Lest people forget, history has a
strange way of repeating itself but in reverse. In the early days,
Christians were persecuted and in time they became the Persecutors. Jews
were slaughtered wholesale by the Nazis but only 50 years later it is hard
not to see Nazi tendencies in the government of Ariel Sharon.
In time, the US will not be quite so
powerful. What will happen then? What of the Geneva Convention and
International Law then? Their tanks and planes won't run without oil. Was
that what Iraq was really about?
Maybe that fateful day is sooner than
you think.
Joseph

21 July 2003
Re : Violent
Religions
Tell me, Tony, are they really still
teaching this stuff in Sunday school in Dublin? 'Cause over here in
the U.S., we generally get a substantially less provocative (and
more accurate) version. (Psssst! The Romans did it!)
You wrote:
<quote>Judaism is thousands
of years older than Christianity, and when the Jew Jesus Christ appeared
on the scene, it was a pretty brutal faith that didn't hesitate to
torture him to death for disobeying its rules.</quote>
All sarcasm aside, I'd really be
interested in what led you to write that
sentence and whether you really believe it. Because that particular
notion, while historically just plain wrong, has gotten an awful lot of
people brutally killed over the centuries.
Lynn, USA
She is also a blogger; check her out at incontext.blogmosis.com
Response :
Lynn is correct that it was the
Romans not the Jews who carried out the crucifixion, on the orders of a
reluctant Pontius Pilate. He was acceding to the demands of the
Jewish High Priests and mob.
Does this make the Judaism of the day
less bloodthirsty? Hardly. Only Roman Law prevented them
from doing the job themselves. And there are plenty of other
examples of Jewish bloodthirstiness in the Old Testament.
The point of mentioning it, and
Christian bloodthirstiness, is to show how this behaviour no longer has
any place in the respective religions. Islam has yet to reach that
sublime state.
My error was due to a bit of editorial sloppiness and I've therefore
corrected the sentence to read, it
was a pretty brutal faith that didn't hesitate to get
the Romans to torture him to death for disobeying its rules.
T o n y

20 July 2003
Re : The
Public Bullying of David Kelly
I don't agree that David Kelly is poor
man.
Why are you propagating so surely that he committed suicide? It's a
shame a country that had world wide idols as Sherlock Holmes, writers as
Edgar Wallace, Agatha Christie....and Scotland Yard, make such a haste
judgment. on an improbable policial (or I would say political) occurrence.
It's Blair spirit riding again: If
it's not complete, if it's not
sure ... let's bluff AND afterwards copy Hitler politics of 'fait
accompli'
David Kelly it's another Iraqi
revisited.
Marcus, Brazil
Although the circumstantial evidence
of suicide is pretty convincing (slashed wrist, knife, painkillers) and
the police don't seem to have any doubt, I agree the possibility of
murder should not be entirely discounted until after the post-mortem and
judicial enquiry.
T o n y

14 July 2003
Re : No
Americans in Normandy in 1944
Click here
to read the response from the Mayor of Bayeux
, which prompted an apology
from me.

26
May 2003
Re : Celebrity Politicians
and Anti-Zionism
The Centre is a very unassuming (and
surprisingly small) building set back from one of the main roads out of
the town. We pass it regularly on our way to the golf club, and have often
joked about its name, wondering just what they were supposed to be
coordinating and following up! Perhaps you have unveiled the unwelcome
truth?
Graham, Abu Dhabi

