Ireland's "neutrality" - enlightened or cowardly and shameful?

Kermit.de.frog

It is laughable that a country, unlike Switzerland, that can not militarily defend it's so-called neutrality pretends to be so?

To me it just seems self centered and morally bankrupt. How can a country be neutral between ISIS and the west for example - or as in WW2 - Nazi's and the western democracies.

It is cowardice isn't it? God forbid we would contributed a jot to the defence of the free world and our "army" personel playing soldier in a pointless "army". Let other countries do it (some smaller who put their own soldiers on the frontline).

I guess we have the Brits to defend us. That's why we have gotten away with it so long. Even the Russians kept Ireland out of the UN for years because Ireland was too scared for WW2.

I think we should officially give up this lie and contribute. Stop hiding behind everyone else.

tomwaterford

Was WW2 not like 20 years after a million or so irish people were lead to their death in WW1 and not one of the biggest causes of support for independence??



Nothing to stop you from joining the fight vs ISIS op?

My name is URL

How can a country be neutral against ISIS and the west for example

We've done alright so far when it comes to 'neutrality'

If you want a more hands-on approach sign up and go fight them yourself

Kermit.de.frog

My name is URL wrote: »

We've done alright so far when it comes to 'neutrality'

If you want a more hands-on approach sign up and go fight them yourself

We have an "army" don't we? Are they in constant holiday camps for the UN? I might join the army if I wanted to see adventure and the chance to make a difference. Not on offer.

My name is URL

I think we should officially give up this lie and contribute. Stop hiding behind everyone else

...said one anonymous person on the internet :pac:

Kermit.de.frog

tomwaterford wrote: »

biggest causes of support for independence??

How independent are you when you rely on your colonialists for something as basic as defence?

My name is URL

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We have an "army" don't we?

We do yeah. They're not there to satiate your thirst, though

Be a man and do something about what threatens you.

tomwaterford

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

How independent are you when you rely on your colonialists for something as basic as defence?

How independent are you when at the first sign of trouble/war you follow your colonialist into battle/war to provide cannon fodder for them???




Surly irish independence would've better to build up its own military....not follow the UK into yet another ruinous war as your OP seems to be suggesting?

Kermit.de.frog

My name is URL wrote: »

...said one anonymous person on the internet :pac:

Code for a coward country. "I'm not giving up my son or daughter to defend the free world (which I benefit from so much) - that is for other countries, we just take advantage".

wes

To say that the Irish Defense force contributions to UN peace keeping is not contributing is complete bull****. We are a small nation, and we do contribute via UN peace keeping, and I think everyone in this country, can be proud of the efforts of our defense forces UN peace keeping missions.

Kermit.de.frog

tomwaterford wrote: »

Surly irish independence would've better to build up its own military....not follow the UK into yet another ruinous war as your OP seems to be suggesting?

I'd be grand with it if this was a country, like the Swiss, that could genuinely defend it's neutrality. We can't because we don't invest in defence.

In other words we don't stand by this principle, we don't support our conviction. If we did (granted the limit small countries can go for defence) we would have a defence force that would, like Switzerland, have even big powers think before interfering with neutrality.

suicide_circus

Have you pulled on the fatigues yourself, OP?

ChikiChiki

We are not neutral despite what we claim and its a bit hypocritical to claim so. The same way we speak about the Irish in America being undocumented instead of illegal. Our airports are used for refueling by US forces. That is showing some bias imo.

wes

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Code for a coward country. "I'm not giving up my son or daughter to defend the free world (which I benefit from so much) - that is for other countries, we just take advantage".

You do realizes that members of our defense forces have died on UN peace keeping missions. Right? Do you think them cowards? Chicken hawk bull**** and nothing more.

tomwaterford

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I'd be grand with it if this was a country, like the Swiss, that could genuinely defend it's neutrality. We can't because we don't invest in defence.

So you want to contribute?? to wars around the world....all the while being of an opinion that ireland deont spend enough on defence as it is



Seems at best a contradictory position to hold?,

My name is URL

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Code for a coward country. "I'm not giving up my son or daughter to defend the free world (which I benefit from so much) - that is for other countries, we just take advantage".

