How can we remain militarily neutral after the Paris attacks?

josephryan1989

France is a European partner and a fellow democracy.
ISIS seek a Global Caliphate and they are quite open about the desire that France eventually be ruled by Radical Islam.
Historically France was a haven for Irish patriots and the Irish tricolor took its inspiration from the French flag and our Irish Republic takes many of its ideas from the French Republic.
ISIS are our enemy and it is surely only a matter of when not if Ireland is also attacked by these animal barbarian savages.
So why the hell are we neutral?
It's incomprehensible.
Anyone with a brain knows ISIS has to be destroyed or it will grow and make more and more attacks on Western countries.
Neutrality in the this war and it is a war is no longer tenable.
If we support France, then we must join it in the fight against ISIS in whatever means we can.
In a recent competition the Army Ranger Wing proved to be the best in the world.
Surely we could send them into battle if we cannot send a battalion of our troops.

BoJack Horseman

josephryan1989 wrote: »

France is a European partner and a fellow democracy.
ISIS seek a Global Caliphate and they are quite open about the desire that France eventually be ruled by Radical Islam.
Historically France was a haven for Irish patriots and the Irish tricolor took its inspiration from the French flag and our Irish Republic takes many of its ideas from the French Republic.
ISIS are our enemy and it is surely only a matter of when not if Ireland is also attacked by these animal barbarian savages.
So why the hell are we neutral?
It's incomprehensible.
Anyone with a brain knows ISIS has to be destroyed or it will grow and make more and more attacks on Western countries.
Neutrality in the this war and it is a war is no longer tenable.
If we support France, then we must join it in the fight against ISIS in whatever means we can.
In a recent competition the Army Ranger Wing proved to be the best in the world.
Surely we could send them into battle if we cannot send a battalion of our troops.

There is a lot here & not really wanting to re-hash the thread already in the Café, I'll say this.

Anyone reading this knows that Ireland is not neutral.
However this in itself does not matter.

Neutrality does not need to be cast aside in order to assist the French state should she require it.

Today France took the decision of asking EU states for assistance in tackling ISIS through the apparatus of the Common Security & Defence Policy

Ireland is no stranger to contributing to these missions under the CSDP... 450 troops were deployed to Chad/C.A.R. including 50 Rangers as part of an EU forces mission.
And Here is a list of operations the EU is currently involved with.

So, your question is answered already.

Ireland can indeed answer France's request for assistance, with no change to any pseudo-neutrality stance the government likes to think it has.

Now, in terms of what France has specifically requested, Ireland unfortunately cannot assist with.... We just don't have the capability to assist with what they are asking.
But my point is, that the principle of mutual assistance is already in place with no affect to any members neutrality.

Iwasfrozen

We shouldn't. Even simple things like allowing stopovers at Shannon can help the allies in a big way. If a coalition is to send soldiers into Syria a few thousand mechanized infantry won't influence the result but they will help.

Al Bagdadi has a lot to answer for, I'll welcome the day a drone ends his miserable life but I'd prefer to see him in the Hauge, handcuffed in an orange jumpsuit, his arguments being torn apart by experts in Koranic law, broadcasted worldwide. Then throw him into a cell and let him rot in isolation to dwell on the pain he's caused.

Akrasia

You can't defeat terrorism with military force. Terrorism is a criminal matter. The insurgency in Syria and Iraq needs to be dealt with by the people who live there.

Our role in Europe is to protect our values and way of life while encouraging others to adopt similar values through economic political and cultural means. We can defeat barbarism by being the good example, not by waging wars

The U. N. Is the appropriate body to intervene to protect civilian populations at risk of ethnic cleansing or war crimes.

gallag

josephryan1989 wrote: »

In a recent competition the Army Ranger Wing proved to be the best in the world.
Surely we could send them into battle if we cannot send a battalion of our troops.

Fantastic result for the ARW but remember it was target practice (sniper competition) and does not necessarily translate into "best in the world" for combating terrorists in an urban environment or else all the gold medallists in target shooting from the Olympics would be enlisted. Winning that competition is pretty irrelevant as far as ability to solider as the difference between best and worst on the day would be millimetres and all shots would have been the same result if it was a head they were shooting instead of a target.

donaghs

To start with, I have to say there's no excuse for the massacre that occurred in Paris. And ISIL are an evil that should be eradicated from the face of the earth.

However, it should be pointed out that France's government's primary objective in Syria until now (before and after ISIL appeared on the scene), has been the removal of their government, the Assad regime. So, as with the US post-9/11 events (invasion of Iraq etc), it should be clear what exactly the intentions are.

But, as others have stated, Ireland doesn't really have much to offer here.

Lockstep

We're able to help without compromising your neutrality (nominal as it is)

For example, we're sending troops to Mali to free up French troops for use elsewhere. This is a sensible use of our strengths (peacekeeping) to allow France to do what they do best (force projection) without affecting the triple lock system.

