New Campaign Plane in the US

[XXXXX]

If there is another attack in Spain, it will show the error of their ways.

The point for the pacifists and liberals to realize is that these Islamic radicals are dedicated to the destruction of non-Islamic ways of life. The USA is the most glaring example, but they are attacking many other countries around the world, independent of our recent invasion of Afganistan and Iraq.

You can put your head in some French sand, hope they don't bother you, or pro-actively go after them until they are either obliterated, or realize that their actions and commitments are without merit.

What we have changed by these invasions is for the first time threatening them in their own homes, threatening their own forms of government, threatening the heart of their religious and geographical centers. If you think the local leaders (i.e. Libya, Saudis) are going to stand by and have their country targeted by the USA as a consequence of additional attacks, then you are missing the most important part of our strategy which I support.

Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly wish none of this had happened. I also wish we were not intertwined with Israel. They do not provide the USA with anything useful, and cost us in many many ways. I'm not anti-semitic, rather I just wish there was someone else that took them under their "Eagle's wing."

[ClayBuster]

XXXXX

You are the man!

[wicked1]

as I jave said before Bush only wants to make money for himself and the carlyle group. 9/11 was allowed to happen. This Bush bullshit is the biggest conspiracy to ever happen. I dont really like Kerry either though. I think Bush is the damn antichrist.

[jase]

It always amuses me when Americans talk of the terrorist threat, when it was Americans who bankrolled the terrorist organisation (an organisation which registered with the US government as an agent of a terrorist organisation back in the 70s) who maimed my uncle in Northern Ireland. Anyone would think that terrorism only started in 2001.

The Northern Ireland situation, along with the problems faced by Israel, have only served to show that fighing terrorism with force doesn't work either. You only serve to recruit more people to their cause, and make the situation worse.

Still, if the USA wants to arrogantly defy the experiences of governments around the world, so be it.

[XXXXX]

It always amuses me when Americans talk of the terrorist threat, when it was Americans who bankrolled the terrorist organisation (an organisation which registered with the US government as an agent of a terrorist organisation back in the 70s) who maimed my uncle in Northern Ireland. Anyone would think that terrorism only started in 2001.

I'm sorry about your uncle. However, what is your proof that because some organization registered with the US Government means that the US Government or "Americans in general" bankrolled whatever this terrorist organization was? Sounds like more liberal propaganda to me. What was the specific organization? Were they funding the IRA?

If on the other hand, there were dedicated American Irish who like the Colonial Americans in the 1700's, felt that Britain was dominating them, and chose on their own to contribute to some Irish liberation fund, that is another matter. I am the first to say that major anti-terrorism movements were only begun by the USA after 9/11.

How far back in time do you want to go in your feeble attempt at trying to make some vague point at trashing the USA? You would have been a lot more credible had you mentioned the USA supplying Iraq with weapons in our dispute with Iran.

The Northern Ireland situation, along with the problems faced by Israel, have only served to show that fighing terrorism with force doesn't work either. You only serve to recruit more people to their cause, and make the situation worse.

Still, if the USA wants to arrogantly defy the experiences of governments around the world, so be it.

That is your opinion, and the opinion of other naive Euro-Liberals who still actually believe that you can negotiate with Islamic Fundamentals who repeatedly express at the heart of their religiously inspired dogmatic beliefs--the absolute destruction of Western countries, societies, religions, and values. There is ample evidence for anyone without blinders obscuring their vision of these suicidal fanatics, in multiple locations before Iraq, and throughout the world.

There has been a clearly stated Al Qaida announcement to use a WMD to kill 3-5 million Americans this summer, in hopes of influencing our election, and furthering their cause.

[jase]

The group was Noraid, and it certainly is not "liberal propaganda" that they bankrolled the Provisional IRA (in other words, the paramilitary, terrorist group which has been guilty of the murders of hundreds of innocent Northern Irish and other British civilians and which attempted the murder of our Prime Minister in 1984). Of course, this money was not provided by the US government, it was individual American citizens who were duped into supporting this support group. I have absolutely no problem with the Repubican cause; I am of Northern Irish Catholic and Protestant descent (long story) and believe in a United Ireland myself if the majority of Northern Irish folk want it (which at present they do not), and have been very vocal in my disdain for some of the actions and attitude of the British government in the past 20 or 30 years toward the troubles (and had fallings out with my family as a result). But the IRA disgust me to the pit of my being, and when I saw Americans being misled into supporting this vile organisation, with most of their money coming from a country whose government in 1977 under the guise of the U.S. Department of Justice made Noraid register officially as an agent of the Provisional IRA ( http://www.megastories.com/ireland/glossary2/noraid.htm ) and yet continued to turn a blind eye to what was going on, yes it made me angry. Very angry.

And yes, this was in the past -- but not the particularly distant past. The USA, in common with many other countries, my own included, has been guilty of the most appalling hypocrises, and I really don't think we or you have any right to dictate terms to the rest of the world when our recent history is so checkered in itself.

