Ganley and the mad mullahs

cookiemonster wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

I don't think you are up to date on the Ukraine situation Cookie. The EU is not going to take a member that is half occupied by Russia.

The Ukraine is half occupied by Russia? Do they know?

Quote :

Also your Bush quote in no way shows that Bush disagrees with Bolton on the Nato issue re Lisbon vote.

Bush supports a country's membership of NATO, a country that is likely to become a member of the European Union in the future. Seems an odd thing to do for a country that is supposedly opposed to a stronger EU which could threathen interests. There is nothing to show that what Bolton says people will think is actually true or indeed nothing which shows Bush agrees with it. But his actions re the Ukraine suggest otherwise.

Quote :

Your other argument is completely disingenuous. The worry that Bolton expresses is that the EU Nato members would be more interested in a new approach to European defence should closer union occur.

Any statements from the EU NATO members that this might be the case?

The point is, cookiemonster, that Lisbon brings the EU closer to having a military capacity independent of NATO. NATO is essentially a US run body.

cookiemonster wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

I don't understand. So there are elements on the hawkish Right of US politics who oppose European integration, what difference? I oppose it too, am I supposed to change my view now because there are unpleasant types who agree for their own reasons?...

I'm in the same boat myself Toxic Avenger. I was just replying to the suggestion by expatgirl that the US is not hostile to an ever closer and militarised EU.

And you're a bit off with your reply so. The Heritage Institute lady is not "the us" nor is "USAID" despite the latter being funded by it. As for the "ever closer" EU, I'm not sure why that would bother then and we're told that the militarisation of the EU is something no voters made up to scare themselves and everybody else.

The CNN guy sounded like Ganley bleeting elites even second sentence

That "CNN guy" is Lou Dobbs, a well respected member of the US media community, a highly qualified Economist, commentator in Economics and Finance, former CNN executive vice president and is currently managing editor of the show the clip you just watched was taken from.

He's also a darling of the left for his views on trade and in particular outsourcing, he isn't very much likes by an awful lot of American Conservatives and has won a Peabody Award for excellence in radio and television broadcasting.

yes cookie I know

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

I don't think you are up to date on the Ukraine situation Cookie. The EU is not going to take a member that is half occupied by Russia.

The Ukraine is half occupied by Russia? Do they know?

Quote :

Also your Bush quote in no way shows that Bush disagrees with Bolton on the Nato issue re Lisbon vote.

Bush supports a country's membership of NATO, a country that is likely to become a member of the European Union in the future. Seems an odd thing to do for a country that is supposedly opposed to a stronger EU which could threathen interests. There is nothing to show that what Bolton says people will think is actually true or indeed nothing which shows Bush agrees with it. But his actions re the Ukraine suggest otherwise.

Quote :

Your other argument is completely disingenuous. The worry that Bolton expresses is that the EU Nato members would be more interested in a new approach to European defence should closer union occur.

Any statements from the EU NATO members that this might be the case?

The point is, cookiemonster, that Lisbon brings the EU closer to having a military capacity independent of NATO. NATO is essentially a US run body.

Yes, but the central tenet of NATO is mutual defence and while there has always been tensions between the American nations and the European nations it is not in the interests of either side of the Atlantic to allow this association to break down nor does it look likely that it will given the last expansion in 2004 which was made up of new EU member states, also the TCE was signed in the same year.
While the traditional threat to NATO countries was posed by Soviet Union during the Cold War the same threat still remains somewhat in the form of Russia, but now also expands to the possibility of hostilities with China. Either way, should one nation in the EU be attacked or should the US be attacked the NATO alliance is very much still important, we saw this after the September 11th attacks. It would not be in the EU's interest to ignore attacks on the US or likewise the US to ignore attacks on the EU. Any EU member calling for the disolution of NATO because of whater military capacity independent of NATO that the EU may have were Lisbon enacted is mad and as far as I am aware nobody has ever made that call.

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

I don't think you are up to date on the Ukraine situation Cookie. The EU is not going to take a member that is half occupied by Russia.

The Ukraine is half occupied by Russia? Do they know?

Quote :

Also your Bush quote in no way shows that Bush disagrees with Bolton on the Nato issue re Lisbon vote.

Bush supports a country's membership of NATO, a country that is likely to become a member of the European Union in the future. Seems an odd thing to do for a country that is supposedly opposed to a stronger EU which could threathen interests. There is nothing to show that what Bolton says people will think is actually true or indeed nothing which shows Bush agrees with it. But his actions re the Ukraine suggest otherwise.

