Where do Irelands Loyalitys lie.

Zambia

Zebra I have 2 questions for you... and I have already stated I am not going into Britains past with Ireland like I said 101 threads.

If the UK was attacked today by anyone in an unprovoked attack would you think it reasonable that we stand by and let her be occupied.

If Ireland was attacked and the UK suddenly claimed neutrality and let us be occupied would you consider that a reasonable stance?

PhonyDoctor

wes wrote:

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 ...

I'll actually agree with you on that issue, but the nationalization equated to the taking of a hugh investment made by American and British companies without compensation, oh and yes - the US was not dependent on oil imports in 1953, so maybe the issue wasn't one of an obsession for oil.

Not saying what happened in 1953 was right - just correcting the record.

wes wrote:

The only reason the US gives a crap about Darfur is that China is getting the oil and is an economic rival.

You are, of course, ignorant of what you speak. The US has never stolen a drop of oil, and I don't know a single American who would sanction oil for blood.

You, however, seem perfectly fine with the idea.

China of course is no angel and happily ignore the atrocities there.

They're not ignoring the atrocities, they are financing them with money and
ACTIVELY PREVENTING the UN from doing anything about them.

Please get a leg up on current events.

Of course the US happily ignored Saddam gassing the Kurds back in the day. So there no better than the Chinese in that regard.

At the time that Saddam was accused of gassing a number of Kurdish cities (1988), there was much debate as to whether the Kurds were killed by Iraqi or Iranian weapons.

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/12-14-00.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2111888/

But apparently the only people who've actively covered for Saddam are the radical Left and their heros in the press including al Jazeera.

To the extent that the US might have acted earlier, one might ask what we MIGHT have done - but I am sure that the US never blocked any UN investigations or sanctions on the matter.

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

There's plenty of proof. How much do you need, and to what extent are you going to ignore it.

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.

I'm not going to say that the US's past record in SA is perfect - it is not, but most of the claims I've seen proffered against the US are bunk.

Take the anti-Castro "terrorist" bit. I suppose that you are talking about Orlando Bosch Avila. Bosch was jailed in Venezuela for his supposed role concerning the Cubana Flight 455 bombing (for 11 years), but he was never convicted of a single charg - despite two trials on the matter. He's presently in the US, but as far as I know not convicted of a single crime for terrorism anywhere. If by protecting you mean he's simply living in the US, its a poor charge.

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.

BTW, what is the radical bent you have against Americans that you must turn a thread about Irish loyalties into an anti-American rant?

wes

PhonyDoctor wrote:

I'll actually agree with you on that issue, but the nationalization equated to the taking of a hugh investment made by American and British companies without compensation, oh and yes - the US was not dependent on oil imports in 1953, so maybe the issue wasn't one of an obsession for oil.

Not saying what happened in 1953 was right - just correcting the record.

Of course it was for the oil. Iran nationlisation of her industry would have raised the price of oil. Also under the process the investment would have to be paid back. Otherwise it would not have been legal. As far as the history books I have read have made this point.

The only reason was for the oil. Sure they didn't technically steal it. They just put in a dictator to make sure the prices stayed nice and solid and to have an ally in the region. Are you aware the CIA actively trained the Shahs men to torture innocent Iranians? Do you know what they did? Maybe you should look it up. Makes for uncomfortable reading.

PhonyDoctor wrote:

You are, of course, ignorant of what you speak. The US has never stolen a drop of oil, and I don't know a single American who would sanction oil for blood.

You, however, seem perfectly fine with the idea.

Again you don't need to steal oil. You can just invade a country and make the government you replace with make sure they sell it in dollars. Every barrel sold your country benefits as long as its in dollars. Isn't it odd that Iraq became such a big threat when Saddam started the process to sell in Euro's. Also I am hardly ignorant. Your nation doesn't have to steal oil to benefit from it.

I am also hardly fine with blood for oil. Where you get that from I don't know. It was not my intent. On the other hand the US regularly gets involved in mis-adventures for oil. The recent Iraq fiasco shows this in startling terms. The amount of lies the US tried to present to hide is pretty damning.

