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

Nino Brown

BTW don't get me wrong, I'm not saying going to war for resources is the moral thing to do. My point is just that anti war people talk the talk, but take away their phones, cars, and computers, and cheap food which are all made from cheap oil and watch them scream the house down.
You know, that type of people who fly around the world, burning huge amounts of oil to protest at summits about wars for oil.

squod

It's one of those 'well I wouldn't start from here' scenarios. Its bad timing right now. O'Bamas drone wars, Chinas 'hearts and minds' resource war and Isreal/CIAs 'Muslim Brotherhood' offensive make the world a shakey place.

Blokes in suits armed with eager troops don't make the world a safer place.
I say we sit on our hands for the next few years.

aujopimur

Will NATO be looking for mobile volunteers.
I'm ready.

Nino Brown

squod wrote: »

Blokes in suits armed with eager troops don't make the world a safer place.

We weren't saying that when the only thing between us and the Nazis was the British army. That was only 70 ish years ago, not a huge amount of time in historical terms. Yeah things are calm now, but look how much has changed in the last 70 years, its naive to think it cant change back in another 70.

Chuck Stone

Nino Brown wrote: »

I don't see it as a parade of horribles, you see what happens to the price of oil at the mere mention of a war in the middle east, what do you think would happen if all out war were to occur?

You're making the mistake of presuming that war is the natural state of the Middle East. You've drawn this conclusion from the recent history of conflict there. Q. Who's been the boss in the region during this recent history? A. The US/West.

All this is evidence of is that the US/West has done little to stabilise the region, indeed, some might suggest that instability is the achievement and there is much evidence for this (playing Iran and Iraq off each other).

The Saudis are under US protection at very high cost to them, so they obviously feel that a war would be likely. Likewise with Kuwait,

The Saudis have a considerable military. Saudi and US interests are served by the status quo (free flowing oil for the US and weapons sales to the M.E. - Saudis keep their nasty regime)

As for Iraq being a menace - Saddam was a US stooge. He was provided with support and cover to attack the Iranians (who, btw, had a democratically elected government overthrown by the US/UK for trying to take control of its own resources).

Who are the bad guys again?

Nino Brown

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Who are the bad guys again?

Some good points there! I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but I guess we'll never know who's right.
I'm not getting into the good guy bad guy debate I didn't say we're the good guys. All I'm saying is if people were really anti war in that region they should avoid oil products but they don't they consume huge quantities of oil directly and indirectly everyday.
They're like this anti capitalism protesters you see on TV, wearing their NIKE hoodies, organizing protests through FACEBOOK on their APPLE phones, thinking they're sticking it to the corporations.
I personally would like to see all western troops out of the middle east, but I like my technology, cheap food and flying around the world so I'm not in the anti war crowd.
Western culture has become all talk, we say we're against child labour but wear the clothes, we're against poor working conditions but buy the iphones, and against wars but we burn the oil.
Its easy to be anti anything on the internet or when we're talking to people to appease your conscience, but those people are all just hypocrite in my opinion, that's all I was saying.

Chuck Stone

Nino Brown wrote: »

All I'm saying is if people were really anti war in that region they should avoid oil products but they don't they consume huge quantities of oil directly and indirectly everyday.

You're making the assumption that western involvement in the M.E. has ensured cheap and plentiful oil. There is no evidence that this view is the truth. Also, even if it could be proved, it completely ignores the blood and treasure that has been lost in this effort.

Consider too if all the energy, time and human capital that was put into the recent wars in the M.E. had been put into providing fresh water, a nutritious meal and a few hours of education per day to every child in the developing world. Surely that would lead to more stability in the world if that's what NATO really wanted?

For US Army Col. Larry Wilkerson (Former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, Visiting professor at the College of William & Mary, teaching courses on U.S. national security) estimates that in the year 2000 there was in the region of 300 to 500 people in the world with the desire and support/capacity to inflict damage on the US/West; recently Wilkerson estimates that there are now 50,000.

They're like this anti capitalism protesters you see on TV, wearing their NIKE hoodies, organizing protests through FACEBOOK on their APPLE phones, thinking they're sticking it to the corporations. Western culture has become all talk, we say we're against child labour but wear the clothes, we're against poor working conditions but buy the iphones, and against wars but we burn the oil. Its easy to be anti anything on the internet or when we're talking to people to appease your conscience, but those people are all just hypocrite in my opinion, that's all I was saying.

Different argument but that's a bit like saying 'paper and ink were developed within the system but you are a hypocrite for using them to challenge the system' That's not really an argument.

I personally would like to see all western troops out of the middle east, but I like my technology, cheap food and flying around the world so I'm not in the anti war crowd.

I like my modernity too - being a sceptic and enjoying the products of the system are not mutually exclusive. I wouldn't say I'm entirely anti-war/conflict btw - sometimes you have to fight.

squod

Nino Brown wrote: »

Yeah things are calm now, but look how much has changed in the last 70 years, its naive to think it cant change back in another 70.

Things aren't calm now. That's my point. In previous wars the enemy wore a uniform and things were more straight forward.

Capt'n Midnight

TheUsual wrote: »

We are not neutral, vast numbers of USA troops went to Afghanistan and Iraq via Shannon Airport as well as unknown weapons and we have no record of what went through.
However we are independent in terms of deciding who we side with and that is where we will stay, I can't see even a self-loathing Irishman as Enda Kenny going for this.

Can you please comment on how Shannon was the main stop for the Russians heading across the Atlantic to Cuba / South America during the cold war ?

Or you could go ranting instead of realising we'll take money off most.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

Diving in sneers first there fred. What a shock.

It's not a sneer, it is reality. Ireland is not neutral. As has been pointed out, the Irish military has been involved in several joint missions. It also contributes to the European defense force.

Additionaly, when a commercial airliner asks for assistance in Irish air space, it is the RAF that enters Irish airspace and provides an escort.

The neutrality myth is just an excuse for underfunding the military.

KyussBishop

NATO's principle members, particularly the US and UK, are some of the most warmongering imperialist nations on the planet; it is moral and intellectual cowardice to ride in as a pup alongside them, rather than take the harder option of opposing war, and opposing the autocratic governments NATO supports (and in the case of some members, puts in themselves) in the middle east, and elsewhere in the world.

Just ready any book from John Pilger, or see Oliver Stones (very good) recent documentary 'The Untold History of the United States', to see that the US in particular, is easily the most warmongering peace-destabilizing nation of the last 60 years.


The arguments in favour of subjugating other nations, so we can enjoy products developed from their labour and resources, and that it's "for their own good", is an incredibly greedy/imperialist attitude, and is extreme intellectual cowardice; it basically amounts to supporting democracy for us, but none for those whose resources we can pilfer.

Drakares

squod wrote: »

NATO should join Tayto.

I would like this 10 times if I could. Best post ever.

Nino Brown

KyussBishop wrote: »

The arguments in favour of subjugating other nations, so we can enjoy products developed from their labour and resources, and that it's "for their own good", is an incredibly greedy/imperialist attitude, and is extreme intellectual cowardice; it basically amounts to supporting democracy for us, but none for those whose resources we can pilfer.

I agree that the US is the most war mongering nation, in fact they have to be at this stage because their economy is so dependent on it.

As for your above quote, please take a look around you right now, everything around you is either made from oil, run on oil, or transported to you by oil. Now what have you done to stop wars for oil? Again I'm not arguing the right or wrong of it. I just think it's intellectual cowardice to not admit that we do more to cause these problems in the world than we do to stop them.
If you were really against poor working conditions you wouldn't buy goods from China, but I bet you do. If you were really against wars for oil you'd buy organic food from local farmers, and cycle everywhere, but how many people do that?
I don't mean you specifically, I mean in western culture people say one thing and do another.

BTW anybody interested in seeing how totally screwed we are when the oil runs out, watch "Collapse" on netflix, it's very good,

Riddle101

I say join. We're not neutral and are for the most part, under the side of NATO. Apart from that Ireland has done well in the international scale with peace keeping and peace enforcement roles. Joining NATO might give us a bigger role, and maybe some more respect.

KyussBishop

Nino Brown wrote: »

I agree that the US is the most war mongering nation, in fact they have to be at this stage because their economy is so dependent on it.

As for your above quote, please take a look around you right now, everything around you is either made from oil, run on oil, or transported to you by oil. Now what have you done to stop wars for oil? Again I'm not arguing the right or wrong of it. I just think it's intellectual cowardice to not admit that we do more to cause these problems in the world than we do to stop them.
If you were really against poor working conditions you wouldn't buy goods from China, but I bet you do. If you were really against wars for oil you'd buy organic food from local farmers, and cycle everywhere, but how many people do that?
I don't mean you specifically, I mean in western culture people say one thing and do another.

BTW anybody interested in seeing how totally screwed we are when the oil runs out, watch "Collapse" on netflix, it's very good,

So you're an apologist for US imperialism, for the US imposing and supporting undemocratic rule in other countries for their own benefit, and you want us to join with them through NATO (joining an organization which participates in US imperialism), and your only argument for it, is that it would be hypocrisy to oppose that, because we are already benefiting from US imperialism?

You don't see any logical faults within that line of argument at all? That maybe, instead of compounding the harm imposed on other nations, it might be better to stop harming other nations? (and to avoid participating in it further, starting the long process of removing our dependence on oil if need be?)


Your position makes no logical sense; you point out what you perceive as hypocrisy, and your solution to that isn't to acknowledge and resolve the hypocrisy through change, but to discard the underlying principles (such as avoiding war, avoiding imposition/support of autocratic governments on other nations, avoiding stealing other nations resources), so we keep all the benefits of things as they are, at the expense of others.

marty1921

You do realize that as a member of NATO Irish soldiers would be required to fight and die and suffer horrific injuries such as multiple amputations, Burns, post traumatic stress disorder, psychological and emotional issues. And you also understand that you the citizens of Ireland will have to pay for everything. Including dealing with psychologically disturbed young soldiers who will be full of anger from their experiences of war. As the newest member of NATO you will also have to show your boss NATO that you have courage. You will have to go to the front lines and fight. I know the reality of NATO I am a Irish-American registered nurse who works at the NATO hospital in Germany taking care of returning troops from various military campaigns. You also understand that by joining NATO you will isolate yourselves from many other countries in the world and become a target of fundamental Islamic organizations.Please be very careful about making this decision as the cost to you will be horrific. Why is being a peaceful neutral country not acceptable?.
And for those of you who really think it's a good idea I hope I can meet you in the hospital when you come back from doing your duty and we can discuss this in more detail.

ejmaztec

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Sorry but I'm not really interested in your parade of horribles.

Anyway, if the price of oil increases alternatives become more attractive. We'd be well placed to take advantage of wind and wave.

Yep, we'd all be going down the N7 on our land yachts and waving to each other.:P

Capt'n Midnight

ejmaztec wrote: »

Yep, we'd all be going down the N7 on our land yachts and waving to each other.:P

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/14/electric_road/

From July, two electric buses will travel back and forth along the 24km road from Gumi station, but they won't need to recharge as induction loops along the route will top up the battery as they roll.

The technology is coming from the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology and is little more than an extensive field trial. It should see electric buses able to drive around without relying on huge batteries or overhead wires, and while installation is expensive the technology could make electric cars viable too.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

who the fug

The show me the money post.

How would the republic benefit by joining NATO?

ejmaztec

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/14/electric_road/

Land yachts it is then.:(

FTA69

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

We are a highly trained Defence Forces and most soldiers have not seen active combat since in or around 1999. A little bit of a shambles in my opinion, I think soldiers in Ireland should be serving in many countries. But the suits keep taking that from them

"The Irish Move To The Sound Of Guns Like Salmon To The Sea" Rudyard Kipling

Why is it their God-given right to go and shoot people or something? The fact young Irish people aren't fighting and dying is a good thing surely? There is a disturbing amount of glorification of war on this thread. Half of it seems to be jingoistic nonsense about Ireland being one of the big boys, something which it can never be. Secondly, there is absolutely no reason why the Irish people should be supportive of NATO which is an imperialistic tool of the USA. We already have enough gobsh*tes off joining the British Army, maybe those so eager to engage in warmongering can follow that route and leave the rest of the country out of it.

gallag

FTA69 wrote: »

Why is it their God-given right to go and shoot people or something? The fact young Irish people aren't fighting and dying is a good thing surely? There is a disturbing amount of glorification of war on this thread. Half of it seems to be jingoistic nonsense about Ireland being one of the big boys, something which it can never be. Secondly, there is absolutely no reason why the Irish people should be supportive of NATO which is an imperialistic tool of the USA. We already have enough gobsh*tes off joining the British Army, maybe those so eager to engage in warmongering can follow that route and leave the rest of the country out of it.

Must be nice living in safty and washing your hands from the responsibility. People say how happy they are that ireland remain neutral, what you have is a security provided by those you shout down, what would have happend if the allies lost ww2? Would you still be happy about being neutral?

FTA69

gallag wrote: »

Must be nice living in safty and washing your hands from the responsibility. People say how happy they are that ireland remain neutral, what you have is a security provided by those you shout down, what would have happend if the allies lost ww2? Would you still be happy about being neutral?

Sure it was the Soviets who were the most decisive in winning WW2, perhaps we should have joined the Warsaw Pact in gratitude? NATO was set up as a US-dominated organisation with a view to securing it's influence and counterbalance the USSR. That's all. Today, the USSR is gone and it's there to ensure the US has a strategic foothold across the Atlantic in case of China or a resurgent Russia. It has bugger all to do with altruistic notions of justice or protecting democracy or anything else.

It was the "defense of small nations" codology that led to millions of working class young men (thousands of them Irish) being slaughtered in Europe in support of imperialistic states run by the upper-classes. While things aren't as clear cut as that today the general principle remains; NATO and many of its members are up to their arse in unjust wars for resources and whatever else. The thought of Irish people willingly wanting to engage in that and put its young people at risk for US ambition is disturbing to say the least.

Celly Smunt

We'll probably be waiting a while on a response.I heard the army took his child to disneyland last week.

Fratton Fred

marty1921 wrote: »

You do realize that as a member of NATO Irish soldiers would be required to fight and die and suffer horrific injuries such as multiple amputations, Burns, post traumatic stress disorder, psychological and emotional issues. And you also understand that you the citizens of Ireland will have to pay for everything. Including dealing with psychologically disturbed young soldiers who will be full of anger from their experiences of war. As the newest member of NATO you will also have to show your boss NATO that you have courage. You will have to go to the front lines and fight. I know the reality of NATO I am a Irish-American registered nurse who works at the NATO hospital in Germany taking care of returning troops from various military campaigns. You also understand that by joining NATO you will isolate yourselves from many other countries in the world and become a target of fundamental Islamic organizations.Please be very careful about making this decision as the cost to you will be horrific. Why is being a peaceful neutral country not acceptable?.
And for those of you who really think it's a good idea I hope I can meet you in the hospital when you come back from doing your duty and we can discuss this in more detail.

Ireland currently isn't in NATO, but all of those things still apply to Amy UN mission.

Riddle101

marty1921 wrote: »

You do realize that as a member of NATO Irish soldiers would be required to fight and die and suffer horrific injuries such as multiple amputations, Burns, post traumatic stress disorder, psychological and emotional issues.

Those risks come with the territory of what a solider is expected of. Besides, Ireland has gone to warzones and conflict areas in the past. All those risks were the same on those places too.

And you also understand that you the citizens of Ireland will have to pay for everything. Including dealing with psychologically disturbed young soldiers who will be full of anger from their experiences of war. As the newest member of NATO you will also have to show your boss NATO that you have courage. You will have to go to the front lines and fight.

As the newest member of NATO we'd most likely be doing the same thing we are now with the UN.

I know the reality of NATO I am a Irish-American registered nurse who works at the NATO hospital in Germany taking care of returning troops from various military campaigns.

What troops, and what campaigns?

You also understand that by joining NATO you will isolate yourselves from many other countries in the world and become a target of fundamental Islamic organizations.

You're scare mongering now. Worrying about something that almost certainly won't happen, and we wouldn't be isolated. As for the fundamental Islamic organisations. I'd be more worried about Dissident Republicans then those guys, after all they're right over here.

Why is being a peaceful neutral country not acceptable?.

We're not neutral. Also we've worked with NATO in the past, as well as other countries who were involved in wars and conflicts.

Larbre34

Add a Poll OP. Should Ireland become a full member of NATO in the short term? Yes, no, don't know or don't care.

Personally I think we should join and should have a long time ago. Ireland has always taken an a lá carte approach to being a member of the international community. Leaving aside the recent relationship with the EU (which although fraught was a problem of our own making), Ireland has benefited far more financially and otherwise than it has sacrificed from close cooperation and cohesion with our neighbours. Any loss of sovereignty is down to our own incompetence.

While we have taken money and free trade and and labour benefits since 1972, we have failed to engage in the other side of the coin, i.e., offering to support and defend partners who are effectively our allies.

Neutrality has been long waved around as a fat red herring to get us out of awkward diplomatic situations, however back as far as 'The Emergency' is has been a nonsense and an embarrassment. We are aligned with Europe and the West and to my mind we should be either all in or all out. Defence could provide some great employment to this country. If we had a couple of NATO sea and air bases along our strategically important west coast it could provide a major economic boost to deprived and declining areas, as well as opportunities for training and employment in highly technical disciplines, such as comms, defence IT, armaments, aircraft and ship building.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

FTA69

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

No its their god given right to Soldier.

Eh, there's no obligation on the state to provide combat opportunities for anyone. War is a bad thing. Killing is a bad thing. Shooting other human beings with a rifle is a bad thing. Wanting to do these things because you're "bored" is worse again. The reality of "solidering" entails the above, and I'd rather if the Irish state wasn't obliged to commit young people to inflicting or enduring the above whenever the Americans decide it's conveniant to them to invade a place over geopolitics or in order to secure oil.

As for Men/Women joining the British Army, you have no idea what you are talking about. In 2010, 5000 Applications were put in for The Cadet School in the DF, considering your so well up on Military Information can you tell me how many places there were? Ill make it easy for you, more than 20 and less than 22.

I know that there are scores of young Irish people joining an army that has in the very recent past murdered Irish people in cold blood and colluded with Loyalists in the murder of many more. The fact young people are now enlisting in regiments that particpated in the occupation of their own country is pretty disgraceful in my eyes. The fact they're doing it because of a misguided sense of adventure (i.e. travelling across the world to kill poor people in a conflict they know little about) is sadder again.