Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so it is ok for you to infer something but nobody else can do the same. nice double standard. i would expect no less.

I showed and explained to you by highlighting parts of his post, where and how I was drawing my 'inference'.

I am asking you to do the same. So far you have come up with the post above. WHICH DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, allow you to infer that I view 'anyone who disagrees with me has an inferiority complex'.

This is very basic stuff.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I showed and explained to you by highlighting parts of his post, where and how I was drawing my 'inference'.

I am asking you to do the same. So far you have come up with the post above. WHICH DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, allow you to infer that I view 'anyone who disagrees with me has an inferiority complex'.

This is very basic stuff.

give it a rest. you pick up on minor points and beat them to death. nice debating tactic.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

give it a rest.

So, you are not prepared to withdraw. Fair enough, noted.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, you are not prepared to withdraw. Fair enough, noted.

i think its a perfectly reasonable inference.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i think its a perfectly reasonable inference.

Of course you do.:rolleyes:

For the record: I do not believe that 'anyone' who disagrees with me suffers from an inferiority complex, as clearly stated, I believe 'some' do.
Neither do I use the term 'West Brit' to describe anyone.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Though he implemented the policy at that time, he had the character to reflect on and then criticise his own highly decorated career. That takes principles and guts. Not many of those qualities evident these days.

Mattis often gets mentioned in the same breath as Butler (and Puller) - I'd be somewhat optimistic, given his enthusiasm for history and his intellectual abilities, that when he comes to write a valedictory text it will be as thought provoking as War is a Racket, even if it is in diametric opposition to the themes raised in that book

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Instead of just dumping quotes and articles, could you make a clear point? I don't understand what point you are making. Genuinely.

Just pointing out - again - that [the vast majority of] young lads don't sign up to defend queen and country, president and the republic or whatever......

.....that they don't process risk in the way older people do.

.....so criticising their choice on such bases just displays a lack of understanding.

Recruitment to the BA is up not because recruits feel drawn to the colours, or are repelled by the Republic.....they are drawn by the chance to do something - in their subjective view - that is exciting and offers it's own reward.

My ideas of 'excitement' might differ from theirs (personally, getting shot at, jumping out of aircraft etc is not for me) but that doesn't mean their choices are invalid - it just means that they are their choices.

Ignorant nonsense that dredges up the "Old Lie" (Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori) as an argument against serving in a military force (foreign or domestic) is so far out of date it's unreal - everyone knows its sentimental nonsense - that's by it is referred to as "the Old Lie."

Jawgap wrote: »

Just pointing out - again - that [the vast majority of] young lads don't sign up to defend queen and country, president and the republic or whatever......

.....that they don't process risk in the way older people do.

.....so criticising their choice on such bases just displays a lack of understanding.

Recruitment to the BA is up not because recruits feel drawn to the colours, or are repelled by the Republic.....they are drawn by the chance to do something - in their subjective view - that is exciting and offers it's own reward.

My ideas of 'excitement' might differ from theirs (personally, getting shot at, jumping out of aircraft etc is not for me) but that doesn't mean their choices are invalid - it just means that they are their choices.

Ignorant nonsense that dredges up the "Old Lie" (Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori) as an argument against serving in a military force (foreign or domestic) is so far out of date its unreal - everyone knows its sentimental nonsense - that's by it is referred to as "the Old Lie."

Okay.

So because young people enjoy joy riding or doing drugs you wouldn't pass comment because your ideas are different from theirs?

Doesn't really cut for me. But thanks for elaborating.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Okay.

So because young people enjoy joy riding or doing drugs you wouldn't pass comment because your ideas are different from theirs?

Doesn't really cut for me. But thanks for elaborating.

Yes, I would because as things stand joy riding and drugs are illegal (singing up for military service is not).

.....and if you want to understand why those ridiculous road safety ads don't work on the under thirties, or why drug/alcohol/tobacco use persistently defy efforts to reduce them to minimal levels, then read up on risk, the perception of it and how we psychologically process it.

Don't just drink the Kool Aid

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, I would because as things stand joy riding and drugs are illegal (singing up for military service is not).

.....and if you want to understand why those ridiculous road safety ads don't work on the under thirties, or why drug/alcohol/tobacco use persistently defy efforts to reduce them to minimal levels, then read up on risk, the perception of it and how we psychologically process it.

Don't just drink the Kool Aid

Fair enough point about the examples I used, but you will accept that there are things that youth does that we would not stand over just because they are young?

