Where do Irelands Loyalitys lie.

InFront

I would regard confrontation as justified in certain situations, for example the last invasion of Iraq. Ireland's fundamental opposition to the war was plain to see at the time of going to war.
However, rather than express this position explicitly, it stayed neutral. The first ethical problem is being mute - keeping your silence when you observe a violation of human life on a large scale.
The second ethical dilemma is siding with the violator rather than the violated in spite of your opposition to their actions. To a certain extent, the state did (does) support US military activity through its base at Shannon.

This country effectively kept very silent, but sided moreso with the US war action. Although I don't think it would have changed much in retrospect, and we must keep it in perspective, it was hardly Ireland's finest or most honourable hour, and that is mostly a shame for Ireland rather than any potential missed effect outside of the state.

Judt

I don't think NATO funds it's members DFs. Open to correction here.

The bigger nations "outsource" their defence by paying for stuff for the smaller ones. In our case, for example, ships.

darkman2

Neutrality is cowardly, selfish and an utter disgrace. WE ARE NOT NEUTRAL. We support America (the way it should be). For those idiots who think we are Neutral I want you now to answer two points:


1. Do you believe we can be neutral between the fanaticism of the Middle East and the Western World?




2. Can we defend our Neutrality?



The answer to both is a big, fat NO. We are not neutral. End of discussion. Enough of the bullsh*t. Lets get real.

brianthebard

I think that we need to firmly establish neutrality as a real policy instead of a word of mouth agreement. It works for Switzerland and Sweden and I want it to work for Ireland. There is no reason why we should be drawn into an ideological clash that doesn't concern us.

Blowfish

Mick86 wrote:

National pride.

What about people who would find pride in being a neutral nation?

Liam Byrne

Zambia232 wrote:

By advocating neutrality you state from the outset that no matter what occurs you will in no way defend your friends or collegues, from each other or any one outside your circle either.

Is that really true ? I would have thought that it meant that you would not attack anyone, and not have preconceived ideas as to who would be right if a conflict did break out, but that defence of what was right would be a different story ?

Of course, it's a completely moot point; Ireland isn't neutral at the moment, because we've let the Bush administration use Shannon in their invasion of Iraq.

I personally think that the Government should be taken to task on this one, since no-one asked us - it should have required a referendum, at the very least.

I also got a whole bunch of lies from a PD canvasser on my doorstep when I asked her about this last week; she said it was winding down (an improvement, but it doesn't let them off the hook for allowing it in the first place) and then I read in the paper this week that there will be even more flights using Shannon! :mad:

That's the PDs off my voting card, anyway!


As for darkman's loaded question "1. Do you believe we can be neutral between the fanaticism of the Middle East and the Western World?".......are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the Middle East has a monopoly on fanaticism ? Bush & Co lied through their teeth to get support for an invasion.....to me that sounds like a seriously deranged amount of fanaticism !

The Middle East idealogy is unsettling, sure, but so is the American-style Western idealogy that "we" are always right and that anything, including lives, can be sacrificed in order to protect commercialism and profit.

I don't agree with either idealogy.

Zambia

brianthebard wrote:

How about instead of making up situations we use the one we have right now as the example? Why should Ireland not continue to follow a policy of neutrality? What benefit is available to the nation by not doing so?

Ok what do you mean by the one we have right now , because if you mean shannon I think thats been done to death.

When I started this post I had this in mind as I always as canvassers down south the position on neutrality , every party backed neutrality. This never sat well with me as I dont believe in the principle.

The benefit to the nation is Ireland actually backs up what its actions represent over the years.

45,000 Irish men joined the British army in WWII I am pretty sure they would do so again if the UK was invaded.

Ireland fought a war of Independence so it can stand on its on feet amongst the nations of the world. I see no shame in simply declaring where your Alligances lie and doing so, rather than waving a cruppled trodden on neutrality statement hardly worth the paper its written on.

Zambia

Mick86 that how i understand neutrality

A neutral country takes no side in a war between other parties, and in return hopes to avoid being attacked by either of them. A neutralist policy aims at neutrality in case of an armed conflict that could involve the party in question. A neutralist is an advocate of neutrality in international affairs.

