Ireland wants to send troops to Syria

4zn76tysfajdxp

THE DÁIL IS due to discuss a proposal which could see up to 15o members of Ireland’s Defence Forces joining a United Nations mission in Syria.

The Government has approved a proposal from Defence Minister Alan Shatter to deploy Irish troops to UNDOF (United Nations Disengagement Observer Force), which operates in the Golan Heights region of war-torn Syria.

http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-may-send-troops-to-syria-995269-Jul2013/

Now, I must admit, I don't know anything about politics or, like, warfare. But is it really a good idea for Alan Shatter to send our soldiers anywhere described as "war torn?"

I know they provide a valuable service when they're on their peace-keeping missions but, there's a civil war or something going on there and accidents do happen. I'm not sure if it's a risk worth taking. Then again, I'm quite thick. What do you think?

UCDVet

If we've got money to throw away - why not send our troops around Ireland?

Surely there is plenty of peacekeeping that could be done, given the number of people who are violently attacked each day in Ireland.

IM0

we have 'troops' now

Riddle101

Ireland has had long history of sending soldiers to hot spots around the world. Don't see how this can be any different. Dangerous yes, but that's part of the job every member of the Defense Forces accepts.

CormacPR8

Alan Shatter is Jewish. Israel is threatened by the Syrian terrorists. That simple to me.

meoklmrk91

It started out as a civil war, now it's just a battle ground for hizballah and al Qaeda, I don't know if it will do any good to send troops over, especially as our forces are usually sent out in a peace keeping capacity.

Peregrine

The Philippines and Austria are both withdrawing their troops (around half of the contingent) because of the risks associated with the region. Few of their peacekeepers were kidnapped and used as human shields.


No, stay the **** out. There's no way UN can change that place with 1250 soldiers. Either storm the place or stay away. Sending in a small group to observe during a bloody civil war between government and rebels is just asking for trouble

The Backwards Man

CormacPR8 wrote: »

Alan Shatter is Jewish. Israel is threatened by the Syrian terrorists. That simple to me.

Jewish ≠ Israeli

My name is URL

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Jewish ≠ Israeli

In some people's minds the two are mutually inclusive.. and I don't just mean the guy you quoted.

Technically all Jews can be Israeli, based on nothing more than their inherited creed

Andy-Pandy

If they do go over, I hope they all come home safe and sound. I'm proud of the Irish army, I'm also proud that we are willing to send them somewhere that they are needed and will be respected. it can only be good thing.

cletus van damme

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Jewish ≠ Israeli

ok i'll give you that but alan shatter = jewish = israeli
you can't deny that

i think it's a terrible idea anyway - we have enough to be doing

My name is URL

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

If they do go over, I hope they all come home safe and sound. I'm proud of the Irish army, I'm also proud that we are willing to send them somewhere that they are needed and will be respected. it can only be good thing.

What makes you think they'll be respected there? Other countries are pulling troops out of there because both Israeli and Syrian forces have flouted cease-fire conditions, endangering the lives of peacekeepers.

the disputed Golan Heights, where clashes from Syria’s civil war, cease-fire violations by both Israel and Syria and an abrupt withdrawal of the force’s Austrian contingent are threatening four decades of relative calm.

[..]

Over the past few months, Syrian insurgents have detained Filipino members of the Golan peacekeeping force at least twice, and Israeli and Syrian forces have traded occasional artillery rounds. On June 6, clashes between insurgents and the Syrian army forced Austrian members of the Golan peacekeeping force to vacate the Quneitra crossing, the only gateway between Israel and Syria. Austria’s government responded by ordering its contingent of 377 soldiers home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/world/middleeast/un-leader-urgently-seeks-more-golan-peacekeepers.html?_r=0

The Backwards Man

cletus van damme wrote: »

ok i'll give you that but alan shatter = jewish = israeli
you can't deny that

i think it's a terrible idea anyway - we have enough to be doing

Rathgar is in Beersheba now, is it?

balfe1990

That's like attacking a tiger with a nerf gun.

Any help they could possibly provide would be heavily outweighed by the huge risks involved. It's literally a matter of life and death and the last thing the country needs is to get tangled up in a conflict that has absolutely feck all to do with us.

