Urgent action Needed to Stop Irish Military Action In Chad

by From Copenhagen. Wed Sep 23, 2009 18:42

"Knowing little about something and knowing alot about nothing are the the only things you have shown here."

That's a very Irish answer !

Like: "It is and it it isn't. "

Full of perfect clarity.
.

by Democrat. Wed Sep 23, 2009 18:16

Oglai na HEireann gets me to the Irish Army website.

The legimate army of democratic Ireland.

Alas, it is also used by terrorists with just a few members....hence my confusion.

(No wonder outsiders say that Ireland is Confusing with a big C.)

by Interested Tue Sep 22, 2009 23:42

Having an opinion doesnt mean you are intelligent, just opinionated. Imagine what you could do if your opinion was informed! You might actually know what you were talking about then!

Knowing little about something and knowing alot about nothing are the the only things you have shown here.

by Democrat. Tue Sep 22, 2009 07:31

"Perhaps such a force could call itself Óglaigh na 26 Chondae,"

For all the support you guys have..... you could call it "Oglaigh na 26 PEOPLE."

Or ,maybe, 6 people.

by Interested Tue Sep 22, 2009 00:29

What do you think now? Have you witnessed the contributions to humanitarian principles and the reduction in human suffering which the Irish troops have facilitated by strictly adhering to its impartial and neutral mandate to protect IDPs, Refugees and humanitarians? Have you witnessed the evacuation under fire of humanitarians and one of the few forces globally to respond with the use of proportionate force, something which gained them the respect of both sides to the conflict as well as the Chadian and Sudanese population who were grateful for the risk they took to their own lives to protect people they had never met before?

For the first time, Humanitarian organisations have put aside their principles of non-cooperation with military forces because of the excellent example set by the Irish troops who risked their lives to show Ireland isn't a cold distant place whose citizens are absorbed in their own self-importance.

Without judging the author, I believe your time would be more productively spent in getting to know exactly what the deployment of Irish troops means in International Relations and arguing to support them in their endeavours. If you are not capable of that, then at least stop being part of the problem and the weight which drags this country back into the dark ages at each attempt and try for once to expand your knowledge and mind.

To accept that participation in peace keeping/ enforcement missions may be risky internationally, realise how international players are not as subjective and know more about exactly what Ireland is doing than you may, identifying that we not only maintained our neutrality in this mission but reinforced the perception of our neutrality globally, and realise we are morally bound to play the small part we play instead of sitting back, growing our egos and telling the rest of the world what immoral corrupt nations they are.

Get involved.... get productive and support positively and constructively... or sit down and shut up. You are NOT helping Ireland or its citizens.

by 1094123 Fri Jan 09, 2009 22:25

"It's not going to change by waving a few signs because for the last 40 years it hasn't changed a bit."

Yeah those civil rights marchers can just stay at the back of the bus. They'll be wanting equality for women in the workforce next, and then the gays will be trying to get treated fairly...

Although I'm not sure they would actually want the daisies pulled out...

by Rory379 Fri Jan 09, 2009 04:03

Not to bash on anyone but... Cael? Didn't know they had an internet connection in the 1920's but I'm sure you'll tell us all what the weathers like back then. Tell me, did someone go back in time to give you the laptop or did you shoot forward to the present? I know you make a lot of statements about the Irish Free State and the Republican movement. Believe me I understand, it is part of our history and essentially our culture but... I must ask what it's relevance to this particular war is. A lot of people on this seem to be looking and the question and not the answer. Yes Irish troops are going to help people in Chad, NO we don't need to ask why over and over again because it's been explained.

I do agree with an earlier comment I saw. The Irish do need to challenge the french about their intrests in the region, however that may allegedly benefit the EU. To be honest I don't see the Irish as a country that like to bash the Islamists to keep Israel and the US nodding their heads or as a country that invade a country to get a tiny sliver of an EU budget pie.

Also in response to the Signal magazine post. Well done, you figured out Irelands greatest conspiracy, we're all a bunch of Nazi's.... Idiot.
I find it particularly amusing that you imply Irelands the Nazi. If you were there in 1939 I'm sure you'd be saying "Ah well... You know it's between the Germans and the Jews... Not our fight... England only wants to get involved because it wants to employ the wealthy Jewish culture as a bargaining chip. America only wants to get involved to have some territory in Europe so they can keep troops stationed across the world"
Just to disclaim myself. If you just found the poster amusing I apologise for this rant but I'd appreciate if you didn't continue to make these references. (Not that I'm closed minded or domineering as I'm sure someone is bound to point out, I'm just asking you nicely to... be nice)

by Rory379 Fri Jan 09, 2009 03:42

To be quite frank I know a lot of people view these arguments in two opinions. There are the closed minded people that agree with their military and there are the open minded liberals who see the government for what it really is. To be honest I'd like to say this is not the case. The liberals are as closed minded as the military. I believe in order to have any debate it is difficult for it to last or even function if both sides are not closed minded.
For your opinions I'd like to say this and address a larger picture at the same time.

1. The imperialistic war that we are getting involved in and, of course, the terrorist implications we may bring on ourselves:
The Irish nation has never contributed to a war that was solely for it's own benefit. I have a few African friends (forgive me for any offense given) that see the Irish race as a cousin community due to it's past of colonisation and repression. I know there are a lot of opinions in this argument on all sides. Some Africans indeed say that although they are being oppressed that it is not our war to fight and they would prefer if our troops had not come to Aid them as it could be seen as another occupation by the "White man" in Africa.
I'd like to state that the Irish presence in Chad is of good nature and intent. I would like to pose the question as to how Ireland will strike up their deals for Oil which (allegedly) is the only purpose that they are there. I'm interested to know how exactly you know Ireland will deploy themselves, Aid and use their troops to build or, perhaps in your opinion, capture key oil positions in Africa without the medias knowledge. As an active peace protester I'm sure you and your associates must make it your business to identify, publicise and shun the governments for these actions. That being said I have not heard any declaration of the irish government having such links.

2. I agree with a previous commentator that by ignoring this crisis we are acknowledging genocide and giving it an excuse. Rwanda was a horror that many people vowed would never happen again, yet, to this day there are many problems still.
I do realise and accept that military presence can prolong and fuel more violence and death but I'd like to ask:
Is it right that we let the tyrants win so less people are killed?
You are agreeing that a RACE of people should be wiped out in order for the world to be at peace. You make statements about our facist, selfish, imperialistic government that is only going over for it's own benefit. I'd like to ask you what makes that worse than your selfish motive to stay out of it and let people die? Would you prefer if we just let essentially a repeat of the holocaust continue just so you can assure yourself Ireland will not get oil out of it?