It certainly is not "naive Euro-Liberal" tendancies which lead me to believe that terrorism cannot be defeated by force; it is painful experience. Yes, these Islamist terrorists are a different breed and yes, I think you are right that we cannot and must not negotiate with them, but where my opinion differs from yours is that I believe that the best way forward is to pull the rug from under the terrorist; get our own house in order in the Middle East; stop interfering in their politics for own selfish interests and change the perception in Arab eyes that the West is evil and must be stopped. For it is not only the terrorist that thinks this; there are far too many sympathisers who have been pushed down that road, partially by our actions, that need to be won around. And you don't win the debate by installing puppet regimes, something that's been going on for far too long.

And calling other people's views "feeble" perhaps epitomises the attitude I'm talking about.

Think about this finally; I am a paid-up member of the British Labour Party, the party which is running the government of your chief ally in the War against terror, who supported the war against Afghanistan (though not Iraq, for two reasons; one I don't think we exhausted all other options anywhere near enough, and two I simply think we should have concentrated on the country Bin Laden is thought to still be living in and operating from, rather than overstretching our resources on a far lesser threat in Saddam Hussein). So if I have these views, imagine the ill-feeling Bush and co are drumming up elsewhere.

[XXXXX]

The group was Noraid, and it certainly is not "liberal propaganda" that they bankrolled the Provisional IRA (in other words, the paramilitary, terrorist group which has been guilty of the murders of hundreds of innocent Northern Irish and other British civilians and which attempted the murder of our Prime Minister in 1984). Of course, this money was not provided by the US government, it was individual American citizens who were duped into supporting this support group. >snip< But the IRA disgust me to the pit of my being, and when I saw Americans being misled into supporting this vile organisation, with most of their money coming from a country whose government in 1977 under the guise of the U.S. Department of Justice made Noraid register officially as an agent of the Provisional IRA (http://www.megastories.com/ireland/glossary2/noraid.htm) and yet continued to turn a blind eye to what was going on, yes it made me angry. Very angry.

Now that you have identified the specifics, and I had a chance to read about these items, I can support your viewpoint, with some caveats.

Your strongly held views are based upon the assertion that direct funding of Noraid was provided by US citizens, and indirectly sanctioned by the US Dept. of Justice, and that both parties knew it was clearly being used for terrorist IRA activities. If both are true, then I also consider these actions criminal, and should be prosecuted. I would likewise be as angry as you if I was in your shoes. It is just not 100% clear from the websites I briefly viewed, that the NORAID organization has contributed US monies in the way it is alledged, and it is even less likely that most US contributors would know about these allegations from what I read.

I said earlier that our main anti-terrorism activities did not get into high gear until after 9/11, so it is not relevant to me to be discussing 30 year old events. It is always the case that a country, organization, or group will not have the same acute awareness or appreciation of a problem until they become directly involved in terrorism...such as your mess in N. Ireland, or the middle east Israel/Palestine conflict.

I hope you are not saying that the USA should be heavily involved in every single conflict, government, and organization everywhere in the world. I also hope you are not trying to blame the N. Ireland conflict on the USA, when it is clearly an outcome of yet another British geopolitical domination.

What puzzles most Americans today is why should we even bother getting involved in any more world conflicts? Why should we be paying the lion's share of the U.N. funding, and supply of its military troops? Most nations don't appreciate our actions anyway. I could make the same accusations of arrogance against the French, Germans, and Russians. There is little evidence that any of these countries have done anything useful to improve the world in the last 30 years. You perceive us acting in our own self-interest as arrogance when you don't like our decisions.

The reverse is true. Most Americans consider Euro-liberals, Russia, and China as their own special breed of arrogance. They expect and demand that the USA agrees to the Kyoto accords, which completely exempts all developing countries, including China, India, Pakistan, etc....despite their comprising 75% of the world's population. Canada and Australia also vehemently oppose Kyoto accords...why not go after them?

Certainly Europe no longer appreciates the fact that we saved them from Hitler, nor that we spent our blood, time, and money rebuilding countries that could give two shits about us now. These "Euro-Liberals" ignore the facts that our forces peacefully ended the Soviet Union domination, and more recently, the Balkans disaster.

Apparently, we are appreciated by the Kuwait, Afgan, and Iraq peoples for our intervention over the last 10 years, which is wonderful to hear. But the average American basically feels that other than Tony Blair's UK supporters, the rest of Europe can go to hell...and we will do what we see fit to secure our own country this time.

I guess You can blame President Clinton, and all the presidents before him for our delayed reaction to world terrorism, but it just had not directly impacted us enough until 9/11/01. My comments in this thread have mainly been directed at supporting Bush regarding the recent Afgan & Iraq invasions, not to discuss geo-policitical events from 30 years ago.

And yes, this was in the past -- but not the particularly distant past. The USA, in common with many other countries, my own included, has been guilty of the most appalling hypocrises, and I really don't think we or you have any right to dictate terms to the rest of the world when our recent history is so checkered in itself.

