With Regards to the Afghan deployment poll - corrected version

Zuiderzee

Sorry for starting a new thread, again, to comment on another posting -
but it is a long post at the end of a very long thread on which I have a fairly strong opinion
- so - again I'd ask you indulge me another time.

I have enjoyed this forum in the past as we have discussed matters to do with the Irish defense forces,
their role, their history the future and other aspects.
I have not posted so much recently as the forum has swung very far to the right,
and much of the stuff posted has little to do with the Irish Military, some really belongs in the Walter Mitty section.
For example the issue of a posting basically being a recruiting drive for the UK’s armed forces has disturbed me.
The rah-rah lets follow Blair/Bush blindly agenda seems to be a typical sentiment for many posting here.
Its like reading The Sun sometimes, Our boys out knocking the crap out of Jonny Wog Foreigner.

Now the important part - Firstly - Congrats Eroo - clear winner of this years
'my posting should be in the Walter Mitty section as I have no idea what I am talking about' award.

"People don't seem to realise the likes of Al Qaieda/Mujahadeen/Taliban etc are at war with the West........
The only reason they haven't launched any attacks in Ireland is probably because they want to focus
on their main opponents UK, US, Pakistan etc".

The only comment I can make on that statement is so, so incredibly stupid I don’t know if its worth answering,
but I will try to, and make this simple, so please try to read this carefully.

Islamic terrorism is not some monolithic block.

The Mujahideen (note the spelling) is a word that means Muslim fighter.
Being about as specific to Afghanistan today as saying NATO soldier.
I think the Mujahideen at this time to whom you refer are the United Islamic Front.
The UIF were a loose collection of fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets.
The UIF were actively supported, under the direction of Carter, Regan and G H Bush,
by the United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as well as other western nations and their allies.
After the Soviet withdrawal they broke down into feuding factions who pretty much became bandits.

The Taliban grew from a Sunni group primarily recruited from Pashtun refugees in Pakistani refugee camps,
and came to power in Afghanistan while the feuds went on, with the support of Pakistan and locals
tired of the atrocities committed by the feuding parties.

The Taliban and UIF despise each other and have been at war since soon after the Soviet retreat.

The Taliban Government was recognized by the UAE, Saudi and Pakistan and the US was supportive.
For example in 1997 Taliban Ministers visited Texas as VIP gests to sign an oil pipeline contract and
visited the State department.
Later that year the Clinton administration, due to atrocities committed against women, children
and other ethnic groups started to distance itself from the Taliban and support their rivals,
pretty much at the insistence of Sec. Albright.

Al Qaeda (again, note the spelling) means ‘The Base’ (perversely the same term as the US republican party
refer to their more religious, right wing supporters)
They are another Sunni group, but not Afghani, they are predominantly Arab.
Founded in about 1988 to help the UIF fight the Soviets, actively supported with
funds from the US and Saudi Arabia in particular.

During the civil war after the Soviet withdrawl the UIF fell apart and Al Queda sided with the Taliban.

Many Taliban now are sick of what they see as foreign interference, both Arab and Western.

Now just because I think sending further Irish troops to Afghanistan in order to support
an incredibly corrupt regime that at the moment suits the neo-conservative agenda fronted
by GW Bush is a bad idea does not make me as Morlar says part of an overly-vocal,
grossly over-represented anti-military left who, apparently, make up about less than 1% of the population
and are not generally representative of Ireland and whose protests affect our foreign policy or
prevent us to meet our international obligations.
Firstly having had FF in power for god knows how long I would hardly say the left is over represented,
and last time I saw the poll on the other thread it was 52/48 against - a surprise with the pro UK/US
bent this forum has taken in recent times.

Or as Fratton Fred would have it I would be a fence sitting/bleeding heart liberal or shinner who
likes to criticise everything the British and Americans do. I'm not like that either.

It does go to show the neo-cons have taught us one thing, when you hold a position then,
before someone can debate you, shout slogans, sling **** and spout slogans in place of giving answers,
and brand the opposition with labels like liberal, left wing, marxist, shinner, green, leftie etc.
Drill baby, drill.

Irish troops have been in Afghanistan for a long time, before the US invasion.
An Army Colonel of my acquaintance was there 10 years ago at least.
Since 1989 I have been horrified by the trearment of women under the Taliban,
but nothing was done to stop this because at the time they were supported by the US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
If this group of society were a different colour or religion or ethnic group
I feel things would have been different, but they were only women.
I always felt the west should stop support – and that includes Sudi support -
to the Taliban until this situation was rectified.

Little girls have the right to medical attention, education and equal legal status just as little boys have.

For this reason I was at first supportive of the US intervention – not because I believed
they would defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan - which was a ridiculous proposal,
but that it might improve human rights in general and womens rights in particular.
Sadly however - since the accession of the UIF to power, the lot of Women in Afghanistan
has not improved, particularly outside of Kabul.

Now lets look at a typical UIF leader who Irish troops would be supporting as part of th UK/US task group.

One of the recent leaders of the UIFs offspring, the Northern Alliance who was the Afghan Army Chief of Staff
is Abdul Rashid Dostum, who fought for the Soviets, Anti Soviet Afghan fighters and pretty much everyone else.
He and his troops are guilty of widespread systematic rape and murder as well as raising massive amounts of money
from the Opium trade, which puts heroin on the streets of Dublin. And this is typical of those in power in Kabul.

