/éire/ + /celt/ = /thelads/

familiy tree edition
post yours lads

Other urls found in this thread:

politico.eu/article/uk-conservatives-to-increase-defense-spending/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Forces_(Ireland)
youtube.com/watch?v=rDyb_alTkMQ
irishexaminer.com/ireland/passenger-planes-dodged-russian-bombers-315623.html
independent.ie/irish-news/russian-nuclear-bomber-planes-fly-off-west-coast-of-ireland-as-british-typhoon-fighters-scrambled-30949988.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>foreign grandparents
>*nglish grandparents

Your grandparents on your mothers side really fucked up didnt they? You fucking half brit bastard. Would flog you out of the country if i could.

I dontk now my family history beyond my grandparents.

he was a jockey that came here to race horses
the ladies must've swooned

Daily reminder that the true Irish are the Iberians who came here before the c*lt filth. Norman surnames and pale skin are massive red flags that you don't belong on my island.

Manlet genetics confirmed.

>Graf pic
When frogweeb returns to Ireland there will be chaos in these threads.

I'm 6'1 thanks to my father
my mams brother is 5'11 so its not that small

>tfw welsh surname
>will never be fully Irish
>only hope is I only have daughters and they marry men with strong Gaelic names
>tfw women in the future will be against taking their husband's name like women now are starting to
>tfw disgraceful legacy forever

>chaos
I will finally have the opportunity to depose that false pretender.

>tfw my surname is both Gaelic, english and scottish, all originating from their independent countries.

False pretender to what?

my surname is Irish but its been anglicised

The Graf throne.

>have Irish first name
>teacher in primary one day said let's go around the room and give our names in english
>I say the english version of my name
>everyone laughs, thinking it was a joke
>teacher gives out to me
I still don't get why she specifically said give our names in english.

He seems pretty dedicated to his waifu. you might be playing with fire here.

He'll roll over easily, after all, he can't fight for her since in his own logic fighting would make him a knacker.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was willing to make an exception for her.

that said, wasn't he saying that he was planning to post anonymously when he goes home at the end of May?

Frog impersonators will be hanged.

Let's see how long that holds up. Since he never adopted a trip it'll be impossible for him to prove his identity, though considering the sheer fucking amount of pictures he has I'm sure everyone's doubts would subside if he screencapped his Graf folder.

>Since he never adopted a trip it'll be impossible for him to prove his identity
Despite his personality faggotry, he never seemed to want to solidify his identity in / éire/ like that.
>though considering the sheer fucking amount of pictures he has I'm sure everyone's doubts would subside if he screencapped his Graf folder.
Better still, get him to post his Kantai Collection folder. Graf isn't the only girl from the franchise he likes to post, she's just his favourite.

HELLO IRISH BROTHERS. CASEY-CLAN HERE 100% IRISH YESSIR

howya

>dead on friday night
/éire/ confirmed normie general

politico.eu/article/uk-conservatives-to-increase-defense-spending/

tfw the National Party won't commit to spending 2% of GDP on defence and creating a highly equipped and well-trained Gaelic Army.

As if we didn't know that already. Still, I'm surprised that it's almost every Friday, surely even the normalfags here wouldn't go out every weekend. Maybe wagecucks are just tired from the week.

>expecting anything from a meme party

The Tories aren't a meme party.

good
our army does nothing but help the (((un)))

tfw Ireland will never buy Montserrat from the poor locals and turn it into a military outpost
tfw An Fórsa Gaelach will never be a significant Middle Power in Europe and abroad
tfw Ireland will never be able to flexible its muscles to extract beneficial deals through gunboat diplomacy

Why do we even live?

An tAontas Gaelach MUST become a reality

That will never happen.

Theres a better chance of a more closely integrated EU, which remains the only vector by which ireland could hope to apply soft power. We're just too small and economically undifferentiated to have sway outside it

>We're just too small and economically undifferentiated to have sway outside it
That's a meme.

We just need to channel our budget more efficiently. Our Foreign Aid budget is like €700 million, we should be focusing it into some key areas - launching investment funds into 3-4 small economies and trying to buy their loyalty.

Backing it up with a credible "first-strike" capability. Most countries in South/Central America or Africa are too poor to have any sort of military. You wouldn't need more than a dozen F-16s in order to knock Venezuela and Colombia the fuck out.

The diplomatic pressure would be from other Western powers or China, and the UN.

Giving more power to the EU is just giving more power to the larger countries - it's Germany, France, and Italy who benefit.

