mynamejeff wrote: » I hate to break this too you but a boarder pool would fair the north is too much of a economic and social weight around the neck of the republic as it is to the the uk at present , we don't want the north and we don't need it .
blanch152 wrote: » A permanent member of the UN security council can veto a UN peacekeeping force, and would not allow one on their territory. I can safely say that the Chinese and the Soviets would have vetoed it as well, because they wouldn't want a veto put in place. Someone described it as a wet dream, and that seems accurate to me.
You idiots are looking back to a time when the Irish state had little or no international standing, outside the EU, getting a pat on the back occasionally. Decades of work by FF and FG governments have changed that, no thanks to the IRA and no thanks to Sinn Fein.
christy c wrote: » I would probably agree with that if using my head, but my heart would likely over rule that and I'd guess it would for many others. What that would mean for the result, I do not know. The good news is that Mary Lou will be Taoiseach, and fresh from her success of the demographics looking after themselves, will have a new plan in place that means only those earning over €100k would have to pay anything.
grayzer75 wrote: » The next big campaign will be the border poll which will set Ireland on course for unification as the young vote north and south will be mobilised to the max. After that we will see the sad we faces of all the west brits boiling their piss when they realise they'll have to help fund it and SF will be the largest party on the island
blanch152 wrote: » A permanent member of the UN security council can veto a UN peacekeeping force, and would not allow one on their territory. I can safely say that the Chinese and the Soviets would have vetoed it as well, because they wouldn't want a veto put in place. Someone described it as a wet dream, and that seems accurate to me. You idiots are looking back to a time when the Irish state had little or no international standing, outside the EU, getting a pat on the back occasionally. Decades of work by FF and FG governments have changed that, no thanks to the IRA and no thanks to Sinn Fein.
blanch152 wrote: » There was no amusement, there is anger. It is extremely sad and ironic that there are SF supporters in here who are constructing fantastical notions of UN peacekeepers invading the North in 1969 and accusing the Irish government of standing idly by back then, but those same supporters are showing no emotion or anger or disgust at the current SF government in the North standing idly by while people get sick and die.
dundalkfc10 wrote: » It's a bit sad that you find amusement in that. Let's sort ourselves out before pointing at others
maccored wrote: » stop the waffle - a UN peacekeeping force - you know exactly what I mean. You are proud of the republic doing nothing. it should have done something and didnt.
Bishop of hope wrote: » Over 800 cases of covid today and still they sit on their hands.
Truthvader wrote: » Could well be right but as you will find out if you do achieve the pathetic wet dream of United Ireland; no problems are solved and you are left with the likes of Mary Lou and her seedy bunch of flakes and thugs to address the same real problems that will still exist
markodaly wrote: » LOL, just LOL... You do realise that Ireland and the UK were not even in the then EEC at the time? An EU peacekeeping force? It doesn't exist as a concept. But I do love your fatalism. "Sure the plan would have been a disaster, but **** it...!" Irish Republicanism since 1916 summed up right there. People advocating this type of invasion plan remind me of flat earthers and anti-vaxers, drawing on an emotional response of their brain rather than the logical part. As I said, Irish republicanism resembles a religious cult a lot of the time.
maccored wrote: » It surely would have highlighted what was to become a much worse issue. they could have invaded, and failed and then got the EU peacekeeping forces involved.
markodaly wrote: » No Francie was advocating the Irish Army invade the North back in the early 70's and take over parts of NI to protect nationalists. This was a comment made by him some days ago. A foolish and unhinged plan. Do you agree with him on this or not?
markodaly wrote: » Ah, yes, it was Fake News or Biased News? Or something. So tell me what independent analyst agrees with your version of events or are you just making it up? Francie knows the real truth, an invasion would have been a roaring success for us all. It is a real real pity you weren't in a position of influence back then to make it all happen. Same as in 1920, as you could have told Collins and Co. to invade the North as well. You were just born a few decades too early Francie! That is the true 'What if' of history! Again, partition was inevitable.
maccored wrote: » i think what francie was on about was the tv production being biased. please do keep up. I do understand how the waffle you and the gang are coming out with is confusing and all over the shop, but try not to lose track eh?
markodaly wrote: » Well your friend France was advocating an attack. Do you agree with him on this?
maccored wrote: » the south should have done something. where were the discussions? why are you assuming attack was the right option? were was the dialogue?
blanch152 wrote: » The last paragraph just sums up the sectarian triumphalism of Irish republicanism. It isn't about the ideals, it isn't about making peoples' lives better, it is just about being able to rub somebody's faces in it. The "they'll have to fund it" just shows up the stupidity of it all.
dundalkfc10 wrote: » Only a matter of time
grayzer75 wrote: » You'll trigger a few with that
