Messages

Another scroll through thread. Thanks lads.

Good points. It's a waste of time us spending any money on defense if it's just dumping overpriced obsolete old shit on us as a means to clear out their spaces and rip us off for their profit.

Any serious defense systems must be the latest and most advanced in military hi-tech. That means the sharing of knowledge, intelligence and hardware and training and investing in us fully. Anything less than that we'll save our money and try build a few houses for the refugees they've dumped on us.

Presume Wayne Gretzky, Famous Ice Hockey player from years ago. Trump did get up and dance.  On the balcony.

Fair enough. Could have been a boxer for all I knew, a very bad one at that, who took a few too many to the head. You'd think he'd have learned to pronounce a few countries f*****g names. He only had the 12 in the pot FFS.

[At least Trump didn't get up and dance.]

Jesus this is painful

My words exactly

Jesus, painful wouldn't cover it. Banter was cringe and wooden as you get. The forced/nervous laughing and giggling of your one and Rio, I was scarlet for them. And as for your man Wayne, who the hell is he? If you got him in a lucky bag you'd look for a refund. At least Trump didn't get up and dance.

Not a bad draw all the same.

He did.

Ah jaysis. Missed that thank God

Jesus this is painful

My words exactly

Jesus, painful wouldn't cover it. Banter was cringe and wooden as you get. The forced/nervous laughing and giggling of your one and Rio, I was scarlet for them. And as for your man Wayne, who the hell is he? If you got him in a lucky bag you'd look for a refund. At least Trump didn't get up and dance.

Not a bad draw all the same.

"Traditionally these big European countries invested in the military for speculation and colonization and conquest, as much as it did for "defense". They gained massive wealth and expertise from this approach and reinvested in military so it was a self fulfilling system. So their base is a lot higher than ours."

European Defence spending is significantly lower than in the 80s when the Soviet Union was a threat. We should be closer to 1.6%.

Right so Europe dropped the ball on European defense. Not sure what they expect us to do about that.

Interesting alright, if a bit preachy. I've read other opinions of the same type. Hit's on a few valid points but very unrealistic in others.

Doesn't explain exactly how Ireland is getting rich with data centres or having cables ran through our territorial waters either. The former is not a massive employer and is actually putting huge pressures on our NG using massive energy at discounted rates.

Doesn't explain how exactly we should be defending these infrastructures either. They come into our waters and go out again, it's a joint infrastructure for ALL of Europe. We're a small island of 5 million people with no military infrastructure, inclination or history. So it would be completely moronic to just dump all this shit in out waters and expect us to defend it. If they are arguing we are caught with our pants completely down, then we're not alone. And we've bailed out plenty with regards to Europe so far.

We can't defend the cables. We depend on them. We have to ask the Brits for help. We freeload. It's not serious.

Annoys me when I hear the term freeload, which was the undertone of the article.

Everyone in Europe depends on these cables, was that not another point of the article?

So maybe the author can write another article on the freeloading Austrians, Swiss and Luxembourgers with no f*****g navies at all.

We can't deal with drones or Russian interference. We can't deal with Russian ships entering our waters. We have 4 ships.

Stating the bleeding obvious. Still doesn't explain the point of the article or solution to problem, apart from stating some of the bleeding obvious.

We need to spend more on defence. The Navy and the Air Corps need to be equipped to defend the country's interests, same as any other country. Ireland spends 0.24% of GDP on defence.
The European Union European Defence Agency member state average spend on defence as a percentage of GDP was 1.6% in 2023. So we spend one sixth of the average.
The Army isn't ready to deal with loyalist trouble in a United Ireland either. There is a lot of catching up to do.

We are a small non-war mongering nation. Traditionally we had no reason to spend on defense. Comparing our percentages to EU countries is a bit disingenuous. As is the term defense. Traditionally these big European countries invested in the military for speculation and colonization and conquest, as much as it did for "defense". They gained massive wealth and expertise from this approach and reinvested in military so it was a self fulfilling system. So their base is a lot higher than ours.