I consider 30 years ago the distant past, relative to the current Bush & Iraq discussion. In addition, I have yet to meet any person, organization, corporation, country, religion, or any other entity involving human beings that is free from hypocrisy. Whether a particular hypocrisy is appalling or minor is largely in the eye of the beholder. As far as dictating terms to the rest of the world, I'm not sure what that refers to, but assuming it may be about the USA invading Iraq, that is not what happened.

The UN passed Resolution 1441, which I doubt most people have even read (take a minute and read it). When it was obvious that Hussein was again violating this 17th resolution, the USA again conferred with UN Members, and had some disagree with plans to invade, while others supported the action.

The US leadership viewed this action to be in our own security interest based on current intelligence, and acted in partnership with those countries willing to support the action. Those other countries who opposed the action, were not dictated to. They exercised their right to dissent and stay out of the war. In other words, they had a choice, and were not dominated or "dictated to" by the USA to join in.

It certainly is not "naive Euro-Liberal" tendancies which lead me to believe that terrorism cannot be defeated by force; it is painful experience. Yes, these Islamist terrorists are a different breed and yes, I think you are right that we cannot and must not negotiate with them, but where my opinion differs from yours is that I believe that the best way forward is to pull the rug from under the terrorist; get our own house in order in the Middle East; stop interfering in their politics for own selfish interests and change the perception in Arab eyes that the West is evil and must be stopped. For it is not only the terrorist that thinks this; there are far too many sympathisers who have been pushed down that road, partially by our actions, that need to be won around. And you don't win the debate by installing puppet regimes, something that's been going on for far too long.

That is exactly what we are doing in Iraq. Once the rest of the middle east sees how happy, free, productive, and peaceful a democratic Iraq will be, there will be a change in their prejudices towards the US. When they see that the USA did not rape their oil fields, but instead rebuilt their country at our own expense of blood and money, it will accomplish this better than us sitting on our side of the ocean, trying to become perfect, while holding hands singing "Kumbaya."

And calling other people's views "feeble" perhaps epitomises the attitude I'm talking about.

When I used the term feeble, it was to accurately describe your initial vague, unnamed, and derogatory anti-American comments. You lacked any specific facts that would allow one to verify the veracity of your self-agrandised amusements. In other words, you were blowing steam out of your ass, and I called you on it. Too bad you didn't like it, because it was accurate...but you did the right thing by presenting your compelling evidence regarding NORAID.

Think about this finally; I am a paid-up member of the British Labour Party, the party which is running the government of your chief ally in the War against terror, who supported the war against Afghanistan (though not Iraq, for two reasons; one I don't think we exhausted all other options anywhere near enough, and two I simply think we should have concentrated on the country Bin Laden is thought to still be living in and operating from, rather than overstretching our resources on a far lesser threat in Saddam Hussein). So if I have these views, imagine the ill-feeling Bush and co are drumming up elsewhere.

The parallel between the IRA and GB/N. Ireland is not the same as the USA and Afganistan, or Iraq, or Al Quaida. To apply the lessons of N. Ireland to every world conflict is naive, and not well thought out. Islamic fundamentalists hate all western governments, societies, and institutions. These terrorists are not undergoing suicidal bombings in order to achieve independence from an abusive imperial power (GB) that has a long, sordid history of having conquered and dominated a large portion of the entire world.

The Islamic terrorists are not interested in waiting until the USA and all western democracies start acting perfectly, and free themselves from any hint of hypocrisy. Rather this brand of fanatics seek only to entirely destroy western civilization, without anything to negotiate over. Thus the comparison to your GB/NI brand of terrorism, and how to resolve it is not a relevant comparison.

Most Americans really don't care what "ill feelings" are being drummed up elsewhere, since it is obvious to us that these other countries have their own selfish and corrupt motivations and maintenance of their bribery income at heart. There are however, some very relevant facts that all the Euro-Liberals insist on ignoring when it comes to the USA invading Iraq to eliminate the Hussein/Bathist regime:

• The entire world (via U.N. inspections) knew that there were WMD's that had not been accounted for, and that can be easily hidden. The last "Chief Inspector Hans-Clusoe-Blix" comments never did explain what happened to the previously known stockpiles. To this day, they are still missing. There is no question that they could still have been hidden like the fighter jet hidden in the sand, or that they could have been sent to Syria as the US invation drew close.
  
• Hussein was dedicated to acquiring WMD's, continuing to abuse his own citizens, and spreading hatred and violence throughout the Middle East. His stated intention was to be viewed as the "Supreme Arab Leader" for the entire Middle East region. Invading and taking Kuwait's oil fields was a first step in accomplishing that. Iraq is the historical home of Islam, and he had a diabolical plan of ultimately destroying Israel, and interrupting world oil supply with WMD's in order to achieve his goals.
  
• Hussein definitely had Al Quaida leaders working and meeting in Iraq. One of them recently performed the Nick Berg beheading.
  
• Iraq had bought the corrupt UN Inspection teams, which is now being documented and investigated. Continuing to play the cat and mouse game which Hussein had rigged was pointless.
  
