Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Irish troops to Iraq?
Options
Comments
-
Ahern ready to send troops for Iraq force
Alison O'Connor
in New York
23-September-2003
******************************
TAOISEACH Bertie Ahern gave a strong indication last night that Irish soldiers will be sent to Iraq, if the United Nations asks for them.
On the first day of a visit to the US, Mr Ahern was asked whether the Government would send soldiers to Iraq if a new resolution is passed by the UN. "It changes the position for us if there is a Security Council mandate change," he said.
The Taoiseach said when it came to Security Council resolutions, the Irish Army had served all over the world.
"We are a neutral country. Our army may not be big in numbers but when we've been asked we have always contributed, whether it is East Timor, whether it's been in Eritrea, or any of the other areas of conflict in the world," he added.
Mr Ahern said it was the Irish position to work for a successful UN resolution. "We believe this requires the support of the Security Council and an all-out effort is needed to help achieve such a resolution," he said.
US President George Bush is due to address the UN General Assembly today and he is expected to say he was right to order the invasion of Iraq, even without the organisation's explicit approval.
He is also expected to repeat his call that other countries should contribute to rebuilding Iraq.
For Mr Bush the timing of the speech is more important than the venue. While his personal approval ratings remain above 50pc, comfortable for this stage of a presidency, his figures have been steadily dropping to pre-September 11 levels.
The latest polls suggest that his address to the nation on September 7, when he asked the US Congress to approve $87bn for the funding of the war and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, failed to rally waverers.
Mr Ahern is on a four-day visit to the US. On Thursday he will address the UN General Assembly for the first time, at the invitation of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.
In his speech, Mr Ahern is expected to say that he is convinced the primacy of the UN must remain paramount, and a "touchstone" of Irish foreign policy.
Security Editor Tom Brady writes: Two senior Garda officers have been assigned to an international police panel compiling a report on security in Baghdad for the UN.
Deputy Commissioner Peter Fitzgerald, who has wide ranging peacekeeping experience with the UN, will play a central role in the panel's work.
Assistant Commissioner Kevin Carty, who is in charge of policing in Dublin, will act as an advisor to the panel.
It will report back to Mr Annan within six weeks.
When Bertie met Hillary:0 -
Late to this topic but generally I'd be in favour of it if it were a UN mission and not part of the US/UK coalition.
I think it's about time that the UN got involved there to try and sort out the shambles that the US have made.
I can understand the arguments made to leave the US/UK to wallow in the mess they made but I think we have to be more responsible than that and consider the innocent civilians of Iraq who are suffering a lot more than the US/UK.
In other words we need a force in Iraq who really have the interests of the Iraqi people as their primary concern.0 -
Originally posted by colster
Late to this topic but generally I'd be in favour of it if it were a UN mission and not part of the US/UK coalition.
I think it's about time that the UN got involved there to try and sort out the shambles that the US have made.
I can understand the arguments made to leave the US/UK to wallow in the mess they made but I think we have to be more responsible than that and consider the innocent civilians of Iraq who are suffering a lot more than the US/UK.
In other words we need a force in Iraq who really have the interests of the Iraqi people as their primary concern.
The problem is that if the UN go in now, it will be seen as endorsing the US/UK war. The current f**k up which as been created, will end up getting UN troops killed also. Frankly if someone is going to be shot at in Iraq i would prefer it to be US/UK troops instead of our boys. (not that i would like to see anyone being shot at)0 -
Originally posted by bloggs
The problem is that if the UN go in now, it will be seen as endorsing the US/UK war. The current f**k up which as been created, will end up getting UN troops killed also. Frankly if someone is going to be shot at in Iraq i would prefer it to be US/UK troops instead of our boys. (not that i would like to see anyone being shot at)
It may be seen that way but it would also be helping the Iraqi people. It may be a bitter pill to swallow but if helping Iraq out of the mess it is in appears to be an endorsement of the US/UK war then so be it.
Anyway the US/UK need the UN to help sort this mess out. If this is the case then the UN should get tough on them and demand certain promises before they go in such as a timetable for full withdrawal and transition of power to the Iraqi people, and also a full transparent and open tendering for any civil restructuring or oil contracts.0 -
Is this just Bertie being "the man" - we all know about FF promises.
http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/1546695?view=EircomnetAhern warned Dail must discuss troops for Iraq
From:ireland.com
Tuesday, 23rd September, 2003
The Taoiseach has been warned not to enter into any commitment to send Irish troops to Iraq before discussing the matter with the Dáil.
Fine Gael's foreign affairs spokesman, Mr Gay Mitchell, said: "Making foreign policy by stealth and entering into international commitments behind closed doors is the hallmark of the current Government."
Mr Ahern indicated yesterday Ireland could consider sending troops to join an international peacekeeping force in Iraq under a UN Security Council mandate.
"We are neutral, but when it comes to UN Security Council resolutions we've served in every part of the world," Mr Ahern said, after a meeting with Sen Hillary Rodham Clinton in Albany, New York.
"Our army may not be great in numbers but when we have been asked we have always contributed, whether it's East Timor, whether it's been in Eritrea or any of the other areas of conflict in the world," the Taoiseach said.
Mr Mitchell said this morning: "Ireland was committed by the Government to support the Iraqi war before this was even put to Dáil Éireann.
"The Taoiseach will not have such an easy ride if he follows this precedent and commits Irish troops to duties in Iraq.
"Any decision on this matter must be made by Dáil Éireann under the Constitution, and the Dáil must know the precise proposals the Taoiseach has in mind.
