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

swiss

Well, after much consideration I've decided to send the following email to my local Fine Gael TD. I don't know how much good it will do though.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the Dail is to be reconvened tomorrow, Thursday the 20th of March to debate, amongst other matters pertaining to the Middle East, the ongoing use of Shannon airport as a refuelling stop for United States warplanes en route to airbases in the Middle East.

While I had grave reservations regarding the propriety of allowing such actions to occur on Irish soil, in an apparant disregard of the tenet of Irish neutrality, I felt that whilst the US was acting in accordance with the dictats of the United Nations, such actions were (borderline) acceptable.

Now however, things have changed. Despite the absence of a second UN mandate authorising the use of force to achieve the proposed results of previous resolutions, the US, UK and Spain, have decided to act trilaterally, forming their own 'Axis', illegally mandating the use of force against Iraq.

During the debate, it is almost certain that the focus will be on the threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses to Western society. While I agree that the world would doubtlessly be better off without Mr Hussein, the grave precedent that the US has set by responding to this threat with lethal force, with the apparant acquiescence and collaboration of the UK and Spain should not be underestimated.

Ireland, acting as it does in the interests of the United States by allowing American warplanes to refuel at Shannon is now in a position to voice it's concern and disdain at this breach of international convention and law. On Thursday, I urge you to use your influence, and the influence of other TD's who value the vital role the UN plays in international relations, to persuade the government to discontinue the use of Irish airports and airspace that facilitates the American war machine.

We may not be able to stop war against Iraq. However, we can show our respect for the principles of the United Nations and those of our own neutrality by withdrawing the use of our airspace.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email, and I hope that your response will be considered and appropriate, heedful of the requests of your constituents.

Regards

gandalf

reefbreak I'm talking about polls like the MRBI one from Feb 15th which showed that 68% were against the use of Shannon if there was no 2nd resolution.

Basically what your saying is that International Law has a price in Ireland. So how much is a job worth, 1 iraqi civilian, 2 maybe where do we stop. Get a new factory for a Iranian town, some startup funding for a North Korean City.

Gandalf.

swiss

Originally posted by Gandalf:

<edited>

I understand that the monetary and cultural influence of America does play a rather large part in our society. I even work (part time) for an American multinational. I have trusted the UN as much as I have trusted any international organisation because even though petty domestic politics does dominate it's agenda, the principals upon which the institution of the UN was based are, IMO, fundamentally sound.

Therefore, while the US were acting in accordance with the mandate of the UN, I was prepared to acquiesce to the use of Irish airports. I have decided to speak out only now, as it is now obvious that the US have decided to break international law by disregarding the UN's authority and mandate.

<edit> Gandalf was referring to another person in his post, this is just to reflect that </edit>

gandalf

Sorry swiss it was reefbreak. The dangers of jumping in and out of the site quickly from work eh !

Gandalf.

(I'll edit that post to reflect the correct person)

Cork

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.

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.

Things are not as clearcut as that. Say, the Irish government giving grants to a company that are supplying the US military with software.

Should, the Irish government sespend such grants?

I think that we are not allow the use of Shannon to the US - We should look at how Irish companies producrs are being used by US military.

This would do economic damage to our economy. But, looking at Shannon as our only involvement in the war is not looking at the bigger picture.

This is why, I am in favour of the US using Shannon.

ReefBreak

I agree with Cork 100%. After the Lefties close down Shannon, why not close Intel, Microsoft, HP, etc aswell? After all, these companies are also supplying equipment to the US war effort.

No? I didn't think they would. Shannon is nothing more than an easy way for the Irish left to attack the US and defend one of the last true Socialist leaders/dictators left in the world.

gandalf

Cork I'm sorry it is as simple as that. Either we are neutral or we are not neutral. Diet Neutral is not a option for me.

If I remember correctly you were one of the people whinging about neutrality and how it would be destroyed by a yes vote during the Nice debate.

As far as I am concerned we are neutral until the Government call a referendum to end that neutrality and align Ireland militarily with one of the so-called players, the US, NATO whoever.

Our neutality does not diminish our responsibility as a active member of the UN where I would support the use of Irish facilities and the deployment of Irish assets in a Peacekeeping capacity.

Gandalf.

