100,000 march through Dublin against War in Iraq

Loomer

Brilliant!!!

Great atmosphere.

Also its quite possibly the highest turnout per capita of any of the marches round the World .

So Bertie, do we have your attention yet???

therecklessone

I was speechless when I heard how many attended, honestly.

Senior Gardai estimate 80000, but that's still brill.

Here's the maths for Bertie. 80000 is about 10 quotas in a decent sized constituency in the next election. Thats a lot of folk you know.

Congratulations to all involved, and keep up the good work. Damn this bad back! I shoulda been there...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dathi1

Yes I think what got up ordinary peoples noses was the idea that Blair, Bertie and co tried to put up the notion that Bush was the man to bring democracy to Iraq. Leftie Ken Livingston gave a great speech in London...and it was great to see all sides in politics on the march in Dublin today.

pencil

Yeah, there was a amazing turnout!!!

There where so many marching and the stream of people was so long that it was hard to know which stream was the direction to follow.

A few thousand of us, while following the a samba band, ended up marching up Trinity St & then up Wicklow Street & on to Grafton St. When we got to Grafton Street we found another section of the march coming down the street. Both marches joined & then at the end of Grafton Street rejoined the main body of the march.

100,000 & a turn out from all walks of life - Bertie & Cowan are going to have to listen to that.

Great day for Democracy (that's if our overlords listen!)

Shinji

On the other hand, if our leaders don't listen, it'll have been a dark day indeed for democracy. In Britain at least, Blair seems happy to carry on in the knowledge that the public can do little to affect a mid-term government, and the hope that we'll all have forgotten by the time the next election rolls around.

I'm not so sure. I think a lot of ordinary people have suddenly discovered that they're not happy with our elected leaders deciding that their job is to rule rather than to represent.

Estimates for the final crowd in London range from 750,000 to two million, with most independent estimates skewing high - the 750k figure is the official police one, and they only gave that estimate for people who walked the official routes. Many many more came to Hyde Park on side routes.

The people have spoken with the single loudest voice they've ever had. The opinion polls speak the same truths. If the government does not now listen, then it cannot be said to be representing the people; it moves forward without the mandate of its electorate.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Shinji
On the other hand, if our leaders don't listen, it'll have been a dark day indeed for democracy. In Britain at least, Blair seems happy to carry on in the knowledge that the public can do little to affect a mid-term government, and the hope that we'll all have forgotten by the time the next election rolls around.

Bertie/Blair et al would like to think that we'd all be happy with a bit of an aul peaceful protest and then we'll all go home, happy to have a job at all. Sure aren't we great altogether, with nearly full employment and such low taxation and all. Sure who' rock the boat?

Cop yourselves on lads. Peaceful protest can very quickly turn into Poll Tax style riots if the public feel they are being f**ked around by their representatives you know. Imagine the Guards trying to deal with even a fraction of the 100000 who turned up in Dublin today on the rampage.

Do I support violence as a means to a political end? Only when the elected leaders (and remember, unlike the US, we put 'em there) decide to completely ignore the people they serve and decide to do as they please. Peaceful protest is fine up to a point, but what happens if 1 million turn up for the next anti-war march (Dublin grinds to a halt for a start:D ) and Bertie still ignores us? Do we toddle off home with our tail between our legs?

HELL NO!

DadaKopf

Brilliant, brilliant turnout. We should all give ourselves a pat on the back.

Cactus Col

That's all well and good, but how many of that 80000 will bother to do anything else. A lot of people seem to be of the mentality that once they've marched then thats all they need to do to have shown their support. What they need to do now (or on Monday) is call the T.D.'s for their areas and tell them how they feel, or send them a letter, or an email.

Take a more active participation in protest.

regi

Its a pity we couldn't all march to get a decent health or public transport service, rather than to condemn a war this country won't/can't fight regardless. I vaguely wonder about our priorities...

therecklessone

Originally posted by Cactus Col
That's all well and good, but how many of that 80000 will bother to do anything else. A lot of people seem to be of the mentality that once they've marched then thats all they need to do to have shown their support. What they need to do now (or on Monday) is call the T.D.'s for their areas and tell them how they feel, or send them a letter, or an email.

Take a more active participation in protest.

This is a very good idea. Michael Moore (of Bowling For Columbine fame) suggests exactly that to Americans. Swamp our local reps with thoughtful and reasoned e-mails (and I mean that...resort to abuse and you immeadiately lose their attention) and it might just work.

