War & the Irish

bumbum

I'm a lazy bollox and I don't mind admitting that but I'm finally sick and tired of what's going on. I've let the world just pass me by in the past but I'll be getting up off my lazy ass and heading to town for the peace protest on Saturday.
I don't like Bush one bit and I never have. I don't like Saddam either but I ask myself the question,"who's more dangerous"? Bush is willing to go to war against Iraq despite the rest of the world! The UN don't want it. The Russians don't want it. Australia don't want it, the list goes on. As far as I can see, the only ones who have an appetite for this conflict are the Bush administration, Tony Blair, Osama Bin Laden, and those crazy Koreans. On another day I might fall off my chair laughing at the irony here because the all seem to agree on SOMETHING, but this is far from a laughing matter.
To add to my worries, I see that the Irish Government have said that "It would be very difficult for us not to show our support for the US and the UK", "The Irish people have very deep ties in both the US and in Britian". We're supposed to be grateful to the US for "helping to secure peace in the north". This may seem like a fair point until we realise that it was <u>Clinton</u> who helped out and Bush couldn't give a toss!
Our own government are trying to tell us that we owe it to the US and Britian to help them go to war! Who the F**K do they think they are! This is SUPPOSED to be a neutral country. They've really shafted us on that one and they'll continue to do so if we don't get up off our arses and do something about it.
How many of you own a car? Are you happy to pay VRT and VAT on top of the total value? Are you happy that less than 5% of your road tax can be traced as investments on our roads? Are you happy with your insurance premiums? Are you happy with parking fees? Are you happy to see the Gardai with speed guns while voilent crime goes through the roof?
How many of you own a house? Are you happy with the availability? Are you happy with the spiraling costs? Are you happy with the assistance given to first time buyers? Are you happy with the amenaties around your home?
Is it any wonder why we drink and smoke ourselves into early graves? For crist sake we can't even do that on a budget! There's a monsterous tax on tobacco and alcohol yet I don't see our health service improving.
We work some of the longest hours in the EC and we still struggle to make ends meet. It's been proven that we have one of the most corrupt governments in the world!I kid you not!
They are experts at pulling the wool over our eyes. We had a "Tiger economy" yet while there was more money coming into the country, less and less of us were seeing any of it.
I don't want to keep banging on about it but they're taking us all for fools and the sad thing is that we HAVE been fools. I don't want any part of anybody elses war. Neither does the majority of this country. Ask yourself this one question - "how many decisions have the current government made that I agree with or represent my beliefs and the beliefs of the country or that have benifited the general population of the country"? - My answer? ZERO!
There are a lot of people who seem to feel the same but nobody seems to be doing anything about it. Are we truely a nation of whingers and story tellers who don't have the balls to vote with our feet? Are we so stupid that we can't see the big picture?
Not for the first time in history, Ireland is in a position to have a major influence on WORLD HISTORY. We're in a strong position to prevent the most powerfull nation on the planet from going to war! 3.5 million Irish men and women deciding the destiny of billions! That scares the living S**T outta me but I stand by my morals and beliefs.
Regardless of Bush's motives, I believe that it's wrong to assist him. Regardless of what the Irish government tell us, I wouldn't believe a single word that passes their lips! If you believe that war is the correct option then that's your opinion and you're quite entitled to it. In fact, put my mind at ease and proove me wrong. However, if you agree with me then do something about it.

soma

My fav comment from government circles lately is that "we owe Britain alot".

You have got to be ****ing kidding me.

bumbum

When the Irish government say "we owe Britian a lot" they're refering to the fancy diners they've payed for and God knows how many lil brown envelopes.
They're one bunch of sick puppies aren't they.

Ste k

them nice brits built my house, and many other ones all around the city. in fact they built dublin that was nice of them.

They predict 20000 out on the streets tomorrow, they wont get that I'm sorry, we Irish are great bar-stool politicans, actually getting up on our feet is hardly realistic.

The english were in charge of us for hundreds of years and we never once were able to organise a proper revolution, Wolfe Tone failed, and that 1916 was a disaster till the stupid english lost publilc opinion by shooting the leaders.

I think we have to get rid of Sadam he is just not nice to his own people, but I would worry more about the trigger happy fuzzy haired, daddy loving muppet accross the big pond.

DO you think this would have happened if there was a fair election and Gore won. I dont think it would have. The democrats are slower on these sort of things.

