Irish troops to Iraq?

Aindriu

The Irish Defence Forces should be sent into Iraq under a well defined UN resolution. If there is a well defined UN resolution other countries will follow and the average Iraqi on the street will clearly see that this is not an army of occupation but a stabilisation force there to help them get back on their feet. It would be better if the UN could get friendly countries (as seen to the ordinary Iraqi) involved in the mission.

Iraq has been 3 major wars in the last 20 odd years, after the Iran war in the early 1990s it was $19 billion dollars in debt. God only knows what it is now with the country being put back to the stone ages. There is major reconstruction required.

Irish troop numbers should be around 500-600. However the Government has to get some extra equipment to ensure the safety of the individual soldier. Defence in Ireland, and most people don’t have an understanding of what the Defence Force actually do. We are lacking a number of specialist vehicles and equipment in order to carry out the mission.

Its only when the country is secure that NGO’s are likely to follow.

TetsuoHashimoto

The name UN sounds very good and the U.N has done some very fine things, but it is not great.
The United Nations does not represent all nations, and it isn't the exact illustration of every nation on earth united. Western sway, especially the US Isreal and UK has always been somewhat stronger than others. Cuba and its people has had to suffer sanctions, For a long time also, China was represented by Taiwans General Chiang, who was as anti-China as possible.
Bush and Blair have lied to the world, they have used these lies to influence the UN and to trick others to do their bidding.
Even if Irish troops do enter under the UN, the Arabs may very well see them as American puppets that need to be shot at, this is why Ireland should not put Irish troops in Iraq, not until Bush and Blair admit that they lied about the Taliban connection in Iraq and Nuclear bombs .
If these Western police of the free world truly want to stop a cruel leader and restrain a cruel leader with Nukes they should look at Sharon in Isreal.
The people in some Arabic countries are very afraid, some look to the skies wondering if the next American plane will carry bombs for their towns, and with Syria, Iran and Sudan on the hit list who can blame them.
The force Western influence has been strong in the UN, 320 Million people speak Arabic, there are 400 million speakers of native English dialects ( British, American..), yet Arabic sway or influence in the UN is very low. Bush has hijacked the UN, and held them to ransom, he even said that if they don't support him then the UN is out-dated, maybe that's why Many Arabs may look at them as American puppets.
If Bush and Blair want to get Iraq to working order they should admit that they have been telling lies about this war,
Irish troops should not be sent to this country to settle a family feud that came from Texas.

Geromino

Originally posted by TetsuoHashimoto
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.

Guerrilla war can be achieved. Vietnam proved that as well as Nicuragua. When you fight guerrilla war, you must use psy warfare as the couter offensive measure. The question becomes which psy warfare tactic or tactics need to be used.

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.

So now we are going to divide "good" terrorists from "bad" terrorists. Who are the "good" terrorists and who are the "bad" terrorists. I can guess who is the bad terrorists, US, UK, Israel, and Syria, Iran, NK as the good one right? I can also see Hamas propoganda is still functioning very well.

For a long time also, China was represented by Taiwans General Chiang, who was as anti-China as possible.

Correction, General Chiang was anti-mao and anti-communist, not anti-China. To make that statement, you are suggesting that Chiang was against his own heritage. Contrary, Chiang used his heritage, a national war lord, as a position of power and legitimize his leadership of the Chines people. Mao did the same thing. Mao won and the rest is history.

If Ireland is going to be an active critic of international policy of the US or UK, then it must actively seek viable alternative solutions or help with current ops going on reguardless of its past or reasons. Otherwise, to sit there and criticize the actions of one group without sticking your own neck is seeking complacency with the previous situation rather than solve it.

sceptre

Originally posted by TetsuoHashimoto
The United Nations does not represent all nations, and it isn't the exact illustration of every nation on earth united.

Well, the IOC (and probably FIFA as well) has more members but they're not all that good at running peacekeeping missions. Most countries (191) are representated at the UN. Switzerland even joined last year. It's currently representative of virtually all who wish to be represented. And unlike international sporting organisations, they occasionally run peace-keeping and -enforcement missions.

For a long time also, China was represented by Taiwans General Chiang, who was as anti-China as possible.

