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

Happy Monday

Dinter wrote: »

Of course they would, then two hours later they'd condemn the Irish for their part. It's called political expediency. Irish Americans are a large voting block.

Isn't it funny actually, how well we are treated by the Americans when we do so little to court them and yet the UK which has basically being subsumed by them does not really have a special relationship unless you count doing exactly as they're told.

Not a chance - Adams and his type were denied visas to the US for years while the troubles were going on - hardly a ringing endorsement of support there.

When Argentina invaded the Falklands the US reconfigured its sateillites to spy on Argentine naval movements as a favour to their British friends - this favour was returned when the UK allowed US warplanes based in the UK to bomb Libya.

When Irish delegates went to Versailles in 1919 to stake a claim for Irish freedom the US delegates refused to talk to them in deference to their British allies.

Do you seriously believe Richard Nixon even knew where Ireland was let alone take its side over the US' most important ally - not a chance.

rossie1977

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

I can provide you with plenty of Articles that say the white Brits will be a minority by 2050, aww the poor old Brits are Just so scared of them evil Immigrants, are you British? there seems to be so many British moving to Ireland and Canada and Aus and they all complain about Immigrants its so sad that they cant embrace diffrent races like us Irish, but i guess that is the Brits history, just hate everyone.

am i british lol, i have been to britain does that count

this is a racial breakdown of the uk today, no chance white british becomes the minority in 40 years

White British 92.1%
White Irish 1.2%
White (other) 5.3%
Mixed race 1.2%
Indian 2.8%
Pakistani 1.3%
Bangladeshi 0.8%
Other Asian (non-Chinese) 0.4%
Black Caribbean 1.0%
Black African 0.8%
Black (others) 0.2%
Chinese 0.4%
Other 0.4%

Dartz

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

7 posts and all on this subject, back with you to the shankill road you troll. I think you will see that the british or poms as they are called are hated everywhere you go from Canada to America and espically Aus:D and the Irish are loved. St partricks day is celebrated everywhere where is st george day:D nowhere:D.

And who is the Troll, but the first one to sling the accusation?

Nobody gives a toss about Ireland... seriously. We have an overinflated sense of international importance. This island is not the centre of the global geopolitical universe. Nobody in the US government would've given 2 ****s whether we were creamed or not by the British....

The reason St. Patricks day is celebrated the world over is because it's a bloody good excuse to get smashed ****ing drunk and have fun. St. Georges day isn't...

Dinter

America would not condone the slaughter of Irish troops that were apparently engaged in the humanitarian evacuation of civilians. If Britain could link the spate of bombings and attacks that accompanied their incursion then perhaps there might be calls for intervention but otherwise they'd say nothing.

Dr. Baltar

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

7 posts and all on this subject, back with you to the shankill road you troll. I think you will see that the british or poms as they are called are hated everywhere you go from Canada to America and espically Aus:D and the Irish are loved. St partricks day is celebrated everywhere where is st george day:D nowhere:D.

Actually, you will find that in Canada and especially Australia where a referendum was held only last year on whether the Queen should remain head of state, the support for reamining as part of the British Commonwealth and having a lack of a Republic is actually quite large.

Furthermore, I myself have met many lovely British people in my time, and I too have met a lot of Irish assholes in my time too. Not everyone from a certain place is the same.

Also, once again I would like to point out to you that the British are not the enemies of Irish Nationalism (especially considering that most British people would like Northern Ireland to be removed from the Union), but on the contrary it is Unionism that is the enemy of Nationalism.
I would also go so far as to say that people like you cause the most damage to Irish Nationalism by portraying thugs and murderers as heroes, when in fact the real heroes should be those who have established peace and are attempting to promote all-island companionship through peaceful means.

Happy Monday

Dinter wrote: »

America would not condone the slaughter of Irish troops that were apparently engaged in the humanitarian evacuation of civilians. If Britain could link the spate of bombings and attacks that accompanied their incursion then perhaps there might be calls for intervention but otherwise they'd say nothing.

In the event of an incursion by the Irish into the UK the US would not only condemn that invasion but be obliged under NATO protocols to offer support to the UK - as would most European powers.

These were the issues that were uppermost in Jack Lynch's mind this month 40 years ago.

lennymurphy

If all The Irish wanted to do was remove Irish Nationalists from Northern Ireland then they could have just called O'Neill, who I'm sure would have given every assistance.

Funny thing O'Neill once said:

"give Catholics a good house, a good job and a TV and they will start behaving like decent Protestants"

I guess he was right.

Dinter

I'm well aware of the international treaties that were in effect at the time however I think it verges on naivety to believe the British would respond with deadly force to what could be construed as a relief mission.

