Irish troops to Iraq?

bertiebowl

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

I don't actually remember a UN security council motion to sanction the occupation of Iraq - if I remember the US "interpreted" earlier UN motions and decided to invade Iraq.

NO SUBIDISING US WAR AGRESSION

bonkey

Originally posted by bertiebowl
I don't actually remember a UN security council motion to sanction the occupation of Iraq - if I remember the US "interpreted" earlier UN motions and decided to invade Iraq.

The question as to whether or not we should send troops to Iraq only arises if the UN issues a mandate in the future to send peacekeepers.

I'm not talking about past events. I'm talking about whether or not the situation can even arise that the UN would ask us to send peacekeepers.

If we are asked, it means that by that stage, a mandate will have been passed. If the mandate never passes, we will never be asked?

Now do you see where I am coming from?

For Ireland to be asked, a mandate must exist. If a mandate exists, it legitimises the occupation as of when said mandate came into force, and therefore we would not be asked to send troops to aid an illegal occupation, but rather to aid a by-then sanctioned one.

At that point, any refusal by the Irish would be no different to the excuses that the US is being condemned for using....that the UN's mandates, rules, and agreements are not worth following when you disagree with them.

What that ultimately means is that if the UN asks Ireland to send troops, we can either send them (thus supporting the US), or we can show that we too believe that it is ok to defy the UN when you disagree with it (thus supporting the US).

If the UN agrees to the US suggestion....we end up in a lose-lose situation, morally speaking.

Personally, I think sending the troops is the lesser of two evils in that situation, because it still gives me scope to criticise the US defiance of the UN without being a hypocrite.

NO SUBIDISING US WAR AGRESSION

I agree completely. The issue, though, is not whether or not the Irish should send troops if asked to by the UN, but rather that the UN should not accept the offer made by the US in the first place.....which thankfully appears to be the case at present, judging by a concurrent thread discussing that.

jc

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
I agree completely. The issue, though, is not whether or not the Irish should send troops if asked to by the UN, but rather that the UN should not accept the offer made by the US in the first place.....which thankfully appears to be the case at present, judging by a concurrent thread discussing that.

jc

And who do you think should propose such a resolution? If you state that the US should leave first, then you are creating a climate worse than one already exists. When you have the UN to create a terrorist state called East Timor, then what do you think the UN would do with Iraq.

France and Germany had more economic interest with Iraq of Saddem than the proposed arguments, with no proof whatsoever, about the US with Iraq.

And you think the US is the only one who has motives? That is really calling the kettle black.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
If you state that the US should leave first, then you are creating a climate worse than one already exists.

I never suggested the US should leave. I'm suggesting that their insistence on remaining totally in control of any UN mission is where the problem lies.

And you think the US is the only one who has motives?

No. I don't think that. I don't think I've ever said anything to that effect. What did I say that gave you that impression?

The US entered this war on false premises, or so it would incrasingly appear. They wilfully ignored the UN, primarily on the grounds that it was irrelevant, and that they (the US) were certain in their claims.

The US is now turning to the UN and asking to serve the US to hep clean up this mess that they have created. I say "serve" deliberately, as the US has stated that it will insist in retainnig full military and political control of the situation, even if the UN agrees to help.

The UN is not the US' lackey, nor should it be treated as one. Yes, care should be taken so as to not allow any []iother[/i] nation jumpt its self-serving agenda to the top of the list in the name of giving aid, but that in no way means that the correct solution is to leave the US and its self-serving agenda in complete control.

jc

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
I never suggested the US should leave. I'm suggesting that their insistence on remaining totally in control of any UN mission is where the problem lies.

Someone has to have a command structure. Since the US is still going to be the majority force in the region, it is only prudent for the US to have some control. Otherwise, you are creating a de facto world government. Something that would be completely immoral and wrong.

No. I don't think that. I don't think I've ever said anything to that effect. What did I say that gave you that impression?

