nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

If Lynch had invaded

munsterdevil

Did anyone see the documentary that was on tonight (1 September 2009). Wasn't it just the most ridiculous pile of rubbish that was ever made. It was like asking "If Ireland had invaded Poland in 1939, would they have won WWII?"

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Judgement Day

captainblack wrote: »

"Nationalist Derry" was not quite as Nationalist in '69 as it is now. In fact at that time there were 20 000 Protestants living West of The Foyle. These have since been driven out by militant Republicans. Not sure how this would effect your analysis.

Fair point, and not one taken into my equation. In the final analysis any military incursion would have been futile - my opinion - and what would have been achieved? The World's media could already see what was going on in NI - there wasn't exactly a media blackout so the point of a PR stunt would have been very debateable. As for an incursion forcing the UN to intervene......:rolleyes:.

blinding

Its been kind of a boring summer(no world cup, Mayo crap again) could we do it now.

We could even do it with blanks on both sides. Or a large paintballing exercise. It would keep a lot of people occupied and we could sell the television rights around the world. We just would not mention the blanks or the paintballing in the television rights negotiations.

I am coming to get ye (or anybody really)

ejmaztec

blinding wrote: »

Its been kind of a boring summer(no world cup, Mayo crap again) could we do it now.

We could even do it with blanks on both sides. Or a large paintballing exercise. It would keep a lot of people occupied and we could sell the television rights around the world. We just would not mention the blanks or the paintballing in the television rights negotiations.

I am coming to get ye (or anybody really)

I've often thought of setting up a war of independence theme-park, where paying visitors can choose which side they're going to be on, then shoot it out in the woods, or burn down a hovel or two.

The problem is that nobody would want to dress up as a Tan, so a discount would have to be offered as an incentive.

On alternate days, it could be a Civil War theme-park, where paying visitors can choose which side they're going to be on, then shoot it out in the woods, or burn down a hovel or two.

blinding

ejmaztec wrote: »

I've often thought of setting up a war of independence theme-park, where paying visitors can choose which side they're going to be on, then shoot it out in the woods, or burn down a hovel or two.

The problem is that nobody would want to dress up as a Tan, so a discount would have to be offered as an incentive.

On alternate days, it could be a Civil War theme-park, where paying visitors can choose which side they're going to be on, then shoot it out in the woods, or burn down a hovel or two.

I suppose it will only be when we have theme parks for some of these events will we have moved on from some of them.

Jo King

Judgement Day wrote: »

Jo King - if you read my last posting I stated that without air cover supply lines could not be established anywhere. However, as a one-off PR stunt the seizing and holding of part of Derry for a week or so (without re-supply) would have been a possibility. Derry is 47 miles from Ballyshannon - 3 hours (?) or so by army lorry, under cover of darkness could have seen quite a sizeable invasion force in Derry possibly with little or no detection until the last moment.
[/I]

Where are the army lorry's going to come from? Army transport moving to Donegal from Galway, Athlone, and Mullingar cannot do so undetected. After arriving in Finner they then travel North to Derry. British intelligence would learn of it long before they got to Derry.
The sizeable invasion force would then go into Derry and be cut off with no re-supply.
The army did not even have enough lorries to contemplate such a move. If you looked at the tv programme you would have seen references to hiring buses to move troops.
The army had little or no armoured transport available either. The invasion force would have been going into a city with many hostile persons in completely exposed transport. A few loyalist farmers could have halted the lot of them by firing at the tyres of the lorries. Whatever chance troops invading Newry had of scurrying back across the border, troops of derry would have been left for dead.
When troops did move to the border areas to prepare for an influx of refugees there were 250 personnel deployed from the western Command. That is as many as were available.

brianthebard

ejmaztec wrote: »

So, you're saying that Britain hadn't changed its methods after 50 years?

Its not impossible.

ejmaztec

brianthebard wrote: »

Its not impossible.