• Hussein sidestepped the embargo, and used the Oil for Food program to again bribe UN Officials, and officials in most of the countries who opposed the USA invading Iraq. He used the money to build his palaces, and continue supplying his illegal weapons program.
  
• Hussein actively sponsored and financed terrorism, especially with his support of Palestine suicidal bombers in Israel. This was being done to improve his standing among all Arabs, and to divert the world's attention from his own illegal activities.
  
• Most importantly, Iraq has HUGE oil revenues and therefore, a huge supply of income with which to finance horrible violence. He therefore had the means (unlike a country like N. Korea) to pay a huge sum of money to acquire nuclear or any other WMD that he wanted. Hussein's wealth made him a much more dangerous regime to leave in power.
  
• Invading Iraq has sent a very powerful and sucessful message to other countries that sponsor terrorism. We have seen the impact with Libya, and Iran suddenly allowed UN nuclear inspectors. There are many other countries that are now shitting in their pants because they fear they may be next. That is EXACTLY what was needed at this time. We can all sit around and sing Kumbaya once the suicidal fanatics are destroyed.

[jase]

It's 2am here, so I'm off to bed and will come back to this later, however just a couple of points before I go...

Your strongly held views are based upon the assertion that direct funding of Noraid was provided by US citizens, and indirectly sanctioned by the US Dept. of Justice, and that both parties knew it was clearly being used for terrorist IRA activities.

No. I have never said that I think or believe that the average US contributor to Noraid knew that the money was being used for terrorist purposes, indeed Noraid went to lengths to avoid telling people about this (with good reason). But US citizens *did* contribute to it, knowingly or not (almost always not I would say), the money *was* going to the Provisional IRA, and this was with the full knowledge of the IRA and the US government by virtue of the ruling by the Justice Department. The Government did know where the money was going, but, and this is the crucial thing about this, never even recognised the IRA as a terrorist organisation. Try telling that to Brian, my uncle. You cannot begin to imagine the resentment and hurt this decision caused among decent, law-abiding Protestant/Unionist population in Northern Ireland, and indeed the disgust felt by many decent, law-abiding Catholics/Nationalists as well, who could see the problems this was stirring up -- because of course there were, and are, terrorists on the loyalist side as well, just as evil, who were fully prepared to attack the Catholic population in the same way the IRA were attacking Protestants.

It is always the case that a country, organization, or group will not have the same acute awareness or appreciation of a problem until they become directly involved in terrorism...such as your mess in N. Ireland, or the middle east Israel/Palestine conflict.

This is fair comment. In a perverted kind of a way the US's reaction to your tragedy in 2001 has done good in Northern Ireland in any case; the renegade "Real IRA" has become more quiet since Sept 11, mercifully, although some limited terrorist activities do still take place to this day.

I hope you are not saying that the USA should be heavily involved in every single conflict, government, and organization everywhere in the world.

Quite the reverse -- although a more internationalistic (but not always interventionist) policy may be more helpful. Being isolationist at a time like this is potentially damaging. I'm not saying they're isolationist right now, but given your comment about Americans thinking "f*ck the other countries" that's the way it may go if the US is attacked again.

I also hope you are not trying to blame the N. Ireland conflict on the USA, when it is clearly an outcome of yet another British geopolitical domination.

Oh god yes. The Brits have caused more disruption around the world than just about any other country, and our record in Ireland has at times been repugnant, and I would never seek to blame the US for NI's troubles; indeed one of Clinton's greatest achievements was helping the various parties broker a peace agreement.

I really don't know where this opinion is coming from though that I am anti-US. I am critical of some current US foreign policy; given the closeness of our two countries I have as much right to be critical of the joint US-UK (/Poland/Oz etc) policy as you have. To be frank, if the UK government hadn't become involved in Iraq I don't think I would have cared nearly as much about the rights and wrongs.

These terrorists are not undergoing suicidal bombings in order to achieve independence from an abusive imperial power (GB) that has a long, sordid history of having conquered and dominated a large portion of the entire world.

And this guy accuses me of being anti-US. Quite why the good ol'US of A would ever stoop so low as to align itself with a country that is still apparently an "abusive imperial power" is most puzzling.

Interesting that Spain has similar problems with ETA, a group closely allied to the IRA, and that they supported the invasion of Iraq as well. So let's see what we've got. Two abusive colonial powers and a crumbling ex-Communist state (Poland). Presenting this to the Iraqi people, perhaps you'd have been better off going it alone.

[XXXXX]

Thanks for having this be a mature, interesting, and informative discussion.

...and this was with the full knowledge of the IRA and the US government by virtue of the ruling by the Justice Department. The Government did know where the money was going, but, and this is the crucial thing about this, never even recognised the IRA as a terrorist organisation.

I'm still wondering if you are stretching and ascribing "full knowledge" and "never even recognised the IRA as a terrorist organisation" as accurate statements of the US Justice Department's actual position on these matters. I'm wondering specifically if registering with the US-JD means only that....rather than the full blanket endorsement and implicit ignoring of IRA terrorist status. I'm even wondering if the US-JD knew for sure that monies raised in the USA, and sent to N. Ireland ended up directly funding IRA terrorism. It sounds like there was a pretty intricately designed obfuscation mechanism of what this money was used for.