Notwithstanding all that I get some of the points. We are in Europe now, it's a community and we all need to chip in and think more about the security of the union. So we do need to change our mindset.

But as an Irishman, what I won't accept is the finger wagging preachy tone of that article. The union should be based on mutual co-operation and respect, and to defend the Atlantic will take major investment. This is as much the responsibility, and failure, of the union as a whole, not just lazy little freeloading Ireland.

Interesting alright, if a bit preachy. I've read other opinions of the same type. Hit's on a few valid points but very unrealistic in others.

Doesn't explain exactly how Ireland is getting rich with data centres or having cables ran through our territorial waters either. The former is not a massive employer and is actually putting huge pressures on our NG using massive energy at discounted rates.

Doesn't explain how exactly we should be defending these infrastructures either. They come into our waters and go out again, it's a joint infrastructure for ALL of Europe. We're a small island of 5 million people with no military infrastructure, inclination or history. So it would be completely moronic to just dump all this shit in out waters and expect us to defend it. If they are arguing we are caught with our pants completely down, then we're not alone. And we've bailed out plenty with regards to Europe so far.

We can't defend the cables. We depend on them. We have to ask the Brits for help. We freeload. It's not serious.

Annoys me when I hear the term freeload, which was the undertone of the article.

Everyone in Europe depends on these cables, was that not another point of the article?

So maybe the author can write another article on the freeloading Austrians, Swiss and Luxembourgers with no f*****g navies at all.

We can't deal with drones or Russian interference. We can't deal with Russian ships entering our waters. We have 4 ships.

Stating the bleeding obvious. Still doesn't explain the point of the article or solution to problem, apart from stating some of the bleeding obvious.

Interesting alright, if a bit preachy. I've read other opinions of the same type. Hit's on a few valid points but very unrealistic in others.

Doesn't explain exactly how Ireland is getting rich with data centres or having cables ran through our territorial waters either. The former is not a massive employer and is actually putting huge pressures on our NG using massive energy at discounted rates.

Doesn't explain how exactly we should be defending these infrastructures either. They come into our waters and go out again, it's a joint infrastructure for ALL of Europe. We're a small island of 5 million people with no military infrastructure, inclination or history. So it would be completely moronic to just dump all this shit in out waters and expect us to defend it. If they are arguing we are caught with our pants completely down, then we're not alone. And we've bailed out plenty with regards to Europe so far.

We can't defend the cables. We depend on them. We have to ask the Brits for help. We freeload. It's not serious.

Annoys me when I hear the term freeload, which was the undertone of the article.

Everyone in Europe depends on these cables, was that not another point of the article?

So maybe the author can write another article on the freeloading Austrians, Swiss and Luxembourgers with no f*****g navies at all.

Trump may be very good at manipulation and self promotion but overall is an extremely dangerous idiot. Very domineering with insane ego and thinks he's a genius and always the smartest man in the room. But basically just operates on whims and instinct. Harmless enough to an extent when he was just bankrupting casinos and stiffing contractors, but given the office he holds, a disaster waiting to happen. WTF must some in those agencies be thinking.

Interesting alright, if a bit preachy. I've read other opinions of the same type. Hit's on a few valid points but very unrealistic in others.

Doesn't explain exactly how Ireland is getting rich with data centres or having cables ran through our territorial waters either. The former is not a massive employer and is actually putting huge pressures on our NG using massive energy at discounted rates.

Doesn't explain how exactly we should be defending these infrastructures either. They come into our waters and go out again, it's a joint infrastructure for ALL of Europe. We're a small island of 5 million people with no military infrastructure, inclination or history. So it would be completely moronic to just dump all this shit in out waters and expect us to defend it. If they are arguing we are caught with our pants completely down, then we're not alone. And we've bailed out plenty with regards to Europe so far.

You could add that Ukraine is just the start. Putin wants to recreate the Soviet Union.

I don't buy that - at all. Where's the evidence?

Meanwhile, EU wants an army so pushes that narrative.