You mentioned 'retiree's' from the Army in your family, at any point, should they have questioned what they were doing and supporting? Presuming the first flush of youth had passed them by.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fair enough point about the examples I used, but you will accept that there are things that youth does that we would not stand over just because they are young?

You mentioned 'retiree's' from the Army in your family, at any point, should they have questioned what they were doing and supporting? Presuming the first flush of youth had passed them by.

Will I now?

I've interviewed a number of vets (from armies and air forces) for various projects over the years and the one abiding theme that comes out is that "what they were doing and supporting" was their mates. As I mentioned previously, it's motive as old as warfare - you fight for the guy next to you.

Everyone from the DYNAMO veteran who sent his enlisted gun crews back from the front line while he and another officer manned the last ATG in their battery as part of a rear guard......to the Wild Weasel who did the job to give his fellow fliers a fighting chance over Hanoi.....to the "Strike Package Q" pilot who, as part of a larger flight, pressed on even after the Wild Weasels had gone "Arizona" over Baghdad because if they didn't someone else would have had to come back to the job they were assigned.

It's only the muppets who believe that more than a token of combatant believe in all that sentimental nonsense about queen and country.....or they believe it up until the first bullet comes in their direction.

......and if you really think otherwise read the recent revelations about DevGru/Seal Team 6 to see how overpowering loyalty to the unit, the team and your buddy can be......if those guys were really, honestly about "God and country" they'd not have done what they did, or at least they'd have not frustrated in such a systematic way the efforts to hold them to account to their Constitution and the due process described under t.

[Deleted User]

Jawgap wrote: »

to see how overpowering loyalty to the unit, the team and your buddy can be......

Theres positive aspects to this in the field no doubt, but the flip side is that there can be difficulties in seeking potential prosecutions if units step out of line in a warzone and what are seen as "outsiders" come investigating.

Jawgap wrote: »

Will I now?

I've interviewed a number of vets (from armies and air forces) for various projects over the years and the one abiding theme that comes out is that "what they were doing and supporting" was their mates. As I mentioned previously, it's motive as old as warfare - you fight for the guy next to you.

Everyone from the DYNAMO veteran who sent his enlisted gun crews back from the front line while he and another officer manned the last ATG in their battery as part of a rear guard......to the Wild Weasel who did the job to give his fellow fliers a fighting chance over Hanoi.....to the "Strike Package Q" pilot who, as part of a larger flight, pressed on even after the Wild Weasels had gone "Arizona" over Baghdad because if they didn't someone else would have had to come back to the job they were assigned.

It's only the muppets who believe that more than a token of combatant believe in all that sentimental nonsense about queen and country.....or they believe it up until the first bullet comes in their direction.

......and if you really think otherwise read the recent revelations about DevGru/Seal Team 6 to see how overpowering loyalty to the unit, the team and your buddy can be......if those guys were really, honestly about "God and country" they'd not have done what they did, or at least they'd have not frustrated in such a systematic way the efforts to hold them to account to their Constitution and the due process described under t.

I accept that a soldier may compartmentalise what he is doing in that way. But frankly, it is just that, compartmentalising.
It isn't a justification of what an army does. And it isn't a justification for joining a foreign army.
You seem to want to steer away at all costs from what an army is doing and any responsibility attached to component parts of that army or indeed staying in that army, long after the first flush of youth.

Conscription exists because so many make a choice not to join an army, youth included. Free will is ignored. The country's necessity, that Dev talked about trumps any individual moral objection.
I admire individual soldiers for their comradeship, team playing and bravery as much as the next person. But, 'I am doing it only because I am supporting my mates', is not really cutting it tbh.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I accept that a soldier may compartmentalise what he is doing in that way. But frankly, it is just that, compartmentalising.
It isn't a justification of what an army does. And it isn't a justification for joining a foreign army.
You seem to want to steer away at all costs from what an army is doing and any responsibility attached to component parts of that army or indeed staying in that army, long after the first flush of youth.

Conscription exists because so many make a choice not to join an army, youth included. Free will is ignored. The country's necessity, that Dev talked about trumps any individual moral objection.
I admire individual soldiers for their comradeship, team playing and bravery as much as the next person. But, 'I am doing it only because I am supporting my mates', is not really cutting it tbh.

Fran, do you support what the Irish army has done on UN missions, in Chad, Beirut and the Golan Heights?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Fran, do you support what the Irish army has done on UN missions, in Chad, Beirut and the Golan Heights?