I grant you that if there was this full awareness, then the anger is fully justified. I imagine this would be hard to prove absolutely.

given your comment about Americans thinking "f*ck the other countries" that's the way it may go if the US is attacked again.

We already see ourselves as mostly having been abandoned by the world community, depite the accomplishments in Afganistan, and some minor good news on the new Iraqi Prime Minister, President, and cabinet. I have absolutely no doubt or question if we are attacked again on the magnitude of 9/11 or what is projected to be much worse, that we will act in ways that will likely horrify some nations.

I'm talking about the US declaring war formally in Congress on whoever we think had anything to do with an attack. I would personally support our government using any means necessary to utterly obliterate whoever was found to be responsible, including the use of nuclear weapons. One US President already had to make such a decision against Imperial Japan with far less US casualties, and not on our own soil.

And this guy accuses me of being anti-US. Quite why the good ol'US of A would ever stoop so low as to align itself with a country that is still apparently an "abusive imperial power" is most puzzling.

That was in reference to GB's long and horrible history of enslaving lands from Hong Kong to America. Since WW-I & II, the union of our two countries was firmly cemented, and enough time has passed that the old wounds have healed. That's not true with many other former British colonies, many of which were only recently granted their independence.

Jesus, look at the extent of the British Empire at it's height. You should be grateful that you only have Ireland F*ckin with you.

Africa

Bechuanaland
British Togoland
Cameroon
Gold Coast
Egypt
Kenya
Nigeria
Northern Rhodesia
Sierra Leone
Somaliland
South Africa
Southern Rhodesia
South West Africa
Sudan
Tanganyika
Uganda

The Americas and Atlantic

Ascension Island
British Guiana
British Honduras
Canada
Falkland Islands
Newfoundland
West Indies
Anguilla
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
Bermuda
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Dominica
Grenada
Jamaica
Montserrat
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago
Turks and Caicos Islands
St Helena
Tristan da Cunha
South Georgia

Antarctica

British Antarctic Territory

Asia

Aden
Bhutan
British New Guinea
Brunei
Burma
Ceylon
Hong Kong
India
Iraq
Kuwait
Malaya
Maldives
Palestine
Nepal
North Borneo
Oman
Qatar
Sarawak
Singapore
Transjordan
Trucial States

Europe

Cyprus
Gibraltar
Malta
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

Pacific

Australia
Ellice Islands
Fiji
Gilbert Islands
Nauru
New Zealand
Pitcairn
Solomon Islands
Tonga

[dodecahedron]

missed out in Asia:
Israel/Palestine
Jordan

though they were'nt oficially Brittish "colonies", rather governed by the UK under UN mandate.

Saudi Arabia too? not sure.

ooops - now i see you did list Palestine, and that might as well include Jordan too.

[jase]

That was in reference to GB's long and horrible history of enslaving lands from Hong Kong to America. Since WW-I & II, the union of our two countries was firmly cemented, and enough time has passed that the old wounds have healed. That's not true with many other former British colonies, many of which were only recently granted their independence.

The reason I argued against the point was that there was a clear inference in your comment that the UK have been an abusive colonial power in the recent past toward the people of Northern Ireland, something which is patently not true. It is what Noraid would have you believe, of course, but do you seriously believe that I would jump to the UK's defence here if there was the slightest bit of truth in it? We didn't keep the North because we wanted to subjugate the Northern Irish people; we kept the northern counties because a majority of people there wanted (and still want) to remain a part of the UK. If that is because some Scots migrated there 300 years ago there isn't much we can do about that now -- when Noraid/IRA talk of "English out", what they really mean is the removal of Protestant Northern Irish people of mainly Scottish descent.

As for the whole British Empire thing; yes we were arrogant. Yes we were selfish and at times cruel and barbaric. Yes we did some good for various people, resolving wars, building infrastructure etc. But that was no excuse.

The problem is, the US in many eyes is doing the same thing now. History will tell whether you are seen as the great liberators, or the next imperialist force in the world. I hope for your sake it's the former.

[XXXXX]

The reason I argued against the point was that there was a clear inference in your comment that the UK have been an abusive colonial power in the recent past toward the people of Northern Ireland, something which is patently not true.

To clarify, I did not say "the recent past." You falsely ascribed that to my post, since I suspect that you are understandably sensitive about the N. Ireland conflict. I did say that many of your former enslaved countries were only recently granted their rightful independence. Notably, Hong Kong was only cut loose in 1997, and directly because of the British ownership, it is yet another major source of world instability as China is now moving against it's Western capitalist influence and financial power base to take back its' rightful ownership of it. The same "300 year" arguments are being made to justify its continued separation. I could also talk about the damage that was done by Britain to local indiginous populations in India, numerous African nations, etc. etc., but I made my point.

I specifically meant the long list of these purloined lands in my last post....not the N. Ireland situation in particular. However, there still exists the cultural vestiges of British colonialism in assuming that GB has the faux nobility to decide how things should be resolved in N. Ireland which directly contributes to the conflict.