Britain 1916=chalk.

Britain 1969=cheese.

It's a bit naive to assume that all of the events spread over 50 years made no difference to Britain's handling of situations.

If what you're saying is true, then Britain must have been the only place on earth that didn't change.

It seems that not many people in Ireland, due to what happened over the centuries, can stand back and compare what I see are two "Britains", or even see that there is a difference.

brianthebard

ejmaztec wrote: »

Britain 1916=chalk.

Britain 1969=cheese.

It's a bit naive to assume that all of the events spread over 50 years made no difference to Britain's handling of situations.

If what you're saying is true, then Britain must have been the only place on earth that didn't change.

It seems that not many people in Ireland, due to what happened over the centuries, can stand back and compare what I see are two "Britains", or even see that there is a difference.

In 1867 there was a rebellion in part of Jamaica. The British Colonial government declared martial law throughout the Island and executed as many ringleaders as they felt there was. The same thing happened in Ceylon in 1915 and in Ireland in 1916. In the 1950s in Africa British policy was scarcely different as other colonies sought independence, and assassination of national leaders was not off the table as a tactic. When one considers British policy over 100 years, never mind 50, one can see that it is not impossible to believe the use of artillery would not be entertained. This is not a Britain-Ireland issue, this is simply the evidence of British history itself. **** look at the falklands and tell me there's that much of a difference between the hypothetical example of Newry, the actual example of 1916 and that.

ejmaztec

brianthebard wrote: »

In 1867 there was a rebellion in part of Jamaica. The British Colonial government declared martial law throughout the Island and executed as many ringleaders as they felt there was. The same thing happened in Ceylon in 1915 and in Ireland in 1916.

This was all par for the course, with the British Empire in its unrestrained "glory-days"

brianthebard wrote: »

In the 1950s in Africa British policy was scarcely different as other colonies sought independence, and assassination of national leaders was not off the table as a tactic. When one considers British policy over 100 years, never mind 50, one can see that it is not impossible to believe the use of artillery would not be entertained. This is not a Britain-Ireland issue, this is simply the evidence of British history itself. **** look at the falklands and tell me there's that much of a difference between the hypothetical example of Newry, the actual example of 1916 and that.

There were a lot of "dirty-doings" in Africa, with different political factions vying for power in the run-up to the independence of the various colonies, but none of the ambitious parties followed the Ghandi method, so everyone involved began fighting fire with fire. It was never going to be peaceful, and for the most part, the African continent hasn't been peaceful since. All of the old European colonial powers had the same problems off-loading these places.

The Falklands. A completely different situation to the 1916 and the hypothetical Newry one. That was an all-out invasion of British territory by a country with a substantial military presence in the region, even though many were illiterate conscripts, suckered into it by a fascist junta.

Had this happened a century earlier, the British would not have stopped at the Falklands, but would have probably rounded up more cannon-fodder, and launched a full-scale invasion of Argentina.

I thought that it was ridiculous at the time, for the British to head off down there, and even more ridiculous with the tabloid crap that the true-blue Brits were being wound up with on a daily basis. I had no time for it at all, also disgusted by them getting assistance from Pinochet's fascist machine. A century earlier, and I would probably have been locked up, or even strung up for my views.

They would never have gone anywhere near as far in a hypothetical Newry situation. It would definitely have been a "NIMBY", especially with all of the anti-war demos taking place around the UK, in particular those in Grosvenor Square. The British establishment, after WW2 and the loss of empire, seemed to award itself the role of "Senior statesman", where any overt outlandish OTT action would have been out of the question, and "uncivilised". Dirty tricks would have still been in, however, and still are.

