Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

If Lynch had invaded

13

Comments

  • #102
    population
    Registered Users Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭population


    munsterdevil wrote: »
    Did anyone see the documentary that was on tonight (1 September 2009). Wasn't it just the most ridiculous pile of rubbish that was ever made. It was like asking "If Ireland had invaded Poland in 1939, would they have won WWII?"

    Jesus. Sky Plussed it because I really wanted to see it and it was indeed tosh.

    "Now lets imagine what would have happened if the British had fought back by using sharks with lasers attatched to their heads"


  • #103
    captainblack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 28 ✭captainblack


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    I don't really know what we are arguing about here. I did watch the programme and there was, indeed, a throwaway remark about hiring buses but anybody old enough to remember the regular CIE Dublin bus strikes of the mid-1970s; there were plenty of army trucks available then that were used to replace the buses. You also give great credit to British intelligence and if you are telling me that the Irish army would have been incapapable of moving a few hundred troops to Derry without detection well, quite frankly, I don't believe you. You must thinks the poor old Brits had agents at every crossroads. As for loyalist farmers - don't make me laugh - they are only any good at daubing graffiti on Protestant schools - remember Clontibret in 1986? If they met any serious opposition they'd run a mile.

    I think you are giving far too much creedence to some of the nonsense stated by some of the ex.Irish military heads on the programme and, let's face it, it was a pretty badly cobbled together effort. A point I meant to mention earlier was several of the British soldiers featured in the retaking of the Newry countryside were wearing helmets with urban riot face visors on them! Such attention to detail was typical of the programme. It was also not clear why the Irish army would have retreated to open fields, thus presenting easy targets for the RAF as opposed to digging in in the town after they took it over.

    You, like many of The Irish, seriously underestimate Loyalists. If there ever is an attempt to 'unite' Ireland against their will, you and your ilk are in for the shock of your lives. You saw half a million Catholics cause immense problems for The UK state for thirty years, a well developed and wealthy nation of 60 million, which at one point had at least 40 000 soldiers and armed police in theatre, yet you assume that a country of a few million, a useless army without significant hostilities experience (currently numbering 10 000 full time soldiers, mostly infantry), no air force and a navy comprising a hand full of glorified patrol boats will easily be able to occupy and quickly pacify Loyalist areas of Northern Ireland. I'd love to know what you base this analysis on? Let me guess. Loyalists are all incompetent cowards incapable of lacing their own boots without British support? Or perhaps they're all drug dealers (or all on drugs)? Or perhaps the idea of taking a cut in their living standards would be too hard to stomach? Or some other such fantasy?

    Clontibret was not in any way a military mission and Loyalist Paramilitaries were not involved. It was a political stunt.

    As for Loyalist farmers in '69, has it occurred to you that many of them were B-Specials who kept their weaponry (including sub-machine guns) at home? Has it occurred to you that many B-Specials were ex-military and actually had more fighting experience than most of The Irish Army? So, no, I don't think they'd have 'ran a mile' in the face of the 'terrifying' Irish Army. More likely they'd have taken up defencive positions in advance of The UK Army arriving.

    Far from running away, Loyalists actually took the war to The Nationalist enemy during 'The Troubles' and yes, that includes ALL THOSE they perceived to be enemies of Ulster and her place within The UK. After all, The IRA, by not wearing uniforms was in breech of The Geneva Convention, so Loyalists need not have felt bound by same protocol. Thousands of Loyalists went to jail for their activities during 'The Troubles', so I think it's safe to say they were more than willing to suffer for their cause.


  • #104
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    'You, like many of The Irish, seriously underestimate Loyalists. If there ever is an attempt to 'unite' Ireland against their will, you and your ilk are in for the shock of your lives. You saw half a million Catholics cause immense problems for The UK state for thirty years, a well developed and wealthy nation of 60 million, which at one point had at least 40 000 soldiers and armed police in theatre, yet you assume that a country of a few million, a useless army without significant hostilities experience (currently numbering 10 000 full time soldiers, mostly infantry), no air force and a navy comprising a hand full of glorified patrol boats will easily be able to occupy and quickly pacify Loyalist areas of Northern Ireland. I'd love to know what you base this analysis on? Let me guess. Loyalists are all incompetent cowards incapable of lacing their own boots without British support? Or perhaps they're all drug dealers (or all on drugs)? Or perhaps the idea of taking a cut in their living standards would be too hard to stomach? Or some other such fantasy?

    Clontibret was not in any way a military mission and Loyalist Paramilitaries were not involved. It was a political stunt.

    As for Loyalist farmers in '69, has it occurred to you that many of them were B-Specials who kept their weaponry (including sub-machine guns) at home? Has it occurred to you that many B-Specials were ex-military and actually had more fighting experience than most of The Irish Army? So, no, I don't think they'd have 'ran a mile' in the face of the 'terrifying' Irish Army. More likely they'd have taken up defencive positions in advance of The UK Army arriving.

    Far from running away, Loyalists actually took the war to The Nationalist enemy during 'The Troubles' and yes, that includes ALL THOSE they perceived to be enemies of Ulster and her place within The UK. After all, The IRA, by not wearing uniforms was in breech of The Geneva Convention, so Loyalists need not have felt bound by same protocol. Thousands of Loyalists went to jail for their activities during 'The Troubles', so I think it's safe to say they were more than willing to suffer for their cause.'

    You make a lot of assumptions there! For a start, you are unlikely to come across anyone less like a Nationalist on these boards or, indeed, on the island than myself. I am a British subject despite having lived in the Republic of Ireland most of my life and I am a Unionist NOT some sort of Loyalist thug.

    I never saw half a million catholics give trouble to the UK or anyonelse. I did however see a small minority of murdering thugs on both sides gradually take over the asylum as the security forces on both sides of the border fought them with both hands tied behind their backs. The provos and their successors are a bunch of facists and the so-called loyalists are largely a gang of criminals.

    Also, while you may think that people down here are obsessed with having a united Ireland you would be very wrong - only a small percentage of diehards and dinosaurs - while many of us would prefer if the Six Counties were to float off into the North Sea and sink without trace. Put that in your bag and jingle it! :D


  • #105
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    blinding wrote: »
    I suppose it will only be when we have theme parks for some of these events will we have moved on from some of them.

    i wonder when the "split" would occur?


  • #106
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    population wrote: »
    Jesus. Sky Plussed it because I really wanted to see it and it was indeed tosh.

