Neutrality

brianthebard

its not naivity,govt policies can be easily changed.and you didn't answer my question.i think it would be best to keep historical examples out of this thread,since we are not going to go back and refight any war,plus each war must be considered on individual attributes.so what gains are there for ireland in jettisoning neutrality?
Posted via Mobile Device

Kama

This debate requires a fully functioning Evilometer!
I'm reading Stalin > Hitler, but Kitler > LeninCat
Moar tests needed!

That or historical context; Nazi's weren't exactly unique in terms of genocide, eugenics, warfare, or other evilness. Any knowledge of human history and that view is almost impossible to maintain.

Unfortunately, 'evil' isn't isolated in a country where it can be conveniently bombed. Pity that.

And I'm with Turgon, +1 for armed neutrality. Freeloading on public defence goods is lame and hypocritical neutrality. Asymmetric warfare, citizen army, against any force that attempts to occupy you is the most cost-effective military strategy. Response to invasion is one thing, and is covered under international law, but military alliances are something else.

As a bonus, if everyone just did that, we'd have world peace, lal!

Out of interest, if we are on the UK and USA's side...who are we against again? Someone specific, or just whoever they are against?

Who is Oceania at war with again? Eurasia? Eastasia?
Its so hard to remember...

louthandproud

Ok fair enough your opinion may be different.

But if your opinion is based on who killed the most people/who started wars then Im afriad Stalin scores higher on both scores.

Don't be afraid, many people feel like you do. However many others including myself feel differently. But I accept your "fair enough".

BTW, who knows where Hitler would have ended up had he not lost and topped himself.

Im on the side that reads history and accepts facts even if I dont like them. I dont like the way Ireland neutral but in reality not. I wouldnt have minded too much being in the war, but what Ireland di was just snacky. Yet instead of hiding form that fact I admit it.

I 100% agree on the snakey bit. Hence this thread really.

As regards the banks, I don't see what the problem with it is. Its basically a stance of non-alignment. As a neutral country you cant decide to favour one side.

Maybe so, but it hardly merits an honourable position which is why Switzerland got into this discussion in the first place as a shining example of neutrality,

Im still skeptical about the Jewish Money, sounds more like one of those Network 2 documentaries, but its probably true.

Very true, many Jews transfered their assets to Swiss banks for safe keeping, when these Jews never showed up again thanks to our friend Hitler the banks were reluctant to deal with their relations with a view to returning the assets. That remains the case to this day.

I am aware. Did you know that Switzerland can summon over 2 million soldiers to defense positions within 24 hours of being attacked? Amazing stuff, no wonder they've never been invaded!!!

Yes I did. They also have all their mountain passes and tunnels land mined to prevent over land invasion. Admirable stuff.

But we have nothing really other than a dependency on the UK and the US (hopefully). Granted the chances of us needing them is extremely remote.

But you never know. Things change.

louthandproud

Kama wrote: »

And I'm with Turgon, +1 for armed neutrality. Freeloading on public defence goods is lame and hypocritical neutrality. Asymmetric warfare, citizen army, against any force that attempts to occupy you is the most cost-effective military strategy. Response to invasion is one thing, and is covered under international law, but military alliances are something else.

Not sure Targon is arguing for armed neutrality.

But he/she can clear that up for themselves.

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote: »

Arguably peace enforcing missions (eg Congo) aren't the purview of neutral powers, because usually it means that you're taking a side. However, be that as it may, my issue with Irish neutrality isn't the concept itself. It's the hypocrtical position compared to countries such as the above-mentioned Sweden and Switzerland that those two countries are neutral, and mean it. They have sufficient self-defense capability that forms a resonable deterrence to make all comers think twice about a military operation in their areas. The usual answer to Ireland's defense capability is "sure, if someone were to attack us, the British or Americans would rescue us." Whilst this is true, it is an alignment, not a position of neutrality and is simply a case of being a parasite. The only difference between Ireland's situation and that of Iceland is that at least Iceland has been openly honest about the whole thing.

NTM

well the big military airbase in iceland closed a couple of years ago, things have cooled there so to speak, do switzerland and sweden alllow us military overflights and landing, or a cia free for all like us?

i mean maybe things are different now but switzerland is hardly an exmaple of good neutrality.

Fratton Fred

louthandproud wrote: »

IRISHMEN AND IRISHWOMEN: In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom.

Irish proclamation.

interesting you should quote that, the 1916 leaders were only too willing to ally them selves to Imperial Germany, just as their forefathers were only too willing to ally themselves to Imperial France.

Since then honoured Irish republicans were only too willing to ally themselves with Nazi Germany, Libya and even a few dodgy drug dealers in south America. So in reality the founders of this Repblic never really saw Ireland as being Neutral.

Lets face it, this charade of Neutrality suits Ireland down to the ground. The government can get away with spending less than the bare minimum on defence and the population can look on in self righteous shock as the rest of the world gets involved in bloody conflicts. Knowing all the time that if a few Al Qeada terrorists wanted, for some strange reason, to fly an Airbus into the IFSC then the nasty old imperialists next door will more than likely come to the rescue.

louthandproud

Fratton Fred wrote: »

interesting you should quote that, the 1916 leaders were only too willing to ally them selves to Imperial Germany, just as their forefathers were only too willing to ally themselves to Imperial France.

Since then honoured Irish republicans were only too willing to ally themselves with Nazi Germany, Libya and even a few dodgy drug dealers in south America. So in reality the founders of this Repblic never really saw Ireland as being Neutral.

I would pretty much agree with you, however the quote used was only used to deal with a rather silly side argument about referring to countries as 'her' rather than 'it'.

Manic Moran

lostexpectation wrote: »

well the big military airbase in iceland closed a couple of years ago, things have cooled there so to speak,

Keflavik did close, but Iceland still openly relies on other nations for its defense. The French took over the job about two months ago. Here's one of the Mirages landing at Reyjavik.



The Baltic States and Luxembourg are similarly patrolled by allied countries.

do switzerland and sweden alllow us military overflights and landing, or a cia free for all like us?

No idea, but that's not the definition of neutrality. Neutrality is when one refuses to take sides, and given that on average military aircraft from some forty countries a year pass through Ireland, I don't think there's much evidence that Ireland is taking sides. When was the last time Ireland ever said 'no' to a military flight flying over or passing through on the basis of country of origin/ownership?

i mean maybe things are different now but switzerland is hardly an exmaple of good neutrality.

Why not?

NTM

bonkey

louthandproud wrote: »

And to say war never does any good, the fact that you aren't arguing with me in German would to me indicate that this isn't necessarily true.

Indeed. I'm glad the Allies started WW2, by attacking those Germans, inside Germany, who were just peacefully sitting around waiting for western Europe to decide to be ruled by them.

bonkey

lostexpectation wrote: »

do switzerland and sweden alllow us military overflights and landing, or a cia free for all like us?

I can't talk about Sweden, but Switzerland typically allows US military overflights except when the US were engaging in military action. When the US declared its intention to go into Afghanistan, the Swiss told them that Swiss airspace was off-limits.

Trivial though this may seem, it apparently caused the US some logistical problems with some European-based resources.

They accepted the Swiss position with good grace, and worked around it.

i mean maybe things are different now but switzerland is hardly an exmaple of good neutrality.

Wny not? They refused to take sides. Thats what neutrality is.

It would seem that what you're saying is that good neutrality is picking the right side, whereas bad neutrality is actually remaining neutral.

turgon

bonkey wrote: »

It would seem that what you're saying is that good neutrality is picking the right side, whereas bad neutrality is actually remaining neutral.

100%

lostexpectation

that's not what im saying at all, im saying switzerland profited from the world wars and so do we,im sure they are neutral in favour of the allies as much as we are, that's bad neutrality, we certainly are taking sides we'd hardly allow iraqi military planes to refuel in shannon on their way to attack the us would we ? didnt' we hand over all our info on russia transit to the americans.

turgon

lostexpectation wrote: »

im sure they are neutral in favour of the allies as much as we are

How are you so sure?

lostexpectation

but Switzerland typically allows US military overflights except when the US were engaging in military action

thats paperthin
does include when the plane happens to stopping off in italy first before going to iraq or something

Manic Moran

lostexpectation wrote: »

we certainly are taking sides we'd hardly allow iraqi military planes to refuel in shannon on their way to attack the us would we ? didnt' we hand over all our info on russia transit to the americans.

Seen no reason to believe that the Russians didn't get as much knowledge of Shannon ops as the Americans did. Shannon's a public airport, after all, you could see the C-141s from the terminal. The Irish government have set a bunch of criteria for the use of Shannon as a stop-over, such as "No carriage of undeclared munitions" and "Attacks may not be launched from Ireland." As long as the rules are applied equally and fairly to everyone who asks, it's not a violation of neutrality.

NTM

lostexpectation

so the irish gov gave records of flights to the Russians kgb too as they did to the cia?

it is a breach of the idea of neutrality.

its just your and the gov standards of neutrality are very low.

eroo

We are not nuetral and never really have been.Allied airmen were put back over the Border during WW2,Axis airmen were interned.Does that sound Nuetral?

Also,the Defence Forces currently have 7 or 8 officers serving in Afghanistan as part of ISAF.We also sent Explosive Ordnance Disposal(EOD) experts over to Iraq and Afghanistan,to instruct Coalition teams on dealing with Improvised Explosive Devices(IED's).

To say we could contribute nothing is BS.Our EOD personnel are some of the best and most experienced in the world.Our special forces,the Army Ranger Wing(ARW),would be a major asset to any international force.Our regular forces also have a vast amount of overseas experience too.

For example,New Zealand's Defence Force have roughly 9,000 personnel.Yet,the NZSAS have served in Afghanistan as well as other NZDF personnel.Why can't we?

the_syco

turgon wrote: »

The days of war in Europe are over I would imagine.

The Germans lost WW1 and 2, but they may yet win the Lisbon Treaty

=-=

We've let dictatorships land, peoples from all different countries land, the US army land, and we fight the good fight as peace keepers, so yeah, I'd call that neutral.

walrusgumble

louthandproud wrote: »

Just my opinion, but I think we should do more. See last post.

well of you go into the army then, lead by example. if you have children? would you encourage them to join ?

bonkey

lostexpectation wrote: »

im sure they are neutral in favour of the allies as much as we are,

Perhaps you'd care to share the evidence that leads to this surity, or are you sure just based on your feeling that they must be?

Consider, while you're at it, that the Swiss have had an unarmed military observation post in the DMZ between North and South Korea, pretty-much since said DMZ was created. Consider that they are also the official intermediary between the US and Iran, because although those two nations have no official contact, they still need communicate and thus require a trusted, neutral intermediary. Consider that Switzerland only recently joined the UN, after years (decades) of deliberation as to whether or not doing so constituted a breach of their neutrality.

but Switzerland typically allows US military overflights except when the US were engaging in military action

thats paperthin
does include when the plane happens to stopping off in italy first before going to iraq or something

I think you may have misunderstood me. When I said they didn't allow overflights, I meant that they didn't allow overflights. I wasn't talking about landings, or referring to where the plane was coming from or going to.

If it was a US military plane, or a civilian plane carrying US military, it was not allowed enter Swiss airspace.

If you see that as paper-thin, then perhaps you'd care to explain what a proper neutral nation should have done in the same place?

Alternately, you could just retract your suggestion that the Swiss aren't a good example of neutrality, or even just explain what you meant by it. While you're at it, you could explain why the North Koreans and Iranians trust them as much as they clearly do.

Star_Buck

I will probably get torn apart by Free Staters for saying this but why should Ireland ever consider joining any sort of military alliance with the 'Free nations of the world' when another 'Free nation's' army is still in the north of Ireland? I think Ireland has suffered enough at the hands of a foreign people to inflict the same upon anyone else. Interfering in other nations conflicts shouldn't be meddled unless the UN request assistance in peace keeping matters.

brianthebard

OP, still waiting to find out what the net benefits will be to Ireland if we revoke our neutrality?

Fratton Fred

Star_Buck wrote: »

I will probably get torn apart by Free Staters for saying this but why should Ireland ever consider joining any sort of military alliance with the 'Free nations of the world' when another 'Free nation's' army is still in the north of Ireland? I think Ireland has suffered enough at the hands of a foreign people to inflict the same upon anyone else. Interfering in other nations conflicts shouldn't be meddled unless the UN request assistance in peace keeping matters.

You don't have to be in a military alliance to be non neutral. Ireland is a member of the EU so called rapid reaction force so it has nailed it's colours to the mast already, although I think there is a big question as to whether or not it is "Pulling it's Weight".

What makes Ireland special, do you honestly think Ireland is alone in suffering at the hands of another nation, most nations have and pretty much every nation in NATO has been at war with another NATO member at some time. It may have missed your notice, but the RoI does not have any claim to "The North" either, that was given up when the GFA was signed.

If Ireland wants to be Neutral, fine, but it is not in the constitution and it is not in practice either.

tallus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What makes Ireland special

If Ireland wants to be Neutral, fine, but it is not in the constitution and it is not in practice either.

It's our country, that makes it special.
I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Fratton Fred

tallus wrote: »

It's our country, that makes it special.
I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Of course I understand. Maybe "Different" would have been a better word.

Hopefully you get my point, pretty much every country has had a turbulant past, but that has not prevented former foes becoming allies.

Lets face it, England and France have been at war on and off for the last 1000 years, yet they appear to be able to move on and become allies.

brianthebard

Whats your argument ff,that ireland shouldn't be neutral?If so,why?

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

Whats your argument ff,that ireland shouldn't be neutral?If so,why?

My post was in response to Star Buck, about foreign intervention etc.

My opinion is that Ireland is not neutral but likes to pretend it is purely as an excuse to spend piss poor amounts on the military.

tallus

Some countries have been more turbulent than others tho.
Are you saying that Ireland and england can't become allies ? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

My post was in response to Star Buck, about foreign intervention etc. My opinion is that Ireland is not neutral but likes to pretend it is purely as an excuse to spend piss poor amounts on the military.

what makes ireland not neutral?Where do you stand on foreign intervention then?

irish_bob

Star_Buck wrote: »

I will probably get torn apart by Free Staters for saying this but why should Ireland ever consider joining any sort of military alliance with the 'Free nations of the world' when another 'Free nation's' army is still in the north of Ireland? I think Ireland has suffered enough at the hands of a foreign people to inflict the same upon anyone else. Interfering in other nations conflicts shouldn't be meddled unless the UN request assistance in peace keeping matters.

us irish are undoubtably W.O.P.E