Posts: 4,885
Threads: 301
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation:
8
De Valera is widely regarded as a bit of a cunt, who lead the loosing side in the civil war and had a vision of Ireland that was both bucolic, backwards and priest infested. However, it must also be remembered at the time that the political situation with Britain was complex - with a good fraction the country quite happy to see London being bombed, and a small minority actively trying to trigger an opportunistic full blown war over Northern Ireland. Joining the British Army - for whatever reason - was, to be polite, frowned upon at best and seen as treason at the worst. The best thing the State could do was remain neutral in the conflict, as an internal compromise, and this was widely accepted by the people.
It must also be remembered that many of those had deserted from the Irish Army at the time - which may have been required had someone decided that an Atlantic port or airbase would've been a dead-handy thing to have. While at the same time, the military was in no condition to really offer much of a defense against either the Nazi's or the Allies, having been crippled by an economic war in the previous decade, caused by De Valera's attempts at economic self-sufficiency.
We stayed out of World War II, and I am damn proud of that fact. We took a moral stand, while at the same time asserting our own independance as a free country, able to chart its own course in world affairs for good or ill and not be subject to the whims of the great powers. It was an act that defined the nation we wanted to become - one which renounced the use of force in international affairs. You will hardly find an Irishman that would speak against our policy of military neutrality, and peaceful self-defense. Those that do, are regarded as foolish and rightly so.
And because of that decision, we were isolated from world affairs for years. That was the price of not being a pawn of the great powers. Even if he sounds like Snape.
Perhaps though, we should the man speak himself. About the only thing I respect about the man.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
Posts: 2,564
Threads: 324
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
Quote:Dartz wrote:
We stayed out of World War II, and I am damn proud of that fact. We took a moral stand, while at the same time asserting our own independance as a free country, able to chart its own course in world affairs for good or ill and not be subject to the whims of the great powers. It was an act that defined the nation we wanted to become - one which renounced the use of force in international affairs. You will hardly find an Irishman that would speak against our policy of military neutrality, and peaceful self-defense. Those that do, are regarded as foolish and rightly so.
And because of that decision, we were isolated from world affairs for years. That was the price of not being a pawn of the great powers. Even if he sounds like Snape.
Perhaps though, we should the man speak himself. About the only thing I respect about the man.
Proud of it, huh? I came from a country that decided to stand with the U.S. and got invaded by the Japanese in WWII for it. The Japanese occupation definitely made the U.S. seem like true benevolent overlords. Japanese brutality was something else to behold in those times.Google up the Bataan Death March if you don't believe me. And do you know what? If you ask the generation and the succeeding ones if it was worth it? The vast majority would say it was. My father was proud of his service of that war. And I am proud of him. That they answered the call.It is funny when you consider two generations prior, they were fighting the American army tooth and nail. Even if there had been up and downs with relationships with the U.S. after independence.
I am just going to just going to leave you with a quote from Edmund Burke -"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." If you are proud of the fact, that Ireland stood by while Hitler decided to conduct the Final Solution, your call. Just don't expect me to agree with you.
Edit1: BTW, you did not answer my original question. What did de Valera do to those who deserted the Irish army to fight for the Allies?
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Posts: 3,394
Threads: 588
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
Pardon me, Ord, just to be clear, you're a native of the Phillipines? (I must've had you slightly confused with one of the other posters, cause I had the impression until now you were in Canada.)
Posts: 2,564
Threads: 324
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
Quote:Logan Darklighter wrote:
Pardon me, Ord, just to be clear, you're a native of the Phillipines? (I must've had you slightly confused with one of the other posters, cause I had the impression until now you were in Canada.)
I was born and raised in the Philippines. Came to the US as a teenager. Enlisted and got my U.S. citizenship through that route. Got my officer commission through ROTC. Now working in the U.S. civil service. In law enforcement of all things. Rob Kelk (from Ottawa) is the other forum denizen who is a civil servant.
Make no mistake, I could had gone the safe and normal route once I got here in the States. Once I got my green card, I could have just paid my taxes, got a job and just ignore the rest of the world. I choose to be a citizen of the U.S, with all the obligations and privileges that entails. Also because I did not want to pass through my life being a cipher. I felt the need at the time to make my mark in the world.
You can see from my politics Logan, I am views tend to follow that of the Roosevelt's. TR and FDR. Progressive/liberal at home and internationalist abroad.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Posts: 3,394
Threads: 588
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
Quote:ordnance11 wrote:I was born and raised in the Philippines. Came to the US as a teenager. Enlisted and got my U.S. citizenship through that route. Got my officer commission through ROTC. Now working in the U.S. civil service. In law enforcement of all things. Rob Kelk (from Ottawa) is the other forum denizen who is a civil servant.
Make no mistake, I could had gone the safe and normal route once I got here in the States. Once I got my green card, I could have just paid my taxes, got a job and just ignore the rest of the world. I choose to be a citizen of the U.S, with all the obligations and privileges that entails. Also because I did not want to pass through my life being a cipher. I felt the need at the time to make my mark in the world.
It's true that 1st and 2nd generation Immigrants (the ones that come here legally at least) appreciate far better than even many native-born Americans the costs and privileges of freedom. You've more than earned your place. Respects, sir.
Posts: 2,564
Threads: 324
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
My thanks. I doubt if we can see eye to eye on certain things, but we can listen to and respect those opinions. Even if we both think the other guy is smoking and why he's not sharing. *grin*
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Posts: 442
Threads: 10
Joined: Nov 2002
Reputation:
0
Quote:The legitimately elected president slipped away into the night after
signing an accord that restored the constitution of 2004. Now answer me
as to why he did that? Putin reinstalling him back means he will have to
maintain an army of occupation to keep his vassal there. Pure
imperialist play. He already has 3 pseudo states he's maintaining.
Propping up a 4th is going to pretty expensive.
What court declared him guilty of crimes and stripped him of his position? Your opinion of him being illegitimate is worth as much as mine of GWBush being illegitimate for stealing Florida, or Obama being illegitimate for violating constitutional rights.
Again, he is a democratically elected president, deposed by an armed coup of neonazi organizations, that are making legislators pass laws at gunpoint. Propaganda-wise, Putin has a lot of material to support intervention.
Posts: 2,564
Threads: 324
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
Quote:nemonowan wrote:
Quote:The legitimately elected president slipped away into the night after
signing an accord that restored the constitution of 2004. Now answer me
as to why he did that? Putin reinstalling him back means he will have to
maintain an army of occupation to keep his vassal there. Pure
imperialist play. He already has 3 pseudo states he's maintaining.
Propping up a 4th is going to pretty expensive.
What court declared him guilty of crimes and stripped him of his position? Your opinion of him being illegitimate is worth as much as mine of GWBush being illegitimate for stealing Florida, or Obama being illegitimate for violating constitutional rights.
Again, he is a democratically elected president, deposed by an armed coup of neonazi organizations, that are making legislators pass laws at gunpoint. Propaganda-wise, Putin has a lot of material to support intervention.
A democratically elected president who slipped away into the night after signing a deal halting the bloodshed. If that's not a de jure abdication of his position, I do not know what is. He still had the police and he could had called out the army to squash the demonstrators like bugs if he had so wished. He didn't. Why? Because the police was starting to go over to the demonstrators and the army was going to stay neutral. when you have law and order types deciding not to back you, you know you're in trouble.
And what armed coup? The presidential palace was occupied after El President vamoosed. No looting. No vandalism. And you do have a neonazi organization in the mix. And the rest are not.
Putin's pretext for going after the Crimea is to secure the naval base and to protect the "ethnic" Russians living in the East Crimea. And he used the same pretext against Georgia in 2008. Note that Hitler had used it also in the Sudetenland in 1938.
It had been noted that keeping the Crimea is a lot tougher proposition than occupying it. The water and power comes from the western side. Kiev may go along with the Russians keeping the Crimea but there is nothing that said they have to support it. And supporting that enclave is going to be a very expensive proposition in the long run.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Posts: 8,933
Threads: 386
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
3
*Shruggs* Let the Russians keep it.
In fact, I say if the Russians want it so badly they should just offer to buy it off them. Probably make everyone happier in the end.
Posts: 3,394
Threads: 588
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
I'm also wondering what's going to happen as our superpower status follows the same trajectory as Britain and fades to near nothing in the next generation. Two obvious things I think of -
Goodbye Taiwan. China's going to take over there and re-absorb that island. China also pretty much takes over all the seas on the Western side of the Pacific. Japan fully re-arms in self-defense.
Israel gets nuked by Iran, Israel removes Iran from the map and replaces it with a glass parking lot along with other selected sections of the Middle East likely to include Mecca if Jerusalem gets nuked. 2nd Diaspora.
Posts: 8,933
Threads: 386
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
3
While I would be in full support of Japan re-arming themselves so we can pull back 7th Fleet once and for all, I do worry about China doing exactly that. And this is to say nothing about how North Korea would behave!