Also saying what people are talking about is ignorant is hardly the best way in a reasoned discourse. I may disagree with you, but I respect your opinion and would expect the same courtesy.

PhonyDoctor wrote:

They're not ignoring the atrocities, they are financing them with money and
ACTIVELY PREVENTING the UN from doing anything about them.

Please get a leg up on current events.

I didn't mention China selling them weapons. You didn't mention Russia selling them weapons either. I am well up on events, not mentioning doesn't mean I don't know there occurring. Just like I am sure you know full well Russia is on it as well.

The Chinese or Russian governments are horrible murderous regimes. The US condemnation of the atrocities is due to there rivalry with China, not a genuine concern for the people there. As I have pointed out your nation was happily friends with a genocidal psychopath.

PhonyDoctor wrote:

At the time that Saddam was accused of gassing a number of Kurdish cities (1988), there was much debate as to whether the Kurds were killed by Iraqi or Iranian weapons.

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/12-14-00.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2111888/

But apparently the only people who've actively covered for Saddam are the radical Left and their heros in the press including al Jazeera.

To the extent that the US might have acted earlier, one might ask what we MIGHT have done - but I am sure that the US never blocked any UN investigations or sanctions on the matter.

The US knew full well he did it. Saddam had been using chemical weapons long before it. To the best of my knowledge the Iranians hadn't used chemical weapons at the time. The nice little propoganda was just to make Iran look as bad as possible. As much as possible the US media tried to hide the fact that Saddam started his war of aggression against Iran. So the debate was hog wash to try and hide the US's allies crimes against humanity.

Honestly the US also supported Saddam in his war of aggression against Iran. The radical left and Al Jazeera (a great punching bad of the Neo-cons) had little to do with Saddam. Bringing the radical left and Al Jazeera into this is very odd. Really Al Jazeera is no worse than Fox news (actually its better than Fox). They didn't sell him chemical weapons, Europeans did that. The US gave information to him during the Iran/Iraq war, protected his oil ships. Lets not forget Rumsfeld famous picture.

The US could have simply have stopped allying themselves to a genocidal maniac. Its not hard really. Condemnation of the genocide would have not been amiss.

PhonyDoctor wrote:

There's plenty of proof. How much do you need, and to what extent are you going to ignore it.

What proof? Proof from the same nation that said Saddam had WMD's? At most you can provide a link to the Hezbollah. The other nations you say sound like a typical neo-con fantasy.

Really, the US is just trying to make Iran into there new BIG BAD TM. Its something the US does on a regular basis. It did it with Mossadegh. It did it with Iraq recently, despite the evidence presented amounting to Bush receiving a message from God. There is no proof to ignore. The word of the US and her allies is worth as much as the word of a raving lunatic shouting on the street.

The proof amounts to same as people speculating that the US is funding terrorists in Iran. If you expect me to take the claims of the US, then we may as well take the claims about the US funding terrorists serious as well then.

PhonyDoctor wrote:

I'm not going to say that the US's past record in SA is perfect - it is not, but most of the claims I've seen proffered against the US are bunk.

Take the anti-Castro "terrorist" bit. I suppose that you are talking about Orlando Bosch Avila. Bosch was jailed in Venezuela for his supposed role concerning the Cubana Flight 455 bombing (for 11 years), but he was never convicted of a single charge - despite two trials on the matter. He's presently in the US, but as far as I know not convicted of a single crime for terrorism anywhere. If by protecting you mean he's simply living in the US, its a poor charge.

Not perfect is putting it mildly when it comes to the US's involvement in South America.

Avila is not the only example of the US protecting Anti-Castro terrorists. Plenty of examples. Also you are protecting him, why else would you not send him back to Valenzuela? Also one wonders how he got out of jail.... From what I have read Avila is guilty as can be. Perhaps my source are incorrect, if that the case I need find better source on the matter.

Again Ireland should not ally itself with a nation as the US. It has it own interests at heart and it current leadership are dangerous idiots. Ireland should stay with the EU, make our own foreign policy independent of the US and work within the EU framework. If interest coincide, then by all means work together. If we think the US is gonna do something stupid, we should stay the hell away.

Irelands future is with the EU. We need cohesion and to stay away from dangerous neo-con mis-adventures.

Liam Byrne

wes wrote:

If we think the US is gonna do something stupid, we should stay the hell away.

Given Bush-brain's track record, I think we could safely remove the "if" from the above quote.

Irelands future is with the EU. We need cohesion and to stay away from dangerous neo-con mis-adventures.

No argument there; first step in defining Ireland's loyalties and standing by them is to have a vote/referendum on whether we should continue to allow them to use Shannon.

And before anyone starts on me as to being anti-American, I'm not......if I was, I'd be quoting my own views by saying that we should simply kick them out - now, but since it's a thread asking where Ireland's loyalties lie, I think we should have a democratic vote on the subject; if enough people disagree with me, then fair enough, but the people should have their say, rather than leaving the decision to involve us, however indirectly, in war, war crimes and the like, to the same idiots who've squandered the proceeds of our "Celtic Tiger" on useless eVoting machines and somehow managed to let house prices go way beyond the reach of the average person despite a willy-nilly planning setup that allows housing estates to be built in areas without roads, schools or other facilities.

wes

Liam Byrne wrote:

And before anyone starts on me as to being anti-American, I'm not......if I was, I'd be quoting my own views by saying that we should simply kick them out - now, but since it's a thread asking where Ireland's loyalties lie, I think we should have a democratic vote on the subject;

Thats a very good idea. Either way at least it would be the will of the people, even if I disagreed I would respect the will of the majority.

Zebra3

Zambia232 wrote:

Zebra I have 2 questions for you... and I have already stated I am not going into Britains past with Ireland like I said 101 threads.

If the UK was attacked today by anyone in an unprovoked attack would you think it reasonable that we stand by and let her be occupied.

If Ireland was attacked and the UK suddenly claimed neutrality and let us be occupied would you consider that a reasonable stance?

Zambia,

Britain's past with Ireland could not be ignored in 1937. I have to bring this up as it was all relevant in 1937. I've posted a scenario above about Britain going to war with Germany, but you ignored it.....

As for attacks on Ireland or Britain in 2007.....We have not signed up to defend anyone so I do not demand anyone protect us and being totally honest any British response would depend on who invaded. If the US invaded (highly unlikely), I doubt Britian would do anything. If Iran or North Korea invaded (both highly unlikely), I've no doubt Britain would act, but it would be out of their own security concerns in the same way the US wants a pro-American regime ("democratic" or not) in Cuba.

If Britain was attacked our response would be irrelevant as no doubt britain's allies would occupy us with immeadiate effect to help defend Britain.

PhonyDoctor wrote:

BTW, what is the radical bent you have against Americans that you must turn a thread about Irish loyalties into an anti-American rant?

Fair play to you. When you're losing an arguement, play the race card. Disliking a regime and/or its foreign policy does not equate to hating the people. I don't like the Irish government and its policy of allowing foreign troops here and that certainly doesn't make me anti-Irish so keep your pathetic racist accusations to yourself.

I could go on and on about how ignorant you are when it comes to American foreign policy (thankfully Wes posted a lot about it), but when it comes to the US stealing oil, think about this.

One of the main things that sparked off the US invasion of Iraq was Saddam's decision to start selling oil in € and not US$. This act caused instability in the US economy and if it was followed by several other leading OPEC members would have destroyed the US economy.

The first thing the US done when they occupied Iraq was to reverse this decision and in doing so wiped out 17% of Iraq's oil wealth.

If that's not stealing oil, read up on petro-dollar recycling.

Zambia

Zebra3 wrote:

Zambia,

Britain's past with Ireland could not be ignored in 1937. I have to bring this up as it was all relevant in 1937. I've posted a scenario above about Britain going to war with Germany, but you ignored it.....

As for attacks on Ireland or Britain in 2007.....We have not signed up to defend anyone so I do not demand anyone protect us and being totally honest any British response would depend on who invaded. If the US invaded (highly unlikely), I doubt Britian would do anything. If Iran or North Korea invaded (both highly unlikely), I've no doubt Britain would act, but it would be out of their own security concerns in the same way the US wants a pro-American regime ("democratic" or not) in Cuba.

If Britain was attacked our response would be irrelevant as no doubt britain's allies would occupy us with immeadiate effect to help defend Britain.

Sorry my apologies , in your scenario it is unfeasible to imagine Britain and Germany being able to work together so soon after an invasion and conflict. However I think Britain should not have let the germans keep London. I gather you would agree?

Ok so if in your scenario of North korea taking Britain it is in our interests for this not to happen and we should take action as well.

But essentially you have answered my question you would let britian burn in 2007 without feeling any need to intervene militarily. Considering the UK was a major source of income to the EU and Ireland was a major source of funding to Ireland. I just think this is wrong.

Zambia

Zebra3 wrote:

Well, my way of looking at it would be why send troops to defend Britain from invasion when we never sent troops to Iraq to help them when they were invaded recently.

In my book, you're either neutral or you're not.

Exactly so why not just come out with that, Ireland are part of the EU the EU will always defend us from whoever. So as far as I can see if a French Soldier is going to be sent in harms way to defend Ireland, Ireland soldiers should be asked to do likewise and that should be stated from the outset.

Zebra3

The EU is not a military alliance.

Zambia

Zebra3 wrote:

The EU is not a military alliance.

This was in my first post we have come full circle

Defence and security are traditionally matters of national sovereignty. EU policies in this area were established as the second of the three pillars in the Maastricht treaty of 1992. The Common Foreign and Security Policy or CFSP were further defined and broadened in the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997. It superseded the European Political Cooperation. The CFSP acknowledges NATO being responsible for territorial defence of Europe and "peace-making".

In conculsion
Ireland is only Neutral as a pretty word, if times ever get bad it has no doubt where to look either the US or the UK/EU. I simple stated from the outset that Ireland is in an alliance. It simply will not come out and say it. Ireland cannot be compared to Sweden and Switzerland as they are fully armed countries.

SuperSean11

Good points:)

wes

Zambia232 wrote:

In conculsion
Ireland is only Neutral as a pretty word, if times ever get bad it has no doubt where to look either the US or the UK/EU. I simple stated from the outset that Ireland is in an alliance. It simply will not come out and say it. Ireland cannot be compared to Sweden and Switzerland as they are fully armed countries.

I have to agree our membership in the EU basically makes our neutrality claims a bit hard to swallow. Also considering the direction the EU is going we may have to come out and say we are with the EU. I don't think we are quite there yet, but things will go that way. As much as I would like Ireland to be neutral, the writings on the wall, at least to me.

Judt

wes wrote:

I have to agree our membership in the EU basically makes our neutrality claims a bit hard to swallow. Also considering the direction the EU is going we may have to come out and say we are with the EU. I don't think we are quite there yet, but things will go that way. As much as I would like Ireland to be neutral, the writings on the wall, at least to me.

Ya see, the thing about saying "I would like Ireland to be neutral" is that you're assuming that we're losing something. If we did get properly neutral we'd be gaining something, and if we went headlong into a formal alliance (say the EU defence pact) then we'd also be gaining something - at the moment we're in this nether world. Personally I think neutrality doesn't fit our position, requirements or the realism of the world situation all that well.

Liam Byrne

wes wrote:

I don't think we are quite there yet, but things will go that way. As much as I would like Ireland to be neutral, the writings on the wall, at least to me.

No arguments here......just take a look at Shannon :mad:

Zebra3 was spot on when he/she pointed out that to be "neutral" you have to - at the very least - treat everyone equally.

We didn't attempt to intervene when the warmongers were invading Iraq - in fact, we stood idly by and let them abuse our airport to do so.

If Iraq or someone were to invade Britain or America, would we let them use Shannon (or Cork or Dublin) ?

I think we all know the answer to that, so let's call a spade a spade and finally admit that no, we are not neutral.