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

ohnonotgmail

Fratton Fred wrote: »

whereas the Irish Army turning up in Larne to keep the peqace would have been a huge success?

aah. so joining an army is ok, getting in between the bad guys and the good guys and engaging them if required is, UN missions are ok.

Yet joining a foreign army isn't?

joining any army apparently.

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

whereas the Irish Army turning up in Larne to keep the peqace would have been a huge success?

Did I say that? I'll just add to a lengthening list of things you said I said. Shall I?

aah. so joining an army is ok, getting in between the bad guys and the good guys and engaging them if required is, UN missions are ok.

Yet joining a foreign army isn't?

I have said already that I don't have any problems with joining the army of your own country.

Joining a foreign army that has been historically offensive and will continue to be, is what we are discussing here.

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Joining a foreign army that has been historically offensive and will continue to be, is what we are discussing here.

what do you mean by offensive?

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

what do you mean by offensive?

An Army that is at times aggressive, will invade foreign countries or that will occupy territory to achieve an objective or as part of a larger strategic operational goal, is a quick summary of what I mean.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

An Army that is at times aggressive, will invade foreign countries or that will occupy territory to achieve an objective or as part of a larger strategic operational goal, is a quick summary of what I mean.

Yeah, that's definitely the BA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIFUm70n0fU

All armies are agressive - that's the point.

Plus, modern military thinking is a couple of generations beyond 'real estate' as the objective.

Now it's about 'war among the peoples' - in other words, "the battlefield is the minds of the population" and the "people are the prize."

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

An Army that is at times aggressive, will invade foreign countries or that will occupy territory to achieve an objective or as part of a larger strategic operational goal, is a quick summary of what I mean.

ooh, nasty armies that fire guns and stuff?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Yeah, that's definitely the BA

All armies are agressive - that's the point.

Ask any Northern Irish nationalist/republican or resident of the border regions north and south and you need go no further afield in the world, although you could.

Plus, modern military thinking is a couple of generations beyond 'real estate' as the objective.

Now it's about 'war among the peoples' - in other words, "the battlefield is the minds of the population" and the "people are the prize."

It is no accident that modern wars kill more innocents than soldiers, then?

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

ooh, nasty armies that fire guns and stuff?

That's me back in my box. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ask any Northern Irish nationalist/republican or resident of the border regions north and south and you need go no further afield in the world, although you could.

Yes, all armies are aggressive - that's the point. If they're not going to be aggressive then what you've got is venture scouts with heavy artillery.

Even, the Vatican recruits military trained young men to serve in the Pontifical Swiss Guard. Do you think they're expected when confronted with a situation to runaway, give the threat a poke with a ceremonial halberd, or pop open the lockers and drag out the assault rifles?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is no accident that modern wars kill more innocents than soldiers, then?

So what's your solution then?

When ISIL come a knocking, the powers that can do something shouldn't because the risk of civilian deaths in keeping ISIL in check are not zero?

JupiterKid

The armchair republicans are out in force in this thread.

I don't like armies that much myself. But they are a necessary evil. Joining a foreign army does not make one a traitor.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, all armies are aggressive - that's the point. If they're not going to be aggressive then what you've got is venture scouts with heavy artillery.

Even, the Vatican recruits military trained young men to serve in the Pontifical Swiss Guard. Do you think they're expected when confronted with a situation to runaway, give the threat a poke with a ceremonial halberd, or pop open the lockers and drag out the assault rifles?

You completely sidestepped the bit after the comma.

will invade foreign countries or that will occupy territory to achieve an objective or as part of a larger strategic operational goal,

So what's your solution then?

When ISIL come a knocking, the powers that can do something shouldn't because the risk of civilian deaths in keeping ISIL in check are not zero?

Well it certainly isn't:

will invade foreign countries or that will occupy territory to achieve an objective or as part of a larger strategic operational goal, is a quick summary of what I mean.

as that activity was a large contribution to the problem of ISIS

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You completely sidestepped the bit after the comma.

Well it certainly isn't:

Actually, I didn't - I pointed out how outdated your thinking is. The idea of real estate (territory if you will) as an objective is so outmoded as to be ridiculous.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually, I didn't - I pointed out how outdated your thinking is. The idea of real estate (territory if you will) as an objective is so outmoded as to be ridiculous.

I hate to be pedantic, but,

will occupy territory to achieve an objective or as part of a larger strategic operational goal,

Iraq, Afghanistan? Ring any bells?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I hate to be pedantic, but,

Iraq, Afghanistan? Ring any bells?

Dear God, do you not understand the difference between an insurgency and inter-state war?

