120 Irish troops to join EU battle group

Podolski1.5

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
572
Since when do peacekeeping troops do battle? The term Battlegroups itself gives the lie to the government's ongoing claims that our neutrality is not affected.
 


Grumpy Jack

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
6,073
It seems all the most unjustifiable military missions are carried out by like minded people voluntarily banding together to attack some country... So making it so that the only wars we might join are wars in which a highly unusual set of circumstances have to exist (ie China, US etc agreeing) ensures that our foreign military policy is as ethical as possible, which is a good thing.

Having said that we still have to examine things case by case in order to justify them - should even the UN become a tool for the aggressive military actions of a single player on the world stage or for bullying then i would be in favor of removing the triple lock and advocating for total permanent neutrality in all areas.

I most definitely wouldn't trust the Cabinet/Dail with such decisions (especially given the use of Shannon during the Iraq war).
It is utterly ludicrous.

ISAF in Afghanistan has a UN mandate. Should we deploy a battalion of troops to Kandahar then?

The post-invasion force in Iraq had a UN mandate. Surely we should have had forces in Basra or Mosul?

The US troops and aircraft passing through Shannon to Iraq (post-invasion) and Afghanistan were operating under a UN mandate so there passage was perfectly legal and Ireland was only assisting them - as all members of the UN are mandated to do.

Those UN mandates work both ways, you see - should we only cherry-pick the 'nice' mandates we can feel warm and fluffy about and ignore all those 'nasty' mandates that support US and UK military operations?

The UNSC resolutions are the whim of the Big Five powers so Irish foreign policy is subservient to their will and interests.

If people are being slaughtered in Darfur and EU wants to intervene to save lives, Ireland won't be able to take part because China will veto any UN resolution. Don't see anything moral or ethical about that.
 

Dohville

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
2,516
Since when do peacekeeping troops do battle? The term Battlegroups itself gives the lie to the government's ongoing claims that our neutrality is not affected.
Calm down.
Battlegroup is merely a military formation, same as Batallion, brigade, corps etc

Did you know the army have real guns too?

With real bullets even?
 

Grumpy Jack

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
6,073
Since when do peacekeeping troops do battle? The term Battlegroups itself gives the lie to the government's ongoing claims that our neutrality is not affected.
The term now is 'peace-enforcement' - it's exactly what Irish troops did in Congo in the 1960s and Kosovo, Liberia and Chad - all under UN mandates. It simply involves more robust 'rules of engagement' than 'peacekeeping'.

And once again, we are not 'neutral' - we are 'non-aligned' militarily. There is a very big difference.
 

Dohville

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
2,516
Of course it is worth pointing out that the Nordic Battle Group also consists of other famous Neutral countries.
Sweden and Finland .

Norway, is a Founding member of NATO, which given its history in the 20th century, was probably pragmatic, rather than militarist.
Estonia used to be part of the Soviet Bloc, before Joining NATO in 2004.
 

Green eyed monster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,429
It is utterly ludicrous.

ISAF in Afghanistan has a UN mandate. Should we deploy a battalion of troops to Kandahar then?

The post-invasion force in Iraq had a UN mandate. Surely we should have had forces in Basra or Mosul?

The US troops and aircraft passing through Shannon to Iraq (post-invasion) and Afghanistan were operating under a UN mandate so there passage was perfectly legal and Ireland was only assisting them - as all members of the UN are mandated to do.
These things are reasons why i am becoming more wary about the UN (but i remain on the opposite side of the argument to yourself and others who want us to be involved in more of the private projects of people like the ones who dictate the war policies of the US and UK).

Those UN mandates work both ways, you see - should we only cherry-pick the 'nice' mandates we can feel warm and fluffy about and ignore all those 'nasty' mandates that support US and UK military operations?

The UNSC resolutions are the whim of the Big Five powers so Irish foreign policy is subservient to their will and interests.
We don't have to contribute to any UN sanctioned mission, so no we are not 'subservient' to their interests.

If people are being slaughtered in Darfur and EU wants to intervene to save lives, Ireland won't be able to take part because China will veto any UN resolution. Don't see anything moral or ethical about that.
The problem is that human rights is increasingly becoming a privatised, hedged in profession. The billionaire 'regime changer' George Soros has just bankrolled the US human rights organisation to the tune of 100, million meaning that is now HIS NGO - just as someone like Murdoch Rupert comes to own the voice of Fleet Street (to the alarm of those who see journalism as an important public service as much as a business) so George Soros will own a human rights outlet which supports his other project which is to try to overthrow Governments he doesn't agree with. So if NGO's are being privatised, if the media has long been a corporate asset and if we live in an age in which lying scheming politicians claim a human rights dimension to their crusade (as New Labour used during the Iraq War) how can we be sure that a Darfur is really what they say it is?

