Repression Conference Planned for Dublin in October

national | rights, freedoms and repression | feature

Thursday August 26, 2004 13:41

by Terry - Galway Grassroots/Organise!/Anarchist Federation (personal capacity)

room101ucg at yahoo dot co dot uk

Some Background on the Nature and Function of ‘Less Lethal’ Weapons

On Tuesday October the 19th and Wednesday October the 20th a conference on ‘less lethal’ weapons is taking place in the Berkeley Court Hotel in Dublin. Organised by defence industry magazine Janes, the conference features representatives of the police, military, scientific and industrial sectors. This article from a regular Indymedia contributor is a backgrounder on the nature and function of ‘less lethal’ weapons.

Extract: ‘Less Lethal’ weapons allow the state the use of force in ‘public order’ situations, and thus make repression far more likely. This can be particularly seen in the United States where innumerable demonstrations are pepper sprayed, for such things as marching into the wrong street. The issue of state legitimacy is crucial to the development of ‘less lethal’ weapons, openly referred to in planning documents as the ‘CNN factor’ or in the Berkeley Court conference as ‘the social feel good factor’. To illustrate this consider how plastic and rubber baton rounds allowed elements of State forces in the North of Ireland to inflict ‘collective punishment’ on working class Catholic communities. “There was a riot, we fired plastic bullets” is a lot more sellable then the older version of collective punishment – house burnings.

Article continues at 'Feature continued on newswire' link below

RELATED MATERIALS
Janes Dublin Conference Programme
An Appraisal of technologies of Political Control: STOA Draft for European Parliament
Pain Merchants: Amnesty International

FULL TEXT OF ARTICLE AS SUBMITTED TO INDYMEDIA NEWSWIRE

On Tuesday October the 19th and Wednesday October the 20th a conference on ‘less lethal’ weapons is taking place in the Berkeley Court Hotel in Dublin. Organised by defence industry magazine Janes, the conference features representatives of the police, military, scientific and industrial sectors.
This article is a backgrounder on the nature and function of ‘less lethal’ weapons.

What are ‘less lethal’ weapons?

The first thing they are not, is, generally speaking, a reduction of the force used by the state, they are not an alternative to lethal force, but a new means of coercion, usable in situations where lethal force is not.

They are also not safe, not non-dangerous and not non-lethal.

They are above all else the tools of political repression, above all used to suppress dissent in ‘public order’ situations.

They allow the state to use force in contexts where otherwise it could not.

It’s a simple arithmetic, it takes far more police, far more time and far more effort to clear a crowd by hand and baton than it does with gas, pepper spray or plastic bullets. This alternative is also far less dangerous to the police, giving them a decided advantage over an unarmed crowd. Without ‘less lethal’ weapons there is the prospect of getting into hand to hand combat, inefficient and where the police can lose, or using live ammunition, often impossible due to the massive political cost this would inflict on the legitimacy of the state.

Thus in this context force is not an attractive option when dealing with a strike, unruly demonstration or mass direct action. The cards are held by the populace rather than the police, at least to a degree.

‘Less Lethal’ weapons allow the state the use of force in ‘public order’ situations, and thus make repression far more likely. This can be particularly seen in the United States where innumerable demonstrations are pepper sprayed, for such things as marching into the wrong street.

The issue of state legitimacy is crucial to the development of ‘less lethal’ weapons, openly referred to in planning documents as the ‘CNN factor’ or in the Berkeley Court conference as ‘the social feel good factor’.
To illustrate this consider how plastic and rubber baton rounds allowed elements of State forces in the North of Ireland to inflict ‘collective punishment’ on working class Catholic communities. “There was a riot, we fired plastic bullets” is a lot more sellable then the older version of collective punishment – house burnings.
Similarly it is often the case with these weapons that the mode of violence obscures the extent of violence, tear gas for instance looks a lot less heavy than batoning.

Their much rarer battlefield applications are conditioned by similar concerns. The incapacitating gas used in the Moscow theatre hostage siege to murderous effect in October 2002 was developed for use in war. Plans were made to use incapacitating gas for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and tear gas was used during the Vietnam war.
This is simply because gas is useful to clear tunnels and bunker complexes but, due to the horrendous injuries inflicted by the like of mustard gas in the First World War, it has a major political cost associated with it. Hence new improved chemical warfare that doesn’t kill (or does in fact as it still has teething problems). Incapacitating gas renders it’s victims unconscious and is different from irritant chemicals used in ‘public order’ situations.

A lesser ‘legitimate’ use for ‘less lethal’ weapons, particularly the electric variety, is in controlling prisons, pepper spray and electro shields and belts are widely used in American prisons. Often allowing guards a more easily hidden way of torturing inmates. Which brings us to the principal ‘illegitimate’ use of these weapons - as torture instruments. The use of electric devices for torture is rife worldwide, being particularly prevalent in China, where many of them are manufactured.

The use of ‘less lethal’ weapons in situations where otherwise live ammunition would be used, as an alternative to lethal force, is far far less common. Only one such weapon, the L21A1 baton round, the British state’s latest variation on the plastic/rubber bullet theme, has been used exclusively in situations with criminal suspects where otherwise live ammunition would used. Bear in mind that this weapon has only been issued for a couple of years so it may be used in ‘public order’ yet, and that legitimacy comes into play here too, as it was introduced after a number of controversial shootings of innocent and/or unarmed persons.
In other usage in ‘normal policing’ gas sprays and the like basically function as a possibly more violent up-dating of the normal baton.

The following is a review of the uses and effects of less lethal weapons, don’t get too scared, although they can be effective in breaking up desultory protests they have never been effective in suppressing any sustained popular revolt. For that politics has to be used. In regard to the most widely used ‘less lethal’ weapons, – chemicals weapons like tear gas and pepper spray, effective counter measures have been developed.

Chemical Weapons:

These being the most widely used variety of so-called ‘less lethal’ weapons, particularly widespread being ‘tear gas’. This was first used for crowd control in France in the early part of the last centaury. These can, and are, also used for torture, in that it can be sprayed upon arrestees or into confined spaces such as prison cells. The chemicals can be delivered by both projectiles – cartridges or grenades as well as backpack sprays and hand held aerosols.

‘Tear gas’ actually comes in a couple of different forms, which vary greatly in potency.
The most popular being CS gas, which causes respiratory irritation, pain in the nose and chest, a burning sensation in the eyes and on moist skin and with more extensive exposure coughing and vomiting.
CS gas is a compound which includes chlorobenzene , described by Dr. Raymond McClean as “a well known industrial poison which could cause damage to the brain, the liver and the kidneys”, another of it’s components, malonic acid, has caused fatalities in industry.
CS gas accentuates illness when inflicted on sufferers of bronchitis, asthma, liver or kidney diseases and epilepsy, and according to the findings of an official committee set up after the 1969 Derry riots it can cause deaths from heart failure. It has also been associated with second degree burns and respiratory illness.

CR gas is six times more potent than CS gas, and has been issued to police forces in the U.K. since 1973.
Much more of a skin irritant than CS gas, high exposure produces temporary blindness.
This was used in the townships under Apartheid in the late 1980’s, and there it caused fatalities, particularly among children.

Hand held gas irritant sprays have been issued to police in a number of E.U. states.
This is a far more dangerous weapon than the cartridges, the determining factor being the extent of the exposure, it’s one thing to have tear gas fired at a crowd in open air on a street, another on one person at close quarters, especially in a cell or handcuffs. CS and it’s earlier weaker cousin CN are believed to have caused hundreds of deaths in the Vietnam war as their victims were in the confined spaces of tunnel complexes.

According to Professor Jean Claud Roujeau of the Hospital Henri Mondor in Paris “we have seen, in the last few years, several cases of patients suffering from severe skin reactions to these spray. These reactions look like acute burns, they are very spectacular and sometimes need hospitalisation for several days, and can reach 10 – 20 per cent of the body surface area of the patient. It is generally agreed that above 20 per cent there is risk of death, so I think it impossible to consider these products as generally safe and harmless.”

Potency is also variable according to the particular solutions in the spray – with that of the CS spray in France and the U.K. 25 times stronger than it’s equivalent in the U.S.

OC or pepper spray is the latest instalment of this series and is considered more dangerous than either CR or CS. Pepper spray, as it’s name suggests, appears to only come in the spray form.
It’s particularly popular with the police and prison service of the United States.
There the Los Angeles Times has reported at least 61 deaths associated with it’s use in it’s first five years (1990 – 1995). ‘Associated’ in that fatalities are the product of a number of contributing factors, i.e. the victim’s drug use or medical problems or breathing inhibiting police restraints as well as pepper spray.