Judgement Day

Jo King wrote: »

Where are the army lorry's going to come from? Army transport moving to Donegal from Galway, Athlone, and Mullingar cannot do so undetected. After arriving in Finner they then travel North to Derry. British intelligence would learn of it long before they got to Derry.
The sizeable invasion force would then go into Derry and be cut off with no re-supply.
The army did not even have enough lorries to contemplate such a move. If you looked at the tv programme you would have seen references to hiring buses to move troops.
The army had little or no armoured transport available either. The invasion force would have been going into a city with many hostile persons in completely exposed transport. A few loyalist farmers could have halted the lot of them by firing at the tyres of the lorries. Whatever chance troops invading Newry had of scurrying back across the border, troops of derry would have been left for dead.
When troops did move to the border areas to prepare for an influx of refugees there were 250 personnel deployed from the western Command. That is as many as were available.

I don't really know what we are arguing about here. I did watch the programme and there was, indeed, a throwaway remark about hiring buses but anybody old enough to remember the regular CIE Dublin bus strikes of the mid-1970s; there were plenty of army trucks available then that were used to replace the buses. You also give great credit to British intelligence and if you are telling me that the Irish army would have been incapapable of moving a few hundred troops to Derry without detection well, quite frankly, I don't believe you. You must thinks the poor old Brits had agents at every crossroads. As for loyalist farmers - don't make me laugh - they are only any good at daubing graffiti on Protestant schools - remember Clontibret in 1986? If they met any serious opposition they'd run a mile.

I think you are giving far too much creedence to some of the nonsense stated by some of the ex.Irish military heads on the programme and, let's face it, it was a pretty badly cobbled together effort. A point I meant to mention earlier was several of the British soldiers featured in the retaking of the Newry countryside were wearing helmets with urban riot face visors on them! Such attention to detail was typical of the programme. It was also not clear why the Irish army would have retreated to open fields, thus presenting easy targets for the RAF as opposed to digging in in the town after they took it over.

population

munsterdevil wrote: »

Did anyone see the documentary that was on tonight (1 September 2009). Wasn't it just the most ridiculous pile of rubbish that was ever made. It was like asking "If Ireland had invaded Poland in 1939, would they have won WWII?"

Jesus. Sky Plussed it because I really wanted to see it and it was indeed tosh.

"Now lets imagine what would have happened if the British had fought back by using sharks with lasers attatched to their heads"

captainblack

Judgement Day wrote: »

I don't really know what we are arguing about here. I did watch the programme and there was, indeed, a throwaway remark about hiring buses but anybody old enough to remember the regular CIE Dublin bus strikes of the mid-1970s; there were plenty of army trucks available then that were used to replace the buses. You also give great credit to British intelligence and if you are telling me that the Irish army would have been incapapable of moving a few hundred troops to Derry without detection well, quite frankly, I don't believe you. You must thinks the poor old Brits had agents at every crossroads. As for loyalist farmers - don't make me laugh - they are only any good at daubing graffiti on Protestant schools - remember Clontibret in 1986? If they met any serious opposition they'd run a mile.

I think you are giving far too much creedence to some of the nonsense stated by some of the ex.Irish military heads on the programme and, let's face it, it was a pretty badly cobbled together effort. A point I meant to mention earlier was several of the British soldiers featured in the retaking of the Newry countryside were wearing helmets with urban riot face visors on them! Such attention to detail was typical of the programme. It was also not clear why the Irish army would have retreated to open fields, thus presenting easy targets for the RAF as opposed to digging in in the town after they took it over.

You, like many of The Irish, seriously underestimate Loyalists. If there ever is an attempt to 'unite' Ireland against their will, you and your ilk are in for the shock of your lives. You saw half a million Catholics cause immense problems for The UK state for thirty years, a well developed and wealthy nation of 60 million, which at one point had at least 40 000 soldiers and armed police in theatre, yet you assume that a country of a few million, a useless army without significant hostilities experience (currently numbering 10 000 full time soldiers, mostly infantry), no air force and a navy comprising a hand full of glorified patrol boats will easily be able to occupy and quickly pacify Loyalist areas of Northern Ireland. I'd love to know what you base this analysis on? Let me guess. Loyalists are all incompetent cowards incapable of lacing their own boots without British support? Or perhaps they're all drug dealers (or all on drugs)? Or perhaps the idea of taking a cut in their living standards would be too hard to stomach? Or some other such fantasy?

