Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

United Ireland Poll - please vote

1168169171173174220

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [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 Posts: 55,266 ✭✭✭✭ FrancieBrady


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



  • Posts: 0 [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 Posts: 21,734 ✭✭✭✭ blanch152


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



  • Registered Users Posts: 55,266 ✭✭✭✭ 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: 0 [Deleted User]


    Ah Jaysis.

    Says it all.

    I think the international community would disagree Francis.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭ markodaly


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





  • Registered Users Posts: 55,266 ✭✭✭✭ 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: 0 [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 Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭ markodaly


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





  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 55,266 ✭✭✭✭ 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 Posts: 55,266 ✭✭✭✭ 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: 0 [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 Posts: 55,266 ✭✭✭✭ 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 Posts: 21,734 ✭✭✭✭ 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 Posts: 21,734 ✭✭✭✭ 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 Posts: 55,266 ✭✭✭✭ 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 Posts: 55,266 ✭✭✭✭ 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 Posts: 21,734 ✭✭✭✭ 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 Posts: 21,734 ✭✭✭✭ 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 Posts: 55,266 ✭✭✭✭ 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 Posts: 21,734 ✭✭✭✭ 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 Posts: 55,266 ✭✭✭✭ 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 Posts: 21,734 ✭✭✭✭ 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 Posts: 55,266 ✭✭✭✭ 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 Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭ 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 Posts: 55,266 ✭✭✭✭ 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 Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭ markodaly


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

    ROFL





  • Registered Users Posts: 21,734 ✭✭✭✭ 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
  • Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭ PeaSea


    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 ?



Advertisement