    "Now lets imagine what would have happened if the British had fought back by using sharks with lasers attatched to their heads"

    que the james bond theme tune.... :D


  • #107
    Jo King
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭Jo King


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    I don't really know what we are arguing about here. I did watch the programme and there was, indeed, a throwaway remark about hiring buses but anybody old enough to remember the regular CIE Dublin bus strikes of the mid-1970s; there were plenty of army trucks available then that were used to replace the buses. You also give great credit to British intelligence and if you are telling me that the Irish army would have been incapapable of moving a few hundred troops to Derry without detection well, quite frankly, I don't believe you.

    I think you are giving far too much creedence to some of the nonsense stated by some of the ex.Irish military heads on the programme and, let's face it, it was a pretty badly cobbled together effort.. It was also not clear why the Irish army would have retreated to open fields, thus presenting easy targets for the RAF as opposed to digging in in the town after they took it over.

    A few hundred troops would have had to be assembled far to the south. Most likely in Athlone. They would have been drawn from all over the Western Command. Plans would have to be circulated and drawn up. Large numbers of people would have known something was going on. Ammunition and other supplies would have had to be brought to Finner and other bases in Donegal before the troops moved in. The British maintain a military attache in Dublin. They have spies in the Garda and the Army. They monitor radio communications all over Ireland. The telephone system in the West in 1969 was primitive. There is no way this kind of build up would have been a secret from the British.
    The digging in South of Nwery was to secure the line of supply back to the South. If they were not there, they could have been encircled and cut off in Newry. An invading force goes forward nad protects its rear. Going forward and being cut off is suicide. Newry is a relatively short distance from gormanstown which is itself relatively near Dublin. The best chance of a successful military incursion into the North would have been Newry. Even that chance was minuscule. Derry was much less.
    As for transport. The trucks used in Dublin for the bus strikes had to be brought from all over Ireland. This was after considerable expansion of the Defence forces after 1969. The size of the army more than doubled by the early 70's. Many more vehicles were acquired. In 1969 there were only a handful of lorries. A few blasts of a shotgun at the tyres would have halted any of them.


  • #108
    blinding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭blinding


    The Irish army would have had to use Guerilla tactics or some options from the Michael Collins hand book.


  • #109
    ART6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭ART6


    I freely confess that I haven't read all of the latest post on this thread, so if I am repeating what someone else has said---

    I don't believe that Jack Lynch was a fool, or that he seriously considered invading the six counties and taking on the Brits. It doesn't look as if he made any attempt to keep his plan secret, although that is the first principle of war. Instead he made noises publically. The result? The British Army moved peace keeping forces into the north. Perhaps what he intended all along? Jack had issued his sound bites. The Westminister government (with whom he had every opportunity to talk) reacted. Brownie points for both.


  • #110
    DublinDes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 259 ✭✭DublinDes


    ART6 wrote: »
    I freely confess that I haven't read all of the latest post on this thread, so if I am repeating what someone else has said---

    I don't believe that Jack Lynch was a fool, or that he seriously considered invading the six counties and taking on the Brits. It doesn't look as if he made any attempt to keep his plan secret, although that is the first principle of war. Instead he made noises publically. The result? The British Army moved peace keeping forces into the north. Perhaps what he intended all along? Jack had issued his sound bites. The Westminister government (with whom he had every opportunity to talk) reacted. Brownie points for both.
    " The British Army moved peace keeping forces into the north. " Peace keeping forces ?? Is that what you'd call their even handed approach on Bloody Sunday, internment and all the other murders, shootings, beatings etc

    " Brownie points for both. " Yeah and we had 25 years of continual conflict. Instead if Lynch had forced the Brits to internationalise it, the troubles could have been avoided altogether.


  • #111
    OS119
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    blinding wrote: »
    The Irish army would have had to use Guerilla tactics or some options from the Michael Collins hand book.

    the one, teensy-weensy, little tiny problem in this scenario is that the founding principle of guerilla warfare is not having a blindingly obvious, and utterly undefended 'rear area' that the enemy can attack at will.

    exactly how long does anyone think it would have taken the Brits to work out that it was Irish soldiers doing naughty deeds in NI?

    anyone care to predict British public opinion upon either a fire-fight between British and Irish soldiers in the road to Newry, or an Irish soldier captured - in uniform or civilian clothes - next to a burning Belfast power station?

    anyone think the RAF would have run out of bombs before the RoI ran out of Powerstations, barracks, ports, airfields, centres of government, telephone exchanges, naval vessels and a road and rail network?

    who thinks the voting public of the RoI would of given that much of a **** about NI that they would have been prepared to face war - losing, long-distance war - that would, in the space of a week, cost the RoI its military, industrial, political and civil infrastructure with no means of return or revenge?

    Ireland, a poor, isolationist, neutral country on the fringe of Europe that conducted 70% of its external trade with the UK, was in no position to force the UK to do anything - firstly because the UK held a physical veto over any UN debate, let alone any resolution or deployment, and secondly the UK was the second most powerful nation in NATO, permanent member of the UNSC, Head of the commonwealth and a Top 5 trading nation. not only would the lists of Irelands' friends been short and exotic, but none of them had their hands on any of the levers of power that could force the UK to fart, let alone change policy.

    no, Ireland would have been on her own, and she would have paid dearly for her folly.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    DublinDes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 259 ✭✭DublinDes


    OS119 wrote: »
    the one, teensy-weensy, little tiny problem in this scenario is that the founding principle of guerilla warfare is not having a blindingly obvious, and utterly undefended 'rear area' that the enemy can attack at will.

    exactly how long does anyone think it would have taken the Brits to work out that it was Irish soldiers doing naughty deeds in NI?

    anyone care to predict British public opinion upon either a fire-fight between British and Irish soldiers in the road to Newry, or an Irish soldier captured - in uniform or civilian clothes - next to a burning Belfast power station?

    anyone think the RAF would have run out of bombs before the RoI ran out of Powerstations, barracks, ports, airfields, centres of government, telephone exchanges, naval vessels and a road and rail network?

    who thinks the voting public of the RoI would of given that much of a **** about NI that they would have been prepared to face war - losing, long-distance war - that would, in the space of a week, cost the RoI its military, industrial, political and civil infrastructure with no means of return or revenge?