British troops have been prevented by the US from a proper opium poppy destruction scheme
because it would upset local warlords who at this time support the invading forces,
they don’t have to pay tax on the opium like they did with the Taliban.
There has been no spraying, systematic eradication or crop replacement programs –
just a half assed effort with local troops with sickles and sticks for the TV cameras.

If we send troops to Afghanistan it is these warlords that we are risking the lives of Irish troops.

Unless there is a massive change in the way the US/UK deal with the UIF,
and that includes negotiating with the Taliban, from a position of strength at this time,
to undermine the influence of Al Queda, and the drastic improvement in womens rights
and services in the country –
Irish involvement would do no good, as our only reason for becoming involved is a moral imperitve.

Ireland is not at war with any of the Afghan factions, nor are they are not at war with us.

Sending a combat unit to Afghanistan, or Iraq for that matter, would be an error
and would damage our reputation in the eyes of Muslims as ignorant of
our way of life as Eroo is of theirs.

In closing, Moran, take care of yourself over there

iceage

Ahh thats so much better.

Manic Moran

Al Qaeda (again, note the spelling)

<ditto Mujahadeen>

There is no spelling. Arabic and English just don't transliterate. Look at how many official spellings there are for the President of Libya. People can't even figure out if it should begin with a "G" or a "Q"

NTM

Zuiderzee

Fair enough, but just like with Pinyin, there are accepted spellings.
But lets please not get into semantics - that was not my point in making the posting.

eroo

You started another thread just to have a go? Could you not have just posted it at the end of the other thread, rather than creating another just for your post to be seen? I'll be the first to put my hand up and say I'm no expert on Afghanistan in anyway shape or form. I posted about sending troops there as I wanted to see what people thought. I think we should, you don't. Fine. It is complex. But how about growing up and posting with even the slightest degree of restraint? Rather than throw around insults. That is why I stopped reading your post after the first few paragraphs. I wont be frequenting this forum anymore, as I'd rather not create a stir. :rolleyes:

iceage

Whats this? dissention in the ranks....Your not gonna run away because some big bad fella typed a massive post about the political and civil unrest in Afghanistan.

Zuiderzee

Shame to see you cant be arsed to even have the courtesy or conviction to read a posting that may disagree with your well informed opinions, but I'm not really surprised.
I did go through all the pages responding to your poll / posting BTW.

I did not write all that just to have a go at you. Dont be so self centered.

To be blunt I got tied of wading through a lot of the crap and trying to formulate an answer to a post that has gone all over the place.

You initially posted that we should send troops because we are under attack by various Afghan factions.

If you have no understanding whatsoever about Afghanistan then why write something like that?

This is a public forum, your opinions will be questioned, sometimes even ridiculed, get used to it.
I would expect the same if I posted that we should declare war on the US, UK, France, or why not Mexico?

There are those on this forum with whom I have profound differences, but we can disagree without being disagreable, ad I respect them for their willingness to stand by their point of view, their ability to think about their stance and their arguements making me seriously consider mine.

Walking away from defending your opinion hardly engenders any confidence in your ability to make a rational arguement.

Most of the posting is a very basic synopsis of the Afghan situation over the last 15-20 years.
It also briefly touches on my concerns about the direction the forum has taken in recent months.

If you are interested in reading a different viewpoint in Neo con relations with Islamic conservatives, try the book 'Black Mass' by John Grey.

diverdriver

First off, I do think the idea actually belongs in the Walter Mitty section along with any other idea that the Irish defence forces will deliberately deployed in a combat role. Given current government policies, our sham 'neutrality' and public sentiment. It won't happen.

In any case, to answer the hypothetical argument, I would be against it because I believe, the Irish army is neither trained nor equipped for the role. Indeed it might backfire. The Bundeswehr hasn't exactly covered itself in glory there and we all know the reputation of Germans soldiers fighting abilities.

But this thread isn't really about that issue is it? There is a risk that Mairt will step in and close this because this subject is perilously close to politics.

You say this forum has drifted to the right. Why would you be surprised by that? The military and those interested in it are as a rule not known for their fluffy, left leaning socialist viewpoint. It doesn't mean they are neo-cons either or in fact all that right wing at all. This being the internet and all. You just need a keyboard and an instant opinion to contribute.

But maybe as you point out, the left is largely lacking in support in this country despite being noisy and widely reported. So is it surprising there should a right wing drift?

Turning to your points about Afghanistan, well made though they are. You offer precious little in the way of solutions. You are in fact somewhat of an idealist, I think. Which I tend to believe is worse than either right or left wing viewpoints.

The original impetus of the invasion of Afghanistan was the elimination Al Qaeda and it's role in 9/11 with the support of the odious Taliban. The fact that this hasn't quite worked out is no surprise. The fact that the west is now allied with some dubious characters is no surprise either. That's simply the real world. Sure we would all like to see human rights respected in these countries. But the reality is that it isn't going to happen soon. To the disapointment of many people like yourself, I suspect. The invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan didn't immediately turn these places into democratic, liberal beacons, a kind of Muslim Denmark. Iraq, perhaps predictably is now probably less liberal than under Saddam. This is no surprise, give the history and tribalism of both countries.