Wook

Originally posted by ReefBreak
I agree with Cork 100%. After the Lefties close down Shannon, why not close Intel, Microsoft, HP, etc aswell? After all, these companies are also supplying equipment to the US war effort. (continues)

yes yes, and they also deliver to the europe , so in fact evens out , hell when you have the money they will sell it.
Has nothing to do with military advantage as an airport is.
I know , if they got refused to land in ireland they land somewhere else, but at least Ireland made a stand in something then. Instead of just following the waves of money that will keep us floating

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by ReefBreak
After the Lefties close down Shannon, why not close Intel, Microsoft, HP, etc aswell

Nobody's saying close Shannon, we're a netural country so why should our airports be used by a foreign army who are on the way to attack another country?

Cork

Originally posted by Frank_Grimes
Nobody's saying close Shannon, we're a netural country so why should our airports be used by a foreign army who are on the way to attack another country?

The government is giving grants to companies supplying to the US war effort. As a "neutral" country - should the government introduce an embargo on such companies?

Getting say Irish software to the US military is as important as the use of Shannon to the US military.

Yet, why is the Anti-War movement & Irish opposition partys not mentioning that Irish companies are supplying various componants to the US military.

I think that either we introduce embargos on certain Irish companies (which will cost jobs) or we will should the US to use Shannon.

gandalf

Cork repeat yourself one more time in here and I think you know what will happen. Engage and discuss not repeat, repeat, repeat.

Gandalf.

Cork

Sorry about repeating. It is a point that is being missed by the people who do not agree with the use of the governments policy on Shannon. Opposition Tds don't seem to be taking it on. Neither do our trade unions. It sort of exposes the whole Shannon debate as a bit of a red herring. A topic for talk radio & for our opposition TDs to get excited about.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Cork
It sort of exposes the whole Shannon debate as a bit of a red herring. A topic for talk radio & for our opposition TDs to get excited about.

I think you're wrong there. There is a great deal of people who are against the whole thing, public and politicians alike.

colster

If we decide to ban US Military planes from shannon what will we do when those same planes are carrying humanitarian aid.
They will also have military personnel on board.
Should we also ban these planes stopping at Shannon?

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by colster
If we decide to ban US Military planes from shannon what will we do when those same planes are carrying humanitarian aid.
They will also have military personnel on board.
Should we also ban these planes stopping at Shannon?

No, you're missing the point. It's aircraft that are carrying people, equipment etc. etc. that will be involved in the attacks on the country that people have the problem with.

dahamsta

Should we also ban these planes stopping at Shannon?

What a silly question.

adam

Brendan

The amount of money being spent on this war knows no bounds.
This is not a humanitarian exercise. This is about access to oil, this is about share prices. The businessmen want this war.

No matter how this is examined, Saddam Hussein is the excuse, access and control of the oil the reason.

Do we as Irish people want this to be the reason for us to lose our neutrality. If so, lets atleast be honest about it.

I forget the exact figures mentioned on the news last night but enough money is being spent on each Iraqi citizen to keep them quite happy for life, except for the fact that its being spent on destruction. Imagine that France and Germany were able to not cave into America and we did.

Americans are being brainwashed to live in an age of fear, an age of fear that is being exacerbated by their leaders own aggressive behaviour.

I want to live in a different sort of age. If we had sided with the Europeans on this we might have actually acheived something.
I no longer want tobe brainwashed by Sky News, NBC etc.
The only way to change this is to get our politicians to talk about the reality. i.e. WAR FOR OIL

colster

Originally posted by Frank_Grimes
No, you're missing the point. It's aircraft that are carrying people, equipment etc. etc. that will be involved in the attacks on the country that people have the problem with.

Some of the aircraft carrying aid can also be use in action.
Medical personnel can be used to treat both civilian and military.
If as had been said we are either nuetral or not.
That we should have absolutely no participation in this war then logically these planes and personnel should also be banned.

Irish Nuetrality has been portrayed on this MB as a black or white issue.
In the above circumstance we should relax our nuetrality in the interests of humanitarian aid even if this aid is delivered alongside weapons or personnel that will be used to wage the war.

If this principal is conceded then it would be impossible for us to impose this ban on purely military personnel and material passing through Shannon to wage this war.

Frank Grimes

The government could easily just say we'll allow planes to land that are just carrying people/equipment to be used for humanitarian reasons.

gandalf

During the second Nice Treaty debate Bertie Ahern said that the Irish Government had taken steps to "copper fasten” Irish Neutrality unfortunately most of us didn't realise he meant nailing the "lid of the coffin firmly shut" on Neutrality.

