No concept for a United Ireland except by Sinn Féin?

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

I can't rebut something that has no parrallel. I can only say, that it doesn't.

Actually, you can - you could rebut it by demonstrating how a parallel would be impossible. Just saying it doesn't is simply a bit Jack 'n Jill.

What is your point here? Because nobody was taking notice the Irish Gov shouldn't have either?
Because there were riots elsewhere nobody noticed the one in Derry? :eek:

No. Stop focusing on what the Irish government thought or thinks when you're seeking to understand the wider World.

You're the one who has been harping on about how international opinion would see such an incursion as just. Yet if all you're offering as justification is something that during that period of history was commonplace, how seriously will international opinion treat it?

Fear of Unionism or Loyalist reaction should not have stopped them doing the right thing.

Ah, the old 'doing the right thing' argument - except you've not actually demonstrated that it would have been the right thing.

When you start talking about 'doing the right thing' in such clichéd terms, then you're looking to lead others down the rabbit hole of emotion and blind faith. No thank you.

It's again a foolish point, the threat from Loyalism/Unionism was extremely high, the fear at the time was that the Bogside would be over-run by them.
There where consequences to be considered either way.....the Irish Gov choose the one that would have the least consequences for them and abandoned the people it was constitutionally supposed to protect.

Yet an invasion by the republic would have increased support for the loyalist paramilitaries, thus making matters worse.

Unless you want to suggest that invasion by a foreign power has never lead to a marked increase in support for local militant extremists...

The very act of stepping in and NOT standing idly by, would have had ramifications all the way up to the present day.

No argument there.

It is my contention that if the Irish government had done this, AT WHATEVER COST (please stop telling us what you think the cost would have been, it's irrelevant to the discussion, of course there would have been A COST)

If cost is so irrelevant, how many lives would you sacrifice for unification? 1,000? 10,000? A million?

And don't try to backtrack now and dismiss this question because you are the one who has stated that 'doing the right thing' should be followed through "AT WHATEVER COST". If you do backtrack, then clearly you didn't mean it.

And if you did mean it, then you're simply displaying the mindset of the fanatic.

then we would have an entirely different scenario today, where the 2 governments, because they had directly involved themselves from the begining would have reached the accomodation and understanding that they eventually reached (almost 40 years later) that allowed equality, parity of esteem etc to be established. That is what brought the peace.

Except you've not demonstrated this at all. If anything every credible opinion on this has repeatedly said that it would have made matters worse.

The rest of your post is irrelevant as it is dealing with something I wasn't talking about (Operation Armageddon) and I have already dealt with what I think the likely reaction of the British to an humanitarian incursion would have been.

Which in your leaned wisdom differs from every credible opinion out there and, frankly, here.

Thomas_I wrote: »

I agree with you on the difficulty to consider both point of views and reach a balanced view, because the whole thing is very complex indeed.

I was just playing around with the timing on the basis of maximizing international support, which is what Happyman42 was claiming we'd have. In 1969 we simply wouldn't have gotten it - riots were too par for the course at that stage. Bloody Sunday, regardless of whether opinion would have become accustomed to the violence to that point, is probably the best point at which it would have swung in favour of such an incursion. However, as I concluded, it still wouldn't have been sufficient to justify it internationally.

And I do agree that it was a very complex mess, which is why I find some of the arguments in favour of an incursion or invasion so bizarre. Increasingly they seem to want to gloss over this complexity and instead focus on 'doing the right thing' as the original rational is chipped away.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, you can - you could rebut it by demonstrating how a parallel would be impossible. Just saying it doesn't is simply a bit Jack 'n Jill.

I said it before, I'll say again there is no parallel between a rising Nazi state carrying out an act and the under equipped, previously non aggressive Irish state carrying out an act of humanitarian protection which they have signalled as such.
You continue to insist that this act would have been seen as an invasion, ignoring all the other influencing factors, and you refuse to contemplate anything other than a miltary response. So therefore I am out, I can't be bothered with intellectual absolutism, because real life doesn't happen that way, that is why historians are usually in the library when decisins have to be made.

And by the way, next time you are in the library have a look at the shelves of 'credible opinions' they are many and varied versions, if you cared to look.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

I said it before, I'll say again there is no parallel between a rising Nazi state carrying out an act and the under equipped, previously non aggressive Irish state carrying out an act of humanitarian protection which they have signalled as such.

Both are states violating the territory of another state using military means under the pretext of humanitarian aid.

If the fact that that example, because it includes Nazi Germany, upsets you, then by all means look at some of the other examples I gave, such as either Serbia or Croatia with Bosnia, Iraq with Kuwait or (now that I think of it) Rwanda with the DR Congo.

In all cases the invading state is an aggressor, regardless of the justification used. Playing the "we're Irish, we're the good guys" card is worthless in terms of international law and for some odd reason you can't get your head around this fact.

So therefore I am out, I can't be bothered with intellectual absolutism, because real life doesn't happen that way, that is why historians are usually in the library when decisins have to be made.

And here we get the anti-intellectualism that all extreme ideologies are so fond of.

And by the way, next time you are in the library have a look at the shelves of 'credible opinions' they are many and varied versions, if you cared to look.

I do, but unlike you I read both sides, not only the one that I prefer and then ignore the counter arguments that I don't care to hear.

Don't slam the door on your way out.

View

Happyman42 wrote: »

There where consequences to be considered either way.....the Irish Gov choose the one that would have the least consequences for them and abandoned the people it was constitutionally supposed to protect.

Where exactly in the constitution does it state the Irish government has any obligation to protect Irish citizens who live outside the State?

The Irish government is constitutionally required to seek pacific solutions to international disputes and to respect principles of international law (see Article 29 BnahE). I am not sure how you'd square those obligations with a decision to invade the United Kingdom. No doubt it would have made an interesting Supreme Court case while outside the Four Courts, the Royal Air Force - acting under international law which allows an attacked country to subjugate any attacker in its defence - proceeded to reduce most of the Republic to rubble.

Then again, the UK - acting under international law - might have done what happened at the end of WWII, namely have engaged in the (forced) mass expulsion of "enemy citizens" from the UK. All perfectly legal and no doubt the people expelled from the UK would have been delighted to live under a pile of rubble while they waited for the chance to emigrate to other shores.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

Both are states violating the territory of another state using military means under the pretext of humanitarian aid.

If the fact that that example, because it includes Nazi Germany, upsets you, then by all means look at some of the other examples I gave, such as either Serbia or Croatia with Bosnia, Iraq with Kuwait or (now that I think of it) Rwanda with the DR Congo.

What international precedents and givens, compelled the British to 'instruct it's troops not to engage the bogsiders and not to take down the barricades' in an area that had declared itself a 'no go area' and repelled any entry?
Which precedent, a few short months later compelled it troops to indiscrimately intern hundreds of men from one side of the conflict?

Imo a signalled humanitarian entry into Derry to protect Nationalists would have been seen as that by a Labour government who didn't want and where at pains to see that the conflict didn't escalate. A Conservative government would have seen it totally differently.

But all those nuances are not to be considered because here is how it happened in Rwanda and Gemany and Croatia......

In all cases the invading state is an aggressor, regardless of the justification used. Playing the "we're Irish, we're the good guys" card is worthless in terms of international law and for some odd reason you can't get your head around this fact.

Yes you are right, if it's an invasion.

And here we get the anti-intellectualism that all extreme ideologies are so fond of.

I do, but unlike you I read both sides, not only the one that I prefer and then ignore the counter arguments that I don't care to hear.

Don't slam the door on your way out.

There is a reason why you should never tell a centipede it has a hundred legs, because if it realised that, it would trip all over itself.
That is also why historians are useless at doing stuff in the real world and are kept to dusty libraries and academe. If it never happened before they can't function. As your contribution to this thread proves!

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

What international precedents and givens, compelled the British to 'instruct it's troops not to engage the bogsiders and not to take down the barricades' in an area that had declared itself a 'no go area' and repelled any entry?
Which precedent, a few short months later compelled it troops to indiscrimately intern hundreds of men from one side of the conflict?

