The Irish army is fighting in Afghanistan

It wasn't me!

No, it's not correct. Is he engaged for the duration of a specific contract, at a higher rate of pay than soldiers of British nationality? You're in a military forum. You want to call people mercenaries you're going to want to use it in its correct, military sense.

Happyman42

A mercenary is motivated by money not national interest.

goldie fish

Happyman42 wrote: »

A mercenary is motivated by money not national interest.

That makes every single soldier a mercenary so.

It wasn't me!

Happyman42 wrote: »

A mercenary is motivated by money not national interest.

I think you'll find most people in most jobs are motivated by money rather than national interest. That's not a useful definition of a mercenary, especially when one actually exists.

UN Mercenary Convention wrote:

1. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at:
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.

Happyman42

goldie fish wrote: »

That makes every single soldier a mercenary so.

Fair enough, wouldn't totally agree that all soldiers are motivated by money. He's an Irishman who is a mercenary.
He can fight for whoever pays him, nothing to do with me, just don't call him an Irish soldier, just like a New York policeman from Tallaght is not an Irish policeman, he's an American cop. Simple distinction really.

mathepac

Happyman42 wrote: »

... just don't call him an Irish soldier, just like a New York policeman from Tallaght is not an Irish policeman, he's an American cop. Simple distinction really.

+1 on that part. The unfortunate thing is that the perception will always be that he is neither fish nor fowl.

He is clearly not an Irish soldier, as a member of the British Army, he's a British one; he's not an Irish hero and he may never find full acceptance as a British one either.

As you'd expect by a rag part-owned by the the family of General Field Marshall Admiral Sir AJF O'Reilly the Indo's scribblers got it all so wrong, again.

Rayne Wooney

I've always wondered why they go across the pond to try join the SAS instead of staying here and going for the Army Rangers?

Is it just the amount of action?
Do they have to pledge their allegiance to the queen to join over there?

mathepac

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

... Do they have to pledge their allegiance to the queen to join over there?

Soldiers in all democracies pledge their allegiance to the Head of State to avoid the politcos having direct control over the armed forces. In dictatorships, where the head of state and the head of government are one and the same, the swearing allegiance thing is meaningless, like in the US for example.

Rayne Wooney

mathepac wrote: »

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

... Do they have to pledge their allegiance to the queen to join over there?

Soldiers in all democracies pledge their allegiance to the Head of State to avoid the politcos having direct control over the armed forces. In dictatorships, where the head of state and the head of government are one and the same, the swearing allegiance thing is meaningless, like in the US for example.

God that's patriotic.. Pleging allegiance to the queen, just for some action?

cruasder777

Canvasser wrote: »

I know the definition and my use of it is entirely correct.

Go and look the word up then come back.

Andy-Pandy

Whats up with people problems about him being in the British army? The article clearly states he tried to join the Irish army but was not able to join due to asthma as a kid. Are loss is the British army's gain.

As the proud son of an Irish born officer of the British army i've had to deal with listening to people sh1te on for years. Its pathetic.

Canvasser

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

Whats up with people problems about him being in the British army? The article clearly states he tried to join the Irish army but was not able to join due to asthma as a kid. Are loss is the British army's gain.

As the proud son of an Irish born officer of the British army i've had to deal with listening to people sh1te on for years. Its pathetic.

He was so desperate to kill some people he wasn't fussy what army he joined?

Happyman42

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

Whats up with people problems about him being in the British army? The article clearly states he tried to join the Irish army but was not able to join due to asthma as a kid. Are loss is the British army's gain.

As the proud son of an Irish born officer of the British army i've had to deal with listening to people sh1te on for years. Its pathetic.

What's pathetic about it?
If you join an 'army' you are motivated by something. Somebody who joins a foreign army, especially one with the historical relationship with us that the BA has, is NOT motivated by love or the defence of their country but by a love of soldiering for soldiering's sake or by money. They can be justifiaby criticised by those who do love their country and who would defend it. You can be proud as you want, you can't be proud about his service to Ireland though.

It wasn't me!

Happyman42 wrote: »

a love of soldiering for soldiering's sake

Far and away the best and most suitable reason to get involved in any such force. It's the only one I see as terribly useful, frankly.

Happyman42

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Far and away the best and most suitable reason to get involved in any such force. It's the only one I see as terribly useful, frankly.

May well be useful, but all you are doing is just selling a service abroad, same as an engineer or a postman.

Canvasser

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Far and away the best and most suitable reason to get involved in any such force. It's the only one I see as terribly useful, frankly.

Thankfully the Waffen SS no longer exists if people are going to have your attitude

Canvasser

Happyman42 wrote: »

May well be useful, but all you are doing is just selling a service abroad, same as an engineer or a postman.

Postmen don't kill people

It wasn't me!

Happyman42 wrote: »

May well be useful, but all you are doing is just selling a service abroad, same as an engineer or a postman.

My point exactly, and precisely the reason comments about being mercenaries and traitors and so on and so forth are complete horseshít.

Canvasser, I think you'll find most professional soldiers everywhere will tell you the job's pretty much the same wherever you do it. Most in my experience are motivated by the job, rather than some deep and nebulous love of country.

Happyman42

It wasn't me! wrote: »

My point exactly, and precisely the reason comments about being mercenaries and traitors and so on and so forth are complete horseshít.

Who mentioned anything about being traitors?
The point is they are not 'Irish soldiers'. They are soldiers for hire, you can call that whatever you like, I call that mercenary. They would only become traitors if they acted against our national interests.

Canvasser

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Canvasser, I think you'll find most professional soldiers everywhere will tell you the job's pretty much the same wherever you do it. Most in my experience are motivated by the job, rather than some deep and nebulous love of country.

Sounds like mercenaries to me

It wasn't me!

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who mentioned anything about being traitors?
The point is they are not 'Irish soldiers'. They are soldiers for hire, you can call that whatever you like, I call that mercenary. They would only become traitors if they acted against our national interests.

It's not exactly an uncommon term in use by those who oppose Irishmen serving in the British Army, and, as you correctly point out, it's incorrect. All soldiers are soldiers for hire, in that they do the job because they get paid for it. They're no more or less motivated by prospects of money and soldiering than their counterparts in the Defence Forces, and as I've illustrated above, you can call them mercenaries if you want, but it's no more actually correct than to call them bananas.

It wasn't me!

Canvasser wrote: »

Sounds like mercenaries to me

So all soldiers are mercenaries then. Again, we have an actual definition of the term detailed above. It says you're wrong.

Happyman42

It wasn't me! wrote: »

It's not exactly an uncommon term in use by those who oppose Irishmen serving in the British Army, and, as you correctly point out, it's incorrect.

I pointed out no such thing, I consider anybody who serves in an army acting against my country, a traitor.
My point was, nobody mentioned the word 'traitor' in this discussion until you did.

All soldiers are soldiers for hire, in that they do the job because they get paid for it. They're no more or less motivated by prospects of money and soldiering than their counterparts in the Defence Forces, and as I've illustrated above, you can call them mercenaries if you want, but it's no more actually correct than to call them bananas.

It has to do with who you swear allegiance to and the legitimacy of that allegiance. An Irishman swearing allegiance to a foreign head of state to earn money is mercenary and is wrong and always will be.

It wasn't me!

Wrong is your opinion. Mercenary is not, and its use is incorrect.

Morpheus

Happyman42 wrote: »

I consider anybody who serves in an army acting against my country, a traitor

And in what context is our closest military and financial ally currently acting against the 26 county Republic of Ireland? you are like the rest of the barstoolers, still living in the past. forget it, build a bridge, etc, we have bigger things to worry about than kicking this dead horse.:mad:

srsly78

Canvasser wrote: »

Postmen don't kill people

Ahem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_postal

Happyman42

Morphéus wrote: »

And in what context is our closest military and financial ally currently acting against the 26 county Republic of Ireland? you are like the rest of the barstoolers, still living in the past. forget it, build a bridge, etc, we have bigger things to worry about than kicking this dead horse.:mad:

Plenty of Irishmen served the Crown before we were a 26 county republic and the Crown forces where doing everything it could to stop us being one. Plenty served the crown when innocent Irish people where being shot in Derry and Ballymurphy and where being beaten of the streets because they wanted equal rights. I would consider those who ignored those facts to be worse off than any barstooler I know, by virtue of the fact that they where loyal to nothing other than money, in the present and the 'past'. You build all the bridges you need to live with yourself.
And that is as far off topic I am going. I am discussing the definition of an 'Irish soldier'.

It wasn't me!

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am discussing the definition of an 'Irish soldier'.

No, you're not. You're talking about mercenaries, with absolutely no reference to the actual meaning of the term.

Happyman42

It wasn't me! wrote: »

No, you're not. You're talking about mercenaries, with absolutely no reference to the actual meaning of the term.

I disagree with the UN definition and rely instead on the Oxford English Dictionary definition. Is that allowed? :rolleyes:


adjective

• primarily concerned with making money at the expense of ethics: she’s nothing but a mercenary little gold-digger

noun (plural mercenaries)

• a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army: he had planned to seize power with the aid of a group of mercenaries
• a person primarily motivated by personal gain: cricket’s most infamous mercenary

whitelines

I think the moral status of a man from The Irish Republic serving in HM's Crown Forces is not clear cut. The Republic was part of The UK not so long ago and Irish men fought for The UK over many a year in many conflicts. Perhaps the off spring of such men are capable of great loyalty to The Crown as well. However, those who just can't get in The Irish Forces for whatever reason, or fancy a crack at The Paras (for whatever reason), well...

Personally, I would prefer all UK soldiers to be British Citizens, or at least from a Commonwealth country. This would rule out those from The Irish Republic. Given that Ireland had until recently an illegal claim on UK soil, I think it was particularly inappropriate for those from The ROI to serve in The UK military. Some who did, ended up in The IRA (one ended up chief of staff - although he was British!!!).