Afghanistan wasn't invaded to restore human rights and liberate women. It wasn't invaded to remove the Taliban. If the criteria for invasion by the west was human rights or the lack of it, any number of countries would be on the hit list, Zimbabwe and North Korea would be high up there.

This is an example of your conflicting ideas:

Unless there is a massive change in the way the US/UK deal with the UIF,
and that includes negotiating with the Taliban, from a position of strength at this time,
to undermine the influence of Al Queda, and the drastic improvement in womens rights
and services in the country –

You know that's directly incompatible, negotiating with the Taliban would not result in any improvement in womens rights or mens for that matter. Any regime with the Taliban involved is going to be fundamentalist. That surely sits uneasily with your idealism? That the UIF are little better is no surprise. Al Qaeda can go tomorrow but that won't change Afghan rivalries.

Finally you state that:

Sending a combat unit to Afghanistan, or Iraq for that matter, would be an error
and would damage our reputation in the eyes of Muslims as ignorant of
our way of life as Eroo is of theirs.

This viewpoint alway irritates me, frankly. It's the myth we Irish like believe about ourselves. That we are considered, neutral, untainted by colonialism. That we are respected around the world. That we have a reputation in the first place. This all pre-supposes that anyone has actually heard of us. Anyone who has travelled a bit will tell you the same thing. Ireland doesn't exist in most people's minds. You cannot damage a reputation that doesn't exist in the first place.

I always smile when I hear someone, aid worker or soldier enthusing that the locals are pleased we are there and particularly pleased that we're not a former coloniser, like the French or the British. Ignoring the fact that we were in fact the British back then and enthusiastic supporters of the empire, the same could be said of most countries in Europe. No doubt they would be pleased to have the Germans and the Russians there too?

I'm afraid you, like many people in Ireland, are guilty of idealising our role in the world. But essentially it's an attitude that allows us to do nothing. We don't get involved in military alliances or wars because we are not prepared to make a stand. We claim to be neutral but everyone knows we're not. Yet that apparently allows us to take the high moral ground and criticise other countries who actually make the effort to effect change or defend themselves against aggression or terrorism.

Your post has that mentality all over it. You are knowledgeable about Afghanistan but offer no solutions other than to wring your hands at the moral ambiguity of the situation. We Irish never take a stand one way or the the other. It's true internally and externally.

Afghanistan will play itself out one way or another in the long run. But don't expect womens rights to be high in the agenda anytime soon.

Zuiderzee

Every military is a reflection of the society from which it comes.
You are right in saying that the military and those interested in it are not all right wing.
Equally not every socialist or person regarded as left leaning viewpoint is fluffy. James Connolly, Nelson Mandella, and LBJ for example.
And me, an interest in the Irish miltary and service in the RDF.
I have argued strongly here in the past for expansion in capability of the Naval Service and the Aircorps in particular, and believe that Ireland should be more active in overseas deployment.

Honestly though I am surprised that an Irish military forum has gone so far to the right. Talking of blooding troops in Afghanistan FFS?
It is fair to say in recent times a lot of postings on this forum have been promoting or in favour of a neo-con agenda, and also promoting service by Irish citizens with the armed forces of other countries, both which make me distinctly uncomfortable.

You suggest I have offered no solution - I did, there is only one, negotiation - inclusive of both the UIF and the Taliban.

Of course I dont have any great regard for any extreme viewpoint, and of course know the invasion was ot about human rights, but dont forget that a lot of Talban policies were directed by a predominantly Saudi financed Al Qaeda, whose state sponsored Wahabi version of Sunni Islam. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

I am not talking about appeasement, I am talking about negotiating an acceptable co-existence, and the nations involved in Afghanistan can do this - at this point - from a position of strength.

Sooner is better than later, supply routes through the south eastern passes are already stretched and under threat, and there is no garuantee that Russia will allow access from the North.
In negotiation from strength terms and conditions can be dictated.
Those should include civil and human rights and freedoms.
Quite simply, a society that denies basic education and healthcare to 50% of its population is going to be fairly ****ed fairly quick.

The Taliban cannot be defeated by military might alone. Pakistan will continue to give selected Afghan Taliban leaders support as in the long term it is in their interest to have a cadre of allies in their NW.
As for attacks on Pakistans Taliban, they probably see it as the US doing their job for them.
If it is in the Afghan Talibans interest, and many of them feel this way, then they will get shot of Al Qaeda.

Either the involved powers sort it out, or hunker down to prop up a corrupt puppet who will sell us heroin uninterupted for the next few decades.

Lets look at it this way - Through history, to avoid war or end hostilities, it has most often been necessary to talk to adversaries and opponents.

Negotiation from a position of moral or military strength have more often than not yielded positive results, in using a West African proverb – Teddy Roosevelt famously, and correctly said Speak Softly, and Carry a big stick – you will go far.

Churchill was unarguably one of histories most influential statesmen, and famously said that Jaw Jaw was better than War War.
Churchill negotiated with Michael Collins, a wanted terrorist, ending the war of independence in Ireland.
Ghandi negotiated with the British and gained independence for India.
JFK avoided nuclear war in dealing with the Soviets
Nelson Mandela, a convicted incarcerated terrorist, ended apartheid by Negotiating with his jailors.
Ronald Regan ended the Cold war by negotiating with the Soviets.
Bill Clinton helped bring peace to Northern Ireland by helping facilitate negotiations there.

