Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

feargale · 19-01-2017 08:33PM

I have no strong feelings one way or another about Irishmen joining the British Forces. It has been happening for a very long time. Some sought adventure, others an escape from starvation, most likely giving very little thought at the time of joining up to the moral implications of doing so. My grandfather served in WWI and another relative was involved with a British regiment in putting down the 1916 Rising. But I would be mildly curious as to what the attitude would be of Poles to themselves or their countrymen joining the German Army, or say Slovenes joining the Austrian Army or Icelanders the Danish Army.

And I would be curious to know, a propos the following:

maryishere wrote: »

It happened hundreds of years ago and to understand history you do not have to be "for" it or "against" it. You could argue China is colonising parts of Africa now, by building infrastructure there etc. If you want to discuss colonisation you best set up a new thread on it.

maryishere wrote: »

If every nation was cowardly enough to attempt to stay out of the war, Hitler would have had a field day. As it was, he invaded some neutral countries and deported some of their citizens to extermination camps etc.

Why is it ok to go on and on about Ireland's WW2 neutrality, while dismissing every imperial aggression as belonging to the past and irrelevant to and unworthy of moral evaluation?

maryishere wrote: »

It is possible to understand history and politics correctly, to see all sides of the argument, and yet not have a hatred from all things British.

Indeed. Any nation that gave the world Shakespeare, rugby football and Cheddar cheese can't be all bad.

maryishere wrote: »

It is possible to be a proud Irishman or Irishwoman, and yet not be a Republican.

It is. And one would be indisputably a proud Irish person if there was ever evidence of a single post sticking up for the ould sod.

Jawgap · 19-01-2017 08:43PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Ok, you need to get to grips with the different concepts around offensive operations, expeditions etc.

And yes, the Irish Defence Forces have an offensive capacity commensurate with a light infantry brigade - which is significant, but not really enough to go invade anywhere.

An example of them practising offensive FISH & CHIP operations......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wewe1NFAWI

FrancieBrady · 19-01-2017 08:54PM

I asked you, is there a difference in the history of their offensive 'activity'

If there isn't please list the 'offensive' activity of the Irish Defence Forces around the world. Namely, occupations or invasions for strategic or operational goals.

I apologise to other readers, this is like pulling teeth. I think we will know (if we don't already) where it is going with the answer to the above.

Jawgap · 19-01-2017 09:12PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I asked you, is there a difference in the history of their offensive 'activity'

If there isn't please list the 'offensive' activity of the Irish Defence Forces around the world. Namely, occupations or invasions for strategic or operational goals.

I apologise to other readers, this is like pulling teeth. I think we will know (if we don't already) where it is going with the answer to the above. The last answer fell back on juvenile derision, not a good sign.

Yeah, answered already......

Jawgap wrote: »

.......

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?

....but I'll put it in simpler terms - the Irish Defence Forces have an offensive capacity commensurate with their size and training. Their deployment and doctrine is consistent with our foreign policy and security priorities.

.....the BA (US, French, Russian armies etc) likewise. There's a difference in scope and scale, but the principles are common - they go were the politicians send them - that's just a fact, and as a consequence they've done things the Irish Defence Forces haven't done, in some places the Irish DF will never be sent.

That said, it didn't stop the Defence Forces deploying personnel to Afghanistan to participate in a very important support role.

FrancieBrady · 19-01-2017 09:18PM

Not an answer.
I didn't ask about offensive capacity (a gun shop has that), I asked about offensive activity for strategic or operational goals.

Jawgap · 19-01-2017 09:33PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not an answer.
I didn't ask about offensive capacity (a gun shop has that), I asked about offensive activity for strategic or operational goals.

If you choose not to read what's written that's up to you.

If you want a list of operations the Irish Defence Forces have been involved in there are various official histories you can consult.

...and to make things as simple as possible.....the Irish Defence Forces haven't invaded anywhere, or occupied anywhere (without a UN mandate) or conquered anywhere etc

....although their predecessors (the National Army) fairly squished the "Munster Republic" even undertaking some amphibious operations.

smurgen · 19-01-2017 09:33PM

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!

Yeah,the iraqis were too uncivilized.they did'nt apprectiate the heroic lads of the raf and british army liberating them with their Shock and Awe attacks!

maryishere · 19-01-2017 09:35PM

If every nation was cowardly enough to attempt to stay out of the war, Hitler would have had a field day. As it was, he invaded some neutral countries and deported some of their citizens to extermination camps etc.

feargale wrote: »

Why is it ok to go on and on about Ireland's WW2 neutrality, while dismissing every imperial aggression as belonging to the past and irrelevant to and unworthy of moral evaluation?

Who dismissed every imperial aggression? We were talking about WW2, and responding to Nazism / fighting the Axis forces was not " imperial aggression".

FrancieBrady · 19-01-2017 09:38PM

Jawgap wrote: »

nd to make things as simple as possible.....the Irish Defence Forces haven't invaded anywhere, or occupied anywhere (without a UN mandate) or conquered anywhere etc

So no history of offensive activity which distinguishes them from the 3 armies mentioned that have long histories of offensive activity. Thank you, I have no idea why you wasted everyone's time.

maryishere · 19-01-2017 09:39PM

smurgen wrote: »

Yeah,the iraqis were too uncivilized.they did'nt apprectiate the heroic lads of the raf and british army liberating them with their Shock and Awe attacks!

Who invaded little Kuwait first? Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It was a coalition of a dozen or two forces led by the US and UK who liberated Kuwait, as far as I remember. If you let big countries like Iraq ( who then had the fourth biggest military in the world, as far as I remember ) invade oil rich but tiny Kuwait, and get away with it, then you are asking for complete anarchy in the world.

smurgen · 19-01-2017 09:41PM

maryishere wrote: »

If every nation was cowardly enough to attempt to stay out of the war, Hitler would have had a field day. As it was, he invaded some neutral countries and deported some of their citizens to extermination camps etc.

Who dismissed every imperial aggression? We were talking about WW2, and responding to Nazism / fighting the Axis forces was not " imperial aggression".

What about Irish guerilla attacks against the British do you see them as cowardly?

Jawgap · 19-01-2017 09:41PM

smurgen wrote: »

Yeah,the iraqis were too uncivilized.they did'nt apprectiate the heroic lads of the raf and british army liberating them with their Shock and Awe attacks!

"Shock and awe" was a US doctrine, not a UK one, but don't let that get in the way your expressed sentiments

smurgen · 19-01-2017 09:42PM

maryishere wrote: »

Who invaded little Kuwait first? Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It was a coalition of a dozen or two forces led by the US and UK who liberated Kuwait, as far as I remember. If you let big countries like Iraq ( who then had the fourth biggest military in the world, as far as I remember ) invade oil rich but tiny Kuwait, and get away with it, then you are asking for complete anarchy in the world.

Did Iraq invade Kuwait in 2003? I musta have missed the sexed up dossier on that one lol.

maryishere · 19-01-2017 09:42PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So no history of offensive activity which distinguishes them from the 3 armies mentioned that have long histories of offensive activity. Thank you, I have no idea why you wasted everyone's time.

So you think they done f*** all: they did not help defeat the Nazis, they did not help the worldwide coalition liberate little Kuwait after it was invaded, they did not help win the cold war, they took casulties from the PIRA but did not even defeat them? Waste of money on the Irish taxpayer so you think? Maybe you think the IRA, whose actions you condoned in the past, are the REAL Irish army?

Jawgap · 19-01-2017 09:43PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So no history of offensive activity which distinguishes them from the 3 armies mentioned that have long histories of offensive activity. Thank you, I have no idea why you wasted everyone's time.

Well, I don't think I wasted everyone's time - only those who needed everything explained in the most simple terms

maryishere · 19-01-2017 09:46PM

smurgen wrote: »

Did Iraq invade Kuwait in 2003? I musta have missed the sexed up dossier on that one lol.

Who mentioned 2003. Invasion of Kuwait was in 1990, with the liberation not long after the worldwide coalition (ex Ireland) responded.

FrancieBrady · 19-01-2017 09:49PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, I don't think I wasted everyone's time - only those who needed everything explained in the most simple terms

No, you just wanted to be pedantic.

Jawgap · 19-01-2017 09:51PM

smurgen wrote: »

Did Iraq invade Kuwait in 2003? I musta have missed the sexed up dossier on that one lol.

No, but let's face it posters on here were happy enough to condemn Churchill based on his willingness to use gas......

....are you saying Saddam, who actually used gas (at Halabja) against civilians deserves a pass?

There's quite a strong argument to say that the biggest mistake in that part of the world in the last 30 years was Schwartzkopf's order to turn right instead of left.

Jawgap · 19-01-2017 09:53PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, you just wanted to be pedantic.

