maryishere wrote: » It happened hundreds of years ago and to understand history you do not have to be "for" it or "against" it. You could argue China is colonising parts of Africa now, by building infrastructure there etc. If you want to discuss colonisation you best set up a new thread on it.
maryishere wrote: » If every nation was cowardly enough to attempt to stay out of the war, Hitler would have had a field day. As it was, he invaded some neutral countries and deported some of their citizens to extermination camps etc.
maryishere wrote: » It is possible to understand history and politics correctly, to see all sides of the argument, and yet not have a hatred from all things British.
maryishere wrote: » It is possible to be a proud Irishman or Irishwoman, and yet not be a Republican.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Do the BA FR and US Armies have a different history in terms of offensive activity than the Irish Army? Can you distinguish them?
FrancieBrady wrote: » I asked you, is there a difference in the history of their offensive 'activity' If there isn't please list the 'offensive' activity of the Irish Defence Forces around the world. Namely, occupations or invasions for strategic or operational goals. I apologise to other readers, this is like pulling teeth. I think we will know (if we don't already) where it is going with the answer to the above. The last answer fell back on juvenile derision, not a good sign.
Jawgap wrote: » ....... As I said, much earlier, some armies are expeditionary (or have an expeditionary tradition) - show me where I argued the BA (or the US, French etc armies) are otherwise?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Not an answer. I didn't ask about offensive capacity (a gun shop has that), I asked about offensive activity for strategic or operational goals.
Jawgap wrote: » Again, another case in point!! The reason they turned into a cock-ups (and Crimea didn't) is for the reasons I've already stated - the people!
feargale wrote: » Why is it ok to go on and on about Ireland's WW2 neutrality, while dismissing every imperial aggression as belonging to the past and irrelevant to and unworthy of moral evaluation?
Jawgap wrote: » nd to make things as simple as possible.....the Irish Defence Forces haven't invaded anywhere, or occupied anywhere (without a UN mandate) or conquered anywhere etc
smurgen wrote: » Yeah,the iraqis were too uncivilized.they did'nt apprectiate the heroic lads of the raf and british army liberating them with their Shock and Awe attacks!
maryishere wrote: » If every nation was cowardly enough to attempt to stay out of the war, Hitler would have had a field day. As it was, he invaded some neutral countries and deported some of their citizens to extermination camps etc. Who dismissed every imperial aggression? We were talking about WW2, and responding to Nazism / fighting the Axis forces was not " imperial aggression".
maryishere wrote: » Who invaded little Kuwait first? Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It was a coalition of a dozen or two forces led by the US and UK who liberated Kuwait, as far as I remember. If you let big countries like Iraq ( who then had the fourth biggest military in the world, as far as I remember ) invade oil rich but tiny Kuwait, and get away with it, then you are asking for complete anarchy in the world.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So no history of offensive activity which distinguishes them from the 3 armies mentioned that have long histories of offensive activity. Thank you, I have no idea why you wasted everyone's time.
smurgen wrote: » Did Iraq invade Kuwait in 2003? I musta have missed the sexed up dossier on that one lol.
Jawgap wrote: » Well, I don't think I wasted everyone's time - only those who needed everything explained in the most simple terms
FrancieBrady wrote: » No, you just wanted to be pedantic.
smurgen wrote: » What about Irish guerilla attacks against the British do you see them as cowardly?
maryishere wrote: » If you are talking about IRA attacks against the British in that time (mid 20th century) yes they were, and very wrong. For example, On 25 August 1939, five people died and 70 were injured when an IRA bomb exploded in Coventry city centre. From wiki, Those killed were Elsie Ansell (aged 21), John Arnott (15), Rex Gentle (30), James Clay (82) and Gwilym Rowlands (50). James McCormick and Peter Barnes were hanged for their role in the bombing. Éamon de Valera would covertly co-operate with Britain to crush the IRA. DeValera killed some IRA men in jail - I wonder if Thatcher had killed some IRA men in jail what would the reaction have been / if it would have reduced IRA activity like it did in WW2.
Jawgap wrote: » "Shock and awe" was a US doctrine, not a UK one, but don't let that get in the way your expressed sentiments
maryishere wrote: » Who mentioned 2003. Invasion of Kuwait was in 1990, with the liberation not long after the worldwide coalition (ex Ireland) responded.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I think cheer leading what the British Americans French etc did to the middle east is way off topic. What the hell an Irish soldier was doing stuck in the middle of it is.
Jawgap wrote: » are you saying Saddam, who actually used gas (at Halabja) against civilians deserves a pass?
Britain is reported to have sold thiodiglycol and thionyl chloride to Iraq in 1988 and 1989. (Ralph Atkins, et al., "Britain Exported Poisonous Gas Ingredients to Iraq," The Financial Times, July 29, 1991, p. 1.)
Jawgap wrote: » Because soldiers go where they're told and the politicians here made a decision to contribute to ISAF.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Saddam was a brutal dictator and let's not forget that Britain helped the fucker build up his chemical weapons capability. The British, as regards foreign policy, have proved themselves utterly amoral when it comes to furthering their interests.