"There is no certainty that Dáil Éireann would support sending troops to Iraq and the Taoiseach should not enter into commitments in New York, which he cannot keep," he added.
Senior Defence Forces sources said yesterday a large deployment of Irish troops to Iraq would be unlikely. They pointed out that close to 300 army personnel were already stationed in Kosovo, and it was expected that more than 400 would be sent on peace-keeping duties to Liberia.
That would rule out the deployment of large numbers of Irish soldiers to Iraq, The Irish Times was told. A spokesman for the Defence Forces declined to comment in advance of a Government decision.
Mr Ahern is today visiting the New York Stock Exchange and will address the UN General Assembly on Thursday.0 -
Advertisement
-
If there's a UN mandate we'll be the first on the big white planes....lets just hope it don't turn out to be another lebanon.......*sigh* -which its sure to be....0
-
it looks like the UN is going to have to come up with some knd of resolution to get the UN more involved in Iraq otherwise its going to become irrelivent and everyone in the UN knows it. Getting a UN resolution is a bit of a joke anyway, wishy washy stuff.
Major reform of the UN is needed if it is to stay relevent in todays world. I was orignally against the war but now I think the UN and Irish DF should be there. Unfortuntely there is still going to be allied casualities for a while. But I'd rather see a Western friendly Iraqi state in the Middle East than a fundamentalist one.
Ireland cant stand by and just look on either. Soldiers are needed on the ground to help stablise Iraq and get elections as soon as possible. Iraq is more or less up for sale for mobile phone licences infastructure and other projects. Ensuring that the DF is on the ground helping to rebuild Iraq will do wonders for oppurtunites in securing these contracts.
Whoever thinks the US/UK are going to leave is living in cookoo land. The US has been looking for a country to base its activiies in the Middle East for years and now they have found it! The Yanks will probably be in Iraq for the next 50 years.
If its another Lebannon, well sod it we can pull out in a few years and let pakistan or India do it. :ninja:0 -
Scarce troops would only go to Iraq 'as a gesture'
Tom Brady
Security Editor
The Irish Independent
24-Septemeber-2003
******************************
IRELAND'S troop contribution to any UN peace force in Iraq will amount to a military gesture rather than a major deployment.
Heavy commitments facing Irish peacekeepers elsewhere around the globe mean that the numbers available from the Defence Forces - if our involvement gets the go-ahead - could be counted on two hands.
Senior military commanders and Department of Defence officials are looking to Liberia rather than Iraq for Ireland's next big mission overseas.
The Cabinet is expected today to approve the involvement of around 450 Irish troops in the west African nation and the decision will be announced officially by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern in an address to the UN general assembly in New York tomorrow.
It is understood that a detachment of 40 members from the elite Army Ranger Wing will back up the Irish troops during the initial "settling in" phase and will remain in Liberia for about three months.
The Irish troops are likely to be deployed as part of a mobile reserve, or fast reaction force.
Another 300 Irish troops have already been committed to the peace force in Kosovo - the last group flew out last week to join the new force there.
The Defence Forces are signed up to a deal to provide a total of 850 personnel to peace duties overseas and with small groups of observers deployed in other trouble spots in the world there will be few left to take up a post in Iraq.
"Our involvement in Iraq, if there is one, will be purely symbolic," one security source admitted last night. "And at this stage we have not even been approached to join a mission and there is no UN mandate."
Under the Irish 'triple-lock system', troops can only take part in a peace mission if there is a UN mandate, it has the approval of the Government and then the go-ahead from the Oireachtas.
Last night Fine Gael's foreign affairs spokesman Gay Mitchell attacked the Taoiseach for his "strong indications" in New York on Monday committing Irish troops to Iraq.
"Making foreign policy by stealth and entering into international commitments behind closed doors is the hallmark of the current Government," Mr Mitchell said.
"Ireland was committed by the Government to support the Iraqi war before this was even put to Dail Eireann.
"The Taoiseach will not have such an easy ride if he follows this precedent and commits Irish troops to duties in Iraq," Mr Mitchell warned.
He said there was no certainty that the Dail would support sending troops to Iraq and the Taoiseach in New York should not enter into commitments which he could not keep.0 -
No!!! Send Bertie, Mary and Charlie to the Sunni Triangle, we can do without them!!0
-
Originally posted by Qadhafi
Whoever thinks the US/UK are going to leave is living in cookoo land. The US has been looking for a country to base its activiies in the Middle East for years and now they have found it! The Yanks will probably be in Iraq for the next 50 years.
Do their bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to name but a few not already count as a presence in the Middle East.
The US/UK will be forced to leave Iraq by Iraqi resistance, public opinion in US/UK and around the world. Remember the US have already been forced to leave Lebanon so why is Iraq so different.0 -
Advertisement
-
Do their bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to name but a few not already count as a presence in the Middle East.
Well yes and no, yes they count as a presence but not a strategic one.
Kuwait and Quatar are too small to count as a strategic ally. Saudi Arabia is promoting terrorism, one only has to look at 9/11 to see how many of the hyjackers came from.
Saudia Arabia and US relations have soured since that.
Iraq on the other hand has great promise for the Americans. They have total control of the country and if they can stop the terrorist attacks things will be surely be looking up. Securing Iraq (and building that oil pipeline across Afganistan) will ensure a reliable oil supply and hence reduce Opec's infulence.