Let the big boys handle it

renegademaster

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

It started out as a civil war, now it's just a battle ground for hizballah and al Qaeda, I don't know if it will do any good to send troops over, especially as our forces are usually sent out in a peace keeping capacity.

is this the same al queda that the American administration tried to get weapons back fro in Benghazi?? the same al queda the americans have spent the last 12 or more years chasing at a very high cost to us all??

http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/index.php?topic=15704.0

Was U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens engaged in arming militant Islamic jihadists when the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked on September 11? Ambassador Stevens was one of four Americans killed in the September 11 terrorist attack, along with embassy information officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty.

The deadly attack, and the Obama administration’s handling of the hours-long event, have left a multitude of burning, unanswered questions, among which are:

• Did Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama ignore Ambassador Stevens' pleas for additional security in the ultra-dangerous Benghazi environment?

• Did Obama watch the attack in “real time” video feeds from drones circling the area?

• Were former Navy SEALs Woods and Doherty ordered to “stand down” and not assist the besieged compound, as claimed by Woods’ father and others? If so, who gave the orders? Woods and Doherty reportedly disobeyed those orders and put their careers and their lives on the line to rescue Americans and other nationals trapped in the attack.

• Did the Obama administration repeatedly deny aid to Woods and Doherty over the course of nearly seven hours while they were under attack, as critics have charged? If not, then why was aid never sent? Many military experts (including retired Adm. James A. Lyons, former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet) have pointed out that adequate military assets were available and within striking distance, including our Special Forces units in Sigonella, Sicily.

Perhaps one of the most important questions that President Obama should be required to answer is, “What was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi when our 'consulate' was attacked?” And a follow-up question: “Was Ambassador Stevens helping to arm militant anti-American jihadists, including Syrian and Libyan al-Qaeda elements?” Investigative reporter/bestselling author/radio talk-show host Aaron Klein has reported (see here and here) that according to his Middle East sources, that is precisely what Ambassador Stevens was doing.

This reporter interviewed Aaron Klein, Jerusalem bureau chief for WorldNetDaily, in Appleton, Wisconsin, on October 22 (see video below) , where he appeared at a joint speaking engagement with New Zealand author/researcher Trevor Loudon, author of Barack Obama and the Enemies Within.

Klein emphatically took issue with the numerous media reports that referred to the U.S. compound that was attacked on September 11 as a “U.S. consulate,” and he explained why that distinction is important.

“It was not a consulate,” Aaron Klein told The New American. “According to Middle East security officials I talked to, this was a major meeting point — I would say the central meeting point — for the American diplomats, including Christopher Stevens, the U.S. Ambassador who was killed, to meet with officials of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, about supplying the opposition in Syria and Libya. Well, who is the opposition? In Libya, the opposition openly included jihadists, included al-Qaeda elements. In Syria, right now, the al-Qaeda elements are leading the opposition.... According to the different sources I spoke to, what we have here is a U.S. policy of arming rebels, knowing or not knowing — but I can’t understand how they would not know — that many of these rebels are jihadists.”

Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/13455-benghazi-backfire-was-obama-arming-jihadists?

WTF??

renegademaster

cletus van damme wrote: »

ok i'll give you that but alan shatter = jewish = israeli
you can't deny that

i think it's a terrible idea anyway - we have enough to be doing

and we haven't even started doing it yet

theSHU

Alan Shatter can fcuk right off.

JPA

Don't understand this. Irish troops are peacekeepers, how can they keep the peace when there's none to keep?

cletus van damme

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Rathgar is in Beersheba now, is it?

if you say so - i'm not too familiar with rathgar

KingOfFairview

CormacPR8 wrote: »

Alan Shatter is Jewish. Israel is threatened by the Syrian terrorists. That simple to me.

You know, I cannot think of a single thing wrong with your perceptive, insightful and above all logical remark.

ChunkyLover_53

Anyone that actually has a chance of being on that plane when it taxis down the runway raise your hand

O/

Don't worry folks we're all big boys and girls and we've been in plenty nasty places/situations before.

John Mongo

Congo, Lebanon, Somalia, East Timor, Kosovo... You'd swear Irish troops had never done anything remotely hairy before.

The lads stepped upto the plate then and the lads will step upto the plate now.

mcwinning

I kind of think it's not really our problem. Also the risks involved outweigh any potential benefits.

theSHU

KingOfFairview wrote: »

You know, I cannot think of a single thing wrong with your perceptive, insightful and above all logical remark.

Times of Israel

Israel may finally have some luck with the Irish

Currently presiding over the EU, Ireland sends its Jewish defense minister — a longtime supporter — on Monday
...

