Where do Irelands Loyalitys lie.

Zambia

Zebra3 wrote:

Britain was alligned with Czechoslovakia in 1937 yet a year later Britain handed part of the country over to Germany and then done nothing to defend her when Germany invaded the rest of the country or when she was occupied by the USSR in 1945..

Likewise Britain was alligned to Poland in 1937 and done next to nothing to help Poland when she was invaded by Germany in 1939 and Britain done nothing to help Poland when she was occupied by the USSR in 1945.

Avoiding neutrality and being alligned with Britain wasn't much use for those countries, was it?

Interesting

However Ireland did nothing in all the above as well. Im sure someone will mention Britain went into a costly war over the invasion of Poland.

Zebra3 wrote:

So you had no problem with PIRA? :eek:

Oh why do we always go back to the PIRA... Im not going there 101 threads exists for that purpose.

If every country in the world in WW 2 was neutral we would all be speaking german. They would be picked off 1 by one.

Zebra3

Zambia232 wrote:

However Ireland did nothing in all the above as well. Im sure someone will mention Britain went into a costly war over the invasion of Poland.

Actually many would argue Britain only went to war with Germany when France was invaded. War with Germany may have been declared on 3 September 1939, but next to nothing was done in real terms by Britain to help Poland. Britain's war with Germany only really kicked off when France and the Low countries were invaded on 10 May 1940.

So why should Ireland have signed up to fight with Britain?

Britain betrayed two of her allies and done nothing to save them (in 1938 and 1939 and again in 1945).

Britain herself was far more aggressive in invading and occupying countries than Germany was.

Britain finally went to war with Germany to protect her own interests, i.e. to avoid one mainland european power from becoming too strong.

Zambia232 wrote:

If every country in the world in WW 2 was neutral we would all be speaking german. They would be picked off 1 by one.

Rubbish. The USSR signed a non-aggression pact with Germany (i.e. opting to remain neutral) yet almost single-handedly defeated Germany.

Number of German troops killed by USSR forces: 3.6 million.

Number of German troops killed by Allied forces: 0.2 million.

Zambia

Zebra3 wrote:

So why should Ireland have signed up to fight with Britain?

Where not Poland, Britian is an obivous choice for an Ally due to proximity.

Zebra3 wrote:

Rubbish. The USSR signed a non-aggression pact with Germany (i.e. opting to remain neutral) yet almost single-handedly defeated Germany.

Number of German troops killed by USSR forces: 3.6 million.

Number of German troops killed by Allied forces: 0.2 million.

Sorry huge oversight on my Part , Every European country bar Russia.

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote:

Britain was alligned with Czechoslovakia in 1937 yet a year later Britain handed part of the country over to Germany and then done nothing to defend her when Germany invaded the rest of the country or when she was occupied by the USSR in 1945..

firstly part of the policy of apeasement, foolhardy and pointless. 1945 was a different matter, Britain was on it;s knees, it had no way of stopping the USSR from taking what it wanted.

Zebra3 wrote:

Likewise Britain was alligned to Poland in 1937 and done next to nothing to help Poland when she was invaded by Germany in 1939 and Britain done nothing to help Poland when she was occupied by the USSR in 1945.

that's a joke right? Britain gave an ultimatum to Gemany to keave Poland, they refused and Britain and France declared war. I'd call that a pretty ****ing big commitment to Poland personally.

To judge Britains actions after the war, you need to read the transcripts of the Yalta conference.

Zebra3

Fratton Fred wrote:

that's a joke right? Britain gave an ultimatum to Gemany to keave Poland, they refused and Britain and France declared war. I'd call that a pretty ****ing big commitment to Poland personally.

No, it's no joke at all. Just ask the Polish people how they were betrayed.

1 September 1939:Germany invades Poland. Britain tells Germany to leave within two days or else.

3 September 1939:Britain gives its "pretty ****ing big commitment" to Poland by declaring war on Germany.

Please tell me what Britain done next to help Poland after its hollow "pretty ****ing big commitment ".

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote:

No, it's no joke at all. Just ask the Polish people how they were betrayed.

1 September 1939:Germany invades Poland. Britain tells Germany to leave within two days or else.

3 September 1939:Britain gives its "pretty ****ing big commitment" to Poland by declaring war on Germany.

Please tell me what Britain done next to help Poland after its hollow "pretty ****ing big commitment ".