    Ireland, a poor, isolationist, neutral country on the fringe of Europe that conducted 70% of its external trade with the UK, was in no position to force the UK to do anything - firstly because the UK held a physical veto over any UN debate, let alone any resolution or deployment, and secondly the UK was the second most powerful nation in NATO, permanent member of the UNSC, Head of the commonwealth and a Top 5 trading nation. not only would the lists of Irelands' friends been short and exotic, but none of them had their hands on any of the levers of power that could force the UK to fart, let alone change policy.

    no, Ireland would have been on her own, and she would have paid dearly for her folly.
    the one, teensy-weensy, little tiny problem in this scenario is that - how the hell do you think international opinion would allow Britain throw it's weight around as it liked ? As has been mentioned on other forums, they ran away during the Suez crisis, Yanks invaded Grenada and didn't even bother asking could they go in or apologise, thier veto at the UN didn't do them any use did it ?
    Even look at Hong Kong, no UN veto or throwing shapes about majority of people wanting them to stay in Hong Kong - and DON'T GO TELLING ME ABOUT THE 100 YEAR LEASE BEEN UP.

    Head of the Commonwealth FFS, a second rate Olympics with the Queen as the symbolic head of state.

    Again as otehrs have stated, britian had formed the secterian rergieme in the north, far from it been seeen as the Irish army so called invading, international opinion would have been with Ireland. To internationalise it would have been the best thing and 25 years of teh troubles would have been invaded.

    Drop all these notions of Britian been some kind of world power to do as it pleases. It only does what the Yanks please, end of story.


  • #113
    Hookey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Hookey


    It works both ways; you've highlighted where the British have failed to get their way with the UN, but the example of Grenada in particular is illustrative; the British couldn't stop the Americans but the reverse would have true, the American veto (or Russian or Chinese) is useless when troops are already on the ground. Do you honestly think the US would have had even used the UN against the British over a domestic issue? Get real. There would have been a lot of back-door politicking and threats and a bit of public posturing, and that would have been it (and the Brits would have probably paid off the US by sending a couple of regiments to Vietnam, which the Americans had been asking for for years). Besides, the UN charter is pretty explicit about the rights of nations to defend themselves; there was a stronger argument for censure against the British over human rights issues than there would have been about response to an invasion.

    Britain may jump to the American tune, but the Falklands proved they could and would act unilaterally if sovereign territory was threatened.

    There's a truism about diplomacy that countries don't have friends only interests, and the Americans had a lot more interests in Britain than they did in Ireland, and still do. In the case of Suez, the Americans had more interests in the Middle-East than Britain and France (and still do).


  • #114
    OS119
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    DublinDes wrote: »
    .

    Drop all these notions of Britian been some kind of world power to do as it pleases. It only does what the Yanks please, end of story.

    i accept entirely that the US had enormous influence with the UK government - but i don't accept that the US government would have thrown a wobbly in favour of the RoI in such a case, and certainly not in the time it would have taken the UK to massively punish the RoI for the incursion.

    quite simply, had they done so - and pissing all over the fundamentals of NATO in doing so - they would have seriously endangered the existance of NATO itself, and NATO was the number 2 of US strategic defence policy of the US all through the cold war

    quite simply, your friends in Boston might off gone wild, but the US was not going to put its strategic defence policies at risk because of a hyphen pressure group.

    what did the US do about Bloody Sunday? nothing.

    what did the US do about the death of the Hunger Strikers? nothing.

    all the evidence - rather than foaming at the mouth fantasy - indicates that while the US body politic may have had sympathies and emotional ties with 'the cause', they were never in a million years going to endanger their own strategic position and defence posture by getting into a dispute with the UK over the situation in Ireland - particularly one that went against their own treaties and previous agreements.

    throughout the Cold War they had bigger fish to fry - unlucky.


  • #115
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,128 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    DublinDes wrote: »
    It only does what the Yanks please, end of story.

    Like releasing the Lockerbie bomber.


  • #116
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    the US don't give a **** about Ireland, all they care about is the Irish vote.

    they may have made some public comments about restraint etc, but that is about it.


  • #117
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,128 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    the US don't give a **** about Ireland, all they care about is the Irish vote.

    they may have made some public comments about restraint etc, but that is about it.


    Also given that most of the Americans in positions of power fall into the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant category, and have to suck up to the relevant minority when it suits.

    That's my assumption which will probably get shot down in flames by some statistician.


  • #118
    DublinDes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 259 ✭✭DublinDes


    Hookey wrote: »
    It works both ways; you've highlighted where the British have failed to get their way with the UN, but the example of Grenada in particular is illustrative; the British couldn't stop the Americans but the reverse would have true, the American veto (or Russian or Chinese) is useless when troops are already on the ground. Do you honestly think the US would have had even used the UN against the British over a domestic issue? Get real. There would have been a lot of back-door politicking and threats and a bit of public posturing, and that would have been it (and the Brits would have probably paid off the US by sending a couple of regiments to Vietnam, which the Americans had been asking for for years). Besides, the UN charter is pretty explicit about the rights of nations to defend themselves; there was a stronger argument for censure against the British over human rights issues than there would have been about response to an invasion.

    Britain may jump to the American tune, but the Falklands proved they could and would act unilaterally if sovereign territory was threatened.

    There's a truism about diplomacy that countries don't have friends only interests, and the Americans had a lot more interests in Britain than they did in Ireland, and still do. In the case of Suez, the Americans had more interests in the Middle-East than Britain and France (and still do).
    Well, first, I didn't think I'd be getting 5 posts so quickly. Oooohhh, must have touched a nerve with the British boys :eek:

    " but the example of Grenada in particular is illustrative; the British couldn't stop the Americans but the reverse would have true, " Are you going to tell me if Britain invaded say Puerto Rico and the Yanks said get your goddam ass outa there - the UK could say no :D GET REAL

    " Do you honestly think the US would have had even used the UN against the British over a domestic issue? " Well obviously the Yanks had no problem invading Grenada which was supposed to be protected by the UK ?The Yanks seem to view it that UK needs America more than the USA needs the UK - and you know what, their right.

    " Britain may jump to the American tune, but the Falklands proved they could and would act unilaterally if sovereign territory was threatened. " The Falklands were 2 bits of rock taken over by a military junta in Argentina with no mistreated Argentinian population on them. No comparsion with the North in 1969. It's not like it was an area in say, south west Argentina with the Argentina army going to protect innocent ethnic Argentinians from all out onslaught. ( And anyway, UK could not have invaded the Falklands without the intel. from USA spy satellites etc :) )


  • #119
    DublinDes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 259 ✭✭DublinDes


    OS119 wrote: »
    i accept entirely that the US had enormous influence with the UK government - but i don't accept that the US government would have thrown a wobbly in favour of the RoI in such a case, and certainly not in the time it would have taken the UK to massively punish the RoI for the incursion.
    All it would take the time would be a grumble in Washington towards britian and a telephone call to put the breaks on teh Downing St, that's all teh time it would take. Get real FFS.

