nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Plebbit

From the Belfast Telegraph.

Apparently a new Irish recruit signs up every 4 1/2 days. Can't blame the young Irish lads. If it's a choice between wasting your life away on the dole in some grim village in the backarse of Cavan or traveling the world on global deployments with the British Army, I'd choose the latter. I hear the pay is decent and there are lots of opportunities for advancement.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Lt Dan

maryishere wrote: »

lol. The vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of Irish people who served in British forces over the years were decent law abiding people and were not terrorists.

Even the British government did not go as far as calling The Old IRA "terrorists". Besides, would undermine the Tans

Moreover, the IRA had a mandate from Dáil Éireann to obtain Independence. Many countries obtain Independence not by having a chat or playing conkers but by fighting. Not sure anyone can take lectures from nations who blanket bomb other countries' cities (even if that city deserved it)

Secondly, and I want you to read this carefully because you are not capable of reading what is before you. I never said "most", a "majority" or "all" servicemen returned to the IRA. You have and you will fail to find any statement made by me that supports your laughable and misinformed interpretation of what I said. Pick you a dictionary next time, luv

Anyway you and your people have no relevancy in this country and never will, no matter how hard ye try. Your existence is not important

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And you wouldn't be defender of De Realm in chief on here?

Only because you can't label me a west brit, the usual label applied to those that don't agree with shinner HQ

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was either a fair point or it wasn't. Imo it needed to be pointed out.

what was, Fuarnach's?

no, no it wasn't.

Yourself isit

The Queen btw was given her office with an elaborate religious ceremony in the country's largest cathedral by the head of the state church and numerous other Bishops, a ceremony so mystic that parts of it are cloisted. The anointing of the oils.

Lt Dan

Cool_CM wrote: »

Eh, have you read the Preamble of Bunreacht na hÉireann?

If you knew anything about the law and the Constitution, you would have realised that the Preamble is REDUNDANT . It in no ways influences the interpretation of the Constitution today

Moreover, even when it did influence judges' opinion, it actually brought about decisions that the Church would not have been impressed with eg Family Planning !!!

There is also nothing particularly different in what was said in the Preamble compared to the US, bar a more specific type of God. Many nations have notions that the powers given to the people come from God. "In God , we Trust". There is actually absolutely nothing in the Preamble that supports your ill informed statement. Elsewhere , yes, but not the Preamble

Perhaps you should do better research next time:o

Lt Dan

maryishere wrote: »

No, the Irish men who fought in WW1 were generally not a real danger to the state. Sure there were a few bad apples though, as there was everywhere. Most of the many many tens of thousands never became terrorists burning out houses or intimidating people or shooting them in the back.

"The State", which one?

Perhaps you need to do research on how joined "An Garda Siochana" and the Free State Army. Blowing prisoners of war up , is pretty much from the terrorist play book. Once again, I never said "most" or "all"

Bless you, you really are naive enough to think that most of the civilians executed by the IRA during the Tan War were innocent. Ah, eh, being shoot in the heart or FOREHEAD was more their standard.

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Only because you can't label me a west brit, the usual label applied to those that don't agree with shinner HQ

what was, Fuarnach's?

no, no it wasn't.

The term doesnt cover your unusual dererence in fairness.

Yourself isit

maryishere wrote: »

By paying compensation mostly from state coffers instead of getting the Church to sell more of their properties.

What other state plays the angelus each day free on their national tv station, for example?

Plenty have religious programming. the prayer for the day for instance. Your heroic UK is a theocracy in law.

LordSutch

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

I was born in Ireland, I'm Irish. I serve the island of Ireland, it's Government and most importantly of all, it's people.

We dont "go to war". The likelyhood of me being needed to soldier in Ireland is very low. The closest I get to "do what I'm trained to do" is on overseas deployments in peace keeping / peace enforcement roles.

...and the bold bit takes right back to post 145, which is about UK ROI relations/proximity, and the fact that part of this island is in the United Kingdom, which has its own Army, Navy & Airforce.

Manic Moran

Augeo wrote: »

Indeed, however joining an army would increase the risk one would think.

Perhaps surprisingly, no.

It was safer to be a soldier in Iraq in 2005 (when I was there) than to be a private citizen in the US when adjusted per capita. Almost no road traffic accidents, only 200 more KIA servicemen in Iraq than murdered in Chicago alone. Of course, casualty rates go up substantially when a normal high intensity war is going on, but in such a case, civilians in the area generally have it worse, going on prior experience.

Manic Moran

Augeo wrote: »

Indeed, however joining an army would increase the risk one would think.

cameramonkey

Manic Moran wrote: »

Perhaps surprisingly, no.

It was safer to be a soldier in Iraq in 2005 (when I was there) than to be a private citizen in the US when adjusted per capita. Almost no road traffic accidents, only 200 more KIA servicemen in Iraq than murdered in Chicago alone. Of course, casualty rates go up substantially when a normal high intensity war is going on, but in such a case, civilians in the area generally have it worse, going on prior experience.

Of course being a solider in Iraq was not as dangerous as many other wars, however the moral responsibility a soldier takes on when he prosecutes an illegal war that was responsible for 100,000 of civilian deaths must weight heavily, particularly when those deaths are of children.

FrancieBrady

Somebody who migrates to another country just to join it's army to earn more money or for opportunity is the very definition of a mercenary.

maryishere

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Somebody who migrates to another country just to join it's army to earn more money or for opportunity is the very definition of a mercenary.

Who knows why many join? Some may join because of family tradition / relations having joined in the past. Some may join to see the world or for better training with more modern equipment than they would otherwise have the opportunity to do. Some may join because they think ethically its the correct thing to do. Do you think morally there is a distinction between Irish people joining the PSNI and the British army? Mercenaries is such a loaded term, especially for people who serve in the uniform of a democratically elected state. Would you call the 100,000 Irishmen who joined the UK forces during WW2 "mercenaries"? Do you thing they were looked on or treated as mercenaries by other allied or axis forces?

Lt Dan wrote: »

Anyway you and your people have no relevancy in this country and never will, no matter how hard ye try. Your existence is not important

Charming. You are on my ignore list in this thread now.

FrancieBrady

maryishere wrote: »

Who knows why many join? Some may join because of family tradition / relations having joined in the past. Some may join to see the world or for better training with more modern equipment than they would otherwise have the opportunity to do. Some may join because they think ethically its the correct thing to do. Do you think morally there is a distinction between Irish people joining the PSNI and the British army? Mercenaries is such a loaded term, especially for people who serve in the uniform of a democratically elected state. Would you call the 100,000 Irishmen who joined the UK forces during WW2 "mercenaries"? Do you thing they were looked on or treated as mercenaries by other allied or axis forces?

If they did it for opportunity or money, yes they are/were.

maryishere

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If they did it for opportunity or money, yes they are/were.

Thats a big IF.

And when you mention Opportunity or money, presumably you mean more opportunity or money that their home country offers them, same as for millions of other migrants in the past?
Perhaps you would answer the other questions: Do you think morally there is a distinction between Irish people joining the PSNI and the British army?

Do you thing the 100,000 Irishmen who joined the UK forces during WW2 (and who helped save Europe and these islands from Nazism ) were looked on or treated as mercenaries by other allied or axis forces?

FrancieBrady

maryishere wrote: »

Thats a big IF.

And when you mention Opportunity or money, presumably you mean more opportunity or money that their home country offers them, same as for millions of other migrants in the past?
Perhaps you would answer the other questions: Do you think morally there is a distinction between Irish people joining the PSNI and the British army?

Do you thing the 100,000 Irishmen who joined the UK forces during WW2 (and who helped save Europe and these islands from Nazism ) were looked on or treated as mercenaries by other allied or axis forces?

There is no similarity between a police force and an army. And the PSNI is made up of Irishmen and women anyhow.

I don't know how they were treated, all I offered in my opinion .
I am sure anything that bolsters numbers/strength of your army would be welcomed regardless of the morality.

maryishere

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is no similarity between a police force and an army.

So pre GFA, you condoned the murder of both police and army in N. Ireland ...even ex-members and retired members and off duty members in front of their kids.

But you now say its ok for Irish people to join the PSNI but not ok to join the Royal Irish Rangers, for example?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And the PSNI is made up of Irishmen and women anyhow.

There are actually many British passport holders in the PSNI, and even some people who were born and bred in England.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't know how they were treated, all I offered in my opinion .

I think you will find nobody else but extremist Republicans would have referred to them as mercenaries.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am sure anything that bolsters numbers/strength of your army would be welcomed regardless of the morality.

your army... as a citizen of the Republic my army (which my taxes pay for) is the Irish army. I would not welcome "anything that bolsters numbers/strength of the Irish army regardless of the morality" - for example I would not welcome swelling its ranks with dissidents

FrancieBrady

maryishere wrote: »

So pre GFA, you condoned the murder of both police and army in N. Ireland ...even ex-members and retired members and off duty members in front of their kids.

But you now say its ok for Irish people to join the PSNI but not ok to join the Royal Irish Rangers, for example?

There are actually many British passport holders in the PSNI, and even some people who were born and bred in England.

I think you will find nobody else but extremist Republicans would have referred to them as mercenaries.

your army... as a citizen of the Republic my army (which my taxes pay for) is the Irish army. I would not welcome "anything that bolsters numbers/strength of the Irish army regardless of the morality" - for example I would not welcome swelling its ranks with dissidents

You asked what I thought the opinion of other members of the armies would have been. I think in a time of war or conflict, they wouldn't question anything that bolsters their numbers or strength
I am not concerned too much about what you would 'welcome' to be honest.
Personally I don't like the idea of soldiers who are only motivated by more money or more opportunity and who have no honest allegiance. That is 'mercenary'.

[Deleted User]

Manic Moran wrote: »

Perhaps surprisingly, no.

It was safer to be a soldier in Iraq in 2005 (when I was there) than to be a private citizen in the US when adjusted per capita. Almost no road traffic accidents, only 200 more KIA servicemen in Iraq than murdered in Chicago alone. Of course, casualty rates go up substantially when a normal high intensity war is going on, but in such a case, civilians in the area generally have it worse, going on prior experience.

Your example I expect isn't representative of the norm.

Cool_CM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are confusing a christian ethos with control of any sort by the RC.
The last part of my post refers to the fact that the stipulation that no taig could succeed to the throne of Britain was only removed recently (90's I think.)
You would never call Britain a church state would you?
We still have remnants of church influence and that is all it is, just like Britain - remnants.

Surely the presence of, as you put it, 'a Christian ethos' highlights the fact that there is still no complete separation of Church and State?

Also, thanks for clarifying that. No, I wouldn't call Britain a church state (in spite of the fact that, amongst other things, the Queen is the head of the Church of England and that a number of Bishops get to sit and vote in the House of Lords). I also wouldn't call us a church state - anymore. I'm simply saying that I disagree with you on the extent to which Church and State are separate in Ireland, especially given the current opening paragraph of our Constitution.

Yourself isit wrote: »

The US Congress has chaplains. And starts with a prayer.

This is the most recent.

http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/

I'm aware of that. In fact, it is mentioned in the Oireachtas Library and Research document that I linked to in the post that you quoted.

Lt Dan wrote: »

If you knew anything about the law and the Constitution, you would have realised that the Preamble is REDUNDANT . It in no ways influences the interpretation of the Constitution today

Moreover, even when it did influence judges' opinion, it actually brought about decisions that the Church would not have been impressed with eg Family Planning !!!

There is also nothing particularly different in what was said in the Preamble compared to the US, bar a more specific type of God. Many nations have notions that the powers given to the people come from God. "In God , we Trust". There is actually absolutely nothing in the Preamble that supports your ill informed statement. Elsewhere , yes, but not the Preamble

Perhaps you should do better research next time:o

When and how did it become redundant exactly?

I accept that many nations' constitutions make reference to some form of God, my point was in response to FrancieBrady's comment that in Ireland 'Church is mostly separated from State now'. How can it be when specifically the opening line (regardless of what is still or was contained 'elsewhere' in the document) of our Constitution talks about humbly acknowledging all of our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ and how God is the ultimate authority?