The discussion I am involved in relates to joining 'foreign' armies, foreign 'offensive' armies.
My support for my own army is irrelevant to that.

I support peacekeeping missions and I understand the role and benefit of neutral countries in that.
However, and it is the subject of another thread, I would be wary of calling us 'neutral' any more, that concept has slowly been diluted over the years. And I would be critical of the UN as well.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Fran, do you support what the Irish army has done on UN missions, in Chad, Beirut and the Golan Heights?

.....not to mention Somalia (post GOTHIC SERPENT)......Liberia (and the hostage rescue).....and Dundrum Shopping Centre (wait......what?

)

I'm guessing there's a certain constituency that sees.....

ARW rescuing hostages in West Africa......an altruistic contribution of small country to securing peace and stability in a troubled region......

SAS rescuing hostages in West Africa.....British imperialist intervention in its former colonies

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I accept that a soldier may compartmentalise what he is doing in that way. But frankly, it is just that, compartmentalising.
It isn't a justification of what an army does. And it isn't a justification for joining a foreign army.
You seem to want to steer away at all costs from what an army is doing and any responsibility attached to component parts of that army or indeed staying in that army, long after the first flush of youth.

Conscription exists because so many make a choice not to join an army, youth included. Free will is ignored. The country's necessity, that Dev talked about trumps any individual moral objection.
I admire individual soldiers for their comradeship, team playing and bravery as much as the next person. But, 'I am doing it only because I am supporting my mates', is not really cutting it tbh.

When was the last draft in the UK or US? (And National Service is/was not conscription)......

Plus, the Swiss, for their own reasons, (and the IDF for theirs) have possibly the most successful CMS programmes in history - so you'd wonder if it's so bad why do they persist with it.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The discussion I am involved in relates to joining 'foreign' armies, foreign 'offensive' armies.
My support for my own army is irrelevant to that.

I support peacekeeping missions and I understand the role and benefit of neutral countries in that.
However, and it is the subject of another thread, I would be wary of calling us 'neutral' any more, that concept has slowly been diluted over the years. And I would be critical of the UN as well.

Well the BA are definitely 'offensive' - that's why the RN call them pongoes

I think you mean expeditionary - all armies retain a capacity to attack, given it's the best form of defence (which it's not really, but someone will be along doubtless to suggest otherwise).

Jawgap wrote: »

When was the last draft in the UK or US? (And National Service is/was not conscription)......

Plus, the Swiss, for their own reasons, (and the IDF for theirs) have possibly the most successful CMS programmes in history - so you'd wonder if it's so bad why do they persist with it.

That wasn't the point.

The point was that conscription exists to overcome moral or other reasons for NOT joining an army. So the young are clearly capable of resisting certain urges for adventure or recklessness.
And unless they join and stay with their existing mates,(unlikely) these 'mates' they are supposedly fighting for do not exist as they make their decision to join.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The discussion I am involved in relates to joining 'foreign' armies, foreign 'offensive' armies.
My support for my own army is irrelevant to that.

not really, because the reasons for joining an army are generally the same, its just that in the Irish army, the toys and jollies aren't as grand, besides, you have already said that you would consider yourself a failure as a parent if your child decided to join the army. I presume that means any army.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I support peacekeeping missions and I understand the role and benefit of neutral countries in that

nice, if only there were neutral country's capable of taking on peace keeping missions.

Tell me, why do they send the army to do those peace keeping missions? wouldn't it make more sense to send in the Sisters of Mercy?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

However, and it is the subject of another thread, I would be wary of calling us 'neutral' any more, that concept has slowly been diluted over the years. And I would be critical of the UN as well.

Ireland never was neutral.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That wasn't the point.

The point was that conscription exists to overcome moral or other reasons for NOT joining an army. So the young are clearly capable of resisting certain urges for adventure or recklessness.
And unless they join and stay with their existing mates,(unlikely) these 'mates' they are supposedly fighting for do not exist as they make their decision to join.

Actually it doesn't - it's perfectly possible to be conscripted and be a conscientious objector and serve in a support role.

Plus, the mates I'm referring to are the friends they make post-joining up.

Putting people who were friends in the same unit has been shown to be an unmitigated disaster which is why they don't do it.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

not really, because the reasons for joining an army are generally the same, its just that in the Irish army, the toys and jollies aren't as grand,

Well, I would contend that while the toys might not be as grand the jollies of serving your own country would be a bit more satisfying than the odd skiing trip or visit to a tourist site.