Madd Finn

Did you see the Prime Time special last Saturday on the Paris attacks?

There was quite an amazing admission from one of the American contributors, a guy called Lawrence Korb. He is currently a Senior Fellow at a think tank called the Centre for American Progress.

He was also formerly a vice president of weapons manufacturer Raytheon and earlier the Assistant Secretary of Defense in the administration of Ronald Reagan, who was perhaps the most aggressive president in recent history in terms of projecting US military power around the world.

So no bleeding heart pinko then.

Here's what he said. (You can go to this link on the RTE Player while it's active to see the exchange. It starts at about 28min 30sec)

MIRIAM O'CALLAGHAN: "There are many who would say that western,in particular British and American policy in the Middle East helped create ISIS and the terrible problems we have today."

KORB: "There's no doubt about the fact that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq, which was an over reaction to what happened on 9/11 is responsible for the mess that we have. What happened was Al Q'aida wasn't even in Iraq. They came into Iraq, they morphed into ISIS and that soured the American people on any type of military action. And it also empowered Iran. So when you look at it this was probably the biggest strategic disaster in the history of the United States"

Remember: this is not Claire Daly, Richard Boyd Barrett or some other "loonly liberal leftie hater". This is the guy who, according to Wikipedia, got to spend most of Reagan's defense budget.

And HE says invading Iraq was "probably the biggest strategic disaster in the history of the US"

Worse than Vietnam?
Worse than Lebanon?

"No doubt" that it's what caused the mess we have today? Isn't that what George Galloway says?

All this, by way of relevance, to point out that when another more powerful country starts to strike back (or "over react" as Mr Korb put it) they can get themselves into a terrible mess. While sympathising absolutely with France and having common cause against those who would screw up our society, we need to be careful that we're not following another hidden agenda that may have nothing to do with us.

So arms length support at all times.

It's only common sense.

Potatoeman

Akrasia wrote: »

You can't defeat terrorism with military force. Terrorism is a criminal matter. The insurgency in Syria and Iraq needs to be dealt with by the people who live there.

Our role in Europe is to protect our values and way of life while encouraging others to adopt similar values through economic political and cultural means. We can defeat barbarism by being the good example, not by waging wars

The U. N. Is the appropriate body to intervene to protect civilian populations at risk of ethnic cleansing or war crimes.

The percentage of Muslims living in the West that have positive views of ISIS is shocking. It seems that they consider themselves Muslims first and don't respect Western ideals. The West has become so tolerant that it is importing intolerance. There are cultural ideals that are not going to jell and we are seeing these problems surface in countries with large Muslim immigrant populations.

NomadicGray

Potatoeman wrote: »

The percentage of Muslims living in the West that have positive views of ISIS is shocking. It seems that they consider themselves Muslims first and don't respect Western ideals. The West has become so tolerant that it is importing intolerance. There are cultural ideals that are not going to jell and we are seeing these problems surface in countries with large Muslim immigrant populations.

What's the percentage?

Potatoeman

I'll post the link later but 50% age 18 to 24.

FionnK86

josephryan1989 wrote: »

France is a European partner and a fellow democracy.
ISIS seek a Global Caliphate and they are quite open about the desire that France eventually be ruled by Radical Islam.
Historically France was a haven for Irish patriots and the Irish tricolor took its inspiration from the French flag and our Irish Republic takes many of its ideas from the French Republic.
ISIS are our enemy and it is surely only a matter of when not if Ireland is also attacked by these animal barbarian savages.
So why the hell are we neutral?
It's incomprehensible.
Anyone with a brain knows ISIS has to be destroyed or it will grow and make more and more attacks on Western countries.
Neutrality in the this war and it is a war is no longer tenable.
If we support France, then we must join it in the fight against ISIS in whatever means we can.
In a recent competition the Army Ranger Wing proved to be the best in the world.
Surely we could send them into battle if we cannot send a battalion of our troops.

We have just finished dealing with our own terrorists (The IRA) and don't want to be giving an open invitation to a bunch of others to attack. Not to mention our 'triple-lock' neutrality system

Gatling

FionnK86 wrote: »

We have just finished dealing with our own terrorists (The IRA) and don't want to be giving an open invitation to a bunch of others to attack. Not to mention our 'triple-lock' neutrality system

Looks like we'll be sending soldiers to Mali to cover french if there needed back home in France

Akrasia

Potatoeman wrote: »

I'll post the link later but 50% age 18 to 24.

You really do need to provide a link to this.

I hope it's not to the Daily Express article.

I am depressingly aware that surveys of attitudes towards progressive issues amongst Muslims show that a disturbingly large percentage of the worlds islamic population hold views that are reprehensible by modern western standards. But if you ask christians in under developed countries, they'd hold plenty of outdated abhorrent views too

The correlation is amongst the ignorant and unenlightened, not necessarily just with islam.

