Irish troops to Iraq?

Originally posted by 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.


P.

So if 60% of the country wanted us to take part in a U.N peacekeeping mission in Iraq, you'd want maybe a million Irish to go over there, to be volunteers with Charities:rolleyes:
Actually if I had the time, I would involve myself with as many third world charities or relief organisations as possible.
Masses of Irish people do, i don't have to tell you that.

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?..

Most of our Army recruits are there because they can't get a job else where, I see.... :rolleyes:
I thought those who put themselves in the firing line in the Lebanon for years did so out of a passion for what they were doing, but no it was just a job...I see...:rolleyes:

mm

gandalf

Paddy20 lets keep this thread on the very valid topic of Irish troops being possibly sent to Iraq. Drama Queen outbursts like the one above will not achieve anything at all.

I worked with someone years ago who served in the Congo and he could not even talk about the experience. He was however immessly proud of the contribution of Irish Forces overseas and made it very clear they we should contribute where we can make a difference because we are not percieved to have any hidden agendas unlike some of the other so called aligned nations.

Now get back on topic or stop posting here.

Gandalf.

ken90

Irish troops should go to Iraq under the command of George Bush.

The man who went missing on September 11 - Remember!

He has never gone out without body armour since.

65 Americans dead since he said the war was over.

I don't think EVEN Mary Harney is that dumb.

God or Allah help us

Paddy20

Victor,

You asked so I will answer you. I am an anti - war humanatarian, and a socialist. I believe that to kill another human being is fundamentally wrong.

All human conflicts should be resolved through dialogue and not violence. I am by nature a pacifist, although I recognise even within myself the base instinct to fight and even kill for what I believe in, naturally my total respect for the sanctity of human life stops me from partaking of the evil of war and or murder.

This is me, and sticking with my principles in my life has not proved easy. Many, many times I have wrestled with my beliefs in the face of extreme provocation. However, I resisted the violent route in favour of peace and my "live and let live" instincts.

I hope this may help explain my stance, but I do not expect people too agree with my way of life. Human beings were given the ability and the right too choose according to their own conscience. That is how it is and how it is meant to be.

regards.

Paddy20.

bonkey

Originally posted by Paddy20
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?..

I don't.

This is a forum for discussing political issues, and a thread for discussing one political issue specifically.

It is not a "look at what I'm doing" thread, nor forum, and I intend to keep it that way.

If you're trying to make some oblique point about how blasé we are about considering sending other people into situations which might get them killed......then make your point.


Now, getting back on topic.....

Personally, I think Ireland should get involved under a UN mandate irrelevant of who is in charge.

If the UN agrees to a structure led by US and UK troops, then I think it would be hypocritical in the extreme of anyone who opposed the war on the "lack of sanction by the UN " grounds to now decide that UN mandates are not something that Ireland need unduly concern itself with. If the UN is willing to accept US leadership, then deciding that we shouldn't be involved is basically no different to what many were complaining that the US did - decided that the decisions of the UN were not worth following because they didn't fit exactly with what was wanted.

As for the risk to our troops...

I have a lot of respect for anyone who chooses to become a soldier. They have chosen a life where they may find themselves deliberately placed in harms way as part of their job. If they're not willing to do that, then they shouldn't be in teh army. If they are willing to do that, then we should honour that sacrifice, and their unquestionable bravery by letting them do the job they asked to do.

Am I also right in saying that you have to volunteer for peaacekeeping service??? Or can you be sent overseas with no choice once you've signed up?

Either way, personally, I think to refuse to send them to Iraq on the grounds of protecting them is doing them a a disservice, and disrespecting the sacrifices they have already made.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Paddy20
I am an anti - war humanatarian, and a socialist. I believe that to kill another human being is fundamentally wrong.

But you seem to believe also that it is more important that the Irish not get involved in a peace-keeping mission, because some Irish may die that way.....without considering that if all nations took such a stance that incalculably more would die in conflicts that raged out of control.

Or do you believe that peace-keeping itself is fundamentally a bad idea? That once war has started, no-one should get involved to do what is necessary to stop it? Surely not - you being a humanitarian and all.

So, the only difference seems to be that you appear to be attaching far more value to an Irish life than an Iraqi one, or then the life of some other soldier from some other nation who will form part of the peace-keeping mission in the stead of any Irish we decided not to send.

You're basically saying that if someone is gonna possibly get killed (i.e. put themselves in the not-exactly-desirable position of being a peace-keeper in Iraq) , lets at least make sure that person isn't Irish.