Each of these seemingly impossible scenarios have come to pass, and should serve as a model for the future to at least attempt to resolve tensions without recourse to violence.

I think You are quite wrong about Irelands position in the world.
Its small but very influential. Sorry it irritates you.

We are the only post colonial nation in Europe in its true sense.
Of course Joe Soap will hardly know where we are, but decision makers quite often will.

The Irish Diaspora in North America, Britain and Australia/New Zealand are well known.
But in other parts of the world for decades, Irish Workers have educated the leaders and decision makers, or their fathers or Grandfathers of developing nations in Africa, South America and Asia.

Currently there are several power blocks that are influenced by Irish thinking and theory.
Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom, potentially Ghanas future president, was educated in St. Augustine's College as a border in St. Theresa's house.
Julius Kambarage Nyerere, the first President of Tanzania attended St Mary’s School in Tabora, was heavily influenced by the Irish. and his successors remain so.
The ANC in South Africa, Nelson Mandela in particular, are very pro Irish.

Perhaps the most unusual, if not bizarre example of Irish influence was not in Christian Africa or Catholic South America but in Muslim Pakistan.
Benazir Bhutto was educated in the Convent of Jesus and Mary (Karachi)
Her husband Asif Ali Zardari was educated in the Jesuit college St Patrick’s.
Another past pupil, perhaps the most famous, was General Pervez Musharraf.
In the feudal system that passes as a democracy in Pakistan every major power block in its political landscape had links to the Irish education machine which shaped, developed and nurtured talent wherever they went.

To paraphrase Christopher Hope of South Africa, they did sing about misty clouds, green fields and St. Patrick as perched birds dropped off the telephone lines from dehydration.

Now, on the more obtuse political points, I do not wring my hands, I just see and activley support more pragmatic solutions.
I would be against the invasion of North Korea, they have nuclear weapons and Iran has learned from this.
I would be fully in favour of intervention in Zimbabwe, negotiation has reached its end point, people are dying of Cholera because basic, cheap chemicals are not being purchased for Gods sake.

The tangental reference to Nixons axiom of a silent majority and a noisy over reported minority etc.
Briefly Ireland and the UK are instinctivley centre left countries, the general emphasis being collective action and support.
On the other hand the US and the Netherlands are centre right, the emphasis being placed on individual responsibility.
The Dutch are often thought of as ultra Liberal, they most certainly are not in general, particularly outside the Randstaat- but they have a tradition and belief in tolerance.
In all four cases, each will interpret these ideas differently.
All of them will veer off the centre in either direction at times, and there is now quite often a crossover.

Your points on the failure of human rights and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan blame a liberal agenda instead of the ultra conservative faction who actually are the ones who failed to impose their ideals, transpositon of guilt is not an excuse.

Being an idealist is not a bad thing by the way - I've been called a lot worse. In the course of human history it is pragmatic progressives that overcome obsticles, you cant stand in the way of millions who want change. Those who look back stagnate and get overtaken.
Without idealists the basic premise that we are all entitled to basic rights, that we are to be judged on the content of our character would not be the norm.
Without idealists we would not be an independent nation, this little state was built by poets and dreamers, people like Pierce, Markowitz and Yates.
Without idealists a man would not have walked on the moon, a King would not have led us to the mountain top, slavery might well still exist without people like Wilborforce, blacks would be second class citizens in the US and South Africa and a little man educated by the Irish in Rajkot led a nation of over 400,000,000 to independence.
Yes we can, and Yes, we will.

lostexpectation

all those negotiations were like this say for nelson mandela, will you allow the big companies to continue to trade and leave the big wigs alone, yes, ok free at last, still great inquality.

things is irish have gone and spoiled their neutruality by siding with the americans or so many occasions, would you be open about our allowing the use of shannon etc Z? when you start these negotiations or do you want to lie and keep are twee reputation.

the use of shannon is putting our soldiers in danger.

Fratton Fred

Talking is fine if both parties have a clear agenda, but what is the agenda of Al Qeada? bringing hard line Islam to the world, defeating the immoral west? how the **** do you negotiate with that?

What is it the Taliban want? a strict muslim country in which they can continue their anti west agenda, a safe haven for the Al Qeada fighters who want to bring terror to the western infidels? Again, how do you negotiate with that. You can only negotiate if a win win scenario is possible and i don't see how that can happen at the moment.

I don't see how this board has gone to the right, what i see is a situation that is fully supported by the UN (and Ireland's representatives in the UN), is backed by pretty much all of the EU member states by way of participation and meets two of the three parts of the "Triple Lock".

What I see is memebrs of an armed force saying "Hey, we're professional soldiers, this action meets all bar one of the criteria for us to get involved, so why aren't we there?".

diverdriver

the use of shannon is putting our soldiers in danger.

It isn't. Shannon is only an issue in this country among usual suspects of the left wing loony fringe. What would put our soldiers in danger would be to deploy them to a combat zone.

Zuidersee, your points are well made but it confirms you in my mind as an idealist. Idealists are usually first up against the wall, come the revolution. Because idealists are first to disappointed with the result of radical change.

Without idealists we would not be an independent nation, this little state was built by poets and dreamers, people like Pierce, Markowitz and Yates.

