So then Bertie what is the story with Shannon now......

dahamsta

Basically they are saying we can't rock the boat, that Berties
knows whats best :rolleyes:

Well, you shouldn't roll your eyes, because sitting on the fence is a valid political position. There are political risks in withdrawing the use of Shannon, specifically saying that the U.S. can use Shannon, and sitting on the fence. All have their risks, but if you think about it, sitting on the fence is the least risky. That's not to say I admire it - god forbid - but it's Bertie all out, isn't it? Is there any reason to be surprised, and is there really any chance of us pulling Bertie off the fence before someone of import - i.e. not us - pushes him?

adam

colster

Originally posted by Johnmb
It is not about democracy, they have already confirmed that, it is not about disarmament either as the stopped that process in its tracks. They have their own personal agendas, and any war started in such a way should not be supported.

It could also be said that the opposition to this action are also un-democratic as they (France and Russia) both threatened to use their vetoes. Is this democratic???
Also do you think that the French and Russian motives are not also driven by oil.

How are they in breach of international law.
Does not the UN resolution 1441 not threathen serious consequences for non-compliance.

When does the international community act to enforce such resolutions.

I can't believe that people are giving Bush and Blair a harder time than Saddam Hussein. All Saddam had to do was give up his WMD. They did not ask him to disband his army. This is all he had to do to prevent war. Why isn't he given the level of abuse that is being reserved for Bush and Blair.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by colster
It could also be said that the opposition to this action are also un-democratic as they (France and Russia) both threatened to use their vetoes. Is this democratic???

Err yeah, they're entitled to use the veto if they wish.

Does not the UN resolution 1441 not threathen serious consequences for non-compliance.

It never threatened war though, even the US at the time said it wasn't a trigger for war.

colster

Originally posted by Frank_Grimes
Err yeah, they're entitled to use the veto if they wish.



It never threatened war though, even the US at the time said it wasn't a trigger for war.

What then does 'serious consequences' mean??
What did you think it meant.
I thought that this meant that war was threatened.

The term 'trigger for war' is different to the term 'threat of war'.
This is how I understood it.

Johnmb

It could also be said that the opposition to this action are also un-democratic as they (France and Russia) both threatened to use their vetoes.

They would have been acting within international law if they had. But they didn't need to, the US and Britain couldn't get the 9 votes in favour that they needed. They didn't withdraw the resolution because of France, they knew France's position from the start. They claimed they would ignore the "unreasonable" veto (which still would have been illegal) once they had the moral support. The fact that they withdrew the resolution shows that they couldn't even get the moral support, let alone the legal support.

How are they in breach of international law.

International law is quite specific as to when war is legal, i.e. either in self defense or with the explicit authority of the UN Security Council. This war does not have Security Council authorisation, nor can the US and Britain claim to be defending themselves, as Iraq has not attacked either.

Does not the UN resolution 1441 not threathen serious consequences for non-compliance.

It does, but "serious consequences" is not "military action". Not only is it not military action in the letter of 1441, it is not military action in the spirit of 1441, as the original draft had to be changed to ensure that it would not lead to military action without a further resolution.

I can't believe that people are giving Bush and Blair a harder time than Saddam Hussein. All Saddam had to do was give up his WMD.

And according to the inspectors, it looks as though he had. They found no evidence of any, and even wrote off several US claims to the contrary as being wrong. They stated that they could verify this within months. At that point Bush pulled the rug out from under them, proving he was never interested in disarming Iraq.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by colster
What then does 'serious consequences' mean??
What did you think it meant.

It doesn't really matter what I think it meant, but a great deal of people in the UN didn't seem to think it meant war.

gandalf

Well therein lies the problem colster. 1441 is not specific on what "serious consequences" means. Now call me old fashioned but if the UN are going to authorise bombing and invading a country well I expect them to clearly state that in the prescribed resolution, this has not happened in this case.

The French & the Russians are well within their rights to veto any resolution that authorised war as they believed as I do that the weapon inspectors were doing a good job and actual progress was being made.

At no time was the objective of the UN resolutions "regime change", that is the objective of the Bush administration and has been for quite some time.

So without this UN support it brings us back to Shannon Airport, I clearly remember Bertie stating that the use of Shannon Airport would be withdrawn if there was no UN resolution authorising war as is the case now. Looks like he's changed his mind and lied to us again eh :rolleyes:

Gandalf.

dahamsta

What then does 'serious consequences' mean??

What did you think it meant.
I thought that this meant that war was threatened.

You thought wrong. All of the lawyers who say that going to war now /is/ legal use previous Resolutions as the proof of that, for the simple reason that 1441 /can't/ be used as proof. Resolutions that were written 10-12 years ago, I might add.

And a veto is part of the process. You mightn't agree with it, but the countries in the United Nations agreed that it should be part of the process, so it's part of the process. There's nothing undemocratic about it.

adam

Washout

IN his speech alongside Bush..Bertie Ahern was basicallyt making the point that the backing if the UN council for this war would mean backing from Ireland...What does this mean Bertie? that instead of publically stating "its ok cause the UN says so" to being silent on the subject?

colster

I don't doubt the veracity of your comments.
1441 was a total fudge.
Everyone knows what serious consequences means.
It means a threat of war. It is not however explicit.
The diplomacy leading up to this point has been a complete shambles.
The justification for the war has swung from disarmament to regime change and also briefly to links with September 11.

This whole crisis has been badly handled on all sides.
If the UNSC had put forward a united face and given a more detailed and non-ambiguous wording of 1441 then we would not be in this state now. I think if this had happened we would not be about to have another war.

I find myself stuck between the 2 view points.
I believe that the world would be a better place without Saddam and without any of his WMD.
I think we have to acknowledge that there is a dreadful threat to the world. These types of weapons in the wrong hands can lead to catastrophe.
Saddam has supported terrorist action in the past. He is known for compensating the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
What if he decides to provide them with WMD?
As Bush said last night. Do we have to wait for thousands perhaps millions of people to die before we act.
Should we not prevent the potential for this to happen.
Should the US not right the wrong they did in supplying him in the first place.
I think they should. I don't think the Weapons inspectors were working. What they proved was that Iraq did produce weapons that breached the limits of the armistice after the first Gulf War.

What do we do? I think there has to be a point after which we must act. The sanctions have not worked. Weapons Inspectors have not worked. The Threat of War has not worked. The logical conclusion is that war is now the only way forward.

One final point. If Bush were to withdraw the troops today. What then happens.

Johnmb

Everyone knows what serious consequences means.
It means a threat of war.

No it doesn't, not in international law. It may mean that in diplomatic talk, but a resolution is a legal document, not a diplomatic one. In a resolution it means exactly what it says, i.e. there will be consequences, and they'll be serious, but what they are has yet to be decided by the UNSC.

Saddam has supported terrorist action in the past. He is known for compensating the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

They could equally be viewed as freedom fighters (and they are in most Arab eyes) that he is helping. But most of the money he provides is to their families who become the victims of crimes against humanity perpetrated by Israel (as opposed to financing the actual bomber), so this can hardly be a justification for war.

Should we not prevent the potential for this to happen.

Potentially, at some stage in the future, Ireland may develop weapons and attack the US. Potentially, any country may do this. Are you seriously claiming that the US should be allowed to ignore international law and attack any country it wants based on this potential?

What they proved was that Iraq did produce weapons that breached the limits of the armistice after the first Gulf War.

And those weapons were being destroyed as per the wishes of the international community, despite the fact that they fell into a grey area and may not actually have been illegal.

The sanctions have not worked.

That's because they were aimed badly. They did work as far as containing the military capabilities of Iraq, their failure was due to the side effects they had on the people of Iraq as well.

Weapons Inspectors have not worked.

They worked. They did what they were supposed to do, i.e. remove Iraq as a credible threat in the region. They could have been finished in a matter of months if given the chance to finish their jobs.

dahamsta

What if he decides to provide them with WMD?

Which WMD? Robin Cook doesn't seem to think he has any. That's not to say he doesn't, but who /does/ know? Why won't they tell anybody?

As Bush said last night. Do we have to wait for thousands perhaps millions of people to die before we act.

...by killing thousands, perhaps millions of people?

I don't think the Weapons inspectors were working.

They were doing the best they could within the contraints that they were faced with. Many of which were put there by the US and the UK.

What they proved was that Iraq did produce weapons that breached the limits of the armistice after the first Gulf War.

Well, up until now, the words "only just" would apply here.

The logical conclusion is that war is now the only way forward.

Logical to you maybe. It has absolutely no logical standing for me.

One final point. If Bush were to withdraw the troops today. What then happens.

He won't withdraw the troops, and he shouldn't withdraw the troops. The troops should stay where they are and the US and the UK should go back to trying to negotiate a multilateral agreement. If nothing can be done before winter sets in, a new resolution with a definite threat of war after more inspections, after the winter, would be perfectly acceptable to me.

adam

gandalf

OK I'll post up another reply I received from Seamus Brennen but heres the message I sent in reply to his original response (just to keep it all in context).

Dear Seamus,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

However I was lead to understand that Ireland would only allow the use of Shannon and our Airspace if there was a specific UN resolution authorising the use of force in Iraq, now forgive me but I do not believe 1441 specifically authorises force. Has the government changed our policy on Neutrality?

