Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is it time to join Nato

Options
1107108110112113152

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭mcsean2163


    You're either deranged, deluded or facetious. In any case there are other threads for such discussions. No to NATO for me. That is all.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    I believe he was saying that OUR best role is that of diplomacy and negotiation. While the strong powers handle the liars and psychopaths element.

    Its clear today, as in ww2, that we're not going to change the tide of any war through our military power. Best we can do is hold our little fort.

    But we can be a bit useful as one of the more neutral voices, as an entity that can be referenced during deliberations and negotiations of bigger powers.

    If we're seen as not really having a dog in the race then in some circumstances our opinion has a higher level of merit when various diplomats and politicians are debating both internally and externally.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,883 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    Would not have categorised government and society in both Finland and Sweden as "moronic" but 🤷‍♀️. People we could often learn from I would have thought in my ignorance rather than scorning them as stupid war-mongers (vs enlightened, virtuous and superior Ireland full of good people like you I presume?).

    Anyway that said I don't think Ireland needs to join NATO and we're not mentally ready to have that conversation yet anyway.

    Baby steps, like deciding do we want an Irish defence forces or not at all first (doesn't seem certain given what a total shambles it appears to be + I feel government and public unwillingness to see extra money spent or effort made to try and fix that) and what to we want them to do.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I assume the op means join nato and contribute nothing 😂


    we really need to get our radar up to standard and develop a military cyber team , those are little things we can do



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭mcsean2163


    Russia now has 7 minutes in which to decide to retaliate if Finland send a missile to Moscow by mistake. 7 minutes to decide whether or not to destroy the world. If NATO moves into Ukraine, that drops to 5 minutes.

    That's the end of human civilization and possibly humanity too. By all means have a European type NATO security agreement but exclude the USA. There should be no US troops in Europe.

    Moronic is not strong enough to describe the situation IMHO.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,662 ✭✭✭✭ACitizenErased


    Iceland doesn't even have a military and is a member. I'm neither for nor against it as I haven't done enough research, but I'm sure NATO would love to have us purely because of our geography.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,883 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    It is not certain whether nuclear missiles or bombs will be placed there is it? NATO membership does not mean that.

    Afaik there are no US missiles with nuclear warheads or US nuclear bombs for use by aircraft placed in the "new" members that joined after collapse of Soviet Union.

    I think it was a few years ago that Putin upped the ante in Europe (as regards nuclear weapons), started edging out of treaties and trying to develop new and improved "delivery" platforms (would improve likelyhood of a first strike being successful), and now he has his glove puppet in Belarus also hosting nuclear missiles and helping with the nuclear willy waving as well.

    If you want to pour scorn on morons banging war drums who are working on improving conditions to spark WW3 in Europe through either stupidity or error/accident, look to Russia and its leaders.

    edit: Anyway, lets be honest here, bar massive political earthquakes in Finland (pop ~ 5.5m, peaceful and formerly neutral non nuclear armed democracy), the only likely scenario where govt. will launch missiles on Moscow is if Russia (pop. ~ 144.7m, led by a dictator with a strong track record for finding military solutions to his problems, has enough nukes to end the world) has already started an attack of some sort on them.

    Surely your ideology will allow you to admit that!?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭mcsean2163


    I don't have ideology further than killing people is awful. NATO threatens the safety of the entire world. Anyone thinking we should join...



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    Oh that pinch was changed by that oh 攮 a year born when you were too hungry listen to starve to death.
    




  • Registered Users Posts: 6,680 ✭✭✭eire4


    Personally IMHO the authoritarian regimes in Russia and China in particular are the biggest threat right now.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭mcsean2163


    I see USA as the biggest threat to nuclear war. Their position as number 1 is being eroded and rather than working with nations doing well they are flexing.

    China has just brokered a peace deal between Iran and Saudi and now Oman is assisting in brokering a ceasefire with Yemen. My knowledge of China is not great but they seem mainly concerned with China and do not seem interested in exporting ideology. They want belt and road for trade routes. When I look at China, I think of the great wall built to keep people out.

    There's a separate thread for Russia.

    Definitely think joining NATO would be a terrible idea.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,839 ✭✭✭Polar101


    Which NATO countries are currently at war, or which countries are currently being attacked by NATO?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭mcsean2163


    You can read about some of the US wars and interventions in the 21st century here:

    you can find out more using a tool called Google.

    I am not Google. Try Google first please.

    For countries outside the US Western alliance e.g. Venezuela, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Cuba, etc., They might have a very different view on US actions globally. I expect they have a pretty negative view on drones.

    I personally think stuff is happening in the 85% of the world not affiliated with the West. Iran, Saudi and Yemen making peace. OPEC oil cuts. I don't think the actions of US sponsored Israel at the Al aqsa mosque are being well received in the Arab community.




  • Registered Users Posts: 5,804 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    I don't really see an answer to the initial question: Which NATO countries are currently at war, or which countries are currently being attacked by NATO?

    But on the list you linked and more appropriate to the thread, NATO has been only involved in Operation Ocean Shield & Libya.

    So preventing Somali pirates hijacking ships threatens the safety of the entire world?

    Are you sure you're not confusing NATO with Russia?, I only ask as the later has been the ones threatening to nuke half the planet.



  • Registered Users Posts: 352 ✭✭Tucker.Tim


    Absolutely everything listed here besides cyber security, which is in no way a military application and rather policing and prevention, is a waste of money and time and designed to let a tiny minority in this country cosplay as an army that has no purpose to exist at all.



  • Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭AerLingus747


    You really need to read up on the south China sea and what they are doing in many territories around the world where they loaned money or built infrastructure and now those countries are struggling to pay... China definitely aren't the good guys in all this



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    Yes thats it. Just like in the Russia thread. There's only two options complete nato fanboi or tankie.


