US involvment in the peace process

paky

ive come to the colcusion that the only reason the US had an interest in the irish peace process of 1998 was to gain support from britain in a future attack on iraq and afghanistan. it seems pretty hypocritical that the worlds biggest war mongering state was involved in a peace process without getting something out of it. imagine if the troubles were ongoing and britain had invaded iraq and afghanistan?

who the fug

Occasionally politicians do something because it is the right thing to do and this was one of them

sanbrafyffe

ya god help the nordies lol.....n.i is still under threat while under british rule,,,however we have moved on along way so thank god

paky wrote: »

ive come to the colcusion that the only reason the US had an interest in the irish peace process of 1998 was to gain support from britain in a future attack on iraq and afghanistan. it seems pretty hypocritical that the worlds biggest war mongering state was involved in a peace process without getting something out of it. imagine if the troubles were ongoing and britain had invaded iraq and afghanistan?

Torakx

Maybe the only reason we had a peace process at all was because America and britain needed to go into the middle east.
I think the troubles was an advantage to britain and to give up that advantage they were probably offered a nice piece of the pie elsewhere to compensate.Meanwhile both America and Britain look like peace keepers while really giving up the terrorist activity for another campaign of more worth.
Consider too who helped fund the terrosit activity in ireland...and who later came to sue for peace...

And as you mentioned it would look better that two peace keeping countries continue there wonderful works around the world helping others benefit from the joys we experienced in the 90's onwards.....*cough*lol*cough*
Add the bombings in london and the 9/11 incident and you have a perfect and righteous reason to go terrorize another nation/s of innocents.

After all Ireland only has so much natural gas to be exploited(and its pretty secure now).The big fish in the east were going to get pulled by the russians or chinese im guessing, so it had to be done then as apose to later.
Maybe why they went to extremes with the terrorism in recent years.

ps. try taking our natural resources back and see how long we have peace in this country.The only reason its acceptable now is because we have given them everything they want on a silver platter.

Jeboa Safari

Torakx wrote: »

Maybe the only reason we had a peace process at all was because America and britain needed to go into the middle east.
I think the troubles was an advantage to britain and to give up that advantage they were probably offered a nice piece of the pie elsewhere to compensate.Meanwhile both America and Britain look like peace keepers while really giving up the terrorist activity for another campaign of more worth.
Consider too who helped fund the terrosit activity in ireland...and who later came to sue for peace...

And as you mentioned it would look better that two peace keeping countries continue there wonderful works around the world helping others benefit from the joys we experienced in the 90's onwards.....*cough*lol*cough*
Add the bombings in london and the 9/11 incident and you have a perfect and righteous reason to go terrorize another nation/s of innocents.

After all Ireland only has so much natural gas to be exploited(and its pretty secure now).The big fish in the east were going to get pulled by the russians or chinese im guessing, so it had to be done then as apose to later.
Maybe why they went to extremes with the terrorism in recent years.

ps. try taking our natural resources back and see how long we have peace in this country.The only reason its acceptable now is because we have given them everything they want on a silver platter.

How can getting bombed and having to spend billions on security in the North be beneficial to Britain? The Bishopsgate and and Baltic Exchange bombings caused around £1.8 billion in damage alone and nearly brought down one of the insurance companies.
And Ireland has such a little amount of natural gas that it'd be ridiculous to think thats the reason.

jackiebaron

who the fug wrote: »

Occasionally politicians do something because it is the right thing to do and this was one of them

Yeah, right!

Wolfe Tone

Irish vote, simple as.

R P McMurphy

The Irish-American lobby has traditionally been pretty stong and democratic. if a republican had been in the white house in this period we might not have seen as much engagement. It also looked good for Clinton to have hordes of Irish people on the streets to welcome him

dusterd

Why not then do the same in Palestine, Set up the Palestinian people with their own independent state. Why do the U.S. block every attempt at forming such a state. Why do they continue to support the blockade of humanitarian aid to the Gaza strip.

