Why is Ireland Neutral?

Moriarty

Originally posted by Victor
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).

I was refering to the first use by germany in the lead-up to ww2, which i thought was pretty obvious.

Highnoon

I wonder how Bertie et al would feel if a couple of fatigue wearing Iraqi's went for a stroll through Shannon Airport on their way to the Duty Free?

Hang on a minute (they'd shout) ... wasn't duty free done away with?

Victor

Originally posted by Highnoon
Hang on a minute (they'd shout) ... wasn't duty free done away with?

It is still there for non-EU flights.

Snowball

Ireland is playing the same ****ing role we always have been. WE ARE NEURAL!!!! but we will help you in any way that we can

Look at Shannon for example. We are suposed to be neutral but we are helping people to wage war? what is going on?

Acording to the dictionary Neutral is:
Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest.
Ireland is aligned with America, if we were not we would not be fuelling their plains. Supporting we are. And we seem to be favoring a man who leader of a contry who has said he will go anywere where there is terrorists (that includes Ireland). Are we going to allow this a$$hole to come into our country? he will at some stage by the look sof things...

>>>> Are we going to allow this a$$hole to come into our country? he will at some stage by the look sof things...


which a$$hole is that? Bush, Saddam, or any other western leader that decides to involve ireland in their wars. And Guys we are Involved. The flights going into shannon are proof of that. Our Neutrality means squat. We are part of the western alliance, admittedly unofficially, but we're helping out.

Frankly i don't mind but i do think we should offer the same services to saddam, basque Separatists, etc.. just to keep it on the same field..

Snowball

Originally posted by klaz
Frankly i don't mind but i do think we should offer the same services to saddam, basque Separatists, etc.. just to keep it on the same field..

lol
Irish humor again lads

humor --- only because i can't see Europe standing for seeing irelands neutrality extending that far.

naitkris

Originally posted by Moriarty
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.

i thought the E.U. originally came about after WW2 in order to unite Europe and keep peace among the many countries. Now we have 1 currency, near enough to one Government (Brussels) - give it another 20 years and it will be 1 Government (Dublin being the slave to all that the E.U. orders it to carry out), we now also have E.U. military proposals, proposals for tax hormonisation and some people forseeing a United States of Europe (U.S.E.) - how can you blame them? the guys down in Brussels aim on bringing in new things all the time, why? because they wouldn't have anything to do if they didn't and thus lose their high-paid seats in Brussels. oh, and they've completely forgotten about what the E.U. is meant to be about: peace & trade NOT what they up in Brussels and they alone decide it to be about. who elects the people in Brussels? I have never been informed of being able to vote for M.E.Ps.

don't tell me having such close association with military non-neutral powers such as France or the U.K. through the structure of the E.U. for example does not put into question a country's neutrality as well. out of interest, is the E.U. as it presents itself internationally, seen as a "neutral" "organisation"? when Sweden declared itself neutral on the Afghanistan - U.S. conflict, the E.U. gave the Swedish Government much hassle according to Swedish newspapers.

oh and I'm a fellow "European", not Irish (Swedish) though they'll both be called a "county" in 50 years and replaced by the U.S.E. just look at our new passports with the E.U. logo on it and Ireland and Sweden now seen as a "state" not a "country" - subtle changes that will eventually change again I have a feeling.

"Irish" passport of 2053:
Nationality: European / County: Ireland

give it by 2103 or something (if the world still exists) and the "County" part will probably be gone. i mean the E.U. has only been around some 50 or so years and look at the MASSIVE changes and new things that have happened in that time.

back to the main topic, whether Ireland is neutral or not, the E.U. is not helping this neutrality that's for sure.

Lets face it. The time for ireland to be able to hide from the world is over. No longer can we give the illusion that we're neutral. I think we all know that ireland would have been screwed without the investment its received from the eu over the last 10 years, so we might as well make the move to be more supportive of the EU.

A friend of mine asked me a while back, "are u european, or irish?". I said that i was Irish, my children, would be european though. Our national identity will remain, however we will no longer have the luxury to pretend to be neutral abt many matters the eu votes on. This is our price for receiving the economic advantages from joining the EU. I know we'd love to receive these advantages without having to do anything, but theres always a catch.

Seems, our supporting of Western military operations, is one of the ways that we MUST respond favourably.

