Nato chief praises Irish troops

aindriu80

Nato chief praises Irish troops
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/nato-chief-praises-irish-troops-584544.html
12/02/2013 - 19:50:52
Nato’s Secretary General tonight paid tribute to the brave, dedicated and selfless Irish men and women who have taken part in its missions.

About 440 Irish soldiers are serving overseas on United Nations (UN) operations, with a small number in Afghanistan and Kosovo with Nato.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Ireland has supported and improved the overall quality and readiness of other nations’ forces, which he hoped could be expanded and enhanced in the future.

“Some of you might well be asking why Ireland, a country that prides itself on its neutrality, should be sending its young people to participate in Nato-led missions,” he said.

“Shared values, shared ideals, and shared commitment to the United Nations are three reasons. But there are others too. ”By engaging with Nato you get a voice at the table where the decisions are made. You get full political transparency and oversight.

“You get a military command and control system that is tried, tested, and trusted.

“And you get to operate alongside Nato allies and partners from across the world that use the same procedures and practices.”

The Secretary General touched down in the capital to meet political leaders and European Union defence ministers during an informal meeting marking Ireland’s presidency of the EU.

He said while Ireland is not a member of Nato, it is an important partner and has contributed to its missions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

“I want to thank the brave, dedicated and selfless Irish men and women who have participated in those missions,” he said.

“And to offer my deepest sympathy to the families and loved ones of those who laid down their lives in pursuit of peace.”

Elsewhere Nato forces have undergone training at the Curragh army camp, which Mr Fogh Rasmussen said has undoubtedly saved many lives.

But he believes Ireland and Nato could do more together in military education, training and exercises.

“Keeping close links in times of peace will help us work together better in times of crisis,” he added in a speech at the Institute for International and European Affairs in Dublin.

“We need to make sure that we sustain our ability to answer quickly, and effectively, when the United Nations calls for support.”

Would you support Ireland joining Nato ? It would mean extra spending on defence and of course the danger element but would enable Ireland to achieve many goals. Nice to hear the praise though !

John Mongo

If it was a choice between jumping in bed with the UN or NATO, I'd take NATO everytime.

The UN is an utterly toothless organisation.

Riddle101

As I said on another thread. I'd support joining NATO. We've always been on the side of NATO, and it might allows us the play a bigger role on the international scale.

Mr. Tezza

But wouldn't joining NATO end Ireland's whole neutrality thing? although we're not really neutral if we let the brits and US forces use Ireland as a stopping point in my opinion.

aindriu80

Mr. Tezza wrote: »

But wouldn't joining NATO end Ireland's whole neutrality thing? although we're not really neutral if we let the brits and US forces use Ireland as a stopping point in my opinion.

We should be able to keep our independence regardless of what we signed up to. If they didn't get UN backing for a war we should be able to pull the plug on our side.

Apart from that and the decision to send Irish troops into the warzone I would back Irish membership of NATO.

thebigfella1

Should have joined years ago. Our neutrality is questionable at best anyway.

The Irish soldier would travel to any warzone in the world and perform well. It has never not been in the will of our soldiers not to go to warzones but in the politicians who command them.

All in all though I would not want to see tricolour draped coffins returning here, even if it is part of the risk (personal opinion).

Morpheus

we aren't a constitutionally neutral country Tezza, shannon et al means nothing, we aligned ourselves with NATO in that case. Right thing to do IMO as well as deploying a small unit in a support role, to ISAF.

I wish people would stop using the godforsaken term to describe irelands fence sitting - non alignment, on a case by case basis, under triple lock.

boboldpilot

Apparently the only reason we didn't join NATO in the first place is because of the requirement to recognise the current borders. Which was impossible for us constitutionally at the time.

Now we won't join NATO officially, for two reasons. One is our fake neutrality which has now been built up in many peoples and politicians minds as a moral and principled stance when in fact the real reason is as stated above. Secondly NATO membership would mean taking the whole defence issue seriously which will never happen.

The reality is that we will continue with the present policy of a nod and a wink to neutrality while effectively operating under the NATO umbrella. The usual 'Irish' solution.