Like, if we can't leverage against Venezuela, how on earth do you propose we get something from a "more closely integrated EU" when the economic disparity is EVEN MORE against us?

In the same way kerry benefits from dublin and cork, leech off the economic centres. We hope for a federalised eurozone and budget.

>federalisation
How's about we send you back to Poland?

I can't speak polish though

>We hope for a federalised eurozone and budget.
yeah its going to be so great when theres a common tax policy thus there being no reason for any corporations to ever set up in Ireland
A federal Europe would be a disaster for us. We offer nothing that Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden or Denmark doesn't and we're an island which just makes travel awkward in a federal europe

Sounds interesting.
But can the navy even stop fishers stealing our fish?

Of course it can't. The military is starved of funding at the minute, we spend like 0.3% of GDP on defence. The recommended amount is almost 7 times that.

If we spent 1.5-2% of GDP on defence, we'd very easily be able to maintain a token air force of 24 JAS 39s and a bitchin' ass navy.

>we spend like 0.3% of GDP on defence.
we spend 0.8%
>The recommended amount is almost 7 times that.
what recommended amount? The NATO recommended 2%? We aren't in NATO
the army servers literally no purpose here.

Should also be noted that our GDP figures are inflated due to the presence of large American multinationals. Whilst GDP might correspond to wealth and government income in other countries, it certainly doesn't here.

>we spend 0.8%
You're a few years late on that one, sonny.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Forces_(Ireland)
>Percent of GDP 0.39% (FY2015)

If we're going by 2016 then it's lower (the 2017 budget gave another €16 million). Much lower. It comes out to about $1 billion (€1=$1.0987).

$1 billion, out of a GDP of $310 billion.

That's 0.32%

>We aren't in NATO
And that makes their recommendations or guidelines less correct?

>And that makes their recommendations or guidelines less correct?
yes because we have literally no threats

>yes because we have literally no threats
Ah yes, because you make 10 or 15 year defence plans based on the current atmosphere.

After all, when your house is on fire, it's only THEN that you try to organise house insurance.

Countries in NATO are much more at risk than us. If they deem 2% to be their target for safety, and we are less susceptible to risk, ours should be logically be lower than 2%.
Also this our GDP is skewed, more so than other countries and it isn't representative of our income.

How many times in the last 100 years have we used our army for defence? And how many times have NATO counties used theirs for either offence or defence?
That should tell you why we don't need to spend 2%.

yeah but we're too small to ever defend ourselves adequately. I'm not saying we should scrap all defence forces, the structure needs to remain in place just in case anything ever does happen and a small army is needed in the case of natural disasters and stuff. But really, spending 2% of our GDP is pointless.

>and we are less susceptible to risk
We aren't though. "Neutrality" is a meme that we perpetuate to the public, we're seen by any of NATO's potential rivals as de facto NATO members.

I also don't think NATO members are experiencing seven times more risk than us (0.3% to 2%).

Even accounting for the skewing of GDP, we're still significantly below where we should be.

>How many times in the last 100 years have we used our army for defence?
The entirety of the Troubles, you fucking mongoloid. Do you think it was Padraig the country Garda involved in it?

>we're too small to ever defend ourselves adequately
"If a dude wants to rape me I'm just going to let it happen because I'm too small to stop him".

Are you a literal faggot? The point of having a military as a deterrent isn't to be able to defeat anyone - it's to make the cost of invasion higher than the rewards reaped.

>the Troubles
Ya, we really needed 50,000 soldiers, tanks, jets and naval vessels for that...

The Brits rotated 30,000 through NI during it and couldn't contain it, Tomasz.

>The Brits
Yes, because it was a part of the UK. What were we going to do with 50,000 soldiers and other military equipment in the Republic?

HI GUYS I AM DRUNK LOL

just wanna say that i love you all and everyone in this thread maintains a place in my heart that is dear to me and cherished (even frogweeb)

You might as well ask what we're going to do with 500 million soldiers as well, since you're pulling numbers out of your hole that nobody's made mention of except yourself.

I think I made a post just like this when I was drunk a few months back. Sobriety is the cancer that is killing /éire/.

If we are aiming to spend seven times more money on our military that may be how many we have. We currently have around 7,000.
The number is irrelevant. What were we going to do with any number of soldiers, aircraft and tanks?

I vehemently agree with you my friend. Soberposting is a disgusting blight.


