Irish troops to Iraq?

Aindriu

It look increasingly likely that the Irish Defence Forces will be asked in the coming days or weeks to send Irish troops into Iraq, in light of the recent bombing.

Personally I think its high time the International Community got involved in Iraq. The contributing nations should be sent under a UN mandate and be under control of the US and UK forces.

what’s everyone’s thoughts on this? Do you think we should be supporting the operations in Iraq? The Irish government is lobbing hard on behalf of Irish companies for reconstruction like sewage treatment plants, roads and other infrastructure, shouldn’t we be contributing troops as well?

Aindriu

Irish troops may be sent to help in Iraq disaster
The Irish Independent
30-August-2003
Susan Garraty and Brian Dowling
******************************

IRELAND could soon be asked to contribute troops to a new mutlinational force aimed at quelling growing attacks and violence in war-torn Iraq.

Moves towards such a force are likely to gather momentum after yesterday's massive car bomb attack in the Iraqi holy city of Najaf that killed up to 85 people, including one of Iraq's most senior Shia Muslim clerics, Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim.

Ayatollah al-Hakim, a vital ally of American and British forces, had just finished his usual Friday sermon and was making his way to his car through worshippers when the bomb exploded.

Scores died with him, in the biggest death toll yet in the spate of bombings that has hit Iraq this month. People were digging among the rubble for survivors last night, but all they found were severed human limbs and other body parts.

Officials in Baghdad last night described the attack as a disaster for attempts to bring some stability to Iraq. It killed more people than the previous bombings at the United Nations and the Jordanian Embassy put together.

At least 142 people were injured in the blast, and the death toll is expected to rise.

Political pressure has now been heightened in Washington to seek a broader-based international force with a new mandate from the UN for peacekeeping efforts in Iraq - amid growing concern that US troops may become bogged down in a Vietnam guerrilla-like war of attrition with rebel forces.

According to American and Irish diplomatic sources in the the US, the Bush administration is anxious that if a new multinational force is given the go-ahead by the UN, it should command wide support - including a commitment from Ireland.

The US-led invasion of Iraq provoked major difficulties for the Government here when it provided refuelling and stop-over facilities for the American military aircraft and troops at Shannon Airport.

Any request for Ireland to participate in a new force - even with a UN mandate - could re-kindle the political difficulties for the Government, especially if the force was under the operational command of the US military in Iraq.

Last night, a spokesman for the Department of Foreign Affairs said they were not aware of any request to date for Ireland to make a military contribution to peacekeeping or humanitarian duties in Iraq.

A Government spokeswoman pointed out that the issue of any Irish troops serving in a mission abroad, including humanitarian duties, is subject to a "triple lock" mechanism.

There would have to be a resolution from the UN Security Council, and a request on foot of this. The Government would have to approve the request and it would then have to be endorsed by the Oireachtas.

She pointed out there was no such UN resolution at this time and that at present the UN role in Iraq was confined to humanitarian efforts.

A senior Irish diplomat in the US said, however, that Ireland, along with other friendly capitals in the EU, would be asked to contribute forces, in the event of a new UN resolution. France and Germany have offered initial positive reactions for such a force. Britain remains the biggest ally to the US with several thousand troops still committed to Iraq.

Yesterday's huge car bomb attack took place at the Tomb of Ali mosque as thousands were pouring out after noon prayers, the Muslim day of rest.

For hours after the blast there was still pandemonium as people screamed in the streets in grief and anger, and searched through the rubble for more victims.

Supporters of the ousted Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, are suspected to be behind the attack in an effort to further destablise the country.

In a separate development yesterday, an American soldier was killed and four others wounded when their convoy came under attack from three rocket-propelled grenades on a main road near Baqouba, 40 miles north-east of Baghdad.

Susan Garraty and Brian Dowling

Sparks

That really would be the last ****ing straw.
First, we didn't want to support the war, and they deployed the troops against the protestors.
Now they want to send our troops into Iraq to facilitate the US while they strip the country bare?
Feck that. I have friends in the PDF, I don't particularly feel like seeing them get shoved into that meatgrinder so some dumb pratt from Texas can win the next US election...

sceptre

Originally posted by Aindriu
Personally I think its high time the International Community got involved in Iraq. The contributing nations should be sent under a UN mandate and be under control of the US and UK forces.