People who grow up in violent repressive cultures are more likely to be violent and repressive themselves. Anything we can do to bring more peace and security will bring long term benefits. Anything we do to marginalise and oppress people, will lead to long term consequences.

Of course, this is easier said than done and it won't be smooth or fast. The biggest risk is the reactionary right wing response to meet violence from the few, with force against the many.

Potatoeman

Akrasia wrote: »

You really do need to provide a link to this.

I hope it's not to the Daily Express article.

I am depressingly aware that surveys of attitudes towards progressive issues amongst Muslims show that a disturbingly large percentage of the worlds islamic population hold views that are reprehensible by modern western standards. But if you ask christians in under developed countries, they'd hold plenty of outdated abhorrent views too

The correlation is amongst the ignorant and unenlightened, not necessarily just with islam.

People who grow up in violent repressive cultures are more likely to be violent and repressive themselves. Anything we can do to bring more peace and security will bring long term benefits. Anything we do to marginalise and oppress people, will lead to long term consequences.

Of course, this is easier said than done and it won't be smooth or fast. The biggest risk is the reactionary right wing response to meet violence from the few, with force against the many.

https://www.rt.com/news/181076-isis-islam-militans-france/

There is PEP survey that most statistics pull from as government funded surveys are not allowed to ask race or religion questions in France.

Potatoeman

Akrasia wrote: »

People who grow up in violent repressive cultures are more likely to be violent and repressive themselves. Anything we can do to bring more peace and security will bring long term benefits. Anything we do to marginalise and oppress people, will lead to long term consequences.

.

Many people that hold these views are second generation citizens or more.

Akrasia

Potatoeman wrote: »

https://www.rt.com/news/181076-isis-islam-militans-france/

There is PEP survey that most statistics pull from as government funded surveys are not allowed to ask race or religion questions in France.

This is the same study referred to in the express article I mentioned.

It doesn't appear to be a very respectable study and the results are very different to other similar studies
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/08/27/do-1-in-6-french-citizens-really-support-islamic-state/

Yes, there absolutely is a danger of radicalised islam in Europe (iincluding Ireland) but i think the level of support amongst all muslims is overstated in studies like these.

Also, you need to think about what kinds of attitudes would be expressed by the general population if asked a question like 'Should all Muslims be expelled from France/Britain/Ireland"

A shockingly large number of people would answer yes to that question (shockingly large is any number above zero)

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

This is the same study referred to in the express article I mentioned.

It doesn't appear to be a very respectable study and the results are very different to other similar studies
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/08/27/do-1-in-6-french-citizens-really-support-islamic-state/

Yes, there absolutely is a danger of radicalised islam in Europe (iincluding Ireland) but i think the level of support amongst all muslims is overstated in studies like these.

Also, you need to think about what kinds of attitudes would be expressed by the general population if asked a question like 'Should all Muslims be expelled from France/Britain/Ireland"

A shockingly large number of people would answer yes to that question (shockingly large is any number above zero)

Just an addendum to my last point. Donald Trump has just come out in favour of a national register of all Muslims in the US... Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. Demonising entire ethnic or religious groups can lead to ethnic cleansing.

We are fighting an extremist cult in Islam. We need to isolate them from the majority who just want to live their lives in peace.. Lumping all Muslims will create a self fulfilling prophecy

Potatoeman

Akrasia wrote: »

Just an addendum to my last point. Donald Trump has just come out in favour of a national register of all Muslims in the US... Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. Demonising entire ethnic or religious groups can lead to ethnic cleansing.

We are fighting an extremist cult in Islam. We need to isolate them from the majority who just want to live their lives in peace.. Lumping all Muslims will create a seimlf fulfilling prophecy

There is already ethnic cleansing happening in the middle and Africa. Its happening to christians. The Muslim comminity needs to speak up and denounce these organisations. At least some nations have already done this.

Lockstep

Potatoeman wrote: »

The Muslim comminity needs to speak up and denounce these organisations. At least some nations have already done this.

It's great when Muslims condemn groups like ISIS but they shouldn't have to do so on demand.
A Muslim in Leeds is no more responsible for ISIS than I am for the IRA.

jmayo

Akrasia wrote: »

I am depressingly aware that surveys of attitudes towards progressive issues amongst Muslims show that a disturbingly large percentage of the worlds islamic population hold views that are reprehensible by modern western standards. But if you ask christians in under developed countries, they'd hold plenty of outdated abhorrent views too

The correlation is amongst the ignorant and unenlightened, not necessarily just with islam.

I think you will find the more reprehensible views re things like stoning, marriage off or death to rape victims, honour killings comes from predominantly muslim regions.
Granted hindu regions for instance don't come out so well either in some of these.

