Joe Higgins Challenges Taoiseach Over Bush Visit to Ireland

by john mc dermott - Remove Fianna Fail Party Thu Mar 11, 2004 22:19 Dublin

Wonderful stuff,Joe Higgins....keep it coming .Both yourself and Pat Rabbite are on track.They say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit,...but handled well ,it's capable of the highest..in my opinion.!

by tom - non political Fri Mar 12, 2004 03:24

for joe and pat to waffle on about weapons of mass destruction and their anti american rhetoric...well it would indicate that as long as saddam was only using gas and highly automated high calibre weapons to kill tens of thousands of his own people was fine..please joe higgins and pat rabbid, stop trying to gain cheap political point scoring on the deaths of these people. it also might be usefull for you both to know that the vast majority of irish people supported the removal of saddam hussein. if it were left up to you two guys the butcher of bagdad would still be in power

by Huggy Bear Fri Mar 12, 2004 04:20

It's a wonder Higgins didn't go the whole hog and call Bush a Nazi babykiller.

Failure to find WMDs does not make the war illegal. The allies who deposed Saddam Hussein believed he was working on weapons programs and Saddam refused to allow the UN to VERIFY that this was not the case. Who knows, these weapons may well be found at some stage, but whether they exisit or not is irrelevant.

Anyone can see that continued failure to allow the weapons inspectors to do thier work was a legitimate casus belli.

So, what if we had listened to the likes of Joe Higgins and not decapitated the Baath regime??

One year on innocent Iraqis have endured another year of sanctions with all the alleged infant deaths which are supposed to have taken place (although there is no evidence for this anywhere). Still, the righteous on the Left were happy to contemplate thousands of dead babies so long as Bush was humiliated.

Then of courde, there were those who wanted sanctions lifted completely - so Saddam could go about his murderous bunsiness unhindered.

The Left have come out of this whole controversy looking very stupid indeed. They abandoned all reason in their personal hatred of Bush and everybody can now see what sort of people these socialists are.

by Buggy hair Fri Mar 12, 2004 04:48

The Bush family did collaborate with the nazis. And both Georgie and his daddy are both babykillers. So the left are not too far off the mark.

by R Isible Fri Mar 12, 2004 06:11

Must be all the confiscated dope from the war on drugs but your brains seem to be jelly for the most part. Perhaps it's intellectual self-abuse that does it?

"Failure to find WMDs does not make the war illegal."

True. The only true thing in the whole post.

" The allies who deposed Saddam Hussein believed he was working on weapons programs"

Well, no, the evidence is that they knew pretty well that he wasn't and had to spend a great deal of time and effort trying to fabricate evidence to show that he was. The evidence is that the intelligence services of both the US and UK informed their governments that the likelihood was there were no WMDs.

" and Saddam refused to allow the UN to VERIFY that this was not the case."

Again untrue. The UN weapons inspection teams spent a long time in Iraq and then they had to pull out because the USA would not guarantee their safety.

" Who knows, these weapons may well be found at some stage, but whether they exisit or not is irrelevant."

No, it's not irrelevant. It's irrelevant to whether or not the war was illegal, but it is relevant to whether or not Blair and Bush lied until they were blue in the face.

" Anyone can see that continued failure to allow the weapons inspectors to do thier work was a legitimate casus belli."

See above. The Hussein regime did not cause the inspectors to withdraw. They withdrew because the USA when asked refused to assure them that Iraq would not be attacked while they were there. At that stage Hussein was desparate for them stay. Really you should read the news some time. Given how little you know it would be very exciting for you.

"So, what if we had listened to the likes of Joe Higgins and not decapitated the Baath regime??"

Although I don't know, I'd guess that Joe Higgins would have been against the CIA financed coup that catapulted Hussein to the leadership of the Ba'athist party, I'd also guess that he would have been against the US and UK selling poison gas to the Hussein regime and whatever other armaments. So, to answer your question it's likely that if we had listened to the likes of Joe Higgins we wouldn't have had a dictator like Hussein in the first place. Feel stupid yet?

"One year on innocent Iraqis have endured another year of sanctions with all the alleged infant deaths which are supposed to have taken place (although there is no evidence for this anywhere)."