3. I agree boycotting China would be a good idea should you have the man power. Unfortunately you don't. I know you think if you get the ball rolling now then you can weaken them in a few years time. In my opinion (only), you can't. It is an idealistic movement which does not have any effect on our world. Indeed I agree with the quote "Never doubt that a small group of committed people can't change the world, Indeed it is all that ever has" But... I don't agree that it will have any effect on our western culture. The truth is, people like paying 30 euro for a pair of Nike shoes or for a T-shirt because it looks nice and it's cheaper than some other things. There are bad people in the world, selfish people and ignorant people. Sometimes I get the impression you believe there are only ignorant people who need to be informed or convinced. I disagree. There are terrible people in this world. People that will feed hate and violence for their own means. There is no penance for them.

4. I see people waving signs at the Irish military that say "Make love, not war!" or "Peace now". Some people forget that this world is built on violence. Our military's shape our world and they are all that ever have done. You would not have a nationality if it wasn't for our military. I see your argument to that. It's "I don't care, I don't see myself as Irish, English or anything else. We're all human" Indeed we are, but that's not the world we live in. We live in a world where democracy, however flawed, is the fair government. Every government has flaws. The idea of a small government for a large population is madness in itself, but that is the world we live in.
Out of chaos comes order. War and violence are just as important to Peace and prosperity. Without one the other cannot truly make an impact on our lives.

5. I'm quite sure this will be used as ammunition against me to ensure that my opinion is biased and misinformed but I will say it anyways. I am going to join the irish army in a years time. I have given it careful consideration. I am Irish and I consider myself blessed for that. I am currently living in Paris, France and I have the opportunity to fight for them. I do not agree, however, with ALL of their missions so I've decided to stay with my choice of the Irish army. I'm not joining out of patriotism but of humanitarianism. I believe in peace enforcing because A. It hasn't been done before in history and is starting to yield promising results B. I believe war is like a disease that can only be cured by another force.
My final message is not going to be a pleasant one, in fact I'm going to sign off by being rude.
Instead of waving your stupid signs of ignorance in a country that does nothing but help the unfortunate, wave them in a war zone to the people that need to see it. Of course you wouldn't because you're a coward and have found a big enemy with no teeth that you can try to attack.

"The human brain is probably the most complex thing we've ever known. Scientists say it will be an impossible, paradoxial study, a box within a box. There are 6 billion people on this earth, 6 billion brains, what makes you think you understand it?"

by Darren C Tue Jul 15, 2008 16:30 offensieftegenracisme at yahoo dot co dot uk

After years of building opposition to US-UK imperialist adventures in the Middle East, it’s discouraging that socialists and anti-war activists in Ireland are reluctant to challenge our own ruling class and build a campaign calling for the withdrawal of our Irish troops from Chad.

There’s been a proliferation of lies from most political parties and the media about the real intentions of the EUFOR deployment there. Governmental declarations tell us that the EUFOR mission is actually meant to supply humanitarian aid for refugees in the eastern regions of Chad. Media coverage has exclusively been concerned with the question whether the participation of Irish troops could entail physical dangers for the Irish soldiers.

Forget the EU's lies. The real reason for the Irish intervention is to supplement French neo-colonialism in Chad, which exports bigger quantities of oil and uranium since 2003, and to bolster opposition forces in neighbouring Darfur.

The French have been providing military and political support for the despotic dictatorship of General Idriss Deby who came to power in 1990 via a coup d‘etat. The opposition forces in Darfur, which are supported by the West, are also supported by the Chadian government whereas the Sudanese government supports the Chadian opposition forces. The fighting and military activities in both African countries are tightly interrelated and the West is keen to install someone in Khartoum who is more amenable to their interests.

There’s a revealing article in American Prospect, written by David Axe, that argues foreign aid and the U.N.-backed peacekeeping mission are prolonging the conflict in Darfur by providing a safe-haven where rebels can safely leave their families and recruit new soldiers – including children.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=is_the_un_m...arfur

Clip - -

"Rebel fighters can charge into battle knowing their families are safe, well-fed, looked after by Western doctors, and guarded by a mixed brigade of French, Swedish, Polish and Irish troops called "EUFOR." And if they survive the fighting, the men can return to these safe havens to rest, eat, and, if their groups' ranks are depleted, recruit and forcibly enlist new fighters, often children."

This is an issue that the CAEUC should take up with gusto, though I fear there may be opposition from the likes of Patricia McKenna and Roger Cole, who are enamored with the UN and whose respective parties support the mission. Sarkozy's visit next Monday presents an oppurtunity for anti-imperialists opposed to EU military intervention in Africa to raise their voices again.

by whyshouldi - that would be telling Sun Apr 06, 2008 03:28

I read a few of the wonderful posts on this thread and found not a shred of supported fact in one. many here make grand and sweeping statements about the defence forces and how terrible they are or will be. Many have attached politcal motivations on shoestring style connections. After all the dire conspiracy theorist tripe can you (any and everyone here posting their insulting ramblings) back them up? a little evidence is a healthy thing. Many here detest our current government and want it gone and I would be in the same camp, I believe in socialism and a fair and equal society. but how in the name of god (or any other deity if you choose to believe) are we ever supposed to convince people of whats a good idea when you keep spewing rubbish like this. Thats the problem with most of you, you rant about nothing so much that when you do have something worth hearing to say nobody listens or gives a damn and you have only yourselves to blame for the growing voter apathy in Ireland.
This crap is an example of your many mistakes. You churn out unsupported tripe and expect people to take you at your word. As each person looks and inevitabley finds out you lied or bent the truth more and more walk away and once they know you did it once even when you tell them of their own impending doom (if you were to do so) they would still ignore you because you are nought more than the boy's who cried wolf far too many times. to close grow up stop talking crap when you can't back it up and making tenous and non existent links. try a little fact now and again you'l find it works wonders.

by K Rambo - my own comment Tue Apr 01, 2008 01:14

i'm a solider within the defence forces and its the best job for any young man/woman because of its security as in a full time wage every week.. the army is full of bright and intellengent young men from which don't not come from the un delevoped parts of the country.... the army is a great life u meet loads of different people every day do different tasks evry day/ week many different courses like driving course's wepons course's ... so people the claim the army are full of wasters is a fool and for the simple fact is thta they are afraid of doing the thing us young men and women are doing.. yes it is a life less ordanery and will always be .... when irish soliders go over sea's they see life in a whole new prospescuts and it opens ur eyes up to how lucky some people really are in life.. a solider is a person that is commited to achiveing things in life and want the best out of his/her's life and will always do things right and do his or her's best to helf fello members and members of the public... so irish people STOP RUNNING DOWN THE IRISH DEFENCE FORCES

the reason to why irish soliders go to places like chad , kosovo etc its because it our job and its what we singed on the dotted line for and its what we love doing and that is MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN PEOPLES LIFES

by Cael Mon Feb 11, 2008 18:24

Are you telling me that an armed force called Óglaigh na hÉireann is only allowed, by the Brits, to operate in 26 of our 32 counties? Perhaps such a force could call itself Óglaigh na 26 Chondae, but certainly not Óglaigh na hÉireann.