Akrasia wrote: »

People who grow up in violent repressive cultures are more likely to be violent and repressive themselves. Anything we can do to bring more peace and security will bring long term benefits. Anything we do to marginalise and oppress people, will lead to long term consequences.

That can be used as an excuse for someone from a refugee camp in Gaza, Fallujah, Mogadishu, etc, but what is the excuse for someone who grew up in UK, France or Belgium to turn and slaughter on their own countrymen and women.
These people have had access to education, freedom and their parents were allowed move into these countries to hopefully find a better life.
And yes they have had access to education as was quiet clearly shown by the likes of jihadi john.

Akrasia wrote: »

Of course, this is easier said than done and it won't be smooth or fast. The biggest risk is the reactionary right wing response to meet violence from the few, with force against the many.

And a huge risk is that we do nothing because we might be seen to be reactionary and not the almighty liberals that we think we should be.

Most countries in the western world people have had to fight enemies, often both internal and external, in order to attain the liberal freedoms we enjoy today.
And the day is coming where we will have to do the same again.

Lockstep wrote: »

It's great when Muslims condemn groups like ISIS but they shouldn't have to do so on demand.
A Muslim in Leeds is no more responsible for ISIS than I am for the IRA.

Yes, but a muslim in Leeds may know that his local mosque has an iman or his local muslim school has a teacher that is preaching hatred of the UK and non muslim British.
Some people in the muslim community must know who is helping radicalise some of their youths.

Whenever some of the young are found to be fleeing to join ISIS, have been found with ISIS/al-qeada or have carried out attacks or tried to initiate terrorist attacks the usual refrain is that no one thought the guys/gals would do such a thing.

The sizable amount of supporters of sharia law, the amount of so called honour killings among immigrant muslim community and their offspring should be a bloody huge cause for concern.

gallag

Lockstep wrote: »

It's great when Muslims condemn groups like ISIS but they shouldn't have to do so on demand.
A Muslim in Leeds is no more responsible for ISIS than I am for the IRA.

It's staggering how many muslims can mobilise when someone offends Islam, every major city in Europe can be brought to a stand still if someone draws a simple cartoon, I suppose murdering hundreds of innocents in the name of islam is not as offencive?

For these guys, Ireland is as valid a target as Paris.

We cannot be neutral, they have declared war on both the ideological and physical space in the world that we occupy.

Yes, they have their sympathisers here and possibly much more. There are too many 'nominal Irish' fighting in Syria.

glued

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For these guys, Ireland is as valid a target as Paris.

We cannot be neutral, they have declared war on both the ideological and physical space in the world that we occupy.

Yes, they have their sympathisers here and possibly much more. There are too many 'nominal Irish' fighting in Syria.

Who sympathises with ISIS?

DarkyHughes

If we couldn't help them after they were invaded by the Nazi's in the largest conflict & the worst period in France's history there's no better reasons why or how we can help them defeat a savage rag tag guerrilla outfit that has no fixed units to be targeted.

laoch na mona

France was bombed by french and belgian citizens, should we invade brussels? if any western power wants to help overthrow ISIS they could start by ending support for Saudi Arabia and putting pressure on Turkey to stop attacking the Kurds.

bombing syria or troops on the ground will just ensure that in 20 years the next generation of anti western arabs will be ready to take ISIS's place

DarkyHughes

laoch na mona wrote: »

France was bombed by french and belgian citizens, should we invade brussels? if any western power wants to help overthrow ISIS they could start by ending support for Saudi Arabia and putting pressure on Turkey to stop attacking the Kurds.

bombing syria or troops on the ground will just ensure that in 20 years the next generation of anti western arabs will be ready to take ISIS's place

Exactly, this is where ISIS have their roots as explained here by Chomsky at around 5 mins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCedWxlG90M

If people listned to this guy a bit more often we probably wouldn't be in some of the messes where in now.

donaghs

Kamel Daoud said it is more succinctly in the New York Times:

“Daesh has a mother: the invasion of Iraq. But it also has a father: Saudi Arabia and its religious-industrial complex. Until that point is understood, battles may be won, but the war will be lost.”

The US gave birth to ISIL by destabilizing the region and setting off a sectarian conflict with the 2003 Iraq invasion. But the Saudi's planted the seed of religious hatred a long time ago, and show no signs of stopping.

And about our enemy ISIL versus our "ally" Saudi:
“The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands, destroys humanity’s common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is better dressed and neater but does the same things.”

Removing ISIL is a good idea in theory. But, "remaining neutral" maybe the better option, rahter than getting involved in intrigues that further the interests of the Saudis and current Islamist Turkey - just because they coincide with geopolitical/business interests of the US and certain European governments.