One year on from what? The infant deaths are clearly documented by a report commissioned for the UN Food for Oil program. When you've finished with the news you could add some depth to your research by going to the UN's various webpages and reading some of the reports there. You'll find plenty of evidence.

" Still, the righteous on the Left were happy to contemplate thousands of dead babies so long as Bush was humiliated."

Given that many on "the Left" were calling for the lifting of sanctions that were hurting the people and not Saddam Hussein I think this statement surpasses the towering idiocy of your previous ones. I didn't think it was possible, but you've done it.

The USA (mainly) and the West (in general) created Saddam Hussein, created the destructive arms trade and created the unstable and undemocratic vassal countries that occasionally turn against us. "The Left" has mostly argued against this system and it's inherent instability and inhumanity. Save your ire for the people that actually made this happen, not people like Higgins etc.

by Suppurating Lesion Fri Mar 12, 2004 07:22

The evidence is that the CIA and MI5 believed that Saddam had an ACTIVE, ONGOING weapons program.

To say that they fabricated evidence to start a war is a downright war.

You're a liar R Isible, I've caught you out.


Your take on the saga of the Weapons Inspectors is also a complete fantasy.

You're such a liar, R Isible, shame on you.

by Shane the Anarchist Sat Mar 13, 2004 13:14

Since we have no access to the actual "intelligence" we have to rely on second hand reports; but the main crux of the issue is that you cannot invade another country because you think that they may be involved in programs associated with WMDs. You could invade ANY country on that premise. Including Eire.

It is simply and irrefutably against international law. The US and its loyal dogsbody the UK have simply declared that International law is okay for everyone except them. That makes them common thugs.

by Syzygy Sat Mar 13, 2004 14:02

It had already begun a war with Iran and invaded Kuwait and attacked Israel. It had also used chemical weapons to massare thousands of its own citizens.

It had flouted 18 binding UN resolurtions. It is a country which sponsored international terrorism and paid rewards to the families of palestinian homicide bombers.

It was a country which was believed to have ongoing active weapons programs. Given its past behaviour, the question is: for what?

America had already suffered a devastating terrorist attack - neutralising the threat from Iraq was imperative.

Putting a stop to this madness was really justified in every way that matters.

When you consider the benefits to the innocent citizens of Iraq the war is wholly and completely justified.

by I Support the WAR on TERROR Sat Mar 13, 2004 15:24

March 11th 2004 - exactly 911 days since September 11th 2001 - the day the world changed forever! How dare anyone come on this website and criticise the war on terror when they see the utter destruction of life as what happened in Madrid this week! The death toll stands now at just over 200! 200 innocent human beings getting on with their lives - for what? These crazed lunatic fanatics declaring a "Ji-had" on the West !

You know I really feel that the left are actually supporting these terrorists - the way I see it if your not opposed to terrorism your supporting it and the only way to defeat terrorism is to remove the leaders of such extreme psychotic regimes that have their supporters believe that strapping explosives to themselves and blowing themselves up in crowded areas will win you favour with GOD!

These people have lost the plot and whats worse is so have the left! How can you say - lets not do anything about these lunatics coming into our civilised society and blowing up innocent civilians? Tell me how do you people sleep at night!! They brought the war on terror to us - we didnt bring it to them!!!!!

How many of you would have stood up on September 11th and said "NO TO WAR" while images of people jumping from the 100th floor of the World Trade Centre were beamed across the globe? These images may no longer be on our screans - but the fact remains that these regimes must be crushed - and crushed they will be!!!

Does the left wint need a bomb to go off in crowded Grafton Street before the justificaiton of going after these people is realised - I certainly hope not - but if it comes to that Joe Higging - Boyd Barrat - Fat Rabbitte - how loud will the left be then calling out for a halt to the WAR ON TERROR??? Oh I pray it doesnt come to that!!!! I pray that Ireland does not have to suffer like Spain has suffered this week for if the left were to get their way we very well might!!!!

The WAR ON TERROR continues - I support George W Bush and salute him for leading us against these lunatics!!!! I urge you all to see why this war must continue - for the innocent lives of Irish men and Irish women!! Come out and support President George W Bush - the leader of the free world when he comes to Ireland and give him a heroes welcome!!!

by oh yes. Sat Mar 13, 2004 18:04

you support the war do you?
so did fourteen year olds in Munich in april 1945.
oh and didn't you notice it was a leap year?

by Desmond Fennell Sat Mar 13, 2004 18:50

Anybody with a shred of humanity would.

