Irish troops to Iraq?

oscar76

we only go in under the UN, and not american, control.
It will be genuine peacekeeping, to prevent that civilised country sliding down an american made sewer.

TetsuoHashimoto

Snipp-moved by tetsuo:
and I'll point out another sound Prodestant fellow, McKRACKEN. A very decent man who helped the Irish people fight with honour against a Dublin Prodestant stronghold that inflicted injustice and tyranny on many people.
So I don't want to send people off on some harangue, and start ranting no surrender to the IRA around the place.
Here's how it works, it matters not what religion these people were, Prodestant, Arabic, Hindu, Jewish, Catholic, Buddist..what does matter is that for a time Dublin had a well know history off helping a number of despots dictate its own people.

These many events had shown , a capital city that was weak in qualities such as nationalism, honour and pride. Unlike other nations invasions and the proud defence Moscowvites or Berliners the events in Dublin-land showed a quick development of incidents of turn-coating and double-crossing.

Who should a citizen side with, I think they should side with the citizenship of their own country wherever that may be, and the home where they live?
When a person ges off to fight for another foreign nation, against the wishes of the motherland it is called treachory, and people are thrown in Jail for it and even recently a man in the USA was executed for it.



I think its about time that Bush started to listen to other nations, admit there was no Weapons of Mass Destruction and started doing smething serious about Iraq and its unfortunate people who have had to suffer years of poverty, sanctions, and bombs


sure thing Gandi,

gandalf

TetsuoHashimoto whatthe hell has most of your last post got to be with sending Irish troops to Iraq. Keep it on topic and put your pro-loyalist drivel in a new thread. Infact you can edit out most of that rant and put that in a new thread. I'll give you until tomorrow before I edit it for you.

I really hope your not my "old friend" from Galway back in another guise ?

Gandalf.

sceptre

Originally posted by TetsuoHashimoto
When a person ges off to fight for another foreign nation, against the wishes of the motherland it is called treason

No, it isn't. "Treason" specifically means to betray the interest of one's country by seeking to overthrow the elected government of that country by illegitimate means OR to directly deliver that country into the hands of a foreign power.

What you're describing is a mercenary, which is a specific term used for someone who works solely for monetary gain OR in its more recent form, someone who is hired by the army of a foreign country.

It's your prerogative to have views on the army the citizens of any given country should serve in. You can't, however, change the meaning of common English words all on your own-e-o.

TetsuoHashimoto

Corinthaina my child, if only you could be humble...Governments describe several levels of treason, there is the criminal offense where the offender owes alliance to a foreign army or governmnet , another described where a person betrays the wishes of the state to a foreign power.

I'm not For or Against throwing people into Jails that betray the wishes of the state.

But I would prefer the government to have a more clear and visible stance on the matters such as support or protest for the War , and the area of Irish neutality, where is its policy of non-support and non engagement during war? After all wasn't one of the great proclaimers of neutrality George Washington in 1794?

Gandy my old man, who said I was describing Loyalists, maybe I was refering to the Dubs Viking heritage?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by TetsuoHashimoto
Governments describe several levels of treason, there is the criminal offense where the offender owes alliance to a foreign army or governmnet , another described where a person betrays the wishes of the state to a foreign power.

Governments do not describe several levels of treason. Treason is the violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. As such the act of joining the military of another nation does not constitute treason in itself.

Do your homework. Then you come back to the grown-up table.

gandalf

Getback on topic.

TetsuoHashimoto I have warned you to start another thread about this. You have till 12 today until I delete all non relevant posts to this thread. And if you persist to post replies that are non relevant then I will ban you.

sceptre & Corinthian please ignore any other replies by TetsuoHashimoto that are not related to the topic of this thread.

Gandalf.

Aindriu

This thread is about sending Irish troops to Iraq and some people start drivelling on about Protestants, Irish rebels and other poppycock.

Those protestor bums who were vandalising US aircraft in Shannon should have been arrested for damaging aircraft, property and trespassing. They should have been charged for the cost of damage (like any of them have jobs?).

If there wasn’t a security problem maybe there wouldn’t be should a demand for peacekeepers? It’s easy to coy away from International responsibility but Ireland has to take a lead and put its case to the UN and US, arguing that in order for true international involvement there needs to be a strong UN mandate to go in to Iraq.

