Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ireland and the EU: Defending our common European home

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I agree to a point but like the UN the mandate is then directed by States that (generally) don’t have skin in the game.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by irishrgr View Post
      This article sums it up perfectly, especially the "we're naive" part, no real foundation or understanding of the strategic realities of the world. I agree with the other posters who argue the public wouldn't care to see defense spending increased. The usual "sure we're neutral" and "ah sure the neighbours'll look after us" are typical of what I call "small thinking". Neutrality doesn't really mean anything any more and it hasn't since the early 20th century. And as for the neighbours, no, they'll look after THEIR interests, not our. Yes, we'd be supported if it suits a neighbour, but if it doesn't, oh well. As another example, the British invaded and occupied Iceland during WWII. Iceland declared neutrality at the outset of WWII, and the "good guys" sailed right on in. And of further note, the Brits handed the occupation off to the Canadians, who then passed it on to the Americans. SO much for neutrality, right?
      Our neutrality in WWII was based on the fact that the partition of the island meant there was a real chance of civil unrest within the state if Ireland openly joined on the allied side. We all know how neutral we actually were during WWII. A fact commemorated by the first tree planting at the Áras when the British PM planted a tree there in 1946, thanking the state for its assistance to Britain. The fact neutrality has morphed into something totally different over time reflects how society has interpreted Dev's (the other one) decision 78 years on. While unfounded in the understanding of our neutral history, most people like our neutral stance and here on this forum you are speaking to the converted.

      Originally posted by At this point, Irelands best bet would be to start greater integration into the EU, embrace compatible intel, cyber, ADA radars nested with the Europeans and generally act like a grown up and stop moaning on about neutrality. The opportunity to join NATO and have meaningful defense is past, politically and fiscally it's a non starter, there is no public support ergo no money. And while jets and weapons are sexy, Ireland needs to start with the foundations.

      [url
      https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0325/949976-ireland-security-assessment/[/url]
      Based on what exactly? What tells us we'd be safer as an integrated part of the EU, or any other country, for that matter? It's our EU integration which makes us a target. We are certainly better off in a big trading bloc but that's a different thing. Ambivalence to Ireland originates from our colonial past, and not any neutrality. As a colony that became free we have respect, from other colonies especially, and are seen as not being a threat, but as we become so closely identified with the EU that is changing. The threat to Ireland comes more from being in the EU as an integrated member more than anything else. Also in real terms, no other state will invade us. So the threat is from terror and we nee dnot be in a federal Europe to pool Intel.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
        Like it or not it is our membership of the EU that has made the country what it is today. It was only after 1973 that we began to develop as a truly independent nation, and one that is accepted as an equal in a "Union" of nations.
        We were an equal and it was the EEC, and later EC, that helped make this country what it is, not the EU - the names and timing matter. As an EU member we had to take on debt, at unfavorable terms, that wasn't out debt, and cripple ourselves. We worked through it, not the EU. Had we kept our currency we would not have had a bubble, and could have sorted competitiveness ourselves, in an instant. trade made this country and the devaluation of 1993 drove our economy more than any EEC/EC/EU intervention.

        [QUOTE=Preventing humanitarian crisis in areas such as the Middle East and Africa has a direct affect on the security of this nation even if most decide to ignore this. Being able to provide security for people in their homeland is essential for the stability of the EU and our well being.[/QUOTE]

        Humanitarian crises do create the terrorist of tomorrow, but those are not what make you the target. The transgressor, or perceived transgressor or cause, of the issue is the target and it is our involvement in a quasi superstate that causes this nation to be a target.

        Comment


        • #34
          While unfounded in the understanding of our neutral history, most people like our neutral stance and here on this forum you are speaking to the converted.
          Most people are utter hypocrites so. They love the idea of being neutral but will leave our defence up to foreign powers because they don't want to have to pay for it.

          Based on what exactly? What tells us we'd be safer as an integrated part of the EU, or any other country, for that matter?
          You ever hear of strength in numbers? NO country can afford to go it alone defence wise these days lest you are China or the U.S. You have said in a previous post that should we be attacked others will defend us. If you are not a member of a "gang" so to speak the gang won't defend you when the other gang comes to kick your ass.A prime example of closer EU integration is Irelands membership of the Atlas Network of EU police special intervention units, and the benefits of such membership including our ability to call of EU assistance in times of national crisis. Of course you probably think that is a bad thing though

          It's our EU integration which makes us a target.
          No.What make us a target,at least for Jihadis,is the fact that we are white,western and mostly christian. Simple as.Nothing to do with the EU.As for other nations we are a potential target because of our strategic importance in terms of geography.

