US aircraft in Shannon emergency landing

by maybe this is whats happening? Thu Nov 06, 2003 20:34

85,000 GIs Told They're Heading to Iraq
1 hour, 11 minutes ago

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&u=/ap/20031106/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_troops_27&printer=1

WASHINGTON - About 85,000 U.S. troops have been alerted they will soon be sent to Iraq (news - web sites) to relieve forces who have been there for up to a year, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday.

In addition, nearly 47,000 National Guard and Reserve forces are in the process of being notified that they will be activated to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan (news - web sites), Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon (news - web sites) news conference. Even more Army soldiers could be alerted soon to add to those deployments, Rumsfeld said.


The Pentagon's plan for rotating U.S. troops in Iraq next year includes a return of the Marine Corps and a net reduction in the total American force.


Some of the troops rotating into Iraq will be returning for their second tour of duty there — and some only a short time after they were sent home, Rumsfeld said.


Reservists will be called up for a maximum of 18 months, with a year in Iraq, Rumsfeld said. The Marines will be activated for a year, with seven months in Iraq, he said.


"While there will be imperfections along the way, the services made every effort to make sure the guard and reserve forces are treated respectfully," Rumsfeld said.


Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday the number of U.S. troops should be cut to about 100,000 by May from the current 130,000. He gave no details.

by Edward Horgan - Peace and Neutrality Alliance PANA Thu Nov 06, 2003 22:25 edward.horgan at ul dot ie Limerick 086-2380911

US troops abusing Irish Neutrality in large numbers
During September 2003 over 10,000 US troops have passed through Shannon airport. This is more than the complete strength of the Irish Defence Forces. This level of troop movement is exceptional and indicates that a further military operation may be planned.
Today, 6th October 2003, at least four chartered aircraft with up to 1,000 US troops passed through Shannon airport. This constitutes a full battalion, and the troops were carrying about 1000 M 16 assault rifles and a similar number of pistols and over 100,000 rounds of assorted ammunition, and other weapons and munitions.
Ireland's neutrality is being trampled on. Even more young US soldiers are being exposed to death and injury in Iraq, by a President who was too cowardly to serve in Vietnam.
Irish neutrality has been ended by a Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, whose bravest deed was to appear with his partner in Irish army combat uniforms in Kosovo in 1999, contrary to the Irish Defence Act.
The Peace and Neutrality Alliance wishes to alert all Irish people that Shannon airport has continued to be violated by the passage of US troops on their way to war in Iraq. Since the begining of January 2003 over 100,000 US troops have passed through Shannon airport on their way to war, in which they have unlawfully killed over 30,000 people. Our foreign minister, Brian Cowen, is still insisting that Irish neutrality has not been effected by these disgraceful actions, in spite of a High Court ruling to the contrary in April 2003.
We urgently request all Irish people to support the anti war demonstration that will take place at Shannon airport on Sat. December 6th. The voices of 100,000 Irish people were ignored last March when Ireland participated in the war against Iraq. Our voices must be heard once again, but we now need you at Shannon airport and not on the streets of Dublin, where your voices were ignored. We do not yet know what the next US target is, but we do know that it may happen soon. If we do nothing then we are complicit in crimes against humanity. Civil disobedience is our duty in such circumstances in order to uphold the law, and the human rights of our neighbours in the Middle East. The right to life is the most basic human right.
Yours in Peace
Edward Horgan
International Secretary, PANA.
086-2380911, edward.horgan@ul.ie

by Drbinoche Thu Nov 06, 2003 23:25

Ed we have not had true neutrality since World War 2. FACT. We were 'neutral' in favour of the allies, so therefore we have not had neutrality for a while now. It is hardly fair to claim that our Neutrality is being trampled on.

I will not say the War on Iraq was right or wrong, because either way, it is everyones own personal decision about whether or not they agree with it or not, but either way, there was NO way of you knowing how many soldiers have passed through shannon. likewise there was no way of you knowing how many weapons went through Shannon or how many rounds of ammunition wnet with em. You claim it was a large number of M16s, but the problem is, as I know you are aware, not everyone in a standard US Army unit carries your average run of the mill M16. Others carry the Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW), others will carry the M16 with M203 grenade Launcher etc. It is doubtful that the troops would be transported complete with every piece of equipment they would need.