Mick86

luckat wrote:

Neutrality means we *choose* what wars we get involved in, we don't *automatically* side with any particular coterie.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Is that really true ? I would have thought that it meant that you would not attack anyone, and not have preconceived ideas as to who would be right if a conflict did break out, but that defence of what was right would be a different story ?

No it doesn't.

wes wrote:

I don't want Ireland to be getting involved with world wide misadventures either.

Just because a country is not neutral doesn't mean it has to go off declaring wars all over the place.

InFront wrote:

I would regard confrontation as justified in certain situations, for example the last invasion of Iraq. Ireland's fundamental opposition to the war was plain to see at the time of going to war.
However, rather than express this position explicitly, it stayed neutral.

Some Irish people were fundamentally opposed to the war, Ireland on the otehr hand supports the war by allowing the US to transport it's troops through Shannon. This is in direct contravention of the Rules of War so we cannot claim to be neutral.

darkman2 wrote:

Neutrality is cowardly, selfish and an utter disgrace.

So it is.

darkman2 wrote:

WE ARE NOT NEUTRAL. We support America (the way it should be).

As a grown up country we should not slavishly support America in all circumstances.

brianthebard wrote:

I think that we need to firmly establish neutrality as a real policy instead of a word of mouth agreement. It works for Switzerland and Sweden and I want it to work for Ireland.

That's fine. We should then follow a strict policy of neutrality with the rights and duties that such a policy entails. One of the major duties is to provide for the defence of our neutral status so as to deny the use of Irish territory to belligerent nations.

brianthebard wrote:

There is no reason why we should be drawn into an ideological clash that doesn't concern us.

What about an ideological clash that does concern us at some future point.

Blowfish wrote:

What about people who would find pride in being a neutral nation?

I suppose there is a certain type of person who would be proud of dithering, fence-sitting and mooching off the neighbours.

Liam Byrne wrote:

............I personally think that the Government should be taken to task on this one, since no-one asked us - it should have required a referendum, at the very least.

What's the point in electing a government if it has to refer every issue back to the people.

Liam Byrne wrote:

............The Middle East idealogy is unsettling, sure, but so is the American-style Western idealogy that "we" are always right and that anything, including lives, can be sacrificed in order to protect commercialism and profit.

I don't agree with either idealogy.

Can't say I'm a lover of the US World Policeman but I'm less a lover of the Islamic fundamentalists. As always it's a matter of deciding where the country's best interests lie.

kmick

This debate is bonkers. What do you think Ireland is going to be able to achieve anywhere in the world with our army in either a defensive or offensive mode. In a peacekeeping mode fair enough but the 'former Yugoslavia' type countries have been a basket case for centuries. Its all about history, religion, factional fighting and lebensraum. You cant change that with an army it has to be done politically.

Secondly to support a real army we would have to have mandatory conscription - i hope all the idiots here saying we should no longer be neutral get conscripted and sent to Iraq. Would serve you all right.

When has any issue in modern history (>1800) been solved by an individual army (Vietnam, Iraq, Balkans etc). Fighting just makes things worse. Grow up.

Zambia

kmick wrote:

This debate is bonkers. What do you think Ireland is going to be able to achieve anywhere in the world with our army in either a defensive or offensive mode. In a peacekeeping mode fair enough but the 'former Yugoslavia' type countries have been a basket case for centuries. Its all about history, religion, factional fighting and lebensraum. You cant change that with an army it has to be done politically.

Utter twaddle political issues will always need some force to back up their agrument

kmick wrote:

Secondly to support a real army we would have to have mandatory conscription - i hope all the idiots here saying we should no longer be neutral get conscripted and sent to Iraq. Would serve you all right.

more utter twaddle
You dont need conscription
Plus if Ireland where not neutral it does not necessarily have to provide troops to every war going.

kmick wrote:

When has any issue in modern history (>1800) been solved by an individual army (Vietnam, Iraq, Balkans etc). Fighting just makes things worse. Grow up.

More twaddle

OS119

kmick wrote:

This debate is bonkers. What do you think Ireland is going to be able to achieve anywhere in the world with our army in either a defensive or offensive mode. In a peacekeeping mode fair enough but the 'former Yugoslavia' type countries have been a basket case for centuries. Its all about history, religion, factional fighting and lebensraum. You cant change that with an army it has to be done politically.