Joining NATO would not neccessarily very expensive. We would probably receive military aid, not neccessarily clapped out old equipment either.

c-90

aindriu80 wrote: »

Apart from that and the decision to send Irish troops into the warzone I would back Irish membership of NATO.

imagine, sending soldiers to kill bad people.... madness!

ireland will never join nato because:

A, neither the gov or the public have the balls to stand up for whats right in the world when the yanks and brits will do it for us

B, apart from praise from a nato chief on a goodwill drive, what have we got to bring to the table? an undersized under funded military. the navy and aircorps are nowhere near nato standards and the army lacks proper css to deploy without being handheld.

we have a great defence forces and they do an truly honorable job with the un. but thats what it is, a d.f. and in my belief not capable of sustaining an expeditionary combat type mission. it would require far more commitment than the milky gits in the dail have.

Morpheus

Your argument is null and void. a NATO mission would most likely require the DF to deploy in a mixed nation force in the manner of the EU battlegroups.

other than that, as a self contained unit above company level, no but then thats why nato funding helps smaller forces to up their overall capabilities.

Riddle101

c-90 wrote: »

A, neither the gov or the public have the balls to stand up for whats right in the world when the yanks and brits will do it for us

Just out of curiosity. What is right in the world exactly?

B, apart from praise from a nato chief on a goodwill drive, what have we got to bring to the table? an undersized under funded military. the navy and aircorps are nowhere near nato standards and the army lacks proper css to deploy without being handheld.

Our soldiers, are highly regarded and respected. I'm sure with the right backing of NATO, they would be up to the task of performing just as good as any Army. Since it's NATO, they wouldn't totally be under Irish command.

we have a great defence forces and they do an truly honorable job with the un. but thats what it is, a d.f. and in my belief not capable of sustaining an expeditionary combat type mission. it would require far more commitment than the milky gits in the dail have.

In relation to the bold. Our DF have taken on dangerous missions before. In Liberia for instance, members of the ARW rescued villagers from gunmen who held them captive. Some of which were raped and beaten. Not to mention most warzones where the PDF have been deployed to, have always been dangerous.

But if your judgment of the Defence Forces is from being in actual wars, or fought in conflict themselves. Well Switzerland has never been in conflict either, yet they have a pretty good army. That being said, the Swiss army is better funded and equiped. But it goes down to the soldiers, and what they're capable of. I don't think any Irish soldier would go on a NATO mission unprepared for the dangers and risks.

Morpheus

I think that rather than we are not a combat oriented force, that c-90 means that we strategically couldn't field a standalone expeditionary force with the limited CS and CSS capabilities we currently have. We don't have enough vehicles, heavy weapon systems, int, medical facilities, spares, aircraft, lift or personnel etc to sustain anything above Bn level for very long without someone elses help.

goldie fish

But surely the whole point of NATO is we don't need to have all those things. Just specialise at one? An example that jumps to mind is Luxomburg operating NATOs AEWAC fleet.

Donny5

goldie fish wrote: »

But surely the whole point of NATO is we don't need to have all those things. Just specialise at one? An example that jumps to mind is Luxomburg operating NATOs AEWAC fleet.

Just for the record, Luxembourg doesn't own, operate or host any of NATO's AEWAC fleet - they're just registered there. They're all run out of Germany. Their sole airborne asset is a single A400M that they've bought, but isn't due for delivery until 2019 and will be largely hosted by Belgium.

c-90

@ morpheus,

We could send troops as part of a nato op but then we'd be putting alot of strain on already stretched resourses of contributing nations, adding in the fact we could only send aprox. 1000 soldiers how would we make up for this added strain caused by our troops that an already contributing nation couldnt just send another 1000 instead of preping, deploying, sustaining and supporting ours.

@ riddle

What i think is right is stopping genocides, supporting democracy and countering terrorism and this would have to be Irelands veiw if we were to be part of nato.

I absolutly acknowledge how proffesional the Irish defence force are in terms of personel, training and peace keeping. however Liberia, Chad, Lebanon or any mission the Irish have been to are no Afghanistan or Iraq, its an entirely different ball game. One that given the oppertuinity Irish soldiers COULD step up to.

But the only way they will ever get this oppertuinity is with proper backing. As you say yourself even the Swiss even have proper funding and equipment, something the Irish will never have.

Which brings me to my point, withouth huge political/ public will, massive millitary spending and a resilience to seeing tri colours on coffins coming home... we are not an attractive nation to nato bar a token inf coy or training partner.

And altho nato do support small nations, a quick look at where these nations are on a map might answer that one.