    " quite simply, had they done so - and pissing all over the fundamentals of NATO in doing so - they would have seriously endangered the existance of NATO itself, and NATO was the number 2 of US strategic defence policy of the US all through the cold war "

    Yanks pissed all over the fundamentals of NATO with UK and France in Suez. UK not going to tell the Yanks get F**ked and walk out of NATO. As I said, Yanks reckon UK needs them more than they need UK and their right.

    " quite simply, your friends in Boston might off gone wild, but the US was not going to put its strategic defence policies at risk because of a hyphen pressure group.

    what did the US do about Bloody Sunday? nothing. "

    what did the US do about the death of the Hunger Strikers? nothing.     "
    Yuor talking about the deaths of 13 and 10 people. 1969 was a whole onslaught on thousands of people.

    GOTTA GO, see ya.


  • #120
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,128 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    DublinDes wrote: »
    Well, first, I didn't think I'd be getting 5 posts so quickly. Oooohhh, must have touched a nerve with the British boys :eek:

    " but the example of Grenada in particular is illustrative; the British couldn't stop the Americans but the reverse would have true, " Are you going to tell me if Britain invaded say Puerto Rico and the Yanks said get your goddam ass outa there - the UK could say no :D GET REAL

    The American thought that Grenada was riddled with Cuban troops and weapons, and used 20 sledge-hammers to crack a walnut. If anyone looked foolish, it was US intelligence. There was probably more danger in a Kentucky field exercise.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    OS119
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    DublinDes wrote: »

    Yuor talking about the deaths of 13 and 10 people. 1969 was a whole onslaught on thousands of people.

    you prove my point - what did the US do, or threaten to do over the situation in 1969/70/71/72?

    nothing.

    they. are. not. interested.

    you can rant all you like about Grenada and Suez, but the US was never going to endanger its relationship with the UK over a direct incursion into UK territory by a non-NATO country, particularly one that had consistently refused to give the US what it wanted.

    unfcukinglucky. your delusions of Irish influence within the US body politic are exposed by looking at the historical record. regardless of what was occurring in NI, and regardless of the expressed wishes of Irish-American politicians, during the cold war the US never, not ever, pressed the UK further than it wished to go on any aspect of NI policy. it is therefore reasonable to believe that that US policy would continue in the event of a southern incursion and any subsequent UK reaction, and unreasonable to believe that it would suddenly do a complete U turn just because you'd have liked it to.


  • #122
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    DublinDes, cut out the personal crap. Mod.


  • #123
    Jo King
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭Jo King


    ART6 wrote: »
    I freely confess that I haven't read all of the latest post on this thread, so if I am repeating what someone else has said---

    I don't believe that Jack Lynch was a fool, or that he seriously considered invading the six counties and taking on the Brits. It doesn't look as if he made any attempt to keep his plan secret, although that is the first principle of war. Instead he made noises publically. The result? The British Army moved peace keeping forces into the north. Perhaps what he intended all along? Jack had issued his sound bites. The Westminister government (with whom he had every opportunity to talk) reacted. Brownie points for both.

    This is not a thread about what happened or what Jack Lynch intended. It is a thread about what if he had invaded. There were cabinet members urging a military intervention. As Lynch appreciated it would have been a suicide mission, both for the military personnel involved and for the economy of the country.


  • #124
    pat78monday6
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭pat78monday6


    it galls me every time i read that line which includes the word invaded.since when is it wrong to say that irish troops would intervene in any part of ireland to protect fellow irish people.and why do the brits living in ireland not follow the advice givento the french colonials in algera by general de gaulle when he said if you want to stay in algeria then stay and be good algerians , but if you want to be good frenchmen then come back to france with me and be good frenchmen. this applies to all brits in ireland, all 32 counties.


  • #125
    pat78monday6
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭pat78monday6


    i read the bottom posts and i decided to intervene with another post,at the moment posters show that they have not read their history , what a pity , you see on the night of dec12 , 1956 the IRA successfully attacked 112 enemy targets and they can do it again , so please stop putting your fellow irishmen down , be proud of them.:)


  • #126
    Hookey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Hookey


    pat78monday6 wrote: »
    it galls me every time i read that line which includes the word invaded.since when is it wrong to say that irish troops would intervene in any part of ireland to protect fellow irish people.and why do the brits living in ireland not follow the advice givento the french colonials in algera by general de gaulle when he said if you want to stay in algeria then stay and be good algerians , but if you want to be good frenchmen then come back to france with me and be good frenchmen. this applies to all brits in ireland, all 32 counties.

    Whether you like it or not, Northern Ireland is sovereign UK territory. Until the people of Northern Ireland say otherwise. So "invasion" is the correct word in law. And you're quoting De Gaulle out of context and you know it.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Hookey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Hookey


    DublinDes wrote: »
    Well, first, I didn't think I'd be getting 5 posts so quickly. Oooohhh, must have touched a nerve with the British boys :eek:

    " but the example of Grenada in particular is illustrative; the British couldn't stop the Americans but the reverse would have true, " Are you going to tell me if Britain invaded say Puerto Rico and the Yanks said get your goddam ass outa there - the UK could say no :D GET REAL

    The UK could say no, and the Yanks would kick them out. What the hell does that have to do with anything? My point was the the UK could no more use the security council against the Americans over Grenada than the Americans could use it over the UK in NI.
    DublinDes wrote: »
    " Do you honestly think the US would have had even used the UN against the British over a domestic issue? " Well obviously the Yanks had no problem invading Grenada which was supposed to be protected by the UK ?The Yanks seem to view it that UK needs America more than the USA needs the UK - and you know what, their right.