Neutrality is no longer an issue. Its just a word. The realism is that we have left the protective comfort of being an island nation. We've joined the rest of europe, and as such, our neutrality is a dream.

Moriarty

Originally posted by naitkris
i thought the E.U. originally came about after WW2 in order to unite Europe and keep peace among the many countries.

The EU began as the European Coal and Steel Community, which was founded in 1952 by Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The ECSC fostered peace and reconciliation on the war-torn European continent, by bringing together two industries that had powered the military drive of European nations up until then: coal and steel. This was particularly true across the French-German border, where armies had clashed over the control of these key sectors blooming in Ruhr, Saar and Lorraine regions. The rationale of the ECSC’s founding fathers was to promote political integration by starting with gradual economic integration, on a step-by-step basis. This eventually led to the launch of the European Community (Rome Treaty, 1957) and to the European Union (Maastricht Treaty, 1992).

Originally posted by naitkris
Now we have 1 currency, near enough to one Government (Brussels) - give it another 20 years and it will be 1 Government (Dublin being the slave to all that the E.U. orders it to carry out), we now also have E.U. military proposals, proposals for tax hormonisation and some people forseeing a United States of Europe (U.S.E.) - how can you blame them?

This has been the long term goal of the EU since its inception. I dont see it as a bad thing; the EU do a far better job at governing than the irish government ever have. I wouldnt like to live anywhere other than europe, after seeing how people live in many other parts of the world.

Originally posted by naitkris
don't tell me having such close association with military non-neutral powers such as France or the U.K. through the structure of the E.U. for example does not put into question a country's neutrality as well. out of interest, is the E.U. as it presents itself internationally, seen as a "neutral" "organisation"?

The EU has never proffessed to being neutral. The simple fact that ~90% of NATO is made out of european countries would belie that.

dathi1

This has been the long term goal of the EU since its inception. I dont see it as a bad thing; the EU do a far better job at governing than the irish government ever have. I wouldnt like to live anywhere other than europe, after seeing how people live in many other parts of the world.

you can vote out your own government but you will never over rule the Reichstag.

dathi1

Neutrality is no longer an issue. Its just a word. The realism is that we have left the protective comfort of being an island nation. We've joined the rest of europe, and as such, our neutrality is a dream.

I'm no pacifist but if you can sleep well in your bed as we bomb and maim Arab kids in the interest of EU security and welfare...but there again you wont have your finger on the trigger your conscripted kids will.

Moriarty

Originally posted by dathi1
you can vote out your own government but you will never over rule the Reichstag.

How come somone always comes along with FUD like this?

dathi1><<<<<I'm no pacifist but if you can sleep well in your bed as we bomb and maim Arab kids in the interest of EU security and welfare...but there again you wont have your finger on the trigger your conscripted kids will.


Its these sort of comments that i hate. War exists. Face that fact. Damage to civilians is older than time. In Greek times, a city's population could be totally killed off if it resisted an attacker. Seems things have gotten more "civilised". The direct bombing of civilian areas hasn't been done intentially since WW2 or maybe Vietnam (although Vietnam is a thorny issue). Its not good "policy". People have a tendacy to raise an outcry abt these things so its bad for public opinion. Besides the international community tends to frown on that sort of thing.

Other point. Where did this come from << if you can sleep well in your bed as we bomb and maim Arab kids >> I never said i approved of joining in any war. I said that our neutrality is over. I said that ireland & u can no longer pull your covers over your eyes, and let the world pass by.

Seems, that you're missing another point of what u said. U mentioned arab kids. Are u pro-arab? or are u sympathetic to the kids? Well, if its the kids, then think on this, the arab nations have been supporting the terrorist actions of many smaller groups during the cold war period, also, these arab nations tend to be the ones that support the constant attacks on Israel. How do you feel when you see the dead israeli children, that some suicide bomber took out?

To finish my statement, and try to make it clearer:

Ireland has a current stance of being neutral. We are members of the EU now, and while its not a military institution, it does influence our actions. The international community is alot closer these days, due to technological advances and/or treaties. Ireland can no longer hide behind a veil of neutrality. We have to choose what side we're on. (If you read the earlier posts, you'll notice, that i don't want to be part of any conflict, since its likely my taxes will rise). Its all very well to make wonderful comments about how terrible the war in the middle east is, but its time for us to actually take a stance.

