United Ireland Poll - please vote

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

ROFL

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.

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

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.

Is that why SF have different policies North and South !

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.

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

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.