Advertisement
Where is Report Post on mobile? We've made a slight change, see here
Have your say on the future of the 'Save Draft' feature in this poll
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

United Ireland Poll - please vote

1165166168170171204

Comments



  • Did you not read the next two sentences!!!!!

    "Despite envisioning such a small-scale, short-term incursion, the army gave a grim assessment that it could expect to sustain ‘considerable casualties’. Perhaps the most forbidding aspect of a short-term incursion was the fact that after the army had retreated back across the border into County Louth, the Catholics of Northern Ireland—not to mention those in Newry, who may have been viewed as Irish army collaborators—would have been left wholly at the mercy of the British Army, UDR, RUC and loyalist mobs."

    You would have been looking at tens of thousands of casualties in that case. And that is without considering what it would have done to Ireland's international reputation. Not only would we be seen as an aggressor, but also as a foolish failed aggressor. Fantasy stuff from yourself.

    There is no might about it ending badly, only in the eyes of fantasists could it be seen to have ended anything other than disastorously.





  • ireland would absolutely have been able theoretically to engage in a humanitarian mission in northern ireland once they would have gone through the proper channels to do so, that is a fact.

    now what is likely true is that they would not have had the man power required given the severe nature of the erupting of northern ireland all though certainly what man power we did have were very capable individuals in their own right.

    exclusionary partitionists and their refusal to deal with the reality that their claims of exclusionary nationalism are a myth in ireland will never be able to come to terms with the fact that nobody has advocated for invasions of northern ireland, or anything that ultimately shows their beliefs to be incorrect.

    and there was 1 way to stop partition, not sign the treaty.

    abolish the indirect subsidy to the irish pub known as MUP.





  • And that is YOUR opinion of how it might have gone.

    Mine, based on reading contemporary accounts, Hansard, the writings of Wilson, Callaghan and Heath etc. lead me to my view and that of the Army, that what we needed to do was force the British to act. A British government which in my opinion would not have ordered a military response to what the entire world could see (Again see international comment) was a humanitarian crisis.

    As to your sensationalist 'what if' about pogroms against Catholics and nationalists...that was what was fecking happening and continued to happen and which they needed protection from. And protection arrived into a vacuum Irish government KNOWINGLY allowed to form. Both government in FACT knew what would happen.

    Do your research.





  • By the way blanch, before you go wasting more pixels - I get why we did nothing. It was fear and lack of care. You can express that however you want but that essentially was what it was.

    What state the world would be in had every country behaved similarly I shudder to think.





  • Your opinion is singular, uninformed and misguided.

    There isn't a single credible historian who would argue that a "humanitarian mission" in 1970 involving the Irish Army would have improved the situation.

    The entire world couldn't see anything. 1970 didn't have the internet. Whole swathes of the world were subject to censorship. The world would have seen what the big powers wanted it to see. You are viewing 1970 through the lens of today, a common mistake in looking at history. This is not the only time you have done this. You have equated 1916 and the War of Independence with the Troubles, though they were very different times and even a basic study of the principles of history would warn you against such simplistic vision.

    You talk about my sensationalist what if about pogroms, when I was quoting directly from a historian's perspective. I haven't been putting forward my opinion on this, I have been putting forward the accepted historical expert view of those events.



  • Advertisement


  • You said that a humanitarian mission would have brought violence to Catholics and nationalists...that is exactly why there was a need for a humanitarian mission.

    And that onslaught happened anyway...you may have missed it.

    I never said that this is anything but my own opinion. All a historian is doing when speculating is the same thing blnach.


    By the way is is not a 'singular' view either. There are many many people who think the Irish government failed Irish people in the north, as well as elsewhere.





  • Comparing a people left under the yoke of a foreign government to have no vote and be persecuted by the British authorities and their terrorist partners to the Nazis is some leap. I have to hand it to you.

    Didn't the BA initially enter NI to allegedly keep peace? Your Nazi comparison might carry a little more weight there.

    You've a canny way of attacking one side while excusing the other and ignoring the people in the middle who also suffered, unless it was by the IRA of course.





  • Loyalists should vote for a united Ireland as we're already importing protestants, from the 3rd world.





  • Ah right, that old chestnut. If we don't call it an invasion it isn't an invasion... am I right?

    The Irish Miltary cross an international border of a NATO member uninvited is what now? It isn't an invasion but a 'humanitarian' mission. Didn't Bush say something similar in Iraq? LOL

    I love bringing this up to be honest because it shows us the level of nonsense you are willing to spout.


    As to Partition, you have yet to state how it could have been avoided? What is and where was the silver bullet?






  • I think we should quote this bit again..


    Unsurprisingly, the Irish army warned of ‘disastrous consequences’ for an intervention force on the basis of limited manpower."

    "As Jack Lynch accurately told an emotional Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis in 1970, the Irish army did not have the means to intervene, and his policy in relation to partition was to seek unity by consent. An Irish army incursion into Northern Ireland would have ended in two possible ways: either withdrawal or total destruction. The most likely British response would have been the issuing of a withdrawal ultimatum. Irrespective of the hypothetical, what is certain is that Jack Lynch placed the stability, security and economic prosperity of the Irish state above any potentially ruinous irredentist impulses."


    I must say I like that turn of phrase.... 'Ruinious irredentist impulses...' Ill use that in future... :)



  • Advertisement


  • Oh no, not at all. You are on record that partition should have not been signed off and used 'whatever it took' including refusing signing off on the Treaty....