Oh yes, dathi1, before you leap to accusing me of sending people out to kill think on this. You're a citizen of ireland right? Well, you've been sending out irish troops for the last 30 years for peacekeeping duties. You've been sending irish troops to the northern irish border, to stand guard in a war torn provence where "accidents" have happened. And should the irish people vote, and agree to go to war, you'll be sending irish troops across to Iraq, to fight, on the behalf of their people. You're part of this county. You have a choice in the running of this county. If you don't want to be sending troops to Iraq, then use your vote, not to. But if the people vote for, then you'll be doing the sending of troops. If you don't like it, then move to another county. So yes, i will send them out, but so will u.

(i've probably make the issue cloudier)

mike65

Klaz, you'll have to get used to dathis world view if you stay on the politics and humanities boards -

http://muppet.boards.ie/vbulletin/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=80074

Mike.

um, okies.

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by klaz
I think we all know that ireland would have been screwed without the investment its received from the eu over the last 10 years, so we might as well make the move to be more supportive of the EU.

Hmmmm......... we've been given money from the EU therefore have to be more supportive of the EU..hmmm....... arent we part of the EU?? we should be more supportive of ourselves?? ok..... I know I'm taking the piss abit but my main point was against the basic thought of money leading to changing morals. Also that money was given at a time when no common foreign policy existed and so I dont think has anything much to do with the current situation or being more supportive.

Aparently we're not only supporting US war missions but 35 countries landed/refuelled planes in Shannon last year. (prime time) I dont agree with it, agree that it affects our neutrality which I believe we can keep while trading with other countries though it's not a black and white area.

seán

Morpheus

WERE NOT CONSTITUTIONALY NEUTRAL!!!! get the into your heads, those tree huggers in shannon dont understand that.

WE HAVE A NEUTRAL DEFENCE POLICY COS OUR F*CKING ARMY IS UNDEFUNDED, TINY, AND CANT POSSIBLY HOPE TO ASISST NATO OR ANYONE ELSE EXCEPT IN A PEACEKEEPING ROLE!!!

LET THEM LAND THERE, SURE ARENT THEY F*CKING PAYING US FOR IT AND EMPLOYING PEOPLE IN SHANNON MEANING U THE TAXPAYER DONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT MORE PEOPLE ON THE DOLE FFS!!!

MAKES Shannon look busy for once too,
oooh shock horror, theres 11 planes more a day landing there! so what? big deal.

oooh they have sidearms on the plane...in the cargo hold where all those soldiers on that army plane can easily get at them and shoot some iraqis and arabs and muslims... wait arent they US civilians employed as soldiers???? and isnt it a civilian plane??? and isnt the cargo hold secure and locked??? oh...

IF ANYTHING EVER GOES TITS UP HERE WE HAVE ALLIES TO HELP US OUT....

"Tiocfaidh ar la???" would u ever cop on??? ur neutral and supporting a terrorist movement??? IRA and the rest = a bunch of terrorist scumbags.
:mad:

simple idea (was going to use "fact", but thought better of it ) is that we need other countries favour to be successful. We as members of the eu, need to follow their decisions. Alternatively, we need to keep in america's good books, since we do so much trade with them. America has always had a long memory towards countries that don't help them, and ireland has always tried to stay in a favourable light with them. We are not a huge economic power, so we good good relations with other countries.

I disagree on the other hand with the need for allies. It doesn't mean anything. Neither Britain or the other european countries would ever allow some nation to attack Ireland, simple because of irelands strategic value. Can you imagine the Irish people/descendents in America allowing something like that?

naitkris

anyone hear the news that France and Germany want to propose a new "European President"?

oh and, just so everyone knows - the E.U. is doing more harm then good by doing as much as it is (that's my opinion - I'm too tired at the moment to give you all my facts again). If the E.U. was only about trade and peace as originally then there'd be no serious issues over the Spanish fishing in Irish waters (as they wouldn't be allowed in anyway).

I agree that Europe is a good place to live, but does that mean the E.U. is responsible for this, as far as I am concerned being Swedish, Norway has the highest living standard in the world (it is in Europe but not the E.U. - though it does have some small deals going with the E.U. it is in no way a member and can't be bossed about by the E.U. to implement E.U. laws it doesn't want). so don't tell me the E.U. has made Europe a better place to live, that's just BS. If you tell me, it has made Ireland a better place to live then that's completely true.