Quote :

Your other argument is completely disingenuous. The worry that Bolton expresses is that the EU Nato members would be more interested in a new approach to European defence should closer union occur.

Any statements from the EU NATO members that this might be the case?

The point is, cookiemonster, that Lisbon brings the EU closer to having a military capacity independent of NATO. NATO is essentially a US run body.

Yes, but the central tenet of NATO is mutual defence and while there has always been tensions between the American nations and the European nations it is not in the interests of either side of the Atlantic to allow this association to break down nor does it look likely that it will given the last expansion in 2004 which was made up of new EU member states, also the TCE was signed in the same year.
While the traditional threat to NATO countries was posed by Soviet Union during the Cold War the same threat still remains somewhat in the form of Russia, but now also expands to the possibility of hostilities with China. Either way, should one nation in the EU be attacked or should the US be attacked the NATO alliance is very much still important, we saw this after the September 11th attacks.It would not be in the EU's interest to ignore attacks on the US or likewise the US to ignore attacks on the EU. Any EU member calling for the disolution of NATO because of whater military capacity independent of NATO that the EU may have were Lisbon enacted is mad and as far as I am aware nobody has ever made that call.

That doesn't seem to stop the former US Ambassador Bolton from worrying about it, does it? Its my view that US attitudes to the EU are not homogenous or fixed, but essentially it is US interests they are in NATO for, not for any cosy relationship with europeans. They were well ready to fight a nuclear war over the heads of the Germans for years and are now spreading their wings in a Balkanised eastern europe. There is evidently at least more than one grouping in the US very hostile to a strengthened EU.

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

I don't think you are up to date on the Ukraine situation Cookie. The EU is not going to take a member that is half occupied by Russia.

The Ukraine is half occupied by Russia? Do they know?

Quote :

Also your Bush quote in no way shows that Bush disagrees with Bolton on the Nato issue re Lisbon vote.

Bush supports a country's membership of NATO, a country that is likely to become a member of the European Union in the future. Seems an odd thing to do for a country that is supposedly opposed to a stronger EU which could threathen interests. There is nothing to show that what Bolton says people will think is actually true or indeed nothing which shows Bush agrees with it. But his actions re the Ukraine suggest otherwise.

Quote :

Your other argument is completely disingenuous. The worry that Bolton expresses is that the EU Nato members would be more interested in a new approach to European defence should closer union occur.

Any statements from the EU NATO members that this might be the case?

The point is, cookiemonster, that Lisbon brings the EU closer to having a military capacity independent of NATO. NATO is essentially a US run body.

Yes, but the central tenet of NATO is mutual defence and while there has always been tensions between the American nations and the European nations it is not in the interests of either side of the Atlantic to allow this association to break down nor does it look likely that it will given the last expansion in 2004 which was made up of new EU member states, also the TCE was signed in the same year.
While the traditional threat to NATO countries was posed by Soviet Union during the Cold War the same threat still remains somewhat in the form of Russia, but now also expands to the possibility of hostilities with China. Either way, should one nation in the EU be attacked or should the US be attacked the NATO alliance is very much still important, we saw this after the September 11th attacks.It would not be in the EU's interest to ignore attacks on the US or likewise the US to ignore attacks on the EU. Any EU member calling for the disolution of NATO because of whater military capacity independent of NATO that the EU may have were Lisbon enacted is mad and as far as I am aware nobody has ever made that call.

That doesn't seem to stop the former US Ambassador Bolton from worrying about it, does it?

I worry about a lot of things which are possible but not likely, I guess it's the insurance bachground.

Quote :

Its my view that US attitudes to the EU are not homogenous or fixed, but essentially it is US interests they are in NATO for, not for any cosy relationship with europeans.

A cosy relationship with the Europeans is in the interest of the US, so is a mutual defence pact with European Nations, likewise a mutual defence pact with the US and Canada is in the interest of those European nations. It's a treaty based on agreement of all parties that membership is mutually benificial, such an agreement naturally involves one's own self interest.

Quote :

They were well ready to fight a nuclear war over the heads of the Germans for years and are now spreading their wings in a Balkanised eastern europe. There is evidently at least more than one grouping in the US very hostile to a strengthened EU.

No doubt there is. But there are those who are not opposed and more who don't care one way or the other. Besides that, I have no idea what John Bolton and NATO have to do with Declan Ganley.

Quote :

Mr Ganley has been in Poland since Friday for talks with small far-right parties ahead of European parliament elections in 2010

rte web site today report on Ganley setting up a Polish wing. Note "far right"

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

I don't think you are up to date on the Ukraine situation Cookie. The EU is not going to take a member that is half occupied by Russia.