Irrelevant. They could be rounding them up into concentration camps and Ireland would still be the aggressor if it acted unilaterally.

Imo a signalled humanitarian entry into Derry to protect Nationalists would have been seen as that by a Labour government who didn't want and where at pains to see that the conflict didn't escalate. A Conservative government would have seen it totally differently.

Wilson's Labour government may have been less likely to retaliate military than a Conservative government under normal circumstances, but they still would have as it was a clear violation of the territorial sovereignty of the UK (not a colony or protectorate) - and most diplomatic sources who were present at the time have testified to this.

But all those nuances are not to be considered because here is how it happened in Rwanda and Gemany and Croatia......

Those 'nuances' are irrelevant to the examples I gave, which were given to demonstrate the legal position of such an action - not that those 'nuances' are anything other than your opinions, stretched out to unlikely conclusions.

Yes you are right, if it's an invasion.

What would you call a unilateral occupation of the territory of one sovereign state by the military forces of another sovereign state?

There is a reason why you should never tell a centipede it has a hundred legs, because if it realised that, it would trip all over itself.
That is also why historians are useless at doing stuff in the real world and are kept to dusty libraries and academe. If it never happened before they can't function. As your contribution to this thread proves!

All our exchange has demonstrated (not proven, mind you) is that:

• You have little or no knowledge of international law or geopolitics.
• You need to have the last word, despite claiming that you were 'out' of the discussion.
• You can only see things from a very narrow perspective (romantic Irish nationalism). Other perspectives are almost impossible for you to comprehend - that the British might retaliate militarily because their country has just been invaded by a foreign military presence does not compute, because for you, it's not really their country.
• You have a simplistic attitude towards argument. Things are as you see them and if that is challenged then the challenge is wrong - 'just because' and not because you can rebut the challenge rationally.
• You see reason and knowledge as an encumbrance if it contradicts your core beliefs.
• You can't spell to save your life.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

Irrelevant. They could be rounding them up into concentration camps and Ireland would still be the aggressor if it acted unilaterally.

There is nothing 'aggressive about a humanitarian mission. Stop please.

Wilson's Labour government may have been less likely to retaliate military than a Conservative government under normal circumstances, but they still would have as it was a clear violation of the territorial sovereignty of the UK (not a colony or protectorate) - and most diplomatic sources who were present at the time have testified to this.

'Most' diplomatic sources are referencing the Armageddon scenario, which I wasn't. And thank you for seeing the distinction between two different governments, it's more than a little relevant to any study of N.I.

Those 'nuances' are irrelevant to the examples I gave, which were given to demonstrate the legal position of such an action - not that those 'nuances' are anything other than your opinions, stretched out to unlikely conclusions.

Yes they are 'irrelevant' to what you insist on talking about.

Far from being 'my opinion' I was involved with a documentary(Battle of The Bogside) that interveiwed Jim Callaghan in his final days and some of what he had to say off the record started my train of thought.
As an aside the man had an incredible memory, there is a photo of him speaking from an upstairs window in the bogside, can't find it online for the life of me, he remembered the name of the lady who owned the house 40 years later. I thought that was a remarkable feat.

What would you call a unilateral occupation of the territory of one sovereign state by the military forces of another sovereign state?

I'd call it a unilateral occupation. That's a new one, I'm now talking about an 'occupation'. Are you afraid to consider a 'humanitarian mission' or something?

All our exchange has demonstrated (not proven, mind you) is that:

• You have little or no knowledge of international law or geopolitics.
• You need to have the last word, despite claiming that you were 'out' of the discussion.
• You can only see things from a very narrow perspective (romantic Irish nationalism). Other perspectives are almost impossible for you to comprehend - that the British might retaliate militarily because their country has just been invaded by a foreign military presence does not compute, because for you, it's not really their country.
• You have a simplistic attitude towards argument. Things are as you see them and if that is challenged then the challenge is wrong - 'just because' and not because you can rebut the challenge rationally.
• You see reason and knowledge as an encumbrance if it contradicts your core beliefs.
• You can't spell to save your life.

Would it help if I said, 'You are right Corinthian, I'm just a silly republican, how dare I question the wise ones' ? Seems to be what you want me to do.

p.s. I'll get the spelling checked when I'm publishing my buke.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

There is nothing 'aggressive about a humanitarian mission. Stop please.

So the Germans were right to carry out a humanitarian mission in the Sudetenland? Or the Croatians to send in troops into Bosnia, also for 'humanitarian' reasons? Or is this position only limited to those you think are 'nice'?

'Most' diplomatic sources are referencing the Armageddon scenario, which I wasn't. And thank you for seeing the distinction between two different governments, it's more than a little relevant to any study of N.I.

And in what pivotal way would what you're suggesting differ from the Armageddon scenario?

Yes they are 'irrelevant' to what you insist on talking about.

Well if you prefer to use those 'nuances' to debunk something I didn't actually say, then strawman away.

Far from being 'my opinion' I was involved with a documentary(Battle of The Bogside) that interveiwed Jim Callaghan in his final days and some of what he had to say off the record started my train of thought.

You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

I'd call it a unilateral occupation. That's a new one, I'm now talking about an 'occupation'. Are you afraid to consider a 'humanitarian mission' or something?

Humanitarian mission is a casus belli. Occupation, incursion or invasion is what it amounts to in actual terms.

Would it help if I said, 'You are right Corinthian, I'm just a silly republican, how dare I question the wise ones' ? Seems to be what you want me to do.

Actually I'd prefer if you can argue logically and factually, without resorting to blanket dismissals of arguments and holding on desperately to points that have clearly been discredited, or view the entire matter through only the narrow confines of a partisan position and then better my argument, then I'll happily concede the relevant points you make.

Otherwise you just sound like a fanatic and fanatics are easy to run rings round.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

So the Germans were right to carry out a humanitarian mission in the Sudetenland? Or the Croatians to send in troops into Bosnia, also for 'humanitarian' reasons? Or is this position only limited to those you think are 'nice'?

Each would be viewed on it's own merits, and would depend on who was viewing it and who was doing it.
Nice, doesn't come into it, don't be silly.

And in what pivotal way would what you're suggesting differ from the Armageddon scenario?

Because it does not pose a threat. You say you are going in to protect and that is what you do.
Armageddon was rightly rejected by Lynch, that would have been a disaster for all concerned. But Lynch made the mistake of stepping away from any involvement and created a different disaster, a vacumm.

Well if you prefer to use those 'nuances' to debunk something I didn't actually say, then strawman away.

Eh, you applied my nunaces to your scenario.

You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

Fair enough, but if you can't accept and apply the fact that H. Wilson's government looked at many novel and adventurous scenarios for the North then I suggest you haven't done enough reading, of all the modern British governments, his was the one that tried hard to end the conflict and had a pronounced sympathy for the plight of Nationalists.

Humanitarian mission is a casus belli. Occupation, incursion or invasion is what it amounts to in actual terms.

Yes for historians maybe, but politicians deal with such things as they see them, thereby setting ...eh...precedents. Wilson's reaction to such a move (a signalled humanitarian mission) might have suprised as his Doomsday plan at the time of the Sunningdale crisis might have as well.
I'm not sure what historical precedents he was adhereing to when he came up with that one, I'm sure you can find them though.

Otherwise you just sound like a fanatic and fanatics are easy to run rings round.

I think you are only imagining you can run, because you 'sound' like somebody who is overweight, wears three piece tweed suits and has gout.


And after all that, you still won't deal with my main point, what it would have mean't to the future of events, whether it was right, legal, stupid or clever.

I really am done with going over the ground above again.

Mr Cumulonimbus

The Corinthian wrote: »

Occupation, incursion or invasion is what it amounts to in actual terms.

Indeed it is.

In 1978 Vietnam invaded Cambodia and overthrew the murderous Pol Pot regime. Which was the more important, the ending of PP's regime, or that one country invaded another?

Godge

The Corinthian wrote: »

Both are states violating the territory of another state using military means under the pretext of humanitarian aid.

If the fact that that example, because it includes Nazi Germany, upsets you, then by all means look at some of the other examples I gave, such as either Serbia or Croatia with Bosnia, Iraq with Kuwait or (now that I think of it) Rwanda with the DR Congo.

In all cases the invading state is an aggressor, regardless of the justification used. Playing the "we're Irish, we're the good guys" card is worthless in terms of international law and for some odd reason you can't get your head around this fact.

And here we get the anti-intellectualism that all extreme ideologies are so fond of.

I do, but unlike you I read both sides, not only the one that I prefer and then ignore the counter arguments that I don't care to hear.

Don't slam the door on your way out.

You are arguing with people of a blinkered mentality, the same mentality that prolonged an unnecessary terrorist campaign for forty years.

How about Russia with Afghanistan or the US with Iraq, both agressors considered themselves humanitarian protectors.

junder

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Indeed it is.

In 1978 Vietnam invaded Cambodia and overthrew the murderous Pol Pot regime. Which was the more important, the ending of PP's regime, or that one country invaded another?

Vietnam did not invade Cambodia for humanitarian reasons, and the over throw of the Khama rouge was ( a fortunate ) side effect. The Khama rouge had been attacking Vietnam, Vietnam retaliated and invaded and then occupied Cambodia, something that would have been beyond the Republic of Ireland.moreover regardless of the banner the Irish army moved into Northern Ireland if they came bearing weapons it would be an invasion and the UK would be totally within its rights to not only repel the Irish army but also to neutralise the Irish armed forces within the Irish republic itself

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

You are arguing with people of a blinkered mentality, the same mentality that prolonged an unnecessary terrorist campaign for forty years.

How about Russia with Afghanistan or the US with Iraq, both agressors considered themselves humanitarian protectors.

Deal with the aftermath, it doesn't matter if the act was illegal, legal, stupid or clever. Consider the action as a done deal.
The thesis is, what would have happened if the Irish government had actually demonstrated that they would not stand idly by?

Would a Wilson government have negotiated or ignored them? Would Wilson have called in a UN peacekeeping force as was being considered? Would the British have been more careful? Would internment have happened? Would Bloody Sunday? Would the IRA have become as strong as quickly as they did?

Mr Cumulonimbus

junder wrote: »

Vietnam did not invade Cambodia for humanitarian reasons, and the over throw of the Khama rouge was ( a fortunate ) side effect. The Khama rouge had been attacking Vietnam, Vietnam retaliated and invaded and then occupied Cambodia, something that would have been beyond the Republic of Ireland.moreover regardless of the banner the Irish army moved into Northern Ireland if they came bearing weapons it would be an invasion and the UK would be totally within its rights to not only repel the Irish army but also to neutralise the Irish armed forces within the Irish republic itself

You're missing the point. All I'm saying it's an example that sometimes invading another country is of a lesser consequence than what it actually ended up achieving.

Following on from this the response of the UN, through strong Chinese pressure and tacit Western support, was pretty shameful in that it continued to allow a representative of PP's regime to occupy Cambodia's seat in the UN General Assembly. A glaring example of the failure of international law and treaties me thinks.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

Deal with the aftermath, it doesn't matter if the act was illegal, legal, stupid or clever. Consider the action as a done deal.
The thesis is, what would have happened if the Irish government had actually demonstrated that they would not stand idly by?

Would a Wilson government have negotiated or ignored them? Would Wilson have called in a UN peacekeeping force as was being considered? Would the British have been more careful? Would internment have happened? Would Bloody Sunday? Would the IRA have become as strong as quickly as they did?

The Irish government didn´t stand idly by, they helped in that frame they could without breaching the constitution of the RoI and avoiding going to war with the UK. This was served by the refugee camps alongside the border on territory of the RoI, to thelp those who fled NI. It was the only rational and reasonable thing they could do.

Your thoughts are sometimes that of an reckless gambler and very dangerous. You´re coming up with Harrold Wilson, the US President in 1919 and than you seem to connect him with the troubles which started 50 years later when he was already dead, or is it in all this confusion that you´re refering to 1921?

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

The Irish government didn´t stand idly by, they helped in that frame they could without breaching the constitution of the RoI and avoiding going to war with the UK. This was served by the refugee camps alongside the border on territory of the RoI, to thelp those who fled NI. It was the only rational and reasonable thing they could do.

Yes they did that, but I'm asking you to consider what would have happened had they broken international law, and consider all the ramifications as I have outlined above, not just the immediate aftermath. The civil rights organisation saw their opportunity with Wilson and Labour in government and escalated pressure on them, I am asking what would have happened if Lynch's government had done the same?
They certainly considered breaking international law, and drew up plans to do it, that is beyond doubt, Haughey and Blayney actually did, by arranging to import arms with government funds.

Intervening on humanitarian grounds because law and order had broken down would NOT imo have caused a military backlash from the Wilson government, but rather would have seen diplomatic moves to force a witdrawal. Had they simply done that, I believe that casualties would have been inititally high but the prize would have been, involvement in the future of NI and in the futures of it's nationalist people.
By not doing anything the Irish gov effectively walked away from any political involvement in the North and in the future of Northern Nationalists. THEY CHOSE NOT TO involve themselves, and I believe that that was the real tragedy. They created a vacumm which IRA/SF filled. That was the end of any concept of a United Ireland coming from Dublin, with the arms trial and the removal of Haughey, Boland and Blayney, the Irish Gov. stopped paying lipservice to the idea of a United Ireland and became a patitionist government, colluding with the British to shore up NI.

Your thoughts are sometimes that of an reckless gambler and very dangerous. You´re coming up with Harrold Wilson, the US President in 1919 and than you seem to connect him with the troubles which started 50 years later when he was already dead, or is it in all this confusion that you´re refering to 1921?

I honestly have no idea what you are on about here.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

Each would be viewed on it's own merits, and would depend on who was viewing it and who was doing it.
Nice, doesn't come into it, don't be silly.

Yes, but not in terms of legality or morality, but in terms of realpolitik.

Regardless of the stated justification such a unilateral act is illegal under international law. Realpolitik kicks in as to what happens afterwords, whether the invader can be repelled, there is a force willing to do so or the cost of doing so is a cost that is worth baring.

In the case of Sudetenland, the threat of it escalating into a full fledged war meant that no one acted. In Kuwait, the danger of allowing Iraq control over the oil supplies there made it worthwhile to act.

But that's realpolitik, the doctrine of 'might is right', not morality, and the legal status of such an incursion does not magically become any more legal.

Because it does not pose a threat. You say you are going in to protect and that is what you do.

An army from a country that claims part of your territory, occupies part of that territory, and you wouldn't call that a threat? Or is it that we would have promised not to go further and everyone would have believed us?

Try to explain why in this case it's not a threat and with operation Armageddon it was, because so far you've not demonstrated much difference.

Eh, you applied my nunaces to your scenario.

And then you tried to drag them in to somehow prove that such an invasion would be legal, which was a straw man.

Fair enough, but if you can't accept and apply the fact that H. Wilson's government looked at many novel and adventurous scenarios for the North then I suggest you haven't done enough reading, of all the modern British governments, his was the one that tried hard to end the conflict and had a pronounced sympathy for the plight of Nationalists.

Did you get to chat to Wilson off the record too? Or are you changing the subject?

Yes for historians maybe, but politicians deal with such things as they see them, thereby setting ...eh...precedents. Wilson's reaction to such a move (a signalled humanitarian mission) might have suprised as his Doomsday plan at the time of the Sunningdale crisis might have as well.
I'm not sure what historical precedents he was adhereing to when he came up with that one, I'm sure you can find them though.

Had Wilson invited Irish troops in, then I'm in complete agreement, but he didn't. Without an invitation, British political and public pressure would not have given him much room to create a precedent of any kind.