    Since when was Grenada "protected" by the UK? Its a member of the Commonwealth, that's all. Its no more protected by the UK than India is. And as I said in my other post, of course the UK needs the US more than the other way round, but the US still needs the UK far more than it does Ireland. We're nowhere in terms of US geopolitical interests.
    DublinDes wrote: »
    " Britain may jump to the American tune, but the Falklands proved they could and would act unilaterally if sovereign territory was threatened. " The Falklands were 2 bits of rock taken over by a military junta in Argentina with no mistreated Argentinian population on them. No comparsion with the North in 1969. It's not like it was an area in say, south west Argentina with the Argentina army going to protect innocent ethnic Argentinians from all out onslaught. ( And anyway, UK could not have invaded the Falklands without the intel. from USA spy satellites etc :) )

    It doesn't matter. The Falklands demonstrates the point (again) that the US will weigh up the balance of its interests and either stay out or tacitly back one country over another. Argentina was a US ally in 1982 because it was staunchly anti-communist. But when it came to choosing sides, the UK got the nod because the UK is more valuable to them than Argentina. I keep saying this; its not about right or wrong, its about what's in it for America, and in that calculation Ireland will always lose to the UK. The only way that would change is if Ireland became part of a wider institution like a European common defence policy, or if Ireland stays in the EU and the UK leaves. Then America is better served backing Ireland because its backing the EU.


  • #128
    pat78monday6
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭pat78monday6


    in reply to hookey you are correct as to the word of law today , but this so called invasion was to happen in 1969 and this law did not exist , nor was this veto given to the unionists at that time , they took it


  • #129
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,128 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    pat78monday6 wrote: »
    it galls me every time i read that line which includes the word invaded.since when is it wrong to say that irish troops would intervene in any part of ireland to protect fellow irish people.and why do the brits living in ireland not follow the advice givento the french colonials in algera by general de gaulle when he said if you want to stay in algeria then stay and be good algerians , but if you want to be good frenchmen then come back to france with me and be good frenchmen. this applies to all brits in ireland, all 32 counties.

    So the definition of a "brit" is any person(of any nationality, even Irish) in the 32 counties, who doesn't agree with your line of thought?:confused:


  • #130
    DublinDes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 259 ✭✭DublinDes


    OS119 wrote: »
    you prove my point - what did the US do, or threaten to do over the situation in 1969/70/71/72?

    nothing.

    they. are. not. interested.

    you can rant all you like about Grenada and Suez, but the US was never going to endanger its relationship with the UK over a direct incursion into UK territory by a non-NATO country, particularly one that had consistently refused to give the US what it wanted.

    unfcukinglucky. your delusions of Irish influence within the US body politic are exposed by looking at the historical record. regardless of what was occurring in NI, and regardless of the expressed wishes of Irish-American politicians, during the cold war the US never, not ever, pressed the UK further than it wished to go on any aspect of NI policy. it is therefore reasonable to believe that that US policy would continue in the event of a southern incursion and any subsequent UK reaction, and unreasonable to believe that it would suddenly do a complete U turn just because you'd have liked it to.
    " but the US was never going to endanger its relationship with the UK over a direct incursion into UK territory by a non-NATO country, particularly one that had consistently refused to give the US what it wanted. " And the USA would never let down it's very best friend in Suez and Grenada or let the Chinese bully them out of Hong Kong etc :rolleyes:

    Listen what I said in my first post is that Lynch and Co. would have internationalised the north should he have sent the Irish army in. Your talking British/unionist nonsense if your going to tell me that with the weight of International opinion behind Ireland and the strength of the Irish American lobby - the USA wouldn't have joined the calls for a negoiated approach by Britian and Ireland ? Will come down to reality and drop all these notions of UK teh big global superpower that could bomb Ireland north and south of the border with no reprecussions and indeed if some of you are to go by, the backing of world opinion. The sympathy was with Ireland and teh nationalists under attack in the north


  • #131
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    pat78monday6 wrote: »
    in reply to hookey you are correct as to the word of law today , but this so called invasion was to happen in 1969 and this law did not exist , nor was this veto given to the unionists at that time , they took it

    1920 Government of Ireland Act and Anglo Irish Treaty of 1921. Don't criticise other people's knowledge of history if yours isn't up to scratch.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    OS119
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    pat78monday6 wrote: »
    in reply to hookey you are correct as to the word of law today , but this so called invasion was to happen in 1969 and this law did not exist , nor was this veto given to the unionists at that time , they took it

    no, every other state (who had diplomatic relations with the UK, and who had not lodged a notice of territorial dispute with the UN regarding NI, or who had ratified a mutual defence treaty with the UK, which meant most of the world) accepted (happily or not) that NI was sovereign UK territory in 1969. they therefore accepted that it would not be legal for the RoI to place its armed forces within that territory without the permission of the UK government, and that it would be entirely legal for the UK to use military force to eject such forces, as described in Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN charter. such law was recognised by the government of the Republic of Ireland, regardless of its constitutional position.

    you should not confuse domestic political arrangements with accepted international law.


  • #133
    OS119
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    DublinDes wrote: »
    " but the US was never going to endanger its relationship with the UK over a direct incursion into UK territory by a non-NATO country, particularly one that had consistently refused to give the US what it wanted. " And the USA would never let down it's very best friend in Suez and Grenada or let the Chinese bully them out of Hong Kong etc :

    i know you've got a hard-on for Suez and Grenada -- why the fcuk you're talking about China i've no idea - but you cannot bring a single instance of the US choosing Ireland over the UK during the cold war to this argument.

    i have shown several instances where this 'sympathy' for the Irish cause meant absolutely fcuk all, and that the US consistantly chose its strategic defence interests with the UK over its alleged sympathy with the Irish 'cause'.

    they. were. not. interested.

    show me, just one instance, where the US chose Ireland over the UK during the cold war. just one.

    no?


  • #134
    DublinDes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 259 ✭✭DublinDes


    brianthebard wrote: »
    1920 Government of Ireland Act and Anglo Irish Treaty of 1921. Don't criticise other people's knowledge of history if yours isn't up to scratch.
    A bit harsh there Brian. Sure everyone knows under law it's occupied by Britain, but what I think what he's trying to say is that your average Irish nationalist ( except those in the RTE program !! ) would not have desribed the Irish army going into the north as an ' invasion '. I mean people don't describe the Irish govt having executive powers under the Good Friday Agreement as " interferring in the affairs of a foreign country " unless thier a unionist and their's no shortage of them on boards.ie - but you'll hardly ever get them tio admit it :)

    Same with going shopping to Newry, who says I'm going abroad for me shopping. The man is only speaking from a nationalist view. Bit off topic but there you go.


