Neutrality
- Thread starter Purple
- Start date
- Status
Referring I assume to the invasion of Iraq.
Well we were to our shame tangentially involved. We allowed the US Airforce to refuel in Shannon.
And the Duke above sees 'The geopolitical reality of today is between free democracies and authoritarian would be aggressors.'
And people who see the world that way, as many do, could easily support Ireland becoming involved in the next US war of aggression, (which may well be with China over Taiwan).
We are tangentially involved in most wars, just like everyone else.
Should we say no to all the American FDI that pays for our hospitals, schools and very generous welfare system?
As a general statement do you disagree with that?
Ah here, if there's a war with China of Taiwan it'll be the Chinese who start it.
referring to my comment 'Yes, the Irish were such successful colonialists that we sit here debating our colonising past in the language of those who colonised us.'
I think it makes perfect sense, but let me rephrase.
Ireland was colonised by England. So thoroughly colonised that we lost our language almost completely.
Could you expand on the moral argument. For example, in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine? And secondly, the moral position is surely the universal position, hypothetically, should other countries adopt the same position as Ireland?
Allowing US airforce planes refuel in Shannon was a little more than that.
I know I am gaining the point when your response is as weak as that.
If China invades Taiwan, I will agree with you.
Official US government policy since the 1970s and Nixon is that China (including Taiwan) is one country.
The US recognises the Bejing government as the government of that country.
Until recently to say differently was a criminal offence in Taiwan.
All the current chatter is based on the US hyping up tension with high level visits etc. which emphasise Taiwan's de facto independence, and fly in the face of the US's own stated policy.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was utterly unjustifiable. Resorting to war to settle political differences is wrong. As wrong for Russia in Ukraine as for the US et al in Iraq.
We were colonised by the Celts before that and later by the Vikings.
The Catholic Church almost completely wiped out the culture that existed in this country before they got here.
My family is of Norman heritage so very little Irish spoken there.
The post independence version of traditional Irish culture (one Ireland Gaelic and Free) is makey-up nonsense.
Wellington was Irish, he did his fair share of killing.
Sir Michael Francis O'Dwyer, viceroy of Punjab and strong supporter of Reginald Dyer who carried out the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, was a proud Munster man.
That's just two off the top of my head. They were as Irish as you or me.
I am not sure I follow this.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was wrong. Ireland has not responded militarily, nor should we in my opinion. We have given refuge to over 80, 000 Ukranians. We have housed them, educated them and provided for them. That is a response which I feel Irish people can consider morally responsible.
No it's not. Taking billion of dollars in taxes from companies which are actively involved in supporting the US military makes us far more complicit. We are literally spending the money that those companies made selling equipment to the US military.
Should we be able to detect planes in our airspace?
Should we be able to detect ships in our waters?
Should we be able to monitor and defend the cabled that run through our waters?
If yes then should we spend the tens of billions required to do it ourselves or should we cooperate with and get help from other countries and spend far less?
That's what the current discussion is about.
Yes, and the Vikings ran a major slave export business from Dublin. However the Celts and the Vikings came to see themselves as Irish.
Yes Peig was actually an actress, paid by Padraig Pearse. You have tumbled it.
Wellington was indeed Irish, and did he hate that fact.'Being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse' was I believe his take on being Irish.
Lots of peoples have come here to make Ireland their home and broadly speaking that is a good thing. However the English government exploited Ireland as a colony and sought to suppress its language and culture. That is a bad thing.
I’m thinking beyond Ireland. If the position is the moral one, (it implies an alternative stance is a/immoral) it should be that case that others adopt the same position but yet it is the contrarian view. Why? Finland was neutral 3 months ago, now they are not. So moral before and now not?
Last edited:
@Purple Now you are changing the subject so fast I am struggling to keep up.
The heading which you put on this thread is Neutrality. That is a question of aligning or not with the different sides in a conflict. I believe we should not align militarily, giving refuge to Ukranians is certainly something should do.
Seperately, we could have a well armed neutrally like Switzerland or an unarmed neutrality like Costs Rica (which you tells me has its own internal debates, well what a shock). I would like to see an unarmed neutrality, it would be a great example to the world. We do of course need to ensure the state has a monopoly of force within the state, though this can be a policing matter.
The question of detecting foreign planes or ships is not a trivial one.
The issue of cyber security is also one which I believe the state should address more seriously.
The heading which you put on this thread is Neutrality. That is a question of aligning or not with the different sides in a conflict. I believe we should not align militarily, giving refuge to Ukranians is certainly something should do.
Seperately, we could have a well armed neutrally like Switzerland or an unarmed neutrality like Costs Rica (which you tells me has its own internal debates, well what a shock). I would like to see an unarmed neutrality, it would be a great example to the world. We do of course need to ensure the state has a monopoly of force within the state, though this can be a policing matter.
The question of detecting foreign planes or ships is not a trivial one.
The issue of cyber security is also one which I believe the state should address more seriously.
I still don't think I fully understand your question.
Finland realised that the possibility of Russian invasion was much more real than they had previously thought. They joined NATO for added protection against that threat. A sensible move in their own self-interest.
If I thought Ireland was likely to be invaded by Russia I might think we should join NATO too. That might be a pragmatic move in our own self-interest. It wouldn't be a moral move but it might be a necessary one.
As did the Anglo-Irish.
Are you suggesting that Peig was a typical Irish woman from the turn of the last century?
Peirce was a nutter or, in the words of James Connolly (the British subject and former British soldier), "a blithering idiot".
Yes, that's the problem with makey-up Irishness. Wellington never said that. In fact he was proud of his Irishness. It was said about him by Parnell, who hated Wellington's guts.
Agreed.
That's a very basic interpretation of history, so simplistic as to render it worthless. That's that makey-up history we foisted on ourselves after independence. We did many bad things to ourselves, often with the complicity of the British/English, often without. The callous disregard for the victims of the Famine by the merchant classes, many landlords and the British Establishment has come to represent the treatment of the native Irish over the last 800 years but it's just more complicated than that. We are brilliant from excluding ourselves from our responsibility and culpability for the evils of our history and manifesting them in some other party, be it the English or the Catholic Church.
The who ?
More seriously, the Plantations and the Penal Laws are in no sense makey-up history. However this is hardly the thread to argue Irish history. In fact I try to avoid arguing Irish history, people know the basic facts, how they choose to interpret them is their own choice.
I would make an exception on this issue of Irish responsibility for colonialism as it is a new topic that has not been done to death yet.
So for them it was a strategic choice not a moral one.
You said that the moral choice was to not to have anything to do with warmongers. Is there a moral aspect to neutrality and if so what is it?
- Status