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

"Operation Armageddon" in 1969 would have been mass suicide for Irish - STAY ON TOPIC

Options
1…1213151718…22

Comments

  • Options
    #422
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    twinytwo wrote: »
    damn straight.. i love my country and all but if he had sent our troops in against battle hardened paras and marines.. the result dosent even need thinking about
    Well the 1916 Volunteers didn't do too bad against against battle hardened british troops, artillery, bombarment of naval gunships etc I haven't any doubt that their desendants in the Irish Army wouldn't have done to bad in Newry or Derry etc ;)

    Naturally in an all out conventional war with the overwhelming odds in favour of britain, we wouldn't have a chance. But as for the paras and marines, well let's say unconventional forces did quite well against them now didn't they. And they don't seem to be doing that great in Afghanistan at the moment either.


  • Options
    #423
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It's likely that some of the Scottish regiments would have been accross double quick to defend their unionist cousins from attack!


  • Options
    #424
    Jumpy
    Registered Users Posts: 7,606 ✭✭✭Jumpy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's likely that some of the Scottish regiments would have been accross double quick to defend their unionist cousins from attack!

    I told ye

    Dey're moy sco'ish


  • Options
    #425
    Kalashnikov_Kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 642 ✭✭✭Kalashnikov_Kid


    wilson10 wrote: »
    Those dreams of 1969 were a reality by 1972. The civil rights movement had achieved it's aims.

    So what wasd the thirty odd years war and the three and a half thousand deaths all about.

    I dunno. What was a Sectarian police force all about?

    What was internment all about?

    Bloody Sunday started out in January 1972 as a civil rights march...was that the turning point for you?


  • Options
    #426
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    whadabouchasir wrote: »
    I really don't accept your point that britain would not have attacked the irish army.I think they would have reacted just like they did in the falklands.In this war Britain recieved almost unilateral support from its allies even though the Falklands much like the north probably shouldn't be part of the UK at all.Also the british government would come under huge pressure from unionists in the north as well as the hardline colonialists in Britain who would not take to kindly to an invasion at all.I think that britain would want to assert its authority and would do so by kicking our ass.I think that they would recieve quite a lot of support because in reality all we would have been doing is invading another country to protect British civilians who we claim to be our own because of an internal british dispute which really had nothing to do with us.
    You raise a good point about the Malvinas Conflict whadabouchasir, about the only ' war ' britian won on it's own since the 1930's. The Malvinas didn't have any Argentine citizens living under a british secterian aparthied regeime like the six counties had and hence wouldn't have been seen by the International community as the same as coming to the rescue of the Catholics in the six counties facing an onslaught like the Irish army would have been.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #427
    twinytwo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,284 ✭✭✭twinytwo


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Well the 1916 Volunteers didn't do too bad against against battle hardened british troops, artillery, bombarment of naval gunships etc I haven't any doubt that their desendants in the Irish Army wouldn't have done to bad in Newry or Derry etc ;)

    Naturally in an all out conventional war with the overwhelming odds in favour of britain, we wouldn't have a chance. But as for the paras and marines, well let's say unconventional forces did quite well against them now didn't they. And they don't seem to be doing that great in Afghanistan at the moment either.

    Mainly because the was a world war on at the time....

    No conventional army can really fight against an unconventional force because unlike the unconventional force they are bound by rules


  • Options
    #428
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 24,072 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Well the 1916 Volunteers didn't do too bad against against battle hardened british troops, artillery, bombarment of naval gunships etc I haven't any doubt that their desendants in the Irish Army wouldn't have done to bad in Newry or Derry etc ;)

    Naturally in an all out conventional war with the overwhelming odds in favour of britain, we wouldn't have a chance. But as for the paras and marines, well let's say unconventional forces did quite well against them now didn't they. And they don't seem to be doing that great in Afghanistan at the moment either.

    Didn't many of the volunteers become battle-hardened as a result of managing to survive the Western Front in WW1?


  • Options
    #429
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Well the 1916 Volunteers didn't do too bad against against battle hardened british troops, artillery, bombarment of naval gunships etc I haven't any doubt that their desendants in the Irish Army wouldn't have done to bad in Newry or Derry etc ;)

    Naturally in an all out conventional war with the overwhelming odds in favour of britain, we wouldn't have a chance. But as for the paras and marines, well let's say unconventional forces did quite well against them now didn't they. And they don't seem to be doing that great in Afghanistan at the moment either.

    The 1916 rising was put down, it was the political dialogue afterwards and the fact that Britain didn't want to have a standing army in Ireland in place of policing by consent.

    Afghanistan Helmand Province, Area 58,584 square Km (22,619 Square Miles)
    Nothern Ireland 13,843 km2 (5,345 sq miles) Bit of a difference there, plus just over half the population of NI supported the Troops there. In Afghanistan very few support their presence.