Would it be surprising if he tried for more if he got Ukraine?


/quote]

Well, according to some on here, this war has been a disaster for Russia, and Russia is on the point of collapse. So, just after being nearly brought to its knees by the Ukrainian effort, can it really invade the EU?!! I somehow doubt it!
Besides, Russia has its own demographic problems, too. No longer can it afford to send endless bodies to the front. An invasion of the EU would put in the ha'penny place the losses in Ukraine. Unless the reckoning is that the EU won't fight at all?

What's that got to do with the security of Europe? It's not just about being able to repel an invasion from Russia on members, something which can no longer just be dismissed as pie in the sky. It's also about protection of energy and communication infrastructures whether it be wind farms, solar farms, nuclear facilities, subsea cables etc. We're moving away from oil and gas, well Russian oil and gas anyway. Our aim is to be energy dependent and that's going to hurt many suppliers outside the Union. So we need to be able to offer a serious deterrent to anyone thinking of sabotaging these infrastructures. And I'm not talking about strongly worded letters either.

[At least for as long as Trump/MAGA are in]

You could add that Ukraine is just the start. Putin wants to recreate the Soviet Union.
/quote]

I don't buy that - at all. Where's the evidence?

Meanwhile, EU wants an army so pushes that narrative.

Years ago some Lithuanian mates were on about Russia and how dangerous they were and that there was a genuine fear at home from some people that there would be an attempt to take them over again. I listened but didn't pay any heed. Sounded a bit far fetched and paranoid. Just a symptom of their justified dislike of Russia, but the world had moved on.

Then there was all the scaremongering a few years ago from some sections in the news. Russia were going to invade Ukraine. Thought they were all off their heads, just a bit of posturing from Putin. Couldn't believe what's happened since. So I wouldn't put too much past Russia at this stage.

End of the day Europe needs to be independent and secure, that much is now clear. And it wants an army not to push a narrative, it wants an army because it needs an army. There are no genuine allies. If I had heard someone say this a few years ago I'd have said they needed a slap, but that's where we're at unfortunately.

Well said, especially now that NATO is more or less toast. At least for as long as Trump/MAGA are in the WH.

Unfortunately if Trump dropped dead tomorrow it doesn't change much. USA is a basket case of media and culture war politics. Money talks there and they will sell their souls to the devil for any short sighted quick advantage. Guessing the political climate there in 4,8,12,16....etc years time is not how Europe needs to be planning its future. For years we've left things go as we thought they had our backs but that's proven foolhardy. It's a rude awakening and it will take years of stable building and co-operation between member states to get to a more secure Europe but that's the course we must set.

You could add that Ukraine is just the start. Putin wants to recreate the Soviet Union.
/quote]

I don't buy that - at all. Where's the evidence?

Meanwhile, EU wants an army so pushes that narrative.

Years ago some Lithuanian mates were on about Russia and how dangerous they were and that there was a genuine fear at home from some people that there would be an attempt to take them over again. I listened but didn't pay any heed. Sounded a bit far fetched and paranoid. Just a symptom of their justified dislike of Russia, but the world had moved on.

Then there was all the scaremongering a few years ago from some sections in the news. Russia were going to invade Ukraine. Thought they were all off their heads, just a bit of posturing from Putin. Couldn't believe what's happened since. So I wouldn't put too much past Russia at this stage.

End of the day Europe needs to be independent and secure, that much is now clear. And it wants an army not to push a narrative, it wants an army because it needs an army. There are no genuine allies. If I had heard someone say this a few years ago I'd have said they needed a slap, but that's where we're at unfortunately.

On this day in 1925 the Brits and the Free State agreed the borders of OWC and the Border Commission was ignored. Practically the Border separated users of Boxing Day from users of Stephen's Day.

They also removed the need for the Freestate to contribute to UK debt. So the net outcome of the deal was that the British bought South Armagh for about £50,000 a head in modern monetary values.

I think this financial write-off by the Brits was a huge factor.