I'll be in favour of it if we can have the French and Russians in charge instead. And maybe the Canadians.

Paddy20

IRISH TROOPS TO IRAQ?..

NO,NO, and NO again.

Send our lads and lassies in too a hellhole, not of our making - and in support of the US?..

Forget it.

P.:(

Victor

A friend of mine is in the National Guard in the USA and is dreading call up. I don't think he has an actual problem serving. More a problem serving in the wrong place with the wrong people.

Would I allow Irish soldiers go to Iraq? I would be slow to do so, not necessarily out of fear of them being killed, but out of fear for the message it would send. I think the style of operation the Americans are using (shoot first, check later) is inappropriate for the circumstances.

Under American command? Irish soldiers have operated under American command in Somalia and Afghanistan. They operate under NATO / EU command in the former Yugoslavia. I think what is needed is a command structure that is acceptable to the international community and the majority of ordinary Iraqis.

I understand the armies operating in Iraq at the moment are: USA, UK, Australia, Denmark (400), Italy (3,000), Lithuania, Netherlands (1,100) New Zealand, Poland, Romania. France and Germany have said they would only contribute in the context of a UN resolution. Turkey occupies part of northern Iraq.

Beruthiel

It's their mess, let them clean it up
They ignored the UN and went ahead with this war! now they have the nerve to turn around and ask for help
they have walked into a long, drawn out quagmire, (like nobody could see that one coming)
I will be seriously annoyed if irish troops are sent out there

BKtje

It is there mess but seeing as they can't, countless innocent Iraqis are dying. US are i'd imagine are greatly hated by a lot of the people and more US troops would destablise the region further. Foreign troops would not be welcomed as such but better chance for a long term peace if they came imo.

So firstly you didn't want the war to happen as it would kill loads of civilians and now that they ask for help to stop more innocents dying you say no? (and yes i know they have ulterior motvies)

Typedef

Personally I think its high time the International Community got involved in Iraq. The contributing nations should be sent under a UN mandate and be under control of the US and UK forces.

If Irish troops are to work under the auspices of a UN mandate, the UN, not the US/UK alliance should be the supreme authority for 'all' operations conducted.

Simply.

Victor

Originally posted by Typedef
If Irish troops are to work under the auspices of a UN mandate, the UN, not the US/UK alliance should be the supreme authority for 'all' operations conducted.

That isn't how things work. There has to be some sort of chain of commend between the Secretary General and any potential Irish unit or are you suggesting Paddy has a direct line to Koffi?

Typedef

I'm suggesting that if Irish troops go to Iraq, that the administration of post-War Iraq, is conducted by the UN, not the US, since elsewise, Ireland would be participating in an occupation as opposed to a peacekeeping/reconstruction mission.

Ireland's army exists for defence and peacekeeping, not occupation and exponenciation of Imperialism.

Lukin Black

Cause and consequence. They caused the mess, they can deal with the consequences. Unless, as sceptre was saying, they step aside from the command.

TetsuoHashimoto

Whos to say they aren't already there, the world has many betrayers. The so-called Royal Irish-men, the London supporters are already helping in the occupation , murder and invasion of other nations.

some in Belgium and Finland said It's time firstly to kick England out of Europe for its imperialist actions in the last few months, others say its time to kick the Royal out of the word Irish-men

Snipp-moved by tetsuo:
and I'll point out another sound Prodestant fellow, McKRACKEN. A very decent man who helped the Irish people fight with honour against a Dublin Prodestant stronghold that inflicted injustice and tyranny on many people.
So I don't want to send people off on some harangue, and start ranting no surrender to the IRA around the place.
Here's how it works, it matters not what religion these people were, Prodestant, Arabic, Hindu, Jewish, Catholic, Buddist..what does matter is that for a time Dublin had a well know history off helping a number of despots dictate its own people.

These many events had shown , a capital city that was weak in qualities such as nationalism, honour and pride. Unlike other nations invasions and the proud defence Moscowvites or Berliners the events in Dublin-land showed a quick development of incidents of turn-coating and double-crossing.

Who should a citizen side with, I think they should side with the citizenship of their own country wherever that may be, and the home where they live?
When a person ges off to fight for another foreign nation, against the wishes of the motherland it is called treachory, and people are thrown in Jail for it and even recently a man in the USA was executed for it.

old snipp moved

Aindriu

Well it may well be their mess but it’s a great opportunity for Ireland. Peacekeeping and Peace-enforcement are what Ireland does best and the US are looking for Ireland and the Scandinavians particularly. As we know The US army isn’t so good at it.