Personally I am in a absolute rage here at the moment. I didn't bother posting last night because it would have been a pure rant. The already low opinion I had of our Government has sunk lower again.

Gandalf.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by gandalf
The already low opinion I had of our Government has sunk lower again.Gandalf.

You mean you had one to start with
Seriously though, I'd agree with you regarding the Nice Treaty, our neutrality wasn't at risk because, as it seems now, it was non-existent.
On another note, when Bertie said that withdrawing the use of Shannon would be a "hostile act", did that sound to anyone more like Bush-talk than anything else?

sceptre

Originally posted by Frank_Grimes
On another note, when Bertie said that withdrawing the use of Shannon would be a "hostile act", did that sound to anyone more like Bush-talk than anything else?

Newspeak. We've always been at war with Iraq you know. The Al-Quaeda connection has been established beyond doubt. Iraq has millions of gallons of chemical weapons tied with string on to missiles capable of hitting London. That's why this war is entirely justified under international law and the UN charter - the UK and the US are under an immediate and direct threat. Long live our glorious leader. With him at the helm of this glorious struggle we shall prevail.

Cork

Originally posted by sceptre
That's why this war is entirely justified under international law and the UN charter - the UK and the US are under an immediate and direct threat. Long live our glorious leader. With him at the helm of this glorious struggle we shall prevail.

I think that if the government decided to spend millions on weapons to protect our airpace - opposition TDs would have an absolute fit.

Ireland is not going to war. The whole Shannon debate in a bandwagon for Opposition TDs and talk radio programmes.

All previous governments have allowed the use of of airports. Yet this government are being moaned about.

Yet - If a US company closes in the Dublin suberbs - these same talk show hosts & opposition tds are moaning.

Bertie is right looking at the UK & US investment here. These are our biggest markets and are a great help with our peace proces.

We are not going to war. We are allowing the use of our airports - a policy followed by Irish governments over the last 40++ years.

bonkey

Having had connectivity problems for the past few days, Im only after reading this thread now, and seeing as there is so much already in it, Im not going to try and address individual posts or points. As a result, please forgive me if I appear to be repeating some points already made.

The Irish neutrality stance has - in recent decades at least - only ever been that we are militarily neutral, but not politically neutral.

As such, it is acceptable for our government to issue statements of support or dondemnation in any situation they feel it appropriate. They can also legitimately "support" actions by offering post-conflict or humanitarian support - such as the Japenese have done (I believe).

Permitting the use of our airports to facilitate a war, however, is not remaining militarily neutral, as it is offering direct assistance to a military force which is headed into a field of conflict.

The national government can justify it using any words they wish, but at the end of the day, permitting the use of our airspace and airfields to accomodate military action is direct involvement in the operations.

As for all the talking which is going on about how much Ireland would suffer one way or another if it refused this access....it strikes me as nothing but scare-mongering.

We are not France. The vehemence targetted against the French was a simple diplomatic move, as the US wanted someone to blame for the "failure" of the UN to reach agreement and there was no way they would try and level the same accusations at the Chinese or Russians.

Note - the Chinese have issued the strongest statement of any Security Council member condemning the war and demanding its cessation. The French have simply said words to the effect of "we regret that diplomacy has failed, and need to move on". The French are the villains though, and not the Chinese? Riiiiight.

If you still believe that we would suffer the same fate as the French for being "in opposition" to this war, or that closing our airports/airspace would be billed as a hostile act, then ask yourself where all the press condemning Switzerland has been? Switzerland officially closed its airspace and airports to anything related to the Iraqi war. It did this several weeks ago, and keeps the same stance today. I have not seen one single statement from any major pro-war power condemning this move or in any way threatening retribution. Has anyone?

I Also noted that Ireland was not listed in the 30-nation "alliance of the willing" list that the US government released yesterday (which I saw on CNN). We are obviously one of the additional 15+ nations who wish to offer "quiet" support. Why? If we are to abandon our neutrality, should we not be open and honest about it, or is it more a case that Ireland doesnt wish to be widely seen to be actively involved, so that after the war ends we can watch our politicians laud our neutrality at some later point when it is once again advantageous for us to claim we are so.

Ultimately, whether or not Ireland supports the actions of the US, it should still remain true to its principle of neutrality, or openyl admit that it is disgarding such a stance. There are plenty of ways of offering support and remaining neutral. Opening our airfields and airports is not one of them.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
Ireland is not going to war.

And if Ireland allowed the US to set up a military base on our soil, and use that as a staging point for some campaign, would we still be neutral?

What if, istead of troop-carrying transports, we had fighters and bombers, fully armed, landing and refuelling. Would we still be neutral?

Exactly what does it take to not be militarily neutral?

Ireland is not going to war. The whole Shannon debate in a bandwagon for Opposition TDs and talk radio programmes.

The whole Shannon debate is a bandwagon precisely because it is something the pulic care about. A chance to talk is worth SFA if no-one is listening.

Now, if hte public care about it enough, and it is a matter of national policy, then not only should it be morally incumbent on politicans to ensure there is debate on the issue, it would be professional suicide if they refused to engage in said debate. As it is, while the public may disagree with the actions taken, they will at least be somewhat mollified by the fact that there was (at least) the appearance of discussion - that the government was willing to state its case.

All previous governments have allowed the use of of airports. Yet this government are being moaned about.

No - I think you'll find if you check that every such action has caused massive public debate n(at least in the last 2 decades), widespread coondemnation of the government of the day, and so on. This government is being moaned about now just as those governments were moaned about then.

The existence of precedence does not remove the possibility of change. The Irish public[/(i] opinion has always been that use of our airspace and airfields for military-related use is an abrogation of our neutrality, and it is simply the arrogance of politicans (in general) coupled with the knowledge that the public dont care enough that permits successive governments to decide that they should interpret the extent of our neutrality, rather than listening to what the public wants out neutrality to be.

bonkey

Originally posted by dahamsta
[BAll 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.[/B]

Muslim religious leaders will tell you alternately that the Koran expressly permits or expressly forbids acts such as suicide bombings and the 9/11 attacks, depending on who you wish to ask, and who you wish to believe.

Scientists will tell you alternately that there is clear evidence of global warming becoming a real issue in a short time, or that there isnt...again depending on who you wish to ask, and who you wish to believe.

Lawyers will tell you alternately that there is, or is not, clear resolutions opening the way for war as a resûlt fo the failure of 1441...again depending on who you wish to ask, and who you wish to believe.

Regardless, how could this "prove" or justify a case if the involved parties chose not to use the mechanisms which accompanies these resolutions?

jc

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
I think that if the government decided to spend millions on weapons to protect our airpace - opposition TDs would have an absolute fit.

Yet again I've no idea why you're quoting me only to ignore what you've quoted in favour of repeating your last post again.

Here's a news flash (I really didn't think anyone would need it): I was being sardonic. I provide a link for reference.

Edit: "glorious leader" wasn't actually referring to Bertie Ahern (I'll assume most people realised that too) but now you've brought it up it's just as good that way. Think large birds with heads in sand. I'll work out my cost-benefit analysis (no. of jobs divided by number of lives with a multiplier for salaries) at the end of next week.

dahamsta

We've always been at war with Iraq you know.

I was wondering about this actually, how does the whole thing work? Does the US have to "declare" war? Does the UK?

adam

sceptre

AFAIK neither the US nor UK have been in a "declared war" since WW2 (someone correct me if I'm wrong) - the last Gulf war doesn't count as it was a real UN action. I doubt somehow that either country will take the time to carry out the old fashioned notion of sending a letter to the local ambassador notifying him that "a state of war exists between our two nations". There's an obvious political/PR element to this as well - George and Tony are probably going to regard this more as a police action (enforcing resolutions) than anything else. Hence statements like "our war is not with the Iraqi people". The US seem to be at pains to highlight the nature of the action as that taken by an international coalition forced to act outside the UN; hence they're not presenting the war as a war. I doubt they'll bother.

edit: I may well be wrong about the UK (I assume the Falklands expedition was an officially declared war)

Hobbes

Originally posted by Cork
Ireland is not going to war.

Just because we aren't sending people out to Iraq doesn't mean we aren't going to war. You can be just as guilty by inaction or by supporting one side.

All previous governments have allowed the use of of airports. Yet this government are being moaned about.

What other time has the government allowed the use of airports were the country we help has gone against the wishes of the UN?

Bertie is right looking at the UK & US investment here. These are our biggest markets and are a great help with our peace proces.

So our counties foriegn policy is controlled by other countries? So wtf do we need Bertie for?