I'll start work first thing tomorrow morning.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Regi
Its a pity we couldn't all march to get a decent health or public transport service, rather than to condemn a war this country won't/can't fight regardless. I vaguely wonder about our priorities...

Valid point. However, we are playing a part in the build-up to war (Shannon), and we are talking about hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives here. Sometimes I wonder do people in this country only care about the money in their pocket, and the problems of traffic congestion and inflation.

I'm being a bit hard on you there, sorry. Doesn't the election of a number of independant TDs in the last election who campaigned on health issues show that we do care? And if you are prepared to organise some form of protest, and I mean a well organised one, I promise I'll back you up. How does that sound?

regi

However, we are playing a part in the build-up to war (Shannon), and we are talking about hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives here

Shannon seems to be quite an emotive issue. I saw a poll earlier that stated that a majority of people would be opposed to use of the airport as a refueling point in the event of a UN resolution backing military action in Iraq. Do people no longer support UN resolutions?

Anyway, the whole thing for me suggests that people find it far easier to make a black/white decision about something very far away than try to clear up the the problems we have here at home. I can understand - its much easier to do.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Regi
Shannon seems to be quite an emotive issue. I saw a poll earlier that stated that a majority of people would be opposed to use of the airport as a refueling point in the event of a UN resolution backing military action in Iraq. Do people no longer support UN resolutions?

Anyway, the whole thing for me suggests that people find it far easier to make a black/white decision about something very far away than try to clear up the the problems we have here at home. I can understand - its much easier to do.

Well, when you know that the majority of the votes on the Security Council are bought by the US (they call it diplomacy, we know it as pre-election spending, Fianna Fail style!) then you tend to doubt even UN resolutions. But I tend to agree, we can't criticise the US for ignoring or sidetracking the UN, then ignore the UN when it suits us. What we should be pushing for in the long term is reform of the UN, so that the veto of the Five Powers is watered down.

As for your second point...possibly its because we know our government will do f**k all about the problems at home, certainly those that need more than five years planning. But then maybe the 50% of us who voted for the current administration should ask themselves is the extra few euro in your pocket from the tax reduections worth the crappy hospitals, the rampant inflation, the abysmal traffic and transport chaos in general, and the complete lack of balls when it somes to dealing with political corruption. Not forgetting the increase in crimes, the disaster that is our education system, and the post-euro fleecing we all got.

But sure haven't we all got a job now, and to be sure the tax isn't too bad now is it? Wait there sir 'til I doff me cap to ya. Jaysus Bertie you're a star...nearly as good as Charlie so ya are.

Biffa Bacon

I was very, very impressed by the whole march - not just the turnout but also the atmosphere. Everyone seemed to be there out of real conviction - it definitely wasn't just the usual suspects and professional protestors of the SWP and co.

People say war is inevitable but if that kind of pressure is kept up I do think there is a real chance that some political leaders will crack - starting with Bertie and Blair.

Which would be a shame.

dathi1

Biffa...you're dead right...I was taken aback by the number of families and ordinary people on the march...in the age of I'm all right Jack and everybody for himself you could multiply the impact of that figure ten fold.
( It might be just Bush's face )

mike65

I wonder did any of the 100,000 on the march have any coherent ideas about what to do about Saddam Hussain? Just a thought....

Mike.

therecklessone

I'm sure a lot of them have...

Try Dennis Halliday and Michael D. Higgins for a start.

Check the other posts about this and you might find what I think should be done, I'm a little tired of typing the same thing over and over...

JTMan

Originally posted by mike65
I wonder did any of the 100,000 on the march have any coherent ideas about what to do about Saddam Hussain?

I also wonder if any of those marchers had coherent idea's about how to stop the millions of deaths that can be attributed to Saddman's rule, the gross neglect of civil libraries and other blutalitisies associated with his regime.

War is likely to be the only method that will bring an end to this brutal regime.

I strongly disagree with those who marched on Dublin yesterday and hope that Bertie, Blair and Bush continue with their support for war in Iraq.

DeVore

Originally posted by therecklessone
Do I support violence as a means to a political end? Only when the elected leaders (and remember, unlike the US, we put 'em there) decide to completely ignore the people they serve and decide to do as they please. Peaceful protest is fine up to a point, but what happens if 1 million turn up for the next anti-war march (Dublin grinds to a halt for a start:D ) and Bertie still ignores us? Do we toddle off home with our tail between our legs?

