Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is it time to join Nato

Options
178101213152

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,276 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Would remove the ability of other foreign powers to veto what we the Irish people may want to do with our defence forces.

    Currently, for example, if there was a peace treaty in Ukraine, we could not send troops, even if we wanted to because the Russians would veto in the UN. The Brits also have a veto, as do the Chinese.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,258 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    So if we ignore the UN what legality would such an aid mission have?



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,276 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    The UN is not the be-all and end-all Francie. International Law exists outside of the UN.

    Again, it's clear you don't know much about this stuff, as it's outside your comfort zone.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,258 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    So we are back to this, you favour a situation where an Irish government would be within it's rights to unilaterally decide to go into the north.

    If you are now backpedalling form that and saying international law forbids it, what is the point of having that choice in the first place?



  • Registered Users Posts: 220 ✭✭Black Noel


    An invasion of the occupied North in order to protect innocent Irish ppl would have been totally justified, whether British courts or outsiders regard that as legal or not is mere piffle.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,276 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Ah, another one of the 'might is right' crew or in this case 'Do as I say, not as I Do'



  • Registered Users Posts: 220 ✭✭Black Noel


    Lol, little Ireland is the 'might' in that scenario, are you crazy. The British occupation is the might in question and Ireland would have been 100% right to resist oppression by invasion, albeit very ill advised.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,276 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    So we are back to this, you favour a situation where an Irish government would be within it's rights to unilaterally decide to go into the north.

    Dancing on a pinhead there Francie. Any country 'could' invade another country, just like Ireland now. That doesn't mean that they do. Your circular argument is exposed tbh. Nothing else there but long drawn out dancing on pinheads.


    If you are now backpedalling form that and saying international law forbids it, what is the point of having that choice in the first place?

    What are you on about? No one is arguing that Ireland abandons international law or goes on some mad savage invasion spree once the triple lock is done away with. You have ZERO faith in this nation, which is ironic.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,258 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Handwaving away the implications of what you are saying may satisfy you but not the debate.

    What is the point of removing the triple lock if we cannot do what we want anyway? Are you saying if the UN refuse to sanction a peace mission to X, that we could decide to go in anyway? Or what is it you are suggesting in real terms.

    You need to explain yourself mark.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,276 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Handwaving away the implications of what you are saying may satisfy you but not the debate.

    The implication that we cannot be trusted with our tiny military?

    What is the point of removing the triple lock if we cannot do what we want anyway? Are you saying if the UN refuse to sanction a peace mission to X, that we could decide to go in anyway? Or what is it you are suggesting in real terms.

    Removing the triple lock gives us more autonomy in foreign policy and use of our military. We are not behold to vetos from Russia or the UK.

    You need to explain yourself mark.

    Oh, I have. I am repeating myself again and again, but alas you want to try and 'win' by obtuseness. If you don't get it by now, its not my fault.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,258 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    You were asked about a scenario where the government may not be the current one. And you seem happy that they would be allowed to go into the north on an aid/peacekeeping mission if tensions arose there again. THAT is the implication of what you propose and there is no two ways about it, much as you handwave.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,276 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    No, I didn't say I would be happy that they 'invade' the North, I never said that.

    It's clear to all that you are not engaging in good faith, which is not really a surprise.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,258 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    But...and you are running away from the debate - the implications of what you propose (you are happy with in other words) is that an Irish government would be fully justified to unilaterally decide to send troops in. YOU have given them the freedom to make autonomous decisions. You not liking that decision is moot, you enabled it.

    What else can we conclude?



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,276 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    I am running away from the debate?

    Christ almighty!


    Giving the Government and Dail more power to adjudicate on things foreign policy, does not mean one is happy that they use these powers in an unwise and frankly disastrous fashion in regards to invading NATO members at a whim.

    The fact that you have this weird and laborious logic speaks volumes of debating 'tactics' you want to go down. It's frankly just abnormal at this stage.


    I have explained myself numerous times. It's fine, if you don't get it, it really is.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,276 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Do you know what this reminds me of?

