Re: Turkish entry to the EU


"Mens sana" <Spambush@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1zA3f.17118$R5.1539@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Gerry Doyle" <alacrity@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dik5lb$5nn$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > "Mens sana" <Spambush@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:F8g3f.17073$R5.1396@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >> "Gerry Doyle" <alacrity@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:dihi5n$9l0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >> >> > It's better than doing nothing.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> If we had to dismantle a sizable body of oppressive legislation or
> >> > overcome
> >> >> generations of traditional human rights abuses then maybe I could
> >> >> agree
> >> > with
> >> >> a position of saying to Turkey, 'Look at how we are ending our
abuses,
> >> >> you
> >> >> will only have our support for EU membership if you do the same'.
> >> >>
> >> >> But that's not the case. All we need to do is call in the American
> >> >> ambassador and tell him that we will henceforth abide by our
> >> >> responsibilities under the Hague convention. That US military
> >> >> personnel
> >> > and
> >> >> equipment may only enter our jurisdiction for humanitarian reasons.
> >> >
> >> > So, all this small nation need do is to tell the most powerful nation
> >> > in
> >> > the
> >> > known universe that it can't land here anymore, and all your dreams
> >> > will
> >> > come true. Do you really think it would be that easy?
> >> >
> >> > That's where the difference is, we aren't the ones elbow deep in the
> > blood
> >> > of innocents, if anything we are being intimidated, I don't really
> > believe
> >> > that we have a choice in the matter.
> >> >
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> We are allowing the use of Shannon to a country we know to be engaged
in
> >> horrific crimes against humanity. If we are doing so freely then yes,
we
> > are
> >> up to our elbows in the blood of innocents.
> >
> > What choice do we have, and do you consider that this country is freely
> > engaged in helping the US in their ghastly deeds without any coercion or
> > fear of repercussions?
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> We have the same choice as we had in WWII. Back then we remained neutral*
in
> the face of enormous pressure from Britain which was then a major world
> power. After the German declaration of war on America we also resisted the
> ill considered and churlish pressure from that quarter to join the
anti-axis
> group.

Things have changed in 60 years.

> No member of the government has even hinted that we are only allowing the
> Americans to use Shannon because they are threatening us. We must conclude
> from this silence that our government supports the war crimes and is happy
> for Ireland to play an active role in the depravity.

Could you see a member of the Government getting up and even hinting at it?
It's hardly likely, so hardly conclusive proof.

> Now I'm not unaware of realpolitik. I know that Washington would not be
> averse to underhand, 'deniable' threats of economic sanction but I believe
> that America would be very wary about messing about with an EU member
state
> for fear of retaliation.

Like France, for instance?

The US economy is not strong enough to take much
> punishment at the moment.

Nothing wrong with disinvestment, downsizing and what's that word for moving
your factory to some faraway no-wage hell hole? Nothing illegal, that is.

> >> You're hardly suggesting that Bush has invaded us.
> >
> > Not militarily, no.
> >
> >> I never said it was easy. Opposing tyranny has never been easy, but
doing
> >> the right thing - even when it isn't easy - is surely the essence of
> >> human
> >> dignity.
> >
> > Don't you think that insisting on the Turks bringing their country up to
a
> > certain level of human rights is doing the right thing?
> >
> > If you were catholic, for instance, would you feel that you couldn't do
an
> > act of charity until you had confessed to all your earlier sins?
> >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> There is a moral and legal principle that says in effect, you can't have
it
> both ways - I can't claim that a thing is a crime if you do it but not a
> crime if I do it. It had to be explicitly set aside at Nuremberg because
all
> the crimes the Nazis were charged with were committed by one or all of the
> allies.
>
> This means that we have no moral right to attempt to force Turkey to stop
> doing what we're doing ourselves.

I don't think we are trying to stop Turkey from facilitating the US
military. I wish we were, however hypocritical it may be on the part of the
government. Indeed, I wish that were the only thing we needed to force
Turkey to stop doing.

> Your religious question is flawed. A sinner doing acts of charity is still
a
> sinner and a sinner castigating another for committing his own sin is a
> hypocrite.

It's not the same sin. That's the feckin point. A sinner may still, indeed
should still perform acts of charity, not feel that he cannot.

Also, for Catholics mere confession is not enough, absolution
> requires 'firm purpose of amendment'.

Does it prevent them performing acts of charity in the meantime?

> >> >> He also needs to be made aware that Irish authorities may exercise
> > their
> >> >> rights to stop and search any US ship in Irish waters or any US
> > Aircraft
> >> > on
> >> >> Irish soil, to ensure that international agreements on human rights
> >> >> and
> >> > the
> >> >> conduct of war as well as Irish law concerning the transportation of
> >> > weapons
> >> >> are not being broken.
> >> >>
> >> >> It could be all done in 24 hours.
> >> >
> >> > Indeed, remains to be seen what would happen in the 24 hours after
it.
> >> >
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> >> If you want to think the alternative through - imagine how Irish
> >> >> people
> >> >> would react to Chinese allegations of human rights abuse here.
> >> >
> >> > What's your point? Are you saying in the case that it was true, like
> >> > Turkey?
> >> >
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Well yes, so long as we are actively supporting those who are engaged
in
> > war
> >> crimes. So long as facilitate the movement of unfortunate torture
victims
> > to
> >> hell holes around the world we are as guilty as Turkey (or China or
> > America)
> >> of human rights abuses.
> >
> > No, we aren't. If a man brandishing a gun drags a kidnap victim through
> > your house and threatens dire consequences if you do anything about it,
do
> > you really think that you are then as guilty as he is if you are
powerless
> > to prevent it?
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> As I said earlier, no member of the government has claimed that our grant
of
> Shannon facilities to the Americans is anything other than a free choice.

That could hardly say anything else, considering.

> >> It's not necessary for any us to be physically at the scheme of the
> > murders
> >> or torture, it's enough that we helped the murderers and tortures to
ply
> >> their evil trade.
> >
> > You still havent' shown how that prevents the EU from insisting that
> > Turkey
> > raise itself to a minimum level of human rights before it can be allowed
> > to
> > join.
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> My argument here is concerned entirely with the morality of Irelands
> position vis-à-vis Turkey, not the EU as a whole.

They have to be considered together, why else are we talking about it, why
else was the thread started.

> >> >> >> Then we can stand up at the UN and say that the obscenities must
> > end,
> >> > not
> >> >> >> just in the Middle East but China, Korea, Turkey, Cuba, Indonesia
> > and
> >> >> > every
> >> >> >> other country where they exist.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The two things are not mutually exclusive.
> >> >> >
> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> I believe they are if we are not to hypocrites.
> >> >
> >> > We aren't hypocrites if it isn't of our choosing. All things are
> >> > connected,
> >> > nobody can be truly innocent.
> >> >
> >>
> >> If it isn't of our choosing, if US troops are on our soil against our
> >> will
> >> then that's an act of war. Surely you're not claiming that?
> >
> > It's Hobson's choice.
> >
> > G
> >
>
> *I know that during WWII we did not adhere strictly to the Hague
Convention
> but that's for another thread if you're of a mind to discuss it.

Nah, no contention on the convention, more honoured in the breach.

G

.