Why is Ireland Neutral?

ozt9vdujny3srf · 20-12-2002 10:58pm

Originally posted by Rolo Tomasi
Yeah we still do like to consider ourselves neutral for , I think, two reasons.

1. The Defense Forces is really a token gesture, we're a soverign state so we have an army, navy and air corp. These all provide very important functions in Ireland and aborad such as patroling Irish shores and policing in Kosovo but when compared to the rest of Europe I imagine its pretty poorly equipped.(Which I agree with, we dont need to spends billions on something we will never use.) The chances of Ireland repelling an invading force, well put in this way I wouldn't be hanging around to see how things work out.

2. I believe it ties with with the world's image of Ireland. A land of saints and scholar's. "Sure we wouldn't hurt a fly, we're neutral".

is a good way to put it. The way it was explained to me was that we practice "passive neutrality" whereas a nation like Finalnd practices "active neutrality"

A valid point except for the poorly equpped bit :P

The irish army is one of the best in the world when it comes to foot soldiers and ranger squads

It is structured as a peacekeeping force and as a force that could be complimentary of other forces

Ireland are screwed if we ever end up in open war with any other nation:) slightly off topic but worth pointing out

daveirl · 20-12-2002 11:15pm

This post has been deleted.

06-01-2003 2:54pm

the issue of the irish army being too small should not really be a concern since theres very little chance of there being a ground war in europe again. Those days are long over. Can you imagine Britain, or america letting anybody invade Ireland?

Basic story is, that we provide military support (token forces admittedly) to most peacekeeping missions (http://www.military.ie/overseas/missions_list.htm).
We allow the stationing of foreign troops on our land, when enroute to another war, endorsed by america/nato. Despite our being neutral i can't really see the irish government allowing iraqi planes to refuel in irish airports......

Personally i think we're still neutral because nobody has really considered changing it. The last time the irish people were asked if they wanted it changed was at the start of WW2. Admit it. The average irish person doesn't really care if we're neutral or not as long, as it doesn't raise taxes or change their daily lives.

mike65 · 06-01-2003 7:17pm

klaz, you are wise beyond your post count!

Translation= I agree.

Mike.

colster · 07-01-2003 8:37pm

I think the reason why we are nuetral was due to a number of factors.
Ireland did not have an army or the resources to commit to the war. After all in 1937 the prospect of war was an ever present danger.
During the war when the Allies requested our intervention they wanted not our army but the usage of the treaty ports.
DeValera could not countenance the idea of a British presence in the 26 counties.
It would have a number of effects
- it would be politcal suicide for him. after all he led the anti-treaty faction in the Civil war due to the presence of the British in the North.
- it would bring the risk of bombing from the Germans with the resultant destruction of the faltering economy.

JustHalf · 07-01-2003 9:52pm

Originally posted by Elmo
Leaders like stalin were wrong to be aloud to run their country and abuse civil liberties in the way in which they did. But then The Civil rights abuses in The USA was not much better and the same can be said of the British Empire.

Does the number 20 million ring any bells?

JustHalf · 07-01-2003 10:07pm

Originally posted by bonkey
5) Because just maybe we have learned from hundreds of years of occupation and oppression, on the backs of centuries of internal conflict that war and all that comes with it doesnt solve anything.

I reckon it solved Nazi Germany pretty good, if you ask me.

Keeks · 08-01-2003 1:15am

Originally posted by JustHalf
Does the number 20 million ring any bells?

What 20 million?

JustHalf · 08-01-2003 4:19pm

I think saying that the civil rights abuses in the USA are "not much better" than Stalins purges is akin to saying a slap across the face is "not much better" than rape and murder.

Both are bad, but the scale of the second is clearly much greater than the first.

20 million died thanks to Stalin, by the way.

Here's something interesting: http://www.salon.com/books/review/2002/07/16/amis/print.html

08-01-2003 4:51pm

>>>>>>>The Blakans conflict took place inside EU borders??

