So then Bertie what is the story with Shannon now......

gandalf

So now the US & UK (the Axis of Diesel) have decided to go it alone on their little crusade what decision will our Jelly backboned Taoiseach make. It appears from the murmurings in Washington last week that he will turn a blind eye and let Shannon be used no matter what.

So what can we do. Well at the moment I am emailing all the TD's in my constituency asking them for their positions. Here is the letter that I am using.

Dear ,

As a constituent of Dublin South and given that the US & UK are now going to go ahead with a attack on Iraq I wish to confirm that you will be supporting the withdrawal of the use of Shannon Airport and Irish Airspace for US Military Aircraft.

I await your reply with baited breathe.

Yours,

XXXXXXXX

I will be following this up with a fax to them tomorrow with the same message as experience has taught me that TD's sometimes don't even know what a email is. If you feel the same way that I do about the use of Shannon I suggest you so the same over the next few days.

You can get the relevant details of your local TD's from http://www.gov.ie/oireachtas/frame.htm and most of them have their email addresses and fax numbers on the various party websites.

Gandalf.

davelerave

it's already decided long ago they can use it

gandalf

Well Dave it doesn't stop us from making our representatives lives a misery now does it. Basically if they don't respond to my emails and faxes I will call them, if they fob me off again I will call up to them and have a face to face chat.

Gandalf.

seamus

Originally posted by davelerave
it's already decided long ago they can use it

But we all know that our politicians are far more concerned with keeping their job then with actually doing their job. The more people that tell Bertie that Shannon is not to be used, the more likely he is to listen to us.

davelerave

Originally posted by seamus
But we all know that our politicians are far more concerned with keeping their job then with actually doing their job. The more people that tell Bertie that Shannon is not to be used, the more likely he is to listen to us.

good point ,i think he should explain his justification for use of shannon the same way blair and bush have had to make their case to their own people ,i'm sure there'll be the usual dail debate and slanging match the government will have to say that 1441 allows for war 'in extremis' even though they would have preferred a 2nd resolution and bertie will probably mutter about not upsetting the 'apple tart too much',at the end of the day it would be a brave or maybe foolish government that would take a stand .fine gael would do the same even if they start complaining now

dahamsta

I don't like to be pedantic on important issues like this, but I find that things like spelling and grammer can be critical in in "official" correspondence. So anyway, it should be:

I await your reply with bated breath.

On an even more pedantic note, the last three words probably don't serve any purpose, bar possibly annoying the TD.

Sorry.

adam

gandalf

Whoops ah well too late Adam (bloody MS Word spellchecker!!!)

As for annoying TD's that letter is nothing compared to me turning up at their offices and giving them a piece of my mind (and you have met me Adam so you already know I'm not the shy retiring type).

Gandalf.

davelerave

Originally posted by dahamsta
I don't like to be pedantic on important issues like this, but I find that things like spelling and grammer can be critical in in "official" correspondence. So anyway, it should be:

I await your reply with bated breath.

On an even more pedantic note, the last three words probably don't serve any purpose, bar possibly annoying the TD.

Sorry.

adam

i was also going to comment ,you could rephrase you email they may dismiss you as a crank

Éomer of Rohan

Or each of you could help me and my comrades by protesting on Day X the day after war begins. Protests are to begin at 12.30 in the afternoon. Tell Bertie and Blair and Bush NOT IN MY NAME!

Manach

Whilst I would be supporting this upcoming war, reactionary to the core that I am, I also believe firmly in our policy of neutrality. Wrong or right, during WWII DeValera kept this as a policy, favouring neither side.
We should either get a vote to formally end neutrality and enter an alliance with US/UK or else reaffirm it. Till then Shannon sh'd not be in use by a country at war, even one as beign as America.

BTW, is there a way of publicly supporting the war, like walk-ins at work or wearing red/white/blue ribbons?

Éomer of Rohan

BTW, is there a way of publicly supporting the war, like walk-ins at work or wearing red/white/blue ribbons?

If you wish to get mugged LOL.

