"Operation Armageddon" in 1969 would have been mass suicide for Irish - STAY ON TOPIC

howdy2009

McArmalite wrote: »

Well the 1916 Volunteers didn't do too bad against against battle hardened british troops, artillery, bombarment of naval gunships etc I haven't any doubt that their desendants in the Irish Army wouldn't have done to bad in Newry or Derry etc

Naturally in an all out conventional war with the overwhelming odds in favour of britain, we wouldn't have a chance. But as for the paras and marines, well let's say unconventional forces did quite well against them now didn't they. And they don't seem to be doing that great in Afghanistan at the moment either.

Yeah total success it was, apart from the executions!!

It would have been the exact same as 1916. Except for harriers, missiles, radar, tanks........

Silly nationalist fantasies!!

ejmaztec

Bambi wrote: »

We should have just rounded up all the british nationals south of the border and battered one every time a catholic family was harmed up north. Would have taught the rest of the brits here some manners for a few generations too I reckon

There weren't any British nationals living here, just Irish passport holders with English accents.:P

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the 1916 volunteers all ended up dead, which is probably what would have happened in Londonderry had the irish Army invaded.

No they didn't "all ended up dead". You should read a history book some time.

Did the British ask the US for assistance? Britain had dozens of frigates that could have taken out the Icelandic navy in an afternoon, why would they want to seek US assistance?

WTF has the cod wars got to do with this anyway, are you suggesting the Irish should have stolen all the cod?

Just pointing out how International Opinion would have reacted to the Irish Army going north.

McArmalite

howdy2009 wrote: »

Yeah total success it was, apart from the executions!!

It would have been the exact same as 1916. Except for harriers, missiles, radar, tanks........

Silly nationalist fantasies!!

No it would have been like Suez, the Cod War and Lockerbie for that matter !!!!

mike65

McArmalite, you are so random your views are impossible to take seriously.

Saadyst

McArmalite wrote: »

Just pointing out how International Opinion would have reacted to the Irish Army going north.

Yup, suggesting that the international community would rally behind the cause of the Irish Republic: a small country relatively fresh out of her independence; with little to weak ties to the rest of the world; a small economy; and a non-existent military - over Britain: a key member of NATO and the UN; a stalwart ally of the USA; one of the world's most powerful economies; a strong military and nuclear power; with economic and military and other ties to a large portion of the world.

Yeah, at the time, I can totally see how the world would go against Britain, especially when they were not the agressor.

Seriously?

getz

ejmaztec wrote: »

There weren't any British nationals living here, just Irish passport holders with English accents.:P

only 600,000 british passport holders living in the republic,and a possible 6,million people entitled to a irish passport living in britain see reform.org,

McArmalite

McArmalite wrote: »

No it would have been like Suez, the Cod War and Lockerbie for that matter !!!!

What have these got to do with a possible invasion of NI in 1969?

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Just pointing out how International Opinion would have reacted to the Irish Army going north.

What, you mean where Iceland asked the UN security council to intervene and they declined, or the bit where Iceland tried to buy gunboats off the states to help their 4 patrol boats against the 22 RN Frigates and again, the US said no.

Difference between Ireland and Iceland? one letter.

Grizzly 45

Anyone know where you could get a copy of this "plan"??Iwant to keep it for posterity to show my grandkids what kind of a crackpot country this is,along with the Iodine tablets,and the godawful nuke survival plans books of the 1960's and 70s.Not to mind what kind of LOONIES we have elected to power here.:rolleyes:
The whole concept of this plan was laughable in the extreme.Invade Newry,...and then?? Push another 50-60 miles thru heartland to a major city to relive a pouplation fo appx 60thousand Catholics and get them by road somhow back to the Republic???Or hold Newry for Max 72 hours to get said pouplation time to get South???Being shot,burned aand done in by the Loyalist extremists???Wouldnt be much left to take ta cross the border..
Hoping that the UN would take an intrest in dealing with this??Going by their ways of dealing with Yougoslavia,Rwanda,etc.It would have been all over before they got around to finding out where Ireland actually is!!:rolleyes:

Or that Russia or China would show up??FFS People,in the height of the Cold War a communist "liberation" fleet& army heading for the heart of NATO terrority would have preempted world war three!!NO WAY would Moscow or Bejing get involved in this little spat!.
Nixon wouldnt have been arsed either,he was more concerned about placating the Reds,and getting out of Vietnam at that time,and bashing up Hippies in the USA.
The Irish lobby in the US..Who cares what they would have said??We missed the boat when JFK offered to make Ireland a protectorate of the US,for the use of Shannon and the ports,and a military base and that idiot DeVelara,damn his scaly hide,refused it for his fantastic utopian Ireland of comley maidens dancing at the crossroads,etc etc BS!So the Puerto Riccans got it instead!
More to the point Ireland as a US protectorate would have proably prevented and unified Ireland 35 years ago,as bot communities would have been recognised,and tolerated.

getz

grizzly dont get two upset this crazy plan was set up by two of the nationalists in the irish goverment, common sense prevailed,it is my personal view that as long as over the top nationalist are having a say in goverment ,we will never see what all of us want and thats a united ireland

Grizzly 45

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

We missed the boat when JFK offered to make Ireland a protectorate of the US,for the use of Shannon and the ports,and a military base and that idiot DeVelara,damn his scaly hide,refused it for his fantastic utopian Ireland of comley maidens dancing at the crossroads,etc etc BS!So the Puerto Riccans got it instead!
More to the point Ireland as a US protectorate would have proably prevented and unified Ireland 35 years ago,as bot communities would have been recognised,and tolerated.

Interesting....
Ireland would be a very different place today.
No EU membership, US Dollar currency, No Celtic tiger.......
United Ireland???, don't know how the uioninst dominated Government in Belfast would have felt about joining a US dominated republic.

McArmalite

Saadyst wrote: »

Yup, suggesting that the international community would rally behind the cause of the Irish Republic: a small country relatively fresh out of her independence; with little to weak ties to the rest of the world; a small economy; and a non-existent military - over Britain: a key member of NATO and the UN; a stalwart ally of the USA; one of the world's most powerful economies; a strong military and nuclear power; with economic and military and other ties to a large portion of the world.

Yeah, at the time, I can totally see how the world would go against Britain, especially when they were not the agressor.

Seriously?

So what are ya saying, they supported britain during Suez, the Cod War ?:D

britain - a small country relatively fresh out of losing it's empire; with little to weak ties to the rest of the world; a small economy; and a non-existent military without the support of America: an irrevelant member of NATO and the UN; a mickey mouse ally of the USA; one of the world's most faltering economies; a puppet US military and nuclear power; with little more than symbolic economic and military and other ties to a large portion of the world.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

So what are ya saying, they supported britain during Suez, the Cod War ?:D

britain - a small country relatively fresh out of losing it's empire; with little to weak ties to the rest of the world; a small economy; and a non-existent military without the support of America: an irrevelant member of NATO and the UN; a mickey mouse ally of the USA; one of the world's most faltering economies; a puppet US military and nuclear power; with little more than symbolic economic and military and other ties to a large portion of the world.

you do know that France was also involved in Suez don't you?

You are incorrectly judging Britain by your own bigoted views by the way.

mike65

McArmalite wrote: »

britain - a small country relatively fresh out of losing it's empire; with little to weak ties to the rest of the world; a small economy; and a non-existent military without the support of America: an irrevelant member of NATO and the UN; a mickey mouse ally of the USA; one of the world's most faltering economies; a puppet US military and nuclear power; with little more than symbolic economic and military and other ties to a large portion of the world.

A smell a bigot I do

ejmaztec

McArmalite wrote: »

So what are ya saying, they supported britain during Suez, the Cod War ?:D

britain - a small country relatively fresh out of losing it's empire; with little to weak ties to the rest of the world; a small economy; and a non-existent military without the support of America: an irrevelant member of NATO and the UN; a mickey mouse ally of the USA; one of the world's most faltering economies; a puppet US military and nuclear power; with little more than symbolic economic and military and other ties to a large portion of the world.

I had a sh1t history teacher as well once. I can't imagine where he went after he left my school.:eek:

javaboy

This thread's going down the pan. Please be civil.

wilson10

McArmalite wrote: »

A bit off topic, but if that is the case why was there a need for the Anglo Irish Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement ?

I suppose it had something to do with stopping the slaughter.

getz

McArmalite wrote: »

So what are ya saying, they supported britain during Suez, the Cod War ?:D

britain - a small country relatively fresh out of losing it's empire; with little to weak ties to the rest of the world; a small economy; and a non-existent military without the support of America: an irrevelant member of NATO and the UN; a mickey mouse ally of the USA; one of the world's most faltering economies; a puppet US military and nuclear power; with little more than symbolic economic and military and other ties to a large portion of the world.

britain never lost a empire all that happend was that the collonies gained independence this is the main reason that the commonwealth is successful,the british commonwealth to day is far larger than the old empire, countries with no british connection have queued to join ,even france after the war asked the question.

McArmalite

getz wrote: »

britain never lost a empire all that happend was that the collonies gained independence this is the main reason that the commonwealth is successful,the british commonwealth to day is far larger than the old empire, countries with no british connection have queued to join ,even france after the war asked the question.

" britain never lost a empire " Funniest comment on boards.ie yet :D:D

wilson10

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

I dunno. What was a Sectarian police force all about?

What was internment all about?

Bloody Sunday started out in January 1972 as a civil rights march...was that the turning point for you?

Of course Bloody Sunday was a turning point, but does anyone even remember Bloody Friday less than a year later when the IRA exploded, I think it was 22 bombs killing 8 or 9 innocent people.

I still don't think the gains were worth 3500 deaths and countless awfull injuries.