Hypothetically, if British troops had unilaterally crossed the border to stop riots in Donegal, with nothing but humanitarian aims, what do you think our government would have been forced to do? Accept them at their word, or succumb to political and public pressure to mount a military response of an invasion of our country? That's essentially the scenario you're posing, in reverse, but somehow expecting a different outcome.

I think you are only imagining you can run, because you 'sound' like somebody who is overweight, wears three piece tweed suits and has gout.

Why don't you call me smelly too? Or some other pointless response of that nature?

And after all that, you still won't deal with my main point, what it would have mean't to the future of events, whether it was right, legal, stupid or clever.

I did deal with it. It would most likely have resulted in our being shut out the same way Argentina was from having a say over the Falklands - in reality, they'd probably have that sheep infested rock by now, had they not invaded.

I really am done with going over the ground above again.

No you're not; it's beyond your control

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

In 1978 Vietnam invaded Cambodia and overthrew the murderous Pol Pot regime. Which was the more important, the ending of PP's regime, or that one country invaded another?

More to the point is who decides which is the more important?

This is why we have international law, so that individual states don't get to make up the rules and decide which is a just or unjust war.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Deal with the aftermath, it doesn't matter if the act was illegal, legal, stupid or clever. Consider the action as a done deal.

Might is right then.

The thesis is, what would have happened if the Irish government had actually demonstrated that they would not stand idly by?

Would a Wilson government have negotiated or ignored them? Would Wilson have called in a UN peacekeeping force as was being considered? Would the British have been more careful? Would internment have happened? Would Bloody Sunday? Would the IRA have become as strong as quickly as they did?

People have repeatedly responded that the British government, Wilson or otherwise, would have responded militarily. It's pretty much accepted that this would have been the response to operation Armageddon, and all you've proposed that would differ in your response is that somehow we would have let everyone know that the should "trust us, because we're the good guys". Hugely naieve.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes they did that, but I'm asking you to consider what would have happened had they broken international law, and consider all the ramifications as I have outlined above, not just the immediate aftermath. The civil rights organisation saw their opportunity with Wilson and Labour in government and escalated pressure on them, I am asking what would have happened if Lynch's government had done the same?
They certainly considered breaking international law, and drew up plans to do it, that is beyond doubt, Haughey and Blayney actually did, by arranging to import arms with government funds.

That´s also something that lies in the "what if" section on this thread. There might had been a possibility that the British had been forced to act previously on the civil rights movement protection by pressure from Dublin. The problem is, that most politicians from that time said that the awareness of what was going on in NI was very little in the RoI. So as they didn´t really cared about NI very much. In his broadcast on TV, Jack Lynch appeared more surprised and shocked upon the developments in NI. He also appeared to be determined to let action follow his own words, but the problem was how to respond. The other problem was on the British side with PM Wilson willing to transform NI into an integral part of the UK by reformations on the system there, but in all that to save the face of the UK. So any yielding towards pressure from Dublin would had been taken as a sign of weakness within the UK itself and to allow interference into domestic affairs from outside the UK.

Altogether a tricky thing and the arms trial has developed into a political scandal within the RoI. You can say that it was weakness and confusion on both sides and from this point they chose to play the minimum risk card. It turned out that this was the wrong taking but the responsibility still was on the British for this was an domestic affair to them.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Intervening on humanitarian grounds because law and order had broken down would NOT imo have caused a military backlash from the Wilson government, but rather would have seen diplomatic moves to force a witdrawal. Had they simply done that, I believe that casualties would have been inititally high but the prize would have been, involvement in the future of NI and in the futures of it's nationalist people.
By not doing anything the Irish gov effectively walked away from any political involvement in the North and in the future of Northern Nationalists. THEY CHOSE NOT TO involve themselves, and I believe that that was the real tragedy. They created a vacumm which IRA/SF filled. That was the end of any concept of a United Ireland coming from Dublin, with the arms trial and the removal of Haughey, Boland and Blayney, the Irish Gov. stopped paying lipservice to the idea of a United Ireland and became a patitionist government, colluding with the British to shore up NI.

You forget about the pressure Wilson had had to face in the House of Commons and from public opinion in the UK by allowing such act carried out by forces of the RoI without asked to do so by the British government itself. He might had been forces to respond by military means. A more dangerous thing.

I´m afraid the Irish government had not other choice than to do what they already did to avoid further tensions between the RoI and the UK. The IRA/SF filled that vacuum because nobodyelse took care about that, which is historically proved.

You might see that on the NI issue, both governments were rather reluctand to deal with that. The British as the Irish as well and that is the core of it all because it has given way that the Stormont Regime could develop as it liked and the British turned a blind eye to that. It wasn´t even allowed to raise issues about NI to debate in the House of Commons. To the Irish government, NI was an area they had little or no influence upon its development - also for decades. The whole country (NI) has been neglected by the British and the Irish and left to the Unionists.

Probably the "lip service" about a UI from the politicians in the RoI was nothing more than a sort of appeasing the old gard of Republicans to keep the peace within the own society. They knew that it was unrealistic to get unification and there was no real prospect towards that.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I honestly have no idea what you are on about here.

Forget about that passage of my post. I´ve been confusing Harold Wilson with Woodrow Wilson because of their same names.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

Hypothetically, if British troops had unilaterally crossed the border to stop riots in Donegal, with nothing but humanitarian aims, what do you think our government would have been forced to do? Accept them at their word, or succumb to political and public pressure to mount a military response of an invasion of our country? That's essentially the scenario you're posing, in reverse, but somehow expecting a different outcome.

Throughout the troubles the British crossed into the south by air and by land, when it suited them. Without much more than a whimper from Dublin.

I did deal with it. It would most likely have resulted in our being shut out the same way Argentina was from having a say over the Falklands - in reality, they'd probably have that sheep infested rock by now, had they not invaded.

People have repeatedly responded that the British government, Wilson or otherwise, would have responded militarily. It's pretty much accepted that this would have been the response to operation Armageddon, and all you've proposed that would differ in your response is that somehow we would have let everyone know that the should "trust us, because we're the good guys". Hugely naieve.

What facts are you basing these contentions on?

Mr Cumulonimbus

The Corinthian wrote: »

More to the point is who decides which is the more important?

The UN didn't do its job that well in the example I gave. Allow me to be a bit cynical of international law here. You gave examples such as Sudetenland, Rwanda etc. I'm giving you an example of where it didn't operate brilliantly.

This is why we have international law, so that individual states don't get to make up the rules.

Yes, thats the theory as you've repeated ad infinitum.

and decide which is a just or unjust war

Self evident here dont you think? A regime was overthrown that murdered a quarter of it's own population? And, as I have said already, international law was cynically manipulated in the example I have given.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

Throughout the troubles the British crossed into the south by air and by land, when it suited them. Without much more than a whimper from Dublin.

However, they did so only briefly; they did not remain and occupy Irish territory which is the critical difference to what we're discussing. Short incursions are easy enough to ignore (and I have no doubt that the UK government would have ignored these if and when we did so too), but occupation is a very different matter - you can't ignore or gloss over that politically.

What facts are you basing these contentions on?

Upon the opinions of the diplomats, military officers and other significant stakeholders who judged what the consequences of operation Armageddon would have been.

Now you may claim that what you're suggesting is different, but you've yet to demonstrate how, let alone if it would be sufficiently different so as to avoid the same consequences. All you've suggested is that the British Labour government would have avoided conflict; something contradicted by those aforementioned stakeholders involved at the time - so I'll take their opinion over yours, I'm afraid.

Unless you can show a critical difference, there is absolutely no reason to believe that your scenario would have resulted in any outcome different to operation Armageddon. Instead, all you are attempting to sell, is that somehow, things would work out differently, even though every precedent, every circumstance and every fact does not support this.

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

That´s also something that lies in the "what if" section on this thread. There might had been a possibility that the British had been forced to act previously on the civil rights movement protection by pressure from Dublin. The problem is, that most politicians from that time said that the awareness of what was going on in NI was very little in the RoI.

This is wrong Thomas and kinda negates the rest of what you have to say.
The Irish government where very much up to speed with what was happening in the bogside, as B-Specials gathered to attack they when phoned by a Donegal councillor to immediately intercede with the British Gov.
They had many policy papers prepared and where well aware of the activities of the Civil Rights Movement and the conditions and inequalities that had given rise to it.
Ignorance is not a defence here.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

This is wrong Thomas and kinda negates the rest of what you have to say.
The Irish government where very much up to speed with what was happening in the bogside, as B-Specials gathered to attack they when phoned by a Donegal councillor to immediately intercede with the British Gov.
They had many policy papers prepared and where well aware of the activities of the Civil Rights Movement and the conditions and inequalities that had given rise to it.
Ignorance is not a defence here.

These weren´t my own words, I´ve just repeated what I´ve heard from these Irish politicians, some of them held office some of them not, at that time. It is part of the "Seven Ages" RTÉ documentary, dealing with the 1970s.

If ignorance has been used as a defence on that, then it was used by them. But they didn´t say they knew "nothing" at all, they said they knew "very little" or in other words "they didn´t know how harsh is was".

The Corinthian

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

The UN didn't do its job that well in the example I gave. Allow me to be a bit cynical of international law here. You gave examples such as Sudetenland, Rwanda etc. I'm giving you an example of where it didn't operate brilliantly.

Perhaps so, but are you suggesting that we ignore the rule of law whenever we personally judge the law not to be serving justice?

Self evident here dont you think? A regime was overthrown that murdered a quarter of it's own population? And, as I have said already, international law was cynically manipulated in the example I have given.

It's not self evident though. Ignoring, for a moment, that Vietnam did not actually invade for humanitarian reasons; let's pretend they did. On that basis, you are suggesting that any nation may, on the basis of their moral framework, invade another.

So how self evident will that be? Were Saudi Arabia to invade another Gulf state to stop it becoming secular, this would be a self evident moral act in their eyes. Is it in yours?

Protecting the Volksdeutsche from persecution from other races would have been a self evident moral act in Nazi German eyes. Is it in yours?

Carrying out ethnic cleansing in Bosnia was very much seen as self evident moral act by Serbians and Croatians. Is it in yours?

This is the problem when you start talking in absolute terms about 'self evident' values, because they don't actually exist. It's a bit like a religious fanatic talking about the one true faith and then being completely perplexed at the notion that other people have different one true faiths.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

However, they did so only briefly; they did not remain and occupy Irish territory which is the critical difference to what we're discussing. Short incursions are easy enough to ignore (and I have no doubt that the UK government would have ignored these if and when we did so too), but occupation is a very different matter - you can't ignore or gloss over that politically.

I have said repeatedly now, that Armageddon was the wrong choice. I referred to a 'signalled humanitarian mission' which would be temporary and only done to force the British to deal with what was a breakdown of la and order, which the British agreed with, because they sent the Army in to restore it.

Upon the opinions of the diplomats, military officers and other significant stakeholders who judged what the consequences of operation Armageddon would have been.

Yes, I agree with them, Armageddon would not have been successful, a 'signalled humanitarian misson' would have been though.
Here what Edward Longwill, Security Analyst, University Of Ulster has to say about it in his History of Ireland - 'Justifiable Intervention or Illegal Invasion';

Under international law, sending a military force into another sovereign state without that state’s permission is classified as an illegal invasion. A UN peacekeeping force cannot enter a member state’s territory unless that state has given prior consent. Furthermore, Britain could have vetoed a UN decision as a member of the Security Council.

He continues…

Even if the UN ruled Britain as a party to the dispute, neutralising its veto, the Cold War alliance between Britain and the US would most likely have seen the US veto decisions on Britain’s behalf. The Irish governemnt astutely recognised that Irish military intervention could only be internationally justified in the event of a total breakdown of law and order in Northern Ireland. Under these circumstances Irish intervention could not be labelled as an assault on British sovereignty. On the contrary, the Irish government could have successfully claimed that it authorised cross-border operations primarily for humanitarian reasons in response to Britain’s failures under humanitarian law.

An Irish army incursion into Northern Ireland would have ended in two possible ways: either withdrawal or total destruction. The most likely British response would have been the issuing of a withdrawal ultimatum.

I think it was entirely possible, given that Wilson was considering inviting the UN to intervene, that that is what may have happened had the Irish been brave enough to make an international issue of it.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have said repeatedly now, that Armageddon was the wrong choice. I referred to a 'signalled humanitarian mission' which would be temporary and only done to force the British to deal with what was a breakdown of la and order, which the British agreed with, because they sent the Army in to restore it.

"We're sending in troops unilaterally, without your invitation, but it's OK; they're strictly only a signalled humanitarian mission. Trust us." - sorry, but that doesn't wash. Please come back when you have something more convincing.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

...
Here what Edward Longwill, Security Analyst, University Of Ulster has to say about it in his History of Ireland - 'Justifiable Intervention or Illegal Invasion';

Under international law, sending a military force into another sovereign state without that state’s permission is classified as an illegal invasion. A UN peacekeeping force cannot enter a member state’s territory unless that state has given prior consent. Furthermore, Britain could have vetoed a UN decision as a member of the Security Council.

He continues…

Even if the UN ruled Britain as a party to the dispute, neutralising its veto, the Cold War alliance between Britain and the US would most likely have seen the US veto decisions on Britain’s behalf. The Irish governemnt astutely recognised that Irish military intervention could only be internationally justified in the event of a total breakdown of law and order in Northern Ireland. Under these circumstances Irish intervention could not be labelled as an assault on British sovereignty. On the contrary, the Irish government could have successfully claimed that it authorised cross-border operations primarily for humanitarian reasons in response to Britain’s failures under humanitarian law.

An Irish army incursion into Northern Ireland would have ended in two possible ways: either withdrawal or total destruction. The most likely British response would have been the issuing of a withdrawal ultimatum.

I think it was entirely possible, given that Wilson was considering inviting the UN to intervene, that that is what may have happened had the Irish been brave enough to make an international issue of it.

I suppose that this is the source of all your latest arguments on this thread. Not an uninteresting theory. Maybe I´ve missed you mentioning the UN in your previous posts. The scenario sounds possible but Ireland would had to apply for this on the UN Security Council. I wonder how the Soviets had voted in that case (veto, obstantion, or even in favour because against the UK?). Really an interesting point to consider in the light of the time during the cold war.

Now I understand your point far better.

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

I suppose that this is the source of all your latest arguments on this thread. Not an uninteresting theory. Maybe I´ve missed you mentioning the UN in your previous posts. The scenario sounds possible but Ireland would had to apply for this on the UN Security Council. I wonder how the Soviets had voted in that case (veto, obstantion, or even in favour because against the UK?). Really an interesting point to consider in the light of the time during the cold war.

Now I understand your point far better.

I am saying that 'Britian would request the UN intervention' not Ireland. It was one of the solutions Wilson was actively considering.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am saying that 'Britian would request the UN intervention' not Ireland. It was one of the solutions Wilson was actively considering.

Yes, but in the post of yours I´ve quoted you said: "had the Irish been brave enough to make an international issue of it". So in doing this they could have called on the UN Security Council for that with the UK together as well.

So it´s obvious why Wilson dropped the whole thing, because Britains request of UN intervention would had equalled the request for Irish assistance on the same matter, again a sign of weakness by the British government. I wouldn´t underestimate the power of public opinion and the press in particular on such matters. They had called it as such sign of weakness.

Mr Cumulonimbus

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is the problem when you start talking in absolute terms about 'self evident' values, because they don't actually exist. It's a bit like a religious fanatic talking about the one true faith and then being completely perplexed at the notion that other people have different one true faiths.

But you yourself are speaking in absolute terms about the application of international law. It's easy to do.

I'm not. All I'm saying is that scenarios may exist where intervention is justified. From a pragmatic point of view such cases will be very rare. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument appears to be that ANY unilateral intervention can't be allowed because of the precedent it may set.

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

Yes, but in the post of yours I´ve quoted you said: "had the Irish been brave enough to make an international issue of it".

