Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Lt Dan · 05-01-2017 01:58PM

wakka12 wrote: »

You don't have to kill people just because you're in the army ,you know. You can be a field doctor or look after vehicles or ammunitions etc.. Plenty of positions which don't involve being in the firing line

How many of this group of 80 are skilled people in areas like medicine or mechanics / engineering? . These skilled professionals / graduate must be pretty stuck for work if they need to join the BA

eeguy · 05-01-2017 01:59PM

Lt Dan wrote: »

How many of this group of 80 are skilled people in areas like medicine or mechanics / engineering? . These skilled professionals / graduate must be pretty stuck for work if they need to join the BA

They're trained by the army after joining and applying for the Royal Engineers or Royal Medical Corps.

Lt Dan · 05-01-2017 02:01PM

Crea wrote: »

Great. Opportunities to murder complete strangers on orders for reasons you don't really understand.

For Queen and Country, what else is there to understand, my dear boy? Apparently freedom of the west is at risk.....:rolleyes:

Lt Dan · 05-01-2017 02:02PM

eeguy wrote: »

They're trained by the army after joining and applying for the Royal Engineers or Royal Medical Corps.

How come it is easier for people to join the British cops and army than it is in Ireland when there was no recruitment freeze? British needing more troops due to population ?

Fratton Fred · 05-01-2017 02:05PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Because it's the English who decide where it's deployed.

Englishmen like Tony Blair?

eeguy · 05-01-2017 02:09PM

Lt Dan wrote: »

How come it is easier for people to join the British cops and army than it is in Ireland when there was no recruitment freeze? British needing more troops due to population ?

The BA is 20 times larger than the IDA and they're involved in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Lt Dan · 05-01-2017 02:09PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Might your view of the BA be coloured by your Republican heritage?
Would it be fair to say that you are/were a provisional IRA supporter?

How do you know the person is of Republican heritage? Maybe he is a Nationalist (of Redmond Stock) instead or just a gombeen looking for his next buck?

Not sure how one's heritage comes into it when judging the burning of Cork City, and other villages during reprisal attacks. These happened. These are irrefutable facts. Then there is the Dublin - Monaghan bombings whom the world and their mother knows who was behind it or played a role in it. Then there is Derry, internment , shoot to kill policy (understandable if they were IRA people as , after all it was war, but not civilians)

As for the IRA acts, well, we have ALOT of threads that have people of what you would call Republican heritage who had condemned and regularly condemn such acts

05-01-2017 02:20PM

Cool_CM wrote: »

So it's ok to swear an oath of allegiance to a 'foreign' country as long as you're not going to work in their armed forces?

Swear away to anything that doesn't mean you could be ordered to fight against your state.

It's not that unusual a position, it is the law in Austria

Jayop · 05-01-2017 02:21PM

eeguy wrote: »

So have the French, Italians, Germans, Russians and basically any other nation that has an active army.
If Ireland had an active army in colonial times, I'm sure we'd be doing the same.
The Irish Army doesn't exactly have a gleaming record during our own Civil War. Plenty of POW executions and reprisals against our own civilian populations.

Since when has this thread become about the history and ethics of war?
I'm just saying that the army can be a very positive career option for a young lad with limited prospects.

You're making a real concerted effort here to muddy the water. Why are you talking about those armies in a thread about the BA? If the thread was about people leaving to join those armies them I'd give my view on them.

Naturally a thread about young Irish people going to join an army that is still hostile in invading other countries will raise questions about the ethics of war.

05-01-2017 02:31PM

Jayop wrote: »

You're making a real concerted effort here to muddy the water. Why are you talking about those armies in a thread about the BA? If the thread was about people leaving to join those armies them I'd give my view on them.

Naturally a thread about young Irish people going to join an army that is still hostile in invading other countries will raise questions about the ethics of war.

Not to mention that less than a month ago there were plans to investigate a few hundred members of that army for murders in Northern Ireland

A Little Pony · 05-01-2017 02:38PM

Irish people serving Queen and Country, keep it up lads!

05-01-2017 02:40PM

Really.. how is it any different than people moving over to Britain for employment? More opportunities, more advancement, I would imagine better pay. More risk, yes, but the people moving over would be doing so knowing this. Plus, as someone pointed out earlier, the numbers are actually relatively low.

Maximus Alexander · 05-01-2017 03:05PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Englishmen like Tony Blair?

Only works if he put himself in power.

He didn't, the English did.

05-01-2017 03:08PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Really.. how is it any different than people moving over to Britain for employment? More opportunities, more advancement, I would imagine better pay. More risk, yes, but the people moving over would be doing so knowing this. Plus, as someone pointed out earlier, the numbers are actually relatively low.