    Whatever it took, includes invasion and war... does it not? Your words not mine. :)

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/114425360/#Comment_114425360





  • So you dont believe in democracy then, because a majority in the Dail DID sign the treaty....









  • For those not up to speed on the history I suggest starting with RTE's coverage of 100 years since the Treaty. Good discussions were the options available and the options refused and taken are discussed.





  • So you would be happy if China invaded Taiwan?

    Or Pakistan annexed part of India? Or Russia invaded Ukraine?

    No, Francie, you would not. There are UN recognised boundaries. The border on this island is a UN recognised boundary and was such in 1970. It was also a NATO external boundary.





  • I haven't excused anyone. All I have done is point out the ridiculous idea that we should have invaded the North in 1970. It would be completely hilarious if it wasn't put forward so seriously.





  • And off we go around the world to deflect again.

    WE didn't recognise the border in 1970 blanch, constitutionally we saw the British as invaders and we made claim to what was partitioned.

    Them's the facts and our Constitution trumps anything the UN has to say. The British ignore the UN when it suits as does the US.





  • It doesn't matter what we recognised or didn't recognise.

    China doesn't recognise Taiwan's independence.

    Russia doesn't recognise Ukraine's borders.

    Pakistan doesn't recognise India's borders.

    So once again, exactly the same. Nonsense about the Constitution trumping anything the UN has to say. As for UK and US ignoring the UN, they are permanent members of the Security Council with a veto, we aren't.

    We would have been crushed in 1970, ending up as a UN protectorate at best, with the economic success of a Lebanon.





  • Bullshit.

    Had you listened to historians this very morning discussing partition and the treaty you would have heard them give the opinion I did.

    The British would have been compelled by the pressure they were under themselves NOT to bring war to Ireland again if we repudiated the Treaty.

    Try and get rid of the hat doffing, awestruck spectacles blanch and look at the whole picture.

    As world history tells us, diplomatic approaches would have been exhausted before the British would have risked attacking a humanitarian mission nor would it have restarted a damaging war in Ireland over the non signing of the Treaty.





  • You compared it to Germany invading Austria. So we would be the Nazis in your analogy.

    You've a hate for all things nationalist and do not give them the same free reign or concern you give unionists.



  • Advertisement


  • It doesn't matter what we recognised or didn't recognise.

    So you are abandoning your claim that we recognise partition and therefore accept it?





  • The same excuses were used by the Germans at the time. It is ridiculous and facetious to make the argument that in comparing the excuses being used, I was making us the Nazis. A risible argument at the best of times, pathetic would be a better word.

    I do not have a hate for all things nationalist. I am a GAA club member and county supporter. I am a follower of the national rugby and soccer teams. I celebrate our music, our culture and our sporting achievements. Where you are correct, and for which I make no apology, I hate the exclusionary aspects of the way that our nationality is expressed in certain ways.





  • Will you stop making up complete misrepresentations.





  • We wouldn't have got the telegram out to the UN before the British would have crushed us. No amount of green-tinged fairytale history can change the facts that the UK had a veto at the UN, we would have encroached on a NATO border and the only ones who would have cheered us on to destruction were the USSR and China, both of them totalitarian regimes at the time.

    Oh, just realised you were back in the earlier fantasy of rejecting partition in 1921. Now it seems that you are intent on rejecting the democratic will of the people as expressed in the Dail at the time. We voted for the Treaty, end of.





  • I don't support the GAA myself.

    People are complex huh?

    You hold on to your rendition or take on some views and assign it to every discussion regarding a UI. You don't do the same for any other viewpoint.

    Wasn't partition the epitome of 'exclusionary'? What about changing electoral lines to rig elections or not giving everyone a vote?

    People, good and bad, have been fighting tooth and nail for equality. No protestants or British are expelled from the south. Every citizen has a vote. The idea that somehow NI will become something different upon a UI is just nonsense.





  • Rubbish and riddled with hat doffing awestruck subservience to the idea that the British were not under international and domestic pressure themselves.

    A signaled humanitarian mission would have been met by diplomacy when we could have negotiated protections for Irish people and avoided the tragic and dangerous vacuum that formed.

    Mark and your arguments about this been blown out of the water by the expert discussions taking place on the radio at the moment. There were options on the Treaty and in 1969.





  • The historical experts on the radio are talking about 1921 not 1970.

    Yes, there is no doubt that rejecting partition in 1921 was more militarily viable than a "humanitarian mission" in 1970, but that ignores the democratic mandate to accept the Treaty, something you are conveniently forgetting. Perhaps you cling to the notion that democratic legitimacy for violence isn't necessary.





  • Didn't you claim we recognised partition and therefore gave up any claim to NI?

    Now you're saying what we recognise doesn't matter.





  • Northern Ireland is part of the Republic now?

    Didnt you vote for the GFA...??

    ROFL



  • Advertisement


  • A signalled humanitarian mission.... whatever that is.


    You can call it the second coming of Jesus for all you want, it would have been met with force by the British.

    There is no way in any shape or form that a UK Prime Minister would have sat by and let a foreign military incur into its territory.

    We saw what the British did during the Falklands War, an island in the middle of nowhere, can you imagine them doing anything less when the UK itself is invaded in such a manner?

    Francie, you are like a drunk prophet screaming 'the truth' at people but you are utterly delusional about this one. No one is buying what you are selling.



Advertisement