HELL NO!

You remember and vote.... or is that not "reckless" enough for you.


What will you do? trash a McDonalds? have a sit in in the dail?

Jeeesus.

DeV.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Fungus
the gross neglect of civil libraries

Irish libraries aren't much better you know...only two books at a time in most of 'em:D

Sorry, I'm always doing that as well. As I've said before, show me the stats for the "millions" who've died under Saddam, please do.

As for civil liberties, there are far worse regimes around the world you know. AND he was no better when the US/UK/France were providing him with weaponry, intelligence, and more importantly scientific support (chemical weapons anybody) for the first 20 years of his reign.

Replace him with another general who does what he's told and it ain't gonna get any better.

therecklessone

Originally posted by DeVore
You remember and vote.... or is that not "reckless" enough for you.


What will you do? trash a McDonalds? have a sit in in the dail?

Jeeesus.

DeV.

Very mature of you.

What happens if I do remember, and I vote, and the next government still ignores the people? More importantly, given that the incumbent govt. have a comforatable majority, the chances of an early election are remote. What if they were to take that as excuse to ignore the people who put them there? Do we just sit tight and say "we'll get them f**kers in four years?

I'm not a Reclaim The Streets loonie, but I accept that sometimes peaceful protest is not enough. Its not as black and white as you would like to believe you know.

Some examples of civil disobediance in the not too distant past...

1. The Berlin Wall comes down
2. Tianeman Square (again, excuse my spelling please)
3. Milosevic removed from power in the former Yugoslavia.

In all of those regimes, the actions that took place would not have been seen as peaceful protest. Do you think Chinese students should have waited to voice their dissent through elections?

Let me be clear. If 1 million people were to march in this country at some time in the near future in opposition to war, and our elected representatives were to ignore that, it would have serious consequences for Irish democracy. A motion of no-confidence would be filed in the Dail, and defeated by a united government (assuming no rebels emerging from the backbenches of course). Given the serious nature of what is about to happen in the Middle East, I ask you this: is it good enough to wait four years for the next election?

I know I don't need to answer that, and I am unashamed about it.

Cork

eeh the Baghdad anti-war protest was cancelled due to .........em....beatings ,executions,mass-dissapearences etc.

Seriously - judging by openion polls - If a 2nd resolution is passed - The govt. should not allow the use of Shannon.

Thus - acting aganist the UN?

Should the Irish government stop giving grants to companys supplying the US milliatry effort?

I am anti war - But the UN inspectors will be given a deadline. After this deadline - It will be time for either soldiers to leave the Gulf or War.

It is up to Saddam.

Shinji

Er, I don't quite get this whole "acting against the UN" thing. Ireland's constitution demands neutrality - REGARDLESS of whether the united nations sanctions military action.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Meh

Originally posted by Shinji
Er, I don't quite get this whole "acting against the UN" thing. Ireland's constitution demands neutrality - REGARDLESS of whether the united nations sanctions military action.

Which article in the constitution says this? I can't seem to find anything in there about neutrality or non-alignment, apart from the new prohibition on joining an EU common defence.

therecklessone

Yeah, I'm with them. Its a while since I checked Bunreacht na hEireann, but as far as I recall, there is no constitutional directive on neutrality. If there was, what would we do if we were attacked????:D

Turnip

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Brilliant, brilliant turnout. We should all give ourselves a pat on the back.

Yes pat yourself on the back and be all smug and right on. How does that get Iraq liberated then?

Turnip

Originally posted by DeVore
You remember and vote.... or is that not "reckless" enough for you.

Heh. I guarantee that when the next election comes round people will do the right thing and vote as they did last time. Something to do with the SSIA scheme coming to fruition then....When push comes to shove, people look after themselves then whinge about global issues they have no influence over later.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Turnip
Yes pat yourself on the back and be all smug and right on. How does that get Iraq liberated then?

Yer such an eejit.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Turnip
Heh. I guarantee that when the next election comes round people will do the right thing and vote as they did last time. Something to do with the SSIA scheme coming to fruition then....When push comes to shove, people look after themselves then whinge about global issues they have no influence over later.

Exactly. And not just global issues. We piss and whinge about our s**t health service, blaming the staff as usual, and the transport chaos, and the failing education system, and the rising inflation.

