Neutrality

louthandproud

Is it time we truly took our places amongst the nations of the world and tied our colours to the mast and give up our constitutional default position of being neutral in all conflicts.

Can we continue to rely on our bigger more powerful neighbours to fight for justice in conflicts around the world, such as when the US has to intervene when the UN's ineptitude led to the slaughter of thousands in the Yugoslavian crisis?

Or indeed standing up for our allies when they are attacked, such as the UK is doing with and for the US in Afghanistan.

Can we be eternally fence sitters, notwithstanding our excellent work as peace keepers but should that be all we ever are?

turgon

If you can convince the old ladys, and Sinn Fein, Ill agree!!!

Seriously though, I dont see the point either way. Its not like we could contribute much to and armed conflict. Additionally, if Ireland did get invaded I think it would be a simple case of a certain army north of the border being invited in.

As well, I believe Ireland has respect abroad when on peacekeeping missions because of the neutrality. It helps people understand foreign troops being in their country.

Building up the military would be a waste of money.

turgon

Right I suppose. The days of war in Europe are over I would imagine.

brianthebard

firstly,we don't have constitutionally guaranteed neutrality.do your research op.secondly there is very little
to gain from not being neutral and certainly not enough imo to give up our neutral position.Posted via Mobile Device

ejmaztec

louthandproud wrote: »

Is it time we truly took our places amongst the nations of the world and tied our colours to the mast and give up our constitutional default position of being neutral in all conflicts.

Can we continue to rely on our bigger more powerful neighbours to fight for justice in conflicts around the world, such as when the US has to intervene when the UN's ineptitude led to the slaughter of thousands in the Yugoslavian crisis?

Or indeed standing up for our allies when they are attacked, such as the UK is doing with and for the US in Afghanistan.

Can we be eternally fence sitters, notwithstanding our excellent work as peace keepers but should that be all we ever are?

It isn't just the British and Americans in Afghanistan, nor was it only the Americans in Yugoslavia.

Peace-keeping isn't a walk in the park.

turgon

louthandproud wrote: »

Or indeed standing up for our allies when they are attacked, such as the UK is doing with and for the US in Afghanistan

The only thing the US was attacked by was a thirst for oil.

flogen

Since when is Ireland neutral?

bonkey

turgon wrote: »

Right I suppose. The days of war in Europe are over I would imagine.

The days when Ireland could maintain a sufficient military presence to play a meaningful role in a war in Europe are certainly over.

AS to the OP...

Is it time we truly took our places amongst the nations of the world

What makes you think we haven't?

louthandproud

brianthebard wrote: »

firstly,we don't have constitutionally guaranteed neutrality.do your research op.secondly there is very little
to gain from not being neutral and certainly not enough imo to give up our neutral position.Posted via Mobile Device

Semantics.

We have always adopted a neutral position (officially). Our defense forces participate in peace keeping only.

My point is only to ask the question, should we go further than this?

I for one would support it.

And for the wise guys out there, I know there are more than just the UK and the US in Afganistan, I think we should be there too. Doesn't have to be a huge presence, but why not a token presence to assist our allies?

turgon

Maybe you should explain your position in detail.

Most of the population I would imagine are against the invasions in the Middle-East, I for one. But sure havent we been helping them with rendition flights??? Oh I forgot, thats illegal so make sure no one finds out. And heres a little bit of soothing money Bertie.

Ireland can contribute nothing to conflicts at any scale. A military alignment would be a wast of money that could be spent on the HSE.

Also your "take their place among the nations of the world"?? Would these nations include Britain (nice colonial campaign there), Germany (we all know this one), the US (Iraq "Mass Destruction Weapons" and Vietnam's "Tonkin Gulf", oh yeah we all believe it :rolleyes:), China (Human rights miracle)???? Maybe theres some Im forgetting. Basically a nation in your mind is a political entity willing to spill blood for there own good.

Or maybe we should keep our place amongst the best nations in the world: Sweden and Switzerland, no War in nearly 200 years. Oh but of course, these arent the "nations of the world". How stupid of them not to kill anyone.

louthandproud

bonkey wrote: »

AS to the OP...


What makes you think we haven't?

Just my opinion, but I think we should do more. See last post.

turgon

Why?

To be a "great nation" like the US?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#January_2007_ranking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders#Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index_Ranking

louthandproud

turgon wrote: »

Maybe you should explain your position in detail.

Most of the population I would imagine are against the invasions in the Middle-East, I for one. But sure havent we been helping them with rendition flights??? Oh I forgot, thats illegal so make sure no one finds out. And heres a little bit of soothing money Bertie.

Ireland can contribute nothing to conflicts at any scale. A military alignment would be a wast of money that could be spent on the HSE.

Also your "take their place among the nations of the world"?? Would these nations include Britain (nice colonial campaign there), Germany (we all know this one), the US (Iraq "Mass Destruction Weapons" and Vietnam's "Tonkin Gulf", oh yeah we all believe it :rolleyes:), China (Human rights miracle)???? Maybe theres some Im forgetting. Basically a nation in your mind is a political entity willing to spill blood for there own good.