The US entered this war on false premises, or so it would incrasingly appear. They wilfully ignored the UN, primarily on the grounds that it was irrelevant, and that they (the US) were certain in their claims.

The US is now turning to the UN and asking to serve the US to hep clean up this mess that they have created. I say "serve" deliberately, as the US has stated that it will insist in retainnig full military and political control of the situation, even if the UN agrees to help.

The UN is not the US' lackey, nor should it be treated as one. Yes, care should be taken so as to not allow any []iother[/i] nation jumpt its self-serving agenda to the top of the list in the name of giving aid, but that in no way means that the correct solution is to leave the US and its self-serving agenda in complete control.

jc

The US is asking for the UN help because it sees the need for the UN as a major player. The US has been condemned for damn if you do and damned if you don't. Since the UN could not even get Saddem to comply with its own resolutions and was very hesistant in using force, the UN bungled on Iraq between 1991 through 1998. Russia even tried, but failed, to end UN sanctions and inspections. This mess, as you refer to, was created by Saddem, not the US. If Saddem had fully complied, then the US would have had no reason to invade. If we are going to go back to the issue of legitimate or illegitimate, I will be happy to oblige you in another thread.

sceptre

Originally posted by Geromino
Otherwise, you are creating a de facto world government.

No you aren't. You're creating a de jure Iraq government. De facto too as a freebie.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
Someone has to have a command structure. Since the US is still going to be the majority force in the region, it is only prudent for the US to have some control.

I don’t think anyone is arguing with the US possessing some control. The objection is with ultimate control.

Otherwise, you are creating a de facto world government. Something that would be completely immoral and wrong.

The whole idea behind the UN is that it should act as a World ombudsman, not a government. As for the idea of a World government, would it be any more immoral than strong nations preying upon the weak?

The US is asking for the UN help because it sees the need for the UN as a major player.

I have a problem with this kind of terminology, as it’s actually quite meaningless. Supplying military and financial assistance without influence is not being a ‘major player’; it’s called being a tributary.

The US has been condemned for damn if you do and damned if you don't.

No, the US has been condemned for dismissing the UN as irrelevant when she went to war and now calling on the help, cap in hand, of this irrelevant UN now that the peace is not going well.

I believe the French for this is ‘hahahaha’.

Since the UN could not even get Saddem to comply with its own resolutions and was very hesistant in using force, the UN bungled on Iraq between 1991 through 1998.

If you’re mugged and the police fail to arrest or convict your assailant, you don’t take the law into your own hands, do you? I note that North Korea has been fairly lackadaisical with regard to resolutions and international law too. There seems to be little question of a pre-emptive war there.

The entire situation has reminded me of a political cartoon from around 1990, with two Bosnian soldiers digging a foxhole and one turns to the other and tells him to stop digging as the foxhole was deep enough; at which is comrade responds “Not until I find oil”.

Real politik is disinterested in morality.

Geromino

Originally posted by The Corinthian
The whole idea behind the UN is that it should act as a World ombudsman, not a government. As for the idea of a World government, would it be any more immoral than strong nations preying upon the weak?

Whether it is an ombudsman or world government, the UN is only a nuetral place for talks, not loyalty. Once the argument, situation, or cannot be resolved peaceably, then action is therefore deemed necessary. This is called sovereignty

I have a problem with this kind of terminology, as it’s actually quite meaningless. Supplying military and financial assistance without influence is not being a ‘major player’; it’s called being a tributary.

Then, you just described the US as a tributary to the UN.

No, the US has been condemned for dismissing the UN as irrelevant when she went to war and now calling on the help, cap in hand, of this irrelevant UN now that the peace is not going well.

I believe the French for this is ‘hahahaha’.

The French word is its Foreign Legion. However, I was speaking more about the comments from certain board members who think the US is to blame from their toast being burned to Iraq (I am speaking figuratively of course).

