US Warplanes refuel in Ireland an abrogation of Neutrality

Typedef

The last time I checked this was meant to be a neutral country right? In light of this should we not stand up for our principals of neutrality and do just that , remain militarily neutral?

Does this government really think that allowing US military aircraft to refuel in this state when the US is 'at war - quote George Bush' is an espousal of neutrality?

By the actions of Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen , we have now become participants in military action that may or may not take place against Afghanistan. If innocent civilians should be killed in Afghanistan in what the Americans colourfully call 'collateral damage' then the Republic would be guilty of participating in that murder.

While we may all feel affiliation with the many people that have died in the United States, are we as a nation really prepared to support a war in which the United States may kill innocent people because of one man?
After all once the war against Yugoslavia was over there were no military strikes to extract the Yugoslav leader, so why should Bin Laden be any different? Are we so shallow a nation that we are 'neutral' so long as no-one Irish, or no-one from the US dies? If Muslims in Bosnia die becuase of war we are neutral but when a US or Irish citizen dies we can 'show our solidarity - Brian Cowen', solidarity seemingly a euphemism for 'willingness to take military action'.

Are we now prepared to say that if the United States should need to refuel a warplane that carries Atomic weapons that yes they may use Ireland as a fuel base?
Eh hello we have signed treaties with nations like Egypt that expressely distance us from Atomic weapons, or does this not matter, surely if George Bush can scrap the ABM then we can scrap a stupid treaty on Neuclear proliferation, or the Constitution :rolleyes:

What about strikes on Iraq, or supression of Palestinians? Lets not forget the Americans installed the Taliban, and now will kill, murder and asassinate for revanche against the very people it installed. This smacks of the US military complex sustaining and perpetuating itself.

If we participate in military action by allowing the US to use this state as a staging ground for refueling then we are culpabale for the hideous crimes being perpitrated against ordinary Iraqi people by UN sanctions (estimates are 2 million people are dead as a result of US imposed sanctions) , we are culpabale when American made Figher Planes and Attack Helicopters are used by Israle to attack Palestinians in the West Bank or when British made jets are used by Jakarta in East Timor, we are culpabale when the Americans take life or support people that take life, just like in a court of law we are accomplice to murder.

QED

DadaKopf

It's really nothing new at all. I disagree with it wholeheartedly but that's the nature of the game. Since Ireland is on the UN security council and will be leading it next month, we have a kind of obligation to assist UN mandated military actions. That said, Clinton's initial attack on Yugoslavia was most certainly not a UN mandated action. Only later was Nato permitted to take action in the Balkans as part of a UN security council resolution (1024 I think).

However, if action is to be taken at all, Ireland has no right to assist military actions outside of 1) UN protocols, 2) international laws of war (between states only) and 3) our neutrality.

If this has happened already, it's an outrage.

Nagilum

I honestly can't see why US planes would ever need to be in Ireland anyway, unless it was flying through Irish airspace to get to the UK.

Neutral in the war against terrorism? Now there's something almost as honorable as staying neutral in WW2.

Xterminator

Hmm..

The war on Drugs. The war on Crime. The war on Terrorism.

Are these wars you want our country to be neutral on?

If we allowed the US to refuel for a non mandated unilateral strike against a fellow UN state, then we could be construed as breaching neutrality.

If we allow the US, and it allies to refuel to combat the scourge of Terrorism, a problem we are all to intimately familiar with.

Terrorists respect no international laws or bounderies.

Neutrality is a concept where we do not align ourselves in state to state conflicts.

It was thought of in a kind of pre-cold war era.

However if we did subscribe to the insular mentality of "it does not effect me, thus i will remain neuteral", there is no guarentee that the terrrorist/criminals/drug barons will respect that boundry anyway.

This is a proble that trancends bounderies, and our governmet correctly recognises this.

So I ask again, are these wars you want our country to be neutral on?

If so i question your motives.

X

TwoShedsJackson

Originally posted by Nagilum

Neutral in the war against terrorism? Now there's something almost as honorable as staying neutral in WW2.

Yes, the US was pretty dishonourable for the first half of World War 2, wasn't it?

Hobbes

Hey Castor a bit of respect! They did save our asses in WWII afterall.

Canaboid

Err, whose asses Hobbes ? I don't recall Ireland participating in WWII.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Canaboid
Err, whose asses Hobbes ? I don't recall Ireland participating in WWII.

LOL... sucker.