This song goes out to my one true love, Jaggy:
youtube.com/watch?v=rDyb_alTkMQ

>We currently have around 7,000
You don't increase the capabilities of a military by simply adding more people... Are you fucking 16 or something? You increase the capacity by buying better hardware - jet aircraft, radar, AA, larger naval vessels...

Only a fucking moron thinks a larger budget necessitates a similar increase in manpower, when the current manpower is strapped for equipment.

Is Ireland anything like it's presented in James Joyce's Ulysses?

Fair enough. Now would you like to answer my question.

No, because the question is deliberately pointless. What does any country use its equipment for? Dropping kids to school?

>What does any country use its equipment for? Dropping kids to school?
Are fucking incapable of answer a simple question you autistic cunt?
I'm going to assume you wanted to invade Northern Ireland, because you can't answer my question, in which case it is perhaps the most idiotic idea I've heard on here all week.

Because the question is pointless you mongoloid.

>I'm going to assume you wanted to invade Northern Ireland

>why do you want car insurance are you planning on crashing your car???
>why do you want house insurance are you planning on setting your room on fire???

Go back to school, Lukasz.

looking for the threadfor the recently deceased.

if you are constipated and don't want to take a laxative, a lot of ginger will help with peristalsis

>the question is pointless
No it isn't. Who were we going to be fighting, during the Troubles, that we needed to spend vast sums of money on radar, aircraft, AA and naval vessels?

ANGLO'D

You don't make 10-15 year policy based on the short-term or the current climate, retard.

Do you think Norway is buying F-35s because they're planning on launching an air invasion of fucking Sweden? Do you think Denmark upkeeps 12,500 men because they're expecting an imminent repeat of Schelswig-Holstein?

The Irish Army is starved of funding - so much so that it took several days to find a crashed helicopter.

The Army has a handful of howitzers, the Aer Corps lacks any fast jets, the Navy's heaviest ship is 1900 fucking tonnes (which is fucking babby-tier considering we're responsible for 900,000 km2 of ocean).

Your only argument has been >dude what are you gonna do with 5 million men invade Northern Ireland??

Fucking Fine Gall, away back to your hovel.

I'm not reading whatever autistic spasm you just printed on my screen, but I asked you for a single period of time in the last 100 years in which we really needed any of the equipment you listed.
The answer is none. I'm not opposed to increased military spending but we are much less at risk than any of the countries you listed or NATO members.

>FG
Try again.

>anime
Well that explains everything kek, you fucking loser.

>I'm not reading whatever autistic spasm you just printed on my screen
If we start saying this then /éire/ is doomed.

Well to be fair I don't typically engage with most of the autistic posters. And I tend to skim over the thread when things seem to be going downhill.
A lack of anime images is usually a good sign to stay away.

Joke's on you, I'm the most autistic poster here.

>we are much less at risk than any of the countries you listed or NATO members.
Why do you think we're at much less risk than the Scandinavians? Sure they're in NATO If someone decides to attack NATO they won't just leave Ireland alone. If anything because it's not part of it it would be easier to attack with little defence there first, and then they could base themselves there, particularly as it's isolated by water and is on the edge of Europe.

noonyBOY?

>Why do you think we're at much less risk than the Scandinavians?
Neither Sweden nor Finland are members of NATO either, yet both of them maintain significant a military.

During the Cold War, Sweden maintained the third largest air force in the world.

Why is youtube's search so shit? I know search engines are probably hard things to program, but youtube is owned by one of the richest tech companies out there and they specialize in search engines.

Shit, I forgot them, I was just thinking about Norway and Denmark. Austria and a couple of others aren't in it either and they're not protected because they're not in NATO. Sweden probably had a case being beside the Soviets though, but we're on the edge of Europe which could be the easiest entry point for a future invasion.

>Why do you think we're at much less risk than the Scandinavians?
As the poster above indicated, Sweden and Finland are not in NATO. The main military threat in Europe, apart from terrorism, is Russia. Russia have always had ambitions in Scandinavia, especially Finland. The Russians are constantly taunting them, for lack of a better word, violating their airspace, entering their waters and spying on them. We have no comparable rival.

>they won't just leave Ireland alone
They might. We have no natural resources to offer and pose no threat.

>would be easier to attack
The rest of NATO are almost guaranteed to come to our aid. It is in their best interests to not have an enemy launchpad within such close range.