Not since 1971 when mainland China walked into the Assembly. And I'm not so sure how that's relevant to the current question. Besides, Chiang Kai-Shek wasn't exactly anti-China now was he? More anti Mao or anti-Communism perhaps, hmmm? China and Taiwan are still in a special place, each officially regarding the other as a renegade province of the same country. Hence they can't both be UN members at the same time by their own rules unless Taiwan declares independence. Nothing to do with anything except to illustrate that a billion people were once unrepresented at the UN. But not since 1971. Rather than go off-topic, this is a topic for a different thread if you feel like debating the pre-1971 UN. Or why Chiang Chou-tai was a bit of a hoore really.

edit: fixed wayward tags

TetsuoHashimoto

All I pointed out is that powers of the West have on ocassin, lied and twisted the UN in order to do its own bidding. because of the influence The UN doesn't do a real representation of the world and its nations. Just After world war 2 China been looked after, American troops under Truman, were supposed to be their to disarm Japanese troops, but instead tried to capture the main roads, bridges, ports and other strategic sites and help Chiang capture China and turn it into a HongKong, Guam or Porte Rico colony.When Chinag began to fail, he and the Americans prepared entry into Taiwan by terrorising islanders into submission, the Washington post Parade wrote about one terrorising that claimed the lives of 25,000 Chinese people in Taiwan so Chiang could get power. Taiwan lived under martial law, and it wasn't until later 1990 that other parties were ever allowed take place in elections. I'm not telling you that China was great or good, in fact China was often terrible, but I'm saying there was a lot more to Taiwan than people may know.
Western influence has always been strong with the UN, and Arabic very weak, anyone recall that Ronnie RayGun, American bombings in El Salvador, torture and 90,000 dead. The UN did little to put mr Raygun in check here.
Bush and Blair should admit they have been wrong about Iraq, otherwise any UN troops sent in there will just appear to some Arabs as American puppets.
Geronimo you speak of something called Hamas propoganda functioning , maybe you should see how it functions in the reports of Amnesty International or Human rights watch, they have lots of "hamas writing" on the Sabra massacre, or what to you say of that old inditement in Belgium for Sharon as a war crime terrorist?
You also seem to think the Yanks won the Vietnam war, well I got news for you, go back and have a good read about it, they got their fat butts kicked, in Vietnam, in Cuba, Somalia, the Lebanon, Cambodia.... because they faced this type of warfare...and did they USA not use this type of Warfare to fight the UK and its Empire or did they not?
If Irish troops go to Iraq, they will face this type of warfare, and just like the Yanks, they will just be another foreign occupying force that needs shooting

bertiebowl

NO WAY SHOULD IRISH SOLDIERS GO TO IRAQ AT THE MOMENT.

1) Its a matter of soverignity that Irish troops should be under the command of the Irish people - not some jack booted colonialist American war criminals I for one do not pay my taxes to subsidise the America illegal invasion of a soverign nation.

2) The way to rebuild Iraq is - to spend sh*tloads of money rebuilding the country not to put in more troops who have as their profession killing other humans. But the scabby yanks won't pay the bill.

NO TO SUBSIDISING AMERICAN AGRESSION AGAINST FELLOW HUMANS

bloggs

Originally posted by bertiebowl


2) The way to rebuild Iraq is - to spend sh*tloads of money rebuilding the country not to put in more troops who have as their profession killing other humans. But the scabby yanks won't pay the bill.

If the Americans ask for help with the funding, you will say don't give them any as it's their mess (which i agree), but if the American tax payer, pays for this, then it will be American companies who get all the tenders for reconstruction work, you will be complaining about that also?

Sorry im going off point again . I think Irish soldiers should go in, but only with a full UN mandage and under UN control, meaning the withdrawl of US/UK troops.

bertiebowl

If the Americans ask for help with the funding, you will say don't give them any as it's their mess

Sorry Bloggs your powers of telepathy have failed you.

What i would say is that the UN should administer the funding, with the bulk of this funding paid for of course by the Americans (hopefully out of their military budget) and their lackeys the British.

NO TO SUBSIDISING AMERICAN WAR ON IRAQIS

bloggs

Originally posted by bertiebowl
Sorry Bloggs your powers of telepathy have failed you.

What i would say is that the UN should administer the funding, with the bulk of this funding paid for of course by the Americans (hopefully out of their military budget) and their lackeys the British.

But if the Americans pay most of the funding, they will request most of the jobs in reconstuction and in security, and that is the probably at the min in Iraq. Although i think Al-Queda will shoot anyone who isn't of their thinking.

You have to admit that if the yanks pay for most of the reconstruction, they have to be given most of the contracts? Otherwise it's not going to happen.

bonkey

Originally posted by bloggs
You have to admit that if the yanks pay for most of the reconstruction, they have to be given most of the contracts?

Maybe.

Every time I hear a US official commenting on the ongoing attacks on oil pipelines etc. they are pointing out that all these so-called terrorists are doing is denying Iraq of money it desperately needs to pay for rebuilding.

