Is it time to join Nato

What 'end' was this in terms of Afghanistan?

Go on, explain it, or are you peddling more conspiracy theories Francie?

The 'end'?

A vainglorious mission designed for home audiences to rid the world of terrorism. P.S. I don't care if it was the UN or NATO, they failed.

Tired explaining ordinary words to you. I'm off to bed.

It is a framework for continuous integration for common defence and security. It is not NATO sure, not that mature yet, but it could certainly morph into it.

It does have a common defence and security policy as part of its remit, which was updated when Lisbon was passed.

The next few years we will see the EU adopt a much more aggressive stance on this.

Actually, it does, as per the Red Cross definition. You have yet to provide your own definition by the way. No word either on the Irish Defence forces with NATO in Afghanistan or the fact that we have an MOU with the RAF about our airspace..?

Neutral my ass. The more I dig the more it's apparent that it's a mirage.

My definition comes from the International Red Cross, not the pub.

Even when we shared intelligence reports and weather updates with the British and funnelled their RAF aircrews over the border, yet kept the Germans in the Curragh? Even then we were playing around with it.

Gareth, who opted out morally on his own people...that Gareth? 😁😁

I know you're attempting to neatly side-step here. But I won't take your bait and switch tactics.

I think we can all understand why NATO backed America after the 9/11 attacks. Most people had huge sympathy for the innocent victims of those attacks. There was huge emotion and anger swirling around at that moment in time.

But we still have no idea whether the NATO alliance would trigger article 5 to defend a small nation like Ireland, if the consequences of that could potentially mean ww3.

And of course, if we're going to sign up for something that could see our sons and daughters being sent off to fight and die in some random war on the other side of the world, at the behest of someone like the USofA as leaders of NATO... it would be nice if the bedrock of that partnership was something a bit more concrete than a promise that has never actually been tested in practice.

I don't think smashing two poor middle east countries to pieces and killing millions of innocent people is a compelling sales pitch for the NATO project. But that's just me, perhaps you disagree?

(Afghanistan is currently on the brink of a famine right now btw, just in case you haven't been keeping abreast of the news)

OK, so you revert to the now totally discredited pro-Putin propaganda talking points and soft Conspiracy Theories about NATO.

For someone who thinks murdering children for a political cause is justified, I guess the (horse)-shoe fits. So no surprise from yourself on that one.

Anything to say on the myth of Neutrality, as per the piece I linked or do you just want to drag the debate down your own little rats nest as per usual?

So you've no answer to the effects of NATO's disastrous interventions, and how this might all be a negative selling point towards Ireland considering joining the alliance?

Or the fact that article 5 has never really been tested in the manner in which I outlined above?

Just deflect and ignore, eh? Fair enough, I'll leave you to it.

Article 5 was tested and enacted after 9/11. That is a fact.

Russia is not invading Poland, Romania or the Baltic states BECAUSE of NATO. Putin knows full well the consequences of such an action. Only an idiot or keyboard warrior like yourself would try and call that bluff. Easy to say stuff on the sidelines when there are no consequences.

NATO was not involved in Iraq by the way. You are very mistaken on how involved NATO was around the world.

The UN-mandated a mission to Afghanistan. We had Irish Defence personnel in Afghanistan. I am not sure what your point is, but there is a separate thread if people want to discuss the 'America is bad' angle. Have at it, unless you are banned from there as well.

You can be in an organisation and be critical of it mark.

NATO has played the geo-political games that it's main powers want to play. That is the criticism of it.

You can shout 'pro Putin' and introduce snide comments all you want, that criticism and the facts of history backing it up are not going to go away.

I doan't like NATO for a reason.

You think anyone criticising it, is pro Putin.

And you dare suggest you are being genuine in this discussion.

I don't think anyone criticising NATO is pro-Putin, but I do think that your criticism is coming from a pro-Putin perspective.

Do you understand the difference?

@markodaly

We're at an impasse over your unwillingness to diffentiate between association/allignment/sympathy and belligerence.

Few would claim we are not sympathetic to and aligned with the West. Indeed, our neutrality in WW2 was biased, for the reasons you outlined and more. Nevertheless it remained neutrality.

The Red Cross definition is imperfect, in my view, as it is agenda driven. The agenda being to shame the states and industries that profit from armed conflict. I'm certain it was written with more consequential military/industrial players than Ireland in mind.

In any event, even within that dubious frame set out by the Red Cross, Ireland still qualifies as neutral. Arguably "non-neutral" acts don't strip an actor of neutrality.

One could, indeed, hear a more apolitical, accurate definition in the pub, depending on who was in it.

Military neutrality means non-belligerence in warfare. A continuing policy of which we have followed and will continue to follow despite current noise.

Lemass' comments, which you quote, were made more in a political/economic sense than the military sense, he was speaking on membership of the Common Market, not membership of NATO.

Spun remarks by past Taoisigh and IT opinion pieces aside, some facts remain:

The State has never participated as belligerent in a foreign war.

The State has never applied to join NATO.

No party has ever run (successfully, at least) on a manifesto that included a promise to join NATO and/or end our policy of military neutrality.

There has never been a public appetite to end our policy of military neutrality.

I'm quite proud of this. I believe it better than having our youth butchered in the effort of improving the position of one great, uncaring power bloc over another.

This entire question is another example of sentimentalism taking over discourse. People see a few images of crying Ukrainians and demand a small, (relatively) peaceful republic with a long history of moral and successful neutrality becomes the US Marine Corp.

Looking forward to terms being reached in Ukraine for many good reasons, the least and most trivial of which being it will end this facile posturing we have seen over our neutrality.

The "I'm alright Jack" mentality aligned with the exclusionary nationalist position that anything the British do is wrong are the only things that have prevented us from joining NATO. You are probably right that a majority of the population would hold onto this, but isn't it more than a little cowardly that we leave our friends and neighbours not only to defend themselves, but to defend us?