My two cents good night

bumbum

Them nice Brits may have built your house and many more but they didn't build them for us, they built them for themselves. I've nothing against any one Brit or the next but there is naturally a historical resentment towards Britian as I'm Irish and previous generations WERE out of line.
They didn't build very much in this country though, many a poor Irish worked in really sh*tty conditions under their orders to do it. They had to do so in order to benifit the "British Empire". That's nice of them!
I agree that the situation with Sadam has to be dealt with quickly and effectively but I hardly think that invading the country is a plausable option if you motives are improving the conditions for the mistreated population of Iraq. Enevitably many of them will be killed in the conflict.

o sleep

Originally posted by bumbum
They didn't build very much in this country though, many a poor Irish worked in really sh*tty conditions under their orders to do it. They had to do so in order to benifit the "British Empire". That's nice of them!

empires tend to work on the principal that the opression of one people will be in some way (usually economically) beneficial to the ruling country. that's the way the system works, and still works today (see: america). and that's why this tired argument of how ****ty the brits were is really quite pointless: if we were in the same position, we would have done the same. for examples of it, see the opposition we had, as first and second generation irish in america to the emancipation of the slaves. why? bcos if the blacks weren't slaves anymore, and therefore had to be paid a fair and equitable wage, there would be more competition on the market for the irish. yes, the brits were a horrible horrible empire, perhaps one of the most brutal and destructive in history, but given half the chance, and enough ammunition, we would've done the same ... sad, but true...

the fnj

Yes I totally agree bumbum. It’s absolutely terrible the state of affairs in Ireland. I can’t even afford a pair of shoes and I have to walk twenty miles in the freezing cold to work everyday and all the while the politicians are laughing and lighting their fat cigars with one hundred euro notes.

I’m against the war in Iraq but all the reason’s you have listed above are completely farcical.

Of course it would be very difficult for the Irish government not to show support for the war. For a start how much US business is invested in Ireland? Ireland says no to US we put our economy in a very perilous position. Is that a better alternative?

How exactly does the amount of tax I pay on my car have any bearing what so ever on the war in Iraq? You really must be a member of the socialist workers party because this is the sort of tripe they spew out to whip up support of ignorant and impressionable people. Same thing applies to housing what has that got to do with the war in the East?

Yes it’s really hard to make ends meet in this country read above to learn about my footwear situation.

Please how is it proven that the Irish government is one of the most corrupt governments in the world? What proof do you have, I’d really like to see it because I find it very hard to believe that Ireland would be anywhere on the leader board for the world’s most corrupt governments. Seriously did you read what you’ve typed?

We have all seen the benefits of the Tiger economy. Lower levels of unemployment vast improvements in public transport more disposable income in the hands of the average Irish person, just a few of many examples of how the tiger economy has improved my life your life and the lives of everybody who lives in this country.

The march tomorrow will make no difference what so ever to the war in Iraq taking place. So I will not attend.

Want to make a difference come up with viable alternatives to war and promote them to everyone interested in listening. Don’t walk aimlessly around Dublin like a drone.

I am against this war but for real reason not because my insurance premium is so high.

beardedchicken

Originally posted by The FANJ
Of course it would be very difficult for the Irish government not to show support for the war. For a start how much US business is invested in Ireland? Ireland says no to US we put our economy in a very perilous position. Is that a better alternative?

are you honestly saying that you put a higher value on our economy than the lives of hundreds or thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who will undoubtedly die if the US gets its way, and bombs Iraq?
i think it's absolutely unconscienable that the irish government is seemingly willing to be complicit in the deaths of these people, just to safeguard US investment here. this is yet more evidence of ireland's over-reliance on foreign investment and multi-nationals; the government is willing to set aside principles, even constitutionally- driven policies (i.e. neutrality) in order to keep getting the scraps from the master's table. they need to encourage indigenous industry, rather than be reliant on foreign investment, but that's a whole other debate.

Please how is it proven that the Irish government is one of the most corrupt governments in the world? What proof do you have, I’d really like to see it because I find it very hard to believe that Ireland would be anywhere on the leader board for the world’s most corrupt governments. Seriously did you read what you’ve typed?

i must interject here. it has actually been shown that ireland's government is indeed one of the most corrupt in the world. admittedly, i don't have a link to the information, but i definitely remeber seeing an empirically-based study, using a variety of criteria to determine levels of corruption in governments around the world, quite recently, in fact, it may have only been last year. either way, ireland was up there in the top 100, behind countries in sub-saharan africa, central america etc etc.

therecklessone

Originally posted by beardedchicken
[the government is willing to set aside principles, even constitutionally- driven policies (i.e. neutrality) in order to keep getting the scraps from the master's table.[/B]

Please explain this.

It is my understanding that neutrality is yet to be written into the constitution, and as such the setting aside of the principle as you put it has nothing to do with Bunreacht na hEireann.