Referencing your previous allegation that began this whole distraction from my original posts in support of Bush, I still do not know if there was the full knowledge of the entire US Government just because NORAID registered with the Justice Department. My vague understanding is that any organization that raises funds for overseas distribution must register with them. I do not necessarily agree that ipso-facto the entire US Governement is thereby implicitly convicted of actively supporting IRA terrorism based on your premise.

We didn't keep the North because we wanted to subjugate the Northern Irish people; we kept the northern counties because a majority of people there wanted (and still want) to remain a part of the UK. If that is because some Scots migrated there 300 years ago there isn't much we can do about that now

I disagree partially with your naive assessment. Britain is no longer culturally aware of the subtle influence from their history of subjugating vast lands, cultures, and people that it never had any rights over. I have no doubt that there is an arrogant inculcated influence from this abusive dynasty at play in the N. Ireland conflict. Even down to the small detail of the British Empire referred to it's "subjects," as if the twisted, inbred Royal Family was something the world should respect, or aspire towards!

The heart of the NI conflict is reflected in your subtle arrogance that because the Scots "innocently" (my characterization of how you made the statement) migrated there 300 years ago, and supplanted the local culture and peoples, that God forbid--the native Irish would then want all vestiges of your "Purebred Anglo-Protestant Blood" removed from the tapestry of their ancient soil.

It is not a Catholic vs. Protestant issue. Rather the religions are a symbolic clash of the divergent cultures. The Irish-Catholic lineage traces itself back through the Church of Ireland, to the native Gaelics, and ultimately to the "One True Church" of Roman Catholicism. The conflict started when the Scottish Protestant settlers moved into the native Irish lands, and were supported by the British Empire.

These "Protestant invaders from Ulster" felt the Irish were ignorant because of the language difference, and ensued on a self-justified program of industrialization and economic development, which became their excuse for subsuming the rights of the indigenous Irish natives. With the strong Protestant ties to Britain, they imposed abusive penal laws against the native Irish, and in 1921 contructed unfair geo-political separation boundaries so as to preserve a Protestant majority in N. Ireland, despite the fact that Catholics had an overall majority on the island.

Finally, it is common knowledge that the Britain-backed Protestants more recently used their power to deny Catholics access to public housing, employment, and from having an important role in their own public life, local security forces, and an ability to exert a fair local political influence. Reminds me of the American Colonial subjects who objected to taxation without representation issue, leading to our independence.

By comparison, we in the US are no better with what we shamelessly did to the breathtakingly beautiful, and elegant native American Indian population...but I guess we had not yet fallen far enough from the "Royal Tree" to see how wrong we were. Slavery is yet another horrendous and evil issue that haunts the collective American conscience.

At least I can take consolation in seeing the many wars we have fought in the last 150 years, and how we have left the native population in control, often after rebuilding the damage we did. Yes, there are exceptions such as Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Guam/Wake Islands....but there are many more examples to prove the point of our REAL intentions in Iraq.

One could look at Mexico, Dominican Republic, Japan, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, El Salvador, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, and now turning full sovereignty over to Iraq as examples of our true motivations.

I have no doubt that once we have left Iraq the way we did the above countries, that the Arab/Persian view of America will begin to change. That is a concession that Euro-Liberals will not grant. I find it comical that after American Blood has destroyed the Iraq dictatorship, that the whining French, German, Russian, and Chinese children are now dictating the terms of the latest Iraqi recognition UN proposal.

[jase]

Good to see that you are finally acknowledging that the US has an imperfect history itself, although slightly amusing that you seem to be seeking to shift blame onto others to justify previous bad practices ("I guess we had not yet fallen far enough from the "Royal Tree" to see how wrong we were"), or implying that because you may (arguably) have done some good in some areas that excuses mistakes in others, a curious logic if ever there was one.

[XXXXX]

It's not a matter of finally acknowledging mistakes that the USA has made, it had not come up until now. The thrust of this discussion was about Bush, and the Iraq invasion. Accusations have been made that we had no business invading Iraq, and that our entire motivation was related to the Bush family personally stealing Iraqi oil, and stashing it under their family pillows.

I have pointed out numerous examples of how the USA has behaved in most of the wars & conflicts over the last 100 years, which gives a realistic track record. When we prove to be successful and leave behind a democracy in Afganistan and Iraq, the dumbass Euro-Liberals will move on to some other equally inane inferiority-complex driven attack.

The not falling too far from the Royal Tree was both accurate of the first generation colonial settlers (ummmm where did they come from again?), and a joke. I absolutely admitted that we have had our faults. You apparently cannot read those statements unless I inscribe them in blood.

The fact that we have done MUCH good (not "some" or "arguably"--Heil Hitler to you on that dumb f*ck statement), and the fact that unlike Britain's sordid past, the USA does not take over countries that we invade, and turn the local populations into our lowly subjects. That is not what will happen in Iraq, and we are hardly "dictating" the way you implied.