OC can cause temporary blindness, for up to 30 minutes, a burning sensation on skin, for up to one hour, upper body spasms and coughing which inhibits breathing and speaking.
In the EU it is used in the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Germany, Switzerland, and it’s on trial use in Britain.
There have been cases of it’s use as a torture instrument in American prisons.

Pepper spray is widely used to suppress demonstrations, for instance in New York on February 15th 2003, during the international day of protest against the Iraq war, and on innumerable other occasions.
It’s advantage to the police is that it doesn’t blow back on them as can happen with firing tear gas shells.

Here is the police in Portland, Oregon, spraying a critical mass bike ride, a Bush protest and supporters of locked-out dock workers:
http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/PPR28/bushppr28.html

Here is a variety of weapons being used on the crowd at a free Rage Against the Machine concert:
http://www.sparklehouse.com/awake/cp/gas_3.html

The pepperspraying of anti-war protestors in Pittsburgh in March 2003:
http://staughton.indypgh.org/news/2003/03/3928_comment.php

Remember tear gas when delivered via cartridge can also be used as a kinetic projectile, i.e. something which flies through the air and hits you, as with plastic and rubber bullets, it was used in this fashion in Northern Ireland in the late 60’s and early 70’s and in Genoa in July 2001.
We will be turning to these sorts of weapons later.

Electro shock weapons:

On Wednesday October 20th at 11.30 a.m. in the Berkeley Court Hotel in Dublin you can hear Tom Smith, president of Taser International Inc. speak on “research into the effects of electrical less-lethal weaponry”.

These offer the most telling revelation about the nature of the security wing of the arms industry.
Crude electronic devices, in wartime Europe, and electric cattle prods, in Latin America, were used as torture instruments long before the private sector took the idea up, commercialised it and mass produced electro shock batons. Helen Bamber, director of the British Medical Foundation for the Treatment of the Victims of Torture described them as “the most universal modern tool of the torturers”. They are extensively used and manufactured in China.

A series of Dispatches documentaries in the mid-90’s showed how British companies supplied these to repressive regimes around the world.
This included the supply of 8,000 German made electro shock batons to Saudi Arabia by the Royal Ordnance division of British Aerospace as part of the multi-billion pound Al Yamamah (‘The Dove’) arms deals of the late 1980’s. These deals were brokered at the highest level of government, and subsidised by export credit guarantees.

Incidentally Spiddal based company CTL, which grew up as an off shot of NUI Galway, which is supported by state agency Údarás na Gaeltachta and whose director is Conchœr Ó Brádaigh, lecturer in NUI Galway and member of it’s academic council, has a major research project on going with British Aerospace. British Aerospace are one of the largest arms companies in the world. Ruairi O Bradaigh boss of Republican Sinn Fein is this chap’s father.

Other variations on the electro shock theme are electric shields, which are much as the batons, only in shield form, and electro shock belts, which are fixed to a prisoner’s waist and remote controlled. The later are used in 30 state prisons and all federal trial courts in the United States. They have even been used to administer shocks at the behest of judges on defendants conducting their own defence and failing to adhere to a judge’s ruling.
Amnesty International has identified over 90 countries where electro shock torture has been used since 1990.

Tasers, manufactured by the aforementioned Mr. Tom Smith, speaking in Dublin on October 20th, have been in use in the U.S. since the 1970’s.
The M26 Advanced Taser is a handgun which fires two barbed darts up to seven meters, the darts are attached by wires to the gun, and along those wires travels a 50,000 volt electric shock to the victim, after firing the gun itself can function as an electro shock baton. They have recently been issued to British police.

A 1990 inquiry commissioned by the British Home Office found that an average discharge from an electro shock weapon after half a second repels the victim, after one to two seconds the victim cannot stand up and after three to five seconds the victim will lose skeletal muscle control and be paralysed for up to 15 minutes.

Kinetic Projectiles:

At 9.15 a.m. on the 20th of October in Berkeley Court Hotel speakers from Cranfield University Royal Military
College of Science will speak on “investigation into the target impact of less lethal projectiles”.
Following on from Major Steve James, Springfield Police Department, Missouri, who is speaking the day
before on “training, deployment and injury risk related to impact rounds”.

The record of rubber bullets, used in the north until 1974/75, and their replacement, plastic bullets, speaks for
itself:

“On the 10th August 1980 Michael Donnelly was walking up Leeson Street in the Falls Road area of Belfast. He
was hit with a plastic bullet fired by British soldiers. Michael Donnelly was a social worker and had just came
off duty in the Ballymurphy Community Centre. Eyewitnesses claimed he was walking up the street and was
within 15 – 20 yards from the British Army when they fired a plastic bullet at him. It hit him on the chest and he
died shortly afterwards. People who tried to help him were fired on as well. No one was charged.”

“Carol Anne Kelly aged 12 years was fatally wounded by a British Army patrol, hit on the side of the head by a
plastic bullet, a short distance from her home at Twinbrook on 19th May 1981. She was returning home from a
message to a local shop and was carrying a carton of milk in her hand. Residents and witnesses are adamant that
there was no rioting at the time or place where Carol Anne was hit. She received extensive head injuries and
died on Friday 22nd May.”

“Nora McCabe aged 30 years, from Linden Street, died in the Royal Victoria Hospital on the 9th July 1981 from
head injuries sustained when she was hit at point blank range by a plastic bullet fired by an RUC man from his
Land Rover. She had walked down Linden Street to get cigarettes with her friend, after hearing that
Joe McDonnell had died on hunger strike. Two RUC Land Rovers came up the Falls Road and one turned into
Linden Street while the other remained on the Falls. The first one stopped half way into Linden Street and an
RUC man firing from a range of six feet hit Nora McCabe on the head. She was not involved in any
disturbance. Nora left behind a husband and three little children Paul (7) Jim (2) and Anne Marie (3 months).”

“On the 28th August 1975 Stephen Geddis aged 10 was struck on the side of the head with a plastic bullet. The
Geddis family are completely non-political and young Stephen knew little of the complex situation around him.
This family were protective and anxious that he would not get caught up in any trouble. He died on 30th
August.”

In all 3 people were killed by rubber bullets and 14 by plastic bullets, most deaths appear to be around the time
of the hunger strikes, and thousands of people have been injured by them.

In 1999 the Patten Commission into policing in the north recommended the ending of the use of plastic bullets.
In 2001 the British government introduced a new baton round across the U.K., one more dangerous than it’s
plastic bullet predecessor.

Other variations of the baton round include wooden bullets, used in the United States, rubber coated steel
bullets used in the Israel and the occupied territories, one version of which consists of, in each shot, 15 rubber
balls each with a steel core which hit a target area 7 meters across. These are obviously used to hit crowds
indiscriminately.

A Belgian manufactured weapon used in Switzerland fires metal and plastic containers containing paint, and left
one woman with fragments embedded in her face, which cannot be removed for fear of paralysis.
So there is now a wide variety of successors to the old rubber bullet.

Science Fiction Weapons:

These are some things which are mostly still in the ‘research and development’ stage, don’t get too scared some
of them have been languishing there since the 1970’s.

Human capture nets, which can be electrified or laced with chemical irritant.

Foam guns, which stick the target to the ground.

Foam barriers, which can be laced with chemical irritant.

Sleeping inducing chemicals.

Strobes which pulse in the critical epileptic fit inducing frequency.

Radio frequency weapons which use microwaves to raise the victim’s temperature.

UV lasers which enable an electric charge to be sent across some distance through the air.

Sources:

‘The Road to Bloody Sunday’, Dr Raymond McClean, the author was a doctor in Derry active in the civil rights
movement who researched the effects of CS gas. A research aided by the fact he was working for Du Pont and
thus knew something of hazardous chemicals, and by the fact he was given leaked research documents on the
gas from Porton Down, the British military laboratories and weapons testing facility where it was developed.

‘Silent Too Long’, Association of the families of innocent victims of Loyalist, UDR, RUC and British Army
violence.

‘The Pain Merchants, Security equipment and it’s use in torture and other ill-treatment’, Amnesty International.

‘An appraisal of the technologies of political control’, Steve Wright, the Omega Foundation.

‘The Arabian Connection: UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia’
http://www.caat.org.uk/information/publications/countries/saudi-arabia.php

‘Back on the Torture Trail’, transcript of Dispatches documentary,
http://www.privacy.org/pi/reports/big_bro/dispatches.html

save preference

Comments (82 of 82)

Excellent Article

by yaralebo

Wed Aug 25, 2004 22:28

Lots of good background info, and will be good for anwering the inevitable moronic arguments that the people/media will pose in favour of the conference.

Someone should do this up as a pamphlet, or a synopsis on a poster for use before the conference.

Also would be good to blast it out to the various mainstream news agencies as a press release from DGN or whatever around the time to create some hub bub.

well

by paul c

Thu Aug 26, 2004 00:26

i dunno if this is possible but i think c was suggesting this too that we should make a hub bub about it as soon as possible... try and get it cancelled, (always worth a try) and then go again a week before the date

Leave them at it

by Ruairi

Thu Aug 26, 2004 13:04

Let them have their conference, freedom of speech and all that. Protest if you must of course.

Freedom of speech?

by Joe

Thu Aug 26, 2004 13:19

Err Ruari this isn't simply about speech. It's also a trade fair in which people who sell equipment which is used for torture and political repression meet up with people interested in buying such equipment. I don't see why we tolerate this any more than we would somebody opening up a slave market!

I know but

Thu Aug 26, 2004 13:27

Yes, but it's a recognised and important global trade-even if its one of the less savoury ones of course. There will always be a market for these things unfortunately. Just saying that people are allowed carry out their business even if it's not very palatable. Ireland is part of the defence community too so one of these conferences was bound to crop up eventually. Of course I understand your distaste with this but I've had dealings with these people for a few years now and they aren't as obnoxious as you you might think. In my experience anyway.

The people might be great...

by tintin

Thu Aug 26, 2004 13:39

Yes, the chaps that run the stalls and organise the fairs might be very "nice" people, in the same way Hitler was a family man with a loving wife and children who adored him - but the bottom line is they're dealing in a wholly despicable and evil trade and they shouldnt be allowed to sell their wares anywhere. Same way your local heroin dealer might be a decent bloke when you meet him down the pub, but when he's selling shit to people that kills them, you dont want to see that sale happen.

This conference needs to be shut down.

Well

Thu Aug 26, 2004 13:46

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one I think. In fairness it may seem like I'm defending the indefensible but less-lethal options I think are important-although I know they can still kill. The arms/defence trade is going to have conferences somewhere so I think on possible offence to local sensibilities levels this one ranks quite low-compared to the one that was just held in France anyway!!

Anyway, good luck with your efforts.

non-lethal weapons

by x - Dub. Grass. Net.

Thu Aug 26, 2004 14:31

Here's the "face" of non-lethal weapons. Imagine if the Garda had this sort of thing on them - do you think they would have even hestitated using them for a second, say, at the 2002 May RTS?? When the "violent" protesters were "getting out of hand"??

Click on the link below to read about the protest in San Francisco when the wooden bullets were used. And of course rubber bullets have been used in Ireland for years.

"Non-Lethal" projectile

The damage it does - from a distance

No need to go to US

Thu Aug 26, 2004 14:47

The 'less lethal' weapons have killed plenty of people in Ireland, 7 in 1981 for instance including 3 children. And according to families for justice "hundreds and perhaps thousands of people have been seriously injured by this [plastic bullet] weapon".

It's a mistake to assume they are used INSTEAD of a gun. Instead their 'less lethal' status means there is much less control over their use and they are used a lot more frequently. The low tech versions (batons) were used at the May 6th 2002 RTS and May 1st Summit protest, they were also used at the GR Burlington protest in late 2001. The RTS enquiry turned into a joke, there was not even the most tokenistic of enquiries into either of the others despite documentary evidence of serious injury.

From the families for justice website these are the details of the 3 kids killed in 1981. All 3 would probably be alive today (and maybe trolling on indymedia) were it not for 'less lethal weapons' as its unlikely the army/RUC would have dared to shoot real bullets at them. At the time 'less lethal weapons' were simply being used to terrorise the residents of what the British state saw as disloyal areas up north.

"Carol Ann Kelly, aged 12, was found by the coroner to be an innocent victim who had been walking home from a shop carrying a carton of milk.

Julie Livingstone, aged 14, was walking towards her home when she was hit in the head by a plastic bullet fired from an army saracen. She also was described by the inquest jury as “an innocent victim”

Paul Whitters, aged 15, was killed, and an independent investigation into his death conducted in 1982 by Lord Gifford, concluded that there was “no possible defence” for the boy’s killing. "

I understand your point guys . . .

Thu Aug 26, 2004 15:08

But as it stands these are legitimate businesses-they have a right to do business and you will try and stop them. It's a struggle that goes on and on. But do people accept, sad as it may be, that there will always be a market for both lethal and non-lethal weapons and munitions? I think the fight for regulation of these devices (as I think that some of them have a case for usage in certain circumstances) is the only fight that can be won because this trade will always exist.

If anyone thinks otherwise I admire their idealism but question their realism

Ruairi

by Chekov

Thu Aug 26, 2004 16:03

As Tintin pointed out above, you could make exactly the same arguments if there was a smack dealers jamboree planned for Dublin (that is a more important trade too). You're probably right that, like smack, this trade will exist as long as we have states and capitalism. However, that's no reason to just sit back and let heroin dealers destroy communities, or to let torture-equipment dealers trade with impunity. We can at least make life difficult for them and raise awareness about the nature of their profiteering.

And the argument about them being nice guys just stinks. Who cares? Pinochet or Hitler could have been good guys to have a beer with - people don't oppose them because they have nasty personalities.

Sounds like you've been mixing with the wrong company dude.

wtf

Thu Aug 26, 2004 16:24

AN APPRAISAL OF TECHNOLOGIES
OF POLITICAL CONTROL

now thats scary!

who is Ruairi

by dube

Thu Aug 26, 2004 16:28

"security consultant", hotel employee?

the last conference

Thu Aug 26, 2004 16:41

the last one was held in scotland , i looked around indy uk but all i found was calls for protests, nothing else perhaps they were just busy elsewhere...

Hey Ruairi

by Woz

Thu Aug 26, 2004 16:44

“do people accept, sad as it may be, that there will always be a market for both lethal and non-lethal weapons and munitions?”

No way. Not me I don’t. As a species we are immensely intelligent and I see no reason why we shouldn’t be able to achieve a society in which there’s no place for arms trading and no incentive to do so. I think it’s a long, long way off, but that’s no excuse for failing to work towards it.

All well and good

Thu Aug 26, 2004 16:59

However, I fail to see the logic in condemning less lethal alternatives outright at present since there is obviously a need for them in certain circumstances.

I've no great love for the cops, but if a cop is sent ( i repeat, sent) to confront an angry mob (no matter how justified their anger may be) if he is confronted by the lowest common denominator, which is violence then I can see the argument that he should have more power-as per his official role as 'guardian of the peace'-to disperse the protest. Of course, only if the protest becomes violent. I'm not taling about a taser for every cop, but if a protestor is packing a petrol bomb a cop needs more then a glorified stick-no?

I don't work in the Berkeley court hotel or in the arms industry by the way.

Please don't start the abuse that accompanies almost every debate on this site. We're just debating.

Woz

Thu Aug 26, 2004 17:00

Of course I agree with you. It's just so far away it's ahrd to picture sadly

Back in the real world

Thu Aug 26, 2004 17:04

Ruairi in your own words while I can 'admire your idealism' the picture you paint has no reality in the real world where these weapons are used. You can wish for a police force that only helps old women across the road and which only uses the minimum of force when confronted with a petrol bomb throwing mob but thats not how these weapons are used. They are used to torture people, to terrorise people and to break up protests. Thats what happened here and in every other country they are used.

Just look at who they have speaking on their use, the LAPD (remember Rodney King?) and the West Midlands police force (famous for framing the Birmingham 6 and dozens of others). We can wish that tanks were used as tractors to but it doesn't make arms dealers agriculturalists.

My Final words on this

Thu Aug 26, 2004 17:09

I know what you mean but I hardly think you could call the Gardai the Stasi. I think both the cops and the protesting public have a lot to do to clean up their image. Some protests here are nothing but violent timebombs with some highly dangerous and provocative people-a photographer friend of mine sporting quiet a nasty scar after the May Day protests. I have the same reservations as yourself in terms of what these devices may be used for, but sadly they seem to be an unavoidable alternative.