Alternatively you could volunteer for the British Territorials and go away off to fight. I am not saying I hope all pro war supporters do that of course. In no way. Nope.

dahamsta

As for annoying TD's that letter is nothing compared to me turning up at their offices and giving them a piece of my mind

Well, some might say that reasoned debate is nearly always more effective than disordered ranting. Not me, obviously. Other people. Teactaí Dála probably say it quite a lot, but try as I might, I can find little evidence of it being put into practice.

(and you have met me Adam so you already know I'm not the shy retiring type).

Ah no, I remember you as the shy, retiring type gandalf. I remember us all holding you down and shoving a goose in your face, but nothing we tried could get you to say BOO to it.

adam

davelerave

Originally posted by gandalf
So now the US & UK (the Axis of Diesel) have decided to go it alone on their little crusade what decision will our Jelly backboned Taoiseach make. It appears from the murmurings in Washington last week that he will turn a blind eye and let Shannon be used no matter what.

So what can we do. Well at the moment I am emailing all the TD's in my constituency asking them for their positions. Here is the letter that I am using.



I will be following this up with a fax to them tomorrow with the same message as experience has taught me that TD's sometimes don't even know what a email is. If you feel the same way that I do about the use of Shannon I suggest you so the same over the next few days.

You can get the relevant details of your local TD's from http://www.gov.ie/oireachtas/frame.htm and most of them have their email addresses and fax numbers on the various party websites.

Gandalf.

i respect your views and your right to protest it's healthy and neccessary esp. now but i also understand the government decision to allow use of shannon,they could take a moral stand if they felt it was right to do so but they have decided that it's in our best interests to co-operate with the US notwithstanding doubts about the justification for war now

gandalf

So basically your saying its ok to buy our silence and co-operation then.

Heres a quote from Albert Einstein that sums up my feelings at the moment

"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."

I believe this misadventure in the middle east is evil and I am prepared to let people know that. I also believe that when this crusade starts we in Ireland will have blood on our hands because we let the US military machine utilise our facilities.

Gandalf.

Frank Grimes

I've just sent off a mail to my local TD for what it's worth.
Hopefully I'll get a response of some sort.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by davelerave
i respect your views and your right to protest it's healthy and neccessary esp. now but i also understand the government decision to allow use of shannon,they could take a moral stand if they felt it was right to do so but they have decided that it's in our best interests to co-operate with the US notwithstanding doubts about the justification for war now

I would be more of the opinion that they've decided it's in their own best interests, rather than listening to the opinion of the majority of the general public.

colster

I think the question of Shannon is a non-issue now.
The US has already amassed it's troops in the Gulf. The war will not last long. I would not be surprised if it was over in a matter of days rather than weeks.
In that scenario the question of the use of Shannon is now meaningless.
Not allowing the US to use Shannon now would not be about massing troops in the Gulf.
Shannon will more than likely be used to bring troops and casualties home.
How can we object to that?
Also Shannon will also be used to transport aid and humanitarian supplies to Iraq.
How can we object to that?

The use of Shannon is not the question.
The question now is whether you support this war or not.

Originally posted by gandalf

I believe this misadventure in the middle east is evil and I am prepared to let people know that. I also believe that when this crusade starts we in Ireland will have blood on our hands because we let the US military machine utilise our facilities.

Gandalf. [/B]

I understand your mis-givings on this, Gandalf,but I don't agree that, what is about to happen is Evil.
I'm reserving judgement calmly untill after this is over.
mm

Samson

Just heard on the news;
Dail is being recalled for Thursday morning.

gandalf

Well colster the symbolic withdrawal of Shannon will send a message to the US that we do not support the action they are taking.

As a country that has close ties with the US it is our responsibility to tell them when they are making a serious error of judgement.

Gandalf.

Johnmb

The use of Shannon is not the question.

The use of Shannon is the question. Do the Irish people send a message that it is okay for the US to break international law, and to break the Charter of the UN, or do we tell them that it is not okay, and while we can't do much to stop them we certainly are not going to help them. I choose the latter, and I think the vast majority of Irish people agree with me, given the various protests and opinion polls, and discussions with people I know. As for the question of do I support this war? No I don't, it breaks international law to serve the agenda of oil barons and weapons dealers. It is not about democracy, they have already confirmed that, it is not about disarmament either as the stopped that process in its tracks. They have their own personal agendas, and any war started in such a way should not be supported.

scojones

Originally posted by colster
The war will not last long. I would not be surprised if it was over in a matter of days rather than weeks.

Sorry, you really don't think this war will last long? The only way I can see it not lasting long is if Saddam gives up. I'm sorry I just can't see that happening.

colster

Originally posted by gandalf
Well colster the symbolic withdrawal of Shannon will send a message to the US that we do not support the action they are taking.

As a country that has close ties with the US it is our responsibility to tell them when they are making a serious error of judgement.

Gandalf.

Gandalf we have supported them. We allowed them to use Shannon to amass troops in the Gulf.
As far as I can see that matter is closed.
As a measure of symbolism of objection to this war I think it would be both ineffective and counter-productive to now allow the use of Shannon.
If you object this action I would contend that you concentrate on the US/UK governments rather than our own.

gandalf

colster it is not a closed situation. The forces out in the Gulf will need re-suppling and re-enforcements. We can withdraw the use of Shannon now and send them a strong message that we, IRELAND object to their bloody crusade.

As for protesting to foreign governments they won't take any notice of us, we don't elect them colster.

Its time to put some real pressure on our so called representatives and get them off the comfort zone on the fence.

Gandalf.

Hobbes

Contact details if you want to complain/support.

TAOISEACH'S PRIVATE OFFICE
e-mail: taoiseach@taoiseach.gov.ie

Phone: 01-6194020 / 4021 / 4043

Fax: 01-6764048

I'd like to see a better worded version of yours Gandalf and I'll send one off too (either way). I don't want to be dismissed as a crank and tell him in no uncertain terms he's not acting in my intrests.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by colster
Shannon will more than likely be used to bring troops and casualties home.

What are they using it for at the moment then?

The use of Shannon is not the question.

It is for me, for people posting to this thread and for a great deal of people in this country. Why shouldn't the government be questioned over this?

gandalf

Interesting response from Seamus Brennen,

Dear Paul,

Many thanks for your message.

I understand your concern, but I will not speculate on the decision of the Government regarding the use of Shannon in the event of an escalation of the Iraqi situation. Following the September 11 atrocity, the Government acted on the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order which allows overflights or landings to countries whose forces are engaged in bringing to justice those who carried out or assisted in the dreadful events. This offer was made in the context of UN Security Council Resolution 1368 which classified the September 11 attacks as a threat to international peace and security, and called on all states to work together to bring to justice the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of the attacks. The role of Iraq in world terror should not be underestimated.

The present situation is one which will be monitored and responded to in the appropriate way by your elected Government. It is the job of Government to make decisions having regard to all the facts which are available, but which may not always be readily accepted by some people. People will agree with decisions, but it is not possible to have unanimous endorsement on all issues. The Taoiseach, as the democratically elected leader of this country, has stated very clearly that if Ireland were to withdraw facilities, we would be the only country so doing, and that it would not be in Ireland's strategic interest. Shannon continued to facilitate US planes during previous military operations in Vietnam and Kosovo, and Ireland's military neutrality was not compromised.

I hope this helps to explain the present position, but I want to stress that no final decision will be made ahead of any escalation in the present situation.

With best wishes.

Basically they are saying we can't rock the boat, that Berties
knows whats best :rolleyes:

Gandalf.

Frank Grimes

...but which may not always be readily accepted by some people...

I like that bit, whatever plot of sand they've been sticking their heads in lately mustn't be getting the opinion polls etc. that I've been reading.

gandalf

Originally posted by Hobbes

I'd like to see a better worded version of yours Gandalf and I'll send one off too (either way). I don't want to be dismissed as a crank and tell him in no uncertain terms he's not acting in my intrests.

Well your welcome to write your own. I just fired mine up to get people thinking. TBH I have got 2 responses already from 5 mails sent so it seems to be working. I don't expect Seamus Brennen to respond to the follow up I have sent to him where I haven't minced my words. (I'm not slapping it up here for Adam to damage my ego again!)