What I meant by that was; 'had they been brave enough to send a signalled humanitarian mission and caused an international issue', that that act would have precipitated a political response from the British, instead of what we got, a tragic miscalculation of what was actually happening.
The British did not want to deploy troops, they wanted the troops out of the situation, Callaghan said at the time; ‘I said I wanted to be a catalyst for peace … At the back of my mind, of course, I still did not want Britain to get more embroiled in Northern Ireland than we had to.’
The Labour governments disposition was more inclined to finding a lasting solution rather than being forced into a band-aid one.
When they did deploy the troops, they didn't confront the Nationalists for the reasons above, they too allowed the vacuum to develop in that they allowed the establishment of the No Go areas. The IRA filled that vacuum and as Gerry Adams said, 'The IRA's strategy was to get rioters to direct their violence towards the British Army'. His own decision at Ballymurphy church, where he allowed snipers to continue shooting at Nationalists, because he believed it would 'radicalise the middle classes' underscores the exstence of such a strategy.
The British lost control and introduced disastrous policies such as Internment, and blanket stop and search, and because they couldn't distinguish who the IRA were,they committed indiscriminate and ultimately lethal acts like Bloody Sunday.
Between them, the Irish Gov and Brtish Gov exacerbated the conflict.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

What I meant by that was; 'had they been brave enough to send a signalled humanitarian mission and caused an international issue', that that act would have precipitated a political response from the British, instead of what we got, a tragic miscalculation of what was actually happening.

Still, the problem I see is your term "signalled" which means that the Irish had trespassed the border without consent of the British. The raw over such an act would had overshadowed a political response by the British towards the aim your scenario is heading for.

The British did not want to deploy troops, they wanted the troops out of the situation, Callaghan said at the time; ‘I said I wanted to be a catalyst for peace … At the back of my mind, of course, I still did not want Britain to get more embroiled in Northern Ireland than we had to.’
The Labour governments disposition was more inclined to finding a lasting solution rather than being forced into a band-aid one.

The British were labouring on a lasting solution for some years before the tensions grew. The problem was, that the forebearers of the British governments neglected the development in NI and had no interest to implement the same standards to NI as it developed in Britain after WWII. It took decades to transfer Britain from the Victorian era into the modern Britain we know today. Such things can´t be done within a couple of years when there was no interest to have NI to keep up with Britain at the same time. The statement in your quotation shows that perfectly clear.

When they did deploy the troops, they didn't confront the Nationalists for the reasons above, they too allowed the vacuum to develop in that they allowed the establishment of the No Go areas. The IRA filled that vacuum and as Gerry Adams said, 'The IRA's strategy was to get rioters to direct their violence towards the British Army'. His own decision at Ballymurphy church, where he allowed snipers to continue shooting at Nationalists, because he believed it would 'radicalise the middle classes' underscores the exstence of such a strategy.
The British lost control and introduced disastrous policies such as Internment, and blanket stop and search, and because they couldn't distinguish who the IRA were,they committed indiscriminate and ultimately lethal acts like Bloody Sunday.
Between them, the Irish Gov and Brtish Gov exacerbated the conflict.

That´s the problem of "power sharing" or "who´s in charge about what". The British policy was to keep the RUC conducting their duties as what they were, a Police force to keep the Army out of the troubles as best as possible. But the RUC was not the same as the Police in Britain and the attempts to modernize them failed as well in the previous years before the troubles started.

You said that the Irish and British Govt exacerbated the conflict. Well, that´s no surprise to me because some old tensions between them going back to the very time the Irish civil war ended hasn´t been overcome up to and during the time of the troubles in NI.

IMO, the roots for this lies in the way the British were dealing with the Unionists during the Irish War of Independence and the Anglo-Irish negotiations. The British were not capable to bring Craig to the negotiations to discuss and settle an "All-Ireland" solution. The demands had been made for several times on various topics by the Irish delegation during the negotiations, but to no avail. Craig was keeping his Ulster State and probably the British acted prematurely in 1920 by the Act of Ireland Bill given that sooner or later they would had won the war in Ireland altogether and maintain the partition of Ireland to keep it within the British Empire. That the result was different to their expectations let them find themselves with their self-created problem in Ulster which made it even harder to find a lasting solution, better than what has been actually achieved.

The British learned from the times of the Irish War of Independence when their Army and Police force was attacked by the "Volunteers in civil outfit". That was the advantage of the guerilla war set up by Michael Collins and the same pattern was taken up by the IRA during the troubles. It´s clear that this makes it very difficult to tell an "IRA terrorist" from an "ordinary civil person". Therefore the measures the British Army had to take and I´m not arguing that they were just, they were militarilly spoken precautions. That´s the usual thing if an area is considered to be a "war zone". So the Paras were acting on Bloody Sunday, they were "entering a war zone" and "operated" according that term. The fact that they shot unarmed civilians comes from there and their experiences but it is no excuse for that at all.

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

Still, the problem I see is your term "signalled" which means that the Irish had trespassed the border without consent of the British. The raw over such an act would had overshadowed a political response by the British towards the aim your scenario is heading for.

Why?
As Callaghan states, Britian didn't want to become further 'embroiled in N.I.'
An attack on an Irish humanitarian mission would have done just that. The very clear opportunity was there to bargain with the British.

*It's interesting to note (any it can't be any succour to Unionists) that Callaghan makes a clear distinction between 'Britian' and 'Northern Ireland', there's a very clear separation in his mind, Northern Ireland is very much 'them' and 'Britian' is 'us'.
We didn't capitalise on that frame of mind until the GFA negotiations.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why?
As Callaghan states, Britian didn't want to become further 'embroiled in N.I.'
An attack on an Irish humanitarian mission would have done just that. The very clear opportunity was there to bargain with the British.

*It's interesting to note (any it can't be any succour to Unionists) that Callaghan makes a clear distinction between 'Britian' and 'Northern Ireland', there's a very clear separation in his mind, Northern Ireland is very much 'them' and 'Britian' is 'us'.
We didn't capitalise on that frame of mind until the GFA negotiations.

I know about that distinction by the British and it leaves some room for interpretation of Callaghan´s words. The point still is, that to "not want to become further embroiled in NI" by the British themselves is one thing, but to stand by and watching Irish troops trespassing the border into NI is quite another and it is exactly this what the British couldn´t had tolerated because it had put some damage on their international reputation and sent the wrong signall to other countries, hostile towards Britain. They´d taken it as a sign of weakness. Britain couldn´t afford that.

You´re right in "Northern Ireland is very much 'them' and 'Britian' is 'us'". That´s the problem the British have and their reluctance towards "the Irish Question". It´s as if to say "they were far more happy to get rid of it, but they can´t admit it".

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

As Callaghan states, Britian didn't want to become further 'embroiled in N.I.'
An attack on an Irish humanitarian mission would have done just that. The very clear opportunity was there to bargain with the British.

Yet an invasion on sovereign British territory would have precisely forced Britain to become more 'embroiled in N.I.' militarily.

At least this is the overriding conclusion of the consequences of operation Armageddon, and other than claiming that had we announced ourselves as purely humanitarian, just before invading NI - which simply does not cut it - you've yet to demonstrate how your scenario really would differ.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

But you yourself are speaking in absolute terms about the application of international law.

That's the point of law.

I'm not. All I'm saying is that scenarios may exist where intervention is justified.

You mean scenarios may exist where acting illegally is justified.

From a pragmatic point of view such cases will be very rare.

Says who? Please refer to the examples I made in my previous response to you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument appears to be that ANY unilateral intervention can't be allowed because of the precedent it may set.

I am saying that such unilateral intervention is illegal. Whether international law is enforced is another matter.

However, in the scenario of a unilateral intervention by Ireland, we would have been deemed to have broken international law. We would be the aggressor. And legally, the UK would have been perfectly within their rights to repel our invasion and potentially even occupy territory in the RoI, in response.

Happyman42's argument is that they would not have done so. Yet, he's really not made his case in this regard. And if wrong, well, that would have turned into a bit of a clusterfsck for the entire island.