Guys, i think you need to realise that the EU, does not have a sovereign right over its borders. The EU is mostly a financial reason to come together for mutal gains. There have been mentions of creating a formal border, with military controls, but that won't happen for decades. As it stands the only borders that EU has, are trade ones. The EU had no way of stopping what happened in the Balkans, except for influencing the balkan governments thru trade.

Separate note, in regards to the 20 million that stalin killed off. Stalin was never brought to bear for that, simply becuase the allies would never have been able to touch him. WW2 was not abt the people being murdered, no matter what they said after the war. It was simply because The Third Reich invaded countries, and looked to be growing bigger. As far as i'm aware, Hitlers organisation was killing people thru camps, and labour forces from 1934, and there was no real movement from the world until he invaded France.

simple fact is that until the world saw itself threatened, it didn't move.

>>>>> Leaders like stalin were wrong to be aloud to run their country and abuse civil liberties in the way in which they did. But then The Civil rights abuses in The USA was not much better and the same can be said of the British Empire.

Think of the time before you make such sweeping remarks. Civil liberties are a relatively new luxury. Prior to stalin, russia was still in its serfdom environment (i.e. almost slave labour), even these days civil liberties mean almost nothing, since instead of govermental pressures, they have crime, and economic downturns to keep them down. And as for the British Empire, while i hate its entity, and ireland's history with it, it wasn't that bad, in the consideration of its subjects. Just look at the concessions america had, that enabled them to rebel, or how the only real problem the irish people had with british rule from the 1850's onwards was the fact we weren't free.

>>>>>>>>>> 20 million died thanks to Stalin, by the way.

I'm still trying to figure out what Stalin did to 20 million, german troops, Jews, Gypsies, and exiles has to do with Irelands Neutrality.

Except maybe thats the reason why Ireland is neutral in the 1st place......... Ireland simply felt at the time of WW2 that such decisions and actions were best left to the more Historic Nations. The Irish people seem to keep the same concept today. We're more than willing to say its awful that so many people die in the balkans, but will they make the 1st move and express such speech by actions? Not a chance. (Generalisation i know, but theres exceptions everywhere)

JustHalf · 08-01-2003 5:00pm

The number given in reply to Elmos nonsense.

08-01-2003 5:10pm

in regards to the numer 20 million dead..... welll i've heard for years that the amount was anything from 10 mill to 30 mill. Apparently there was alot of mass graves found after ww2 that compared to hitlers "cleansing"

Victor · 08-01-2003 8:07pm

Originally posted by klaz
And as for the British Empire, while i hate its entity, and ireland's history with it, it wasn't that bad, in the consideration of its subjects. Just look at the concessions america had, that enabled them to rebel, or how the only real problem the irish people had with british rule from the 1850's onwards was the fact we weren't free.

Well, being in the British Empire was well and good if you were Upper Class / Rich / Middle Class or English / British / white or Protestant / Christian, it was another if you were part of the "unclean non-believing hordes".

Keeks · 08-01-2003 9:14pm

Originally posted by JustHalf
I think saying that the civil rights abuses in the USA are "not much better" than Stalins purges is akin to saying a slap across the face is "not much better" than rape and murder.

Whn it come to murder I can't put it on a scale. Wheather its one peon hanged because his skin is a different colour or 20 million killed becasue someone some was a genocideal maniac. its all the one to me. Murder is murder.

And you will find that some of the worst civil rights abuses happen during both the Korean and Vietnam wars by a country fighting for a "better world"

JustHalf · 09-01-2003 2:18am

You say murder is murder. This is of course a tautology, so you're right (a spade is indeed a spade). The rest of your argument proposes that one murder is as bad as twenty million murders.

And to be pedantic, Korea and Vietnam exist outside the borders of the United States of America, as and from the inception of the state.

kamobe · 09-01-2003 2:26am

I'd like to think Ireland is neutral, because we're a small country which doesn't believe in violence as a method to resolve disputes.

We're probably neutral because Dev wasn't given NI, and we'll probably loose our neutrality for financial gain.