We'll just have to disagree on this folks. Good luck.

seeing the convention is coming up and there be some violence from cops

"but if a protestor is packing a petrol bomb"

but what are these situations

Lying in Wait
by David Graeber

This article was originally published in the April 19, 2004 issue of The
Nation. Its subject--police and media hysteria on the eve of major
protests--appears newly relevant as New York City prepares for the
Republican National Convention.--The Editors

....

It is a little-known fact that no one at an anti-globalization protest in
the United States has ever thrown a Molotov cocktail. Nor is there reason
to believe global justice activists have planted bombs, pelted cops with
bags of excrement or ripped up sidewalks to pummel them with chunks of
concrete, thrown acid in policemen's faces or shot at them with
wrist-rockets or water pistols full of urine or bleach. Certainly, none
have ever been arrested for doing so. Yet somehow, every time there is a
major mobilization, police and government officials begin warning the
public that this is exactly what they should expect. Every one of these
claims was broached in discussions of the protests against the Summit of
the Americas in Miami in November and used to justify extreme police
tactics, and we can expect to be hearing them again in the months before
the Republican convention protests in New York.

ott

Thu Aug 26, 2004 17:15

Some protests here are nothing but violent timebombs with some highly dangerous and provocative people-a photographer friend of mine sporting quiet a nasty scar after the May Day protests.

thats a little ott isn't it ?

if you believe that your another one of those journalist who's like listen guys im your side while going on tv desrcibing violent anrachists

info

Thu Aug 26, 2004 17:53

ruari
tell us about the conference in france?
please

mcdowell knows the lingo

by me agaiin

Thu Aug 26, 2004 18:03

i see that "Implementation Plan for the Introduction of Less Than Lethal Devices into An Garda Síochána". exist as a result of abbeylaragh...

and that when deputy gilmore asks about non-lethal weapons mc dowell replies less-than lethal weapons....

that current ltl weapons available to the eru are
Bean-Bag Shot.

Ferret 12 Gauge OC/CS Shotgun cartridge.

Pepper Spray Aerosol Projector.

...as of 2003

FYI

Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:32

Here's the link for next years tri-service defence conference

http://www.dsei.co.uk/review/exhibitor-list.htm

JUst been to this years eurosatory conference in France. These are basically conference with entire defence systems on display. I think you would all find it quite offensive. I suppose it is in ways.

I'm sure there's several Irish companies involved in next years conference. The link above should have a list. As you know we can't actually manufacture actual wepons since we're neutral.

There's an idea-Irish neutrality-discuss.

I'll get the ball rolling by declaring that irish neutrality is a load of total bollocks.

Neutrality

Fri Aug 27, 2004 11:00

We are not neutral and we probably never have been. Right now we provide the main air supply route for the US forces in Iraq.

We need to oppose militarism in all its form, including the 'less lethal' being discussed here. That is the real basis to oppose involvement in the Euro army etc not some fantasy neutrality.

I agree

Fri Aug 27, 2004 11:13

We are not neutral at all and should stop describing ourselves as so. We are currently on operations with NATO in Kosovo (and an excellent job the lads are doing). I don't want to be part of NATO but at least if we were we could avoid this ridiculous double standard of saying 'we're neutral, but look aren't they US troops in Shannon duty free.' At least then for once we would be calling a spade a spade.

I do however see the argument for Europe getting its military affairs in order and developes its own defence policy. I think the EU needs an airlift capability so its not relying on the yanks whenever we want a lift somewhere. I'm not saying we need this essentially for military intervention but also to expand its peacekeeping duties, which lets face it, is what we're best at.

I know I'm corrupting this thread about the conference but I just thought this might be interesting to discuss

will Minister Michael Smith - OR HIS SUCCESOR be attending?

by hmmm.

Sat Aug 28, 2004 20:52

since he seems to be having a non lethal tiff with Bertie.

here is the polished CV they gave him for EU ireland 2004. (remember that?)
http://www.eu2004.ie/templates/presidency_bio.asp?sNavlocator=5,14&list_id=2

here's what they're saying about him on Eircom (mobile phones are great aren't they?) "perplexed and pitying"
http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/3853599?view=Eircomnet

Here's when he and Bertie got along really well and talked about sending the rangers to Afghanistan to score the Tora Bora for Osama and the like 'twas December 23 2001-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,624303,00.html

Here's when he took over from Ray Burke (remember him?) and talked about "our boys in former Yugoslavia" (remember them?)
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/07/02/story31108.asp

Here's when they accused of him being a "consummate eejit"
http://www.unison.ie/southern_star/index.php3?ca=44&issue_id=11270

and Here's when he healed the rift with the Englanders-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/ 2004/08/09/nvc09.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/09/ixnewstop.html

What do you notice?
- "unison".
What does this mean?
- "the new FF with less of the consummate eejits".

Proof That The EU Has No Military Aspects!

by pat c

Wed Sep 01, 2004 16:56

1. Notices of vacancy for posts at the European Defence Agency are posted on http://ue.eu.int/contacts/job offers.

2.European Defence Agency is looking to recruit 4 Directors in
- Military Capabilities Development (Ref. EDA/A/2004/012)
-Research & Technology (Ref. EDA/A/2004/0029
-Aramaments (Ref.EDA/A/2004/0420
-Defence Industry & Market (Ref.EDA/A/2004/051)
Closing date 3 September 2004.

So????

by RK

Wed Sep 01, 2004 17:29

What's your point pat?

Wed Sep 01, 2004 18:01

If you care to read the opening article and the comments of this thread you will see that my contribution is relevant. It points to evidence that the EU is expanding its military role by appointing new high level staff to co-ordinate policy, procurement and development in the area of military equipment.

I see Pat

Wed Sep 01, 2004 18:12

It's about time they did that-don't you think?

Why am I a troll . . .

Wed Sep 01, 2004 18:23

For voicing my opinions. I think the EU needs its own military capability so it can carry out its own/interventions/pecekeeping etc without having to bum a lift from the yanks. The EDA is a newly set up agency which is a promising direction for the EU. I think Ireland should be a part of it and I hope that we are. What's the point in serving with NATO in Kosovo and then making noises about our sham neutrality. Which frankly is an embarassing joke at this stage. We'r enot neutral-let's stop pretending that we are.

Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:14

Intervention/peacekeeping where? At whose invitation?

The real reason for this development is the intention to turn the EU into a military superpower. To prepare it for the resource wars. To grab the natural resources of the Developing World under the guise of humanitarian intervention.

Are you really serious?

Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:53

Morning

Are you sure you know what you're talking about. The one point you did make about intervention is exactly what i'm talking about-we don't have a capability and we damn well need one.

The EU is taking over peace-monitoring operations in Bosnia for example from NATO, and it needs to get a cohesive military structure in place to do this. That's why Partnership for Peace and the European Rapid Reaction Force are such positive developments, not just for creating a proper military capability should, god forbid, it be needed. It is also important for European unity in getting something done and having our own capacity to project ourselves whether it be responding to another crisis in the Balkans, as opposed to having to ask the US for help again or supplying Irish and other European troops in Liberia.

It's about standing on our own two feet basically. While I don't think the EU will ever develop a military superpower status, it is important that we are perceived as a capable security/military strength. In fact it's vital. The so-called 'resource wars' such as Iraq are an example of military policy gone mad. The EU hopefully can develop their military powers in tandem with their unparalleled diplomatic powers. But the way of the world today requires that a fist must be available to put into the velvet glove when required.

If we don't do this, what'll happen is the Americans will fight and we'll have to provide the finance. We've grown soft under the blanket of American protection and need to wake up.

What's your vision, a realistic one please, of how the EU should feature on the world stage?

Do you really reckon the Irish battalion in Liberia are scoping out the countries natural resources on the sly?

Wake up, get off the fence and stop being so bloody paranoid people.

Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:18

You are the one who is rather naive.

Do you really think that the EU is developing these new capabilities so that it can carry out Humanitarian relief operations? Did you ever ask yourself why the NATO or the EU has never decided to intervene to stop the Israeli actions against the Palestinian People?

Do you have any idea how much money will be spent on developing these new implements of dextruction? How much will be spent on jets etc etc? If even a tiny fraction of this was spent on relief instead then the world would be a safer place.

BTW

Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:28

I dont think the EU has any positive role to play on the World stage. Its an assembly of gangsters whose sole purpose is to privatise everthing in sight.

And as for the Irish Battalion in Liberia. What role do you think they would play in the event of a Workers uprising? Would they help the Workers to dispossess the local capitalists and seize the assests of the multi-nationals? I think not. They are there to protect capitalism.