Or maybe we should keep our place amongst the best nations in the world: Sweden and Switzerland, no War in nearly 200 years. Oh but of course, these arent the "nations of the world". How stupid of them not to kill anyone.

That would be a no then?

I would be of the same opinion as your good self on the middle east. However I would fully support the US and her allies in Afganistan. My point isn't however about any particular conflict just our willingness to participate in support of our allies.

On Switzerland, their position in WWII was almost as reprehensible as ours. They still refuse to return Jewish LOOT.

I guess your point about Britain may be a reflection of how we are still shackled by our history. Which is what I expected to hear when I posted initially.

Lastly it isn't weather or not we could make a significant contribution ( I know right now we couldn't) but just our willingness to stand up and be counted with our allies.

turgon

louthandproud wrote: »

her allies in Afganistan..

As a political entity the US is an "it". Refering to it as "her" just stinks of American partiosim, that we all know has been put to good use in the past to destroy the democracies of others.

louthandproud wrote: »

On Switzerland, their position in WWII was almost as reprehensible as ours..

Do you know what you on about? Ireland supplied weather reports to the allies, let them fly over Irish airspace and secretly returned troops to the north while interning German ones. If you are of the opinion that Ireland didn't help the allies you are sorely mistaken.

As regards the Swiss: they value their independence and have stayed out of European politics in an attempt to save themselves. Obviously there unwillingness to involve themselves in bloodshed has dampened your view of them. Neutrality has worked very well for them. So are you saying just because the Allies won, Swiss should suddenly take their side and go against the Axis. Their neutral position does them proud.

louthandproud wrote: »

I guess your point about Britain may be a reflection of how we are still shackled by our history..

No, I was just illustrating a point. Your opinion of a "Nation" is one that is not-neutral and one that is willing to spill blood. Iraq is NOT history. You have this demented idea that war is good. Easily known your Irish, were nice and cosy here up the west of Europe, and have never recently had to experience the kind of violence you appear to advocate.

louthandproud wrote: »

our willingness to stand up and be counted with our allies.

Once again, you seem to believe that war is the b all and end all. You are saying to have an impact on the world we have to use guns?? Very silly indeed, in my opinion. Think of what having an impact through military means has done to the world. Im thinking of Africa and Asia, two places where European "Nations", that you seem to honour for being involved in war, have stuck there nose in and helped create the sh*thole that a lot of these countries are.

Don't just think Mugabe. Think why he's there.

louthandproud

As a political entity the US is an "it". Refering to it as "her" just stinks of American partiosim, that we all know has been put to good use in the past to destroy the democracies of others.

Total bullsh1t. 'Her' versus 'it'. Get a grip. I refer to almost any country as her, as does the rest of the English speaking world.

Do you know what you on about? Ireland supplied weather reports to the allies, let them fly over Irish airspace and secretly returned troops to the north while interning German ones. If you are of the opinion that Ireland didn't help the allies you are sorely mistaken.

Ireland was neutral in WWII. End of. Or is it that type Irish 'sort of' neutrality you refer to, where we are but we sort of aren't.


As regards the Swiss: they value their independence and have stayed out of European politics in an attempt to save themselves. Obviously there unwillingness to involve themselves in bloodshed has dampened your view of them. Neutrality has worked very well for them. So are you saying just because the Allies won, Swiss should suddenly take their side and go against the Axis. Their neutral position does them proud.

The value their independence, they also valued all the Jewish loot they put in storage before and during WWII.

No, I was just illustrating a point. Your opinion of a "Nation" is one that is not-neutral and one that is willing to spill blood. Iraq is NOT history. You have this demented idea that war is good. Easily known your Irish, were nice and cosy here up the west of Europe, and have never recently had to experience the kind of violence you appear to advocate.

You are assuming a position for me and then knocking it down, just stick to what I said if you want to have an argument or discussion.


Once again, you seem to believe that war is the b all and end all. You are saying to have an impact on the world we have to use guns?? Very silly indeed, in my opinion. Think of what having an impact through military means has done to the world. Im thinking of Africa and Asia, two places where European "Nations", that you seem to honour for being involved in war, have stuck there nose in and helped create the sh*thole that a lot of these countries are.


Same again, where did I say that?

Don't just think Mugabe. Think why he's there.

??????

Manic Moran

Arguably peace enforcing missions (eg Congo) aren't the purview of neutral powers, because usually it means that you're taking a side. However, be that as it may, my issue with Irish neutrality isn't the concept itself. It's the hypocrtical position compared to countries such as the above-mentioned Sweden and Switzerland that those two countries are neutral, and mean it. They have sufficient self-defense capability that forms a resonable deterrence to make all comers think twice about a military operation in their areas. The usual answer to Ireland's defense capability is "sure, if someone were to attack us, the British or Americans would rescue us." Whilst this is true, it is an alignment, not a position of neutrality and is simply a case of being a parasite. The only difference between Ireland's situation and that of Iceland is that at least Iceland has been openly honest about the whole thing.

