Martin McGuinness commander of Óglaigh na hÉireann

Rawhead · 24-09-2011 8:49pm

goldie fish wrote: »

However, if the Minister for defence decrees that the candidate is unsuitable, who should the DF follow?
The Populist figurehead with a dubious terrorist past, or the elected legislator,responsible for defence and justice policy with a proven career in the legal practice?

One man gets elected in a free open election by a popular majority and that's ok, another man does the same and that's wrong because you don't like him.
You weren't behind the Lisbon or Nice reruns by any chance?

goldie fish · 24-09-2011 10:41pm

mcko wrote: »

As was said after the Curragh Mutiny
Those who take the pay and wear the uniform of the state must be the non policitial servents of the state be they soldiers or policemen.

I hold the presidents commission and if the people of Ireland want to elect Martin then who am I to say the people of Ireland are wrong. If you don't like him as commander and chief you can always leave.
I am sure the Free State Army didn't like FF taking power in the 30s but hey ho that's the system we have .:P

What curragh mutiny?

goldie fish · 24-09-2011 10:41pm

Rawhead wrote: »

One man gets elected in a free open election by a popular majority and that's ok, another man does the same and that's wrong because you don't like him.
You weren't behind the Lisbon or Nice reruns by any chance?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying who do you follow?

Disco Volante · 24-09-2011 11:38pm

mcko wrote: »

As was said after the Curragh Mutiny
Those who take the pay and wear the uniform of the state must be the non policitial servents of the state be they soldiers or policemen.

I hold the presidents commission and if the people of Ireland want to elect Martin then who am I to say the people of Ireland are wrong. If you don't like him as commander and chief you can always leave.
I am sure the Free State Army didn't like FF taking power in the 30s but hey ho that's the system we have .:P

Well said, I think it pretty much sums up the thread for me.

savagecabbages · 25-09-2011 4:18pm

goldie fish wrote: »

However, if the Minister for defence decrees that the candidate is unsuitable, who should the DF follow?
The Populist figurehead with a dubious terrorist past, or the elected legislator,responsible for defence and justice policy with a proven career in the legal practice?

goldie fish · 25-09-2011 10:51pm

Good point.

johngalway · 25-09-2011 11:39pm

savagecabbages wrote: »

Yeah but........

He never fired it :cool:

Small, but important point.......

savagecabbages · 26-09-2011 1:07am

And a valid one too.

The point I was aiming at (no pun intended) is that McGuinness is now no more than a politician just like all the rest of them. He'll do or say whatever the electorate want to see/hear. In a way thats a good sign. The people of the north have by and large moved on, so now the politicians are preaching from the 'moved on' book...

When was the last time (if ever) a minister for defence had any first hand experience or service?

bath handle · 26-09-2011 1:15am

savagecabbages wrote: »

When was the last time (if ever) a minister for defence had any first hand experience or service?

Barrett in 1980. Tully in the 1981. Mulcahy in the 50s

cyrusdvirus · 26-09-2011 8:12am

savagecabbages wrote: »

When was the last time (if ever) a minister for defence had any first hand experience or service?

I wouldn't call being part of an illegal organisation that didn't recognise the state as 'service'. But that's just me.

HellsAngel · 26-09-2011 11:22am

savagecabbages wrote: »

This is how it's done Mr O'Dea

HellsAngel · 26-09-2011 11:49am

goldie fish wrote: »

However, if the Minister for defence decrees that the candidate is unsuitable, who should the DF follow?
The Populist figurehead with a dubious terrorist past, or the elected legislator,responsible for defence and justice policy with a proven career in the legal practice?

" a dubious terrorist past " like Dev, Dan Breen, Sean McBride etc ?? ( and for the matter FG's coalation partners of the political wing of the Offical IRA the former Workers Party's Eammon Gilmore, Pat Rabbitte, Cathleen Lynch etc )

Anyway, the Pres is a ceremonial role, they have little to do with the actual running of the army or the insitiutions of the state. Most of this anti MMcG thing is the usual West Brit gang in Dr Sir Tony O'Reilly's comics i.e. Independent newspapers, crony's in RTE and aided and abetted by FG (which seems to be backfiring on them as the opinion polls show MMcG ahead of Mitchell).

savagecabbages · 26-09-2011 2:33pm

gatecrash wrote: »

I wouldn't call being part of an illegal organisation that didn't recognise the state as 'service'. But that's just me.