I can’t see the U.S or U.K forces going home in the foreseeable future or relinquishing command. They are there to stay. However what should happen is the day to day running be handed over to the Iraqi in-term government as quickly as possible and get the army and police up and running as quickly as possible.

Victor

Originally posted by Aindriu
Those protestor bums who were vandalising US aircraft in Shannon should have been arrested for damaging aircraft, property and trespassing.

They were. Your rant appears to suggest all protesters should have been arrested.

Originally posted by Aindriu
They should have been charged for the cost of damage

Well this would be difficult, seeing as the same plane was damaged twice by two separate groups. Who do you blame for what?

Originally posted by Aindriu
(like any of them have jobs?).

I actually imagine most have jobs. Do you have any contrary evidence?

sceptre

Originally posted by Aindriu
arguing that in order for true international involvement there needs to be a strong UN mandate to go in to Iraq.

Of course the question of whether there should be true international involvement is still on the table. The war was of the making by a small few countries and there was no mandate from the UN for any action greater than observation. Just like most of the other hotspots Ireland has been involved with in UN actions over the past forty years. The UN will have to get involved sooner or later - given that the US aren't exactly doing a bang-up job of administering the country and keeping the peace it might as well be sooner.

There are two questions to consider here. First, whether the UN should send peacekeeping troops there at all. Second, whether Irish troops should be part of that contingent.

The answer to the first question is yes. It's all very well to say that the problem was caused by the US and that they should sort it out themselves but if you're the sort of person who no longer trusts the US to do that, then you'll realise quickly that it's going to affect the ordinary Iraqi whose life should be allowed to approach normality as soon as possible. Judging by the events since the war officially ended and the occupation officially started, this is not going to happen under a US/UK/Turkish administration. Hence we need internationally recognised troops there.

The second question is whether Irish troops should be part of the contingent sent to Iraq. I believe the answer to this question is also yes. Short of a protective attitude towards "our boys" there are very few reasons why not. Through our conduct in the Lebanon, in Katanga, Cyprus and other locations we've attained a degree of respect as UN peacekeepers. There are few times when our country can actually make an appreciable planned difference to the world. This is one of them. Our involvement, with the Swedes and Norwegians will lend to the peacekeeper placement a degree of international respect that will be sorely needed if the US is ever to release Iraq from its current position as an extension of Texas. US troops spent a decade administering Japan at the end of WW2. The earlier the UN gets directly involved in Iraq, the sooner Iraqis will be permitted to govern themselves. The other option is to have Iraq ruled by the US as a private fiefdom. Do we really want that?

bah, spelled "officially" with one f twice. Still a typo, I swear:D

Originally posted by gandalf
sceptre & Corinthian please ignore any other replies by TetsuoHashimoto that are not related to the topic of this thread.
Done. Apologies

Aindriu

Shannon is beside the point, however

They were. Your rant appears to suggest all protesters should have been arrested.

Victor have you lost the run of yourself? I clearly specified the protestors in question regarding Shannon. And you imagine they have jobs, well I was questioning do they? They just seemed ill informed and were protesting on an idea. Do you actually know or do you have you a vivid imagination?

I would have to agree with sceptre on his points of view.

Victor

Originally posted by Aindriu
Shannon is beside the point, however

But you continue on about Shannon anyway.....

Originally posted by Aindriu
Victor have you lost the run of yourself? I clearly specified the protestors in question regarding Shannon.

Trying to deconstruct my grammar (and doing so wrongly) won't get you anywhere. I said "Your rant appears to suggest all protesters should have been arrested". I did not say you said "Your rant appears to suggest all protesters should be arrested". That I did not say "all the protesters" is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Aindriu
They just seemed ill informed and were protesting on an idea.

How were they “ill informed”? And in real English, what does "protesting on an idea" actually mean?

Originally posted by Aindriu
Do you actually know or do you have you a vivid imagination?

No, I do not know whether any, some, many or all of them have jobs. However, the dominant discourse within our society is that people (even protestors) have jobs. Are you suggesting that all of the ~100,000 or so who protested in Dublin were also jobless?

