Should Ireland Abandon Its Neutrality???

mega man

Please state your reasons.

O'Coonassa

We're waving guns at people in several far flung places. Hardly neutral, just hypocritical.

taram

If we abandon it completly, we'll just end up with an even bigger drain on our finances, unless ofc we manage to successfully take over a massive oil producing country without much expense or bloodshed. :P

jimmycrackcorm

O'Coonassa wrote: »

We're waving guns at people in several far flung places. Hardly neutral, just hypocritical.

He's talking about Ireland not the usa.

O'Coonassa

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

He's talking about Ireland not the usa.

Ah you're not paying attention at all.

nesf

mega man wrote: »

Please state your reasons.

Please state your own opinion and back it up. It's not sufficient to merely ask a question on this forum.

Also, moved to the main Politics forum.

marko91

yes now let our puney little country get squashed like bugs buy bigger countrys...were neutral cos we cant defend ourselves:p

heyjude

Ireland isn't neutral and its debatable whether it ever has been, it is non-alligned in that we aren't members of any military alliance such as NATO.

You can't abandon something that you've never had/been.

mal1

Yes, because no nation will notice or care.

Manic Moran

Ireland abandoned its non-aligned policy many years ago, if it ever truly had one to begin with.

Just people don't want to face the reality of the situation, and are happy enough deluding themselves into thinking Ireland is militarily independent.

NTM

Iwasfrozen

Please state your reasons.

Why don't you take the plunge first ?

turgon

I think anyone sane will admit we do rely in UK/NATO for defence, but I think that membership of Nato or anything should not be sought. It will just cost too much, and I dont feel Irish people need to be Guardians of the World.

nesf

Manic Moran wrote: »

Ireland abandoned its non-aligned policy many years ago, if it ever truly had one to begin with.

Well in WW2 we were non-aligned but provided weather reports and other services to the Allies (Allied airmen being returned to Britain while Axis airmen were interned as POWs and whatnot).

sub-x

Ireland already abandoned her Neutrality when the government allowed rendition flights into Shannon.

Liam Byrne

With the U.S. using Shannon Airport, our neutrality was sold out years ago....

It always amuses me the way people go on about North Korea or Russia or Iraq having weapons, while they're perfectly OK with the biggest warmongering administration of the last 50 years having them.

Yes, it looks like things are changing with Obama's election, but the damage is done and it's a case of reversing it now.

So the question (in my eyes) would be "can Ireland regain it's neutrality ?"

jimmycrackcorm

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Ah you're not paying attention at all.

But i am. Waving a gun is an aggressive act but carrying one is not. Irish soldiers are not undertaking any aggressive action anywhere.

mega man

I was just thinking if we joined the coalition forces in Iraq and afghanistan would it benefit or economy. Would we benefit from the spoils of war?

FoxT

Ireland is not Neutral. Economically we are tightly bound to both the US & the EU. Culturally, we are virtually a state of the US. (I believe we have more in common culturally with the US then we do with any EU country.) There is nothing wrong with this.

Neutrality is bad. It implies that as a nation we are happy to take the 'I'm alright, Jack' attitude and walk away from the moral obligation we all share as human beings, to help shape the world into a better place.

Today, we claim to be neutral, but we are not. This political schizophrenia has led the nation on the one hand, to collude in undemocratically supported kidnappings & torture ( thats what extraordinary rendition means) , while on the other, we have been miserably gutless ( along with the entire EU) in the face of the balkans crisis.

Today we have our neutrality cake and eat it,by being passive. It is morally reprehensible.

Of course, as long as we benefit from EU free money and American Foreign Direct Investment, I see no political impetus to change things.

Why deny Americans the use of Shannon airport when 100,000+ people in the country are working for american companies?
Why should we have demanded EU intervention in the Balkans when every other EU country is scared ****less? We all stood back & let NATO ( who we all like to hate ) do the dirty work.

1 sentence summary is: Nobody in Ireland cares enough about real, active, constructive neutrality because we benefit so much economically from our de fecato dual membership of both the EU & the US.