, you have already said that you would consider yourself a failure as a parent if your child decided to join the army. I presume that means any army.

Yes, actually it would.

nice, if only there were neutral country's capable of taking on peace keeping missions.

Tell me, why do they send the army to do those peace keeping missions? wouldn't it make more sense to send in the Sisters of Mercy?

Whatever. :rolleyes:

Ireland never was neutral.

Agreed, it has never been truly neutral, that is why it has been possible to dilute our neutrality over the years.
It has been much more neutral than others though and that has had a defined benefit in peacekeeping and as already stated in the context of WW2, benefited a fledgling nation and saved many many lives here imo.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Agreed, it has never been truly neutral, that is why it has been possible to dilute our neutrality over the years.

No, it has never been neutral, other than in the heads of the self righteous.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It has been much more neutral than others though and that has had a defined benefit in peacekeeping

not really, a truly neitral country, like Switzerland, would be able to properly defend itself.

Yes, these benefits you speak of and the "Force for good" that you claim Irish neutrality to be. Can you give a few examples?

And again, why is the Army sent on these "Peacekeeping" missions?

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually it doesn't - it's perfectly possible to be conscripted and be a conscientious objector and serve in a support role.

I have already said I see little diminution of responsibility in 'supporting' what an army does. I think it a shocking abuse of rights to force a conscientious objector to do it. The British didn't dare conscript here in modern times when they could because they would have been told where to go.

Plus, the mates I'm referring to are the friends they make post-joining up.

Putting people who were friends in the same unit has been shown to be an unmitigated disaster which is why they don't do it.

Let me try to understand your earlier point then, that soldiering is about fighting for your friend or the guy next to you?
If you don't go in the first place then you don't have that problem. It is a weak weak justification.
Childlike rather than youth-like. Would you not expect an adolescent to rationalise things a bit better than that?
I know I would challenge somebody offering me the defence that they are joining a foreign army to defend notional future friends or mates.

nhunter100

SEPT 23 1989 wrote:

Imagine having a row with the headcase a few doors up and your next-door neighbour won't back you up

Maybe your next door neighbour thinks you're the head case.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have already said I see little diminution of responsibility in 'supporting' what an army does. I think it a shocking abuse of rights to force a conscientious objector to do it. The British didn't dare conscript here in modern times when they could because they would have been told where to go.

Let me try to understand your earlier point then, that soldiering is about fighting for your friend or the guy next to you?
If you don't go in the first place then you don't have that problem. It is a weak weak justification.
Childlike rather than youth-like. Would you not expect an adolescent to rationalise things a bit better than that?
I know I would challenge somebody offering me the defence that they are joining a foreign army to defend notional future friends or mates.

Maybe, but its the one that comes back from the bulk of the research......

......you should publish on this......after all you clearly know more than generations of military theorists, not to mention soldiers, and the odd playwright

Ihr seid eine spezielle Gruppe, die
ineinander einen Zusammenhalt gefunden
habt, wie er nur im Kampf existiert.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

I'm guessing you'd have gone with the passport and purse

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, it has never been neutral, other than in the heads of the self righteous.

It has never been fully neutral. Nowhere has that I am aware of.

not really, a truly neitral country, like Switzerland, would be able to properly defend itself.

Switzerland was no more truly neutral than Ireland was. It took Nazi loot into it's banks, the full connivance there may never be found out. And it was a valuable asset to allied listening posts towards the end of the war.
They played a game, just like Dev did, to save themselves.

Yes, these benefits you speak of and the "Force for good" that you claim Irish neutrality to be. Can you give a few examples?

And again, why is the Army sent on these "Peacekeeping" missions?

I think it's value kind of explains itself if you imagine a BA force arriving in Derry to 'keep the peace'.

You need an army because some of the people you are getting in between may be armed and dangerously belligerent.

Jawgap wrote: »

Maybe, but its the one that comes back from the bulk of the research......

Is there anything wrong with challenging that justification then, if your answer is a similarly weak, 'maybe'?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is there anything wrong with challenging that justification then, if your answer is a similarly weak, 'maybe'?

Well you challenge away, there.

I'm sure as an incisive an intellect as yours will have no problems disassembling the empirical data to reveal insights that have remained hidden thus far.

It's not my area of interest so I'm happy to bow to the knowledge of those whose area it is and have written extensively on the topic. Nothing in my cursory and clumsy reviews has led to me wonder much about the correctness of their conclusions.