Own your words Francie, unless of course, we have GDPR to scrub them after the fact :)
But, yes you have repeatedly stated that the Irish government should have 'invaded' the North to protect nationalists......
You called it a peacekeeping mission, but you would have been alone in that.
You called it a peacekeeping mission,
Exactly.
Putin calls it the same thing. Sinn Fein support both ideas. The parallels are becoming uncanny.
What?
Are you now mis-representing me as saying we should have gone in and bombed the place to kingdom come?
Give it up blanch, getting silly now.
LOL, you walked head first into that one Francie.
"...Peacekeeping..."
You advocated the Irish Defence forces unilaterally cross the borders of a NATO nuclear powered sovereign state and pass it off as 'peacekeeping'...
I am actually glad you are still defending this absolutely insane nutty idea of yours even today after all that has happened in Ukraine. It comes across as looney tbh, and not in a good way. But do keep explaining.... :)
No again Mark
I said they should make a very clearly defined and announced peacekeeping incursion to aid people the world could clearly see needed aid.
It was my theory that the British would have almost welcomed it as they had no idea what to do and were petrified of radicalising southern Ireland not to mention they themselves were under international pressure. I backed it up with links to contemporary statements, passages from Hansard and the views of the British PM.
And I made the point that even if it had gone wrong it was still the right thing to do. Do you think the Ukranians would have dithered and stood idly by?
Using an active war to score points in an internet discussion is sickening. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Announce your 'peacekeeping effort's to the world... kind of what Putin did?
And when the British said no? What then?
In what world would the British have welcomed a foreign army invading its territory? Honestly, you should listen to yourself.
Look, with the greatest of respect, if you cannot deal with the facts of what was said I'm going to leave this here. You are determined to mis-represent. I suggested nothing resembling the Russian build up on Ukraines borders.
As somebody said, it's despicable use of current victims.
So I will quote directly what you said in order to be crystal clear.
Why have an army and a constitution if you abandon your people. The IRA ran away for a while but the Irish state ran away completely.
This is pretty clear cut
We 'sat idly by' to our everlasting shame.
Strong words for sending troops into the North.
No need for invasion. Peacekeeping would have filled the vacuum.
Invasion, peacekeeping. Words to describe the same thing.
Please don't tell me they would have been wiped out, anihilated etc etc. What if old Churchy had have thought that way. We'd all be speaking German etc etc.
Ah, and Irish Republican evoking the memory of Churchil, in a 'peacekeeping' efforts....
People were under siege, in fear of their lives. People constitutionally we had a duty to and we abandoned them to their fate.
These words speak for themselves.
So, again, these are your words Francie. It is 100% clear what you mean when you talk about peacekeeping.
All that trawling and that is all you got?
Me saying exactly what I said I did and you projecting onto it something I never said. ROFL
What I got is you advocating the Irish government send its defence forces into a NATO nuclear powered sovereign nation under the guise of 'peacekeeping', because we had a 'duty' to the people of NI.... It is very self-explanatory to all.
It is very very clear cut that that happening would have made Ireland an international pariah like Russia today.
Thank god we had more level heads in government.
Clearly defined and announced peacekeeping incursion................say like annexing Crimea?
Who said it's despicable use of current victims? That is an absolutely pathetic defence of your idea, would like to see it.
Lads, the difference is so starkly obvious it's ridiculous.
We do 'peacekeeping' missions all the time and we signal the fact that it is a peacekeeping mission by not massing troops and lethal equipment on the border.
Do we really need to do this? Are you that desperate?
You use selective victims all the time...mark is doing the same. The tragedy in Ukraine bears NO resemblance to what I suggested. A bit of respect for that would go a long way. I have no problem defending things I say here in the context of what was happening.
We do peacekeeping missions under a UN mandate.
Also sending in the Irish Army without arms to NI.... just ROFL!!
You said what you said, now you want to change the context.
At least own what you said.
I said what I said not what you projected onto it.
Yes, you advocated a unilateral military incursion into a NATO nuclear-armed sovereign state and pass it off as 'peacekeeping'... and you said it with a straight face.
No passing it off as...as one, to aid Irish people in need of aid, as the world could see. I didn't at any stage advocate massing soldiers and lethal equipment on the border a few years after I had rolled into another territory.
You are using Ukraine and it's victims, viciously and pathetically. Stop.
No passing it off as...as one, to aid Irish people in need of aid,
Putin launched his invasion as 'aid' to Russians in Ukraine in 'need of aid'
By massing troops and lethal weapons on the border. There is also the small matter of intelligence that showed his intentions PLUS the fact he had invaded before .
Keep trying for a similarity Mark...it just makes you look more desperate.
The poor lad has been hammered for that faux-pas. It is quite incredible that he just won't let it go and quietly drop it.
Mad, Ted.
So we hadn't had a war with Britain before, and we weren't sending more troops to the Border. The hole you are digging gets bigger.
Not sure of your knowledge levels but I think it would be difficult to mask a major invasion blanch ust as it is very easy through the correct channels to say what your intentions were. And I linked to attitudes known at the time that in my view would have been sympathetic to an aid mission.
And it was my contention that even if it went wrong, it was still the right thing to do. No self respecting nation would stand by in that situation.
Even if it went wrong, it was still the right thing to do?
So if the British, affronted by our "peacekeeping" initiative had bombed us back to the Stone Ages, not realising (as they didn't) the full effects of nuclear fallout, it would have been the right thing to do?
As I said, keep digging.
Did somebody mention 'pariahs'.
You seriously think that the British bombing a country into the stone age would result from a clearly signaled aid/mercy mission?
Desperate again.
I said at the time, it would have been diplomacy first and foremost that would have been used, (remember that the PM was petrified about enflaming an already volatile situation) and in that round of diplomacy we could have secured protections for Irish citizens and as a result stopped the vacuum from forming that the IRA filled.
Not every situation calls for war and invasion Francie.