by marin Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:07

theres only one oglaigh na heireann- in english the irish defence forces who have a great reputation in international chapter 6 and 7 operations.
other organisations have no right to use this name.
under international treaties we have responsibilities to protect the innocent and if necessary engage terrorist forces . only armchair pacifists, unemployed terorists and fascists oppose our international duties.

by Cael Sun Feb 10, 2008 17:16

Anyway, if the free state army ever do go to Chad, I wish the people of Chad better luck than when the Irish people were being burned out of their homes and expected some help from these valiant heros. Let's hope they dont stand idly by again - or, worse still, actually collaborate with the oppressors.

by Cael Sun Feb 10, 2008 16:54

Óglaigh na hÉireann have been in the field against Ireland's enemies for quite some time, while the free state army were looking for compo and ear muffs because their guns were loud. Now it seems their elite 'army rangers' cant go to Chad because its dangerous and people shoot at you.

by martin Sat Feb 09, 2008 21:16

time to end this debate. time for the govt. to send oglaigh na heireann to do the work soldiers do. inthis case to stop the janjaweed and sudanese forces attacking defenceless refugees. when you join an army you know fighting is part of the menu.why else would we employ them. to drain the shannon? i think not . they are trained to fight and with our internatioal obligations under eu and un treaties, this is what the army is for.its interesting the coalition of pacifists and terrorists who oppose the irish army going to chad. i didnt hear this on cyprus, liberia or lebabnon.

time to join the real world. MARTIN

by Des Sat Feb 09, 2008 14:48

Cael said "Why dosnt he stay at home and fight the occupiers of his own country?"
Kindly point out where in Ireland there are people living in refugee camps and being raped and murdered.
Where in Ireland are people being forced from their own homes to flee in terror on a daily basis?
where in Ireland are people being murdered in droves because of their beliefs or just because of what faction they are perceived to belong to?

Our own country has had its troubles and now (with the exceptopn of some hard liner Republicans who don't want peace) is stable and by all respects a pretty decent place to live. Our troops are going to help people less fortunate than ourselves who are devoid of even the most basic human rights. And you think they should stay at home and fight who exactly and in what way? Explain to me how you want the Irish army to fight "the occupiers" as you call them. Do you want them on the streets blowing the crap out of each other and destroying people's lives here?

Seems to me you are nothing but a selfish mouth Cael who takes what he has for granted and doesn't give a stuff abot anyone else anywhere.
.

by Ceann Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:38

This is possibly the most ridiculous article i have ever seen. Their mission is to protect refugees in their camps. The only reason they would get involved in fighting is if an opposing force decided it wanted to go after these defenceless people. A noble cause in my book.

by second that Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:13

do you not think that this is a role for both Ministers:-

Foreign Affairs and Defence?

I do, afterall, with Sarkozy pushing for Blair to head the EU we really do need the
issues of the triple lock mechanism defined quite clearly.

by patriotic constitutionalist Sat Feb 09, 2008 00:43

We are a supposedly rich first world country and since 1955 have been an active member of the UN and a supporter of its peacekeeping policies. Our soldiers have given their lives, in the Congo, the Lebanon and elsewhere, in pursuit of UN ideals. I revere their sacrifice.

The Chad operation has political anomalies i.e. France has "interests" there and in adjoining territories resulting from economic activity going back to colonial times. Ireland has no interests in Africa resulting from colonialism. Africans remember the humanitarian and spiritual role of the Irish missionaries.

The Minister for Defence should ask questions of the French foreign ministry, and make a Dail statement as our troops wait to be flown to Chad. Once they land at N'dajema the best wishes of the Irish people must be expressed as they undertake their peacekeeping duties.

by Cael Fri Feb 08, 2008 17:01

Why dosnt he stay at home and fight the occupiers of his own country?

by Trevor - None Fri Feb 08, 2008 16:06

This is a big load of fucking shit my da has to go to Chad now and im sick of it hes been to lebanon and kosovo and nigeria and now chad i hate this shit

by kevin Tue Feb 05, 2008 17:08

Just a question for the author of 'Urgent action needed to Stop Irish Military Action in Chad'.

Do you suggest that the world does not act to stop or defend the people who have been murdered raped and forced from there homes in Darfur. Do you think just because we are Irish and neutral that we should do noting to help our fellow man, or are you just another person who likes to hate the u.s?
As for your comments on the 'gung-ho Irish defence forces' well that makes your whole point doesn’t it, any and all soldiers must be gun mad nut jobs, the couldn’t be dedicated and professional PEACE KEEPERS now could they?

by Histrybuff Tue Feb 05, 2008 16:43

I am indebted to the poster above who provided a link to the Army magazine. Without him I would never have learned that the magazine has the same name as the NAZI army magazine from 1930/40's Germany. Fascinating.

by hmmmmmmmmm Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:01

I suppose if the Irish Rangers had gone in this week as mooted last week, they might now be caught up in the accusations. However, they did not & so it is the French army who in their traditional imperial neck of the woods who today are being accused of targetting civilian positions.
http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/monde/308136.FR.php
I very much doubt this had any bearing on the honeymoon which to all purposes seems to have been celebrated in the two months previous to the wedding. What may have brought a little pout to the Sarkozy mouth on the other hand is the news that he has lost a further 9 points on the popularity & support index with the French polling public. If he keeps up this current downward direction (since 2008 began) he will be the most unpopular & unsupported president ever. Not that it shall matter much, he's in the job for at least another few years & was previously the most unpopular minister of the interior ever. He didn't appear to care that much then & the great French public still voted him into the Elysee proving how thick they really are.

This thread has seen interesting & sincere comments from purported members of the Irish Defence forces & it appears likely that the situation is now returning to one in which the original mandate & mission is viable. That of humanitarian assistance. Not one of an active combat zone. Thus I wouldn't be surprised if 9mm Willy O'Dea tells our boys & girls they're going again pretty soon. We might ponder how they will be going after the French apparantly did the dirty combat work. Shock & Awe...