RMD

Irish-Americans are the 2nd largest demographic group in America, it wasn't some fancy motive to invade the Middle East, it was a political move.

There's next to no oil in Afghanistan and they've been there for nearly 10 years now, people need to drop this "it's all about the oil" theory in relation to Afghanistan.

Torakx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

How can getting bombed and having to spend billions on security in the North be beneficial to Britain? The Bishopsgate and and Baltic Exchange bombings caused around £1.8 billion in damage alone and nearly brought down one of the insurance companies.
And Ireland has such a little amount of natural gas that it'd be ridiculous to think thats the reason.

I dont know could be many reasons.
Maybe more work for scurity companies or british security forces.
More jobs in general.
More control over the area in apparent chaos.
As i said its just my own little take on how it might have been.
I could be way off i know.
I just know that if the IRA and co was legit then they hadnt a clue what they were doing militarily..and i dont quiet believe that can be true.

old_aussie

paky wrote: »

ive come to the colcusion that the only reason the US had an interest in the irish peace process of 1998 was to gain support from britain in a future attack on iraq and afghanistan. it seems pretty hypocritical that the worlds biggest war mongering state was involved in a peace process without getting something out of it. imagine if the troubles were ongoing and britain had invaded iraq and afghanistan?

Could you tell me what the US has to gain from the war in Afghanistan.

Brown Bomber

old_aussie wrote: »

Could you tell me what the US has to gain from the war in Afghanistan.

This is the usual trap to fall into in. It's not about what the US as in the state and it's collective population has to gain, it's what the people who put the decision makers into power have to gain. For Afganistan you have an endless supply of opium, military bases, borders with Iran and Pakistan, an Afghan central bank but most of all you have the bull**** war of terror which actually makes terrorists which gives their global imperialism legitimiacy.

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

How can getting bombed and having to spend billions on security in the North be beneficial to Britain? The Bishopsgate and and Baltic Exchange bombings caused around £1.8 billion in damage alone and nearly brought down one of the insurance companies.
And Ireland has such a little amount of natural gas that it'd be ridiculous to think thats the reason.

perhaps you could explain the FRU?

ed2hands

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is the usual trap to fall into in. It's not about what the US as in the state and it's collective population has to gain, it's what the people who put the decision makers into power have to gain. For Afganistan you have an endless supply of opium, military bases, borders with Iran and Pakistan, an Afghan central bank but most of all you have the bull**** war of terror which actually makes terrorists which gives their global imperialism legitimiacy.

Yea, the US people gain zero from this. In fact they lose big time through suffering from the Patriot Act and seeing their tax dollars transferred to the good people at Lockheed Martin etc.

(Oh! Back to Afghanistan, let's not forget the TAPI pipeline for all that yummy Caspian oil and gas...)

WakeUp

Brown Bomber wrote: »

For Afganistan you have an endless supply of opium, military bases, borders with Iran and Pakistan, an Afghan central bank but most of all you have the bull**** war of terror which actually makes terrorists which gives their global imperialism legitimiacy.

+1 nailed it. They are in Afghanistan to control the heroin mutli billion dollar industry no suprise opium production has increased since they went in its a disgrace western complicity destroying lives and families all over the world. Nothing new there. ED is right about the pipe line too.

Jeboa Safari

Brown Bomber wrote: »

perhaps you could explain the FRU?

The what?

Jonny7

WakeUp wrote: »

+1 nailed it. They are in Afghanistan to control the heroin mutli billion dollar industry no suprise opium production has increased since they went in its a disgrace western complicity destroying lives and families all over the world. Nothing new there. ED is right about the pipe line too.

They've been trying to destroy heroin production in Afghanistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/world/asia/08iht-08spray.7791341.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/russian-and-us-drugs-officers-destroy-afghan-heroin-factory-2120520.html

However its a catch-22 as they lose the valuable support of the Afghan farmers. Alternatives are constantly being tried but generally with varying levels of failure.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/09/27/us-afghan-drugs-idUSISL26892820070927
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=83a3d2e0-9672-4567-9c3d-8c4b51fd6ff8