GreenHell

Personnally I don't think its possible to be neutral in a world as closely patched together as the one we live in now. I mean don't we all have opinions on the attack on the WTC, don't most of us think its wrong and should never happen again. Its all grand to say this and all Ireland has ever done is say that its wrong. As country we should be willing to stand up for our believes in a free world.

If any of you saw Bush's speech today you will know that Ireland can help fight against the evils of terrorism without committing troops to a ground conflict. Although Bush is a fool in no uncertain terms, this speech highlighted how ridiculus our neutrality is. We can fight against terrorism, through not allowing terrorist organisation save haven in Ireland, either be that financially or chucking them in jail. We have an obligation to stand for what we believe in after all don't we enjoy also enjoy a free society. That question is I suppose what are we willing to do to protect it?

yossarin

Originally posted by Xterminator
Hmm..
The war on Drugs. The war on Crime. The war on Terrorism.
...
Are these wars you want our country to be neutral on?

X

Just out of Curiosity - when was the last time that the US wasn't at war ? do 'wars' win votes ?

Mickah

Erm,
My history is pretty ****, but I do recall the existence of whole Irish regiments in the English army during WWII.

Officially the state may have remained neutral over the last century, but thousands of Irish died in those wars fighting for what they believed was a just cause.

And you're complaining about a couple of planes refueling here, on their way to fight the founders of recent terrorist events.

On a related note, personally, I hope the IRA are having a major rethink on their standing on Decommissioning due to the International Community's recent repulsion against terrorism.

Mick

Nemesis

But the Irish Regiment was British,
They still have the Irish guards.
But anyway How can you be neutral in a war against Terrorism?
One mans Terrorist is anothers freedom fighter..
maybe thats where Neutral comes in..
So many questions very few answers..
This whole topic situation is very hard for any of us to have a definite answer.
But it is good for us to Debate.
DemonBaby/Nemesis.

Asok

Originally posted by Canaboid
Err, whose asses Hobbes ? I don't recall Ireland participating in WWII.

Try reading a few secondary level history books we were more than accomodating to the allies we gave them acess to our airspace we returned any downed allied pilots over the border while all german pilots were detained so i dont really see how what we are doing now is much different fighting evil is fighting evil and we must remember there was plenty of irish killed that in itself is almost an act of war


oh finally UP THE FCA!:D :cool:

Chaos-Engine

Neutrality is at stake.

Imagine what would Britain have done to us in WW2 if we let German bombers refuel in Ireland...

Would we be seen as neutral then?????
I don't think so


Why should it be any different now?

"Terrorism is an idea."
"You bomb the idea you only make it stronger."

DadaKopf

something Yossarin said:
Just out of Curiosity - when was the last time that the US wasn't at war ? do 'wars' win votes ?

Yeah, it'll be very interesting to see what effect a "prolonged land offensive" will have on the Republican party and the American political landscape.

I mean fighting a legitimate army is one thing, fighting a threatening ideology in Vietnam is another but fighting a global front against 'international terrorism'? It can only spell political disaster for the Republicans because these kinds of wars can never be won; some kind of retraction from the notion of 'war' to something more palatable like 'insurgent reduction operations' will have to be put in place. War can do wonders for a president's esteem providing they win or an honourable battle has been fought. But this? No, it spells disaster and reams of accidental civilian casualties.

Of course I'm assuming there is going to be a military offensive but if course there will be.

Regardless, the political stage is being set domestically and internationally and the problem is: we have no say in the matter .

Victor

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
Imagine what would Britain have done to us in WW2 if we let German bombers refuel in Ireland...

There is a difference. Under international law, if a Neutral country so consents, a Belligerent ship may repeatedly make harbour in that Neutral, for repairs and fuelling (but importantly not arming), at a minimum interval of IIRC six weeks. The particular incident that comes to mind is the Graf Spee at the Battle of the River Plate.

Over flights of Ireland are quite common by military aircraft from other countries - I remember going to work one morning and seeing 5 F-16s (one engine) at high altitude over Dublin. However, each over flight requires prior permission - [url= ]AIR NAVIGATION (FOREIGN MILITARY AIRCRAFT) ORDER, 1952[/url]. More than 250,000 US soldiers passed through Shannon for Desert Shield / Storm, based on participation in a UN mandated operation.

At the same time I fell marginally vomitous at Bertie 'rolling with the big boys', while having no 'toys' to bring to the party.

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
"Terrorism is an idea." "You bomb the idea you only make it stronger."