22nd April 2003
Re : The UN Must Re-earn its
Right to be Involved
(1) "In a stunning military
performance of unparalleled virtuoso by America and Britain,"
STUNNING for its victims only. It was a turkey shoot of a defenceless
conscript army.
(2) "an unprecedentedly small
number of their own and of non-combatant casualties" THE BODIES
have not yet been counted. The 30000 or so "military" casualties
need to be counted to.
(3) "UN incompetence has
prevailed in Iraq, where for 12 years it failed to deal with Saddam beyond
issuing 17 high-minded Resolutions, which it then failed to implement."
IT IMPOSED VICIOUS SANCTIONS sustained chiefly through US pressure.
(4) "As a result, Saddam was
able to continue murdering his civilians at a rate of 5,000 per year as
well as financing every suicide bomber in Israel and hanging on to his WMD."
I have seen it argued that the Sanctions tightened Saddam's grip. As to
his WMD, they seem to have all gone...
(5) "When he didn't disarm, the
UN pretended that "serious consequences" didn't mean war"
-- not pretended, the code for war is "all necessary means" and
apparently war cannot be threatened in advance by the UN according to its
own rules.
(6) "more resolutions, more
inspections, more troops on the border with orders not to invade"
-- which would have been more than adequate as we now see, for WHERE ARE
THE WMDs.
(7) "The USA has once again had
to go to war to rescue others" -- but that was not the issue! And
the primary motive of the war was not the rescue of Iraqis but the
appropriation of Iraq oil for geopolitical purposes, as well as permanent
access to military bases in Iraq.
(8) "In all the other major
international confrontations with totalitarian regimes, the UN has shirked
its responsibilities and left the dirty work to America while
simultaneously disapproving and trying to prevent it." Hmmm,
where has postwar America undone totalitarian regimes and replaced them
with democracy? Generally it has rather tried to do the opposite. Perhaps
the Sandinistas were as "totalitarian regime" and the Contras
represented "democracy"?
(9) "Only America has the
ability to lead and co-ordinate this reconstruction, and - through war -
the authority to do so." Colonialism means that force of arms
gives you the right to administer conquered territories. But I thought we
were supposed to have got beyond that and to be constructing a world order
based on International Law?
(10) "The UN can serve a worthy
and useful role by offering to America its services, such as humanitarian
assistance." That would suit America fine; it has always sought
to weaken the UN in order to put International Law at the service of its
neocolonial designs. The Rule of Empire is perhaps easier to arrange than
the Rule of Law. If the US would put its imperial power behind the Rule of
Law it would indeed be making the world a better place. But we have seen
it contemn international law again and again.
(11) "Nevertheless, the better
the UN performs, the more responsibility it should be given in the months
and years ahead." Performs as docile, uncritical boy scouts? But
that would be a betrayal of what the UN stands for: the Rule of Law.
(12) "And who knows, at some
point in the (distant ?) future, it might once again be trusted to take a
leading position in a delicate and difficult international situation. But
not yet. It must re-earn its spurs." SUCH CONTEMPT for the rule
of law has delegitimized the US in the eyes of the world. It is the
American Empire not the UN and International Law that is now coursing to
collapse.
JS II, France

16th
April 2003
Re : The UN Must Re-earn its
Right to be Involved
Your
newsletter is a pleasant an interesting read. As a somewhat conservative
American, I am intrigued to encounter the conservative perspective of a
European.
Howard

20th
March 2003
Re : A
New & Disturbing World Order
You are pretty much full of the crap
you have imbibed from the religious fanatics and the right wing political
extremists. The only way to have peace in this world is to treat all
nations and all peoples with justice, fairness and equity. War may be
necessary, but it is not the first choice of reasonable, sensible people.
Mitchell

22nd
February 2003
Re : Anti
War Demonstrations
The millions who demonstrated against a
war with Iraq may be accused of well meaning naivety or misguided actions.
But in truth I do not think they were all there to demonstrate against a
war with Iraq, they were there to demonstrate against WAR. And I guess
that amongst the other millions who did not actively demonstrate there are
a great majority implacably opposed to WAR. In fact I am sure that if a
poll were taken amongst the 200,000 soldiers sitting at the Iraqi borders
many of them would be opposed to WAR.
But I think the semantics are all
wrong. This is not a war with Iraq. There is no argument with the Iraqi
peoples. There is no extremist, ideological and corrosive political force
such as fascism or communism alive in Iraq. Iraq is a country being held
to ransom by a tyrant and his gang of thugs. A venal, corrupt, ruthless
criminal.
In any society, if a criminal holds
hostage his family or other innocents, threatens and executes violence
against his neighbours, poses a threat to his locality then he faces the
full power of the police force who will surround his property, do their
level best first to reason with him, persuade him to discard his weapons
and surrender peaceably. If after a period of time, when it becomes clear
that his hostages lives are all but lost if they do not take action the
police will storm the building, protecting the lives of the hostages as
far as possible, then apprehend the criminal.
On a far greater scale this is
precisely the situation with Iraq. The American and British armed forces
are acting as world policemen. With, we hope and trust, the full authority
of the United Nations they will execute their policing duties, release the
peoples of Iraq held hostage and apprehend the master criminal and his
gang of thugs. How can anyone demonstrate against police carrying out
their duty?
There is another and interesting aspect
to the mass demonstrations. The scale
of the demonstration is a relatively new phenomenon. It is a result of the
tremendous power of the internet. The organisers were, apparently, a small
and dedicated band, yet through the internet they were able to mobilise
and organise on such an extraordinary scale. What does this bode for the
future? I am sure the implications are a source of debate.
Michael
18th
February 2003
Re : Gerhard
Schroeder
Gerhard Schroeder will go, and he will
go early. Your blog covering his recent antics paints a picture of a vain
man who will twist and turn in search of the policy that wins him support.
Why? Because he has no beliefs or convictions, he is a pastiche of liberal
thinking since the second world war. This was illustrated perfectly today
(18th Feb) with a report that his retort to the fact that many people will
die in Iraq if Saddam Hussein is allowed to stay was many
people are dying in North Korea too.
This is similar to the argument that, although the atrocities are
sometimes as bad, and numbers killed as high, the West - or specifically
the US - is not intervening in African trouble spots (see Letters
on your very own Blog). Although I have no trouble refuting the theory
behind such an argument, I treat it pretty much as the playground argument
my
dad is bigger than your dad
type of response - annoying and irrelevant. The point about
Schroeder is that he is a world leader, and the best he can do to counter
evidence that Saddam is an appalling ruler is refer to North Korea. OK, so
what if America HAS got plans to "sort out" the North Koreans?
Will he agree to invasion then? I speak to Germans daily, and to say they
are embarrassed by their leader is putting it mildly. Frankly, if he
supports a position, you can guarantee that even people who would
naturally adopt a similar stance will find themselves questioning their
view.
And to the person who mentions African trouble spots, using that to
counter the argument that Saddam should be removed: do you remember
Mogadishu? Does the film Blackhawk Down ring any bells? I respect the view
of the peaceniks that war is ghastly, but not one of them has convinced me
that after the peace
is achieved (ie America stands down and inspections continue) that there
is a formula for continued peace around the world. Instead I get the
impression that there is an immense amount of anti-US feeling, but no one
has thought through the consequences. Have any European leaders pointed
out the cost of building up our armed forces to the point where they can
stand alone? Or the cost of research and development just to stay with the
cutting edge in technology. 70% tax anyone?
Jocelyn

8th February 2003
Re : France
and Iraq
Is France's reluctance to support intervention into
Iraq a possible fear of exposure to what they may have sold to the Iraqi's
- breaking sanctions ?
Michael

