Should Ireland Abandon Its Neutrality???

Terrontress

sink wrote: »

I'm not sure training angry disaffected youths to shoot with greater accuracy is a good idea.

I don't necessarily agree with this, but those who call for compulsary military service say that an unavoidable 2 years of being shouted at by a little prick with a moustache, being made to acknowledge authority and being made to crawl through dog poo which is concealed under mud and sleep under leaves will make these people no longer disaffected.

conbhui

mega man wrote: »

Please state your reasons.

Ya i think we should. We should also introduce military service for a minimum of 9 months. Theres so many unemployed people in this country with nothing to do. At least they could be kept active in the military. it might offer an alternative to the youth in disadvantaged areas from getting involved in crime.
But nothing like this will ever happen when you have a government who are out of touch with the people and don't care what happen to the unemployed. all the unemployed are is just a statistic to the government.

Manic Moran

With the U.S. using Shannon Airport, our neutrality was sold out years ago....

Rubbish. Shannon has been open to all comers for decades. In terms of the use of Shannon, at any rate, Ireland has never taken sides.

In terms of common defence, however... Ireland's been leeching.

then why are the us and uk in iraq and afghanistan? have they a moral obligation to be in that country?
No they are there for the oil hence the money.

So does the fact that there are Irish troops in Afghanistan mean that Ireland can get some of the spoils? (Note ISAF badge)



NTM

conbhui

There are Irish troops in Afghanstan but they aint serving with the Irish Defence Forces.

Borstal Boy

Neutrality was a short term policy to avoid getting bombed by the Luftwaffe when we had no air force, no air defence and no particular will to align with the United Kingdom..

Irish neutrality was not just a necessity, it was an opportunity for us to assert ourselves as a nation and as an independent voice on the world stage. We have far more influence as a neutral nation than we would as a member of a military alliance. The success of Irish diplomats in persuading Taliban chieftains to support the Afghan government, where NATO nations had failed, is a prime example of the advantage that neutrality affords us.

Its been elevated to some holy cow as an excuse not to bother taking national defence seriously ( or funding it). For example: 70 years on we still have no air force and no air defence.

Apart from the fact that we could not afford a large air force, we don't need one, or want one for that matter. We would rather spend the money on health or eduction.

If we are invaded, we will do what we have always done, fight a covert war of attrition in order to maximise the cost to the invading force and minimise the cost to our own population.

Instead, we allow China to dictate when and where we can act as peacekeepers. So we're forced to withdraw from UN peacekeeping missions when China wants to punish someone for diplomatically recognising Taiwan.

Ireland is recognised and lauded for her contribution to International peacekeeping throughout the world. In any commentary on the UN, Ireland is used as an example of how nations should further the cause of the organisation.

Talk of abandoning neutrality is pointless. We're not going to be invaded. So why not stay neutral and make the most of our position to influence the direction of world affairs, instead of abandoning it so we can spend billions of Euro on military equipment that we will never use, and take our place as the runt of a military litter.

Joey the lips

Yes!

Why

1. We are in the UN Peacekeeps and have been targets of many abroad anyway

2. What use is neutrality in WW3

3. It will provide a massive amount of jobs in defence and no doubt nato membership

I do think our army should be modified to become a special forces army in whole.

O'Coonassa

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

But i am. Waving a gun is an aggressive act but carrying one is not. Irish soldiers are not undertaking any aggressive action anywhere.

Carrying a machine that is manufactured specifically for killing your fellow human beings is an aggressive act.

Nodin

mega man wrote: »

I was just thinking if we joined the coalition forces in Iraq and afghanistan would it benefit or economy. Would we benefit from the spoils of war?

Afghanistan was from the start a UN backed enterprise. Given the activities emanating from there, one could say that sooner or later some form of group action would have been taken, even if the attack on NYC had not occurred. If there are 'spoils of war' in Afghanistan, other than Opium, its doubtful whether any outside power is in a position to benefit from them in a cost effective manner.

Iraq - well.....We would be too small and lack the industries and set up to benefit from that, regardless of the rights and wrongs of it.

Manic Moran

conbhui wrote: »

There are Irish troops in Afghanstan but they aint serving with the Irish Defence Forces.

They're not? I just posted a picture of three of them up above. The Irish pattern DPM, Irish rank insignia and Irish tricolour on their shoulders should be a giveaway.

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Carrying a machine that is manufactured specifically for killing your fellow human beings is an aggressive act.

Can be a defensive act too. It's all about intent.

NTM

sink

Manic Moran wrote: »

They're not? I just posted a picture of three of them up above. The Irish pattern DPM, Irish rank insignia and Irish tricolour on their shoulders should be a giveaway.

They are military observers, advising the DFA of the ongoing situation. Basically doing sfa. There are no Irish participants in the conflict.

Manic Moran

No, they are actually involved with ISAF. I had an NCO working with an Irish Commandant in a signals unit over there.

The senior Irish soldier right now, an LTC, works in ISAF's IED cell. Other positions held by Irishmen are in the Strategic Communications Unit (Propoganda, if you're cynical), casualty tracking, the 3-Shop (operational planning cell), force protection cell, and JOC Operations.

NTM

turgon

I dont think there have been any good reasons for abandoning neutrality, all the arguments here appear just to be against the current setup. Any one have any clue what tangible benefit could be gotten out of this?

And as regards compulsory military service, I think its an absolutely ridiculous idea. These thugs who yee think disciple will "cure," will just become more and more bitter with life and the state. Why do you think so many prisoners re-offend?

And what use is having the whole population able to bear arms? People wasting a year of their lives for something that will never ever be of any use to them. For the ensuing conflict to come. A sure case for the emotion :rolleyes:.

When Im reading Wikipedia we all "get a kick" out of the fact that Switzerland can muster 1.7 million troops within 24 hours of an invasion. But for what invasion? Id like to see someone answering that without refering to Facism or Nazism.

And WW3?? Come on, as if Russia will be able to stampede through Poland Germany, France and the UK. Romantic visions.

Nodin

sink wrote: »

They are military observers, advising the DFA of the ongoing situation. Basically doing sfa. There are no Irish participants in the conflict.

....but as Ireland voted for the war in Afghanistan, theres no reason there couldn't be. Indeed some would say there should be, given that we did.

Manic Moran

Any one have any clue what tangible benefit could be gotten out of this?

It's one of those things that you just can't justify. Until you need it. Much like an army, actually. Hundreds of millions of Euro, but what has the Army tangibly done for Ireland? You can't just draw up a military from scratch. Much like the point you make of Switzerland. It is true, that in the last 20 years, there has been no real need for them to have such a military capacity. But, once it's gone, much as the US figured out (yet again) over the last five years, it takes no small amount of time and effort to build it back up again.

When faced with a situation which requires military force, there are two options available to a State. One is to do it yourself, a course of action which is available only to those countries which have spent the money and effort maintaining a military institution, such as Sweden or Switzerland. The other is to rely on someone else to do it for you. This is the course of action often chosen by smaller countries either unwilling or unable to maintain an independent military capacity, such as Luxembourg or Iceland. The third option is to simply not rely on a military capability or on friends, and hope that smiling and waving nicely will be sufficient to negate any possible opposing force. Kindof like Holland in WWII, for example.

NTM

Poccington

sink wrote: »

They are military observers, advising the DFA of the ongoing situation. Basically doing sfa. There are no Irish participants in the conflict.

As already pointed out by MM, you're quite wrong.

nesf

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's one of those things that you just can't justify. Until you need it. Much like an army, actually. Hundreds of millions of Euro, but what has the Army tangibly done for Ireland? You can't just draw up a military from scratch. Much like the point you make of Switzerland. It is true, that in the last 20 years, there has been no real need for them to have such a military capacity. But, once it's gone, much as the US figured out (yet again) over the last five years, it takes no small amount of time and effort to build it back up again.

When faced with a situation which requires military force, there are two options available to a State. One is to do it yourself, a course of action which is available only to those countries which have spent the money and effort maintaining a military institution, such as Sweden or Switzerland. The other is to rely on someone else to do it for you. This is the course of action often chosen by smaller countries either unwilling or unable to maintain an independent military capacity, such as Luxembourg or Iceland. The third option is to simply not rely on a military capability or on friends, and hope that smiling and waving nicely will be sufficient to negate any possible opposing force. Kindof like Holland in WWII, for example.

NTM

On the other hand given Ireland's specific geographical position of isolation, extremely friendly relations with all neighbouring countries etc there's little reason for Ireland to maintain a large military force. Holland in WWII and Ireland in WWII had very different experiences of neutrality precisely because of geographical position. Also, given the tiny size of our economy, even if we did spend a large proportion of GDP on the military it still would be a tiny force in geo-political terms.

Zuiderzee

Well, we were promised a referendum on joining the PFP by Bertie - and Bertie got elected - and we joined the PFP without one.

My gut feeling is that

1) being nuetral gives us independence of action if and when we deploy troops overseas.

2) in diplomatic terms, being unaligned can give us more leeway.

3) If things stay as they are, we can maintain a military within our own budget constraints.
In the Lisbon treaty I dont like the idea of this EDA and its required contributions, influence souught or unsought, Eisenhower 1961

sink

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, they are actually involved with ISAF. I had an NCO working with an Irish Commandant in a signals unit over there.

The senior Irish soldier right now, an LTC, works in ISAF's IED cell. Other positions held by Irishmen are in the Strategic Communications Unit (Propoganda, if you're cynical), casualty tracking, the 3-Shop (operational planning cell), force protection cell, and JOC Operations.

NTM

I will defer to your greater level of knowledge. After all my source of information was a corporal in the reserves. He still insists that they don't do much.

TheInquisitor

Everyone else has conquered a country. Maybe its time Ireland sent down our 3 frigates while a few thousand soldiers take some ryanair flights down to some small african country. Take the place over for a while. see what happens!

Poccington

sink wrote: »

I will defer to your greater level of knowledge. After all my source of information was a corporal in the reserves. He still insists that they don't do much.

I wouldn't rely on him as a source if he's telling you stuff like that.

Manic Moran

in WWII and Ireland in WWII had very different experiences of neutrality precisely because of geographical position.

True, but I think you might be drawing the wrong conclusions. It was not so much that Ireland was safe because it was geographically irrelevant, it was not. Both the UK and Germany had eyes on Ireland as the gateway to the Atlantic. The problem, at the time, was that it would have been technically difficult to conduct a major operation across the water to do anything. However, there are two counters to Ireland's WWII policy being effective in event of conflict today.

1) Equipment ranges have expanded to the extent that Ireland is now in the modern area of interest as regards a conflict in continental europe.

2) Ireland's status in the 1940s would have been directly dependant on whether or not Germany was defeated by the Allies. Ireland may not have admitted it, but was completely reliant upon the UK and US for its future existance and yet could contribute nothing effectively to that effort.

Also, given the tiny size of our economy, even if we did spend a large proportion of GDP on the military it still would be a tiny force in geo-political terms.

Agreed. Which is why the other small countries in Europe have acknowledged their inability to secure their own sovereignty and have entered into agreements with other nations that they trust. The Luxembourg, Belgian or Icelandic defence budgets are not exactly such as to create major international military capacity, but their sovereignty is backed up by a rather large force of materiel.

NTM

TheInquisitor

nesf wrote: »

On the other hand given Ireland's specific geographical position of isolation, extremely friendly relations with all neighbouring countries etc there's little reason for Ireland to maintain a large military force. Holland in WWII and Ireland in WWII had very different experiences of neutrality precisely because of geographical position. Also, given the tiny size of our economy, even if we did spend a large proportion of GDP on the military it still would be a tiny force in geo-political terms.

Not if we got nukes....Suddenly it wouldn't matter how big or small you are.

Zuiderzee

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Everyone else has conquered a country. Maybe its time Ireland sent down our 3 frigates while a few thousand soldiers take some ryanair flights down to some small african country. Take the place over for a while. see what happens!

What fecking frigates? We dont have any

TheInquisitor

Zuiderzee wrote: »

What fecking frigates? We dont have any

apologies - our offshore patrol vessels!!

neilled

Terrontress wrote: »

Thing is with an Irish Air Force, by the time you'd have a jet scrambled, an enemy plane could be from east to west three times. Anti aircraft weapons would be a much better solution to an aerial threat than spending a few billion on tomcats.

Yeah, buying an aircraft that has been retired from service pretty much everywhere except Iran would be a bad move..........................

rant_and_rave

Participation in UN peace keeping forces IS abandonment of neutrality.

sceptre

rant_and_rave wrote: »

Participation in UN peace keeping forces IS abandonment of neutrality.

That would remove Sweden, but more interestingly Austria, from the list of neutral countries. Hasn't Switzerland taken part in a few peace-keeping missions?

grenache

Taking part in peace keeping missions does in no way remove our neutrality. By part-taking in UN activities, our soldiers are merely keeping the peace between two waring factions/groups. We are not taking sides therefore our neutrality is not compromised.

Manic Moran

Yet the very frst UN mission that Ireland was involved with (ONUC) was not a peace-keeping mission (which requires the consent of both sides), it was a peace-enforcing mission with the UN very definitely on one side of the conflict.

It should be noted also that the Korean War was a UN activity, the UN does not exclusively contain itself to sitting back and trying to not take sides.

NTM

grenache

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yet the very frst UN mission that Ireland was involved with (ONUC) was not a peace-keeping mission (which requires the consent of both sides), it was a peace-enforcing mission with the UN very definitely on one side of the conflict.

It should be noted also that the Korean War was a UN activity, the UN does not exclusively contain itself to sitting back and trying to not take sides.

NTM

I bow to your superior knowledge on the subject!