This makes no sense, some neutral countries have significant military capability, for example Switzerland, others, for example Costa Rica, have none.If we were neutral we would have to have the capability to defend ourselves but we don't.
If we were purists about our neutrality this would be true, but we seem to define our neutrality mostly as not committing our modest military to various wars. Which is a perfectly reasonable definition of neutrality, if not the only possible one.If we were neutral we would not let any foreign military into our territory but we let US planes land in Shannon and we let the RAF defend our air space.
I hope you are correct, but it seems to me that FG and sections of FF would like to see us join NATO. Not to mention various posters on here.While NATO membership is not on the cards and is not desired by any political parties
I certainly hope we are not going to spend 3-4 billion on military equipment. I cannot see what possible plausible threat it would protect us against.The question is are we going to actually be neutral and spend 3-4 billion a year more on our military or are we going to cooperate with our fellow EU States and other democracies in order to fulfil our duties and responsibilities?
Costa Rica has its own internal debates about Neutrality, especially considering its neighbours and heavy reliance on US inward investment. The US armed forces provide significant support to Costa Rica so while they don't have an army their have a strong paramilitary police force and the US has lots of troops there.This makes no sense, some neutral countries have significant military capability, for example Switzerland, others, for example Costa Rica, have none.
If we were purists about our neutrality this would be true, but we seem to define our neutrality mostly as not committing our modest military to various wars. Which is a perfectly reasonable definition of neutrality, if not the only possible one.
That was 80 years ago when we were poor, recently independent and economically and socially isolationist. That policy also excluded us from the Marshall Aid program which rebuilt the rest of Europe. As a policy probably set us back decades economically. We could have declared war on Germany in July 1945.We allowed the Allies various facilities in WW2 which we did not allow the Germans, yet no-one seriously suggests that we were not neutral there.
Which ones? I haven't heard anyone say we should join NATO. I've heard far left nutters, smoked salmon socialists and people who used to have no problem murdering children say that some in FF and FG want to join NATO but that means nothing.I hope you are correct, but it seems to me that FG and sections of FF would like to see us join NATO. Not to mention various posters on here.
So how are going to keep Russian ships and planes out of our country?I certainly hope we are not going to spend 3-4 billion on military equipment. I cannot see what possible plausible threat it would protect us against.
What about the cables that pass through our territory? Should we be capable of defending them? Should we be capable of detecting aircraft in our air space? Should we be able to deploy ships and planes to go and look at what's in our waters?We should certainly commit to developing a cybersecurity defence. The threats in that area are real, and Ireland is better placed than most countries to develop effective defences in that area.
I agree. Our current parasitic relationship with our poorer neighbours is morally despicable and politically damaging. It takes a special kind of self delusion to think that our shirking of our responsibilities is somehow respected internationally.I don't think our EU partners are going to tolerate us taking a free ride on defence any longer. Because let's be honest, that's what we are doing.
We could play the poor mouth in the past and wail about the North. We've no cards left. Sweden and Finland joining NATO leaves only us, landlocked Austria and irrelevent Malta as neutrals. No one is going to stand up for us if we try to clutch the pearls of neutrality having seen what happened Ukraine.
We have responsibilities to maritime patrol and air patrol we need to shoulder now. That requires significant spending.
I cannot see what possible plausible threat it would protect us against.
Excellent post. I couldn't agree more.What sticks in the craw is the virtue signaling associated with "neutrality". The geopolitical reality in the run up to the birth of this nation was England vs Germany. So "neither King nor Kaiser" had widespread appeal. This was not driven by some pacificist zeal as we indulged in a brutal War of Independence and a Civil War. The geopolitical reality of today is between free democracies and authoritarian would be aggressors. There is no moral argument for neutrality on that one but sure let us exploit our halo to save a few bob.
The Government has convened the Consultative Forum on International Security Policy to discuss what Irish security policy should be.
It is commonly stated that Ireland is Neutral but that is an ill-defined policy with no basis in law.
When did we win our neutrality?Irish neutrality was hard won.
Except the British who defend our skies and the British and Americans who defend our waters.We owe nothing to any other country regarding their military defence.
Why would anyone argue that?You can argue that we owe Spain something due to Don Juan de la Quilla who decided to land his force near Kinsale and had Irish armies march through harsh winter down the entire country where obvious defeat beckoned. Or perhaps France? - Who sent a force to Co Mayo and lasted days.
When we were part of the United Kingdom we invaded plenty of countries. Some very famous Irishmen led many an invasion and occupied plenty of senior positions in the countries we invaded.Ireland never invaded any other country,
That almost certainly didn't happen.except perhaps Wales where we kidnapped a local boy who turned into a St-Patrick or three.
Nobody's talking about us being invaded. The conversation is about cooperating with other democracies in order to protect vital infrastructure that passes through our territory, being able to see what is in our airspace and whether it's desirable that Putin and Xi Jinping have a veto over whether we can deploy our troops because at the moment that's exactly what they have.It's unlikely we're ever going to be invaded again bearing in mind that the last invaders never subdued the country and likely the same will happen to any future invader.
The Choctaw's, those brutal slave owners and traders. They gave as much as they could but it couldn't possibly be described as "much help". Mind you in a scenario where people like that were being massacred and we could stop it neutrality would demand that we did nothing... and see our inaction as a virtue.If we owe anything to any other nation it's the Choctaw Indians who provided much help to the starving Irish during the Great Famine.
Yes, they were unable to defend themselves.And we know what happened to the native Americans.
Yes, let's keep letting other countries pay for our defence and let's let their young men continue to be willing to fight and die to defend us. It's pragmatic but it's morally reprehensible.Seriously though, you cannot have a war without death, dreadful injuries etc. Let's stay neutral.
Why?We deserve it. And so do our youth.
When I see children and grandchildren of our politicians, our smug rich and some of our posters here fighting in the front line of anywhere then I'll begin to renounce my belief in neutrality.
Thank you, it is much appreciated.Whenever I have some time to waste from my retirement, I'll get around to answering @Purple questions.
Out of a population of over 5 million there are 13000 people living in emergency accommodation. That's not a crisis. It's a problem.But, in the meantime I'll ponder on an Irish Nation's inability to solve our housing crisis.
Very few, far lower than most countries.We have people living rough on the streets,
That's hardly a counter argument to the merits of having a discussion about the nature of our neutrality.sections of a garda force being prosecuted for doing their duty,
We have the same proportion of rental units as a proportion of our housing stock as we had in 2016. There's been no net reduction in supply, in fact there's been an increase. That's not counter argument to the merits of having a discussion about the nature of our neutrality either.Landlords are exiting a market when rent prices were never so high.
We are one of the richest and most equal countries in the world. Our politicians have, on balance, done a magnificent job of running the country over the last 15 years.We can't solve our own problems - Full Stop -
No, we want to solve our own. If we remain neutral in the same way we are now we'll have to spend many billions plugging the gap. If we want to spend less then we need to redefine our neutrality to allow us to work with other countries and share their resources.. . . . . and now our politicians (and some posters here) want us to solve military problems in other countries.
Excellent. I presume since reading @Itchy's post you've changed your mind.. . . . Tell You What . . . . When I see children and grandchildren of our politicians, our smug rich and some of our posters here fighting in the front line of anywhere then I'll begin to renounce my belief in neutrality.
On the contrary I see those who want us to spend money on military equipment which will never be used as the virtue signallers in this debate.What sticks in the craw is the virtue signaling associated with "neutrality".
The geopolitical reality of today is between free democracies and authoritarian would be aggressors. There is no moral argument for neutrality on that one but sure let us exploit our halo to save a few bob.
Yes, the Irish were such successful colonialists that we sit here debating our colonising past in the language of those who colonised us.When we were part of the United Kingdom we invaded plenty of countries. Some very famous Irishmen led many an invasion and occupied plenty of senior positions in the countries we invaded.
Why on earth do you think Ireland would ever be involved in any of that stuff?On the contrary I see those who want us to spend money on military equipment which will never be used as the virtue signallers in this debate.
Lots of photo ops for Charlie Flanagan to don a green jacket and be photographed on a tank. Effective use against any actual threat nil.
What a short memory you must have.
Let me introduce you to a man who lied to the UN Security Council to start a war,
Colin Powell’s UN speech: a decisive moment in undermining US credibility
Analysis: His security council presentation didn’t directly lead to the Iraq invasion – but it was a turning point in US-UN relationswww.theguardian.com
A war which lead to death and destruction on a much greater scale than anything we have seen in Ukraine to date.
Recent estimates (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63580372 and https://www.ohchr.org/en/news/2022/10/ukraine-civilian-casualty-update-31-october-2022) suggest that the death toll of military forces in Ukraine approach 200,000, while civilian casualties may be around 16,300 (with 6,430 civilians killed). In turn, a https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24547256on war-related deaths in Iraq post-2003 puts the figure at 461,000.
The moral choice is to have as little as possible to do with warmongers of any stripe.
That makes no sense.Yes, the Irish were such successful colonialists that we sit here debating our colonising past in the language of those who colonised us.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?