>violating their airspace
Yep. Totally never happened here.
irishexaminer.com/ireland/passenger-planes-dodged-russian-bombers-315623.html

independent.ie/irish-news/russian-nuclear-bomber-planes-fly-off-west-coast-of-ireland-as-british-typhoon-fighters-scrambled-30949988.html

>The rest of NATO are almost guaranteed to come to our aid
Both Britain and the US signed a MoU with Ukraine that they would guarantee its territorial integrity in the event of them giving up their nuclear stockpile.

They didn't.

Now, the US and UK both had compelling reasons to intervene in Ukraine, but they didn't. Because they're not willing to risk a nuclear exchange over a small country.

If they wouldn't honour an agreement they had with a country, what makes you think they'll help one that they don't have such an agreement with?

Sure, the British might funnel firearms to an IRA-type outfit but they've no reason to actually send combat troops or engage Russia in any way whatsoever.

Your argument hinges on the good will of foreign powers who don't give a fuck about people they have agreements with, nevermind a country they don't.

>We have no comparable rival.
No, but we did have an issue a few years ago with a Russian plane in Irish airspace, so we can be taunted too.
>We have no natural resources to offer and pose no threat.
Sweden and Finland have more resources but we have a few gas fields and some other metals like Zinc which are more plentiful here, it's not very much though. Being no threat is exactly the reason a full invasion may take place as it's an easy target unlike Finland or Sweden who have defences, and as I said it's a place to organise for a future invasion, in the case of Russia going above Scandinavia and south would get you to Ireland via the ocean easily enough. You could give 10% of the people who go to an All Ireland a gun and they could take over the country if they felt like it, there's very little here to stop them.
>The rest of NATO are almost guaranteed to come to our aid. It is in their best interests to not have an enemy launchpad within such close range.
They probably would but that doesn't invalidate the lack of any defences we have, even basic shit like a half decent navy for all our territorial waters, Sweden and Finland have defences while not being in NATO, even if they require a few more than us right now.

The UK, or any other western European country for that matter, are not going to allow the Russians to setup in Ireland. Allowing the Russians to setup missile silos within a few hundred kilometers of them would be suicidal.
The USA is also not going to allow Ireland, with the amount of political clout we have over there, be invaded.
Also don't forget as a member of the EU we can call upon the mutual defence clause, which compels other EU member states to come to our aid when under attack.

>but we did have an issue a few years ago with a Russian plane in Irish airspace
This is an almost monthly occurrence in Sweden.

>give 10% of the people who go to an All Ireland a gun
We have armoured vehicles that a simple gun couldn't penetrate. If we are to follow your logic, the number of guns in the US and the almost unlimited access to them means the US is ready to be taken over any minute now. In fact you can legally own a tank in many parts of the US.

You're assuming again that they will bail us out, even if that is unlikely that doesn't mean we should be spending as little as we do on our defences.
In a large scale war situation nobody will care if little Ireland gets attacked, as there will be far larger concerns for the UK, US and the rest of the EU to worry about. However likewise the same could be said for the invader, if Ireland wasn't the priority for them with a half decent defence force you could atleast repel a section of a larger force where the rest of the forces might be concentrating elsewhere, and could leave us alone for a time anyway, if it was the main concern we'd be fucked though.
You're also ignoring the case that the US, UK or the EU might just decide to set up shop here and take control during a large war like what happened with Iceland during WWII, that's not particularly beneficial for us either, and in that case in your logic where places with defence forces are seen as a threat then we would be more likely to be attacked.

>which compels other EU member states to come to our aid when under attack
Wrong. We explicitly refused to sign it when those were the terms.

Instead, a country can request the aid of another member - when France invoked it we didn't join them in fighting in Syria, instead we took over some of their roles in UN missions to alleviate the pressure on their military.

>This is an almost monthly occurrence in Sweden.
They have defences to counter that if they get further though.
>We have armoured vehicles that a simple gun couldn't penetrate.
Okay, I did exaggerate that though, the idea is still the same.
>If we are to follow your logic, the number of guns in the US and the almost unlimited access to them means the US is ready to be taken over any minute now. In fact you can legally own a tank in many parts of the US.
No that's a false equivalence, the point I was making was the Irish forces wouldn't be able to stop a force that's a bit bigger than I described and had something to penetrate basic tanks, the US army is much stronger and could stop an equivalent scaled up force in the US. The number of useable tanks civillains own is probably far less than the military have too.