Capt'n Midnight

spank_inferno wrote:

Thankfully smarter heads prevailed at the cabinet table back in 69
I didnt know the RAF had the Harrier back then? That plane must be ancient?

We used Alouette III Helicopters from 1963 to 2007 , not just the same model , the same ones !

The RAF finally used up the airframe hours of the 1950's Vulcan's during the Falklands War

Saadyst

McArmalite wrote: »

So what are ya saying, they supported britain during Suez, the Cod War ?:D

britain - a small country relatively fresh out of losing it's empire; with little to weak ties to the rest of the world; a small economy; and a non-existent military without the support of America: an irrevelant member of NATO and the UN; a mickey mouse ally of the USA; one of the world's most faltering economies; a puppet US military and nuclear power; with little more than symbolic economic and military and other ties to a large portion of the world.

Good trolling.

If only diplomatic relations were as simple as when we were kids in school. We liked, disliked, or were indifferent to everyone else. And there was no in-between. I mean, one disagreement surely means the end of being 'friends' right?

I've heard One Tree Hill is about school drama or something.

Capt'n Midnight

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

http://tiny.cc/UwmdY

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/buccaneer/buccaneer_05.jpg

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote:

Did the British ask the US for assistance? Britain had dozens of frigates that could have taken out the Icelandic navy in an afternoon, why would they want to seek US assistance?

WTF has the cod wars got to do with this anyway, are you suggesting the Irish should have stolen all the cod?

Don't forget that a generation earlier they did conquer Iceland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Iceland

And Iraq too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

Tordelback

britain - a small country relatively fresh out of losing it's empire; with little to weak ties to the rest of the world; a small economy; and a non-existent military without the support of America: an irrevelant member of NATO and the UN

Wishing doesn't make it so.

You have seen this 'Britain' you refer to, right? It's on telly quite a bit. Not 'Little Britain' now, that's made-up.

Aaaanyway, about this documentary - we did all see the same one right? Appalling Transition-year camera work aside, all I took away from it is that the Lynch government quite correctly explored all its options for improving a dire situation. They asked the Army was there anything could do on the ground, and the Army rightly came back and said 'not a hope, squire'. They pondered whether a deliberate disaster could drag the UN in, and decided it wouldn't, and the Cabinet moved on. That's good government, that is. Not a secret plan for invasion.

DublinWriter

McArmalite wrote: »

britain - a small country relatively fresh out of losing it's empire; with little to weak ties to the rest of the world; a small economy; and a non-existent military without the support of America: an irrevelant member of NATO and the UN; a mickey mouse ally of the USA; one of the world's most faltering economies; a puppet US military and nuclear power; with little more than symbolic economic and military and other ties to a large portion of the world.

...and yet they can still kick our arse.

arybvtcw0eolkf

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Really, so you would have a couple of thousand poorly armed civilians fighting against a trained well equipped regiments. Ireland had no air support what so ever and would of been tactically bombed into oblivion.

You should familiarize yourself with...

Poccington wrote: »

At the same time, the DF was actively training IRA members in preparation of what they saw as the inevitable guerilla war that would've followed the inital "invasion".

They were interesting times indeed.

'The War of the Flea'..

'Analogically, the guerrilla fights the war of the
flea, and his military enemy suffers the dog’s disadvantages:
too much to defend; too small, ubiquitous,
and agile an enemy to come to grips with.
If the war continues long enough—this is the
theory—the dog succumbs to exhaustion and
anemia without ever having found anything on
which to close its jaws or to rake with its claws.'

Using conventional military tactics of the time we'd have have lost our command and control infrastructure within hours - after which I believe we'd have fought 'the war of the flea' and eventually defeated the British.

Something the Americans, British, Russians and to a lesser extent the Israeli's can not identify with or even begin to understand is whats inside the heart of a risen people.

Yes, our government would have been over thrown and the British (or a puppet British government) would have been in Leinster house for a period of time but eventually we would have won the war.

And here's something else not understood by alot of posters in this thread, there's a huge difference between winning a battle and winning the war.

The Americans and Brits in Iraq won the battles, but ultimately lost the war.

The same will happen in Afghanistan too, as it did in Vietnam - where America (and the French before them) won every major battle but lost the war.

I've never seen a dog defeat a flea yet!.


.

.

pablomakaveli

Shaun Tinkling Quote wrote: »

And here's something else not understood by alot of posters in this thread, there's a huge difference between winning a battle and winning the war.

The Americans and Brits in Iraq won the battles, but ultimately lost the war.

The same will happen in Afghanistan too, as it did in Vietnam - where America (and the French before them) won every major battle but lost the war.

I've never seen a dog defeat a flea yet!.


.

.

Just because guerilla tactics won out in those cases doesn't mean they will always win out. There have been guerilla campaigns that lost as well.

toiletduck

Who said anything about the Brits invading after ejecting the Irish army from the North I would think it highly unlikely.