    /s.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Well we got some ChatGPT-esque Tankie nonsense in the last couple of pages, so we may as well rip the piss.



  • Registered Users Posts: 473 ✭✭Ramasun


    The more countries join NATO the more we look cool not following the crowd.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭mcsean2163


    Did you miss Syria and Yemen? I assume you are being facetious as the US has just concluded a twenty year war in Afghanistan etc. The USA is completely reckless militarily and cannot relate to cultures that are different to its own.

    You keep asking questions about Russia. I am 100% not advocating joining a military alliance with Russia. In a similar vein I am 100% not advocating joining an alliance with the USA (NATO).

    There'll be people lining up to cheer Biden,

    i won't be one of those people.

    To dismiss me as a 'tankie' which yurt2 has done is exceedingly rude. I've made my point, I'm finished here.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,213 ✭✭✭Mic 1972


    NATO is not protecting you from either of them



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    It absolutely is. Has the penny not dropped yet that Moscow would be d*cking around militarily in all of Eastern Europe had eastern states not joined NATO? We share political insitutions and a common market with these states, and NATO is the one defending these places, and by-proxy: us. You can engage in delusional and magical thinking if you want, but it's hard cold fact.

    Since Suez, Europe has not had credible independent defence against large state-actor threats like the USSR, and Russia (and China for that matter). NATO has underwritten the defence of Europe since the end of WW2. The USSR would have made its way to Calais and started lapping at the white Cliffs of Dover were it not for NATO. It boils the p*ss of cranks and rolling tobacco smoking tankies that's the case, but there's very litte room for other interpretations.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,883 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    You are a very far left person who thinks of themselves as a pacifist, probably vote no. 1 for the like of PBP/Solidarity or whatever they call themselves, or various far left independents if you are Irish and living here. That is your political ideology going on posts.

    That usually goes with a childish, studenty view of world politics carried on into adulthood. You have the misunderstood and often mistreated "underdogs" (may cover likes of China/Russia/North Korea/Iran/left wing autocrats in Americas/assorted ragbags of Islamic extremists etc) vs out and out Dr Evil style cackling "baddies" (aka imperialist warmongers) like US & NATO members + Western Big Capitalists and corporations.

    How else do you explain believing that because they joined NATO a week or so ago, Finland up and launching missiles at Moscow even "by accident" and starting a nuclear war is much more likely? It's certainly a lot less likely than Putin getting out of bed very much on the wrong side + Russia bombing Helsinki back to the stone age. Finland (public + politicians) considered those odds (did a re-calculation based on recent events in Ukraine), weighted pros and cons and went and joined NATO to increase their insurance cover.

    Finland went rogue + joined the "black hats" team in your view, so gets tarred a dumb warmonger that might now accidentally spark WW3. History, the current context + past behaviour of the country vs Russia's own sorry record of unprovoked military aggression towards Finland (as Soviet Union) be damned.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,213 ✭✭✭Mic 1972


    There is zero evidence that Putin would invade Europe if NATO wasn't around. That's the type of paranoia that makes you want to join NATO



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Lol. Yeah, Russia would definitely be sound to the Baltic States etc and definitely not invade were they not in NATO. Has no form for that kind of thing at all.

    Right on man 😂



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,804 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, all 3 in Europe, all 3 not in NATO and all 3 have Russian boots on the ground.

    Do you really think Putin would have invaded them, had all 3 been in NATO?



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Since the fall of the USSR, the Russian Federation has been flat-out engaging in elective wars from '91 to now in various countries. From Georgia and Chechnya to Tajikistan, Ukraine, Central African Republic, Syria and more besides.

    It breaks Tankie brains when you tell them this. They are not good neighbours.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    Its a cheap semantic trick to call Georgia Europe in this context.

    Yes its geographically Europe, but not part of the commonly understood political Europe.

    Ukraine, same. Only geographically Europe.

    Mexico is technically American. Doesnt mean we call Mexicans Americans. Or say that Americas police forces are on the cartels books.

    Nato is really only important in the baltics. Since the ussrs collapse Russia has lacked the economic backbone and leadership to make any large progess west. Nato was good to have in the past, but with the overwhelming population difference, economic power and military power of EU countries relative to the shambolic Russian fed, which cant even beat Ukraine, its starting to lose its relevance.

    Poland, Germany, and France have announced huge defence budget increases. Once those investments manifest theres little for nato to be hanging around for.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2



    Georgia is on the cusp of EU candidate status, get used to the idea of them of being part of "political Europe" because there is only one direction of travel there.

    NATO has never been more relevant - From the North Sea to the Black Sea, big-brain Putinites have locked-in the USA's strategic presence in Europe for another 80 years. And everyone from London to Ankara knows that it's the American heft that makes the overwhelming deterrence work,

    Tankies get pissed off with NATO precisely because it is such a powerful deterrant and it provides the security umbrella that makes all the nice stuff like the EU (something most people recognise is an overwhelming good) possible.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    On the cusp of candidate status is something very different to the common understanding of 'Europe'. Thats like being given a map and being asked to point to the US, only to then point at puerto rico ... i mean yes, technically, but try again.

    As for Americas heft. Pre-Ukraime there were about 60k American personnel dotted around Europe. At the same time there were around 1.4 million military personnel of various European nations. (Americas heft is home in america).

    Nato was just the coordination of this pool of European forces, since national divisions and interests require an external third party.

    Nato was a pool float that bought Europe time. And I dont see it being necessary for much longer. Maybe 10 years. 20 max. EU can't not develop its own option, in a world of Dubyas and Donalds and America first.

    Plus Russia is now a proven paper tiger. Lets see them finish up in Ukraine, and then try that sht in Poland.



Advertisement