Quite important. Is it true? (Genuine question)

Alis

Danny wrote:

Try reading a few secondary level history books we were more than accomodating to the allies...

IMHO taking school text books written in one country as historical fact is not a good idea.

By some weird coincidence I studied one particular set of Irish school text books that were being used in the early 1990s, for a project I did at college in London, in order to demonstrate how misguided secondary school children can be by school books.

I don't know what today's Irish history text books are like, but I can tell you with some confidence, the ones used in the early 1990s were so blatantly inaccurate in so many places it was scary.

I'm sure the same could be said about the text books used in many countries, Ireland just happened to be the country I choose when doing that project some years ago.

If you are interested in history, you really must not get into relying on one secondary source, especially if it was written for a school.

Alis

Victor

Originally posted by Alis
I don't know what today's Irish history text books are like, but I can tell you with some confidence, the ones used in the early 1990s were so blatantly inaccurate in so many places it was scary.

Any examples, other than obvious simplification, sanitising and not referring to anything after 1965. I only did history up to third year, but had finished all the books by the end of first year.

Fidelis

I for one don't condone Bertie's choice, he said that he believes the majority of Irish people backed the decision - he a telepath all of a sudden ? He should have played the lotto.

They're on their way to destroy a country which really hasn't much on offer to destroy in the first place. They're using unreasonable force to intimidate a series of countries, continents even.

This 'evidence' the US says it has on Bin Laden is a joke. They can't release most of it due to the fact that it's classified, give me a break, I have evidence that Dubya shot JFK, but I'm afraid it's classified, can we destroy the States now please ?

Chaos-Engine

Read the Frontpage of the "Irish Independent"

Several planes have already refueled here. Mostly troop and ammunition carriers. Some Tank transports/APC also...

Unfortunitly I don't think we r neutral in this current conflict....

People say you can't be neutral and it is are best interest to fight terrorism.

I think the best move would be too stay out at all costs.... Only maybe getting involved if there is a UN mandate..... Then and only then...
But i still wouldn't like it at all

PEACE will lose in the end

Blitzkrieger

Damnit Victor! I was going to post that!

Too many people on the boards now


I believe the rule for warships of belligerent nations in neutral ports is something like they can stay to make repairs and resupply (not re-arm) for 72 hours, and can't return to the same port within six weeks. I'd imagine the same sort of thing would apply to planes, so I don't think we're comprimising our neutrality by allowing them refuel.

bonkey

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
Unfortunitly I don't think we r neutral in this current conflict....

I asked this in another thread as well....

Can you think of a single international conflict since the inception o the Irish State where the country *was* neutral, by your standard of neutrality?

Ireland is a military-neutral country - we do not send our soldiers off to fight wars. Peacekeeping missions, BTW, do not count.

Ireland is not, and never has been, a politically-neutral, idealogically-neutral, or internationally-neutral nation. We take sides in every conflict - we just dont fight.

The current situation is no different.

jc

Lemming

I'm reading all these neutrality peeps harping on about this that and the blo*dy other.

Consider this ..... if terrorists crash a plane or use a bomb on, say, sellafield .. what happens to us??

If even ONE low-grade nuclear storage shed is hit, bang goes north of England, some of Scotland, and N.Ireland down to about Dundalk for 3000 years.

If a medium grade shed gets hit, BANG goes Ireland for 3000 years.

If a high-grade shed gets hit ... goodbye northern Europe for 3000 years.

You think any islamic terrorist is gonna go "Oh **** .. we can't take out Ireland as well .. that's no good." BullSh*t, they're gonna go "another western imperialist pig destroyed" and then you're gonna see little kids singing and cheering.

So all you neutrality people open your eyes. This isn't a conventional war. We of all people should know what terrorism is like. It doesn't stand by international conventions or laws. It does what it wants to do.

ANd another thing .... by TypeDef's reckoning, if we allow US planes land here to refuel and stuff then we're just as guilty if innocents get killed. So you don't mind then if Bush fires a tomahawk into Dublin to take out all those islamic's working for bin laden over here then yeah?? Cause by your reasoning, we're already partially guilty of 6000+ deaths in the USA.

We can't be neutral in this one. We're either against terrorism, or we're for it by active particapation or turning a blind eye. You decide.

Although my above statement is quite aggressive, I am however NOT in favour of going in "all guns blazing" so to speak.