  • #135
    DublinDes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 259 ✭✭DublinDes


    OS119 wrote: »
    i know you've got a hard-on for Suez and Grenada -- why the fcuk you're talking about China i've no idea - but you cannot bring a single instance of the US choosing Ireland over the UK during the cold war to this argument.

    i have shown several instances where this 'sympathy' for the Irish cause meant absolutely fcuk all, and that the US consistantly chose its strategic defence interests with the UK over its alleged sympathy with the Irish 'cause'.

    they. were. not. interested.

    show me, just one instance, where the US chose Ireland over the UK during the cold war. just one.

    no?
    BECAUSE THE IRISH GOVT. NEVER CAMPAIGNED OR MADE A CASE TO INTERNATIONAL OPINION, obviously including the US, to put pressure on the UK for an Irish intervention. Except for a token call at the UN when they meekly accepted the UK veto and didn't try in the least to rally International opinion or the Labour left in the UK. IT WAS ALL SABRE RATTLING BY LYNCH AND CO. TO APPEASE THE IRISH PUBLIC IN APPEARING TO BE DOING SOMETHING.

    " i have shown several instances where this 'sympathy' for the Irish cause meant absolutely fcuk all, and that the US consistantly chose its strategic defence interests with the UK over its alleged sympathy with the Irish 'cause'. " You haven't shown me ONCE, all you talk about is we could have done this, we could have done that, blah, blah, blah.

    There's a big difference between we could have and actually doing something. Suez, Grenada, China bullying you out of Hong Kong all happened. UK bombing Newry, Dundalk etc didn't - as much as you and others would have liked.

    Don't mention the concern of the Irish govt to me. Look at issues like the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, McBride Principles ( to outlaw US companies doing business with secterian run company's in the north ). The Irish embassy actually BANNED these campaigners from using the embassy's facilities to lobby Washington. It was individual campaigns raised by the families, campaigners and Irish Americans that started the ball rolling in the US to put pressure on the UK, the Irish govt didn't lift a finger.


  • #136
    OS119
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    DublinDes wrote: »
    BECAUSE THE IRISH GOVT. NEVER CAMPAIGNED OR MADE A CASE TO INTERNATIONAL OPINION, obviously including the US, to put pressure on the UK for an Irish intervention. Except for a token call at the UN when they meekly accepted the UK veto and didn't try in the least to rally International opinion or the Labour left in the UK. IT WAS ALL SABRE RATTLING BY LYNCH AND CO. TO APPEASE THE IRISH PUBLIC IN APPEARING TO BE DOING SOMETHING.

    " i have shown several instances where this 'sympathy' for the Irish cause meant absolutely fcuk all, and that the US consistantly chose its strategic defence interests with the UK over its alleged sympathy with the Irish 'cause'. " You haven't shown me ONCE, all you talk about is we could have done this, we could have done that, blah, blah, blah.

    There's a big difference between we could have and actually doing something. Suez, Grenada, China bullying you out of Hong Kong all happened. UK bombing Newry, Dundalk etc didn't - as much as you and others would have liked.

    Don't mention the concern of the Irish govt to me. Look at issues like the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, McBride Principles ( to outlaw US companies doing business with secterian run company's in the north ). The Irish embassy actually BANNED these campaigners from using the embassy's facilities to lobby Washington. It was individual campaigns raised by the families, campaigners and Irish Americans that started the ball rolling in the US to put pressure on the UK, the Irish govt didn't lift a finger.

    are you on crack or something - you seem to be reading shit that isn't in my posts...

    if the US - or anyone else - was so sympathetic to the fate/cause of the northern nationalists or the wider Irish situation then why did they do or say nothing, regardless of what the irish government was or wasn't doing? are you saying the US government couldn't read newspapers or didn't have TV?

    or do you only get upset about your sister having the shit beaten out of her if she complains to the police?


  • #137
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,128 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    At the time, the UK was riddled with USAF bases, US intelligence bases, and both shared a mutual hatred of the Soviets. Anyone thinking that the US was going to throw all of this away by backing Ireland, must be seriously deluded as to what the worth of Ireland was on the world stage.

    I remember reading a book some years ago, where it was mentioned that the US set up an early warning infrastructure in Ireland, in exchange for the modernisation of the telephone system. As far as I know, that was the only US/Ireland cold war connection.


  • #138
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    DublinDes wrote: »
    A bit harsh there Brian. Sure everyone knows under law it's occupied by Britain, but what I think what he's trying to say is that your average Irish nationalist ( except those in the RTE program !! ) would not have desribed the Irish army going into the north as an ' invasion '. I mean people don't describe the Irish govt having executive powers under the Good Friday Agreement as " interferring in the affairs of a foreign country " unless thier a unionist and their's no shortage of them on boards.ie - but you'll hardly ever get them tio admit it :)

    Same with going shopping to Newry, who says I'm going abroad for me shopping. The man is only speaking from a nationalist view. Bit off topic but there you go.

    I know exactly what he was saying, but the issue was he was wrong in a legal context which he denied.

    Now speaking as a mod I'm going to ask you again to end the unionist bashing and have a read of the forum charter before continuing to post in this thread.


  • #139
    Hookey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Hookey


    DublinDes wrote: »
    Listen what I said in my first post is that Lynch and Co. would have internationalised the north should he have sent the Irish army in. Your talking British/unionist nonsense if your going to tell me that with the weight of International opinion behind Ireland and the strength of the Irish American lobby - the USA wouldn't have joined the calls for a negoiated approach by Britian and Ireland ? Will come down to reality and drop all these notions of UK teh big global superpower that could bomb Ireland north and south of the border with no reprecussions and indeed if some of you are to go by, the backing of world opinion. The sympathy was with Ireland and teh nationalists under attack in the north

    No they wouldn't. If anything, an invasion would have weakened any call to "internationalise" Northern Ireland, and freed the British hand to go cross-border. It was probably the faint hope of an international solution that was one of things that stayed Lynch's hand in the first place. There's absolutely no way an Irish invasion would have improved the odds of that happening; apart from anything else, an Irish army incursion would have been so quickly quashed by the British that by the time the UN or the international community could call for a negotiation the battle would be over.

    Here's a relevant parallel for you; Cyprus in 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus on a far lesser pretext than an Irish invasion of the North (although don't believe the Greek propaganda, they brought it on themselves), and despite countless UN resolutions and efforts at mediation, they're still there 35 years later (and are still a member of NATO). Britain would have had a FAR stronger justification for its activities than the Turks had. Power of the international opinion means feck all if you're rich enough or carry a big enough stick.


