Having the ability to apprehend drug smugglers in our territorial waters has nothing to do with military neutrality.
Neutrality
- Thread starter Purple
- Start date
- Status
Having the ability to apprehend drug smugglers in our territorial waters has nothing to do with military neutrality.
Oh, 2 doesn't make any sense for the area to be covered. However, that wasn't my point, I was just clarifying that no one depends on ships to monitor shipping movements given the ability for radar to track large ships tops out around 15 nm.
Exactly, aircraft monitoring range is vastly superior to surface level radar. Combine that with satellite (from one of a number of operators) and only send the aircraft out when justified.
In my original post I did mention both ships and aircraft.
I take your point re: patrolling versus responding but when you have such a small number of ships and aircraft assets to followup on those, the threshold for what to investigate here must be very high. Similar to police responding to 999 calls.
Plus when it comes to fisheries protection, checking what was actually landed.
And I see many news articles mentioning Ireland being used as an entry point for drugs to UK because of the increased monitoring of sea channels there.
The threshold has to be high given the costs & risks involved. It's much more efficient deal with illicit shipments in port. The Matthew's tracking showed encounters with more than 500 on its route, so any boarding and inspection has to be intelligence led and can't just rely on random checking. While I agree our fleet seems well lower than might be desirable, I haven't heard the defence forces claim an inability to act on credible intelligence.
The Matthew is suspected of having delivered large consignments to both Spain and France, travelling through Spanish, Portuguese, and French waters before being caught in Irish waters. It even switched off it's transponder in French waters for a time. Do we know why the French didn't intervene when they have such a vastly bigger Naval force?
I thought it was strange the interception took so long, when you read the reports they talk of its activity being suspicious well before it got to our waters, around the Canaries also.
But in the reports I've come across, there was no reason given as to why we were the ones to intercept.
Were the other forces more interested in seeing where the drop offs went I wonder - that is just me speculating.
Perhaps the trawler going aground and those men being taken into custody triggered the interception. Reports I've read stated the US authorities had alerted the MAOC in advance and they'd been monitoring it for some time.
Perhaps, they've already linked it to two other seizures from smaller boats by the Spanish & French. Perhaps they wanted to build a fuller picture of the trafficking routes.
Whatever your flavour of Irish foreign policy and whoever represents for your viewpoint, its a time to evaluate their bona fides. Any genuine humanitarian and advocate of peace and neutrality, will condemn the events of this weekend without equivocation and without any more or less revulsion than at the deaths of the hundreds innocent Palestinians this year alone.
Venn diagram time, again. Its absolutely fair to say that SF, PBP and other political people have sought to justify and condone the reprisals taken against the civilian population of Israel by Hamas, including the suspected kidnapping of an Irish citizen.
Reports indicate that Ireland, Denmark and Luxembourg forced a watering down of an EU statement on the matter, which would be disappointing if true.
Venn diagram time, again. Its absolutely fair to say that SF, PBP and other political people have sought to justify and condone the reprisals taken against the civilian population of Israel by Hamas, including the suspected kidnapping of an Irish citizen.
Reports indicate that Ireland, Denmark and Luxembourg forced a watering down of an EU statement on the matter, which would be disappointing if true.
I despair at anyone who can't condemn the attacks without doing the 'whataboutery'. It is possible to utterly condemn what happened at the weekend while at the same time voicing concerns about Israeli policies.
To hear Israel say they are cutting off food and electricity to civilian population because they are 'fighting animals' is equally as concerning. The circle has to break sometime. Both sides determined to just keep repeating the same atrocities over and over again expecting a different response. The people of Israel and Gaza are let down by cowardly political leadership both internally and through the wider Arab world and beyond. Of course it will always be ordinary people who suffer most.
To hear Israel say they are cutting off food and electricity to civilian population because they are 'fighting animals' is equally as concerning. The circle has to break sometime. Both sides determined to just keep repeating the same atrocities over and over again expecting a different response. The people of Israel and Gaza are let down by cowardly political leadership both internally and through the wider Arab world and beyond. Of course it will always be ordinary people who suffer most.
Well said.
It's worth remembering that if Egypt so wished they could give as much aid as required to Gaza but they, rightly, regard Hamas as terrorists of the same ilk as ISIS.