  • Options
    #430
    Boskowski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Well the 1916 Volunteers didn't do too bad against against battle hardened british troops, artillery, bombarment of naval gunships etc I haven't any doubt that their desendants in the Irish Army wouldn't have done to bad in Newry or Derry etc ;)

    Naturally in an all out conventional war with the overwhelming odds in favour of britain, we wouldn't have a chance. But as for the paras and marines, well let's say unconventional forces did quite well against them now didn't they. And they don't seem to be doing that great in Afghanistan at the moment either.

    That's true because the "unconventional" forces are basing their strategy on the assumption that their opponent is intending to preserve some sort of peaceful order in the territories the "unconventional" guys are using as a refuge. Basically they're hiding behind civilians.
    The moment the "conventional" guys stop giving a sh1t it's not looking good. See Iraq, see Palestine.


  • Options
    #431
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    McArmalite wrote: »
    You raise a good point about the Malvinas Conflict whadabouchasir, about the only ' war ' britian won on it's own since the 1930's. The Malvinas didn't have any Argentine citizens living under a british secterian aparthied regeime like the six counties had and hence wouldn't have been seen by the International community as the same as coming to the rescue of the Catholics in the six counties facing an onslaught like the Irish army would have been.
    still spitting out the anti/british poison ,are you saying that ireland had the choice of being assulted by the british or being assulted by the catholic church,[a lump on the head or a sore arse]


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #432
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The Icelandic conflict was a completely different kettle of fish!, it was about fishing rights not territory and populations.

    As for the UN, All sovereign states have the automatic rights to defend their territory when invaded by foreign forces. The US of course occasionally break that particular rule themselves. Ireland would have been seen as aggressors even if only a token force was used!

    The speech also gave false hopes to republicans, who upped the violence in the expectation that they would be soon relieved by the imminent invasion!
    If Iceland cutting fishing nets, ramming and firing at british naval vessels wasn't taking military action against anither state - I don't know what is :rolleyes:

    As for Lynch's speech, it gave false hopes to the nationalists across Ireland. As for Republicans, well, you should try and get and read Ruairí Ó Brádaigh speech outside the GPO where he mocks the Lynch govt about them sending over Patrick Hillery, the Irish minister of external affairs, with Lord Chalfont. Since most of the leaders of the IRA at the time had been interned etc in the 40's and 50's, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, John Joe McGirl, Daithi O'Connell, Sean McStiofan etc, their opinion of the sincerity of the ' Free State ' govt was very low to say the least.


  • Options
    #433
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    wilson10 wrote: »
    Those dreams of 1969 were a reality by 1972. The civil rights movement had achieved it's aims.

    So what wasd the thirty odd years war and the three and a half thousand deaths all about.
    A bit off topic, but if that is the case why was there a need for the Anglo Irish Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement ?


  • Options
    #434
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    McArmalite wrote: »
    If Iceland cutting fishing nets, ramming and firing at british naval vessels wasn't taking military action against anither state - I don't know what is :rolleyes:

    They were two completely different scenarios, how the hell can you compare the cod wars to the NI conflict.


  • Options
    #435
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    mike65 wrote: »
    China was in the grip of the "Cultural Revolution" a programme that resulted in mass murder, as people starved in the countryside. I doubt Mao would have been inclined to make any noises about protecting human rights in a tiny country on the far side of the world.
    biritish Imperial fantasy time again :rolleyes:

    China like many other hypocritical regeimes, was always for human rights so long as it was a stick to use on others. They would have relished the oppurtunity to rub the noses in it of former imperial power and a tiny country on the far side of the world - britain :)
    The Soviet Union likewise would not have been interested, Ireland an irrelevence to them.
    Same as above.
    France would be mindful of its own territorial integrity with respect to the Basque movement.
    The Basques don't have a UN state to the south with a conventional army that could invade ;)
    the USA although rebuffed by Wilson over Vietnam might still want on keep them onside regarding that war.
    The Cod War was going on when Vietnam was going on, America didn't care a damn about britian regardless. ( And BTW, Iceland nor Eygpt had a lobby to compare to the powerful Irish lobby in Washington )
    Mind you all this is by the bye as every permenent member of the Secuity Council has a veto, if a vote had been taken (unlikely) it would count for nothing.
    As stated in a previous post " but when Uncle Sam says jump, britian asks How high. Just like in the Suez crisis. "


  • Options
    #436
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 24,072 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Deleted User wrote: »
    They were two completely different scenarios, how the hell can you compare the cod wars to the NI conflict.

    I'd put it down to codology.


  • Options
    #437
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    Deleted User wrote: »
    They were two completely different scenarios, how the hell can you compare the cod wars to the NI conflict.
    If you cann't admit it for yourself I wouldn't bother as I know any explanation will be disregarded regardless.


  • Options
    #438
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    McArmalite wrote: »
    biritish Imperial fantasy time again :rolleyes:

    China like many other hypocritical regeimes, was always for human rights so long as it was a stick to use on others. They would have relished the oppurtunity to rub the noses in it of former imperial power and a tiny country on the far side of the world - britain :)

    Same as above.