As for Isreal and Iran? Feh. If they do, they do, and they will get exactly what they deserve - the ruination of their cultural heritage.
Posts: 4,885
Threads: 301
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation:
8
Quote:"(In 21st century you don't) invade another country on completely trumped up pretext.
So, it's only wrong when another country does it, Mr. Kerry?
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
Posts: 2,564
Threads: 324
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
Quote:Dartz wrote:
Quote:"(In 21st century you don't) invade another country on completely trumped up pretext.
So, it's only wrong when another country does it, Mr. Kerry?
*Grumbles at invisible text*
Okay, for the 3rd time:
To be fair Bush II broadly hinted that anyone not on board is an Al Queada symphatizer in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
And it looks like that the U.S. and GB are guarantors of Ukranian soverignty. Google up the Budapest accords. In return for the Ukraine giving up their nukes, the US and GB guarantees their soveriegnty and it was signed by the the USSR. Putin, I suppose can claim that Russia does not have to abide by it, but I can't see the US and GB walking away from it.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Posts: 25,531
Threads: 2,060
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation:
12
Dartz Wrote:Quote:"(In 21st century you don't) invade another country on completely trumped up pretext.
So, it's only wrong when another country does it, Mr. Kerry? It isn't "trumped up" if you spin it the right way.
A democratically-elected government, doing what they campaigned on doing, was forced out of office by an insurrection. (An armed insurrection? You tell me.) It's their neighbours' duty to restore democracy and protect the shared border at the same time.
Spun that way - and I've seen it spun that way elsewhere - the RF has no choice but to act.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Posts: 2,564
Threads: 324
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - NATO allies will hold emergency talks on the crisis in Ukraine on Tuesday, for the second time in three days, following a request from Poland, the alliance said on Monday.
In calling the meeting, Poland, a neighbor of Ukraine,
invoked a NATO rule allowing any ally to consult with the others if it
feels its security, territorial integrity or independence are under
threat, the so-called Article 4.
"The developments in and around
Ukraine are seen to constitute a threat to neighboring Allied countries
and having direct and serious implications for the security and
stability of the Euro-Atlantic area," the alliance said in a statement.
NATO meetings under Article 4 are rare. Only Turkey has
used the option before, calling for consultations three times, once
during the 2003 war in Iraq and twice, two years ago, over the Syrian
conflict.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns- ... 9113.story
If Article 4 is invoked, that means you got NATO members feeling anxious, especially the ones bordering the Ukraine.
El Ex-Presidente wants his job back
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Posts: 3,698
Threads: 95
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
9
A Modest Proposal
03-04-2014, 04:47 AM
Can we just let Russia have the Crimean Peninsula, if they agree to give a free hand to the U.S. in Syria? And, while we're at it, ask China to please take over North Korea for us. Sure, it's bad for "home rule" and "democracy", but would the world really be worse off?
-- ∇×V
Posts: 2,564
Threads: 324
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
Quote:vorticity wrote:
Can we just let Russia have the Crimean Peninsula, if they agree to give a free hand to the U.S. in Syria? And, while we're at it, ask China to please take over North Korea for us. Sure, it's bad for "home rule" and "democracy", but would the world really be worse off?
Well, if the Russians pay the Ukraine in U.S. dollars for the Crimea (the ruble is not worth much right now.) and provides the support (i.e. electricity and water) to the Crimea the moment the deal is signed, I'm pretty sure the Ukrainians will be more than happy to sign such a deal. Oh, and increased rent for the pipelines. Payable in U.S. dollars of course.
Win-Win. Putin gets to keep his military base and the Ukraine gets much needed cash and an albatross off their necks. Of course, there's the small matter of 2 million Russians and Russian-leaning Ukrainians without water or electricity, but that would be Putin's problem. I feel sorry for the Tartars though.
As for the Chinese taking over North Korea? Hah! I wouldn't wish that on my worse enemy!
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Posts: 25,531
Threads: 2,060
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation:
12
I doubt the Chinese want to take over North Korea. That would put a prosperous capitalistic democracy - South Korea - on their direct border.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Posts: 2,564
Threads: 324
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
Not to mention the NK is a basket case. And you'd have half the population fleeing into China, were that to happen.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Posts: 25,531
Threads: 2,060
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation:
12
Something that was pointed out to me yesterday: The Ukranian government didn't start talking about forging closer ties to the Russian Federation (kicking off this whole mess) until after they were denied NATO membership a second time. Did we drive them into Russia's arms?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Posts: 2,564
Threads: 324
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
Well, the Crimean Parliament voted to succeed from the Ukraine and hold a referrendum. Mighty quick of them. I smell a rat. Let them go their own away I suppose, but better beef up military presence around neighboring NATO countries.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Posts: 2,229
Threads: 117
Joined: Aug 2003
Reputation:
0
Which is a fairly clear violation of the Ukranian constitution.