Gandalf.

colster

Originally posted by gandalf
colster it is not a closed situation. The forces out in the Gulf will need re-suppling and re-enforcements. We can withdraw the use of Shannon now and send them a strong message that we, IRELAND object to their bloody crusade.

As for protesting to foreign governments they won't take any notice of us, we don't elect them colster.

Its time to put some real pressure on our so called representatives and get them off the comfort zone on the fence.

Gandalf.

Gandalf putting pressure on our government will achieve what exactly.
Will it achieve the withdrawal of US troops from the Gulf?
I don't think so.
If the Irish people are seriously against this war then lets forget the 'symbolic gestures' and apply some real pressure such as boycotting US/UK goods and refusing to work for US/UK companies.
If we all refused to eat in Mac Donalds, drink Coca Coll and
If all Irish people who work for UK or US companies went on strike then perhaps that would send a more concrete message to those people who actually have the power to stop the action.
I think this opposition to the use of Shannon is both half-assed and useless.
If we get the government to tell the Yanks that they can't use it then we'll all slap ourselves on the back and say our work is done.

Wook

Originally posted by gandalf
(continue)As a country that has close ties with the US it is our responsibility to tell them when they are making a serious error of judgement.
Gandalf.

what makes it closer then EU ? The amount of irish living in the States ? or the companies that come here and profit from the easy tax-laws ? EU did rebuild or rather helped a lot and allowed the Irish to have a decent healthy economy with loads of cash aside and nothing of inflation...etc etc etc(ahurm)

dahamsta

Basically they are saying we can't rock the boat, that Berties
knows whats best :rolleyes:

Well, you shouldn't roll your eyes, because sitting on the fence is a valid political position. There are political risks in withdrawing the use of Shannon, specifically saying that the U.S. can use Shannon, and sitting on the fence. All have their risks, but if you think about it, sitting on the fence is the least risky. That's not to say I admire it - god forbid - but it's Bertie all out, isn't it? Is there any reason to be surprised, and is there really any chance of us pulling Bertie off the fence before someone of import - i.e. not us - pushes him?

adam

colster

Originally posted by Johnmb
It is not about democracy, they have already confirmed that, it is not about disarmament either as the stopped that process in its tracks. They have their own personal agendas, and any war started in such a way should not be supported.

It could also be said that the opposition to this action are also un-democratic as they (France and Russia) both threatened to use their vetoes. Is this democratic???
Also do you think that the French and Russian motives are not also driven by oil.

How are they in breach of international law.
Does not the UN resolution 1441 not threathen serious consequences for non-compliance.

When does the international community act to enforce such resolutions.

I can't believe that people are giving Bush and Blair a harder time than Saddam Hussein. All Saddam had to do was give up his WMD. They did not ask him to disband his army. This is all he had to do to prevent war. Why isn't he given the level of abuse that is being reserved for Bush and Blair.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by colster
It could also be said that the opposition to this action are also un-democratic as they (France and Russia) both threatened to use their vetoes. Is this democratic???

Err yeah, they're entitled to use the veto if they wish.

Does not the UN resolution 1441 not threathen serious consequences for non-compliance.

It never threatened war though, even the US at the time said it wasn't a trigger for war.

colster

Originally posted by Frank_Grimes
Err yeah, they're entitled to use the veto if they wish.



It never threatened war though, even the US at the time said it wasn't a trigger for war.

What then does 'serious consequences' mean??
What did you think it meant.
I thought that this meant that war was threatened.

The term 'trigger for war' is different to the term 'threat of war'.
This is how I understood it.

Johnmb

It could also be said that the opposition to this action are also un-democratic as they (France and Russia) both threatened to use their vetoes.

They would have been acting within international law if they had. But they didn't need to, the US and Britain couldn't get the 9 votes in favour that they needed. They didn't withdraw the resolution because of France, they knew France's position from the start. They claimed they would ignore the "unreasonable" veto (which still would have been illegal) once they had the moral support. The fact that they withdrew the resolution shows that they couldn't even get the moral support, let alone the legal support.

How are they in breach of international law.

International law is quite specific as to when war is legal, i.e. either in self defense or with the explicit authority of the UN Security Council. This war does not have Security Council authorisation, nor can the US and Britain claim to be defending themselves, as Iraq has not attacked either.

Does not the UN resolution 1441 not threathen serious consequences for non-compliance.

It does, but "serious consequences" is not "military action". Not only is it not military action in the letter of 1441, it is not military action in the spirit of 1441, as the original draft had to be changed to ensure that it would not lead to military action without a further resolution.

I can't believe that people are giving Bush and Blair a harder time than Saddam Hussein. All Saddam had to do was give up his WMD.

And according to the inspectors, it looks as though he had. They found no evidence of any, and even wrote off several US claims to the contrary as being wrong. They stated that they could verify this within months. At that point Bush pulled the rug out from under them, proving he was never interested in disarming Iraq.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by colster
What then does 'serious consequences' mean??
What did you think it meant.

It doesn't really matter what I think it meant, but a great deal of people in the UN didn't seem to think it meant war.

gandalf

Well therein lies the problem colster. 1441 is not specific on what "serious consequences" means. Now call me old fashioned but if the UN are going to authorise bombing and invading a country well I expect them to clearly state that in the prescribed resolution, this has not happened in this case.

The French & the Russians are well within their rights to veto any resolution that authorised war as they believed as I do that the weapon inspectors were doing a good job and actual progress was being made.

At no time was the objective of the UN resolutions "regime change", that is the objective of the Bush administration and has been for quite some time.

So without this UN support it brings us back to Shannon Airport, I clearly remember Bertie stating that the use of Shannon Airport would be withdrawn if there was no UN resolution authorising war as is the case now. Looks like he's changed his mind and lied to us again eh :rolleyes:

Gandalf.

dahamsta

What then does 'serious consequences' mean??

What did you think it meant.
I thought that this meant that war was threatened.

You thought wrong. All of the lawyers who say that going to war now /is/ legal use previous Resolutions as the proof of that, for the simple reason that 1441 /can't/ be used as proof. Resolutions that were written 10-12 years ago, I might add.

And a veto is part of the process. You mightn't agree with it, but the countries in the United Nations agreed that it should be part of the process, so it's part of the process. There's nothing undemocratic about it.

adam

Washout

IN his speech alongside Bush..Bertie Ahern was basicallyt making the point that the backing if the UN council for this war would mean backing from Ireland...What does this mean Bertie? that instead of publically stating "its ok cause the UN says so" to being silent on the subject?

colster

I don't doubt the veracity of your comments.
1441 was a total fudge.
Everyone knows what serious consequences means.
It means a threat of war. It is not however explicit.
The diplomacy leading up to this point has been a complete shambles.
The justification for the war has swung from disarmament to regime change and also briefly to links with September 11.

This whole crisis has been badly handled on all sides.
If the UNSC had put forward a united face and given a more detailed and non-ambiguous wording of 1441 then we would not be in this state now. I think if this had happened we would not be about to have another war.

I find myself stuck between the 2 view points.
I believe that the world would be a better place without Saddam and without any of his WMD.
I think we have to acknowledge that there is a dreadful threat to the world. These types of weapons in the wrong hands can lead to catastrophe.
Saddam has supported terrorist action in the past. He is known for compensating the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
What if he decides to provide them with WMD?
As Bush said last night. Do we have to wait for thousands perhaps millions of people to die before we act.
Should we not prevent the potential for this to happen.
Should the US not right the wrong they did in supplying him in the first place.
I think they should. I don't think the Weapons inspectors were working. What they proved was that Iraq did produce weapons that breached the limits of the armistice after the first Gulf War.

What do we do? I think there has to be a point after which we must act. The sanctions have not worked. Weapons Inspectors have not worked. The Threat of War has not worked. The logical conclusion is that war is now the only way forward.

One final point. If Bush were to withdraw the troops today. What then happens.

Johnmb

Everyone knows what serious consequences means.
It means a threat of war.

No it doesn't, not in international law. It may mean that in diplomatic talk, but a resolution is a legal document, not a diplomatic one. In a resolution it means exactly what it says, i.e. there will be consequences, and they'll be serious, but what they are has yet to be decided by the UNSC.

Saddam has supported terrorist action in the past. He is known for compensating the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

They could equally be viewed as freedom fighters (and they are in most Arab eyes) that he is helping. But most of the money he provides is to their families who become the victims of crimes against humanity perpetrated by Israel (as opposed to financing the actual bomber), so this can hardly be a justification for war.

Should we not prevent the potential for this to happen.

Potentially, at some stage in the future, Ireland may develop weapons and attack the US. Potentially, any country may do this. Are you seriously claiming that the US should be allowed to ignore international law and attack any country it wants based on this potential?

What they proved was that Iraq did produce weapons that breached the limits of the armistice after the first Gulf War.

And those weapons were being destroyed as per the wishes of the international community, despite the fact that they fell into a grey area and may not actually have been illegal.

The sanctions have not worked.

That's because they were aimed badly. They did work as far as containing the military capabilities of Iraq, their failure was due to the side effects they had on the people of Iraq as well.

Weapons Inspectors have not worked.

They worked. They did what they were supposed to do, i.e. remove Iraq as a credible threat in the region. They could have been finished in a matter of months if given the chance to finish their jobs.

dahamsta

What if he decides to provide them with WMD?

Which WMD? Robin Cook doesn't seem to think he has any. That's not to say he doesn't, but who /does/ know? Why won't they tell anybody?

As Bush said last night. Do we have to wait for thousands perhaps millions of people to die before we act.

...by killing thousands, perhaps millions of people?

I don't think the Weapons inspectors were working.

They were doing the best they could within the contraints that they were faced with. Many of which were put there by the US and the UK.

What they proved was that Iraq did produce weapons that breached the limits of the armistice after the first Gulf War.

Well, up until now, the words "only just" would apply here.

The logical conclusion is that war is now the only way forward.

Logical to you maybe. It has absolutely no logical standing for me.

One final point. If Bush were to withdraw the troops today. What then happens.

He won't withdraw the troops, and he shouldn't withdraw the troops. The troops should stay where they are and the US and the UK should go back to trying to negotiate a multilateral agreement. If nothing can be done before winter sets in, a new resolution with a definite threat of war after more inspections, after the winter, would be perfectly acceptable to me.

adam

gandalf

OK I'll post up another reply I received from Seamus Brennen but heres the message I sent in reply to his original response (just to keep it all in context).

Dear Seamus,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

However I was lead to understand that Ireland would only allow the use of Shannon and our Airspace if there was a specific UN resolution authorising the use of force in Iraq, now forgive me but I do not believe 1441 specifically authorises force. Has the government changed our policy on Neutrality?

With regard to Bertie Aherns comments on Ireland being the only
country to withdraw her facilities that is a downright lie, Austria
have withdrawn the use of her roads and her airspace for over flights because they are truly neutral.

Personally I feel the Government which you are a part of, are taking the cowardly route and not doing what you where elected to do which is to reflect the views of the electorate, the majority of whom are against this unilateral crusade in Iraq.

Basically I think your response has told me that our morality is
available to the highest bidder, which in this case is the US.

Gandalf.

gandalf

Heres Seamus's response to that message of mine.

Dear Paul,

Sorry you feel that way.

I am amazed to discover that you have an insight into the minds of the majority of the Irish electorate. The people in Shannon, who are most directly affected, have a very different view, as do many other people across the country. Are we not to represent those people too?

Diplomacy was tried and we supported every effort to make it succeed. We regret that it did not succeed. However, we also made it clear that talking could not go on forever. The only Resolution currently in force and endorsed by the United Nations calls on Iraq to disarm. What is the free democratic world to do in the face of non-compliance? Do we just sit back and say that we tried diplomacy and it did not work, so therefore we have to forget it? The
decision of France to block any new Resolution (without even having the text of one) was quite extrordinary. But then, there have been well known commercial links between France and Iraq in the not too distant past. Could there possibly be any connection?

The issue of whether Shannon is available to conduct its business as it has in the past is not a moral one. Is there a morality when people employed in the Shannon region have no money to feed their families because business has bottomed? Is there a morality about the antics of the dictator of Iraq, who cannot even have a democratic election without threatening his own People with dire consequences if they did not vote for him - the only candidate. It is easy to get 100 per cent support in those circumstances. Is there a morality about the dictator of Iraq just last week using his military might against the Kurds in his own land?

If we have a debate, let it at least be balanced. I suspect that we will not agree on the matter but let's agree to disagree.

With best wishes.

SEAMUS

I have replied to this but will hold off firing it up here until/if he replies further.

Gandalf.

bug

Brennan still represents Dublin South doesn't he, you should put that in the local newspaper in that area and see who the hell he is representing. The newspaper is called Southside People

Hobbes

Wow I hope he just wrote that on the spur of the moment and didn't think about what he was writing.

It's intresting he's mentioning the Kurds considering the deal with US/Turkey.

The text of the new resolution was also available, otherwise why else would of there been news stories on the fact it was full of porkies? But then the French were planning to Veto as the UN Weapons inspectors were making headway and there was no real reason to draft another resolution except as a precursor for war.

But the real issue here is, he is willing to turn his back on the UN?

Oh and Ireland has also done dealings with Iraq in the not so distant past. As has the US and whole range of other countries.

Hobbes

Originally posted by bug
Brennan still represents Dublin South doesn't he, you should put that in the local newspaper in that area and see who the hell he is representing. The newspaper is called Southside People

Which has a poll on should US Airplanes be allowed land in the shannon which is almost a 2:1 yes vote. But then internet voting is rarely a valid source of measurement.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

gandalf

To be honest I doubt very much that Mr. Brennen wrote that reply himself. It was probably written by a assistant. I have heard nothing else from him/them but for your interest here is my follow up to that reply. If he replies I'll post that as well.

Dear Seamus,

Again thank you for your prompt and frank reply.

I am surprised that you are "amazed at my insight into the minds
of the Irish Electorate" as Polls have indicated their opposition to the present use of Shannon Airport especially without the authorisation of the UN. I will draw your attention to a MRBI
poll published in the Irish Times on the 15th of February last which concluded that 68% of those polled oppose the use of Shannon without a UN mandate. Given that on the same day 100,000+ marched in Dublin alone, a protest unprecedented in recent times in Ireland I think I am on safe ground in my assumption that the majority of people in this country are against the use of Shannon in this illegal endeavour by the US & UK.

With regard to 1441 there was no timescale put in place by this
resolution and Dr. Blix had stated that the process will take months to verify that it had been complied with fully (March 8th). I note your comments regarding the brutal dictator of Iraq and I agree with them. However 1441 is about removal of WMD and not about Regime change, is Regime change now the official policy of the Irish Government Seamus?

If we have a debate Seamus please have it on the subject on hand. Do we support the UN or do we now support unilateral actions by countries that we are friendly with? Are we a truly neutral nation or are we just fooling ourselves?

I see the Dail is recalled on Thursday to discuss the use of Shannon Airport and I hope that you and your colleagues will express the views of the public that voted you in. I do think we do disagree regarding this situation but I do also recognise that you are a intelligent politician and that you have done a good job in your current portfolio. I think it would be a shame for you to tarnish that record in supporting a issue that is so at odds with the wishes of the majority of people on this island (according to MRBI of course!).

Yours Sincerely,

Paul..............

There is no point in sending this to any newspaper etc until the vote on Thursday. You never know the government may actually surprise us and go with the people. If they do still allow the use of Shannon I will forward the mails onto the relevant publications. I would like to commend Mr. Brennen or his aid for actually replying and engaging which in itself was refreshing.

I'll end this with one message for Bertie and the boys "Your either with the electorate or against it!"

Gandalf.

Greenbean

Perhaps you should ask his permission to quote these personal correspondences? After all if we were to continually make public such private debate on what might be no more than an good exchange of opinions and cause Seamus public issues other TD's are going to think twice about replying to them. I think its pretty valuable that you've actually got a reply; you now have a direct opportunity to influence the mind of one of the elected leaders (or his assistants). At this point I would hope that obvious well detailed facts or even opinions would trouble Seamus's mind.

I do accept that sticking it in a paper can have more immediate, widespread effect in the short-term, but goodwill counts for something too... Maybe I'm just too soft, but I sometimes think people fail to see the longterm benefits of certain approaches.