With regard to Bertie Aherns comments on Ireland being the only
country to withdraw her facilities that is a downright lie, Austria
have withdrawn the use of her roads and her airspace for over flights because they are truly neutral.

Personally I feel the Government which you are a part of, are taking the cowardly route and not doing what you where elected to do which is to reflect the views of the electorate, the majority of whom are against this unilateral crusade in Iraq.

Basically I think your response has told me that our morality is
available to the highest bidder, which in this case is the US.

Gandalf.

gandalf

Heres Seamus's response to that message of mine.

Dear Paul,

Sorry you feel that way.

I am amazed to discover that you have an insight into the minds of the majority of the Irish electorate. The people in Shannon, who are most directly affected, have a very different view, as do many other people across the country. Are we not to represent those people too?

Diplomacy was tried and we supported every effort to make it succeed. We regret that it did not succeed. However, we also made it clear that talking could not go on forever. The only Resolution currently in force and endorsed by the United Nations calls on Iraq to disarm. What is the free democratic world to do in the face of non-compliance? Do we just sit back and say that we tried diplomacy and it did not work, so therefore we have to forget it? The
decision of France to block any new Resolution (without even having the text of one) was quite extrordinary. But then, there have been well known commercial links between France and Iraq in the not too distant past. Could there possibly be any connection?

The issue of whether Shannon is available to conduct its business as it has in the past is not a moral one. Is there a morality when people employed in the Shannon region have no money to feed their families because business has bottomed? Is there a morality about the antics of the dictator of Iraq, who cannot even have a democratic election without threatening his own People with dire consequences if they did not vote for him - the only candidate. It is easy to get 100 per cent support in those circumstances. Is there a morality about the dictator of Iraq just last week using his military might against the Kurds in his own land?

If we have a debate, let it at least be balanced. I suspect that we will not agree on the matter but let's agree to disagree.

With best wishes.

SEAMUS

I have replied to this but will hold off firing it up here until/if he replies further.

Gandalf.

bug

Brennan still represents Dublin South doesn't he, you should put that in the local newspaper in that area and see who the hell he is representing. The newspaper is called Southside People

Hobbes

Wow I hope he just wrote that on the spur of the moment and didn't think about what he was writing.

It's intresting he's mentioning the Kurds considering the deal with US/Turkey.

The text of the new resolution was also available, otherwise why else would of there been news stories on the fact it was full of porkies? But then the French were planning to Veto as the UN Weapons inspectors were making headway and there was no real reason to draft another resolution except as a precursor for war.

But the real issue here is, he is willing to turn his back on the UN?

Oh and Ireland has also done dealings with Iraq in the not so distant past. As has the US and whole range of other countries.

Hobbes

Originally posted by bug
Brennan still represents Dublin South doesn't he, you should put that in the local newspaper in that area and see who the hell he is representing. The newspaper is called Southside People

Which has a poll on should US Airplanes be allowed land in the shannon which is almost a 2:1 yes vote. But then internet voting is rarely a valid source of measurement.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

gandalf

To be honest I doubt very much that Mr. Brennen wrote that reply himself. It was probably written by a assistant. I have heard nothing else from him/them but for your interest here is my follow up to that reply. If he replies I'll post that as well.

Dear Seamus,

Again thank you for your prompt and frank reply.

I am surprised that you are "amazed at my insight into the minds
of the Irish Electorate" as Polls have indicated their opposition to the present use of Shannon Airport especially without the authorisation of the UN. I will draw your attention to a MRBI
poll published in the Irish Times on the 15th of February last which concluded that 68% of those polled oppose the use of Shannon without a UN mandate. Given that on the same day 100,000+ marched in Dublin alone, a protest unprecedented in recent times in Ireland I think I am on safe ground in my assumption that the majority of people in this country are against the use of Shannon in this illegal endeavour by the US & UK.

With regard to 1441 there was no timescale put in place by this
resolution and Dr. Blix had stated that the process will take months to verify that it had been complied with fully (March 8th). I note your comments regarding the brutal dictator of Iraq and I agree with them. However 1441 is about removal of WMD and not about Regime change, is Regime change now the official policy of the Irish Government Seamus?

If we have a debate Seamus please have it on the subject on hand. Do we support the UN or do we now support unilateral actions by countries that we are friendly with? Are we a truly neutral nation or are we just fooling ourselves?

I see the Dail is recalled on Thursday to discuss the use of Shannon Airport and I hope that you and your colleagues will express the views of the public that voted you in. I do think we do disagree regarding this situation but I do also recognise that you are a intelligent politician and that you have done a good job in your current portfolio. I think it would be a shame for you to tarnish that record in supporting a issue that is so at odds with the wishes of the majority of people on this island (according to MRBI of course!).

