If being an unaligned country with a large army is no deterrent to Putin's ambitions is it time for ROI to join Nato?
You can be in an organisation and be critical of it mark.
NATO has played the geo-political games that it's main powers want to play. That is the criticism of it.
You can shout 'pro Putin' and introduce snide comments all you want, that criticism and the facts of history backing it up are not going to go away.
Afghanistan had multiple organisations involved with it, including the UN. By your logic, the UN should disband and never enact another peacekeeping mission again?
But then you will argue that Ireland should keep the Triple-Lock, where the UN dictates Irish defence policy
However, then you will argue about how the Brits and Americans are just as bad as the Russians, yet you are happy that they all have a veto on Irish defence policy?
Basically, your only common denominator is that the argument of the day is something you will argue against, and tomorrow if it changes you will argue the other side of the coin.
Makes sense, given your tattered reputation on this site.
Article 5 was tested and enacted after 9/11. That is a fact.
Russia is not invading Poland, Romania or the Baltic states BECAUSE of NATO. Putin knows full well the consequences of such an action. Only an idiot or keyboard warrior like yourself would try and call that bluff. Easy to say stuff on the sidelines when there are no consequences.
NATO was not involved in Iraq by the way. You are very mistaken on how involved NATO was around the world.
The UN-mandated a mission to Afghanistan. We had Irish Defence personnel in Afghanistan. I am not sure what your point is, but there is a separate thread if people want to discuss the 'America is bad' angle. Have at it, unless you are banned from there as well.
Out come the lies now.
You cannot be serious that the shambles NATO etc left Afghanistan in is a conspiracy theory. Gawd, you have it bad tbh.
Reds under the bed now with the rest of your boogeymen and women
So you've no answer to the effects of NATO's disastrous interventions, and how this might all be a negative selling point towards Ireland considering joining the alliance?
Or the fact that article 5 has never really been tested in the manner in which I outlined above?
Just deflect and ignore, eh? Fair enough, I'll leave you to it.
Yes, yes, yes.... you can stop peddling that nonsense on this thread. It has been done to death and you had a good go of it in the main Russia thread, which you got banned for. Let's leave out the 'USA/NATO is bad' Putin talking points or one may end up in similar position.
OK, so you revert to the now totally discredited pro-Putin propaganda talking points and soft Conspiracy Theories about NATO.
For someone who thinks murdering children for a political cause is justified, I guess the (horse)-shoe fits. So no surprise from yourself on that one.
Anything to say on the myth of Neutrality, as per the piece I linked or do you just want to drag the debate down your own little rats nest as per usual?
My views are clear on NATO mark.
Constructive, not destructive as NATO and it's actions have persistently been as it's power base plays with geo-politics at the expense of many ordinary people's lives.
I know you're attempting to neatly side-step here. But I won't take your bait and switch tactics.
I think we can all understand why NATO backed America after the 9/11 attacks. Most people had huge sympathy for the innocent victims of those attacks. There was huge emotion and anger swirling around at that moment in time.
But we still have no idea whether the NATO alliance would trigger article 5 to defend a small nation like Ireland, if the consequences of that could potentially mean ww3.
And of course, if we're going to sign up for something that could see our sons and daughters being sent off to fight and die in some random war on the other side of the world, at the behest of someone like the USofA as leaders of NATO... it would be nice if the bedrock of that partnership was something a bit more concrete than a promise that has never actually been tested in practice.
I don't think smashing two poor middle east countries to pieces and killing millions of innocent people is a compelling sales pitch for the NATO project. But that's just me, perhaps you disagree?
(Afghanistan is currently on the brink of a famine right now btw, just in case you haven't been keeping abreast of the news)
Whataboutism example 1,454
Honestly, Francie, do you ever have anything constructive to add to any debate, or are you happy to be the persistent fly on these boards?
Gareth, who opted out morally on his own people...that Gareth? 😁😁
I would recommend everyone read the following piece.
It is from 1999 and written by Gareth Fitzgerald himself, and the topic at hand is Irish 'Neutrality'.