Busted Flat.

aindriu80 wrote: »

Would you support Ireland joining Nato ? It would mean extra spending on defence and of course the danger element but would enable Ireland to achieve many goals. Nice to hear the praise though !

This NATO $hite came up the last time the Rainbow were in government, and when Garret the great was in power. What's new, the Commonwealth ?.

Esel

Why is it still called NATO when Turkey is a member?

Riddle101

c-90 wrote: »

What i think is right is stopping genocides, supporting democracy and countering terrorism and this would have to be Irelands veiw if we were to be part of nato.

I don't want to get into a big political debate, or go off topic but....

I agree about stopping genocides from happening. But what has NATO or the US and the UK done to stop genocides in the past? I don't remember anyone stopping Saddam Hussein from killing the Kurds, or Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge from massacring millions of their own people. I realize those were in different time periods, but stopping genocides aren't really on a list of priorities unless there is something else to be gained from it.

Countering terrorism on the other. I feel we should focus on terrorism at home first before we try doing anything abroad. We still have dissident republicans over here, who are still active, trying to disrupt the peace in Northern Ireland, and the Republic as well.

I absolutly acknowledge how proffesional the Irish defence force are in terms of
personel, training and peace keeping. however Liberia, Chad, Lebanon or any
mission the Irish have been to are no Afghanistan or Iraq, its an entirely
different ball game. One that given the oppertuinity Irish soldiers COULD step
up to.

Well Irish personel have been over in Afghanistan. But as far as fighting goes. That would require us to actually declare war, something that is not supported very well over here, and indeed it's one of the main issues for people who oppose joining NATO. However if Irish soldiers trained with foreign units, they could possibly prepare themselves for places like Afghanistan. Maybe NATO might give us a chance for that.

But the only way they will ever get this oppertuinity is with proper backing. As
you say yourself even the Swiss even have proper funding and equipment,
something the Irish will never have.

Sadly I agree.

Which brings me to my point, withouth huge political/ public will, massive
millitary spending and a resilience to seeing tri colours on coffins coming
home... we are not an attractive nation to nato bar a token inf coy or training
partner.

Being part of NATO, means we can also support NATO in many ways too. Not just in a fighting role. We can provide aid and assitance, and make our airspace available to NATO members. We could also let them build bases here, maybe keep a amall token force here. There are possiblities for Ireland too.

]

Busted Flat.

NATO's destruction of Libya, the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, the backing of extremists in Syria, at this stage they do not know who they are supplying munitions to in Syria. We do not need to be part of this outfit.

Lemming

Riddle101 wrote: »

I agree about stopping genocides from happening. But what has NATO or the US and the UK done to stop genocides in the past? I don't remember anyone stopping Saddam Hussein from killing the Kurds, or Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge from massacring millions of their own people. I realize those were in different time periods, but stopping genocides aren't really on a list of priorities unless there is something else to be gained from it.

An exlusion zone was set up in Northern Iraq, bordering with Turkey providing the Kurds with safe haven during the 1990/1 Gulf War. The Vietnamese army invaded Cambodia to halt the excesses of the Khmer Rouge in 1978. Given the US had withdrawn after a decade of painful and highly controversial war with the Vietnamese, they were always going to be reluctant to go back into south-east Asia so soon after the Vietnam war had ended.

In any case, feel free to overlook interventions to underpin your argument; I wont mention any off the top of my head like Somalia or Bosnia in addition to Cambodia.

Countering terrorism on the other. I feel we should focus on terrorism at home first before we try doing anything abroad. We still have dissident republicans over here, who are still active, trying to disrupt the peace in Northern Ireland, and the Republic as well.

Terrorism does not respect national borders. And no state will only ever have "one" enemy be they foreign or domestic. That includes Ireland.

boboldpilot

Busted Flat. wrote: »

NATO's destruction of Libya, the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, the backing of extremists in Syria, at this stage they do not know who they are supplying munitions to in Syria. We do not need to be part of this outfit.

Well we know where you stand on dictators. Do you have a poster of Assad and Gadaffi on your wall?

Amazing how many people have come out of the woodwork lately expressing their admiration for tyrants. I'll bet the next post will be the classic. 'Well at least they kept their countries stable.' :rolleyes: Mostly by torturing, imprisoning and murdering anyone who dared to dissent.