RK please get your facts straight

by Major Coutes-Britton

Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:36

Partnership for Peace is the agreement Irish troops serve in Bosnia under, it is run from SHAPE and is not a European thing. It is NATO-lite, no offensive incursion and no clause 5.

The EU is a military super-power. France and the Brit are massive in terms of military capabilities. And the I-ties aren't so bad.

What's all this about begging the yanks for an airlift? Some people read an article a year ago about the Gerries in Afghanistan? Well the problem hardly ever arises, either we rely on EU national capabilities or we lease the big-boys from the Ukraine. 'Excess capabilities' is being sold to you by the arms and war lobby and that's it. The EU could fuck the world bar the US, China, and Russia. I, for one, think that's good enough.

European military is vital

Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:44

It's a joke to cry foul and decry the death of a child in Sudan as an excuse to stop developing our defence capacities.

Military capability is as important as humanitarian aid as it is very difficult to implement one without the other.

Many European nations have a proud record of intervention and its an excellent base to develop our military power.

It's easy to use the military budgets as the scapegoat for everytime someone needs a hospital bed.

State security and military capability is a vital duty for every government. So short, of having each nation of the EU struggle to become bristling with arms the French and Germans have proposed that an avant-garde group of states with higher-level capabilities should harmonise military planning, pool capabilities etc. The Eurofighter project is a very exciting development for the EU.

Military Forces throughout the EU are also restructuring, mostly this means downsizing but it also means they are becoming focused on various aspects which they will specialise in under the PfP. For example the Czechs, renowned for their CBRN units, will develop this capabilioty ahead of its other military assets. The restructuring of military forces has seen the almost total end to conscription. So there will be now professional armies doing professional jobs. That puts paid to all the scaremongering about mass conscriptions etc.

I don't see why you would oppose European military development and integration. If we don't do it the Americans will still have to pick us up and carry us around. And on this site, they're probably more reviled then North Korea for some bizarre reason. In 2001 for example the EU had to get a lift to deploy its troops to Macedonia from the US. That sort of thing is just embarassing.

I think that the European Defence Agency will be a very positive development. Wait and see.

Apologies Major

Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:48

I meant to refer to Macedonia as the EU involvement mission wchich Ireland cannot participate in due to the "triple-lock". EUFOR will be the force in Bosnia as approved by NATO at the Istanbul summit. It will number about 7,000 troops. It is however an EU led force

Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:53

Workers uprising? Why would the soldiers bother. There function is to protect the state as per the constitution. The rest of us would just let you wander around town for a while and protest before going off too get buckled somewhere and then grab a big mac

Deluded ideas and unrealisable dreams

TK-Max

by Tony Coute-Britton

Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:56

'they are becoming focused on various aspects which they will specialise in under the PfP. For example the Czechs, renowned for their CBRN units, will develop this capabilioty ahead of its other military assets.'

And you know what the Irish specialise in?

Military Police, that's what they do in Bosnia, and that's what they'll continue to do. As described to me by a French Officer 'they stop us having a good time'. They also run the prisons. Lowest of the low, but we suck in up like good paddies.

Lovely.

Thu Sep 02, 2004 13:02

"Why would the soldiers bother. There function is to protect the state as per the constitution"

Perhaps you are unaware that Liberia is not a democracy. Revolutions do occur in such places. It seems that you are happy for Irish troops to support such a tyranny.

Your comments about big macs show just how much contempt you have for the "natives" that the Irish troops are protecting.

Thu Sep 02, 2004 13:04

protecting should have been - "protecting".

kosovo, liberia?

Thu Sep 02, 2004 13:06

Could be wrong here but I think we're finished with MP duties in Bosnia.

What about there work in Kosovo. Go there and see on the ground the excellent work that they do. Praised by the Swedes, Finns and French for their actions during the unrest there in March of this year. What about Liberia? What about observer missions in UNTSO? UNIFIL?

In the words of a prominent former US President the only nation who has never taken a day off in the duty of peacekeeping is Ireland.

We may not be big but a least we do something. If we had the capabilities we could do a whole lot more.

BTW, many military forces use the Irish bomb disposal robot (HOBO) developed in Cork. I know we all don't actually like the Israeli army but if it's good enough for them -and lets face it they need it-it must be a half decent creation.

I'm sorry

Thu Sep 02, 2004 13:09

My apologies. I thought you were referring to an Irish "workers uprising". My derisive comment was written with this ridiculous act in mind-not the Liberians obviously.

Thu Sep 02, 2004 13:50

OK. I should have guessed that. But even in Ireland the Army will be used against ordinary people. They were kept in reserve on 1 May at Phoenix Park. They were out in force in Clare during the Bush visit.

Troops are regularly used to scab during strikes*. The ultimate function of the Army is to protect the capitalist system. I do think you are viewing them through rose tinted glasses.

*Bus strikes, ESB strikes, Refuse workers, Oil/petrol delivery. These are all cases whicj I can think of where the army has been used.

re: RK

by ZXBarcalow

Thu Sep 02, 2004 14:58

"Many European nations have a proud record of intervention and its an excellent base to develop our military power."

Many European nations ought to hang their heads in shame for the way they behave on the world stage.

France has a long and bloody history of imperialism in South East Asia and Africa, and they gave Saddam a nuclear reactor, for fuck sake!

Britain fought a savage counterinsurgency war in Kenya killing 10,000 people, oversaw genocidal sanctions against Iraq, recently launched a totally illegal war based on lies, and has supported the overthrow of several foreign governments, including popular democratic ones. In Indonesia the Brits helped the military coup that brought Suhartop to power and which killed about a million people. They also support despotic regimes all over the world from Colombia to Uzbekistan.

The other European states, to the extent that they already have power, have abused that power again and again. The EU has supported corrupt dictatorships in North Africa, for example, in order to secure cheap access to natural gas. The EU states are some of the biggest arms dealers in the world.

"State security and military capability is a vital duty for every government."

This kind of statement could be used by any government to justify an aggressive military build-up, from Iran to Russia to China. Why must Europe have an even greater "military capability" than it already has? Is Algeria going to invade us?

"The Eurofighter project is a very exciting development for the EU."

The only threats Europe faces are from terrorists. How would fighter-bombers protect against terrorists? By bombing their countries? Oh yes, that would help decrease the terrorist threat, just like it has in Iraq.

"And on this site, [the US are] probably more reviled then North Korea for some bizarre reason."

This 'bizarre reason' might have something to do with the 26 countries the US has bombed since 1945, or the 40 foreign governments they have overthrown or attempted to overthrow, or the 30+ popular left-wong, nationalist or independence movements they have sought to crush by violence, or indeed maybe the millions upon millions of people that their interventions have killed over the past decades. Frankly, RK if people like you don't have a problem with any of this, then I shudder to think what you would have the EU do with its "exciting" new army.

Dear Pat and Zx

Thu Sep 02, 2004 17:29

In the hands of bad leaders, the military can be a terrible thing. In the hands of good leaders, military power is a powerful and very necessary aid and deterrent both for state security and foreign peacekeeping intervention.

ZX, by the way you have just confirmed the laughable state to which this site has sunk by saying that the US is a far more despicable nation then north korea. This is laughable. The USA is a wonderful country-unfortunately it has a total gobshite of a leader with a large military on his hands. As I've said above in the hands of a lunatic, the military is a very dangerous thing.

You refer back to the old colonial wars and well that was just the realpolitik of the day. It happened, get over it. Spain/France/Germany etc-have all done things to be ashamed of in the past, so what. This is now. Your view of the world is twisted, warped and unreal. Military power and cohesive military planning when used by responsible democratic governments is vital for Europe and it is now being realised and is being worked towards. So you've lost your argument against it. Deal with that!!

As for you Pat, at least you're on terra firma. My perception of them is formed through working with them (not for them) for a number of years. If you don't spend time getting to know them it's hard to see them as anything but guys with guns in uniforms, but they are an organisation we can be proud of. Their function is as an aid to the civil power-in our case the Gardai. That's why they were deployed for Bush and May 1st. It's their duty under our constitution. Let's face it, it's always better to have them and not need them then to need them and not have them.

Excuse Me

by What

Thu Sep 02, 2004 17:45

Seeing as you are so well informed and so quick to mock, could you please spell out exactly what Ireland needs a military for.

We don't need to provide peacekeepers, I suppose we want to. However misguided that may be.

We don't need to deploy them to bulk up the copper; I suppose we could just employ more coppers.

Obviously a military is used to defend from external threats.

Who do we need to defend our island from?
Who is likely to attack?

Role of the Irish army

by Badman

Thu Sep 02, 2004 17:47

The Irish army, in my lifetime has had several roles: 1. Enforcing imperialist invasions and settlements (Lebanon, Kosovo, Liberia) 2. Defending foreign war criminals against Irish people (Shannon, Mayday) 3. Breaking strikes (Bin workers strike in 1980's..) 4. Defending the population against potential invasions by our enemies, who are ummm.... penguins from Greenland? 5. Very occassional emergency functions (flood defences) 6. Importing drugs from their 'peace keeping' missions aluded to in 1 above. Of these functions only one, or debatably two depending on your stance on drugs, is useful, all of the others are simply serving powerful elites against the interests of ordinary people. The useful function could as well be carried out by unarmed boy scouts. Thank christ for the Irish army!

Glad to answer your question

Thu Sep 02, 2004 18:06

I'm quick to mock!! Listen Pal, I've getting it in the neck about this for ages. You ask why we need a military though and I'll gladly tell you.

We are unlikely to be invaded (god forbid) so you will see from the following that the roles of the defence forces have little to do with that. They have several vital, several useful and several not so useful tasks. This is verbatim from the military site by the way-apart from bits in brackets.

The roles of the Defence Forces as decided by Government (which is elected by the people so our troops are fulfilling a mandate from the people essentially) are:

1: to defend the State against armed aggression; this being a contingency (A very slight contingency) , preparations for its implementation will depend on an on-going Government assessment of the security and defence environment; (If it happens we as for someone else's help essentially!!)

to aid the civil power. meaning in practice to assist, when requested, the Garda Síochána, who have primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of the State. (This is a rare situation in that the Irish state have bequeathed the Gardai the use of the Defence Forces. This is for prisoner transport, cash escort, explosives escort etc. Basically whenever we need a guy with a gun)

(And you asked why we provide Peacekeepers? Well here it is below-it is a designated task as assigned by government)

to participate in multinational peace support, crisis management and humanitarian relief operations in support of the United Nations and under UN mandate, including regional security missions authorised by the UN;

(The defence forces run a UN training school in the curragh, one of the most highly regarded such establishments in the world. It holds courses for officers from many, many nations. Yes, our peacekeeping tradition is held in that high a regard)

to provide a fishery protection service in accordance with the State's obligations as a member of the EU;

(Handy when you're an island nation and people keep trying to rob the fish. Also, drug interdiction forms a large part of the work of the naval service)

(ancillary other useful tasks and shitty jobs below:)

to carry out such other duties as may be assigned to them from time to time, e.g. search and rescue, air ambulance service, Ministerial air transport service, assistance on the occasion of natural or other disasters, assistance in connection with the maintenance of essential services, assistance in combating oil pollution at sea.

Basically, it is important for a small, "neutral" (my @rse) nation like ourselves to have some way of projecting ourselves on the world stage. Our peacekeepers do an excellent job in dangerous and volatile places. These are no jollies in the sun let me tell you. Irish troops also have a very long, and colourful (i.e good and not so good) military tradition. There was a review some years back which has radically modernised and reshaped the army, resized it too-it's much smaller then before. In or around the 10,00 mark. This was done with the army deafness fiasco in mind-which highlighted how low morale was at that time. Today's member of the Defence Forces is highly motivated, well equipped, highly trained and highly regarded. Unlike their contemporaries in the hi-vis jackets and navy uniforms (u know who I'm talking about) they are an organisation we can unequivocably be proud of now.

Badman, you haven't a clue

Thu Sep 02, 2004 18:11

You've not a notion what ur talking about. Have you ever been to some of these places and seen what a peacekeeping operation overseas looks like. I have. You're talking shit. Keep your buffalo soldiers fantasies to yourselves.

I'm all for the defence forces doing strike duties. Would you all prefer if the government hired external contractors instead? Or would u just have the rubbish pile high on the streets??

Why can't a few people here just give credit where credit's due?

No RK, I do

Thu Sep 02, 2004 18:19

The fact that policing imperialist invasions is difficult doesn't mean that it isn't still policing imperialist invasions.

To be honest, though, your placid acceptance of the Irish army's role as a strike breaker against the Irish working class on behalf of the ruling class tells me all that I need to know about your views of the world. You clearly feel that working to impose the rule of our corrupt elite against the aspirations of the Irish ruling class is honourable - I don't.

penguins - are Antarctican you don't get them in Greenland or Kalaalir Nunat.

by being a stickler for little details.

Thu Sep 02, 2004 18:27

Greenland or Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenlandic)
or Grønland (Danish) does however have the Polar Bear which is an animal not found in the Antarctic. The coat of arms of Kalaallit Nunaat is indeed a polar bear.

And it's called "Nanoq Pillugu"

Kalaallit Nunaaters are proud of their solely peaceful history which has stretched for centuries, the country celebrated it's 1000 years of christian church building when Lief the Viking after bashing out my great great great great grannies brains in Finglas and burying her with that brooch (dont forget we want the brooch back now) [great work in finding it] {cheers!} went to found Lieftown on the southern coast of Greenland.

If you'd like to get invovled with the Kalaallisut independence complete independence struggle check out the site at the link-

Nanoq Pillugu.

Thu Sep 02, 2004 18:59

I don’t think you understand what I‘m saying, RK. Europe’s imperial role is not a thing of the distant past. The things I described happened very recently, and many of them are still going in today. Of course Europe has many other roles, and can do positive things. The same can be said for every world power. But in order to show that the EU would be trustworthy as a major military power, you would have to show that they don’t abuse the power that they have. Unfortunately, to the extent that the EU already is a major player in the world, it bases the use of its power on cynical Realpolitik and calculated self-interest, and often European militaries are used to further repression and injustice.

“ZX, by the way you have just confirmed the laughable state to which this site has sunk by saying that the US is a far more despicable nation then north korea. This is laughable. The USA is a wonderful country-unfortunately it has a total gobshite of a leader with a large military on his hands.”

No, RK -you have just brought the standard of this discussion down with your failure to distinguish between criticism of the foreign policy of a state and “saying that the US is a far more despicable nation than North Korea”. I have no idea how a “nation” could be despicable -I‘m concerned with the actions of state power. For the purposes of this discussion I don’t care much whether or not the US is a “wonderful country” or not. The fact remains that successive US governments have consistently carried out policies furthering tremendous violence and injustice in the past, long before Bush came to power.

Remember, RK it was YOU that first brought up comparisons between the US and North Korea, not anyone on this thread.

“Your view of the world is twisted, warped and unreal. Military power and cohesive military planning when used by responsible democratic governments is vital for Europe and it is now being realised and is being worked towards. So you've lost your argument against it. Deal with that!!”

TWO exclamation marks, RK? Is that supposed to compensate for a total lack of a cohesive argument? If we were face to face right now, I suppose you’d be shouting “Deal With That” in my face?

What RK

Thu Sep 02, 2004 21:06

An expanded coast guard, an expanded police force, perhaps a part time civil guard.

Those are the roles you explained to me, you did not tell me why we need a professional military. Why do we?

You even say that if we are invaded we ask for help, we don't need a military to do that do we?

Please tell me why we need a military?

Last words on this

Fri Sep 03, 2004 10:31

We need a military because we're a sovereign nation and the Defence Forces have clearly set out mandates by government as per our constitution.

I don't know what you mean 'What' but my own thoughts on it are this.

We need a military because of EOD roles, state security, aid to the civil power etc. We actually do need people who are specially trained combat professionals (in addition to explosive ordnance disposal, ARW etc) for this sort of thing as the Gardai can't do everything. We need a limited naval service for coastal patrol, fishery protection and drug interdiction. I think that's fairly obvious isn't it-we are an island nation. The tasks of the government set out the terms of our overseas operations and the fact that we have amassed so much valued experience we have an international duty to continue our roles. We do also have a need for a very small air corps wo we can train our pilots to carry out their government functions. This could mean flying the government jet or participating in air-sea rescue. It also maintains a cadre of trained pilots. We are currently in the process of procuring some new choppers too.

I'm not some sort of military train-spotter. I just don't understand who would have objections to Ireland maintaining her limited military/peacekeeping duties.

Just please try and learn a little bit about them before dismissing anyone who is trained with a weapon to be nothing more then a pawn of the state or whatever other rubbish most of the muppets on this site come up with. They really are execrable people with appalling views.