If you’re mugged and the police fail to arrest or convict your assailant, you don’t take the law into your own hands, do you? I note that North Korea has been fairly lackadaisical with regard to resolutions and international law too. There seems to be little question of a pre-emptive war there.

The entire situation has reminded me of a political cartoon from around 1990, with two Bosnian soldiers digging a foxhole and one turns to the other and tells him to stop digging as the foxhole was deep enough; at which is comrade responds “Not until I find oil”.

Real politik is disinterested in morality.

The North Korea situation is completely different from Iraq because of its unique complexity (I believe I posted two articles suggesting such). However, there has been talk of a quiet regime change being circulated by several prominent South Koreans. They want a military dictatorship without Kim Il Jung as its leader. They believe it would be more reasonable to deal with the military than with Kim Il Jung.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
Whether it is an ombudsman or world government, the UN is only a nuetral place for talks, not loyalty. Once the argument, situation, or cannot be resolved peaceably, then action is therefore deemed necessary. This is called sovereignty

Either that made no sense or (hopefully not) you’ve just argued that when you don’t get your way you should do what you want anyhow.

Then, you just described the US as a tributary to the UN.

Were the roles reversed, yes. But they’re not.

The French word is its Foreign Legion. However, I was speaking more about the comments from certain board members who think the US is to blame from their toast being burned to Iraq (I am speaking figuratively of course).

Then explain the rather drastic change in policy over the importance of the UN. It was irrelevant a few months ago - Now its not.

The North Korea situation is completely different from Iraq because of its unique complexity (I believe I posted two articles suggesting such). However, there has been talk of a quiet regime change being circulated by several prominent South Koreans. They want a military dictatorship without Kim Il Jung as its leader. They believe it would be more reasonable to deal with the military than with Kim Il Jung.

I won’t pick at this argument. Partially because I’ve just come back from a wine bar, but also because it’s probably the right stratagem. However, it does not explain the different attitude towards Iraq and quite a few tin pot dictatorships worldwide.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Then, you just described the US as a tributary to the UN.

Why do you keep interpreting "not the absolute power" to mean "has no power" ?????

The objection is that the US insists on remaining in complete control.

No-one that I can see has posted anything suggesting that the solution is to put some other nation in complete control, or that the US should relinquish all control and become just another provider of troops......and yet you seem to be implying that this is what we are all saying.

jc

bloggs

Bush and his croonies didn't want the UN back in April (comparign it to the Legue of Nations, and talking about it's demise very soon) so to try and excuse the regime's claim that it's the worlds responsiblity to clean up the republican party's mess in Iraq is sickening.

I think it's down to now, US bodybags are bad for election business, while foreign bodybags aren't a concern.

bertiebowl

The question as to whether or not we should send troops to Iraq only arises if the UN issues a mandate in the future to send peacekeepers.

My understanding is that under the so-called "triple lock" (part of our constitution post Nice)

1) there has to be a UN security council motion for troops to go

2) The government has to decide to send in the troops

3) The oireachtas has to have a vote on sending in the troops

Only when all three have been met do the troops go in.

LegacyUser

When you cut to the chase, putting aside the rights and wrongs of whether we should go or not, the bottom line is we couldn't send anything other than an operationally worthless token, and token or not some would die, so hands up who wants their friends/family killed in a token gesture

TomF

I just read an article on severe pneumonia among American military personnel in and around Iraq, and the medics seem to be blaming it on smoking.

With the huge rate of smoking among the young and dumb (also among the not-so-young and still dumb) in Ireland, I'd say this might be a good reason for Irish troops not to be sent to Iraq.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20030909/ap_on_re_us/soldier_illness_4

desp

Originally posted by bonkey
The question as to whether or not we should send troops to Iraq only arises if the UN issues a mandate in the future to send peacekeepers. (...) At that point, any refusal by the Irish would be no different to the excuses that the US is being condemned for using....that the UN's mandates, rules, and agreements are not worth following when you disagree with them.
What that ultimately means is that if the UN asks Ireland to send troops, we can either send them (thus supporting the US), or we can show that we too believe that it is ok to defy the UN when you disagree with it (thus supporting the US).

