FrancieBrady wrote: » RThey were open to anything ..
You are woefully underinformed of the people involved here, not to mention the context and circumstances.
markodaly wrote: » Including a foreign power taking over parts of the UK without their consent or the consent of the UN? You will have to get that to me in writing.... link please!! All I do know, and the experts agree with me on this that a unilateral invastion of the North by the Republic would have been an economic, social and military disaster. You and you along think otherwise.
Yurt! wrote: » JohnnySpiceFlashBrain the not angry man will be completely unaware that the Netherlands and Sweden (among other countries) already have such a provision in their constitution and is reflected in their laws. FlashBrain will now have something to say how the Dutch and Swedish are stupid people and that FG are much more cleverer with the bestest and most good housing policy in the world.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » This is a bit all over the place, but there is a difference between the right to housing, and the right to a home. What SF are proposing is a referendum that will place into the constitution the right to a home. Which goes far above and beyond what the Dutch have in place. If everyone in the country has a right to a home then we need to do one of two things: redefine what a home is and the concept of what a family is, 2). build a home for everyone. It's why it's such bullshít populism. Our homelessness rates (which isn't rough sleepers) are slightly ahead of the Dutch (who do have a culture of building high-rise apartment blocks in suburbs, with all the resultant social issues that brings), and quite a bit below the Swedes. The Swedes are currently looking to redefine what housing means. It's almost like these macro issues aren't unique to Ireland. We also built the most social housing in this country in 2018 and 2019 that we'd done in almost 40 years. With the strange side-effect that it was councils or housing bodies outbidding young people trying to buy their home. Complex stuff, dude. EoB's ham-fisted attempt to get a bit of publicity for SF by pushing through this populist and entirely unworkable pipe dream involving a fundamental change to the core tenets of the constitution is the sort of cheap soundbite and social media post we're coming to expect from the most ineffectual opposition in the history of the State.
smurgen wrote: » Depends on your idea of populist alright. FFG's over inflated plaster on a gaping wound that is HAP payments was popular with landlords.
markodaly wrote: » Including a foreign power taking over parts of the UK without their consent or the consent of the UN? You will have to get that to me in writing.... link please!!
All I do know, and the experts agree with me on this that a unilateral invastion of the North by the Republic would have been an economic, social and military disaster. You and you along think otherwise.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » Rent prices increased at a far higher rate than wages. Again, this is a common theme across the EU. What would you have done? Get people to pay ever more rent, or put in place supports? Nationalise all housing? Like if there was an immediate alternative that was preferable then what was it?
dundalkfc10 wrote: » I live in Dundalk rent house 1300 a month, I can go 5 mins up road 6/700 a month I can get free GP/Dentist/Childcare, kids will get loans go uni if they want no matter how much mammy earns cause they pay it back when they start working There's alot of things better in the 6 counties than we have here let me tell you Woman
Suckit wrote: » EDIT - Nobody is denying it would have been a disaster, that is obvious, but as asked, what would the choices have been?
FrancieBrady wrote: » You are stretching now. Review what happened when Argentina actually invaded. Several months of diplomacy, involving not just the Argies and Britain bit the Americans and the UN. That is what we should have precipitated, the thing that was hugely instrumental in solving what happened. 'Internationalise the problem', draw in the Americns and the rest of the EU. Again you cling to the 'invasion' scenario. You are correct on that, had we invaded the problem would have been made worse.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » I'm not actually sure you're being serious any more, but are you actually suggesting that quality of life is better in NI (or indeed Britain) than it is in Ireland? I mean I can roll out stats to bate the band about access to education, healthcare outcomes, discretionary spending, happiness, quality of life etc. The Republic is one of wealthiest, fairest, and decent countries in the world. It exceeds or matches places like Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and the Netherlands on most positive metrics. We are one of the last great social democracies. It's the sort of thing that makes a United Ireland actually achievable.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You are stretching now. Review what happened when Argentina actually invaded. Several months of diplomacy, involving not just the Argies and Britain bit the Americans and the UN.
Recalling the statement made by the President of the Security Council at the 2345th meeting of the Council on 1 April 1982 calling on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to refrain from the use or threat of force in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),Deeply disturbed at reports of an invasion on 2 April 1982 by armed forces of Argentina, Determining that there exists a breach of the peace in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), 1. Demands an immediate cessation of hostilities;2. Demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas); 3. Calls on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to seek a diplomatic solution to their differences and to respect fully the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
That is what we should have precipitated, the thing that was hugely instrumental in solving what happened. 'Internationalise the problem', draw in the Americns and the rest of the EU.
dundalkfc10 wrote: » A Levels are higher than a leaving a cert for 18 year olds. Free doctor, Free dentist better than here unless your rich. What is happiness? To the rich and so called upper class happiness is alot different to working class I know many people here who are not happy just as I know many people in the 6 who are not happy but amazingly I know the same the other way around. Amazing isnt it We are a shambles of a country who for decades have let the rich do what they want, politicans judges etc do what they like, lads caught on prime time taking brides but still in senior positions That's what Ireland is We are no worse or better than our friends up north and I call them friends cause I've loads protestants friends and ya know what, alot them have more respect for Sinn Féin than people down here cause they know what happened and understand it
JohnnyFlash wrote: » I'm not actually sure you're being serious any more, but are you actually suggesting that quality of life is better in NI (or indeed Britain) than it is in Ireland? I mean I can roll out stats to bate the band about access to education, healthcare outcomes, discretionary spending, happiness, quality of life etc.The Republic is one of wealthiest, fairest, and decent countries in the world. It exceeds or matches places like Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and the Netherlands on most positive metrics. We are one of the last great social democracies. It's the sort of thing that makes a United Ireland actually achievable.
markodaly wrote: » You then don't know what happened during the falklands. The UN passed this resolution, resolution 502.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_502 Interestingly, Ireland was a member of the security council and voted for this resolution. The Argentinains invaded on the 2nd of April and the British sent a Naval Task force not 48 hours after. They of course won the war easily enough with massive casualties on the Argentinian side. If the British were prepared to do that, for a clump of rocks in the South Atlantic populated by more birds and penguins that people, do you honestly and really think they would have stood idly by when the Irish Army rolled into Derry and Newry, the UK proper and been fine with it? Oh, and you just angered and engaged over 1 million Unionists.You would have pushed middle Ulster further into the hands of violent loyalists. Well done!! You admit yourself that we would not have the UN on our side and also that if the British did not give us the consent to move in, we should have do so anyway..... Your plan and idea is utter lunacy and is unhinged Francie. I have no idea why you are so invested in this brain child of yours. What the **** are you on about? There was no EU, there was an EEC who were we not members of, nor were the British. Complete and utter lunacy and fantasy that other EU states, who were members of NATO would be siding with Ireland on this one. Utter fantasy!
FrancieBrady wrote: » Because that was an aggressive 'invasion' and again you are ignoring the context. Thatcher was a different animal to Wilson.
I made a specific comparison to The Falklands/Malvinas. The diplomatic efforts made to avoid a conflagration/war. Read about them Mark - research. Almost (if not all) all major leaders of the world had something to say about it.
And apologies I of course meant the 'rest of Europe'.
markodaly wrote: » A PM who would have accepted foreign troops in its cities without a shot being fired and without the consent of the British government would not be a PM the very next day. British public opinion would have never stood for it.
Bringing up the Falklands just makes your argument worse, not better.
The 'rest of Europe' that were NATO members? :P
JohnnyFlash wrote: » This is a bit all over the place, but there is a difference between the right to housing, and the right to a home. What SF are proposing is a referendum that will place into the constitution the right to a home. Which goes far above and beyond what the Dutch have in place. If everyone in the country has a right to a home then we need to do one of two things: redefine what a home is and the concept of what a family is, 2). build a home for everyone. It's why it's such bullshít populism. Our homelessness rates (which isn't rough sleepers) are slightly ahead of the Dutch (who do have a culture of building high-rise apartment blocks in suburbs, with all the resultant social issues that brings), and quite a bit below the Swedes. The Swedes are currently looking to redefine what housing means. It's almost like these macro issues aren't unique to Ireland. We also built the most social housing in this country in 2018 and 2019 that we'd done in almost 40 years. With the strange side-effect that it was councils or housing bodies outbidding young people trying to buy their home as social housing is built by private developers. I'd actually be the 1st to criticise that piece of FG policy tbh. It's unsustainable, and desperately unfair. It's too socialist. Complex stuff, dude. EoB's ham-fisted attempt to get a bit of publicity for SF by pushing through this populist and entirely unworkable pipe dream involving a fundamental change to the core tenets of the constitution is the sort of cheap soundbite and social media post we're coming to expect from the most ineffectual opposition in the history of the State.
Truthvader wrote: » Don't expect much analysis from Eoin. He probably thought that if you put a right to a home in the constitution housing is instantly solved forever. A bit like their babyish "anti austerity" policy which seemed to depend on a belief that the government could just vote for more money and everything would be fine. Austerity being a FG conspiracy to punish "de wurkin' man" And always the background hum of the Sinn Fein real agenda so helpfully illuminated by Francie here; seething with hatred and jealousy, re-running fantasy military adventures from 100 years ago and delusionally obsessed with a United Ireland as a solution to anything. And always always the undercurrent of threat and justification equivocation and glorification of sociopaths and thugs
Suckit wrote: » What experts? What were the alternatives if Thatcher had ordered the British army out? I think you have a different vision of what the initial purpose would have been, and the reality of what might have happened. EDIT - Nobody is denying it would have been a disaster, that is obvious, but as asked, what would the choices have been?
smurgen wrote: » The FFG supporters are coming out with some bizarre noise creating post as of recent.
blanch152 wrote: » Well, if we were only sending clear signals and were bluffing, then Francie is right that he never called for an invasion. However, bluffing wasn't a tenable situation. This is just fantasy, pure fantasy. I have pointed out repeatedly that in the whole history of the UN, not one permanent member of the Security Council has allowed a UN peacekeeping force onto its soil. When the Chinese were killing Tibetans for fun, there was protests at the UN, but nothing was done. They even vetoed membership for Taiwan.https://isdp.eu/content/uploads/2018/03/PRC-Peacekeeping-Backgrounder.pdf Have a read of this document for some background on the Chinese attitude to peacekeeping. "Placing such a fundamental importance on the pillar of state sovereignty has been a guiding principle for Beijing. This was the primary factor in its opposition to peacekeeping missions up until its first engagement in Cambodia in 1992. Not maintaining its neutrality and undermining the principle of sovereignty was seen as a threat to its own internal security, from the Xinjiang, Tibet and Inner Mongolia autonomous regions, as well as its claims over Taiwan" When the Soviet Union was burning and falling apart, there were no peacekeeping operations in the Ukraine. Even now....https://finabel.org/the-potential-of-an-eu-peacekeeping-force-in-ukraine/ "The deployment of UN-mandated peacekeepers to the Donbas region has been on the table for several years; however, Russia has made it clear that it will only support a mandate for UN peacekeepers when a political settlement is reached in the region" Now rewind back to the late 1960s and the height of the cold war, the ongoing proxy war in Vietnam. It is sheer fantasy to believe that the UN would even consider a peacekeeping force in the North.https://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/no-longer-standing-idly-by-irish-army-contingency-plans-1969-70/ This is an excellent article by professional historians rather than internet fantasists which sets out the reality of the time. "Even if the political will had existed within the Irish government, the infantry groups did not have the manpower, transport or equipment to protect the nationalist areas of Belfast. Speaking retrospectively, Lynch admitted that ‘we had no intention of moving in . . . we did not have the men or equipment even if we had the desire’" "Consequently the Irish army was authorised to assess its capability for intervention in Northern Ireland and produced an assessment, Interim Report of Planning Board on Northern Ireland Operations (27 September 1969). Military planners viewed intervention with clear apprehension and knew that an incursion without an attainable political objective would be counter-productive to Irish interests. They recognised the difficulty of justifying an incursion and realised that internationally the Republic of Ireland might be seen as an aggressor, with negative political and public opinion influencing ‘the outcome of any operations undertaken’." That is the assessment of the time - we would be seen as the agressors. No hope of UN intervention, save to justify a British invasion to secure its borders. Looking back through a green-tinted fog of misty-eyed nostalgia doesn't change those facts. It is time we left this silly idea of invading the North in 1969 behind. It is distracting from more serious issues like the complete failure of the Sinn Fein government to take action in the North against Covid-19 and the very interesting court case being taken by the McConville family. You would almost think that people wanted to divert from these issues by posting nonsensical ideas.
dundalkfc10 wrote: » Fine Gael have told the Irish football team no more money be going to you ***** anyway No tickets for Windsor for Leo and his mates
blanch152 wrote: » All of the points were comprehensively addressed in this post, but then ignored by those posting a fantasy.
blanch152 wrote: » What has this, (whatever it is because there is no link and nobody knows what you are talking about) got to do with a Sinn Fein thread? I thought you were against posters introducing SF into FG threads and vice versa, or is it only one-way SF thinking?
markodaly wrote: » A PM who would have accepted foreign troops in its cities without a shot being fired and without the consent of the British government would not be a PM the very next day. British public opinion would have never stood for it. Bringing up the Falklands just makes your argument worse, not better. The 'rest of Europe' that were NATO members? :P
blanch152 wrote: » The rest of Europe in NATO that had treaty obligations to declare war on any country that put troops on the soil of one of its members. This gets more laughable, Francie will soon be in Australia the way he is digging.
Truthvader wrote: » Francie unfortunately has revealed his true agenda here once too often. He will pursue the Gerryadamsspeak he is trained up on relentlessly.
All vague equivocations and "we are all victims/ it was all wrong/ it wasn't me it was partition" etc etc. In Francie's head it is not an "invasion" because he already said that we would cross the border as "peacekeepers". He may even believe that this makes it OK
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