19th January 2003
Re : Iraq
In the book The Seven Pillars of Wisdom,
Lawrence of Arabia wrote...
"The Kingdom of Heaven is based on souls, The Kingdoms of the
World are based on Oil, and the Arabs have Oil...."
That was in 1927.
There are a dozen countries in Africa with regimes far worse than Mr.
Sadam's but nobody is talking about sorting them out 'cause there's
nothing in it for anybody apart from doing the MORAL thing.
It's no coincidence that a huge lump of the US arms industry is located in
Texas. War is GOOD for business.
The state of Israel founded on the shame and embarrassment of the nations
of the world after the World War 2, who did almost nothing to help,
support and take in the Jews of Europe, is a failed entity bouyed up by a
US government that pumps $4 billion worth of aid into that place each year
- why because they look at it as a kind of Alamo and outpost of freedom in
a land of robed fanatics. If any Irish man or his family was walled
up for 3 generations in the hopeless ghetto-like conditions that is the
lot of a million palestinians - he would turn lunatic - lunatic like a
caged beast - lunatic like someone starving to death, like starving
to death in a ghetto? Lunatic because although everyone appears
sympathetic to their cause nobody ever seems to do anything???
If there was no oil in the middle east - there would be for
sure a state of Israel that found a means long ago to to cooperate
and live in peace or relative peace with their Arab neighbours their
christian and muslim Arab neighbours...
However,
there are 10,000 + illegal Irish immigrants in the US;
we begged on our knees for extra Visas for our people in the 80s;
we have +750 US based multi-nationals in Ireland who 'walked' jobs out of
the USA to Ireland and whose status could be changed very quickly by
minor, protectionist alterations of the US tax laws;
without the interest of the USA there would have been no peace settlement
in the North;
nobody on this island wants to be without petrol;
nobody on this island wants to pay 5 euros a litre for petrol;
I don't want to be without petrol or to pay 5 euros a litre for it;
We never sold out to the british or the americans or anyone else with whom
we made contacts from this island both we bought into a lot of stuff and
now it's pay-back time.
And I and all of us should have thought about all of this a long time ago.
And I am going to go along with it - sick to my stomach because I have an
awful feeling that something new is about to begin in the world, something
sinister that as of now has no dimension, no form, and all the
opposition has been bought somehow or other, and the real crunch
will surely come in another context maybe many years from now when a new
China with an unstoppable economic momentum finds that more and more it is
able to provide say 75% plus of the needs of the rest of the world,
cheaply, very cheaply, and they are accused of manipulating the markets,
of using cheap labour of not playing ball with the West or with 'someone'
in the West etc., etc. and there are real reasons for placing serious
embargoes on China you know, because there's no freedom there and there's
no democracy and lets sets them free.....
... and I am buying into all of this because I don't want to be without
petrol....but that doesn't prevent us from singing
AFTER ME, 1,2..
When you're happy and you know it bomb Iraq
If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.
If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.
It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me
'Cos it'a ll the proof I need to
Bomb Iraq.
If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad) then,
Bomb Iraq.
If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.
Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.
Regards,
Allen

24th November 2002
Re : Why
Must US Action on Iraq Go Through the UN ?
The only difference [between your eight examples of countries going to war
without going through the UN] is that USA and Britain attack counties THAT
ARE NOT NEIGHBOURS.
Shame on England that attacked (or took possession,
or both) of India, Egypt, Australia, Malvinas, South Africa, etc.
You always decide alone......
This time it will not be different!!!!!!!!!
Marcus

14th November 2002
Re : Nigeria
Picking Fights
I have read that the U.S. Navy has been considering
building a naval base on Sao Tome. The U.S. is looking at ending its oil
dependence on the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa is one region with
lots of oil.
Having a base would provide a mutual benefit for both
Sao Tome, a mostly Christian nation, and the U.S. Given the information
about the Nigerian moves in the area, I can see one reason why Sao Tome
might want a U.S. military presence.
Peter
25th September 2002
Re : To
Warmonger or Negotiate
Really enjoyed the reading. Especially the pieces on Iraq : To
Warmonger or Negotiate, and Bin Laden is Dead. This is the first time I've
heard about your news publishings. Thank you and keep up the good work.
I've taken the liberty to forward this onto others here in the States.
Jim

