Last year's peace march

Morpheus

Originally posted by chewy
and put ourselves out to promote negotiate peace internationaly.

That is what our army does!!! Irelands army is renowned as the worlds leading expert in international peacekeeping and a lot of other military (including Uk and USA) train here for months on end every single year, with our army to learn just how to peace keep properly, in fact were in such demand that current troop levels are too low and we have to turn peacekeeping missions down.

We're one of the only western forces ever respected in any sense of the word, as bringers of peace, by arab nations.

chewy

yeah ill agree with you there re peacekeeping but
the more we association ourselves with the US the more that respect will erode....

and when an arab or africa hears the number of Us troops going through ireland to others parts the world the more will lose that respect .....

the more we program the weapons of all sides the more we'll lose that respect

Morpheus

regarding production of weapons...

The state our economy is in, we cant afford to not get involved in the weapons industry, im sorry, but in a perfect world, some peoples ideals here would work, but in the real world when it comes down to it, in the balancing of figures in a nations budget and lives lost in some god forsaken place the far side of where-ever, the purse is always more important. These are the cold hard facts that we all know and have to live with.

regarding american planes, weve always done it, and not just americans, it happened during the last gulf war and almost all wars previous to that right back to WW2, there are many militarys that land here and refuel, again, it improves our international relations with the western powers that we are part of, it may make us a larger target but u know as well as i do that these extremists see us all in the same light rich western democracies ripe for their extreme purification, regardles whether we are neutral or not, terrorism knows no code of conduct, geneva convention or respect of national or international policies. just look at the hostages taken in Iraq, some are from nations that supported Iraq and are against the use of force and the presence of the allies there.

If this wasnt the case, no irish soldier would ever have died on peacekeeping while in the lebannon, kosavo, east timor, the congo or anywhere else..

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by pork99
I felt uneasy about the start of the war last year because it was not a war that absolutely had to be fought. (Though I also suspect it could only have been postponed for a few years)

However I would never have gone out to protest as the "anti-war" - in reality "anti-American" marches - were run by a ragbag of unrepresentative left-wing groups, SWP/SF/Green Party rent-a-mob.

I mean war is a hard thing not to be against but I felt that being anti-war in this case was also to be unwittingly pro-Saddam.

There were anything from 100,000 to 120,000 people on that march. And yes, some of them indeed might have been rabidly anti American. Or Anarchist. Or Trotskyite. Or even Islamicist. I am not any of these things and neither, I would suggest, were the vast majority of people on that march. I mean, when could the Trots ever get more than a handful of people out for one of their own exclusive marches?

This was a 'coalition of the willing': people from all walks of life, largely from the Irish middle class from my observation, who united for a day on a particular issue. There is no way that I would ever vote for Spin Vain or the Silly **** Party but nor was I going to let their presence on a march dissuade me from registering my own protest just because, for once, I actually agreed with them. (partly)


Don't confuse Anti-Americanism with being opposed to the rantings of the neoconservative MINORITY who have achieved such influence in Washington lately.

These guys (and gals) are old hat. We have seen and heard their ideas before in many different guises. They are simply old school imperialists and colonisers whose delivery has been slightly updated to take account of the new era of global communications, globalised commerce and a culture that is gradually (very gradually) homogenising around the world.

As I've said before the likes of Bush, Perle, Rumsfeld etc etc are traitors to the American ideal. How does a promise to 'capture or kill' a particular individual square with the tenets of the US Constitution's own Bill of Rights that nobody shall be deprived of 'life or liberty' without 'due process of law'?

How does the usurpation of a right to invade, destroy and hunt down anybody who disagrees with them in a foreign country square with the great self-evident belief that 'all men are created equal' and are 'endowed by their creator with certain fundamental rights'?

How does an insistence on the removal from a particular area of all members of a certain non-American TV network (Al-Jazeera) before a ceasefire can be negotiated square with an alleged commitment to 'freedom of the press'?

How can a nation that was built up largely by political refugees fleeing from a Europe dominated by privilege and the oppression of minorities by great powers now demand that its economic and military clout makes it a 'more equal than others' animal in the construction of a new world order?

These moves are anathema to the principles on which the USA claims it was founded. Mouthing fine principles is one thing, putting them into effect takes a courage and determination to stand up for them and to insist that they be upheld. And that does not mean rampaging through Iraq like a bunch of bounty hunters.

The neocons are guilty of treason against their own country's ideals. In Britain they can still hang you for that.

Zaphod B

That was inspiring Homer. I'm off to get the gun :ninja:

Seriously though, you're right about anti-war marchers - in London at least (and in most places where marches took place from what I could see from the coverage) the usual fanatics and rent-a-mob were a minority, the majority were people who were personally deeply opposed to the war, and highly suspicious of the motives behind it and the justifications given for it. Often they were opposed to the current US administration - it doesn't mean they were Anti-American. That suggests they were simply racist. They weren't and aren't.

I like to think I got a pretty good idea of what was going on as I was there as a photographer rather than a marcher, and from what I saw the Blame-Everything-On-The-Jews brigade and other muppets were a minority.

