Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

United Ireland Poll - please vote

1100101103105106132

Comments

  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Its not at all different!

    What do you think would happen should Serbia 'invade' (in commas for you🙄) Kosovo? A land that they believe is part of Serbia? Surely nobody would pass any remarks, sure they can't invade their own country right?

    I'm sure the international community would just sit back and do nothing



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,913 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Discuss that with whoever is proposing we should have invaded NI there Bubbly.



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No. It's directed at you.

    You say Ireland could not have invaded their own country if they sent troops into northern Ireland, which you say, we claimed as our own country then

    So, if Serbia invade Kosovo tomorrow, which is what they claim to be part of their country, what do you think would happen?

    The international community would sit back would they? Would they just say, 'ah sure Serbia said it's their country'!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,297 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    That certainly appears to be the case if you follow his twisted logic.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,913 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    If Serbia think it was the right thing to do to protect their own people then go for it Serbia.

    Do the right thing...always.

    The wrong thing to do was abandon our people to their fates. Approx 4000 times wrong not to mention the lives destroyed.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ah Jaysis.

    Says it all.

    I think the international community would disagree Francis.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,862 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Not surprised to see Francie being schooled on this issue.... again.





  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,913 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    If the UN says you cannot go in to protect your own people, does that mean your people don't need protecting or does it mean the UN is making a political decision because it is acting in the interests of one of it's 5 veto holders?

    Do tell us the answer to that Bubbly...seems to me the UN is not the paragon of right some hold it up to be.

    I'd be very critical of the UN over the years as a by the way.



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It's not just the UN Francis, there would be very few countries, Ireland included, that would agree with Serbia invading Kosovo, despite what Serbia may believe.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,862 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    You talked about 'Realpoltick' earlier, but its clear now you dont know the meaning of the word....ROFL





  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,913 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    No answer to the question, only British/Unionist style derision that we might stand up for our people. And I think we know why.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,913 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    And?

    We'll never know how other countries would have reacted to Ireland sending in a humanitarian mission to aid people the world could see needed it.

    What was the UN gonna do...invade? 😁

    Or maybe they'd beat the British and practice their nukes on us, as blanch's fantasies would have you believe.

    The very worst that would have happened internationally would be criticism...but who would worry about that if it was the right thing to do. We've been criticised before (as have the British and others btw) big deal.

    BTW The British ignore the UN when it suits them.



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I never said a word about the UN, I asked you what would happen if Serbia decided to go into Kosovo, seeing as how they consider it to be their country. You seem to think that's completely reasonable.

    Just because you think something is the right thing to do, doesn't make it so.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,913 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    I am quite sure I said 'if they think it was the right thing to do' then they have to be motivated by that.

    I asked you a question you seem happy to avoid:

    If the UN/international community say you shouldn't go in, does that mean that your people don't need protection?

    Sometimes you have to do what you think is right and to hell with consequences.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,297 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Do you mean that the worst that would have happened internationally was criticism when the British repelled the "humanitarian mission", destroyed the Irish Army and created a NATO Protectorate in the South?

    The Americans at the time were prepared to go to war in far-off Vietnam to repel Soviet influence, Britain and France would have had no qualms of doing the same to Ireland. We would probably have had the French in charge to account for the sensitivities of people like you.

    The British can afford to ignore the UN, they are one of the permanent members of the Security Council with a veto.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,297 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The UK would have called on its NATO allies to repel the invasion of their territory. Given the fear in NATO of Soviet influence gaining a base in Ireland, they would have responded with force, supporting the UK.

    Do you even understand what a mutual defence pact means? A "humanitarian mission" into Northern Ireland was the equivalent of a declaration of war against NATO. It's a pity Francie didn't put this forward decades ago as the Marx Brothers could have turned his idea into Duck Soup II.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,913 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    You forgot the 'nukes' blanch.

    I also note you need to research the Vietnam War and discover that it bore no resemblance to the situation we found ourselves in.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,913 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Ah shure let's scaremonger about the Russians now as well.


    impossible to have a rational debate with this kind of stuff been thrown out without being put through even the most basic filter - common sense.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,297 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Ignore the history if you want. The Americans put us under repeated pressure in the 1950s and 1960s to join NATO. They eventually accepted that we wouldn't join because of partition but kept the invitation open with the unspoken threat not to go elsewhere. This is big stuff, Francie, compared to the North. Living in Monaghan, I am sure that the North and partition loom over you as the biggest and most important things in the world. Outside of that, in the bigger world and in international diplomacy, the North was just a speck, an irritation, and like the Falklands/Malvinas, only humanitarian missions to take back their territory were going to spark a reaction. As I have said already, NATO's only interest was in keeping us out of Soviet hands and as long as we sat here like quiet boys, we would be ignored. Become a mosquito that bites (e.g. a "humanitarian mission"), we would have been swiped away and squashed.