FoxT

In Iraq? In Afghanistan? Are you on crack?

markopantelic

FoxT wrote: »

Ireland is not Neutral. Economically we are tightly bound to both the US & the EU. Culturally, we are virtually a state of the US. (I believe we have more in common culturally with the US then we do with any EU country.) There is nothing wrong with this.

Neutrality is bad. It implies that as a nation we are happy to take the 'I'm alright, Jack' attitude and walk away from the moral obligation we all share as human beings, to help shape the world into a better place.

Today, we claim to be neutral, but we are not. This political schizophrenia has led the nation on the one hand, to collude in undemocratically supported kidnappings & torture ( thats what extraordinary rendition means) , while on the other, we have been miserably gutless ( along with the entire EU) in the face of the balkans crisis.

Today we have our neutrality cake and eat it,by being passive. It is morally reprehensible.

Of course, as long as we benefit from EU free money and American Foreign Direct Investment, I see no political impetus to change things.

Why deny Americans the use of Shannon airport when 100,000+ people in the country are working for american companies?
Why should we have demanded EU intervention in the Balkans when every other EU country is scared ****less? We all stood back & let NATO ( who we all like to hate ) do the dirty work.

1 sentence summary is: Nobody in Ireland cares enough about real, active, constructive neutrality because we benefit so much economically from our de fecato dual membership of both the EU & the US.

You have got to be kidding me. Watching CSI Miami makes us no more culturally alligned with the USA than a Swede for instance. You know Swedish have that same opinion? They think they are 'close' to Americans because they consume all of its culture.

Anyway due to history we have most in common with the UK, another EU country so you point is void.

mega man

FoxT wrote: »

In Iraq? In Afghanistan? Are you on crack?

then why are the us and uk in iraq and afghanistan? have they a moral obligation to be in that country?
No they are there for the oil hence the money.

sink

FoxT wrote: »

to collude in undemocratically supported kidnappings & torture ( thats what extraordinary rendition means) ,

As if democratically supported kidnappings & torture are all fine and dandy.

I agree with the overall arch of your post put just wanted to point the superfluousness of including the word "undemocratically".

Sand

Neutrality was a short term policy to avoid getting bombed by the Luftwaffe when we had no air force, no air defence and no particular will to align with the United Kingdom.

Its been elevated to some holy cow as an excuse not to bother taking national defence seriously ( or funding it). For example: 70 years on we still have no air force and no air defence.

Instead, we allow China to dictate when and where we can act as peacekeepers. So we're forced to withdraw from UN peacekeeping missions when China wants to punish someone for diplomatically recognising Taiwan.

KerranJast

Ireland's neutrality has been gone for years, possibly was never there. Right now we are at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan and in a state of uneasy truce with North Korea. The mission in Iraq is also being carried out with our approval.

Terrontress

If both Ireland and Switzerland were to be invaded in the morning by a hostile force, we'd see what neutrality means. In Switzerland, every male is obliged to keep a firearm in case of such an occurrence. In Ireland it would be "Please help us UK".

D-Boy

Have to agree with a Sand i feel the 'neitrality' is a nice excuse not to bother with military funding in particular an air force and as recent history has shown air supremacy is THE most important thing.
No air force means the army is pointless lets not forget we relied on the RAF to interdict any potential rogue planes after 9/11

FoxT

Sink - Arrghh - you are spot on. I read the post before I submitted it & somehow the 'undemocratically' word slipped through.

markopantelic - I think that you are oversimplifying. We share a common language with the US. We consume US TV programmes, movies, music, etc., and we have some kind of grasp of US history.
How many of us enjoy (French/German/Spanish/Portuguese + Eastern EU coutries ) movies/poetry/novels etc?

I agree that we may be culturally closer to the UK than the US - But the UK is only about 10% of the EU population. The point I was trying to make was that we arent that close culturally to the EU as a whole.