Military missions are best served under a proper military command and that’s why there should be a proper military structure. The UN pissed around for ages in the Balkans and it took NATO to intervene and sort things out. If the UN were controlling Iraq they would be making a pigs dinner of it (like Somalia) and people would be calling for US involvement. The UN has good intentions but is very weak.

Were on the U.S and U.K side and to say otherwise is folly. Economically the US dominates this country.

It’s in Irish economic interests to get involved. We let the Russians use Shannon during the Cuban crisis so why was there a problem with US aircraft using the airport? It’s not like the west is rich. The scummy hippy protestors should have all been arrested. It did no favours with the US.

Aindriu

Irish peacekeepers in Iraq urged

Patsy McGarry
The Irish Times
22-August-2003

****************************
The senior Democratic congressman on the House Armed Services Committee in the US Congress has said Ireland should be asked to provide peace-keeping troops in Iraq.

In an interview with the Kansas City Star newspaper, Mr Ike Skelton said that “it would be wise to have professional peacekeepers there, such as the Irish, such as the Scandinavians. They’re good at it. That’s what they do. They ought to be asked.”

He was speaking before the explosion at the UN compound in Baghdad on Tuesday. He said US troops in Iraq “are worn out. They fought the war. And in addition, they’re not trained as peace-keepers.”

Mr Skelton led a cross-party delegation from the House Armed Services Committee to Ireland in 1993 to study Irish Army peacekeeping methods. He did so at the suggestion of Mr John O’ Connor, an Irishman who then worked with British Aerospace in the US and who had come to know through Washington diplomatic circles.

On his Irish visit Mr Skelton and his party met Government officials and his party met Government officials and were briefed on Irish peacekeeping methods and experience. They also visited the Defence Forces at the Curragh and met the then Army Chief of Staff, Lieut Gen Noel Bergin.

In a subsequent report to Congress Mr Skelton said he was greatly impressed by the Irish Defence Forces peacekeeping record. His comments were later quoted “verbatim” by President Clinton on his Irish visits, Mr O’Connor recalled yesterday.

The house Armed Services Committee must approve all military spending proposed by Washington before it can be passed by Congress. Mr Skelton has been a member of the committee since 1980. A strong supporter of the US military, he told the Kansas City Star that “there was either a serious miscalculation or a serious lack of strong intelligence about the attitude of the Iraqi people in the aftermath [of the war]… the average Iraqi did not welcome us with open arms. I think most Iraqis are very glad Saddam Hussein is gone. I think a number of Iraqis have the attitude:”You got rid of him, go home to America’.”

He continued: “I don’t think we anticipated major problems. Not just [guerrilla warfare]. We didn’t anticipate the difficulty of putting Humpty Dumpty back together.” As to who was to blame for the state of the occupation, he said “there used to be a sign on President Truman’s desk that said “The buck stops here”. He assumed responsibility for whatever occurred. We should have got more international participation early on. We should seek it even more so now.”

For America the stakes were “very, very high”, he said.

“We’re there. We have no choice but to win, and by win, I mean to have a stable, responsible Iraq with some kind of representative government. If we fail at this, if America fails at this, there could be years of serious consequences, not the least of which would be a loss of world-wide credibility and leadership, in addition to making Americans wherever they are in this world more prone to danger. The stakes are very, very high.

As to how long US forces would be in Iraq, he said “[General] Tommy Franks says two to four years. I think that’s extremely optimistic. We’ve been in Korea 50 years. Japan, 58. Germany, 58. Now, the nature of those occupations changed in the latter two instances. The nature of South Korea has not. Ask me that in 50 years.”

Typedef

Originally posted by Aindriu

Military missions are best served under a proper military command and that’s why there should be a proper military structure. The UN pissed around for ages in the Balkans and it took NATO to intervene and sort things out. If the UN were controlling Iraq they would be making a pigs dinner of it (like Somalia) and people would be calling for US involvement. The UN has good intentions but is very weak.

Let me get this straight.

You want this country to give two fingers to the UN, and go and put Ireland's soldiers lives on the line, to police the mess of post-Imperial war Iraq?

Don't hold your breath.

It’s in Irish economic interests to get involved.

Hello. Irish people fought in two World Wars, to stamp out despotism, not to support it.
It's probably in Irish economic interests to sell arms to Israel and Palestine, but, that doesn't mean Ireland should, nor will, do that.

You want to fight for blood money, feel free, but, don't drag the whole nation into it, as a country, Ireland simply isn't that hard up for cash right now, so take your warmongering and Impreialism to someone who cares.

Manach

Whilst it isa a mess in Iraq at the moment, it is the civilian population that is suffering.

So, I'd support a UN mandated mission to peacekeep in support of local Iraqi forces. But I'd hesitate to put Irish troops under the auspices of US/UK.

Final aside point, I feel there is nothing at all wrong with Irish citizens who wish to serve in the UK armed forces, such as the Irish Guards. It's their choice and not unpatrotic at all.

TetsuoHashimoto

Do people recall the words of Hans Blix some weeks back, the man who called the Bush regime B*stards!

Hey, I think youo may have got your facts wrong on the US forces, the Korean war was a blood-bath, a war the US did not win, hundreds of thousands of spinals, 158,000 out of action for life, and almost a million serious injuries, cripples and death.
Thanks to that crazy Kim's Nukes another crazy Bush invasion will be alot worse.

Whats more It wasn't just US forces that looked after Korea, Germany, Japan.
Japan it was Canadian, American and Aussie forces.
Germany it was british, unitedstates Russian and France

and don't get it wrong. The locals often liked the foreigners but sometimes hated the Yanks.
Navy men and Marines caused mayhem in the streets of Yokohama and Okinawa, assaults, theft, rape were all common. America was immune from prosecution. It wasn't until 1995 when 2 American soldiers kidnapped, attacked, raped and tried to kill a baby 13 year old schoolgirl that these barbarians were finally put on trial for their crimes. I hear South Korea isn't too happy either.


If little Junior Bush is ever going to be a good president, he should stop being so militant and start listening to his people and take consideration of other nations

Final aside point, it is very wrong when so called Irish citizens, betray their nationality and serve in English armed forces, such as the Royal Irish Guards.
What happens when Americans decieve their nation for Russian, when a british spy sells secrets to China, when Indian citizens serve Pakistan forces?
It is an act of a turncoat, and it is called treason, and even recently a man in the USA was executed for it, but with Dublin being historically a Prodestant strong hold, we should expect a couple of double-crossers

Sparks

Well it may well be their mess but it’s a great opportunity for Ireland.

So are selling heroin and the slave trade. Oddly enough, I don't see us jumping at those opportunities...

Victor

Originally posted by Aindriu
If the UN were controlling Iraq they would be making a pigs dinner of it (like Somalia)

Actually there were two UN missions in Somalia, it was the American parts that went to pot.

Originally posted by Aindriu
The scummy hippy protestors should have all been arrested.

On what charges?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Aindriu
Personally I think its high time the International Community got involved in Iraq. The contributing nations should be sent under a UN mandate and be under control of the US and UK forces.

As has been mooted by a number here, the US and UK waged the war against the wishes of the majority of international community. When it France threatened to use it’s veto on the Security Council, the US/UK argued that a 'Moral majority' would have been justification enough. When it became apparent that even that was not going to happen, the US/UK walked away. So morally speaking, it’s their mess.

Of course there may be a number of diplomatic and economic opportunities from throwing our lot in with the US/UK - but in doing so we would not only incur the enmity of the Arab-Muslim world, but even many of our European allies. And that’s before we even consider that the security situation out there is going from bad to worse.

So even from a cold blooded perspective, it’s probably not a good idea for Ireland to do so. The negative fallout of such an involvement would most likely outweigh the opportunities that it would afford us.

Originally posted by TetsuoHashimoto
Final aside point, it is very wrong when so called Irish citizens, betray their nationality and serve in English armed forces, such as the Royal Irish Guards.
What happens when Americans decieve their nation for Russian, when a british spy sells secrets to China, when Indian citizens serve Pakistan forces?

Spies actively, and covertly, act against the interests of their fatherland in favour of another. Mercenaries and individuals who serve in the armed forces of another nation are generally not acting against their fatherland. One does not necessarily betray one’s fatherland by fighting for another.