    The Basques don't have a UN state to the south with a conventional army that could invade ;)

    The Cod War was going on when Vietnam was going on, America didn't care a damn about britian regardless. ( And BTW, Iceland nor Eygpt had a lobby to compare to the powerful Irish lobby in Washington )

    As stated in a previous post " but when Uncle Sam says jump, britian asks How high. Just like in the Suez crisis. "
    What has the cod war, Suez, Vietnam etc got to do with the TV documentory that was on RTE last night.


  • Options
    #439
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's likely that some of the Scottish regiments would have been accross double quick to defend their unionist cousins from attack!
    And our American ones would have been ovver to defend us :D


  • Options
    #440
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 24,072 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    McArmalite wrote: »
    If you cann't admit it for yourself I wouldn't bother as I know any explanation will be disregarded regardless.

    Go on, give it your best shot.


  • Options
    #441
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    McArmalite wrote: »
    And our American ones would have been ovver to defend us :D

    The yanks would have been minus one aircraft carrier! (USAF bases in the UK)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #442
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What has the cod war, Suez, Vietnam etc got to do with the TV documentory that was on RTE last night.
    Just pointing out how International Opinion would have reacted to the Irish Army going north.


  • Options
    #443
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 24,072 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The yanks would have been minus one aircraft carrier! (USAF bases in the UK)

    And the rest of them would have been loving the smell of Napalm in the morning, or dropping Agent Orange to defoliate the Vietnamese forests, thousands of miles away.


  • Options
    #444
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 24,072 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Just pointing out how International my opinion would have reacted to the Irish Army going north.


    fyp:P


  • Options
    #445
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Just pointing out how International Opinion would have reacted to the Irish Army going north.
    And how does bringing up unrelated conflicts do that?


  • Options
    #446
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    getz wrote: »
    i would have found it hard to believe that the USSR who hated the irish republic enough to reject irelands earlier application to join the UN,[because of its passed natzi connections] would do a somersault and back a republics act of war another european country, if in the realms of fantasy, russia or china had backed the republics cause,the USA would have backed the british to the hilt, remember what happened with ussrs involvement in cuba ? the americans hate of the communists at that time was immense. as a merchant seaman traveling to the states was a nightmare,when docking in the usa we were always [at any time] dragged out of bed and fingerprinted and photographed,and we were the allies.

    that is one thing that is puzzling me.

    In 1969 the Royal Navy and Air Force were conducting almost non stop exercises alongside their American colleagues to help prevent a perceived Soviet invasion of europe and the US via the UK-Iceland-Greenland gap. Why would the US have stopped these to support a small country who was expecting the Red Army to come and give them a hand? do people really think the USSR would have risked sparking war with NATO by coming to the aid of Ireland, or that the US would have sat back and watched them build bases in Cork?

    Some people need a reality check.
    McArmalite wrote: »
    Well the 1916 Volunteers didn't do too bad against against battle hardened british troops, artillery, bombarment of naval gunships etc I haven't any doubt that their desendants in the Irish Army wouldn't have done to bad in Newry or Derry etc ;)
    the 1916 volunteers all ended up dead, which is probably what would have happened in Londonderry had the irish Army invaded.
    McArmalite wrote: »
    If Iceland cutting fishing nets, ramming and firing at british naval vessels wasn't taking military action against anither state - I don't know what is :rolleyes:

    Did the British ask the US for assistance? Britain had dozens of frigates that could have taken out the Icelandic navy in an afternoon, why would they want to seek US assistance?

    WTF has the cod wars got to do with this anyway, are you suggesting the Irish should have stolen all the cod?


  • Options
    #447
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    the republic would have been painted as the aggressor, censured in the UN ,isolated in europe/ and it would have set the republics development back for decades,on top of that a irish memo highlighted low moral in the irish army,saying; that although there might be a surge of pride in assisting those in trouble in the north/indoctrination of our troops might be necessary;.in other words they were bricking themselves.


  • Options
    #448
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    Deleted User wrote: »
    And how does bringing up unrelated conflicts do that?
    I wouldn't bother as I know any explanation will be disregarded regardless.


  • Options
    #449
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    We should have just rounded up all the british nationals south of the border and battered one every time a catholic family was harmed up north. Would have taught the rest of the brits here some manners for a few generations too I reckon :)


  • Options
    #450
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Another thing; on the documentory last night, Tony Benn raised the point that the Irish Army had no chance of achieving anything more than a token capture of one town before being forced back - what was the political aim of such in invasion!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #451
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Bambi wrote: »
    We should have just rounded up all the british nationals south of the border and battered one every time a catholic family was harmed up north. Would have taught the rest of the brits here some manners for a few generations too I reckon :)
    And get those of us who lived in England at the time killed, great idea! :(


Advertisement