Yours Sincerely,

Paul..............

There is no point in sending this to any newspaper etc until the vote on Thursday. You never know the government may actually surprise us and go with the people. If they do still allow the use of Shannon I will forward the mails onto the relevant publications. I would like to commend Mr. Brennen or his aid for actually replying and engaging which in itself was refreshing.

I'll end this with one message for Bertie and the boys "Your either with the electorate or against it!"

Gandalf.

Greenbean

Perhaps you should ask his permission to quote these personal correspondences? After all if we were to continually make public such private debate on what might be no more than an good exchange of opinions and cause Seamus public issues other TD's are going to think twice about replying to them. I think its pretty valuable that you've actually got a reply; you now have a direct opportunity to influence the mind of one of the elected leaders (or his assistants). At this point I would hope that obvious well detailed facts or even opinions would trouble Seamus's mind.

I do accept that sticking it in a paper can have more immediate, widespread effect in the short-term, but goodwill counts for something too... Maybe I'm just too soft, but I sometimes think people fail to see the longterm benefits of certain approaches.

gandalf

Greenbean I have notified him that they are posted here. If he asks me to withdraw them I will.

However as quite a few members of boards.ie are from the Dublin South area I think it is their right to see the position their deputy is taking on this matter. He is also a public representative & a minister of government and therefore his opinions should reflect those of government policy.

Gandalf.

Frank Grimes

I got a mail back from my TD about this, apparently Baldonnel is going to be used now aswell.

gandalf

Frank can you post up that response as well please.

Gandalf.

Frank Grimes

This is what I got.

Thank you for your e-mail. Myself and my Green Party colleagues have
consistently opposed the use of Shannon and will continue to do so. Now it seems
Baldonnel is also being used. Although the Government have a secure majority, we
won't take this lying down, rest assured.

Best wishes,

bug

I am amazed to discover that you have an insight into the minds of the majority of the Irish electorate. The people in Shannon, who are most directly affected, have a very different view, as do many other people across the country. Are we not to represent those people too?

Well Gandalf,
it looks as if you have more of an insight than he does, although I wouldn't expect a FF politician to actually know whats going on in his own constituency let alone the entire electorate. There was a phone poll on TV3 yesterday it was 74% against the war and 26% for. I know that this is not an acurate basis for interpreting stats, but I would say it is a rough guide. What were the figures in Dublin for the anti-war march, 80,000, and a good few left before the march began. These, IMO were people who felt strongly about the issue, there are plenty of armchair activists in Ireland. Where is he getting his stats from?

gandalf

Well I'm still waiting for his reply to see where he is basing his position on. I am also waiting for a phone call from Tom Kitt to discuss this with him as well.

I have also been in email discussion with Eamon Ryan of the Green party who as expected supports the withdrawal of Shannon 100%.

If anyone has any doubts on the use of Shannon you need to contact your TD's TODAY!

Gandalf.

Cork

The opposition seem to be all against the use of Shannon to US military.

To those opposition leaders – I ask, are you in favour that Irish companies don’t supply their products to the war effort particularally computer hardware and software?

If you are to disallow, the use of Shannon – you should put an embargo on companies operating within Ireland supplying the US effort.

Why have not opposition leaders a policy on this?

If they truly believe that Shannon should not be used by the US military – they should support an embargo on companies operating within Ireland supplying the US effort.

I think these opposition TDs should show concern on the limited number of flights from Shannon to UK and European destinations. If the government do not allow the use of Shannon for US military – Irish companies will be supporting the US war effort.

gandalf

Sorry Cork according to a variety of polls the majority of the Irish public are against the use of Shannon without a resolution specifically authorising war from the UN.

The use of Shannon is a issue of neutrality. What various companies do is a issue for their management and their own consciences as long as they are not breaking irish law.

Gandalf.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by gandalf
Sorry Cork according to a variety of polls the majority of the Irish public are against the use of Shannon without a resolution specifically authorising war from the UN.

Well, according to a telephone poll on the Marion Finucane show this morning, there was 54% in favour of allowing US military to use Shannon. So really, most of these opinion polls are worthless.

Haven't posted here in a while, but my opinion:
If we ban US military flight thru Shannon, we will not stop any war - in fact, it will achieve nothing, apart from make a few left-whingers feel good about themselves. However, it could have a very destructive effect on the economy, particularly in the Shannon region. Example: French exporters to the US are already predicting a disaster for the coming year. Sales in the US have plumetted.

Frank Grimes

I'm not a left-whinger (whatever that's supposed to mean). I just think that as a neutral country, where the majority of people are against this attack, we should not be facilitating what could turn out to be that mass slaughter of civilians in an operation that the majority of the international community do not support.