decide to invade countries.

This does not take away from Australian democracy today. You cannot blame the current generation of people for things done three generations ago. Besides not ALL Aboriginies were rounded up as you imply.

This issue is not all in the past as you alledge as the effects of it are still visible today in the fact that Aboriginies have the highest poverty levels and lowest life expectancy in Australia.

Chile is Chile and the people of all the countries you mention have one thing in common : a lot of people from each of these countries have wanted to emigrate to the US and UK etc. Now, if the US and UK were as bad as you make out would this be the case ?

Because they are told the USA and Britain are "lands of the free", they drift in concealed in stifling tankers expecting to emerge into a land paved with gold where they will get a fantastic job etc etc. Chasing work trucks in LA so they can work 12 hours a day for less than a quarter of minimum wage doesn't cross their minds. Have a look at the Chinese men who were drowned in England recently while working for £1 a day picking cockles. Misconceptions and deperation are the reasons for the situation of mass exploitation that we find in developed countries, including the Eastern European women whose passports are confiscated while "working" in Irish lapdancing clubs.

It was not a patrionising slur against the American Indian Movement, I just said "All they need is a NARA ( Native American Republican Army ) and those nasty imperialists who stole the land and gerrymandered , and who brought the English language and took away the native language, and who took away the native religion and culture, should go home, along with the "wealthy and powerful corporate sector who really govern the US". The three birdwatchers from Columbia are probably there now as we speak doing some consultancy work. Yanks out, peace in ! America for the native americans."

Again you are ignoring the after-effects of the genocide visited upon the Native Americans, 30% of them live below the poverty level, a masive 48% of Navajos live below the poverty line in crumbling and filthy reservations. Here's the US Census figures if you don't believe me.

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/race/indian/ailang2.txt

their system of free enterprise and democracy could be a lot worse, and it is a shining beacon of hope for millions of people in the world.

Was it a shining beacon of hope for the 100,000 Iraqis that are now dead? Is it a shining becaon of hope for the Hispanic women working 12 hours a day every day in awful conditions for hardly any money?

Maybe you would prefer Hitlers way of doing things, or Stalins or Saddam Husseins ? Oh , I forgot, they should'nt be there, they are oppressing the Native Americans for less time than the Brits have been here. All should go home.

I never said they should all "go home", rather that they improve the conditions for the working-class people and natives who are downtrodden.