You signal to the appropriate people and to the world press (always hungry for a story) that you are sending in a humanitarian mission to protect people you are constitutionally mandated to protect. You are doing it under duress but feel it is your duty etc etc.
As several contributors to the debate on the treaty have said, there is no way the British (under international pressure themselves) would have responded with force instantly. The same applies (even more so) to 1969 when oppression could clearly be seen.
If you read Hansard and what the various leaders had to say, they were petrified about radicalising Southern Ireland and a wipeout of a southern Irish humanitarian taskforce would instantly achieve that as well as increasing international pressure on them.
Step away from the subservient awestruck ramblings a second mark and look at realpolitick.
Even the Falklands saw multiple rounds of diplomacy before aggression was used.
Aggression against a humanitarian mission the world could see was required could never be justified not even by the British.
i do yes .
however the signing of the treaty was not democracy as it was signed under duress and blackmail via the threat of violence upon the irish people if it was not signed.
Apples and oranges my friend.
If you have to shout it was 'INEVITABLE', do you think that enhances your argument or weakens it?
Not only that, but our own parliament voted to accept the Treaty. Those calling for a war in 1921 are ignoring democracy again.
Only one side were threatening war blanch and as the (as you like to call them) 'respected historians' were saying, there was no way in hell the British were going to tell their domestic audience that they were going to war in Ireland again.
There was no world press in 1970, there wasn't a CNN or anything like that. Sending a few cable to Reuters would have been the height of it.
The appropriate people were the UN which was run as a club for the five great powers, so no hearing there. NATO was more powerful than the EEC, so little luck to be found there either. Spain was run by Franco, Italy a mess, Eastern Europe under the thumb of the USSR. Africa was in bits, where is this support you talk of going to come from? It didn't come when the British introduced internment and the Diplock Courts, or after Bloody Sunday, so I really don't get this deluded idea.
The reality is that if we had sent a 25,000 army up North on a humantarian mission in 1970, we would have been lucky if 250 came back. NATO would have annexed the country, they couldn't have had the possibility of a USSR sympathiser at the back door.
Hardly.
You said we recognised partition so we accepted it. Now you say what we recognise doesn't matter because it suits your latest narrative.
Apples and oranges. You are taking a quotation out of context.
For gawd's sake blanch. The world press was here. And the world was watching.
Lord Halisham didn't call the Kennedy's 'Those Roman Catholic b*****s' for nothing. America was putting pressure on and the British leopard was revealing it's spots. The same type of pressure they are under to this very day re: Art 16 deployment.
Britain was under international pressure to behave properly and no amount of you inventing a fairytale of isolation will hide that.
I don't think you understand democracy at all if you think that is democracy. The island of Ireland and its people were always regarded as a single entity, whether as a separate kingdom or as part of the the Union, the same as England, Scotland and Wales. The fact that they were different religions on the island is irrelevant. Parts of countries don't get to go against the democratic majority, just because they don't like the outcome of a given vote, it is the basic principle of democracy. Why didn't the people of Derry City, Tyrone and Fermanagh get an opportunity to vote themselves out of NI after it was formed?
The same reason Scotland couldn't reject Brexit even though they didn't vote for it. If the Scots vote to leave the UK, the whole Country will leave as a whole, there won't be parts who voted to stay remaining part of the UK. It would be counterproductive to the whole basis of democracy.
They didn't decide to ''crush us in 1919 so why would have they have decided to crush us in 1970?
No. I asked you a question and you didn't answer.
No. Pretty far from it.
A few lads signed us up. Caused a civil war. And a few vested interests dictated that part of ulster's fortunes.
You are talking out your hat.
Your post contradicts itself. On the one hand a democratic decision that wasn't really, is acceptable but if a UI goes through it isn't unless everyone is on board. Then you claim partition, which nobody on either side voted on was the only answer.
Catch yourself on.
Bang on Brucie!
The refusal to accept the democratic wishes of the people expressed in the Dail in 1921. Are you a closet FFer?
Cold War
Edit: If that isn't enough, they had the capability in 1970. Could even have used it to try out nuclear war on a limited scale to see how it works.
it would have been met with force by the British - yeah, just give in to the bullies. well done you
ooooh that escalated quickly.
Nuke the Paddies? 😁😁
Keep doubling down on the nonsense that the UK would have allowed small little Ireland invade its country at the height of the Cold War and not responded because something something international do-gooders.
How did that work for the Vietnamese when the US came calling a few years before? If I remember correctly while the US had to pull out eventually, the country was wrecked. We would still be rebuilding Dublin.
Back then, probably, yeah. Wasnt the democratic wishes of more than a few lads/terrorists.
Don't ignore the context of my response to the other lad. It'll only cause you to make a fool of yourself.
Oh give it a rest with the invade blanch.
We were at no Cold War with the UK.
You are completely lacking in perspective and your nuclear experiment gaff proves it.
So Vietnam was a US state and the Vietnamese communists took hold of the North and the US...wait what? Your analogies are way off.
Reminded of this:
if the government of the day had a backbone we might have got somewhere much sooner.
Those killings could have been a catalyst for British withdrawal.
Any port in a storm.
You clearly lack perspective.
The closest equivalent to Northern Ireland - the Israel/Palestine conflict - came very close to going nuclear in 1973. Your fantasy of the UN sweeping in on a white horse to tell the British to stand down is less likely than a limited nuclear strike.
Now where the hell did I say that Vietnam was a US state??? The US went to war in Vietnam, and even though the US didn't win, Vietnam was destroyed. That is where we would have ended up if Francie's fantasy "humanitarian mission" had played through.
I was passing comment on your analogy. So which one was us?
Are there any statements from the British at the time, indicating they would militarily repel an irish excursion into NI during the start of the Troubles?
Make some sense in the local context blanch.
The British could have, could have, could have done what you say. They could have put boots on the ground at any time and squashed any national force. They could have done it when Dev stood up to them and remained neutral and threatened it, but they didn't.
Now any independently minded person would ask why they never did.
When you start getting answers to those questions you might have a more nuanced view of history. There were constraints on the British, just as there are now.
You are just engaging in the Brexiteers bristling of Andrew Bridgen etc.
There is no comparison between the Israeli state and the UK. Sure they murder and butcher the same and have no business being there, but its not England, Wales and Scotland thats contentious its occupied portions of Ulster.
If Iran invaded Israel do you think the US would do nothing? Get your own perspective in order.