If you want there are any amount of books etc discussing the operations there.....

....Kilcullen's work wouldn't be the worst place to start.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Dear God, do you not understand the difference between an insurgency and inter-state war?

If you want there are any amount of books etc discussing the operations there.....

....Kilcullen's work wouldn't be the worst place to start.

The vague references presumably to show you have a 'deeper knowledge' isn't really fooling anyone.

Explain what you mean please?

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I hate to be pedantic, but,

Iraq, Afghanistan? Ring any bells?

I thought you were in favour of UN missions?

[Deleted User]

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually, I didn't - I pointed out how outdated your thinking is. The idea of real estate (territory if you will) as an objective is so outmoded as to be ridiculous.

Hmmm, Putin & the Crimea?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The vague references presumably to show you have a 'deeper knowledge' isn't really fooling anyone.

Explain what you mean please?

Kilcullen is hardly a vague reference - his book (the Accidental Guerilla) was on the NYT Bestseller list!

Worth a read and you'll get an understanding of what was going on.

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I thought you were in favour of UN missions?

Did you miss the bit where I said I would have problems with what the UN do? Or are you just sniping?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Kilcullen is hardly a vague reference - his book (the Accidental Guerilla) was on the NYT Bestseller list!

Worth a read and you'll get an understanding of what was going on.

I'm sure it is on every bookshelf in the country.

Now can you tell us what relevance it has to what I said?

Junkyard Tom

JupiterKid wrote: »

armchair republicans

As far as I know all Republicans are now armchair Republicans these days, thankfully.

Jawgap

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hmmm, Putin & the Crimea?

Absolute case in point. They won the people over before the 'little green men' arrived.

Hence the reason why it worked in Ukraine but they'd get pretty short shrift if they tried it in the Baltics.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm sure it is on every bookshelf in the country.

Now can you tell us what relevance it has to what I said?

Conflict needs to be understood on its own terms.

To an uninformed observer the use of force may look like an invasion, a liberation, a conquest or even a humanitarian mission.......

......but the adversary gets a vote! They decide what it is, they decide how to respond, and in doing so, generally, gather the initiative.

In the case of both Iraq and Afghanistan, what were conceived as wars of liberation and initially received as such quickly became insurgencies mostly because of failed policies introduced at the end of the 'conflict' phase - the glaring and obvious example being the cock up that was "de-Ba'athification" in Iraq where ideology trumped logic

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Absolute case in point. They won the people over before the 'little green men' arrived.

Hence the reason why it worked in Ukraine but they'd get pretty short shrift if they tried it in the Baltics.

How did 'winning the people' over go for the armies that went in to Iraq, Afghanistan?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How did 'winning the people' over go for the armies that went in to Iraq, Afghanistan?

Again, another case in point!!

The reason they turned into a cock-ups (and Crimea didn't) is for the reasons I've already stated - the people!

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Again, another case in point!!

The reason they turned into a cock-ups (and Crimea didn't) is for the reasons I've already stated - the people!

So your claim is they weren't 'aggressive occupations to achieve strategic goals, ie the strategic goal being liberation?

Forgive, you aren't making a pile of sense.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So your claim is they weren't 'aggressive occupations to achieve strategic goals, ie the strategic goal being liberation?

Forgive, you aren't making a pile of sense.

Of course they were aggressive - I never said they weren't

And of course it turned into an occupation - as I said they morphed into insurgencies - difficult to have an insurgency without an occupation.

.....and difficult to synopsise decades of counter-insurgency and conflict theory down to a point where.......oh never mind

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Of course they were aggressive - I never said they weren't

And of course it turned into an occupation - as I said they morphed into insurgencies - difficult to have an insurgency without an occupation.

.....and difficult to synopsise decades of counter-insurgency and conflict theory down to a point where.......oh never mind

So after all that, we are back to where we stated, the definition of an offensive army.
Cheers for the trip to nowhere.:rolleyes:

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So after all that, we are back to where we stated, the definition of an offensive army.
Cheers for the trip to nowhere.:rolleyes:

Eh, I never left the start.

All armies retain an offensive capacity, no one denies that.

As I said, much earlier, some armies are expeditionary (or have an expeditionary tradition) - show me where I argued the BA (or the US, French etc armies) are otherwise?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Eh, I never left the start.

All armies retain an offensive capacity, no one denies that.

As I said, much earlier, some armies are expeditionary (or have an expeditionary tradition) - show me where I argued the BA (or the US, French etc armies) are otherwise?

Do the BA FR and US Armies have a different history in terms of offensive activity than the Irish Army?
Can you distinguish them?