Now I must take issue with that, thanks to the combined efforts of all three and more. Ireland became nominally independant, but remained poor, backward and conservative and remained so for most of the twentieth century. What's worse our country was run by idealogues for far too long after independance. Which are the worst form of idealists. If we had continued with the Home Rule pragmatists, we would have undoubtedly been independent in due course with a far less fraught relationship with Britain and even unity. We would certainly be economically stronger sooner.

Notwhitstanding the Irish diaspora's contribution to the world. Ireland as a country is less than insignificant in our contribution to world affairs, not least because of our mythical neutrality. The attitude that we are a post colonial country is comforting for many. But how many former colonies continue to supply manpower for the British army? There are no Royal Kenyan regiments or Royal Indian regiments in the British army.
In fact there are Irish soldiers in Afghanistan. The only difference is the colour of their uniform and the badge on the arm.

lostexpectation

nobody is suggesting talking to al qeada at the mo, but yes the do want to talk to taliban guns for hier and taliban leaders who can be bought off.

a stragety for the soldiers is what is lacking

lostexpectation

diverdriver wrote: »

It isn't. Shannon is only an issue in this country among usual suspects of the left wing loony fringe. What would put our soldiers in danger would be to deploy them to a combat zone.

what would the taliban think about it? or sudanese and chadian liberian of lebanon rebels who dislike the west?

cushtac

lostexpectation wrote: »

what would the taliban think about it? or sudanese and chadian liberian of lebanon rebels who dislike the west?

If they dislike the west already it's not going to make a difference.

lostexpectation

cushtac wrote: »

If they dislike the west already it's not going to make a difference.

i think it will make them dislike them even more! maybe seem them not as neutral peacekeepers, the reputaion with the irsh heavily rely on abroad and our military and political leaderships always mention in relation to our peacekeeping roles.

cushtac

lostexpectation wrote: »

i think it will make them dislike them even more! maybe seem them not as neutral peacekeepers, the reputaion with the irsh heavily rely on abroad and our military and political leaderships always mention in relation to our peacekeeping roles.

US troops have been landing at Shannon for years, including all the way through UNIFIL, it hasn't made a difference so far so why should it now influence any of the belligerents in the areas in which the DF is currently operating?

Zuiderzee

Fratton Fred - the primary agenda of Al Qaeda is the overthrow of the Saudi Royal family and the removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia.
The Talibans primary objective was to fight the banditry of the UIF after the Soviet withdrawl from Afghaistan.

Jesus DD - I express an oposing viewpoint and the next thing its me that gets put up against a wall come the revolution

Guilty for being an idealist?? Im not quite sure what to make of that.
You seem to think idealism is a bad idea, I disagree.
In fairness - as George Carlin said, inside every cynic is a failed idealist.
Like JFK - I am an idealist without illusions. The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination - Einstein said that.

I believe to achieve anything you have to have an ideal.

But lets try to stay on topic - You said I offered no solutions, I reputed that.

I offered several international examples of successful negotiations, you picked three people (two being church of Ireland) and somehow you use these to promote an apparent 'we should still be in the union' agenda!

Again, we are being dragged off topic into an old debate
I answered this before, I am not going to get back into that again.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055417398&page=2
Please take a glance at it again, there was no freedom for any of the other colonies until the 60s other than India in 1949 (with their massive contribution to the North African campaign) and that was after a long struggle.

We decide our own future, whether at home, in Europe or in foreign affairs, not London.
The Scots have eventually gained home rule of a sort, that is-at best - where we would be with home rule.
Currently we are in a better long term economic position than the UK.

One thing I will take issue with

diverdriver wrote: »

But how many former colonies continue to supply manpower for the British army? There are no Royal Kenyan regiments or Royal Indian regiments in the British army.
In fact there are Irish soldiers in Afghanistan. The only difference is the colour of their uniform and the badge on the arm.

Bollox - they were wise enough to get shot of all of that rubbish.
A relatively small number of people from the Republic are in the UKs military.

On that point it should be the Royal Ulster Guards and Royal Ulster Regiment or something more suitable like that.
For example you dont have the Nepal regiment, you have the Ghurkas.
The RIR are the linear decendents from the B Specials and UDR, a sectarian militia.

There are British soldiers in Afghanistan who happen to be Irish, from both sides of the border, but those who are from the republic are serving someone elses country and crown. That is an important distinction.
They are British Soldiers, or with others US soldiers or French Soldiers.

Any other description - as Hagar rightly pointed out when locking the last thread that went this way - is misleading.

This seems to be what you refer to as Irish Soldiers


This is what I would refer to as Irish Soldiers

diverdriver

Now you're using sophistry. Distorting what I said to discredit it.

We had home rule on the plate in 1914. It was coming anyway after the war. That was way ahead of anyone else. It would have led to full independence in due course, probably through dominion status just like Australia, Canada etc.
Instead thanks to our romantic idealists and gunmen, we got De Valera, priests, bishops, mass emigration, poverty, civil war and a political class who have consistently distinguished themselves as self aggrandising, corrupt and incompetent right up to the present day. You could of course blame the British for that too if you like.

Love the photos by the way. Are you saying those men in the sashes are not Irish? I thought they were. Misguided as they are with their little cloaks of Britishness.

British army or not. North or south. They remain Irish.

Zuiderzee

Look, as I asked - can we please stay on topic - the deployment of Irish troops in Afghanistan.

Again, you turn off topic, accuse me of distorting what you have said when its there and plain to see what you yourself have typed, and beat the auld drum, sounds like a Lambeg at this stage.

As I said, this bee in your bonnet about British/Irish troops has already been debated, the previous posting I made on the issue is noted and here is the link again -

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055417398&page=2

or would it make it easier if I copied and pasted.
Whatever your attitude to what Ireland has - or as you believe has not - achieved is a different topic.

This idea that you have that Ireland shoud be proud as a nation when a person from Ireland is killed in service with the British, or any other Army is ridiculous, they are serving another nations interests.
Its that simple, when you sign up in the UK you are in service of Britain, not the Irish republic, two different countries, they are not interchangeable.
Its like saying we should be proud of an Irish born person who is killed fighting for the Taliban for example? It makes about as much sense.
De mortuis nil nisi bonum and all that but in all fairness, you takes the money you takes the chances.

If you really feel that strongly about being part of the Union, or being a dominion, or commonwealth, I suggest you move to somewhere within its juristiction, and sign up for God, Queen, Country of Choice and Empire.

diverdriver wrote: »

Are you saying those men in the sashes are not Irish? I thought they were. Misguided as they are with their little cloaks of Britishness.

Here I wold say you were misguided, they would refer to themselves as British Soldiers. They may be Irish, but they are-as I would call the - British Army soldiers. Thats what I said the last time this came up.

So why not try to please stay on topic, this is getting silly because you simply do not debate a point made, you just throw in a totally different issue.
Its fairly point-less.

diverdriver

Again you distort my opinion, again you attribute a viewpoint to me that I don't have. I notice now you did it in the other thread too.

Again, you turn off topic, accuse me of distorting what you have said when its there and plain to see what you yourself have typed, and beat the auld drum, sounds like a Lambeg at this stage.

If you really feel that strongly about being part of the Union, or being a dominion, or commonwealth, I suggest you move to somewhere within its juristiction, and sign up for God, Queen, Country of Choice and Empire.

Where did I say I wanted to be part of Britain. Find it and quote it back at me, please.

My issue is with this country and the was it was governed, is governed and the way we as Irish citizens have been treated over the years by our so called leaders. Just because you have rose tinted view of the country doesn't mean we all should.

As for Afghanistan, we have sent people there, not combat troops or peacekeepers. But soldiers all the same. We therefore are already enemies of the Taliban, not cuddly friendly neutral peacekeepers as we like to portray ourselves.

Zuiderzee

Is there any chance whatsoever that you might return to topic?
The topic was Irish troops to Afghanistan in a combat capability.

This has become pedantic and political, again, with your usual fixations, again.

I have asked a few times to stay on topic now, so theres little point in answering anymore.

diverdriver wrote: »

As for Afghanistan, we have sent people there, not combat troops or peacekeepers. But soldiers all the same. We therefore are already enemies of the Taliban

I am very aware that we sent 7 observers, I know some of them - but to say we made enemies of the Taliban is a load of bollocks, they were not even in the same region

Now do you really think I have the time or inclination to drudge through all your posts to pull quotes about a different topic?
Lets just put it this way - You have been consistently against Irelands nutrality policy, pro BA recruitment on this site and against what happened in 1916.

You also seem to think that so long as you are Irish, regardless of who you serve with, be it UK, US or whoever - that regardless of whom you serve, you are still an Irish Soldier, thats mis-leading.
And that the death of a British or US Serviceman who may be Irish is a great part of our military tradition - thats idiotic. It is sad, but it is not in the service of this nation.

You seem to think we should leave air defence up to the RAF.

You have said we should not have gone for indepenence, and gone for home rule instead. If we did, we would have about as much say in our affairs today as Scotland does - a glorified coco.

This is the 'what if' idea that Kevin Myers has also proposed over the years. The John Redmond Home Rule grouping lost, their naiveity cost thousands of lives, absolutley wasted - young men who were butcherd for nothing.
Its time to Get over it, time to let go of the past and move forward and move on.

As I said before The War of Independence had to be fought because the Empire had no intention of delivering Home Rule or freedom to smaller nations, or any other part of the Empire.

Look at the facts. It was not until 1960 - 42 years after the war for the freedom of smaller nations ended - that Harold Macmillan finally accepted what Parnell espoused, that No one has the right to say thus far to the freedom of a nation.

Ireland was the first part of the British Empire to achieve any measure of independence since 1776.

In doing that we have had a independent fiscal and foreign policy, our own voice within Europe unlike Wales and Scotland, and our own agenda around the globe.

I am proud of what such a small nation on the periphery of Europe has achieved.

You are, again wrong about being the first to get Home rule.
If we were to get home rule on a plate, then why in 1919 after the war as promised it was not given - as it was to India and Pakistan?
Canada (except Nova Scotia) got home rule in 1867.
Australia and New Zealand got home rule in 1907.
Each still members of the Commonwealth and QE2 is still head of state.
I think the Kiwis got a bit of a shock when no member of their ruling family bothered to attend Edmund Hillaries funeral.
The feeling I got in Australia is that since the 1975 crisis, they are pretty much intent on breaking the link to the crown.

South Africa got home rule in 1910

Again, you go on about being oppressed by our own, priests, politicians and police - again - what the **** does that have to do with this topic?

If you really have such an issue with the way this state is run, then do something about it ike the rest of us- join a political party, start to campaign for what you believe in - run for office, you can even start a political party if your solutions are so much better, but for christsakes stop whinging about the past.

The Church people stupidly chose to listen to. The same church who shafted Parnell, condemned the Fenians and spoke out against the people who gained for us some initial measure of freedom-mainly because so many of them were CoI and the church was allowed a free reign by the UK after the repeal of the penal laws, control of Manooth for example.

The politicians people elected, or by not voting allowed them to get the numbers needed, wheter you vote or not, those elections include you, me and our parents, Grandparents and Great Grand parents - thats hardly the fault of the people who died to get us that right to determine our own future.

And again I need to remind you to compare the one person one vote system in the Republic to the Home Rule six counties.
Prior to the civil rights movement the electorial system in NI - unlike the rest of the UK - was allowed and designed to be one of the most corrupt, arcane and biased in Europe, not to mention gerrymandering to ensure total domination of just under half the local population.

And the Gardai oppressing us? I take it you may have heard of B-Specials - little more than a sectarian militia - from whom the UDR and then RIR descended, or the way the RUC was structured prior to the peace process - a 97% Unionist police force in a juristiction that was about 45% nationalist?
That does not even begin to look at collusion between the RUC and Loyalist Paramilitaries, or the 6000ish UDR militia, or the number of British troops stationed in the provence.

- that was the alternative choice with Home Rule.

So for the last time can you get back on topic - or start this discussion in the political section of boards.ie

Duffers

LMFAO
'Stay on topic'
(veers massively off topic)

90% of your post ^^ does not belong in a military forum.
The question as to whether Ireland sends troops to Afghan has no relation to 1916.
You seem to have latched on to this in a big way. As for the political ramifications of such a deployment...or the reasons for/against, they also have nothing to do with Michael Collins, the Black & Tans, or O'Connell Street.

I have to say, MAN are your posts are hilarious, the way you careen off topic like a goldfish with alzheimer's cracks me up...the self aggrandising stuff I really like, it's like an Irish Stephen Colbert! Aligning yourself with Kennedy, Mandela, LBJ...Einstein?! Challenge: see if you can compare yourself to Gandhi and General Franco in the same sentence!

As for people getting info from posts on this site, on the joining process for the UK forces, I agree it is probably not the most appropriate place for that, esp with PDF recruitment frozen.
However, there is no need to get wrapped around the axle to such an extent, ie getting on your soap box at 4am, off topic in your own thread. Makes me feel sorry for you.:(

Chuck U Farley

[quote=Duffers;

"careen off topic like a goldfish with alzheimer's cracks me up..."





Cracking post Duffers, I laughed so much I spilled my coffee.

iceage

4am....If I post at 4am I'm usually P!shed out of my head crosseyed and dyslexic!!

Oh come on Duffers You have to admit that he does post well, even if it is a bit of a ramble, but some very insightful points. I do sense a dragging up of the Ireland/Britain drivel, I hope its not intended to inflame others here or cause the thread to get slammed by Mods, that would be an awful shame.

As to the original post, things are definately afoot as far as withdrawal and redeployment of troops are concerned, the attention to AFG has definately taken a turn, and not just there, Pakistan is defo in the frame now.

Hagar

Ok lads. I know it's impossible sometimes to divorce Military from the underlying politics but I don't want the forum to become a hotbed of politics so we have created a sub forum call "The Politics of War" where we can discuss topics such as this thread.

Thread Moved.

lostexpectation

cushtac wrote: »

US troops have been landing at Shannon for years, including all the way through UNIFIL, it hasn't made a difference so far so why should it now influence any of the belligerents in the areas in which the DF is currently operating?

how do you know.

cushtac

lostexpectation wrote: »

how do you know.

Do you think these groups would harbour such feelings and keep them secret from us & the rest of the world? They'd have made public threats against the DF & the press would have been panicking about them. Hezbollah & Amal never made an issue of it in Lebanon, both during the original deployment and the more recent one. The Chadians haven't brought it up either, rather the rebels threatened the DF over operating alongside the French.

If you're going to be afraid to operate in foreign countries because of what belligerents think about your relations with other countries you might as well stay at home & not bother at all.

iceage

I think the point trying to be made is that as Shannon is used as a hub for troop transport to said destinations, that IT could be a legitamate target....been to Shannon lately folks...very soft.

Good move on the thread Hager.


Is that Santa's hairy arse taking a p!ss in the snow in the ads, or am I seeing things??

cushtac

iceage wrote: »

I think the point trying to be made is that as Shannon is used as a hub for troop transport to said destinations, that IT could be a legitamate target....been to Shannon lately folks...very soft.

The point that was trying to be made was that somehow the use of Shannon, which has been going on for the better part of 40 years, will somehow now anger one or more of the warring parties in one of areas the DF now operates. My point was that it didn't anger Hezbollah, who have previously shown the will & ability to attack targets outside of Lebanon. If Hezbollah didn't consider it an issue big enough to warrant attacking the Irish troops in Lebanon or Shannon itself, then why should anyone think that it's going to be an issue for the Chadians?

I also find it interesting that you would describe a civilian airport as a legitimate target for terrorism.

lostexpectation

are they aware of it? ever bring it up in conversation any of you heroes out there?

cushtac

lostexpectation wrote: »

are they aware of it? ever bring it up in conversation any of you heroes out there?

Who are you talking about? Hezbollah or the Chadians?

Hezbollah are certainly aware of the use of Shannon, Hezbollah 'journalists' have been brought over here several times by those Irish groups opposed to the US use of Shannon. They are also the beneficiaries of Syrian & Iranian intelligence, who were in turn the beneficiaries of Soviet intelligence during the cold war.

The Chadians have representatives in Europe and have access to the internet and international media, one of their spokesmen conducted interviews with the Irish Times via sat phone earlier in the year. I think it's reasonable to assume they know of the US use of Shannon.

And who are you referring to as heroes?

iceage

cushtac wrote: »

I also find it interesting that you would describe a civilian airport as a legitimate target for terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6257194.stm

Ring any bells? these are all classed as legitimate targets by terrorists. Hezzbollah and Chadians really are the least of our worries mate at this point in time.

lostexpectation wrote: »

are they aware of it? ever bring it up in conversation any of you heroes out there?

Think lostexpectation was having a pop at me Cushtac for mentioning the place. By the way Lost, we've been talking about it for ages now, but the eye is off the ball I think as to who would be a serious threat. Apologies for stating the bloody obvious.

neilled

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Bollox - they were wise enough to get shot of all of that rubbish.
A relatively small number of people from the Republic are in the UKs military.

On that point it should be the Royal Ulster Guards and Royal Ulster Regiment or something more suitable like that.
For example you dont have the Nepal regiment, you have the Ghurkas.
The RIR are the linear decendents from the B Specials and UDR, a sectarian militia.

Their nationality is considered Irish within the context of the United Kingdom which is made up of Great Britain (England Scotland and Wales) and Northern Ireland. This makes these two units the Royal Irish and Irish Guards. The fact that they can draw on recruits from south of the border is an added bonus as far as they are concerned.

The direct descendants of the UDR were the home service battalions of the RIR who basically just took on a new capbadge and uniform in 1992 when they amalgamated with the Royal Irish Rangers. Whilst any of the Irish Regiments in the British Army containing loyalists is no surprise, armies recruit predominantly from the working class and that is the spiritual heartland of loyalism. Par for the course really. Anyway the UDR descendants got the axe a few years ago. The 1st and 2nd didn't seem to have a huge amount to do with them and neither did the TA who were deliberately badged the Royal Irish Rangers to differentiate them and generally speaking they weren't targeted as much during the troubles. I was browsing a loyalist forum a while back and noted that there was much wailing about "all this Irish Rangers stuff" or words to that effect, that the present RIR and TA didn't seem to care much about the UDR. Interesting stuff, its not quite as black and white you make out.

cushtac

iceage wrote: »

Ring any bells? these are all classed as legitimate targets by terrorists. Hezzbollah and Chadians really are the least of our worries mate at this point in time.

I'm well aware they're targets, I just found it interesting that you'd class them as legitimate. It's not a word I would have used.

Duffers

iceage wrote: »

4am....If I post at 4am I'm usually P!shed out of my head crosseyed and dyslexic!!

Oh come on Duffers You have to admit that he does post well, even if it is a bit of a ramble, but some very insightful points. I do sense a dragging up of the Ireland/Britain drivel, I hope its not intended to inflame others here or cause the thread to get slammed by Mods, that would be an awful shame.

As to the original post, things are definately afoot as far as withdrawal and redeployment of troops are concerned, the attention to AFG has definately taken a turn, and not just there, Pakistan is defo in the frame now.

Sorry mate I just find it difficult to take people with such polarised views seriously.:D

lostexpectation

ever bring it up in conversation any of you heroes out there?

cushtac wrote: »

Who are you talking about? Hezbollah or the Chadians?

Hezbollah are certainly aware of the use of Shannon, Hezbollah 'journalists' have been brought over here several times by those Irish groups opposed to the US use of Shannon. They are also the beneficiaries of Syrian & Iranian intelligence, who were in turn the beneficiaries of Soviet intelligence during the cold war.

The Chadians have representatives in Europe and have access to the internet and international media, one of their spokesmen conducted interviews with the Irish Times via sat phone earlier in the year. I think it's reasonable to assume they know of the US use of Shannon.

And who are you referring to as heroes?

so the answer is no.

iceage

cushtac wrote: »

I'm well aware they're targets, I just found it interesting that you'd class them as legitimate. It's not a word I would have used.

Agreed. Gramatically correct, but defo an incorrect inferrance. A terrorist, which I hasten to add I am not, would class it as a legitimate target.

I should have used the term logical, thanks Cushtac.

cushtac

lostexpectation wrote: »

so the answer is no.

I still don't know who you're talking about, please be more clear in future. I have talked to friends who were on the last tour in Chad & they never mentioned anything about Shannon being mentioned to them.

They did say the rebels are more interested in the French, perhaps we should pull out of the EU for fear of offending them?

lostexpectation

yes the the policy is keeps schtum about what were really about, and wave the friendly didelee i, oirish flag, as we've seen with people in the papers suggest chad is irish led mission.

cushtac

lostexpectation wrote: »

yes the the policy is keeps schtum about what were really about, and wave the friendly didelee i, oirish flag, as we've seen with people in the papers suggest chad is irish led mission.

So what are we 'really' about?