For the record, I do not support our governments failure to represent the opinion of the people of this island in relation to the current crisis in Iraq.

o sleep

Originally posted by beardedchicken

i must interject here. it has actually been shown that ireland's government is indeed one of the most corrupt in the world. admittedly, i don't have a link to the information, but i definitely remeber seeing an empirically-based study, using a variety of criteria to determine levels of corruption in governments around the world, quite recently, in fact, it may have only been last year. either way, ireland was up there in the top 100, behind countries in sub-saharan africa, central america etc etc.

aren't there something like 189 countries in the world or something? so if we're in the top 100, it's not really all that shocking. i read the report (again, can't find a link, but as far as i know it was a UN report on government corruption) and we were one of the most corrupt governments in the Western world, which is far more 'shocking' than being more corrupt than central african governments (interesting that this was mentioned: are central african governments inherently prone to corruption?).

but aside from this, it is unsurprising that the irish government would support the US even if it is to avail of economic benefits etc. this shouldn't really surprise anyone, as the government are made up of politicians (em, obviously). also, re the 'benefits' of the celtic tiger: these benefits apply to the middle and upper classes, from what i've read the gap between rich and poor in ireland since 1997 (or thereabouts) has increased significantly.

as for whether the march tomorrow will stop the war or not: this isn't really the point. but i think it will be interesting that if the UN doesn't sanction a war, and there are hundreds of thousands of people protesting over the world today, and still the Americans and british go in to Iraq ...

bumbum

There's far too many points to reply to them all individually, many of them quite valid, so I'll try to clarify what I stand for.
For starters, NO, I'm not a memner of any political party or even sympathetic towards any one of them any more than another. I stand by my convictions though.
It is true that our high taxes etc.... have nothing to do with war on Iraq but if you look at the broader picture of what I was trying to convey which is: The current Government are intent on doing what siuts them, and not the wishes of the public. That defeats the whole purpose of a democratic electorate. We vote for a party on the strength of their promises and their ideals of how to make this country a better place.
This IS an idealistic view but it the truth none the less. RTE news reported this morning (15-02-03) that "the majority of the public" - no figures given - would not agree with the use of Shannon Airport to assist in an offence on Iraq even if the UN backed such an action. This is vague I admit but I would tend to believe it. If you can proove me wrong, I will not argue this point any further. I may disagree with it but if a majority agrees with it - so be it.
The Government also openly admitted soon after the last elections that they lied to us before the elections about the state of the economy. They admitted that they told the electorate that there was a surplus that would be used to further invest in the country yet they immediately began cuts which the media refered to "stealth cuts" and highered taxes.
Certian members have also been proven to be involved in many shady dealings and more are to be revealed. I'll avoid the enevitable sepculation about the other members that are on trial or are soon to be but you can draw your own conclusions.
The point about the Government being one of the most corrupt in the world is quite true. It was based on mathimatical studies of the economies accross the world and was headline news last November or December. It's quite surprising that you haven't heard about it yet - it's common knowledge.
Figures for a country's economic income were compared with the investments in the country and in Ireland it was found that there were hugh sums of money that was unaccounted for. This money couldn't be accounted for in lost wallets and pocket change at your bed-side. I don't have figures to hand but I'm sure that if you checked out the archives of The Times or one of those papers you'll see quite in depth details. I also believe that we were in the top 10 rather than the top 100, I'll check it out though. If you want to proove me wrong, go ahead, you'll save me the time and I'll take back what I said, however I'm very confident in what I said.
If you think that loosing American investement in the country is more important then our neutral status and human life that's also your opinion and I won't try to change that. I will however point out that although we have hugh investement from both the US and the UK, many of those investments are from very large business who set up business here in order to benifit from our low corporate tax and strategic location between the US and Europe. They are unlikely to pull out because of a personal gurdge. Our economic ties with Europe are also growing with the single currence and are also projected to continue to do so for the forseeable future.
FACT -This present bunch of con-men have repeatedly lied to us. FACT - they have lined their own pockets at our expence. FACT - while the Irish workers were the driving force behind the so called tiger economy, their living standards did not increace in line with the state of the economy. FACT our infrastructure has improved not as a result of investment of our government investing but as a result of billions invested from central Europe. FACT - Charlie McCreavy was told by the EU about the concequences of his overspending and he blatently ignored them. The EU are being proven right with spiraling inflation resulting in our difficulties in competing abroad which is devistating our economy.
This Government has absoloutly NO interest in what the electorate wants or for the prosperity of the country as a whole. Their decisions all seem to be motivated out of personal greed and therefore they should not be in charge.

Pigman II

As I read that initial post I noticed that about 25% of it is about the War and 75% about how ****ty life in Ireland is. If you think by marching on Sat that you'll be highlighting what seems to be your real bone of contention then you're dreaming. In fact by going out and saying how bad the US, UK etc are in their positions you're only deflecting attention from what a mess our own country is in.

I agree with everything you say up there but none of it is going to be brought up at an anti-war protest. Best way to protest about conditions in this country is to leave forever and let this heap sink in to the metaphorical sea where it belongs.

They predict 20000 out on the streets tomorrow, they wont get that I'm sorry

You were right.

We got 70,000 instead.

therecklessone

I heard more like 100,000...but whats 30,000 between friends?

Cool name by the way, owt to do with the funniest Irish film ever, I Went Down?

beardedchicken

Originally posted by therecklessone
Please explain this.