Clontibret was not in any way a military mission and Loyalist Paramilitaries were not involved. It was a political stunt.

As for Loyalist farmers in '69, has it occurred to you that many of them were B-Specials who kept their weaponry (including sub-machine guns) at home? Has it occurred to you that many B-Specials were ex-military and actually had more fighting experience than most of The Irish Army? So, no, I don't think they'd have 'ran a mile' in the face of the 'terrifying' Irish Army. More likely they'd have taken up defencive positions in advance of The UK Army arriving.

Far from running away, Loyalists actually took the war to The Nationalist enemy during 'The Troubles' and yes, that includes ALL THOSE they perceived to be enemies of Ulster and her place within The UK. After all, The IRA, by not wearing uniforms was in breech of The Geneva Convention, so Loyalists need not have felt bound by same protocol. Thousands of Loyalists went to jail for their activities during 'The Troubles', so I think it's safe to say they were more than willing to suffer for their cause.

Judgement Day

'You, like many of The Irish, seriously underestimate Loyalists. If there ever is an attempt to 'unite' Ireland against their will, you and your ilk are in for the shock of your lives. You saw half a million Catholics cause immense problems for The UK state for thirty years, a well developed and wealthy nation of 60 million, which at one point had at least 40 000 soldiers and armed police in theatre, yet you assume that a country of a few million, a useless army without significant hostilities experience (currently numbering 10 000 full time soldiers, mostly infantry), no air force and a navy comprising a hand full of glorified patrol boats will easily be able to occupy and quickly pacify Loyalist areas of Northern Ireland. I'd love to know what you base this analysis on? Let me guess. Loyalists are all incompetent cowards incapable of lacing their own boots without British support? Or perhaps they're all drug dealers (or all on drugs)? Or perhaps the idea of taking a cut in their living standards would be too hard to stomach? Or some other such fantasy?

Clontibret was not in any way a military mission and Loyalist Paramilitaries were not involved. It was a political stunt.

As for Loyalist farmers in '69, has it occurred to you that many of them were B-Specials who kept their weaponry (including sub-machine guns) at home? Has it occurred to you that many B-Specials were ex-military and actually had more fighting experience than most of The Irish Army? So, no, I don't think they'd have 'ran a mile' in the face of the 'terrifying' Irish Army. More likely they'd have taken up defencive positions in advance of The UK Army arriving.

Far from running away, Loyalists actually took the war to The Nationalist enemy during 'The Troubles' and yes, that includes ALL THOSE they perceived to be enemies of Ulster and her place within The UK. After all, The IRA, by not wearing uniforms was in breech of The Geneva Convention, so Loyalists need not have felt bound by same protocol. Thousands of Loyalists went to jail for their activities during 'The Troubles', so I think it's safe to say they were more than willing to suffer for their cause.'

You make a lot of assumptions there! For a start, you are unlikely to come across anyone less like a Nationalist on these boards or, indeed, on the island than myself. I am a British subject despite having lived in the Republic of Ireland most of my life and I am a Unionist NOT some sort of Loyalist thug.

I never saw half a million catholics give trouble to the UK or anyonelse. I did however see a small minority of murdering thugs on both sides gradually take over the asylum as the security forces on both sides of the border fought them with both hands tied behind their backs. The provos and their successors are a bunch of facists and the so-called loyalists are largely a gang of criminals.