Capt'n Midnight

RE:Watch what we new of Iraq disintegrate into 3 countries in the next few years.

I'll be holding my breath - I don't think any government in the area wants an independant Kurdistan, and setting up a small country on the boarder with Iraq and having access to the ports, is also a non-runner ...


RE:fifty years ago, america saved our ass with the marshall plan,
After the war the American plan was to reduce germany to a pastoral economy. Funny thing (oh so funny) was that the country was not big enough to support the whole population so the unwritten asumption was that about 5-10 million Germans would have to go somewhere else or starve to death...
Only when the Russians seemed to be keeping control of the east was the marshal plan extended to Germany

The French tried to use German prisoners of war as slave labour - but there wasn't enough food so they were repatriated...

The mafia were re-introduced into Italy by the americans.

The best predictor of the future is the past.

I've not read the roadmap for Iraq - does it take the iraqis where they need to go ?

The UN should be involved in Iraq but not to set the precident that it rubber stamps aggression..

Paddy20

sceptre,

Quote:"There are few times when our country can actually make an appreciable planned difference to the world. This is one of them". end quote.

Why should we not use "our boys" and girls!, here at home to build badly needed affordable homes, more hospitals, better roads, etc,etc, instead of sending them too Iraq where the guerilla fighters will not give a damn what uniform they are wearing, or what flag they are flying. The average Iraqi will only see another BLOODY foreigner who needs shooting.

What use is some cynical international respect to you or your family when you are in an early grave?. How many body bags and lads and lassies would you consider to be a reasonable number to send?...

I had better stop here. Before I throw up my Sunday dinner.

I am old enough to remember the Congo massacres of Irish troops, and that was enough for me. There are times when countries as well as individuals must realise their true limitations and where their real responsibility lies,imo this type of help begins at home and I suggest we put our own house in order before we send anyone anywhere in future.

P.

Sparks

Watch what we new of Iraq disintegrate into 3 countries in the next few years.

Unleaded, Leaded and Diesel?

Victor

Originally posted by Paddy20
Why should we not use "our boys" and girls!, here at home to build badly needed affordable homes, more hospitals, better roads,

Because we are not all selfish like you. The people of Iraq need more help than the people of Ireland (and thats saying a lot).

Originally posted by Paddy20
I am old enough to remember the Congo massacres of Irish troops

So how many were killed in these "massacres"? A total of 27 Irish soldiers died in the Congo. 9 died in the worst individual incident. Not nice, but Srebinica (8,000) puts it in context.

Paddy20

Victor,

I tried to avoid pointing out the continuing instability in Northern Ireland and the need to keep our troops here at home at this time and that a - State of Emergency - still exists here in Ireland!.

I also do not mind you calling me selfish if my opinion was to help save the life of one member of our armed forces.

How times have changed. the deaths of those 27 Irish soldiers in the Congo remains a very sad memory in my psyche. Yet your words seem to belittle their the tragedy of their massacre. "Not nice" Eh?.

Enough said.

P.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Paddy20
I tried to avoid pointing out the continuing instability in Northern Ireland and the need to keep our troops here at home at this time and that a - State of Emergency - still exists here in Ireland!

The ‘State of Emergency’ that was originally decalred in 1939 and renewed in 1976 was lifted in 1995. As for your assessment of the security situation, vis-a-vi Northern Ireland, without evidence of a clear and present danger it amounts to little more than paranoid fantasy.

I also do not mind you calling me selfish if my opinion was to help save the life of one member of our armed forces.

Isolationism would generally be viewed as selfish.

How times have changed. the deaths of those 27 Irish soldiers in the Congo remains a very sad memory in my psyche. Yet your words seem to belittle their the tragedy of their massacre. "Not nice" Eh?.

They may well remain a very sad memory in your psyche, but that’s what soldiers do. It’s their job, oddly enough. You would do well to remember that from the comfort of your armchair.

Piliger

Personally I believe it would be a privelege for Irish troops to contribute to the creation of a new nation of 25 million people...

But I am astonished that the US would allow countries that supported the continuation of Saddom Hussein in power and opposed the freeing of 25 million people from hell to take part in this operation or give us any commercial benefits.

Most Irish people chose to turn their backs on the Iraqi peope and don't deserve to benefit.

Piliger

Originally posted by Paddy20
I had better stop here. Before I throw up my Sunday dinner.

I am old enough to remember the Congo massacres of Irish troops, and that was enough for me. There are times when countries as well as individuals must realise their true limitations and where their real responsibility lies,imo this type of help begins at home and I suggest we put our own house in order before we send anyone anywhere in future.P.

This is consistent with what most Irish people believe nowadays. Most Irish people didn't give a monkey's **** about the plight of the Iraqi people while they suffered under Saddam, and didn't give a **** about them while opposing any action to free them.

It follows that they wouldn't lift a finger themselves to help these newly liberated people to build a new country.

What a lovely country we have become.

Victor

Thank you, The Corinthian

Originally posted by Piliger
But I am astonished that the US would allow countries that supported the continuation of Saddom Hussein in power

Do you mean in no particular order, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia / USSR, Brazil, China, Czechoslovakia, Ireland, Italy, Jordan .... all of which have gladly traded, financed and armed him at various stages.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Piliger
But I am astonished that the US would allow countries that supported the continuation of Saddom Hussein in power and opposed the freeing of 25 million people from hell to take part in this operation or give us any commercial benefits.

The US was one of those countries that “opposed the freeing of 25 million people from hell” up until Iraq overstepped the mark by invading someone that the US liked. Just ask Donald Rumsfeld.

Most Irish people chose to turn their backs on the Iraqi peope and don't deserve to benefit.

I’m sorry, I’m getting confused - I understood that this was all about the “creation of a new nation of 25 million people”? Now you’re talking about “commercial benefits”? You really must make up your mind as to why we should do such a thing...

Originally posted by Paddy20
The average Iraqi will only see another BLOODY foreigner who needs shooting.
of help begins at home and I suggest we put our own house in order before we send anyone anywhere in future.

P.

But it is not the average Iraqi who is blowing up U.N buildings in Baghdad is it? Or setting off Car-bombs to kill moderate , yet popular Shia Clerics.
What percentage of the people of Iraq are involved in this organised mahem??
It certainly isn't anything like a majority or at this rate, since Bush pretended the War was over ( it isn't while he continues to deal with attacks from the remainants of an amoral ex Regime ), thousands of his soldiers would be dead by now in a much more widespread Guerilla War.

Compare and Contrast how easy it was for the IRA to cause Mahem and murder on a Vast scale in what must have been at the time an extremely highly policed and tiny state compared to Iraq.
And they did that with little support.

For the record, I reckon, a U.N mandated peace keeping force would be a good idea, with as many countries as possible taking part to spread the load including Ireland.

mm

Piliger

Originally posted by Victor
Thank you, The Corinthian Do you mean in no particular order, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia / USSR, Brazil, China, Czechoslovakia, Ireland, Italy, Jordan .... all of which have gladly traded, financed and armed him at various stages.

I meant IRELAND.

Piliger

Originally posted by The Corinthian
The US was one of those countries that “opposed the freeing of 25 million people from hell” up until Iraq overstepped the mark by invading someone that the US liked.One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

The fact that may try to avoid recognising is that the US have now freed 25 million people from their living hell. They may be late but they are better than everyone else, including Ireland.

I’m sorry, I’m getting confused - I understood that this was all about the “creation of a new nation of 25 million people”? Now you’re talking about “commercial benefits”? You really must make up your mind as to why we should do such a thing...

Read the thread. The suggestion was made that we should contribute to the UN force as part of our effort to land commercial contracts in the rebuilding of Iraq. Hence my reply. Got it ?

sceptre

Originally posted by Paddy20
Why should we not use "our boys" and girls!, here at home to build badly needed affordable homes, more hospitals, better roads, etc,etc,

You want to use trained professional soldiers as construction workers?

I am old enough to remember the Congo massacres of Irish troops, and that was enough for me.