Terrontress

D-Boy wrote: »

Have to agree with a Sand i feel the 'neitrality' is a nice excuse not to bother with military funding in particular an air force and as recent history has shown air supremacy is THE most important thing.
No air force means the army is pointless lets not forget we relied on the RAF to interdict any potential rogue planes after 9/11

Thing is with an Irish Air Force, by the time you'd have a jet scrambled, an enemy plane could be from east to west three times. Anti aircraft weapons would be a much better solution to an aerial threat than spending a few billion on tomcats.

FoxT

This is more to do with military tactics than neutrality - but Air superiority is certainly not sufficient to win a war. ( Vietnam? Iraq? American war of independence? World War 1? Franco Prussion war? Korean War? ). To gain and hold territory you must have superior force on the ground AND the support of the natives. Ireland didnt win the war of independence through air superiority - it won it because native support made it too expensive for the brits to hold on to. Thats how the US won their independence as well, though of course the long supply line helped. War is complex & there is no guaranteed 1 size fits all solution.

Swiss model: If every Irish citizen was issued a firearm ( or permitted to buy one) what would happen in Limerick? Or Darndale?

True Neutrality is about exerting moral (primarily) force to try & achieve good. We are a small country & so dont exert much force globally. The problem is that we dont even attempt to. The reason is - how many US multinational jobs would Ireland be prepared to lose or forego as a price for no kidnappings via Shannon? That's a hard question that nobody in Ireland has had the guts to find an answer to.

Terrontress

FoxT wrote: »

Swiss model: If every Irish citizen was issued a firearm ( or permitted to buy one) what would happen in Limerick? Or Darndale?

There are those who argue that the accompanying compulsory military training and discipline would negate a lot of the problems in many Irish neighbourhoods.

sink

Terrontress wrote: »

There are those who argue that the accompanying compulsory military training and discipline would negate a lot of the problems in many Irish neighbourhoods.

I'm not sure training angry disaffected youths to shoot with greater accuracy is a good idea.

Terrontress

sink wrote: »

I'm not sure training angry disaffected youths to shoot with greater accuracy is a good idea.

I don't necessarily agree with this, but those who call for compulsary military service say that an unavoidable 2 years of being shouted at by a little prick with a moustache, being made to acknowledge authority and being made to crawl through dog poo which is concealed under mud and sleep under leaves will make these people no longer disaffected.

conbhui

mega man wrote: »

Please state your reasons.

Ya i think we should. We should also introduce military service for a minimum of 9 months. Theres so many unemployed people in this country with nothing to do. At least they could be kept active in the military. it might offer an alternative to the youth in disadvantaged areas from getting involved in crime.
But nothing like this will ever happen when you have a government who are out of touch with the people and don't care what happen to the unemployed. all the unemployed are is just a statistic to the government.

Manic Moran

With the U.S. using Shannon Airport, our neutrality was sold out years ago....

Rubbish. Shannon has been open to all comers for decades. In terms of the use of Shannon, at any rate, Ireland has never taken sides.

In terms of common defence, however... Ireland's been leeching.

then why are the us and uk in iraq and afghanistan? have they a moral obligation to be in that country?
No they are there for the oil hence the money.

So does the fact that there are Irish troops in Afghanistan mean that Ireland can get some of the spoils? (Note ISAF badge)



NTM

conbhui

There are Irish troops in Afghanstan but they aint serving with the Irish Defence Forces.

Borstal Boy

Neutrality was a short term policy to avoid getting bombed by the Luftwaffe when we had no air force, no air defence and no particular will to align with the United Kingdom..

Irish neutrality was not just a necessity, it was an opportunity for us to assert ourselves as a nation and as an independent voice on the world stage. We have far more influence as a neutral nation than we would as a member of a military alliance. The success of Irish diplomats in persuading Taliban chieftains to support the Afghan government, where NATO nations had failed, is a prime example of the advantage that neutrality affords us.

Its been elevated to some holy cow as an excuse not to bother taking national defence seriously ( or funding it). For example: 70 years on we still have no air force and no air defence.

Apart from the fact that we could not afford a large air force, we don't need one, or want one for that matter. We would rather spend the money on health or eduction.