We all agree that we would like a much larger military. The point is are we willing to sacrifice spending elsewhere, or significantly increase taxes to pay for it? We are discussing scenarios that have never happened in the past 100 years, even during WWII when it would have most likely happened, or are likely to happen in the future.
Imagine the billions that would have been wasted over the past century on military hardware that would never have been used. WWI, WWII and the Cold War, the largest conflicts in history when the argument for increased military spending would have seemed much more logical. I think we should increase spending but let's now overestimate our risk. We make up 0.06% of the world's population and will be unable to stand up to any sizeable aggressor. Investments in counter-terrorism would be a much more valuable in my opinion.

>Imagine the billions that would have been wasted
Nigga do you think the money just up and fucking vanishes? It's like complaining about the cost of sending a rover to Mars. The money is still in the economy, it's not like it's gone forever.

You can argue about the "peace dividend", but I'd direct you to the theory of military Keynesianism. We could domestically produce a significant portion of our equipment and export excesses (like Sweden).

If you're going to argue about the cost of maintaining a military, it costs more to develop one than to maintain one. It's like a car engine, turning it off and on periodically will use up more fuel than turning it on and leaving it on over the same period of time.

>Nigga do you think the money just up and fucking vanishes?
All that equipment rusts and breaks and becomes obsolete very quickly.

>The money is still in the economy
That's assuming we're making weapons ourselves, even if we had a weapons industry we'd still likely import most of our shit.

yes but only in the early 20th century

>and becomes obsolete very quickly.
No it doesn't. The Challenger 2 has been in operation since 1998 and is still one of the best tanks in service. The F-16 has been around since the fucking 1970s and is still a highly efficient machine - the F35 is only just starting to replace it.

Equipment like aircraft, tanks, and naval vessels can last anywhere from 20 to 50 years - the fucking Brazilians are still using a carrier from the 60s.

>That's assuming we're making weapons ourselves
If we had maintained a proper military industry prior to independence, there's no reason to presume we wouldn't be. Sweden produces its own IFVs and aircraft, for Christ sake.

>The point is are we willing to sacrifice spending elsewhere, or significantly increase taxes to pay for it?
Not with any of the gobshites we have in charge or who will be in the future, all they want is to cut taxes and increase welfare and HSE spending at the same time to increase their votes in the short term. Those funds go nowhere either, in health especially we're one of the highest spenders in that in the OECD but have one of the worst outputs of those, we just shovel billions into that every year too.
>Investments in counter-terrorism would be a much more valuable in my opinion.
That's part of increasing funding in defences. We should increase it to a point where we aren't a massive gaping hole in the defences of Europe, if anyone wants to get to the heart of Europe Ireland is one of the weakest points of entry, it should be patched up enough to get rid of that, as well as having enough of a navy and anti-air stuff where we could at least have a shot of defending ourselves or ward off shit like the Russians in our airspace without relying on the UK.

>If we had maintained a proper military industry prior to independence, there's no reason to presume we wouldn't be.
We would have to import most of the raw materials to make them which would make our costs increase as we don't have most of them here, but we wouldn't have the problem of the initial costs of setting those industries up like we have now, we'd be spending more than the Swedes but if we started a while ago it would be cheaper now.

>We would have to import most of the raw materials to make them
This is a good point. Sweden has shit tons of iron.

If we were producing them on a large enough scale for export, it would be somewhat negligible. We already have steel production in-country, we'd need to upscale but it wouldn't exactly be insurmountable.

Thales already produce missiles for the British military in NI, for instance.

I know that, I was trying to make the point that it wouldn't be as cheap as it would be elsewhere due to our lack of resources, although it would be cheaper particularly if you just import raw materials and process them here as you suggest, I didn't express that as well as I could have initially. It would be far cheaper to produce our own stuff from the imported raw materials than import the final product though, and it would generate a bit of extra employment too.

That's precisely my point.

While the initial outlays will be high (now), we could quite easily begin making investments into the industry and attempt to export them. For example, we could increase our investment in Haulbowline and work to develop weapons-systems for the ships we have.

We could open production facilities out in the West to produce aircraft or missiles (we'd have to start at something akin to light-trainers first).

It's not like we weren't shelling out hundreds of millions every year to build production facilities for medical companies over the decades.

The gain is local employment, increased defence forces capabilities, and increased exports. We could even engage in bilateral partnerships with other European or American countries, deepening our political and security ties in a way that doesn't overtly jeopardise our neutrality but buys us a lot of good will.

Goodnight /k/.

Will we call Frogweeb Corkweeb when he returns?

(More like Dorkweeb haha)

More like Cockweeb