27 Irish soldiers died in the Congo serving with the UN. It was a tragedy that any of them did. I'm old enough to remember the 47 that died in the Lebanon serving with the UN. We also lost 2 in the Middle East (not including Lebanon) and 9 in Cyprus. The Congo expedition wasn't the largest loss of Irish troops by a long way. We accepted the Congo losses as a tragedy and maintained our resolve to help those countries who were less fortunate than ourselves. To do anything else would be remarkably selfish. Ironically of course, with self-determination at the fore of current UN policy, such an mission as the Congo 1960-1964 one would be rather unlikely to take place today.

As a largely neutral country which was never a colonial power, Irish troops are recognised internationally as being impartial. They've gained the trust of locals in almost every peacekeeping mission they've embarked on. This would be no different. The troops make the sacrifice they commit to as professional soldiers. They've been an invaluable asset to the needy around the world and will continue to be so.

Nietzschean

Originally posted by Piliger
I meant IRELAND.

I do believe that was the point genius, the vast majority of 1st world countries at some point have done something to support saddam's regime. And tbh you seem to be wayyy off base and watch too much american tv, life under saddam wasn't terrible until UN imposed sanctions crippled the nation economically and politically. He invaded another nation, whooo its not like the US did anything different when they invaded iraq this year without any real provocation it appears.

America : "We recon ye have WMD"
Iraq : "No we don't, come check."
America : "No that would take too long, we'll just assume you do and invade."

Have you seen some evidence to point to the contary to what i've said? the us was opposed to sending in weapons inspectors, it cut short their time there because they couldn't find any WMD(appears to have been none.). So really if the US wants to act as a international moral compass maybe it should start with countries that really need to be fixed urgently, you looked at robert mougabe's doings recently?

The Corinthian

First of all Piliger, I never wrote:

The US was one of those countries that “opposed the freeing of 25 million people from hell” up until Iraq overstepped the mark by invading someone that the US liked.One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

I wrote:

The US was one of those countries that “opposed the freeing of 25 million people from hell” up until Iraq overstepped the mark by invading someone that the US liked. Just ask Donald Rumsfeld.

I don’t appreciate someone attempting to misquote me intentionally.

Originally posted by Piliger
The fact that may try to avoid recognising is that the US have now freed 25 million people from their living hell. They may be late but they are better than everyone else, including Ireland.

Living hell? And where are they now (and the foreseeable future)?

Nonetheless, you argued that those nations“that supported the continuation of Saddom Hussein in power and opposed the freeing of 25 million people from hell” should be cut out of the loop. That description applies to the US and better late than never could apply to every other nation - even France.

Read the thread. The suggestion was made that we should contribute to the UN force as part of our effort to land commercial contracts in the rebuilding of Iraq. Hence my reply. Got it ?

Oh, I read the thread - but you began by arguing a moral reason, then this seemed to dissolve into opportunism. Unless you explain how they’re connected, they do seem contradictory reasons for sending troops in. Or are we to argue that there’s no harm in making a quick buck out of altruism?

Paddy20

May I just suggest that those who support sending our young troops in too Irag on a peacekeeping and presumably humanatarian mission. Also consider putting their own names forward to the numerous Irish charitable organisations who will undoubtly follow.

These voluntary organisations will need more volunteers. So who on this thread is prepared is prepared too stick their head above the parapet and announce on this forum that they would go as a volunteer to help rebuid Iraq despite the inherent risks??...

Banter, on a forum like this will not cost you your life. However in real life, setting foot on Iraqi soil easily could.

Try, asking some of the humane Journalists whose reports were edited and sanitised so as not to offend the sensitivities of most ordinary citizens in western countries. A lot of those Jounalists left Iraq long before they intended too. Many as broken men and women who witnessed the "Uncensored" horrific truth about what is happening at this moment in Iraq.

As I have stated before. I hope the Irish government thinks very long and hard before sending those who joined our army in a supposedly neutral country, because in most cases they needed a job with a regular income in a country where such long term secure employment is very scarce, and they basically needed to feed their families. Are they now expected to pay with their lives?..

I look forward to seeing a long list of well known names appearing on this forum thread, volunteering their services to charitable organisations who may need them to go to Iraq?..

P.

Victor

Originally posted by Paddy20
... rant ...

Nice try to pull on the heart strings there. Sorry it didn't work.

Remind me Paddy what side you are on or are you the guy doing the balancing act on the flag pole.