Response to Apparently, the Irish media caused 9/11

The Henry McDonald piece in The Observer (9 May) is, so far, the only mention anywhere of G.T. Dempsey's book, so any question that "the Irish media caused 9/11" has to come from McDonald's article. From the comments here I doubt that any of you have read the piece, and I know that not one of you have read Dempsey's book. Seeing as though this isn't just an "anti-war" website, but also an "Irish anti-war" site I'm hardly surprised by the pseudo-critical hysteria generated by my post. Reading my previous post it's hard to see why it should have generated the usual laundry list of "wrongs" (real and fake) plus the requisite cant, unless that's all your vaunted college degrees have readied you for? Here's one silly example: that "every Empire that has ruled the world has self-destructed.The US will too and maybe it is happening slowly as we speak." The US happens to be the oldest democracy on earth and is still going strong. Wanting it to collapse is one thing but reason must prevail at some point; built-in to the fabric, the ethos, of the American procedural model is a dynamism the likes of which the word has never known. So not only am not saying that the US isn't in danger but that the practical, experimental nature of our system makes that sense of precariousness systematic. That's why we're so vital and why we'll last and last no matter what ethnic group forms the majority of the population. (You might as well ignore what I'm saying if you haven't lived here since you won't have a clue what I'm talking about). The same writer above cited employment statistics, and then, ignoring Mary Harney's routine warnings - yes, we read it all over here - boasts of the successes of the valuable Irish college degree. That's funny, because in the hard-working US the reputation of Irish workers is that they're cheap (thanks to Harney et al) but under-motivated (thanks to Guinness et al). And despite the amount of capital American corporations have invested there, my township, a suburb of a large city, is only a little smaller than the entire population of the Republic of Ireland. Pity the fools who think they're so important in the scheme of things! I don't question that the 'Old Europe' quote has been "rubbished" in Ireland. My point was that it's alive and well here, having become a part of American mythology at this point. My point was this: "wake up!" Citing Albania as the poorest example of the "New Europe" wasn't very smart. The Albanians are mad as hops by Old Europe's refusal to protect the region's Muslims all through the 90's. And how about those new revelations of mass graves at Srebrenica? That's on the heads of you do-gooders who opposed NATO's doing what Europeans should have in Yugoslavia and Kosovo and then stood by as "peacekeepers" when all of the Bosnian slaughters took place. Have fun with your future Muslim populations suckers! Oh, and why don't you try France's model of integration? (Do any of you know how many Muslims in the US have been murdered in retaliation since Sept.11'01? No, I didn't think you did. America enjoys the kind of integration and tolerance that Europeans only pretend at.) I was living in Ireland when Nice #1 was rejected and my roomates were Polish, and furious. And that's where your jobs are going to go because a few powerful cynics in Ireland didn't think that loyalty counted. And do you know the first thing the Irish will do then? They'll complain that there's "no loyalty" (it's already happening.) But the Michael Harris' post was priceless: "The world body saw no such threat from Iraq and therefore saw its invasion as the most scary act imaginable." Here's an American take: the world body passed resolution after resolution because it saw Iraq as scary and not living up to the terms of surrender. One of the terms was to divulge the whereabouts of WMD that were known to be in its possession back when Larry Goodman was feeding Irish beef to Saddam's troops and Saddam's other pal Albert Reynolds was eyeing Iraqi oilfields in the new, terror-imposed "stability". But as with Reynolds' other cronies, the Russians and French were bought off to obstruct UN Resolution 1441, even after Colin Powell was given assurances by Villepin that they were "on board". What you folks don't understand (because you read only your own newspapers) is that these revelations may lead to the downfall of your precious UN. Do you have any clue over there how many Americans desire that?! Cant-mongers take notice: I AM NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT BUT CHARACTERIZING A NATIONAL MOOD. Canadian PM Martin is floating the idea of an alternative to the UN, and Americans (and Canadians and Brazilians and Indians, et al...) are responding very favorably. When the UN is dead and gone and with O'Leary in the grave then please do write back and tell us how the Old Europe is doing? I predict that we'll have found other, friendlier vacation spots by then. The point of my first post was that the more sanctimonious of the Irish should either drop their provincial and archaic arguments or really stand for what they believe and give Bush hell when he comes to town. My subtext was the question of whether that would be far too honest for the lot of you? Why not be expansive for once and read what the Iraqis themselves are saying:

Created By: timothy sweete