The British government is not a hormonal 12 year old boy ready to lash out. Instead they will weigh up the benefits that will accrue to them such as getting rid of citizens they do not want and will ensure they facilitate that happening. As this means pulling back 3 or 4 miles to allow some clapped out buses to roll back across the border I'm sure that's what they would do.

Then later they'd sanction the crap out of the Republic.

An Fear Aniar

Sir Baralot wrote: »

You do realise that ost British people do not actually want the North of Ireland as part of the UK right?
You do realise the "DINGLISH" are not the enemy of Republicanism, right?
You do realise the only people against a united Ireland are Unionists?

You do realise that starting a sentence with "you do realise" immediately makes you appear to be a punctilious prig and takes away any merit in anything you have to say?

.

Dr. Baltar

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

You do realise that starting a sentence with "you do realise" immediately makes you appear to be a punctilious prig and takes away any merit in anything you have to say?

.

Perhaps, but if that is true, can you see the irony in your own statement?

Happy Monday

Dinter wrote: »

I'm well aware of the international treaties that were in effect at the time however I think it verges on naivety to believe the British would respond with deadly force to what could be construed as a relief mission.

The British government is not a hormonal 12 year old boy ready to lash out. Instead they will weigh up the benefits that will accrue to them such as getting rid of citizens they do not want and will ensure they facilitate that happening. As this means pulling back 3 or 4 miles to allow some clapped out buses to roll back across the border I'm sure that's what they would do.

Then later they'd sanction the crap out of the Republic.

But this thread is focusing on the show to be screened on Tue pm on RTE 1 which will detail actual plans for a military offensive into Northern Ireland by the Irish government - Operation Armageddon - not a relief mission - and plans to attack the BBC and other targets in Belfast.

It's the impact those actions would have had in the North and on the British government which is being assessed here.

Dinter

Well the thread's really about Operation Armageddon rather than the documentary. As that plan was drawn up in the midst of the worst civil unrest and ethnic tension that the province had ever seen it is important to show how the Irish incursion could ostensibly have been for humanitarian purposes.

darkman2

lennymurphy wrote: »

If all The Irish wanted to do was remove Irish Nationalists from Northern Ireland then they could have just called O'Neill, who I'm sure would have given every assistance.

Funny thing O'Neill once said:

"give Catholics a good house, a good job and a TV and they will start behaving like decent Protestants"

I guess he was right.

If you hate Catholic/Nationalist Irish people so much or Ireland in general then why did you (a) search for a .ie domain and (b) start posting on it? If you hate everything Irish so much it seems strange. Troll like in fact.

Foxhound38

What time is it on actually?

Dinter

darkman2 wrote: »

If you hate Catholic/Nationalist Irish people so much or Ireland in general then why did you (a) search for a .ie domain and (b) start posting on it? If you hate everything Irish so much it seems strange.

I wouldn't worry Darkman.

We've just had a loyalist admit that the Irish Nationalist population was kept down intentionally. It's like our own Truth Commission. Let the healing begin.

dan719

This thread is hilarious. Ireland invade British soveriegn territory? I would be amazed if we lasted three days. And if the brits decided to bomb the Republic? Well how long does it take a fighter plane to cross the Irish sea?

I know that this plan was the wet dream of many a republican, but it was never going to happen. It would be akin to Hari Kari for every Catholic in Northern Ireland.

As for Ireland's so called special relationship with the US being a source of protection? If anyone genuinely believes the US would turn on Britain less then 25 years after the end of WWII, while it's biggest concern was halting the spread of communism......

Actually the type of person who believes the above, probably reckons we may have had a chance invading the north.....:rolleyes:

Dr. Baltar

Foxhound38 wrote: »

What time is it on actually?

9:30 I think.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

An Fear Aniar

PK2008 wrote: »

Ireland could not sustain the amount of losses that the Afghans suffered in the war with the USSR, it would be catastrophic considering there was only 1.5 million males in Ireland in 1969 (only a fraction of which would be able to fight), plus we wouldnt have military aid from America like the mujahadeen had.

As regards the current campaign in Afghanistan; the Brits have only lost about 200 men compared to about 20,000 insurgents over 8 years which is an excellent record

I doubt such a campaign would ever have been launched in Ireland at that time, there's not just the military objective, they would have to win the propaganda war also. They can do such things far away in Asia (sadly) but not on their own doorstep.

Bear in mind the troubles were only flaring up so many of the public in England may have been much more sympathetic to Ireland than after all the bombings, and the decisions would be made by a Labour Prime Minister.