Personally, I find it hard to see that as humanitarian.

jc

dathi1

Irish troops should go to Iraq under the command of George Bush.

Now...I think this is the most valid post on this thread so far. Everybody here who likes the idea of putting Irish troops on a UN Mandate (No matter who's in control as above) put there hands up. Irish forces will be under the direct control of Paul bremer, the pentagon and the bush administration.
Paul Bremer : Regan Admin, Henry (mass murderer) Kissinger associates etc.. Bush: Dangerous Imbecile and draft dodger.

dathi1

Or do you believe that peace-keeping itself is fundamentally a bad idea? That once war has started, no-one should get involved to do what is necessary to stop it? Surely not - you being a humanitarian and all.

I think the real question is; should we aid an invading and occupying force under the direction of a regime with various ulterior motives and risk not getting our humanitarian help delivered and accepted because the occupied will see it that way? Could it tarnish relations with other Arab countries if its seen as a one way Christian coalition crusade to bolster Bush's occupation?

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
I think the real question is; should we aid an invading and occupying force under the direction of a regime with various ulterior motives and risk not getting our humanitarian help delivered and accepted because the occupied will see it that way?

See the point I made about on one hand criticising the US for deciding the UN wasn't worth following, and on the other hand deciding now that the UN isn't worth following ourselves.

Either we believe in the UN, or we don't.

If we believe in the UN, then if the UN is going in there, and looking for peace-keepers, then we should provide the UN with peacekeepers. It doesn't matter why they are going in, or who is in charge. We signed up to something, we should keep our side of the bargain.

Alternately, we could say "No. No troops. Sod the UN. The UN doesn't deserve our respect because it is taking a side that we completely disagree with. Because we don't agree with it, we should no longer be compelled in any way to follow it."

This latter stance is exactly the same logic that the US used to justify their un-UN-mandated invasion of Iraq in the first place.

In a very real sense, by turning our back on the UN, we would be justifying the approach that the Americans took back when this was all kicking off. Why is it wrong for them to refuse the UN, but proper order for us to do so?

jc

Paddy20

bonkey,

Re: Your questions and assumptions.

1, Quote, " I have a lot of respect for anyone who chooses to be a Soldier "e.q.

Soldiers are trained killers. Therefore I do not accept them as trained "peace - keepers".

2, Quote," Am I also right in saying that you have to volunteer for peace - keeping service ??? Or can you be sent overseas with no choice once you have signed up" e.q.

I am not qualified to answer that. However, I believe that Soldiers must obey orders. No matter where those orders may take them.

3, Quote, " Either way, personally, I think to refuse to send them to Iraq on the grounds of protecting them is doing them a disservice " e.q.

As a humanatarian. I must state that placing any human life in danger is wrong.

As for the rest of your points raised in the second post.

Peace - keepers are obviously needed. However they can only be sent in to areas of human conflict. After "Full -War" hostilities have ceased officially. In relation to Iraq specifically. There appears to be more than enough countries willing to send their Armies/Soldiers in as "Peace -keepers*"?.. In this scenario if I am more protective towards Irish Soldiers than those of other nations. Then I am prepared to accept that maybe that is a flaw in my character/beliefs/instincts.

Finally, I am not convinced that Ireland should even have an army. I believe that a truly well trained "Irish voluntary" peace-keeping* group/ force totally funded by the State or the UN, would have much more too offer the worlds conflict zones in a much effective manner than Soldiers.

P.

Originally posted by dathi1
I think the real question is; should we aid an invading and occupying force under the direction of a regime with various ulterior motives and risk not getting our humanitarian help delivered and accepted because the occupied will see it that way? Could it tarnish relations with other Arab countries if its seen as a one way Christian coalition crusade to bolster Bush's occupation?

We should aid their early withdrawal yes.
I don't see how it could tarnish relations with other Arab countries who are members of the U.N
The whole idea of a UN force going in would be to aid the normalisation of things there.
Who better to , encourage and support a fledgeling local police force , one that would behave in a just way, unlike the Regime of Sadam which thankfully is no more.
It doesn't auger very well for the remainants of Sadams followers , if they are going to slaughter , Shia Clerics and those at prayer at holy sites.
They may go the way of all murderers when their true colours are shown as in recently.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Paddy20
Soldiers are trained killers. Therefore I do not accept them as trained "peace - keepers".