It is my understanding that neutrality is yet to be written into the constitution, and as such the setting aside of the principle as you put it has nothing to do with Bunreacht na hEireann.

i don't have a copy of the constitution to hand just at the moment, but yes, you are correct that the word "neutrality" never explicitly appears in Bunreacht na hÉireann, but, like many provisions of that very same document it is implicit, rather than explicit. in any case, neutrality is a government policy, rather than an actual law, as far as i know (correct me if i'm wrong) so, really, thay are the ones who are going against their own policy!

Originally posted by o sleep aren't there something like 189 countries in the world or something? so if we're in the top 100, it's not really all that shocking. (interesting that this was mentioned: are central african governments inherently prone to corruption?).

i'm not saying that there is an inherent tendency towards corruption in african governments, per se, i'm just saying that i find it shocking that ireland, a supposedly liberal, democratic country, with a democratically elected government, is only just less corrupt than some military-led non-democratic governments in central africa! i'm not even talking about dictatorships here, what about zimbabwe- do you really think that Robert Mugabe came to power in free and fair elections????

anyway, this post is extremely off-topic, so i'll shut up now, before i get myself into even hotter water.

all i'll say is that yesterday was the most amazing thing i have ever seen or participated in, in dublin, in my life!


(edited for spelling)

therecklessone

Originally posted by beardedchicken
i don't have a copy of the constitution to hand just at the moment, but yes, you are correct that the word "neutrality" never explicitly appears in Bunreacht na hÉireann, but, like many provisions of that very same document it is implicit, rather than explicit. in any case, neutrality is a government policy, rather than an actual law, as far as i know (correct me if i'm wrong) so, really, thay are the ones who are going against their own policy!

I'm honestly not trying to take the p**s mate, I have more than my fair share of grievances with our current govt. and also the sequence of events that is leading to war in Iraq.

However, I can't even agree that neutrality is implicit in the constitution. I suggest you check the following link for the current version of Bunreacht, if you can see any reasons to prove me wrong I really would be glad to listen...

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/government_in_ireland/the_constitution/constitution_introduction.html?PHPSESSID=b48d1a0416f31809998e3fac04a336a0

I suggest you check articles 5, 6, [powers of the president]13.4, 13.5.1 and 13.5.2, 13.9, [powers of the Oireachtas] 15.2.1, 15.6.1, and 15.6.2. These are the ones which come closest to exercise of military power, and the right to declare, or participate in, war.

I'd also like to take you up on another point. You call neutrality a government policy, rather than an actual law. I agree to a point, but since I do not believe there is an implicit right to neutrality in Bunreacht, then there is nothing to stop the Government enacting a law which declares either for or against neutrality. It can become a law!

Semantics perhaps, but I do feel that you are pro-neutrality, and I would like to assist you in seeing what is actually happening. Call me a bo**ox if you want, everyone else does.

Shorty

You're a bollox! There!

This really belongs on the politics board.


http://www.fiannafail.ie/breaking_news.php4?id=729

The fact that the nice treaty was passed can be said to be a mandate for neutrality by the people of Ireland. The government is going against this mandate. At the time the government knew well that the "neutrality" was a deciding factor in the referendum. I'll try and find a picture of the FF ad campaign at the time and post it later. As for semantics, this is what the government are trying to do at the moment with the word "neutrality".

"There's no such thing as complete military neutrality."; Brian Cowen. Wtf?

It's a sad state of affairs in the moral history of humanity when we can actually put a price on a human life.

bumbum

I attended the anti-war rally in Dublin on Saturday and I honestly have to say that it was far more fun than I expected.
I never expected it to have any real effect on our Government's stance on the war situation but I went all the same. At least I can say that I'm not an armchair critic any more and I plan to be there in Shannon when a similar protest is to take place in March.
What was encouraging was the coverage that the marches got across the globe. I doubt it if it made any one government change their stance but for those who didn't seem too sure of what way to approach the situation, including some of the key players - Germany and France, the global coverage seems to have encouraged them to try to resolve the problem in a more peaceful manner. Good for them!
There's one comment here that "Best way to protest about conditions in this country is to leave forever and let this heap sink in to the metaphorical sea where it belongs." Believe me, I've concidered this option. Australia seems to regularly call out to me but I've concluded that I refuse to be bullied out of my homeland I've whinged and moaned long enough and hoped that "someone would do something about it". Leaving the country IS still an option for me but I wont leave until I'm content that I've given it my best shot to be a part of some kind of positive change here first. If I fail then I can leave without any guilty questions hanging over me and be able to say to myself "i did my best".
I must concede that marching on the streets isn't going to force any kind of change but I've been encouraged by Saturday's events. If there's good organisation and co-ordination, it might just be possible to achieve something.
I wont be joining any political party because although I think that FF are a bunch of thieves and liars, I don't really fancy any of the alternatives all that much although if we oust FF at some stage it might keep whoever else replaces them on their toes and remind them that if they don't perform that they just might be out on their ear's along with FF too.
It occurs to me that the only real way to get the attention of the powers that be, is to hit them in the pocket. I'm not sure about how to go about this but I'd like to hear how people feel about the idea of a "general strike". The Idea of "closing down the country" for one day stikes that might even increase in frequency as the Government choose to ignore the demands seems extreme and even far fetched but there could be hugh benifits if it were sucessful. Any comments on this? Constructive comments only please. Critical or encouraging but no piss takers.

therecklessone

Fully agree with you bumbum, why should you leave your own country just because other's are running it into the ground. There was something uplifting about the fact that 100,000 people took to the streets on Saturday to express their disgust with our government's fudge and PR speak. Its certainly got me thinking that maybe the people of this country DO care about more than tax rates and status symbols.