WhiteWashMan

anyone who thinks ireland should remain *neutral* in an international war on terrorism has got their head in the clouds.

besides, since terrorsim has no nationality, theres is no neutrality to break is there now?
there is only hypocrasy.
i cant see them sending over a couple of cruise missles to kill any of the losers we have up in northern ireland?

who really gives a monkeys is planes refuel in shannon or in the american airforces highly secret base in yorkshire?

i im agine whoever is behind whatever is going on is sitting there reading the papers from around the world, probably on his pc using DSL, and scanning the front of the irish times (its his favourite paper dont you know) and readiing about american planes refueling in ireland.
hes just said to himself, well, i used to like ireland, great football team, but im gonna have to fly a plane in to the SIPTU building now'
bollox.
if there is anything we can do in anyway to help against terrorism, them im afraid i'll have to stand forward to help.
and im surprised, after 30 years of bloody murdering and butchering on both sides up north, youd think people in ireland would know what it causes.
weve all seen the bodies, the blood, the limbs, lives destroyed, distruaght parents/children/relatives.
but its ok for it to happen in another part of the world as long as we dont refuel a few planes.
get a grip on reality here.
go read a bloody paper and see whats going on outside of your bedroom.........

Matt Simis

I totally agree with Lemming..

To any Islamic Terrorists we are just another member of the Western Powers... we have countless US companies here, loadsa US people and interests and in the America itself as much as 25% of the population consider themselves of Irish desent.

Islamic terrorists are at war with the West... the reason the WTC was attacked was because it was a symbol of Western Power (*World* Trade Center), hence they large number of foreign nationals murdered.

I would consider myself ashamed to be Irish if we stood by and let our neighbours fight for our good (and theirs) without doing anything. This country has taken the backseat in World politics for far too long and we have grown comfortable in our little isolated island, far from danger, protected by the Europe.. so comfortable we let our own and those friendly to us die and then argue that we are not involved in "those bad things that happen over there?? Come on people, open yours eyes!


Matt

Lemming

Originally posted by Matt Simis

This country has taken the backseat in World politics for far too long and we have grown comfortable in our little isolated island, far from danger, protected by the Europe.. so comfortable we let our own and those friendly to us die and then argue that we are not involved in "those bad things that happen over there?? Come on people, open yours eyes!

Firstly, thanx matt

Secondly, I want to pick up on something you've said. To all those harpingon about neutrality ..... how's this:

What if, the rest of the western world turned to us and said "Right, you want to be neutral .. then be neutral. We'll not lift a finger to help you if you get attacked". What would you say to that happening? Ireland wouldn't be able to stand on one leg, yet alone two, if we got invaded or attacked by any half-way decent/insanely dedicated/determined military force. We simply don't have the muscle.

And before one ofyou says "Who'd want to invade us", remember Ireland's geographical location makes it PRIME real-estate in any atlantic naval war/air campaign refuelling base / invasion force staging grounds against Europe or the US

CiaranC

Someone asked if we really wanted our country to remain neutral in a war against "international terrorism" or in "the war against drugs". Both these wars are unwinnable, and YES, i do want our country to remain neutral.

Granted, Islamic militants are hardly likely to see us as any different from the rest of western Europe. Realistically though, we cant expect to influence events there, or in the US, or in the Middle East. We can only decide as a people that these wars are not for us.

Matt Simis

no probs Lemming.

I agree... the people claim to be neutral when it suits them... but if (and when?) things are reversed the same people would call our abondonment an "outrage".

To be honest... if I was serious about starting a war in Europe, I would attack Ireland. We have got to be the most isolated and weakest (military wise) nation in the EU, and are located in a prime strategic location. Likewise... we have no real (ie working ) Fighters to intercepy rogue AirLiners, making it easy for the same Terrorists to do as they please once they are in the air.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by CiaranC
Someone asked if we really wanted our country to remain neutral in a war against "international terrorism" or in "the war against drugs". Both these wars are unwinnable, and YES, i do want our country to remain neutral.

why?
what would our neutrality serve?
not al help has to be in the form of sending both of our soldiers out to fight?
aid can be given in intelligence, equipment, airspace, refueling etc.

why is this so bad?

Typedef

My own conviction is that if we were to allow US planes to refuel in Shannon, (as it would seem the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Brian Cowen) will offer today) that not only will be be culpable in innocent Afghani's being killed in the name of fighting terrorism ( though some might call it a lynching in the name of revanche ), but if for example the a US warplane was carrying Atomic weapons that Ireland would be culpabale by association of the kind of tacit Nuclear sabre rattling that the US engages with every time it goes to (conventional war - whatever conventional means when people are dying). How will Bertine Ahern and Brian Cowen guarantee Nuclear weapons won't be transported through Ireland? Will our government Ministers inspect every plane to insure that it, doesn't have Nueclear weapons on board, insuring that we don't participate in Nuclear proliferation or war(however cold it may be)? Some people may feel comfortable with the idea of supporting the US in their time of crisis but, would that really pertain to the Atom bomb, on Irish soil?