So on what grounds did you post this bit earlier on in the thread :

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

Is it that you think they are more needed to kill people in the North than abroad? Strange, considering that you're just after also admitting that you do place Irish life above others when it comes to "who to save".

Surely you would want our soldiers to be killing foreigners in preference to fellow-Irish if that were the case?

I would agree it would be preferable to have them do neither, but you seem to be assuming contradictory stances as you offer a variety of different reasons for why we shouldnt send troops to Iraq.

In this scenario if I am more protective towards Irish Soldiers than those of other nations. Then I am prepared to accept that maybe that is a flaw in my character/beliefs/instincts.

I'm not saying its a flaw in your character. I'm saying its at odds with the allegation that you oppose it on humanitarian grounds. Saying "let someone else take the chance of getting killed" is not humanitarian. "Iri****arian", perhaps, but not humanitarian.

Finally, I am not convinced that Ireland should even have an army.

Neither am I. However we have an army, and with that army we should honour any national obligations we have signed up to...which (unless I'm very much mistaken) would include supporting UN resolutions calling for peace-keepers.

If you want to look for a "nice" middle ground, then why not encourage an approach like what the Swiss have limited themselves to.

As a neutral nation, they have passed legislation co-incident with tehir joining of the UN, which does not permit them to send troops abroad to serve in a miltiary capacity. However, they can send troops abroad to help in a logistical and support capacity, and only on UN-approved peace-keeping missions (i.e. no support for "peace-enforcement").

Now, personally, I think it would be insulting our intelligence (if nothing else) for the Irish to lay claim to a similar neutrality, but if you're genuinely opposed to the sending of troops, then surely you should be proposing alternative ways to meet our humanitarian obligations, rather than simply saying no, no, no, and supplying many differing - and sometimes contradictory - reasons as to why it should be a flat "no".

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Am I also right in saying that you have to volunteer for peaacekeeping service??? Or can you be sent overseas with no choice once you've signed up?

Generally this has been the case althought the standard army contract now says you can be assigned any position, even abroad, without needing your consent. I'm not sure if thsi has ever been implemented though.

Originally posted by Paddy20
I am not qualified to answer that. However, I believe that Soldiers must obey orders. No matter where those orders may take them.

I soldiers only have to obey "all legal orders", not "all orders". It's unlikely they will end up anywhere the shouldn't.

dathi1

As to JC's post The UN can get it wrong sometimes and in this case if they do aid an illegal occupying force and only Christian countries take part in assisting Bremer + Wolfowitz then its simply not going to work.

It doesn't auger very well for the remainants of Sadams followers , if they are going to slaughter , Shia Clerics and those at prayer at holy sites.

Ayatollah Hakim could have been killed by any amount of vested interests....even the CIA. When their backs are to the wall as in the past, present US administration officials (Allende in Chile etc) have carried out dirty wars and assassinations to steer matters in their direction.

Paddy20

bonkey,

I believe that as we have an army. Their primary role is here at home protecting the citizens of this Republic. Not*, Quote you; " Is it that you think they are more needed to kill more people in the North than abroad? " e.q.

What a disgusting idea to try and associate me with. Thats abominable and un-warranted.

In my last paragraph of my last post you seem too have overlooked my genuine suggestion that we should have a dedicated highly trained group or force of "Peace-keepers" who would have more to offer the worlds conflict zones than Soldiers?.. exactly how this force would be funded is open too discussion and I believe that its members should be voluntary and paid. However, its exact make up needs serious planning. It also would I believe give those Irish citizens with an obvious proven peace keeping inclination and talent an opportunity to represent Ireland as official peace-keepers who would deserve the respect of the citizens of conflict torn unstable countries precisely because they would not be viewed as Soldiers.

P.

Originally posted by dathi1


Ayatollah Hakim could have been killed by any amount of vested interests....even the CIA. When their backs are to the wall as in the past, present US administration officials (Allende in Chile etc) have carried out dirty wars and assassinations to steer matters in their direction.

Perhaps but I doubt it and maybe they did the car bomb at the U.N headquarters but I doubt that too.

bonkey

Originally posted by Paddy20
What a disgusting idea to try and associate me with. Thats abominable and un-warranted.

Did you or did you not say they are / may be needed for dealing with the situation in the North?

You did.

Did you or did you not say that they trained killers, and not - in your opinion - trained peace-keepers???

You did.

Put those two together, and you are saying you believe trained killers, and not trained peace-keepers are / may be needed in the North.

So I ask you.....unwarranted? Hardly - all I did was join two of the arguments you have presented together.

Or are you telling me that somehow our soldiers would be trained killers if deployed in Iraq, but not trained killers if needed in relation to the problems in the North?

If so, please explain how deployment location changes the nature of training these men have received, because I'm at a loss.

Abominable? Probably - but I am simply taking your multitude of arguments and putting them together to illustrate how at odds with each other they are.

In my last paragraph of my last post you seem too have overlooked my genuine suggestion that we should have a dedicated highly trained group or force of "Peace-keepers" who would have more to offer the worlds conflict zones than Soldiers?..

I didn't overlook it.

What I am saying is that today we have an army, and we do not have your specialised peace-keepers. Today we need to consider what - if anything - we would contribute to a UN peace-keeping mission in Iraq, to comply with any UN mandate which may be passed.

Talking about what we might change for the long-term future is a seperate issue. I have no objections to your basic idea at all - I think it has a lot of merit as an idea to be considered for the fuiture. However, as an idea to do with peacekeeping in Iraq, it is valueless. Saying "if we had these, we wouldnt need to send soldiers" is about as useful as saying "if there was no trouble in Iraq, we wouldnt be asked to send soldiers."

those Irish citizens with an obvious proven peace keeping inclination and talent ....they would not be viewed as Soldiers.

The only people in Ireland with "an obvious proven peace keeping inclination and talent are those trained killers that you don't accept as peace-keepers in the first place. That makes no sense to me. Perhaps you could clarify who you're talking about here if not soldiers? Or, if you are talking about soldiers, how joining another group would somehow negate the training they have received which has made them trained killers in your eyes.

If that offends you then please note that once again I am re-using your words and your arguments here.

jc

Imposter

Originally posted by bonkey
If the UN agrees to a structure led by US and UK troops, then I think it would be hypocritical in the extreme of anyone who opposed the war on the "lack of sanction by the UN " grounds to now decide that UN mandates are not something that Ireland need unduly concern itself with. If the UN is willing to accept US leadership, then deciding that we shouldn't be involved is basically no different to what many were complaining that the US did - decided that the decisions of the UN were not worth following because they didn't fit exactly with what was wanted.

I see what you're saying here but I have a problem with some of the logic in it. The role of the UN has changed since the war in Iraq began. I believe the allies were wrong to start the war without a UN mandate. I also believe the UN were not strong enough in their condemnation of the allies going to war.

Now what I see from the UN is an attempt to make themselves relevant when it's obvious that they're only relevant in most countries eyes if they agree with the countries view. Ok, diplomatically countries will make it look like they think they're important but realistically if they don't agree with the UN they'll try and veto or if that's not possible just not follow the UN's stance.

So if somebody now decides not to help in a UN mission then I can see their reasoning and I don't think they're in any way hypocritical.

bloggs

Originally posted by Aindriu
It look increasingly likely that the Irish Defence Forces will be asked in the coming days or weeks to send Irish troops into Iraq, in light of the recent bombing.

Personally I think its high time the International Community got involved in Iraq. The contributing nations should be sent under a UN mandate and be under control of the US and UK forces.

what’s everyone’s thoughts on this? Do you think we should be supporting the operations in Iraq? The Irish government is lobbing hard on behalf of Irish companies for reconstruction like sewage treatment plants, roads and other infrastructure, shouldn’t we be contributing troops as well?

No offence but are you mad?!

First the US, more or less give the UN inspectors the two fingers and said that Blix was pro-Saddam, then they got UN 1441, and told everyone that they would not attack Iraqi under 1441. Saddam complied to 1441, but Bush (and Rumsfeld) were impatient, wanted to attack but Blair wanted UN backing, after this very few countries would back another resolution (at least in public), so Bush give the two fingers to the UN (along with Jack Straw) and told the UN they were weak and unimportant.

The US also give the two fingers to France and Germany for disagreeing.

Now that things aren't going so well, and it's costing 3 billion a week. The UN is such a great org, and should do the moral thing and supply troops to help police the chaos that was Rumsfeld's fault in the first place.

I think the only way this can be salvaged is to withdraw both US/UK troops (mainly US) and replace them with blue helmet, but i think the situation is more of less FUBAR at this moment in time, and now with the likes of Al-Quida running around (didn't Bush go against Iraq to cripple Al-Quida?), Iraq may be beyond help.

Geromino

To Bloggs,
No offense, are you mad?

To state that Iraq complied with UN resolution 1441, or any other resolution for that matter, is to state that all Irish are protestant.

Iraq has not complied with any of the UN resolutions since 1991. The UN inspectors were kicked out seven times from 1991 through 1998. Blix further stated that Iraq had not given any new information from Iraq's Statement in Nov 2002 (Following IAEA and UNMOVIC briefings to the UN Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell states that the Iraqi declaration contains a "pattern of systematic…gaps" that constitute "another material breach" of Iraq's disarmament obligations).

Further, supporting the UN presence or peace keeping mission in Iraq does not constitute supporting the war or goes against the mantra of not supporting the war. UN presence is needed and warrented. However, to withdraw US forces, the predominant force in Iraq, would be suicidal and very non-productive. There are not enough international forces that can be manuevered into Iraq for prolonged periods of time and still maintain control. It is estimated that 200,000 peace-keeping troops are required for Iraq. But even with US forces, they will wear the "blue helmet" under UN mandate.

The Saint

The UN inspectors were kicked out seven times from 1991 through 1998

Werent t hey kicked out in 1998 because the US had turned UNSCOM into a spying agency and because Clinton was about to bomb the country once again?

bloggs

Originally posted by Geromino
Secretary of State Colin Powell states that the Iraqi declaration contains a "pattern of systematic…gaps" that constitute "another material breach" of Iraq's disarmament obligations).

Sorry as this is off the main point, but how would Powell know that Iraq's report contained a pattern of systematic...gaps, would he have receipts or something to that effect? Iraq didn't give any more information, just because they didn't give anymore information doesn't mean they had anything to hide. Anyway Iraq's WMDs are clearly hoax, as none exist.

Back to the main point. I think sending international troops under a US flag would be leading more lambs to the slaughter. Only a UN controlled administration with UN troops would be acceptable, but my opinion is that now the likes of Al-Quida are there, any such moves would be lead to the UN being stuck in Iraq.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
To state that Iraq complied with UN resolution 1441, or any other resolution for that matter, is to state that all Irish are protestant.

Iraq never fully complied with UN resolution 1441, or any other resolution for that matter, as you said. However, if we’re going to get technical, neither did the US get UN sanction for an invasion of Iraq either.

The US and UK effectively walked out on the UN when it was clear that not only would a resolution paving the way for invasion would not pass due to French (and possibly Russian) veto, but that they didn’t even have the ‘moral majority’ of the security council that they had hoped for. So, while not entirely accurate, bloggs does have a valid point.

Further, supporting the UN presence or peace keeping mission in Iraq does not constitute supporting the war or goes against the mantra of not supporting the war.

But it does support and legitimise US occupation and commercial activity there (a.k.a. ‘reconstruction’).

UN presence is needed and warrented.

That’s arguable. The solution increasingly seems not to be a question of troop numbers and so it is likely to simply create more targets as well as associate the UN (that is attempting to act as a neutral party) with Iraq’s ongoing occupation.

Geromino

Originally posted by The Saint
Werent t hey kicked out in 1998 because the US had turned UNSCOM into a spying agency and because Clinton was about to bomb the country once again?

That was in 1991. Iraq suspended cooperation with UNSCOM in August. An attack was imminent in Nov, but Iraq "agreed" to cooperate. That was short lived since in December the weapon inspectors were asked to leave. That is when the attack occured. This proves only one point though, you cannot have successful weapon inspections unless you are willing to back it up with force.

If it were a hoax as you stated, then why try to dismantle the UN resolutions instead of fully complying with the resolutions. If you want a comparison, you may want to look at South Africa. Even its harshest critiques were satisfied with South Africa's compliance.

Geromino

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Iraq never fully complied with UN resolution 1441, or any other resolution for that matter, as you said. However, if we’re going to get technical, neither did the US get UN sanction for an invasion of Iraq either.

Then please define "serious consequences?" Unless you think this means not going to the pub for two weeks, then the only serious consequence is military action. Any other action, such as another security resolution would not make Saddem comply with UN resolutions. Iraq had no other resource other than oil. That stopped when the oil for food program was suspended since Saddem was lining his pockets with the receipts.

But it does support and legitimise US occupation and commercial activity there (a.k.a. ‘reconstruction’).

Yet the oil contracts that France, Germany, Russia, and China have are still in tact. Does this mean that France is now secretly supporting the occupation by purchasing the agreed oil it set up with Hussein? Anyway, it still does not support the "occupation and commercialization" as you put it. What the US and UK are trying to do is to rebuild Iraq for Iraq. Now, who do you think could accomplish such a task? If you state the UN, then who do you think provides most of the support? Can you say US. It is definitely not Ireland or even the EU put together.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
Then please define "serious consequences?" Unless you think this means not going to the pub for two weeks, then the only serious consequence is military action.

I’m sure you could be flexible enough with that term and suggest a pre-emptive nuclear strike as a valid "serious consequence”, but that would be going too far. And so was interpreting it as invasion, which is why the US returned to the UN to get a resolution to give an invasion a green light. The theory that "serious consequence” was enough sanction was only mooted after this attempt failed.

Any other action, such as another security resolution would not make Saddem comply with UN resolutions. Iraq had no other resource other than oil. That stopped when the oil for food program was suspended since Saddem was lining his pockets with the receipts.

Hence international vigilantism is justified?

Yet the oil contracts that France, Germany, Russia, and China have are still in tact. Does this mean that France is now secretly supporting the occupation by purchasing the agreed oil it set up with Hussein? Anyway, it still does not support the "occupation and commercialization" as you put it.

I don’t see your point, we’re discussing UN legitimisation, not individual countries. We’re not all apologists for the foreign policy of nation states.

What the US and UK are trying to do is to rebuild Iraq for Iraq.

Are they? And I suppose you believe they invaded because Iraq was full of WMD too, as they told us at the time... :rolleyes:

bloggs

Originally posted by Geromino
Then please define "serious consequences?" Unless you think this means not going to the pub for two weeks, then the only serious consequence is military action. Any other action, such as another security resolution would not make Saddem comply with UN resolutions. Iraq had no other resource other than oil. That stopped when the oil for food program was suspended since Saddem was lining his pockets with the receipts.

Sorry i don't have the exact quote, but the UK ambassidor to the UN said infront of the UN that 1441 non-compliance did NOT mean military action. Serious consquences, can mean anything, if they wanted to use military force they should have stated it in 1441. What the plan was, was if Saddam failed on 1441, they could go back and get a UN mandate for military action. To band about words like 'serious consequences' and not define what they mean, but to explicitly mean it DOESN'T mean military action is shooting youself in the foot (IMO).

Bush didn't want anything to do with the UN in the first place, it was only Blair's 'restraining hand' that managed to get him to take the UN route. He burned his bridges with the UN ages ago. I think his regime have some neck asking for international help now. 'With us or with the terrorists' hmmmm

bonkey

Lads - get back on topic, or have the thread closed.

You wanna re-discuss the entire right and wrong of the invasion, rather than searching for the umpteen threads which did exactly that when it was current....then be my guest. Only do it in a thread of its own.

If you believe the US was right or wrong to invade, and this has some bearing on whether the Irish should send troops, then fine - state your position and move on.

If you want to discuss why that starting position is valid or invalid - take it to another thread.

jc

TetsuoHashimoto

I don't think Irish troops should be sent to Iraq, the situation is getting worse by the day, pipe lines destroyed, Us troops are being shot at, the water supplies are in damage.
The War was waged for false reasons, Saddam was a horrible dictator, but he wasn't in Bin Ladens group, and he didn't have the WeaponsMassDestruction, not that it mattered to the USA that Isreal Sharon is one of the world's biggest terrrorists, bigger than binLaden, killing 3,000 children and old men in the Sabra massacre and Isreal also has Nukes.
If Irish troops end up in Iraq they will slowly discover more lies and fabrications in this war, but it will be too late. Because the first thing Iraq soldiers or assassins will see is a foreign force in their country that needs a bullet.
Kashmir, North of Ireland, Vietnam all had partisan or guerrilla war type fights, it is something that can not be won on the battle-field.
The state of affairs in Iraq must change, Bush and Blair should say they were wrong and admit the lies, then Germany, Ireland, Japan , Canada, Greece or Austria can come and help these people without pointing a gun at them.

sovtek

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 should have been charged for the cost of damage (like any of them have jobs?).

I know of at least one that did have a job. He also had his flat mysteriously broken into that night and nothing taken but his papers relating to the political party he belongs to.
The government SHOULD have at least had a referendum to see if the Irish people were in favor of supporting an illegal invasion of another country. If that'd happened, there probably wouldn't have been the protests such as we witnessed.
Just to keep on topic:
Unless US/UK give control over to the UN, no UN troops should be sent in whatever nationality.