On WWII
de Valera successfully deceived the Germans into believing that Ireland was pursuing a genuine policy of neutrality. However, actual policy was in no way impartial, for it involved close, but very secret, co-operation with Britain by an Ireland which remained non-belligerent, but in no way neutral.
So successful was this secrecy that it not only persisted throughout the war, deceiving the Germans, but was sustained for 30 years thereafter. By the time the truth about our wartime role emerged from official documents in the late 1960s, the myth of Irish wartime neutrality had become so deeply embedded in the minds of people both in Britain and here in Ireland that it has since remained effectively unshaken by the facts of what actually happened in those years.
On NATO
The second myth of Irish neutrality relates to our decision not to join the North Atlantic Alliance in 1949. In the negotiations neutrality was never mentioned as a ground for non-participation. On the contrary, our government expressed itself as being in agreement "with the general aims of the proposed treaty" and, in our final response to the invitation to join NATO, the government asserted that partition was "the sole obstacle to Ireland's participation in the Atlantic Pact".
The truth is that our failure to join an alliance of which we strongly approved was an accidental and unintended outcome of the failure of an ill-judged attempt by the foreign minister, Sean MacBride, who only a dozen years earlier had been chief-of-staff of the IRA, to blackmail Britain into handing over Northern Ireland against the wishes of a majority of its population. This was to be in return for what MacBride erroneously believed to be crucially important bases on our territory.
MacBride's disappointment at the failure of this plot, which left us outside the military alliance against the Soviet threat was such that a year later he was involved in a failed attempt to negotiate a bilateral military alliance with the United States. Thus, what some later came to regard as our "traditional neutrality" was in fact an unintended historical accident.
On EEC/EU Defence
The third myth about our neutrality relates to the issue of European defence. There is a widespread illusion that our "traditional neutrality" led Irish governments to refuse to contemplate involvement in European defence. But the direct opposite is the case.
From the time we first contemplated EC membership, our government made it clear that we were willing to participate in European defence, and that the neutrality issue was not an obstacle.
As early as December 1960, six months before we first sought accession to the EC, Sean Lemass, who had no time for myths and shibboleths, stated bluntly: "There is no neutrality, and we are not neutral." And in 1962 he made it clear that "NATO is necessary for the defence of the countries of western Europe, including this country. Although we are not members of NATO, we are in full agreement with its aims."
Subsequently he said Ireland recognised "that a military commitment will be an inevitable consequence of our joining the Common Market and ultimately we would be prepared to yield even the technical label of neutrality. We are prepared to go into this integrated Europe without any reservation as to how far this will take us in the field of foreign policy and defence".
When, six years after de Gaulle's veto on British and thus Irish accession, we renewed our application, this unambiguous stance on European defence was reiterated by Jack Lynch who said: "Ireland would be interested in the defence of the territories embraced by the communities. There is no question of neutrality there."
And so on.
Please do read the article as it's very informative and blows away the myth and fantasy about Irish Neutrality.
In summary
Thus, contrary to sedulously fostered myths, we were not neutral in the last World War; our absence from NATO has nothing to do with neutrality; and every Irish taoiseach from 1960 to the 1990s rejected the concept of neutrality and accepted eventual Irish participation in European defence.
In my view the use of this term "neutrality" to justify various forms of isolationism and opting out of moral responsibilities, as distinct from non-participation in NATO, is simply a cause and source of confusion, much of it deliberately generated.
PESCO isn't a military alliance.
It is a framework for continuous integration for common defence and security. It is not NATO sure, not that mature yet, but it could certainly morph into it.
The EU isn't a military alliance
It does have a common defence and security policy as part of its remit, which was updated when Lisbon was passed.
The next few years we will see the EU adopt a much more aggressive stance on this.
Economic activity (such as refueling at Shannon) or developmental military/security co-operation (such as membership of PESCO) does not violate neutrality.
Actually, it does, as per the Red Cross definition. You have yet to provide your own definition by the way. No word either on the Irish Defence forces with NATO in Afghanistan or the fact that we have an MOU with the RAF about our airspace..?
Neutral my ass. The more I dig the more it's apparent that it's a mirage.
You define it in any sense that allows you to continue your argument.
My definition comes from the International Red Cross, not the pub.
Ireland is a militarily neutral state, it always has been.
Even when we shared intelligence reports and weather updates with the British and funnelled their RAF aircrews over the border, yet kept the Germans in the Curragh? Even then we were playing around with it.
@markodaly
PESCO isn't a military alliance. The EU isn't a military alliance.
I think we disagree on the definition of neutrality. I define it in the sense that has been universally accepted for 1000 years of military history. You define it in any sense that allows you to continue your argument.
There remains a difference between alignment, association, co-operation and clear belligerence.
Tired explaining ordinary words to you. I'm off to bed.
This is a circular argument.
They invaded Afghanistan to be boastful and to then boast about it in a vain manner.
Makes as much sense as a chocolate teapot. Then again, you love the odd Conspiracy yourself. Why dont you tell us all its about oil? ROFL
Vainglorious: If you describe someone as vainglorious, you are critical of them because they are very proud of what they have done and boast a lot about it.
This makes no sense.
They invaded to be vain?
You are struggling Francie.
The 'end'?
A vainglorious mission designed for home audiences to rid the world of terrorism. P.S. I don't care if it was the UN or NATO, they failed.
I love the deluded notion of being neutral. I’d love to see how neutral we’d be if ould Vlad the conqueror came over here just because he can……. The world is becoming a harsher place to survive and very soon every country will have to either tool up themselves or pick a side to go with.
What 'end' was this in terms of Afghanistan?
Go on, explain it, or are you peddling more conspiracy theories Francie?
FACT CHECK.
It was also a UN mission.
Great job UN!
I don't share the same pessimism about NATO. As I said, it looks stronger than ever but one thing I do agree with is a stronger lead by EU nations, especially Germany.
In other words, we the Irish people may not have much of a choice here. If we want to be fully participating members of the EU we will have to play ball and align ourselves with whatever the EU says when it comes to defence. There will be no more sitting on the fence and taking a free ride.
Belligerence in a war or joining a military alliance (thereby commiting to belligerence in a war) ends neutrality, nothing else.
And whose definition is that? Yours?
We are, of course, economically, culturally and politically aligned to the West (USA, EU, UK) but we are militarily neutral.
Even though we let American military planes refuel at Shannon, let the RAF use our airspace and send Irish Defence personnel on NATO missions?
We are a neutral country. Your sophistry doesn't change that.
We pretend we are neutral, but if you look at the facts on the ground, and the treaties we have signed, namely Lisbon, we are not Neutral. We are signed up to Lisbon and PESCO as well.
US intervention and military aid in Ukraine, is doing nothing other than turning their beautiful nation into a smoldering pile of rubble. Thanks, but no thanks!
Ah, so it the Americans that is at fault for the destruction of Ukrainian cities then, not the Russian missiles or artillery shells?
Sorry, but if you think you can start peddling this nonsense in this thread now, you can go **** right off, seeing as you are banned from the other threads, for peddling this nonsense.
That party has had a decades-long policy of obstruction and anti-EU and anti-NATO rhetoric. Sure elected members of that party called for NATO to be disbanded not long ago and side with the Russians in an EU vote only a few months ago.
So, yes they are the Irish version of the National Front and UKIP. The truth hurts and all.
They did what most invasion/colonial/imperial forces did, went in for their own ends and left, leaving a bigger mees behind them. Woo hoo NATO
You're wasting your time with the recently registered posters
At least they actually tried to make a difference and rebuild the country..
If the afghans didn't want to fight for themselves what more could have been done, considering the military investment that went into building the new afghan army ,
Now look where they are back to Soviet times
As far as arguments against Nato membership go, "there is no proof someone will help" is pretty stupid. If you're not in an alliance and are attacked, then it's even more likely no-one will help.