A coward country couldn't defend its position on non-alignment during a world war and live to tell the tale

You're not calling anyone a coward other than yourself. Stop cribbing like the entitled person you are and go do something about it

Kermit.de.frog

tomwaterford wrote: »

So you want to contribute?? to wars around the world....all the while being of an opinion that ireland deont spend enough on defence as it is



Seems at best a contradictory position to hold?,

No, my point is that if a country wants to be neutral it should have the courage of it's convictions and stand by that and invest in defence to defend it's own neutrality.


We can't defend our neutrality therefore by definition the country is not neutral.

tomwaterford

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No, my point is that if a country wants to be neutral it should have the courage of it's convictions and stand by that and invest in defence to defend it's own neutrality.


We can't defend our neutrality therefore by definition the country is not neutral.

Is this not what the United nations is for.....nothing to stop you going out and joining the FCA or whatever its called now,to do your bit??

Kermit.de.frog

My name is URL wrote: »

A coward country couldn't defend its position on non-alignment during a world war

lol! :pac: Non alignment during a world war???


You mean bewteen the west and the Nazis??

Non alignment? Because the Nazis were of equal moral stature right?

We were not invaded, as we should have been, because the west were not bothered. They came close though.


Remember this country was kept out of the UN for years by the Soviets. The Soviet Union ffs taking the moral high ground. Says it all about our reputation as a country at the time.

wes

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We were not invaded, as we should have been, because the west were not bothered. They came close though.

So you wanted this country to be invaded :rolleyes:. Thats level of self hatred that is truly unique.

Kermit.de.frog

wes wrote: »

So you wanted this country to be invaded :rolleyes:. Thats level of self hatred that is truly unique.

Would have been better for it.

The reason Ireland was such an economic backwater (even though we came through relatively better off than most after the war) was not only because of dumb-f**k economic proectionism but ALSO because the country did not receive the Marshal plan. A lot of people don't realise that. WW2 had a very damaging impact on Ireland's reputation. The rightful contempt toward Ireland from the FDR administration carried over. Very few wanted anything to do with us in the aftermath. It took until the 1960's for this to shift. At that stage we were an agricultural basketcase.

FDR himself remarked just before the end of the war that "we have liberated Europe. From Ireland we did not get as much as a thank you".

tomwaterford

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Remember this country was kept out of the UN for years by the Soviets. The Soviet Union ffs taking the moral high ground. Says it all about our reputation as a country at the time.

You seem strongly worried what other people think of the country.....a sign of very low self confidence...something that deosnt belong in modern ireland imo

tomwaterford

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Would have been better for it.

The reason Ireland was such an economic backwater (even though we came through relatively better off than most after the war) was not only because of dumb-f**k economic proectionism but ALSO because the country did not receive the Marshal plan. A lot of people don't realise that. WW2 had a very damaging impact on Ireland's reputation. The rightful contempt toward Ireland from the FDR administration carried over. Very few wanted anything to do with us in the aftermath. It took until the 1960's for this to shift. At that stage we were an agricultural basketcase.

FDR himself remarked just before the end of the war that "we have liberated Europe. From Ireland we did not get as much as a thank you".

Ireland got 133 million from the marshell plan....you seem to be very misinformed


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Expenditures

Kermit.de.frog

tomwaterford wrote: »

Ireland got 133 million from the marshell plan....you seem to be very misinformed


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Expenditures

Spare change, nothing remotely as significant as any other country per capita. This was done on purpose to send a message that Ireland did not co-operate in the war like they should have done.

tomwaterford

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Spare change, nothing remotely as significant as any other country per capita.

Roughly twice what Portugal gotten??


Fantastic thing about figure and maths is it deosnt lie:)



You seem somewhat aggrevied that since ireland wasn't bombed to fcuk in ww2 (due to being neutral) that it received limited funds to rebuild??

Your logic is flawed?

Kermit.de.frog

tomwaterford wrote: »

Roughly twice what Portugal gotten??


Fantastic thing about figure and maths is it deosnt lie:)

Currency exchange is a fantastic thing too.

wes

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Would have been better for it.

Oh dear, you have lost the plot. Look at what happened to London during the blitz. We would have been destroyed.

tomwaterford

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Currency exchange is a fantastic thing too.

It really is....hence why the link provided was all in USD

Barry Badrinath

Well, someone had is ranty pants on last night!

I agree that the Defence budget is consistenty lacking in this country. Its not something that is ever going to change.

The DF is under funded but if more money was given to the DF and taken away from other departments.....you would be complaining like fcuk.

The Swiss spend almost 5 Billion on defence and have about 150,000 active troops.

We spend less that 900 Million and have about 9,000 active troops.

Cost isnt the only issue, its also strength. We dont have enough in numbers to be a fully functioning organisation. You would need to introduce conscription in order to have enough active and reserve troops to be able to be "neutral".

UN missions arent a piece of cake either btw

Galwayguy35

Ireland should be a contributing member of NATO, we sit back and let others carry the load.

Have we even got a warplane?

It's news to me if we have because I've never heard of us getting one.

Noddyholder

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Ireland should be a contributing member of NATO, we sit back and let others carry the load.

Have we even got a warplane?

It's news to me if we have because I've never heard of us getting one.

Yes I agree, We should do our part, though we could not afford to buy Modern war planes,( Sure we hadn't even got the capability to use/get rescues planes up at last weeks helicopter crash when asked)

We should allow a squadron/small armada of air force/navy from an other European country to be stationed here of our western coasts as the east is indirectly protected by the brits.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Noddyholder

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Now Pat this not all about you :P

osarusan

How's the hangover OP?

Manic Moran

ChikiChiki wrote: »

We are not neutral despite what we claim and its a bit hypocritical to claim so. The same way we speak about the Irish in America being undocumented instead of illegal. Our airports are used for refueling by US forces. That is showing some bias imo.

No, it doesn't. Bias is the unequal application of rules or preferential treatment towards one over another. On a typical year, Ireland authorises military aircraft from about thirty different nations to refuel in the country. As long as Ireland applies the same rules to the US as it does to everyone else, that's neutral and unbiased.

Further, the fact that the neutral party is refuelling belligerents isn't unlawful under international law. There are even responsibilities that the neutral party has to them. An excellent historical case in point (since I'm doing a talk on it next week) is the events of late 1939 in South America: International law mandates that a neutral power (in this case Uruguay) detain a ship of one belligerent country for 24 hours if a ship from the other side leaves port. This rule was taken advantage of by the British after the Battle of the River Plate, when the German ship Graf Spee put into Montevideo to repair and refuel: The British dispatched a ship every 24 hours (which happened to already have been in Montevideo to refuel when the German showed up), Uruguay was thus forced to delay the German ship's departure (They used five guys, a tugboat, and pistol, so the Germans were nice enough to follow requests). The theory was that they could keep the German ship bottled up in the neutral harbor until reinforcements showed up. Those reinforcements refuelled in (neutral) Brazil on the way South.

Ireland is technically non-aligned, not neutral. It declares neutrality on various issues on a case-by-case basis.

However, I believe the OP's point is valid: Off-hand, outside of the Vatican, Liechtenstein and Costa Rica, I believe Ireland has the smallest military in the Western Hemisphere without a security agreement in place to make up for it.

The European experience in the 20th century has indicated the following:You can be neutral, with a powerful force (Sweden, Switzerland), you can save money on your force, but not be neutral (Iceland, Luxembourg), or you can do the best you can, but be a member of an agreement anyway (Norway, Albania). Hard experience has shown that 'neutral, with no teeth' is no guarantor of being left out of things, and that's before one gets to the indirect benefits (such as Ireland profiting from a free post-war Europe). When debating military policy, the Irish government and military frequently make comparisons with New Zealand, as a small island nation, way off on the outreaches of anywhere. The difference: NZ has defense agreements with other nations.

There's no need to get stupid over it. Sweden has a population about twice that of Ireland (And a surface area many times greater). It has a military about twice the size of Ireland's. So far, so good. The difference is that that military is equipped to engage in modern combat on air, land, sea, and undersea. Are the Swedes stupid? Or are they being realistic about their neutrality?