Also, while you may think that people down here are obsessed with having a united Ireland you would be very wrong - only a small percentage of diehards and dinosaurs - while many of us would prefer if the Six Counties were to float off into the North Sea and sink without trace. Put that in your bag and jingle it!

walrusgumble

blinding wrote: »

I suppose it will only be when we have theme parks for some of these events will we have moved on from some of them.

i wonder when the "split" would occur?

walrusgumble

population wrote: »

Jesus. Sky Plussed it because I really wanted to see it and it was indeed tosh.

"Now lets imagine what would have happened if the British had fought back by using sharks with lasers attatched to their heads"

que the james bond theme tune....

Jo King

Judgement Day wrote: »

I don't really know what we are arguing about here. I did watch the programme and there was, indeed, a throwaway remark about hiring buses but anybody old enough to remember the regular CIE Dublin bus strikes of the mid-1970s; there were plenty of army trucks available then that were used to replace the buses. You also give great credit to British intelligence and if you are telling me that the Irish army would have been incapapable of moving a few hundred troops to Derry without detection well, quite frankly, I don't believe you.

I think you are giving far too much creedence to some of the nonsense stated by some of the ex.Irish military heads on the programme and, let's face it, it was a pretty badly cobbled together effort.. It was also not clear why the Irish army would have retreated to open fields, thus presenting easy targets for the RAF as opposed to digging in in the town after they took it over.

A few hundred troops would have had to be assembled far to the south. Most likely in Athlone. They would have been drawn from all over the Western Command. Plans would have to be circulated and drawn up. Large numbers of people would have known something was going on. Ammunition and other supplies would have had to be brought to Finner and other bases in Donegal before the troops moved in. The British maintain a military attache in Dublin. They have spies in the Garda and the Army. They monitor radio communications all over Ireland. The telephone system in the West in 1969 was primitive. There is no way this kind of build up would have been a secret from the British.
The digging in South of Nwery was to secure the line of supply back to the South. If they were not there, they could have been encircled and cut off in Newry. An invading force goes forward nad protects its rear. Going forward and being cut off is suicide. Newry is a relatively short distance from gormanstown which is itself relatively near Dublin. The best chance of a successful military incursion into the North would have been Newry. Even that chance was minuscule. Derry was much less.
As for transport. The trucks used in Dublin for the bus strikes had to be brought from all over Ireland. This was after considerable expansion of the Defence forces after 1969. The size of the army more than doubled by the early 70's. Many more vehicles were acquired. In 1969 there were only a handful of lorries. A few blasts of a shotgun at the tyres would have halted any of them.

blinding

The Irish army would have had to use Guerilla tactics or some options from the Michael Collins hand book.

ART6

I freely confess that I haven't read all of the latest post on this thread, so if I am repeating what someone else has said---

I don't believe that Jack Lynch was a fool, or that he seriously considered invading the six counties and taking on the Brits. It doesn't look as if he made any attempt to keep his plan secret, although that is the first principle of war. Instead he made noises publically. The result? The British Army moved peace keeping forces into the north. Perhaps what he intended all along? Jack had issued his sound bites. The Westminister government (with whom he had every opportunity to talk) reacted. Brownie points for both.

DublinDes

ART6 wrote: »

I freely confess that I haven't read all of the latest post on this thread, so if I am repeating what someone else has said---

I don't believe that Jack Lynch was a fool, or that he seriously considered invading the six counties and taking on the Brits. It doesn't look as if he made any attempt to keep his plan secret, although that is the first principle of war. Instead he made noises publically. The result? The British Army moved peace keeping forces into the north. Perhaps what he intended all along? Jack had issued his sound bites. The Westminister government (with whom he had every opportunity to talk) reacted. Brownie points for both.

" The British Army moved peace keeping forces into the north. " Peace keeping forces ?? Is that what you'd call their even handed approach on Bloody Sunday, internment and all the other murders, shootings, beatings etc

" Brownie points for both. " Yeah and we had 25 years of continual conflict. Instead if Lynch had forced the Brits to internationalise it, the troubles could have been avoided altogether.