Thomas_I

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet an invasion on sovereign British territory would have precisely forced Britain to become more 'embroiled in N.I.' militarily.
...
Happyman42's argument is that they would not have done so. Yet, he's really not made his case in this regard. And if wrong, well, that would have turned into a bit of a clusterfsck for the entire island.

Recently, you´re repeating yourself and as I see it, you haven´t considered enough what Happyman42 is telling you, even the citations he has come up with doesn´t seem to be of interest to you.

The invasion you´re refering to demands the unlimited occupation as an immediate act that would follow. He´s not talking about that, he´s talking about a quite different matter. Just the way it went in theory is similar to what you´re talking back. Your point is the worst case, his is the alternative to this and depending on the circumstances as well as the will to settle a deal by the British and their safeguarding of their own interests.

I think that I got behind the meaning of his posts, even by sometimes reading them twice before responding.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet an invasion on sovereign British territory would have precisely forced Britain to become more 'embroiled in N.I.' militarily.

Present to us clear and unambiguous evidence that Britian would have attacked a humanitarian mission.
Are you discrediting Longmill's assesment, please tell us why and back it up with sources.
Is Callaghan's visit to the Bogside and his subsequent statements of any relevance, please tell us why you think they are or are not.
Please present us with a reaction to Lynch's statement from a cabinet minister or the British PM, that points to a definite severe military response from the British, and any implied threat to the security of the Republic.

Happyman42's argument is that they would not have done so. Yet, he's really not made his case in this regard. And if wrong, well, that would have turned into a bit of a clusterfsck for the entire island.

I have made more of a case than somebody wittering on about international laws, the illegality of breaking them is not disputed here. Move on please.

Mr Cumulonimbus

The Corinthian wrote: »

You mean scenarios may exist

Yes they might.

where acting illegally is justified.

If the moral case for doing so exceeds the legality or illegality of the action then I my view it that action may be seen as justified.

Says who? Please refer to the examples I made in my previous response to you.

None of your examples deal with a regime butchering their own population within the borders of their own state. Is it justified to intervene in this scenario?

I am saying that such unilateral intervention is illegal

Yes, strictly in terms of the law that defines it as so. Corinthian, you know well I'm not arguing with you quoting such law, its when it may be right to ignore them is what I'm talking about. Do you believe yourself that such scenarios may exist?

Whether international law is enforced is another matter.

Now theres an important point...........

The Corinthian

Thomas_I wrote: »

Recently, you´re repeating yourself and as I see it, you haven´t considered enough what Happyman42 is telling you, even the citations he has come up with doesn´t seem to be of interest to you.

That's principally because he's changing the goalposts.

This entire argument has been on the basis a unilateral intervention, at some point in the first few years of civil upheaval, that should have taken place. Problem is that introducing a 'Somalia' scenario (a total breakdown of law and order), we're introducing something that never was. And this is before we consider what the British reaction would have been.

The same goes for Happyman42's theories about Wilson considering UN intervention - this also never came to pass.

So, on the basis of these hypothetical scenarios that never came to pass, absolutely; the latter would not have been unilateral and would likely be accepted by the UK and the former would at least have a clear argument against illegality (although as we found with the Iraq war, this can be a pretty complex issue) - whether it would have ended will is another matter, of course.

But they're both ultimately theoretical; based on facts that never were. If we want to accept that, then certainly, no problem.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Present to us clear and unambiguous evidence that Britian would have attacked a humanitarian mission.

Humanitarian mission? You mean a military force of a foreign state. Why should anyone take their word that it's a humanitarian mission?

Are you discrediting Longmill's assesment, please tell us why and back it up with sources.

I'm not - please see above.

Is Callaghan's visit to the Bogside and his subsequent statements of any relevance, please tell us why you think they are or are not.

Which statement? The separate use of Britain and Northern Ireland? Sure, after all, that is the name of their country; United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Or that he had no wish to get any more embroiled in NI? Certainly, but that does not mean that he would not, especially when facing a foreign invasion on UK soil; Neville Chamberlain didn't want to get any more embroiled in European affairs either - see how that worked out?

Please present us with a reaction to Lynch's statement from a cabinet minister or the British PM, that points to a definite severe military response from the British, and any implied threat to the security of the Republic.

Are you suggesting that unless the Republic (prior to doing anything) was definitively warned that an invasion would result in a definite military response by the UK, no such response would have taken place?

Seriously, are you taking the piss?

I have made more of a case than somebody wittering on about international laws, the illegality of breaking them is not disputed here. Move on please.

If you prefer to turn to ad hominems to back up your argument, then fair enough. All you've come out with is a bunch of daydreams based on non-existent scenarios, fantasy policy and repeatedly ignored any dissenting evidence or opinion, worthy of any man who sits behind the man, behind the wire. In an armchair.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

None of your examples deal with a regime butchering their own population within the borders of their own state. Is it justified to intervene in this scenario?

By your moral standards. Go to another country and no one cares about what you think is right or wrong - and this is what you don't seem to recognize.

Indeed, even if you were to accept such a principle, how do you define "a regime butchering their own population"? Should the US have been invaded by Canada or Mexico during the abuses of the civil rights period. Or can we only do so if you had hundreds of thousands or millions being slaughtered?

Who are you to tell others what is right or wrong?

Yes, strictly in terms of the law that defines it as so. Corinthian, you know well I'm not arguing with you quoting such law, its when it may be right to ignore them is what I'm talking about. Do you believe yourself that such scenarios may exist?

No. The whole point to UN and international law is that it is there precisely so that we need not ignore such scenarios, as it can give mandate to do this legally. It's a dysfunctional system, but still far better than the Darwinist approach that preceded it - how do you think Africa got carved up?

That's why international law was created, without it Britain could have happily invaded us numerous times, since independence.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Deal with the aftermath, it doesn't matter if the act was illegal, legal, stupid or clever. Consider the action as a done deal.
The thesis is, what would have happened if the Irish government had actually demonstrated that they would not stand idly by?

Would a Wilson government have negotiated or ignored them? Would Wilson have called in a UN peacekeeping force as was being considered? Would the British have been more careful? Would internment have happened? Would Bloody Sunday? Would the IRA have become as strong as quickly as they did?

No, you are right, it doesn't matter if the act was illegal, legal, stupid or clever. It is the aftermath that matters.

We have the example of Argentina in 1982 as the most likely example as it also featured the invasion of UK territory by a hostile force. Full military response to drive out the invaders with international sanctions applied by allies.

Argentina itself only escaped invasion because of the logistical difficulties. Donegal (at least) would not have been as lucky and I think that Louth, Monaghan, Cavan and Leitrim would have been annexed as well. Nuclear weapons would probably have been stationed in the north to deter any more aggression from the hostile South and the chances of the Good Friday Agreement would have been set back by 100 years.

Mr Cumulonimbus

The Corinthian wrote: »

By your moral standards. Go to another country and no one cares about what you think is right or wrong - and this is what you don't seem to recognize.

So no scenarios exist? I'll recognize it up to a certain point.

Indeed, even if you were to accept such a principle, how do you define "a regime butchering their own population"? Should the US have been invaded by Canada or Mexico during the abuses of the civil rights period. Or can we only do so if you had hundreds of thousands or millions being slaughtered?

So what are you saying then? No unilateral intervention is ever justified?

Who are you to tell others what is right or wrong?

I could invoke Godwin here. It's appeared in the thread already.....

No. The whole point to UN and international law is that it is there precisely so that we need not ignore such scenarios, as it can give mandate to do this legally.

But you see it WAS ignored in the case of Cambodia. Do explain how Pol Pots representative continued to hold the UN general assembly seat after the regime was removed.

The Corinthian

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So no scenarios exist? I'll recognize it up to a certain point.

No - lot's of scenarios exist and no one cares if you recognize them or not, because it's up to whatever state with an army to decide what is a valid scenario where acting illegally is acceptable or not. Indeed, why should it be humanitarian aid? Some would and do argue that religious or spiritual aid is far more important.