It is an act of a turncoat, and it is called treason, and even recently a man in the USA was executed for it, but with Dublin being historically a Prodestant strong hold, we should expect a couple of double-crossers

That has to be the most inaccurate offensive sectarian horseshit I’ve heard in ages.

Typedef

Originally posted by TetsuoHashimoto
With Dublin being historically a Prodestant strong hold, we should expect a couple of double-crossers

Have you lost the plot?

Do you have the 'actual' demographics of Protestantism in Dublin?

Thought not.

Now to name a few Irish nationalists who were Protestant in no particular order.

Douglas Hyde - 1st President of Ireland son of a Church of Ireland Rector - FYI.
Charles Stuart Parnell - Leader of the Home Rule party.
Sir Isaac Butt - Founder of the Irish Parlimentary party.
James Connolly - Involved in Irish Labour movement and later the Easter rising.
Yeats : Poet, part of Irish literary heritage and yes, protestant.
Michael Cusack - Founder of the GAA.

I think James Larkin was one of those black proddie seditious turncoats too.

This is a Republic, not a bloody mono-theistic Papal Religious dictatorship.

Run along now.

dathi1

The Russians are already signalling support for UN occupation even under American control. (30 billion dollars still owed by Iraq) Unless Pakistan, Iran and Syria are involved bigtime and the Americans pull out we're in for another Lebanese situation with amongst other nations, Irish troops being truck bombed by both sides. I can see Harney and co pushing this one already. Watch what we new of Iraq disintegrate into 3 countries in the next few years.

dathi1

Well it may well be their mess but it’s a great opportunity for Ireland. Peacekeeping and Peace-enforcement are what Ireland does best and the US are looking for Ireland and the Scandinavians particularly. As we know The US army isn’t so good at it.

Peace keeping under occupation is not what we do. It would be like helping keep the peace on the west bank whilst under the control if the Isrealis.
Cowen + co will window dress this willy nilly ie: The lips will bulge further and he will spout the uasual puke he did on the shannon stopovers and UN resolutions.. but this time around especially with berties ratings it could be very high risk.

gandalf

I have no problems with Irish Troops serving under UN as long as the US does not have over all control. The control has to be under the UN flag.

In fact it would be more prudent to get the Americans and British to withdraw from Iraq totally as they are perceived as the aggressors and occupiers.

This won’t happen as Washington want to get paid for the ordinance that they dropped on Iraq, by the Iraqis.

Gandalf.

Victor

Most people who join the Royal Irish Regiment and the Irish Guards do so to fight, not to serve a country.

Originally posted by TetsuoHashimoto
Final aside point, it is very wrong when so called Irish citizens, betray their nationality and serve in English armed forces, such as the Royal Irish Guards. What happens when Americans decieve their nation for Russian, when a british spy sells secrets to China, when Indian citizens serve Pakistan forces?

So my friend (Irish father, Greek mother, born in San Francisco, grew up in belgium), who I mentioned earlier would be what? Who should he side with?

oscar76

fifty years ago, america saved our ass with the marshall plan, (and a hell of a lot of dead american soldiers).
Maybe it is time we got them out of a hole, but not under american control.
Bring in the blue helmets, and then we can go in and try to sort that mess out

The Saint

fifty years ago, america saved our ass with the marshall plan, (and a hell of a lot of dead american soldiers).

1) America did not join either world war for ideological reasons, it did so for economic reasons. Millions of Russians died fighting the Nazis and did more than anyone else to defeat them. Does that mean we should support Russian militarism?

2) The marshall plan was paid for by the America tax payer, not the government while money from wealty Europeans was sent to New York banks instead of being invested back into Europe.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by oscar76
fifty years ago, america saved our ass with the marshall plan, (and a hell of a lot of dead american soldiers).

America saved Ireland with the Marshall plan?

oscar76

we are european, even though our leaders at the time could barely look over their noses. European stability is in our interest andto our benefit

Paddy20

I just hope that the Irish government and people do not now sell their souls and the young lives of our military to and for Mammon?..

P.

oscar76

we only go in under the UN, and not american, control.
It will be genuine peacekeeping, to prevent that civilised country sliding down an american made sewer.

TetsuoHashimoto

Snipp-moved by tetsuo:
and I'll point out another sound Prodestant fellow, McKRACKEN. A very decent man who helped the Irish people fight with honour against a Dublin Prodestant stronghold that inflicted injustice and tyranny on many people.
So I don't want to send people off on some harangue, and start ranting no surrender to the IRA around the place.
Here's how it works, it matters not what religion these people were, Prodestant, Arabic, Hindu, Jewish, Catholic, Buddist..what does matter is that for a time Dublin had a well know history off helping a number of despots dictate its own people.

These many events had shown , a capital city that was weak in qualities such as nationalism, honour and pride. Unlike other nations invasions and the proud defence Moscowvites or Berliners the events in Dublin-land showed a quick development of incidents of turn-coating and double-crossing.

Who should a citizen side with, I think they should side with the citizenship of their own country wherever that may be, and the home where they live?
When a person ges off to fight for another foreign nation, against the wishes of the motherland it is called treachory, and people are thrown in Jail for it and even recently a man in the USA was executed for it.



I think its about time that Bush started to listen to other nations, admit there was no Weapons of Mass Destruction and started doing smething serious about Iraq and its unfortunate people who have had to suffer years of poverty, sanctions, and bombs


sure thing Gandi,

gandalf

TetsuoHashimoto whatthe hell has most of your last post got to be with sending Irish troops to Iraq. Keep it on topic and put your pro-loyalist drivel in a new thread. Infact you can edit out most of that rant and put that in a new thread. I'll give you until tomorrow before I edit it for you.

I really hope your not my "old friend" from Galway back in another guise ?

Gandalf.

sceptre

Originally posted by TetsuoHashimoto
When a person ges off to fight for another foreign nation, against the wishes of the motherland it is called treason

No, it isn't. "Treason" specifically means to betray the interest of one's country by seeking to overthrow the elected government of that country by illegitimate means OR to directly deliver that country into the hands of a foreign power.

What you're describing is a mercenary, which is a specific term used for someone who works solely for monetary gain OR in its more recent form, someone who is hired by the army of a foreign country.

It's your prerogative to have views on the army the citizens of any given country should serve in. You can't, however, change the meaning of common English words all on your own-e-o.

TetsuoHashimoto

Corinthaina my child, if only you could be humble...Governments describe several levels of treason, there is the criminal offense where the offender owes alliance to a foreign army or governmnet , another described where a person betrays the wishes of the state to a foreign power.

I'm not For or Against throwing people into Jails that betray the wishes of the state.

But I would prefer the government to have a more clear and visible stance on the matters such as support or protest for the War , and the area of Irish neutality, where is its policy of non-support and non engagement during war? After all wasn't one of the great proclaimers of neutrality George Washington in 1794?

Gandy my old man, who said I was describing Loyalists, maybe I was refering to the Dubs Viking heritage?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by TetsuoHashimoto
Governments describe several levels of treason, there is the criminal offense where the offender owes alliance to a foreign army or governmnet , another described where a person betrays the wishes of the state to a foreign power.

Governments do not describe several levels of treason. Treason is the violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. As such the act of joining the military of another nation does not constitute treason in itself.

Do your homework. Then you come back to the grown-up table.

gandalf

Getback on topic.

TetsuoHashimoto I have warned you to start another thread about this. You have till 12 today until I delete all non relevant posts to this thread. And if you persist to post replies that are non relevant then I will ban you.

sceptre & Corinthian please ignore any other replies by TetsuoHashimoto that are not related to the topic of this thread.

Gandalf.

Aindriu

This thread is about sending Irish troops to Iraq and some people start drivelling on about Protestants, Irish rebels and other poppycock.

Those protestor bums who were vandalising US aircraft in Shannon should have been arrested for damaging aircraft, property and trespassing. They should have been charged for the cost of damage (like any of them have jobs?).

If there wasn’t a security problem maybe there wouldn’t be should a demand for peacekeepers? It’s easy to coy away from International responsibility but Ireland has to take a lead and put its case to the UN and US, arguing that in order for true international involvement there needs to be a strong UN mandate to go in to Iraq.

I can’t see the U.S or U.K forces going home in the foreseeable future or relinquishing command. They are there to stay. However what should happen is the day to day running be handed over to the Iraqi in-term government as quickly as possible and get the army and police up and running as quickly as possible.

Victor

Originally posted by Aindriu
Those protestor bums who were vandalising US aircraft in Shannon should have been arrested for damaging aircraft, property and trespassing.

They were. Your rant appears to suggest all protesters should have been arrested.

Originally posted by Aindriu
They should have been charged for the cost of damage

Well this would be difficult, seeing as the same plane was damaged twice by two separate groups. Who do you blame for what?

Originally posted by Aindriu
(like any of them have jobs?).

I actually imagine most have jobs. Do you have any contrary evidence?

sceptre

Originally posted by Aindriu
arguing that in order for true international involvement there needs to be a strong UN mandate to go in to Iraq.

Of course the question of whether there should be true international involvement is still on the table. The war was of the making by a small few countries and there was no mandate from the UN for any action greater than observation. Just like most of the other hotspots Ireland has been involved with in UN actions over the past forty years. The UN will have to get involved sooner or later - given that the US aren't exactly doing a bang-up job of administering the country and keeping the peace it might as well be sooner.

There are two questions to consider here. First, whether the UN should send peacekeeping troops there at all. Second, whether Irish troops should be part of that contingent.

The answer to the first question is yes. It's all very well to say that the problem was caused by the US and that they should sort it out themselves but if you're the sort of person who no longer trusts the US to do that, then you'll realise quickly that it's going to affect the ordinary Iraqi whose life should be allowed to approach normality as soon as possible. Judging by the events since the war officially ended and the occupation officially started, this is not going to happen under a US/UK/Turkish administration. Hence we need internationally recognised troops there.

The second question is whether Irish troops should be part of the contingent sent to Iraq. I believe the answer to this question is also yes. Short of a protective attitude towards "our boys" there are very few reasons why not. Through our conduct in the Lebanon, in Katanga, Cyprus and other locations we've attained a degree of respect as UN peacekeepers. There are few times when our country can actually make an appreciable planned difference to the world. This is one of them. Our involvement, with the Swedes and Norwegians will lend to the peacekeeper placement a degree of international respect that will be sorely needed if the US is ever to release Iraq from its current position as an extension of Texas. US troops spent a decade administering Japan at the end of WW2. The earlier the UN gets directly involved in Iraq, the sooner Iraqis will be permitted to govern themselves. The other option is to have Iraq ruled by the US as a private fiefdom. Do we really want that?

bah, spelled "officially" with one f twice. Still a typo, I swear:D

Originally posted by gandalf
sceptre & Corinthian please ignore any other replies by TetsuoHashimoto that are not related to the topic of this thread.
Done. Apologies

Aindriu

Shannon is beside the point, however

They were. Your rant appears to suggest all protesters should have been arrested.

Victor have you lost the run of yourself? I clearly specified the protestors in question regarding Shannon. And you imagine they have jobs, well I was questioning do they? They just seemed ill informed and were protesting on an idea. Do you actually know or do you have you a vivid imagination?

I would have to agree with sceptre on his points of view.

Victor

Originally posted by Aindriu
Shannon is beside the point, however

But you continue on about Shannon anyway.....

Originally posted by Aindriu
Victor have you lost the run of yourself? I clearly specified the protestors in question regarding Shannon.

Trying to deconstruct my grammar (and doing so wrongly) won't get you anywhere. I said "Your rant appears to suggest all protesters should have been arrested". I did not say you said "Your rant appears to suggest all protesters should be arrested". That I did not say "all the protesters" is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Aindriu
They just seemed ill informed and were protesting on an idea.

How were they “ill informed”? And in real English, what does "protesting on an idea" actually mean?

Originally posted by Aindriu
Do you actually know or do you have you a vivid imagination?

No, I do not know whether any, some, many or all of them have jobs. However, the dominant discourse within our society is that people (even protestors) have jobs. Are you suggesting that all of the ~100,000 or so who protested in Dublin were also jobless?

Capt'n Midnight

RE:Watch what we new of Iraq disintegrate into 3 countries in the next few years.

I'll be holding my breath - I don't think any government in the area wants an independant Kurdistan, and setting up a small country on the boarder with Iraq and having access to the ports, is also a non-runner ...


RE:fifty years ago, america saved our ass with the marshall plan,
After the war the American plan was to reduce germany to a pastoral economy. Funny thing (oh so funny) was that the country was not big enough to support the whole population so the unwritten asumption was that about 5-10 million Germans would have to go somewhere else or starve to death...
Only when the Russians seemed to be keeping control of the east was the marshal plan extended to Germany

The French tried to use German prisoners of war as slave labour - but there wasn't enough food so they were repatriated...