What really worries me is if things continue as they are, we will probably have FF/PDs in power for another ten years. By the end of that we will be so pi**ed off we'll elect anyone who isn't in the government parties simply out of pure bloody contempt, and a smug git akin to Blair will end up Taoiseach. You think the decision making process is arduous now, just wait until then. Imagine Bill Clinton and Tony Blair rolled into one, all things to all men, without the anorak(Bertie's almost got it right!;) )

We will become so cynical, that politicians will get away with blue bloody murder, and we'll let it happen because they'll have knocked a cent off the top rate of tax.

Argh! I need tea!

dathi1

Yes pat yourself on the back and be all smug and right on. How does that get Iraq liberated then?

Very easy question to answer:George Bush doesn't get to invade Iraq yet...perhaps
or if he does:
1.The sadam dicticatorshio falls with the loss of 10,000-100,000 lives in 3 months.
2. Bush installs his military dictatorship in the Sunni middle part of Iraq.
3.bush installs his Shia dictator in the south of Iraq.

4. The Kurds get fXXXed around again for the 20th time and are occupied by the Turks in Northern Iraq (already agreed on) and their human rights record on the Kurds nearly approaches Sadams.

All the above is what the Bush/Blair axis calls: moral crusade and liberal democratisation.
Then there's the OIL British Petroleum and Exxon yum yum.

and we provided the logistics for this war against "these evil doers"(bush) through Shannon.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by therecklessone
1. The Berlin Wall comes down
2. Tianeman Square (again, excuse my spelling please)
3. Milosevic removed from power in the former Yugoslavia.

These are not good examples in support of your assertion below. The first two are examples of people bringing about change in non-democratic situations. In the third example Milosovic lost at the ballot box. People worked within the (far from perfect) democratic process to remove him.

This is what you said initially:

Do I support violence as a means to a political end? Only when the elected leaders (and remember, unlike the US, we put 'em there) decide to completely ignore the people they serve and decide to do as they please. Peaceful protest is fine up to a point, but what happens if 1 million turn up for the next anti-war march (Dublin grinds to a halt for a start ) and Bertie still ignores us? Do we toddle off home with our tail between our legs?

How would you feel, then if the leaders weren't elected? It seems to me that whether the leaders are elected or not is unimportant to you.

What if it isn't an anti-war march but some other issue that you didn't agree with? How then would you feel about organised mass violence in support of a political aim. You are not the first to think along these lines.

The amasing thing is that you used two examples of people essentially fighting for the basic democratic rights we enjoy to justify circumventing the democratic process.

For the record, I'm against the upcoming war against Iraq. I support people's right to demonstrate peacefully their right to oppose the war. I don't believe that this right should extend to violence.

bobsmith833

Originally posted by Loomer

Also its quite possibly the highest turnout per capita of any of the marches round the World .

Sadly that probably isn't the case - 100,000 is 1/9 of Dublin's population, whereas the 1.5 million that turned up in London is about 1/5.

seamus

Originally posted by bobsmith833
Sadly that probably isn't the case - 100,000 is 1/9 of Dublin's population, whereas the 1.5 million that turned up in London is about 1/5.

Actually, per capita....

England, popluation ~ 50 million

1.5 million ~ 1/40 of population

Ireland, population ~ 4 million

100,000 ~ 1/40 of population.

This is assuming no welsh or Scottish people travelled to London to participate

In comparison to a lot of other countries, Dublin has an extremely large population, in terms of the overall national population.

Yeap, and it looks like, those that protested are going to have to keep the comfy shoes on, as the politicians both here and in the U.K are varying from being coy about it to ignoring it altogether.

I heard one person here say *cough* more people are prepared to pay €60 and travel across the country to watch a Robbie Williams concert than protest for free against the War in Dublin:rolleyes:

The other consideration is the 40% core Fianna Fáil support that never wavers which makes a protest, even of this size while they are in power have less effect....and the gas thing is some of them must have been on the protest....but they won't vote for anyone else.
mm

Von

Twas all a good bit of dignified crack. I was in the bursting bladder bloc until Stephens Green.

The secretary general of FF is jumping ship at an interesting time so he is.

PH01

That was a fantastic turn-out and I'm slightly sorry to have missed it (couldn't miss the England France match). 100,000 turnout is fantastic and the turnout all over the world on Saturday was something else. If Bush/Blair and Saddam don't get the message from this righteous popular protest then nothing will get through.