I am just trying to point out that you have no TRUE idea of what or how much went through Shannon. You also cannot claim the excuse of Irish Neutrality when it is something that no longer exists and has not existed for over 50 years.

by Edward Horgan - PANA Fri Nov 07, 2003 00:10 edward.horgan at ul dot ie

Details of the number of troops passing through Shannon have been made available by Aer Rianta and Dept of Transport. Weapons being carried are estimated based on similar information I discovered in the High Court case against Irish Gov. in April 2003. Each US soldier normally carries two weapons, a rifle and pistol with appropriate ammunition. The numbers of Iraqis killed are estimated from international media sources because US military and adminstration deliberately refuse to count Iraqi dead. Irish neutrality ended on 20 March 2003 because from that day Ireland was in direct breach of Hague Convention on Neutrality by allowing US troops pass through Shannon on their war to war. It is a matter of international law, and this was confirmed by Judge Kearns in High Court ruling. Killing innocent people is not just a matter of opinion, it is murder. Killing tens of thousands of innocent people is a crime against humanity - not my words, that is the UN Charter.
yours in peace - Edward Horgan

by $=€ Fri Nov 07, 2003 00:20

I salute you again.
%-)

by Ciaron Fri Nov 07, 2003 00:22

Dribbles, ya JUST doing the work of the state.

Trying to appeal to the worst cynical spaces of the colonised Irish psyche....supply one cynical hook to hang our cloak of citizenship on.

Dribbles my hunch is that you are an agent of the state. There is nothing democratic about facilitating a war machine that drops heaps of napalm on people, wahtever your opinion is.

Hope the pay is good dude.

by Laurence Fri Nov 07, 2003 00:23

We are of course neutral. We are not signatory to any military alliance and are free to develop our foreign policies as we see fit.
This argument is the latest bit of an argument the spin doctors have to justify the complicity of the Irish ruling elite in helping the American empire’s. smash and grab raids.
The fact that our ruling class does not want to be neutral is not the point. Members of military alliances are not free and must take part in wars and threat of wars to back up its treaty partners. We are and should remain so.
As for "We were 'neutral' in favour of the allies" what stupidity! We were neutral because we had the choice to do what we wanted to do. The fact that we chose to secretly back the Brits was our private foreign policy decision which could have been changed at any point we chose.

by Phuq Hedd Fri Nov 07, 2003 01:08

It's in our constitution. Just because the laws are being broken doesn't mean the laws have changed. It just means that some politicians are going to have to go to gaol.

But, Drbinoche, you know this very well because you've discussed it with me and many others on this site in previous threads. So your post here reveals you as a either a non-serious sniper or else as someone that is incapable of assimilating information. In either case it would be better for everyone if you'd refrain from this sort of vapid posting.

by Senior Counsel Fri Nov 07, 2003 08:53

Tell me Phuq Hedd, where you find neutrality "in the Constitution" when none of the finest legal minds of the age can find it?

Think twice before you go spoiling these pages with immature rantings.

by simon Fri Nov 07, 2003 09:19

but I know that the constitution isnt a static document and is open to legal interpretation and that article 29 deals specifically with these matters. I also know that the irish govt. are making specific provisions under the eu constitution to protect that. We are one of the few countries that requires a referendum to modify elements of the constitution and we are being accommodated by the looks of things (by the eu court of justice that is)

what does it say on the last page of this ammendment??

http://www.irlgov.ie/bills28/bills/2001/2401/b2401.pdf

also because of the way a constitution is to be read it does lay the legal framework for neutrality even if it doesnt say the word.

a few points from Article 29
1. Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality.

2. Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.

9° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section where that common defence would include the State.

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.pdf
if you want to read the constitution yourself

by Senior Counsel Fri Nov 07, 2003 09:25

Nowhere in the Constitution as it stands (we're not talking about an amendment in your head) do we have any prohibition of military action by the state, either unilaterally or as part of a military alliance.

So Phuq Hedd was flat wrong, unless he intended to deceive the readers of Indymedia.

by simon Fri Nov 07, 2003 09:29

i provided you with a link to the ammendment that states.

AN SCEIDEAL
Cuid 1
Chun na crı´che sin, cloı´fidh an Sta´ t, go sonrach, le beartas gan a
bheith ina bhall de chomhghuaillı´ochtaı´ mı´leata.
Cuid 2 5
To this end the State shall, in particular, maintain a policy of nonmembership
of military alliances.

seems pretty clear to me

by Senior Counsel Fri Nov 07, 2003 10:27

They are not relevant here.

by truker Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:07

what would you regard as "adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination." as stated in the constitution

Have you been following the developments in the drafting of the eu constitution and the work on the constitutional legalities of the common foreign and security policy?

by Daithi Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:13

Simon, you really destroyed your credibility with your last comment. Goes to show that if you do all your thinking on the Internet, bad things happen. The constitutional amendment you referred to didn't even get as far as a referendum. Do you remember voting on it? I certainly don't. It was a private members' bill that came before the Dáil.

However, I think there's a case to be made that there is a penumbra of neutrality in the constitution. It hasn't been accepted by a court but that's not to say that it couldn't or wouldn't be. Imaginary amendments, however, do no good.

by Barry Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:32

Who's side are you on Senior Counsel?
Are you on retainer on this issue?
If so whose side is paying for your support?
Are you doing this in a personal capacity?
Then perhaps you would share with us your personal beliefs about this permanent war we are participating in?

Coyly refusing to get involved in a debate because some of those involved usee the term "Nuetrality", a term which you (and others) claim has no basis in law is only slightly less cynical than the refusal to hold an opinion because "that's how it's always been".

This country is currently abbetting and assisting a war. This course of action is felt by many to be wrong, some on the grounds that a long cherished notion of nuetrality has been besmirched, others on the grounds that the UN charter, a direct result of the previous experiences of global conflict, has been violated. Still more feel simply that war with it's inherent exploitation and degredation of humanity and environment is morally repugnant and must be opposed at every opportunity.

Opposition to this (permanent) state of war takes many forms and comes from many beliefs. It is not relevant whether you believe Irish nuetrality to be an underpinning of our society or a shibboleth by which FF/Dev kept up the appearance of a different course in Irish foreign policy to that of the major western (ie UK) powers, particularly during WWII. It is not even relevant whether you consider the UN to be a suitable body (or principle) for the solution of conflicting geo-political interests.
The only thing which should be relevant to chosing a path of opposition to war is whether you believe violence is a suitable mechanism for resolving differences.

by simon Fri Nov 07, 2003 13:11

i wasnt clear enough for you. I was trying to show that elements that relate to our 'neutrality' and elements being worked in the dail for ammendments to the constitution will further enshrine that principle of neutrality. This has somewhat abated my fear in relation to irelands position and the draft eu constitution and the common security and defence policy

It is clear by the titles of the document that it is a proposed ammendment (no degree in law needed to see that) and thats why I also provided the link to the actual constitution where you could read it plain as day and note the ammendment wasnt there. the wording of the ammendment was weak etc.

by Lone gunman Fri Nov 07, 2003 13:31

As someone who was involved in the US forces.You are incorrect in stating that US troops carry two weapons.you are issued with your main rifle.Sidearms IE pistols [Bretta M9] is still the perogative of officers and REMFs]. It is frowned upon but accepted practise for troops to carry their own personal private equipment.So long as it is cleared as an acceptable weapon.
The only units that carry as issue are SF units.

As for neutrality,well we are as far as I am concernd helpless.To be properly neutral you have to have a viable defence force that stand its own ground.We dont have one. Has it finally dawned on everyone we singed that farce away with Europe?

by Usual accuracy Fri Nov 07, 2003 15:04

RTE has a good one.
you open the link, and see a photo of a Tristar with THREE engines.
the story says "The four-engine Trans Air plane"
And of course the deliberate innaccuracy of the trolls, pretending article 28 doesn't exist.
So, with military aircraft speeding over scotland
and more military charters coming through Shannon, what is going on?
Is it just sending more troops to Iraq, or are they nuts enough to be already building up to hit Syria or Iran?

by JMcK Fri Nov 07, 2003 18:04

The USAF are still bombing Taliban lines on the Northern Front in Afghanistan.

The bombing is ineffective according to the Taliban who are claim to be holding a number of US hostages.

Perhaps this is where the planes are taing off from as they also carry a payload of British bombs.

by Phuq Hedd Fri Nov 07, 2003 20:57

How many times do we have to go through this? The Irish State through its representatives has made reference many times to our "traditional policy of neutrality" and this taken in conjunction with the following articles of the constitution may be seen as a clear declaration that we are officially neutral:

Item 1:

28.3 [...] the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dail Eireann.

This on its own means that as there has been no vote on participation in the War Waged Against Iraq that we are not officially participating therefore we are officially neutral.

Item 2:

29.1 Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of
peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations
founded on international justice and morality.

Taking part in a war of any sort doesn't display devotion to an ideal of peace and friendly co-operation.

Item 3:
29.2 Ireland adffirms its adherence to the principle of pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.

Again, you can't participate in a war and also adhere to the principle of pacific settlement.


The only sane conclusion is that Eire's constitution means that we are neutral. No, there is no line that says "Eire is neutral", so Roger your constitutional experts should have done a bit more than a "Find" with Microsoft Word.

by Docile Worker Sat Nov 08, 2003 02:55

We'll have to go through this as many times as you lie about the present situation, Phuq Hedd.

Neutrality is not "in our constitution" as you sated earlier.

We are not a constitutionally neutral country, we have taken a neutral stance since before WW2 but we have never formally declared neutrality.

Therefore, any assistance given to US or UK forces is not in breach of the Constitution.

by linking jedi Sun Nov 09, 2003 13:22

front page UK.
it appears there are indeed
large movements in our airspace.
again.

by F - D.I.Y Exteriors Sun Nov 09, 2003 20:43

Neutrality - a facet of that squeeky clean global brand "Ireland Inc".

What advantage does an Irish company bring that others don't ?

"Well they want US technology which is the world leader and we're seen as a front for US technology, we're also a bridge to the London capital market and we come with an acceptable neutral flag with what they percieve as a friendly government..."

How did your oil exploration company get at Iraqi oil ?

"...we've already signed a deal [pre-war] with the ministry of oil in 2002...there's seismic being mapped and reinterpreted in Cork as we speak, there's geological interpretation underway in Leixlip, a senior Iraqi individual is awaiting a visa in Oman we hope to have teams from the ministry working with us in Ireland within the next couple of months...so work is proceeding".

Source - SpLat Kenny interviewing David Horgan, Managing Director of Irish oil company Petrel Resources - RTE Radio 1 Mon. 13th Oct '03.

So internationally in the fast moving business arena Ireland is a neutral country but here at home on the otherside of the shiny facade its a stodgy legal argument.

http://www.petrelresources.com

by Drbinoche Mon Nov 10, 2003 19:50

So Ciaron, quick qeustion, do you know for a fact that the US army has used a larger proportion of Napalm in this conflict than at any other stage during any previous military operations. Do you know what Napalm is?? Do you know how to make it?? Do you know anything about it other than all of its bad effects, IF dropped on a civilian target?? I would doubt if you are aware that it can be used for numerous jobs, alot of which are benficial.

Also, its not stupid to claim that Neutral in Favour of the Allies is not a contradiction. If you are Neutral, you take.................NO-ONES side. None whatsoever, even if you don't officially announce to be Neutral, if you turn around and help one side more than another, then you are no longer Neutral. Therefore, its quite simple to see how Ireland is not Neutral anymore and has not been neutral for a long time.

Is Switzerland Neutral?? Were they Neutral during the Second World War or the First World War?? What about the amount of weapons they built for both sides during the war??? I see them as still being Neutral as they did not restrict who they sold the weapons to. Its not really different to what the Irish Government did during the second World War.

I don't work for the government anymore. I used to be in the Army, that is the only government job I have ever had. I work in a Hospital and know exactly how shitty this government can be, but, I don't see how that is relevant in this argument!!

What do you do Ciaron, when you ain't wasting time and attacking Military planes and moaning by the Spike???? Oh wait, thats NONE of my business and it will not help me in this argument as it is completely incidental!

Can we just stick to the issues being discussed and try NOT to get personal