If being an unaligned country with a large army is no deterrent to Putin's ambitions is it time for ROI to join Nato?
Indeed.
How's it going in here lads are you joining NATO or what
Yeah Nato it is ,
Yes some in the Tory party are very dangerous people....
Well Tobias off you pop so, I hear the Ukranian's will take any man willing to fight the Russians
He right though.....
How is he right. How does this sort of rhetoric make NATO members any safer? Why would Ireland want to join this military alliance when we have elected members of Parliament from NATO members that are actively talking about bringing us into WW3.
Just looking at teddit Ireland there, theres a post on the number of referendums per country in Europe.
So number of referendums in each countrys history.
Anyway, we're at 42, one of the highest scores.
And given our start date in the 1920s, we are one seriously referendumy country.
Something to ponder on for those who think the Oireachtas will just push a nato membership through with no regard to the public.
In this case a referendum isn't actually required just an application to Nato , we've been previously invited to join as well
Although a referendum may not be required. I thought me and many others still like to see this issue put to a vote as it is an important issue in regard to our nations neutrality.
Surely you can't be against this as after all, don't we live in a democracy?
Why
We don't live in a "direct" democracy and we don't generally have referendums for purposes other than altering the constitution.
Correct, it's a common trope on the right to mistake a Constitutional Republic as not being a Democracy (which it is, a Representative Democracy)
It may not be required but we sure do love an aul referendum.
And we get them. At a rate 2nd only to the Swiss, who have had some ridiculous number like 699.
Yes. To change the constitution when it is constitutionally required.
Let's hope no one invents something like a submarine or a Q-ship.
Probable no, possible yes.
We needed 2 to pass the Lisbon Treaty because we didn't vote the right way the first time.
I precluded submarines in an earlier post to that one.
You might not think out of the box and fight dirty. But there's is no obligation on a hostile party not to, very likely that's what they would do.
But I did think of that possibility, I just ruled it out in that particular conversation.
If you would like to talk about submarines go ahead, but there will be no point in referencing prior conversation which was about vessels strictly other than submarines.
Its a dumb argument akin to bring a knife to gunfight.
Besides they can just use a Q-Ship, or a trojan horse. Disguise your vessel as another to allow you to close before the ruse is rumbled. That trick is as old as the hills at sea.
Regardless of any of that, basic policing, at sea or land is beyond us. Talking about anything beyond that is superfluous until that basic requirement is sorted. The first step of that is simply retaining personnel enough to operate our current resources.
The discussion at the time was about surface vessels. Submarines were precluded from that particular discussion for the sake of limiting the discussion to more realistic possible events.
By all means start a new discussion about submarines or q-boats, or a mysterious mass ticket booking of exclusively male Russian customers on board a Royal Carribean cruise liner with Dublin as a stop if you wish to.
None of it reflects on the prior referenced posts.
A discussion that cherry picks your opponent to suit your bias is in no way realistic.
Your assuming a threat has to be logical and serve a rational objective. Whereas it can just be to intimidate, terrorize, and disrupt. That's beside any risk to infrastructure.
Even if all that is possible but improbable. It's still not an excuse to negligent of policing your responsibility.
All strawman. All out of context.
The discussion was about satellites, which therefore excluded submarines.
Do you really think I'm going to put some kind of clause in every discussion in case someone comes along later with any possible 'what about'.
How come you didn't mention bio-weapons just now. Your assuming a threat has to be logical and serve a rational objective. Whereas it can just be to intimidate, terrorize, and disrupt.
(insert next worldly wise vague nonsense).
take your strawman home.
There's less straw in field full of bales than your posts.
Im lost in whatever it is you're going on about, as is anyone reading. dead end tangled nonsense. numberwang, but with words.
Anyone who think ships sailing back and forth just off our coast (a drive by) is normal transit is definitely lost.
More strawman.
Flinty just makes something up. Then argues against it.
You think burning money is a good idea, but word to the wise, its actually not. So there.
Told him.
1 - strawman.
2 - sage wisdom hollow soundbite about previous strawman.
....
Public not having any of it in the comments.
Same deal with every story about Ireland and nato.
40 odd comments does not equate to public opinion
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