Sand

I really don't understand how right on people blame the US or the Saudis for ISIS but on the otherhand ignore ISIS own view that they owe their creation, ideology and methods to Islam. It seems quite patronising to ignore non-western viewpoints in such a fashion.

donaghs

Sand wrote: »

I really don't understand how right on people blame the US or the Saudis for ISIS but on the otherhand ignore ISIS own view that they owe their creation, ideology and methods to Islam. It seems quite patronising to ignore non-western viewpoints in such a fashion.

There's no contradiction. They do indeed draw inspiration from Islam, but it's the Version propagated by the Saudis. Does every Muslim draw the same conclusions from Islam as ISIL?

Sand

donaghs wrote: »

There's no contradiction. They do indeed draw inspiration from Islam, but it's the Version propagated by the Saudis. Does every Muslim draw the same conclusions from Islam as ISIL?

IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh (jaysus...) and the Saudis all claim their version of Islam is actually a return to its core teachings and roots after centuries of deviation. It is actually hard to argue against that. Islam didn't emerge as a hippy love your neighbour religion, violence was not later infused into it.

Islam was a harsh, tribal, desert religion whose adherents violently conquered a vast empire in mere decades. The problem was they absorbed vast swathes of non-Islamic peoples, who gradually converted to the victors religion for the access to power it granted them but who brought their own interpretations and thinking with them. The Persians for example were a proud and distinguished empire and culture for almost a thousand years, conquered by Islamic armies, but they themselves infused Islam with a distinctly Persian as opposed to Arab culture and thinking, informed by centuries of Zoroastrian thought. The conquered conquered. Look at the Yazidis that ISIS hate so much...Muslim? Sure, but Muslims informed by Persian Zoroastrianism.

That tension between the original Arab Islam and the looser Islam of conquered nations has always existed - ISIS are merely returning to the literal interpretation of the 7th century Islam, exterminating "pagans", correcting Muslims back to the original Islam free of contamination by foreign ideas, and subjugating and humiliating those communities which are not exterminated as was demanded by the Prophet. It is ugly, but it wasn't pretty in the 7th century either. ISIS show up the myth of Islamic "tolerance" of other faiths for what it is - there is tolerance, but only if other faiths are humiliated and enslaved.

There is a key difference between Islam and Christianity - the "original" and "true" Christianity of the disenfranchised and the poor was long ago crushed and re-purposed to suit the needs of the Roman empire which adopted it. The practicalities of empire, the compromises necessary to rule one, the concepts of "just war" and "deus vult" violence which are inherently Roman, this was built into the religion which was previously a highly pacifist sect of Judaism. The Roman Empire didn't convert to Christianity, Christianity converted to the Roman Empire. There is no original text from the era of Jesus to refer to. The oldest Church teachings available in the modern era were written 300 years after the death of Jesus, by Greeks under Roman rule.

On the other hand, ISIS can refer to a manual, that can be definitely dated back to the 7th century which they believe was handed down by God and instructs them on how to live life. And they are following that manual. The results are about as pretty as you might expect for any group that draws its morality from 1400 years ago. You might not agree with their beliefs, but give them credit for actually believing them.

IrishTrajan

How do we remain neutral in the aftermath of the Paris attacks? Well, our legacy regarding defence spending kinda made our mind up for us. There's very little we could do, even if we wanted to get involved.

We've been added to this "Coalition of the Devils" by IS, but our Defence Spending remains pitifully low at just €904 million for 2016 (from €885 million in 2015) when the NATO (whether you like them or hate them, they tend to know what they're talking about when it comes to defence - more so than any of the multitude of useful idiots calling for "demilitarizing Europe") recommends around 2% of GDP (which would amount to just under €4bn by my estimates).

Following the budget announcement on 13th October, the Minister for Defence, Simon Coveney, was quick to welcome the increase in the budget for Defence for 2016. Announcing an overall allocation of €904m in Defence funding for 2016, he said that this increased allocation represented “a new very significant commitment to Defence and will allow Defence to deliver on the commitments outlined in the recently published White Paper on Defence”. He went on to say that the Budget announcement marked, “a new chapter in spending and commitment for the Defence Forces”, adding that Defence expenditure, is now linked to the White Paper on Defence. “It will also facilitate the implementation of the White Paper proposals, including the replacement of major equipment platforms and other priorities for the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service” he added.

http://flyinginireland.com/2015/10/does-the-budget-increase-in-defence-for-2016-live-up-to-the-expectations-of-the-defence-white-paper/

The Paris attack isn't an attack on France, it's an attack on Europe and the West, and us twiddling our thumbs and hoping the problem goes away does a great disservice to the men and women in the defence services (the Gardai and the military), to our neighbours on the continent (remember when the French helped us all those times against the English?), to our own citizens, and to the very ideas that Politicians give lip-service to and pretend to profess.

This should be a wake-up call that our days of skimping by with peanuts on defence while lavishly spending other public sector workers for voters is coming to an end... But it won't, we'll continue to sit on the sidelines and watch everyone else do the heavy lifting, to the detriment of our own pride and our standing.

BoJack Horseman

Its probably a surprise to most just how little Ireland spends on defence.... its stupidly low.

The €904m budgeted for 2016 breaks down as:

Pay: €498m
Pensions: €224m

Capital & procurement: €66m
Operational budget (the actual work!): €116m

So the three branches & the reserve operate for the pittance of €116m per year.

And the budget is still €400m per year lower than it was at peak.

You are right... Ireland is not & can not be neutral.
The government grew very negligent living under the collective defence umbrella of the West.

KingBrian2

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Its probably a surprise to most just how little Ireland spends on defence.... its stupidly low.

The €904m budgeted for 2016 breaks down as:

Pay: €498m
Pensions: €224m

Capital & procurement: €66m
Operational budget (the actual work!): €116m

So the three branches & the reserve operate for the pittance of €116m per year.

And the budget is still €400m per year lower than it was at peak.

You are right... Ireland is not & can not be neutral.
The government grew very negligent living under the collective defence umbrella of the West.

I don't suppose Gerry Adams will call on citizens to volunteer for the defence forces.:D

Just keeping it real.

laoch na mona

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Its probably a surprise to most just how little Ireland spends on defence.... its stupidly low.

The €904m budgeted for 2016 breaks down as:

Pay: €498m
Pensions: €224m

Capital & procurement: €66m
Operational budget (the actual work!): €116m

So the three branches & the reserve operate for the pittance of €116m per year.

And the budget is still €400m per year lower than it was at peak.

You are right... Ireland is not & can not be neutral.
The government grew very negligent living under the collective defence umbrella of the West.

How so? Even if we could afford it we don't need a large military. Calling for Ireland to become a more militarised state is senseless, their would be no benefit to abandoning neutrality, all it would do is get Irish troops killed in future wars and make Ireland culpable in NATO's crimes

Fiery mutant

laoch na mona wrote: »

How so? Even if we could afford it we don't need a large military. Calling for Ireland to become a more militarised state is senseless, their would be no benefit to abandoning neutrality, all it would do is get Irish troops killed in future wars and make Ireland culpable in NATO's crimes

Ireland is not neutral. This is just a con used by people to say 'not our problem, none of our business', in the hope that trouble will not look our way if some pyscho decides he wants to throw his toys out of the pram.

If we turn a blind eye to the evils of the world, why should someone come to our aid when that pyscho decides he wants to pick on us?! As a nation incapable of defending itself, we are an easy target.

When you turn a blind eye to a bully, it only encourages the bully more.

laoch na mona

Fiery mutant wrote: »

Ireland is not neutral. This is just a con used by people to say 'not our problem, none of our business', in the hope that trouble will not look our way if some pyscho decides he wants to throw his toys out of the pram.

If we turn a blind eye to the evils of the world, why should someone come to our aid when that pyscho decides he wants to pick on us?! As a nation incapable of defending itself, we are an easy target.

When you turn a blind eye to a bully, it only encourages the bully more.

I know we aren't fully neutral, the US have been using shannon for years


should we condemn NATO for the ****storm they caused in Libya and Syria or Afghanistan and Iraq, should we condemn Israel for their treatment of Palestine or Turkey (a NATO member) for doing **** all to fight ISIS at their borders. I'm all for condemning evil but we can't pick one evil over another. Irish involvement in military action against ISIS will just make us part of the near imperialist policies which give groups like IS the oxygen they need to exist

donaghs

IrishTrajan wrote: »

How do we remain neutral in the aftermath of the Paris attacks? Well, our legacy regarding defence spending kinda made our mind up for us. There's very little we could do, even if we wanted to get involved.

We've been added to this "Coalition of the Devils" by IS, but our Defence Spending remains pitifully low at just €904 million for 2016 (from €885 million in 2015) when the NATO (whether you like them or hate them, they tend to know what they're talking about when it comes to defence - more so than any of the multitude of useful idiots calling for "demilitarizing Europe") recommends around 2% of GDP (which would amount to just under €4bn by my estimates).


The Paris attack isn't an attack on France, it's an attack on Europe and the West, and us twiddling our thumbs and hoping the problem goes away does a great disservice to the men and women in the defence services (the Gardai and the military), to our neighbours on the continent (remember when the French helped us all those times against the English?), to our own citizens, and to the very ideas that Politicians give lip-service to and pretend to profess.

This should be a wake-up call that our days of skimping by with peanuts on defence while lavishly spending other public sector workers for voters is coming to an end... But it won't, we'll continue to sit on the sidelines and watch everyone else do the heavy lifting, to the detriment of our own pride and our standing.

How many times did the French help us against the English? Not in living memory anyway. 1690s and 1798? I think history is a little more complex than that. Not saying we shouldn't maintain good relations though either.

If Ireland has anything to offer, its still worth asking what exactly we would be getting into. Despite all the recent noises, I think the French government still doesn't see ISIL its main priority, and still seems removing Assad and the current government in Syria as its longterm strategic goal in the region.

As the former colonial power, France has always had an interest in that part of that part of the world, and Assad Syria has always frustrated their interests in Lebanon.

From the start of the Syrian civil war, France's government has called for Assad's removal. After the gas attacks scandal, France lead the charge calling for bombing of Assad. Even last week, among all the talk of about bombing ISIL, Hollande again mentioned removing Assad. And this consistent policy has been paying dividends for French industry from the Sunni gulf states: https://news.vice.com/article/if-the-us-wont-sell-you-weapons-france-might-still-hook-you-up

So, like previous conflicts where Gulf of Tonkin incident lead to US Indochina war, Sep11 to to the 2003 Iraq War, instead of saying again and again, how did get from there to here? We always need to ask the question again and again, what exactly are we getting into?

BoJack Horseman

laoch na mona wrote: »

Even if we could afford it

Ireland can, more than comfortably.

we don't need a large military.

I didn't write that though, did I?
I'd like Ireland to be a neutral country... and if you want to be neutral, you have to invest in defence.
It isn't about having a large military, it's about having an adequate one.

Ireland, by any metric, does not

their would be no benefit to abandoning neutrality

As I said... you cannot be neutral if you rely on others for your defence!

Ireland is not neutral for this very reason.

Its very apparent that what people think neutrality is & what it actually is, are quite different.

It appears the Irish look on neutrality like they do abortion.
- Close their eyes, pretend it isn't happening & be grateful a more responsible nation takes care of it for you

IrishTrajan

laoch na mona wrote: »

How so? Even if we could afford it we don't need a large military. Calling for Ireland to become a more militarised state is senseless, their would be no benefit to abandoning neutrality, all it would do is get Irish troops killed in future wars and make Ireland culpable in NATO's crimes

Having a strong military does not equate no longer being neutral. Sweden has been neutral for the last couple centuries, and they had the third largest air force in the world during the Cold War.

Finland is neutral, and they have the capacity to raise a million conscripts (which they did in the aftermath of Russia's intervention in Ukraine). Switzerland is neutral, and they have a tremendous militia and their bridges were used to have explosives in them so they could bring down their own infrastructure if anyone invaded. Austria is neutral and can call up a conscript-army.

It's a thing called "armed neutrality". We aren't going to get involved in wars, but if someone involves us, we have the capacity to defend ourselves.


IS isn't the IRA, they're not on our side this time.

laoch na mona

whos going to invade us? A large military won't stop IS, all it will do is cost money which could be better spent.

BoJack Horseman

laoch na mona wrote: »

whos going to invade us?

That's a nothing statement and no counter argument at all.

Anyone desiring Ireland be neutral must rationally acknowledge that relying on other nations to take that responsibility for us is a mockery?

I'm embarrassed at the idea of Ireland living under NATO's bubble & our response to a nuclear armed Russian bomber bearing toward our nation is a statement of condemnation.

It's incredibly nieve to consider the current peace that Europe has grown fat under will last forever....

If people want Ireland to really stay out of future conflicts, then the ability to defend that neutrality is a must.

the status quo is one of non-neutrality.... the inevitable consequence of one of the lowest defence budgets on the planet.

KingBrian2

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That's a nothing statement and no counter argument at all.

Anyone desiring Ireland be neutral must rationally acknowledge that relying on other nations to take that responsibility for us is a mockery?

I'm embarrassed at the idea of Ireland living under NATO's bubble & our response to a nuclear armed Russian bomber bearing toward our nation is a statement of condemnation.

It's incredibly nieve to consider the current peace that Europe has grown fat under will last forever....

If people want Ireland to really stay out of future conflicts, then the ability to defend that neutrality is a must.

the status quo is one of non-neutrality.... the inevitable consequence of one of the lowest defence budgets on the planet.

What would you suggest we do to defend ourselves? We normally buy hardware from the French they are the biggest weapons manufactures in the world. Good quality gear. Maybe your on for bringing in Eurocopters and Euro fighters. Perhaps that might be the way to go.

Gatling

KingBrian2 wrote: »

What would you suggest we do to defend ourselves? We normally buy hardware from the French they are the biggest weapons manufactures in the world. Good quality gear. Maybe your on for bringing in Eurocopters and Euro fighters. Perhaps that might be the way to go.

We don't buy french too often bar helicopters,

We need fast patrol boats to intercept and patrol the coast there's a few affordable and capable options out there ,

Fast jets for interception of foreign aircraft in controlled airspace or sovereign airspace expensive in the long run several million pa maintenance not included in the cost is air to air munitions and air 2 ground .

We likey need to improve equipment across the board from vehicles to small arms and radars and so on .

KingBrian2

Gatling wrote: »

We don't buy french too often bar helicopters,

We need fast patrol boats to intercept and patrol the coast there's a few affordable and capable options out there ,

Fast jets for interception of foreign aircraft in controlled airspace or sovereign airspace expensive in the long run several million pa maintenance not included in the cost is air to air munitions and air 2 ground .

We likey need to improve equipment across the board from vehicles to small arms and radars and so on .

Would this require militarising the coast guard or merely expanding the guard to include an Air Corp division that would patrol our airspace and coastlines?

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

We normally buy hardware from the French they are the biggest weapons manufactures in the world. Good quality gear. Maybe your on for bringing in Eurocopters and Euro fighters. Perhaps that might be the way to go.

In recent years, Ireland has sourced the vast majority of its arms from neutral countries...

The standard issue rifle is Austrian
The APCs & its derivatives are Swiss
Anti-Air & Anti-Armour weapons are Swedish.

But, one does not have to be limited to that to be neutral.

Personally I'd ensure neutrality by:
- removing oneself from NATO's PFP,
- aswell as any EUFOR operations.
- Adding an article of neutrality to the constitution (one does not exist).
- Ensure baseline capabilities to deter incursion of any unwanted military intrusion into Irish air & sea.
- modest coastal defence.
- Ensure a baseline army capability of 1 mechanised brigade.
- Advise the USAF that the extra 40 mins flight time to the UK for fuel will not kill them.

And this would still leave Ireland as a bottom tier military globally... its really very very modest!

But enough to assert sovereignty.

As I said.... if you want to be neutral, you have to assert it.
If Ireland is to be neutral, there has to be change.... sham-neutrality is just that, a sham.

Gatling

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Would this require militarising the coast guard or merely expanding the guard to include an Air Corp division that would patrol our airspace and coastlines?

I'd expand the navy to do the job ,investment in drones might be a serious solution to some of the maritime patrols in the air ,a lot cheaper than buying and maintaining the casa maritime patrol aircraft we currently use .

KingBrian2

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

In recent years, Ireland has sourced the vast majority of its arms from neutral countries...

The standard issue rifle is Austrian
The APCs & its derivatives are Swiss
Anti-Air & Anti-Armour weapons are Swedish.

But, one does not have to be limited to that to be neutral.

Personally I'd ensure neutrality by:
- removing oneself from NATO's PFP,
- aswell as any EUFOR operations.
- Adding an article of neutrality to the constitution (one does not exist).
- Ensure baseline capabilities to deter incursion of any unwanted military intrusion into Irish air & sea.
- modest coastal defence.
- Ensure a baseline army capability of 1 mechanised brigade.
- Advise the USAF that the extra 40 mins flight time to the UK for fuel will not kill them.

And this would still leave Ireland as a bottom tier military globally... its really very very modest!

But enough to assert sovereignty.

As I said.... if you want to be neutral, you have to assert it.
If Ireland is to be neutral, there has to be change.... sham-neutrality is just that, a sham.

Well I say this the idea of inserting a neutrality clause into the constitution is a hell of a lot more appealing than the current 8th amendment we have I know its off topic but its true.

As for Nato under no circumstances should we be in that organisation. Sweden are not in Nato and lets hope they continue with that policy. Iceland, Switzerland and Finland none of which are in Nato. So were in good standing.

Gatling

KingBrian2 wrote: »

As for Nato under no circumstances should we be in that organisation. Sweden are not in Nato and lets hope they continue with that policy. Iceland, Switzerland and Finland none of which are in Nato. So were in good standing.

Sweden has excellent capability to defend it's self on land, sea ,air ,
Switzerland also has self defence capabilities and also happens to be one of the top 10 arms exporters in the world,
Finland has excellent capability too on land and air .

We've next to nothing ,
Anything happens in this country we will need outside help and we happen to have close ties with Nato anyway

KingBrian2

Gatling wrote: »

Sweden has excellent capability to defend it's self on land, sea ,air ,
Switzerland also has self defence capabilities and also happens to be one of the top 10 arms exporters in the world,
Finland has excellent capability too on land and air .

We've next to nothing ,
Anything happens in this country we will need outside help and we happen to have close ties with Nato anyway

In the past we did not have many enemies to defend ourselves against. We don't for the most part but considering the wars Britain & France have got themselves entwined in it is probably best we have a defence force that can prevent an attack from a spillover from the conflict those countries are embroiled in.

Gatling

KingBrian2 wrote: »

In the past we did not have many enemies to defend ourselves against. We don't for the most part but considering the wars Britain & France have got themselves entwined in it is probably best we have a defence force that can prevent an attack from a spillover from the conflict those countries are embroiled in.

When you have a group like isis we don't have to piss them off were western, Democratic, historically Christian /catholic,equal rights .

Were already a target and yet we haven't done a thing,
Well an Irish soldier may have seriously injured several members of Al Nursa a while back