Nor would I!
I meant service in the DF as opposed to a minister being a fully fledged civilian, should have phrased that a little better...

cyrusdvirus · 26-09-2011 2:36pm

savagecabbages wrote: »

Nor would I!
I meant service in the DF as opposed to a minister being a fully fledged civilian, should have phrased that a little better...

OOPS!!

My bad. Apologies.

concussion · 26-09-2011 4:54pm

HellsAngel wrote: »

"Anyway, the Pres is a ceremonial role, they have little to do with the actual running of the army or the insitiutions of the state.

And I wouldn't like MMcG ceremonially commissioning officers in the Defence Forces or ceremonially accessing intelligence files relating to him and his former associates.

Morlar · 26-09-2011 5:03pm

concussion wrote: »

And I wouldn't like MMcG ceremonially commissioning officers in the Defence Forces or ceremonially accessing intelligence files relating to him and his former associates.

The office of the president entails access to confidential security files ?

This is getting ridiculous.

To continue this ridiculous theme I think a far more probable security concern would be if a defence minister held dual citizen ship with another nation. Or a defence minister who had any kind of religious allegiance to a foreign power which has in the past been responsible for the deaths of Irish peacekeepers. A country which also used Irish govt issued passports to carry out assassinations. That would be (if it were true) a far more probable security concern than the president or Ireland raiding Irish intelligence / security services archives. imo.

cyrusdvirus · 26-09-2011 5:05pm

Morlar wrote: »

The office of the president entails access to confidential security files ?

This is getting ridiculous.

To continue this ridiculous theme I think a far more probable security concern would be if a defence minister held dual citizen ship with another nation. Or a defence minister who had any kind of religious allegiance to a foreign power which has in the past been responsible for the deaths of Irish peacekeepers. A country which also used Irish govt issued passports to carry out assassinations. That would be (if it were true) a far more probable security concern than the president or Ireland raiding Irish intelligence / security services archives. imo.

What? Like the Vatican or Rome?

Ladies and gentlemen, we have now officially jumped the shark, and welcome to the Mitty zone.

Morlar · 26-09-2011 5:08pm

gatecrash wrote: »

What? Like the Vatican or Rome?

Ladies and gentlemen, we have now officially jumped the shark, and welcome to the Mitty zone.

I agree - alleging that a President McGuinness would raid the Irish security archives is preposterous.

Also .. . not entirely sure the Vatican have been responsible for deaths of Irish peacekeepers or used Irish passports to commit assassinations.

PeterIanStaker · 26-09-2011 11:02pm

goldie fish wrote: »

What curragh mutiny?

He's confusing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curragh_mutiny

with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Army#Irish_Free_State known as the "Army Mutiny"

Leonidas BL · 26-09-2011 11:50pm

If he is commander of Óglaigh na hÉireann, will he see the need for more navy patrol ships?? Maybe even a few jet powered combat aircraft??

cyrusdvirus · 27-09-2011 8:43am

Morlar wrote: »

I agree - alleging that a President McGuinness would raid the Irish security archives is preposterous.

Also .. . not entirely sure the Vatican have been responsible for deaths of Irish peacekeepers or used Irish passports to commit assassinations.

I also think that a persons religion has nothing to do with their allegiance, which is what you were implying in your borderline anti-Semitic remark.

bobbysands81 · 27-09-2011 9:14am

Poccington wrote: »

There's the little problem of the fact that his hands on experience came from time spent in an organisation that didn't quite recognise the DF's right to call themselves OnH.

As Articles 2 and 3 were in play at the time should our Defence Forces not have been protected Irish people and Irish land at the time?

nkay1985 · 27-09-2011 9:15am

Remy Disgusting Hawk wrote: »

Was a terrorist, its in the past and time to get over it.