I think you should first work on removing your illegitimate Protestant occupants from N. Ireland, and make reparations for the damage Britain has done before you preach to Americans about how we should conduct current matters following 9/11.

I doubt your haughty British attitude could allow such a humble concession however. No wonder you can only see arrogance in others. "You shall reap what you sow" and "Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house" both come to mind with your comments.

[jase]

Of course if the "illegitimate Protestant occupants" are to be cleansed from Northern Ireland (all 700,000 of them, including the family of my own half-caste self) then we should also expect the hundreds of millions of European and other settlers in the Americas to be removed also. No?

"Haughty British attitude"; thankyou for this enlightening and informative comment.

Thank god you are not representative of your great country.

the thrust of this discussion was about Bush, and the Iraq invasion.

Well actually, the thrust of this discussion was about Kerry's shiny new airplane. But never mind.

Accusations have been made that we had no business invading Iraq, and that our entire motivation was related to the Bush family personally stealing Iraqi oil, and stashing it under their family pillows.

... and it was you who chose to incorporate this into the thread.

[LoneWolf]

Right now I'm tempted to write in McCain/Feingold.

Bush has no concern for the environment, or long-term solutions to problems (i.e., a supply of oil that one day will no longer be there). I despise the Patriot Act, and John Ashcroft. My opinion on the Middle East really has little to do with my opinions on Bush; That alone is worthy of another post.

Kerry, on the other hand, IMO, has few concrete opinions on anything. He claims to be Roman Catholic, and yet his political stances do not jive with Catholic beliefs. Some respect this; I call his position an easy way to be two-faced. My pro-life stance is 180 degrees from his. I have less trust for him yet as a candidate than I do for Bush.

If I do a write-in, at least I know I'm voting for people who time and time again have voted their conscience and true beliefs, even when it didn't agree with their party. People who believe that politics in fact, transcend political parties and efforts should be bipartisan. People who don't translate each side of every issue as one that is liberal or conservative, left or right.

[XXXXX]

Thank god you are not representative of your great country.

Oh, but I am representative of our great country, as your pompous attitude is of yours. That is why you have a problem with my positions.

It's typical that you can't imagine that Britain is directly responsible for the problems in N. Ireland, for all the historical reasons that I elucidated. You think that you have some credentials to preach to other countries about how they should be defending themself against an unprovoked (9/11) attack.

You lack the integrity and moral courage to accept the blame for your N.I. debacle squarely on your own Anglo-Protestant shoulders. You feign innocent victimization as the N.I. terrorists are fighting for their own land, after having been enslaved by yet another British usurping landgrab.

Your weak attempt at comparing your dilemma to settlers in America is irrelevant since we have no such problems with internal terrorism. Unlike your haughty attitude, Americans are able to admit their mistakes and weaknesses, and work them out as adults.

Your irresponsible attitude towards British/Scottish victimization of N. Ireland has no hint of self-responsibility, maturity, or humility. Your only way of dealing with a problem that you caused 100% is to thrash out and now try to blame the USA with some vague and disconnected series of assumption about funding from NORAID, and their registration with our Justice department.

"Haughty British attitude"; thankyou for this enlightening and informative comment.

You are most welcome. I am glad to have been able to enlighten and inform you.

Well actually, the thrust of this discussion was about Kerry's shiny new airplane. But never mind.

No, actually that was the thrust of the thread. I am refererring to our discussion (which you responded to) that started on page one. You didn't respond to the shiny new airplane, nor did I. So sorry to disappoint you again, since I know how you Brits have an insatiable need to be right at all times.

Right now I'm tempted to write in McCain/Feingold.

Actually, I quite agree with you. The reality is that very few qualified and inspiring leaders are ever able to get into a position such as being a viable presidential candidate. I would much prefer McCain over Bush.

[bill]

Hmmm, hijacked thread. I just wanted to add a few comments.

Jase, I agree that Americans did help to support the war in Northern Ireland. For that I am sorry. Unfortunately I believe many Americans are ignorant of that fact or knew and viewed the IRA's actions as justified in the context of a civil war. However terrorism, the indiscriminate killing of civilians, can never be condoned.

I do take exception to how our nation is being spoken about lately. I can't speak for every American but I am willing to take the grief for our mistakes. I must tell you though, I would feel a lot less arrogant, belligerent, however you EuroLibs (joke) describe us Americans if the criticism is occasionally tempered by a pat on the back for the things we do right.... Yes, we are feeling a little under appreciated.

You said,

It always amuses me when Americans talk of the terrorist threat, when it was Americans who bankrolled the terrorist organisation (an organisation which registered with the US government as an agent of a terrorist organisation back in the 70s) who maimed my uncle in Northern Ireland. Anyone would think that terrorism only started in 2001.

The Northern Ireland situation, along with the problems faced by Israel, have only served to show that fighing terrorism with force doesn't work either. You only serve to recruit more people to their cause, and make the situation worse.

Britain and Israel still exist. The PLO and IRA are a weak which is why they use terror.

Still, if the USA wants to arrogantly defy the experiences of governments around the world, so be it.