          Ambivalence to Ireland originates from our colonial past, and not any neutrality. As a colony that became free we have respect, from other colonies especially, and are seen as not being a threat, but as we become so closely identified with the EU that is changing.
          What ambivalance? What experience are you basing that on? I can tell you from experience that there are parts of the world where the don't care if you are Irish they will still shoot you just the same.MOst of those people couldn't tell if we were in the EU or not BTW.
          The threat to Ireland comes more from being in the EU as an integrated member more than anything else. Also in real terms, no other state will invade us. So the threat is from terror and we need not be in a federal Europe to pool Intel.
          The threat to Ireland comes from other nations which have strategic interests here.And you would be surprised who does.We can't deal with those threats alone and if the worst happens we need to be able to call on our allies to help.We won't get that help by being Isolationist ostriches.As for no state invading us.Get real.If it suited Putin in the morning to invade and do a flanking move around the U.K and France,Germany etc he would just invade.The DF would give him a hard time but we couldn't hold out without assistance. If we cry "Neutral" when others need help than why would help come our way in time of need??


          Humanitarian crises do create the terrorist of tomorrow, but those are not what make you the target. The transgressor, or perceived transgressor or cause, of the issue is the target and it is our involvement in a quasi superstate that causes this nation to be a target.
          If you had ever served in the Middle east you would know how naive that statement is.As I said above. WHITE,WESTERN,CHRISTIAN. IE an Infidel or kaffir.
          "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

          Comment


          • #35
            Of relevance to this discussion.
            "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by apod View Post
              Most people are utter hypocrites so. They love the idea of being neutral but will leave our defence up to foreign powers because they don't want to have to pay for it.


              You ever hear of strength in numbers? NO country can afford to go it alone defence wise these days lest you are China or the U.S. You have said in a previous post that should we be attacked others will defend us. If you are not a member of a "gang" so to speak the gang won't defend you when the other gang comes to kick your ass.A prime example of closer EU integration is Irelands membership of the Atlas Network of EU police special intervention units, and the benefits of such membership including our ability to call of EU assistance in times of national crisis. Of course you probably think that is a bad thing though


              No.What make us a target,at least for Jihadis,is the fact that we are white,western and mostly christian. Simple as.Nothing to do with the EU.As for other nations we are a potential target because of our strategic importance in terms of geography.


              What ambivalance? What experience are you basing that on? I can tell you from experience that there are parts of the world where the don't care if you are Irish they will still shoot you just the same.MOst of those people couldn't tell if we were in the EU or not BTW.

              The threat to Ireland comes from other nations which have strategic interests here.And you would be surprised who does.We can't deal with those threats alone and if the worst happens we need to be able to call on our allies to help.We won't get that help by being Isolationist ostriches.As for no state invading us.Get real.If it suited Putin in the morning to invade and do a flanking move around the U.K and France,Germany etc he would just invade.The DF would give him a hard time but we couldn't hold out without assistance. If we cry "Neutral" when others need help than why would help come our way in time of need??



              If you had ever served in the Middle east you would know how naive that statement is.As I said above. WHITE,WESTERN,CHRISTIAN. IE an Infidel or kaffir.
              The only thing I would add to that would be if Putin did something like that in the morning there would be likely to be a NATO response even if we said no.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by DeV View Post
                The only thing I would add to that would be if Putin did something like that in the morning there would be likely to be a NATO response even if we said no.
                there would, but it would the response that NATO decides is in NATO's interests. it could be anything from Hypersanctions, both on Russia and the effected location in Ireland, to flattening the West Coast. the point being that Ireland wouldn't get a say, and its interests wouldn't be particularly considered in the decision making process.

                thats the problem with not being in the gang...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                  there would, but it would the response that NATO decides is in NATO's interests. it could be anything from Hypersanctions, both on Russia and the effected location in Ireland, to flattening the West Coast. the point being that Ireland wouldn't get a say, and its interests wouldn't be particularly considered in the decision making process.

                  thats the problem with not being in the gang...
                  Absolutely but that would also be a argument for a militant armed neutrality.

                  No point in us asking NATO for air support to get little green men out of Shannon for them to be replaced by RAF Regiment (or whoever)


                  Traditionally IMHO the reason for neutrality was, among other things:
                  - show we were independent
                  - to keep costs down
                  - to keep the army in check
                  - to stop the UK thinking we might invite the Germans in (major threat to the UK)
                  - not give the UK an excuse to invade
                  - not give the Germans an excuse to attack


                  Can we be a neutral in the modern world I don’t know?

                  In the world of non-State actors, terrorism, transnational crime, the cyber arena (non traditional security threats), I would say you can’t really be (depending on the nature of the non-State actor), it is a direct threat to our way of life, our society, our values, our economy.