War is axiomatic of the lesser state of evolution of man. If we participate in a war however marginally we are an encumbant and constituant part of the proliferation of war. Surely we should lead by example, and I think that one of the most examplary things about living in the Republc is the political ilucidation that has kep us neutral and it is this political ethos we should seek to encourage, not an ethos of revanche and reprisals.

I also don't accept the seemingly jaundiced view of the USA that their's is the right side , the side of good, the side of fortitude while the 'other' side (whatever that means) are somehow , evil, sub-human, rabid people who are somehow hell-bent on the destruction of Western Society. This seems like a quasi-Orwellian dictum/motif that does not reflect that, not only has there been a large act of "terrorism" perpitrated against the USA , but the USA has itself been usurping legitimate governance, and engaging in highly questionable acts in the name of "freedom" for years with this supposed motivation of "freedom" at heart. Now where is the logic in deriding one of the Republic's most ilucidated,vaunted & largely enlightened political ascriptions for the sake of questionable revanche?

Bottom line this move is too partisan for all the wrong reasons, for example Ireland has never lifted a finger for all the unspeakable actions the USA has taken against others, the 200,000 people who died in Hiroshima, the 140,000 people who died in Nagasaki, the usurption of the Government of Grenada over a commercial airport, the covert usurption of the government of Guatemala by the CIA, or the military support of the state or Israel for the last fifty years.

Is this really the sort of state and for these sorts of reasons that the Republic should abrogate our espoused and cherished non-militarism toward others for a kind of shady and tacit - yet public military edict?

How can the Republic legitimise the support of force under a UN mandate, when under UN sanctions (largely orchestrated by the USA) nearly 2 million people have died in Iraq due in a large way to sanctions? For the past 50 years the US has refused to acknowledge UN mandates on the illegal occupation of lands by the state of Israel, so how can the Republic support the USA on the remit of UN support when the USA only recognises the authority of the UN when it wants something?

I for one am not prepared to set aside all the extreme wrongdoings of the USA on the basis of propaganda about the legitimacy of UN resolutions. How can we judge the "Terrorists" as being less vindicated in taking life then the USA or Israel or the IRA or the UVF or the British government? In the same way Colin Powell said we stand with the USA or against them, surely we stand against violence or with it?

Aspro

For those of you under any illusions that Irish has not been compromised you should read this article:

www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2000/1101/opt1.htm

Lemming

Originally posted by Typedef
My own conviction is that if we were to allow US planes to refuel in Shannon, (as it would seem the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Brian Cowen) will offer today) that not only will be be culpable in innocent Afghani's being killed in the name of fighting terrorism ( though some might call it a lynching in the name of revanche ), but if for example the a US warplane was carrying Atomic weapons that Ireland would be culpabale by association of the kind of tacit Nuclear sabre rattling that the US engages with every time it goes to (conventional war - whatever conventional means when people are dying). How will Bertine Ahern and Brian Cowen guarantee Nuclear weapons won't be transported through Ireland? Will our government Ministers inspect every plane to insure that it, doesn't have Nueclear weapons on board, insuring that we don't participate in Nuclear proliferation or war(however cold it may be)? Some people may feel comfortable with the idea of supporting the US in their time of crisis but, would that really pertain to the Atom bomb, on Irish soil?

War is axiomatic of the lesser state of evolution of man. If we participate in a war however marginally we are an encumbant and constituant part of the proliferation of war. Surely we should lead by example, and I think that one of the most examplary things about living in the Republc is the political ilucidation that has kep us neutral and it is this political ethos we should seek to encourage, not an ethos of revanche and reprisals.

I also don't accept the seemingly jaundiced view of the USA that their's is the right side , the side of good, the side of fortitude while the 'other' side (whatever that means) are somehow , evil, sub-human, rabid people who are somehow hell-bent on the destruction of Western Society. This seems like a quasi-Orwellian dictum/motif that does not reflect that, not only has there been a large act of "terrorism" perpitrated against the USA , but the USA has itself been usurping legitimate governance, and engaging in highly questionable acts in the name of "freedom" for years with this supposed motivation of "freedom" at heart. Now where is the logic in deriding one of the Republic's most ilucidated,vaunted & largely enlightened political ascriptions for the sake of questionable revanche?