Here is a decent enough tactical overview from France which pretty much laid it out as it was - the rebels had their chance last weekend (they came within shelling distance) & they failed to capitalise that - time is on the government' side as well as a lot of better weapons & the ever useful ordinance survey maps. IF you read french are into soldier chit chat (combat not humanitarian assistance) go here http://secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr/defense/2008/0....html

this report from the BBC is now several hours out of date (it doesn't report the ceasefire) but it gives you quotes from people. Quotes are great. Enough quotes & then the poor people get blankets, bowls of rice & bottles of water. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7227840.stm

by sarko Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:29

Quite ruined Premier Sarkozy's Honeymoon, didn't it?

Now The African EU problems cannot all be reduced to presidential militarism and ambition.
My friend from Cote D'Ivoire (and quite a good writer, tells me that he is a Royal fan, as
do my Algerian pals).

He also told me that the right-wing Sarkozy presidency would involve Chad and Libya
more so than addressing the issues of Cote D'ivoire and Algeria. These problems,
like those in Niger involve rebels, diaspora and desperation.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Feb 04, 2008 08:20

The poster above asserts that US has no interests in Chad and the only reason the EU force was going to Chad was to protect refugees. Exxon, which to the best of my knowledge is a US company, controls Chad's oil....and the French have uranium interests.

So instead of attacking anti war and anti-Bush activists, it would be wiser to look at the facts

Chad has threatened to stop oil production next week if it does not immediately receive several months' worth of oil revenues. It wants the US-led consortium that runs Chad's pipeline to hand over $100m (£57m) it says it is owed by Tuesday.

The row over the country's oil wealth has been brewing for months. Last December the Chadian government fell out with the World Bank, after it changed a law which carefully controlled how oil revenues were spent. The World Bank, which financially backs the oil project, repeatedly asked Chad not to change the law but it went ahead anyway.

In response, the Bank froze all payments of oil revenues to the government. Since then, it is the consortium which runs the pipeline led by US oil giant Exxon Mobil, which has been storing Chad's share of the oil profits.

Five months of talks between Chad and the World Bank have failed to break the stalemate and the government has now issued its ultimatum. The consortium must hand over $100 million Chad is owed by noon on Tuesday, otherwise the pipeline will be shut.

And if the flow of oil is stopped, the huge profits enjoyed by oil companies here will dry up along with the pipeline. The row over unpaid oil revenues comes at the end of a tumultuous week for the country, when a rebel attack in the capital killed scores of people.

Responses welcome

by Seantóir - None - ever Mon Feb 04, 2008 03:36

I am appalled at some of the ridiculous misinformation that has been posted here about the purpose of the peacekeeping mission to the Darfur region. The one and only reason that forces were being sent to Darfur was to protect refugee camps. TO PROTECT REFUGEE CAMPS FOR CHRIST'S SAKE you ignorant so and sos, where people are being murdered and raped practically at will by a Sudanese terrorist militia. Now, thanks to the efforts of their Chadean puppets, the rebel forces, it looks like the Sudanese and their friends may once again have managed to prevent the international community from protecting those refugees so that they can carry on their savage policy of terror and ethnic cleansing.

Any suggestion that the EU forces were to act as surrogates for the US is total nonsense. The US has no significant commercial interests in Chad and therefore no interest in the region one way or another, and hopefully will do nothing more than issue diplomatic condemnations of the current situation because the last thing the people of Chad and the refugees need is to have their misery mistakenly associated with US policies or actions elsewhere. The EU force was going there to reinforce the under-equipped and underfunded African Union forces who up to now have been the sole and inadequate protection afforded the refugee camps.

What we are witnessing is yet another round in a campaign of inhuman ethnic cleansing and misery in Africa that because of a lack of political will, and the lack of any significant exploitable resources in the region affected will not be prevented by the wealthier nations of the world. We should hang our heads in shame that we stand by and allow such inhumanity against by our fellow human beings by our fellow human beings.

As for the irrational Bush-haters (I have nothing against rational Bush-haters per se) - wake up to reality you silly gits. Just because it's you pet hobbyhorse doesn't mean that everything that happens in the world is connected to it.

Seantóir

by A10 Sun Feb 03, 2008 17:02

So this debate is superflous,The militas can murder ,rape and loot with impunity in Chad.The UN can bumble along and bluster.And the Irish anti everything crowd can sleep safely knowing that Irelands precious image of neutrality hasnt been impinged at all.Nothing changes,just gets worse.

by martin lacey Wed Jan 23, 2008 14:49

we should support the deployment of oglaigh na heireann forces to chad as an indication of our international resposibilities. we are already spending a great deal on oda and are on target to the 0.7per cent of gnp on overseas aid . im too old old to be a soldier but i respect those young men and women who serve in our defence forces. i myself have served as a civilian with the un in sri lanka, former yugoslavia and with with ngos in other conffict situations and i know the respect that oglaigh na heireann and irish ngos have earned.for their diplomatic and non partisan policies.its easy to be an armchair pacifist and neutralist but the world needs little countries like ireland to break the grip of ideology and ethnic cleansing. people abroad recognise we have carry no baggage except human rights. MARTIN.

by Steve Tue Jan 22, 2008 20:20

For decades Irish troops were deployed to Lebanon in an effort to hold the peace, and in doing so proved themselves to be impartial, fair and well respected by both the indigenious residents and other international peacekeepers. They were directly attacked on many occasions by both the Israeli Defence Forces and Islamic Fighters alike, and demonstrated remarkable resraint in fulfilling their duties to the people of Lebanon

Soon the Irish Army will send 400 troops to protect the refugee camps in Chad. It is a noble mission and I am fully confidant that the Army will uphold its hard earned reputation and honor. For too long have the populations of Darfur and Western Chad been menaced by the Janjaweed militias and their Sudaneese sponsors, and I for one think its high time that the international community stepped in to stop the slaughter and rape of innocent civilians in the region.

The deployment to Chad (like previous deployments to Lebanon, East Timor and Liberia) is a dangerous mission with little reward to the Irish people themselves. The notion that this deployment is an imperialistic crusade in Western Africa to support US ambitions in Afghanistan and Iraq and open "a new front" on the war on terror is laughable. The UN force was invited into Chad by the Chadian Government and not one UN soldier will cross the border and violate Sudaneese soverignty.