Also, the BBC website mentioned that they want to hold the referrendum in 10 days. Which is both a ridiculously short amount a time to organise one, but would also mean that the only group in the Crimea capable of setting up the polling stations and counting the votes is . . the russian army.
Posts: 1,569
Threads: 20
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
0
Quote:vorticity wrote:
Can we just let Russia have the Crimean Peninsula, if they agree to give a free hand to the U.S. in Syria? And, while we're at it, ask China to please take over North Korea for us. Sure, it's bad for "home rule" and "democracy", but would the world really be worse off?
In a word, yes. Letting the Russians have control of Crimea allows them to shut off traffic flow to the west coast of Georgia (if I'm reading the unmarked inset maps right.) Which would allow the Russians to put pressure on them to rejoin the fold as well. A naval base there would threaten the Ukrainian coast and their sovereignty. Finally the Russians wouldn't let us have free reign in Syria, oh they would say that they would, but they'll never let it happen.
As for China and NK, I wouldn't let China be able to freely move their troops that close to the DMZ on a bet. The Korean war started with less and the push back from the Yalu only happened when the Chinese finally stepped in under the pretense of the US troops crossing the river.
Finally; As both prior service (USMC) and a history major (spec. military history) I have a, if not unique then at least low volume view of the situation. Any fight to ensure self rule is worth it. Iraq should have been fought in senior's time but removing Hussein was the right thing to do regardless of if junior had to do it. With the exception of some total drekheads who never realized that taking that oath might mean that they would actually have to fight, those of us who serve realise what we are volunteering for and what it could end with.
Posts: 2,564
Threads: 324
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
Quote:Rajvik wrote:
Quote:vorticity wrote:
Can we just let Russia have the Crimean Peninsula, if they agree to give a free hand to the U.S. in Syria? And, while we're at it, ask China to please take over North Korea for us. Sure, it's bad for "home rule" and "democracy", but would the world really be worse off?
In a word, yes. Letting the Russians have control of Crimea allows them to shut off traffic flow to the west coast of Georgia (if I'm reading the unmarked inset maps right.) Which would allow the Russians to put pressure on them to rejoin the fold as well. A naval base there would threaten the Ukrainian coast and their sovereignty. Finally the Russians wouldn't let us have free reign in Syria, oh they would say that they would, but they'll never let it happen.
As for China and NK, I wouldn't let China be able to freely move their troops that close to the DMZ on a bet. The Korean war started with less and the push back from the Yalu only happened when the Chinese finally stepped in under the pretense of the US troops crossing the river.
Finally; As both prior service (USMC) and a history major (spec. military history) I have a, if not unique then at least low volume view of the situation. Any fight to ensure self rule is worth it. Iraq should have been fought in senior's time but removing Hussein was the right thing to do regardless of if junior had to do it. With the exception of some total drekheads who never realized that taking that oath might mean that they would actually have to fight, those of us who serve realise what we are volunteering for and what it could end with.
That was the problem with Iraq. We went in without the vaguest idea of what the end game would be. No idea of what the difficulty of what rebuilding a society...which does not have the same values as us into a democracy. Bush (to be more precise, Cheney) went in there blithely assuming that by the end of junior's term we would have a mini-U.S, eager to do our bidding! Worse he didn't finish the war in Afghanistan! Worst of all, Abu Ghraib destroyed any trust the Iraqis might have for us. If we don't win the support of the population, any effort we do would just be tossing good money and blood after bad. What we left in Iraq was a regime that can barely stand on it's own two feet and is not fond of us. And looks like it might fall back into anarchy any month now. and we might be facing the same situation in Afghanistan if things do not go our way.
That is what is leaving a sour taste in my mouth. That what we had done might be for nothing. We'll know in 10 years though.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
Posts: 442
Threads: 10
Joined: Nov 2002
Reputation:
0
Quote:ordnance11 wrote:
That is what is leaving a sour taste in my mouth. That what we had done might be for nothing. We'll know in 10 years though.
Of course it wasn't for nothing! Dubya got reelected, the Enron scandals were forgotten, the neocons could advance their imperial agenda internationally and their police state locally, the armament industries made a killing...
Or did you mean that you actually thought that any war ever was started for the good of the people?
|