Israel could not have a more understanding or reliable Irish ally than Shatter, a stalwart supporter even during times of controversy. Occasionally combative, he has been highly critical of previous governments’ strident criticisms of Israel, and he hasn’t retreated from subsequent abuse.

...

The 62-year-old has been to Israel a number of times, including to work on a kibbutz as a young man, as well as on parliamentary delegations. His next visit will include meetings with his counterparts, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman and Neeman’s designated successor, Tzipi Livni. He will also meet Knesset members and NGOs engaged in humanitarian work in the region.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-may-finally-have-some-luck-with-the-irish/

I've nothing against Israel, but Shatter should be looking after number 1, Ireland, not fcuking Israel. We should keep well clear of this sectarian mess in Syria. The previous peacekeepers were being used as human shields by the rebels/al-quida and are all pulling out.

downonthefarm

there is something positively vile about that man.

KingOfFairview

theSHU wrote: »

I've nothing against Israel, but Shatter should be looking after number 1, Ireland, not fcuking Israel. We should keep well clear of this sectarian mess in Syria. The previous peacekeepers were being used as human shields by the rebels/al-quida and are all pulling out.

So what did you think of the other deployments we made over the years?

I'm no fan of shatter or Israel but the idea that thus is his plot to defend Israel is ****ing laughable. We do this sort of thing because it buys us kudos with the un, not because we are picking a side in these conflicts

Andy-Pandy

My name is URL wrote: »

What makes you think they'll be respected there? Other countries are pulling troops out of there because both Israeli and Syrian forces have flouted cease-fire conditions, endangering the lives of peacekeepers.

We have a long history in the Lebanon and Hezbollah are on one of the sides of this conflict. I'm sure the Irish Army have a history with them.

ThreeBlindMice

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Jewish ≠ Israeli

Jewish ≠ Israeli ≠ Zionist

I would put him at the latter.

kerryguy78

shouldn't we just send our troops to troubled estates in our towns up and down our country to manhandle the scum who cause havoc, rather then sending them elsewhere.

KingOfFairview

kerryguy78 wrote: »

shouldn't we just send our troops to troubled estates in our towns up and down our country to manhandle the scum who cause havoc, rather then sending them elsewhere.

Manhandle? That basically means jostle. Id go for Roughing up

theSHU

KingOfFairview wrote: »

So what did you think of the other deployments we made over the years?

I'm no fan of shatter or Israel but the idea that thus is his plot to defend Israel is ****ing laughable. We do this sort of thing because it buys us kudos with the un, not because we are picking a side in these conflicts

I think we should stay out of all UN deployments and only use the Irish Defence Forces for its stated purpose, defending Ireland.

I don't think it's a conincidence that Shatter is sending our soldiers as a buffer for Israel. He's loves Israel, his first ministerial trip was to Israel and he probaly planned the whole thing with his recent meeting with the Israeli defence minister. Israel are big boys and they should step-up themselves.

kerryguy78

KingOfFairview wrote: »

Manhandle? That basically means jostle. Id go for Roughing up

yea or kick da **** outa

KingOfFairview

theSHU wrote: »

I think we should stay out of all UN deployments and only use the Irish Defence Forces for its stated purpose, defending Ireland.

I don't think it's a conincidence that Shatter is sending our soldiers as a buffer for Israel. He's loves Israel, his first ministerial trip was to Israel and he probaly planned the whole thing with his recent meeting with the Israeli defence minister. Israel are big boys and they should step-up themselves.

Do you honestly, seriously think this deployment will make any military difference that Israel will even notice? No. He's a prick and Israel is an apartheid state but the reason they are going to Syria is that its a high profile warzone and will earn us pluadits from a variety of countries.

I have lots of respect for the army but if you think we are being sent to defend Israel you have to get real.

balfe1990

John Mongo wrote: »

Congo, Lebanon, Somalia, East Timor, Kosovo... You'd swear Irish troops had never done anything remotely hairy before.

The lads stepped upto the plate then and the lads will step upto the plate now.

Nobody is doubting their ability, theyre questioning the need to enter an almost certainly bloody conflict. Why would/should Irish troops be willing to lay down their lives for somebody else battle? Its absurd.
I could see the sense if we had the might and the hardware, but we're such an insignificant nation in terms of available manpower, that it wouldn't make a difference and any loss of life on our side would be a total and utter waste. Let the countries with sizeable armies and knowledge of war (read:not peacekeeping), handle it.

Of course, if any Irish troops WANTED to help over there, Id commend their bravery. Just not necessarily support the effort

John Mongo

theSHU wrote: »

I think we should stay out of all UN deployments and only use the Irish Defence Forces for its stated purpose, defending Ireland.