NTM

turgon

louthandproud wrote: »

I refer to almost any country as her, as does the rest of the English speaking world.

Well if thats your stance, fair enough. However I think your wrong, excerpt from the CIA Factbook:

CIA Factbook wrote:

In 1948 Ireland withdrew from the British Commonwealth; it joined the European Community in 1973.

This is irrelevant though.

louthandproud wrote: »

Ireland was neutral in WWII. End of.

So I made a statement of historical merit, and you are claiming its false? What I said was perfectly true, Ireland was aligned towards the allies. All the facts were true. Thankfully most people dont take an "end of" approach to historical argument.

louthandproud wrote: »

The value their independence, they also valued all the Jewish loot they put in storage before and during WWII.

I am willing to accept this, if you give me a reference. Are you saying they actually took the money for themselves?? For what is arguably the most bank dependent country in the world (larger than Dublin), I find this to be surprising. But I will accept if you give me a reference.

louthandproud wrote: »

You are assuming a position for me and then knocking it down, just stick to what I said if you want to have an argument or discussion.

Ok louthandproud what you said was:

"Is it time we truly took our places amongst the nations of the world"

By this, I would assume that you mean countries are only truly "nations" are those that take military stances. This I think ridiculous. Such an argument would state that to be a nation a country must involve itself in war, ie a country must kill people instead of using the diplomacy others favour.

It would also seem to me that you do not consider neutral countries to be great "nations" (took our places), if you did then you would not state that we needed to become aligned to be considered a nation. At least, that is my interpretation.

The argument for losing neutrality is a one of merit. However your approach was to reduce Ireland and other neutral countries, and state that to become full countries we most engage in military conflict, or at least swear too. War is a disgrace, and rarely achieves anything. Diplomacy, however time-consuming, is the way. As one person on boards once said:

Its better to lose lifetimes than lives.

ONE MORE THING: You said - "notwithstanding our excellent work as peace keepers but should that be all we ever are?". What else would we do - kill people over supposed weapons of mass destruction? Or keep people detained indefinitely in some military base of the coast of the Isle of Man?

louthandproud

turgon wrote: »

Well if thats your stance, fair enough. However I think your wrong, excerpt from the CIA Factbook:

IRISHMEN AND IRISHWOMEN: In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom.

Irish proclamation.
So there!

The rest you will have to agree to disagree, I happen to agree with the last poster. We have in some regards become the eternal fence sitters, or hurlers on the ditch. And no matter what you say we were neutral in WWII, and we were not allied to anyone. Interesting choice of words though as that is what the rest of the saviors of the free world at that time were to each other. Allies.

Your opinion is also obviously coloured by current events in the Middle East which is something I did not bring up and do not support the US and the UK in either. But this does not change my opinion overall.

And to say war never does any good, the fact that you aren't arguing with me in German would to me indicate that this isn't necessarily true.

You can find your own references for the Swiss issue.

turgon

louthandproud wrote: »

IRISHMEN AND IRISHWOMEN: In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom.

louthandproud, you have just supported my point: referring to a country as "her" is an act of patriotism and nationalism, as evidenced above. The Declaration is designed to immortalize Ireland and the cause.

louthandproud wrote: »

We have in some regards become the eternal fence sitters, or hurlers on the ditch.

So what do you suggest we should do: engage in armed conflict?

louthandproud wrote: »

And no matter what you say we were neutral in WWII, and we were not allied to anyone.

Yes technically neutral, but not in practice. What I said was true. Zimbabwe is technically a democracy, but do you actually believe it is?

louthandproud wrote: »

the saviors of the free world

louthandproud, whats the story with your history education? Because, no offense, it seems quite shallow. Norman Davies once wrote regarding the recruiting of the Soviet Union into the Allied side:

When the time came, Britain and France were willing to employ one criminal to destroy another.

You have clearly bought into what is termed the "allied scheme of history": ie those who win the war write the history (often and in this case partly propaganda). Lets see what these "saviors of the free world" were up to around 1945:

• Britain: Still hanging on to parts of the Empire. This included suppression of locals and white domination in Africa and India, in the former case where the whites still held blacks fully under there control. In both cases this "savior of the free world" had full white government in majority black/indian states. As you can imagine the locals weren't given the vote. "Free world" indeed.
• Britain: Closer to home, allowing the discriminatory government of Stormont (Northern Ireland) to continue suppressing Catholics, by not giving most of them the vote, and discriminating in jobs and housing.
• France: The good old Indo-French empire still quite vivid. Later this would cause the Vietnam War, when the locals finally became annoyed of years of French domination.
• Soviet Union: Well where to start??? Maybe the 55 MILLION people that were killed in Russia and in other Communist States between 1922 and 1945, and many more to come after the war, all by the Soviet government.
• Allies: Refusal to give Yugoslavia to the control of those who won its freedom. Why? The US didn't like what Tito stood for. Democracy my hat.
• Allies: In the closing months of WWII in Europe the "saviors" engaged in exactly what the Nazis did in Britain: bombing civilians and cities. There are pictures of whole German cities reduced to rubble by allied bombing.
• USA: Tell my louthandproud, are you aware that blacks weren't allowed vote in the southern states of the US in 1945? Are you aware that blacks were given separate facilities (toilets, fountains, food counters, busses) than the whites for fear of contamination. Are you aware that black schools were intentionally underfunded? Are you aware that blacks had to give up their seats to whites on buses if the buses were full???????