                  In the world of traditional threats, I would say you can. Although we wouldn’t say it (or even do it) Ireland may think of itself as an honest broker. The only issue is you need to defend that neutrality
                  Last edited by DeV; 4 April 2018, 22:20.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Probably also worth remembering that our Neutrality during the 2nd World was was not unusual in the early stages. Don't forget the USA remained neutral until December 1941, at which stage the British had already endured Dunkirk, The Battle of Britain, and was deeply involved in fighting in North Africa, with some minor victories along the way.
                    As an Irish American, who had been actively supported by Irish Americans in the founding days of the nation, Dev was advised that Neutrality was the way to go. Henry Ford, who provided ireland with its first production line car factory was one of many powerful figures in the US who wanted the US to stay out of the war. Even after Pearl Harbor it was unclear initially if the US public would support the US entry into war. Powerful Irish American people, such as Joe Kennedy, remained strongly and vocally opposed. (Ironically both Ford and Kennedy were publicly anti-semitic, so their lack of concern for the welfare of european jews may have influenced their continued opposition to the war effort.)
                    So Dev kept ireland neutral because at the beginning of the conflict, everyone else was too. Until they were attacked.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by irishrgr View Post
                      As another example, the British invaded and occupied Iceland during WWII. Iceland declared neutrality at the outset of WWII, and the "good guys" sailed right on in.
                      Not only Iceland. There's a reason that the British were in the immediate neighbourhood to land in neutral Norway right after the German invasion - they were on their own way to do the same thing themselves. All this apart from Churchill's frequent enthusiasms for the excuse to invade Éire and re-run the WOI.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                        thats the problem with not being in the gang...
                        It's not at all a new observation - it goes back to De Valera and before! - but a small country 'in the gang' gets told what to do, and doesn't get any say about what the gang's up to. Witness the bank crisis here, not so long ago.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by The Connaught Ranger View Post
                          The fact neutrality has morphed into something totally different over time reflects how society has interpreted Dev's (the other one) decision 78 years on. While unfounded in the understanding of our neutral history, most people like our neutral stance and here on this forum you are speaking to the converted.
                          And Dev pursing a policy which would have been quite recognisable to Connolly, twenty-five years before.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                            Probably also worth remembering that our Neutrality during the 2nd World was was not unusual in the early stages. Don't forget the USA remained neutral until December 1941, at which stage the British had already endured Dunkirk, The Battle of Britain, and was deeply involved in fighting in North Africa, with some minor victories along the way.
                            As an Irish American, who had been actively supported by Irish Americans in the founding days of the nation, Dev was advised that Neutrality was the way to go. Henry Ford, who provided ireland with its first production line car factory was one of many powerful figures in the US who wanted the US to stay out of the war. Even after Pearl Harbor it was unclear initially if the US public would support the US entry into war. Powerful Irish American people, such as Joe Kennedy, remained strongly and vocally opposed. (Ironically both Ford and Kennedy were publicly anti-semitic, so their lack of concern for the welfare of european jews may have influenced their continued opposition to the war effort.)
                            So Dev kept ireland neutral because at the beginning of the conflict, everyone else was too. Until they were attacked.
                            disliked in error

                            Originally posted by DaithiDub View Post
                            It's not at all a new observation - it goes back to De Valera and before! - but a small country 'in the gang' gets told what to do, and doesn't get any say about what the gang's up to. .
                            true

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              ropebag do you think that, in a way, our non-aligned military status is probably more useful to NATO planners, than our membership would be?

                              As already pointed out, it doesn't make any difference to the likes of ISIS and other extremist groups, but, they're not representative of every adversary or group active in an AO.

                              When our troops go abroad, say to Kosovo, they're not NATO - so they don't have the same baggage, but they're serving the same goal.

                              Is that better than having NATO troops who happen to be Irish, when in reality we're going to contribute very little to collective defence?

                              Given that the UK, US and NATO as a whole will do whatever it takes to protect their interests if they come under threat, is a formalised peacetime mutual defence arrangement with a small country and its tiny military, really worth the bother?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by pym View Post
                                ropebag do you think that, in a way, our non-aligned military status is probably more useful to NATO planners, than our membership would be?

                                When our troops go abroad, say to Kosovo, they're not NATO - so they don't have the same baggage, but they're serving the same goal.

                                Is that better than having NATO troops who happen to be Irish, when in reality we're going to contribute very little to collective defence?
                                not 100% sure what your saying

                                Irish troops serving with IFOR, SFOR, KFOR and ISAF were on NATO Ops, placed under NATO command (probably with national cavets (that even NATO countries had)), they were awarded NATO medals. The man on the street in Bosnia, Kosovo or Afghanistan more than likely doesn’t no where Ireland is (never mind the fact that we aren’t in NATO).

                                Given that the UK, US and NATO as a whole will do whatever it takes to protect their interests if they come under threat, is a formalised peacetime mutual defence arrangement with a small country and its tiny military, really worth the bother?
                                not 100% sure what you mean

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X