  • #140
    DublinDes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 259 ✭✭DublinDes


    OS119 wrote: »
    are you on crack or something - you seem to be reading shit that isn't in my posts...

    if the US - or anyone else - was so sympathetic to the fate/cause of the northern nationalists or the wider Irish situation then why did they do or say nothing, regardless of what the irish government was or wasn't doing? are you saying the US government couldn't read newspapers or didn't have TV?

    or do you only get upset about your sister having the shit beaten out of her if she complains to the police?
    As I've pointed out in the previous post, BECAUSE THE IRISH GOVT. NEVER CAMPAIGNED OR MADE A CASE TO INTERNATIONAL OPINION. And been a national government they had vastly greater international clout and resources to influence the situation than handfuls of citizens on street campaigns etc. But no, they just sat on their behinds and issued statements of concern but carry on regardless - just like they did for the last few years when they seen the economy running into trouble and didn't care a damn about the mess they have left us in for the next decade or even two. And BTW everybody, when I talk about international opinion, I'm not just talking about the USA, though they are of course a very important part of it.

    I then pointed out how successful human rights campaigns actually met with hostility from the Irish Govt. instead of assistance. I can't make it any plainer than that. But no doubt you'll come back with more UK is a world power and does what it likes, blah, blah.

    ( And BTW, don't be bringing comments about my family into this, I haven't brought yours into it )


  • #141
    DublinDes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 259 ✭✭DublinDes


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    At the time, the UK was riddled with USAF bases, US intelligence bases, and both shared a mutual hatred of the Soviets. Anyone thinking that the US was going to throw all of this away by backing Ireland, must be seriously deluded as to what the worth of Ireland was on the world stage.
    Must I keep repeating myself...... UK was riddled with USA bases during Suez and Grenada, didn't bother the Yanks to do as they pleased. Here's what Thatcher had to say to Reagan about the invasion " I ask you to consider this in the context of our wider East-West relations and of the fact that we will be having in the next few days to present to our Parliament and people the siting of Cruise missiles in this country...I cannot conceal that I am deeply disturbed by your latest communication. " And did the Yanks show any concern or even a little apology, of course not. Like as I said, UK needs USA more than the USA needs the UK. The UK is just another colour on the map to the Yanks. Suez and Grenada proved it.
    I remember reading a book some years ago, where it was mentioned that the US set up an early warning infrastructure in Ireland, in exchange for the modernisation of the telephone system. As far as I know, that was the only US/Ireland cold war connection.
    Well maybe Yanks would not have been very happy with Britain if they had threatened to bomb Ireland then so :D


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,128 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    DublinDes wrote: »
    Must I keep repeating myself...... UK was riddled with USA bases during Suez and Grenada, didn't bother the Yanks to do as they pleased. Here's what Thatcher had to say to Reagan about the invasion " I ask you to consider this in the context of our wider East-West relations and of the fact that we will be having in the next few days to present to our Parliament and people the siting of Cruise missiles in this country...I cannot conceal that I am deeply disturbed by your latest communication. " And did the Yanks show any concern or even a little apology, of course not. Like as I said, UK needs USA more than the USA needs the UK. The UK is just another colour on the map to the Yanks. Suez and Grenada proved it.

    Well maybe Yanks would not have been very happy with Britain if they had threatened to bomb Ireland then so :D

    You can repeat yourself as often as you like, but it doesn't detract from the truth being that, in relation to 1969 Ireland, the US didn't give a hoot.

    I mentioned above about the dodgy US intelligence re Grenada, and it was no skin off the Brits' noses when the US went in there. MI6 probably knew that the Cuban army wasn't there, but US and British intelligence like playing party-games with each other. I expect that MI6 couldn't keep a straight face when they heard that the Americans went in guns ablazin'

    As for Suez, it wasn't in the US' best interest that the British and French upset the apple-cart, so didn't support them. They were trying to suck up to the Middle-East in general, mainly to grab the oil rights.

    Ireland had nothing that would interest the Americans, and I understand that the early warning system wasn't set up until after 1969.


  • #143
    blinding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭blinding


    Terrorism is the only realistic way that the Irish can fight the British.

    If the British do not treat the people of Ireland as equals then terrorism will always be the method that some Irish people use against them.


  • #144
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    blinding wrote: »
    Terrorism is the only realistic way that the Irish can fight the British.

    If the British do not treat the people of Ireland as equals then terrorism will always be the method that some Irish people use against them.

    some irish people maybe, but this is about the democratically elected government sending in the country's official armed forces. that's a bit different to a few lads from the bogside putting some semtex in a litter bin.

    When governments start engaging in terrorist campaigns they lose support incredibly quickly. If Lynch had sanctioned the use of terror attacks against British people, he would be dead in days.


  • #145
    afatbollix
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,084 ✭✭✭afatbollix


    great program.... hope they do more programs like it..

    its great the debates it has created all over the net


  • #146
    troubleshooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 311 ✭✭troubleshooter


    DublinDes wrote: »
    The FCA were probably better armed than the RUC and B Specials FFS. What did the loyalist coppers have, revovlers and a dozen or two rounds at best :rolleyes:

    2 or 3 of the regular army soldiers armed with automatic FN assault rifles and grenades, anti tank guns ( like an RPG but more pwoerful ) etc would have gone through a dozen or two of them.


    Thats not true rural stations had Bren guns and also armoured cars with machine guns, there was 30,000 RUC and B specials.

    Not sure if the IA even had an anti armour capability at that time.


  • #147
    DublinDes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 259 ✭✭DublinDes


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    some irish people maybe, but this is about the democratically elected government sending in the country's official armed forces. that's a bit different to a few lads from the bogside putting some semtex in a litter bin.

    When governments start engaging in terrorist campaigns they lose support incredibly quickly. If Lynch had sanctioned the use of terror attacks against British people, he would be dead in days.

    Gaddafi sanctioned Lockerbie and he's still walking around ? Adams, McGuinness, Slab Murphy and many others sanctioned attacks on britain, how come their walking around ? A few lads from the Bogside did a lot more than just putting semtex into a litter bin. They tried to wipe out the UK cabinet at Brighton, sent mortars into 10 Downing Street, blew up Airy Neave in the House of Commons.


  • #148
    DublinDes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 259 ✭✭DublinDes


    troubleshooter wrote: »
    Thats not true rural stations had Bren guns and also armoured cars with machine guns, there was 30,000 RUC and B specials.

