| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1297.1 | Silage pits full of Missiles!!! | ADISSW::SMYTH | | Thu Dec 16 1993 09:28 | 6 |
| Well we've nearly freed Ireland from the neo-colonialism of Digital.
So one up for the NY Transfer Collective.
Are these guys, funded by the Scottish Development Authority?
Joe.
|
| 1297.2 | | NOVA::EASTLAND | | Thu Dec 16 1993 10:11 | 5 |
|
In case anyone missed it, btw, .0 was just another example of the wacko
crap one finds on usenit. Not that you aren't used to seeing this kind
of stuff of course.
|
| 1297.3 | | KOALA::HOLOHAN | | Thu Dec 16 1993 10:47 | 4 |
|
re. .2
Oh, we're used to it all right, but only from you.
Mark
|
| 1297.4 | | NOVA::EASTLAND | | Thu Dec 16 1993 10:50 | 6 |
|
Eh? I wasn't aware I was the character who keeps pulling crap from
usenit and starting a fresh note around it with a (capitalized) title
like NEO-IMPERIALIST BRITS RUN CONCENTRATION CAMPS. No, no, Mark,
that's you carrying on, not me.
|
| 1297.5 | | WELSWS::HEDLEY | Lager Lout | Fri Dec 17 1993 03:29 | 4 |
| re .3
wtf are you on about? You're the one who posts the sensationalist
garbage in this conference.
|
| 1297.6 | | NASZKO::MACDONALD | | Mon Dec 20 1993 10:00 | 18 |
|
Re: .0
Well sensationalist or not I wonder about the following:
> Alexander Haig, while serving as commander of NATO, said, "We
> could never allow an independent Ireland, for it would become the
> Cuba of Europe."
First of all it should be no business of Alexander Haig to determine
anything about Ireland. Alexander Haig is an idiot. He showed that
clearly while working for President Ronald Reagan. Second, I wonder
who the "we" is that he refers to. Whatever happens in Northern Ireland,
NATO and certainly Alexander Haig and idiots like him, should have
nothing to say about it.
STeve
|
| 1297.7 | | NOVA::EASTLAND | | Mon Dec 20 1993 10:41 | 4 |
|
Why? It used to be clearly of NATO interest, whether Haig was an
'idiot' (unsubstantiated ad hominem charge, btw) or not.
|
| 1297.8 | | NASZKO::MACDONALD | | Mon Dec 20 1993 13:21 | 16 |
|
Re: .7
The indepdendence of Ireland is a matter between Ireland and England.
Whether Ireland is independent or not may certainly be of interest
to NATO, but that does not mean NATO should have a say in the matter.
The fact that Alexander Haig, an American NATO commander, should state
that "we" would never "permit" an independent Ireland should be
sufficient reason to see why he is an idiot. It ranks right up there
with his "I'm in charge here speech" at the Whitehouse after Ronald
Reagan was shot.
nuff said,
Steve
|
| 1297.9 | | NOVA::EASTLAND | | Mon Dec 20 1993 13:43 | 10 |
|
I beg to disagree. NATO is a security alliance. If there is civil war
in any member state, or war between member states, it's potentially
threatening to the security of all members of the alliance and therefore
a matter of concern and open to comment.
In any event, Irish-American politicians don't accept the principle
that it's a matter between Ireland and Britain, and neither does
Col Quaddafi for that matter.
|
| 1297.10 | | NASZKO::MACDONALD | | Tue Dec 21 1993 10:30 | 25 |
|
Re: .9
> I beg to disagree. NATO is a security alliance. If there is civil war
> in any member state, or war between member states, it's potentially
> threatening to the security of all members of the alliance and therefore
> a matter of concern and open to comment.
You can disagree all you like. Haig, as the NATO commander, having
an opinion on the matter is one thing, but implying that NATO, the
alliance, has the right and/or power to determine the matter is quite
another. If you don't get the distinction between those points I can't
help you much.
> In any event, Irish-American politicians don't accept the principle
> that it's a matter between Ireland and Britain, and neither does
> Col Quaddafi for that matter.
Again, having an opinion or trying to influence the outcome are not
the same as saying that you have the right to and will *determine* the
outcome. Haig is far too grandiose.
Steve
|
| 1297.11 | | NOVA::EASTLAND | | Tue Dec 21 1993 12:25 | 8 |
|
You're arguing with yourself. I never said NATO had the right to
determine the matter. I said NATO has a right to express its views on
the matter. You need to be able to distinguish between them. If you
can't see that, you're simply out of touch with the reality of the
situation, for NATO always had had a say in member nations' policies
that give them cause for security concerns.
|
| 1297.12 | | NASZKO::MACDONALD | | Wed Dec 22 1993 15:16 | 13 |
|
Re: .11
Well then perhaps you should be more clear about what you are
disagreeing with.
I was reacting to the idea that Haig should make a statement
such as "we would never permit an independent Ireland" as if it
were his decision to make. I, also, never said that NATO has no
right to comment.
Steve
|
| 1297.13 | | NOVA::EASTLAND | | Wed Dec 22 1993 15:19 | 5 |
|
You said it has no say in it. It does. Comment is 'say', n'est-ce pas?
I think you're confusing yourself a bit. Anyway, you can have the last
word. I'm sort of bored with the rathole, eh?
|
| 1297.14 | | NASZKO::MACDONALD | | Wed Dec 22 1993 15:38 | 12 |
|
Re: 13
Perhaps you're not clear on the American idiom "to have a
say" in the matter. It means to have a direct role in the
determination of something such as a vote or the authority to
decide. It does not mean simply to air your views.
Being American, I was using it in that sense.
Steve
|