If they can start to build up Iraq, with modern infastruture and promote western ideals then it will bound to have a knock on effect on Iran.0 -
So why didn’t they do a ‘regime change’ Saudi Arabia then?Originally posted by Qadhafi
Saudi Arabia is promoting terrorism, one only has to look at 9/11 to see how many of the hyjackers came from.
Really? Pity we’re not American then.Iraq on the other hand has great promise for the Americans.
No Shit Sherlock.if they can stop the terrorist attacks things will be surely be looking up.
And this is good for the Iraqi people because..?Securing Iraq (and building that oil pipeline across Afganistan) will ensure a reliable oil supply and hence reduce Opec's infulence.
How is it “bound to have a knock on effect on Iran”?If they can start to build up Iraq, with modern infastruture and promote western ideals then it will bound to have a knock on effect on Iran.0 -
Even if we only send a token force now (and I have to smile at the governments handling of this so as we end up in Liberia rather than iraq, which would really get the political debates going over here...) whats to say the EU army doesen't sign on to an Iraq mission (with a UN mandate or the french would never go) and so the battallion assigned to the RRF could find itself going from the Glen of Imaal to downtown mosul in a real hurry...this is a possablility with the way the euro army is currently working (for instance the high command now runs the show in kosovo)0
-
Originally posted by Qadhafi
Saudi Arabia is promoting terrorism, one only has to look at 9/11 to see how many of the hijackers came from.
So why didn’t they do a ‘regime change’ Saudi Arabia then?
Good question, well states who sponsor terrorism should be dealt with. The 9/11 investigation is ongoing, so until the final investigation is completed the US cannot act. Debate on Saudi Arabia is ongoing, however there is a gradual trend toward a more open political system in Saudi Arabia and they did let US forces base their troops there. So maybe its a internal clash of past ideals and current foreign policy.quote:Iraq on the other hand has great promise for the Americans.
Really? Pity we’re not American then.
? ...im not sure what your attempting to say. Either you hold the US in contempt or condemning their foreign policy(or both) or perhaps you would wish the US would have a more active role in our country, which is understandable.
The US needs a country to project its strategic policy in the region. Its just that Iraq happens to be it. I’m sure that their quality of life will no doubt improve and they can enjoy western freedoms. If they don’t want that, well that’s unfortunate.
:rolleyes: Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit! Read the above in context of my post. I was talking about the US future involvement Iraq. If your going to make stupid scarcastic comments why bother post?quote:if they can stop the terrorist attacks things will be surely be looking up.
No **** Sherlock.
because... with US involvement in Iraq there will be future elections, infrastructure projects undertaken and western freedoms can be enjoyed.quote:Securing Iraq (and building that oil pipeline across Afghanistan) will ensure a reliable oil supply and hence reduce Opec's influence.
And this is good for the Iraqi people because..?quote:If they can start to build up Iraq, with modern infastruture and promote western ideals then it will bound to have a knock on effect on Iran.
How is it “bound to have a knock on effect on Iran”?
There are both conservative and reformist forces in Iran. Should Iraq start to prosper, then its can do nothing but enhance reformist calls in Iran for more western ideals. Things are currently in the balance.
And that’s what is boils down to, I would rather have Western friendly governments in the region with shared western values than Islamic ones! Personally I think that Islamic fundamentalism is from the middle ages and hasn’t caught up with the rest of the world. The US has made a lot of mistakes in Iraq but its better to have them there than Saddam!0 -
being free from saddam is a good thing, though being freed by saddam by the americans is not, apperently so good....for one they have no plan for how the country was to be rebuilt (apart from the oil of course, but thats another days argument...) and are making it up as they go along, they have troops who's abilities as peacekeepers is dubious at best (imagine what would have happened in places like the lebanon if our troops had opened fire every time a rock was thrown at them?)0
-
Bertie's little bit. I don't like his comments on pre-emptive strikes. Maybe there should be pre-emptive strikes by everybody obn everybody.
http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/1559819?view=EircomnetAhern to recommend sending Irish troops to Liberia
From:ireland.com
Thursday, 25th September, 2003
The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, has failed to clarify whether the Government would commit Irish troops to a UN force in Iraq at his speech this afternoon to the United Nations General Assembly. However he said he would be recommending to the Dáil that troops be sent on UN peacekeeping duties to Liberia.
Throughout his speech, Mr Ahern stressed the primacy of the United Nations as a touchstone of Irish foreign policy and did not respond directly to US President George W Bush's call for "all nations of goodwill . . . [to] step forward and provide that support".
While Mr Ahern was unequivocal about the need for all countries to abide by decisions by the UN in relation troop involvement in conflict areas, he also said he believed Article 51 of the UN Charter should be reconsidered.
Article 51 governs the conditions under which member states have the right to act in self defence.
"The development of weapons of mass destruction in the period since the signing of the Charter, and the appearance of non-state actors with the capacity for mass destruction, raise serious questions as to the point at which a State might consider it necessary to act in self-defence," Mr Ahern said.
He added, however, that the Government would be deeply concerned at the widespread acceptance of a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.
"Given the ever more lethal nature of modern weapons, the risk of widespread death, destruction and escalation are enormous," he said.
"Striking pre-emptively, would be to pre-empt the risk of conflict through a wide range of steps in the diplomatic, economic, humanitarian and other areas".
It is too late to intervene at the moment refugees "begin to flood across the borders", he said, adding the international community could not stand by in a situation where human rights were being flagrantly contravened.
Turning to the Middle East, Mr Ahern urged both Palestinians and Israelis to negotiate a peaceful settlement.