So are these the "saviors of the free world" your on about? I would specifically like an answer to this.

louthandproud wrote: »

And to say war never does any good, the fact that you aren't arguing with me in German would to me indicate that this isn't necessarily true.

Without war I would be speaking Irish. Without war, the Germans would not have invaded in the first place, so you could hardly claim I would be speaking German.

louthandproud

turgon wrote: »

louthandproud, you have just supported my point: referring to a country as "her" is an act of patriotism and nationalism, as evidenced above. The Declaration is designed to immortalize Ireland and the cause.



So what do you suggest we should do: engage in armed conflict

Not necessarily. But perhaps if it were the right thing to do.

On the "her" versus "it" I will continue to refer to all countries with "her" rather than "it". Hardly relevant to the subject.

turgon wrote: »

Yes technically neutral, but not in practice. What I said was true. Zimbabwe is technically a democracy, but do you actually believe it is?

What has Zimbabwe got to do with it.

turgon wrote: »

louthandproud, whats the story with your history education? Because, no offense, it seems quite shallow. Norman Davies once wrote regarding the recruiting of the Soviet Union into the Allied side:

When the time came, Britain and France were willing to employ one criminal to destroy another.

You have clearly bought into what is termed the "allied scheme of history": ie those who win the war write the history (often and in this case partly propaganda). Lets see what these "saviors of the free world" were up to around 1945:

• Britain: Still hanging on to parts of the Empire. This included suppression of locals and white domination in Africa and India, in the former case where the whites still held blacks fully under there control. In both cases this "savior of the free world" had full white government in majority black/indian states. As you can imagine the locals weren't given the vote. "Free world" indeed.
• Britain: Closer to home, allowing the discriminatory government of Stormont (Northern Ireland) to continue suppressing Catholics, by not giving most of them the vote, and discriminating in jobs and housing.
• France: The good old Indo-French empire still quite vivid. Later this would cause the Vietnam War, when the locals finally became annoyed of years of French domination.
• Soviet Union: Well where to start??? Maybe the 55 MILLION people that were killed in Russia and in other Communist States between 1922 and 1945, and many more to come after the war, all by the Soviet government.
• Allies: Refusal to give Yugoslavia to the control of those who won its freedom. Why? The US didn't like what Tito stood for. Democracy my hat.
• Allies: In the closing months of WWII in Europe the "saviors" engaged in exactly what the Nazis did in Britain: bombing civilians and cities. There are pictures of whole German cities reduced to rubble by allied bombing.
• USA: Tell my louthandproud, are you aware that blacks weren't allowed vote in the southern states of the US in 1945? Are you aware that blacks were given separate facilities (toilets, fountains, food counters, busses) than the whites for fear of contamination. Are you aware that black schools were intentionally underfunded? Are you aware that blacks had to give up their seats to whites on buses if the buses were full???????

So are these the "saviors of the free world" your on about? I would specifically like an answer to this.

Yes they were the saviors of the free world. They defeated Hitler, the greatest evil in recent world history.

The rest although probably true doesn't change that fact.

turgon wrote: »

Without war I would be speaking Irish. Without war, the Germans would not have invaded in the first place, so you could hardly claim I would be speaking German.

Therefore war sometimes do need to be fought, i.e. to stop the Germans. What would you have done. Rolled over and told the Germans war is bad.

Please Mr. Hitler, don't you know war is bad, we are neutral. Now please go away.

Or the Swiss version, we'll take your money, even buy your arms for you (German or Allies ) but we're neutral.

Quote me where I said "War is good". As with previous comments you are assuming a position for me.

PS. Attack my points but don't attack me personally. It's just not nice, and definitely not neutral. :-)

louthandproud

turgon wrote: »

Yes technically neutral, but not in practice. [/I]

So are you for or against Irish Neutrality, you seem to be leaning towards a 'we were not really neutral in parctice' argument during WWII.

What do you support?

1/ Neutral.

2/ Neutral, but not really neutral in practice necessarily kind of a thing.

3/ Not neutral. Colours nailed bravely to the mast.

brianthebard

louthandproud wrote: »

Semantics.