The more I read/hear, the more it seems that the US expect the Iraqi's to pay the reconstruction cost. The US may accept to assume the cost of having their military in place, but ultimately, they seem to be implying that they will receive remuneration from the Iraqis for the expenditure on rebuilding contracts.

jc

bloggs

Aye, that's my feeling too. I think they expect to spend a few quid now, to get things up and running, and then they will take a good slice of the oil profits for the next 20 years or so.

The thing

Ireland signed up many years ago under the United Nations rapid reaction plan that is to say ie: Ireland will have at any one time a military force of 850 troops on stand by for United Nations missions anywhere in the world.
Having served myself as a United Nations peace keeping soldier with the Irish Defence Forces I for one agree that Irish troops should be sent to Iraq under the United Nations if and when requested. By their nature United Nations missions are multi national and complex affairs. It is not a simple task of saying that Irish troops should be under the complete control from UN peace keeping headquaters and the Irish government alone this would not only prove to be extremely expensive in economical terms ie: in that we have no transport aircraft or ships for resupply no heavy armour for defence and no way for constant logistics to resupply the missions etc.
Secondly if all UN contingents acted in a very seperate manner to one another there would be chaos in the operational areas of responsibility. It would not matter if the US or UK were to be the spearhead for other contributing nations under the UN umbrella in Iraq in fact this could greatly enhance logistical,medical,security,humaterian and intelligence missions support.
The Irish Defence fForces Army,Naval Service and Air Corps are a very ill equipped and funded national Defence Force. It makes me extrememly mad whenI see comments from those of you that say we should not have a national Defence Forces when it was the forefathers of todays Defence Forces that won the freedom for this country.
At present you can be sure that in some corner of the world an Irish peace keeper is serving his or her country promoting the name of Ireland or off the coasts there are Naval vessels on patrol or Air Corps rescue crews on standy by, when some of you volunteer for this then you can make such comments!

Victor

Originally posted by The thing
Ireland signed up many years ago under the United Nations rapid reaction plan that is to say ie: Ireland will have at any one time a military force of 850 troops on stand by for United Nations missions anywhere in the world.

Do you mean the EU Rapid Reaction Force?

The thing

There are a few other countries that have signed up to the United Nations rapid reaction plan off my head I can only think of Brazil.
This was agreed many years ago way before the EURRF back in the days of WEU!

Victor

Originally posted by The thing
There are a few other countries that have signed up to the United Nations rapid reaction plan off my head I can only think of Brazil. This was agreed many years ago way before the EURRF back in the days of WEU!

A google indicates it was never set up except for an interim force in Bosnia.

dumb larry

I think Irish troops should go to Iraq with or without a UN mandate, although preferably with!. The US needs as much help as possible to rebuild the country (however reluctant they are to admit this) and more peacekeeping troops are obviously required. If other countries assist, this will help dilute the argument that Iraq is some kind of US imperial conquest (which it plainly is not) and remove some of the pressure from US troops.

sceptre

Originally posted by The thing
when some of you volunteer for this then you can make such comments!

Er, yeah. Or when we become citizens of this great island nation of ours.

Aindriu

I agree with the Thing, the DF should be going in. However the Irish Defence Forces (DF) have been neglected by successive governments for years. The DF is very professional and were good at this kind of operation and we would be a valuable asset in Iraq.
Anyone who joins an army knows the business entails, unless they are incredibly naïve. The DF should be there to provide their skills under a UN mandate and US and UK control.

It’s the only right thing to do and the Government should be purchasing equipment for the DF. We could get a lot of equipment at next to nothing prices but there is a lot of ignorance in this country regarding military matters.

This nation has still a lot of growing up to do when it comes to the military and foreign policy

The thing

The offical name for the United Nations rapid deployment forces is the "United Nations stand by agreement" under this title you should bear some more results with your search.

bertiebowl

I agree with the Thing, the DF should be going in.

NO WAY - I'd never ask someone to do something I was not prepared to do (like go to Baghdad) - are the gung ho lads prepared to put their own lives at risk and go to Iraq?

NO WAY - I'm not prepared to see some poor irish lads coming back in body bags, with the only comfort to their poor families a load of bulls*it about "sacrifice"

ken90

Well said Bertiebowl.

I think Georgie should be sent over to clean up his own mess.

We should be telling our TD's that we dont want any dead Irish Soldiers.

Paddy20

SEND BERTIE OVER?..

Hey, nice to see that I am not alone!, after all.

P.

dumb larry

Originally posted by bertiebowl
NO WAY - I'd never ask someone to do something I was not prepared to do (like go to Baghdad) - are the gung ho lads prepared to put their own lives at risk and go to Iraq?