This posting does not make sense. I mean that literally. I'm not subjectively disagreeing with the posting I'm objectively pointing out a major flaw in the logic, of the 2 + 2 = 5 kind.

It is not correct to say that a refusal by the Irish govt. to send troops to a UN mission would be equivalent to the actions of the US.
It is also not correct to state that not sending troops on a US mission is equal to "defying the UN".

Why are the two equivalencies above invalid? First of all they are the same point restated so there is only one equivalence:
Irish not sending troops = US invading Iraq.
Putting it as baldly as that it seems so obvious as not to require explanation but obviously it isn't that clear to everyone.
The US action was against the express wishes of the Security Council which the US as a (founder) member of the UN is _obliged_ to acept. An Irish refusal to send troops would not be in defianmce of the Un since sending troops is not an _obligation_ of UN membership.
Secondly, the US action was in breach of International Law which the Security Council is bound to uphold. Not even uninformed US fellow travellors would suggest that a an Irish refusal to send troops would be a breach of international law.

Ireland is perfectly entitled to decide not to send troops to any UN mission and remain a supporter of the Un in general.

rgds,

Victor

Originally posted by des
An Irish refusal to send troops would not be in defianmce of the Un since sending troops is not an _obligation_ of UN membership.

Actually, I understand the UN can insist on countries contributing troops and only in exceptional circumstances (say social turmoil, severe economic depravation, external security threat) can a country refuse.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by des

Originally posted by bonkey
The US action was against the express wishes of the Security Council which the US as a (founder) member of the UN is _obliged_ to acept.

Hmmm, I don't think there's been any resolution against the US in the matter of the invasion of Iraq, although individual members have grumbled.

The Saint

The US vetoes all resolutions against it just as it did when they vetoed a resolution against them for unlawful use of force in Niceragua and another resolution calling on all member states to observe international law.

Commando69

Originally posted by bananayoghurt
When you cut to the chase, putting aside the rights and wrongs of whether we should go or not, the bottom line is we couldn't send anything other than an operationally worthless token, and token or not some would die, so hands up who wants their friends/family killed in a token gesture

What is your basis for calling an irish peacekeeping battallion worthless? Just because it would be a small force does not mean it is useless. Ireland has some of the best peacekeepers in the world with decades of experience.

I cant be sure but wasnt Irishbatt in the Leb on of the largest AO's of any countries troops?

Qadhafi

Army deployment in Iraq would pose real dilemmas

Lieut Gen Gerry McMahon speculates on the possibilities of an Irish troop deployment to Iraq and if so, in what form.
The Irish Times
06-Sept-2003
******************************
The conventional phase of the war in Iraq is over for more than four months, but the unconventional phase continues with daily US/UK causalities.

Within the country chaos reigns, and the situation spirals out of control. This is a scenario, which the US political apparatus did not foresee.


Its military forces are untrained for such warfare, and have little experience in prosecuting low-intensity operations.

In a bid to share the burden, the US has asked others to help it carry the load, and is now engaged in negotiations at the UN Security Council to secure an enabling resolution to legitimise a UN support mission.

This is the same administration which turned its back on the UN and went to war in Iraq with minimal allied support and on doubtful premises.

With the exception of some emerging eastern European nations anxious to show their support for the US, most countries have so far declined the US invitation. This is certainly true in the case of the majority of EU states.

In Ireland the media have given all of this a local flavour by speculating on the deployment of Irish troops to Iraq.

Before this can happen, however the Government has several legal obstacles to cross, and will have to consider other well documented factors.

In the first instance, the Government will have to make a Cabinet decision to send troops to Iraq. If the contingent numbers more than 12 then the proposal will have to be placed before the Dáil.

