Presidential Election 2025

CC is opposed to the invasion. Unequivocally. Or give me a source that says otherwise.

NATO is due criticism for an eastward advance onto Russian borders with their bases containing missiles within range of the two major European cities of Moscow & St. Petersburg, amongst others. Russia has many grievances about NATO promises, some justified, some not. But why prod your opponent if only to further the interests of the Military-Industrial Complex (a term coined by a US Republican president)? We almost had WWIII in 1961 when Russia had a few short-range missiles in Cuba within range of Florida. What's to be expected when NATO has a whopping 91 bases in Europe, most within range of Russia and Georgia/Ukraine being courted for membership?

Putin is an evil man but this conflict didn't happen in a vacuum.

And I don't want to derail the thread, am happy to continue this conversation via PMs. The only question here is who has a source to say that CC supports Russia or condoned the invasion of Ukraine?

So what the bookies are saying at the moment is basically that it's a 2-horse race? If I were a gambling man I'd say Gerry Adams would be more likely to seek the SF nomination ahead of MLMD.

Point was predicated on him running. I understand his challenges in getting to do that.

The link is now working after you provided the full one. I see no reference to OO'L and am awaiting any accredited quote or source for her alleged comments.

In terms of judicial criticism of McDowell:

There's plenty more. He'd get torn to shreds in a presidential campaign, and is smart enough to know that he also lacks the charisma to carry himself into contention. It'd be very entertaining if he put himself forwardd so if you've got his ear………..😁

It's also soft money for the bookies should anyone bet on the likes of Flatley ot McGregor. They ain't going to turn away free cash.

What happened when Cuba sought protective Russian missiles in 1962 What would be the case were Mexico, Nicaragua, Haiti and others to ask for the same now and Russian missiles were in the US orbit. Same scenario, different locations.

.

Given you have been replying to my posts you have already been given replies to all of this.

I never said they were direct quotes but the implication of her public statements. These have all been explained to you in context of statements and what was omitted from her remarks.

Have you found the quotes where she did express such support for Ukraine?
For any sort of military spending on equipment by Ireland, or EU states or the provision of same by friendly powers to Ukraine?

It's the kind of thing you would expect someone to mention in debates on support for Ukraine, or a plan to increase EU defence spending (which encompasses aid to Ukraine).

It was put to you that was the implication of her words. Any poster is free to correct the record and provide quotes where she does assert the right of Ukraine, and the EU to defend itself.

During Dail debate on funding for Ukraine, Michael Martin called out the reason for supporting Ukraine.
"What do you expect the people of Ukraine to do? Let them all the way in?"
No reply from Connolly, "of course Ukraine has the right to resist Russian invasion"... no consideratiom for how Ukraine is meant to defend itself against Russias war crime attacks on its civilians.
All she replies with is… "It is what I am expecting Ireland to do."
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2023-10-03/79/

Given she has been highly critical of planned EU defence spending, and seemingly here spending on military equipment for the Defence Forces (as opposed to general pay and conditions), yes the implication of her public positions is to leave Ukraine, EU and Ireland defenceless against illegal invasions.

We have already been over this already today, so any further repeated questioning will not be engaged with.

I don't think the Russian historians put the Missile Crisis down as 1961 so not parroted.

Who mentioned nuclear weapons? The vocabulary was 'missiles'. Why put them near the borders of your enemy if not to provoke, instil fear and sell more weaponry? Follow the money.

NATO and Russia both have responsibility for the Ukraine war. Both wrong. It didn't happen in a vacuum and it doesn't take much understanding of geo-politics to work out that positing weapons near an antagonist's border will produce a reaction. The Yanks didn't like it with Cuba so why the surprise that the Russkis didn't either.

Swallowing the propaganda of either superpower is not recommended. Challenge both and see who gains most. Who has plundered the mineral resources of the Ukraine. Neither NATO nor Russia are honest actors so please show less gullibility and question the narrative of those who've gained most here.

And to get back on track do you object to what CC has said about the conflict, and why?

What the hell has this got to do with the topic of the presidential race! Even if she were in the race.

She [Olivia O'leary] said: “There is no truth in it. I haven’t been approached by anybody and it’s not something I would consider.” Asked if she has completely ruled out the possibility, she said “absolutely”.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/theres-no-truth-in-it-i-havent-been-approached-former-rte-broadcaster-olivia-oleary-rules-out-aras-run/a1628309894.html

By NATO I refer to the 32 nations involved. Many of whom retain power and influence, 3 of them alone in the UN5.

Already answered re CE states. Preferably non-aligned. And I note you fail to acknowledge any of the errors you made (nuclear weapons, etc) nor answer the questions I asked. Unable or unwilling?

Why put missiles near the borders of your enemy if not to provoke, instil fear and sell more weaponry? Is there any difference with Cuba 1962?

Why are you swallowing the propaganda of one superpower and not challenging the claims of both?

Most relevantly, do you object to what CC has said about the conflict, and why? This is a thread on the Presidential election so please keep it relevant.