If we are invaded, we will do what we have always done, fight a covert war of attrition in order to maximise the cost to the invading force and minimise the cost to our own population.

Instead, we allow China to dictate when and where we can act as peacekeepers. So we're forced to withdraw from UN peacekeeping missions when China wants to punish someone for diplomatically recognising Taiwan.

Ireland is recognised and lauded for her contribution to International peacekeeping throughout the world. In any commentary on the UN, Ireland is used as an example of how nations should further the cause of the organisation.

Talk of abandoning neutrality is pointless. We're not going to be invaded. So why not stay neutral and make the most of our position to influence the direction of world affairs, instead of abandoning it so we can spend billions of Euro on military equipment that we will never use, and take our place as the runt of a military litter.

Joey the lips

Yes!

Why

1. We are in the UN Peacekeeps and have been targets of many abroad anyway

2. What use is neutrality in WW3

3. It will provide a massive amount of jobs in defence and no doubt nato membership

I do think our army should be modified to become a special forces army in whole.

O'Coonassa

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

But i am. Waving a gun is an aggressive act but carrying one is not. Irish soldiers are not undertaking any aggressive action anywhere.

Carrying a machine that is manufactured specifically for killing your fellow human beings is an aggressive act.

Nodin

mega man wrote: »

I was just thinking if we joined the coalition forces in Iraq and afghanistan would it benefit or economy. Would we benefit from the spoils of war?

Afghanistan was from the start a UN backed enterprise. Given the activities emanating from there, one could say that sooner or later some form of group action would have been taken, even if the attack on NYC had not occurred. If there are 'spoils of war' in Afghanistan, other than Opium, its doubtful whether any outside power is in a position to benefit from them in a cost effective manner.

Iraq - well.....We would be too small and lack the industries and set up to benefit from that, regardless of the rights and wrongs of it.

Manic Moran

conbhui wrote: »

There are Irish troops in Afghanstan but they aint serving with the Irish Defence Forces.

They're not? I just posted a picture of three of them up above. The Irish pattern DPM, Irish rank insignia and Irish tricolour on their shoulders should be a giveaway.

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Carrying a machine that is manufactured specifically for killing your fellow human beings is an aggressive act.

Can be a defensive act too. It's all about intent.

NTM

sink

Manic Moran wrote: »

They're not? I just posted a picture of three of them up above. The Irish pattern DPM, Irish rank insignia and Irish tricolour on their shoulders should be a giveaway.

They are military observers, advising the DFA of the ongoing situation. Basically doing sfa. There are no Irish participants in the conflict.

Manic Moran

No, they are actually involved with ISAF. I had an NCO working with an Irish Commandant in a signals unit over there.

The senior Irish soldier right now, an LTC, works in ISAF's IED cell. Other positions held by Irishmen are in the Strategic Communications Unit (Propoganda, if you're cynical), casualty tracking, the 3-Shop (operational planning cell), force protection cell, and JOC Operations.

NTM

turgon

I dont think there have been any good reasons for abandoning neutrality, all the arguments here appear just to be against the current setup. Any one have any clue what tangible benefit could be gotten out of this?

And as regards compulsory military service, I think its an absolutely ridiculous idea. These thugs who yee think disciple will "cure," will just become more and more bitter with life and the state. Why do you think so many prisoners re-offend?

And what use is having the whole population able to bear arms? People wasting a year of their lives for something that will never ever be of any use to them. For the ensuing conflict to come. A sure case for the emotion :rolleyes:.

When Im reading Wikipedia we all "get a kick" out of the fact that Switzerland can muster 1.7 million troops within 24 hours of an invasion. But for what invasion? Id like to see someone answering that without refering to Facism or Nazism.

And WW3?? Come on, as if Russia will be able to stampede through Poland Germany, France and the UK. Romantic visions.

Nodin

sink wrote: »

They are military observers, advising the DFA of the ongoing situation. Basically doing sfa. There are no Irish participants in the conflict.