    Such is realpolitik.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,297 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Do you realise that nuclear tests were still taking place in 1970, that the use of tactical nuclear weapons was still on the table in NATO? The "flexible response" doctrine was on the table allowing for first use of nuclear weapons in certain situations by NATO.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,913 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Look blanch...as long as you are having to call what the Argentinians did as a 'humanitarian mission' you are seriously losing credibility and the debate.

    What have we now:

    Nukes

    The Russians

    A comprehensive list of conflicts.

    Repeated pressure to join Nato

    And a stubborn refusal to accept that nobody here (only yourselves in full on deflection mode) is talking about a single act of military aggression.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,297 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The Malvinas is seen by Argentina as their own territory in the same way (or even more so) that people like yourself view the North as the territory of Ireland. Like you are proposing, Argentina sent in a humanitarian mission into their own territory to release it from the oppression of the British. We all know what happened.

    Now, let's put this simply, you can still keep writing your fantasy comedy scripts of the yokels in the Irish Army heading off on a goodwill humanitarian mission on an incursion into a foreign country, and we can all keep having a laugh at you, or you can drop this nonsense.

    We owe an awful lot to Jack Lynch, who stood strong against the misguided warmongerers within his own party who like yourself believed this kind of nonsense.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,913 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    From your first sentence you are at it.

    Constitutionally we viewed the north as our territory blanch and the British as the invader/impostor.


    Eh read the transcript of Lynch's call to Edward Heath after the massacre on Bloody Sunday. The simpering, deferential character of Lynch comes across even in print.

    By the way, his 'invasion' plan was lunacy. His failure to act though was ultimately tragic and at the time cold and callous.


    *PS as regards comedy scripts, the British nuking Ireland is up there with the best of Dad's Army. I can see Captain Manwairing suggesting it even! Who do you think you are fooling Mr. Blanch sir!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,297 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    You said that there is no invasion when you enter your own territory, so Argentina never invaded the Malvinas, making the two "humanitarian missions", your fabled one and the actual Argentine one, directly comparable.

    Lynch didn't have an invasion plan, the army were asked to do some scenario work, all of the options that they looked at, including the limited humanitarian mission that you propose, were quickly ruled out on the basis that they would be a disaster. It never went beyond that scenario planning as they had too much sense, unlike the Comedy Gold you are engaged in.

    Of course the British nuking Ireland is up there in fantastical terms, because it could only have arisen if we had lost the complete run of ourselves and gone on a mad humanitarian mission as you propose. Once you take the first step into a magical world of heroic Irish Army lads dressed up as nurses on a humanitarian mission, then anything is possible, because the basis you are starting from is not real. My premise is that in some alternative universe where a madman is Taoiseach and orders a humanitarian mission to invade Northern Ireland in 1970, the previous unthinkable response of a British nuclear response becomes one of the potential possible response. However, if you don't take the first step into madness, the mad response can't happen.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,913 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    It's quite legitimate for Argentina to say they were entering their own territory then. But they did it aggressively marking it instantly as different.

    Either you are being willfully ignorant or you are under researched.


    On Lynch having an invasion plan, you might want to tell RTE that and the many print journos who refer to it as Lynchs plan.

    And then we return to the Nukes because of the Russians theory. Dear me. Lolz



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,862 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Yes, one must always take the most hardline attitude least they are called a WestBrit or some other pejorative.

    When is the invasion due anyway? Will it be streamed?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,913 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    I guess I will never understand your fearful deference and supplication.

    Attributing it to a British/Unionst bias where it might have some legitimacy was doing you a favour. Otherwise it is pretty severe generational inferiorty.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,862 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    The Russian never invaded Crimea of course, sure its Russia after all!

    ROFL





  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,297 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Yeah, it seems Jack Lynch was another unionist as well. He opposed any "humanitarian mission" at the time. Guess we are left with Neil Blaney as the only nationalist in the country back then.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ Waylon Stale Transient


    I hesitate to comment here because its all a bit feisty.

    However .... genuine question (as I've never heard of this 1970 thing before) - what exactly would have happened during this invasion / humanitarian mission (delete as appropriate) that would have made a lasting change for the lives of NI nationalists (and indeed unionists) over the subsequent 30 years ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 663 ✭✭✭Fr D Maugire


    This post is out of place in the ongoing debate, but anyways. I don't really care about what SF think or belive. There is no groundswell of support for independence in the Basque Country, Cataluyna is more based on economics as it is the richest part of Spain. Both have circumstances way different to NI as both areas can trace their history, culture, lands back to before the Vikings arrived in Ireland. They were also incorporated into the Spanish State, they had not always just been part of Spain. In reality, those regions are more akin to the various countries within Britain.

    There had never ever been a mention of a separate state in Ireland until the late 19th century and that was only in response to the possibility of Home Rule. Up until the mid 19th century, the primary identity of all people living on the Island of Ireland was Irish. The first people to push for an independent Republic in Ireland are now the same people who claim not to be Irish, but solely British. Even the geographical lines had to be redrawn to ensure the survival of the new state. It would be like London remaining in the EU because they voted to stay.

    You never answered this point either, Unionists in NI made up about 20% of the population of Ireland at the time of partition. Why would you not advocate for the Nationalist population of NI who made up 30% of the NI population at the time get an opportunity to rejoin the Republic?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,297 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Actually, now that I think of it, if entering your own territory is legitimate as you keep claiming, we have been getting too upset about the whole 800 years of oppression thing. After all, we invited the Brits over here, and they thought it was their own territory - the British Isles - so we should just give it all up and rejoin the British Empire.

    Francie, you have really hoisted yourself on your own petard now.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,862 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    You have never heard of it because the internet wasn't around back then to give oxygen to lunatic ideas



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,297 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    There is no groundswell of support for a united Ireland either, so how are they different?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,297 ✭✭✭✭blanch152




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    The FF/FG government had it too handy. They'd no will to push for a British withdrawal for the same reasons their supporters today don't want it, they Know it will not help them in the polls. They couldn't give a fiddler's for the people of any group.

    When the BA were murdering civilians and we burned the embassy, that was the time to push for a withdrawal of the BA.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    sure jaysus SF (at the time) and the 'official' IRA based in Dublin were too busy being communist to bother helping out nevermind the irish govn



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,913 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Personally I think would have gotten to the 1998 position much quicker and with less bloodshed.

    Reading the mindsets of the British, they didn't much care for Unionism and while they criminally ignored what they did in creating a sectarian bigoted statelet, they viewed it with distaste.

    Had the Irish government actually meant that they were not going to idly stand by I think the talks around equality, parity of esteem would have been delivered and the Unionist veto stood up to sooner.

    There was nothing in the GFA that could not have been delivered in 69.

    Allowing the vacuum to form and the place to go up in flames was the mistake and I hold the two governments responsible for that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,913 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    A huge part of partitionism is that fear of the loss of power.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭jh79


    Is that why SF have different policies North and South !



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,913 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    You have a whole SF thread to ask that question.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    Proves the point though. Some can't see past SF possibly getting an electoral bump and thats all that matters for them regarding a UI.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,285 ✭✭✭jh79




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    They clearly decided it was better not to invade as we had an underground army people could join, they obviously decided it was better to leave it to them.

    As a Fine Gael TD once said as he famously stood up in the Dail and screamed at the top of his lungs before being forcefully removed, ''IT'S GUNS WE WANT, BAGS OF GUNS''.



  • Registered Users Posts: 663 ✭✭✭Fr D Maugire


    Did I say they were different in that respect? Have I been arguing for a United Ireland on here? No. I fall into the group of "yes to a United Ireland, but done pragmatically and in line with the GFA".

    That doesn't preclude me from pointing out the creation of NI was undemocratic and a huge mistake, and pointing out the hypocrisy of posters saying Unionists had a democratic right to opt out of Ireland when Nationalist's had no democratic right to opt out of Ni even though their minority was larger.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,297 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Nobody has said that Unionists had a democratic right to opt out of Ireland.

    What is being said is that there is a Constitutional imperative to united the people of this island before uniting the territory. The uniting of the people hasn't happened making calls for a border poll mischief-making at best.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    You're a shinner now whether you are or not. They don't do nuanced debate in these here parts.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,297 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The only one who has called him a Shinner is you in that post.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,913 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    That is a blatant lie and isn't supported by the constitution unless you insert a full stop. Which is not beyond you.

    It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions,// recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. 

    The sentence expresses the aspiration and the measn by which it will be done. Now, unless you are saying we are gonna have a referendum to see if we are all united as people, you are talking rubbish in your usual self serving way.

    For your interpretation to be true there would need to be a fullstop after 'traditions' where I placed the two lines.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,862 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    For those that want to educate themselves on this matter, Newstalk Talking History did a podcast on NI and Partition recently.

    TLDR:

    Partition and Northern Ireland, in general, were barely mentioned in the Treaty debates and were not the big sticking points that led to the civil war. All the historians state it was a retrospective myth that was formed years later once the other sticking points (such as Oaths and what degree of independence the new Free State was to have) were ironed out...

    The only debate on partition was the size of NI itself. Was it to be a 4, 6 or 9 country NI? However, Partition itself was an immovable rock that was going to happen. i.e it was inevitable.


    Not one of them advocated war or invading the North or making the Ulster Volunteers stand down or any of that 'Call of Duty' type of History we see in this thread.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement