Door is open for Ireland to join Nato, says military alliance's chief

Manic Moran

Zebra3 wrote: »

:D:D:D

Yeah, they'd have no bother holding out Liechtenstein, but I doubt France would be worried about their military "strength". :rolleyes:

Erm... No, Switzerland is basically a fortress.

You know, for example, the French Army has 252 modern main battle tanks, the Swiss Army has 225 modern tanks, and the Swiss military has 220 self-propelled howitzers to France's 350.

Certainly the French military outnumber the Swiss military, 230,000 active personnel to 135,000 active personnel, but the Swiss have more reserves (77,000 to 70,000), not counting pretty much every adult male in the country who got to keep his service rifle when he left the Army. Plus Switzerland is extremely mountainous terrain which is hugely defensible.

The French Navy is substantially larger than the Swiss Navy, I grant you, and the Swiss Air Force's combat inventory (about 80 is only half the size of the French.

Bottom line, if the French really wanted to, they could probably take on the Swiss and win. But it would be extremely expensive to do (normal requirements are 3:1 ratio when attacking), and if already engaged with another country (eg let's say they're fighting Germany), they couldn't do it.


Compare those numbers to Ireland:
0 tanks.
0 self propelled artillery
9,500 military personnel
5,500 reserve personnel. Few people have their own assault rifle at home.
0 combat aircraft

The Swiss are serious about their neutrality. Ireland, on the other hand, is not.

NTM

AlmightyCushion

It's not like Switzerland has a huge population either. It's not even double ours and less than about 1/8 of France's.

Riddle101

Switzerland also has a few armament manufacturers as well, so it can manafactur it's own weapons too. Just saying.

ejmaztec

The Swiss would probably sh1t all over the French if they decided to have a punch-up.

Nino Brown

ejmaztec wrote: »

The Swiss would probably sh1t all over the French if they decided to have a punch-up.

Exactly!, the French could have a million soldiers, but it's F all good if they all surrender at the first sign of trouble.

awec

Manic Moran wrote: »

Erm... No, Switzerland is basically a fortress.

You know, for example, the French Army has 252 modern main battle tanks, the Swiss Army has 225 modern tanks, and the Swiss military has 220 self-propelled howitzers to France's 350.

Certainly the French military outnumber the Swiss military, 230,000 active personnel to 135,000 active personnel, but the Swiss have more reserves (77,000 to 70,000), not counting pretty much every adult male in the country who got to keep his service rifle when he left the Army. Plus Switzerland is extremely mountainous terrain which is hugely defensible.

The French Navy is substantially larger than the Swiss Navy, I grant you, and the Swiss Air Force's combat inventory (about 80 is only half the size of the French.

Bottom line, if the French really wanted to, they could probably take on the Swiss and win. But it would be extremely expensive to do (normal requirements are 3:1 ratio when attacking), and if already engaged with another country (eg let's say they're fighting Germany), they couldn't do it.


Compare those numbers to Ireland:
0 tanks.
0 self propelled artillery
9,500 military personnel
5,500 reserve personnel. Few people have their own assault rifle at home.
0 combat aircraft

The Swiss are serious about their neutrality. Ireland, on the other hand, is not.

NTM

Not forgetting that it's also landlocked, with no sea for quite some distance in any direction.

Chuck Stone

Nino Brown wrote: »

Exactly!, the French could have a million soldiers, but it's F all good if they all surrender at the first sign of trouble.

It's quite some achievement how chicken hawks and their patsies in the corporate media have managed to paint the French as 'surrender monkeys' because, unlike Blair and company in 2003, they didn't dance like obedient little circus dogs to Washington's war-drum.

The truth of course is quite different to the propaganda.

mike65

Couldn't the French basically bomb the feck out of Switzerland from the air or launch a nuke from the sea?

Herb Powell

No. I for one do not want to have any part in the bullshiit. Stay as we are, we are in a very good position.

patwicklow

NATO have a lot of blood on there hands and the suffering they have caused just another stepping stone to NWO!

Fratton Fred

patwicklow wrote: »

NATO have a lot of blood on there hands and the suffering they have caused just another stepping stone to NWO!