09-01-2003 9:45am

<<<<we'll probably loose our neutrality for financial gain.

our neutrality doesn't mean anything at the moment so we might as well get something for the country.

<<<<< we're a small country which doesn't believe in violence as a method to resolve disputes.

strange how the people of ireland should change from being violent when seeking freedom, to being peaceful wonderful citizens of the irish state. Irish people have always viewed violence as being just another way to resolve disputes, its just that other countries have bigger guns( & financial power) than us nowadays.

But, i could be wrong abt this, and the irish people might suprise me, by throwing away their neutrality for a real reason, rather than just to get a vote over with as quickly as possible. (a wee too cynical maybe.)

daveirl · 09-01-2003 11:16pm

This post has been deleted.

kamobe · 09-01-2003 11:25pm

strange how the people of ireland should change from being violent when seeking freedom, to being peaceful wonderful citizens of the irish state. Irish people have always viewed violence as being just another way to resolve disputes, its just that other countries have bigger guns( & financial power) than us nowadays.

Violence wasn't the first choice. We tried to break away diplomatically for over a hundred years and we got no where. Violence was always a last resort. And society today (for the best part) certainly does not consider violence as just another way to resolve disputes...

JustHalf · 10-01-2003 12:59am

Originally posted by daveirl
No my point was that the EU should have intervened. Not NATO. I know the EU have no system for events like that but my point is we should

You mean something like the RRF?

Moriarty · 10-01-2003 1:21am

Originally posted by klaz
Guys, i think you need to realise that the EU, does not have a sovereign right over its borders. The EU is mostly a financial reason to come together for mutal gains.

It was originally founded as a trading block, but has grown into much more. It is now a financial, political and social union; just take a look at the massive breadth of what is covered by EU law and regulation as proof.

Originally posted by klaz
WW2 was not abt the people being murdered, no matter what they said after the war. It was simply because The Third Reich invaded countries, and looked to be growing bigger. As far as i'm aware, Hitlers organisation was killing people thru camps, and labour forces from 1934, and there was no real movement from the world until he invaded France.

Concentration camps were first created in 1933 but the 'final solution' was not policy until early-mid 1941, with it not getting into full gear until early 1942.

England and France declared war on nazi germany on the 3rd of september 1939 after nazi germany invaded poland on september 1st.

Originally posted by klaz
simple fact is that until the world saw itself threatened, it didn't move.

The policy of appeasement was central to european politics from 1934->1939. This stemmed from the reasoning that the Versaille treaty, which marked the end of WW1, was very harsh to post-ww1 germany. The last thing France or Britain wanted was another war to fight in - barely a decade after WW1, the supposed "war to end all wars" had ended.

From hitlers first technical breaches of the versaille treaty early in his reign, up until March 15 1939, people were still holding out for a diplomatic resolution to the problems. On march 15 1939, nazi germany anexed Bohemia and Moravia. After this act, other european powers saw war as, more or less, an enevitability.

Originally posted by klaz
Except maybe thats the reason why Ireland is neutral in the 1st place......... Ireland simply felt at the time of WW2 that such decisions and actions were best left to the more Historic Nations.

Irelands status of neutrality was seen as an act of defiance towards britain, further emphasising our independence of the british empire. Our economy and infrastructure were in ruins after many years of civil war. The simple fact of the matter is that we could barely run the vital organs of the state and would not have been able to contribute any meaningful materials to the war effort, even if the political will to do so was there.

Originally posted by klaz
The Irish people seem to keep the same concept today. We're more than willing to say its awful that so many people die in the balkans, but will they make the 1st move and express such speech by actions? Not a chance. (Generalisation i know, but theres exceptions everywhere)

Many tens of thousands of irish men joined the british armed forces throughout WW2, as they had done before in WW1. Saying the irish simply didnt care is wrong.

Morpheus · 10-01-2003 2:05am

2 things....

1. Dev was a nazi. we all know he supported them and kept in contact with the nazi party during the war its recorded in the national museums archives. They even paid ireland compensation for bombing the north strand area by mistake in ww2.

2. More seriously nowhere in our constitution does it state that Ireland is neutral. We are not neutral. We have a

N E U T R A L D E F E N S I V E P O L I C Y

Most Irish people think that we are a neutral state. We arent, never have been, Ive checked the constitution and had this discussion before. We are a constitution supporting a neutral defensive policy.

We are in this situtation because technically we are saying that we have a very small military (compared to other states of similiar size and population) and we will therefore not get involved in any wars or militarily supported political unrest outside our borders unless its in a peace keeping role, because we would be flattened rolled up and smoked like a bad joint.

Saddam would piss himself laughing if he thought that the fightin irish were coming along with the brits and americans. In the gulf war he threatened to hit ireland because we allowed the US to land and refuel here when they were the only ones ensuring he couldnt hit us!!

Why are the irish good peace keepers? because its not worth wasting the bullets on us, if anyone wanted to attack or crush ireland it would take only a force of 5 or 6 thousand. We only have just under 10,000 military personell in total... thats army navy and air corps in T O T A L.

The navy hasnt enough ships to protect our fishing waters yet we own more surface area of sea than any other european nation... bet u didnt know that??? some scandinavian country.. cant remember which, is neutral and landlocked yet it has more naval assets (thats ships) than ireland, theyre all parked in hollands shipyards. how embarrassing eh? our fleet of state of the fart vessels arent even as quick as the big modern fishing vessels a la the spaniards ships.

The air corps cant provide SAR (thats search and rescue for you thickos that dont understand all this military jargon) cover to provide a simple life saving service for our massive fishing industry. Anytime anything happens we call for the RAF or else call upon BOND helicopters to send out the big RED and WHITE so called "Irish coast guard" helicopter to save someone. YES thats right we DONT own that either. Mr.Smith minister for "no defence" cancelled the purchase of 5 new helicopters last year and decided to rent old ones from a commercial company indefinitely. What happens if its pilots (mostly ex irish air corps) go on strike... the military cant go on strike, but BONDs pilots can becasue they are just civilians!

If something similiar happened here like 911, the irish army doesnt have any ground weapons that can reach above 7000 feet. we have very crappy surface to air missiles which are quite old. we dont have any jets anymore since the old fouga jets (the irish air corps silver swallows display team that beat the red arrows for the best display in their last year together flew these, or did u know that at one time we had one????) were retired in 1998 and never replaced. now our 12 training aircraft are too old and are being replaced with just 8 trainers? its just not on. downsizing and cost cutting will only cost lives.

Neutrality means the govt doesnt have to worry about providing proper services (which a military in another country would) to its own citizens. We are neutral and its because we cant even defend our own country never mind join a NATO force to squash an evil tyrant somewhere in the world.

Everytime i see those blithering eejits in shannon giving out sh*te about US aircraft refuelling?? bloody muppets cant see that without them we wouldnt have a hope in hell, as long as we support the good fight in some capacity we can boldy parade our make believe neutrality that doesnt really exist safe in the knowledge that a big brother somewhere will step in and save us!

Its time to stand up and be counted, I dont want war, i dont want ireland to have a huge military force but someday we will HAVE to take a side, and i guarantee when that day happens we WONT be prepared.

RANT ENDED.

Morpheus · 10-01-2003 2:10am

sorry put this in a thread of its own by mistake. i copied it to the proper neutrality thread as a reply, so u can delete it if u like???

daveirl · 10-01-2003 9:26am

This post has been deleted.

10-01-2003 10:15am

>>>>>> Dev was a nazi.

I don't know if he was or not. I was raised in a Collin's type household, and we always believed that Dev had Collins killed, but whether Dev was a Nazi or not... <shugs> i don't know one way or another.

>>>>> They even paid ireland compensation for bombing the north strand area by mistake in ww2.

actually they did this becuase they thought ireland as being neutral. They did the same thing anytime they infringed on a "neutral" country that they didn't want to be at war with. ie. switzerland, & spain had similiar experiences.

>>>>> Saddam would piss himself laughing if he thought that the fightin irish were coming along with the brits and americans.

actually i think he might give a bit of thought to it. Not our main forces, no. But the rangers are considered to be just below par to the SAS, which makes them capable in the eyes of all nations. Spec forces, are probably more dangerous than large concentrations of normal troops, and i'd say saddam knows this.

____

as for the rest of your rant, i'm a wee bit confused. 1st you say that we wouldn't be considered a threat, then you go on to say that its terrible they're downsizing the defense forces.

Simple fact is. We don't NEED a large defense force. We will never be invaded. The most we need a force for is for Terrorist actions (not us making the terrorist actions btw) , and/or peacekeeping missions. As i said earlier in the other post, Ireland will never be invaded. Ground war is a thing of the past in Europe. Nearby neighbours just wouldn't allow it. Can u imagine if Re-Emergent Russia invaded Ireland (Extreme, and unlikely i know)? do you think Britain would allow it, or America (who thinks they must protect every nation on earth)?

The only reason we have the forces we have at the moment is a pride thing. Every other country out there has one so we must have one. Can you imagine the public response if the government decided to dismiss the whole army? They'd be kicked out, just because the irish people feel safer having one of the smallest defense forces in the world defending them.

To get back on point.

I don't CARE if we're neutral or not. It doesn't bother me. I'm not in the defense forces, so i don't have to worry abt being sent somewhere to be shot at. Thats their choice by being a soldier. As a taxpayer, all i care abt is my life not being changed by our neutrality (or lack of). As long as taxes don't rise due to our "war effort" (should we join the Iraq attack), or any such inconveniences to my life.

Naturally theres going to be comments abt how we should be interested in putting down tyrants, or bringing about world peace. Simple thing is, that america/britain is going to do that anyway. My help is not needed. Nor do i want to help.

Nope. I want to continue living my life the way i've chosen. I don't want to send my fellow countrymen off to some bloody country a 100,000 miles away to die, for some stupid ideal, i don't have.

one last point. if someone nukes europe we're dead. If someone nukes ireland we're dead. Frankly, we don't have a chance against a nuke. For that we'd have to rely on British forces to protect us, and they would. (simply cause a nuke in ireland, would hurt them alot too)

10-01-2003 10:24am

>>>> It was originally founded as a trading block, but has grown into much more. It is now a financial, political and social union; just take a look at the massive breadth of what is covered by EU law and regulation as proof.

Which is close to what i was saying. Maybe i wasn't clear enough. The EU has no military forces to commit.

>>>> Saying the irish simply didnt care is wrong.

I never said that. I said that we care, but don't do much abt it.

>>>> Violence wasn't the first choice. We tried to break away diplomatically for over a hundred years and we got no where.

Really? where did the numerous number of rebellions spring from every decade? Simple fact is... ( & i'm not omplaining abt this, since i like being free) we needed to fight for our freedom, just as every country out there does, or did. We would have gotten our freedom eventually (just look at India), but violence quickened the process.

Dampsquid · 10-01-2003 11:11am

some scandinavian country.. cant remember which, is neutral and landlocked yet it has more naval assets (thats ships) than ireland, theyre all parked in hollands shipyards.

I agree with most of you points, but if I remember correctly from geography, there is no landlocked scandinavian country.

swiss · 10-01-2003 11:33am

I'm going to merge this thread with the other neutrality thread, as it's essentially the same topic. The last few posts might seem disjointed.

[edit]
Done
[/edit]

blondi · 10-01-2003 5:42pm

because the only time irishmen stand together is when they're ordering a pint or having a piss...thats as far as my thinking brings me anyways...

Victor · 10-01-2003 6:52pm

Originally posted by Moriarty
Concentration camps were first created in 1933 but the 'final solution' was not policy until early-mid 1941, with it not getting into full gear until early 1942.

Not wishing to be semantic, but concentration camps were used by the British in the Boer / South African War. The ghettoes and work camps were de-facto concentration camps. There is also a difference between a concentration camp (purpose of separation, death through neglect) and an extermination camp (near immediate death on arrival).

Why is Ireland Neutral?

Comments