What could they do? Chamberlain was convinced that Germany would not go ahead and that the British and French declaration would make him withdraw.

Britain and france were not preperad for war, as they showed when germany turned their attentions of the combined French and British forces and drove them out of northern Europe.

Britain could have caved in and negotiated peace, but they didn't. That is what I call commitment.

Zebra3

Fratton Fred wrote:

Britain gave an ultimatum to Gemany to keave Poland, they refused and Britain and France declared war. I'd call that a pretty ****ing big commitment to Poland personally.

Fratton Fred wrote:

Britain could have caved in and negotiated peace, but they didn't. That is what I call commitment.

And this "commitment" was all of what use to Poland?

Let's be honest, Britain didn't give a toss about Poland or Czechoslovakia or any of its other allies. She would just use her allies to ensure its policy of avoiding any one mainland European power becoming too strong would continue.

And Ireland was right not to become a tool of this policy especially as Britain was causing shocking terror across the world at the time. It would have been an insult to all those who fought for Irish freedom to help Britain keep her powerful position in the world to abuse so many in Africa and Asia.

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote:

And this "commitment" was all of what use to Poland?

Let's be honest, Britain didn't give a toss about Poland or Czechoslovakia or any of its other allies. She would just use her allies to ensure its policy of avoiding any one mainland European power becoming too strong would continue.

so what do you suggest Britain did? sit back and watch Europe cave in to Hitler, it seems that is what you are suggesting.

I don;t hink anyone will deny that Britain's involvement in WWII was a generally good thing for Europe.

Zebra3 wrote:

And Ireland was right not to become a tool of this policy especially as Britain was causing shocking terror across the world at the time. It would have been an insult to all those who fought for Irish freedom to help Britain keep her powerful position in the world to abuse so many in Africa and Asia.

I agree, but for different reasons to you.

Oh, well done for mentioning British abuses of power, I thought for a minute you might miss the chance.

Judt

Likewise Britain was alligned to Poland in 1937 and done next to nothing to help Poland when she was invaded by Germany in 1939 and Britain done nothing to help Poland when she was occupied by the USSR in 1945.

What would you propose Britain should have done? Sailed the Royal Navy and BEF past the German coastline in narrow straits, great for u-boats let alone coastal artillery, and saved Poland from a. The Germans b. The Soviets? There was nothing they could have done to save Poland in the end, bar continue WW2 fighting the Soviets.

As for the Czechs, I seem to recall most people would agree that appeasement was wrong. That's why they went to war in the end.

Actually many would argue Britain only went to war with Germany when France was invaded. War with Germany may have been declared on 3 September 1939, but next to nothing was done in real terms by Britain to help Poland. Britain's war with Germany only really kicked off when France and the Low countries were invaded on 10 May 1940.

Again, what would you propose they had done? Also, remember that Churchill only replaced the appeasement crowd on 10 May 1940.

So why should Ireland have signed up to fight with Britain?

Because, oh, I dunno, it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Had Germany overrun Britain in 1940 you do know that they had an ingeniously named plan, "Operation Green"? You do also know that they considered the celtic people to be on their list of untermenchen? Me, you, the Scots and the Welsh would have all gone to big camps in Poland together.

Britain finally went to war with Germany to protect her own interests, i.e. to avoid one mainland european power from becoming too strong.

You do know that Britain bankrupted herself and her Empire, which fell apart because of the results of the war, going to war with Germany? She could have easily taken Germany's peace offer after Poland and again after France. Britain did the right thing, and there is no denying that.

Rubbish. The USSR signed a non-aggression pact with Germany (i.e. opting to remain neutral) yet almost single-handedly defeated Germany.

Speaking of countries that would respect your neutrality! There's a reason why Estonia considers the monument to Soviet Soldiers who died liberating the country from the Nazi's as a symbol of soviet oppression. The Sovs also murdered thousands of Polish soldiers in 1940; they sat back and let the German's put down the Warsaw Uprising (so that the Soviet's wouldn't later have to do the same job.) Etc etc etc. On a bodycount basis Stalin makes Hitler look like an amateur. Never forget that, in your talk of neutrality and suchlike.

