A large number of "Mickey Mouse" groups exist most of whom have not even 50 members... These clowns are using the republican struggle as cover for organized crime activities... Believe me man only a very very small % of republicans in the North support their cause... The IRA were the only legitimate republican group with real support in N Ireland... There has been fringe groups such as the INLA for years but these groups only attract the bottom of the barrel extremists that the IRA would not accept or tolerate... The killing of this Catholic cop has done nothing but galvanize support for the N Ireland Peace Agreement...
Then how come no one in the groups I mentioned have ever been arrested for criminal activity. The INLA lost many volunteers for a united socialist ireland, even on hunger strike along side bobby sands. I already stated before that I realize that killing this cop is pointless, but accepting the peace agreement is even worse. The INLA have realized this, they have given up there weapons so that they can instead pursue a political route that does not include selling out to the GFA.
Three arrested after Dublin searches - RT News There have been numerous arrests of late... Even Gerry Adams is calling them out now... 'It's time to stop' - Adams - The Irish Times - Sat, Apr 09, 2011 The INLA have done the right thing here... There is no appetite North or South for war anymore... The way forward now is through the ballot box and not bullets and bombs... Omagh peace rally marks death of PSNI constable - The Irish Times - Sun, Apr 10, 2011 Nobody wants this here now apart from a tiny group of fanatical extremists...
Typical... Please actually read the facts. It was mid 17th century when republicanism can first really be identified, before that it was really fighting between warlords of assorted types. As before Henry 8th (died 1547) England was catholic, so there couldn't have been the same reasons for fighting eh?? Since the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 (the only decent thing Tony Bliar did) Catholic factions e.g. IRA and Protestants like the UDA have decommissioned their weapons and gone into a power sharing regional Government in the 'Province' - they can't raise their own taxes they are funded from London. Of course some fringe Catholic 'terrorist groups' like the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA did not decommission and have kept their weapons and semtex. It's obvious that these fringe groups have very little support because the people there have had enough of the endless cycles of killings - as is happening still in Israel - Palestine. However it would seem that a few insane killers still need to be caught - for the good of everybody.
A corpse is a corpse is a corpse. I find it difficult to take people seriously who support killing for one politically motivated reason ok but for another politically motivated reason it's apparently condemnable. We always knew Dave was a hypocrite, now we just know the extent to which that applies.
I only condone killing when it's vindicated by international law, which all action in Libya is, this was just a random act of violence...
I can't believe this garbage still happens. It's just like the Israeli Palestinian conflict, except with Catholics and Protestants instead... and it's been going on since Martin Luther wrote the 95 theses.
I think killing is justified when it's backed up by a UNSCR. And the UN isn't quite 'politicians' is it? More diplomats. And I think the unanimous decision on the part of the 15 largest nations on earth carries more weight than an opinion of yours. That's fair, isn't it?
The UN isn't quite "politicians"? That's pretty much ALL it is. unanimous decisio on the part of the politicians are the largest 15 nations on earth. Put it to a public vote and see how many people support it. A UNSCR? Really? It's good when you have other people to think for you isn't it
Who's to say the majority is always correct? I'd much rather have people who are far better qualified than you make the important decisions than the general consensus of a public which simply isn't educated enough to provide a decent solution. What would you prefer, classical greek democracy where every single person gets to have their say? Wouldnt work. Benevolent leadership by elected representatives is the only feasible political solution...
The majority isn't always correct, but they are the majority. Pretty much how democracy's supposed to work. I'm going to answer in the form of a question to make sure i'm not strawmanning, but are you saying politicians are smarter than the general public, and therefore have the right to lead us into war (basically decide who lives and who dies)? It's not really benevolent when they start bombing the shit of people though is it?
Yes, that's the whole point of proportional representation isn't it? We chose leaders who we think are wiser than the general public to rule on behalf of us. Therefore they do have the right to lead us as a nation into war. If you didn't want Clegg/Cameron making the decisions then you should have made more of an effect in stopping them being elected... And by benevolent I mean leaders detached from the wants and desires of the general public and able to make objective decisions, not based on the petty trends and wants of the public. I bet if we hadn't gone into Libya and Ghaddafi had slaughtered tens of thousands in Benghazi people would have been crying out and attacking government for not intervening, whereas if we go in, people are inherently going to moan. Our leaders shouldn't be slaves to public opinion and majority desires, and should make decisions they think are correct. And the decision to go into Libya was a correct one. And haven't you heard of the theory of Tyranny of the Majority, J.S.Mill, Aristotle and Plato, look it up.
We vote for the least worst option because pragmatically it's the best thing we're able to do. It's ok saying "make more of an effort to stop them being elected" but as one man there's not much I can do short of picking up a rifle (which is a bit extreme). Our leadeers shouldn't be anything except slaves to public opinion, they're nothing more than civil servants really, their positions only exist to serve us, not to rule us. The whole "I'll drag you kicking and screaming and in the end you'l thank me for it" mentality is beyond fucked. Have you ever heard of a dictatorship? Look it up. I'd rather the people had the power. The minority will always be slaves to the majority. It's shit but it's democratically fair. Edit* - Wasn't mill a utilitarian? How is that not majority favoured?