Ireland currently has troops serving in places like Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, with little awareness of the fact by either the public or opposition TD’s. This is because the numbers are minuscule and well short of the “magic dozen”.

This double lock has existed since the passing of the Defence (Amendment) Act 1960, prior to the deployment then of Irish troops to the Congo.

A third lock was introduced in June 2002 with the Seville Declaration, which stated that Irish military participation in missions overseas, including EU deployments, must have the authorisation of the UN Security Council or General Assembly.

While this declaration helped in the passing of the Nice referendum, it has caused some confusion.

For instance, an EU preventive deployment force, lightly armed, has been located in Macedonia for quite some time. It replaced a UN force which had to be withdrawn because China, angry at Macedonian recognition of Taiwan, vetoed an extension of the UN force’s mandate.

With no chance of a UN mandate, the force was deployed without UN mandate and Ireland was debarred from participating in this EU mission deployed in Europe and contributing to European security.

In the case of Iraq no such impediment exists provided a UN resolution is forthcoming.

But other factors must also be taken into consideration when the Government considers the deployment of troops overseas. These were contained in the White Paper on Foreign Policy of 1996.

It is these considerations, rather than the triple lock, which will guide the Government decision.

The first concerns whether a UN peacekeeping mission is an appropriate response to the problems on the ground – in the case of Iraq whether the time is ripe for such a response.

UN peace support missions to be successful, require a degree of stability in the area of operations. This can be achieved through political agreement and support on the ground backed up by an agreed truce or ceasefire. In situations where such agreement is less than adequate, massive military strength is required.

The US contributed this force in Bosnia, but in Iraq the US military is now part of the problem. The time is hardly rope yet for peace support intervention.

Next, the Government must consider if involvement in Iraq would support Irish foreign policy priorities.

We opposed the Iraqi war because it had no UN mandate. Subsequently we were ambivalent enough to allow the US to use Shannon as a transit base. We were not, therefore neutral in the conflict and we could continue to show official support for the US by deploying troops. Our action would also ensure that Ireland would remain a prime location for US investment.

Next, in considering risk to our troops, one has to conclude that currently there is a high risk of casualties. The risks associated with peacekeeping have not stopped the deployment of Irish troops in the past to high-risk areas such as Congo, Lebannon, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo, but the current security situation in Iraq would give the Government pause in any decision.

And the Government must consider if current Irish military capabilities would be adequate. The Minister for Defence has trumpeted the purchase of purchase of APC’s repeatedly for the past six years. While, of course great that the Irish military is being brought up to date after decades of neglect, the fact remains that at current rate of investment Ireland will never be capable of peace support operations at the higher level of intensity.

We will continue to have the capabilities for peacekeeping at the lower level, but where the intensity is high we will only be able to fill the role of a small cog in a larger military machine. This is evident in our deployments since the withdrawal of our battalion in Lebanon. We had 40 military police in Bosnia, 100 transport personnel in Kosovo, 30 infantry personnel for a time in East Timor.

The current plan to provide an Irish infantry company and some staff as part of a Finnish battalion in the proposed EU-led and UN-mandated force in Bosnia says it all. The days of Ireland providing a basic infantry unit, a battalion, for peace support operations are over.

In considering factors such as realistic objectives and clear mandates, there is a long way to o yet before a clear picture emerges. The US will not relinquish overall control, and will ensure that the reporting mechanisms between a UN force in Iraq and its directing HQ will go to Washington rather than UN New York.

The US would prefer, and is currently insisting on, a UN resolution which sub-contracts the Iraq military mission to a US-led coalition of the willing. The Government will have to consider closely our involvement is such a force, although the EU will probably lead us on this.

Concern about whether the mission is adequately resourced is a consideration which goes back to our involvement in UN operations. At that time Ireland complained every thime that an operating did not make a profit from peacekeeping.

This was when the UN paid a rental for Irish troops and their personal equipment and fully reimbursed us for heavy equipment over four years of use. Nowadays we pay all our own peacekeeping costs so there is always concern in the Departments of Finance and Defence about the bill for peacekeeping.

The final consideration for the Government will be whether we have the manpower available for a peace support mission in Iraq.

In the mid to lave 1990’s, we had 850 troops overseas, including a major unit or battalion group. Following on the Price Waterhouse review, the Army’s strength was reduced by 10 per cent. Almost immediately the Defence White paper reduced the Army strength by a further 10 per cent.

With the Army now at three quarters of its former strength, Ireland no longer has the ability to deploy previous numbers to peacekeeping and currently less than 200 are on overseas service.

In summary, there is no legal stay on our deployments of troops to Iraq provided a proper UN mandate is in place. When, however the Government considers the other factors, if we are to see any Irish deployment it is lively to be minuscule and composed of elements deployed away from the more dangerous operations.

By following such a policy the Governments will be able to assure the US of our support, be seen to be support EU policy, announce our undying support for the UN, and do it all at minimum risk and cost.


Some interesting points there by the former COS. However some of his points need questioning. For example, back in the 1990s yes we did have a bigger army, but most of the soldiers in it were totally unfit (just look at the white paper on numbers) and very old. Our equipment was in bits, its not like the golden era or anything. We have a smaller army now but we could still put 850 troops abroad on the same conditions as the Lebanon if we wished to. The troop numbers were cut, but they intended to bring an element of the Reserve up to PDF standard. He talks about not being able to participate in the higher lever intensity missions. However we never could, we are in a better position to do so now, probably only €100 million (most) away in terms of equipment of doing so.

It’s good to see Ireland has grown up a little in terms of foreign policy and acting to protect our interests overseas. i.e. firstly supporting the U.S and keeping foreign investment in Ireland while secondly managing to support EU policy and the UN

dathi1

It’s good to see Ireland has grown up a little in terms of foreign policy and acting to protect our interests overseas. i.e. firstly supporting the U.S and keeping foreign investment in Ireland while secondly managing to support EU policy and the UN

hmm...supporting America is one thing..supporting the Bush Administration is another.

Qadhafi

Sitting on the fence is running away from the issue, I think Irish soldiers should be sent to Iraq. Its what we do best. Its our responsibility as a Nation and we have the ability and expertise to do it. Why continue to stall ?

The Bush administration seems to be quite neo-conservative with Cheney and the like, however this should not detract Ireland from helping the Iraqi people.

Victor

Originally posted by Qadhafi
For example, back in the 1990s yes we did have a bigger army, but most of the soldiers in it were totally unfit (just look at the white paper on numbers) and very old.

In part because of slow recruitment, in part because you want more mature soldiers for peacekeeping. The average 20 year old American Marine is too gung-ho for operations near civilians.

Originally posted by Qadhafi
We have a smaller army now but we could still put 850 troops abroad on the same conditions as the Lebanon if we wished to.

If they didn't have to do the following duties (a) Central Bank (b) prisons (c) Oireachtas (d) border.

Originally posted by Qadhafi
The troop numbers were cut, but they intended to bring an element of the Reserve up to PDF standard.

This hasn't been done yet and will take 2-3 years.

Originally posted by Qadhafi
However we never could, we are in a better position to do so now, probably only €100 million (most) away in terms of equipment of doing so.

The problem is there are no modern cavalry vehicles (tanks or tank destroyers - no 1960s doesn't count) to protect the APCs.

Qadhafi

Originally posted by Victor
In part because of slow recruitment, in part because you want more mature soldiers for peacekeeping. The average 20 year old American Marine is too gung-ho for operations near civilians.

? slow recruitment and an army wanting a older solder? No, the DF wasn’t in control of recruitment at the time and successive governments ignored the DF for years.

