If being an unaligned country with a large army is no deterrent to Putin's ambitions is it time for ROI to join Nato?
We are still not joining. There is no need.
The 'facts' again.
Water balloons work a treat against T-72 tanks I hear.
I also hear if you talk for long enough, it will stop Russian cruise missiles.
I guess our politicians have yet to be taken over by those in the arms industry.
The people are saying no, and our politicians don't have the balls to dare or see the need. It's one or the other.
Fact is, we aren't joining anytime soon.
If a vestal virgin sings Russian Spetsnaz a Finnish lullaby, they all go off into a peaceful deep sleep and then automatically return back over the border when they wake in the morning.
Unfortunately the American Military Industrial Complex and other assorted "gameplayers" (tm) have developed special ray gun that drowns out any Finnish language peace lullabies.
I read about it on opensecrets.org.
And when/if we do join it will be those pesky arms dealers controlling the government.
We will be opening ourselves up to that influence in my opinion, yes.
But we aren't joining, so there is that.
If they, the arms industry, are so powerful Francie, how have we not succumbed to their spell already and joined NATO?
Have Finland and Sweden fallen into their agenda? "Gameplaying" and all..?
If the gameplaying sparks off a conflict/war you create the need for other countries close by to defend themsleves. That's a rather obvious outcome, repeated throughout history. Finland and Sweden have managed on their own for quite a long time if you look at the facts again. Escalation of the conflict and Russia's aggression has given them little choice.
Didn't answer the question but goes off on your 'gameplaying' conspiracy.
I'd call it a fact of life not a conspiracy.
If you want to sell sugar, create a need for sugar.
The answer to the question goes without saying given my previous answer on Ireland, I would have thought.
Shur the Young Irelanders and IRB were only playing games. They got sick of sugar in their tea and spooky "gameplayers" convinced them to swap out sugarbeet for "gameplaying".
I heard Lockheed Martin were lurking around the GPO in Easter Week with a stall in Moore Street selling guns for all the games underway. Would've never happened without them
Sugar. Yemen. Iraq. Games.
Full of sh*t
Again, no proof of your grand theory that arms companies have NATO nations by the balls and make them create conflicts and 'keep conflicts going'
In fact, if you took your head out of your rear posterior you will see that post the second world war, the world has never been more peaceful in human history.
So peaceful in fact the Nobel Peace Prize was given to the European Union, "for over six decades [having] contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe" by a unanimous decision of the Norwegian Nobel Committee"
Most EU nations are part of NATO, so what gives? If the Arms industry has these nations by the balls, why aren't they creating war? Maybe just maybe your theory about "gameplaying" is just wrong and made up.
Talking through your hat and arse Francie
Are you seriously suggesting the sale of arms dropped in these years and that there was no conflict/tensions?
I think you have spun what is being said you have forgotten what my opinion is. Maybe re-read the thread?
Oh, look another deflection about a point no one raised.
If NATO wants to 'gameplay' and 'keep conflict going', why has the time period that NATO existed also coincided with one of the most peaceful periods in human history?
Why did the EU get a Nobel Peace Prize for 'for over six decades [having] contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe" by a unanimous decision of the Norwegian Nobel Committee"
Out of 30 States in NATO, 28 are European, and 21 of those are in the EU.
So what gives?
Why did the EU get a Nobel Prize price when so many of their states are itching for war, where the arms industry has them by the balls to dictate foreign policy to 'keep the conflict going' and to 'gameplay' on the international stage?
Do you have any proof at all that the arms industry dictates foreign policy and defence policy to create conflicts among member states?
No?
Why? Because you are a low-knowledge edgelord who is talking through their hat when it comes to stuff way beyond your comprehension.
Same question back at you.
Are you saying the sales of arms dropped during this period? There was plenty of conflict/tension for them if you look at the numbers.
Remember, these guys are looking at conflict/tension as the opportunity for growth
Utter lunacy. Putin launches a war of conquest in Europe and China threatening to turn East Asia into a lake of fire, and Alex Jones "the Republican" here still with the Metal Gear Solid conspiracy.
The lights are on, but there is absolutely no one at home.
That's not debate or answering questions Yurt, that is just invective.
It's hard facts Francie. You're a hardened conspiracy theorist.
Since the war started 90 percent of your contributions have centered around an elaborate tinfoil hat theory about shadowy figures controlling NATO and the foreign policies of the democratic world.
You offer up limp 'Putin naughty' posts every couple of days when pushed and cornered, then it's back to normal service of voluminous conspiracy theory posting centered around NATO and the political decision making in the free world.
I'd call it disgusting given the very real suffering in Ukraine and (the much less severe) consequences for the rest of Europe but it's actually really sad for you.
You're so deluded as to your moral compass and where it fits into your "Republican" value system. People like you are the best friend of the autocrat and the murderer. You are no sort of democrat. And your love of liberty only extends to the tip of your nose and no further.
Thread isn't about the war Yurt.
I understand that last post stings you Francie, but you really should internalise the message.
When pushed on this thread, all you came back to was a barking mad theory about shadowy figures and NATO.
It's utter tosh and an embarrassment to yourself, and held up against your self-professed "Republicanism", lends far more help to the autocrats and butchers than it speaks to any particular love of neutrality, peace and democracy.
You still haven't explained how criticism of NATO conflict with being republican.
And I only read a bit of your post so won't be 'internalising it'
This is a thread on whether we should join NATO not your views or my views on the war currently in progress.
Yes, the thread is about NATO which you think is part of some conspiracy to create conflict and 'keep conflicts going' with no proof of said conspiracy theory.
I reject the notion that it is purely a defensive alliance and that some of it's main members have arms industries influencing policy decisions.
The conflicts these countries are involved in could quite easily be starved of sustenance if the supply of arms was cut off. I think any Irish person reading this would vote emphatically against being involved with this moral bankruptcy TBH
So have a go Mark, rationalise credibly why it is the most powerful members of NATO are arming some of the worst abusers of human rights and democracy, in the world?
If you deflect again, this conversation is over as we are just going around in circles. And I hate to remind you, invective is neither rational or indeed, credible.
Do any NATO countries have conscription?
Some will have equivalent of national service, but often where that is doing something more along the lines of some community work and with a multitude of exemptions.
Where is the proof of this?
Did the arms industry make Finland and Sweden join NATO as an example?
Did the arms industry create conflict in Ukraine?
As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
The conflicts these countries are involved in could quite easily be starved of sustenance if the supply of arms was cut off.
NATO is not directly involved in any conflict. It is giving arms to Ukraine. Tells us if the Arms industry is responsible for what happened in Ukraine?
That link has NOTHING to do with NATO, so why do you persist in dragging the thread off topic with your rants about the UK?
Ireland didn't even have conscription in WWI so to say we will be forced into some sort of NATO army is both wrong and idiotic.
Deflected again.
Ok.
P.S. There is nothing extraordinary in having suspicions based on facts. Further enhanced by the fact that you deflect from those facts and refuse to recognise them as entirely legitimate reasons for not wanting to be in a military alliance with countries that say one thing while blatantly doing another.
There is nothing extraordinary in having suspicions based on facts.
I see you used your new favourite phrase, which is not the get-out clause you think it is.
However, again you have not proved your central point, that NATO member states 'gameplay' and 'keep conflict going' at the behest of the arms industry. You have not given us one bit of proof or evidence to this theory of yours, hence why its a hard conspiracy theory.
As you can see Defence Spending for the US Economy has been falling for decades now. If the arms industry was that strong surely it should be back up to where it was in WWII. Or maybe the arms industry created WWI as well? Maybe Hitler was in the pockets of the Arms industry?
Defence spending in European NATO countries and non NATO countries are even smaller again.
Yet defence spending in the likes of China and Russia have increased massively over the last few decades.
Funny that they are not controlled by the arms industry?
I await you to refute this independent and salient evidence to the fact that you are pushing a conspiracy theory.
Again, who is talking about 'defence spending'? We are of course talking about arms exports and the still rationalised credibly answered question you were asked for. You have zero intention of being honest here or forthcoming. So I'll leave it.
*By the way, Foreignpolicy,com is far from 'independent' in the true meaning of that word. It is owned by the Washington Post and endorsed Hilary Clinton's run for the White House.
