Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I also know what you know. But how often is the alternate voice listened to?
The one that had the solutions here on this island? 40 yrs of death and carnage to get ALL the people around a table as equals?
How often is the alternate voice listened to as boys get their 'jollies' with 'toys' and their new found 'mates'?
Very rarely.

back to this again.....you know for more and more people this is becoming more and more ancient history.

Keep it going by all means, but it's just becoming so much noise at this point.

Jawgap wrote: »

back to this again.....you know for more and more people this is becoming more and more ancient history.

Keep it going by all means, but it's just becoming so much noise at this point.

Inconvenient truth Jawgap?

Junkyard Tom

Jawgap wrote: »

and do you really think a theocracy like Iran engages in a rational analysis of what it's national interest is?

Yes.

Or for those who need things explained in simple terms

Speak for yourself.

do you think the sect running the country, that conceived the notion of religion-driven suicide attack nearly a thousand years ago won't act in a way that damages their country, if it means damaging an enemy?

If attacked? Perhaps.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Arrogance or what?
Rational analysis? Have you heard of Brexit?

Again, point proven. Thanks.

States cannot be relied on to act rationally in pursuit of their own national interest (or what's perceived externally as their own national interest) - Brexit proves it.

And if the Brits are happy to kneecap themselves, it's not that much of a leap to think that the Russians etc might engage in an act of national seppuku in some vain attempt to damage an adversary.

We might hunk they won't - they may well recognise the damage they'll cause themselves but do it anyway in the expectation they'll damage the adversary even more.

If you need it explained in more simple terms, Aesop's "The Farmer and the Viper" tale might be instructive in this regard.

WinnyThePoo

Jawgap wrote: »

back to this again.....you know for more and more people this is becoming more and more ancient history.

Keep it going by all means, but it's just becoming so much noise at this point.

Especially to people in the Republic.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Inconvenient truth Jawgap?

No, as I said, pretty much history for anyone under 30 and ancient history for anyone under 25.

If there is an inconvenient truth, it's that.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yes.

Speak for yourself.

If attacked? Perhaps.

Really don't understand the history of the suicide attacker? The Shi'a used them offensively - in much the same way the 'RA used proxy bombs - most notably in Damascus from about the 11th century onwards (obviously using swords then, rather than explosives)

Jawgap wrote: »

Again, point proven. Thanks.

States cannot be relied on to act rationally in pursuit of their own national interest (or what's perceived externally as their own national interest) - Brexit proves it.

And if the Brits are happy to kneecap themselves, it's not that much of a leap to think that the Russians etc might engage in an act of national seppuku in some vain attempt to damage an adversary.

We might hunk they won't - they may well recognise the damage they'll cause themselves but do it anyway in the expectation they'll damage the adversary even more.

If you need it explained in more simple terms, Aesop's "The Farmer and the Viper" tale might be instructive in this regard.

'So we(the US, Britain etc) will bomb them into the acceptance of our gifts'.
That's exactly why the world is in the mess it is in. As Dev said, the precedent that states can do whatever they wish if they deem it a 'necessity'.

Jawgap wrote: »

No, as I said, pretty much history for anyone under 30 and ancient history for anyone under 25.

If there is an inconvenient truth, it's that.

Says the poster going on about the 11th century. :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So we(the US, Britain etc) will bomb them into the acceptance of our gifts'.
That's exactly why the world is in the mess it is in. As Dev said, the precedent that states can do whatever they wish if they deem it a 'necessity'.

Unless we suddenly turnaround and say we don't want your oil to run our transport and your gas to heat our homes.

Nobody's denying the world is in a mess, although objectively speaking we've never been safer, healthier or wealthier.

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Especially to people in the Republic.

'Some' people in the republic. The 6 and 9pm news led with the retirement of its prominent politicians.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Says the poster going on about the 11th century. :rolleyes:

Well maybe read the whole sequence of posts - in simple terms, there seemed to be a suggestion that Iran would only used suicide attacks defensively and that such use was a recent development.

I was merely pointing out that the development of those activities was not a recent development and neither were they used solely when a community was attacked.

In simple terms, I was just demonstrating longevity, not using matters historical as justification for anything.

WinnyThePoo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Some' people in the republic. The 6 and 9pm news led with the retirement of its prominent politicians.

Just some?.

Your going to have to come to terms with people having a different reality to you.

Jawgap wrote: »

Unless we suddenly turnaround and say we don't want your oil to run our transport and your gas to heat our homes.

Nobody's denying the world is in a mess, although objectively speaking we've never been safer, healthier or wealthier.

Why can't we work towards paying them properly for their resources? Why can't we respect their lands and sovereignty? We expect others to do it to us.

Maybe if less boys put their hands up for jollies we could begin?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Some' people in the republic. The 6 and 9pm news led with the retirement of its prominent politicians.

Again, point proven. Thanks.

You really think the under 30s sit down yo watch the news? That that is how they get their information?

Never mind the fact that it's someone of who is at least a whole generation, if not two, older than them.

Junkyard Tom

Jawgap wrote: »

Really don't understand the history of the suicide attacker? The Shi'a used them offensively - in much the same way the 'RA used proxy bombs - most notably in Damascus from about the 11th century onwards (obviously using swords then, rather than explosives)

Okay.

Jawgap wrote: »

Well maybe read the whole sequence of posts - in simple terms, there seemed to be a suggestion that Iran would only used suicide attacks defensively and that such use was a recent development.

I was merely pointing out that the development of those activities was not a recent development and neither were they used solely when a community was attacked.

In simple terms, I was just demonstrating longevity, not using matters historical as justification for anything.

And I was just demonstrating the point I was making.

Jawgap wrote: »

Again, point proven. Thanks.

You really think the under 30s sit down yo watch the news? That that is how they get their information?