The Ukraine is half occupied by Russia? Do they know?

Quote :

Also your Bush quote in no way shows that Bush disagrees with Bolton on the Nato issue re Lisbon vote.

Bush supports a country's membership of NATO, a country that is likely to become a member of the European Union in the future. Seems an odd thing to do for a country that is supposedly opposed to a stronger EU which could threathen interests. There is nothing to show that what Bolton says people will think is actually true or indeed nothing which shows Bush agrees with it. But his actions re the Ukraine suggest otherwise.

Quote :

Your other argument is completely disingenuous. The worry that Bolton expresses is that the EU Nato members would be more interested in a new approach to European defence should closer union occur.

Any statements from the EU NATO members that this might be the case?

The point is, cookiemonster, that Lisbon brings the EU closer to having a military capacity independent of NATO. NATO is essentially a US run body.

Yes, but the central tenet of NATO is mutual defence and while there has always been tensions between the American nations and the European nations it is not in the interests of either side of the Atlantic to allow this association to break down nor does it look likely that it will given the last expansion in 2004 which was made up of new EU member states, also the TCE was signed in the same year.
While the traditional threat to NATO countries was posed by Soviet Union during the Cold War the same threat still remains somewhat in the form of Russia, but now also expands to the possibility of hostilities with China. Either way, should one nation in the EU be attacked or should the US be attacked the NATO alliance is very much still important, we saw this after the September 11th attacks.It would not be in the EU's interest to ignore attacks on the US or likewise the US to ignore attacks on the EU. Any EU member calling for the disolution of NATO because of whater military capacity independent of NATO that the EU may have were Lisbon enacted is mad and as far as I am aware nobody has ever made that call.

That doesn't seem to stop the former US Ambassador Bolton from worrying about it, does it? Its my view that US attitudes to the EU are not homogenous or fixed, but essentially it is US interests they are in NATO for, not for any cosy relationship with europeans. They were well ready to fight a nuclear war over the heads of the Germans for years and are now spreading their wings in a Balkanised eastern europe. There is evidently at least more than one grouping in the US very hostile to a strengthened EU.

Bolton came to Ireland to spread the America would not be happy line just before the Lisbon vote. It was seen as No electioneering

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Quote :

Mr Ganley has been in Poland since Friday for talks with small far-right parties ahead of European parliament elections in 2010

rte web site today report on Ganley setting up a Polish wing. Note "far right"

Far right in Poland makes Ghenghis Khan look like Snow White.

cactus flower wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Quote :

Mr Ganley has been in Poland since Friday for talks with small far-right parties ahead of European parliament elections in 2010

rte web site today report on Ganley setting up a Polish wing. Note "far right"

Far right in Poland makes Ghenghis Khan look like Snow White.

RTE, hardly the bastion of objective reporting when it comes to Declan Ganley. Did they name any of the parties? Can you name any of the parties?

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Quote :

Mr Ganley has been in Poland since Friday for talks with small far-right parties ahead of European parliament elections in 2010

rte web site today report on Ganley setting up a Polish wing. Note "far right"

Far right in Poland makes Ghenghis Khan look like Snow White.

RTE, hardly the bastion of objective reporting when it comes to Declan Ganley. Did they name any of the parties? Can you name any of the parties?

I have to say it was a scanty report. If it had been posted here, we would have eaten it alive. Generally, Ganley is aligning himself with the traditional Catholic/anti-Islamic right wing, rather than bovver booted middle aged skin heads. I expect we will find out who the groups are in the morning. In most democratic political parties btw, the membership would decide which other parties they were going to be affiliated with.

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Bolton came to Ireland to spread the America would not be happy line just before the Lisbon vote. It was seen as No electioneering

Bolton was invited to Ireland to give a speech on transatlantic relations at the Clinton Institute for American Studies at UCD. Are UCD in on it too?

cookiemonster wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Bolton came to Ireland to spread the America would not be happy line just before the Lisbon vote. It was seen as No electioneering

Bolton was invited to Ireland to give a speech on transatlantic relations at the Clinton Institute for American Studies at UCD. Are UCD in on it too?

Yes, and the platform he stood on, and the boots he wore.

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Quote :

Mr Ganley has been in Poland since Friday for talks with small far-right parties ahead of European parliament elections in 2010

rte web site today report on Ganley setting up a Polish wing. Note "far right"

Far right in Poland makes Ghenghis Khan look like Snow White.

RTE, hardly the bastion of objective reporting when it comes to Declan Ganley. Did they name any of the parties? Can you name any of the parties?