I feel your pain re. the lack of an alternative to FF in our current system. However, for a long time now I've felt that the best way for the individual citizen to feel truly in volved was to choose issues you feel strongly about and try to do something about them, rather than a political grouping that approximates your views, but doesn't quite convince you they can change anything. Don't write off people power just yet.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Shorty


"There's no such thing as complete military neutrality."; Brian Cowen. Wtf?

I think what Biffo is trying to get at there is that Ireland are more likely to be described as non-aligned than neutral. The Swedes are neutral, but have complete inter-operability with NATO troops (use the same calibre ammunition for instance, and I know this because I lived with a Swede who spent 18 months in their army, as a conscript!). They choose what conflicts they get involved in, rather than stating we don't fight at all, which is more pacificism than neutrality, would you agree?

Again its Semantics. What the public want, basically, is no part played in non-UN approved military action, and even then we're more than wary. Historically however, we have been "selectively" neutral. Allied airmen who crashed their aircraft in Ireland in WW2 were transported to the border to be handed back to the authorities there. Germans? For them the war was over...

We gave meteorlogical data to the UK throughout the war, and they shared intelligence data with us. And lets be honest, if we had to come down on one side during the Cold War, whose would it be? The West of course.

bumbum

I won't write off people power just yet. I was really encouraged by the turn-out for the anti-war march. I'm utterly stunned that so many people have posted reply's to my original posting which, let's face it, is a tired and boaring old subject in comparison to discussions about the Meteor music awards etc.
Whether people agree with my views or not is irrelevant, what matters is that people DO care and I WAS begining to think that they didn't.
It remains to be seen though, whether we are willing to talk and whinge about it or get up and do something positive. Let's see how long people can keep up the momentum with the anti-war demo's. If we do, then there's hope for us with our own INTERNAL matters too.

beardedchicken

Originally posted by therecklessone
Semantics perhaps, but I do feel that you are pro-neutrality, and I would like to assist you in seeing what is actually happening. Call me a bo**ox if you want, everyone else does. [/B]

looking back on some previous posts of yours, i feel myself agreeing with you on the basics, so i think it's come to the point that we're splitting hairs at this stage.

i'm not actually pro- or anti- neutrality, but this whole thing at shannon has brought up the very complex issue of whether or not we should be neutral in the first place.

my point is that i think that if the government says that something is their policy, then they should stick to it. the austrians are neutral ,and they've just refused troops permission to pass through their territory. thet've said they'll do something, and they're sticking to it. why can't ireland do that?

bumbum

To a certian extent, I agree that if a government has a policy, they should stick to it but I would also have more respect for them if they could admit that any one or more of their policies is either a bad one or against public wishes and alter their practices to suit the very rapidly changing political and economic climate of the world at present.
Whether we ARE or ARE NOT a constitutionally neutral country is a very important subject but the underlining subject that's really causing so much problems is whether we should or shouldn't be a neutral country. In other words, does the Irish electorate want Ireland to be a neutral country?
From what I can see, the majority want to be neutral. It is the DUTY of our government, as democratically elected representitaves of our beliefs, to enforce our wishes. Their own personal beliefs or party policies MUST play second fiddle to the wishes of the majority. They have every right to express their opinion and try to effect our opinions through any LEGAL means but in the end they must carry our OUR wishes.

Dexy

In the History of Ireland there has been only one incident when we as a nation have used are "nuetrality" as a justification for inaction.This was during "the emergency" of 1939-1945. Know to the rest of the world as world WAR 2. Ireland decided not take up a just fight against the evil's of Facisim and Nazism we as a people did not take up the fight to stop torture,intimadation,repression,hatred and genocide.Ireland as a nation did not bond together to fight Adolf Hitlers facist juggernaught. Now when we even hear the name Hitler we think of evil and warcrimes and we are thankfull of the bonding together of Britian,Canada,The U.S,France,U.S.S.R and all the conquered partisans who never stoped fighting otherwise there could be a swastika waving above the G.P.O. Those countries fought and never stoped fighting until the evil of the axis was destroyed..............Ireland didnt.