While he called on the Palestinians to reject violence as an option, he said Israel would have to recognise a viable Palestinian state based on the basis of borders drawn up in 1967 if peace was to be secured.
"Israel should immediately reverse its policy of building settlements, by-roads and a security wall on Palestinian territory," he said.
On Northern Ireland, the Taoiseach said that developments over the next few weeks would have a crucial bearing on whether elections would be held in an atmosphere that is conducive to forming a working administration on the other side of the polling date.
He did not, however, make any indications as to when such elections would be.
He also announced the intention of the Government to recommend to the Dáil that Ireland's Defence Forces would participate in the forthcoming United Nations peacekeeping operation in Liberia.0 -
being free from saddam is a good thing, though being freed by saddam by the americans is not, apperently so good....for one they have no plan for how the country was to be rebuilt (apart from the oil of course,
The Yanks have better intentions than Saddam. OK they are there for securing the oil production but Im not complaining, it will be better for the world economy and benefit Ireland.they have troops who's abilities as peacekeepers is dubious at best (imagine what would have happened in places like the lebanon if our troops had opened fire every time a rock was thrown at them?)
Yeah Irish Soldier or the Scandinavians should be doing this job0 -
hell no-if you think I'd want to go put myself in front of the suicide bombers because the US f**ked up then your wrong...people throwing stones i can handle but people blowing me up a checkpoint is a no.....0
-
Any way see u all outside the American Embassy tomorrrow...Victory to the Fedayeen etc...down with the Zionists..etc.. etc...free shish kababs.0
-
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.
These so-called troops will consist of about 10 Irish army officers and thats about it.
It will be a token gesture only of no real significance.0 -
Advertisement
-
Saudi Arabia has (a) modern weapons and (b) a lot of oil.Originally posted by The Corinthian
So why didn’t they do a ‘regime change’ Saudi Arabia then?
(a) Would mean body bags in the year of the election and (b) would mean at the moment with Iraq out of commission there is a risk of an oil crisis if there was 'regime change’ Saudi Arabia. Iraq is apparently importing oil at the moment.
Will we believe Bertie this time?
http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/1578210?view=EircomnetTroops unlikely to join US force in Iraq, says Ahern
From:The Irish Independent
Monday, 29th September, 2003
Ben Quinn
TAOISEACH Bertie Ahern has now virtually ruled sending troops to Iraq, even with a UN mandate.
Despite a plea by US President George W Bush for military assistance, Mr Ahern has indicated that the request for help will not be met. He cited a decision to send 400 troops to Liberia as one of the main reasons. And he pointed to a number of criteria that must be met before Irish troops are deployed abroad, adding, "I don't think Iraq is at that stage at the moment."
The Army's resources are also currently stretched by deployments in Eritrea and East Timor.
Earlier this week President Bush appealled during an address at United Nations in New York for "countries of goodwill" to aid the US in Iraq under a new UN mandate.
During his own address to the UN last week, the Taoiseach appeared to refer to the invasion of Iraq when he said that his government would be "deeply concerned at the widespread acceptance of a doctrine of pre-emptive strike."
It is understood that a detachment of 40 members from the elite Army Ranger Wing will back up the first contingent of Irish troops to arrive in Liberia. Ireland is the only EU country to commit troops to the country.
Another 300 Irish troops have already been committed to the peace force in Kosovo. In total, the Defence Forces are currently signed up to a deal to provide 850 personnel to peace duties overseas.
Meanwhile, Irish troops will never again be committed to decade-long peace missions with the United Nations, writes Tom Brady.
Defence Minister Michael Smith declared yesterday that the Government was not interested in another Lebanon-style deployment which lasted 23 years.
He said he was in favour of missions which lasted a couple of years. "Our aim is to move in, do the job as best we can and then get out," he said.
Mr Smith said Ireland had given a commitment to allow troops take part in the new UN mission in Liberia for an initial year with an option to stay for another.
The minister admitted yesterday that the Liberian mission would be a difficult assignment with security and health risks, but the Irish troops will be backed up by the latest technology and a large consignment of the new Mowag armoured carriers.0 -
Except the US did act. Twice.Originally posted by Qadhafi
Good question, well states who sponsor terrorism should be dealt with. The 9/11 investigation is ongoing, so until the final investigation is completed the US cannot act.
What evidence exists of that? Seriously.Debate on Saudi Arabia is ongoing, however there is a gradual trend toward a more open political system in Saudi Arabia
Perhaps, by that logic, the Belgians should have given the German military passage through their territory then in 1914 then... :rolleyes:and they did let US forces base their troops there.
What’s that supposed to mean?So maybe its a internal clash of past ideals and current foreign policy.
I’m responding to your assertion that “Iraq on the other hand has great promise for the Americans”. Great for them, if that’s the case. But I’m not American, so if it’s great for them that’s pretty irrelevant for anyone who’s not.? ...im not sure what your attempting to say.
No. I rather like my country’s right to self determination. If you want to have the US take a more active role in your future, I recommend you move to the US and apply for citizenship.perhaps you would wish the US would have a more active role in our country, which is understandable.
I don’t know if you’re trolling or not. You’ve just come out with the classic “civilizing the darkies” argument - Whether they like it or not.The US needs a country to project its strategic policy in the region. Its just that Iraq happens to be it. I’m sure that their quality of life will no doubt improve and they can enjoy western freedoms. If they don’t want that, well that’s unfortunate.
