Why do we have an army?

mad turnip

I know when they fly large pallets of money into the country its transported by them.

It wasn't me!

shane9689 wrote: »

aaaand this is why we dont listen to you haha...join nato? war against terror? dear god someones completely disconnected with reality....stop playing toy soilder and wake the **** up. when we sent troops to africa back in the day, they had a harsh dose of reality...it was idiots like you who sent them there, and idiots like you who got them killed

Sent troops to Africa "back in the day"? It's not exactly long ago. Also, our first international role in armed support of the UN was the Congo, and due to at that point over forty years of history agitating for internationalisation of peace enforcement and conflict resolution in the League of Nations and the UN, Ireland were the first country asked for a contribution. I'd say that's a massive honour and a real testament to the role the country had selected for itself. Since then, we've been involved in dozens of theatres around the world, including various places in Africa, the Middle East, the Far East and Eastern Europe and acquitted ourselves admirably. The handicap faced by the defence forces is the failure on the part of a long series of governments to actually facilitate proper overseas deployments, to expand the standing army and provide sufficient equipment to allow independent operation abroad. As said above, it's been lip service for a long time. We're currently still in Lebanon, the place that's killed 47 Irish soldiers (over half of all those killed since 1958) and now there's another deployment back to the Israeli-Syrian border coming up. You want to talk about how we "went to Africa back in the day" you might want to get your shít together. The defence forces have been active all over the world for 65 years now, despite being so badly served by governments down through the years.

shane9689

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Sent troops to Africa "back in the day"? It's not exactly long ago. Also, our first international role in armed support of the UN was the Congo, and due to at that point over forty years of history agitating for internationalisation of peace enforcement and conflict resolution in the League of Nations and the UN, Ireland were the first country asked for a contribution. I'd say that's a massive honour and a real testament to the role the country had selected for itself. Since then, we've been involved in dozens of theatres around the world, including various places in Africa, the Middle East, the Far East and Eastern Europe and acquitted ourselves admirably. The handicap faced by the defence forces is the failure on the part of a long series of governments to actually facilitate proper overseas deployments, to expand the standing army and provide sufficient equipment to allow independent operation abroad. As said above, it's been lip service for a long time. We're currently still in Lebanon, the place that's killed 47 Irish soldiers (over half of all those killed since 1958) and now there's another deployment back to the Israeli-Syrian border coming up. You want to talk about how we "went to Africa back in the day" you might want to get your shít together. The defence forces have been active all over the world for 65 years now, despite being so badly served by governments down through the years.

your right...its not just back in the day. thanks for updating me, its today. so get them the fcuk out of there, they have no business there, and the un and peacekeeping is bull**** anyways. nice idea in theory, bad in practice...people get killed pointlessly on these missons and countries such as russia and america us the u.n for their own gain e.g western Sahara and now syria. We should have an army, but i think the idea of using that army is ridiculous, they only thing they need to be used for right now is costal patrols and anti-terrorism (From the north, not the damn middle-east).

It wasn't me!

You might want to tell the thousands of non-combatants trying to make a living in the areas the UN has moderated that the UN wasn't making a difference to them. They might be able to show you their local produce and economy, infrastructure and facilities which had been destroyed or rendered unusable or impracticable by conflict before the intervention of the UN. Maybe that would change your mind. Considering you hadn't a clue where the defence forces had actually operated or were currently operating when you mouthed off, it's hard to take clearly half-assed opinions with no actual facts to back them up seriously.

Lapin

shane9689 wrote: »

aaaand this is why we dont listen to you haha...join nato? war against terror? dear god someones completely disconnected with reality....stop playing toy soilder and wake the **** up. when we sent troops to africa back in the day, they had a harsh dose of reality...it was idiots like you who sent them there, and idiots like you who got them killed

You'd think they were sent kicking and screaming against their will.

Ask any soldier worth his salt what he'd rather be doing -

Serving on a foreign mission in combat or hanging around Main Street Ballyhaunis on a cash in transtit patrol on a wet Tuesday afternoon.

Its not idiots like me that got them killed - Its the underfunded and ill resoursed shambolic result of successive governments paying them lip service that do that. Just like I said in my post.

If they were properly equipped for combat abroad as I advocated there would be less casualties.

Peregrine

shane9689 wrote: »

your right...its not just back in the day. thanks for updating me, its today. so get them the fcuk out of there, they have no business there, and the un and peacekeeping is bull**** anyways. nice idea in theory, bad in practice...people get killed pointlessly on these missons and countries such as russia and america us the u.n for their own gain e.g western Sahara and now syria. We should have an army, but i think the idea of using that army is ridiculous, they only thing they need to be used for right now is costal patrols and anti-terrorism (From the north, not the damn middle-east).

How is America and Russia using UNDOF for their own gain?

And I imagine Irish terrorists should be left alone then? Just the ones from the North yeah? Grand

shane9689

It wasn't me! wrote: »

You might want to tell the thousands of non-combatants trying to make a living in the areas the UN has moderated that the UN wasn't making a difference to them. They might be able to show you their local produce and economy, infrastructure and facilities which had been destroyed or rendered unusable or impracticable by conflict before the intervention of the UN. Maybe that would change your mind. Considering you hadn't a clue where the defence forces had actually operated or were currently operating when you mouthed off, it's hard to take clearly half-assed opinions with no actual facts to back them up seriously.

i could say the same thing back to you. tell that to a western saharan, theyll tell you the un arent doing anything. theres no human rights mandate in the u.n's action the western sahara. they simply "keep the peace" which is advantageous to the invading Moroccans.

Heno97

NiallSparky wrote: »

Spaniards are allowed fish in our water as much as they want.

So long as they have the proper paper work(which most of them don't)

bumper234

Lapin wrote: »

I believe its time they were treated with the respect they deserve. We should join NATO, abandon the bullshít of neutrality, install a navy capable of patrolling our coastal waters, create a strategic air force fit for an island nation and quadruple the army in size to take our place on the frontline in the war against terror.

Time we stopped hiding like cowards behind the Brits and Yanks and stood up for ourselves.

Oh my.

How's that going?

We should help other countries illegally kidnap people and take them to other countries for illegal torture?

This has probably happened when the so called extraordinary rendition flights went through Shannon.

http://www.amnesty.ie/content/rendition-flights

Should we maybe let them base some unmanned drones here so they can blow up people and then when the families run to the cars they can send a secondary strike in to kill the people who are helping the "terrorists"?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan

Yeah let's throw away what little neutrality we have left and lump in with the Americans (you know the ones who used to allow the IRA terrorists collect money via noraid) and be done with these brown people who are terrorising Ireland.

Faith+1

F35 wrote: »

• To defend the Irish state against armed aggression.
• To give aid to the civil power (ATCP). This means that the Army assists, when requested, the Garda Síochána, who have primary responsibility for law and order in Ireland.
• To participate in multinational peace support, crisis management and humanitarian relief operations in support of the United Nations peacekeeping missions, and EUFOR (UN-sanctioned peacekeeping missions only).
• To carry out other duties which may be assigned to them from time to time. For example, assistance on the occasion of natural disasters, assistance in connection with the maintenance of essential services, etc.

And give stable employment for the ole lads

Menas

I always had respect for the Army in Ireland until the whole Army deafness thing broke.

For those too young to remember....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Army_deafness_claims

statesaver

Oh yes, lets stand shoulder to shoulder on the front line and commit a few war crimes with the Yanks. :rolleyes:

Not in my name Lapin.

Though i do agree 100% on your comment about the Navy. We do need a proper, well funded Navy.

It wasn't me!

Trigger Happy wrote: »

I always had respect for the Army in Ireland until the whole Army deafness thing broke.

For those too young to remember....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Army_deafness_claims

For a little bit of context, the deafness issue is just another example of the government failing the army. Not only were repeated requests for hearing protection ignored, but those who acquired privately available hearing protection were prevented from using them since they were non-issued kit. As a result, soldiers went, extremely predictably, deaf. Now, because they're soldiers, they're sneered at, but if this happened in a private industrial setting, there'd be absolutely massive public outcry if protective equipment was not only refused, but banned from use. Yes, taxpayers are funding deafness claims, but it's the fault of successive governments again, not the army, for failing to equip and protect their employees by the most basic means.

Peregrine

Trigger Happy wrote: »

I always had respect for the Army in Ireland until the whole Army deafness thing broke.

For those too young to remember....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Army_deafness_claims

You lost respect for the army because the DoD didn't fund them properly?


I think your anger is misplaced..

Menas

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

You lost respect for the army because the DoD didn't fund them properly?


I think your anger is misplaced..

To re-word. I lost respect for the Army because they were so weak over a number of decades to insist on correct working conditions for their employees.

If the top brass had kicked up enough of a fuss then surely they would have gotten the proper kit?
There was never anything in the public domain about lack of ear protection until these claims started coming through.

How can we expect the Army to protect the country when they cannot protect their own soldiers?
So yes, I did lose respect for the Army because of these claims.

Lapin

bumper234 wrote: »

Yeah let's throw away what little neutrality we have left and lump in with the Americans (you know the ones who used to allow the IRA terrorists collect money via noraid) and be done with these brown people who are terrorising Ireland.

I don't care what colour terrorists are.

As long as they continue to indiscriminately attack innocent people in democratic nations, they are threataning the freedoms we all enjoy even if the attacks don't take place on our shores (yet).

We therefore have a duty to join with our fellow democratic nations and quell terrorism in order to preserve the way of life we take for granted.


The quip about Noraid is completely irrelevant and ill judged.

Carles Puyol

Thanks for the replies, I now see a reason for the navy. As for the Air Force and army, I still fail to see a point. People are saying just in case we're attacked, but who would attack Ireland? The only countries (outside of the UK, USA and China) with the resources and bottle to attack us would destroy our current army. And why would any country want Ireland? We're a small, bankrupt nation only accessible by plane or ship, and a quarter of the island is governed by the UK.

modo85

what if the gardai,fire brigade etc went on strike tomorrow who would step in ????? the army is 100% needed and will always be needed

now if your looking at taxpayers money being badly spent you need to look at two main points relating to the army

1) the f.c.a
2) why has the irish army got more high ranking officers per soldiers compared to any other army in the world

Menas

Lapin wrote: »

I don't care what colour terrorists are.

As long as they continue to indiscriminately attack innocent people in democratic nations, they are threataning the freedoms we all enjoy even if the attacks don't take place on our shores (yet).

We therefore have a duty to join with our fellow democratic nations and quell terrorism in order to preserve the way of life we take for granted.


The quip about Noraid is completely irrelevant and ill judged.

By your own logic the US would have invaded Ireland in the 1910s again in the 1920s, 50s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

It wasn't me!

Trigger Happy wrote: »

To re-word. I lost respect for the Army because they were so weak over a number of decades to insist on correct working conditions for their employees.

If the top brass had kicked up enough of a fuss then surely they would have gotten the proper kit?
There was never anything in the public domain about lack of ear protection until these claims started coming through.

How can we expect the Army to protect the country when they cannot protect their own soldiers?
So yes, I did lose respect for the Army because of these claims.

Well, since the army can't strike or hold over any sort of incentive, they're easy to ignore, so frankly, again, your issue is with successive governments. They were informed of the issue but chose to ignore it, and now when suits are coming in for the damage caused, the blame is being put on the soldiers themselves for having the audacity to demand a working environment on par with any other. If you want to disrespect people, feel free to lose respect for the government. Remember, the army kept on doing their jobs in spite of adverse working conditions.

Lapin

Trigger Happy wrote: »

By your own logic the US would have invaded Ireland in the 1910s again in the 1920s, 50s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

How do you make that out?

bumper234

Lapin wrote: »

I don't care what colour terrorists are.

As long as they continue to indiscriminately attack innocent people in democratic nations, they are threataning the freedoms we all enjoy even if the attacks don't take place on our shores (yet).

We therefore have a duty to join with our fellow democratic nations and quell terrorism in order to preserve the way of life we take for granted.


The quip about Noraid is completely irrelevant and ill judged.

But is this not what the Americans are doing? Should we declare war on America?

Trigger Happy wrote: »

By your own logic the US would have invaded Ireland in the 1910s again in the 1920s, 50s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

You got there ahead of me

Menas

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Well, since the army can't strike or hold over any sort of incentive, they're easy to ignore, so frankly, again, your issue is with successive governments. They were informed of the issue but chose to ignore it, and now when suits are coming in for the damage caused, the blame is being put on the soldiers themselves for having the audacity to demand a working environment on par with any other. If you want to disrespect people, feel free to lose respect for the government. Remember, the army kept on doing their jobs in spite of adverse working conditions.

I am not blaming the soldiers. Please read my post.

The crux is that if the top brass in the army knew that they were damaging the long term health of the soldiers by not having ear protection during training exercises then they were negligent.
They should not have continued with these training exercises until the correct equipment was made available and should have forced this point with successive governments.

bumper234

Lapin wrote: »

How do you make that out

Because you said

Lapin wrote: »

I don't care what colour terrorists are.

As long as they continue to indiscriminately attack innocent people in democratic nations, they are threataning the freedoms we all enjoy even if the attacks don't take place on our shores (yet).

We therefore have a duty to join with our fellow democratic nations and quell terrorism in order to preserve the way of life we take for granted.


The quip about Noraid is completely irrelevant and ill judged.

So by your reckoning America should have intervened by sending troops in to stop the IRA, INLA etc.

It wasn't me!

Trigger Happy wrote: »

I am not blaming the soldiers. Please read my post.

The crux is that if the top brass in the army knew that they were damaging the long term health of the soldiers by not having ear protection during training exercises then they were negligent.
They should not have continued with these training exercises until the correct equipment was made available and should have forced this point with successive governments.

And you're missing my point: They can't do that. That would constitute an industrial action, which the army are not legally entitled to take. They did know it, they did bring it to the attention of successive governments and they were ignored. They can't "force the point." They have no leverage.

Menas

It wasn't me! wrote: »

And you're missing my point: They can't do that. That would constitute an industrial action, which the army are not legally entitled to take. They did know it, they did bring it to the attention of successive governments and they were ignored. They can't "force the point." They have no leverage.

I understand that the are constitutionally barred from going on strike. I had thought that was in relation to their public duties.
But does that mean that they are obliged to go on training exercises without the proper equipment? If it does, my bad , apologies.

Lola18

modo85 wrote: »

what if the gardai,fire brigade etc went on strike tomorrow who would step in ????? the army is 100% needed and will always be needed

now if your looking at taxpayers money being badly spent you need to look at two main points relating to the army

1) the f.c.a
2) why has the irish army got more high ranking officers per soldiers compared to any other army in the world

The f.c.a changed to r.d.f (reserve defence force) years ago and generally do a lot of the **** jobs the p.d.f don't want.

Lapin

Trigger Happy wrote: »

By your own logic the US would have invaded Ireland in the 1910s again in the 1920s, 50s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

bumper234 wrote: »

So by your reckoning America should have intervened by sending troops in to stop the IRA, INLA etc.

Two completely different things.

Karl Stein

Lapin wrote: »

I don't care what colour terrorists are.

As long as they continue to indiscriminately attack innocent people in democratic nations, they are threataning the freedoms we all enjoy even if the attacks don't take place on our shores (yet).

We therefore have a duty to join with our fellow democratic nations and quell terrorism in order to preserve the way of life we take for granted.

You know how 'we' in the west could drastically cut world terrorism overnight?

Stop participating in it, funding it, and stop giving people excuses to engage in it.

It horrifies me that people like you buy the absolute bull**** that the fawning corporate media comes out with about defending democracy and fighting terror.

Amirani

Trigger Happy wrote: »

By your own logic the US would have invaded Ireland in the 1910s again in the 1920s, 50s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

And we would've invaded sent our Navy in to blockade the Chesapeake Bay in 2003.