Is there as website for fanboys of dictators? :P

Busted Flat.

boboldpilot wrote: »

Well we know where you stand on dictators. Do you have a poster of Assad and Gadaffi on your wall?

Amazing how many people have come out of the woodwork lately expressing their admiration for tyrants. I'll bet the next post will be the classic. 'Well at least they kept their countries stable.' :rolleyes: Mostly by torturing, imprisoning and murdering anyone who dared to dissent.


Is there as website for fanboys of dictators? :P

NATO support for Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar United Arab Emirates, oc course there is oil there, and are friendly towards big business. There is a few more but that is an example for you. People do not matter to NATO, as they have shown over the years.

Riddle101

Lemming wrote: »

An exlusion zone was set up in Northern Iraq, bordering with Turkey providing the Kurds with safe haven during the 1990/1 Gulf War. The Vietnamese army invaded Cambodia to halt the excesses of the Khmer Rouge in 1978. Given the US had withdrawn after a decade of painful and highly controversial war with the Vietnamese, they were always going to be reluctant to go back into south-east Asia so soon after the Vietnam war had ended..

Well considering the genocide of the Kurds happened in the late 80's(86-89), and the exlusion zone was set up during the Gulf War in 90/91. I'd say they were pretty late setting it up. They only set it up when it benefitted them, because it was during the gulf war. But funny enough, the gassing was done during the Iraq/Iran war when America supported them, and Saddam even used the weapons supplied to him by the US to kill them. More to the point, the US even helped Saddam avoid serious repercussions. As for the Khmer Rouge, it wasn't NATO who stood in to help. the US isn't the only member of NATO. In reality, nobody wanted to job of stopping the Khmer Rouge because they were too afraid. As you said, the US already have a long and bloody war in Vietnam. The French as well, learned a tough lesson in Vietnam too. No other country was going to touch Cambodia, for fear of another Vietnam.

Terrorism does not respect national borders. And no state will only ever have "one" enemy be they foreign or domestic. That includes Ireland

That's subjective. The only nations that have had terrorist attacks on them in the past 10 year, were nations that were involved in disputes, which terrorist factions supported. Ireland isn't involved in disputes of the likes of the US or UK. Only dissident republicans pose a threat to us, becuase of they oppose the Good Friday Agreement, and still intentionally disturb the peace over here. You can paint all terrorists under the one banner all you like, but there reality is, terrorism is just a word made up by the press and goverments to point the finger, and call these people bad guys so it's easier to justify their actions. But the so called bad people have differrent idealogies and opinions, it's not one enemy.

But like I said before. I'm not opposed to fighting terrorism. Just like to point out, that you can't say terrorism is one enemy when it isn't.

the_syco

If Ireland joined NATO, how would they be seen by people they're meant to be protecting? Would they be seen any differently if peacekeeping under the NATO flag rather than the UN flag?

c-90

There are islamic extreamist in Ireland that were under surveilance during the Obama/queen visit. combine that with Ireland being a named target for helping the US id call that a significant threat.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/us-closely-monitors-irelands-40000-muslim-community-26739912.html

donaghs

Busted Flat. wrote: »

This NATO $hite came up the last time the Rainbow were in government, and when Garret the great was in power. What's new, the Commonwealth ?.

Its available to see in the Archives now, at the formation of NATO, Ireland had no objection to the alliance per se, but used Northern Ireland and partition as a bargaining tool, saying we couldn't join while this issue remained outstanding. Ireland made an offer of a bilateral alliance with the US, but this was turned down.

Esel

donaghs wrote: »

Its available to see in the Archives now, at the formation of NATO, Ireland had no objection to the alliance per se, but used Northern Ireland and partition as a bargaining tool, saying we couldn't join while this issue remained outstanding. Ireland made an offer of a bilateral alliance with the US, but this was turned down.

Nevertheless, Charlie used Fr Horan as a patsy to let Ronald Reagan build Knock airport....

Busted Flat.

Esel wrote: »

Nevertheless, Charlie used Fr Horan as a patsy to let Ronald Reagan build Knock airport....

I am drinking vodka, what are you on.

Esel

Busted Flat. wrote: »

I am drinking vodka, what are you on.

I realise this is not the CT forum, but who do you think actually paid for that B-52 capable runway in the mist (and in the middle of nowhere)?

Busted Flat.

Esel wrote: »

I realise this is not the CT forum, but who do you think actually paid for that B-52 capable runway in the mist (and in the middle of nowhere)?

I would say Jim Corr would know the answer to that.

tricky D

Esel wrote: »

I realise this is not the CT forum, but who do you think actually paid for that B-52 capable runway in the mist (and in the middle of nowhere)?

Well the money must have been a bit of a waste considering the apron is too small for a B52 and Shannon is just down the road.

Riddle101

Esel wrote: »

I realise this is not the CT forum, but who do you think actually paid for that B-52 capable runway in the mist (and in the middle of nowhere)?

Have you actually seen any B-52s land at Knock Airport? And I don't see how Horan was a patsy for Charlie, when it was him who campaigned to our government to build the airport. Reagan had nothing to do with it.

Manic Moran

the_syco wrote: »

If Ireland joined NATO, how would they be seen by people they're meant to be protecting? Would they be seen any differently if peacekeeping under the NATO flag rather than the UN flag?

Honestly, I can't imagine they much care.

Much is made of how Ireland's nonaligned stance makes it a more suitable peacekeepingforce, but that's really at the international political level. The locals at the operation site don't care about where the foreigners come from, they only care about how they are treated by them and what effect they have.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Manic Moran wrote: »

Honestly, I can't imagine they much care.

Much is made of how Ireland's nonaligned stance makes it a more suitable peacekeepingforce, but that's really at the international political level. The locals at the operation site don't care about where the foreigners come from, they only care about how they are treated by them and what effect they have.

And how much money you spend in their mingey shops

Maoltuile

aindriu80 wrote: »

We should be able to keep our independence regardless of what we signed up to.

I think you really need to go take a look at what the NATO charter says about the requirements of mutual-defence (which is really about the defence of US interests, as the Brits found out).

Do you really want to automatically get sucked into a war if Turkey and Iran, say, have a border conflict?

Maoltuile

the_syco wrote: »

If Ireland joined NATO, how would they be seen by people they're meant to be protecting? Would they be seen any differently if peacekeeping under the NATO flag rather than the UN flag?

Seeing as though NATO is to the US as the Warsaw Pact was to the USSR...

Riddle101

Maoltuile wrote: »

I think you really need to go take a look at what the NATO charter says about the requirements of mutual-defence (which is really about the defence of US interests, as the Brits found out).

Do you really want to automatically get sucked into a war if Turkey and Iran, say, have a border conflict?

What exactly did the Brits find out? They made their own decisions. Much like the other members of NATO, who funny enough don't serve US interests. Or at least not what you're implying.

Maoltuile wrote: »

Seeing as though NATO is to the US as the Warsaw Pact was to the USSR...

The countries in the Warsaw Pact were all under Soviet control. They didn't really have much of a choice in being apart of Warsaw because a lot of them had puppet or sympathetic governments. Notice that Yogoslavia didn't join Warsaw, because Tito wasn't a puppet of Russia. He acted independently. NATO on the otherhand, was agreed upon by the original members of NATO, not forced but agreed upon. So how is NATO to the US as Warsaw was to Russia, when US never forced anyone to join. As for serving the US's interests. Yes they have a lot of influence in NATO, much like they do in the UN, but they're not the only country with power you know. It's not all about the US. In reality, the US serves NATO more then NATO serves the US, because everyone would look the US to defend them if a war ever did start up. Everyone looks to the US for help, but are also very quick to criticize them as well. It's hypocritical if you ask me.

donaghs

Worth pointing out also that France left NATO under De Gaulle. Rejoined eventually.

Also, no other NATO members got sucked into Britain's Falklands War, Turkey's invasion of Cyprus, France's constant African military adventures, etc.

And bizarrely, war between Greece and Turkey, both NATO members, has been a possibility in the past.

Busted Flat.

Would we pride ourselves joining this outfit ?.

"Two Afghan Boys Accidentally Killed by NATO Helicopter
By ROD NORDLAND
Published: March 2, 2013

KABUL, Afghanistan — Two boys out collecting firewood with their donkeys were killed by weapons fired from a NATO helicopter, Afghan and American military officials announced on Saturday."


http://t.co/ciT7M5ietX

aindriu80

Busted Flat. wrote: »

This NATO $hite came up the last time the Rainbow were in government, and when Garret the great was in power. What's new, the Commonwealth ?.

I don't know what that post is meant to mean. The commonwealth has nothing to do with it..