Secondly to support a real army we would have to have mandatory conscription - i hope all the idiots here saying we should no longer be neutral get conscripted and sent to Iraq. Would serve you all right.

When has any issue in modern history (>1800) been solved by an individual army (Vietnam, Iraq, Balkans etc). Fighting just makes things worse. Grow up.

you'd probably be staggered at what a 1500 man mobile infantry force could do in Darfur - especially given helicopter support - of course if you believe the saving of countless lives, the ending of genocide and the sending of a very clear signal that genocide won't be tolerated to be mere trifles....

a 'real' army wouldn't be either very much larger or vastly more expensive than the current one, the current Irish Army could, just about, produce a 1500 man battlegroup capable of peace-enforcement ops in Darfur - not continuously by any stretch, but certainly for 6 months. conscription would not be required in Ireland unless you wanted a 60,000 man army. i'm also unaware of any great public enthusiasm for a trip to Iraq, cut down only by the lack of numbers available to go...

your understanding of military - and political - history is a little, err.... off. i'll be charitable and assume that you haven't heard of the Pacific threatre of WWII, the Eastern Front of WWII, the Falklands, Seirra Leonne, Arab-Israeli wars of '48, '56, '67, '73... your opinions on whether those wars improved the situation is one for yourself, they are however concrete examples of single nations doing all - or practically all - of the fighting in a war or theatre of war.

you are entitled to your belief that 'fighting only ever makes things worse', and on occasion you might be correct, however on many occasions you'd be very wrong.

brianthebard

Zambia232 wrote:

Ok what do you mean by the one we have right now ,

I don't mean the shannon issue, I just mean that instead of making up scenarios we look at where the nation is today and ask whether neutrality in the constitution would be a good thing or not.

45,000 Irish men joined the British army in WWII I am pretty sure they would do so again if the UK was invaded.

They did that of their own free will and that's fine, but I don't see why what they wanted to do should mean the rest of the nation should do it.

Ireland fought a war of Independence so it can stand on its on feet amongst the nations of the world. I see no shame in simply declaring where your Alligances lie and doing so, rather than waving a cruppled trodden on neutrality statement hardly worth the paper its written on.

Standing beside nations does not mean we can't be neutral. Sweden and Switzerland again for a start. I see no good coming from aligning yourself with other countries so that when they get into shit militarily you have to help them out.

kmick

OS119 wrote:

you'd probably be staggered at what a 1500 man mobile infantry force could do in Darfur - especially given helicopter support - of course if you believe the saving of countless lives, the ending of genocide and the sending of a very clear signal that genocide won't be tolerated to be mere trifles....

Im not talking about peacekeeping missions that is basically just to stop civilians killing each other and keeping the peace in internal strife. I am talking about a proper war with another country.

OS119 wrote:

a 'real' army wouldn't be either very much larger or vastly more expensive than the current one, the current Irish Army could, just about, produce a 1500 man battlegroup capable of peace-enforcement ops in Darfur - not continuously by any stretch, but certainly for 6 months. conscription would not be required in Ireland unless you wanted a 60,000 man army. i'm also unaware of any great public enthusiasm for a trip to Iraq, cut down only by the lack of numbers available to go...

So what you are saying is we could 'possibly' keep a 1500 strong force in some random country for 6 months on peacekeeping duty. That is a lot different form fighting a war. We are nuetral we dont fight wars.

OS119 wrote:

you are entitled to your belief that 'fighting only ever makes things worse', and on occasion you might be correct, however on many occasions you'd be very wrong.

We could go on and on about this but the Falklands was one vastly superior force thrashing one vastly inferior one. I deliberately did not mention any of the WW's as these were world wars again we would have no part to play in this.

As for the points that all my points were twaddle. Good response.

Zambia

It is inaccurate to describe Ireland as a neutral state in the same way as Sweden or Switzerland, it would be more accurate to describe it as a non-aligned state which takes conflict participation on a case by case basis.

In light of todays scenario while there is little in the way of outward agression to Ireland if there was we would hide behind someone else. So why not at least ally ourselves with those we will hide behind from the outset...

My initial 45,000 figure was incorrect it stands more like 200,000 gave next of kin addresses in the south.. 200,000 out of 3 million is a whooping amount of people who believed in a cause enough to leave their land and fight for another nation who they probaly where not fond of. Its a good indication that Ireland is prepared to stand up and be counted even though its gov are not.