It's very clear the Left have lost the plot. Some of them are claiming that the CIA carried out this atrocity in Madrid.

They're a disgrace to our country.

by john mcdermott - Remove Fianna Fail Party Sun Mar 14, 2004 15:26 Dublin

Iraq,s biggest problem has been, that after september 11, it was the only bogeyman in the world that represented a sitting target for the backlash of the angry and unsated Dragon's tail(America) after the Taliban were routed in Afganistan.
Ironically there is no evidence to indicate that it had no connection with the fanatical 'Al Queda' terrorists.The Baathist party were a religious diversity tolerant party ,except for judaism of course.
Saddam's primary obsession was opposing the 'Zionist' colonization of Palestine/Israel or whatever name you use, for the traditional jewish homeland of Biblical times.

He controlled the many religious/tribal groups with an iron fist to maintain peace in a diverse nation just as Tito did in the former Yugoslavia,before it fragmented into tribal genocide-as Iraq is facing today.
The oil factor /control,cannot of course be left out of the equation.
There is rumour also that the Israeli 'Mossad' who represented one source of 'information'with reguard to Saddams activities ,fed exaggerated or inaccurate 'intelligence'to the C.I.A. The C.I.A.are always helpless when attempting to infiltrate/source real facts re the Arab world,and Iraq in particular.
The removal of Saddam,did a big favour to the Israeli's as it emasculated the liberation /terrorist groups,who were openly supported with finance for their ongoing wars.

It also opened up Iraq as a new theatre of operations for the Al Queda elements who are operating a bloody guerilla war there,presumably in hope of emerging from the chaos,triumphant and in control of a portion of the former territories,held together so ruthlessly by Saddam.
It will be an unprecedented miracle if the U.S.can broker a transition to a lasting and peaceful democratic federation /state consisting of Kurds,Sunni,and Shia muslems living together in unlikely harmony.
Far easier ,I suspect,to get Jerry Adams and Ian Paisley to shake hands- and become jolly good pals.!

by SP Observer Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:59

Joe certainly does rise to the occasion in the Dail, and is very withering and effective when denouncing the crimes of Bush, Blair et al.

But - there is a fatal flaw in his position. That is, that he has remained silent and complicit in the injustices and undemocratic practices of the oragnisation to which is party is affiliated - the CWI. It is Doublethink. It reminds me of those in the 1930s who were brilliant at denouncing capitalism, but totally silent about the crimes of Stalin. Or those who argued in favour of democracy in Britain in the face of a fascist threat - but supported Britain's Imperial holdings in India and elsewhere.

It is hypocrisy, it condemns those who practice it to long term irrelevance, it is a blot on the landscape. Until Joe wakens up to his obligations to his fellow members of the CWI, his lectures on democracy and justice will be hard to take seriously.

by SP Mon Mar 15, 2004 18:26

Joe Higgins and the CWI have principled records for opposing Stalinism and fighting for democratic socialism in the former stalinist states. The CWI has also always supported the right of all nationalities to self determination. Read the SP publications before you start throwing mud.

by Davidovich Mon Mar 15, 2004 18:42

SP Observer, this is going over the top. You are right, the structures of the CWI are deeply flawed and largely undemocratic as is the case with most Leninist organisations. But please have a sense of proportion: you can't compare what they do: driving out dissident members etc. with the crimes of imperialism or indeed of Saddam etc.

Joe Higgins and the SP/CWI have a good record with regard to opposing so-called anti-imperialist dictators and Stalinist regimes when others on the left failed to do so, a fact which greatly strengthens their critique of imperialism.

Genuine criticisms of the SP/CWI are weakened by this sort of scattergun sectarianism. You can hardly hope to encourage the type of transformation to a more open and democratic structure that occurred in former CWI affiliates such as the ISM/Scotland etc if you engage in this type of exagerated attack.

by facty Mon Mar 15, 2004 20:10

It is a fact that the SP in Ireland has never expelled a member.

by Memory Man Mon Mar 15, 2004 20:17

You speak with forked tongue. You forced many out of the SP/Militant in Ireland. Finn Geany, Marc Mulholland, Dermot Connolly, Denis Tourish. etc. The CWI have also forced out and expelled many sections. Scotland, Pakistan, South Africa. Dont forget John Throne.

by whatser Mon Mar 15, 2004 20:34

So what! Do you not believe that parties have the right to expel their members if they want s long as the decision is taken democratically.

by R Isible Mon Mar 15, 2004 22:53

"Suppurating Lesion" Friday, Mar 12 2004, 6:22am wrote very unconvincingly that:

"The evidence is that the CIA and MI5 believed that Saddam had an ACTIVE, ONGOING weapons program."

I shall back up my assertion that the intelligence community widely believed and informed the governments of the US and UK that Hussein did not possess WMDs. I am largely drawing on the work of ex-insiders to the CIA known as Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). They are a group of ex-intelligence people (mostly CIA) who have been appalled and infuriated by the intereference of the Bush apparatus with the work of the civil servants in the various spy agencies, but especially the CIA.

The most obvious manifestations of this were: the creation of a separate group under the political direction of the whitehouse which took direction from politicians instead of the pre-existing bureaucracy within the CIA; and the forgery of the Niger-Yellowcake documents and the subsequent punishment of ambassador Joe Wilson by political operatives within the Whitehouse by revealing his wife to be a CIA employee (an act of high treason). This article details much of that history:
http://www.counterpunch.org/vips07142003.html
and includes the following salient quote:

--------------------QUOTE------------------------------
It was a deep insult to the integrity of the intelligence process that, after the Vice President declared on August 26, 2002 that "we know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) produced during the critical month of September featured a fraudulent conclusion that "most analysts" agreed with Cheney's assertion. This may help explain the anomaly of Cheney's unprecedented "multiple visits" to CIA headquarters at the time, as well as the many reports that CIA and other intelligence analysts were feeling extraordinarily great pressure, accompanied by all manner of intimidation tactics, to concur in that conclusion. As a coda to his nuclear argument, Cheney told NBC's Meet the Press three days before US/UK forces invaded Iraq: "we believe he (Saddam Hussein) has reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Mr. Russert: the International Atomic Energy Agency said he dose not have a nuclear program; we disagree?

Vice President Cheney: I disagree, yes. And you'll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of the intelligence community disagree. We know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei (Director of the IAEA) frankly is wrong.

Contrary to what Cheney and the NIE said, the most knowledgeable analysts--those who know Iraq and nuclear weapons--judged that the evidence did not support that conclusion. They now have been proven right.

Adding insult to injury, those chairing the NIE succumbed to the pressure to adduce the known forgery as evidence to support the Cheney line, and relegated the strong dissent of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (and the nuclear engineers in the Department of Energy) to an inconspicuous footnote.

It is a curious turn of events. The drafters of the offending sentence on the forgery in president's state-of-the-union speech say they were working from the NIE. In ordinary circumstances an NIE would be the preeminently authoritative source to rely upon; but in this case the NIE itself had already been cooked to the recipe of high policy.
-------------END-OF-QUOTE--------------------------


This is evidence of treason and subversion of democracy within the highest levels of the administration. This is further documented in this article from The New Yorker by Seymour Hersh:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/armtwist/2003/0331wholied.htm

I don't have direct evidence for MI5 civil servants fighting against political distortion of their evidence, but I'm sure it will come. The Hutton report can only suppress for a short time the evidence that Blair and his team sexed-up the available information. The Kelly affair isn't over yet. Part of the problem there is that the UK is the poodle of the US and seems to have relied extensively upon what the were fed by the US.


You then continue to say:

"To say that they fabricated evidence to start a war is a downright war."

I presume that you mean a "downright lie"? If so I'd like you to provide some supporting evidence. Even for someone with your limited abilities it ought to be obvious that there are no WMDs and that if anyone was claiming there were then they were lying and lying hard.


Amusingly you then write:
"You're a liar R Isible, I've caught you out."

To which I can only respond that you've provided no evidence, haven't specified exacly where I'm wrong and that the conclusion that I reach is that you're either a moron (in which case I forgive but don't excuse you) or a foolish troll who is providing me with a platform for making supporters of the illegal assault on Iraq look bad. If the latter then I thank you. You're a perfect foil. I hope we can continue this profitable (for me) interaction in the future.

Here's what happened with the UN weapons inspections: both UNSCOM and UNMOVIC had to stop inspections because the US and UK were bombing the country daily and would not allow the UN to continue to amass evidence that there were no WMDs. You can read more here:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/weapindex.htm

I leave you with the link to information about VIPS where you can educate yourself about exactly what the lies were:

by Suppurating Lesion Tue Mar 16, 2004 03:07

The CIA and MI5 BELIEVED Saddam had an active and ongoing weapons program.

You're such a chancer, you have absolutely no regard for the truth.

by Nighthawk Tue Mar 16, 2004 03:49

'Suppurating Lesion' (what an apt name)
Perhaps you would deal with the arguments made by R Isible, instead of just jumping up and down yelling "liar, liar".
RIsible has actually presented an argument and backed it up with links. If you are incapable of doing the same then you are clearly incompetent.

by SP Observer Tue Mar 16, 2004 10:08

To clarify: I do indeed agree that there is a big difference between stalinism in the 1930s and Joe Higgins in 2004. But my point was simply that the MINDSET of leftist intellectuals in the 30s, who condemned fascist barbarism while covering up for stalinism, is similar to Joe's, in that distant evils are denounced while other evils under his own door, in his own backyard, enacted before his very eyes, are somehow tolerated, justified and denied. It is his mindset - Doublethink - that I was denouncing, without intending to imply that he is the same boat as Joe Stalin. It completely undermines hisredibility, as does all dishonesty and hypocrisy. I hope this clarifies my argument.

It has historically undermined the left to be very gung ho against the evils of capitalism, or screaming about infringements of civil liberties (things it is necvessary to denounce), BUT at the same time reproducing undemocratic internal regimes - and fail to see the contradiction. But it is a contradiction which the working class certainly sees. I think until Joe faces up to these issues, and his party colleagues, the SP will never be more than a marginal force in Irish politics. Nor for that matter would I say it deserves to be anything else.

Does that clear this up?

by Troll watch Tue Mar 16, 2004 14:01

Well it clears up that you are still a troll but I don't know if that was what you are trying to achieve.

by confused and stupid Tue Mar 16, 2004 15:04

who are CWI and what have they done?

sorry for the dumb question

by SP Observer Tue Mar 16, 2004 16:29

Joe Higgins has very effectively taken up the Bush issue - a great job, well done. My point is that he would have much more credibility in his campaigns against injustice, and more successfuly mobilise and articule public opinion, if he put his own house in order, and also clearly opposed injustice when it manifests itself close to home - for example, within the international organisation to which he is affiliated. I don't know if this is trolling, whatever that is. But I do note that many on the left show a great reluctance to face up to their own organisationa lpractices, while constantly denouncing the lack of democracy in every other quarter. I repeat: this is fiene, as far as it goes. But all such efforts would be more effective if they were consistent. When you ignore injustice in your own living room, your attempts to protest about it in the street outside are terribly undermined. Only those immersed in the sectarian politics and insular groups of the far left could find such a poing uncontentious.

by Dozzey Tue Mar 16, 2004 16:33

Another left winger who complains about everythng....george bush is welcome to Ireland - the war on terror is winning and if it wasn't for the americans we would be a less well off country. We're closer to americans and britons than anyone else - we should embrace them.

It's high time we faced these facts.

by elf Tue Mar 16, 2004 16:34

for the money worriers to look at the economic cost to the European and Spanish shareholder, investor, baking, infrastructure and such caused by their selection by a terrorist organisation that selects soft targets.

Mr Higgins, you have my support even though you are a trotskist, in arguing your fellow believers opposition to this summit taking place in Ireland.
Even if your reasons are not the best.

by troll watch Wed Mar 17, 2004 01:55

Trolling is a term used on the internet to describe deliberately trying to provoke rows.

Here you are using a hilariously tenuous attempt to make a connection between opposing George Bush and the way in which Joe Higgin's party chooses to organise itself to drag into an unrelated thread your view that the Socialist Party was mean to [insert disgruntled person here].

This has nothing at all to do with the news article you are supposedly commenting on. Worse still it is exactly the kind of posting - an anonymous attack on a political organisation some of whose members read the newswire - which is likely to provoke an angry response. That angry response is then likely to attract angry responses of its own. And so on and so on.