Noddyholder wrote: »

Yes I agree, We should do our part, though we could not afford to buy Modern war planes,( Sure we hadn't even got the capability to use/get rescues planes up at last weeks helicopter crash when asked)

Could not, or would not? Warplanes being beside the point, it was a maritime patrol aircraft which didn't get up. Aforementioned Sweden has a GDP a little over twice Ireland's, and a per capita GDP about 20% above. They place 1.24% of their GDP into the defense budget, Ireland runs under 1% and is the lowest in the EU. In addition to the 100 or so modern warplanes, they also have three maritime patrol aircraft. They seem to have managed it.

Grayson

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

UN missions arent a piece of cake either btw

I'm really proud of our UN missions. We do a hell of a lot for a country with a tiny armed forces.

Grayson

Manic Moran wrote: »

Ireland is technically non-aligned, not neutral. It declares neutrality on various issues on a case-by-case basis.

This is from wiki and for anyone interested in the technicalities of our special form of neutrality which moran mentioned just there.

Ireland's neutrality is in general a matter of government policy rather than a requirement of statute law. One exception is Article 29, section 4, subsection 9° of the Constitution:[6]
The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the State.
This was originally inserted by a 2002 amendment ratifying the Treaty of Nice,[7] and updated by a 2009 amendment ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon.[8] An earlier bill intended to ratify the Treaty of Nice did not include a common defence opt-out, and was rejected in a 2001 referendum.[9]
The Defence Act 1954, the principal statute governing the Irish Defence Forces, did not oblige members of the Irish Army to serve outside the state (members of the Air Corps and Naval Service were not so limited).[10] A 1960 amendment[11] was intended to allow deployment in United Nations peacekeeping missions,[12][13] and requires three forms of authorisation, which since the 1990s have come to be called the "triple lock":[14]
A UN Security Council resolution or UN General Assembly resolution;
A formal decision by the Irish government;
Approval by a resolution of Dáil Éireann (the lower house of the Oireachtas or parliament, to which the government is responsible).
These provisions were modified in 1993[15] to allow for Chapter VII missions and again in 2006[16] to allow for regionally organised UN missions.[14]

Avatar MIA

Who are we going to tool up to defend ourselves against, the Faroe islands?

It only takes a rudimentary knowledge of history that we were not fully neutral in WW2. Were we goaded into giving more help, for sure, but we were only a generation away from giving significant sacrifice in WW1. There was a time when nearly half the British army was made up of Irish.

What services would you reduce, OP, to buy US/British military equipment?

goose2005

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It is laughable that a country, unlike Switzerland, that can not militarily defend it's so-called neutrality pretends to be so?

Switzerland's superarmy is a bit of a joke, most of the population live in the lowlands and they could have been overrun pretty easily. Certainly it would have been easier for Hitler to take Switzerland than Ireland.

To me it just seems self centered and morally bankrupt. How can a country be neutral between ISIS and the west for example - or as in WW2 - Nazi's and the western democracies.

WW2 was the western democracies, the western colonial empires, and one of history's worst tyrannies, against two of history's worst tyrannies and their colonial empires

It is cowardice isn't it? God forbid we would contributed a jot to the defence of the free world and our "army" personel playing soldier in a pointless "army". Let other countries do it (some smaller who put their own soldiers on the frontline).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irish_military_casualties_overseas

I guess we have the Brits to defend us. That's why we have gotten away with it so long. Even the Russians kept Ireland out of the UN for years because Ireland was too scared for WW2.

No-one joined WW2 until they were either attacked or their interests were threatened.

Mrs OBumble

Avatar MIA wrote: »

It only takes a rudimentary knowledge of history that we were not fully neutral in WW2. Were we goaded into giving more help, for sure, but we were only a generation away from giving significant sacrifice in WW1. There was a time when nearly half the British army was made up of Irish.

Indeed.

But still I've met a number of foreigners who regard Ireland as a Nazi-sympathising nation because of the official "neutrality" and the idea that my enemy's enemy is by definition my friend.

I'm not at all sure what the so-called neutrality is supposed to achieve today.

steddyeddy

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Indeed.

But still I've met a number of foreigners who regard Ireland as a Nazi-sympathising nation because of the official "neutrality" and the idea that my enemy's enemy is by definition my friend.

I'm not at all sure what the so-called neutrality is supposed to achieve today.

I'd like to think that as a nation we've grown beyond what people think of us. There were far more Nazi sympathisers in Britain.

Zebra3

Who do we have to defend ourselves from?

Nothing on the news about any invasion?

Feel free to go murder brown skinned people in the ME if you want op. I'm sure the Brits will let you sign up for the Coalition of the Killing or whatever propaganda term they use these days.

MilesMorales1

Have you not made this thread before?

conorhal

ChikiChiki wrote: »

We are not neutral despite what we claim and its a bit hypocritical to claim so. The same way we speak about the Irish in America being undocumented instead of illegal. Our airports are used for refueling by US forces. That is showing some bias imo.

That's a flawed understanding of neutrality. It doesn't mean you don't get involved or provide tacit support to military action, it means that your parliament is the sole authority that can authorize it.
If you have a series of mutual defense treaties or you're a member of an organization like NATO then you can get dragged into all kinds of $h1t based on the agendas of others. How the hell do you think hundreds of thousands of British citizens ended up dying on the fields of Flanders because some Austrian duke was assassinated by some Bosnian anarchist?
Mutual bloody defense treaties.
We can still make the decision to involve ourselves in a stupid and pointless conflict if we want to, WE just have to make that decision, and looking at the utter mess that has been the military misadventures of the past thirty or so years, I'm of the opinion that we're better of not involving ourselves in them and restricting our actions to peacekeeping ones unless it otherwise becomes in out interest to do so.

Junkyard Tom

Zebra3 wrote: »

Who do we have to defend ourselves from?

The British, historically.

con___manx1

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It is laughable that a country, unlike Switzerland, that can not militarily defend it's so-called neutrality pretends to be so?

To me it just seems self centered and morally bankrupt. How can a country be neutral between ISIS and the west for example - or as in WW2 - Nazi's and the western democracies.

It is cowardice isn't it? God forbid we would contributed a jot to the defence of the free world and our "army" personel playing soldier in a pointless "army". Let other countries do it (some smaller who put their own soldiers on the frontline).

I guess we have the Brits to defend us. That's why we have gotten away with it so long. Even the Russians kept Ireland out of the UN for years because Ireland was too scared for WW2.

I think we should officially give up this lie and contribute. Stop hiding behind everyone else.

We weren't to scared to fight in ww2. We were a country less than 20 years when the war broke out. We had not got a lot of money and had just worked out how to get electricity to most homes in ireland. This was done with the construction of the dam at ardnacrusha. That was designed by the Germans coincidentally.
I wouldn't say develera cared too much about what Churchill had to say either or that his country was being bombed to hell after the trouble they caused over here.
The Germans helped us during our war of independence with arms. That could have played a part. Who knows ? I think the main reason was we hadn't a real army or money to form one but other reasons may have played a part.

Glenster

you're not obliged to get involved if there's a war on. I see Ireland as the state equivalent of the tea lizard meme.

Kermit.de.frog

A country so reliant on US for employment and GB for defence is NOT neutral. Does not matter how it is spun.

Can't defend our neutrality either morally or militarily.

purplepanda

What happens if the Russians under Putin invade any or all of the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania, which are in the EU? Or Turkey invades the rest of Cyprus?

Does Ireland assist the other EU (& NATO) nations to help them resist their oppressors, either in a military, humanitarian or financial capacity?

Or does the Lisbon treaty op out clause give an excuse to ignore the subjection of democratic nations who would need assistance in such a scenario?

Would Ireland really ignore the military occupation of a fellow EU state & not contribute to the liberation of that states national territory?

Full.Duck

Gwan and join the french foreign legion then and go fight ISIS.

DanielODonnell

It is all a load of nonsense, citizens shouldn't be tagged by their nationality, there were many republic of Ireland residents who fought in WW2 hence they were not neutral.
It is a bit like how these days people say Nothern Ireland and Scotland are pro EU when many of us like myself voted to leave, i'm just being tagged as a pro EU person.