It's an interesting one though as the British Army is one of the few that actually allows people from another country to just sign up, and even then it's sort of limited to Irish people ( I think Nepalese can only join the one unit? And commonwealth citizens can only apply for a limited number of roles without residency)

eeguy · 05-01-2017 03:09PM

riffmongous wrote: »

It's an interesting one though as the British Army is one of the few that actually allows people from another country to just sign up, and even then it's sort of limited to Irish people ( I think Nepalese can only join the one unit? And commonwealth citizens can only apply for a limited number of roles without residency)

There's limits as to what international applicants can do.

You need to a UK resident to be a pilot for instance

seamus · 05-01-2017 03:13PM

riffmongous wrote: »

All the more reason to lose, since you are doing it by choice

That doesn't logically follow. You haven't pledged allegiance to country A. You pledge allegiance to country B.

Countries A & B are allies.

Why should your citizenship of country A be revoked.

riffmongous wrote: »

And if there was a conflict between them as a soldier how would you be able to be loyal to both?

Well assuming you're not a member of both armed forces, it seems pretty obvious which side you'll be fighting on.

Countries don't have the right to assume or demand the allegiance or loyalty of their citizens. Just their armed forces, i.e. those who have signed up to defend them.

05-01-2017 03:17PM

eeguy wrote: »

There's limits as to what international applicants can do.

You need to a UK resident to be a pilot for instance

True, and I guess certain intelligence roles will be off limits too? But those are really a small number of positions though compared to what Irish people do have access to versus other nationalities in the BA and other armies in the world.. I think Russia allows applicants from former Soviet Countries still, but I can't think of too many others

eeguy · 05-01-2017 03:19PM

Is that one of the reasons they have national battalions like the Irish/ Scots Guards and the Gurkhas?

So you know you won't have a conflict of interest should you need to send soldiers into a particulr country.

FTA69 · 05-01-2017 03:28PM

eeguy wrote: »

Is that one of the reasons they have national battalions like the Irish/ Scots Guards and the Gurkhas?

So you know you won't have a conflict of interest should you need to send soldiers into a particulr country.

Yeah the Irish Guards aren't deployed to Ireland and I think that Irish soldiers in other regiments are given the option on whether or not they want to serve there should the case arise. I think the primary reason behind the regiment system is tradition and geographical relevance however e.g. Scots Guards, Black Watch, Highlanders etc etc.

05-01-2017 03:56PM

seamus wrote: »

That doesn't logically follow. You haven't pledged allegiance to country A. You pledge allegiance to country B.

Countries A & B are allies.

Why should your citizenship of country A be revoked.

Well assuming you're not a member of both armed forces, it seems pretty obvious which side you'll be fighting on.

Countries don't have the right to assume or demand the allegiance or loyalty of their citizens. Just their armed forces, i.e. those who have signed up to defend them.

By choosing to give your allegiance to another country you are putting them ahead of your own country.

Well you are hardly being loyal to both then are you :rolleyes:

According to the US law, serving in an army hostile to the US, can be seen as intention of relinquishing US nationality, in Austria it is the case if you join any foreign army

Military service in foreign countries, however, usually does not cause loss of nationality since an intention to relinquish nationality normally is lacking. In adjudicating loss of nationality cases, the Department has established an administrative presumption that a person serving in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities against the United States does not have the intention to relinquish nationality. On the other hand, voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. nationality.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-and-dual-nationality/citizenship-and-foreign-military-service.html

05-01-2017 04:03PM

eeguy wrote: »

Is that one of the reasons they have national battalions like the Irish/ Scots Guards and the Gurkhas?

So you know you won't have a conflict of interest should you need to send soldiers into a particulr country.

Not in those cases I think, regimental characters usually come from where the unit was recruited, over time then this can become diluted as the regiment loses the right to recruit in that region but the regiment will keep it's old traditions regardless. Like the Irish regiments in French service in the 1700s

seamus · 05-01-2017 04:04PM

riffmongous wrote: »

Well you are hardly being loyal to both then are you :rolleyes:

Why not? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You can be loyal to multiple agents at the same time unless two of them are in conflict. Even then you're not betraying a loyalty unless you're directly acting against one of those agents. If the UK and Ireland were at war, but an Irishman was a member of the British Army and serving on the other side of the planet, completely disconnected from any Anglo-Irish conflict, then there's no issue.

You'll also note the use of the word "could be" in that paragraph from the US.

Even in the ultra-nationalist United States, you don't automatically lose citizenship for fighting in a foreign army against your own country.

Like I say, there is no logical nor established argument that a country can assume or demand to have the loyalty of its citizens.

In fact, one could argue that the crime of treachery is inherently anti-democratic because it doesn't allow for citizens to defend their nation against a corrupt government.

Fratton Fred · 05-01-2017 04:23PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Only works if he put himself in power.