They do?

mike65

The list of NATO wars is quite short

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wars_involving_NATO

bizmark

what ever about nato but at the very lest Ireland should have an effective and useful navy with decent anti air capabilities with out that we are completely defenseless am i not wrong in thinking 4-5 ageis equipped destroyers are enough to track and protect the skys in a country the size of south Korea ? not that i expect us to shell out 1.8 billion per destroyer or anything but im sure theres systems available thats suitable

Nino Brown

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's quite some achievement how chicken hawks and their patsies in the corporate media have managed to paint the French as 'surrender monkeys' because, unlike Blair and company in 2003, they didn't dance like obedient little circus dogs to Washington's war-drum.

The truth of course is quite different to the propaganda.

The french have been called rifle droppers since they rolled over in WW1 and WW2, it has nothing to do with 2003.

sock puppet

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's quite some achievement how chicken hawks and their patsies in the corporate media have managed to paint the French as 'surrender monkeys' because, unlike Blair and company in 2003, they didn't dance like obedient little circus dogs to Washington's war-drum.

The truth of course is quite different to the propaganda.

Pretty much everyone is almost entirely ignorant of pre 20th century history. Doesn't require much propaganda.

mike65

Italian tanks have 4 reverse gears.

bizmark

The french a country that conquered most of Europe and created a large empire and the Italians the people who gave us the roman empire how do people say they are cowardly with a straight face

mike65

Its After Hours and the Romans are not the Italians (and the Roman Empire peak was about 2000 years ago. so hardly relevant), the French are always up for a fight on their own terms.

Chuck Stone

Nino Brown wrote: »

The french have been called rifle droppers

By who?

since they rolled over in WW1 and WW2

They rolled over in WW1?. As for WW2, well, the French were still recovering from WW1 and no comparable nation (read, Britain) wouldn't have been able to fend off the German Blitzkrieg if they'd been on the continental landmass.

it has nothing to do with 2003.

It has everything to do with 2003. The fawning corporate media swung in behind the propaganda and conspiracies against Iraq with aplomb.

The "petulant prima donna of realpolitik" is leading the "axis of weasels", in "a chorus of cowards". It is an unholy alliance of "wimps" and ingrates which includes one country that is little more than a "mini-me minion", another that is in league with Cuba and Libya, with a bunch of "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" at the helm.

Welcome to Europe, as viewed through the eyes of American commentators and newspapers yesterday, as Euro-bashing, and particularly anti-French sentiment, reached new heights. In a barrage of insults and invective which ranged from the basest tabloid rants to the loftiest columnists on the most respected newspapers, European-led resistance to America's war plans in Iraq was portrayed not as a diplomatic position to be negotiated as a genetic weakness in the European mindset which makes them reluctant to fight wars and incapable of winning them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/11/pressandpublishing.usa

bizmark

mike65 wrote: »

Its After Hours and the Romans are not the Italians (and the Roman Empire peak was about 2000 years ago. so hardly relevant), the French are always up for a fight on their own terms.

I dont know mike if my capital was rome and one of the most powerful institutions in that city was a left over from the roman empire i would happly still claim them as proto-Italian and think it was very relevant to their national characteristic

John Mongo

bizmark wrote: »

what ever about nato but at the very lest Ireland should have an effective and useful navy with decent anti air capabilities with out that we are completely defenseless am i not wrong in thinking 4-5 ageis equipped destroyers are enough to track and protect the skys in a country the size of south Korea ? not that i expect us to shell out 1.8 billion per destroyer or anything but im sure theres systems available thats suitable

We have a Defence budget of under 700 million quid, which is to be used for all Defence related spending, including wages.

As a result of being outside any kind of military alliance, we get to enjoy paying full whack for everything. Best of luck scraping money together to fund anything like you posted above.

bizmark

Thats why i said we wouldn't be paying out that sort of money and perhaps theirs similar systems available to do a job for us i would also be in favor of us joining nato

Manic Moran

John Mongo wrote: »

As a result of being outside any kind of military alliance, we get to enjoy paying full whack for everything. Best of luck scraping money together to fund anything like you posted above.

As I understand it, until 2003 Ireland used to be on the list of countries eligible for foreign military aid from the US. Cut price weapons and equipment if they wanted it. I would expect the SINCGARS and Javelins were a bit cheaper than normal purchase price as a result.

I don't know if that removal in 2003 has been reversed since.

Honest opinion

ManMade wrote: »

Feck NATO, too much bureaucracy. I say we hold a referendum too invade Australia!