Sparks

Originally posted by Morphéus
regarding american planes, weve always done it, and not just americans,

Sorry, stop there. You're incorrect. This was proven in the High Court in Horgan vs State, where the Government conceded that their allowing the USAF to use Shannon and to overfly us, given what was going on, went directly against the last fifty years of government policy.
So we haven't always done it. In fact, we've never done it, not in the history of the state.

chewy

*Start Excerpt from 'Horgan' case*

JUSTICE KEARNS:
If you take the case issue by issue on the issue of neutrality and international law, was not the plaintiff successful despite the defendant's best efforts in establishing to the court's satisfaction at least that there is a rule of customary international law that a neutral State does not allow its territory to be used for the movement of substantial numbers of troops and munitions?

MR. O'DONNELL: (defence for the State)
Yes, my Lord, I fully accept that, but, firstly, it is not normally the case that if the plaintiff succeeds on only one issue, he will still recover all his costs, because the event follows, and the fact that he ...(INTERJECTION).

JUSTICE KEARNS:
Insofar as the issues were concerned, in one sense they boiled down to simple -- well, I would not call them simple questions, decisions on Articles 28 and 29, but as part of the considerations which had to be canvassed as part of the hearing were issues revolving around the identification of a principle of international law, which Mr. Horgan contended established that a neutral country cannot allow movement of substantial armed troops and munitions through its territory by way of assisting one belligerent State only. He contended, and the court accepted, that in international law there is such a principle. In that respect, he was successful in reaching that point.

*End Excerpt* (Justice Kearns awarded Horgan 50% of his costs in bringing this action against the State)

just cos we always did doens't make it right... it was wrong then and its wrong now


an army, any amry isn't the first people i'd go to looking to for peace, im not saying there shouldn't be armies, haven't figured that one out yet:)

re peacekeepers irish, you can defend their abilities to the cows come home but you can't argue that they arn't serious question re the role of peacekeepers

take liberia for example the guys are there now, undoubtedly the US had a large influence in what went on their and they forced a change of leader to suit them, then they get a third party country like ireland via the un to go in there and yes they protect the civilians they calm the place down to the best of their ability, but they also help the this new regime stay in power.... so it can't change back, there are being used and they know it

[a simple look after agood bit of reading but im sure you could pick whole in the minutae of the situation]

to the guy who said "the purse is always more important"

is that your own guiding pricincipal?

Morpheus

The purse string thing was me.... thats the principal of every government vis a vis nation, on this planet, sorry you dont have to like it but its a fact... our govt will ALWAYS act in the "nations best interest" which boils down to, "what financial gain do we get out of it?", thats EVERY country, so even if the groovy Greens got in, believe me, it wouldnt change that much.

Have you proof to back up your claims that were being pushed around by the US, it seems that every time something happens and Irish troops are asked by the UN to get involved, someone manages to vaguely link it to our neutrality issues and the shannon situation. Did you not think that for the past 20 years the Liberians have had back to back civil wars, and now Taylor is gone, the country is completely collapsing.


Ireland is there in a peace enforcement role, backing up the UN forces who are trying to stabilise the situation there. Liberia has serious issues and these need to be addressed, the US govt does not dictate Irish policy, like it or lump it.

The UN mission is one of a demobilization, disarmament, rehabilitation and reintegration program in the areas under their control.

How is this a bad thing? Why do you suggest that the US has influenced our government to put its troops there?

The US did no such thing, the Irish army is the worlds best peacekeeping force they have more experience dealing with terrorists and peace keeping than any other UN force, the UN sends its other members army staff here to learn how to instruct their own troops in the Irish Way of peace keeping.

Irish people should be damn well proud of what our army has done and the sacrifices individuals have made in the past, not for us, but for other people in other nations. Just look at Lebanon, speak to any lebanese people and they have nothing but praise for us, my friend is half lebanese, half irish, enough said.

Dont dirty the water by stating we are there as part of a covert US mission, the UN asked our govt, our govt conceded and the Irish Army went under orders to back up the UN forces with the consequence that the Army Rangers managed to save 35 people from being massacred in a village, took their captors prisoner and all without a shot being fired... This is under UN mandate, not US.

You sound like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory.

chewy

again i never doubted the irish peacekeepers abilities i doubted the whole notion of "peackeeping" vs peacemaking....

ill have to looks again for multiple varified facts that US has been influencing liberas various regimes for the last numbers years obviusly france before that...

are you telling US doesn't do regime change that they couldn't have possilby have influenced liberias current situation, that i find funny?

the irish peacekeepers act under their own volition but inehitably all there doing is clearing up the mess made by the imperial powers in africa ... whether it be france or the US (now) , your gonna tell me that imperialism doesn't exist next...

again i asked is the purse string always more important... your own motto, what works on a samll scale for you applies to large scale for a country.. of course everyone has to work to put food on their table but you can choose whether to work 70hrs a week for an arms manufacturer and have expensive clothes and nice holidays or you can work for another company for much less hours for less money but more free time and a better quality of life....

as i said what applies on a small scale applies on a big scale

Victor

Originally posted by Morphéus
Ireland is there in a peace enforcement role, backing up the UN forces who are trying to stabilise the situation there. Liberia has serious issues and these need to be addressed, the US govt does not dictate Irish policy, like it or lump it. .... How is this a bad thing? Why do you suggest that the US has influenced our government to put its troops there? The US did no such thing, the Irish army is the worlds best peacekeeping force they have more experience dealing with terrorists and peace keeping than any other UN force, the UN sends its other members army staff here to learn how to instruct their own troops in the Irish Way of peace keeping.

Actually quite a few ciountries jumped at the option of working in Liberia so they could either (a) not back up the Americans in Iraq or (b) free up Americans to go to Iraq (more FY than Liberia though).