I don't think it's a conincidence that Shatter is sending our soldiers as a buffer for Israel. He's loves Israel, his first ministerial trip was to Israel and he probaly planned the whole thing with his recent meeting with the Israeli defence minister. Israel are big boys and they should step-up themselves.

The roles of the Defence Forces, as set out in the White Paper are:

• To defend the State against armed aggression; this being a contingency, preparations for its implementation will depend on an ongoing Government assessment of the security and defence environment;

• To aid the civil power (meaning in practice to assist, when requested, the Garda Síochána, who have primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of the State)

• To participate in multinational peace support, crisis management and humanitarian relief operations in support of the United Nations and under UN mandate, including regional security missions authorised by the UN.

• To provide a fishery protection service in accordance with the State's obligations as a member of the EU; and,

• To carry out other such duties as may be assigned to them from time to time, e.g. search and rescue, air ambulance service, Ministerial air transport service, assistance on the occasion of natural or other disasters, assistance in connection with the maintenance of essential services, assistance in combating oil pollution at sea.

The above comes from www.military.ie..... So yeah, by sending troops to serve with UNDOF it's fulfilling it's role.

Super-Rush

We could sort out our scumbag problem pretty quickly with this.

KingOfFairview

Personally I think we should invade and annex Iceland and the Faeroes to distract the masses from our internal difficulties.

The Irish people want total war.

John Mongo

balfe1990 wrote: »

Nobody is doubting their ability, theyre questioning the need to enter an almost certainly bloody conflict. Why would/should Irish troops be willing to lay down their lives for somebody else battle? Its absurd.
I could see the sense if we had the might and the hardware, but we're such an insignificant nation in terms of available manpower, that it wouldn't make a difference and any loss of life on our side would be a total and utter waste. Let the countries with sizeable armies and knowledge of war (read:not peacekeeping), handle it.

Of course, if any Irish troops WANTED to help over there, Id commend their bravery. Just not necessarily support the effort

Soldiers have been fighting other people's battles for quite some time.

When the lads fought to their very last bullet in Jadotville, it was someone else's battle. When lads were killed while serving in Lebanon, it was someone else's battle. When lads were rolling through Somalia getting into firefights, it was someone else's battle. When lads were getting upto all sorts in East Timor, it was someone else's battle. When lads were getting bounced off during the Paddy's Day riots in Kosovo, it was someone else's battle.

Someone has to step upto the plate eventually. If Ireland has decided they want their troops to step up, well then they'll step up. If it means facing death, well then so be it. It's the nature of the beast.

expectationlost

John Mongo wrote: »

The roles of the Defence Forces, as set out in the White Paper are:

• To defend the State against armed aggression; this being a contingency, preparations for its implementation will depend on an ongoing Government assessment of the security and defence environment;

• To aid the civil power (meaning in practice to assist, when requested, the Garda Síochána, who have primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of the State)

• To participate in multinational peace support, crisis management and humanitarian relief operations in support of the United Nations and under UN mandate, including regional security missions authorised by the UN.

• To provide a fishery protection service in accordance with the State's obligations as a member of the EU; and,

• To carry out other such duties as may be assigned to them from time to time, e.g. search and rescue, air ambulance service, Ministerial air transport service, assistance on the occasion of natural or other disasters, assistance in connection with the maintenance of essential services, assistance in combating oil pollution at sea.

The above comes from www.military.ie..... So yeah, by sending troops to serve with UNDOF it's fulfilling it's role.

just like in ww2 we were neutral = 'neutral for the allies', we 'peacekeep for the west' now

theSHU

KingOfFairview wrote: »

Do you honestly, seriously think this deployment will make any military difference that Israel will even notice? No. He's a prick and Israel is an apartheid state but the reason they are going to Syria is that its a high profile warzone and will earn us pluadits from a variety of countries.

I have lots of respect for the army but if you think we are being sent to defend Israel you have to get real.

If the rebels win, the FIRST item on the agenda would be to retake the Golan Heights. Having UN blue hats in the region as a buffer only benefits Israel.

Nodin

cletus van damme wrote: »

ok i'll give you that but alan shatter = jewish = israeli
you can't deny that
......

...actually, yes you can.

balfe1990

John Mongo wrote: »

[*]To participate in multinational peace support, crisis management and humanitarian relief operations in support of the United Nations and under UN mandate, including regional security missions authorised by the UN.
[/LIST]


The above comes from www.military.ie..... So yeah, by sending troops to serve with UNDOF it's fulfilling it's role.

The keyword there is mandate. Nobody has instructed us to enter the conflict to the best of my knowledge so there is no obligation to do so.

It seems Alan Shatter has alone suggested we join in on a fight that we plain don't need. I'd love to know why. I doubt it's for the good of the people of Syria, because there's already bigger players vying to enter the war.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting it's for Israel's sake like someone else said...

An Coilean

JPA wrote: »

Don't understand this. Irish troops are peacekeepers, how can they keep the peace when there's none to keep?

They would be on an observer mission, its not peace keeping as such. Irish troops have served on similar missions in the region many times, and have been attacked by Isreal and others, its nothing new to the DF.

Peregrine

theSHU wrote: »

I think we should stay out of all UN deployments and only use the Irish Defence Forces for its stated purpose, defending Ireland.

And further down the list of it's stated purposes is peace keeping abroad.

And tell me, what the hell are 10,000 soldiers supposed to stay home to defend Ireland from? And don't bring the bankers or government into this..a few hundred soldiers peacekeeping abroad isn't going to make us weak to the apparent imminent threat from the Isle of Man if that's what you're wondering.

I full support UN peace keeping missions abroad, I just don't like this one. But it's the soldiers' call. I fully respect the ones that will decide to go on the mission and I wish them the very best of luck. That is, if the decision is made to deploy them.

KingOfFairview wrote: »

Personally I think we should invade and annex Iceland

That's not as easy at it sounds..

John Mongo

balfe1990 wrote: »

The keyword there is mandate. Nobody has instructed us to enter the conflict to the best of my knowledge so there is no obligation to do so.

It seems Alan Shatter has alone suggested we join in on a fight that we plain don't need. I'd love to know why. I doubt it's for the good of the people of Syria, because there's already bigger players vying to enter the war.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting it's for Israel's sake like someone else said...

It refers to a UN mandate, which UNDOF operates under.

It's no different to the many different Minister's for Defence throughout the years who decided to send Irish troops to various ****holes around the world.

balfe1990

John Mongo wrote: »

Soldiers have been fighting other people's battles for quite some time.

When the lads fought to their very last bullet in Jadotville, it was someone else's battle. When lads were killed while serving in Lebanon, it was someone else's battle. When lads were rolling through Somalia getting into firefights, it was someone else's battle. When lads were getting upto all sorts in East Timor, it was someone else's battle. When lads were getting bounced off during the Paddy's Day riots in Kosovo, it was someone else's battle.

Someone has to step upto the plate eventually. If Ireland has decided they want their troops to step up, well then they'll step up. If it means facing death, well then so be it. It's the nature of the beast.

Yeah, youre right, someone will step up, namely countries with the means to fight wars.

Just because it was other people's battles in the past doesn't mean they have to continue the trend. Doesn't make it necessary either, when the job could be left to far more capable hands, thus negating the "need" for the loss of Irish life.

Don't think this is a just cause. This doesn't threaten our country at all, so why not let the big leaguers handle it? They were always going to anyway...

I'd like us to stay out of all armed conflict. If we wish to discuss things, in a diplomatic arena, excellent, but it'll be a frosty Winter's morn in Hell, when I support the deployment of Irish men and women, into that concoction of trouble.

balfe1990

Okay, just to make sure, does the proposal put forward 150 soldiers or 1250? Conflicting reports here.

John Mongo

balfe1990 wrote: »

Yeah, youre right, someone will step up, namely countries with the means to fight wars.

Just because it was other people's battles in the past doesn't mean they have to continue the trend. Doesn't make it necessary either, when the job could be left to far more capable hands, thus negating the "need" for the loss of Irish life.

Don't think this is a just cause. This doesn't threaten our country at all, so why not let the big leaguers handle it? They were always going to anyway...

How, in your opinion, do Irish troops not have the means to fight?

John Mongo

balfe1990 wrote: »

Okay, just to make sure, does the proposal put forward 150 soldiers or 1250? Conflicting reports here.

150. Ireland would be sending a Mechanised Infantry Company.

1250 refers to the overall number of troops serving with UNDOF, drawn from different countries.

Peregrine

balfe1990 wrote: »

Okay, just to make sure, does the proposal put forward 150 soldiers or 1250? Conflicting reports here.

150 members of the Irish PDF would be part of a UN mission that's 1250 strong.