Arms Trades

seanwalsh

http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_news/pressreleases/04pressrelease/010704_JAVELIN.htm

Why is our government spending these vast sums of money on missiles that can be used to kill innocent children?
The explanation that they are to be used on "peacekeeping" is sickening. They would be far better off using the money to teach conflict resolution skills in war-torn areas.

Johnmb

It's an anti-tank missile system. Unless tanks are only driven by children, your description of them as "missiles that can be used to kill innocent children" is as pointless as criticising the Gardaí for buying cars "that can be used to kill innocent children". Pretty much anything, weapon or not, "can be used to kill innocent children". It's about time the Irish Army was given the equipment to be capable of defending themselves in the more dangerous parts of the world where neutral peacekeepers are needed the most.

Dasilva94

If the army are in a situation like Srebrenica and they have to defend a population under attack, I would hope they would have something which presents a credible deterrant. In a situation like that it would be inncoent children that are being protected.

uaobrien

Originally posted by seanwalsh
http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_news/pressreleases/04pressrelease/010704_JAVELIN.htm

Why is our government spending these vast sums of money on missiles that can be used to kill innocent children?
The explanation that they are to be used on "peacekeeping" is sickening. They would be far better off using the money to teach conflict resolution skills in war-torn areas.

Because as Johnmb and Dasilva94 have already stated, they are for defence purposes. I can't see any opposing force to Irish sovereignty employing "innocent children" as combat troops against us.

You really should have thought out your argument a lot better before making it.

Qadhafi

Why is our government spending these vast sums of money on missiles that can be used to kill innocent children?
The explanation that they are to be used on "peacekeeping" is sickening. They would be far better off using the money to teach conflict resolution skills in war-torn areas.

Firstly the Javelin is an ANTI TANK Missile so its designed to attack tanks. As pointed out, there isnt many childern which do drive tanks. It was bought to protect Irish troops overseas from armoured veichles.

The government isnt "wasting" money the army. It should be pointed out that although Javelin is the best anti tank missile on the market, its still a poor substitute for a tank. The best thing to beat a tank is another tank but cost cutting etc and we dont have them.

Irish troops abroad arent on any imperial mission. In most cases the are UN supported. Take Liberia for instance, since Irish troops arrived there has been a prolonged peroid of stability and its accepted internationally that were really good at this type of thing.

Your post is complete stupid nonsense.

The Beer Baron

What was it George Carlin said about the children???

sovtek

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
What was it George Carlin said about the children???

Ummmm...."Give us a million of those...and paint 'em black".
No wait... that was flame throwers.
Oh yeah...

"And what's with all this talk about children? Save the children, help the children, what about the children...well, you know what I say? F*** the children! F*** 'em, they're getting entirely too much attention already!"

Borzoi

Originally posted by Qadhafi

The best thing to beat a tank is another tank but cost cutting etc and we dont have them.

I'd argue that a plane (say an A-10) was better at tank killing.

But that would imply interest in what has been established as a pointless thread

projectmayhem

judging by the latest war in iraq, anti-tank missiles can be fired all over the place... wether there's a tank there or not. lives will be lost needlessly.

lives will be lost needlessly.

Huh? what abt the lives of the soldiers who get killed because they don't have the capacity to take out a tank?

Besides, theres not much point in using an anti-tank missile on people. 1) the shape & design of an AT missile means that it would prob miss (i.e. its like a dart) 2) even if it did hit, it would kill one person and pass thru (volocity of round). My point being theres no point. :rolleyes: A machine gun would do more damage to people.

Besides missiles being missiles, there will always be a chance of it hitting somewhere else, but the same goes for every weapon in every army.

Qadhafi

I'd argue that a plane (say an A-10) was better at tank killing.

But that would imply interest in what has been established as a pointless thread

well yes this is a pointless thread but.........the A-10 is pretty effective but an aircraft cant hold ground, you need a tank on on the ground to hold ground

judging by the latest war in iraq, anti-tank missiles can be fired all over the place... wether there's a tank there or not. lives will be lost needlessly.

It really depends on the mandate which troops are deployed with, its another thread but if the US had UN backing and went in with a mulitnational force perhaps there wouldnt be as many anti-tank missiles fired at them.

The Javelin anti tank missile was purchased to take out main battle tanks, thats the real big tanks. The missile is pretty expensive €70,000 a go, and has a very specific role. The infa red signature given off by a person would be pretty hard to hit unless they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

hasnt this went way of track:S

this is what we really need

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/images/cv90_2.jpg

i can just see the Gardai requisitioning it to manage traffic flow. Traffic Jams? We don't get them anymore. People are willing to listen to us now, that we have this guy. lol

bonkey

Originally posted by Qadhafi
this is what we really need

Why? What do we need it for? And once we have it, then we'll really need air-cover to prevent whoever we are supposedly going ot use it against from just shooting it down with A10s (or any AtG equivalent)....

Not one person here who is arguing that we need military equipment has actually given a solid reason as to what we need it for. "Defence" is not a reason...we might as well argue that we "need" a Son of Star Wars project to protect us.

Unless there is a genuine threat, there is no need for a defence. There is no threat - or at least, no-one here has mentioned one - which calls for these things we supposedly "need".

ASR, on the other hand, has categorically been shown to be wanting in this country. If there is anywhere we need to spend money on new capability, its in plugging that hole we've already identified.

jc

Sand

The role of Irelands Army, Air Corp and Navy is not defence as far as i can make out. About a year ago i started a thread on why we bother having military forces at all when theyre so obviously unneccessary in terms of our foreign policy and threat of invasion - and indeed their expected effectiveness in the event of invasion. I dont remember getting any real response beyond them being good for ceremonial duties and peacekeeping missons. When our school kids are freezing to death in shoddy schools and the health service is screaming out for further funding why are we wasting money on an exspensive boy scouts troupe?

Disband Irelands military forces, sell off the barracks to property developers, the equipment to some tin pot third world dictator or paramilitary drug lords, beef up the ERU with some ex Rangers and a bomb squad or two, and with the savings fund a decent ASR rescue service, a superiour coastguard and give whats left over to the freezing school kids. Win, win surely?

Nuttzz

What do we get from Sands Proposal

1. 10000 families now on the breadline due to unemployment

2. Thrid World dictator murders his own people thanks to Irish supplied weapons

3. Gun crime on the up because of armed drug lords

4. A coastguard to replace the Naval service, who do the same function

Truth is that the amount spent on defence (0.05% of GDP) isnt going to make much of a difference if spread around health, education, ASR and coastguard.

However we dont need A10's, dozens of tanks etc either. What we have is fine for our needs

darklite

Disband Irelands military forces, sell off the barracks to property developers, the equipment to some tin pot third world dictator or paramilitary drug lords, beef up the ERU with some ex Rangers and a bomb squad or two, and with the savings fund a decent ASR rescue service, a superiour coastguard and give whats left over to the freezing school kids. Win, win surely?

Hardly.

The army is there for the gardai to call upon in case of an emergency. As a western nation, we can and might become a target for terrorist attacks. The army is there to respond to those threats. The rangers will never have enough numbers to combat all of those occasions wherby action may be needed.

Another issue is that Ireland wouldn't be capable of sending forces to help "peacekeep" warzones, which so many people here are calling for more of.

Lose the Air Force and we lose many sources to train pilots who cannot afford the huge costs in getting licenses, thus resulting in a lack of irish pilots for commercial craft (i.e. more people leaving ireland because they cannot train in the area that they wish)

the navy while not the most wonderful in the world, is quite good at reducing the number of illegal immigrents, and hard drugs coming into the country.

The military is there for more than War. Its the Stick that the government can use to keep order, and prevent the nation from falling into anarchy. I'm not for beefing the current army up to equal the UK's might, however, unless ireland updates its military we'll be at the mercy of any minor dissendent group out there with the ability to purchase front-line equipment. And at the end of the day, it'll be the people who stood in the way of the military that complain that the government isn't doing enough, and wonder how we could have such an ill equipped defense.

When our school kids are freezing to death in shoddy schools and the health service is screaming out for further funding why are we wasting money on an exspensive boy scouts troupe?

At the end of the day, the health services will always scream for more. There will never be enough. They got how much of the current budget, and its still not enough. As for the freezing children, something does indeed need to be done, but money can be found from other sources.... What abt this proposed new stadium in Dublin? 200 million euros for something that we don't need. Government Jets that really aren't necessary. Politicans gaining pay increases for jobs they don't perform well anyway. Or rediculous government handouts to victims of church abuse (considering the Catholic Church is richer than most western Nations.) Theres plenty of places that money can be found.

The Military should always be the last place to start cutting corners. (unless of course we had a military like the US, China or old style Russia)

Sand

1. 10000 families now on the breadline due to unemployment

The government pays for them now anyway. Youre assuming that the military only contains people with no skills, talent or ambition to succeed in the civillian job market. The military doesnt exist as a FAS training scheme - its to defend irelands territory - which it cannot do under our current willingess to fund it.

2. Thrid World dictator murders his own people thanks to Irish supplied weapons

3. Gun crime on the up because of armed drug lords

Sarcasm - no modern military is going to buy the stuff we sell off second hand - our only market is third world dictatorships and drug lords. Have you seen what our anti-aircraft system is?

4. A coastguard to replace the Naval service, who do the same function

So lets have a out and out coastguard trained and equipped for that task best, rather than a navy which is wholly unable to defend our terretorial waters and has to try and be a coastguard to justify its existence.

Truth is that the amount spent on defence (0.05% of GDP) isnt going to make much of a difference if spread around health, education, ASR and coastguard.

Its not going to make much a difference if we ever actually have to call upon our defence forces to do more than provide free cash runs to the banks either so why waste it on a force we dont need and obviously arent serious about?

owever we dont need A10's, dozens of tanks etc either. What we have is fine for our needs

Nah its over the top for what we need - we dont need 10000 soldiers and a navy and a half arsed air corp. Were a neutral nation, our terrorist problem has never been so serious that it couldnt have been handled by a beefed up Garda force nd the terrorist problem is becoming less and less an issue with every passing year. We dont want and cant afford a proper military force so why bother with a badly equipped and trained force?

The army is there for the gardai to call upon in case of an emergency.

No, military forces exists primarily for defence of the states territory, thats their duty which cannot be replicated by any other agent of the state - the assistance of civil powers is a peacetime duty but its not what the military forces exist for. If we want some sort of Garda Reserve then lets create it and not waste our time buying military uniforms, rifles, grenades, ammo, scorpion light tanks and trainer aircraft we dont need and will never use.

The rangers will never have enough numbers to combat all of those occasions wherby action may be needed.

Actually I cant think of an incident where the Rangers wouldnt have had enough numbers to deal with combat within ireland - last time I can remember irish soldiers having to open fire in Ireland was the shoot up of those IRA patriots/bank robbers trying to steal that security van full of cash near Naas?

Another issue is that Ireland wouldn't be capable of sending forces to help "peacekeep" warzones, which so many people here are calling for more of.

So theyd have to go to the Chinese for more warm bodies on the peacekeeping front. We cant afford a proper military so why are we risking peoples lives sending them abroad with inferiour equipment and training?

Lose the Air Force and we lose many sources to train pilots who cannot afford the huge costs in getting licenses, thus resulting in a lack of irish pilots for commercial craft (i.e. more people leaving ireland because they cannot train in the area that they wish)

Air forces dont exist to subsidise the training of private sector pilots.

the navy while not the most wonderful in the world, is quite good at reducing the number of illegal immigrents, and hard drugs coming into the country.

This is subjective - given theres no hard figures on the numbers of illegal immigrants or drugs reaching Ireland I cant argue that navy of 7 ships is ineffective at preventing any number of vessels reaching Irelands continous coastline - all Ill say is that drugs arent even uncommon in Ireland and most siezures I remember are made by the gardai/customs, not the navy.

The military is there for more than War. Its the Stick that the government can use to keep order, and prevent the nation from falling into anarchy. I'm not for beefing the current army up to equal the UK's might, however, unless ireland updates its military we'll be at the mercy of any minor dissendent group out there with the ability to purchase front-line equipment.

It exists almost totally to fight and win wars and secure defence of its state. Thats what it does that a ERU type unit of the police cannot do. We have no interest in having a military that can fight and win wars, or secure the borders of the state so why bother with the pretence. Lets save us all some time and money and spend it on the things we obviously care more about. Like the children. What about the children?

And at the end of the day, it'll be the people who stood in the way of the military that complain that the government isn't doing enough, and wonder how we could have such an ill equipped defense.

At the end of the day we have an ill equipped defence now. If someone wanted to fly across our airspace we cant stop them. If someone manages to put 20 odd main battle tanks onto irish soil (our brave navy will blow their trainsports out of the water im sure ) then they will beat our army hands down. Hell, last I heard military analysts believe Cyprus would beat us in a fight. Im not standing in the way of the military but they cost us a lot of money and we have to be honest, do we want a properly equipped and trained army that is capable of defending ireland? Do we need one? If not then why bother with half arsed, exspensive measures which are a pointless waste of money?

Sparks

Originally posted by darklite
Lose the Air Force and we lose many sources to train pilots who cannot afford the huge costs in getting licenses, thus resulting in a lack of irish pilots for commercial craft (i.e. more people leaving ireland because they cannot train in the area that they wish)

Firstly, as sand said, that's not the function of the air force. Secondly, perhaps that situation would convince the government to get the IAA's head-in-arse strategy sorted out. Thirdly, this government is hostile to all forms of general aviation except airliners and that is the prime reason for the huge cost of PPL and CPL licences. And fourthly, ab initio training is why the Aer Corps aircraft don't tend to make it to the end of their design lives.

Nuttzz

Look closely at what I said

What we have is fine for our needs

Find me a TD what will end the employment of 10,000 people


Is it alright for you to be sacastic but no one else?????

why bother with a badly..........trained force?

Are you a solider? Do you know about the army's training? I don’t but I do remember plenty of news stories praising Irish Soldiers and their professionalism on peacekeeping duties, I think that it is an insult to called them that, they seem to do their best with the resources given to them, shame we cant say that about other government departments

The senior Democratic congressman on the House Armed Services Committee in the US Congress has said Ireland should be asked to provide peace-keeping troops in Iraq.

In an interview with the Kansas City Star newspaper, Mr Ike Skelton said that “it would be wise to have professional peacekeepers there, such as the Irish, such as the Scandinavians. They’re good at it. That’s what they do. They ought to be asked

I DO NOT want to see irish Troops in Iraq, but I wont argue with the above statement. That is the foreign view of how the Irish troops are trained.

Nah its over the top for what we need - we dont need 10000 soldiers and a navy and a half arsed air corp. Were a neutral nation, our terrorist problem has never been so serious that it couldnt have been handled by a beefed up Garda force nd the terrorist problem is becoming less and less an issue with every passing year. We dont want and cant afford a proper military force so why bother with a badly equipped and trained force?

1) Essentially we're not a neutral country. We choose our sides, and then take teh stance of being neutral. In Irish eyes thats neutral. In other nations, people don't see our stance the same way.
2) Our Terrorist problem to date hasn't been. But i doubt it'll be the same in the future. Ireland is taking a more prominent role in the EU and as such we become a target for anyone that has a grudge against the EU. The reason in my opinion for the military is not for just current problems. Who's to say we won't need such a force in the future.
3) No. You don't want such a military. I on the other hand do.

No, military forces exists primarily for defence of the states territory, thats their duty which cannot be replicated by any other agent of the state - the assistance of civil powers is a peacetime duty but its not what the military forces exist for.

Not quite. The military is there to defend the state from foreign and domestic enemies.

If we want some sort of Garda Reserve then lets create it and not waste our time buying military uniforms, rifles, grenades, ammo, scorpion light tanks and trainer aircraft we dont need and will never use.

in essence you want the Gardai to create specialist brigades to defend the state? In other words an army. Gardai Uniforms, Rifles, grenades, ammo, APC's, and helicopters. You're just changing the name, and the priorities involved.

Actually I cant think of an incident where the Rangers wouldnt have had enough numbers to deal with combat within ireland - last time I can remember irish soldiers having to open fire in Ireland was the shoot up of those IRA patriots/bank robbers trying to steal that security van full of cash near Naas?

So? You see, i'm not going to assume that things will always go as before. We can see that gun related crime is on the increase. As it stands the Gardai are unable to deal effectively with such a threat. So you beef up the Gardai. But there will be circumstances that will always require soldiers to take the place of the Gardai. Gardai, join the force, not with the prior knowledge that they will provide lethal force against crinimals, Soldiers on the other hand, expect to deliver such lethal force to any or all enemies.

So theyd have to go to the Chinese for more warm bodies on the peacekeeping front. We cant afford a proper military so why are we risking peoples lives sending them abroad with inferiour equipment and training?

Ahh but you're ignoring what i said. China and the other nations have no wish to send more troops for peacekeeping. Ireland provides peacekeeping forces to help the deficit. I'm not for it, however too many people in Ireland are, so we do it.

As for sending them abroad with inferior equipment, ask yourself, who's pushing to limit the Military?

I'll post to the rest when i have lunch :dunno:

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Sparks
this government is hostile to all forms of general aviation except airliners

That's not maybe. :mad:

Qadhafi

Yes we really do need those CV-90's. why do we need any military in ireland ?

Well Ireland is a member of the UN, we have also signed up to the EU RRF (rapid reaction force). Basically we send the army abroad to intervene in places like Liberia, East Timor, Kosovo, where people have been suffering civil war etc to stop the blood shed to help to rebuild countries etc etc !

This is the main reason to justify purchasing equipment for our army , there is the Aid to Civil Power also but the country is relatively peaceful now. Getting rid of the DF or not continue to invest in the DF would be turning your back on these mission and helping the international community.

Well to intervene in these places obviously you cant send in the Gardai, you need an army and you have to equip those soliders properly. Ireland always picks its missions, we will hardly ever attacking the likes of saddam. If we do intervene then will never likely to face an air threat, or if we do we will have friendly aircover.

However We do need some fighter jets to defend our own airspace (the RAF is currently doing it for us) but thats another thread (and something that some irish people just cant figure out).
The Joint Strike Fighter...something Ireland should be buying into


Just to make one point in relation to armies in general. If you have read anything about military conflicts in the past you will have seen that if a country is seen to be military weak then they will be seen as a target and attacked. A country with a decent Defence Force is never going to have the same problems as a weak country or a weak army.

Even if the countries army isnt up to much, if they put out their forces the opposition always thinks twice. You can talk till the cows come home and people can say what they like nothing speaks like the threat of military action.

Waiting around not spending anything on defence and saying, there is no threat so why worry is naive. How can you predict the future? If countries could then they would only spend to specifically counter the threat.

If there is a threat and you dont have the proper structures, people, training, equipment and even the military tradition in place then its too late.

Why does a country have military exerciese or send ships to the other side of the world etc etc... its to show everyone else that they have that capability. Its the show of force that should be enough.

It should also be pointed out that the DF since the reforms in the white paper is very efficient, productive, and provides great value for money.

Throwing another €3bn (as we both know) at health wouldnt make 1 bit of differnece, why ? because its a slow unefficient unreformed mess that no government has the balls to take serious reforms and streamline it.

Qadhafi

Sand,( im sorry but i think your posts and posts only are of a pretty low intelligence) I dont know if your just rambling on or ifs its just a case of "ah sure" i dont care attitue or what, but I dont know how you equate : =

Selling every barracks+getting rid of all military equipment + Soliders = solve homeless and solve heath care problems.

Actually I cant think of an incident where the Rangers wouldnt have had enough numbers to deal with combat within ireland - last time I can remember irish soldiers having to open fire in Ireland was the shoot up of those IRA patriots/bank robbers trying to steal that security van full of cash near Naas?

The wing is there to prevent potential terrorist hijacking an aircraft in Ireland, to deal with terrorists etc etc and its main task is to act as the armies cutting edge when it deploys overseas. Its very hard to get people of such high quality and they are drawn from a body of 10,000. It would be virtually impossible to have such a highly trained force such as the Ranger Wing without the existence of the Army.

"paraphrase....We never had a real terrorist threat, and a beefed up Gardai would have solved the whole thing, were a neutral country!"

Is that a joke ? As far as I was aware, every sucessive Irish government was trying to solve the terrorist threat since the foundation of the state, if we only had followed your policy we would have it all sorted :rolleyes:

Do you really know what neutrality means? Please take a look at the other neutral countries around the EU or further a field. Basically it means that your country doesnt wish to take any sides and is going to defend itself. Irish neutrality is quite unique, polically were not but we are military neutral even though we rely on the RAF

Sarcasm - no modern military is going to buy the stuff we sell off second hand - our only market is third world dictatorships and drug lords. Have you seen what our anti-aircraft system is?

Its better than nothing, it should be pointed out that an aircraft can jam missile but cant stop lead flying at it! All we need on that front is a modern jet fighter, problem solved.

We have a increasinly modern army, Radios are the best out, uniform one of the most modern, personal weapons, artillery, mortars, apc's, new PC-9's, new ships etc etc etc all of which any dictator/any army would love to get their hands on.

So lets have a out and out coastguard trained and equipped for that task best, rather than a navy which is wholly unable to defend our terretorial waters and has to try and be a coastguard to justify its existence.

?? ? The navy does a fine job, its very efficient by EU standards and has detained record numbers of vessels each year (by EU standards). It might not be the biggest but we could send it to say, enforce an embargo on a country (like stopping weapons getting into Bosina, remember?)if we needed to (expertise that the Irish Navy has that other navies dont!). Having a coast guard wont stop some of these fishing ships or provide any secuirty

Its not going to make much a difference if we ever actually have to call upon our defence forces to do more than provide free cash runs to the banks either so why waste it on a force we dont need and obviously arent serious about?

I cant figure out what your trying to say?, we dont spend enough on defence so whatever we do have is a waste of money and wont make any difference ?

This is such nonsense and illogical that its hard to make a proper reply....anyway, It doesnt work like that, whatever you do spend or whatever you do have (this applies to anything) you get a return on. Simply, its better to have something that to have nothing.

Since post 1989, most european and US governments have realised that there will be no mass invasion of any EU country in the forseeable future. No one is going to have a massive air sea landing on Ireland, PLEASE PUT THIS ARUGEMENT TO BED ok!

However the threat is from smaller regimes around the world and from terrorism. Countries need smaller better equipped forces that can deploy to many different places around the world to deal with a relatively low intensitive warfare. The threat to Ireland may be an airline hijacking that needs to be shot down or a threat to a foreign embassy in dublin, like the British, Israeli, US etc.

Thats the threat today, and we have our overseas obligations, what Ireland actually does about it is another story

The rest of your post makes absolutely no sense what so ever, Im trying to reply but its illogical.

Scorpions.... the only tank currently in service in the DF :eek:

Morpheus

hmmm, ive edited this post 5 times as my temper has died and ive considered my facts.....


Firstly, kids dont drive tanks, its an anti-tank missile, not an anti-child missile, if it hits a child, its either a child soldier trying to kill an irish soldier, or else a very regrettable accident that; A. the irish soldier will have to live with, and B. probably going to get him in a lot of trouble. Thats why the defence forces train so hard, so that in a situation where they use live weapons on real targets, that they can identify targets and justify their actions.

Secondly if the health boards were run on a shoestring like the military, and kept on a tight leash by the govt, we'd see a vast improvement in management and organisation, as it is they fire money at a black hole and pray it will eventually close.
weve got 6 healthboards fighting each other for funding when what we need is one brilliantly managed national health service, just as efficiant as the army.

thirdly we spend less that 0.7% of our GDP on defence, most other countries spend upwards of 4%

fourthly we are not and never have been constitutionally neutral EVER, we only have a neutral defence policy, which is something that a lot of anarchists and hippys should go find out before they muppet on about "peace dude" and other crap here.

fifthly the irish defence forces are recognised worldwide as a peace keeping and enforcement force, we are experts in the field of peace keeping, we are respected by countries the globe over as such. Indeed US and UK forces amongst others send 100s of their expert military staff HERE to train and learn how to deal with situations peacefully. We are an asset to the world, more money should be spent on protecting our troops when they are abroad, and providing adequate defences here too, we have barely enough equipment to do the job, and some of it is embarassingly out of date and downright dangerous to continue operating. It needs more spending, not less, the construction industry get the safe working environment they want, the equestrian sports have gotten a massive investment of govt money, where were you then with your complaints??? What about the GAA??? loads of your money spent on them and now they refuse to allow soccer to be played in the partly govt funded stadium?? There are far more reasonable arguments to be made than the silly statement that started this thread.

sixthly we lost the search and rescue to a commercial PRIVATE company. An aircorps pilot doesnt refuse to go out if he is unhappy with his working environment because his bloody grandfather flew the aircraft that hes now flying. HOWEVER if the civilian company staff decide to strike, theres not a DAMN thing we can do, and if your gurgling your last breath in the atlantic, youd better hope that that rickety old banger fluttering around above you can get you out, because the aircorps will be called in to take over, youd also better hope its day time, and THATS because people like you have prevented spending of moneys on essential equipment that would have provided the air corps with a 24hr capability, and without that equipment they can only fly by day. I realise there is a rumour circulating the media that the aircorps crews tried to force the govt to improve their conditions by calling in sick en-masse, if its true, could you really blame them? Would you want to fly 100 miles out to sea in a 40 year old aircraft to try and locate a tiny boat in gale force winds, with maybe 50 foot waves, at 4am in total darkness without the proper vision and safety equipment?? Im sure theres more to it than that, but now that the govt has handed the service to a private contractor (which will in the long run cost more than a fleet of new helicopters and crews to the aircorps) we'll never know.

seventhly, we have only 8 ships yet they patrol the largest sea area owned by any one european country, yes thats us, ireland... and believe me its f*cking huge, and they are drops in the ocean trying to find drug smugglers and illegal fishing vessels, and they still do a great job of it, as well as providing extended SAR capabilitys. we spent centuries trying to get away from Britain and put ourselves beyond its crutch, yet we now depend on britains long range SAR capabilities and aircraft to save our lives and defend our skies, in the 21st century, thats an embarrassment.


eighthly.... youd better hope i never get a chance to attend one of your (or your associates and comrades rallies) because ill bring a big stick and .....
[ive had time to calm down now, im not really a violent person, but i hate seeing the defence forces slated for buying things, so ive removed my *ahem* angry suggestion!!]... yes, where was i??? ah.. ill bring a big stick, and... well, ill stick MY banner on it and wave it in YOUR face for once.

I agree with freedom of speech, and everyones right to their own opinion and understand how some people feel about war et al, but my opinion is that the Department of Defence is a department already badly underfunded which also happens to be the states largest employer.... get your facts straight... and get your head out of your nether regions and think of something more constructive or at least half true to say.... :mad:

Nuttzz

I agree with freedom of speech, and everyones right to their own opinion and understand how some people feel about war

youd better hope i never get a chance to attend one of your (or your associates and comrades rallies) because ill bring a big stick and show you what i think of "your type of" peace activists and anti war hippies...

mmmmmmmm me thinks there is something odd in those two statements

Morpheus

yes.. there are two types of activists (and i know this first hand) 1 the type who is genuinely against a cause, whom i respect for feeling as strongly about their causes as i do, and then theres the socialist anarchist type that goes to every rally about every blinking issue simply because they are against every bloody issue that makes up our society today and they love to think they are in a majority and spout about false numbers of attendees on their websites, etc and even suggest the irish govt is colluding with imperialists because we decide to buy weapons to aid our troops in bringing peace to other parts of the world, places where we dont have to go, but do because we care. im sure the majority of people in ireland will be glad to know that our armed forces can at least attempt to protect themselves from moderately to heavily armoured enemy vehicles, and im sure they will scorn certain members views that we are nothing but a bunch of baby killers because we bought missiles. by the way, 70K isnt all that expensive for a missile as good as the ones we bought, why should our army settle for second rate equipment when we buy and deply it in such small numbers, better to have a small well equipped economically viable mobile force than a huge great big sagging rip in the economy like the dept of health and the dept of education.

Nuttzz

So free speech for some and no free speech for others?

bonkey

Originally posted by Nuttzz
So free speech for some and no free speech for others?

Free speech as long as you don't say anything too disagreeable?

jc

Morpheus

Originally posted by Nuttzz
So free speech for some and no free speech for others?

Originally posted by bonkey
Free speech as long as you don't say anything too disagreeable?

jc

Where did i say either of the above??

Read my original post again... my intention was to show my anger at someone suggesting that too much money is being spent on the military... in an ideal world we wouldnt need an army... I want you to read the paper, switch on tv... wake up and smell the stench of death in israel and palestine, it is far from an ideal world... the defence forces kept terrorists and their bombs at bay during the troubles, the navy and aircorps kept the gun runners out, they have new roles, not all are killing, indeed we are a force geared for peace keeping under a UN mandate, I dont kow why you probably think we are becoming a mini US state, I cant justify NOT buying the missiles, same as you cant justify BUYING them.

look at other areas where MORE money is wasted before you touch the dept of defence.

Ive edited my post 5 times as my temper has receded. i think im happy with my final draft, i didnt deny anyone freedom of speech, i simply said that i disliked certain types of activists, as im sure they dislike people like me, theyre entitled to, doesnt bother me, and im sure i dont bother them, theyre not going to give up going to rallies and causing trouble just because some "hardcore militant right wing muppet" (as im sure ill be called ) like me said something on this board?? Isnt that the democracy we live in... im sorry if i insulted some people, but they needed a reality check.