OS119

blinding wrote: »

The Irish army would have had to use Guerilla tactics or some options from the Michael Collins hand book.

the one, teensy-weensy, little tiny problem in this scenario is that the founding principle of guerilla warfare is not having a blindingly obvious, and utterly undefended 'rear area' that the enemy can attack at will.

exactly how long does anyone think it would have taken the Brits to work out that it was Irish soldiers doing naughty deeds in NI?

anyone care to predict British public opinion upon either a fire-fight between British and Irish soldiers in the road to Newry, or an Irish soldier captured - in uniform or civilian clothes - next to a burning Belfast power station?

anyone think the RAF would have run out of bombs before the RoI ran out of Powerstations, barracks, ports, airfields, centres of government, telephone exchanges, naval vessels and a road and rail network?

who thinks the voting public of the RoI would of given that much of a **** about NI that they would have been prepared to face war - losing, long-distance war - that would, in the space of a week, cost the RoI its military, industrial, political and civil infrastructure with no means of return or revenge?

Ireland, a poor, isolationist, neutral country on the fringe of Europe that conducted 70% of its external trade with the UK, was in no position to force the UK to do anything - firstly because the UK held a physical veto over any UN debate, let alone any resolution or deployment, and secondly the UK was the second most powerful nation in NATO, permanent member of the UNSC, Head of the commonwealth and a Top 5 trading nation. not only would the lists of Irelands' friends been short and exotic, but none of them had their hands on any of the levers of power that could force the UK to fart, let alone change policy.

no, Ireland would have been on her own, and she would have paid dearly for her folly.

DublinDes

OS119 wrote: »

the one, teensy-weensy, little tiny problem in this scenario is that the founding principle of guerilla warfare is not having a blindingly obvious, and utterly undefended 'rear area' that the enemy can attack at will.

exactly how long does anyone think it would have taken the Brits to work out that it was Irish soldiers doing naughty deeds in NI?

anyone care to predict British public opinion upon either a fire-fight between British and Irish soldiers in the road to Newry, or an Irish soldier captured - in uniform or civilian clothes - next to a burning Belfast power station?

anyone think the RAF would have run out of bombs before the RoI ran out of Powerstations, barracks, ports, airfields, centres of government, telephone exchanges, naval vessels and a road and rail network?

who thinks the voting public of the RoI would of given that much of a **** about NI that they would have been prepared to face war - losing, long-distance war - that would, in the space of a week, cost the RoI its military, industrial, political and civil infrastructure with no means of return or revenge?

Ireland, a poor, isolationist, neutral country on the fringe of Europe that conducted 70% of its external trade with the UK, was in no position to force the UK to do anything - firstly because the UK held a physical veto over any UN debate, let alone any resolution or deployment, and secondly the UK was the second most powerful nation in NATO, permanent member of the UNSC, Head of the commonwealth and a Top 5 trading nation. not only would the lists of Irelands' friends been short and exotic, but none of them had their hands on any of the levers of power that could force the UK to fart, let alone change policy.

no, Ireland would have been on her own, and she would have paid dearly for her folly.

the one, teensy-weensy, little tiny problem in this scenario is that - how the hell do you think international opinion would allow Britain throw it's weight around as it liked ? As has been mentioned on other forums, they ran away during the Suez crisis, Yanks invaded Grenada and didn't even bother asking could they go in or apologise, thier veto at the UN didn't do them any use did it ?
Even look at Hong Kong, no UN veto or throwing shapes about majority of people wanting them to stay in Hong Kong - and DON'T GO TELLING ME ABOUT THE 100 YEAR LEASE BEEN UP.

Head of the Commonwealth FFS, a second rate Olympics with the Queen as the symbolic head of state.

Again as otehrs have stated, britian had formed the secterian rergieme in the north, far from it been seeen as the Irish army so called invading, international opinion would have been with Ireland. To internationalise it would have been the best thing and 25 years of teh troubles would have been invaded.