Now in Iraq in the present day we have a chance,a chance to depose another dictator who's regime focusus on torture,intimadation,repression,hatred and genocide. A chance to liberate the Iraqi people from terror and fear and people say no. They so no to war, we see from the past few months that diplomicy wont free the Iraqi people. War seems the only way left to the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Huesein.History has thought the world a lesson. When Saddam Huesein tried to push his way into Kuwait. The world did not try to appease him,the world didnt give him Kuwait the world stoped and thought "why let him extend terror to a new people who he will abuse,who he will abuse who he will hurt,torture and neglect". The world did not allow him Kuwait like they allowed Hitler Austria,The Sudetenland and Czechslovakia.

While you protest against war against the "suffering" it will cause the Iraqi people, remember this the Iraqi people are suffering right now as i type this,as you read this they are suffering. There president through his disobideince to the U.N has had Economic and medical sanctions brought against his country. His people are sickhis people are poor and hungry and he doesnt care he just doesnt care he is comfortable in his palace feasting and living in the lap of luxury. If and when saddam is overthrown medical and food aid will be able to get into the country stability will be established and maybe normality will return to Iraq.

You people who protest which would you prefer? the long drwan out starving to death of a nation or a quick operation to remove Saddam Huesein from power and end Iraqi suffering.You who protest at shannon you must be aware that Shannon must be used to help liberate Iraq. If u.s military planes were to stop at shannon to bring bread and water and medical supplies to iraq you wouldnt complain! you'd wish them safe flight and speed! but the fact that U.S military planes would be refuelling would also violate our "nuetrality". and you would still have to maintain your protest against refuelling. Would you? to make a valid point you would have to continue your protests against American aid aircraft's as long as they bore the U.S airforce ensignia.If Ireland's "nuetrality" meant so much to you then all "foreign" military aircraft be they bringing troops or aid would have to be turned back from Shannon. You who protest would have to prolong Iraqi suffering because your "nuetrality" matters so much
to you. You also want to stop a solution to hunger through one fell swoop of war if you can continue your protest thinking of that your all better people than me.

o sleep

re neutrality. while i would never like to align myself with that bastard develara, his opinion that we should remain neutral during the war was perhaps understandable. of course there was the general 'anti-british' feeling (we had been engaged in an economic war with britain since something like 1932 if my history text books have taught me anything) but there was the practical application: that of if we had joined the war effort, our contribution would have been minimal (we had little or no effective army to speak of) while the consequences (bombing campaigns etc) would have been catastrophic. and let's look at why the allies went to war. it wasn't because hitler was a genocidal lunatic, it was to stop him gaining so much influence in eastern europe. in 1938 (again, something like that: i'm not to good on dates) a conference was held in france (marseilles, i think) to discuss the question of the 'jewish problem'. the Nazi regime was known throughout the world as being anti-jewish (and just about anti-everythingelse) and there was a problem of an influx of Jews as refugees. America had already closed its borders in 1924 to refugees (essentially to stop Jewish immigration) and so the decision was made not to open their doors. the claim is made that they couldn't have forseen the 'final solution' which eventually came into being sometime around 1941, which is of course true. And if it is true, then the allies didn't go to war in some sort of grand humanitarian gesture. also, america only involved itself in WWII when it was attacked, same situation with stalin, who actually made the pact with hitler to carve up poland. it was only when hitler decided to invade russia (never a good idea) that russia intervened. and even then, stalin refused to believe his generals for two whole days that Hitler had invaded. The less said about England and France and her genocidal practices in (insert colony here). also, while hitler was indeed a warmongerer and was by the sudetenland crisis determined to start a war with france and england, whatever the cost, there were certain mistakes made by the allies in WWI which would inevitably have led to the creation of the problems which Hitler pounced on and took power. The crippling debt and sole responsibility of germany for WWI (and the resulting lands being taken away from germany) which is complete bull****. Willhelm II may have been a slightly dim person, and caused many other leaders to dislike him, but he was just as responsible as any other leader for WWI. but, hey, that's all history right?

i think what many people were marching for was against the hypocritical nature of Britain and especially America. Why can't they be honest about why they're going to war? it's certainly not due to humanitarian concerns (as has been said numerous times, and it's just one example, the Kurds were gassed in 1988, when iraq was an ally, and britain and the US covered up reports and generally supported saddam). this hypocracy extends to American foreign policy in general. ie, they certainly don't have a very good record in nation building (germany post-WWII being an exception). there aims for a post-saddam Iraq are confusing at best, and worrying at least. for example, one of the generals they want to be in government was directly responsible for a previous Kurdish extermination. I can't remember who or where it was posted, but concern is growing amongst the Kurdish exiles (who previously were very pro-US intervention) in that US is disregarding Kurdish advice on a post-iraq. sometlhing like that, i'll try and find a link for you.