No, my bad. I assumed a certain level of knowledge and ability to comprehend, but I realise I need to recalibrate to include all posters

maryishere · 19-01-2017 09:53PM

smurgen wrote: »

What about Irish guerilla attacks against the British do you see them as cowardly?

If you are talking about IRA attacks against the British in that time (mid 20th century) yes they were, and very wrong. For example, On 25 August 1939, five people died and 70 were injured when an IRA bomb exploded in Coventry city centre. From wiki, Those killed were Elsie Ansell (aged 21), John Arnott (15), Rex Gentle (30), James Clay (82) and Gwilym Rowlands (50). James McCormick and Peter Barnes were hanged for their role in the bombing. Éamon de Valera would covertly co-operate with Britain to crush the IRA. DeValera killed some IRA men in jail - I wonder if Thatcher had killed some IRA men in jail what would the reaction have been / if it would have reduced IRA activity like it did in WW2.

FrancieBrady · 19-01-2017 10:01PM

I think cheer leading what the British Americans French etc did to the middle east is way off topic.

What the hell an Irish soldier was doing stuck in the middle of it is.

smurgen · 19-01-2017 10:02PM

maryishere wrote: »

If you are talking about IRA attacks against the British in that time (mid 20th century) yes they were, and very wrong. For example, On 25 August 1939, five people died and 70 were injured when an IRA bomb exploded in Coventry city centre. From wiki, Those killed were Elsie Ansell (aged 21), John Arnott (15), Rex Gentle (30), James Clay (82) and Gwilym Rowlands (50). James McCormick and Peter Barnes were hanged for their role in the bombing. Éamon de Valera would covertly co-operate with Britain to crush the IRA. DeValera killed some IRA men in jail - I wonder if Thatcher had killed some IRA men in jail what would the reaction have been / if it would have reduced IRA activity like it did in WW2.

Wait i thought you didn't like talking about old wars? Ah sure while we're at that period in time...how about the British bombing on Dresden that killed 25k civilians?

smurgen · 19-01-2017 10:06PM

Jawgap wrote: »

"Shock and awe" was a US doctrine, not a UK one, but don't let that get in the way your expressed sentiments

The British were key players in it sure.as lapdogs for the U.S i believe they're obliged to take part in whatever the latests attrocity is.

smurgen · 19-01-2017 10:07PM

maryishere wrote: »

Who mentioned 2003. Invasion of Kuwait was in 1990, with the liberation not long after the worldwide coalition (ex Ireland) responded.

I mentioned 2003,the last grand invasion of the British forces.

Timberrrrrrrr · 19-01-2017 10:08PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think cheer leading what the British Americans French etc did to the middle east is way off topic.

What the hell an Irish soldier was doing stuck in the middle of it is.

Well one (who I knew personally) joined the BA because he was too old to join the Irish army

Jawgap · 19-01-2017 10:09PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think cheer leading what the British Americans French etc did to the middle east is way off topic.

What the hell an Irish soldier was doing stuck in the middle of it is.

Because soldiers go where they're told and the politicians here made a decision to contribute to ISAF.

Junkyard Tom · 19-01-2017 10:11PM

Jawgap wrote: »

are you saying Saddam, who actually used gas (at Halabja) against civilians deserves a pass?

Saddam was a brutal dictator and let's not forget that Britain helped the fucker build up his chemical weapons capability.

Britain is reported to have sold thiodiglycol and thionyl chloride to Iraq in 1988 and 1989. (Ralph Atkins, et al., "Britain Exported Poisonous Gas Ingredients to Iraq," The Financial Times, July 29, 1991, p. 1.)

The British, as regards foreign policy, have proved themselves utterly amoral when it comes to furthering their interests.

smurgen · 19-01-2017 10:15PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Because soldiers go where they're told and the politicians here made a decision to contribute to ISAF.

Why would you put yourself in the position that a politician will essentially be able to decide your fate?what do you think the families of dead service men think of the second Gulf War think of Tony Blair and George W.Bush?

FrancieBrady · 19-01-2017 10:15PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Saddam was a brutal dictator and let's not forget that Britain helped the fucker build up his chemical weapons capability.

The British, as regards foreign policy, have proved themselves utterly amoral when it comes to furthering their interests.

That hypocrisy is what you sign up to support and defend.

Fratton Fred · 19-01-2017 10:17PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So no history of offensive activity which distinguishes them from the 3 armies mentioned that have long histories of offensive activity. Thank you, I have no idea why you wasted everyone's time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Grandslam

Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Comments