Drop all these notions of Britian been some kind of world power to do as it pleases. It only does what the Yanks please, end of story.

Hookey

It works both ways; you've highlighted where the British have failed to get their way with the UN, but the example of Grenada in particular is illustrative; the British couldn't stop the Americans but the reverse would have true, the American veto (or Russian or Chinese) is useless when troops are already on the ground. Do you honestly think the US would have had even used the UN against the British over a domestic issue? Get real. There would have been a lot of back-door politicking and threats and a bit of public posturing, and that would have been it (and the Brits would have probably paid off the US by sending a couple of regiments to Vietnam, which the Americans had been asking for for years). Besides, the UN charter is pretty explicit about the rights of nations to defend themselves; there was a stronger argument for censure against the British over human rights issues than there would have been about response to an invasion.

Britain may jump to the American tune, but the Falklands proved they could and would act unilaterally if sovereign territory was threatened.

There's a truism about diplomacy that countries don't have friends only interests, and the Americans had a lot more interests in Britain than they did in Ireland, and still do. In the case of Suez, the Americans had more interests in the Middle-East than Britain and France (and still do).

OS119

DublinDes wrote: »

.

Drop all these notions of Britian been some kind of world power to do as it pleases. It only does what the Yanks please, end of story.

i accept entirely that the US had enormous influence with the UK government - but i don't accept that the US government would have thrown a wobbly in favour of the RoI in such a case, and certainly not in the time it would have taken the UK to massively punish the RoI for the incursion.

quite simply, had they done so - and pissing all over the fundamentals of NATO in doing so - they would have seriously endangered the existance of NATO itself, and NATO was the number 2 of US strategic defence policy of the US all through the cold war

quite simply, your friends in Boston might off gone wild, but the US was not going to put its strategic defence policies at risk because of a hyphen pressure group.

what did the US do about Bloody Sunday? nothing.

what did the US do about the death of the Hunger Strikers? nothing.

all the evidence - rather than foaming at the mouth fantasy - indicates that while the US body politic may have had sympathies and emotional ties with 'the cause', they were never in a million years going to endanger their own strategic position and defence posture by getting into a dispute with the UK over the situation in Ireland - particularly one that went against their own treaties and previous agreements.

throughout the Cold War they had bigger fish to fry - unlucky.

ejmaztec

DublinDes wrote: »

It only does what the Yanks please, end of story.

Like releasing the Lockerbie bomber.

Fratton Fred

the US don't give a **** about Ireland, all they care about is the Irish vote.

they may have made some public comments about restraint etc, but that is about it.

ejmaztec

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the US don't give a **** about Ireland, all they care about is the Irish vote.

they may have made some public comments about restraint etc, but that is about it.

Also given that most of the Americans in positions of power fall into the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant category, and have to suck up to the relevant minority when it suits.

That's my assumption which will probably get shot down in flames by some statistician.

DublinDes

Hookey wrote: »

It works both ways; you've highlighted where the British have failed to get their way with the UN, but the example of Grenada in particular is illustrative; the British couldn't stop the Americans but the reverse would have true, the American veto (or Russian or Chinese) is useless when troops are already on the ground. Do you honestly think the US would have had even used the UN against the British over a domestic issue? Get real. There would have been a lot of back-door politicking and threats and a bit of public posturing, and that would have been it (and the Brits would have probably paid off the US by sending a couple of regiments to Vietnam, which the Americans had been asking for for years). Besides, the UN charter is pretty explicit about the rights of nations to defend themselves; there was a stronger argument for censure against the British over human rights issues than there would have been about response to an invasion.

Britain may jump to the American tune, but the Falklands proved they could and would act unilaterally if sovereign territory was threatened.

There's a truism about diplomacy that countries don't have friends only interests, and the Americans had a lot more interests in Britain than they did in Ireland, and still do. In the case of Suez, the Americans had more interests in the Middle-East than Britain and France (and still do).