However, I don't think the Saturday protest will stop the war. The 'war' card has already been dealt and it's going to happen.

What happens after Saddam's removal from power is anybody's guess.
One thing is for sure, Bush and Blair are going to be mightily unpopular in the short term and if they fùck-up the peace in Iraq their careers are over. So too are those who back them in this war - and Bertie Boy may be included in this (that is if Ireland gets off the fence - which they won't, and shouldn't)

bug

It was a great atmosphere and a great turn out. It was great to see young families and the ordinary people come out. I have regained my faith in our generation.

Snowball

The turn out was incredible. I was so swamped with work. The whole thing was great!!

Originally posted by pencil
100,000 & a turn out from all walks of life...

The Gardi (last I heard) thought that the figure was about 100,000 but a lot of people went home. I was a stuart and a co-ordinator from Carlow (among others) and when I left Parnell square it was completly blocked with ppl. It took me 10 mins to get from the Graden of rememberance to the Embasador (and the whole around by the hosptial was the same). It took me the bones of an two hours to walk/run from there to Stevens green (was suposed to be at from of march) and when I got there I was told that the crowd was already at Dame st.
At two o'clock (before the marched started to move) march was stagnet from Parnell square to Trinity. The best estimete of our guys (Irish Anti-war Movment, who do this kinda thing all the time I might add) is between 110,000 and 150,000. A lot of people went home after the march took so long ion starting.

Originally posted by therecklessone
...but what happens if 1 million turn up for the next anti-war march (Dublin grinds to a halt for a start:D ) and Bertie still ignores us? ...

1st of march March takes place in Shannon.

Originally posted by Regi
Shannon seems to be quite an emotive issue. I saw a poll earlier that stated that a majority of people would be opposed to use of the airport as a refueling point in the event of a UN resolution backing military action in Iraq. Do people no longer support UN resolutions?

1st its not about that. We r suposed to be Neutral (our constitution says so and if we let outside influences to change that without the irish people says so we r in trouble) and second there has been no resolutions yet

Originally posted by mike65
I wonder did any of the 100,000 on the march have any coherent ideas about what to do about Saddam Hussain?

I think the problem is that people think that they have the right to say what goes on in other countries. Dont get me wrong I dont like Saddam but still... In Ireland we were oppressed by the English for 100's of years and we stood up and got what we wanted (or close) and if they Iraqi people want that let them say so but the problem is that there are people (as much as we in the west do not like to think so) that liek Saddam and want to keep him there. The poverty in Iraq (belive it or not) is caused because of teh sanction imposed on them by the UN and the states.
My uncle worked as a doctor over in Iraq (years ago) and said that he had never seen more state of the art equipment and facilities in the hospitals and other places like that. Now.....

Originally posted by Cork
Seriously - judging by openion polls - If a 2nd resolution is passed - The govt. should not allow the use of Shannon.

Thus - acting aganist the UN?

Should the Irish government stop giving grants to companys supplying the US milliatry effort?

I am anti war - But the UN inspectors will be given a deadline. After this deadline - It will be time for either soldiers to leave the Gulf or War.

It is up to Saddam.

Its up to us. The US has the same right to go into Iraq and attack then he has to come over into Ireland and attack because he does not like our gov.

Originally posted by daveirl
no my understanding is that if there was a UN resolution it would say that all member states have to coperate.

But constitutions stand more important than a Un resolution. Our constitution is the foundation of our country.

bobsmith833

Anyone know where I can find pictures of the Dublin march?

mike65

Originally posted by dathi1


All the above is what the Bush/Blair axis calls: moral crusade and liberal democratisation.
Then there's the OIL British Petroleum and Exxon yum yum.

The French and Rusian oil corporations have the inside track
in Iraq if the US and UK/Dutch companies get a piece of the action
it'll be smaller stuff. Total-Fina/Elf-Aquataine will retain all the juicy contracts.

Mike.

mike65

Originally posted by Snowball


I think the problem is that people think that they have the right to say what goes on in other countries. Dont get me wrong I dont like Saddam but still...

Sometimes the outside world should interveen, look what happened in Rwanda, the UN ran and a million died.

In Ireland we were oppressed by the English for 100's of years and we stood up and got what we wanted (or close) and if they Iraqi people want that let them say so but the problem is that there are people (as much as we in the west do not like to think so) that liek Saddam and want to keep him there. The poverty in Iraq (belive it or not) is caused because of teh sanction imposed on them by the UN and the states.

