Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

More English than the English themselves?...

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    From what I've seen so far, the similarities are;-

    Farmers drive E Class mercedes, School run mum's drive Range Rovers.
    A sign of a good parent, is having a polish nanny pick your kids up from school rather than their "real" nanny
    A sign of success is driving a 3 series BMW, like everone else.
    everyone loves Eastenders:eek:
    Kids love McDonalds, until they get there and realise that apart from the toy, it's ****.
    trendy people with busy lifestyles love to relax by reading a paper whilst drinking a €10 cup of frothy coffee, just like in New York

    the difference I've seen are

    Spar shops here are far superior and are actually nice places to shop.
    Pakistani immigrants in England cook better Turkish donar kebabs better than the Chinese immigrants in Dublin.
    people use "Bad Language" more frequently.
    all the road signs are in two languages, just like Wales.
    I thought snobbery was an English thing, I now know the true meaning of it.
    girls in England would get laughed at for wearing deck shoes to school, here "Dubes" are the most important thing a school girl can have (Apart from a pink MotorolaV3 of course).
    Smoke free pubs:cool:

    I make it that tere are more differences than similarities, so I guess the two contries are very different.

    most of the other things, obesity, food, TV, Man United, I'd put all that down to globalisation.


  • Options
    #33
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    I've yet to meet a farmer with a merc, unless it was his cattle truck.


  • Options
    #34
    antSionnach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 235 ✭✭antSionnach


    My Grandad is a farmer with a merc - a dusty 1992 mercedes benz complete with baler twine to pull down the boot, sheepdog in back seat, and yes, with compulsory cattle trailer attached!:D


  • Options
    #35
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Farmers and thier Mercs (LPG powered!) went out of fashion when the 4x4 craze hit town/village.

    Mike.


  • Options
    #36
    Dontico
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭Dontico


    purplengold wrote:
    It amuses me when I hear Irish people go on about being uncomfortable with things militaristic. When we were part of the United Kingdom, (and I stress that, we were not a colony as some like to think), Irish men made up a disproportionate percentage of the armed forces. I suspect some of us are anti military now because we are completely ineffective military speaking. A tiny army, no air force and a small fishery protection fleet instead of a navy. I suspect, if we had a properly resourced and effective military we would be far more gung ho.

    one can be pro-military and be still anti-war. the army has other functions than invading people. i regard the army more important than the church.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Dontico wrote:
    one can be pro-military and be still anti-war. the army has other functions than invading people. i regard the army more important than the church.

    surely then you would need to have an army with no guns, more like a boy scouts for grown ups?


  • Options
    #38
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Fratton Fred wrote:
    surely then you would need to have an army with no guns, more like a boy scouts for grown ups?

    No, its obviously more about being pro having a defensive force while still not committing a nation to a war every few years. Jesus how hard is that to understand? Plus its way off topic. Unless you are going to say that the fact that Britain gets involved in wars a lot more than Ireland makes us different?:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #39
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    brianthebard wrote:
    No, its obviously more about being pro having a defensive force while still not committing a nation to a war every few years. Jesus how hard is that to understand? Plus its way off topic. Unless you are going to say that the fact that Britain gets involved in wars a lot more than Ireland makes us different?:rolleyes:

    I don't see how anti war and pro military fit together, if you are anti war, then you would talk about your differences if someone tried to invade, although who that would be these days I'm not sure.

    but you are right, way off topic.

    another way of looking at this, could be the amount of irish influence there is in England.


  • Options
    #40
    Dontico
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭Dontico


    Fratton Fred wrote:
    surely then you would need to have an army with no guns, more like a boy scouts for grown ups?

    you a truely a very silly person.

    a well trained person with a gun, doesnt have to shot soemone.


  • Options
    #41
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Dontico wrote:
    you a truely a very silly person.

    a well trained person with a gun, doesnt have to shot soemone.

    I'm only responding because you made a personal remark.

    I agree, a well trained person does not have to shoot someone, that's right, but why carry the gun in the first place. The training is when or when not to shoot.

    I don't condone war, but sometimes war is the right thing, which is the whole point of having a military (except in France of course, where the military appears to be ornamental).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,746 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Fratton Fred wrote:
    (except in France of course, where the military appears to be ornamental).
    Back in Nov 2004 a plane from the Ivory Coast attacked some French troops. 90 minutes later the Ivory Coast air force didn't have any planes that could still fly. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3989127.stm

    And unlike the UK there don't have to rent nukes from the US or ask for permission to use them.


  • Options
    #43
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,478 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Back in Nov 2004 a plane from the Ivory Coast attacked some French troops. 90 minutes later the Ivory Coast air force didn't have any planes that could still fly.

    If someone bragged about beating up some guy in a wheelchair would you respect their achievement? Reckon they were tough as nails?

    Though, if someone did beat up some guy *in* a wheelchair, that would be somewhat more impressive.


  • Options
    #44
    Exit
    Registered Users Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭Exit


    He wasn't condoning it. He was pointing out that the French military is not just ornamental.


  • Options
    #45
    InFront
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,698 ✭✭✭InFront


    Fratton Fred wrote:
    I don't condone war, but sometimes war is the right thing, which is the whole point of having a military (except in France of course, where the military appears to be ornamental).

    The whole point of having a military is for when war is needed, yet no war would be needed if there were no militaries?


  • Options
    #46
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    InFront wrote:
    The whole point of having a military is for when war is needed, yet no war would be needed if there were no militaries?

    ideology versus reality :)


  • Options
    #47
    Zambia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    Fratton Fred wrote:
    except in France of course, where the military appears to be ornamental.

    Truly ridiculus statement and Im glad someone proved you wrong on it. I would say The Republic of Ireland has the only thing close to a Military Ornament. That said they appear to have performed every task set to them as true professionals.


  • Options
    #48
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    like to see you say that to families who lost there love ones peacekeping in the congo (1960's) and in more recent times in the lebanon. the fact that there haven't been more dead is nothing short of a mircle considering how camp shamrock use to get hit regularly in mid 1990's.

    even bill clinton acknowledged (1995) what a great contribution irish fore has been to un peacekeeping.
    the irish rangers are up there with the best of the nations elite trained forces.


  • Options
    #49
    Zambia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    Stop right there I did not cast any shadow on the conduct or bravery of irish service men or women

    I said they where true professionals and yes the Rangers are said to be a very elite force. But as far as europe and the world are concerned it is a very small army 10,500 staff, in fact its not even in the below list of the worlds top 101.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces

    However back on Topic, Ireland is not England nor is it turning into England.


  • Options
    #50
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    calling it an ornament is very disrespective though. the size of the army is suffiently proportionate to the size of the population of the 26 counties in time of peace, and hopefully that will remain so.also the fact that ireland is suppose or appear to be neutral and also not member of nato etc. how many countries are in the top 50 who have a similar population and are in a time of peace? (one or two of the african countries are round 4 mill). i am sure you yourself were not slating our national army,air corp and navy.

    you are fully aware that when this nation was established, the main focus was to remove the gun from society, hence unarming of the police and demoblising the number of army members (that bit being a clause from the treaty). i am sure that you would appreciate and acknowledge that there are other departments of government that need the money eg.

    anyway yes, you are right, back to the main topic. i agree with your last statement though.


  • Options
    #51
    Zambia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    Granted I retract the word ornament and replace in with compact.

    As for the size I will probably start this up somewhere more suited and see what feedback we get.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    purple'n'gold
    Registered Users Posts: 838 ✭✭✭purple'n'gold


    The primary role of our army from independence was to guard our fledgling democracy from the enemy within i.e. the IRA. It (the army) achieved this task admirably. When our army got involved in United Nations peace keeping missions it was a welcome step forward to give our troops some idea of soldiering abroad. Seeing as we are not involved with NATO it was the only chance our soldiers were going to get to see some sort of military action. They acquitted themselves well in all their UN roles. Our army is not an ornament; it has achieved all it was ever asked to do.


Advertisement