Is the irish Army a real army?

jimmycrackcorm

The question is in the sense of a comparison to teh US sending it's army to Iraq. You listen to Us soliders there all hypnotized into believing they're there to free the Iraqi people.

Then you listen to soldiers here saying Ah sure it pays my mortgage. I'm not denigrating our soldiers but given that everyone who enlists here is well aware that they will not be utilised in the same manner as the US army-would they still have signed up?

It's not as if our government will send soldiers into a real fight - only well prepared UN missions.

Interest to hear the ordinary foot soldiers view in particular.

SpitfireIV

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

The question is in the sense of a comparison to teh US sending it's army to Iraq. You listen to Us soliders there all hypnotized into believing they're there to free the Iraqi people.

I think thats the belief of the American people in general, ie, there destiny in the world is to free it from dreadful dangers, and the army are the ones who carry out America's unique ability to rid the world of all these nasty people :rolleyes:.

With the Irish army I was always led to believe that it was a Defence Force, ie to protect the homeland and enforce peace in war torn country's, not wage war. They were there to mop up and help rebuild, therefore a very different train of thought to those who were there ridding the land of the evil ones in the first place.

Perhaps its just an 'Oirish' thing too

Thats the way I seen it, but I'll probably be well eduacted soon enough

CroppyBoy1798

DublinWriter

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

It's not as if our government will send soldiers into a real fight - only well prepared UN missions.

Your post is an insult to the memory of the 75 Irish soliders who gave their lives on UN Peacekeeping missions in the past 48 years.

spooky donkey

isent there a size requirement that defines if you have an army or not? I heard now this was a long time ago mind that ya had to have over 20,000 soilders to be classed as an army and we only had 14,000 at the time so we did not have an army only a defence force. Those numbers may have changed now though.

5uspect

The purpose of an army is to provide protection for the citizens of this country and of its allies. In the case of the Irish Armed Forces they have done a terrific job. The Irish Armed services mightn't be the gun-ho zombies that populate the american army but that is a good thing. All of the work done by the army here in Ireland is in service of the Irish people not preparing for war and plotting to invade other countries. They provide support for the gardai, seach and rescue services, extensive support at times of natural disaster and we must never forget their contribution to international peacekeeping. I don't think your comment about that will go down too well

Military does not strictly equal state sponsored killers. So yes, being in the army is just another job, that can pay the mortgage. However we are lucky it is a job people are willing to do. If every country had an army like ours then the world would be in a much better state.

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

The question is in the sense of a comparison to teh US sending it's army to Iraq. You listen to Us soliders there all hypnotized into believing they're there to free the Iraqi people.

What gives you the right to slag off what they believe in? Are you currently serving in Iraq? Have you ever served? So maybe they believe that they now have to rebuild Iraq after the war? I think its pretty f*cking annoying to see a bunch of armchair generals belittling the soldiers who are only doing a job.

coyote6

Who are the brain washed ones really? Those who have the realization that there are bad folks who would love to kill us and then proceed to seek them out and kill them, or those who like to deny the fact that there is any evil in the world? (Those who want to hold hands and say "peace, love etc.") I think the "zombies" are those who believe whatever the media brainwashes them to believe. Have you been to Iraq or Afghanistan? My good friend, a father of three, gave his life one month ago whilst training Afghani police. He was NOT a zombie. He also never chanted while he cut off a non-muslim head with a knife! Or are the nice terrorists just misunderstood?

5uspect

coyote6 wrote:

Who are the brain washed ones really? Those who have the realization that there are bad folks who would love to kill us and then proceed to seek them out and kill them, or those who like to deny the fact that there is any evil in the world? (Those who want to hold hands and say "peace, love etc.") I think the "zombies" are those who believe whatever the media brainwashes them to believe. Have you been to Iraq or Afghanistan? My good friend, a father of three, gave his life one month ago whilst training Afghani police. He was NOT a zombie. He also never chanted while he cut off a non-muslim head with a knife! Or are the nice terrorists just misunderstood?

Okay zombie was a poor choice of words, i apologise
i don't doubt that there are seriously nasty people in the world and the war in afganistan is justified. My point is that it is better for an army to be a force of for the people rather that a purely agressive force.There's more to being a soldier than war.

The media seems to protray british and american soldiers in a different light in Iraq, is this a genuine representation considering the british armys experience in policing the north or are the media lying to us?

cushtac

5uspect wrote:

My point is that it is better for an army to be a force of for the people rather that a purely agressive force.There's more to being a soldier than war.

The US military was amongst the first organisations to render aid to civillians in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami and the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan. It does the same pretty much every time there's a hurricane in the Americas. The average US soldier is as capable of carrying out non-violent tasks as anyone else.

spooky donkey wrote:

isent there a size requirement that defines if you have an army or not? I heard now this was a long time ago mind that ya had to have over 20,000 soilders to be classed as an army and we only had 14,000 at the time so we did not have an army only a defence force. Those numbers may have changed now though.

You're wrong. There is no proper definition for a 'defence force'. The fact that Ireland choses to call it's military a defence force doesn't mean there is any discernable difference in basic doctrine from other militaries. The Irish Army trains for the same tasks as the British or the Americans - defence, attack, patrolling, raids, ambushes etc. The only differences are those of scale & resources.

coyote6

Apology accepted. I wish you could know some of the U.S. troops I know. These guys are the most dedicated individuals. They are taught to think and officers on the ground are given a good amount of flexibility. As for the Irish Army I'm certain they are also dedicated and well trained. Not to mention the centuries long warrior heritage. I'd be proud of them. I'm sure many of them wish they could prove it in the sand.

ChityWest

coyote6 wrote:

As for the Irish Army . . . . . I'm sure many of them wish they could prove it in the sand.

In fairness I dont think that they have anything to prove to anyone.

They have already proven themselves in peace keeping missions - most notably (imo) in lebanon.

http://www.military.ie/menu_overseas.htm

jimmycrackcorm

DublinWriter wrote:

Your post is an insult to the memory of the 75 Irish soliders who gave their lives on UN Peacekeeping missions in the past 48 years.

I expected that. I'm well aware of the sacrifice that has been made on UN missions. However there is abig difference between joining an Army like the U.S. Army where you know you'll end up in Iraq waiting in a humvee for a rocket to hit you and joining the Irish army where UN service is only for peace keeping.

coyote6

I know as an Army they don't need to prove themselves. What I meant was the individual soldiers. I work in the special operations community and know guys want to put their training and skills to the test. It was a compliment to the Irish soldiers who train hard for combat but only have UN missions. I'm most certain any well trained Irish spec ops guy could hold his own in any unit anywhere (and then take us out a drink us under the table!:D )

jimmycrackcorm

Deleted User wrote:

What gives you the right to slag off what they believe in? Are you currently serving in Iraq? Have you ever served? So maybe they believe that they now have to rebuild Iraq after the war? I think its pretty f*cking annoying to see a bunch of armchair generals belittling the soldiers who are only doing a job.

Well I'm not an armchair general otherwise I'd be ordering troops into North Korea that does have WMDS instead of oil wouldn't I? Of course you're right that I have no right to slag offwhat they believe in. Neither do the countless hundreds of thousands worldwide who protested against the then upcoming war in Iraq.

spooky donkey

cushtac wrote:

You're wrong. There is no proper definition for a 'defence force'. The fact that Ireland choses to call it's military a defence force doesn't mean there is any discernable difference in basic doctrine from other militaries. The Irish Army trains for the same tasks as the British or the Americans - defence, attack, patrolling, raids, ambushes etc. The only differences are those of scale & resources.

I was asking a question not making a statement!

magick

the US Army,

defence the name , attack the game!

BMAN26

ok jimmy,

Please do not insult the US soldiers for the decisions of the president. They are doing the job they have to do and praying that they can see their families again. Additionally, dont insult the Defence Forces by implying that their peace keeping missions are all cushy and comfy...the areas they are in are very VERY dangerous, often littered with mines and angry individuals with ak's. You would be well served to try to get to know what you are insulting before you speak.

oh, and I dont think those people were protesting what the soldiers think...

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Just a little bit of history for ye.

Please feel free to correct/criticise the following short story.

About 25 years ago in the congo a group (A section or less) of Irish soldiers defended themselves against about 150+ enemy, they gave up because they had run out of ammo. Anyway, the were captured and only last year their efforts were recognised and they received a medal or something.

Anyway, Ireland has very highly trained soldiers, there maybe only 10,000+ but i can surely tell ya that they are a force to be reconed with. This comes mainly from our history with England.

As for the ARW, well what can I say... simply amazing.

chalky

Mckinley Massive Lawn wrote:

Just a little bit of history for ye.

Please feel free to correct/criticise the following short story.

About 25 years ago in the congo a group (A section or less) of Irish soldiers defended themselves against about 150+ enemy, they gave up because they had run out of ammo. Anyway, the were captured and only last year their efforts were recognised and they received a medal or something.

That sounds like Jadotville. It was more like 300 Irish soldiers agains around 4000 Katangans. The Irish soldiers held out for 6 days, inflicting over 300 casualties with only 5 Irish troops injured. They were forced to surrender after running out of food and ammo and running low on water. Theres more info Here

Rovi

chalky wrote:

That sounds like Jadotville. It was more like 300 Irish soldiers agains around 4000 Katangans. The Irish soldiers held out for 6 days, inflicting over 300 casualties with only 5 Irish troops injured. They were forced to surrender after running out of food and ammo and running low on water. Theres more info Here

2 books dealing with the subject-
The Irish Army in the Congo 1960-1964: The Far Battalions by David O'Donoghue
The Siege at Jadotville: The Irish Army's Forgotten Battle by Declan Power

chalky

I've been meaning to get the second book there, is it any good?

Rovi

chalky wrote:

I've been meaning to get the second book there, is it any good?

I don't know. I haven't read either, to be honest, but I plan to rectify that deficiency as soon as possible.

DeVore

I'm a fairly pacifist kinda guy. I've no problem with resorting to force but only as a last resort in response to the use of force.

In response to the OP, I'm quite proud of our army and how it conducts itself and what it does by and large. I've never *ever* met a rude army man. I dislike the idea of a chain of command simply because it takes reason and logic (not to mention choice!) away from my control and those are the things I cherish most dearly but I'm not blind to the fact that those things need protecting.

When Saddam moved into Kuwait before the first gulf war, my sister lived in Abu Dhabi and I was very glad to have the US army between him and her. It gives you a different perspective when you have skin-in-the-game as poker players say

However I dont like what has happened since. Thats a political decision though. I've always thought of the army as a scalpel. You can use one to save a persons life or cut their throat. One is laudable and one is immoral, but neither reflects on the scalpel.

As an irish person, I feel proud of the fact that the Irish Army is one of the few that is still welcome just about everywhere. Irish negotiators are accepted by just about all sides whereas many other countrys' simply aren't.

The deafness thing was a dark time for an otherwise proud army but I think the record in Lebannon and other areas of conflict points to a defence force doing what it should do.

DeV.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Yup, knew I had it wrong, but you knew what I was talking about...

Thanks for the correction.