....but as Ireland voted for the war in Afghanistan, theres no reason there couldn't be. Indeed some would say there should be, given that we did.

Manic Moran

Any one have any clue what tangible benefit could be gotten out of this?

It's one of those things that you just can't justify. Until you need it. Much like an army, actually. Hundreds of millions of Euro, but what has the Army tangibly done for Ireland? You can't just draw up a military from scratch. Much like the point you make of Switzerland. It is true, that in the last 20 years, there has been no real need for them to have such a military capacity. But, once it's gone, much as the US figured out (yet again) over the last five years, it takes no small amount of time and effort to build it back up again.

When faced with a situation which requires military force, there are two options available to a State. One is to do it yourself, a course of action which is available only to those countries which have spent the money and effort maintaining a military institution, such as Sweden or Switzerland. The other is to rely on someone else to do it for you. This is the course of action often chosen by smaller countries either unwilling or unable to maintain an independent military capacity, such as Luxembourg or Iceland. The third option is to simply not rely on a military capability or on friends, and hope that smiling and waving nicely will be sufficient to negate any possible opposing force. Kindof like Holland in WWII, for example.

NTM

Poccington

sink wrote: »

They are military observers, advising the DFA of the ongoing situation. Basically doing sfa. There are no Irish participants in the conflict.

As already pointed out by MM, you're quite wrong.

nesf

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's one of those things that you just can't justify. Until you need it. Much like an army, actually. Hundreds of millions of Euro, but what has the Army tangibly done for Ireland? You can't just draw up a military from scratch. Much like the point you make of Switzerland. It is true, that in the last 20 years, there has been no real need for them to have such a military capacity. But, once it's gone, much as the US figured out (yet again) over the last five years, it takes no small amount of time and effort to build it back up again.

When faced with a situation which requires military force, there are two options available to a State. One is to do it yourself, a course of action which is available only to those countries which have spent the money and effort maintaining a military institution, such as Sweden or Switzerland. The other is to rely on someone else to do it for you. This is the course of action often chosen by smaller countries either unwilling or unable to maintain an independent military capacity, such as Luxembourg or Iceland. The third option is to simply not rely on a military capability or on friends, and hope that smiling and waving nicely will be sufficient to negate any possible opposing force. Kindof like Holland in WWII, for example.

NTM

On the other hand given Ireland's specific geographical position of isolation, extremely friendly relations with all neighbouring countries etc there's little reason for Ireland to maintain a large military force. Holland in WWII and Ireland in WWII had very different experiences of neutrality precisely because of geographical position. Also, given the tiny size of our economy, even if we did spend a large proportion of GDP on the military it still would be a tiny force in geo-political terms.

Zuiderzee

Well, we were promised a referendum on joining the PFP by Bertie - and Bertie got elected - and we joined the PFP without one.

My gut feeling is that

1) being nuetral gives us independence of action if and when we deploy troops overseas.

2) in diplomatic terms, being unaligned can give us more leeway.

3) If things stay as they are, we can maintain a military within our own budget constraints.
In the Lisbon treaty I dont like the idea of this EDA and its required contributions, influence souught or unsought, Eisenhower 1961

sink

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, they are actually involved with ISAF. I had an NCO working with an Irish Commandant in a signals unit over there.

The senior Irish soldier right now, an LTC, works in ISAF's IED cell. Other positions held by Irishmen are in the Strategic Communications Unit (Propoganda, if you're cynical), casualty tracking, the 3-Shop (operational planning cell), force protection cell, and JOC Operations.

NTM

I will defer to your greater level of knowledge. After all my source of information was a corporal in the reserves. He still insists that they don't do much.

TheInquisitor

Everyone else has conquered a country. Maybe its time Ireland sent down our 3 frigates while a few thousand soldiers take some ryanair flights down to some small african country. Take the place over for a while. see what happens!

Poccington

sink wrote: »

I will defer to your greater level of knowledge. After all my source of information was a corporal in the reserves. He still insists that they don't do much.

I wouldn't rely on him as a source if he's telling you stuff like that.