Almost no-one in Iraq wants to live under Saddams rule, why on earth would they?

The UN sanctions on Iraq will remain
in place until Saddam goes, and he wont go until he is forced out and that wont happen from within Iraq.
Sadly.

Mike.

shep the malevolent pixie

Originally posted by bobsmith833
Anyone know where I can find pictures of the Dublin march?

www.indymedia.ie -there's loads of pictures there.

anyone know where i can get bongos for fairly cheap?

sHep :cool:

therecklessone

Originally posted by SkepticOne


What if it isn't an anti-war march but some other issue that you didn't agree with? How then would you feel about organised mass violence in support of a political aim. You are not the first to think along these lines.

The amasing thing is that you used two examples of people essentially fighting for the basic democratic rights we enjoy to justify circumventing the democratic process.

For me, democracy involves certain people receiving the right to exercise power in the interests of the people. That is power is devolved from the people. I have had this discussion with others on other threads, and I'm not going to type another long explanation/justification of my viewpoint here. Suffice to say, I believe that the elected government loses legitimacy when it fails to represent the wishes of its electorate, plain and simple. Now, far from trying to subvert the democracy that both you and I hold so dear, I am saying that I believe there are certain circumstances which justify non-peaceful means to defy an unresponsive government, be it elected or unelected.

I don't want to trash McDonalds. I had a lovely Chicken Royale today, even if the coffeeesucked. But I find it hard to believe that on something as important as the current Middle Eastern crisis, that our democratically elected government can choose to ignore the clear will of the people. How far would you be prepared to let the government act with impunity, while waiting for the next election. How much use will turfing Fianna Fail out in four years be to the people of Iraq in the event of a unilateral US attack in the coming weeks. I'm sure they will appreciate our efforts.

For the record...I believe in peaceful protest. But when the clear will of the people is continually ignored by the authorities, what use is a vote every five years? About as much use as tits on a boar.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Snowball


We r suposed to be Neutral (our constitution says so and if we let outside influences to change that without the irish people says so we r in trouble) and second there has been no resolutions yet

Have you ever read the constitution Snowball. Bunreacht na hEireann makes no mention of neutrality. I read it last night, and unless I missed something, I'm sure of that. It makes mention of the role of the President in relation to control of the armed forces, and also that the Oireachtas shall have the sole right to raise an army in this state. I did not see the word neutrality mentioned once.

Please, will somebody point me in the way of the exact article of Bunreacht which defines Ireland's neutrality????

SkepticOne

Originally posted by therecklessone
For me, democracy involves certain people receiving the right to exercise power in the interests of the people. That is power is devolved from the people. I have had this discussion with others on other threads, and I'm not going to type another long explanation/justification of my viewpoint here.

No. The system of democracy we have here is that the elected government gets to wield power for a period of up to five years.

If they wish to ignore the peoples will, then they lose the election. That is the deal. This puts responsibility on both the elected government and the people electing them.

I think, with respect, that you have not given this much thought because you used the example of the Tienenment Square (a peaceful protest put down by a repressive regime) to justify violent protest in Ireland (a liberal democracy). Spare me the explanation if it involves such ill thought out examples.

Anyway, getting back on topic. Fair play to the protesters for conducting their protest in a peaceful way. This will have far more impact than if their was rioting or violence.

therecklessone

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Spare me the explanation if it involves such ill thought out examples.

Consider yourself spared.

SkepticOne

Thankyou.

mike65

Bertie Ahern has finally spoken on the weekend "anti-war" march, he said he was pleased to see so many agreeing with the governments policy! LOL! What policy?

Mike.

seamus

Originally posted by therecklessone
Please, will somebody point me in the way of the exact article of Bunreacht which defines Ireland's neutrality????

There is nothing in Bunreacht na hEireann, which exactly says "Ireland is neutral".

However, if I may direct your attention to Article 29, Section 1, 2

Originally posted by Eamonn deValera
1.Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice on morality.

2. Irelands affirms it's adherence to the principles of pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination

Section 1 just basically says, "We are friendly and want everyone to be friendly with us and everyone else."

Section 2 doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Basically, "We adhere to the belief that all disputes will be settled only through peaceful mediation, arbitration or lawful judgement."

If you can point out how we can get involved in a war and not be in violation of this section, I'd love to hear it.


Sorry for the OT-ness, I felt this was a loose thread which needed clipping