You don't have to be an expert in Constitutional Law to realise that this is the section of the Preamble that I was referring to and not the section on Prudence, Justice and Charity and the the dignity and freedom of the individual on which all of those court challenges were based. I assumed that that didn't need to be spelled out.

FrancieBrady

Cool_CM wrote: »

Surely the presence of, as you put it, 'a Christian ethos' highlights the fact that there is still no complete separation of Church and State?

Also, thanks for clarifying that. No, I wouldn't call Britain a church state (in spite of the fact that, amongst other things, the Queen is the head of the Church of England and that a number of Bishops get to sit and vote in the House of Lords). I also wouldn't call us a church state - anymore. I'm simply saying that I disagree with you on the extent to which Church and State are separate in Ireland, especially given the current opening paragraph of our Constitution.

Nobody denied that we are a Christian state like many others, that is fast becoming a secular one.
We are not exclusively a 'church'(RC) state for quite a while now.

A Little Pony

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

The Irish state remained NEUTRAL against Nazi Germany. I think you should repeat that and you will see just how shameful that is.

No it wasn't , it was perfectly sensible.They didn't invade so why should we abandon our neutrality without a 100% justifiable reason.

Ireland declaring war on Germany would have achieved nothing except make ourselves more of a target and cost lives.Very brave of you sitting nice and safe in 2016 to say thousands of young irish peoples lives should have been risked for no good reason.

Cowardly mentality, period. The Irish state should have allied with the UK in the war against Nazi Germany. If Nazi Germany had invaded England, they would have eventually crossed over to Ireland mainly for strategic reasons.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

Cowardly mentality, period. The Irish state should have allied with the UK in the war against Nazi Germany. If Nazi Germany had invaded England, they would have eventually crossed over to Ireland mainly for strategic reasons.

Surely it made more 'strategic' sense to take Ireland first?

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Cowardly mentality, period. The Irish state should have allied with the UK in the war against Nazi Germany. If Nazi Germany had invaded England, they would have eventually crossed over to Ireland mainly for strategic reasons.

Surely it made more 'strategic' sense to take Ireland first?

No, AFTER they have taken Britain, as he would have been using Ireland as a 'base' in the war with the Soviet Union.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

No, AFTER they have taken Britain, as he would have been using Ireland as a 'base' in the war with the Soviet Union.

If 'he' had taken us first, Britain would have crumbled before America had rescued them

muddypaws

maryishere wrote: »

But you now say its ok for Irish people to join the PSNI but not ok to join the Royal Irish Rangers, for example?

Royal Irish Rangers don't exist anymore

LordSutch

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If 'he' had taken us first, Britain would have crumbled before America had rescued them

You love saying that, in the knowledge that this State was sitting on its hands and doing little or nothing to Stop Hitler & the Nazi's. Thank God Britain held out as long as it did before help came from the US.

FrancieBrady

LordSutch wrote: »

You love saying that, in the knowledge that this State was sitting on its hands and doing little or nothing to Stop Hitler & the Nazi's. Thank God Britain held out as long as it did before help came from the US.

Maybe if Britain hadn't sat on it's hands and actively ignored the rising problem it would never have gotten to the stage that took the Americans to rescue them. Who knows. Lots of maybes and opportunity to point fingers in hindsight.
Everybody did what they thought was best at the time. In the long term I think it was better for us that we stayed as neutral as we could. We were a fledgeling nation.

indioblack

A Little Pony wrote: »

No, AFTER they have taken Britain, as he would have been using Ireland as a 'base' in the war with the Soviet Union.

I'd say it was an odd, awkward position for the Free State to be in - certainly by 1940. Germany had swept all before them - why should Britain not go under too? This would leave the Free State in a vulnerable position - neutrality is only as effective as the combatant nations choose it to be.
Joining the Allies would be equally problematic in that year - since the only country to side with would be Britain - and the Free State would still be vulnerable.

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Maybe if Britain hadn't sat on it's hands and actively ignored the rising problem

And done what? Written a strongly worded letter?

Maybe if the League of Nations had acted, no country would have had to do anything?