Common sense or a cop out?
A common sense cop out imo. Were neutral on whichever side the Americans are on. Its very difficult for us to be 100% neutral given our location and the economic ties with US and UK.
Not as if well make a massive difference, although wasnt Hitler gonna use Ireland as a base to attack the the UK? Maybe I imagined that, is there any historian out there that can verify?
An element of tradition in it too, but common sense even in its origins (for all practical purposes) in WWII, whereby even though part of the reason was anti-British feeling, our neutrality favoured the Allied side. Military weakness seems to have been the main reason then and subsequently.
Interestingly, the Constitution doesnāt declare a policy of neutrality, merely expressing a preference for peaceful resolution of conflicts.
do what america does and bully other countries around
Common sense for the most part. Very few wars that weāve had an opportunity of getting involved in have any huge moral requirement for our participation. In fact were it not for our proximity to the UK/US powers then our allegiances would probably lie elsewhere. Weāre better off not getting involved by declaring our allegiances to a paticular allied union - make up our own minds when conflict arises - not that we ever get the chance to anymore.
Was there not a moral requirement for Ireland to go into Northern Ireland in the 1960s and stand up for its citizenās that were being shit on?
You could say their lack of intervention there caused the IRA
There was a mobilisation to the border but I think we got scared away in the end. To be honest the IRA probably defended the communities better than the lads from the Curragh ever could.
Interesting point. The terrorists have a better army than the State. Probably true. But the State should at least be seen to do something - all that was done was probably a strongly worded letter to the British Ambassador
Well when itās a small state against a world power then itās likely that a guerilla organisation would have more success than a conventional army - shall we avoid the whole āterroristsā name for the moment?
I suppose the arms running controversy indicated to the state that there was little public support for intervention - still I agree they were a bit chicken-shit.
Weāll avoid it if you want but thatās what they are - guerilla organisation implies some sort of State credibility
The ministers involved in the Arms Crisis were sacked - after all they were believed to be involved in illegal gun running. I donāt know what public support for going into the North was like
There are very few state-sanctioned guerilla organisations out there. The old adage of āone manās freedom fighter is another manās terroristā rings true. Anyway itās the nature of the organisation (guerilla) rather than their legality that enabled the IRA to have greater success than the Irish army.
Iām guessing here but Iād say most politicians would have been aware of the reputational damage suffered by those who supported the gun running - which was a form of intervention. It was cowardly but most guys in the Dail would rather pretend there was nothing going on than worry about what actions should be taken.
And what does dictionary.com have to say about terrorists?
Ok I take back my guerrilla āmeaningā but why not call them terrorists?
[quote=therock67 ]
The old adage of āone manās freedom fighter is another manās terroristā rings true. [/quote]
Just saw that there - fair point
I think I agree with you in essence - though Iām not sure - that itās all well and good deciding weāre a neutral country but when there is conflict on our doorstep and it involves hundreds of thousands of people who claim Irish citizenship then surely we need to act.
That is essentially my point as well
Good so weāre agreed. I didnāt want to jump to any conclusions because itās a rare enough event sometimes.
Varadkar and Coveney in New York canvassing for Ireland to get a seat on the UN Security Council in the next go round.
Hopefully we secure it and then announce our intention to join NATO.
Well we enthusiastically showed the belly to the yanks and rowed in behind the most immoral and imbecilic invasion and eviscerstion of a country in living memory, so I donāt see why not.
List item
āMost immoralā- really?