The US army is trained for a different type of war than the DF. The US marines are used to fight war not keep peace. Different mission need different training, the DF like every other army needs young soldiers 17-25.

If they didn't have to do the following duties (a) Central Bank (b) prisons (c) Oireachtas (d) border.

Yes the DF could deploy 850 troops abroad in Lebanon type conditions on top of internal security duties, if there was political will.

This hasn't been done yet and will take 2-3 years. The problem is there are no modern cavalry vehicles (tanks or tank destroyers - no 1960s doesn't count) to protect the APCs.

I was talking about how capable the DF is in sending troops abroad. The restructuring of the Reserve is underway, I never said it was done. But at the moment we can have 500 troops in Kosovo and 200 in Liberia. The cavalry vehicles are being replaced in 2005 and we purchased the Javelin anti tank missile which defeats all modern Main Battle Tanks. Tanks are only really good at taking out other tanks. However we could still do with them.

The only problem is public indifference and weak foreign policy

dathi1

The only problem is public indifference and weak foreign policy

What's your point??
Do u think Irish Troops should go to occupied Iraq and why should they? and if you think they should go UN mission or not would you support DF going to the west bank? East Timor during occupation to help out Indonesia...I'm trying to figure out what on earth the proposal would be to help out an invading force which since the Um Qusar Martyrs is facing growing resistance every day. The people of Faluja, Tikrit and Karbala as with Albanian forces today don't care what your peace keeping standards are.. they just want your "infidel" ass out of their country. The only way I can see Irish troops going in would be Bush loosing the Whitehouse, a US and British withdrawal and new rebuild coalition with Pakistan, Syria, Egypt etc...very unlikely though....so I say let the yanks stew in it until Bush is gone and then take the situation seriously..because under the inept Chaney, Wolfowitz and Codoleza it cannot be done now.

dathi1

i.e. firstly supporting the U.S and keeping foreign investment in Ireland while secondly managing to support EU policy and the UN

No... eat grass if it takes it, Do everything we can to get rid of the Bush Admin which is slightly more dangerous than Al Quida and then get back to supporting America against whatever.
So do the Americans a favour..help get rid of Bush.

Qadhafi

Without a shadow of a doubt Bush is a dangerous man. I don’t support Cheney or rumsvelt etc views and their neo-conservative (do a web search for a scary surprise!) views of the world. However this should not detract from the task of rebuilding Iraq. The British or Americans aren’t going to leave Iraq. I can only hope that the fool bush doesn’t get re-elected.

The DF should be involved in rebuilding in Iraq. But it needs broad international support to work. A UN resolution would be a good way of going about it. Personally I believe that the continuing attacks are being orchestrated by loyal Saddam forces and the international community can’t run away from Iraq. What’s going to happen if it does?

My point is that terrorists have to be stood up to, basically killed or pacified. Then rebuild Iraq with a western friendly government. Get the US Marines out and put in peacemaking/keeping troops. During the first Iraqi war, there was uproar in some quarters about this selfish and strategic war, history shows that this was the correct thing to do, they should have finished the job! In 10 years time, the Middle East will be a lot more stable.

When I said “The only problem is public indifference and weak foreign policy” I was talking about Irelands own strategic interests and that lies with firstly supporting the U.S and secondly the E.U.

Victor

Well if this goes ahead I think a further expedition to Iraq is unlikely - however I'd watch the bit that says "However, a spokesman for the Department of Defence would only say this evening that that matter is "under consideration"[]/i"

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/1523225?view=Eircomnet

Ireland may send up to 400 troops on UN Liberia mission
From:ireland.com
Friday, 19th September, 2003

Ireland is considering sending as many as 400 soldiers on a UN mission to help rebuild Liberia.

It is believed the Government may approve the measure as early as next week after the UN Security Council today unanimously approved up to 15,000 peacekeepers for the civil war-stricken country. Informed sources indicate that as many as 400 soldiers may be required for such a mission, given its difficult nature.