Anyway, that's my tuppence on the subject. Good luck.

Fri Sep 03, 2004 10:37

You didn't really make any arguments. When you do I'll try to answer them. Your one point about the EU having to prove itself as a force for positive change is fair enough-but how can it prove itself without the hardware and the capabilities. I'm not talking about world domination, just the simple tools we need since we are now essentially a unified european state. About time too.

Ps: we're unlikely to ever meet face to face.

Bye

RK again

Fri Sep 03, 2004 12:06

“You didn't really make any arguments. When you do I'll try to answer them.”

My argument was very clear, RK. I think you are trying to call off the discussion because you have no response to it. But I will reiterate it, in case you did actually miss it.

The EU is made up of countries that have horrible records in the past when it comes to foreign policy. I outlined a few of the more obvious abuses such as Britain in Iraq, France in Algeria (see also Rwanda), etc. Nothing the EU states have done with their own militaries suggests that if the EU had an army, it would be a force for good in the world. (This is not to say that European armies do not do good work as, say UN peace-keepers. But the same is true for Pakistan, and that does not mean Pakistan is to be trusted with a military power.)

The EU’s present foreign policy is based largely on cynical realpolitik and securing access to natural resources in the third world. This can be seen in its support for loathsome regimes in North Africa.

The EU’s record rubbishes your assertion that the EU would only use its military power for good. As I have pointed out, it has already used its power for immoral ends. There is no reason to suggest that the new EU army would be used any differently, unless you can show that actions in the past have been recognised as immoral, and the attitudes and interests that drive EU foreign policy have been changed since then.

“Your one point about the EU having to prove itself as a force for positive change is fair enough-but how can it prove itself without the hardware and the capabilities.”

You accuse me of having a “twisted, warped and unreal” view of things, yet you seem to think that the only way to bring about “positive change” in the world is through violence. The world’s problems do not stem from an insufficient amount of lethal killing machines, RK. Europe can help solve these problems by ways other than building more military equipment.

Since you want to prematurely terminate this discussion without answering any of my points, fine. That’s your choice.

need for the military

Fri Sep 03, 2004 12:24

RK's justification for the military simply amounts to 'because it says we should have one in some document' . Not a single practical reason is put forward, beyond the utopian and completely unrealistic one of intervening overseas to do good. In the light of all the evidence of several hundred European military interventions in the last 50 years, precisely none of which was aimed at 'doing good' and all of which were aimed at controlling access to resources - ie stealing from the poor of the world, we can easily dismiss RK's perspective as that of a wishful thinker and fantasist.

There is an article in the current issue of the Pheonix which details the fact that our current minister for defence has actually removed all of our military's air-sea rescue capability and contracted it out to private companies. So this use of the military no longer holds true.

The UN peace keeping missions that the Irish army has been involved in are also not useful in any real sense of the world. Each and every one of these has been purely about enforcing the settlements imposed by imperialist invaders against the local population.

Scabbing on strikers is not useful to anybody but the ruling class.

All of the other functions, such as responding to natural emergencies, or coastguards are much better carried out by voluntary and properly trained forces, not armed soldiers trained for war.

Even the task of importing drugs is currently better carried out by the drug squad of the gardai.

What can I say to this incoherent rubbish really

Fri Sep 03, 2004 12:48

It's true that air-sea rescue will be contracted out due to the lack of decent aircraft-that hardly counts as a mistake on the part of the military. The DF are always the first to feel the brunt if a budget gets pinched. However, it is still being done in many cases by ex-air corps pilots-another example of military training put to good use. Also, the DF will always have an involvement in air-sea resuce in terms of base usage etc.

The document you refer to is called a constitution. If that's not something you believe in, may be you can find some neo-fascist websites to post your incoherent ramblings on.

One question regarding our "useless" overseas involvement. You would have been quite happy to leave Kosovo and Liberia as they were would you? Have you even the slightest clue about how the world works and why foreign intervention was necessary in both of these places in addition to the rest of the Balkans. Were our UNIFIL troops also complicit in some "imperialist invasion."

How can you ridicule what I say when at least I'm addressing it within the frameworks of the modern world. You make no pojnt, you have no argument. The terrifying world which you envisage will never exist.

By the way, did you form all your opinions via Rage Against The Machine records. It certainly seems do.

My views being misrepresented

Fri Sep 03, 2004 12:52

I've done all I can. I realise now that it's pointless to try and get a view accepted here. I have never advocated violence btw. I've only said that we need a capability should it be required.

At the end of the day, it's my view of the EU that's being realised and not yours. Thank heavens for that.

Goodbye.

ok RK. Bye bye

Fri Sep 03, 2004 12:56

"I've done all I can. I realise now that it's pointless to try and get a view accepted here."

Translation:

"I have no arguments, merely assertions I can't back up. because of this, I am unable to convince anyone of my fantasies. I think I'll quit."

;-)

Whatever

Fri Sep 03, 2004 13:06

I've been doing this for days, you know that. I keep getting the same points from everybody and I keep reiterating my original points. I know they're not perfect, but I'm just putting my point across. You don't like it fine, I just consider it more realistic then yours. Read my posts, they are my arguments, and as I've said before it's my view which is currently realised at EU level. Hopefully with Irish involvement.

I don't see why you would try to translate my post. Apart from it being totally unfunny it's also unfair. If you want to play to the galleries fine.

One question for all of you though-why do you always write on the negativity of the past? Have you absolutely no hope for the future? I don't know what the future of Europe will be, but I do think that the best future is the hopeful discarding of all national ideals so we can become more European, more integrated and we can pool our resources, economic, military etc for positive change. I know optimism is banned on this site but I think it's the only way to live in times like this.

I'll probably get slaughtered for this of course.

Who's naive?

Fri Sep 03, 2004 13:09

Ignoring your petty insults, I'll try to respond to your fairy-tale view of the world.

For a start, our supreme court thinks our constitution is 'aspirational'. Secondly, the fact that it says that we should have an army in our constitution is not a practical reason for having one. You fail to see the distinction. If you think that we should have an army, you should be able to put forward a concrete use for the body, not just rely on the fact that it is written in a document, no matter how holy you think the document is.

If you know about the running down of our army's air sea defence capability, then you surely also know that it has not been caused by any resource squeeze, but by the fact that a much greater amount of resources are being diverted into integrating our army into the emerging EU army - a body that will undoubtedly continue the fine tradition of imperialist invasion. Or can you give me any reason to believe that there will be a sudden and complete turnaround in the patterns of overseas involvement by European nations?

I am not aware of any rage against the machine songs about Liberia or Kosovo, can you point me towards their writings on the subject?

The Irish army is in Kosovo in order to stabilise the political settlement imposed by the US in the aftermath of their final dismantling of Yugoslavia which was motivated by their dislike of Yugoslavian nationalist economic policies and their desire (shared particularly by Germany) to 'open' that region to neo-liberal capitalism. You will find an extremely detailed analysis of this documented by some of the best-informed balkan commentators at: http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/kosovo.htm

The Irish army is in Liberia in order to impose the rule of the new US client regime in the aftermath of their invasion and replacement of the old US client regime after Charles Taylor became disobedient. You will find this documented and argued at length on this very site: http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60648

The Irish army was in Lebanon, in order to stabilise and copperfasten Israel's illegal invasion and illegal occupation of the Southern portion of the country.

Now, I suppose that you think the Irish army is in these far-flung places in order to "do good". What a simple fairytale world you must live in!

Tell me, in your world, do the imperialist powers with veto power on the UN security council sit around and ask each other "how can we do good today"? Is there any way for the rest of us to get into your world? Maybe it is only open to the Irish soldiers who served in the leb and get their lungs full of leb too?

Badman

Fri Sep 03, 2004 13:19

Hey, fair enough-I didn't mean to insult you.

Was there no ethnic cleansing or civil war in Liberia and Kosovo prior to intervention. Is there any now? Are these places not better because of it. I do not concur with your US conspiracy theories regarding the fragmentation of Yugoslavia. It's break-up is the result of age-old ethnic hatreds held in check by the eastern bloc. Is it just coincidence that when the bloc collapsed, so did Yugoslavia.

The UN security council is an imperfect organ in its very makepup, I know that. But it's what we have. What would your alternative be? No permanent members, longer rotation? I just want to know

BTW, I consider aspirational to be quite a good thing. Instead of slamming the constitution we have, what would you recommend we have instead?