>>> so don't tell me the E.U. has made Europe a better place to live, that's just BS. If you tell me, it has made Ireland a better place to live then that's completely true.


i'm not sure if this is in response to me, but i never intended for that to be implied. What i've been saying is that we've made our bed with th eu, we are obliged to live with that decision.

although i do think that ireland is a better place because of the investment we received from the EU

Typedef

Originally posted by naitkris
i thought the E.U. originally came about after WW2 in order to unite Europe

One big problem with Europe, it is all things to all people, quite convienent for the creeping Federalism that is taking place I think, since it makes moves towards Federal Union deniable in perpetuity.

and keep peace among the many countries.

Almost a vieled threat that statement, isn't it? Without the EU, there would be war, so the logic is, if 'we' collectively don't agree to the EU, the 'Germans presumably given recent history' will go to war? I'm quaking.

Now we have 1 currency, near enough to one Government (Brussels) - give it another 20 years and it will be 1 Government, we now also have E.U. military proposals, proposals for tax hormonisation and some people forseeing a United States of Europe (U.S.E.)

Sorry I don't read the tarrot, so I will leave it for Federalists to predict a United States of Europe, I'll debate it instead if you don't mind. What I will tell you is that Ireland, Austria, the UK, Denmark and Sweden are not in favour of tax harmonisation and are mostly not in favour of a Federal Union. So unless you plan to use enhanced co-operation to achieve a Federal Union, with tax varying and defence implications, it simply won't happen with the countries I have just listed being ostensibly opposed to the idea.

E.U. is meant to be about: peace & trade NOT what they up in Brussels and they alone decide it to be about. who elects the people in Brussels? I have never been informed of being able to vote for M.E.Ps.

Well said, there is a large democratic deficit in the European Union. Funnily enough, I don't think that a United States of Europe will address this issue, in fact I think that in such a situation, people like me, in a small (though rich) peripheral European State will have very little actual voice in their governance. For the Irish this is a huge issue, as this nation spent nearly six hundred years being ruled by England and one of the main reasons Ireland broke from England was so that Irish people could direct thier own lives. For me, I feel that this plutocratic European Union, which denies it's Federalist ambitions is one of the biggest creeping threats to Irish people's say and ultimate control over their lives, but lets not go there.

don't tell me having such close association with military non-neutral powers such as France or the U.K. through the structure of the E.U. for example does not put into question a country's neutrality as well.

I wouldn't attempt to, in fact, truth be told, I'm glad you can see that such an association does in fact put Ireland's supposed neutrality into doubt. Many of the more rabid Federalists on this board, simply don't accept that fact and will accuse you of congenital paranoia or there abouts for saying so. The EU military association is about 'peace keeping' is the usual Federalist line, but, for me, I'm not quite that gullable, clearly, association in a partisan military infrastructe of some sort with non-Neutral powers, is an anthema ot any notion of neutrality this nation might choose to exponenciate.

out of interest, is the E.U. as it presents itself internationally, seen as a "neutral" "organisation"? when Sweden declared itself neutral on the Afghanistan - U.S. conflict, the E.U. gave the Swedish Government much hassle according to Swedish newspapers.

The rapid reaction force (read EU army), is supposed to be used for 'Peace Keeping', but if you actually read the Treaty of Nice you will find out that the Rapid Reaction Force can be deployed to do 'combat'. Now my etymology may not be as good as my programming, but the word combat is not analagous to peace keeping. In effect the Rapid Reaction Force is a combat force, according to the Treaty of Nice. This would be where the Federalists accuse me of being paranoid incidentally.

not Irish (Swedish) though they'll both be called a "county" in 50 years and replaced by the U.S.E.

Hold on a second there young Skywalker, even though Ireland is relatively small and unable to resist the EU's pull to Federalism to any great degree, Sweden has a history of being a power in Nordic countries and is therefore more able to resist moves towards Federal Union, but in the real battle for soveringty, it has to be the British who are the big boys on the block.

Put simply the British want no part of a Federal Union and the British are the pincipal military allies of the Americans, let the French and Germans (or mostly the French) bang on about Federal Union, unltimately to have a Federal Union, the notion of taking Ireland, Sweden, Austria, Denmark and the UK into such an entity would have to be abandoned and the Federalists don't want that, remember one of the big reasons for the EU is to promote unity, so simply going off half cocked and excluding your 'nieghbours' would be bad form in the European Union context.

just look at our new passports with the E.U. logo on it and Ireland and Sweden now seen as a "state" not a "country" - subtle changes that will eventually change again I have a feeling.

See, the thing is. European politicians will acutally have to put the idea of a Federal Union to a vote at some stage and when that happens, it is highly likely one of the big three will simply say 'No'. The French, Germans or British people could quite easily vote No to a Federal Union just like the traditional pro-European Irish voted No to the Nice Treaty.

Typically the quangocracy that run European countries think the EU is a great idea, but, most of those governments don't 'trust' their people to see the wisdom of European Federal Union and thus never ask their people to vote on the various moves towards Federal Union. That situation can't continue in perpetuity, because eventually people across Europe will realise that, for all the moves towards single curreny, single defence arrangement and so on, not once have the body politic of European citizens by and large been directly asked if this is what they (the Europeans) really want.

naitkris

Originally posted by Typedef
What I will tell you is that Ireland, Austria, the UK, Denmark and Sweden are not in favour of tax harmonisation and are mostly not in favour of a Federal Union. So unless you plan to use enhanced co-operation to achieve a Federal Union, with tax varying and defence implications, it simply won't happen with the countries I have just listed being ostensibly opposed to the idea.

I agree with you 110% here Typedef, however what you are neglecting to take into account is that 100 years ago these countries (and perhaps more) would not have been in favour of a Government in Brussels, one monetary currency, EU laws binding on them etc. etc. i.e. Europe as it is today. What I am trying to say is that so many things have happened and changed in the last 50 years of the E.U.'s conception, what is there to stop these countries from slowly "changing their minds" in the future? Look at the Nice Treaty here in Ireland as an example of my point - round 1 the majority do not want the treaty, but round 2 (some time later) the majority want the treaty. I.e. just because these countries are against something now, that doesn't mean that they are against it forever.

Originally posted by Typedef

Hold on a second there young Skywalker, even though Ireland is relatively small and unable to resist the EU's pull to Federalism to any great degree, Sweden has a history of being a power in Nordic countries and is therefore more able to resist moves towards Federal Union, but in the real battle for soveringty, it has to be the British who are the big boys on the block.

Yes, I agree Sweden was a great power one time (it even conquered areas in Germany and as far south as into Turkey) but times change and Sweden is now one of the "let's follow the leader" sort of countries to a certain extent - they don't stand up much and dispute things as they don't want to ruin the party in Brussels, i.e. us Swedish (in general) have gone from being the fierce Vikings of 1000 years ago to the quiet obeying little child of Brussels we are today. AND THAT REALLY ANGERS ME (not that I want to be anything remotely like a viking). Also, Sweden, though the 3rd largest E.U. country geographically still only has 9 million citizens - compare that with Germany at more than 80 million.

Our nations are losing their decision making ability faster and faster because of the E.U. and we still can't vote on the M.E.P.'s in Brusells. Something has to be put to the people of each and every E.U. country as to where they would like the E.U. to be going - I think it's just unfair that in order to have any say on the matter you have to be either an MEP or a Government representative. Ireland got to vote on the Nice Treaty as it is in the constitution that such things muct be voted on, but in most other European countries, such things are passed by the Government not the people. In a sense Ireland decided for Sweden and the citizens of many other E.U. countries on the future of Europe by passing the Nice Treaty.

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by Morphéus
LET THEM LAND THERE, SURE ARENT THEY F*CKING PAYING US FOR IT AND EMPLOYING PEOPLE IN SHANNON MEANING U THE TAXPAYER DONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT MORE PEOPLE ON THE DOLE FFS!!!

Again back to the money 4 morals issue. Also I doubt the number of planes landing would warrant the onkeep of employees. I really dont think the "sure arent they paying for it" arguement holds up alone. Maybe if someone was extremely greedy, but in general I think it's more the fact that someone not caring about the landings dont care how many people are killed because of the transport of soldiers. That they support whatever war countryx is waging at the moment. We follow a policy of neutrality. It is not constitutional but sure hey, why dont we make it. It'd be totally in favour of it.

oooh they have sidearms on the plane...in the cargo hold where all those soldiers on that army plane can easily get at them and shoot some iraqis and arabs and muslims... wait arent they US civilians employed as soldiers???? and isnt it a civilian plane??? and isnt the cargo hold secure and locked??? oh...

It's the transport of people trained and willing to kill. There's nothing much we can do about that , but if we're facilitating that then we're in the wrong morally. If one of those soldiers rapes a women and is found guilty of the crime, some of that blood tarnishes our hands. We dont know if the people these soldiers go out to kill are resonable targets, we dont get intelligence on who's died/ going to die due to our compliance.

If u turned this round, and we allowed say nazi planes at shannon (not sure if it was open at that stage but stay with me) to launch an attack during which american civilians lost their lives, would that not be wrong on our part. I dont believe we should choose sides in war but only promote not using war.

In relation to your implication that I support the IRA simply due to a piece of irish which has been come to be used by the IRA, I tell u think what u want. I'm a republican that doesnt support the IRA but supports their path to peace. There are other threads if u wanna discuss this.

seán

Victor

Originally posted by Morphéus
LET THEM LAND THERE, SURE ARENT THEY F*CKING PAYING US FOR IT

Well actually we are footing the bill - to the tune of something like €1.5m last year. The government covers the cost of foreign military aircraft transitting Ireland.

Morpheus

Look, i'm not getting into a discussion about scumbag terrorists. lets leave that right there, its my opinion of them, u have yours.

A Sinn fein Counsellor just slated the Aircorps purchase of 8 new pilatus PC9 trainer aircraft on the grounds of it eroding our "policy of military nonalligment" (thats what our pretend foreign policy neutrality really is) because they were of NATO standards. WHAT a muppet!

These aircraft were chosen out of 4 types of aircraft based on primarily on their capabilities, performance and follow up maintenance support, their interoperability with our neighbours airforces was secondary.

The fact that they are NATO standard is simply because NATO standardised equipment is the best rated in the world, so we chose the best, he seemed to imply that we are sneaking NATO participation by their purchase.

He is another example of dumb unintelligent ill informed gob****es that try to grab the limelight from the neutrality issue everytime they can.

Our aircorps needed those planes, we havent purchased any new trainers in 30 yrs, the current ones are long past it, they are to be sold off and scrapped, we never replaced our jet fighter squadron in the late nineties like the govt promised, we never replaced the Choppers that crashed in the last 4 yrs, whats to happen when we have no SAR and no defence capability, how can we defend our neutrality if we havent got the tools (and the ones we have are half-arsed at that) to do it? This neutral issue needs to be sorted by referrendum, i know what i will vote for, non-alligment is NOT the way forward, we cant take a halfstep into the EU, we have to put "neutrality" behind us and both feet in, or else step away altogether.

bonkey

Originally posted by Morphéus
Our aircorps needed those planes

For what exactly do we need them? We have never had an offensive/defensive fixed-wing aircraft unit which required such an amount of training craft, we still dont have them, and have no plans (that I am aware of) to obtain one.

So I find myself wondering exactly what we needed those planes for.

This is, however, a topic for a different thread, I suppose....

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
We're neutral? Do (armed) US troops stop for a quick bite to eat and a ciggie break in Switzerland on their travels around the world? Maybe they do I dunno. Anyone?

Oh, I can pretty much guarantee you that they dont.

jc

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by Morphéus
we cant take a halfstep into the EU, we have to put "neutrality" behind us and both feet in, or else step away altogether.

Hmmm, we can't take a halfstep into the EU. Aren't we already part of it?? Everytime someone mentions the EU it's raised in the us here , them over there way. I would agree we need to step away altogether from war. Violence is not the answer on small scale in daily lives and also isnt the answer to international problems. The EU has nothing to do with military issues and the like (yet, the RRF will sure ruin that when its implimented) and I think we should fight to keep it that way from the inside.

seán

Morpheus

Look...

there are a number of elements to a neutral defence policy for any country.

first things first,

a neutral defence policy tells other countries to bugger off and dont ask us for military help, sort out your own war.

this works both ways, firstly it means we dont get involved in other wars we let them fight on themselves.

Unfortunately it means that if we get pissed on by terrorists or even (in the most extreme case il agree) an agressor country, the only way another country will then help us in return is that if their interests are in danger.

TO BE A NEUTRAL COUNTRY YOU MUST BE PREPARED TO DEFEND THAT NEUTRALITY.

our govt decided to purchase 8 aircraft (thats bloody 8 not 80 or 18 or 800) to train our pilots to patrol our skies to keep out unwanted enemy aircraft without permission to be in our airspace, to prevent terrorists from using light aircraft against other countries infrastructure in ireland, businesses, embassies, etc.

we have to show other countries that while we are neutral we are not a push over and will defend out peaceful nation if needed, that you can safely invest in ireland, that neutrality is a pro and not a con.

Sweden, a scandinavian country, is also a neutral country.

They would laugh at the paltry ammount of cash spent defending our neutrality, they have a very large "defence only" military, they are not in NATO. we should look to them as an example of how to really be neutral, we must be independent of others to be neutral, if we need to continually ask others for help, then we simply look like eegits when we announce we are neutral.

We spent the same ammount on the "stiffy near the liffy" that oversized lamp-post, which would have purchased a single medium lift heli for SAR which would have saved lives. the money spent even looking into a new national stadium would have bought another, the tribunals of recent years would have purchased another naval vessel to keep our waters safe from marauding trawlers stealing our natural resources, we have the smallest navy in europe and the largest ownership of sea area, and some people think that by attempting to defend ourselves (and remember these planes are trainers, not fighters, they carry light weapons only) we are wasting money?

If we stopped illegal immigration we would save millions of euros that could be spent on health and the underprivileged in this country, we are a "soft touch" as a newspaper report said today, and il support neutral ireland the day we can stand alone and defend ourselves.

Like i said you cant have your cake and eat it with the neutral issue, fair enough tell the US to piss off, but mark my words some day we will depend on them.

I dont care what anyone says, like it or not they can put sanctions on ireland if they like and europe too that will bring our economies to their knees, not a nice thought but it must be considered by any developing western country that wants the best for its population.

I support the shannon stopovers, I believe after sept 11 that they are right to strike first, and like i said if sept 11 happened here instead we'd be screaming blue murder at any bloke with a tan, never mind a turban, and guess who we would turn to for help? US,UK,et al.

you mentioned palestine? il say suicide bombers, thats terrorism not a holy war! why was a can of CS gas and a stun gun found in a mosque in england? name one catholic church you would find these items in in ireland? these are the times we live in

surely you must see SOME sense in my arguments. In a perfect world there would be no war, but look around you, in what possibly insane set of circumstances can you possibly imagine that everyone else will suddenly see the light of the anti war campaign and join you?

my final note is this,
fair enough, support our military non-allignment policy if you like, personally i see it as a handicap, a de'valera mistake like so many others he made, thats my opinion, but dont hit out because we try to put some weight behind it by buying a few planes, we have to replace old aircraft before more irish servicemen and women lose their lives flying them, the aircorps plays a peacful role, if you know anything about it you'll know that.

quid pro quo my friend.

im tired and ive mixed up many sub neutral topics because its late, ive so much to say and cannot type it fast enough, if ive confused you im sorry, its just food for thought, a debate not a battle, il edit it tomorrow when ive time to read back on what ive wrote.

goodnight.:(

____________
They would laugh at the paltry ammount of cash spent defending our neutrality, they have a very large "defence only" military, they are not in NATO. we should look to them as an example of how to really be neutral, we must be independent of others to be neutral, if we need to continually ask others for help, then we simply look like eegits when we announce we are neutral.

____________

A few things i'd like to mention abt this.

Sweden, have always had a large military/navy going back hundreds of years. Its part of their traditions to have a force like this going back to the times when they were a world (european) power. However think of a few items, that mark the difference between sweden & Ireland. 1) their population base is alot larger. 2) their economy has always been much better off than ours, therefore they can afford the expenditure on the military. 3) They've always guarded their neutrality to the point of actually offering a military response to keep it.

The Alternate is this. 1) Ireland has a very small population for a modern country. 2) Our economy while, getting better, is still nowhere comparable to most of the countries in Europe. 3) Our need for a military is very slight - a bit of national pride, for use in policing actions, and anti-terrorism. (The Rangers are an exception since they could & can be used anywhere, since they're an elite force)

For Ireland Neutrality was an excuse not to get into WW2. It just was never gotten rid of. In my opinion theres no reason for having it, but thats irrevelent. The only reason that Ireland is still Neutral is because nobody has asked the Irish People whether THEY want to Repel it. Until that happens we'll stay neutral. If the question is asked to the Irish People whether they want to stay Neutral or not, I daresay we'll stay that way, simply cause they won't be bothered to vote..