Is it beginning to sink in?

So what are you saying then? No unilateral intervention is ever justified?

Correct. Of course, if you win you can write history and justify whatever you like, but that's another story.

I could invoke Godwin here. It's appeared in the thread already.....

How should you invoke Godwin's law? Because I mentioned the slaughter of millions? That applies to the Khmer Rouge and you raised that that bogeyman.

But you see it WAS ignored in the case of Cambodia. Do explain how Pol Pots representative continued to hold the UN general assembly seat after the regime was removed.

Realpolitik. I never said international law was perfect, just better than the alternative.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's principally because he's changing the goalposts.

This entire argument has been on the basis a unilateral intervention, at some point in the first few years of civil upheaval, that should have taken place.

Excuse me?
My first post on the subject defined exactly what I was talking about, the subsequent pedantry and shifting is all yours, despite continued requests to desist and discuss the substantive points.
Again, we KNOW it would have been illegal.

Had Lynch not wimped out and had sent troops into Derry to 'protect' the nationalist community,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83342879&postcount=88

Problem is that introducing a 'Somalia' scenario (a total breakdown of law and order), we're introducing something that never was. And this is before we consider what the British reaction would have been.

We're really getting the world tour now.
There was a 'total breakdown of law and order' that was what the British Army was sent in to restore.

The same goes for Happyman42's theories about Wilson considering UN intervention - this also never came to pass.


But they're both ultimately theoretical; based on facts that never were. If we want to accept that, then certainly, no problem.

Which bit of a 'what if' discussion are you having difficulty with?

My point is that, to achieve a peaceful withdrawal, the sending in of the UN could have been the deal clincher. The nationalists pacified and the Unionists snookered, the IRA's growth seriously retarded and a hiatus to establish the soial reforms created.

Which statement? The separate use of Britain and Northern Ireland? Sure, after all, that is the name of their country; United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Or that he had no wish to get any more embroiled in NI? Certainly, but that does not mean that he would not, especially when facing a foreign invasion on UK soil; Neville Chamberlain didn't want to get any more embroiled in European affairs either - see how that worked out?

Until you can quote other statements coming from the British cabinet then we can take it that the mindset of the British government was not to exacerbate the situation. There was no desire to attack the Nationalist bogside, in fact the mood was quite the opposite. e.g. Callaghan's visit to the bogside, the instructions, 'not to attack civil rights barricades and to allow No Go areas to remain.

Are you suggesting that unless the Republic (prior to doing anything) was definitively warned that an invasion would result in a definite military response by the UK, no such response would have taken place?

Seriously, are you taking the piss?

No, I'm not taking anythng. I asked you to supply quotes or sources that back up your dogmatc assertion that Britian would respond by using massive and lethal force and that the security of the Republc was at threat, whch you say was a certainty.
I suppled Longmill's assessment that the British would have responded only with an ultimatum to wthdraw. If you believe otherwise, it's only fair you tell us, why?

If you prefer to turn to ad hominems to back up your argument, then fair enough. All you've come out with is a bunch of daydreams based on non-existent scenarios, fantasy policy and repeatedly ignored any dissenting evidence or opinion, worthy of any man who sits behind the man, behind the wire. In an armchair.

Again, which bit of a 'what if' discussion are you having difficulty with?
I have produced commentary & quotes to back up my theory, what have you produced???

View

Happyman42 wrote: »

Present to us clear and unambiguous evidence that Britian would have attacked a humanitarian mission.

If, at the time, the United Kingdom government had wanted a humanitarian mission of any kind - from any country (which might or might not have included the RoI) - they had plenty of time to issue invitations for one.

They did not do so and in the absence of either a formal invitation from the UK or a UN Security Council resolution authorizing it, then any military incursion would have, constituted an "act of aggression" - a war crime - by the Irish government.

You are the one making the assertion that such an "act of agression" - a military invasion of the United Kingdom by the Republic - would have been regarded as a "humanitarian mission" by them and that they would have stood idly by and watched it - be it covertly planned or announced openly in advance - take place. The onus is on you to prove that assertion not on others to disprove it.

Mr Cumulonimbus

The Corinthian wrote: »

No - lot's of scenarios exist and no one cares if you recognize them or not, because it's up to whatever state with an army to decide what is a valid scenario where acting illegally is acceptable or not.

Obviously. And if such acts rid the world of regimes like the KR, I won't object.

Indeed, why should it be humanitarian aid? Some would and do argue that religious or spiritual aid is far more important.

Eh? Do expand on how that prevents actual genocide?

Is it beginning to sink in?

There's nothing to absorb thanks.......

Correct.

I'm just gonna agree to disagree with you at this point.

Of course, if you win you can write history and justify whatever you like, but that's another story.

True.

How should you invoke Godwin's law? Because I mentioned the slaughter of millions? That applies to the Khmer Rouge and you raised that that bogeyman.

Nazi Germany? I've no right to tell them that they are right or wrong? Ditto the KR. Because I've no "legal" right to do so? I'm sorry, but no.

Realpolitik. I never said international law was perfect, just better than the alternative.

The least worst option in most cases, but not here.

gallag

Happyman, what would an irish humanitarian mission actually entail? Would they attack the IRAfor example? Would they attack bBritish security forces or loyalist paramilitaries? I can imagine the **** storm.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

No, you are right, it doesn't matter if the act was illegal, legal, stupid or clever. It is the aftermath that matters.

We have the example of Argentina in 1982 as the most likely example as it also featured the invasion of UK territory by a hostile force. Full military response to drive out the invaders with international sanctions applied by allies.

Argentina itself only escaped invasion because of the logistical difficulties. Donegal (at least) would not have been as lucky and I think that Louth, Monaghan, Cavan and Leitrim would have been annexed as well. Nuclear weapons would probably have been stationed in the north to deter any more aggression from the hostile South and the chances of the Good Friday Agreement would have been set back by 100 years.

Galtieri's prime motivation for his 'aggressive invasion' of the Falklands was to shore up his beleaguered government at home n Argentina. Thatis totally different to the situation Lynch found himself in.
The outcome of the Falklands crisis, it seems, did not have one inevitable conclusion from the outset, as Corinthain would probably insist it would. It was much more nuanced and finely balanced than that. Evidence here too that the Americans would not be afriad to lobby for what they believed was a solution, which is contrary to what was dogmatically asserted earlier in the thread.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/28/thatcher-falkland-islands-national-archives

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

Happyman, what would an irish humanitarian mission actually entail? Would they attack the IRAfor example? Would they attack bBritish security forces or loyalist paramilitaries? I can imagine the **** storm.

The immediate threat was from an assembly of B-Specials in Derry, so protecting the Nationalists would mean stopping them from entering the Bogside, by whatever means neccessary.
Neither the IRA nor the British security forces where a threat to the Nationalists.

What actually happened was a ****storm anyway.

gallag

Happyman42 wrote: »

The immediate threat was from an assembly of B-Specials in Derry, so protecting the Nationalists would mean stopping them from entering the Bogside, by whatever means neccessary.
Neither the IRA nor the British security forces where a threat to the Nationalists.

What actually happened was a ****storm anyway.

Things in N.I could have been a lot worse, 3000 total deaths (half that by the IRA alone) over the best part of 50 years. Compare that to Syria etc and it is relatively calm, do you really think the irish army battling the b specials in British territory would have made things better?

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

Things in N.I could have been a lot worse, 3000 total deaths (half that by the IRA alone) over the best part of 50 years. Compare that to Syria etc and it is relatively calm, do you really think the irish army battling the b specials in British territory would have made things better?

You may be right and you may be wrong. My personal opinion is that after an initial high toll, discussions about a solution would have begun between the two governments. The trajectory of the troubles would have been entirely different had The Irish Government been more insistent on being part of the solution.
I was attempting to show that the Irish Gov. finally relnguished their aspiration to a UI and ceded the authorship of that destiny to SF/IRA at this time.
That was the on-topic point I was attempting to make before all the pedantic off-topic stuff.