I find it difficult to understand how anyone could deem the protection of camps, filled with refugees from Darfur, as a barbaric act of imperialism. Also difficult to understand is how the IRISH themselves can be accused of an imperialistic manifesto. The very nature of ireland's history has indoctrinated all of her citizens with nothing but contempt for the notion of imperialism and empire building.

by FrenchImperialism Fri Jan 18, 2008 17:44

pseud linked to an independent article which is quite interesting.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article30303...9.ece

I suggest the rest of you read it if you actually want to understand "reality" a little better.
it seems the complex geopolitical nature of the modern world persistently eludes some folk.

thanks pseud

by Ryan - ireland Thu Jan 17, 2008 00:46

as a soldier i say yes im getting bord of the crap peacekeeping!!

by john - irish army Fri Dec 14, 2007 23:19

your story is bull shit.

by Wisdo Sun Dec 02, 2007 23:18

Who is malcolm. Does he Know Dermot Early? How does he know he is "gung ho"? How does he know he is "licking his lips"?

If any of those who oppose the mission on legitimate grounds (rather than because you dont happen to like Dermot Early) and do so knowing the fate of the people of Chad should the peacekeepers fail to materialise, then I hope you iron willed adherence to non-intervention helps you sleep at night when the news starts showing the massacres there.

by Beside the fence not on it Wed Nov 28, 2007 00:29

I thought Malcolm was writing it and I got confused by his apparent sudden change of heart :-S

by Beside the fence not on it Wed Nov 28, 2007 00:27

Two wrongs don't make a right, however, two wrongs sometimes prevents futher wrongs. You need to re-read what I was saying. You're ceasing to "make sense"

by sideshowmel Tue Nov 27, 2007 23:43

To wrongs do not make a right either. How would you suggest the Allies should have defeated the Nazis so? And I really look forward to your reply

by Beside the fence not on it Tue Nov 27, 2007 23:42

Malcolm, grow up. If unarmed civilian observers were sent in it would be massacre. Unfortunately, full blown war was all that would have stopped Hitler. Why not find a junior cert history book and look for "appeasement" in the index, see where it gets you. Weapons and armed forces are a necessary evil. Otherwise there'd be no chance of democracy.

Time to mature your opinions a little. Even Einstein, one of the better known pacifists of all time recognised that sometimes warfare was the only way forward. Is it such a big leap for you to recognise that sometimes, the only way of stopping harm is to use weapons as a deterrent? Lying down, bong in hand, clad in poncho and birkinstocks, making daisy chains as a barrier to enemy forces doesn't work. Deterring them with the threat of a 7.62 round in the head does. Sometimes you have to use like with like. You should note that the philospher Adam Ferguson recognised that war was needed so civilised society could progress.

by Malcolm Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:16

"British and American imperialists" would be a unique perspective, seeing that these two countries led the fight back against Germany, and liberated the concentration camps."

They defeated Nazi Germany by bombing their cities into rubble?
Two wrongs do not make a right.

by Charles B. Mon Nov 26, 2007 15:07

You've managed to start another row between people who generally share the same views.
While I would be ferverently anti war, I consider your holier than thou attitude to be quite ridiculous, and not in touch with a concept called reality.
This post along with the one giving out about Thankgiving dinner being given out in UCD or Trinners or someother exclusive institution, goes a long way to proving that you Sir are a ningcompoop.
I shall not be entertaining your fundamentalist neo pacifist clap trap any longer.
Bloodlust indeed!

by sideshowmel Mon Nov 26, 2007 14:47

"Can't wait to satisfy your bloodlust can you?"

You sir, in my most humble opinion, are an idiot of the highest order. If you for one second believe that an unarmed force in Chad would be successful in bringing peace to the region, you are living in a dream world where there is no such thing as violence or evil in this world. Do you think the people who carry out acts of ethnic clensing or rape are simply going to put down their weapons and come talk about their "feelings" and why they feel the need to do the things they do. They do not care if peace keepers come from Europe, Africa, China or where ever. If anything, they wanted AU peacekeepers because they are a lesser force than that which Europe can put together. This was seen recently with a raid on an AU base in Sudan. Send your unarmed "civilian observers", and I assure you sir, the bloodbath that we will witness will be 100 times worse than you can imagine in your worst nightmare.

Would it not be better to have a force of heavily armed, well trained troops experienced in peacekeeping in Africa. A round might not be fired in the course of the mission, but the mere presence will have a massive impact on the locals sense of security.

To Malcolm, I have waited a few days to think of a response appropiate to your response to my initial post. And here it is.

The Republic of Ireland is a 26 county entity which is an independant and sovergin state, Northern Ireland is a 6 county entity which is an element of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If the Republic of Ireland was to have sent the Defence Forces to Northern Ireland at any point in the last 40 years, it would have been an act of agression and would have been illegal under international law. The "patriots" who died over the last 40 years in the North were Terrorists in every sense of the word, some of whom were even involved in the murder of Det. Gda. Gerry McCabe in Limerick. Det. Gda. McCabe was a servant of this state, and was murdered in cold blood by terrorists. This act still is to be condemed by the Terrorists political wing.

Second point on your post "Ireland did not participate in the orgy of murder that was WW2"
True, Republic of Ireland did not partake in the the 2nd World War, but tens thousands of Irish men crossed the channel and served in the British Army, Navy and the RAF in fighting against the Axis powers and the bloodshed and distruction they, the axis powers, brought to Central Europe, and the near destruction of the Jewish population in Germany. "British and American imperialists" would be a unique perspective, seeing that these two countries led the fight back against Germany, and liberated the concentration camps. They did not keep control of liberated countries save for the occupation of Germany which subsequently ended, unlike Soviet Russia, possibly the real imperialist power of the 2nd World War which imposed communist governments on countries that it liberated.

And finally, the Irish Republic is not constitutionally neutral, I have read the constitution, there is no direct mention to the concept. Furthermore, while most neutral states maintain strong defence forces, Ireland has a relatively small defence force. The Republic of Ireland is traditionally Neutral. Just because we use the triple lock for deployments does not mean we are a Neutral state.

by pseud Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:49

Inside France's secret war
For 40 years, the French government has been fighting a secret war in Africa, hidden not only from its people, but from the world. It has led the French to slaughter democrats, install dictator after dictator – and to fund and fuel the most vicious genocide since the Nazis. Today, this war is so violent that thousands are fleeing across the border from the Central African Republic into Darfur – seeking sanctuary in the world's most notorious killing fields
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article30303...9.ece

boycott china? they're sending a few troops to Darfur in Sudan.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/26/content_71...2.htm
The 135 Chinese peacekeepers were warmly welcomed by the UN, the AU and Sudanese officials at Niyala International Airport. They were joined by the five Chinese officers who arrived earlier this year.
Their task is essential to the increasing number of UN peacekeepers in the region.