It's possible there may have been a few skirmishes, an awkward standoff and then perhaps a UN involvement due to intense pressure from the US and some of the European countries.

.

who what when

Sir Baralot wrote: »

You do realise that ost British people do not actually want the North of Ireland as part of the UK right?
You do realise the "DINGLISH" are not the enemy of Republicanism, right?
You do realise the only people against a united Ireland are Unionists?

You do realise, presumably considering you invented the word, that the 'D' in DINGLISH' represents the word 'the'!
The the english????

darkman2

who what when wrote: »

You do realise, presumably considering you invented the word, that the 'D' in DINGLISH' represents the word 'the'!
The the english????

He was taking about people from Dingle.

An Fear Aniar

Sir Baralot wrote: »

Perhaps, but if that is true, can you see the irony in your own statement?

No, I don't do irony.

.

Dr. Baltar

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

No, I don't do irony.

.

Hypocrisy then?

Happy Monday

Dinter wrote: »

Well the thread's really about Operation Armageddon rather than the documentary. As that plan was drawn up in the midst of the worst civil unrest and ethnic tension that the province had ever seen it is important to show how the Irish incursion could ostensibly have been for humanitarian purposes.

No - call me an alarmist but the title Operation Armageddon doesn't suggest a stroll around Lough Erne followed by tea and cakes in Enniskillen.

Plus Lynch's public statement on RTE talked about not standing idly by and focused on the need for a constitutional change in the North and the need for re-unification - hardly the words of a campaign focused purely on humanitarian relief.

There were different options available - he chose in the end to limit it to field hospitals along the border.

Dr. Baltar

who what when wrote: »

You do realise, presumably considering you invented the word, that the 'D' in DINGLISH' represents the word 'the'!
The the english????

My bad.

darkman2 wrote: »

He was taking about people from Dingle.

lol

ejmaztec

Jonjo The Miser seems to be conspicuous by his absence.

An Fear Aniar

Sir Baralot wrote: »

Hypocrisy then?

That's unparliamentary language.:mad:

.

Dartz

ejmaztec wrote: »

Jonjo The Miser seems to be conspicuous by his absence.

Good Riddance.

lennymurphy

darkman2 wrote: »

If you hate Catholic/Nationalist Irish people so much or Ireland in general then why did you (a) search for a .ie domain and (b) start posting on it? If you hate everything Irish so much it seems strange. Troll like in fact.

Nothing troll like about what I wrote there. Both paragraphs are absolutely factual. What's your problem with what I said?

Dinter

dan719 wrote: »

This thread is hilarious. Ireland invade British soveriegn territory? I would be amazed if we lasted three days. And if the brits decided to bomb the Republic? Well how long does it take a fighter plane to cross the Irish sea?

I know that this plan was the wet dream of many a republican, but it was never going to happen. It would be akin to Hari Kari for every Catholic in Northern Ireland.

As for Ireland's so called special relationship with the US being a source of protection? If anyone genuinely believes the US would turn on Britain less then 25 years after the end of WWII, while it's biggest concern was halting the spread of communism......

Actually the type of person who believes the above, probably reckons we may have had a chance invading the north.....:rolleyes:

I think the childlike innocence of some posters is hilarious. Do you really think that Irish troops ever considered facing off against British troops in a conventional fight? They are just as capable of counting as you are and would be more aware of the capabilities of British equipment than you are.

Operation Armageddon was a doomsday scenario. However it was not without merit. Those fighter planes would not be attacking mud huts in Afghanistan. Instead they would be strafing civilians in Dublin. Those civilians would have relatives or friends in the UK, in America, in the armed forces of both. How long do you think that could be sustained before public opinion revolted?

Also you're dead right. Irish intervention would lead to epic ethnic slaughter in Northern Ireland as the "specials" and assorted loyalist mobs took this opportunity to massacre their Catholic neighbours. What do you think the outcome of that would be? The Crown unable or unwilling to rein in its agents. Would there be an international intervention? Maybe. Certainly there would be a PR disaster for the UK.

And what would be the outcome? Hundreds of civilians dead, hundreds of soldiers, a shattered Ireland crying loudly over its abortive humanitarian excursion in the rubble of a crushed and shattered country while the UK faces rioting on the streets of Liverpool and disgust in the UN. Soviet "peacekeepers" on the way to the Republic or Washington promising anything to keep them out.

I don't believe that our relationship with the USA would keep us safe from British attacks but I know that the strategic repercussions of Russia being invited in definitely would.

ejmaztec

Dartz wrote: »

Good Riddance.

I was going to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize, but I'll have to pick somebody else now.:eek: