Julius Geezer

Are the Greens your party of preference? They have always seemed the most progressive of the Irish parties. As for dialogue with the Dalai clique (as the Chinese would say), why should dialogue be had with him? Do you think its appropriate that religious leaders hold such sway in politics. Would you want the Pope representing nationalists North of the border. Anywy, the talks are happening and are achieving nothing. A quite worthwhile excercise I would say.

Hi Abdul,

I voted for the Greens in the last general election but will not repeat the error. Like Labour they have some very progressive and good people but the leadership have sold out completely. Very sad to see.

As for the Tibetan issue, which is the subject of another post, my feelings are as follows:

why should dialogue be had with him?

Because he represents the Tibetan people. He has stripped himself of all political power, which is now vested in the Tibetan Government in Exile which is elected by Tibetan exiles (those living in Tibet don't get the 'luxury' of voting). They have asked him to speak on their behalf.

Do you think its appropriate that religious leaders hold such sway in politics. Would you want the Pope representing nationalists North of the border

I'm of the same mind as yourself on this. I believe strongly in the division of church and state. I consider the Iranian regime an obsenity, for example, and the idea of the Pope having political power is frightening to say the least.

Tibet under the Dalai Lamas was an aristocratic, unequal, and unfair society. However this Dalai Lama was a reforming one who wished to overhaul many of the old ways and empower the Tibetan people. Sadly, he did not get the opportunity.

Bhutan held their first elections only a couple of months ago. Tibet would have evolved in its own way if given the chance to.

As for the recent talks, of course they will come to nothing. The Chinese are just using it as a way of neutralising international opposition. They're already succeeding.

I've heard it said that Irish Labour is the most reactionary of all the parties. Hard to believe with the PDs around.

Tibet: Good response, especially the part about feudal Tibet NOT being some sort of Buddhist Shangri-La. Is the government in exile elected? The Dalai Lama, according to their website, does infact seem to be the leader of this government, so is that not contrary to the tenets of laicité? If you say that he is the rightful leader because that is the will of the people, then do not the people of Iran support their Mullahs?

Yes the Irish Labour party is a strange animal. The most reactionary? I'm not sure, but it ceased to be a radical force in politics a long time ago.

...feudal Tibet NOT being some sort of Buddhist Shangri-La

Yes. Of course it wasn't. Although Buddhism is quite different from a hierarchical/institutional religion like Catholicism. It is more about a particular philosophy (a person journey) than deference to some knob like the Pope. Tibetan Buddhism is quite unique in this respect insomuch as the Dalai Lama is considered something of a God, which needless to say I think is wrong.

The Dalai Lama, according to their website, does infact seem to be the leader of this government

Yes but his role is ceremonial (not unlike the President of Ireland) and he has no real political power, he gave that up voluntarily.

I agree it runs contrary to laicité. How popular is laicité in Tibet though? We don't know. Tibetans should decide their own path, that's what I'm in favor of.

If you say that he is the rightful leader because that is the will of the people, then do not the people of Iran support their Mullahs?

I can't say I'm 100% sure that a majority of Tibetans would choose the Dalai Lama as their leader (although I believe they would). The ones in exile vote, the rest do not, so it's hard to know.

The particular system in Iran was not chosen by the people but imposed upon them. They do not vote for the Mullahs. It's the same principle as Tibet, if most Iranians want to live under such a regime then that's entirely up to them, however I suspect given the prevalence of "illegal" beer, underground parties etc., that many would prefer to enjoy life and give the finger to the theocrats. But that's just my opinion. It's unknowable because they haven't been asked.

The Iranian regime was most certainly not imposed on them. I am no expert on the historical intracacies of greater Iran but I am quite sure that by all accounts this was a popular revolution. It was indeed hijacked by certain sectors of the ruling religious elite, but this was hardly some sort of dictatorial coup d'état que les américains et les iraniens en exile préfèreraient nous croire.

As for the differences between Buddhism and other religions, what about the tendency to accept all misfortune as further evidence of the fleeting nature of existence and the illusion of happiness (as it is seen). Buddhist leaders were just as keen to use such defeatist justifications for their rule, to keep the people in crushing poverty and generally oppress them in the same manner that Islam and Christianity have been used to oppress other populations.

...but this was hardly some sort of dictatorial coup d'état que les américains et les iraniens en exile préfèreraient nous croire

Ah, there's nothing surer in the world. Criticise the Iranian theocracy and you'll be called an imperialist before long! This is not the first time. J'dis pas que c'est le cas, mon camarade.

This is not football, you don't have to shout for either Iran or the Wicked West. I'm on the side of democracy and the people choosing their own way.

Buddhist leaders were just as keen to use such defeatist justifications for their rule...

I share your reservations about religion. Interesting that you jumped to defend the Iranian regime though. What's your own view on them?

JG you may be for Democracy which is certainly laudable, but as a person your an ass.

What inspired you to come to my blog and comment on a video saluting American Soldiers that have died serving their country. Calling them pawns?

On a weekend that in this country is a holiday celebrating their sacrafice.

I don't claim that you aren't entitled to your opinion you certainly are.

I just am amazed that someone would go out of their way to express such an opinion on a blog that they don't interact on.

you are Sadly Pathetic

To answer your question, I read some of your drivel on ATW and then clicked on the link to your blog. I don't consider commenting on a blog as 'going out of my way.'

Also, blogs are public forums so if you can't handle dissenting comments then enable comment moderation and keep singing to the choir.

I am anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism and therefore abhor your country's crimes in Iraq and elsewhere and support violent resistance against them. Although the real criminals are a small group at the top (and yes the troops are undoubtedly pawns) once your 'boys' put on that uniform and invade sovereign states, delivering nothing but misery to the people, they become targets and rightly so.

No doubt your opinion that I'm an ass and "Sadly Pathetic" will be reinforced by the above but no harm... coming from yourself I consider it a ringing endorsement.

A pity that the troll doesn't have a fascist to ban you for daring to take in the thicko half-wit Julias. Sure you could ban yourself..........................but that would be stupid. Then again you might have reached the level of intellectual capacity that this arse could aspire to.