I can think of no more simplified view of the world then those held by soldiers, these people were killed so what they did must be right, must be respected???(I feel sorrry for example for the US troops who die in Iraq but I can't stretch myself to respect them ). The Irish have a long history of involvement in 3rd world colonialism, (as part of the UK etc). Ireland presence in Lebanon or elsewhere has always been neutral in favour of the allies, there to further US/EU/Israel interest rather then Lebanese ones. Always arriving at the point where they hinder anti-western groups fighting but when they can secure pro-western groups positions after violent routs. eg Liberia. Then they try to separate what they do from other UN peacekeeping groups like those protecting a US puppet government in Haiti etc. And if that fails we get duh duh I protecting the guy to my left? Then the friendly Irish scthick is used and abused
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/1...9.DTL
French efforts to ensure the troops come from all over Europe, with a non-French commander, are aimed at dispelling notions that the operation is really aimed at shoring up France‘s interests in Africa, where it still wields considerable influence as a former colonial power. The Irish to counter China trading power for the US, its about humanitarian as those rich French people trying to buy children.

by patriot constitutionalist Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:58

The UN is dedicated to peace but is not a pacifist organisation. While it supports nonviolent means for settling national and international disputes, it pragmatically accepts that armed peacekeeping forces need to intervene in conflicts in order to minimise suffering and damage and create social conditions in which opposing political groups may be brought to the negotiating table. Peacekeeping troops have rules of engagement regulating the use of military force. "Blood lust" is alien to the UN rules of engagement.

In many ways the traditional christian just war doctrine - a humane, pragmatic doctrine which takes war as one of the evil consequences of fallen human nature and establishes ethical rules designed to limit human suffering when wars do break out - governs the UN attitude to international peacekeeping. The Irish army adheres to this ethical tradition and has established a peacekeeping training college at the Curragh where officers from many foreign armies have successfully studied. Irish peacekeeping soldiers, coming from a small country that endured foreign rule and suffered a devestating famine in the 19th century, have generally empathised with the distressed populations among whom they have served. They have been mindful of the missionary/foreign aid tradition of Ireland and have initiated small scale aid projects that go beyond their UN peacekeeping mandate.
This makes their role even more worthy of support from the Irish public.

by Pacifist Mon Nov 26, 2007 09:16

"This mission does not in any way interfere with Irish neutrality as I'm sure that if needs be, our troops will fire back at anyone who is firing at them - regardless of which side their attackers are on."

Can't wait to satisfy your bloodlust can you?
Conflicts must be solved non-violently.
Unarmed Irish civilian observers should be sent to Chad instead of heavily armed soldiers.
The Janjaweed can be persuaded to stop killing people by non-violent demonstration of goodwill from the international community.

by Beside the fence not on it Sun Nov 25, 2007 15:25

Lets set out the primary objective of the Irish troops in Chad shall we?

They are going to PROTECT refugees.

We're engaging in imperialist war?

How so? We're going to protect refugees, we're not taking a side or in any way assisting one side of the war or the other; it's purely to prevent civilian losses. The Irish Defence Forces have a long and proud history of peace keeping. We're admired internationally for our record. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the DF's involvement in Chad will be of any other benefit other than the following two reasons: to prevent human losses and to carry on a tradition of upstanding service to the civilian populations of any country that the DF has deployed to.

IF we were going to participate in an imperialist war, purely for the benefit of the US, we'd be deploying to Darfur; not Chad. Get your facts right before spouting them.

Malcolm, have you carried out a referendum in secret that you're hiding from the rest of us? If not, how can you claim that the majority of the population of the republic want the six counties back? I look at these things in terms of economic and social viability. I don't want the 6 counties back. However, do not accuse me of a lack of patriotism. I took an oath over two years ago when I joined the Defence Forces. Surely taking this oath is a bigger sign of my pride in and loyalty to my country than your petty and ill-informed propaganda style rantings.

You should also note that the current Defence Forces was founded AFTER the Free State was formed. The people fighting during the war of independence were members of the IRA; not members of Oglaigh na hEireann. Therefore there is no viable benchmark upon which you base this statement.

"This is how your American counterparts would phrase it:

"Since 1945 when US troops fought in World War, the US military has played an honourable role in defending freedom, suffering thousands of casualties in several countries. I see Operation Iraqi freedom as a continuation of that tradition. I wish the troops the best of luck.""

The key information that you're missing is that the US takes sides, pillages countries and has ulterior objectives. Our Defence Forces protect civilians. That is the primary role - to keep the peace. Trying to make such a comparison shows how ill educated you are. This mission does not in any way interfere with Irish neutrality as I'm sure that if needs be, our troops will fire back at anyone who is firing at them - regardless of which side their attackers are on.

As an aside for those of you who advocate complete neutrality; in order to be neutral a country must be able to defend itself - without assistance - from an offensive force. Right now we cannot do that thanks to the public not understanding what neutrality entails. But of course, I'm sure you would be up in arms, excuse the phrase, were the Defence Forces to expand to a capacity that would allow us to be neutral.

by martin lacey - none Sat Nov 24, 2007 20:38

its time we on the left debated what neutrality really means. roger casement had clear ideas about the need for for intervention in situations of human rights abuses. this might be a starting point for our debate. irish defence forces (oglaigh na heireann) have responsibilities under international law to intervene in these situations on un or eu mandates . they have never paricipated in an imperialist war. what do these arm chair pacifists or patriotts want - ireland to be neutral as in ww2 against fascist aggression. i sometimes despair of the so called left.the decission to join the eu battle groups is to be welcomed . the cold war is over but its not the end of history. martin

by patriot constitutionalist Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:55

Died in the Niemba ambush in the Congo:-

Lt Kevin Gleeson
Sgt Hugh Gaynor
Cpl Liam Duggan
Cpl Peter Kelly
Pte Matthew Farrell
Tpr Thomas Fennell
Tpr Anthony Browne (BMC)
Pte Michael McGuinn
Pte Gerard Kileen

Tpr Browne was first ever recipient of An Bonn Mileata Calmachta (the Military Medal for Gallantry). He received a 2nd class medal, only 5 have been awarded since (up until 1991). He grew up in Rialto.

by patriot constitutionalist Sat Nov 24, 2007 09:08

In the 1930s de Valera asserted Irish independence through active membership of the League of Nations, and supported censure of Italian imperialist aggression in Ethiopia. In 1955 Ireland once again asserted its independent status by willingly becoming a member of the United Nations. It began to show its active support for UN ideals of peace by sending troops to the former Belgian Congo, where almost 30 soldiers died on active service. Trooper Anthony Brown from the northside of Dublin gave his life in an attempt to save his comrades when ambushed by drunken enraged Baluba tribesmen. Lieutenant Gleeson also died in that ambush. Both were posthumously decorated.