Well, first, I didn't think I'd be getting 5 posts so quickly. Oooohhh, must have touched a nerve with the British boys :eek:

" but the example of Grenada in particular is illustrative; the British couldn't stop the Americans but the reverse would have true, " Are you going to tell me if Britain invaded say Puerto Rico and the Yanks said get your goddam ass outa there - the UK could say no

GET REAL

" Do you honestly think the US would have had even used the UN against the British over a domestic issue? " Well obviously the Yanks had no problem invading Grenada which was supposed to be protected by the UK ?The Yanks seem to view it that UK needs America more than the USA needs the UK - and you know what, their right.

" Britain may jump to the American tune, but the Falklands proved they could and would act unilaterally if sovereign territory was threatened. " The Falklands were 2 bits of rock taken over by a military junta in Argentina with no mistreated Argentinian population on them. No comparsion with the North in 1969. It's not like it was an area in say, south west Argentina with the Argentina army going to protect innocent ethnic Argentinians from all out onslaught. ( And anyway, UK could not have invaded the Falklands without the intel. from USA spy satellites etc

)

DublinDes

OS119 wrote: »

i accept entirely that the US had enormous influence with the UK government - but i don't accept that the US government would have thrown a wobbly in favour of the RoI in such a case, and certainly not in the time it would have taken the UK to massively punish the RoI for the incursion.

All it would take the time would be a grumble in Washington towards britian and a telephone call to put the breaks on teh Downing St, that's all teh time it would take. Get real FFS.

" quite simply, had they done so - and pissing all over the fundamentals of NATO in doing so - they would have seriously endangered the existance of NATO itself, and NATO was the number 2 of US strategic defence policy of the US all through the cold war "

Yanks pissed all over the fundamentals of NATO with UK and France in Suez. UK not going to tell the Yanks get F**ked and walk out of NATO. As I said, Yanks reckon UK needs them more than they need UK and their right.

" quite simply, your friends in Boston might off gone wild, but the US was not going to put its strategic defence policies at risk because of a hyphen pressure group.

what did the US do about Bloody Sunday? nothing. "

what did the US do about the death of the Hunger Strikers? nothing. "
Yuor talking about the deaths of 13 and 10 people. 1969 was a whole onslaught on thousands of people.

GOTTA GO, see ya.

ejmaztec

DublinDes wrote: »

Well, first, I didn't think I'd be getting 5 posts so quickly. Oooohhh, must have touched a nerve with the British boys :eek:

" but the example of Grenada in particular is illustrative; the British couldn't stop the Americans but the reverse would have true, " Are you going to tell me if Britain invaded say Puerto Rico and the Yanks said get your goddam ass outa there - the UK could say no GET REAL

The American thought that Grenada was riddled with Cuban troops and weapons, and used 20 sledge-hammers to crack a walnut. If anyone looked foolish, it was US intelligence. There was probably more danger in a Kentucky field exercise.

OS119

DublinDes wrote: »

Yuor talking about the deaths of 13 and 10 people. 1969 was a whole onslaught on thousands of people.

you prove my point - what did the US do, or threaten to do over the situation in 1969/70/71/72?

nothing.

they. are. not. interested.

you can rant all you like about Grenada and Suez, but the US was never going to endanger its relationship with the UK over a direct incursion into UK territory by a non-NATO country, particularly one that had consistently refused to give the US what it wanted.

unfcukinglucky. your delusions of Irish influence within the US body politic are exposed by looking at the historical record. regardless of what was occurring in NI, and regardless of the expressed wishes of Irish-American politicians, during the cold war the US never, not ever, pressed the UK further than it wished to go on any aspect of NI policy. it is therefore reasonable to believe that that US policy would continue in the event of a southern incursion and any subsequent UK reaction, and unreasonable to believe that it would suddenly do a complete U turn just because you'd have liked it to.