I have to say it was a scanty report. If it had been posted here, we would have eaten it alive. Generally, Ganley is aligning himself with the traditional Catholic/anti-Islamic right wing, rather than bovver booted middle aged skin heads. I expect we will find out who the groups are in the morning. In most democratic political parties btw, the membership would decide which other parties they were going to be affiliated.

He's not forcing anybody to be involved you know. Nobody is requires to stay in if they are uncomfortable with other candidates.
Nor will he force anybody to vote for Libertas candidates when they stand for election.

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Bolton came to Ireland to spread the America would not be happy line just before the Lisbon vote. It was seen as No electioneering

Bolton was invited to Ireland to give a speech on transatlantic relations at the Clinton Institute for American Studies at UCD. Are UCD in on it too?

Yes, and the platform he stood on, and the boots he wore.

No need to be glib, my point is that he didn't come here "electioneering" for a no vote as Frightened Albanian suggests. He came here because he was invited to give a speech. The comments which are being quoted here were not part of that speech but comments which were made to a Daily Telegraph reporter before his speech and reported in the paper on June 9th.

cactus flower wrote:

If it had been posted here, we would have eaten it alive.

Really, why so?

cookiemonster wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Bolton came to Ireland to spread the America would not be happy line just before the Lisbon vote. It was seen as No electioneering

Bolton was invited to Ireland to give a speech on transatlantic relations at the Clinton Institute for American Studies at UCD. Are UCD in on it too?

You asked what Ganley and Bolton had to do with each other it is that they boith supported the NO campaign.

the Polish far right, Ganley is scraping the bottom of the barrel again. he can only get support at the right wing fringe they no doubt happy with his profile and the potential cash injection.

Guess they havn't seen the accounts of Ganley Int

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

If it had been posted here, we would have eaten it alive.

Really, why so?

It was just not up to your standard, cookiemonster.

Frightened Albanian wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Bolton came to Ireland to spread the America would not be happy line just before the Lisbon vote. It was seen as No electioneering

Bolton was invited to Ireland to give a speech on transatlantic relations at the Clinton Institute for American Studies at UCD. Are UCD in on it too?

You asked what Ganley and Bolton had to do with each other it is that they boith supported the NO campaign.

the Polish far right, Ganley is scraping the bottom of the barrel again. he can only get support at the right wing fringe they no doubt happy with his profile and the potential cash injection.

Guess they havn't seen the accounts of Ganley Int

I would think myself that he is perfectly genuine about his politics. The de Villiers thing is written up by the French as an affaire de coeur.

Frightened Albanian wrote:

You asked what Ganley and Bolton had to do with each other it is that they boith supported the NO campaign.

So? Lots of people did, the majority of those in Ireland who voted on it.

Quote :

the Polish far right, Ganley is scraping the bottom of the barrel again.

It's probably RTE who is scraping the bottom of the barrel, it's sure to be almost worn through at this stage.

Quote :

he can only get support at the right wing fringe they no doubt happy with his profile and the potential cash injection

There is no potential cash injection. Do you know anything about the funding rules for MEPs? It's generally after the election that they start taking the piss regarding finance. Something I can assure you neither Declan Ganley and Libertas will stand for should it return any MEPs.

Quote :

Guess they havn't seen the accounts of Ganley Int

Nor, it seems, have you.

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

If it had been posted here, we would have eaten it alive.

Really, why so?

It was just not up to your standard, cookiemonster.

I am a "we" now? I assumed that the use of "we" offered the idea of some sort of collective action.

Have you not seen the posts I made here? that is the real deal cookie.

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Have you not seen the posts I made here? that is the real deal cookie.

I have, obviously, as I replied to them asking you to provide the figures. But you have so far failed to do so leading me to believe that you do not actually have them are are simply relying on media reports to piece together your posts.

cookiemonster wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Have you not seen the posts I made here? that is the real deal cookie.

I have, obviously, as I replied to them asking you to provide the figures. But you have so far failed to do so leading me to believe that you do not actually have them are are simply relying on media reports to piece together your posts.

I already gave the figures for 95-98 during the Anglo adriatic Kipelovo period

Frightened Albanian wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Have you not seen the posts I made here? that is the real deal cookie.

I have, obviously, as I replied to them asking you to provide the figures. But you have so far failed to do so leading me to believe that you do not actually have them are are simply relying on media reports to piece together your posts.

I already gave the figures for 95-98 during the Anglo adriatic Kipelovo period

You have given me some figures, but not the detailed accounts which you say you have.