NO WAY - I'm not prepared to see some poor irish lads coming back in body bags, with the only comfort to their poor families a load of bulls*it about "sacrifice"

Why do some people insist that civilians don't have a right to request something of their country's troops unless they are prepared to do it themselves? The army is trained to do this type of work, it's their job.

Civilians have a right to argue for war. The notion that civilians who command troops have to experience battle first hand before doing so is pretty daft.

Christopher Hitchens wrote a good article about this: http://slate.msn.com/id/2073772

Paddy20

dumb larry,

Well there you go, spoiling my impression that this thread was about sending "Peace-keepers" to Iraq under a UN mandate.

P.

dumb larry

Originally posted by Paddy20
Well there you go, spoiling my impression that this thread was about sending "Peace-keepers" to Iraq under a UN mandate.

Well it was somewhat relevent. The guy was suggesting that a person shouldn't request that our defence forces go to Iraq unless that person was prepared to go peace-keep there themselves.

I'll try to restrain myself in the face of such silly notions in future

MingiMan

From Paddy20:

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

All troops going overseas receive extensive training before embarkation. There are also annual training exercises and the UN school in the Curragh where foreign troops are given the benefit of the Irish Defence Force's extensive peace-keeping experience. So while you may not accept them as trained peace-keepers, countless others do.

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

Soldiers must obey all lawful orders. At present all those seving overseas are volunteers.


The following is off-topic, apologies:

Guerrilla war can be achieved. Vietnam proved that as well as Nicuragua

Guerrilla war can only win if one of two things happens: either the guerrilla's enemy loses the political will to continue fighting and a compromise is reached (Irish War of Independence) or the guerrilla forces evolve into, or are joined by, a conventional army with the ability to defeat the enemy. North Vietnam was only able to achieve victory when the US pulled out & the NVA was able to invade. This invasion was made up of conventional forces who finally overwhelmed their ARVN opponents. While the war was started by guerrillas, it was largely fought & eventually won by regular troops.

dathi1

Again to all the above who propose helping the occupiers.
Ireland should not and will not "peace keep" in Iraq under the command of an Invading, illegally occupying force period.

Just looking at Reuters raw video this morning seeing US troops in Tikrit putting guns to the heads of Iraqi civilians in front of their families whilst interrogating them makes me sick. Who would want to "peace keep" under a dumb, no brainer thug force like that.

bertiebowl

Why do some people insist that civilians don't have a right to request something of their country's troops unless they are prepared to do it themselves? The army is trained to do this type of work, it's their job.

Eh.... I thought the defence forces jobs was to eh defend Ireland against foreign invaders coming in, bombing the f*ck out of everything, occupying us and generally pushing the country into complete anarchy/stone ages etc. etc.

bonkey

Originally posted by bertiebowl
Eh.... I thought the defence forces jobs was to .....

Yes, and its the nation's job to live up to the responsibilities it assumed upon joining the UN.

If the UN mandates that all members should assist in a peace-keeping mission, then that includes us. I've already presented other options than having our forces miliarily involved.

Originally posted by bertiebowl
under the command of an Invading, illegally occupying force

The only possible reason that they could be classed as "an illegally occupying force" is if the UN has not sanctioned the occupation.

If the UN mandates a peace-keeping mission under the control of these people, then it ceases to be even arguably illegal under any legal interpretation of the law.

If the Irish are to go in, it would only be under a UN mandate, at which point there would be no illegal occupation, and any refusal by the Irish to accept the decision of the UN in this matter would be tantamount to accepting that the US had the same right of refusal...which would make their invasion even more difficult to object to.

Who would want to "peace keep" under a dumb, no brainer thug force like that.

Yes, you're right. No-one would....and hopefully the UN will realise that and refuse to kowtow to the US. But if they don't refuse, then it is the UN we are defying.....and we're doing it because we don't agree that its acceptable for any nation to wilfully defy the UN

jc

MingiMan

The roles of the Defence Forces as decided by Government are:

to defend the State against armed aggression; this being a contingency, preparations for its implementation will depend on an on-going Government assessment of the security and defence environment;

to aid the civil power (meaning in practice to assist, when requested, the Garda Síochána, who have primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of the State);

to participate in multinational peace support, crisis management and humanitarian relief operations in support of the United Nations and under UN mandate, including regional security missions authorised by the UN;

to provide a fishery protection service in accordance with the State's obligations as a member of the EU;

to carry out such other duties as may be assigned to them from time to time, e.g. search and rescue, air ambulance service, Ministerial air transport service, assistance on the occasion of natural or other disasters, assistance in connection with the maintenance of essential services, assistance in combating oil pollution at sea.