However, a spokesman for the Department of Defence would only say this evening that that matter is "under consideration".

He said it would be resolved "very shortly", possibly in the next fortnight or sooner.

However, it is understood that the Defence Forces are actively preparing to contribue a company-sized element on the mission.

A spokesman for the Defence Forces told ireland.com that nothing would be decided until the Government gives its formal approval.

He said the Defence Forces were "always in training" for any overseas deployment. However, the spokesman added that elements such as the size of the force and force protection would be taken into account in deciding how many troops would be sent on such a mission.

He said it was "likely" the Irish soldiers, if sent to Liberia, would serve as a kind of force reserve, providing on-call back up for the multi-national forces on the ground in Liberia.

Their role would be similar to that carried out by the Irish forces mobile reserve that existed in Lebanon.

The US-drafted resolution says the operation would include 250 military observers, 160 staff officers and 1,115 international police.

It would integrate some of the West African soldiers currently in place into the UN force.

Nigeria has been the major player in peace efforts in Liberia, where its troops make up the bulk of a 3,500-strong West African peacekeeping force.

Its peacekeepers helped subdue violence in the capital Monrovia but not in rural areas.

Some 200,000 people have died in 14 years of almost uninterrupted fighting in Liberia that began when former President Charles Taylor launched a rebellion in 1989 from neighboring Ivory Coast promising national redemption.

"The general consensus is that this is a failed state," Mr Jacques Paul Klein, the chief UN envoy for Liberia, said earlier this week. "Now we have to rebuild the state."

"The former troops are robbing, raping. This situation will get worse before it gets better as the fighting is over and there is not yet any UN mission in place."

He said he had offers of troops from Bangladesh, Pakistan, South Africa, Ethiopia and Namibia. Ireland is expected to supply a headquarters company and Russia may contribute 1,200 soldiers and officers.

Qadhafi

Iraq up for sale . . . one previous owner
The Irish Independent
23-September-2003
Philip Thornton in Dubai
************************

IRAQ was effectively put up for sale yesterday after the US-backed administration announced it was opening up all sectors of its economy to foreign investors in a bid to deliver the much-needed reconstruction of the war-ravaged country.

In an unexpected move unveiled at the meeting of the Group of Seven rich nations in Dubai, the Iraqi Governing Council announced sweeping reforms to allow total foreign ownership without the need for any prior approval.

The move, accompanied by swingeing cuts in taxes and tariffs, is likely, however, to add further fuel to concerns that Iraq is being turned into a golden opportunity for profiteering by multinational corporations relying on their political connections, not a free-market level playing field.

However, Iraq's vast oil reserves will remain in government hands.

Last night US President George Bush criticised Senator Edward Kennedy, who had earlier attacked the administration for going to war against Iraq on the basis of a fraud "made up in Texas" to give Republicans a political boost.

Kennedy had also alleged that the money for the war is being used to bribe foreign leaders to send troops.

---

well its looks increasingly unlikely that the DF cant send troops to Iraq in light of the (possible)400 going to Liberia, this is on total of the 200 odd (500 from next march) in Kosovo. However I still think that the DF should be sending troops to Iraq, even if its only company (around 120-200) strength. There is a lot of oppurtunities in Iraq for re-construction for pro USA countries. I know the Irish government has been lobbying hard for contracts (one thing they have done right!). However this would be a lot easier if the DF was invovled in the peace keeping/enforement in Iraq

Qadhafi

Just watching the 9 o clock news there. Bertie must have come to his senses. He was over visiting the U.S.A and Hilary Clinton. He said that if the UN got a resolution for Iraq he would look favourable at sending Irish troops to Iraq.

This must be the most logical decision to arrive at and there must be a growning realisation that the US is our strategic ally. Although there is currently a neo-conserative agenda in the White house Ireland has nothing to loose and everything to gain in supporting the war against terror.