19th August 2002
Re : Chinook
and Ukraine Aircraft Crashes
The writer was on a sailing holiday in the Black
Sea at the time of the Ukranian air show crash.
The president of Ukraine also ordered cancellation of
the much-vaunted (and spectacular) Black Sea fleet review due to take
place in Sevastopol two days after the air crash - probably a wise move as
they apparently make it spectacular by firing live missiles! Unfortunately
this news did not become known until the expectant public had been in
their seats for several hours that morning - including the crews of
several boats in our flotilla, who'd made a special overnight advance dash
to catch this event.
We did witness an air-sea rescue display right
next to the marina in Odessa, and although the rather odd-looking
helicopter stayed aloft, we noted that the naval patrol vessel that came
in just before the display
(presumably as a back-up in case of problems) took a chunk out the
quayside and it's own rubbing strake!
Moreover, one pseudo-military event that didn't
get scuppered was an unexpected (and very loud) 3-gun salute given to us
as we were mooring at the yacht club jetty in the previously 'closed'
naval ship-building city of Nikolaev. Gives you a bit of a fright when one
of those goes off just as your pulling hard on a mooring line!
Graham
p.s. I have to admit to NOT being a computer nerd,
and thus having to ask what the hell a Blog is ?
Graham
- Click on Blogging Explained - T

9th
August 2002
Re : Catholic
Church and Sex Abuse
I must say that I enjoyed your articles on current
affairs in the Tallrite Blog. A most incisive mind you have with the
ability to put alternative perspective on issues. I like the way you put
the sex scandal business in a more honest perspective.
I befriended a nun here in Limerick, whose order ran
a laundry in the old days, for girls that found themselves in the family
way. She told me some depressing stories of the treatment of some of the
girls by their families. They were cast out and told they were fallen
women and had disgraced their families. In many cases their fathers would
not have anything to do with them and forbade the mother and any of their
siblings contact. At times it was the father who was responsible for their
condition and I was also told that a priest was sometimes the guilty
party.
The nun is passed on now and she often regretted that
they did not know more about care for these unfortunate victims of a
sexually repressed society. They had no training in care and had nowhere
to obtain it. What gave her great joy was that many of the girls kept in
contact with her - often in secret - because they wished to hide their
past from their own newfound families.
The nuns never had anything for themselves. They got
pocket money. Later on, when the laundry was closed, when my wife
and I used to call for our friend, to take her to a concert in the
University Concert Hall, it was a major outing for her. Such a simple
thing, yet it gave her great joy. The other nuns used to kid her that
" her boyfriend was calling for her ". I must confess that it
gave me great joy also to take her out for an evening. I used to look
forward to it.
Much has been written about the sufferings of these
young girls. The cause of course for the situation has been somewhat
understated i.e. the attitudes of our society and the lack of moral
courage, on the part of our elected leaders, to stand up to the injustice
of this attitude. The "Maggie" laundries were just picking up
the pieces and attempting, in accordance with their own belief, "to
straighten out the path to God for these unfortunate sinners".
Again, in that society, it was the women who were
considered the more culpable as it was widely believed that the nature of
a man was such that he could not help his sexual drive once aroused to a
certain stage by a woman, who of course was always considered to be in
complete control of the situation. Now more is written ( I would not say
unknown ) about a woman's sexuality. We are not so quick to accept
teachings on such matters by those who take vows of chastity - and don't
forget that it was those poor mislead chastitutes, who were schooled to
believe that it was there duty to give leadership in such emotional and
complex matters, in accordance with the convictions of the head of
whatever seminary they attended. Many of them, unfortunately were wrong
and society, the vast bulk of which were not educated to think and reason
for themselves, reacted in fear of condemnation to everlasting flames and
eternal misery. Is it any wonder that some banished their own daughters
for what they believed to be "the most deadly sin of all" and
the public shame which was attached to such a "sin"?
Am I being too judgemental ? I hope not. All I
am attempting to do is to find some logic for the grave injustices of the
past which was apparently
accepted by our forbearers.
The case of Lieutenant De Roiste in 1969 is one which
is relevant to the same form of distorted thinking, if it is true that he
was dismissed for failing to cover up for a superior officer's misdeed.
Was the reputation of an army senior officer taking precedence over
natural justice ? Was the lieutenant sacrificed for his moral courage ? If
this is so then the files should be opened and the case thoroughly
reviewed while there are living witnesses still available ?
Brian
Back
to the top