We already have

Riddle101

bizmark wrote: »

I dont know mike if my capital was rome and one of the most powerful institutions in that city was a left over from the roman empire i would happly still claim them as proto-Italian and think it was very relevant to their national characteristic

Generally a lot of nations are like that really. They claim ancient civilizations or tribes as their own, because they were relevant in their region at one time or another. Like how Irish people like to claim the Celts as their own, even though they settled all over Europe. But there was no Italian state back then, only Rome, and once the Roman empire ended, Italy was made up of or city states until it was unified.

Poster Boy

I find it thoroughly depressing to see there are so many comments on here posting in favour of joining an out-of-date nuclear weapons club in which we would be used as cannon fodder by the larger interests.

Being outside such big boys' clubs does nothing to prevent us from being able to contribute by way of military police, medical response teams etc to UN sanctioned operations. Being inside such a club removes the perception of our ability to be honest brokers.

Aside from that, have we not lost enough of our sovereignty to ECB/ IMF/ EU, that some people want to actually give away the last few remaining elements, such as the ability to have a somewhat independent foreign policy? Having a non-alligned army is a clear hallmark of that.

The only people who would really benefit from us joining a military alliance would be the traders of death that are the arms manufacturers. Last time I looked, we don't appear to have any such major producers - so it's not even that 'jobs' would be created here; Germany, UK, France - yes, but Ireland - no. So we would even import more crap from abroad that we do not need. It is a really, really stupid idea on so many levels.

Surely we have learned something over the last number of years to understand that by ceding authority to institutions beyond this state, larger dominant interests will just use us for their ends?

Really, a thoroughly depressing thread.

token101

Lapin wrote: »

The sooner we join NATO the better.

Its time we grew up as a nation, shook off the cowardice of neutrality and took our place on the global stage.

Our defence forces (of which I am proud and will not reduce to the butt of jokes as others do) are shamefully under resourced and have been treated as a plaything by successive governments.

In other countries the job of Defence Minister is sought after, here it was traditionally given to the lad who just about made in into the cabinet. Look at Willie O'Dea FFS. It doesn't even have an exclusive minister of its own anymore as its current custodian, Alan Shatter is also Minister for Justice. A post that inevitably takes up far more of his time given the events of recent weeks.

As an island nation, with our territorial waters consisting of an area 10 times our land mass it is a scandal that we have such a poorly equipped Air Corps and Navy.

Joining NATO can only compel us to address this, and the sooner we do it the better.

Or we could just keep our neutrality and stay away from it?

Riddle101

Poster Boy wrote: »

I find it thoroughly depressing to see there are so many comments on here posting in favour of joining an out-of-date nuclear weapons club in which we would be used as cannon fodder by the larger interests.

We wouldn't be used as cannon fodder. That's just scare mongering. People seem to be of the opinion, if we joined NATO we'd be forced to fight, and go to the worst places on Earth. It doesn't work like that. It never has.

Being outside such big boys' clubs does nothing to prevent us from being able to contribute by way of military police, medical response teams etc to UN sanctioned operations. Being inside such a club removes the perception of our ability to be honest brokers.

You said NATO was outdated, yet the UN is arguably even more outdated, and is also useless as well. Also Canada is perceived to be an honest broker, even though it's a member of NATO too. Ireland can still be perceived as one. Hell we could play an even bigger role as an honest broker.

Aside from that, have we not lost enough of our sovereignty to ECB/ IMF/ EU, that some people want to actually give away the last few remaining elements, such as the ability to have a somewhat independent foreign policy? Having a non-alligned army is a clear hallmark of that.

Our foreign policy will remain the same as it ever is. Just like every other country in NATO. People seem to forget that there are countries in NATO who don't fall under the same generalizations as the US and UK. That there are countries in NATO that have remained for the most part, the same as they ever were. The only difference is that they are apart of an alliance.

Surely we have learned something over the last number of years to understand that by ceding authority to institutions beyond this state, larger dominant interests will just use us for their ends?

Ireland generally, uses others to their own end too you know so it's a two way street. We used the EU to start the Celtic Tiger, and we'd most definitely use NATO if we could/can too. As for ceding authority to NATO, well that's arguable really.

Nino Brown

Chuck Stone wrote: »

By who?

I've heard the term rifle droppers long before 2003.