In 1963 Ireland was the first member state to ratify a partial atomic test ban treaty.

The UN has its weaknesses and the super powers, including the USA, Britain, France and the former Soviet Union, have played games when it suited their interests. Without the military support of independent neutral states like Ireland, India and Sweden some strife-torn areas of the world would have perished in the quagmire of warfare.

by Malcolm Sat Nov 24, 2007 08:21

What good are the Defence Forces when they could not defend Ireland's territorial integrity?
Since 1922 the Six Ulster counties have been occupied by British forces against the will of the majority of the people of Ireland.
Ireland did not participate in the orgy of murder that was WW2 to show the British and American imperialists that our nation was independent.
We should do the same again - Ireland should not participate in foreign wars.
Our Army is for the defence of the island of Ireland - nothing else.
For the past forty years however the Defence Forces stood idly by while real Irish patriots fought for Irish liberty.

by patriot constitutionalist Sat Nov 24, 2007 00:22

I don't see Irish troop participation in UN peacekeeping operations as "gung-ho". It is simply humanitarian, designed to stabilise uneasy situations and give people a chance to live normally. In fact Irish peacekeepers have sometimes gone beyond their mandate and initiated small scale development projects in the places where they have served. In South Lebanon they sank boreholes for villagers, and repaired mountain roads. In West Africa they restocked schools looted during social turmoil with books and writing materials collected in Ireland.

Our peacekeeping troops have generally conducted themselves decently towards the indigenous populations, unlike troops from other UN states who have brought the UN flag into disgrace.
I hope Ireland will continue to serve the UN. It is the best thing a small well trained army can do.

by sideshowmel Fri Nov 23, 2007 23:37

"Like the US military and other militaries, the Irish Defence Forces are no exception - its ranks are made up of young men recruited from unemployment blackspots and disadvantaged urban and rural areas with high crime levels, racism and poor literacy where there are few careers other than the military."

You elitest know it all prick. This is an insult. An insult to ever man and woman of this country who puts on a uniform, who hears the call to defend the weak and those who cannot defend themselfs. It insults the generations of men and women who fought for this country, and the freedom we enjoy. It insults every man who died in the service of this country overseas on UN duty in the Leb and in the Congo. You have the nerve to insult those who choose to give there time to serve this nation, and you.

They will go to Chad, and they will no doubt do a good job and improve the reputation of Ireland and the Defence Forces once more as has been done in previous generations. And when the casualties happen, and they will happen, I hope you, the people who moan about the "imperialist" army we have will look at yourselfs, and remember you were the ones who complained when helicopters were needed, when APCs were needed, when artillery was needed and when some sort of armored vehicle was needed. These are the things that would have saved the lives of our soliders while in Chad.

I for one am proud they will go, proud that they will serve and make a difference in the world, while you sit in your armchair and bitch and moan and watch the world go by.

by Malcolm Fri Nov 23, 2007 09:30

"Since 1961 when Irish peacekeeping troops went to the Congo Irish soldiers have played an honourable role in UN operations, suffering over a hundred casualties in several countries. I see the Chad operation as a continuation of that tradition. I wish the troops the best of luck."

Your gung-ho militarist attitude is no different that that of the US gung-ho rednecks you are trying to imitate.

This is how your American counterparts would phrase it:

"Since 1945 when US troops fought in World War, the US military has played an honourable role in defending freedom, suffering thousands of casualties in several countries. I see Operation Iraqi freedom as a continuation of that tradition. I wish the troops the best of luck."

Do you see my point?

Do you not see that Irish neutrality is being jeopradised?

This UN mission is not a humanitarian intervention - Irish Defence Forces are being used as a mercenary army to fight for Western capitalism against Chinese capitalism and Islamic imperialism for control of oil rich Sudan.

Hundreds of thousands of Darfur civilians have been slaughtered already by the Janjaweed but do you really think the capitalist elites care less?

They are only using this tragedy as an excuse to steal African oil.

The only country with a record of humanitarian intervention in Africa is Cuba who sent troops to fight on the side of the socialist government of Angola against Western imperialists and the racist apartheid South African government.

by patriotic constitutionalist Fri Nov 23, 2007 00:51

Since 1961 when Irish peacekeeping troops went to the Congo Irish soldiers have played an honourable role in UN operations, suffering over a hundred casualties in several countries. I see the Chad operation as a continuation of that tradition. I wish the troops the best of luck.

by Dawn Thu Nov 22, 2007 22:40

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
You send troops to help out, ease the suffering of innocent people, protect them, help food and medical supplies reach them and you're an American puppet, evil milatrist, serving some evil agenda which only serves to benefit evil.
Don't do anything and you're not doing enough, standing by while Imperalist America makes a profit in some way or such-an-a-rather.
While Indymedia attracts a great deal of decent and intelligent people who are prepared to look at the world objectively, it sadly also attracts its share of quacks who would seem more at home on an episode of the X-files. Get a life will ya.

by Malcolm Thu Nov 22, 2007 14:39

When Irish soldiers were posted in Liberia we were witness to human rights abuses - soldiers laughing and pointing their fully automatic weapons at terrified Africans.
When Irish troops will inevitably be ambushed and fight skirmishes with Janjaweed fighters.
They will suffer casualties from roadside bombs and possibly some will be kidnapped and beheaded on the internet.
Like the US military and other militaries, the Irish Defence Forces are no exception - its ranks are made up of young men recruited from unemployment blackspots and disadvantaged urban and rural areas with high crime levels, racism and poor literacy where there are few careers other than the military.
The cocktail garantees that Irish troops will commit war crimes against innocent civilians as revenge.
Have you not learned anything from the activites of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Abu Graib? Bagram Air Base?

US activity in Muslim countries as created Muslim extremists who want to kill thousands of people.
Do the Irish people want the same to happen here?

And for what?
So that corporate fat cats like Sir Tony O' Reilly can cream off the oil profits that will flow from Sudan - it is estimated that there are vast untapped resources in Africa.

by Charles B. Thu Nov 22, 2007 13:59

This seems to me to be a responsible enough action on behalf of the UN, and indeed Ireland. We are sending Irish troops out ot try and keep the peace in the region. What's the problem? If they can help to ensure calm in the area, isn't that a good thing?
I mean we already have an Army, we may as well send them somewhere that they can be of use.
Does this mean that you frown upon the Irish army's input in Lebanon? Or in Liberia? Does it mean that you think that UN peacekeepers shouldn't be sent anywhere that there is conflict between local factions?
It's not like they're trying to relieve the people of Chad of their resources, or indeed to take the country over now is it?