What I was talking about was hardly a dictatorship was it...? As long as the public have the option of removing their consent from government I don't see your point. A 'dictatorship' is when someone/group rules with absolute power, and there is no way for the people to remove their consent from this form of government. And the point about proportional representation is that it protects minorities, something which is probably the most integral liberal principle (which should apply to everything as we do live in a society which has liberal principles embedded at its core). It should never be the case that the minority should be slaves to the majority, that's essentially what Nazi Germany was at the start... I can't believe you'd suggest that, you're saying that if the public got riled up by The Sun or one of those crap tabloid papers and started becoming violently racist, then government should blindly follow their opinion and start exterminating racial minorities in the UK (bit of an extreme example, I know) And surely their positions do exist to rule us (the office of Prime Minister came about because of the shift of sovereignty from Monarchy to Parliament). Again, we elect them, giving them our consent to rule our country and make our decisions, because the majority of people see them as being the best option to lead. And what do you suggest if all our possible leaders aren't good enough. It irritates me when people moan about our political system and options for leaders when they can't think of any solutions. Do something about it. I know you say that 'you're only one man' but if you really made the effort i'm sure you could make your voice heard. Or if you're under 30, work hard, get a PPE degree from Oxford and then go into politics and genuinely try and make a difference. All it really takes is a bit of hardwork...
Yeah we can vote again in 5 years time. Well, 4 now. Even the tories can't have a vote of no confidence to remove Dave because they don't have a majority in the house. Lol, Nazis? PRs a good idea (because it'll just lead toso much arguing that nothing'll ever get done and we'll be largely left alone) but it's not going to happen in this term because the Tories don't want it, it's not really in their favour. I'm sure you've seen those stupid "I need a bulletproof vest/child care, not an alternative voting system" posters they've been plastering everywhere. You want a solution? A republic which has rotated local representatives every year. Like the house of commons, just without the prime minister. No single leader with a stupid amount of power. I don't think any of the politicians can rule this coountry. The only one who seems remotely competent enough to do his job is Vince Cable. All it takes is the ability to spin the shit out of any situation to your advantage, the ability to lie effectivley and a lot of corporate connections. We elect them to carry out our will, which is why they have to make false promises in election campaigns (see: Nick Clegg) to try and pander to our interest. They just fuck it off and go back on it when they've got the power. On a side note does anyone like Nick Clegg at the minute?
But surely what you suggest, IE a state of affairs where every individual is essentially left alone from government because of a lack of concerted and effective power within government, would just result in chaos and stagnation. Nothing would ever change and slowly society would break down, because of a lack of change and moving forward. I can't believe you'd condone a political system in which literally nothing would be achieved, just so you had a few more personal freedoms...I don't think you quite understand that, without an individual with at least a greater degree of power than others in government, literally nothing would ever change or happen and there would be a total political stalemate and stagnation (which always has a bad end result). Again look at Germany, Weimar National Assembly, essentially there was too little concentrated power, no one could do anything, and that opened the door to extremism... I think you're right about the pre-requisites to get into power though, all politicians are totally wankers, liers and backstabbers who only want power. But that isn't to say that they aren't intelligent enough to make the important decisions once they get there, and them being wankers on a personal level shouldn't have a bearing on them politically. They're all Oxford/Cambridge educated, and I don't think anyone can genuinely think they're too stupid to rule the country. I just think that it's better to have a few people, more intelligent than the layman, rule over the mass of people who (for the most part) are pretty simple. And why did my Nazi example warrant a 'lol'. Nazi Germany was essentially the vast majority of the German people being led into believing that the Jews had been stealing the wealth of Germany, making them think the 'final solution' was desirable...Essentially tyranny of the majority no? Which is what you'd condone... And yeah, Clegg must be pretty much universally hated. He's so slimy... EDIT:also, we're getting pretty off topic, sorry for kinda derailing the thread.
I wouldn't call it chaos. Government intervation on a large scale results in corporatism, monopolies stagnate innovation. When there's no competition there's no point in ingenuity, the computer chip market is the best example of this. Society momes forward on it's own, the government is usually a few steps behind it (e.g. gay marriage). I value freedom highly "anyone who would willingly exchange liberty for security deserves neither". They CAN make important decisions but they're all financially motivated. they're not stupid per se but they're far too self-interested to act in accordance with the will of the people. The nazi comment deserved a lol because it supports godwin's law.
We live in a capitalist society, which is essentially a meritocracy. There is competition, how can you say there isn't? That's one of the cornerstones of this modern Liberal society in which we live. The power of the individual and the individuals ability to better himself through personal success and achievement, surely that promotes innovation? And what monopolies? We can thank Maggie for stopping everything you were talking about when she started privatizing British industry to make it more competitive, because it had been stagnating before. And it's true that society evolves, but so does government, and the systems which we have in place at the moment have evolved alongside society and are the best fit for the level we're at socially. And still, just because I mention Nazis you 'lol'? It was still correct though...