    The abortion debate, the round and round circular logic employed by some, when it meant that we need to trust women to make the best choice for themselves.

    In the same token, we need to trust the Irish people, the Dail and the government in the same way, and not let Russia or the UK veto us.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,258 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Giving the Government and Dail more power to adjudicate on things foreign policy, does not mean one is happy that they use these powers in an unwise and frankly disastrous fashion in regards to invading NATO members at a whim.

    Mark, we were talking about peacekeeping missions which is what the triple lock is about.

    That you keep referring to them as 'invasions' when it suits you tells me all I need to know. You talked yourself into a cul de sac of your own making and are back pedaling furiously.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,276 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    No, we are talking about Ireland's foreign policy and use of its military.

    Trust the people Francie, just like we trust women.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,258 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    So, here we have it along with an attempt to divert.

    You are happy to allow the government (whosoever that might be) to unilaterally decide on the use of the military on the basis of a wing and a prayer that they don't decide to use that power in a way you find morally wrong.

    Ok, I get the picture.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,009 ✭✭✭Notmything


    The government already has the power to use the army as it wishes within a legal framework. If the government decided to send troops into another country, once it's a lawful order then it's "move out". Being in the UN is not an issue.

    The triple lock means we cannot commit troops to a peacekeeping/enforcement mission if it does not have UN approval. This has positive and negative connotations.

    The key negative is that a potential mission that the Irish government/population may feel strongly about will be vetoed by another country.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Pussyhands


    Clearly you people are unable to understand the point I was making.

    The national children's hospital is a major capital project in the state. And now people want us to spend the same annually on something we don't see any return on.

    Wed be spending spending on our whole education system if we spent 3% on defence annually. Its pure nonsense and all this talk of varadkar or Martin saying we can't rely on anyone else is just because the eu will make us spend a load more and this is just the government's way of getting us used to the idea.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Pussyhands


    People also forgetting us being an island is a huge plus when it comes to defence....on the tiny chance someone did want to invade us.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,009 ✭✭✭Notmything


    Geography is our greatest defence, our greatest weakness is our inability to defend that same geography.

    People don't want us to increase defence spending, that's fine, people don't want us to join a defensive alliance, that's also fine, but at the same time people are happy to tolerate a foreign state effectively policing our airspace.

    We, as a nation, need to decide what exactly we want to do in terms of defence.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Pussyhands


    We can't defend our own country anyways on our own so doesn't matter how much we spend.

    150k foreign troops arrive in Ireland and how are we supposed to beat them?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,009 ✭✭✭Notmything


    Exactly why we need a coherent defence policy and be part of an alliance, be that Nato or the EU with a common defence policy, but that will also mean us having to up our own capabilities.

    Unless of course we adopt the stance you seem to prefer, just bend over and accept what happens.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,258 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    It is coherent, we just need to properly fund the DF to do what they do.

    We go in and help stablise regions affected by war, generally involving a NATO country to some degree or other. That has been and will continue to be a valuable service.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,009 ✭✭✭Notmything


    Overseas missions are not defence policy, I've been on them, have you? The reality is peacekeeping is done at the behest of the DFA.

    How can a defence policy be coherent when we claim neutrality but rely on another nation for security? A nation some maintain occupies a part of the country.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Explain why we need a triple lock and what good it serves in the defense of Ireland



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,258 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    We don't rely on another nation. We have no threat to our sovereignty militarily. We might just as well spend billions protecting ourselves from alien invasion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Of course we could defend ourselves , just takes investment in the right places and capability ,

    It's not exactly easy to get 150-200,000 men on to an island with no land bride ,

    You either fly them in and face massive Loses of men and aircraft or you send them on boats and it takes an awful lot of boats to bring in that many men and vehicles.

    As seen in Ukraine you can remove the threat of an aerial invasion with the right weapons and deterances .

    Just takes a little spending



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,009 ✭✭✭Notmything


    Sovereignty is more than repelling invaders, it's about protecting your borders, and maintaining the safety of the state. Right now we rely on the UK to protect our airspace.

    Regardless if there is on threat to our sovereignty why would we need any army?



Advertisement