There are several more pressing issues here in Ireland such as Shannon and rendition flights, the manufacturing of components for arms (that are used by the US and Israeli military) without expanding the focus of the angst of pacifists in Ireland to include this.
Perhaps we shouldn't have an army at all, perhaps no country should have one, it would lead to less wars probably. The Swiss had a referendum on it, and decided to keep the army intact, and I reckon we irish would do the same.
What about the Arms industry, shouldn't this be the focus of more dissent from obviously agitated people like yourself?
How would you deal with a withdrawal of US and UK troops from Iraq? Would you like to see Irish soldiers sent on peacekeeping duties there? Or would you just let the local militias at it in an all out civil war?

by Malcom Thu Nov 22, 2007 12:44

"Do the Irish people want to consign the unfortunate Sudanese refugees in Chad to systematic rape, murder, and torture simply because of the perverse notion that we might be perceived to be prejudiced by the fact that they come from the region with oil?"

Imperialists in the US would have used a similar argument in 2003:

"Do the American people want to consign the unfortunate Iraqi people to systematic rape, murder and torture simply because of the perverse notion that we might be percieved to be prejudiced by the fact that they come from the region with oil?"

We all know now that the so-called "humanitarian intervention" in Iraq was all about oil.

What makes you believe this Irish foray will be any different?

No Blood For Oil

by Alex Higgins Wed Nov 21, 2007 20:27

The author asks lots of pertinent questions....

1. Do the Irish people want to risk provoking attacks from terrorists because we are joining a war which is not our fight?

2. Do the Irish people want to get involved in the imperial US led Western war against the Islamic imperialists?

3. Do the Irish people want our soldiers to be cannon fodder so that the Western imperialists can deny Chinese imperialists oil resources in an arm wrestle for control of oil rich Sudan?

4. Do the Irish people want Irish troops to commit war crimes against the civilians of Chad and Sudan - the deaths of civilians are the inevitable consequences of military action.

Maybe the following questions should be asked also..

Do the Irish people want to consign the unfortunate Sudanese refugees in Chad to systematic rape, murder, and torture simply because of the perverse notion that we might be perceived to be prejudiced by the fact that they come from the region with oil? Should the presence of oil in Sudan and the exploitation of the humanitarian situation by those who have no regard to humanity have any influence on what we believe to be right and wrong?

What planet do you people come from?? You are so self absorbed in your own prejudice and pious pronouncements that you are willing to consign the innocent to genocide. To be honest I have less concerned about the “imperialist” motivation of China, the USA, the Islamists or anyone else you seek to mention than I have for with the plight of the innocent.

We, as a small country, have to what little we can in a world of suffering and mayhem. We have a small professional army, which has an unrivalled reputation to impartiality and magnanimity. I have a clear recollection of Lebanese civilians pleading specifically for the Irish Army to intervene and protect them during last year’s conflict. The fact that you intimate that Irish troops will commit war crimes is utterly delusional and insulting to those who really want to do what is right and just.

by martin lacey - none Wed Nov 21, 2007 17:37 mlacey at oceanfree dot net

oglaidh na heireann has a unique reputation in both chapter 6 and 7 operations . the operation in chad is a peace enforcement engagement to protect refugees against sudanese militias. armchair pacifists or theoreticians have probabably never seen our soldiers at work . many have died for international peace. forget your 19th century ideas of neutrality . as a republican socialist i find myself more in tune with dermot ahearne than those on the so called left. remember east timor , kosovo and the lebanon apart from the congo and other places where irsh troops and gardai have served with distinction. seeyaz and get a life , martin.

by Malcolm Wed Nov 21, 2007 09:22

You are so naive it is not funny.

European imperialism in Africa began in precisely the same place and for precisely the same "humanitarian" motives - The Arabs were enslaving black Africans and the Europeans in their benevolence decided to defeat the Mahdi and the Arab slave traders in Sudan and bring Commerce, Christianity and Civilisation to the Dark Continent.

Today this has resurfaced once again - Bono and Geldof are the modern day David Livingstones encouraging the First World to intervene in the affairs of Third World nations.
The Stanleyite adventurers and capitalists will follow in their midst to exploit and conquer all over again with the legitimacy of the UN.

Ireland must not get involved in the three-way conflict that is emerging in the early 21st century

Western imperialism v's Islamic imperialism v's Chinese imperialism.

by Sceptic Tue Nov 20, 2007 22:43

“UNDER THE FIG LEAF OF UN APPROVAL”
You are trying to have it both ways. If there were no UN mandate you would kick up a great stir about an “illegal” war etc. But when there is a UN mandate you play it down or ignore it.

“IRELAND IS GOING TO WAR IN CHAD! IT IS UNTHINKABLE.”
It is not going to war. It is proposing to participate in a EU humanitarian mission. It is the opposite of war.

“A LEADING MUSLIM CLERIC HAS WARNED OF EXTREMISM AMONG MUSLIMS IN IRELAND”
Was he talking about this issue? What will be the manifestation of this extremism? Suicide bombs on trains? Therefore lets have paralysis and do nothing? Is Irish foreign policy made by the Government and Dáil or by “leading” Muslim Clerics?

“WE ARE ATTRACTING THE ATTENTION OF AL-QAEDA”
Should we keep our heads well down so? Lets get our surrender in first then before we offend their delicate sensibilities and find ourselves on the wrong end of multiple suicide attacks at rush hour as happened to the good people of London, Madrid and New York.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Nov 19, 2007 16:30

No, good friend, the radar is working quite well. There are always, of course, hitches but, overall, it's doing its job.

Please check our first leaflet re:militarisation in the following link:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/85017&comment_limit=0&c...13090
And, if you can, come to the Teachers Club next Saturday at 11.00 to discuss the possible Chad adventure and our planned response to it.

by Malcolm Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:44

Irish troops should but not be sent to fight in Darfur for American interests.
By engaging in America's War on Terror we are attracting the attention of Al-Qaeda.
A leading Muslim cleric has warned of extremism amoung Muslims in Ireland - do we want to make that worse by participating in a war against Sudanese Muslims?
The US brought 9/11 upon itself because it interfered in the Middle East and has made the world a more dangerous place by invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Making war with Muslim terrorists has merely strengthend Al-Qaeda.
Does Ireland want to be dragged into a growing conflict between the West and the Muslim world for the sake of Sudanese oil?

by Max Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:10

What do you suggest - that Ireland does nothing except wring its hands?
here's something you can do - boycott China - for Darfur, Burma and Tibet.
'Made in China - NO THANKS!'

by Meadbh Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:55

Ireland is going to war in Chad! It is unthinkable.
What are WE going to do to stop this puppet Ahern regime from repeating the mistakes of the imperial Bush regime?