Also, their policy in Iraq during the first gulf war, which you are so favourable to, leaves a lot to be desired. They encouraged the Shi'ite muslims and the Kurds to rebel against saddam, and then left them when Kuwait had been freed.

i don't think anyone is trying to gain the moral highground here, there seems to be a genuine outrage at the US policy of going in to war, whether there's a United Nations mandate or not. also, you're incredibly naive if you believe that the US will intervene in all cases where a despot is massacring his own people, as that would mean the US having to overthrow people they helped put in and going in to places such as Saudi Arabia, which has human rights abuses equalling if not far outdoing those of Saddam. but they're allies, friends to the US, so god knows that won't happen. Also, see; Israel. if the US really wants peace in the middle east, if this bombing campaign and removal of Saddam is actually going to have a positive outcome, a definite move on the Israel-Palestine problem is needed. if The US is going to claim UN breaches as reason for going in to Iraq, then why not Israel?

and so on....

bumbum

I find it amazing that you try to compare WWII to the current situation with Iraq. There are so many differences that I hardly know where to start.
We'll start with our neutrality. You claim that if the US were to bring aid to the people of Iraq that we'd have no arguments with them stopping off in Shannon and I couldn't agree with you more. You seem to forget that we have troops across the world as peacekeeping forces and regularly send aid to these countries.
The neutrality issue is constantly popping up and if you've paid any attention to the previous postings here, you would be well aware that our constitution really needs to be tightened up in this area.
Bringing humanitarian aid to suffering people anywhere in the world, whether it is at war or not, could hardly be viewed as an aggressive act or act of war. Allowing an attacking force free passage, in fact not just allowing free passage but actively helping them to reach their destination is a different issue altogether.
Weapons of mass destruction, exactly what the US claims to be trying to remove from Iraq are being transported through our country in order to be dropped over Iraq. It is inevitable that the people that the US also claims to be trying to protect will be massacred in the event of a US invasion.
Passage of humanitarian aid and passage of troops, warplanes and weapons are completely different issues and make a total mockery of your argument!
The fact that you are trying to compare a war between one small country and the might of the US arguably the most powerful military force on the planet who are also looking for support from the UN with a WWII is comical.
WWII happened over half a century ago. Germany had already invaded half of Europe and had an ally in Italy. Japan tried to capitalise on the situation by attacking the USA and every country in the whole world had plenty to loose or gain.
The USA suffered one of their biggest losses at Pearl Harbour and nuked the poor suckers in Japan before moving into Europe to try to settle the conflict and stabilise the whole planet!
They didn't get involved for any other reason other than to protect themselves and I for one am thankful they did.
The US had allowed the Europeans to systematically whipe each other out in the full knowledge that they would benefit from the major European powers falling behind in both economic and military areas.
I cannot see how you can possibly draw any comparisons between these two conflicts.
The people of Iraq are living under the rule of a cruel dictator who is using whatever money they have to look after his own lavish lifestyle and to produce weapons and something does have to be done. Restricting their economic trading has only made things worse for them and isolated them even further from the rest of the world. As a result we know very little of what is going on in Iraq. Our main source of information comes from the very people who want to invade the country - that's very convenient.
There are other dictatorships where the people suffer in other countries around the world and the US has absolutely no interest in them - why? The answer is because the US have no interest in the well being of the population of a small country halfway around the world. This is a question of economics. $$$. If the US WERE interested in humanity in the Middle East, let alone the rest of the world, they'd also be dealing with the situation in Israel but the current situation suits them there. They supply weapons in return for cheap oil and we all know what Iraq's main resource is don't we.
There are humanitarian issues far closer to the US if they feel that it's their responsibility to look after the poor people in this world. There are also some serious problems with other countries that have "weapons of mass destruction" that seem more urgent than Iraq if they feel that it's their responsibility to police the world. The reasons given by the US just don't hold water when you sit down and logically compare them with similar situations around the world.
I suggest that you read between the lines and not believe everything that you hear on the news. One of the most powerful tools of war is propaganda and both the US and Iraq are engaged in a full-scale propaganda war as we speak. We in this country have recently been victims of a propaganda war ourselves and should be careful of falling victim to it again. I'm referring to the bunch of lies that our own government fed us in the build up to the elections. If you've any sense of political awareness, you'd analyse what you hear from the leaders of ANY country and form your own opinion instead of just accepting it. History has proven that power corrupts many a weak mind and if the general population is not vigilant, we could very easily find ourselves heading towards a similar situation that we are currently discussing in Iraq.
If you believe that a war in Iraq is the best solution then that's your opinion but you should make sure that you understand the reasons behind your opinion first before you go blabbing it off about a world war that finished 60 years ago and comparing military agression with humanitarian aid.