Sure there are a few things I'm uncomfortable with, the murder of Irish soldiers and members of AGS to name but a few.. But the cease fire is something like 17 years old and between MMG and Adams they've done more to move this island towards peace than most anyone else in the last 90 years.

Sure wasn't Micheal Collins a killer too, and don't put on your romantic rose tinted glasses and try draw a difference between 'the old IRA and these shower' - murder is murder is murder, pure and simple.

And we should all remember that this state of born out of terror and killings, as were many other's.

I firmly believe that without SF leaders (in fact scrub 'SF') 'leaders' like MMG and Adams we'd still be fighting a large scale terrorist war here in Ireland.

Instead now we can worry about securing other people's borders against war and terror and enjoy the freedom peace has brought to Ireland.

mcko wrote: »

As was said after the Curragh Mutiny
Those who take the pay and wear the uniform of the state must be the non policitial servents of the state be they soldiers or policemen.

I hold the presidents commission and if the people of Ireland want to elect Martin then who am I to say the people of Ireland are wrong. If you don't like him as commander and chief you can always leave.
I am sure the Free State Army didn't like FF taking power in the 30s but hey ho that's the system we have .

Wish I could thank these posts twice!

The first post perfectly addresses those who question the validity of his candidacy. The man has done more for peace in the north than 99.99% of people. The counter-argument to this is usually "yeah but he also contributed to the violence up there". To that argument, I'll put forward the view of someone who lived "up there" during that awful time, which I feel explains the feelings of a lot of northern catholics from back then.

Link.

This whole article is very good but, in this context, I draw attention to the following section.

Those 30 years of the Troubles were a war, and warfare is not a cocktail party -- it is brutish. Indefensible acts take place during it. But I notice that many of those expressing opinions on the North and its citizens, and why they turned out as they did, hardly ever crossed the border. They are experts about a place they never inconvenienced themselves to get to know.
I grew up in the North during several decades of the Troubles, and I am content that the generation behind me has encountered only peace. But I haven't forgotten the discrimination, the two-tier society: I observed it all around me, I experienced it myself.
I wish the civil rights movement could have brought about reform, but it was not effective -- unfortunately, I don't believe advances would have happened without the IRA campaign. Bloodshed alone achieves nothing worthwhile, but it forced the main players to the negotiating table where progress was achieved.

Some say the price was too high, with so many dead and maimed. I say the North is a fair society now with a viable future.

Whether you agree with it or not, many, many people feel that without the armed conflict in the north, we would be nowhere near where we are now in terms of peace. Martin McGuinness may have taken the view at the time that armed conflict was needed but he was the major player in getting the IRA to accept peace and engage in the peace process. The Good Friday agreement is not that old but look at how far we've come since then and to say that a man who played such a key role in that evolution is not a fitting head of state is ridiculous in the extreme, in my opinion.

As for the second post, it sums up my view on the issue about the defence forces accepting him as commander-in-chief were he to be elected. If he becomes president of Ireland, it'll be up to the individual members of the defence forces to accept the will of the people and serve under him or leave. Fortunately, democracy is democracy, not just when it suits us - although FF would make you question that sometimes following the Nice and Lisbon treaties.

bobbysands81 · 27-09-2011 9:18am

savagecabbages wrote: »

When was the last time (if ever) a minister for defence had any first hand experience or service?

Ex leader of Fine Gael Richard Mulcahy ordered the death of 77 anti-Treaty prisoners.

Either we collectively move on or we can all dig up crap over each other. All political parties in the Republic have stemmed from violence (bar the ULA), there's dirt to smear on all parties but hypocrisy rules, only SF are taken to task on it and they're the only party that ensured that there was decommissioning, and without Adamas and McGuinness there'd still be abrutal war on in this island.

Look how mature we were in May welcoming the British Queen, look at the hypocrisy now. Looks like forgiving and forgetting is a one way street in Ireland.

cyrusdvirus · 27-09-2011 9:20am

bobbysands81 wrote: »

As Articles 2 and 3 were in play at the time should our Defence Forces not have been protected Irish people and Irish land at the time?