The moral of the story??? I am ME, you are YOU, just dont expect me to agree with your views, as i dont expect you to agree with mine, if i walk past your rally and give you the fingers, thats democracy, be glad your not in Liberia where it would probably get you or me shot or shooting at each other, by the way, thats if the Irish army peace keepers currently there didnt take the weapons off us first.... ask the 30 or so individuals rescued from dying in a container by irish army rangers in Liberia if they think we should disband the army, because the battles they win and have won will always be in peoples minds hearts and lives, not in the body count.:rolleyes:

Nuttzz

You said it Morphéus

I agree with freedom of speech, and everyones right to their own opinion and understand how some people feel about war

youd better hope i never get a chance to attend one of your (or your associates and comrades rallies) because ill bring a big stick and show you what i think of "your type of" peace activists and anti war hippies...

I said

mmmmmmmm me thinks there is something odd in those two statements

Then you said

yes.. there are two types of activists (and i know this first hand) 1 the type who is genuinely against a cause, whom i respect for feeling as strongly about their causes as i do, and then theres the socialist anarchist type that goes to every rally about every blinking issue simply because they are against every bloody issue that makes up our society today and they love to think they are in a majority and spout about false numbers of attendees on their websites

So you dont like one type of activist but you like another, to which you said you would bring a big stick to there rallys.

I was merely pointing out that you appear to like free speech for the peace activists you like but will assualt the ones you dont like.

BTW not a good idea to post in a temper, makes you look.........foolish

Morpheus

Point taken, thats why i went back and edited it, I wouldnt actually beat anyone with a stick,

i felt that angry after reading seans original post...

Why is our government spending these vast sums of money on missiles that can be used to kill innocent children?
The explanation that they are to be used on "peacekeeping" is sickening. They would be far better off using the money to teach conflict resolution skills in war-torn areas

Looking at it now, he obviously has no idea of the kind of work that the irish army do, the reconstruction, re-building of communities, houses, schools, water supplies, bridges, bringing together of former enemies, fostering peace between different ethnic groups and providing a safe environment for the local economies and societies to regain some semblance of normality.

Sean, a lot of things can be used to kill a child, for instance is a new frying pan for the defence forces kitchens a child killer?? im sure if you were sick enough you could kill an innocent child with it. You (like me!!) must be careful what you post, get facts before posting.

i seriously doubt any soldier in the irish army would deliberately target an innocent child, or worse target an innocent child or adult for that matter with a missile intended to take out a main battle tank.

There is always the chance for regrettable collateral damage in any situation where real weapons are used on real targets and real people, this is unfortunately a lesser of two evils, the other choice is to allow the better equipped side in a war in which peace keepers are intervening to slaughter the entire population of the other side. Would you have this Sean? If Irish peace keepers (and others) dont initiate a peace, stop a war, disarm both sides, police the population, reduce crime, rebuild infrastructure, etc, then no1 can go in to educate the people on how to live in peace.

These missiles are for use on legitimate armoured targets (tanks, armoured jeeps and cars) under the current terms of engagement which I assume would be initially set out by the commanding UN HQ that is overseeing the theatre of operations in which the the soldiers themeselves and the missiles (and all other weaponry being used by them) are being used, (we are always only on peacekeeping when asked by the UN). Believe me the UN will not have a line in the terms of engagement that states, "you the irish soldier must kill innocent children".

On another issue, if a child is forced into an army, and handed a weapon and told to kill a soldier, are you saying that soldier should accept it and let the child just kill him? Because innocent he may be but he will still kill you if he's told to, this (child soldiers) is the kind of thing the irish army is trying to stop in Liberia at the minute.

Read about our armies history, find a case for me where the irish army has ever killed innocent people on purpose?? Fair enough other armies may kill innocent children with Javelin missiles, but at the end of the day, its the guy pulling the trigger thats killing the child, the weapon only does what its told to do. This unfortunately doesnt justify your first statement which i find very immature (much like my original post ) You are attacking an institution whos methods and morals you obviously were either mis-informed about, didnt know about, or didnt bother to find out about.

ill give you the benefit of doubt because i think like me you posted in haste or anger, and I invite you to supply facts that state irish soldiers are innocent children killers and how by buying these missiles and giving them a method to defend themselves and ultimately the population they are protecting, is a waste of tax payers money.

regards,
Morpheus:dunno:

seanwalsh

Morpheus,

are you one of the members of this "defence force" you go on about?
If so neither your incoherent arguments or excuses for killing surprise me. You're the victim of sustained brainwashing - but there is help available if you want it. Plenty of former military like Ed Horgan have come to be stalwarts of the peace movement.

God go with you.

Morpheus

are you actually irish??

Morpheus,

are you one of the members of this "defence force" you go on about?
If so neither your incoherent arguments or excuses for killing surprise me. You're the victim of sustained brainwashing - but there is help available if you want it. Plenty of former military like Ed Horgan have come to be stalwarts of the peace movement.

God go with you.

You have used this statement to sidestep the questions i have asked you? provide me with evidence that we are child killers!!

in answer to your question, I come from a family who have served with our nations defence forces and I am currently being trained in the Reserve Defence Forces. I have never been brainwashed!!! :rolleyes:

The peace movement at least some of it anyway, has acknowledged the postitives our Army has brought to war torn countries.

Do you not agree that if someone doesnt stop two sides fighting and disarm them (under UN mandate of course) that we can hardly send people in to teach them peace? how do you teach peace without first having a stable situation to teach in? how do you protect the teachers? Does Ed think the irish military are baby killers?

Are you Irish? if so you know what defence force i talk about, the irish armed forces are called The "Irish Defence Forces" made up of a permanent defence force and reserve defence force (which supplied personel to the special olympics this year to help out).

Is this a troll or what!!

You're the victim of sustained brainwashing - but there is help available if you want it. Plenty of former military like Ed Horgan have come to be stalwarts of the peace movement.

Sean, you might like to think abt this a small bit. Soldiers tend to be the main people that wish for peace. They're the ones that have to go into combat, kill, and possibly die. You on the other hand can stay at home and condem them. (there will always some that get a kick out of killing or fighting, but for the most part the members of the Irish Df have families)

If theres any brainwashing going on, maybe you might be at the receiving end?

This might have been answered above in a more elequent way, If so sorry for putting my oar in (har har)

Having a country is like having a room with valuables. Putting a lock on the door is like having a military for a country. The big rooms stuffed full of valuables (like the US) have big locks that can't be opened by anyone bar the most determined, and even that would be after a lot of blood, sweat and tears. Smaller ones have smaller locks, as there isn't that much inside to interest a theif. The Irish door, would have just a padlock. Sure, just a guy with a crowbar could take it off, but it still stops idle passers-by from getting in.

The fact is, every single nation on this Earth has some sort of armed forces. If there was a Government out there who decided to act on the principle of no arms, then someone who has guns (not necessarily a government, a drug baron for example) would march in and take over. I know in some parts of the world this looks highly unlikely, but unrealistic expectations lead to previously unrealistic chances becoming viable. Now you don't want the US to fish everyone out of their problems, do you?

dloob

Well I guess seanwalsh is the same guy who runs abbeyshrule direct action
One of those commited anti war people.
You know murder machines, think of the children, direct action, it's not violence to use an axe on an aircraft.

I think they are the people who are brainwashed.
They go on about how if there were no armies we could all live in peace.
Maybe on their planet but I live on earth and if every county got rid of their armies warloards would have taken over within a week.

I guess they mean well but they seem to be under the illusion that if you talk to some one like saddam and tell him what he is doing is wrong he will say is "Oh Sorry I didn't know, I promise to be good in future and drink my milk. No more dictating for me."
Sorry but some times force is only thing that will work.
Do you think conflict resolution classes would have worked with Hitler in WW2?

btw I like the google ads on some of the abbyshrule forums Military Models and USAF surplus gear

Turkey

........And fourthly, ab initio training is why the Aer Corps aircraft don't tend to make it to the end of their design lives.

Another intresting comment, considering that the majority of Irish Air Corps [note correct spelling] more then exceed their design lives.

Victor

Originally posted by dloob
it's not violence to use an axe on an aircraft.

There is a big difference between using violence against things (in particular military things) and using it against people.

magick

We do need some fighter jets to defend our own airspace (the RAF is currently doing it for us)

never heard of this, is this true?!

Morpheus

Originally posted by Victor
There is a big difference between using violence against things (in particular military things) and using it against people.

There is also a big difference between an irish soldier using a Javelin missile on a Tank and using it against "innocent" children.

Getting back to the opening post by Sean Walsh ....
An axe can be used to kill innocent children, so how come your not on your soap box bemoaning the masses of hardware stores dealing in Arms Trading too??

Akrasia

Axes are not designed and sold specifically to be used as weapons.
Missiles are.

Thats the difference. you can kill somebody with your bare hands, doesnt mean everybody should have them amputated at birth

Morality is not detemined only by your actions but a great deal is down to intention. Of course you might not intend to kill somebody if you fire a missile at a schoolbus, but youd still be morally responsible because death would be a predictable consequence of your action.
When you invade a country for economic reasons it is a predictable consequence that people will die. Most people do not think it is acceptable to kill for money.

Having adequate weapons to protect Ireland from attackers is not morally wrong, but if you start to use those weapons to oppress refugees or to annex the channel islands then it beomes a serious problem.

Defending america's homeland is one thing defending americans economic interests is entirely something else

Morpheus

im sure your motives are well intentioned but the following statement does not ring true to my mind....

Axes are not designed and sold specifically to be used as weapons.

Fact is, ive a friend whos face is permanently scarred because someone forgot to point out to his attacker that Axes are not designed and sold specifically to be used as weapons.

Im sure the indians used their tomohawks for chopping down trees?

To use one of your own words, the Javelin missile is not designed "specifically" to be used to kill someone,

The missile is "specifically" designed to punture through a vehicles armour and explode causing catastrophic damage rendering heavily armoured vehciles unusable... in doing this it usually results in fatalities to the crew,

The guys making the weapon didnt design it saying, "lets make the javelin missile so that irish soldiers can kill innocent children with it" which is what the thread starter is implying, that by buying a weapon that arguably CAN be used to kill an innocent child, the irish army is a bunch of innocent baby killers.

Now my point was that an axe can also be used to kill an innocent baby. and its aslo the weapon of choice for these "people" (to be polite) to attack a plane with...
what if they had killed the pilot and crew by causing damage that wasnt picked up on inspection?? wouldnt they be innocent victims? No I hear you say and why?? because they are pilots flying a war machine.... much like, darn it, the crew of the tank the irish army just blew up with the javelin... isnt that a pity... im sure they will target innocent children, especially those ones carrying the AK47s... arent they called child soldiers??

not so innocent i think, they are forced to fight, but the point is, they will either kill you, or you will kill them... all objects have the potential to be used to kill innocents, you can stab someone with a pen and kill them.... go find out about the irish defence forces and what they do, then come back and defned that godforsaken muppet who implies we are innocent baby killers.

Akrasia

Having an axe to cut down wood is fine.
Having a javelin missile to defend yourself from being attacked by a tank is fine also.

Its very different if, because you are in posession of a axe, you go out trying to kill or injure people,
Similarly if you have a javelin missile system and you go out looking for tanks to blow up with it.

The airplanes that were parked in Shannon Airport were on their way to a theatre of war where they would be looking for targets to attack, or facilitating the use of offensive weapons. If they were sitting in an army Base In America in case somebody might attack America then its different to going to a theatre of illegal war where the targets are no threat to you until you deliberately try to kill them.

There were 3 attacks on Airplanes in Shannon. None of these attacks were ANY threat to human life. the first was when Eoin Dubsky used spraypaint on the windscreen of an airplane. Any pilot who wouldnt notice that damage shouldn't be flying planes in the first place, but even if that pilot was incredibly stupid, Eoin remained in the Hanger and CALLED THE POLICE to give himself up.

When Mary Kelly and the catholic workers damaged the planes with hammers and axes they also gave themselves up voluntarily to the airport authorities. there was no danger to any human life from their actions so it is not an arguement to claim otherwise.

There have been credible reports that Patriot missiles and Cluster bombs have been transported through Shannon airport. these (especially the cluster bombs) are specifically designed to maim and kill. Cluster bombs are an offensive weapon!

bonkey

Originally posted by Morphéus
Read my original post again...

You've edited it, so its hardly the original any more....

my intention was to show my anger at someone suggesting that too much money is being spent on the military...

Yes, I accept that. I never questioned that. I was commenting on the original manner in which you expressed that anger.

i didnt deny anyone freedom of speech, i simply said that i disliked certain types of activists, as im sure they dislike people like me, theyre entitled to, doesnt bother me, and im sure i dont bother them,

What you said was that you wanted to beat the crap out of them for using it the way they did.

You may have reworded the post (4 or 5 times by yoru own admission) since then after the reaction you saw to it, but thats hardly comforting.

Imagine if you had applied the same standards to your actions instead of your words : you'd beat the crap out of people 4 times to lessening degrees, before being happy that the fifth "iteration" of the process (which was not violent) was actually what you meant to do.

You'd then argue that criticism of the first beating was unjustified because of how you'd refined your approach by the fifth iteration.

So you'll excuse me if I don't go and edit my criticism to reflect your updated stance whenever you see that you took the previous stance too far.

The moral of the story??? I am ME, you are YOU, just dont expect me to agree with your views, as i dont expect you to agree with mine,

I don't expect you to agree with my views. I expect you to respect them, and threatening violence is not a sign of respect. It is a sign that you wish to physically oppose other people exercising their freedom to speech because you object to what they are saying.

You may have since edited the post, and now wish to argue that my criticism isn't valid, but I never criticised your edited post. I criticised your at-the-time-stated opinion that you wanted to beat the crap out of people for saying things that you didn't like.

As far as I can interpret something like that it means that you would take action because they have said these things.....which is exactly where my comment came from. You appeared to believe (based on what I was responding to, as opposed to what is there now) in free speech as long as it wasn't too disagreeable, and in beating up people who went beyond that.

Unless, of course, you don't see being beaten up as a result of saying something as an abrogation of free speech?

if i walk past your rally and give you the fingers, thats democracy,

And if you walk into my rally wielding a big stick and beating people up because they are at my rally, then it most certainly is not democracy....but thats exactly what you were suggesting you would like to do.

jc

Morpheus

Your free to pick up a stick and hit me back.

Yes bonkey, I re-worded my original post, probably a bad idea, however, i took quite a lot of offence to that muppet who originally posted that irish soldiers are effectively innocent baby killers, it made my blood boil.

The bloody hard work they do goes unrewarded, unnoticed and mostly unrecognised by a largely ignorant public quite a lot of the time, the rags in this country prefer to publicise things that go wrong with it than when things are right. Theyre quick to publish pieces about how underfunded the DF are and yet if they get new APCs to protect themselves in, or new missiles, they publish crap that gives someone like this a reason to express this kind of utter tripe.

Yes im sure that someone in the world has tried or succeeded in killing an innocent child with a javelin missile, my point is that you can bet it wont be the Irish army.

by the way.... heres my actual quote un-edited!!

youd better hope i never get a chance to attend one of your (or your associates and comrades rallies) because ill bring a big stick and show you what i think of "your type of" peace activists and anti war hippies...

I dont see where ive said i would beat someone with the stick... your jumping to conclusions again, just like the original poster, missile-innocent children-irish army = irish soldiers are killers of innocent children .

bonkey

Originally posted by Morphéus
Your free to pick up a stick and hit me back.

You have got to be joking me. You don't see physical violence being used as a method to "object" to something someone is saying as an abrogation of free speech? As long as the speaker can hit back, then all is fair?

Please.....you have got to be kidding me.

Yes bonkey, I re-worded my original post, probably a bad idea, however, i took quite a lot of offence to that muppet who originally posted that irish soldiers are effectively innocent baby killers, it made my blood boil.

I agree that the original position was ridiculous.

I've no problem with you rewording your post.

I find it funny, though, that you are trying to defend the original wording (which is what I was criticising) despite having edited it out because you decided in retrospect it was unacceptable.

I dont see where ive said i would beat someone with the stick... your jumping to conclusions again,

Yes, I am indeed inferring that you did not intend to bring a big stick in order to just use it as a walking aid or something else.

If you are bringing a big stick to "show what you feel", then I think its pretty obvious that the intention is to use it - or at least threaten the use of it.

I'll happily admit my inference was unjust if you can offer a credible alternate interpretation of why you'd be bringing a big stick to a rally of those who's opinion you detest in order to show how you feel.....especially since you have since reworded the language because you adimt that in your anger and disgust you went a step (or more?) too far.

just like the original poster, missile-innocent children-irish army = irish soldiers are killers of innocent children

No, the original poster did not show any statement by the Irish Army from which it could be reasonably inferred that they were going to kill innocent children. You made a statement where violence against those who's use of FoS offends you could reasonably be inferred.

So its not like the original poster at all.

jc

Nuttzz

In fairness this double talk could go on all year, The orginal poster said

Why is our government spending these vast sums of money on missiles that can be used to kill innocent children?

He is implying that the missiles can be used to kill children and these same missiles are in the hands of Irish troops. Put 2 + 2 together....

Incidential Morpheus you are been a bit of an toolbox, you were in a temper and posted what you would like to do to some people. Accept it, apologise for it (if you wish) and move on but dont deny you made the statement in the first place

Why is our government spending these vast sums of money on missiles that can be used to kill innocent children?

Just curious but are there any guilty children out there?

Akrasia

It depends on when you think responsibility emerges.

I would argue that conscripted soldiers are innocent victims also, conscripted child soldiers even more so

bonkey

Originally posted by Nuttzz
He is implying that the missiles can be used to kill children and these same missiles are in the hands of Irish troops. Put 2 + 2 together....

There is a distinction between saying/implying "those guys will do...." and "I will do....".

Unless, of course, our response on these boards to every single opinion offered should be "prove that you really think that" :rolleyes:

jc

Nuttzz

Originally posted by Nuttzz
In fairness this double talk could go on all year,