Bottom line this move is too partisan for all the wrong reasons, for example Ireland has never lifted a finger for all the unspeakable actions the USA has taken against others, the 200,000 people who died in Hiroshima, the 140,000 people who died in Nagasaki, the usurption of the Government of Grenada over a commercial airport, the covert usurption of the government of Guatemala by the CIA, or the military support of the state or Israel for the last fifty years.

Is this really the sort of state and for these sorts of reasons that the Republic should abrogate our espoused and cherished non-militarism toward others for a kind of shady and tacit - yet public military edict?

How can the Republic legitimise the support of force under a UN mandate, when under UN sanctions (largely orchestrated by the USA) nearly 2 million people have died in Iraq due in a large way to sanctions? For the past 50 years the US has refused to acknowledge UN mandates on the illegal occupation of lands by the state of Israel, so how can the Republic support the USA on the remit of UN support when the USA only recognises the authority of the UN when it wants something?

I for one am not prepared to set aside all the extreme wrongdoings of the USA on the basis of propaganda about the legitimacy of UN resolutions. How can we judge the "Terrorists" as being less vindicated in taking life then the USA or Israel or the IRA or the UVF or the British government? In the same way Colin Powell said we stand with the USA or against them, surely we stand against violence or with it?

You still don't get it do you? Anything that these islamic extremists does against one western country is aimed at us all. WE are a PART of the WEST. These people want to KILL us. To quote a Thin Lizzy song "No flag has ever stoppped a bullet".

Therefore shouting about neutrality is pointless. Assume they take out the USA, UK, Europe, do you think they wont then turn their attentions to us because we stayed neutral? Consider this quote (who its from I can't remember)

"Because I never stopped to defend my neighbours when they [the nazis] came for them, when they came for me, there was no-one left to help me"

Note ... I use the word "extremists" since I DO distinguish between religious/political fanatic, and Islamic worshipper / muslim - just in case anyone tries to label me a racist or something.

bonkey

Originally posted by Aspro
For those of you under any illusions that Irish has not been compromised you should read this article:

www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2000/1101/opt1.htm

I've read it. It backs up exactly what I would argue.

The author draws reference to 50,000 irish "conned" into fighting in WW1.

He ignores the double-standards which we showed in the second world war, where despite talking to both sides, we clearly favoured the Allies in many situations (and Irish did fight under the banners of other nations).

He talks about our "incorrect" involvement in Bosnia because we went in with the NATO PfP, before being full members of same.

Basically, on one hand, he shows how Ireland has not been neutral since its inception, in anything but name. By leaving out a 60-year time-frame (where, to be honest, there was little for us not to be neutral about, except WW2 which he forgets to discuss entirely) he seems to imply that we have suddenly changed position.

This is absolute pants. It shows that Ireland has had to stop pretending to be neutral while really picking sides, and actually stand in the corner we are supporting.

if anything, Ireland is not losing its neutrality, it is gaining a shred of honesty. We were never a neutral nation. We are not a neutral nation. We simply never sent our soldiers into conflicts, except on peace-keeping missions. That is still our stance, as far as I know, except that peace-keeping may also include "peace enforcement" occasionally, a la Bosnia.

Anyone who takes the stance that we are "losing" our neutrality, please step forward and demonstrate the true neutrality Ireland has maintained since the inception of the state, up until the present day where you feel they are only now throwing it away.

I would also point out that Irish neutrality is not enshrined in our constitution. Article 28 (notably 28.3.3) makes interesting reading.

jc

jc

Aspro

Basically, on one hand, he shows how Ireland has not been neutral since its inception, in anything but name. By leaving out a 60-year time-frame (where, to be honest, there was little for us not to be neutral about, except WW2 which he forgets to discuss entirely) he seems to imply that we have suddenly changed position.

True, Bonkey - but I think it was a good example from the horse's mouth (as an ex-soldier) of how he views the facade of our military neutrality being "eroded by stealth". I would totally agree with you that Irish governements have never been politically or ideologically neutral. They have been the lap-dogs of American and British imperialism since the inception of the State.

Personally I think neutrality is a farce, a fudging of the main issue - whether or not you support one group of warmongers sending ordinary people out to slaughter the ordinary people of another group of warmongers and vice versa.

This is not a war against terrorism. Terrorism is not a country or nation that can be targetted and destroyed. It is a symptom of the never-ending cycle of violence that is perpetrated by the powerful nations in their bid to carve up the resources of this planet at whatever the human cost.

Just as at the beginning of the last two world wars there is a strong atmosphere of patriotism and jingoism being whipped up by the US government - cynically manipulating the emotions of those who have lost loved ones in this tragedy.

"You're either with us or you're against us", says Sheriff Bush. This is disgusting. And people are falling for it. And I am ashamed of any Irish person advocating a war that has nothing to do with ordinary people and everything to do this insane system that we live in and the madmen that run our lives.

"No to the rich man's war".

bonkey

Originally posted by Aspro


True, Bonkey - but I think it was a good example from the horse's mouth (as an ex-soldier) of how he views the facade of our military neutrality being "eroded by stealth". I would totally agree with you that Irish governements have never been politically or ideologically neutral. They have been the lap-dogs of American and British imperialism since the inception of the State.

Alternately, you could argue that those who believe in Irish Neutrality are lapdogs to those who sold us the fallacy originally, and the media who insist on perpetuating the idea.

Ireland has been careful about joining coalitions which can force us into a conflict against our wishes. I believe our participation in the EU "Common Defense Force" is, at present, limited to participation in a reactionary peacekeeping/peaceenforcing force, as opposed to being comitted to full common defense policy. I could be wrong.

Personally I think neutrality is a farce, a fudging of the main issue - whether or not you support one group of warmongers sending ordinary people out to slaughter the ordinary people of another group of warmongers and vice versa.

Similarly, I think neutrality is a farce, because if the victor in a war decides that you were part of the opposition, it doesnt matter how many times you say "we were neutral" to them. Same applies during a war - your neutrality is only as valid as the foreign force who recognises it.

IMHO, Irish Neutrality was another one of Dev's great visions of romantic Ireland - and end to our violent past, and a return to cailin's dancing at the crossroads. While it had merit (probably) at the time, I believe the neutral stance is becoming increasingly pointless and worthless.

Switzerland, the most truly neutral country I can think of recently (two months ago) had a referendum to allow their soldiers participate in "blue helmet" missions. There was huge debating mostly breaking down into two sides :

1) We are neutral - let the rest of the world solve their own problems
2) We are neutral, but peacekeeping is not a breach of neutrality, and helps the rest of the world, which eventually helps us.

IIRC, the net result is that they can partake in the missions. I'm not sure whether or not they are mandated to bear arms and stand on the line (second vote in the referendum), or just provide ausilliary help.

This is a nation who take their neutrality seriously, and at the end of the day, humanitarian aid is the only reason they will forsake this. I see Ireland as a less extreme version of Switzerland, partially because we cannot afford to be so lordy in our opinions cause we aint as rich.

This is not a war against terrorism. Terrorism is not a country or nation that can be targetted and destroyed.

<snip>

"You're either with us or you're against us", says Sheriff Bush. This is disgusting. And people are falling for it.

I think people are confusing the declaration of war against terrorism with the current hunt for bin Laden and possible invasion of Afghanistan. It remains to be seen whether or not the US will lighten in their resolve after such an evernt...."we've caught our terrorists, so the war is over until we're attacked again".

What I find very suspect is the fact that when you listen carefully, you hear comments from Powell and Bush like "terrorism, but its nature, is international". In otherwords, they want to combat "international terrorism" - such as groups from nation A targetting nation B. However, internal struggles appear to be outside the remit of what they are describing.

I predict that America's war on terrorism will be limited to :

1) terrorist organistions operating inside the US
2) international terrorist organisations targetting US allies
3) national terrorist organisations in countries where it is in the US interest to get involved (such as Columbia, where the US would dearly love to get a foothold to combat drugs).

Groups such as ETA and the IRA will be unaffected in their operation, and only impacted in foreign fund-raising, and uising foreign nations for training/sanctuary.

jc

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by Smedley


LMAOROTFPMGO

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't

As Americans, we're used to this brand of rhetoric.

now if you can just get a grasp on sarcasm.....

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by Smedley


Sorry -- the Anti-American rhetoric sometimes runs a bit thick here. Clouded my vision.

thats not anti-american.
only an observation.

Victor

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
i im agine whoever is behind whatever is going on is sitting there reading the papers from around the world, probably on his pc using DSL, and scanning the front of the irish times (its his favourite paper dont you know) and readiing about american planes refueling in ireland.

It was actually the front of the Indo that had it. From the Irish Times:

Aer Rianta says no troops were on US aircraft
Aer Rianta has denied a US military aircraft which refuelled at Shannon Airport on Sunday was part of the mounting US offensive in the Middle East. The US Navy C-130 Hercules plane was travelling to the US from an Italian base, an Aer Rianta spokesman in Shannon said. It is the only military plane to have used the airport in the past three weeks. No troops were aboard. FULL TEXT

What this means is that civilian aircraft carying military personnel aren't counted. I wonder if the logs at Shannon are covered by the Freedom of Information Act.

Victor

Originally posted by Aspro
For those of you under any illusions that Irish has not been compromised you should read this article:

www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2000/1101/opt1.htm

Originally published by The irish Times
A further trip back in history is needed to jog our memories on what could be in store for Irish soldiers. John Redmond, leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party, supported the British war effort in the first World War, on the basis that we were helping to defend small nations such as Belgium. It was a con-trick by the Entente powers of the day.

Hmmm, weren't they really defending a Belgian Empire?

---

Reading this post has made me redefine 'our' neutrality. I think, in general, that this country is willing to take part in any 'just war' (or lesser action). However, these are fairly thin on the ground. Experience has shown that all belligerents are fighting out of self-interest and greed, not for the 'greater good'.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
I would also point out that Irish neutrality is not enshrined in our constitution. Article 28 (notably 28.3.3) makes interesting reading.

Not sure what your point is - and I'm not knocking it . We are not at war (no declaration of war 28.3.1). We have not been invaded (28.3.2) - note attack is not covered. We are not in a "national emergency " (no such resolution 28.3.3). Note that 28.3.3 was ammended in the recent referendums, to outlaw capital punishment, even in time of war.

CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND - this edition not updated since 1999.

See also http://www.ireland.com/special/referendums/cappun/referendum/

Blitzkrieger

Well for starters our neutrality hasn't been compromised - at least not by allowing planes refuel in Ireland. We have US warships in our ports all the time - how come no1 complains about them?

TBH I'm a bit sick of our neutrality. It tastes sorta like cowardice. Being smack bang in the middle of NATO there's virtually zero chance of being attacked, and because we never get involved in wars of aggression (Iraq, Kosovo, etc.) there's few body bags coming home to embarrass our political masters.

The US is always saying it never asked to be the world's policeman, but the world needs one. We have an obligation to help those lest fortunate. It's good that so many people question our getting involved but IMO it's the right thing to do.

I'm not saying the US/NATO is always right though.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by Victor


It was actually the front of the Indo that had it. From the Irish Times:

Aer Rianta says no troops were on US aircraft
Aer Rianta has denied a US military aircraft which refuelled at Shannon Airport on Sunday was part of the mounting US offensive in the Middle East. The US Navy C-130 Hercules plane was travelling to the US from an Italian base, an Aer Rianta spokesman in Shannon said. It is the only military plane to have used the airport in the past three weeks. No troops were aboard. FULL TEXT

What this means is that civilian aircraft carying military personnel aren't counted. I wonder if the logs at Shannon are covered by the Freedom of Information Act.

apologies.
i live in london so i dont read irish papers, just do the irish times cross word
i was only using the times as an example, not being factualy correct.
and id say aer rianta would do anything to make a quick buck.
after all hey are planning to finish dublin airport of sometime before the nest millenium comes around

Asok

Originally posted by Alis
Danny wrote:


IMHO taking school text books written in one country as historical fact is not a good idea.

By some weird coincidence I studied one particular set of Irish school text books that were being used in the early 1990s, for a project I did at college in London, in order to demonstrate how misguided secondary school children can be by school books.

I don't know what today's Irish history text books are like, but I can tell you with some confidence, the ones used in the early 1990s were so blatantly inaccurate in so many places it was scary.

I'm sure the same could be said about the text books used in many countries, Ireland just happened to be the country I choose when doing that project some years ago.

If you are interested in history, you really must not get into relying on one secondary source, especially if it was written for a school.

Alis

uhm things have sorta changed in the last 11 years at least in my school we used up to 3-4 seperate sources while covering the european section of history and they all had the same info also what difference would it make that one of them was published in ireland what would the good people at gill& mcmillan gain by editing it around?,and yeah i`ve got a tiny interest in history i think my a1 proved that.

But anyways back on topic i agree with wwman this is a war we cannot stay out of and due to our viscinity to Gb we are a very likely to suffer should a nuke shed be hit

Victor

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
apologies.

Don't worry