I would be very happy if those experienced governments would step up to the plate and solve more of the worlds problems. The only stipulation I have is that the problems be solved. They can't use the UN to have a circular debate for ten years... As far as Iraq, its done and everyone should get over it.

Terrorist and their sponsors are using ( if you can believe it ) more extreme methods of killing people lately. If the world as a whole doesn't stop arguing about how to deal with these problems the US will likely become very violent. Fortunately there is still an argument taking place between our doves and hawks. If we become united against terrorism because of a dirty nuke etc we will go to war in a big way..... That's not a threat, just a prediction of human nature.

Last but not least, I do very much appreciate your country's support at a time when we needed it. Right or wrong, thank you.

[jase]

You lack the integrity and moral courage to accept the blame for your N.I. debacle squarely on your own Anglo-Protestant shoulders. You feign innocent victimization as the N.I. terrorists are fighting for their own land, after having been enslaved by yet another British usurping landgrab.

No, I lack the apparent "courage" to see, as you do, that the answer to the conflict is the enforced ethnic cleansing of 700,000 men, women and children, as you quite reasonably advocate.

Incidentally, although not a follower of the faith, I am nominally Roman Catholic.

[XXXXX]

No, I lack the apparent "courage" to see, as you do, that the answer to the conflict is the enforced ethnic cleansing of 700,000 men, women and children, as you quite reasonably advocate.

You continue demonstrating your incessant need to falsely ascribe intentions or statements that I never mentioned or implied. In addition, you repeatedly avoid assuming 100% direct responsibility for the NI conflict, by making hysterical & inflammatory propositions for its proper resolution.

• Fact: Britain via the Scots, invaded Ireland and subsumed their lands, adding it involuntarily as yet another subjected territory in its long history of vicious and abusive conquests. It was not the sweet, adorable, innocent meanderings of some aimless Scot farmers who wandered onto some vacant lands.
  
• Fact: Britain systematically imposed its "Holier-Than-Thou" Protestant-Anglo religious & cultural beliefs on the Irish, and ostracized indigenous peoples from their civil, educational, cultural, and economic rights and ownerships. This was epitomized by the 1921 gerrymandering of Ireland's borders so as to preserve a false Anglo-Protestant majority where there was none.
  
• Fact: Britain has not yet accepted full and complete responsibility for having imposed its inferior (my characterization--given the revolting, embarassing behavior of the Royals) "Royal Doctrines" upon a NI people that were as repulsed by the British as the rest of its conquered colonies.
  
• Fact: Britain has made no attempt to relocate Anglo-Protestant families back to where they originated, nor to give adequate compensation to the native people who rightfully own Ireland.
  
• Fact: Britain continues to look for others to blame for the source of their conflict with NI, including shifting the blame to the USA for supposedly endorsing supposed NORAID funded IRA terrorism. GB is 100% to blame for the conflict in N.I. I also remind you that your spoon fed suppositions about USA endorsement of IRA terrorism (which I do not support or advocate) have yet to be factually ascertained.
  
• Fact: Many British such as yourself (Tony Blair et al excluded) feel that they have a hypocritical right to dictate to the USA how we should be fighting terrorism, based upon their own irresponsible failure to resolve the conflict in NI. You have no such right.
  
• Fact: There is no comparison between the NI/GB conflict and the USA/Iraq conflict. GB invaded and took over Ireland, in much the same way as Iraq invaded Kuwait. Ireland has legitimate grounds to repel the foreign invaders, the same as we did against the British in America. If it is not practical or workable for a large number of Anglo-Protestants to leave, there should be a series of dramatic concessions and reparations made for the series of injustices.

It has become obvious from your posts, that a large part of the ongoing conflict is rooted in the pompous, arrogance of the British Empire, that you so aptly epitomize.

You and your "Royal Empire" are not capable of even admitting that GB is 100% responsible for this mess. You seek to dismiss the British supported invasion by the uninvited Scottish settlers, and want to brand the IRA as unjust, evil terrorists, rather than see that your own stubborn and historically abusive actions created them.

We had the same issue with Blacks who were clearly mistreated by whites here in America. They also resorted to terrorism, violence, and riots. In a short period of time, the predominate white population admitted that it had abused them, and subsumed their equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed in our constitution.

We were wrong to have done that, and set about taking responsibility and redressing their legitimate issues. We did not spend out time looking for our own version of "BLACK-AID" foreign financial support to blame on some other country, as you feel the need to do. We rather set about accepting responsibility, changing our laws, and making reparations in many ways to resolve their legitimate complaints. Now that chapter is largely resolved, and we are living with each other in peace.

So far, you epitomize the British who are too f*cking pompous and arrogant to even admit their crimes and abuses towards the Irish, let alone work towards a fair and just recompense to end the conflict.

Until you have shown the moral maturity to resolve your own issue, you should just STFU about telling the USA not to handle its terrorism threats by proactively destroying these suicidal Islamic fanatics (AKA the not throwing stones when living in your own self-constructed glass houses story).