For example, the US recently bankrolled the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia where they committed war crimes and destabilised the whole country - how can we claim that a power that does that could ever do right in say... Darfur? There is a real effort and industry now around trying to sell liberal interventionism - or in other words make foul wars seem clean. That's why it is better keeping our distance, except in cases which genuinely involve peace-keeping - such as Lebanon.
 

Grumpy Jack

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
6,073
These things are reasons why i am becoming more wary about the UN (but i remain on the opposite side of the argument to yourself and others who want us to be involved in more of the private projects of people like the ones who dictate the war policies of the US and UK).
What? How the hell does taking full control of decisions regarding the deployment of Irish troops involve us 'in more of the private projects of people like the ones who dictate the war policies of the US and UK'?

We don't have to contribute to any UN sanctioned mission, so no we are not 'subservient' to their interests.
We may not have to contribute troops but we are obliged by our UN membership to co-operate with and assist any forces on UN-mandated missions - hence the US troops going through Shannon on the way to Iraq and Afghanistan.


The problem is that human rights is increasingly becoming a privatised, hedged in profession. The billionaire 'regime changer' George Soros has just bankrolled the US human rights organisation to the tune of 100, million meaning that is now HIS NGO - just as someone like Murdoch Rupert comes to own the voice of Fleet Street (to the alarm of those who see journalism as an important public service as much as a business) so George Soros will own a human rights outlet which supports his other project which is to try to overthrow Governments he doesn't agree with. So if NGO's are being privatised, if the media has long been a corporate asset and if we live in an age in which lying scheming politicians claim a human rights dimension to their crusade (as New Labour used during the Iraq War) how can we be sure that a Darfur is really what they say it is?
That is just more of the usual tinfoil hat, conspiracy nut gibberish that P.ie is renowned for.

For example, the US recently bankrolled the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia where they committed war crimes and destabilised the whole country - how can we claim that a power that does that could ever do right in say... Darfur?
We are talking about the EU here, not the US. And have you any hard evidence for that wild claim or is that just more crusty anti-US gibberish?

There is a real effort and industry now around trying to sell liberal interventionism - or in other words make foul wars seem clean. That's why it is better keeping our distance, except in cases which genuinely involve peace-keeping - such as Lebanon.
How many times did the Israelis ignore the presence of the UNIFIL peacekeepers in southern Lebanon and bomb the bejaysus out of the country ands its people between 1978 and the present day?

I noticed you never mentioned Ireland's successful peace-enforcement missions of recent years in Kosovo, Liberia and Chad.

The only difference between 'peace-keeping' and 'peace-enforcement' is that while in PK missions you have to stand idly by until the bad guys actually start killing people, in PE missions you can engage those bad guys before they start the slaughter.

I would certainly prefer the 'peace enforcement' of Kosovo and Chad to the 'peace-keeping' of Srebrenica any day of the week - as I'm sure would the people the troops are charged with protecting.
 

former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,544
Of course it is worth pointing out that the Nordic Battle Group also consists of other famous Neutral countries.
Sweden and Finland .

Norway, is a Founding member of NATO, which given its history in the 20th century, was probably pragmatic, rather than militarist.
Estonia used to be part of the Soviet Bloc, before Joining NATO in 2004.
+ Lots ! And also worth pointing out that at the launch of the EU documents on defence that the Finnish Prime Minister said that he hoped that the Lisbon Treaty would mean that he'd get what he termed as " a robust " defence policy ! There again, he lives in a tough neighbourhood and has real defence concerns, unlike the Irish.
 

Green eyed monster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,429
That is just more of the usual tinfoil hat, conspiracy nut gibberish that P.ie is renowned for.
Which part? Everything i said there is in the public domain and supported by countless articles, ever heard of the velvet revolutions of Asia? George Soros bankrolled them. He controls NGOs in the Universities and cities of many nations in Eastern Europe, Russia and the Middle East - he was accused by Iran of playing a role in the attempted Green Revolution there a few years ago.

The link to the point where the billionaire speculator has just bought up HRW is included in my paragraph above.

When i hear 'conspiracy tin foil' my BS meter starts jumping like crazy, it means you have come up against a fact you do not want to digest.

How the hell does taking full control of decisions regarding the deployment of Irish troops involve us 'in more of the private projects of people like the ones who dictate the war policies of the US and UK'?
Because i am not certain that our politicians cannot be bought and sold by the same people who buy and sell the politicians of bigger nations. There are billionaires and mega corporations in the world that wield the influence of middle sized nations in the affairs of politics. We need some kind of a lock to shut them out permanently... It's the same reason we have a constitution - it's a lock on how our Govt can act to prevent against bad governance... There are many in Britain who would have dearly wished they had such a lock in place to curb Blair.