True, but the framing of Israel as the aggressor is ridiculous and the attempt to see a historical equivalence between the Palestinians and Irish Nationalists is totally historically blind. The Palestinians are the "Planters" and the Jews are the dispossessed natives, not the other way around.
These have been denied by all 3 countries.
This is another topic on which I am resolved not to get into an argument, but I would like to know why you think this, it seems contrary to all my understanding of the history.
Yes, it seems so. In fact I believe the circumstances were that the three countries in question pushed for a firmer statement than that which was issued. And have pushed back hard against stopping EU aid to the Palastinian Authority, not that anything is going to make it to them anyway.
I see Michael D has finally made his statement over 48 hours after the event. Which in fairness says all the right things, in my opinion, but which is probably how long it took him to see which way the wind was blowing and come to terms with its contents. Two days, when the circumstances of what happened were clear within two minutes!
Similarly, Mary Lou finally emerged from the woodwork to offer her condemnation of Hamas on the News at One. Which in fairness, she offered out the gap and unwavering. She seemed almost genuine until she choked out a mealy mouthed endorsement of Chris Andrews' pro-murder tweets.
Away from the "flegs" discourse and 'dancing on the head of a pin' type of neutrality you think we have, of course, the events in question have tangible consequences on the ground. 180 odd soldiers are in bunkers in Bint Jbeil and similarly another 100 odd on the Golan, at the moment. Neutrality will do absolutely nothing for them over the next few days. In fact the policy position has directly increased the risk to their safety, in terms of resources and equipment they need (and not for the first time in the near half century we've been in the region).
Simplistic ethno-nationalist interpretation:
The Jews were there first.
They were driven out by an invading imperial power.
The invading imperial power planted their people there.
The Jews got their land back.
It’s what the IRA actually wanted for Ireland and mirrors the simplistic narrative that they peddle in order to justify murder terrorism and mayhem.
In the post Second World War period the IRA of that time supported the Jews.
Louise Richardson's report from the security forum is out.
Unfortunately Pat Leahy's bizzare article in the IT is all I have to go on. https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/...asnt-plotting-to-push-us-into-nato-after-all/
After thing us that 'Richard Boyd-Barrett said, at the customary volume' and 'Not to be outdone, Paul Murphy ... a highly tendentious reading'
Leahy goes on to say, reasonably,' We really should try to conduct our public debate in a way that recognises people may legitimately differ on important subjects.' Indeed we should Pat, speaking respectfully about elected TDs would be a good start.
The main thrust of Leahy's article is that the report finds no public appetite for NATO membership. Does the report therefore conclude that Ireland shouldn't pursue a NATO-bound course, or that the next task is changing public attitudes until they come around, unfortunately Pat doesn't say.
Was the forum an exercise in getting us into NATO, well it seems to have identified the issues involved in that task.
The report says
'While Ireland’s practice of neutrality does not conform to international norms' Why should it, our policy rightly conforms to our own self interest.
Once Leahy has sounded off against the usual targets the final 3 paragraphs are entirely reasonable contributions.
'But what is definitely true is that the world is changing, and Ireland’s understanding of its place and role in the world will have to change too. We are in a dangerous, bellicose age and a responsible Government – any government – will take account of the need to protect its citizens, and stand by its values, and its alliances.'
Except the word alliances, this is a reasonable assessment. It fails to recognise that Ireland cannot enter into any military Alliances on any kind of equal footing. In any alliance we would have defence policy dictated to us.
'It is often said that Ireland just cannot continue its policy of freeloading on the defence capabilities of the UK, the US and other Nato allies, who effectively mind our skies and our waters. Actually, I am not sure that is true; it will still be in the interests of the UK and Nato countries that the western approaches to Britain and Europe are watched and, if necessary, guarded. So maybe we can continue to freeload – it’s just that it will be very obvious to everyone that’s what we are doing. That is unlikely to increase Ireland’s clout at the EU in pursuit of our other interests.'
Our policy of freeloading will come to cost us. OK. If we need to pay a price to avoid entanglement in others wars, fair enough.
'So Ireland’s foreign policy, and its defence and security policy will have to continue to evolve and respond to a changed world. That requires adult conversations grounded in the reality of political trade-offs that recognise the world as it is, rather than as we might like it to be. The forums chaired by Prof Richardson did not quite get us there. But they were a good start.'
Call me paranoid but I still see the forum as an exercise in softening the public up to advance the interests of a 'macho, lets fight the enemy' mindset which is deeply prevalent in the Irish political party with its roots in fascism.
The report also advocates that the Triple Lock should be dropped but recognises that there is no public support for that either.
Unfortunately Pat Leahy's bizzare article in the IT is all I have to go on. https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/...asnt-plotting-to-push-us-into-nato-after-all/
After thing us that 'Richard Boyd-Barrett said, at the customary volume' and 'Not to be outdone, Paul Murphy ... a highly tendentious reading'
Leahy goes on to say, reasonably,' We really should try to conduct our public debate in a way that recognises people may legitimately differ on important subjects.' Indeed we should Pat, speaking respectfully about elected TDs would be a good start.
The main thrust of Leahy's article is that the report finds no public appetite for NATO membership. Does the report therefore conclude that Ireland shouldn't pursue a NATO-bound course, or that the next task is changing public attitudes until they come around, unfortunately Pat doesn't say.
Was the forum an exercise in getting us into NATO, well it seems to have identified the issues involved in that task.
The report says
'While Ireland’s practice of neutrality does not conform to international norms' Why should it, our policy rightly conforms to our own self interest.
Once Leahy has sounded off against the usual targets the final 3 paragraphs are entirely reasonable contributions.
'But what is definitely true is that the world is changing, and Ireland’s understanding of its place and role in the world will have to change too. We are in a dangerous, bellicose age and a responsible Government – any government – will take account of the need to protect its citizens, and stand by its values, and its alliances.'
Except the word alliances, this is a reasonable assessment. It fails to recognise that Ireland cannot enter into any military Alliances on any kind of equal footing. In any alliance we would have defence policy dictated to us.
'It is often said that Ireland just cannot continue its policy of freeloading on the defence capabilities of the UK, the US and other Nato allies, who effectively mind our skies and our waters. Actually, I am not sure that is true; it will still be in the interests of the UK and Nato countries that the western approaches to Britain and Europe are watched and, if necessary, guarded. So maybe we can continue to freeload – it’s just that it will be very obvious to everyone that’s what we are doing. That is unlikely to increase Ireland’s clout at the EU in pursuit of our other interests.'
Our policy of freeloading will come to cost us. OK. If we need to pay a price to avoid entanglement in others wars, fair enough.
'So Ireland’s foreign policy, and its defence and security policy will have to continue to evolve and respond to a changed world. That requires adult conversations grounded in the reality of political trade-offs that recognise the world as it is, rather than as we might like it to be. The forums chaired by Prof Richardson did not quite get us there. But they were a good start.'
Call me paranoid but I still see the forum as an exercise in softening the public up to advance the interests of a 'macho, lets fight the enemy' mindset which is deeply prevalent in the Irish political party with its roots in fascism.
The report also advocates that the Triple Lock should be dropped but recognises that there is no public support for that either.
That would involve not speaking about them at all or misreporting what they say in order to make it sound reasonable.
Correct.
Why would it?
It should if we have a sense of decency and morality. If we don't then it shouldn't.
Would alliances are not the same as military alliances.
Any sort of Fast Air capability would cost billions.
You're paranoid.
Every Irish political Party has roots in blood and undesirable happenings. I judge Political Parties on their current policies and the character of their current members, just as I judge the occupants of a house on their own character and actions rather than the character and actions of the previous occupants of said house.
Yes, many people want Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping to retain their veto on how and when the Irish people deploy their Armed Forces. It just shows how stupid and ill informed so many of those are who advocate for our current policy of pseudo-neutrality, doesn't it?
Ah yes, I well remember the bloody early days of the Soc Dems, and let us not speak of the horrors perpetrated by the early Greens.
More seriously since its founding in 1926 FF has not been involved in much blood, and while Martin O Donoghue's budget may have been undesirable it hardly ranks.
Indeed your criticism of SF is entirely based on their current irresponsible financial policy.
- Status