    Not sure if the IA even had an anti armour capability at that time.
    Is that right now 30,000 RUC and B specials. Could you back that up with a link please ? And if posible, how many Bren guns per RUC and Special did they have ? And how many armoured cars with machine guns ( strange equipment for a ' police ' force ? Even the LAPD or NYPD don't have armoured cars with machine guns :D )

    The Irish regular infantryman of 1969 was armed with much the same weapons as his British counterpart: each had his own army’s version of the Belgian FN rifle, both had the Bren light machine gun and the FN General Purpose Machine Gun. Both had 9mm submachine guns, the Gustav and the Sterling. Each used 81mm mortars and the Carl Gustav 84mmrecoilless rifle, a powerful anti armour and anti-personnel weapon still widely used in upgraded forms today.

    And thousands of FCA ( granted they were only the opposite to the B Specials ) and since you brought the police into it, thousands of Guards, maybe 10,000 plus.

    So, where did you get your 30,000 from ?


  • #149
    troubleshooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 311 ✭✭troubleshooter


    DublinDes wrote: »
    Is that right now 30,000 RUC and B specials. Could you back that up with a link please ? And if posible, how many Bren guns per RUC and Special did they have ? And how many armoured cars with machine guns ( strange equipment for a ' police ' force ? Even the LAPD or NYPD don't have armoured cars with machine guns :D )

    The Irish regular infantryman of 1969 was armed with much the same weapons as his British counterpart: each had his own army’s version of the Belgian FN rifle, both had the Bren light machine gun and the FN General Purpose Machine Gun. Both had 9mm submachine guns, the Gustav and the Sterling. Each used 81mm mortars and the Carl Gustav 84mmrecoilless rifle, a powerful anti armour and anti-personnel weapon still widely used in upgraded forms today.

    And thousands of FCA ( granted they were only the opposite to the B Specials ) and since you brought the police into it, thousands of Guards, maybe 10,000 plus.

    So, where did you get your 30,000 from ?

    Can you post a link to show the Irish amy sections were armed with the Carl Gustav 84mmrecoilless rifle ? You also fail to understand the British had light and heavy armour, helicopters, jets etc.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Special_Constabulary

    You cant compare the Bs with the guards, they were a paramilitary force, you seriously think 2,000 poorly trained and equipped Irish army infantry with no armour or air support would have a had a hope ? British infantry were battle harded from various conflicts.
    Weaponry

    Most specials were armed with a Webley .38 revolver but in some cases this was augmented by a Lee Enfield .303 rifle or, in the 1960s Sten Guns which were later replaced by Sterling submachine guns. In most cases these weapons were retained at home by the constables along with a quantity of ammunition. One of the reasons for this was to enable rapid call out of platoons without the need to issue arms from a central armoury. In the days before each home had a telephone a single call for assistance to the local RUC station or USC commander would result in a runner knocking the door of each special's home in a given area and informing him of the incident. Thus a rapid reaction force could be assembled quite quickly. This practice was retained for many years by some Ulster Defence Regiment units in the border areas.I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I

    URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ulster_Special_Constabulary&action=edit&section=10"]edit[/URL Equipment

    "A Special" Platoons were fully mobile using a Ford car for the officer in charge, two armoured cars and four Crossley Tenders (one for each of the sections).
    B Specials generally deployed on foot but could be supplied with vehicles from the RUC pool.



    of 32,000 men divided into four sections, all of which were armed:
    • A Specials - full-time and paid, worked alongside regular RIC men, but could not be posted outside their home areas (regular RIC officers could be posted anywhere in the country); usually served at static checkpoints. (originally 5,500 members)[35]
    • B Specials - part-time, usually on duty for one evening per week and serving under their own command structure, and unpaid, although they had a generous system of allowances (which were reduced following the reorganisation of the USC a few years later), served wherever the RIC served and manned Mobile Groups of platoon size.[36]);I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dead_external_links"]dead link[/URL][/I (originally 19,000 members)[37] and
    • C Specials - unpaid, non-uniformed reservists, usually rather elderly and used for static guard duties near their homes. (originally 7,500 members)[38]
    • C1 Specials - non active C class specials who could be called out in emergencies.


  • #150
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    DublinDes wrote: »
    Gaddafi sanctioned Lockerbie and he's still walking around ? Adams, McGuinness, Slab Murphy and many others sanctioned attacks on britain, how come their walking around ? A few lads from the Bogside did a lot more than just putting semtex into a litter bin. They tried to wipe out the UK cabinet at Brighton, sent mortars into 10 Downing Street, blew up Airy Neave in the House of Commons.

    Gaddafi sanctioning Lockerbie is a mute point I thought. I also thought Slab Murphy had nothing to do with the republican movement and was just a simple diesel smuggler who was persecuted by the British?:D

    Adams and McGuinness were protected by the British Army, if they weren't do you really think they would be alive today?

    Whatever about the "Heroic" exploits of the IRA, they were able to hide behind their wives and mothers when needed, the leader of a country cannot do that. if Ireland and the UK were at war, how long do you think it would be before the RAF took out the Dail (If only eh;))

    you can't compare what happened during the troubles with what would happen in a full blown war, they are entirely different things. Besides, a guerilla war against the UK would not do what the Irish army were supposedly sent out to do, which is protect nationalists in Northern Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    DublinDes wrote: »
    Is that right now 30,000 RUC and B specials. Could you back that up with a link please ? And if posible, how many Bren guns per RUC and Special did they have ? And how many armoured cars with machine guns ( strange equipment for a ' police ' force ? Even the LAPD or NYPD don't have armoured cars with machine guns :D )

    The Irish regular infantryman of 1969 was armed with much the same weapons as his British counterpart: each had his own army’s version of the Belgian FN rifle, both had the Bren light machine gun and the FN General Purpose Machine Gun. Both had 9mm submachine guns, the Gustav and the Sterling. Each used 81mm mortars and the Carl Gustav 84mmrecoilless rifle, a powerful anti armour and anti-personnel weapon still widely used in upgraded forms today.

    And thousands of FCA ( granted they were only the opposite to the B Specials ) and since you brought the police into it, thousands of Guards, maybe 10,000 plus.

    So, where did you get your 30,000 from ?

    DublinDes you're as bad as troubleshooter throwing figures plucked from God knows where to back up your arguments - there was nothing remotely like 10,000 gardai in 1969 - more like 6,500 according to this source: http://books.google.ie/books?id=zx422jZOYfkC&pg=PA286&lpg=PA286&dq=gardai+numbers+1969&source=bl&ots=fYAAnYElO7&sig=zswml-gADMaN7vwu7wJlBIGP-nE&hl=en&ei=D1aqStSeGeDTjAf5kuzTBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=gardai%20numbers%201969&f=false


    As for 30,000 B-specials armed with Cruise missiles.........:pac::pac::pac:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement