General Election 2016 - debate about defence policy of competing parties

Morpheus

not one partys manifesto includes anything much on foreign affairs or defence, except SF's sensationalist crap about positive neutrality - removal from BG's and more or less stepping back from the EU. Although if they get in and remove the SCC there could be plenty of work for the DF trying to handle the gangs. They will leave with us a justice system like that of a failed latin american country.

Ren2k7

Morpheus wrote: »

not one partys manifesto includes anything much on foreign affairs or defence, except SF's sensationalist crap about positive neutrality - removal from BG's and more or less stepping back from the EU. Although if they get in and remove the SCC there could be plenty of work for the DF trying to handle the gangs. They will leave with us a justice system like that of a failed latin american country.

The fact that SF talks about strengthening our neutrality pretty much confirms they actually care about defence of the nation unlike the other parties. You can be sure a SF led govt would not tolerate the abomination that is the RAF defending Irish skies.

And since you brought up the SCC yes it should be abolished. Apart from NI I can't think of a single western democracy that maintains Diplock courts, even the US uses jury trials (Gitmo military tribunals not withstanding which the current POTUS regards as a national disgrace). Funnily enough the US doesn't need to use its armed forces to deal with gangsters. Trial by jury is a cornerstone of western civilisation. You want to know what's more effective against criminal gangs and terrorist groups? Bolster our police, military (dragging this thread back in topic), coast guard, customs and other parts of the national security establishment.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The fact that SF talks about strengthening our neutrality pretty much confirms they actually care about defence of the nation unlike the other parties. You can be sure a SF led govt would not tolerate the abomination that is the RAF defending Irish skies.

And since you brought up the SCC yes it should be abolished. Apart from NI I can't think of a single western democracy that maintains Diplock courts, even the US uses jury trials (Gitmo military tribunals not withstanding which the current POTUS regards as a national disgrace). Funnily enough the US doesn't need to use its armed forces to deal with gangsters. Trial by jury is a cornerstone of western civilisation. You want to know what's more effective against criminal gangs and terrorist groups? Bolster our police, military (dragging this thread back in topic), coast guard, customs and other parts of the national security establishment.

I didn't know the IRA wanted to take up flying? And since SF don't have an issue with the IRA's Kangroo courts (or punishment bettings) then they can feck off about lecturing the rest of us about the rule of law.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

I didn't know the IRA wanted to take up flying? And since SF don't have an issue with the IRA's Kangroo courts (or punishment bettings) then they can feck off about lecturing the rest of us about the rule of law.

If you want to discuss politicial party's links to paramilitary organisations maybe we should ask about Labour's murky connection to the Officials, FF's past affiliation with the Old IRA and FG's links to a fascist paramilitary organisation.

A bit of consistency and less hypocrisy would be nice from the holier than thou troika and their supporters. This thread is about Ireland's terrible defence needs remember, a situation put into place by the three main parties since independence. So the next time some one claims SF would decimate the DF just ask yourself can things really get any worse for Ireland's military as it is? At least SF are talking about the DF, unlike FFGLAB who'd probably outsource our military needs to the Brits if given half the chance.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

A bit of consistency and less hypocrisy would be nice from the holier than thou troika and their supporters. This thread is about Ireland's terrible defence needs remember, a situation put into place by the three main parties since independence. So the next time some one claims SF would decimate the DF just ask yourself can things really get any worse for Ireland's military as it is? At least SF are talking about the DF, unlike FFGLAB who'd probably outsource our military needs to the Brits if given half the chance.

Because without a shadow of doubt, I think SF's idea of "neutrality" is what the average person on the street thinks it is, ie we do nothing at all, spend nothing at all and just do whatever Russia and China approves of from the UN.

Not what countries like Sweden mean when they talk about "Neutrality" as in having the capability to enforce their will within their territory. Point out to me where in their figures are they suggesting spending enough to buy a fast jet capability, particularly as they are on record in the Daíl as opposing the "militarisation" of the PC-9's back when they were bought. If they were the advocates you imagine, they should have instead have been complaining about not buy Fast Jets.

BoJack Horseman

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Apart from NI I can't think of a single western democracy

GB, Germany, Norway.... to name 3 off the top of my head.... (remember the Anders Breivik trial)
In Sweden, juries are rare... Tbh, they are in most places. ... In France there is only a jury if the charge has a tariff greater than 15 years.

There are many others too.... If I was willing to search.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

Because without a shadow of doubt, I think SF's idea of "neutrality" is what the average person on the street thinks it is, ie we do nothing at all, spend nothing at all and just do whatever Russia and China approves of from the UN.

Since SF have never been in govt so you have no way of knowing what a SF govt will entail. Like I said they couldn't be any worse than the fools who've governed Ireland since 1922.

sparky42 wrote: »

Not what countries like Sweden mean when they talk about "Neutrality" as in having the capability to enforce their will within their territory. Point out to me where in their figures are they suggesting spending enough to buy a fast jet capability, particularly as they are on record in the Daíl as opposing the "militarisation" of the PC-9's back when they were bought. If they were the advocates you imagine, they should have instead have been complaining about not buy Fast Jets.

Again, how do you know what SF means when it talks about "positive neutrality"? Let's just remind ourselves that SF opposed barrack closures by both FF and FGLAB. We've talked about this before "Sparky" and you continually fail to address the key point, that FFGLAB have NEVER maintained a decent military in this country. So how can SF "wreck the DF" when there's nothing to wreck? Jesus! :rolleyes:

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

GB, Germany, Norway.... to name 3 off the top of my head.... (remember the Anders Breivik trial)
In Sweden, juries are rare... Tbh, they are in most places. ... In France there is only a jury if the charge has a tariff greater than 15 years.

There are many others too.... If I was willing to search.

Civil law countries have lay judges on the bench to assist judges, five such lay judges assisting in reaching a verdict for the Brevik trial.

We're not a civil law country BTW so your comparison is moot. The ONLY reason given by FFGLAB (they of Section 31 fame) for the retention of the SCC is because of possible jury tampering. Is this really such a major issue? The Americans have no problems providing jury protection in the trial of mafia bosses, drug kingpins and mass murderers, do they? Or are AGS and the DF now not up to defending 12 jurors for trials? As usual daft arguments being made by the right.

donvito99

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Funnily enough the US doesn't need to use its armed forces to deal with gangsters.

Since when does Ireland use armed forces to deal with gangsters? The SCC is a civilian criminal court. The military courts you're thinking of are the ones championed by, oh... The IRA.

You want to know what's more effective against criminal gangs and terrorist groups? Bolster our police, military (dragging this thread back in topic), coast guard, customs and other parts of the national security establishment.

True, but our criminal system demands outstanding evidence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gangs have proved themselves as capable as the IRA at intimidating and silencing those who might provide the evidence required by the courts' standards. A man involved in a previous prosecution w/ Slab was beaten to death AFAIK.

And yeah, back on topic, the AC could firstly demonstrate to the rest of the DF that it's prepared to deploy overseas/take on a wider spectrum of roles with existing equipment before it accepts an additional ~100m per annum. The Army/NS provides the best return on investment at present.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Again, how do you know what SF means when it talks about "positive neutrality"? Let's just remind ourselves that SF opposed barrack closures by both FF and FGLAB. We've talked about this before "Sparky" and you continually fail to address the key point, that FFGLAB have NEVER maintained a decent military in this country. So how can SF "wreck the DF" when there's nothing to wreck? Jesus! :rolleyes:

Of course they opposed closures, they are a party of opposition, it's very their nature (just look at them agreeing the latest Stormont deal and then walking away from it to avoid political issues in Dublin). That was nothing more than parish pump politics and trying to dress it up as being interested in the DF is just divorced from reality. It was to try and buy votes, just the same as the "Hospital in every village with 24 hour A&E" attitude from other politicians.

Honestly in terms of Barracks, given the infrastructure of the nation now, I'd prefer the investment go into a handful of bases to build up training capability/housing for personnel/families, and concentrate the Forces there rather than keep using the Garrison bases and layouts from the British deployments, and build up the few main barracks rather than duplicating low level investment in multiple areas.

And yeah if you want to talk about avoiding topics, you still haven't explained how their voting on the PC-9 acquisition, where they were against the spending of money in "weaponising" them with the gun pods and rocket pods (a handful of millions) tracks with support of the DF and willingness to spend on it.

Where within SF's manifesto's is there stated plans for extra DF expenditure?

Ren2k7

donvito99 wrote: »

Since when does Ireland use armed forces to deal with gangsters? The SCC is a civilian criminal court. The military courts you're thinking of are the ones championed by, oh... The IRA.

Putting quite a lot of words in my mouth there, I never mentioned military courts, nor am I "constructing" any such courts so you can tear down that strawman now. I also never said Ireland uses it Defence Forces to tackle gangsters, I was merely pointing out the absurdity in "Morpheus's" assertion that the DF will have "plenty of work" in "trying to handle the gangs". The DF already plays an ancillary role in domestic criminal matters but mainly in support of the Gardai like bomb disposal. AGS deals with criminals, not the DF and any potential upswing in gang related criminality will have little bearing on the work of the DF in their duties.

donvito99 wrote: »

True, but our criminal system demands outstanding evidence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given some of the miscarriages of justice in Ireland I should think so!

donvito99 wrote: »

Gangs have proved themselves as capable as the IRA at intimidating and silencing those who might provide the evidence required by the courts' standards. A man involved in a previous prosecution w/ Slab was beaten to death AFAIK.

Witness intimidation isn't exclusive to Ireland you know? When jurors were being threatened in US mob trials the US Congress never thought to itself to suspend jury trials and introduce Diplock Courts. Neither did the Brits......apart from in NI of course.

donvito99 wrote: »

And yeah, back on topic, the AC could firstly demonstrate to the rest of the DF that it's prepared to deploy overseas/take on a wider spectrum of roles with existing equipment before it accepts an additional ~100m per annum. The Army/NS provides the best return on investment at present.

Yeah, let's get back on topic. What do you mean "prepared to deploy"? The Air Corps do what they're capable of, no more, no less. Give them the means to deploy overseas in a rapid reaction capacity or peacekeeping role and they'll perform such a task without question. As will the other two branches of the DF.

BoJack Horseman

Ren2k7 wrote: »

We're not a civil law country BTW so your comparison is moot..

You said 'western democracy'...

I gave you several of the many that are similar to us.

something isn't moot just cos you dislike it.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

Of course they opposed closures, they are a party of opposition, it's very their nature (just look at them agreeing the latest Stormont deal and then walking away from it to avoid political issues in Dublin). That was nothing more than parish pump politics and trying to dress it up as being interested in the DF is just divorced from reality. It was to try and buy votes, just the same as the "Hospital in every village with 24 hour A&E" attitude from other politicians.

Everything there is just your opinion and subjective. The key facts remain, our DF have been gutted by YOUR party FG, with some help from FF and Labour. You can insist Ireland's forces would be destroyed by SF but....well....there's NO evidence to support such a suggestion.

sparky42 wrote: »

Honestly in terms of Barracks, given the infrastructure of the nation now, I'd prefer the investment go into a handful of bases to build up training capability/housing for personnel/families, and concentrate the Forces there rather than keep using the Garrison bases and layouts from the British deployments, and build up the few main barracks rather than duplicating low level investment in multiple areas.

FG closed Cavan barracks, the ONLY custom built base for the army since independence, and most modern to boot. They've done the very OPPOSITE of what you are endorsing.

sparky42 wrote: »

And yeah if you want to talk about avoiding topics, you still haven't explained how their voting on the PC-9 acquisition, where they were against the spending of money in "weaponising" them with the gun pods and rocket pods (a handful of millions) tracks with support of the DF and willingness to spend on it.

I'm not a "Shinner" but maybe it had something to do with the PC-9's being a monstrous waste of money.

sparky42 wrote: »

Where within SF's manifesto's is there stated plans for extra DF expenditure?

Where within FFGLAB's manifesto are there commitments to increased DF spending? Aye, but for some reason SF are the boogyman by some here. Catch yerselves on FFS!

sparky42

Let's remind ourselves of SF's White Paper submissions:

require:
•Neutrality to be enshrined in the Irish Constitution and codified in domestic
legislation;
•Withdrawal from the EU military forces and NATO's Partnership for Peace;
•Irish troops to train and serve abroad only under the auspices and leadership of the United Nations, and only with prior Dáil approval;
•No use of Irish airports, airspace, seaports, or territorial waters for preparation for war or other armed conflict by foreign powers;
•An end to Irish involvement in the arms trade and profit from war;
•Clear recognition and legal protection through a binding Protocol of Irish
neutrality in any new EU Treaty;
•Active promotion of demilitarisation of the EU;
•Formation of alliances with other progressive, neutral states to promote a
Human Security approach to international relations;
•Active promotion of UN primacy, UN reform and capacity
-
building to create a revitalised UN which is capable of fulfilling the promise of the Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and of upholding international law

Yeah the building up of an effective DF must be tied into the "Demilitarised EU" part I guess...

Ren2k7

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

You said 'western democracy'...

I gave you several of the many that are similar to us.

something isn't moot just cos you dislike it.

And I pointed out that A)they're civil law countries and B)employ lay judges which correspond largely to juries in common law countries. Try as you might but there's few equivalents to Ireland's juryless SCC. And why are you arguing this on this thread anyway? Morpheus went into a anti-Shinner rage when I pointed out that all four parties don't care for the DF to which he responded with some stuff about the SCC. Again irrelevant here.

I really look forward to the day when SF take power in Ireland.

BoJack Horseman

Some I wouldn't have any beef over, some is silly & some is impossible.....

It actually reminds me of Ken Livingstone's defence review goals in the UK.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

Let's remind ourselves of SF's White Paper submissions:


Yeah the building up of an effective DF must be tied into the "Demilitarised EU" part I guess...

Where in that does it state SF will downsize the DF? Hmm? I'll remind you that Cameron wants to get Britain out of the EU. Ergo, by your own logic Britain must obviously be about to disarm and abolish its military. The size and strength of national armies isn't tied to any attempts at developing an EU military.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Where in that does it state SF will downsize the DF? Hmm?

Where does it say SF will do JACK **** to the DF Hmm? Calling for a demilitarisation of EU (already vastly demilitraised to the point of being toothless) doesn't fit with your faith of the wonderland waiting for the DF if only SF were in charge. In fact it goes directly against such a policy, you don't argue for demilitarisation while spending on militraisation at the same time.

Ren2k7

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Some I wouldn't have any beef over, some is silly & some is impossible.....

It actually reminds me of Ken Livingstone's defence review goals in the UK.

Everything in "Sparkys" list of SF submissions would be the national defence policies of the Swiss state it should be remembered (apart from UN peacekeeping of course). And look at the size of their armed forces.

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Some I wouldn't have any beef over, some is silly & some is impossible.....

It actually reminds me of Ken Livingstone's defence review goals in the UK.

The one that got laughed out of the briefing room this week by the Labour Backbenchers, seems they don't share their Shadow Defence Secretaries views.

donvito99

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Everything there is just your opinion and subjective. The key facts remain, our DF have been gutted by YOUR party FG, with some help from FF and Labour. You can insist Ireland's forces would be destroyed by SF but....well....there's NO evidence to support such a suggestion.

Gutted? Brendan McFarlane, though to have led the group of IRA men who shot dead Gda Gary Sheehan and Private Patrick Kelly, has often stood with Gerry Adams, all in the name of peace of course. You might say they literally gutted him.

The DF is a logical cut back in times of austerity, particularly historic barracks.

I'm not a "Shinner" but maybe it had something to do with the PC-9's being a monstrous waste of money.

Where within FFGLAB's manifesto are there commitments to increased DF spending? Aye, but for some reason SF are the boogyman by some here. Catch yerselves on FFS!

SF are the obvious bogeymen as they're the only political party in the 26 counties who have been actively involved in killing members of the DF and AGS since the foundation of the Republic (post - '37). SF would do a lot better if they didn't have Ellis, Adams and McGuinness running the 32 county show.

donvito99

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I really look forward to the day when SF take power in Ireland.

And you're not a "shinner"? :D:D:D:D:D

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Everything in "Sparkys" list of SF submissions would be the national defence policies of the Swiss state it should be remembered (apart from UN peacekeeping of course). And look at the size of their armed forces.

The Swiss call for demilitraisation of the EU?

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

Where does it say SF will do JACK **** to the DF Hmm? Calling for a demilitarisation of EU (already vastly demilitraised to the point of being toothless) doesn't fit with your faith of the wonderland waiting for the DF if only SF were in charge. In fact it goes directly against such a policy, you don't argue for demilitarisation while spending on militraisation at the same time.

As I've already stated militarisation or demilitarisation of the EU has NO bearing on Ireland's Defence Forces. Ireland has an implicit opt-out of any pan European defence arrangement. The Brits want to leave the EU, they oppose the militarisation of the EU (they'd rather the economic related Common Market back and nothing else) so obviously they're not going to partake in any EU military pact. So, again, by you own logic Britain is intending to demilitarise its own forces.

Can we all now just agree that all four parties don't give a flying toss about the DF and will likely just maintain spending at about half a percentage each year?

BoJack Horseman

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Everything in "Sparkys" list of SF submissions would be the national defence policies of the Swiss state it should be remembered (apart from UN peacekeeping of course). And look at the size of their armed forces.

No, the swiss have a modest but successful defence industry.

Anathema to the peace loving Shinners.

Ren2k7

donvito99 wrote: »

Gutted? Brendan McFarlane, though to have led the group of IRA men who shot dead Gda Gary Sheehan and Private Patrick Kelly, has often stood with Gerry Adams, all in the name of peace of course. You might say they literally gutted him.

Um, OK?

donvito99 wrote: »

The DF is a logical cut back in times of austerity, particularly historic barracks.

In terms of GDP defence spending has been under sustained cutback since 2000.

donvito99 wrote: »

SF are the obvious bogeymen as they're the only political party in the 26 counties who have been actively involved in killing members of the DF and AGS since the foundation of the Republic (post - '37). SF would do a lot better if they didn't have Ellis, Adams and McGuinness running the 32 county show.

What if I told you that Labour have members in the Dail who were members of the Officials. And let's not forget FF who took part in a war against the Irish state and who's members killed soldiers and police officers of the state.

Time to move on buddy.

BoJack Horseman

Ren2k7 wrote: »

And I pointed out that A)they're civil law countries and

C'mon Ren!

You said "western democracies".... don't move the goalposts!

Of the few common law western states, the UK has a juryless court.
NZ, only where the tarriff is more than 2 years & can be waived anyway.
The USA & Canada & Oz have juries....
Not exactly overwhelming!

You have suddenly isolated, specifically to a handful of common law states from the 60+western democtatic states just to suit your argument.

I really look forward to the day when SF take power in Ireland.

#ThePurge!

Ren2k7

donvito99 wrote: »

And you're not a "shinner"? :D:D:D:D:D

Nope, not a member.

sparky42 wrote: »

The Swiss call for demilitraisation of the EU?

They're hardly calling for the militarisation of the EU, are they?

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No, the swiss have a modest but successful defence industry.

Anathema to the peace loving Shinners.

How do you know what the "Shinners" want?

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

C'mon Ren!

You said "western democracies".... don't move the goalposts!

Of the few common law western states, the UK has a juryless court.
NZ, only where the tarriff is more than 2 years & can be waived anyway.
The USA & Canada & Oz have juries....

You have suddenly isolated, specifically to a handful of the 60+western democtatic states just to suit your argument.



#ThePurge!

You're all over the place. I asked which countries have courts like Ireland's SCC and you only mentioned civil law countries which have equivalent lay judges. Whatever way you attempt to spin things for your party Ireland is an isolated extreme case of having a non-jury court.

BTW, anyone have FG's election proposals for the DF? :pac:

donvito99

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Time to move on buddy.

Says the supporter of a party hung up on the notion of a 32 county Republic :rolleyes:.

Ren2k7

donvito99 wrote: »

Says the supporter of a party hung up on the notion of a 32 county Republic :rolleyes:.

Well........yeah, of course I support a 32 county Ireland. Most Irish people want a united Ireland. Why wouldn't Irish people support a UI? It's their patriotic duty!

Negative_G

Since when did this become a thread about Sinn Fein defence policy or lack thereof?

There's a valid reason SF haven't been in power since the foundation of the state. That won't change any time soon so discussing their policies, and I use that term extremely loosely, is a complete waste of time.

There has been some interesting discussion generated so far but leave out the SF rubbish.

Morpheus

this is the place to discuss the defence policy - or lack thereof in most cases - of the various political parties vying for your vote.