Since 1922 Óglaigh na hÉireann has been the official title of the Irish Defence Forces, which are recognised by the Irish Government as the only legitimate armed forces in the indepentant state on the island of Ireland.

Not some bunch of terrorists who refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the republic.

So, no, your rather flimsy argument holds no water.

cyrusdvirus · 27-09-2011 9:37am

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Ex leader of Fine Gael Richard Mulcahy ordered the death of 77 anti-Treaty prisoners.

Either we collectively move on or we can all dig up crap over each other. All political parties in the Republic have stemmed from violence (bar the ULA), there's dirt to smear on all parties but hypocrisy rules, only SF are taken to task on it and they're the only party that ensured that there was decommissioning, and without Adamas and McGuinness there'd still be abrutal war on in this island.

Look how mature we were in May welcoming the British Queen, look at the hypocrisy now. Looks like forgiving and forgetting is a one way street in Ireland.

Sinn Fein are the only party to ensure decommissioning, because Sinn Fein are the only party who still had an armed wing running around the place blowing people up!!

John Bruton had it right the other day when he asked WHY is Martin McGuinness leaving a job in the 6 counties that is still not complete? If he wants to be president, then finish off the job up north. There are still very real issues up there to get sorted, there are still lunatics running around up there handing out punishment beatings, blowing up PSNI officers, there are still very real problems to get fixed.

Finish the job before looking for another one Martin.

Morlar · 27-09-2011 11:05am

gatecrash wrote: »

I also think that a persons religion has nothing to do with their allegiance, which is what you were implying in your borderline anti-Semitic remark.

On the contrary, there is nothing anti-semitic in what I said at all.

I am simply highlighting the ludicrousness of some of the gutter tactics going on in this election, basically the blatant scaremongering that is going unchallenged.

Morlar · 27-09-2011 11:09am

gatecrash wrote: »

John Bruton had it right the other day when he asked WHY is Martin McGuinness leaving a job in the 6 counties that is still not complete? If he wants to be president, then finish off the job up north. There are still very real issues up there to get sorted, there are still lunatics running around up there handing out punishment beatings, blowing up PSNI officers, there are still very real problems to get fixed.

Finish the job before looking for another one Martin.

Does this mean that you will endorse this candidate if he can illustrate that he has left the previous position in good hands ?

Is this really the basis of your objection to Martin McGuinness standing for Presidency ?

Or are you, like Joan Burton, just clutching at straws here?

cyrusdvirus · 27-09-2011 11:10am

Morlar wrote: »

On the contrary, there is nothing anti-semitic in what I said at all.

I am simply highlighting the ludicrousness of some of the gutter tactics going on in this election, basically the blatant scaremongering that is going unchallenged.

Gutter tactics? You were implying that just because Shatter is Jewish that he'd have a greater affiliation to the State of Israel!! You all but named the man ffs

cyrusdvirus · 27-09-2011 11:19am

Morlar wrote: »

Does this mean that you will endorse this candidate if he can illustrate that he has left the previous position in good hands ?

Is this really the basis of your objection to Martin McGuinness standing for Presidency ?

Or are you, like Joan Burton, just clutching at straws here?

It was John, not Joan. FG not Labour.

And I've been quite clear as to whether or not i would endorse the candidate throughout this thread. I stated i will not vote for him. He has said nothing to make me change my mind. I also stated that i would vote for him before Norris as i feel he has been more open about his past. Just not open enough to make me vote for him. I stated that i would have more respect for McGuinness than Adams, and nothing i have seen from Adams has made me change my mind there either.

I would not like to see him voted into the Aras, as i don't believe he would make a good president.

And i feel that his talents would be better suited to an area where he has spent his professional political life so far, that is in Northern Ireland where he HAS been given a mandate by the people, and IMHO should not be running for election down here until that mandate has been met.

Martin McGuinness commander of Óglaigh na hÉireann

Comments