Following on from
this thread
Please remain civil or posting privileges will be removed
Would NATO allow us to join if we asked without faffing around to it's own agenda and ends?
I might ask the Ukrainians what they think.
What's NATO's 'agenda'?
You sound like a Putin sympathiser.
I would think that the Ukrainians would love more countries in NATO, given they asked today for expediated access to join the EU. I guess you would have a problem with EU membership if we were not a member already.
Go do your research. If criticism of NATO is being pro-Putin then so is Zelensky.
Jaysus the reaching you guys are having to do. 😁
Yes, the egg will be all over the diplomats faces if russia fires a nuke and most of the world dies.
Imagine the Irish government in the past "expelled" those negotiating on the behalf of terrorists while a conflict was ongoing (I'm sure that was the desired outcome by some).
We should be looking at our neutrality and having a conversation about aligning ourselves with the rest of the EU, don't you agree?
Within the confines of our neutrality, the government has been doing well so far, the message has been consistent without flip-flopping and is working to keep Irish people safe wherever they may be, the russian provocation has brought the EU together in ways unexpected by russia, it will be interesting if there is a change in the groupings for MEP or if some parties maintain their anti-EU positions.
I asked a simple question.
What is NATO's agenda? Do they have an endgame and what is it?
A neutral descison would be one we take ourselves. 'Aligning' ourselves is not neutral in any shape or form. But I suppose it allows our airports to be used for certain friends to wage war. It allows us to turn a blind eye to what the Saudis are doing or what the British did here and then gallop up on to the high moral ground about other things.
As someone might say, the thread is not about NATO...google 'criticism of NATO'. People do it all the time.
Saudi is not a member of NATO and they have nothing to do with NATO....
Ill ask again.
What is the 'agenda' of NATO?
What are its end goal?
Must tell that to the Yemeni people, I'm sure they'll not mind being bombed into oblivion when they know that. Nor hold it against Coveney and Varadkar for smoozhing with the Saudi's.
You want to discuss NATO - open a thread on it. This one is about FG FF and Greens and I am discussing their hypocrisy over Ukraine when they are turning blind eyes on a number of fronts
Saudi is not a member of NATO, so they have nothing to do with that conflict.
You are showing your outright ignorance on the matter now and reverting to pro-Putin and anti-NATO talking points right out of Russia Today. Today on all days when the real assaults on Ukrainian cities begin. A lot of the Putin boys were sent packing over the last few days, yet it seems you have taken the mantle in this thread
I'll ask again since you brought up NATO's end goals
What is the agenda of NATO?
What are its end goals?
If you cannot answer here, maybe you can go to a thread more to your world view, the Conspiracy Forum?
My point about the Saudi's has nothing to do with NATO, and everything to do with FG FF hypocrisy.
You cannot be serious about now trying to drag this thread off topic on NATO after your behaviour on the Shinner thread.
I said many people criticise NATO including Zelensky as part of a point. If you don't believe me, google it.
Allow me to join the dots...
You said...
Sure wait until he levels Kyiv, or fires a nuke, then do it. Brilliant.
..in relation to expelling the Russian Ambassador, which the Irish government (hence this thread) have not done, yet, and which SF has called for and you have called for. Expelling him won't make a jot of a difference to Ukraine though.
I therefore asked a simple question, would you like Ireland to join NATO and/or should Ireland send lethal aid to Ukraine. Something that may actually make a difference in the fight.
Both of those questions were ignored and you ranted on about some 'endgame' and agenda of NATO, which is a Kremlin and RT talking point.
I called you up on it and you started going on about Suadi Arabia in order to deflect.
That's the nub of it.
If you want to rant at Leo and the Saudis rant away, I won't stop you, but it's clear what your trying to do.
But yea, that Russian ambassador eh? The most pressing issue in this war...
It would make a jot of difference on our record of supporting regimes we get benefit from is the point of expelling them.
Its obvious some folk can flip flop when it comes to supporting government. On the one hand parties like the Greens and Sinn Fein are responsible for Putin invading or are pro Putin for voting against sanctions previously, but FF/FG/Greens are looking out for Irish people in Russia by leaving their diplomats in place and continuing to allow Putin funnel money through Ireland. Not credible.
Of course when we do expel them we'll be told it was a sound move by the same people.
So, the Irish government should expel the Russian and Saudi ambassadors?
Nobody willing to touch Putin's money be it FF/FG/Green of their fellow travelers on here.
Not wiling to anything unless it's on the coattails of someone else.
If there is a case for it, yes, absolutely.
And what do you think Ambassadors get expelled for? In general, what's the bar for the case.
This does sound like a very isolationist policy you would be pursuing.
When an Ambassador is expelled, he is usually accompanied back home with a letter explaining why or the Foreign minister will explain why. It can be displeasure with the sending country or for crimes the Ambassador has committed.
It is not the same as severing diplomatic relations, that is a separate act, it has happened before that an Ambassador has been expelled and his/her staff left in place. Look up the expulsion of the US ambassador in Minsk in 2008.
Sure, but what bar are you setting? What are you attacking the government for when they don't expel? i.e. is this just rhetoric
Invading a sovereign country. Given that calls for his expulsion only came when they invaded, I thought it would be easy to work out. Obviously not.
So, the UK, Australian and US ambassadors (among numerous others) should have been expelled as well? Should they expell the representatives of terrorist organisations as well?
I'm sure no one is surprised, but you don't seem to understand the role ambassadors and diplomats play or what their basic function is.
We should expel diplomats from Russia because Russia invaded Ukraine. We could at least stop Putin funnelling money through Ireland. Your whatabout hole seems bottomless.
Ambassadors are envoys for their countries, and some refer to them as 'representatives of that country's leader'.
If what the country does contravenes international law then they should be asked to leave until they comply with the law. Arbitrary 'bars' where you turn a blind eye to some things and not others are a sign of corruption, are hypocritical and toothless.
'Terrorist organisations have envoys as guests of the state? Who knew!
The buck was caught out lying, he's not an honest broker, who's going to trust anything he's says? Coveney pleading his case would set alarm bells ringing.
Swift has been closed off, how is the funnelling now happening?
So yes to expelling the UK, US and Australian ambassadors? But no to taking action against the representatives(envoys if you will) of terrorist groups?
Subtle switch of the goalposts I see.
I'll leave the attempted deflection to favourite subjects for their relevant threads and ask which bit of , ignoring what one country does while climbing onto the high moral ground about another is wrong, hypocritical and a form fo corruption, you didn't grasp? Yes, expel them, if they break international law that is the bar reached.
No switching of the goalposts, you want the government to follow a new policy that they never followed before (that no country in the world has followed actually) and you want to label them hypocritical for not following it (while also ignoring the elephant in the room of a political front for a terrorist group).
Yet again, it has been found, that you are posting complete nonsense.
What will the next nonsense be.
Look, you can equate a terrorist leader with an ambassador of a sovereign country if that tickles you.
If you don't agree the bar should be equally set for all, don't come preaching about one country then. It's just a country you derive no benefit from. A lá carte morals.