It is hardly stupid to poke fun at a superficial and ill thought out statement. Sarcasm was the least offensive response that it merited.:rolleyes: Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit! Read the above in context of my post. I was talking about the US future involvement Iraq. If your going to make stupid scarcastic comments why bother post?
To create a connection between infrastructure and democracy is a bit silly, don’t you think? Who do you think built all those motorways in Germany, after all?because... with US involvement in Iraq there will be future elections, infrastructure projects undertaken and western freedoms can be enjoyed.
Not that you were talking about infrastructure or democracy, but OPEC.
OPEC is an oil cartel designed to protect price levels and thus benefit its member states, of which Iraq is one. Reducing OPEC’s influence will thus not act in the interests of states such as Iraq, but those states that consume oil, such as the US. Hence, either you forgot to consider this in your argument or you don’t actually understand what OPEC is.
Why? You’re jumping to conclusions. Please back up your theories.There are both conservative and reformist forces in Iran. Should Iraq start to prosper, then its can do nothing but enhance reformist calls in Iran for more western ideals.
Oh, so all that stuff about it being good for the Iraqis wasn’t really the truth then?And that’s what is boils down to, I would rather have Western friendly governments in the region with shared western values than Islamic ones!
Ironically Saddam’s regime was secular and suppressed Islamic fundamentalism.Personally I think that Islamic fundamentalism is from the middle ages and hasn’t caught up with the rest of the world. The US has made a lot of mistakes in Iraq but its better to have them there than Saddam!
I’m sure you mean well Qadhafi, but you’re grossly ill informed on current affairs and prone to assumption. Most of your arguments seem to be fuelled by a mixture of Islamophobia and a desire to be American. Either that or you’re a very good troll.0 -
"OPEC is an oil cartel designed to protect price levels and thus benefit its member states, of which Iraq is one. Reducing OPEC’s influence will thus not act in the interests of states such as Iraq, but those states that consume oil, such as the US."
Since OPEC is the largest supplier of oil in the world any change it makes on the supply of oil affects the entire world not just the US. By the way can you name one country that does not consume oil?0 -
Fairly irrelevant from the viewpoint of a country like Iraq - assuming we're still discussing Iraq's well being and not our (Western) own.Originally posted by Commando69
Since OPEC is the largest supplier of oil in the world any change it makes on the supply of oil affects the entire world not just the US. By the way can you name one country that does not consume oil?
If you break a cartel, then you do not help, and potentially harm, the members of that cartel. Given Iraq is a member of that cartel then eroding the influence of the cartel in the market would in turn eroding the influence of Iraq in that same market.
Now, eroding the influence of the cartel maybe a good thing for us, or even the World as a whole, but that's not what we're discussing here.0 -
I say sure, send them in...
providing it is with full UN backing and the US/UK take a back seat from the complete f'up they have made in the country.
The only advantage of the UN not helping the US is that it is stopping the country from invading another country.0 -
Originally posted by Qadhafi
Good question, well states who sponsor terrorism should be dealt with. The 9/11 investigation is ongoing, so until the final investigation is completed the US cannot act.
Except the US did act. Twice.
Please be specific, back up your allegations. Yes the US was involved in supporting armed groups, some of these people were considered terrorist others freedom fighters. What about the Irish Government, it was supporting terrorists at one stage.
Taking a few examples personally I think the US was right to help the Taliban in the early '80s and help Soviet Russia get out of Afghanistan, they should have followed up with support for elections and try to rebuild the country then. In regards to Israel, Israel has the right to be there however it must pull back to '67 borders and end settlements. The US must take a stronger stance on this. No I’m not a 'US citizen wannabe' and I don’t think much of Rumsvelt and the neo-conservative agenda.
quote:
Debate on Saudi Arabia is ongoing, however there is a gradual trend toward a more open political system in Saudi Arabia
What evidence exists of that? Seriously.
Interview given to Channel four by the Prince/King (correct me if I’m wrong) of Saudi Arabia, (go troll for it). He pointed out that his country was a traditional country that hardly changed culturally since the middle ages. He acknowledged that terrorism is originating in Saudi Arabia. There have been attacks on westerners there and also against the state.quote:
and they did let US forces base their troops there.
Perhaps, by that logic, the Belgians should have given the German military passage through their territory then in 1914 then...
? what ? Those two issues are different and you make a poor attempt to draw parallels. Saudi Arabia was afraid that Iraq may invade their country, what’s your point??quote:
So maybe its a internal clash of past ideals and current foreign policy.
What’s that supposed to mean?
That is supposed to mean that Saudi Arabia has internal problems in its country but has committed itself (through the ruling king/prince) to develop their country. Are you reading anything?
quote:
? ...im not sure what your attempting to say.
I’m responding to your assertion that “Iraq on the other hand has great promise for the Americans”. Great for them, if that’s the case. But I’m not American, so if it’s great for them that’s pretty irrelevant for anyone who’s not.
Let me just point out a few things. When the British had their empire there was a lot of discussion about the negative impact it had on their colonies. That’s true, however there isn’t usually a huge amount of discussion of the state in which (on average) they left their colonies. Infrastructure, government buildings (look at Ireland, we didn’t build many since) law and order, the English language etc, and each of those colonies measure their progress on these values. The Americans will no doubt leave their mark. There is no such thing as progress for everyone, inevitable some people will be left behind. Do you prefer the current status ?quote:
perhaps you would wish the US would have a more active role in our country, which is understandable.
No. I rather like my country’s right to self determination. If you want to have the US take a more active role in your future, I recommend you move to the US and apply for citizenship.
[/quote]
Yes I love my freedom too, who have I to thank? The Irish government? the Irish people , well partly for 1916 but not really !. The government/Irish people never took Defence seriously! We have to thank the Allied forces in World War II and Cold War. We have to thank UK and US for spending the money !! We have to thank NATO! That’s why I am so pro-western. I don’t think much of the NAZI or SOVIET way of life.
I really get fed up to listening to people like you. Who sit on the fence, thinking Ireland shouldn’t have any of the burden of international affairs that somehow, some pie in the sky organisation is going to come along one day and fix all the sh1t holes like Iraq and Afghanistan etc. WAKEY WAKEY, take your head of the sand and get with the program, are you living in the real world?. This is the only option there is, even this hyper power is finding it hard to deal with Iraq.
Well I don’t sit on the fence, it’s a pragmatic decision to support the USA, in light of the peace process and If you don’t want the USA involved in your country then go to IBM, MICROSOFT,SUN MICROSYSTEMS,ORACLE AND ALL THE OTHER COMPANIES HERE and protest, tell them you don’t want their jobs. Are you a member of Sinn Fein or something? Because that’s the sort of line they take.quote:
The US needs a country to project its strategic policy in the region. Its just that Iraq happens to be it. I’m sure that their quality of life will no doubt improve and they can enjoy western freedoms. If they don’t want that, well that’s unfortunate.
I don’t know if you’re trolling or not. You’ve just come out with the classic “civilizing the darkies” argument - Whether they like it or not.
No I’m not trolling, if I have a reference ill post it. Civilizing/Darkness?? Must be reading different books! Its clear to me the only reason the USA is in Iraq is for strategic purposes. However as an off shoot of that, Iraq will no doubt prosper with western ideals. Some people might have a problem with the US and its actions in Iraq. Yes they have made mistakes however they share the same values as us (well some off us) and they have my vote of confidence.quote:
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit! Read the above in context of my post. I was talking about the US future involvement Iraq. If your going to make stupid sarcastic comments why bother post?
It is hardly stupid to poke fun at a superficial and ill thought out statement. Sarcasm was the least offensive response that it merited.0 -
Yes it is stupid because you cant think up a better way to make little of other people arguments i.e. there is a lack of intelligence there or a very poor sense of humour. Just look at the reality and admit the US isn’t perfect but will do a better job that Saddam. Do you think things in Iraq are ok under Saddam, of course he suppressed Islamic fundamentalism, he SUPPRESSED EVERYONE !! . Yes it would be nice to have a powerful UN with international agreement but its never going to happen because of politics.
quote:
because... with US involvement in Iraq there will be future elections, infrastructure projects undertaken and western freedoms can be enjoyed.
To create a connection between infrastructure and democracy is a bit silly, don’t you think? Who do you think built all those motorways in Germany, after all?
Not that you were talking about infrastructure or democracy, but OPEC.
OPEC is an oil cartel designed to protect price levels and thus benefit its member states, of which Iraq is one. Reducing OPEC’s influence will thus not act in the interests of states such as Iraq, but those states that consume oil, such as the US. Hence, either you forgot to consider this in your argument or you don’t actually understand what OPEC is.
Who built all those motorways? you mean the developed west Germany? yes the Americians helped pay for them after the second world war.
quote:
There are both conservative and reformist forces in Iran. Should Iraq start to prosper, then its can do nothing but enhance reformist calls in Iran for more western ideals.
Why? You’re jumping to conclusions. Please back up your theories.
if you really believe that wont do better for itself then that’s your opinion. Look at post war Europe, look at South Korea, Japan, Ireland, Balkans, errr duh go read some books, I cant believe your that ignorant.quote:
And that’s what is boils down to, I would rather have Western friendly governments in the region with shared western values than Islamic ones!
Oh, so all that stuff about it being good for the Iraqis wasn’t really the truth then?
Yes it was, I was outlining my support for USA with all its flaws. I don’t support terrorists.quote:
Personally I think that Islamic fundamentalism is from the middle ages and hasn’t caught up with the rest of the world. The US has made a lot of mistakes in Iraq but its better to have them there than Saddam!
Ironically Saddam’s regime was secular and suppressed Islamic fundamentalism.
I’m sure you mean well Qadhafi, but you’re grossly ill informed on current affairs and prone to assumption. Most of your arguments seem to be fuelled by a mixture of Islamophobia and a desire to be American. Either that or you’re a very good troll.[
HAHAHAHA, you really are a funny guy, you know? What is that exactly meant to mean? He suppressed Islamic fundamentalism so its ok to have him as a dictator.
Are you trying to be condescending? You are obviously an ignorant person with a limited intelligence. Go read some books and try and educate yourself. I don’t support terrorism, you don’t seem to care, Im not a US citizen or 'wannabe', I have no hang ups about them either. What are you? a pro Saddam, anti US ??I don’t troll and post any articles I come across. I have a realistic view on the middle east, you seem to live in fairy land thinking that the magic UN (or some organisation) is going to come along and sort everything out.0 -
If as you say “The 9/11 investigation is ongoing, so until the final investigation is completed the US cannot act”, what would you call the US regime changes of Afghanistan and Iraq?Originally posted by Qadhafi
Please be specific, back up your allegations.
I asked for evidence that there is, as you claimed “a gradual trend toward a more open political system in Saudi Arabia”, not that you’ve watched a random interview on Saudi Arabia on television.Interview given to Channel four by the Prince/King (correct me if I’m wrong) of Saudi Arabia, (go troll for it). He pointed out that his country was a traditional country that hardly changed culturally since the middle ages. He acknowledged that terrorism is originating in Saudi Arabia. There have been attacks on westerners there and also against the state.
Again, what evidence exists of that? Seriously.
You inferred that Saudi Arabia was a ‘good’ Arab nation, in part on the basis that they let the US use their territory for military reasons, not because they were afraid of Iraqi aggression as you are now claiming.? what ? Those two issues are different and you make a poor attempt to draw parallels. Saudi Arabia was afraid that Iraq may invade their country, what’s your point??
Yes when it’s in English.Are you reading anything?
Not being a citizen of the empire, no.Let me just point out a few things. When the British had their empire there was a lot of discussion about the negative impact it had on their colonies. That’s true, however there isn’t usually a huge amount of discussion of the state in which (on average) they left their colonies. Infrastructure, government buildings (look at Ireland, we didn’t build many since) law and order, the English language etc, and each of those colonies measure their progress on these values. The Americans will no doubt leave their mark. There is no such thing as progress for everyone, inevitable some people will be left behind. Do you prefer the current status ?
You have a simplistic viewpoint. Even if the US single-handedly saved us all from both Nazism and Communism, it does not change the fact that the US is a foreign power, with it’s own interests form which we (as non-citizens) are disenfranchised from.Yes I love my freedom too, who have I to thank? The Irish government? the Irish people , well partly for 1916 but not really !. The government/Irish people never took Defence seriously! We have to thank the Allied forces in World War II and Cold War. We have to thank UK and US for spending the money !! We have to thank NATO! That’s why I am so pro-western. I don’t think much of the NAZI or SOVIET way of life.
So, if the US did something that you didn’t like tomorrow to your nation, you know what you could do? Nothing. You don’t have a vote in US elections. You’re not a citizen. Tough.
Yet you trust them to always do the right thing. Right. I suspect it’s time you woke up and smelled the coffee, I think.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not really trying to get at the US here - Just anyone dumb enough to hand over all responsibility to a power that they ultimately have no influence with.
It’s a short-term position. Their influence in the peace process is limited (certainly in comparison to the British and Irish governments). As for the multinationals, considering the rate at which they’re presently departing these shores for cheaper climates, a job would be increasingly unlikely.Well I don’t sit on the fence, it’s a pragmatic decision to support the USA, in light of the peace process and If you don’t want the USA involved in your country then go to IBM, MICROSOFT,SUN MICROSYSTEMS,ORACLE AND ALL THE OTHER COMPANIES HERE and protest, tell them you don’t want their jobs. Are you a member of Sinn Fein or something? Because that’s the sort of line they take.
Your loyalty to them is endearing, if foolish.
Oh, and no, I’m not a member or even supporter of Sinn Fein. I think I may have given one of their candidates a preference once, but only because she was kind of cute.
Yes, mine don’t have pictures in them. I said the classic “civilizing the darkies” argument - one of the moral arguments used to justify European imperialism in the nineteenth century. It was argued that European imperialism was a positive force for Africa because it would civilize the natives – who knew no better anyway. Your argument was pretty much the same.No I’m not trolling, if I have a reference ill post it. Civilizing/Darkness?? Must be reading different books!
Clear to you? A burning bush (no pun) told you? Sources. Proof, please.Its clear to me the only reason the USA is in Iraq is for strategic purposes.
Again sources. Proof, please.However as an off shoot of that, Iraq will no doubt prosper with western ideals.
Actually the Nazis built them in Germany. Read a history book. So your connection between infrastructure and democracy is a bit silly, as I pointed out.Who built all those motorways? you mean the developed west Germany? yes the Americians helped pay for them after the second world war.
Post war Ireland? WTF? Have all those EU structural funds really come from Washington then and not Brussels? Did Microsoft or IBM pay for the entire infrastructure then?if you really believe that wont do better for itself then that’s your opinion. Look at post war Europe, look at South Korea, Japan, Ireland, Balkans, errr duh go read some books, I cant believe your that ignorant.
And what about the Balkans? What big economic programs did the US put in place in Slovenia? Or Croatia? Or anywhere? Sure, they give aid, but so does the EU. So what’s your point?
When you do your research in future, I recommend you keep clear of the fiction section of the library...
It’s fairly obvious by the number of times that you’ve been corrected, and not only by me, that my level of education is not the one in question. I’m sorry if I came across as condescending, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, casting you as someone who means well, even though he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about.Are you trying to be condescending? You are obviously an ignorant person with a limited intelligence. Go read some books and try and educate yourself.0 -
The first six (3 N-S, 3 E-W) strategic Autobahns were built by the Nazis to provide a means of rapid transport, should railway junctions be interdicted (the main militiary logisitics system since Germany's war with Austria-Hungary in 18??, when they cunningly advanced many miles in one day, with telegraph system in place). Much of the construction labour for the Autobahns was under dubious conditions.Originally posted by Qadhafi
Who built all those motorways? you mean the developed west Germany? yes the Americians helped pay for them after the second world war.
Hence for a long period Poland had a single "Autobahn" (Berlin-Katowice) east of the Oder-Neisse line and practically nowhere else.0 -
Advertisement
-
I really don’t have the time to go through your post and re point out everything in my argument, with you and your lame one line questions, your entire argument is based on everything the US did wrong, you have no real solutions. You don’t live in the real world and you have spent so much time on this board that you have lowered yourself to condescending sarcasm. I don’t know how you argue your position because everything you believe in is thanks to either the UK/US/NATO/Allied Forces.
I have things to do so ill make it brief. This is meant to be about Irish Troops in Iraq.
My position is this :
Just looking at the current position I don’t have any huge objections now to seeing US/UK forces in Iraq. Its unfortunate for all the innocent civilians that died in both wars and I do feel terrible about that but I think the invasion was progress in some ways.
Some of my friends had/has objections about this gulf war and the last but when I had a discussion about it with them they couldn’t remember much about the last war. Personally I think that the public can be very fickle.
Some of them live in a fairly tail world where they actually think that the UN is the body which is going to fix everything in the world, that everyone will work together and spend the money/cancel the debt and intervene . Well I just tell them to wake up. Maybe your one of those people, and can point out endless points about what went wrong but cant look at the bigger picture. Who else is there to fix these things?
It seems like all great civilisations where based on some kind of empire or another. The same people I talk to think the Roman Empire was great! Like when are you going to get someone to do something that isn’t for their own advantage. I cant see the day where an world organisation is created that everyone is in and willing to help the poorer countries. Its all just politics in the UN. The US is in Iraq for selfish reasons but doing their best.
The 9/11 investigation isn’t complete so depending on the results prosecutions against the guilty persons/states will have to wait. Yes the US did act quite quickly post 9/11 in those countries it thought were responsible for hiding terrorists. However how many people were championing the Taliban or Saddam at the UN? Amnesty International ? It’s a shame that there wasn’t a broad coalition in support like the 1st gulf war but then the rest of the countries had a strategic interest to act so quickly.
Although the USA did invade Iraq without proper international support I think its no bad thing. History doesn’t place huge emphasis on public opinion, the long term picture will just be painted. The first gulf war was reported quite differently now to what I remember of it.
Take another 10 years from now, providing the US/UK is still there in some form, it will be a better developed and more liberal country. Well as pointed out the Nazi did build some of those autobahns, but its a foolish argument to say that the USA didn’t help rebuild Europe, the Marshall plan etc. For a small example: the US paid the huge number of civil servants their over due wages and reinforced the structure of government, it already has posted infrastructure projects (ill go and find articles and email them if you want)etc… would have Saddam be doing these things ? Of course there was no protests in the street pre-US forces invading. Saddam would have crushed them.
Look at Afghanistan, before the US where there women couldn’t walk around without the veil over their heads, fundamental Islam was the order of the day. Do you support the Taliban/ fundamental Islam ? Were you in favour of that particular order in charge?
The Russians where there fighting the Taliban, where you supporting them? Who would have helped liberate the afghan people.. themselves? I don’t think so, the UN? I know you cant believe this, they are so weak with their UN resolutions, how many it passed again Israel? (110 the last time I counted). It took the US to sort out Afghanistan.
I was delighted when I heard the Taliban was gone, it was one of the reasons why Afghanistan was producing all those drugs for the European market. May be they will grow ordinary crops now. I know that pre- US involvement they wouldn’t have thought about it.
Believe me I think that Ireland should be as independent as possible and involved in as few wars as possible. That’s why I am so in favour of having a strong Defence Force (so we don’t have to rely on the Royal Air force and Royal Navy so much) and not having to rely on foreign countries so much. The other neutrals have an army to enforce their neutrality and should anything happen they could at least put up a strong fight against an invading force. For example up until recently Sweden had an army of 1 million (4 times the size of Britain and pop of 10million) they have their own stealth ships and developed their own Saab fighter jets. This is in complete contrast to the Irish position. I’m sure if I posted a poll on increasing our DF you would be arguing against it.
Don’t try and tell me that without the US the Balkans would be like it is today. Are you joking? I can distinctly remember the Balkans falling apart with the UN until NATO intervened. Yes you remember now??? WAKE UP!!Who was pushing for NATO ? Who pays for it ? Who provides all the cut price fighter jets, cheap MBT’s etc? So that countries can defend their own interests? If NATO didn’t exist who would have intervened? The EU did provide more aid than the US but couldn’t have done anything (as usual) to bring about peace in the first place. It had to provide more aid because the Balkans was on its back door with the ethnic cleansing. A couple more hundred miles east and probably nothing would have been done!
No I don’t trust the US to do everything right, I don’t think they are perfect, I don’t wish to vote in their elections, of course the US is a foreign power. We have no say in their country? What about the Irish lobby and everything its done for us?? The US only done good in this country. How can you overlook this? Did they do something against us that I’m unaware of? My loyalty to the US is foolish? What? I’m not loyal to the US and I point out mistakes they have made. I would rather live in the US than Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. You’re the fool, I don’t know if you just managed to back yourself into a corner and are just trying to argue yourself out of it.
How can you realistically say that it’s largely irrelevant to have US firms here? You don’t provide any alternatives, I don’t have the time to post endlessly about this. You’re a silly person and an ignorant one, maybe years ago when Ireland was poor I could understand such a mindset.
Thanks to us, Ireland on its own has become an expensive country, were moving up the value chain, its more R&D (Research and Development)were aiming towards, when Microsoft came to Ireland, no they didn’t pay for the infrastructure, but it was like a huge vote of confidence for the country and the IT sector. Those companies helped Ireland when they were here, full stop. Arguing otherwise is stupidity.
Ignore all the points you like, I don’t care, go out to a Liberian, Kosovo and tell them that the US shouldn’t intervene …. I don’t have the time to go on, Ive things to do,0
Advertisement