One example I found...In 1990s popular culture, the derogatory phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" began as a joke on The Simpsons in 1995

They rolled over in WW1?.

The French Army Mutinies of 1917 took place amongst the French troops on the Western Front in Northern France. The French troops at Chemin des Dames suffered a steadily growing number of desertions since the end of Apri On 27 May, those desertions turned to mutiny. Up to 30,000 soldiers left the front line and reserve trenches and went to the rear.[3] Even in regiments where there was direct confrontation, such as the 74th Infantry Regiment, the men wished their officers no harm; they just refused to return to the trenches

It has everything to do with 2003. The fawning corporate media swung in behind the propaganda and conspiracies against Iraq with aplomb.

Why would they be called rifle droppers for refusing to go to to war in the first place?, that doesn't even make sense. And "The fawning corporate media", while I agree the media is bull****, that sounds like the kind of talk that 9/11 truthers use, you're not one of them by any chance are you?

Chuck Stone

Nino Brown wrote: »

The French Army Mutinies of 1917 took place amongst the French troops on the Western Front in Northern France. The French troops at Chemin des Dames suffered a steadily growing number of desertions since the end of Apri On 27 May, those desertions turned to mutiny. Up to 30,000 soldiers left the front line and reserve trenches and went to the rear.[3] Even in regiments where there was direct confrontation, such as the 74th Infantry Regiment, the men wished their officers no harm; they just refused to return to the trenches

Fair fucking play to them. The people running the WW1 should have been hanged by the front line soldiers. What a meat-grinder of a war that was. Still using 'charge' tactics in the face of machine guns. 'Lions led by donkeys' was a term used to describe them.

Why would they be called rifle droppers for refusing to go to to war in the first place?, that doesn't even make sense.

You don't have to be in a war to drop a rifle.

you're not one of them 9/11 truthers by any chance are you

Use the search function if you're interested in my views on 9/11.

Herb Powell

Poster Boy wrote: »

I find it thoroughly depressing to see there are so many comments on here posting in favour of joining an out-of-date nuclear weapons club in which we would be used as cannon fodder by the larger interests.

Being outside such big boys' clubs does nothing to prevent us from being able to contribute by way of military police, medical response teams etc to UN sanctioned operations. Being inside such a club removes the perception of our ability to be honest brokers.

Aside from that, have we not lost enough of our sovereignty to ECB/ IMF/ EU, that some people want to actually give away the last few remaining elements, such as the ability to have a somewhat independent foreign policy? Having a non-alligned army is a clear hallmark of that.

The only people who would really benefit from us joining a military alliance would be the traders of death that are the arms manufacturers. Last time I looked, we don't appear to have any such major producers - so it's not even that 'jobs' would be created here; Germany, UK, France - yes, but Ireland - no. So we would even import more crap from abroad that we do not need. It is a really, really stupid idea on so many levels.

Surely we have learned something over the last number of years to understand that by ceding authority to institutions beyond this state, larger dominant interests will just use us for their ends?

Really, a thoroughly depressing thread.

Completely agree. Why do people feel the need to get involved in this?

We have no real enemies, why start making enemies, 'writing cheques our defense forces cannot cash', so to speak? There is no need for this, other than pure paranoia.

Great deal of truth in this series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qATc5jRbVOA

Nino Brown

Herb Powell wrote: »

We have no real enemies, why start making enemies, 'writing cheques our defense forces cannot cash', so to speak? There is no need for this, other than pure paranoia.

Nobody says we have to make enemies, or go to war, people are jumping to irrational conclusions here. All I'm trying to say is, for now, we should join and allow the use of our space, and use the options for military aid.
When we get back on our feet as a country we spend more on defense, maybe 1-2% of GDP, we would create lots of jobs in the process. I don't care if we don't buy a single attack weapon. I'd just like to see us have enough boats to patrol our coastline, and enough firepower to defend our airspace.
Lets say a major war did break out, and we refuse use of our space, what exactly are we supposed to do to enforce that?

As for it being paranoia, I thinks that's just naive, we live in what is historically a war torn continent, and only 70 years ago the Germans planned to invade us, the only thing that saved us btw was Britain and the US, (NATO members). I think its short sighted to assume because there's no wars right now there wont be again. If you wait until there is a threat to build a military force its far too late.

Herb Powell

Nino Brown wrote: »

Nobody says we have to make enemies, or go to war, people are jumping to irrational conclusions here. All I'm trying to say is, for now, we should join and allow the use of our space, and use the options for military aid.
When we get back on our feet as a country we spend more on defense, maybe 1-2% of GDP, we would create lots of jobs in the process. I don't care if we don't buy a single attack weapon. I'd just like to see us have enough boats to patrol our coastline, and enough firepower to defend our airspace.
Lets say a major war did break out, and we refuse use of our space, what exactly are we supposed to do to enforce that?

As for it being paranoia, I thinks that's just naive, we live in what is historically a war torn continent, and only 70 years ago the Germans planned to invade us, the only thing that saved us btw was Britain and the US, (NATO members). I think its short sighted to assume because there's no wars right now there wont be again. If you wait until there is a threat to build a military force its far too late.

But that would make us a legitmate target-if we allowed NATO to use our space. It would allow us to make enemies and become involved in wars. We do not need that.

The point was also made earlier about other NATO powers using us as a buffer nation. I don't think that's beyond the realms of possibility. At the end of the day everyone wants to save their own ass.

And I'm fairly sure that the cost of providing a viable air/sea defence is beyond our means, or at least beyond reasonable means.

All this cost for what? The slight possibility that war might break out in Europe again?

What is wrong with our current position? Why should we change? I honestly see no great benefit, only a lot to be lost.

Nino Brown

Herb Powell wrote: »

All this cost for what? The slight possibility that war might break out in Europe again?

It's not a slight possibility, I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that war will break out in Europe again. Maybe not in the next 10-20 years, but it absolutely will happen. We go though these periods of war and peace, that has always been the case for literally thousands of years.
We personally have never seen a great war, so our generation is growing complacent, but it will happen again. WW2 wasn't all that long ago, there's still people around today who remember it, it would be a mistake for us to forget it.
Historically our greatest enemy still occupies part of our country, you don't see that as a potential future flash point?

Why would being a NATO member make us enemies? Luxembourg, Iceland, Belgium, Norway and lots more small countries are members, what countries view them as enemies?

Actually right now we are free loading on NATO.

losthorizon

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually right now we are free loading on NATO.

They are actually free loading on us

Nino Brown

losthorizon wrote: »

They are actually free loading on us

I'm intrigued, how exactly?

gallag

Nino Brown wrote: »

Historically our greatest enemy still occupies part of our country, you don't see that as a potential future flash point?

What part? And ireland and the UK are so intertwined now that war between our countries is less likely than any other country in the world. I would imagine if ireland was ever invaded a lot of British men and women would be fighting along side the irish, and vice versa. You have been indoctrinated into believing that because ireland is an island you have the right to rule all of it, imagine England held that view in the 20th century and insisted Scotland and wales were occupying their island even though the majority of people in Scotland and wales wanted to remain Scotland and wales. If the irish people got past this "occupation" nonsense and trying to force an entire country against their will to vanish yous would realise that we are more than neighbours, every British family will have irish members and every irish family has British members. We are family, not your enemy.

losthorizon

Nino Brown wrote: »

I'm intrigued, how exactly?

I think the way our forces have been used down through the years in situations like the Lebanon, Chad, Kosovo etc has helped to stabilise these regions for various reasons one of which was because we were not in NATO. In southern Lebanon being seen as not the stooges of the US or the Israelis was a great help and indeed was one of the reasons the Israeli army and its allies targetted us. Who knows if we werent there things could be just as bad there now which would not be to the USA, Lebanon or indeed any of the Nato nations advantage. Take a bow Ireland.

Remember the Fench, British and Americans sent troops there as well and quickly got out.

I would be against this latest mission to Mali because for me its got a whiff of Nato about it (and not because its with British troops). I think it could give us a bad name for our later missions abroad - it seems to be a very rushed decision.

Nato by the back door. Its what the the main parties want.

Nino Brown

gallag wrote: »

What part? And ireland and the UK are so intertwined now that war between our countries is less likely than any other country in the world.

We are family, not your enemy.

Yes right now we are very close politically, and Ireland depends on Britain economically, but 40 years ago British soldiers were shooting Irish civilians in the streets, I'm not trying to change the topic of this discussion, but that is a fact. Our relationship has since greatly improved, but 40 years from now our relationship could have reversed.

Just because we are intertwined now means nothing down the line. Spain is a sovereign state right now, but could you rule out conflict between the Basques and the Catalans at some point in the next 50 years?
I'm not saying we are going to war with Britain, at least I hope not anyway. In a war they would most likely be our greatest ally, I'm just trying to point ou that relationships between countries can change for the worst just as easily as they can change for the better and we need to be prepared for that, and not assume that we'll remain friendly with everyone.

Manic Moran

Herb Powell wrote: »

But that would make us a legitmate target-if we allowed NATO to use our space. It would allow us to make enemies and become involved in wars. We do not need that.

In 1939 it was proposed that BEF forces work with Belgian forces to create a united line of defense. The Belgian military drew up plans on the assumption of working with the British. However, for fear of antagonizing the Germans, Belgian leadership decided to rely on its position of neutrality to protect it instead. Several years of occupation followed, and the entire defensive line from the North Sea to the Med was turned as British forces were destroyed out of position trying to fill the gap.

The problem with the "let's not make the other guy mad" argument is that it leaves the decision entirely in the hands of someone who may not share your world view. The fallback, what you can control, is military force on your side. If you cannot, or choose not, to afford that military force of.your own, you need allies to provide it for you.

hide2013

the army and air corps are a waste of money. they could not defend us against anyone capable of getting here in the first place. why not abolish them and help cut the deficit? have a giant sale of second hand museum quality weapons.

lockon...

hide2013 wrote: »

the army and air corps are a waste of money. they could not defend us against anyone capable of getting here in the first place. why not abolish them and help cut the deficit? have a giant sale of second hand museum quality weapons.

Lets say we abolish the army and then next week the Gardai decide to go on strike on mass. The military and the military's own justice sysem provides us with security that we will not descend into anarchy.

John Mongo

losthorizon wrote: »

I think the way our forces have been used down through the years in situations like the Lebanon, Chad, Kosovo etc has helped to stabilise these regions for various reasons one of which was because we were not in NATO. In southern Lebanon being seen as not the stooges of the US or the Israelis was a great help and indeed was one of the reasons the Israeli army and its allies targetted us. Who knows if we werent there things could be just as bad there now which would not be to the USA, Lebanon or indeed any of the Nato nations advantage. Take a bow Ireland.

Remember the Fench, British and Americans sent troops there as well and quickly got out.

I would be against this latest mission to Mali because for me its got a whiff of Nato about it (and not because its with British troops). I think it could give us a bad name for our later missions abroad - it seems to be a very rushed decision.

Nato by the back door. Its what the the main parties want.

Quite a number of Irish troops were killed in Lebanon. While you're quite right to mention that Israel and the SLA targeted Irish troops, you completely fail to acknowledge that Hezbollah were quite fond of taking a pop at Irish troops.

Nearly every mission we've been involved in, in the past 30 years, had had a "whiff of NATO" off it.

Just look at our recent mission in Chad... Lads worked quite extensively with French and Dutch troops. Kosovo, lads worked extensively with US and Italian troops. Afghanistan... Well, it speaks for itself.

People hold onto this idea of neutrality and quite frankly, it's utterly ridiculous. We've picked our side and it's the same side as the US, Britain, France and other NATO countries... We just pretend to sit on the fence to avoid having to actually be serious about Defence in this country.

Herb Powell

Nino Brown wrote: »

It's not a slight possibility, I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that war will break out in Europe again. Maybe not in the next 10-20 years, but it absolutely will happen. We go though these periods of war and peace, that has always been the case for literally thousands of years.
We personally have never seen a great war, so our generation is growing complacent, but it will happen again. WW2 wasn't all that long ago, there's still people around today who remember it, it would be a mistake for us to forget it.
Historically our greatest enemy still occupies part of our country, you don't see that as a potential future flash point?

Why would being a NATO member make us enemies? Luxembourg, Iceland, Belgium, Norway and lots more small countries are members, what countries view them as enemies?

Yes, but you cannot say that war today not is an entirely different game to 100 or 200 years ago. Countries within Europe, at least Western Europe, have an awful lot to lose by attacking each other. I am not forgetting WWII in the slightest, I just think the current situation does not warrant us joining NATO.

Manic Moran wrote: »

In 1939 it was proposed that BEF forces work with Belgian forces to create a united line of defense. The Belgian military drew up plans on the assumption of working with the British. However, for fear of antagonizing the Germans, Belgian leadership decided to rely on its position of neutrality to protect it instead. Several years of occupation followed, and the entire defensive line from the North Sea to the Med was turned as British forces were destroyed out of position trying to fill the gap.

The problem with the "let's not make the other guy mad" argument is that it leaves the decision entirely in the hands of someone who may not share your world view. The fallback, what you can control, is military force on your side. If you cannot, or choose not, to afford that military force of.your own, you need allies to provide it for you.

Yes, Belgium is geographically right between the two. Ireland is not in such a position. I'm fairly sure the days of ground invasions on the scale of WWII are pretty much gone as well.

ArseLtd

lockon... wrote: »

Lets say we abolish the army and then next week the Gardai decide to go on strike on mass. The military and the military's own justice sysem provides us with security that we will not descend into anarchy.

Descend into anarchy? At this stage we'd be much better off to our own devices and not have the state and their best buddies the ECB sponging off us with their imaginary money lent at not so imaginary interest.

Dyr

gallag wrote: »

We are family, not your enemy.

We want a divorce on the grounds that yizzer abusive and paranoid.

And were carrying on with loads of other countries the whole time.

kumate_champ07

John Mongo wrote: »

Quite a number of Irish troops were killed in Lebanon. While you're quite right to mention that Israel and the SLA targeted Irish troops, you completely fail to acknowledge that Hezbollah were quite fond of taking a pop at Irish troops.

Nearly every mission we've been involved in, in the past 30 years, had had a "whiff of NATO" off it.

Just look at our recent mission in Chad... Lads worked quite extensively with French and Dutch troops. Kosovo, lads worked extensively with US and Italian troops. Afghanistan... Well, it speaks for itself.

People hold onto this idea of neutrality and quite frankly, it's utterly ridiculous. We've picked our side and it's the same side as the US, Britain, France and other NATO countries... We just pretend to sit on the fence to avoid having to actually be serious about Defence in this country.

because we dont need to defend ourselves from attack. if anyone wants to go play soldier their welcome to go overseas for a job.

we needed a navy to defend our fishing waters

Nino Brown

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

because we dont need to defend ourselves from attack. if anyone wants to go play soldier their welcome to go overseas for a job.

we needed a navy to defend our fishing waters

We were invaded before, albeit a long long time ago. We were close to being invaded 70 years ago, but you're 100% sure we'll never be attacked again? What's your reasoning? That we're not being attacked now?, can you really be that short sighted?
You realize that very country that was ever attacked, wasn't being attacked before they were attacked right?

WakeUp

gallag wrote: »

What part? And ireland and the UK are so intertwined now that war between our countries is less likely than any other country in the world. I would imagine if ireland was ever invaded a lot of British men and women would be fighting along side the irish, and vice versa. You have been indoctrinated into believing that because ireland is an island you have the right to rule all of it, imagine England held that view in the 20th century and insisted Scotland and wales were occupying their island even though the majority of people in Scotland and wales wanted to remain Scotland and wales. If the irish people got past this "occupation" nonsense and trying to force an entire country against their will to vanish yous would realise that we are more than neighbours, every British family will have irish members and every irish family has British members. We are family, not your enemy.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying here but the part Ive bolded is a generalisation in the extreme "the Irish people" are not trying to force you to vanish is a but much really. Thats like me saying the entire northern Ulster Scots population hates my people when infact I know that isnt the case just a certain amount of die hards which you will find on "both" sides. Your lot have some getting over to do yourselves.

Right can someone here explain to me the benefits of joining NATO?? We have a vast ocean then the States to our west and a friendly NATO member Britain to our east. We also have NATO coverage on the island already as Northern Ireland falls under British juristiction so whats the point?? If push came to shove and somebody did try invade us or whatever theres no way the US or Britain would let that happen. Not because they love us plucky Irish or anything like that but for their own geo strategic interests it couldnt be allowed happen. Any nation that might be hostile toward us would in all likelyhood be hostile to our friends Britain and the US and Britain wouldnt tolerate such an entity on their doorstep and the US wouldnt tolerate that and access to the Western Atlantic that occupation of Ireland would in turn open up. So whats the point?? would be nice to hear some tangible benefits that come our way should we join up. Realpolitik dictates that foreign policy is about self interest. Anyone care to outline them for me...