I don't get it - if you want to debate this in a human rights context with Jason, do it with him, don't use me as a proxy.

I didn't say it wasn't an issue. Please cite where I did.

N.I. isn't the issue, or wasn't until you raised it in such an incorrect context. To restate; you brought up N.I. as a possible Quid Pro Quo in terms of a US repeal of Capital punishment. Presumably because you believe the N.I. is primarily a Human Rights issue? That's fine, you're entitled to that view, what you're not entitled to is to have it go unchallenged. Again, I'm not 'debating' what Jason wrote, I'm debating what you wrote:

I'm sure it's occurred to you that Gerry Adams may also have an agenda? That he may say whatever he thinks his current audience wishes to hear. Again, with respect, I'd suggest you acquaint yourself more fully with the entire history before citing pop culture references as evidence of such understanding. US interest in N.I. is fine, but its understanding too often appears a mile wide and an inch deep.

Yes, really. It's somewhat in the nature of imperialism.

Not at all, but then of course it wasn't the only one.

Well, for the record Iraq wasn't mentioned by all non Americans. Your failure to find the thread about the cyclone is your problem, not mine so please stop trying to make it so, it's tiresome.

Britain dropped a great many balls, Phe. Burma was just one of them. Regardless, your attempt to assign retrospective blame 60 years after the event is, IMO misguided.

It wasn't meant to be read as such as I'm sure you well knew, using it in such an out of context manner is disingenuous.

Who mentioned numbers? Other than you.

It should be quite obvious I was making an analogy about former colonial powers bearing responsibility for former colonies' inability to deal adequately and promptly with natural disasters. That was your accusation, yes. I'm not sure what the reference to guns is?

I agree it's a poor comparison, one made to illustrate my belief in the fundamental weakness of your argument. Too subtle?

Which facts? You need to be rather more precise here. Interesting allusion the Neville, though.

Well, actually Puerto Rico was the subject of a US invasion. Read up on Guánica and the Treaty of Paris in which it was ceded to the US as a conquered colony. Sure, others did most of the wet work, the US merely reaped the reward. An interesting nugget to omit from an essentially moralistic argument, don't you think?

Besides, allegiance and responsibility are different concepts. Curious you bring up Puerto Rico, a territory whose citizens may be called upon to die in the service of a nation in which they have virtually no voice, a President for whom they cannot vote and have limited constitutional protection. I'd suggest you pick a better analogy next time. But, since you did:

Then let the US give Puerto Rico such a vote. There's nothing to lose, right?

I wasn't there of course, but it occurs to me that strategic military priorities may have been a factor? If you want to second guess events of almost 70 years ago feel free but IMO it's an exercise in futility. Especially so if one expects it will have any real impact on contemporary regional politics.

For someone who stated they were trying to stay on topic, introducing religious oppression in the UK is something of a curve ball. Not to mention somewhat ill informed. No matter, I'll add it to the list. I didn't tell you what to read, merely that you should do so. Based on the latest gem, now more than ever.

I've read the thread, so what if discussion turned to Iraq? I'm discussing the issues you raised. The reference to Iraq as a colony was of course fatuous, your using it in this context equally so.

Sticks and stones.

Perhaps if you had searched for cyclone and/or Myanmar (the official name?) you may have found it. Also, people did respond.

On the aid thing; I just hope you don't have to wait too long for a Visa - or are you also blaming the UK for Myanmar's bureaucratic obstinacy?

Such presumptions. I'm not qualified in such things, and having a bunch of amateur do gooders run around with band aids and good intentions will of course so help the situation.

Well, that sun set long before I was born, so I don't really agree from a personal perspective, but please, do indicate where I have suggested that of which you all but accuse me. It's useful when making accusations to offer evidence, don't you agree?

My stated opinion on Capital punishment was just that, my opinion. From your increasingly insulting and accusatory stance some desperation?

Really? Perhaps you should reconsider. Here's a clue; it wasn't not so far away from current events. Also, no nation would deserve this.

You're making me laugh, really you are.

I could say that the arrogance in a national 'right' to decide the path the world should take is perhaps more firmly rooted elsewhere, but I won't.

As for 'tone' ... please. I've not insulted you personally or by national association once, yet I count at least three such oblique instances in your responses to me. Curious, isn't it?