Article by Colm Keena has had its headline amended online already (from says to said), which is odd.

I wonder how often they amend headlines like that. Its misleading when they dont post notes recording the amendment.

I think and hope there'll be quite a few strongly worded solicitors letters going around this morning.

Firstly - that's not a contradiction. Secondly - she's criticised the UNSC repeatedly.

Her view is one share by the VAST majority of the public - we are a neutral country with a proud tradition of peacekeeping, and thats how it should stay. It's a principled, rational, sensible position.

You can argue the whys but none of those are determinative of what our response to what we should decide to do in response.

Connolly is putting forward a vision of a positive, active neutrality - which is a valid political position.

Wrt her being the supreme commander of the army/defence forces (whatever you want to call it) - if she's going to be in charge of that force, im glad she's thought about what she thinks it should be used for and how it should be developed. Not just going with the flow of Europe and the US.

We have a body within the Defence Forces that we call the "Army".

What she was talking about was our defence forces being transformed into an offensive force, in a debate about the increasing turn to militarism in Europe and our further integration into NATO.

That's a totally disingenuous reading of what shes said (even if we were just going to limit ourselves to the quote provided).

There can be a distinction drawn between a force formed for defence, and a force formed for offence. Defence forces v army.

She does not say we dont need a defence force.