yes voters

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

we are neutral - the eu knows this and knew this

so yes what friends we actualty are


france is a military state - membership of nato doesnt determine a states rules and stance on being militarial or neutral or not

yes exactly what i was trying to get across, to be honest.

i love youre attitude towards the neutrality and you're open that ireland will clearly abuse it in state of emergency...just great...

conchubhar1

''abuse'' it how....?

we are neutral, we were neutral - the eu knew that and knows that

so we arent tricking them - they know the score. plus we will send humantarian aid and peace troops, i am sure, if something was to happen to an eu state

we arent going to turn our backs - but we arent going to conscript soldiers to invade or counterattack a country either

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

''abuse'' it how....?

we are neutral, we were neutral - the eu knew that and knows that

so we arent tricking them - they know the score. plus we will send humantarian aid and peace troops, i am sure, if something was to happen to an eu state

we arent going to turn our backs - but we arent going to conscript soldiers to invade or counterattack a country either

dude i'm pretty sure our humanitarian aid and peace corps of 5000 soldiers will be greatly appreciated by any state in the eu and they'll be sending us thank you cards for years to come.

to be fair you dont know whether or not are we going to conscript soldiers...neutrality isnt really a policy that can be persuaded while there is peace...if another crazy regime like nazism was to rise in europe i'd be incline to believe(and hope) that ireland would help out other countries against this kind of regime

RandomName2

What is all this about neutrality? It doesn't really matter whether a country as military weak as Ireland is neutral or not - Andorra was technically at war with Germany until about 1964.

After Lisbon the EU will speak more or less as one in terms of foreign policy.

The only real issue is conscription. As part of the UN, Irish batallions are deployed on UN missions, which by and large are pretty meaningless. Could there ever be a multinational European Army which Ireland is a part of? Why not?

Mario007

RandomName2 wrote: »

What is all this about neutrality? It doesn't really matter whether a country as military weak as Ireland is neutral or not - Andorra was technically at war with Germany until about 1964.

After Lisbon the EU will speak more or less as one in terms of foreign policy.

The only real issue is conscription. As part of the UN, Irish batallions are deployed on UN missions, which by and large are pretty meaningless. Could there ever be a multinational European Army which Ireland is a part of? Why not?

i completely agree with you there...slovakia is still technically at war with france, britain and the usa, actually:D...and i would support an eu army...if eu wants to be a big player it needs an army...i know it sounds horrible but thats just how the world works...just look at league of nations and how terribly did they fail when they did not have any army

conchubhar1

why does the eu need an army?

what wars are happening, and what possible aggressor do you see arising?

if an aggressor arises (middle east - nuculer , north korea nuculer) - diplomacy needs to be the way now

if we work of fear of being invaded or militarily attacked - we won't make it to a united states of europe
a united **** up and possible monumental destruction of most life - ye

conchubhar1

random name and mario007 - i hope you join such an army if it arises

and is not idle support like bush not sending his relations to iraq and other such instances of paper agreement

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

random name and mario007 - i hope you join such an army if it arises

and is not idle support like bush not sending his relations to iraq and other such instances of paper agreement

i'm not talking about a an army where conscription is introduced, i'm talking about merging the eu armies together...and seeing that i dont want to be a soldier, no then i wont join the army.

about your earlier post, the eu needs a army as a precaution. if an aggressor was to come about you know the diplomacy wouldnt do much like the policy of appeasement back in the 1930s and it would take ages for the eu to get a force together.
just look at the un...they took a week before issuing a resolution saying that what north korea was doing was bad...hardly somehting that would stop the north korea.
in fact who do you think they are more inclined to listen to in north korea, eu or us?

K-9

RandomName2 wrote: »

After Lisbon the EU will speak more or less as one in terms of foreign policy.

Only if they all agree to speak as one.

conchubhar1

well, to be honest unless it is against a smaller country with no nuculer weapons.........

have a large army and threaten all you want - go to far, as in having a combined army is helping, and you will help create a situation for

nuculer attacks and war - bye bye then...... (appeasement in the 30's - ye it led to war in 39 tho - but the humans couldnt be wiped out with technology then....)

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

well, to be honest unless it is against a smaller country with no nuculer weapons.........

have a large army and threaten all you want - go to far, as in having a combined army is helping, and you will help create a situation for

nuculer attacks and war - bye bye then...... (appeasement in the 30's - ye it led to war in 39 tho - but the humans couldnt be wiped out with technology then....)

i can see your point and it is a good one, but i believe that an eu army is better in having more weight behind the foreign policy, plus exchanging new technology and better training methods would be, in my opinion, the inevitable benefits of such an army.

about appeasement i doubt that it'd work today even...even with the threat of nuclear weapons...point being you cant just give in, in hope of maybe avoiding war...

conchubhar1

we can have an army - but if it ever becomes a serious threat to another country that has a certain leader and certain policies and threatens that country

there will be little use of an army - it only means they die in a uniform or as a member of an army or live to fight on in a decimated world in gas masks.........

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

we can have an army - but if it ever becomes a serious threat to another country that has a certain leader and certain policies and threatens that country

there will be little use of an army - it only means they die in a uniform or as a member of an army or live to fight on in a decimated world in gas masks.........

i disagree...a strong army does enforce, in my opinion, those dictators wont be as foolish to take any steps towards war...its something of a prevention force. taking hitler as an example again, he say when he militarized rhineland that he took a gamlble and won and thats what encouraged him to take another gamble and another....

so i think having a strong army is also a prevention measure

conchubhar1

but this would be nuculer more than likely

first strike knocks out a major bank or a national parliment i sitting or the major industrial or arms area etc and thats a major blow

in fact all these could be hit before it is known - some wouldnt make it but still...



the hitler analogy is different - it was missle strikes or foot soldier - this is more vast and highly dangerous monumental destruction highly possible

its a whole different scenario than the past

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

but this would be nuculer more than likely

first strike knocks out a major bank or a national parliment i sitting or the major industrial or arms area etc and thats a major blow

in fact all these could be hit before it is known - some wouldnt make it but still...



the hitler analogy is different - it was missle strikes or foot soldier - this is more vast and highly dangerous monumental destruction highly possible

its a whole different scenario than the past

yes but how did we keep from using the nuclear weapons? in cold war, it was the fact that both sides had great assembly of those weapons that prevented them striking each other. same with korea, if korea has indeed nuclear weapons it wont attack, because it knows there are great armies against it if it chose to attack. so prevention again

conchubhar1

bismarck had that philosphy!

ww1 still happened!!!!!!!

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

bismarck had that philosphy!

ww1 still happened!!!!!!!

ya but ww1 was about small nations seeking freedom from big oppressors really...or of big countries using the plight of small countries for their own good, eg russia backing serbia against the astro-hungarian empire...ww1, in my opinion, was the last of the 'old wars' where people just sought to get power and land and increase empire without persuading any sort of policy and philosophy

conchubhar1

yes very much so

but

it was about alliance systems - pitting two big sides against each other

using threats as to scare either side from attacking - and dragging all into a conflict if it happened to one


if this happens now - we are ****ed, pardon my language

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

yes very much so

but

it was about alliance systems - pitting two big sides against each other

using threats as to scare either side from attacking - and dragging all into a conflict if it happened to one


if this happens now - we are ****ed, pardon my language

well i'll give you a question then: if there was a some crazy dude like hitler wagging war against say, poland and slowly moving into the europe with his troops, would you be for or against ireland helping out the other states in europe?

also you must remember that in ww1 ireland was a part of that sort of allience(being under british empire) and britain did not introduce conscription here, so being on one side in the war doesnt have to mean compulsory conscription

conchubhar1

i would be all for helping them

we have peace troops and defence forces and religious and charity groups etc


yes ireland was still in the union - that was a very special case

we had won home rule - they could have introduced it but it would have been very very unwise

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i would be all for helping them

we have peace troops and defence forces and religious and charity groups etc


yes ireland was still in the union - that was a very special case

we had won home rule - they could have introduced it but it would have been very very unwise

yeah, to be honest, i think if a war was to happen now, ireland would take the stance like it did when it was in the empire...ie people would fight freewillingly as they'd sense its their duty...
yeah the home rule couldnt have been introduced cos it'd spark civil war with the unionist and britain couldnt afford that at the time of war...so it had to be postponed and we all know what happened after that

conchubhar1

yes, i would hope people would help (i wouldnt - i would consider peace keeping and humantarian aid)

well it had to be postponed - byt my point is conscription here and that time is a highly specific and special case scenario (indeed it is well know what happened after and is still having effect today)

RandomName2

conchubhar1 wrote: »

random name and mario007 - i hope you join such an army if it arises

and is not idle support like bush not sending his relations to iraq and other such instances of paper agreement

Hey! I'm not in favour of a European Army - not because of the concept of going to war with a foreign power (because that is unlikely and probably necessary if it ever came about) but more on the grounds that the army of a state (the eu) will protect the interests of the state above all else. A european multinational force? We've seen that before and it wasn't the League of Nations --> the Warsaw Pact was supposedly composed of (semi) soverign states, and though established to protect against incursions against the West - and possibly invade France - its main purpose was to put down rebellions in member states.

Okay - a bit of a stretch with the EU - but a rational concern nonetheless (if they're this fussy about Ireland rejecting Lisbon, what would Brussels be like if a fundamental state like France tried to leave the union in the future?... oh damn... I can feel a US civil war analogy creeping in...).

RandomName2

Mario007 wrote: »

ya but ww1 was about small nations seeking freedom from big oppressors really...or of big countries using the plight of small countries for their own good, eg russia backing serbia against the astro-hungarian empire...ww1, in my opinion, was the last of the 'old wars' where people just sought to get power and land and increase empire without persuading any sort of policy and philosophy

WW1:

ENTENTE & ALLIES
France = Revenge against Germany and return of Alsace-Lorrain
Russia = Desire to gain foothold in Balkans scuppered by Austria-Hungary
Britain = Fear of Germany gaining naval dominance
Japan = Desire to increase naval strength
USA = Fear of German superiority both in Europe and in Atlantic
Serbia, Belgium = Nationalism (and forced into war anyway)
Italy = Border dispute with Austria-Hungary
Romania = Ties to Russia, antagonism with neighbours

CENTRAL POWERS
Germany = Fear of a joint attack on the Reich by France and allies
Austria-Hungary = Fear of nationalisms in Balkans pulling the state apart
Turkey = Revenge against Balkan states and fear of Russia
Bulgaria = Antagonism with neighbours (particularly Serbia)

Mario007

RandomName2 wrote: »

WW1:

ENTENTE & ALLIES
France = Revenge against Germany and return of Alsace-Lorrain
Russia = Desire to gain foothold in Balkans scuppered by Austria-Hungary
Britain = Fear of Germany gaining naval dominance
Japan = Desire to increase naval strength
USA = Fear of German superiority both in Europe and in Atlantic
Serbia, Belgium = Nationalism (and forced into war anyway)
Italy = Border dispute with Austria-Hungary
Romania = Ties to Russia, antagonism with neighbours

CENTRAL POWERS
Germany = Fear of a joint attack on the Reich by France and allies
Austria-Hungary = Fear of nationalisms in Balkans pulling the state apart
Turkey = Revenge against Balkan states and fear of Russia
Bulgaria = Antagonism with neighbours (particularly Serbia)

nicely summed up, i must admit...but serbia wasnt so much as dragged into the war as the catalyst of the war, to be honest, which is what i meant by my point that ww1 was about small nations seeking sovereignty-it was the cause of ww1 and then everybody else just kinda got involved due to alliences...

RandomName2 wrote: »

Hey! I'm not in favour of a European Army - not because of the concept of going to war with a foreign power (because that is unlikely and probably necessary if it ever came about) but more on the grounds that the army of a state (the eu) will protect the interests of the state above all else. A european multinational force? We've seen that before and it wasn't the League of Nations --> the Warsaw Pact was supposedly composed of (semi) soverign states, and though established to protect against incursions against the West - and possibly invade France - its main purpose was to put down rebellions in member states.

Okay - a bit of a stretch with the EU - but a rational concern nonetheless (if they're this fussy about Ireland rejecting Lisbon, what would Brussels be like if a fundamental state like France tried to leave the union in the future?... oh damn... I can feel a US civil war analogy creeping in...).

i wouldn't compare an eu army to the warsaw pact, seeing it was done with russia overseeing it to ensure communist control in her satellite states. more like the nato, to be honest.

france leaving eu?impossible!:D
but if it were to happen, under nice it cannot do so...under lisbon it will be able to opt out of eu...i wouldnt think there would be a war over it, mainly due to most of the eu countries(including france) being in nato, so fight within nato would be stopped by the usa

conchubhar1 wrote: »

yes, i would hope people would help (i wouldnt - i would consider peace keeping and humantarian aid)

well it had to be postponed - byt my point is conscription here and that time is a highly specific and special case scenario (indeed it is well know what happened after and is still having effect today)

well the situation was like this: britain was in desperate needs of men...ireland was the only part of the empire proper that didnt have conscription...but it soon turned out that the war was over and britain didnt have to introduce conscription. home rule party protested against it in westminster, true, and sinn fein ran a nice campaign amongst the irish but it was mostly due to the fact that the war was over that the conscription wasnt introduced