This kind of behaviour is very damaging to indymedia. The newswire quickly becomes unreadable if even a relatively small number of people decide to turn every thread into an argument about their particular hobby horse.

Maybe you were making an honest mistake but now that it has been explained to you I'm sure you can see why cries of "troll" are likely to follow such postings.

by Godolphin Wed Mar 17, 2004 04:11

Everyone I speak to thinks he has done the right thing in knocking out Hussein and clearing out the Al Qaeda infestation in Afghanistan.

Bush is the Man!!!

by Dawn Patrol Wed Mar 17, 2004 08:00

You should drag yourself away from your barstool and your narrow circle of 'Sun' readers. Try meeting a broader range of people. Oh, and try brushing up on your mathematics, nothing can add up to more than 100%.

by sp observer Wed Mar 17, 2004 09:10

To above: many thanks for explaining this term troll, a new one to me .

But - I am not convinced that I was trolling. Here we have Joe H complaining (very effectively - I am with him on this one) about injustice, lack of democracy etc. How to be more effective, and have an even bigger impact? Well, start by cleaning up your own organisation, Joe - be consistent. Not only does your hypocrisy undermine you in the eyes of outsiders, but your failure to uphold normal internal democratic practices restricts your own party to the status of a tiny sect with minimal growth potential. The left needs better and more effective organisations, in order to genuinely oppose blair, bush and co - and win (rather than just make noise). A consistent attitude to democracy and justice is not an optional extra, and without it much of the opposition to Bushism etc becomes vapid hot air. Is this really so far from the point? I don't think so. But I do think that leftists who would argue that it is, are themselves possibly betraying a rather tenuous insight into the importance of consistency, and how vital issues like democracy are to building a serious challenge to the right.

by pattylover - none Wed Mar 17, 2004 15:23 pattylover at hotmail dot com

Happy days are coming:
March 17, 2004
Scandal at the U.N.
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
The cover-up of a multibillion-dollar financial fraud known as the Iraqi oil-for-food ...

by troll watch Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:42

Dragging contentious unrelated issues into a thread is trolling.

God knows there are enough threads on this site about how awful [insert left organisation of your choice here] is. Your remarks may be appropriate on one of those threads. I can't know for sure because I do my best to avoid them. They are certainly not appropriate here.

In fact I am just glad that others have remained relatively restrained in responding to you. A while ago your anonymous attacks on a left group in an unrelated thread would certainly have sparked an extended and nasty row. Perhaps it is a sign that the community here is growing up a little.

by Siobhan MacGowan Wed Mar 17, 2004 23:19

I think the Taoiseach has made it quite clear both through his non-statement in the Dail and on being interviewed after today's Washington meeting with George Bush, that financial interests only govern our relationship with the U.S. administration.

This present U.S. administration has shown itself to be morally corrupt when it comes to following its own interests and in the words of the new Spanish Primeminister, 'The war in iraq has been a fiasco'.

I strongly object to the shamrockery that went on today in Washington, our Taoiseach shaking the American hand for a few dollars more - moral courage might do us all more good.

by Beria Thu Mar 18, 2004 04:11

He has done so much good for the people of Iraq - it's about time he was given the credit for for it.

I'm confident that more than 90% of the Irish people will be delighted and honoured that Bush is taking the time to visit our country.

by Beria watcher Thu Mar 18, 2004 04:24

More like 0.9%, and they would be members of Fianna Fail.

by Troll Watch Observer Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:55

"In fact I am just glad that others have remained relatively restrained in responding to you. A while ago your anonymous attacks on a left group in an unrelated thread would certainly have sparked an extended and nasty row. Perhaps it is a sign that the community here is growing up a little."

Seems more like a muzzling of the puppies than anything else.

by Beria Thu Mar 18, 2004 21:45

0.9% is about the extent of the votes that looney left parties like SP and SWP get every election.

In case you hadn't noticed, FF are in power and you're menagerie of Socialist former Soviet puppets never will.

The Irish people are deeply conservative and extremely symapthetic to the US.

by Fact Finder Fri Mar 19, 2004 13:47

Ignoring facts that simply contradict your viewpoint is obviously not confined to left wingers as Beria amply illustrates.

