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 have once again spun something. Your problem really. And it's a major one you have.
its like people are offended by reality... thats right folks! the people that want to take stuff by force ! but DONT is because we are willing to literally kill them thats how it works the western world has 400'000 people ready and trained to kill as many of those that are trying to take stuff by force.
You dont have to like it but Its not neutrality or nonsense on paper thats keeping us safe its the fact the west has more efficient and more killers than those that are trying to take what we have. Thats whats keeping you safe and thats whats keeping your rights in tact.
Ah right, so it's NATO's fault that Russia is aggressive in Eastern Europe. Forgetting of course that these countries each independently sought to join NATO. There are no men in black suits smoking Cigars Francie... they are just normal western liberal democracies protecting themselves against a nuclear-armed despot.
Next up a map showing Sweden and Finland in the NATO camp and saying "Look, THIS IS WHY RUSSIA THREATENED!"
Whats the endgame for NATO here Francie.
Are Finland and Sweden both stupid to join NATO?
Ah the 'two sides have a story' narrative.
Used by Anti-Vaxxers, Flat-earthers, Trump supporters, and Putin bots....
UN peacekeeping costs Ireland f*ckall, because the costs of the mission are borne directly by the UN. Including by the way, troop allowances. Which is the only reason most troops stay in the Defence Forces, so they can get paid properly, which comes out of the UN pot.
You posted "we spend quite a bit". You're displaying your ignorance again.
Essentially troop retention in the Irish defence forces is subsidised by the likes of the American taxpayer. Once again, it's obvious you were ignorant to this.
100% right there.
He's firmly in 'alternative facts' territory now.
Nonsense. UN peacekeeping has costs for us.
file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/94889_8440bb99-8a39-4981-9888-b50d7998b2e3.pdf
How is NATO protecting the NHS, Network Rail, British Gas or BT?
Will NATO come to their assistance if the BT servers crash due to a cyber attack?
My suspicion has always been - to keep conflicts going. No conflict, no need for NATO, arms suppliers etc etc.
Lol, that's a filepath link to your C drive Bradypops.
Peacekeeping mission are funded by the UN. That's a fact.
The 'triple lock' leaves us at the mercy of the veto of the 5 permanent powers at the UN Security Council. As a consequence the government is hamstrung as to deciding where and when the defense forces can be deployed abroad. For that reason alone the policy needs to be looked at.
Apologies. Use the last bit and it will take you to the PDF. 94889_8440bb99-8a39-4981-9888-b50d7998b2e3.pdf
I never said the UN didn't fund peacekeeping missions. I said they had a cost for us.
Why oh why do you guys have to invent stuff or misrepresent stuff to make an argument?
For a man who is a loud and proud supporter of a movement that had a military wing for decades, that you think mutual defence arrangements are some sort of conspiracy as opposed to security against genuine threats, well, that's a hot take for the ages.
Your journey towards swords into ploughshares is as curiously inconsistent as it is bizzare.
Keep on tripping the light fantastic Francie. You'll hit upon something that might make sense at some stage.
No, you said we spend "quite a bit" (your direct words so don't try to wriggle out of it) towards our peacekeeping missions. We pay f*ckall towards our peacekeeping missions. They are financed by the UN. And at that, the cash comes overwhelmingly from NATO countries like the US and Germany (and American allied countries like Japan).
The reality is Uncle Sam is paying the mortgages of Irish troops who go on missions to Lebanon, Golan etc.
I never 'supported' the IRA and only voted for SF when I was sure they had conformed to the GFA.
I had no interest in keeping conflict going on this island. It's also my world view and i make no apologies for it. Makes perfect sense to me.
You have done the same thing blanch does, invent a position for me, then rail against it. Pathetic.
jesus wept...hang on there till i get out the auld tin foil hat.
Of course it is time.
Do you really think the Russians were off the west coast last February for exercises? It was more likely than not preparation to invade Ireland.
We have an empty airport with the longest runway in Europe at Shannon. Let's Join, get safety and revitalize the Midwest.
I don't think there is anyone better at inventing a position for you than....................you.
Quite simply, your nonsensical contradictory rantings on this topic are bizarre.
Well, as per that document I linked, the Irish gov is lying to us.
There is a cost.
I never said the UN doesn't fund it either.
I have read the relevant documentation, and at best, the costs are minimal in respect of our participation in UN-led peacekeeping operations. Quite possibly non-existent.
The only contradictions are those arrived at when you guys misrepresent.
You linked a filepath in your C drive, so nobody has any idea what you're on about.
Whatever it is, it's not going to say we spend "quite a bit" (suitably foggy) on peacekeeping missions, because peacekeeping missions are financed by the UN, not the Irish exchequer.
I have read the document, and you are either completely misrepresenting it, or more likely, you don't understand it.
Again, you misrepresent. I said it 'costs us quite a bit'. That includes what we spend on having personnel and equipment capable of going on missions, the toll it takes and the fortunately only occasional death and injury sustained while on these missions.
We don't freeload, is the point. We are willing to play a role.
PS, blanch was able to use the filepath to find the doc, I told you how to do it above ^
Jesus Christ, it most definitely was not preparation to invade Ireland.
The Russians don't give a **** about Shannon Airport.
Hark, is that the sound of goalposts being moved?
You said "spend quite a bit"
Let's take account UN reimbursements per soldier for allowance. For instance a private will get €1667 extra above what they get polishing their boots all day in Cork. €1262 of that figure comes from the UN. The Irish exchequer swallows 400 euro extra a month for a soldier of that rank. Much generosity.
Given that the US pays about a third of the peacekeeping budget, Uncle Sam is paying more for Irish troops to be there than Ireland. The big bad US of A are essentially paying to hold Ireland's Defence Forces together, because retention is impossible without the carrot of overseas allowances.
For Lebanon and Golan for example, equipment is also bankrolled by the UN as things like Mowags are operation essential.
You don't know what you're talking about, and "quite a bit" is silly talk.
Read this and get back to me
But I am sure Ireland does not need all this expertise and can set up something similar in isolation.
I think you are stretching things here by disparaging what the defence forces do. 'Polishing his boots in Cork'.
Not getting involved in that, thanks.
Our defence forces cost us money. Therefore, if we send them on missions that 'cost' has to be factored in.
Like any contractor, the cost of the equipment I buy to do the job, is factored into the overall cost. You are not 'paying' for the whole cost, you are paying for a fraction of it.
There are also other costs which are not monetary as I said.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/23cbe5e5e50cebb31e4a86160a77c62d.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c4b54c0d6ff7309909065d97df87309.svg)