And have you any hard evidence for that wild claim or is that just more crusty anti-US gibberish?
Gwynne Dyer: The U.S.-made mess in Somalia | The Salt Lake Tribune

Southern Somalia has been trapped in an unending civil war since the last real government collapsed in 1991, but the current round of killing was triggered when the United States invited Ethiopia to invade the country in 2006. This was a bit high-handed, especially since Ethiopia was Somalia’s traditional enemy, but Washington’s aim was to destroy the “Islamic Courts ” in Somalia.

The TFG failed utterly to impose its authority and restore order in Somalia, but the Islamic Courts Union took a different approach. Its roots were in the merchant class in Mogadishu, who simply wanted a safer environment to do business in, and they understood that Islam was the only common ground on which all of the country’s fissiparous clans and militias might be brought together again.

The Islamic courts, applying Shariah law, were the instrument by which the society would gradually be brought back under the rule of law — and for about six months, it worked amazingly well. The zones of peace and order spread throughout southern Somalia, the epicenter of the fighting, and trade and employment revived. A made-in-Somalia solution had spontaneously emerged from the chaos.....

Washington therefore concluded that the Islamic Courts Union, Somalia’s best hope of escaping from perpetual civil war, was an enemy that must be removed. Since the TFG was clearly not up to that task, Washington asked Ethiopia, Somalia’s old enemy, to provide the necessary troops.


The US introduced chaos where order was beginning to form, invaded the country through Ethiopia who committed war crimes, now Somalia is lawless again except for a tiny Western backed Govt - that is basically existing inside an artificial bubble of security provided by AU 'peacekeepers' with the blessing of the West.

It's a sordid tale about how the West acts to destabilise, increasing bloodshed and ignoring the sovereignty of nations and how they then try to prop up unpopular or unwanted regimes with the aid of 'peacekeepers' (also think - Karzai).

The only difference between 'peace-keeping' and 'peace-enforcement' is that while in PK missions you have to stand idly by until the bad guys actually start killing people, in PE missions you can engage those bad guys before they start the slaughter.
My whole point was that we can never be certain who the 'bad guys' really are, that's why i mentioned the new 'business' of human rights reporting and it's relation to liberal interventionism - that's why i mentioned the US made mess in Somalia.
 

Green eyed monster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,429
Basically i have demonstrated how 'bad guys' get to be designated - the importance of HR organisations in that and i point out how a political billionaire has effectively bought one of them - and i did this because you brought up Somalia and some imagined 'noble' use of the military to fight the 'bad guys'.

It is the task of HR organisations to discuss HR situations in the world, now suppose a country doesn't have a serious HR situation but a group of powerful nations want to attack it.... an NGO backed by a billionaire steps up and claims that terrible things are happening there, a media complex owned by billionaires step up and broadcasts this news... The politicans of those big powers declare their righteous indignation and launch an attack - and an Ireland that is easily led has had it's triple lock removed and opts to join the fray, later we learn it was based on lies and the big powers have set up home there, exploiting the nation's resources and dictating to the natives...

Your use of the throwaround term 'bad guys' indicates i wouldn't want you making the decision about how to deploy the military, it's a classic Bushism... like 'Axis Of Evil'.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,211
Which is complete ************************e.

Seriously can we even argue that we are an Indpendent state, while China, France, the UK, the US and Russia have the power to stop us deploying our armed forces. It really is a joke and we must be the only Indpendent state in the world that does not have total control over what we can do with our armed forces.
+1

Why is Ireland giving that lamest of lame World bodies power to decide where Irish troops may go. Certainly gives the lie to the faintest idea of neutrality.
 

HMprison

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
62
Soldiers are always going to be in favour of EU "battle groups".

They get bigger toys to play with. Plus they get to go on overseas jamborees so they can top up their pensions/save for a deposit for a semi-D in the Curragh.
 

PES Activist

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
10
Website
campaignforapesprimary.blogspot.com
100% right PES activist - I could not agree with you more. The Triple Lock is about deciding how and where to deploy our Defence Forces under the spirit and principle of multi-lateralism. Rocky & FG argue that we need the power and right to invade or occupy the territory of others unilaterally.

I also hope Eamon Gilmore, Michael D and others in Labour get FG to desist with their attacks on the triple lock (evidenced by Rocky and others on here too) including the most recent salvo from ex Defence minister & current Foreign Affairs spokesman Sean Barrett TD: www.seanbarrett.finegael.ie
Thanks dail usher. FG are going to find their room for manouevre on this issue very strictly limited in the next government, should the expected result of a LAB-FG coalition arise. FG's views on defence appear to me to consist of a barely-understood Atlanticism with little thought given to how Ireland's relatively unique status as an aligned, but militarily neutral state can be leveraged for peace-keeping and peace-making duties overseas.

Our emerging role in the Nordic Battle Group, allied to the triple-lock mechanism. is a much more secure option for ensuring the Ireland plays an effective role in military intervention following UN resolutions.
 

PES Activist

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
10
Website
campaignforapesprimary.blogspot.com
But it doesn't provide certainty. All 5 states are completely inconsistent in how they deal with similar actions by different states. It tells states that if you make friends with basically China and Russia you can do whatever you want and even France, the UK and the US aren't perfect here either.

Had NATO not decided to go it alone in 1999, it is impossible to know what would have happened with Kosovo, but I doubt it would have ended up as well as it did. It's a pity that no one cared enough to react unilaterally in Rwanda in 1994. Who knows how many lives would have been saved if one of the big powers had reacted, maybe millons as it may have also prevented the war in the Congo.

Giving the UN should absolute power. To decide what is right or wrong, is asking for trouble and no state beyond Ireland really gives it that power. Other states will argue it should when it suits them, but they will go on to ignore it when it doesn't.

It is a massive impeachment on our sovereignty and that is undeniable.
I agree entirely with many of your comments here. As I said above, the current situation with the UNSC is completely unsatisfactory. However, it's the best we have as things stand and it is the only internationally-recognised body that has the broadly-accepted legitimacy necessary to intervene militarily in the affairs of sovereign countries.

If you take the path of rejecting the role of the UNSC in legitimating such intervention and instead leave it to individual countries, regional alliances or what some might call "coalitions of the willing" then you open the door to the illegal and catastrophic interventions such as we saw in Iraq, for example. I'm surprised that you appear to be making the same argument that the US neo-cons made about the UN prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq.
 

PES Activist

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
10
Website
campaignforapesprimary.blogspot.com
Unfortunlatley I don't think the UN battle groups is going to be as popular with them.
I don't suppose you have any evidence for this view, seanmacc? The people I know actually welcome the development of battle-groups and the opportunities it affords them to make an increased contribution overseas to peace-keeping and peace-making. Perhaps we mix in different military-circles :)
 

PES Activist

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
10
Website
campaignforapesprimary.blogspot.com
It seems all the most unjustifiable military missions are carried out by like minded people voluntarily banding together to attack some country... So making it so that the only wars we might join are wars in which a highly unusual set of circumstances have to exist (ie China, US etc agreeing) ensures that our foreign military policy is as ethical as possible, which is a good thing.

Having said that we still have to examine things case by case in order to justify them - should even the UN become a tool for the aggressive military actions of a single player on the world stage or for bullying then i would be in favor of removing the triple lock and advocating for total permanent neutrality in all areas.

I most definitely wouldn't trust the Cabinet/Dail with such decisions (especially given the use of Shannon during the Iraq war).
+1 ... good points, Thranduil. The requirement for a UNSC resolution has actually turned out to be the strongest defence in the triple-lock mechanism of Ireland's military neutrality and the ethical track record of our troops.
 

PES Activist

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
10
Website
campaignforapesprimary.blogspot.com

Dohville

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
2,516
Soldiers are always going to be in favour of EU "battle groups".

They get bigger toys to play with. Plus they get to go on overseas jamborees so they can top up their pensions/save for a deposit for a semi-D in the Curragh.
You don't leave the house much, do you.
You have definitely never been to the curragh, where no semi-d exists.
Do you even know what a soldier earns?

And yes soldiers will be in favour of the EU Battlegroup because it allows them to do their job, instead of just being confined to guarding the assets of corrupt banks at home. People do not join the army to be Bank Guards.
 

PES Activist

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
10
Website
campaignforapesprimary.blogspot.com
You don't leave the house much, do you.
You have definitely never been to the curragh, where no semi-d exists.
Do you even know what a soldier earns?

And yes soldiers will be in favour of the EU Battlegroup because it allows them to do their job, instead of just being confined to guarding the assets of corrupt banks at home. People do not join the army to be Bank Guards.
+ 1 ... and in doing their jobs, the Irish Defence Forces have demonstrated over many difficult years that rare quality in international affairs, an ethical army!
 

Aspherical123

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
2,579
+ 1 ... and in doing their jobs, the Irish Defence Forces have demonstrated over many difficult years that rare quality in international affairs, an ethical army!
In what way are they more "ethical" then other armies? it could be argued sitting in the fence in terms of military geo politics and letting others historically provide for your security is not very ethical at all.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top