Sweden and the swiss are both heavily armed countries we are not

Liam Byrne

Zambia232 wrote:

200,000 out of 3 million is a whooping amount of people who believed in a cause enough to leave their land and fight for another nation who they probaly where not fond of. Its a good indication that Ireland is prepared to stand up and be counted even though its gov are not.

Firstly, as pointed out already, that 200,000 decided that off their own bat. There is no indication that the remaining 2.8 million wanted to be dragged into anything, plus it was also a case-by-case basis.

What the Goverment think and decide often has nothing to do with what the people think.

You're suggesting that because 200,000 people agree, the Government should make the rest of us agree, despite our constitution. You're also using the phrase "stand up and be counted", which is normally only used if there's a defined need to stand up for what is right.

But if you pre-align yourself with another country, how do you know that they'll always do the right thing ?

As an example, the Government has allowed the U.S. to use Shannon (which in itself is disgraceful enough) but if they had decided to align us completely with the U.S. and send us off on an illegal war, I would currently be in jail for going AWOL, because I knew from day one that it was wrong.

If a mate of mine gets jumped on, sure I'll help defend him; but if he starts something or was doing something criminal or stupid, then he can feck off and fend for himself. That's not abandoning him, that's taking a reasoned approach to what's right and wrong, and acting accordingly.

If, keeping your figures going, 200,000 people from Ireland decided to head off to help Iraq defend itself against the yanks, where would that leave the Government policy ? Do you think it would change ?

Mick86

kmick wrote:

What do you think Ireland is going to be able to achieve anywhere in the world with our army in either a defensive or offensive mode.

I doubt that ayone is suggesting we act unilaterally.

kmick wrote:

Its all about history, religion, factional fighting and lebensraum. You cant change that with an army it has to be done politically.

Violent nutters usually have to be defeated militarily before they decide to talk.

kmick wrote:

Secondly to support a real army we would have to have mandatory conscription

As opposed to voluntary conscription. :rolleyes: Like the British and US conscripts then.

kmick wrote:

When has any issue in modern history (>1800) been solved by an individual army (Vietnam, Iraq, Balkans etc). Fighting just makes things worse. Grow up.

World War 2. It definitely improved things.

brianthebard wrote:

Standing beside nations does not mean we can't be neutral. Sweden and Switzerland again for a start.

Again we're either neutral or we're not. Sweden and Switzerland do not stand beside anybody. Switzerland only joined the UN a few years ago because it felt it contravened it's neutrality.

brianthebard wrote:

I see no good coming from aligning yourself with other countries so that when they get into shit militarily you have to help them out.

What about when YOU get into sh1t.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Firstly, as pointed out already, that 200,000 decided that off their own bat. There is no indication that the remaining 2.8 million wanted to be dragged into anything, plus it was also a case-by-case basis.

In a previous post 200,000 anti-war protestors spoke for Ireland according to you. So why can't 200,000 soldiers speak for Ireland?

Liam Byrne wrote:

You're also using the phrase "stand up and be counted", which is normally only used if there's a defined need to stand up for what is right.

Not many people would argue that the allies weren't fighting on the side of the angels in WW2.

Liam Byrne wrote:

But if you pre-align yourself with another country, how do you know that they'll always do the right thing ?

Obviously you don't which is why governments negotiate treaties.

Liam Byrne wrote:

As an example, the Government has allowed the U.S. to use Shannon (which in itself is disgraceful enough) but if they had decided to align us completely with the U.S. and send us off on an illegal war, I would currently be in jail for going AWOL, because I knew from day one that it was wrong.

It's just as well that we didn't join NATO otherwise we would have been compelled to fight in Iraq like the French and the Germans.

brianthebard

Why the hell would a neutral country get into sh1t? Its policy of neutrality would ensure to the best of its ability that it wouldn't. How many attacks have switzerland and sweden have to deal with lately? Even in WWII? As for standing beside people, the point was that we as a nation should be on equal footing with other nations, which both Switzerland and sweden are.

@Zambie, if 200,000 did actually fight in the war (I've never heard a figure that big before) then that is still less than one fifteenth of the population, ergo nowhere near large enough to pass a referendum. Support for Irish neutrality has always been widespread, even if it isn't a constitutional policy.

Mick86

brianthebard wrote:

Why the hell would a neutral country get into sh1t? Its policy of neutrality would ensure to the best of its ability that it wouldn't. How many attacks have switzerland and sweden have to deal with lately? Even in WWII?

Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway were all neutral countries until the Germans decided they wanted to invade.

I doubt that you are genuinely as naive as you pretend.

Zambia

Liam Byrne wrote:

Firstly, as pointed out already, that 200,000 decided that off their own bat. There is no indication that the remaining 2.8 million wanted to be dragged into anything, plus it was also a case-by-case basis.

It does however indicate there is a will to fight for what is considered right.

Liam Byrne wrote:

What the Goverment think and decide often has nothing to do with what the people think.

That should not be the case

Liam Byrne wrote:

You're suggesting that because 200,000 people agree, the Government should make the rest of us agree, despite our constitution. You're also using the phrase "stand up and be counted", which is normally only used if there's a defined need to stand up for what is right

I never said that I just think the question should be asked once and a while as opposed to assuming everyone wants a neutral country. As far as I know Fine gael are the only party advocating a europe Alliance.

Liam Byrne wrote:

But if you pre-align yourself with another country, how do you know that they'll always do the right thing ?

Its a bit like your mate below if they do the wrong thing then you break your alliance

Liam Byrne wrote:

As an example, the Government has allowed the U.S. to use Shannon (which in itself is disgraceful enough) but if they had decided to align us completely with the U.S. and send us off on an illegal war, I would currently be in jail for going AWOL, because I knew from day one that it was wrong.

Shannon aside , Sorry IMO mate if your in the forces you should go where your sent

Liam Byrne wrote:

If a mate of mine gets jumped on, sure I'll help defend him; but if he starts something or was doing something criminal or stupid, then he can feck off and fend for himself. That's not abandoning him, that's taking a reasoned approach to what's right and wrong, and acting accordingly.

True I agree but being neutral is sort of telling him regardless he fights his own corner no matter what happens ,,, we went over this before

Liam Byrne wrote:

If, keeping your figures going, 200,000 people from Ireland decided to head off to help Iraq defend itself against the yanks, where would that leave the Government policy ? Do you think it would change ?

It may possibly , Im pretty sure US policy on us would

Zambia

brianthebard wrote:

@Zambie, if 200,000 did actually fight in the war (I've never heard a figure that big before) then that is still less than one fifteenth of the population, ergo nowhere near large enough to pass a referendum. Support for Irish neutrality has always been widespread, even if it isn't a constitutional policy.

Got the figure Of the campagn for Neutrality website ... The figure is based on the british having 200,000 next of kin addresses in the south.

A good portion where probaly Irish driven to the UK for reason of unemployment and who signed up there...but gave mammys address if blown up.

Liam Byrne

Zambia232 wrote:

That should not be the case

But it is the case, which is where the problem lies. We can't even trust our own crowd to represent us on issues like Shannon; how can we trust the other parties in some pre-aligned alliance ?

Its a bit like your mate below if they do the wrong thing then you break your alliance

So why have a predefined alliance in the first place ? Why not become an ally if and when the need arises ? I mean, if the U.S. had genuinely been under threat after 9/11, the level of goodwill worldwide was there to support them, but then they bollixed it up by invading Iraq, which turned most people against them. Breaking an existing alliance would probably piss someone off more than deciding on a case-by-case basis.

If Ireland stays neutral and then says "Sorry George, you're wrong", he's already depending on our support - hell, they even depended on it on the basis of the public support after 9/11, even when we were neutral!

If we make it known that we aren't aligned with anyone, then we don't piss them off by revoking that, and we could still come to someone's aid if there was a need for a greater good.

Sorry IMO mate if your in the forces you should go where your sent

.....assuming that it's right to do so. As I said, I would have done jail rather than being part of the invasion of Iraq, because I had an instinct that they were lying through their teeth.

That's one reason why I wouldn't sign up for the army, because I don't trust the Government to make the right decisions (point proven re Shannon). If WE were invaded, count me in to help out any way that I can, but don't ask me to go bollix up another country because of vested interests, even more so if those interests are foreign mult-imillionaire oil barons (i.e. where the "reasons" for war are purely economic so that some people can get richer).

True I agree but being neutral is sort of telling him regardless he fights his own corner no matter what happens ,,, we went over this before

Maybe, but IMHO you can be neutral up before and up until an event, still come to the defence of someone when they are attacked.

I know that's probably not completely "neutral", but like I said, I don't see a contradiction there.

It may possibly , Im pretty sure US policy on us would

Just as well we don't have any oil to add to the scenario of terrorists blowing people up, so

Rosen

Zambia, I kind of resent you saying that 1937 was 'good timing' for Ireland to decide it was neutral. I presume you mean by that statement that the timing meant we didnt have to fight alongside the Allies in WW2.
I think it's only with hindsight that people have said Ireland staying out of WW2 was a mistake. At the time it wasn't our war and we were probably right to stay out of it.
Some people seem to have a notion that both World Wars were about good against evil, well.....they weren't started for that reason. WW2 maybe turned into that kind of struggle but Britain's reasons for entering were more about colonial preservation than to save millions from the tyranny of Nazi Germany.
Both wars started because of land and power, the usual things war is about. I can take your argument with regard to conflicts since then but certainly for the first couple of years of the second World War, Ireland probably thought they were right to stay out of it. It was only after a couple of years that people reailsed how bad the Nazi's actually were and perhaps they should have assisted more proactively towards the latter half of the war.

Judt

Neutrality isn't just about taking military action, though it is amusing to note that the People's Republic of China, the President of the USA and the Prime Minister of Britain, amongst others, have more power over our foreign policy than the Irish government.

But still, you can't even take economic measures against a country without it breaching your neutrality. Plus, as I say, you can do the right thing, as in Darfur.

Finally, look at Belgium, Holland, the Netherlands and Norway for examples of neutrality gone wrong. Norway was invaded simultaneously by the allies and the Germans, for crying out loud!

Zambia

Didnt think it would cause resentment but ...

Well obivously I have the benefit of Hindsight but I simply consider while the whole thing was going on Britain was at one piont in imminent danger of invasion. Ireland had the opportunity to be the bigger country and at least attempt to assist them.

tallus

So the 200,000 wasn't a fair enough representation of Ireland being the bigger country ? Or the fact that we didn't have the resources to help a country that had only left us after roughly 800 years of occupation.
Get real.

Zambia

It was good and aknowledged by Churchill himself would it have been that big a step to have them fight under an Irish banner.

If you want a reality check , all of Irelands problems are not due to the Brits.

Rosen

Sure why didn't the Brits do the decent thing and apologise to the Irish back then for all the hurt they caused?
In fairness to the Germans, they were bigger allies to the Irish in the first half of the 20th century than the Brits were. Sure why would Dev want to fight them?

Zambia

Rosen wrote:

Sure why didn't the Brits do the decent thing and apologise to the Irish back then for all the hurt they caused?
In fairness to the Germans, they were bigger allies to the Irish in the first half of the 20th century than the Brits were. Sure why would Dev want to fight them?

For your first piont ... thats a whole other can of worms.

I have no Idea, basically I suppose we where and are still tied to Britain economically and socially on a huge scale. I dont have the exact records to hand but loads of Irishmen did not sail across the sea to join the germans. My Issue is we didnt pick a side not what side we should have picked.

Zebra3

Zambia232 wrote:

Ireland is a neutral country and has been since 1937. Nice timing ...

Britain was alligned with Czechoslovakia in 1937 yet a year later Britain handed part of the country over to Germany and then done nothing to defend her when Germany invaded the rest of the country or when she was occupied by the USSR in 1945..

Likewise Britain was alligned to Poland in 1937 and done next to nothing to help Poland when she was invaded by Germany in 1939 and Britain done nothing to help Poland when she was occupied by the USSR in 1945.

Avoiding neutrality and being alligned with Britain wasn't much use for those countries, was it?

darkman2 wrote:

Neutrality is cowardly, selfish and an utter disgrace. WE ARE NOT NEUTRAL. We support America (the way it should be). For those idiots who think we are Neutral I want you now to answer two points:


1. Do you believe we can be neutral between the fanaticism of the Middle East and the Western World?

The only fanaticism is to be found in America's lust for black gold. Most people in the Middle East just want to be left alone by the west.

Zambia232 wrote:

Utter twaddle political issues will always need some force to back up their agrument

So you had no problem with PIRA? :eek: