If being an unaligned country with a large army is no deterrent to Putin's ambitions is it time for ROI to join Nato?
Liberia, Chad, Mali and East Timor were peace enforcement missions.... ET being fully special forces, Mali being Special forces led, with specialist support, then Chad/Liberia being an UNMIL sized deployment.
This idea that the Defence Forces have only been on missions where they are rarely in danger and only have to raise arms when shot at is ridiculous.
In the case of UNMIL, they were they as part of peace keeping efforts in the wake of the Liberian war. They weren't there in an aggressive capacity and fighting on behalf of a particular belligerent. That's the key difference between deployment on a UN peace keeping mission after a conflict has ended and deployment on an active shooting war as part of a NATO led operation against an enemy. The Liberian war had ended and we weren't there as a combatant.
The same goes for EUFOR in Chad, and UNAMET, INTERFET and UNTAET in East Timor.
With ETUM, we're there only as a training element to help the Malian Army, which no longer the case and has moved to an advisory role to HQ instead. This was most likely prompted by allegations of human rights abuses by Malian troops last year alongside the Wagner Group. And our already limited presence has been largely reduced.
That our troops may come under fire during these operations is a given, when the sometimes unstable situations are taken into account. And I never said that either A. they're "rarely in danger" or B. they can "ONLY raise arms when they shot at."
However, they are NOT on any UN peace keeping mission to actively fight a particular enemy as part of particular side. That's simply not their role.
Over 3500 NATO troops killed in Afghanistan alone. You happy to send your son/daughter/grandchildren into a war like that.
Yes, that's what the propagandists are telling us... but we've been getting this same nonsense for well over a year now.
Russians in disarray, Ukrainian victory any day now. It's garbage.
You've got to seriously be a bit of a simpleton at this stage, to still be swallowing this stuff.
This conflict was over back in September last year, when Russia annexed the four territories. That was the moment the Ukrainians/NATO lost this conflict - and those territories are permanently gone now. Russia will defend those territories for however long it takes, until NATO gives up and goes home. Even if it takes 20 years... and they are more than capable of creating a permanent military dead-lock.
All we've really been witnessing since that point, is Ukraine sacrificing more men and equipment fighting for a lost cause. And that's all we will continue to see, for however long this conflict goes on. Lots of propaganda, but little or no actual tangible progress on the battlefield.
sure you russians are so stupid you dont realize that you are draining russia too, for nothing, the Ukraine and Europe has the will to win this one out and resolurces, you don't
were like a cat playing with a little mousey
you had a mercenary army heading to moscow just days ago with no way to defend it
clown shoes stuff
they were doing all the fighting
the whole world was laughing at you
you couldn't even hold on to those territories and had to result to blowing a dam in desperation
you went from a third rate country to a proper turd country
Irish troops served in Afghanistan under a UN mandate.
They weren't there in an aggressive capacity and fighting on behalf of a particular belligerent
Which is your definition of "fighting capacity". I think it is a far too limited one.
I am aware they are not in country as a belligerent force, but when you are deploying thousands of troops together with at times naval forces and armoured divisions, you are there to engage in fighting if necessary. As far as I am concerned a "non-fighting capacity" means purely an advisory function. Irish and other UN troops fight, and regrettably die, on these missions.
It is for the government of Ireland to decide the best use of Defence Forces, and leaving Russia and China a veto over where we can do so is grotesque.
We can't attract people to join our armed forces, due to pay and other nonsense. We would have no hope joining nato as we are not in a position to offer a substantial contribution to manpower or equipment.
It's limited by the parameters of the UN peace keeping missions that our troops are on. We aren't supposed to be taking sides in a conflict as a combatant in a war. We are there, merely, as peace keeping forces usually involved in the aftermath of someone else's war. That doesn't mean that our troops are immune from getting into skirmishes and fights with other elements in the region, as has happened. But we're not there to seek aggressive action on behalf of a particular side, in the same way as a military force would be in an actual war between two countries, say.
I don't know why you keep stating they don't take sides as if I haven't acknowledged that repeatedly.
I don't think "non-belligerents" and "non-fighting capacity" are the same thing because they are clearly geared for fighting and its why we send soldiers and not police. Non-fighting capacity isn't a particularly common or recognised term so it obviously doesn't have a specific definition but for me it refers solely to advisory and training roles. There is obviously a difference between these roles so a distinction is required. So please refrain from explaining their non-belligerent status to me again.
Thanks for that. Not sure the relevance. But thanks all the same.
Afghanistan is a member of the UN.
I can't explain it to you in any simpler terms. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But it really isn't difficult to understand.
I don't need it in simpler terms, I understood your point the first time. You are constantly explaining something I didn't ask or reference.
The relevance?
The Invasion of Afghanistan was not a NATO operation. NATO took over command at the request of the UN post-invasion and as part of that operation Irish troops served there anyway.
If you understood the point the first time, why have you dragged this out?
Because I've made a completely separate point every time and you keep dragging it back to something I'm not arguing.
This point?
I don't think "non-belligerents" and "non-fighting capacity" are the same thing
Well, I never said they were the "same thing".
You also seem to be labouring under the impression that I think Irish troops aren't allowed take to the gun if and when the circumstance arises. But I haven't said that either.
Yet you detail the definition of non-belligerents every single time.
"Fighting capacity" is not a well-defined term - which is part of the issue. I think peacekeepers are deployed in a fighting capacity in the sense that they are tooled and prepped for it, and it is expected they will have to deal with it. This is a difference from deploying specialists specifically in non-combat roles and the distinction is important. Claiming Irish troops are not deployed in a fighting capacity, to me, understates the danger and content of their missions. This does not mean I somehow think they are there to fight for one side or the other. This is all from using a non-specific term that I think doesn't represent the mission fairly. But if you want to disagree fine, I'm happy to leave it there.
It's not a "mission", it's a mandate.
They're permitted to use force in self-defence or defence of their clearly defined mandate. They're impartial, and provide protection and security. So, it's not really that similar to an army, who might be attacking or defending territory/positions. They really are sort of like glorified police units. Not unlike riot police or security detail.
"Fighting capacity" is not a well-defined term - which is part of the issue
The issue lies with you. I've explained numerous times and in numerous ways what I mean, which you claim to have understood the first time, yet continue to drag this tangent out with more confusion.
You said "I'm not massively interested in getting into the semantics of what "fighting capacity" actually means though", yet you're doing exactly that. Despite the fact that I've made the point clear in the first place.
Do you really want me to explain it again, because the post above suggests that you DON'T understand the point being made.
I know exactly what you mean by your definition of it. I don't agree with your definition. This is a pretty basic distinction. Explaining your definition over and over again won't change anything.
Let me get this straight. You don't agree that the Irish Defence Forces are involved in UN peace keeping operations in a mainly non-aggressive role?
We should defintely improve our armed forces.It's embarrassing how poorly equipped we are in that regard.We need to be able to defend ourselves to some degree and not have to go cap in hand to the UK to do all our defense, it's embarrassing for sovereign nation to be so poorly equipped militarily.
I don't like the idea of joining NATO as that means sticking our noses into other countries business continually.
Better off to be like Switzerland and have a strong armed forces based on all men doing a period off national service where they do basic training when they turn 18 and having a strong active and reserve army.This should have been the way for the state since it's inception.
I never said that either. In fact I said the exact opposite.
I have been exceptionally clear on my points. I'm happy to leave it there if you still don't get the distinction.
Such as? NATO simply does not conduct as many operations as people seem to think.
It's involved in a pretty big one at the moment (I know it's not official ) but still we all know it's involved in it.
No it isn't.
"NATO" have not done a thing for the Ukraine conflict, individual countries have. Ironically, the EU is trying to collectively help Ukraine. None of these involve a single combat soldier.
why dont they just ring fence the tv license money for NATO if they are so mad for us to join?
I dont think there is any benefit to us joining another bloated beaurcratic organisation with questionable goals. other than for the sake of appearances that is.
So, you agree that the Irish Defence Forces are involved in UN peace keeping operations in a mainly non-aggressive role?
I never argued otherwise. I do not agree that this means they are there in a non fighting capacity. One doesn't tend to bring armoured brigades to a non-fighting operation.
They are merely non-combatants in the existing conflict. It is not the same thing.
However, "fighting capacity" is not a standardised term so basically the only problem is that we don't agree on what it means. I think your definition gives the wrong impression of what the operations involve.