Dexy

I my friends have made an error of judgement.I belived in war,Ibelived it was justified and right.I was wrong.After seeing soldiers of saddam hueseins "regime of terror" surrendering i have realised what a mistake i had made.As i sat there looking at the cover of Friday's evening herald i saw war "in all its glory" 3 well built British soldiers holding one skinny starving soldiers head back at gunpoint while the gave him water.As i saw this i saw how wrong this war is.I saw how it is just like a gang of schoolyard bullies picking on a weak,frail person.I cannot belive how foolish i was to belive in George dubya's war.I came to my realisation on wednesday,and as I along with thousands of others marched on the U.S embassy on thursday I had new belife in people power.So now as i sit hear typing this message i see on the t.v many tanks rolling through a village and several helicopters searching for tired hungry inferiorly armed Iraqi's and all i can think is Bullies.So i just want to say i was wrong about my earlier stance on the war.
NOT IN MY NAME!!!!!!!!!

startled_frog

They really should have taken Saddam out sooner but not being one to read the newspapers or watch the news regularly, I have been glued to Sky News the past few days watching what's going on. The Iraqi's seem to like Bush, they are too afraid to stand up against Saddam so if going to war is going to save millions of people then I'm afraid that war is the only way to go.

But there is never one reason for war.

o sleep

i think it might be advisable to maybe watch some other news information rather than concentrating solely on Sky, as they're not exactly unbiased in their coverage. as for the iraqi people welcoming the US and British, you must remember that (a) they're going into the mainly Shi'ite southern Iraq, and so the vast majority of the people are going to welcome any 'liberating' force and (b) news channels such as sky and fox in america will show you the happy people welcoming the forces, but would be reluctant to show the resistance. But we'll have to wait until they move into the Sunni areas to see whether their coverage is going to be newsworthy, i guess.

startled_frog

I have been watching the other news. And I've read newspapers. But I'm not one to pay attention to what's going on so I don't know the whole story.

fat toni

reckless man, youve changed man, it used to be about the music man.....and now its all.......damn

fat toni

reckless man, youve changed man, it used to be about the music man.....and now its all.......damn

bumbum

Fair play dexy, much respect for keeping an open mind and voicing that you've changed your opinion. Too many people form an early opinion and refuse to admit otherwise regardless of what other information comes to light because they're afraid of being wrong.
As is mentioned in another reply here, you should also be careful about getting your information from a single source like Sky. It IS great coverage that they're bringing us but they are a big organisation who are bringing us "neutral" information from behind the lines of the Allies. I'm not saying that they're deliberatly trying to mislead us but they are only allowed to give certain information and they can't see a whole lot more of it from the other side of Iraqi lines. Whether this is for security reasons or not, it still means that we only have a small proportion of what is going on on one side over there.
Try to keep an eye out for European news from France, Germany, Italy and Turkey etc.. You're more likely to see how much politics is involved in this war when you see the positions taken by each of these countries.
This is a far more political war than any we've seen in a while. Disputes for territory, religion etc.. are generally easier to figure because we know what the aims of all parties involved are, but there are major doubts over the motives of the Allies yet everybody seems to agree that Sadam has to go! Something stinks and I'm putting it down to dodgy business and politics.
I only hope it ends quickly because as well as people on the other side of Europe getting killed, it will continue to have an increasing effect on the rest of the world. When the dust settles though, a few men will be much richer and a whole country will be a hole lot poorer.

stez

If you're really pissed off about the war, do what I did. Go to the Whitehouse website, get it thru google or somthin, get the e-mail address for Bush and Cheney and tell them how you feel and do the same for Ahern, Harney, McAleese, Moo Cowen(he looks like a farm animal doesn't he??), Blair and Gordon Brown.
Now before evryone jumps down me throat whingin, "they won't read it", grand, if you don't wanna send one, don't. I'm just makin a suggestion and tryin to do evrything I can to show how pissed off I am.

Peace.

Dexy

ah yeah know all about the messed upityness of the middle-east region but i dont think that Turkey will be entirley nuetral in there coverage either after all there troops have been sent into the north of Iraq a massive error of judgement as the north of Iraq which is predominitly Kurdish and as you may or may not know Turks and Kurds aint really on talking terms.I got a lugh though when i heard that "as soon as um quasar is captured that humanitarian aid will be brought in"...............lies all lies.

bumbum

Well that's my point. We all know that the Turks want some land or something more outta Iraq. The US want oil. Blair just seems to like kissing American ass. France were up for an invasion until the big businessmen told their government that they would loose a fortune because they've been trading with Iraq quite intensively. Germany are against it because they'll probably end up footing a large chunk of the bill to rebuild the country but they'll get sweet F A out of it.
They've all got different motives so if you listen to each of them, they'll snipe at each other giving away clues as to each other's motives. You've gotta be careful and very selective about what information you trust because the US in particular, in the past, have used mis-information to great effect in propaganda campaigns.
They've all got agendas, but I find that sometimes I can read between the lines and when you do this with all of the sources involved, it helps to build a broader picture.
I don't know anything about it for sure, maybe I'm reading a little too much into some things but everything just doesn't add up properly so I'm just gonna trust my own instincts until someone prooves me wrong.

Dexy

Good Call might take that approach myself

Interested to hear if peoples opinions have changed...