And Ireland was right not to become a tool of this policy especially as Britain was causing shocking terror across the world at the time. It would have been an insult to all those who fought for Irish freedom to help Britain keep her powerful position in the world to abuse so many in Africa and Asia.

1. As I said before, the war ended the British Empire.
2. And the Nazi's were what, in your opinion...?

Neutrality was a cop out. We did take sides, for crying out loud! German airman lands in Ireland? Off to the Curragh, for you the war is over! Allied airman? We let him go in sight of the border.

Ireland did fight in WW2. Just that we sent our men to fight in the uniforms of other countries, and we sat back and as a state did nothing. Anyone here remember that quote about good men?

Zambia

Ok so let me get this right

You think britain was disgraceful in its actions by declaring war on Germany and not sending its army immediatly to save poland. Seeing as to do so it would have to send its Army through Germany I can understand the build up period.

Yet Ireland was right to not even say it would not send anyone. That essentially is where we differ....

Given Time Im sure Britain would have done something fact is the invasion of france came along and events played out differently.

Rosen

Judt wrote:

What would you propose Britain should have done? Sailed the Royal Navy and BEF past the German coastline in narrow straits, great for u-boats let alone coastal artillery, and saved Poland from a. The Germans b. The Soviets? There was nothing they could have done to save Poland in the end, bar continue WW2 fighting the Soviets.

Judt wrote:

Because, oh, I dunno, it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO...

I think you have made some really good points but you are kind of arguing with yourself here as on one hand you are saying that Britain did the right thing in taking the war to Germany but on the other hand you are saying that continuing WW2 was the wrong thing to do.
Why? Are Russian lives worth less than europeans? Was Stalin not at least as bad if not worse than Hitler? Would the right thing to do not have been to continue the war in Russia?

Judt wrote:

You do know that Britain bankrupted herself and her Empire, which fell apart because of the results of the war, going to war with Germany? She could have easily taken Germany's peace offer after Poland and again after France. Britain did the right thing, and there is no denying that.

Very true but they didnt realise that when the joined the war.
Britain did the right thing for Britain - they were protecting their own interests, not anyone elses. Why did they decide to pull the ANZAC's away from Australia therefore leaving them open to attack from the Japenese? Because the Empire's new money was in Africa not in Oz.

It's way too easy to say Britain did the right thing and saved the world from concentration camps. This is all in hindsight. At the time Britain was protecting herself, as was her right, and her interests - not trying to save the rest of us from the evil of the Nazi's.

And on the point of concentration camps - the world saw these first in the Boer war. The Spanish came up with the idea in Cuba 1896, however the British were the first to employ them, obviously nowhere near the same way as the Nazi's (not even in the same ballpark) but the were no strangers to that form of ill-treatment.

We are all glad that Britain stood up and joined the war but lets not glorify them too much and lose touch with reality.

Zebra3

All the points I've made above are in relation to the thread topic.

Ireland's loyalty was to herself and not to a country that raped Ireland (and a lot of the world while coming out with bull**** above bringing civilisation blah, blah, blah) and betrayed her allies. Britain sold out Czechoslovakia in 1938 and Poland in 1945.

What was the Free State supposed to do? Allow British troops back in to its territory? The same army who not so long before had terrorised and murdered Irish civilians?

It's amazing the way some people look at Ireland's neutrality stance from Britain's point of view in trying to keep her evil empire in place. No Irish government in its right mind could have sent Irish troops off to fight alongside an army that had butchered people here less than two decades before.

The right decision was made to keep the Irish Free State out of a war that was pretty much about a clash of imperial ambitions (oooh, sounds familiar, doesn't it?) and no amount of British propaganda that they were fighting for freedom (while keeping their boot down in some many places around the world) can change that fact.

Of course maybe if Britain had apologised for all its atrocities while withdrawing from the twenty-six counties, Dev and co may have had a different view. But no doubt anti-British sentiments still ran pretty high. And is it any wonder?

Zambia

Zebra3 wrote:

The right decision was made to keep the Irish Free State out of a war that was pretty much about a clash of imperial ambitions (oooh, sounds familiar, doesn't it?) and no amount of British propaganda that they were fighting for freedom (while keeping their boot down in some many places around the world) can change that fact.

To debate the british empire is another Issue. This thread is not weather we should have joined WWII on the british side I think we should have but we are just going to differ. I tink there are enough anti-brit threads hanging about. Plus a lot of those jackboots on the heads of natives where Irish.

If you could start a separate thread on Why didnt Britain Send troops to assist Poland during the Phoney war I am sure the debate will be tighter around that issue. I dont stand with the view they did nothing by choice.

humanji

Judt wrote:

Because, oh, I dunno, it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Had Germany overrun Britain in 1940 you do know that they had an ingeniously named plan, "Operation Green"? You do also know that they considered the celtic people to be on their list of untermenchen? Me, you, the Scots and the Welsh would have all gone to big camps in Poland together.

20/20 hindsight. Nobody knew about the Nazi plans of genocide at the time and many didn't know until many years after the war ended. There was no "right thing to do" as the situation wasn't simply black and white.

Judt

humanji wrote:

20/20 hindsight. Nobody knew about the Nazi plans of genocide at the time and many didn't know until many years after the war ended. There was no "right thing to do" as the situation wasn't simply black and white.

Yes, that's right, the Nurenburg Laws weren't published outside of Europe, nor was Mein Kampf....

I think you have made some really good points but you are kind of arguing with yourself here as on one hand you are saying that Britain did the right thing in taking the war to Germany but on the other hand you are saying that continuing WW2 was the wrong thing to do.
Why? Are Russian lives worth less than europeans? Was Stalin not at least as bad if not worse than Hitler? Would the right thing to do not have been to continue the war in Russia?

Sure, but with millions of people dead I think everyone said "Let's take this one back up in ten years or so." Then along came nuclear weapons, and the rest is history.

Ireland didn't remain neutral during the war. It was playing favourites towards the allies, for economic concessions. In other words, we were war profiteers.

Zambia

Anyone think a poll might help on seeing where people stand ?

Zebra3

Zambia232 wrote:

To debate the british empire is another Issue. This thread is not weather we should have joined WWII on the british side I think we should have but we are just going to differ. I tink there are enough anti-brit threads hanging about. Plus a lot of those jackboots on the heads of natives where Irish.

If you could start a separate thread on Why didnt Britain Send troops to assist Poland during the Phoney war I am sure the debate will be tighter around that issue. I dont stand with the view they did nothing by choice.

To debate the British Empire is not a seperate issue. It was an evil, evil state and there is no way the IFS could allign herself with it militarily for moral reasons.

Btw, so too was Germany at the time as is America now.

And yes, it sickens me to think of American planes stopping off here on their way to pillage the Middle East.

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote:

To debate the British Empire is not a seperate issue. It was an evil, evil state and there is no way the IFS could allign herself with it militarily for moral reasons.

Btw, so too was Germany at the time as is America now.

And yes, it sickens me to think of American planes stopping off here on their way to pillage the Middle East.

I suppose that's one of the benefits of neutrality, you can sit on your arse and criticise everyone else.

Zebra3

Well better than getting involved with evil imperial powers and their global raping.

Mick86

Zebra3 wrote:

Rubbish. The USSR signed a non-aggression pact with Germany (i.e. opting to remain neutral) yet almost single-handedly defeated Germany.

Number of German troops killed by USSR forces: 3.6 million.

Number of German troops killed by Allied forces: 0.2 million.

You're right, that point is rubbish. You conveniently ignore the fact that Germany invaded Russia. Otherwise the Russians might have stayed out of the war.

Greece nad the US were two more non-belligerents attacked by the Axis by the way. Neutrality is one heck of a defence isn't it.

Zebra3

Mick86 wrote:

You're right, that point is rubbish. You conveniently ignore the fact that Germany invaded Russia. Otherwise the Russians might have stayed out of the war.

Greece nad the US were two more non-belligerents attacked by the Axis by the way. Neutrality is one heck of a defence isn't it.

It's not rubbish cos it was made in a reply to the comment below:

Zambia232 wrote:

If every country in the world in WW 2 was neutral we would all be speaking german. They would be picked off 1 by one.

CerebralCortex

Zebra3 wrote:

Britain was alligned with Czechoslovakia in 1937 yet a year later Britain handed part of the country over to Germany and then done nothing to defend her when Germany invaded the rest of the country or when she was occupied by the USSR in 1945..

Likewise Britain was alligned to Poland in 1937 and done next to nothing to help Poland when she was invaded by Germany in 1939 and Britain done nothing to help Poland when she was occupied by the USSR in 1945.

Avoiding neutrality and being alligned with Britain wasn't much use for those countries, was it?



The only fanaticism is to be found in America's lust for black gold. Most people in the Middle East just want to be left alone by the west.



So you had no problem with PIRA? :eek:

Where'd you learn your english? Good point though.

Zebra3

CerebralCortex wrote:

Where'd you learn your english?

In school. They even taught us when to use capital letters.

Zambia

Zebra3 wrote:

Well better than getting involved with evil imperial powers and their global raping.

Ah now I think your a tad one track minded oin all this , if you think the british empire was that bad then maybe Ireland should have fought against that...

Zebra3

As I said above, it wasn't Ireland's business to become a pawn in a battle between evil empires (whom were only out to advance their own good) and I've already pointed out that Germany was evil as well.

Do you seriously think Ireland should have signed up to fight alongside an empire occupying and pillaging so much of the globe and in many Irish people's eyes still occupying part of their country?

Imagine this scenario:
1940: Britain is occupied and defeated by Germany.
1949: British people rise up against German forces in Britain.
1950: After a vicious guerilla war, Germany withdraws from all of Britain bar London and a couple of surrounding counties. The rest of Britain has a free, independent government.

Question:By 1968 would the rest of Britain be itching to go to war with Germany against say, ooohh, evil godless communist Russia?

Zambia

A single pawn is the most useless piece on the Board , but when covered by a larger piece or other pawns it has to be dealt with.

Neutrality doesnt stand up

Joining the allies was simply what I believe should have been done...you on the other hand advocate not fighting the germans as you didnt like the british. Ireland has no problem with being on the side of empires as long as its not british

During the Cold War, Ireland maintained its policy of neutrality. It did not align itself officially with NATO— or the Warsaw Pact either. It refused to join NATO because Britain still controlled Northern Ireland. Ireland offered to set up a separate alliance with the USA but this was refused.

So stop trying to defend irish neutrality underthe guise that it was some noble decision against the Empire it was more based in the fact that a lot of people as you said just didnt like britain. It was more than willing to bed the american empire , which some reckon it does now...

Oh i must apolgise the 200,000 figure is slightly to high it was more like 120,000 in the forces out of 200,000 in total went to Britian. The rest worked in the war economy.

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
--Edmund Burke, British statesman

"Every man is guilty of all the good he didn't do."
-- Voltaire (1694-1778)

PhonyDoctor

homah_7ft wrote:

This is real pie in the sky stuff. It doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things whether Ireland is neutral or not. We have what - eight and a half thousand in our army? In my opinion we should do what every other country in the world has done down through history and that is whatever is expedient to the current situation.

This is quite true, and in my opinion very practical. Your politicians are elected to serve your interest first and foremost.

I would say that there may be things Ireland might do in certain conflicts, such as provide the use of their air bases and facilities to aid those with whom Ireland agrees with politically and culturally, but again that is your call.

Other than that the job of the Irish military is to protect the Irish

Zebra3

Zambia,

You seem totally oblivious to the terrorist acts and genocide committed in Ireland by Britain over so many years and you think people here should just have forgotton everything that ever happened (without an apology) and gone to war with Britain while she was still occupying more land globally then Germany. All these things contributed to a dislike of the British Empire by Irish people. Is it any surprise? :rolleyes:

As I stated from my own pov, I'm glad Ireland didn't fight with Britain or against Britain in WWII because neither side had any noble intention.

The two quotes you have at the bottom of you last post are excellent quotes but neither had an validity to do with WWII. Britain went to war because Germany was threathening her empire, not because of some moral attempt at defending freedom.

As soon as Japan was defeated, the first thing Britain done was to try and reclaim her empire in Asia. And remember all that fighting in Africa. British forces were fighting to hold on to the lands they were occupying, they weren't exactly there to liberate people, were they?

Remember any troops Ireland would have sent to war in Europe would have freed up more British troops to keep the locals down in Africa and Asia.

You have your view that the British Empire was some rosey fun place to be for the exploited locals in the occupied lands and it seems there's not much I can do to even alter that slightly. You probably think that British (and American) forces are in Iraq today to liberate the locals from an evil tyrant as the occupying forces in true Orwellian style try to rewrite history and their support for him.

To go back to the thread topic again, Ireland's loyalties were to herself during WWII, just like Britain and every other state.

PhonyDoctor

Zebra3 wrote:

The only fanaticism is to be found in America's lust for black gold. Most people in the Middle East just want to be left alone by the west.

Of the few things that rile me, it is ignorant statements such as this. So far, despite all the accusations, the US has not stolen a single barrel of oil from anyone.

For example, it should be appreciated that, despite all the oil in the Sudan that the US might profit from, it was and still is the US trying to do something about the atrocities there. Ask instead why China vetos every action that the UN might take to help. Why do you not speak to China's fanaticism about "black gold"?

As to the people in the ME just wanting to be alone, you should read their own writings. Iran openly advocates the killing of all Jewish people and the domination of Islam around the world. Iran finances terrorism around the world from Palestine to Pakistan to Indonesia to Australia to the US and Canada. Also note that al Qaeda (mostly Saudis and Egyptians) were never invaded by the US. Egypt has no oil and the Saudis and the US have had an amicable relationship since at least WW2.

wes

PhonyDoctor wrote:

Of the few things that rile me, it is ignorant statements such as this. So far, despite all the accusations, the US has not stolen a single barrel of oil from anyone.

Okay where to start here. Okay in 1953 the US/UK organized a coup in Iran, because the democratically elected prime minister wanted to nationalize the oil industry (completely legal) to benefit the people of Iran. For this he was murdered and brutal dictator put in his place. So the US/UK could pilfer there oil. This is just one example. Plenty more where it came from. So the US oil lust is very well known.

So Zebra3 statement is hardly ignorant by any means. He seems to be a well informed sort.

PhonyDoctor wrote:

For example, it should be appreciated that, despite all the oil in the Sudan that the US might profit from, it was and still is the US trying to do something about the atrocities there. Ask instead why China vetos every action that the UN might take to help. Why do you not speak to China's fanaticism about "black gold"?

The only reason the US gives a crap about Darfur is that China is getting the oil and is an economic rival. China of course is no angel and happily ignore the atrocities there. Of course the US happily ignored Saddam gassing the Kurds back in the day. So there no better than the Chinese in that regard.

PhonyDoctor wrote:

As to the people in the ME just wanting to be alone, you should read their own writings. Iran openly advocates the killing of all Jewish people and the domination of Islam around the world. Iran finances terrorism around the world from Palestine to Pakistan to Indonesia to Australia to the US and Canada. Also note that al Qaeda (mostly Saudis and Egyptians) were never invaded by the US. Egypt has no oil and the Saudis and the US have had an amicable relationship since at least WW2.

Have any proof that Iran funds all the terrorists around the world?

You are leaving out the fact that the US has funded terrorists in South America and is even protecting a convicted Anti-Castro terrorists as we speak. There are even rumblings that there funding terrorists in Iran, of course this is speculation and there is no proof so I wouldn't take that too serious, but its not outside the realm of possibility.

As for Iran wanting to wipe out Jews. Your probably referring to Adminijaed comments which have been debunked as a bad translation several times. I am no fan of Adminjaed, but there is doubt that he actually said what people claim he said. The 2 competing translations are he wants to wipe Israel off the map and the other is that he wants to wipe the regime out. So there is doubt there.

It should also be mentioned that Iran actively helped the US against the Taliban. Iran even offered wide ranging concessions to the US before Bushs little Axis of evil speech

As for Al Qaeda reasons, well Osama hates the Saudi government as well as the US. There main problem with the US are military bases in Saudia Arabia, supports for Israel. It goes back to the first Gulf war, Osama offered to take his group and go on a Jihad against Saddam and the Saudi government refused. He took this to be a sign that the Saudi were in the American's back pocket. Then there is Palestine. This one is how he recruited initially. Then the US gave him the gift of the 2nd Iraq invasion (if you don't believe me, just look at what the head of MI5 said).

So the US reasons for doings are all about self interest. Do I like the Middle Eastern Governments. Hell no. However there is enough in my mind to question the US intentions in the region and I would rather my country no marry itself to US foreign policy. I would rather we work within the EU and together come up with our own foreign policy rather than joining in on questionable Neo-con adventures.