Having the ability to apprehend drug smugglers in our territorial waters has nothing to do with military neutrality.
Great idea. If we get more ships and are able to defend ourselves that would mean we're evil. Being neutral in the face of evil is a virtue.
If only someone would invent an airplane, or even better a helicopter.That's really interception rather than monitoring at that stage. Unless you have a lot of boats in the water at all times, by the time you get to a scene any suspicious activity like off-loading a drugs shipment is long over.
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.So having only 2 active ships doesn't impair in any way our ability to conduct fisheries protection or interdict\deter drug shipments?
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.If only someone would invent an airplane, or even better a helicopter.
In my original post I did mention both ships and aircraft.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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.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?
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.But in the reports I've come across, there was no reason given as to why we were the ones to intercept.
That could explain it. I wonder was the Plan A to keep monitoring the cargo ship to see who else it met up with - but intercept the trawler here on landing.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.That could explain it. I wonder was the Plan A to keep monitoring the cargo ship to see who else it met up with - but intercept the trawler here on landing.
Well said.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.
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.To hear Israel say they are cutting off food and electricity to civilian population because they are 'fighting animals' is equally as concerning.
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.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.
These have been denied by all 3 countries.Reports indicate that Ireland, Denmark and Luxembourg forced a watering down of an EU statement on the matter, which would be disappointing if true.
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.The Palestinians are the "Planters" and the Jews are the dispossessed natives, not the other way around.
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.These have been denied by all 3 countries.
Simplistic ethno-nationalist interpretation: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.
That would involve not speaking about them at all or misreporting what they say in order to make it sound reasonable.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.
Correct.The main thrust of Leahy's article is that the report finds no public appetite for NATO membership.
Why would it?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.
It should if we have a sense of decency and morality. If we don't then it shouldn't.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.
Would alliances are not the same as military alliances.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.
Any sort of Fast Air capability would cost billions.'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.
You're paranoid.'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
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.which is deeply prevalent in the Irish political party with its roots in fascism.
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?The report also advocates that the Triple Lock should be dropped but recognises that there is no public support for that either.
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.Every Irish political Party has roots in blood and undesirable happenings.
Indeed your criticism of SF is entirely based on their current irresponsible financial policy.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.
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?