He didn't, the English did.

in the 2001 election, Labour won 56 out of 72 seats in Scotland. So I'd say the Scots very much put him in power as well.

riffmongous wrote: »

By choosing to give your allegiance to another country you are putting them ahead of your own country.

Well you are hardly being loyal to both then are you :rolleyes:

According to the US law, serving in an army hostile to the US, can be seen as intention of relinquishing US nationality, in Austria it is the case if you join any foreign army

if it is a hostile army, should those that fought for an organisation that did not recognise the authority of the Dail and considered the IRA army council the true government of Ireland also lose their passports?

LordSutch · 05-01-2017 04:25PM

seamus wrote: »

You can be loyal to multiple agents at the same time unless two of them are in conflict. Even then you're not betraying a loyalty unless you're directly acting against one of those agents. If the UK and Ireland were at war, but an Irishman was a member of the British Army and serving on the other side of the planet, completely disconnected from any Anglo-Irish conflict, then there's no issue.

You'll also note the use of the word "could be" in that paragraph from the US.

Even in the ultra-nationalist United States, you don't automatically lose citizenship for fighting in a foreign army against your own country.

Like I say, there is no logical nor established argument that a country can assume or demand to have the loyalty of its citizens.

In fact, one could argue that the crime of treachery is inherently anti-democratic because it doesn't allow for citizens to defend their nation against a corrupt government.

Thing about the UK & Ireland is that we're inherently connected & linked together, entertwined physically, geographically, historically & culturally in so many ways. So why not consider joining the much bigger, vastly more powerful & better equiped armed forces from these islands? Yes join the Irish army by all accounts and go on peace keeping duty, but joining the BA (Irish Guards) would be a much bigger, bolder and more aggressive step to take in career soldering.... if that's what you wanted.

Snickers Man · 05-01-2017 04:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

LMFAO :pac: Give me a stat for hte number of Arabs in the IDF?

The Druze community, and I believe the Circassians, both tiny minorities in Israel, voluntarily serve in the IDF. Most Palestinians are unwelcome. Wouldn't want to show them how to do things properly now, would you?

FrancieBrady · 05-01-2017 04:35PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Thread title misleading. Seems recruitment of Irish men to the British army is historically low.

my thoughts too.
Would you describe an eagle flying at 300 feet as 'soaring' if it had spent a lot of time at 1000 feet?

Personally I never understood how Irish men and women could join a foreign army that could be deployed to Irish streets to quell or kill Irish men and women.
But they was always a cohort of Irish who had no problem with this. Glad to see the numbers so low currently.

A Little Pony · 05-01-2017 04:38PM

LordSutch wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

You can be loyal to multiple agents at the same time unless two of them are in conflict. Even then you're not betraying a loyalty unless you're directly acting against one of those agents. If the UK and Ireland were at war, but an Irishman was a member of the British Army and serving on the other side of the planet, completely disconnected from any Anglo-Irish conflict, then there's no issue.

You'll also note the use of the word "could be" in that paragraph from the US.

Even in the ultra-nationalist United States, you don't automatically lose citizenship for fighting in a foreign army against your own country.

Like I say, there is no logical nor established argument that a country can assume or demand to have the loyalty of its citizens.

In fact, one could argue that the crime of treachery is inherently anti-democratic because it doesn't allow for citizens to defend their nation against a corrupt government.

Thing about the UK & Ireland is that we're inherently connected & linked together, entertwined physically, geographically, historically & culturally in so many ways. So why not consider joining the much bigger, vastly more powerful & better equiped armed forces from these islands? Yes join the Irish army by all accounts and go on peace keeping duty, but joining the BA (Irish Guards) would be a much bigger, bolder and more aggressive step to take in career soldering.... if that's what you wanted.

I agree, the Irish Army is a waste of time. The British Army should be used instead.

Snickers Man · 05-01-2017 04:39PM

In 30 or 40 years time (I probably won't be around) but there could well be a campaign in whatever constitutes the media at the time about how these now elderly men were "written out of history" and "shunned by their neighbours and compatriots" because they had "volunteered" to serve overseas and isn't it only terrible.?

All just a little case of history repeating....

Maximus Alexander · 05-01-2017 04:48PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

in the 2001 election, Labour won 56 out of 72 seats in Scotland. So I'd say the Scots very much put him in power as well.

Even had Labour failed to take a single seat in Scotland, he'd still have been PM.

I really didn't think it was so controversial to suggest that England exerts control over the UK. Bear in mind this stems from a one poster calling another a 'clown' for having the temerity to casually refer the the British Armed Forces as the "English Army". Seriously like.

Jayop · 05-01-2017 04:53PM

I see a few of the usual t**lls are here to try to get bites so I'm outa here.

Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Comments