Yes Beria, FF has more support than any other party and yes the majority of Irish people vote for right of centre parties. What is difficult to gauge is people's attitude to the war. Just presuming that because they vote for FF/PD/FG that they are pro-war would be a huge assumption. On the other hand something in the order of 150,000 people demonstrated against the impending war in Dublin on Feb 15th 2003. This shows that a significant proportion of the population opposed the US led invasion and occupation of Iraq. It certainly is completely incorrect to equate the extent of anti-war sentiments to the support level of the far left parties. You also conveniantly ignore the fact that 5 parties represented in the Dail (FG/LabSF/GP/SP)opposed the invasion of Iraq albeit for different and in FGs case rather dubious populist reasons.

So the jury is out as to the relative strength of the two camps but you are certainly wrong when you characterise the anti war camp as being numerically insignificant.

On a small point, as any serious observer of politics could tell you, the two main far left parties: the SWP and SP, are trotskyist, so they were opposed to the regime in the Soviet Union and most other 'communist' regimes. They opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, the suppression of Solidarity in Poland etc. In fact the main cheer leaders of the USSR in Ireland were the Workers Party, many of whose leaders are now leading members of the Labour Party.

Of course the SWP/SP are Leninists whose internal regimes are most undemocratic etc. which leaves them open to sustained criticism but to call them Soviet puppets is simple factually incorrect. Go off and do some homework Beria and when you've grasped that arguments need facts to back them up we can have a grown up debate about the war etc.

by Tim Fri Mar 19, 2004 15:20

And do you support the fact that well over 10,000 civilians have been killed in Iraqi? And do you support the fact that a similar number of Afghans have been killed in the bombing and attack on Afghanistan as part of the War on Terror. Do you support the widespread contaimination of depleted Uranium from weapons used in the War on Terror in both Afghanistan and Iraq and the fact that cancer and other medical problems have shot up since then. So you support the permanent damage to the genomes of the people living there.

The common thing about all you folks who support Bush and the War on Terror is that you like to have an image of the world that is very simple. That sort of thinking is very dangerous. The Germans saw the Jews that way. They are the cause of Germany's problems according the Feuer , his officials and the state Media. Therefore they should be eliminated. QED.

Support your leader. Do not question. Obey. There's no complexity in anything. By questioning you are not with us. Duh!, therefore you must be against us.

by hs - sp Fri Mar 19, 2004 16:23

First we were told the war was about weapons of mass destruction. And make no mistake all the debate was on whether wmd existed and how we had to stop saddam before its too late.

Now we discover weapons of mass destruction do not and did not exist and the US gov. were pretty aware of that at the time.

The second part of this was not just that saddam had wmd but he was selling them on the black market.

Of course no problem about another military dictatorship (pakistan) which was caught red handed selling WMD. These country is to become an official US ally meaning it can be sold heavier weapons. (colin powell is there right now). No contradiction here at all!

Next we were told the war was about liberating the iraqi people. Problem here being they haven't done it. Third it was to spread democracy in a victorian "whites mans burden" of "civilising" the natives.

The latest since spain is that iraq is the front line on the war on terror. But before the US invaded iraq had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attacks.
It annoys me more than anything this. In Italy 9-11 is the right wings excuse for iraq. Everything comes down to 9-11. Apart from the fact iraq had nothing to do with it!!

Of course the US are shocked at the fact that iraqis shot back after they were invaded and are suprised at sectarian tension and terrorist attacks on civilians. (i don't think attacks on an invading army can be classed as terrorism, otherwise so were the french resistance and the italian and yougoslav partisans)

But all of this was predicted before (as it was blindingly obvious). Before the war many said (and not just on the left) that the wmd idea was dubious, and the war would sprout terrorism sectarian tension and a quagmire. This is excatly what has happened and is happening.

And lets be honest about FF, theres no ideology here, FF couldn't give a toss about the war one way or another. They just support anything Bush does cause he's the boss and thats all there is too it. They support the boss and make up the reason after.

by Beria Sat Mar 20, 2004 06:30

When asked if Ireland should retract its invitation to George W Bush, those who voted gave an interesting result:

by Herman Sat Mar 20, 2004 11:34

A far more representative poll would be the RTE one. At present it stands at
29.42% for the visit
67.94% against
2.64% maybe.