I'm just trying to see what your alternatives would be?

I don't see why you have a problem with us having the milited naval/air/army capability that we have? What about our UN school for foreign troops/ Do you object to that too.

Fri Sep 03, 2004 17:16

“One question for all of you though-why do you always write on the negativity of the past? Have you absolutely no hope for the future?”

I have a lot of hope for a better future, and my political activism is in the hope of in some way helping bring this about. I just don’t have much hope that Western armies will bring it. They almost never have before, and its unlikely they will in the future.

“One question for all of you though-why do you always write on the negativity of the past?”

Again, as I’ve said it is not the “negativity of the past” –it is still going on today. The west still use their military power to promote their strategic/economic interests and this is often at the expense of people in the third world. They use their economic weight to push around these countries too, and force them to adopt economic policies which benefit western multinationals and investors. I don’t see why states that very often act as gangsters and bullies on the world stage can be trusted with a powerful army, particularly when these countries are under absolutely no threat of attack from any other nation that would necessitate having such an army.

Hypothetically of course, an EU army could be used solely for peace-keeping and the like, but I see no reason to believe that a militarised EU would act any differently from other western powers like the UK, France, the US, etc (and to a lesser extent other European states) do with their militaries.

One question for you, though: Why do you keep declaring the discussion over and then changing your mind?

Ho hum

Fri Sep 03, 2004 17:24

"I do not concur with your US conspiracy theories regarding the fragmentation of Yugoslavia. "

I suppose that you'd say the NATO bombing campaign against Serbia was just my imagination or was carried out by little green aliens then?

So, why do you think that the US and their European allies spent a huge amount of money bombing the shit out of serbia? You don't think that it was 'doing good', do you? Coz, if you do, I'm afraid that your back in your fantasy land. If you care to read some of the sources that I pointed you towards, you would find that the bombing campaign, as predicted, made the ethnic violence many times worse, destroyed much of Serbia's infrastructure, killed many of the people that it was ostensibly trying to save and has done nothing to resolve the ethnic tension in the area.

Now I, and several Balkan commentators, have put forward a rational and internally consistent explanation to this phenomenon. You have just swallowed the patently false pr that the imperialist put out to justify it. Who needs a dose of realism again?

Hmmm

Fri Sep 03, 2004 17:30

I don't know. Just can't let it go I suppose. I do think we're all being too negative here. I've never said militarism is the way forward, I just think a cohesive military structure shared across all states is an important of a stronger, cohesive European Union.

Military elements also constitute a key part of internal state security so it's not the traditional invasion/repel invasion scenario anymore.

Basically I think when we talk about developing a European Military entity you say we can't and we shouldn't, I say we should, we can and we are. I also think that we've flagrantly abused our neutrality to such an extent that we can't call ourselves that anymore. It's not just Shannon either. There is all sorts of political duplicity in what we say and what we do. We should be part of NATO and end this dithering. There, I've said it.

And that argument could run and run.

I'll try and keep to my word and shut up on this now,

Fri Sep 03, 2004 17:33

Tut ,tut. Those big bad yanks again. Go to Kosovo and talk to people there-find out what it was like for them before and ascertain if they think there quality of life has improved. While there try and get first hand experience of what peace keeping actually means and see it in action. Come back to me then and we'll have a chat.

You can fly with Malev to Budapest and then it's an hour onward connection to Pristina. Look forward to your report.

Ah now!

by R.Isible

Fri Sep 03, 2004 18:12

RK, you earlier posited the need for "non-lethal" weapons and the point was made to you (by me, see the URI below) that in the situation where (using the example given) "some scumbag with a shotgun" confronts a guard, then the guard needs pepper-spray. I pointed out, and you haven't yet provided a response, that the guard would be in trouble.

You also made light of the broken arms and bloody noses that result from one of the "non-lethal" weapons: a water cannon deployed during Mayday 2004.

Given your response there it would seem that the advocates of these weapons (as exemplified by you) are exactly the people that shouldn't have access to them. There's no reason to suspect that you're any worse or better than the members of the Irish defence-forces in general.

Soldiers and police are desensitised to violence and need to be kept on a tight leash and not be given access to equipment expressly designed to torture people.

Non-Lethal Weapons

Fri Sep 03, 2004 18:42

That's a long time ago on this thread. I'll walk past you guys and give a wave on the way into this conference. IT's still going ahead, was on the phone to the organisers today. 2 nice nights in the Berkeley court. Grand.

Great, so we have a public record

Fri Sep 03, 2004 18:50

of your complete intellectual capitulation and your trolling intent. I love it! You can't defend yourself against the points made by "Badman" and "ZXBarcalow" and you can't defend yourself against the point made by me in response to your question and so you resort to avoiding it and trying to divert the issue. Glad to see you admit tacitly that you're completely wrong and have no logical or factual basis for your advocacy of torture weapons.

OoooH

Fri Sep 03, 2004 19:32

Well you didn't participate in said discussion and vanished rather quickly. As for the other lads, we've had our words and you weren't involved. Good bye now. Don't try and take any credit for their opinions, they express them a lot more coherently then yours.

Ps; don't worry, I've heard enough to post a report of what the conference is actually like. I do respect your opinions, but I care more about living my life. The conference will happen, you won't be there, I will. No-one will listen to you. Hope it doesnt rain.

our neighbours of course have lots of non-lethal weapons at their disposal.

by o as if

Sat Sep 04, 2004 20:56

And have in London used one, the "stun gun" three times this year. The last incident being reported yesterday-
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=66454&type=otherpress

Sun Sep 05, 2004 01:31

"I've heard enough to post a report of what the conference is actually like"

what does that mean , you heard from who us? are you written your articel before you went?

numerous reports of arms trade in ireland and the eu

Mon Sep 06, 2004 15:36

http://www.amnesty.ie/user/content/view/full/576

Couple of points

by Yossarian

Wed Sep 08, 2004 13:24

1. Regarding the helicopter contract: the contract has been retendered following legal challenges to the decision for the original tender. However the new tender is different top the old in that the helicopters the DoD is now looking for have no search and rescue capability. Funnily enough, as mentioned previously, the government has removed the search and rescue role (the only significant non-combat role) of the airforce and handed it to a private company. For profit search and rescue - that's what we want isn't it? So that we can pursue war games with the big boys?

2. RK stated that "Military elements also constitute a key part of internal state security". I disagree unless you're talking about a dictatorship or fascist type government. Even in neo-liberal THEORY (not practice, obviously), a fully accountable police force is the key element in internal security. In some countries (like the US [again, theoretically, not in practice], not sure about this country) the military is forbidden to act internally.

Yossarian

Wed Sep 08, 2004 13:31

At the risk of getting sucked back into this . . .

Internal state security: I may have phrased this badly originally but part of our Defence Forces role is as 'An aid to the civil power" which is the Gardai. So under Garda direction they can me mobilised internally, prisoner escort, explosives escort, court security, May Day etc. That's how it works here.

Helicopters: Our new choppers will be for light lift, troop insertion as per our training an capavility obligations as part of the new European defence architecture. The Air/Sea rescue capability is on the long finger due to the contract cancellation two years back. It's a job that DF pilots are trained for.

Helicopter Contracts

Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:40

The point about the helicopter contract is that originally it was for 5 'copters with a search and rescue capability. Now it's for 5 'copters with no search and rescue capability.
Search and rescue was the only useful job for the Air Force. Now that's gone, they're gearing up to fight Europes imperial wars.

British police to get Stun guns.

by iosaf

Wed Sep 15, 2004 19:30

they fire needles into your arse at 20 paces and fry it with a few thousand volts at non lethal wattage or ampere value.

Plastic Bullets have no place in policing

by SF PR

Sat Sep 18, 2004 20:35

"The Policing Board have bankrolled the purchase of Plastic Bullets for the past three years. What we have seen is that the policing board have continued to sanction the use of these lethal weapons with the purchase of 50,000 plastic bullets in 2002, another 50,000 in 2003 and 20,000 in 2004 so far. The SDLP, because of their position on the Board, need to provide clarity on their position in regards to these purchases.

"The issue here is very clear. These deadly weapons, that have been responsible for over 17 deaths and countless other injuries, need to be withdrawn immediately. Plastic Bullets have no place in modern policing and are certainly not part of the Patten recommendations. The purchase of 120,000 plastic bullets since 2002 only serves to highlight how far we have to go to fully implement Patten.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Repression Conference Planned for Dublin in October

Comments (82 of 82)