The mafia were re-introduced into Italy by the americans.

The best predictor of the future is the past.

I've not read the roadmap for Iraq - does it take the iraqis where they need to go ?

The UN should be involved in Iraq but not to set the precident that it rubber stamps aggression..

Paddy20

sceptre,

Quote:"There are few times when our country can actually make an appreciable planned difference to the world. This is one of them". end quote.

Why should we not use "our boys" and girls!, here at home to build badly needed affordable homes, more hospitals, better roads, etc,etc, instead of sending them too Iraq where the guerilla fighters will not give a damn what uniform they are wearing, or what flag they are flying. The average Iraqi will only see another BLOODY foreigner who needs shooting.

What use is some cynical international respect to you or your family when you are in an early grave?. How many body bags and lads and lassies would you consider to be a reasonable number to send?...

I had better stop here. Before I throw up my Sunday dinner.

I am old enough to remember the Congo massacres of Irish troops, and that was enough for me. There are times when countries as well as individuals must realise their true limitations and where their real responsibility lies,imo this type of help begins at home and I suggest we put our own house in order before we send anyone anywhere in future.

P.

Sparks

Watch what we new of Iraq disintegrate into 3 countries in the next few years.

Unleaded, Leaded and Diesel?

Victor

Originally posted by Paddy20
Why should we not use "our boys" and girls!, here at home to build badly needed affordable homes, more hospitals, better roads,

Because we are not all selfish like you. The people of Iraq need more help than the people of Ireland (and thats saying a lot).

Originally posted by Paddy20
I am old enough to remember the Congo massacres of Irish troops

So how many were killed in these "massacres"? A total of 27 Irish soldiers died in the Congo. 9 died in the worst individual incident. Not nice, but Srebinica (8,000) puts it in context.

Paddy20

Victor,

I tried to avoid pointing out the continuing instability in Northern Ireland and the need to keep our troops here at home at this time and that a - State of Emergency - still exists here in Ireland!.

I also do not mind you calling me selfish if my opinion was to help save the life of one member of our armed forces.

How times have changed. the deaths of those 27 Irish soldiers in the Congo remains a very sad memory in my psyche. Yet your words seem to belittle their the tragedy of their massacre. "Not nice" Eh?.

Enough said.

P.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Paddy20
I tried to avoid pointing out the continuing instability in Northern Ireland and the need to keep our troops here at home at this time and that a - State of Emergency - still exists here in Ireland!

The ‘State of Emergency’ that was originally decalred in 1939 and renewed in 1976 was lifted in 1995. As for your assessment of the security situation, vis-a-vi Northern Ireland, without evidence of a clear and present danger it amounts to little more than paranoid fantasy.

I also do not mind you calling me selfish if my opinion was to help save the life of one member of our armed forces.

Isolationism would generally be viewed as selfish.

How times have changed. the deaths of those 27 Irish soldiers in the Congo remains a very sad memory in my psyche. Yet your words seem to belittle their the tragedy of their massacre. "Not nice" Eh?.

They may well remain a very sad memory in your psyche, but that’s what soldiers do. It’s their job, oddly enough. You would do well to remember that from the comfort of your armchair.

Piliger

Personally I believe it would be a privelege for Irish troops to contribute to the creation of a new nation of 25 million people...

But I am astonished that the US would allow countries that supported the continuation of Saddom Hussein in power and opposed the freeing of 25 million people from hell to take part in this operation or give us any commercial benefits.

Most Irish people chose to turn their backs on the Iraqi peope and don't deserve to benefit.

Piliger

Originally posted by Paddy20
I had better stop here. Before I throw up my Sunday dinner.

I am old enough to remember the Congo massacres of Irish troops, and that was enough for me. There are times when countries as well as individuals must realise their true limitations and where their real responsibility lies,imo this type of help begins at home and I suggest we put our own house in order before we send anyone anywhere in future.P.

This is consistent with what most Irish people believe nowadays. Most Irish people didn't give a monkey's **** about the plight of the Iraqi people while they suffered under Saddam, and didn't give a **** about them while opposing any action to free them.

It follows that they wouldn't lift a finger themselves to help these newly liberated people to build a new country.

What a lovely country we have become.