We have always adopted a neutral position (officially). Our defense forces participate in peace keeping only.

its not semantics.we've only followed a neutral policy since ww2,and any govt is free to change this on a whim,unlike constitutional neutrality which would be guaranteed.name one net benefit for ireland of giving up our neutrality please?and btw since we are neutral the US and UK can hardly be considered our allies.
Posted via Mobile Device[/]

turgon

louthandproud wrote: »

What has Zimbabwe got to do with it.

I was using Zimbabwe to show how some things arent as they seem. Ireland seemed strictly neutral. In practice, it wasn't.

louthandproud wrote: »

Yes they were the saviors of the free world. They defeated Hitler, the greatest evil in recent world history.

Once again, it seems that you dont have a clue what your on about. Hitler was not the greatest evil in recent world history - Stalin was. Once again, your buying into the allied scheme of history. Stalin killed 4 or 5 times more people that Hitler. And Im afraid, for your sake louthandproud, that that is an undisputed fact. He was keen on starting war too - Finland, Poland etc. He killed people in the army, the police and his party in the purges. Lots of civilians died in the Gulags. Communism was enforced with an iron hand.

Just to clear up the matter, what makes you believe Hitler was the greatest evil of all time? Is there facts that would point to him being harder than Stalin?

louthandproud wrote: »

The rest although probably true doesn't change that fact.

All I can say is well done. This is as good as saying that if I buy an apple (metaphorical for stopping Hitler) it excuses me to steal a car (metaphorical for how bad the "Allies" were in reality). Your point of view is completely and utterly ignorant and lacks factual historical basis. It is pointless me talking to you: you have obviously bought into what youve heard and thats not going to change.

louthandproud wrote: »

Therefore war sometimes do need to be fought, i.e. to stop the Germans.

WWII would have been avoided for a lot of reasons, many of them the fault of the Allies, the principal of these being the Treaty of Versailles. Hitlers policies were based on the harsh terms of Versailles. But I suppose you will be, as always, unwilling to accept historical fact.

louthandproud wrote: »

Or the Swiss version, we'll take your money, even buy your arms for you (German or Allies ) but we're neutral.

Oh so the Swiss were supposed to go without weapons? And in the case of an attack??

I think you dont realize what neutral is in practical terms. It mainly means acting normally, as if there were no war, by treating both sides equally. I dont see how buying weapons to protect yourself (the principle upon which Swiss neutrality is based) is violating non-alignment.

louthandproud wrote: »

definitely not neutral

Oh believe me louthandproud I am not neutral as regards this thread, my alignment is based purely on my innate hatred for historical ignorance.

turgon

PS: I dont care whether Ireland is neutral or not.

louthandproud

turgon wrote: »

I was using Zimbabwe to show how some things arent as they seem. Ireland seemed strictly neutral. In practice, it wasn't.



Once again, it seems that you dont have a clue what your on about. Hitler was not the greatest evil in recent world history - Stalin was. Once again, your buying into the allied scheme of history. Stalin killed 4 or 5 times more people that Hitler. And Im afraid, for your sake louthandproud, that that is an undisputed fact. He was keen on starting war too - Finland, Poland etc. He killed people in the army, the police and his party in the purges. Lots of civilians died in the Gulags. Communism was enforced with an iron hand.

Just to clear up the matter, what makes you believe Hitler was the greatest evil of all time? Is there facts that would point to him being harder than Stalin?

My opinion on Hitler being the biggest evil versus yours of Stalin being, hardly changes the argument.

turgon wrote: »

All I can say is well done. This is as good as saying that if I buy an apple (metaphorical for stopping Hitler) it excuses me to steal a car (metaphorical for how bad the "Allies" were in reality). Your point of view is completely and utterly ignorant and lacks factual historical basis. It is pointless me talking to you: you have obviously bought into what youve heard and thats not going to change.



WWII would have been avoided for a lot of reasons, many of them the fault of the Allies, the principal of these being the Treaty of Versailles. Hitlers policies were based on the harsh terms of Versailles. But I suppose you will be, as always, unwilling to accept historical fact.

I do not dispute any of this, but it is hardly relevant to the question, the war happened, the allies won and they defeated if not the greatest evil, certainly one of them. Again that argument is hardly relevant to the fact. You say your self Ireland wasn't really neutral, so what side of the fence do you sit on?

Oh so the Swiss were supposed to go without weapons? And in the case of an attack??

Read the post fully before responding. To clear it up for you The allies and Germany both used Swiss banks and currency to obtain weapons, so the Swiss as well as "storing" loot for Jews made profits from both sides. If you don't know that then it may be you that is historically ignorant. Hardly a glorious example of neutrality to follow.

I think you dont realize what neutral is in practical terms. It mainly means acting normally, as if there were no war, by treating both sides equally. I don't see how buying weapons to protect yourself (the principle upon which Swiss neutrality is based) is violating non-alignment.

So if we were attacked, what would you do? Switzerland have one of the most efficient military forces in the world and a Navy larger than ours.

Oh believe me louthandproud I am not neutral as regards this thread, my alignment is based purely on my innate hatred for historical ignorance.

Combine that with my innate hatred for people who have an inability to argue a topic and not keep jumping to side arguments. - Correction, I don't have innate hatreds for anything really. But you get my point.

You still having even responded to the question, should Ireland maintain a position of Neutrality (with as you said yourself a not really neutral position when it suits us) ? Or should we act with our allies when it is appropriate to do so.

louthandproud

turgon wrote: »

PS: I dont care whether Ireland is neutral or not.

There you go, it wasn't that difficult.

brianthebard

wow you guys godwin early and often huh?
Posted via Mobile Device

turgon

Ok were obviosly not understanding each other well.

I dont mind about neutrality, I just want a meaningful debate on its merits/demrits.

louthandproud wrote: »

My opinion on Hitler being the biggest evil versus yours of Stalin being, hardly changes the argument.

Ok fair enough your opinion may be different.

But if your opinion is based on who killed the most people/who started wars then Im afriad Stalin scores higher on both scores.

louthandproud wrote: »

You say your self Ireland wasn't really neutral, so what side of the fence do you sit on?

Im on the side that reads history and accepts facts even if I dont like them. I dont like the way Ireland neutral but in reality not. I wouldnt have minded too much being in the war, but what Ireland di was just snacky. Yet instead of hiding form that fact I admit it.

louthandproud wrote: »

Read the post fully before responding. To clear it up for you The allies and Germany both used Swiss banks and currency to obtain weapons, so the Swiss as well as "storing" loot for Jews made profits from both sides. If you don't know that then it may be you that is historically ignorant. Hardly a glorious example of neutrality to follow.

As regards the banks, I don't see what the problem with it is. Its basically a stance of non-alignment. As a neutral country you cant decide to favour one side.

Im still skeptical about the Jewish Money, sounds more like one of those Network 2 documentaries, but its probably true.

louthandproud wrote: »

So if we were attacked, what would you do? Switzerland have one of the most efficient military forces in the world and a Navy larger than ours.

I am aware. Did you know that Switzerland can summon over 2 million soldiers to defense positions within 24 hours of being attacked? Amazing stuff, no wonder they've never been invaded!!!

turgon

brianthebard wrote: »

wow you guys godwin early and often huh?

No, were just debating using historical information. Its quite a simply idea really, one where we support the points we make by reference to the past.

louthandproud

brianthebard wrote: »

its not semantics.we've only followed a neutral policy since ww2,and any govt is free to change this on a whim,unlike constitutional neutrality which would be guaranteed.name one net benefit for ireland of giving up our neutrality please?and btw since we are neutral the US and UK can hardly be considered our allies.
Posted via Mobile Device[/]

So are we neutral or not? I take your point that we aren't constitutionally neutral. But I think it would be naive in the extreme to think we could change our neutrality policy on a whim.

One benefit, we could if required assist our allies (Militarily or not, the US and the UK are our allies, make no mistake, plus the rest of Europe ) in the event that they were attacked, they would certainly assist us as things stand. Two, we could do more than just keep the peace when that is a necessary thing to do, now people will argue that that is never a necessary thing to do. I refer them to UN's inability to prevent massacre's in Rwanda and Yugoslavia when the UN's peace mandate prevented them from taking necessary action.

brianthebard

its not naivity,govt policies can be easily changed.and you didn't answer my question.i think it would be best to keep historical examples out of this thread,since we are not going to go back and refight any war,plus each war must be considered on individual attributes.so what gains are there for ireland in jettisoning neutrality?
Posted via Mobile Device

Kama

This debate requires a fully functioning Evilometer!
I'm reading Stalin > Hitler, but Kitler > LeninCat
Moar tests needed!

That or historical context; Nazi's weren't exactly unique in terms of genocide, eugenics, warfare, or other evilness. Any knowledge of human history and that view is almost impossible to maintain.

Unfortunately, 'evil' isn't isolated in a country where it can be conveniently bombed. Pity that.

And I'm with Turgon, +1 for armed neutrality. Freeloading on public defence goods is lame and hypocritical neutrality. Asymmetric warfare, citizen army, against any force that attempts to occupy you is the most cost-effective military strategy. Response to invasion is one thing, and is covered under international law, but military alliances are something else.

As a bonus, if everyone just did that, we'd have world peace, lal!

Out of interest, if we are on the UK and USA's side...who are we against again? Someone specific, or just whoever they are against?

Who is Oceania at war with again? Eurasia? Eastasia?
Its so hard to remember...

louthandproud

Ok fair enough your opinion may be different.

But if your opinion is based on who killed the most people/who started wars then Im afriad Stalin scores higher on both scores.

Don't be afraid, many people feel like you do. However many others including myself feel differently. But I accept your "fair enough".

BTW, who knows where Hitler would have ended up had he not lost and topped himself.

Im on the side that reads history and accepts facts even if I dont like them. I dont like the way Ireland neutral but in reality not. I wouldnt have minded too much being in the war, but what Ireland di was just snacky. Yet instead of hiding form that fact I admit it.

I 100% agree on the snakey bit. Hence this thread really.

As regards the banks, I don't see what the problem with it is. Its basically a stance of non-alignment. As a neutral country you cant decide to favour one side.

Maybe so, but it hardly merits an honourable position which is why Switzerland got into this discussion in the first place as a shining example of neutrality,

Im still skeptical about the Jewish Money, sounds more like one of those Network 2 documentaries, but its probably true.

Very true, many Jews transfered their assets to Swiss banks for safe keeping, when these Jews never showed up again thanks to our friend Hitler the banks were reluctant to deal with their relations with a view to returning the assets. That remains the case to this day.

I am aware. Did you know that Switzerland can summon over 2 million soldiers to defense positions within 24 hours of being attacked? Amazing stuff, no wonder they've never been invaded!!!

Yes I did. They also have all their mountain passes and tunnels land mined to prevent over land invasion. Admirable stuff.

But we have nothing really other than a dependency on the UK and the US (hopefully). Granted the chances of us needing them is extremely remote.

But you never know. Things change.

louthandproud

Kama wrote: »

And I'm with Turgon, +1 for armed neutrality. Freeloading on public defence goods is lame and hypocritical neutrality. Asymmetric warfare, citizen army, against any force that attempts to occupy you is the most cost-effective military strategy. Response to invasion is one thing, and is covered under international law, but military alliances are something else.

Not sure Targon is arguing for armed neutrality.

But he/she can clear that up for themselves.

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote: »

Arguably peace enforcing missions (eg Congo) aren't the purview of neutral powers, because usually it means that you're taking a side. However, be that as it may, my issue with Irish neutrality isn't the concept itself. It's the hypocrtical position compared to countries such as the above-mentioned Sweden and Switzerland that those two countries are neutral, and mean it. They have sufficient self-defense capability that forms a resonable deterrence to make all comers think twice about a military operation in their areas. The usual answer to Ireland's defense capability is "sure, if someone were to attack us, the British or Americans would rescue us." Whilst this is true, it is an alignment, not a position of neutrality and is simply a case of being a parasite. The only difference between Ireland's situation and that of Iceland is that at least Iceland has been openly honest about the whole thing.

NTM

well the big military airbase in iceland closed a couple of years ago, things have cooled there so to speak, do switzerland and sweden alllow us military overflights and landing, or a cia free for all like us?

i mean maybe things are different now but switzerland is hardly an exmaple of good neutrality.

Fratton Fred

louthandproud wrote: »

IRISHMEN AND IRISHWOMEN: In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom.

Irish proclamation.

interesting you should quote that, the 1916 leaders were only too willing to ally them selves to Imperial Germany, just as their forefathers were only too willing to ally themselves to Imperial France.

Since then honoured Irish republicans were only too willing to ally themselves with Nazi Germany, Libya and even a few dodgy drug dealers in south America. So in reality the founders of this Repblic never really saw Ireland as being Neutral.

Lets face it, this charade of Neutrality suits Ireland down to the ground. The government can get away with spending less than the bare minimum on defence and the population can look on in self righteous shock as the rest of the world gets involved in bloody conflicts. Knowing all the time that if a few Al Qeada terrorists wanted, for some strange reason, to fly an Airbus into the IFSC then the nasty old imperialists next door will more than likely come to the rescue.

louthandproud

Fratton Fred wrote: »

interesting you should quote that, the 1916 leaders were only too willing to ally them selves to Imperial Germany, just as their forefathers were only too willing to ally themselves to Imperial France.

Since then honoured Irish republicans were only too willing to ally themselves with Nazi Germany, Libya and even a few dodgy drug dealers in south America. So in reality the founders of this Repblic never really saw Ireland as being Neutral.

I would pretty much agree with you, however the quote used was only used to deal with a rather silly side argument about referring to countries as 'her' rather than 'it'.

Manic Moran

lostexpectation wrote: »

well the big military airbase in iceland closed a couple of years ago, things have cooled there so to speak,

Keflavik did close, but Iceland still openly relies on other nations for its defense. The French took over the job about two months ago. Here's one of the Mirages landing at Reyjavik.



The Baltic States and Luxembourg are similarly patrolled by allied countries.

do switzerland and sweden alllow us military overflights and landing, or a cia free for all like us?

No idea, but that's not the definition of neutrality. Neutrality is when one refuses to take sides, and given that on average military aircraft from some forty countries a year pass through Ireland, I don't think there's much evidence that Ireland is taking sides. When was the last time Ireland ever said 'no' to a military flight flying over or passing through on the basis of country of origin/ownership?

i mean maybe things are different now but switzerland is hardly an exmaple of good neutrality.

Why not?

NTM

bonkey

louthandproud wrote: »

And to say war never does any good, the fact that you aren't arguing with me in German would to me indicate that this isn't necessarily true.

Indeed. I'm glad the Allies started WW2, by attacking those Germans, inside Germany, who were just peacefully sitting around waiting for western Europe to decide to be ruled by them.

bonkey

lostexpectation wrote: »

do switzerland and sweden alllow us military overflights and landing, or a cia free for all like us?

I can't talk about Sweden, but Switzerland typically allows US military overflights except when the US were engaging in military action. When the US declared its intention to go into Afghanistan, the Swiss told them that Swiss airspace was off-limits.

Trivial though this may seem, it apparently caused the US some logistical problems with some European-based resources.

They accepted the Swiss position with good grace, and worked around it.

i mean maybe things are different now but switzerland is hardly an exmaple of good neutrality.

Wny not? They refused to take sides. Thats what neutrality is.

It would seem that what you're saying is that good neutrality is picking the right side, whereas bad neutrality is actually remaining neutral.

turgon

bonkey wrote: »

It would seem that what you're saying is that good neutrality is picking the right side, whereas bad neutrality is actually remaining neutral.

100%

lostexpectation

that's not what im saying at all, im saying switzerland profited from the world wars and so do we,im sure they are neutral in favour of the allies as much as we are, that's bad neutrality, we certainly are taking sides we'd hardly allow iraqi military planes to refuel in shannon on their way to attack the us would we ? didnt' we hand over all our info on russia transit to the americans.

turgon

lostexpectation wrote: »

im sure they are neutral in favour of the allies as much as we are

How are you so sure?

lostexpectation

but Switzerland typically allows US military overflights except when the US were engaging in military action

thats paperthin
does include when the plane happens to stopping off in italy first before going to iraq or something

Manic Moran

lostexpectation wrote: »

we certainly are taking sides we'd hardly allow iraqi military planes to refuel in shannon on their way to attack the us would we ? didnt' we hand over all our info on russia transit to the americans.

Seen no reason to believe that the Russians didn't get as much knowledge of Shannon ops as the Americans did. Shannon's a public airport, after all, you could see the C-141s from the terminal. The Irish government have set a bunch of criteria for the use of Shannon as a stop-over, such as "No carriage of undeclared munitions" and "Attacks may not be launched from Ireland." As long as the rules are applied equally and fairly to everyone who asks, it's not a violation of neutrality.

NTM

lostexpectation

so the irish gov gave records of flights to the Russians kgb too as they did to the cia?

it is a breach of the idea of neutrality.

its just your and the gov standards of neutrality are very low.

eroo

We are not nuetral and never really have been.Allied airmen were put back over the Border during WW2,Axis airmen were interned.Does that sound Nuetral?

Also,the Defence Forces currently have 7 or 8 officers serving in Afghanistan as part of ISAF.We also sent Explosive Ordnance Disposal(EOD) experts over to Iraq and Afghanistan,to instruct Coalition teams on dealing with Improvised Explosive Devices(IED's).

To say we could contribute nothing is BS.Our EOD personnel are some of the best and most experienced in the world.Our special forces,the Army Ranger Wing(ARW),would be a major asset to any international force.Our regular forces also have a vast amount of overseas experience too.

For example,New Zealand's Defence Force have roughly 9,000 personnel.Yet,the NZSAS have served in Afghanistan as well as other NZDF personnel.Why can't we?

the_syco

turgon wrote: »

The days of war in Europe are over I would imagine.

The Germans lost WW1 and 2, but they may yet win the Lisbon Treaty

=-=

We've let dictatorships land, peoples from all different countries land, the US army land, and we fight the good fight as peace keepers, so yeah, I'd call that neutral.

walrusgumble

louthandproud wrote: »

Just my opinion, but I think we should do more. See last post.

well of you go into the army then, lead by example. if you have children? would you encourage them to join ?

bonkey

lostexpectation wrote: »

im sure they are neutral in favour of the allies as much as we are,

Perhaps you'd care to share the evidence that leads to this surity, or are you sure just based on your feeling that they must be?

Consider, while you're at it, that the Swiss have had an unarmed military observation post in the DMZ between North and South Korea, pretty-much since said DMZ was created. Consider that they are also the official intermediary between the US and Iran, because although those two nations have no official contact, they still need communicate and thus require a trusted, neutral intermediary. Consider that Switzerland only recently joined the UN, after years (decades) of deliberation as to whether or not doing so constituted a breach of their neutrality.

but Switzerland typically allows US military overflights except when the US were engaging in military action

thats paperthin
does include when the plane happens to stopping off in italy first before going to iraq or something

I think you may have misunderstood me. When I said they didn't allow overflights, I meant that they didn't allow overflights. I wasn't talking about landings, or referring to where the plane was coming from or going to.

If it was a US military plane, or a civilian plane carrying US military, it was not allowed enter Swiss airspace.

If you see that as paper-thin, then perhaps you'd care to explain what a proper neutral nation should have done in the same place?

Alternately, you could just retract your suggestion that the Swiss aren't a good example of neutrality, or even just explain what you meant by it. While you're at it, you could explain why the North Koreans and Iranians trust them as much as they clearly do.