The Irish army is fighting in Afghanistan

neilled wrote: »

Happyman, the term mercenary is quite clearly explained by lemming earlier in the thread. Definitions of the accepted usage are those as defined by the ICRC and the UN through the protocols of the Geneva Convention and the convention on Mercenaries.

Those who are at the sharp end of international relations ie soldiers use those definitions to define who is and isn't a mercenary and treat them accordingly. Similarly those in the legal profession who are involved in dealing with warcrimes, crimes against humanity etc also use the same definitions do define who is a mercenary.

It might be noted that the concept of the nation state and its standing army is rather new - in the majority of recorded history, soldiers were raised by the sovereign for a particular campaign from whereever they might be from and disbanded thereafter. Lets take the french for example - right up until the 16th century the most common language in france wasn't actually french. it was only when the monarch began centralizing power so the state could collect tax more efficiently that the modern nation state began to form - latter these would create a collective memory or narrative of history outlining where the people that inhabited a particular state came from.

Skipping back a bit further, in the aftermath of the 100 years war and the demobilisations that followed it, the soldiers left unemployed formed the "Free Companies" - where we got the term Company from and hired themselves to any power looking for their services. Other historically famous groups included the "Black Band" and the various swiss regiments of pikemen. These were mercenaries in the classic sense - they arrived pretrained, with their own arms and equipment and command structure and fought alongside the forces raised by whoever might be able to afford them for the duration of a specific contract.

Similarly, PMC's today are armed and equipped by themselves with their own command structures and for a specific duration. An example of this would be Blackwater/XE or Custer Battles who were PMC's (all american) who carried out specific military taskings on behalf of the US in the aftermath of the Iraq war. They were not of another nationality - they were the same nationality as those they were fighting alongside.

A X National who voluntarily enlists in the PDF taking an oath to be "faithful to Ireland and loyal to the Constitution" does not meet the criteria of a mercenary, similarly this would not apply to other countries either.

As stated earlier, the definitions who what constitutes a mercenary are well defined and used by those who are dealing at the sharp end (that where lead and other high velocity projectiles fly) of international relations and will continue to be the ones used in the "real world."

No amount of primordial nonsense about place of birth will change that.

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

Ha!

neilled wrote: »

I'm afraid you didn't. Your ethno nationalist garble that relies on someone to be from a particular place of birth and serve in forces in the state in which they were born in order not to be classified as a mercenary holds no sway outside internet, no matter how much you might wish and know "deep in your heart of hearts" that your incredibly simplistic views are correct. It might be worth noting that many of the borders of the world are relatively new and have continued to change with the creation of new states.

It might also be worth noting for the context of this discussion that the UK is not a unitary nation state. Rather the title rather gives it away but many people who come from a unitary nation state like the Republic of Ireland fail to grasp this concept - it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain (Consisting of England, Scotland, Wales) and Northern Ireland. Each of these is considered its own nationality within the UK , thus the term "Irish Soldier" or "Northern Irish Soldier" could be quite legitimately used when referring to soldiers serving in those Regiments that have an Irish or partially Irish identity - ie The R Irish, RDG, IG etc. A different type of Irishman than the simplistic criterion laid down by ethno nationalists, but Irishmen nontheless - even when they do get a bit wound up about admitting it.

stoneill wrote: »

Jasus lads - Calm down!

This bloke first and foremost wanted to be a soldier.
He tried the Irish Army, they turned him down.
He still wanted to be a soldier.
He tried the British Army, they took him.
I'm sure if they had tuned him down he would be in the U.S Army at this stage.

Give up the old shoite about the Brits being out oppressors, you are showing your ignorance. The rich oppress the poor, while we were all being told to feck off to Connaught, at the same time the poor and defenceless masses in the UK were being sent down mines at 10 years old or working in mills 12 hours a day at 8 years old.
The Brits didn't oppress the Irish - Rich oppressed poor - it's the same the world over and right through history. It suits the rich for your small mind to think that it's a national thing, or a sectarian thing, it keeps you busy elsewhere and lets them continue to make money on the backs of the poor.

Gareth2011 wrote: »

The Irish army is not fighting in afganistan. Its a tipp man who wanted to be an Irish solider but didn't get in because she suffered with asthma as a child. So he moved to the UK and joined their army to get some real action. He is not the only Irish man in the british army their is thousands of us.