Never mind the fact that it's someone of who is at least a whole generation, if not two, older than them.

Not all under 30's think life is about skiing and jollies. Do you know many?

maryishere wrote: »

And given Nazi Germany invaded neutral countries, and deported their citizens etc, who do you think should fight such regimes as the Nazis?

Or in more recent times, Kuwait was invaded by Iraq (1990). Kuwait had the 4th biggest army in the world at the time : Kuwaits military might was more comparable to that of Switzerland.

You have not answered the following: ..given DeValera killed some IRA men in jail in his time - do you think if Thatcher in the eighies had killed some IRA men in jail - or had been as brutal on IRA prisoners as DeValera had been - would have IRA activity have reduced like it did in WW2?

Lets run with the Swiss example.was Switzerland invaded in Ww2?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why can't we work towards paying them properly for their resources? Why can't we respect their lands and sovereignty? We expect others to do it to us.

Maybe if less boys put their hands up for jollies we could begin?

Fair enough. Which oil company are we going to start the boycott with?

Are we going to vote in a government that promises to bump fuel prices and spend the money on projects in those countries?

Are we going to turn away investment from foreign firms who do business with or supply components to military contractors?

Are going to refuse to export to repressive regimes?

Are we fück!

So at least let's be honest with ourselves and give up this idea that somehow we're whiter than white just because we're outside NATO. And just keep making our modest contribution.......to the UN etc and to helping the poor souls that get pulled from the Med as much as we can.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not all under 30's think life is about skiing and jollies. Do you know many?

Quite a few actually.

Between coaching sport, and part-time lecturing.

I know they see me as an old fart with bad jokes and a quaint insistence on proper grammar, so I can only imagine what they think of how relevant someone like McGuinness is.

Jawgap wrote: »

It doesn't mean it's not true.

Our economy runs on hydrocarbons - we've built a society that is based on burning things. And we're happy to insulate ourselves from the consequences of that.

In the Irish case, we'll sell our beef to anyone who'll take it, no questions asked about where the money comes to pay for it and who it will be used to feed......

.....and even the Shinners fall over themselves to get an hour with Obama....who I have a lot of time for, but who presided over a massive expansion of the drone strike programme and whose administration prosecuted more whistleblowers than the last three combined!

So, yeah, I know how culpable I am in the order of things and I'm honest enough to admit it.

I reject your collective guilt theory.some people and nations are very much more guilty than others.

Jawgap wrote: »

Fair enough. Which oil company are we going to start the boycott with?

Are we going to vote in a government that promises to bump fuel prices and spend the money on projects in those countries?

Are we going to turn away investment from foreign firms who do business with or supply components to military contractors?

Are going to refuse to export to repressive regimes?

Are we fück!

So at least let's be honest with ourselves and give up this idea that somehow we're whiter than white just because we're outside NATO. And just keep making our modest contribution.......to the UN etc and to helping the poor souls that get pulled from the Med as much as we can.

We already do boycott repressive regimes.
If the U.S and U.k weren't so cynical in their dealings with the U.N the world would have a proper peacekeeping force.

[Deleted User]

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.

I think it was a bit more than 'the people' when it comes to the Crimea. It's 'real estate value' was quite high especially when you consider Sevastopol and its naval base which the Russians weren't going to allow any potential threats whatsoever to it, real or imagined.

Jawgap wrote: »

Fair enough. Which oil company are we going to start the boycott with?

Are we going to vote in a government that promises to bump fuel prices and spend the money on projects in those countries?

Are we going to turn away investment from foreign firms who do business with or supply components to military contractors?

Are going to refuse to export to repressive regimes?

Are we fück!

So at least let's be honest with ourselves and give up this idea that somehow we're whiter than white just because we're outside NATO. And just keep making our modest contribution.......to the UN etc and to helping the poor souls that get pulled from the Med as much as we can.

It doesn't and can't be an overnight thing, it took a long time to create the mess.
But we know the problem and who caused it as your self awareness above shows.

It could start with the leaders of the countries who caused the chaos openly admitting to the chaos they caused and committing to fixing it.

Because as we see with ISIS it is only getting worse.

We could help personally by persuading young people there are better more who!esome ways to get their jollies and make friends than joining foreign armies.

All the above are doable at very little cost to anything but egos.

Jawgap wrote: »

Quite a few actually.

Between coaching sport, and part-time lecturing.

I know they see me as an old fart with bad jokes and a quaint insistence on proper grammar, so I can only imagine what they think of how relevant someone like McGuinness is.

Funny that, I do similar. I find most young people very politically astute and aware.

maryishere

smurgen wrote: »

Lets run with the Swiss example.was Switzerland invaded in Ww2?

We all know it was not, but why do you think other neutral countries suffered invasions in spite of their efforts to be neutral during ww2? These included Nazi Germany's invasion of Denmark and Norway on 9 April 1940—then Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg on 10 May 1940. The Swiss co-operated with the Nazis in taking money looted from Jews, it suited the Nazis to have a safe haven, a good bit of which was German speaking, for their booty.

You still have not answered the following:
And given Nazi Germany invaded neutral countries, and deported their citizens etc, who do you think should fight such regimes as the Nazis?

Or in more recent times, Kuwait was invaded by Iraq (1990). Kuwait had the 4th biggest army in the world at the time : Kuwaits military might was more comparable to that of Switzerland.

You have not answered the following: ..given DeValera killed some IRA men in jail in his time - do you think if Thatcher in the eighies had killed some IRA men in jail - or had been as brutal on IRA prisoners as DeValera had been - would have IRA activity have reduced like it did in WW2?

maryishere wrote: »

We all know it was not, but why do you think other neutral countries suffered invasions in spite of their efforts to be neutral during ww2? These included Nazi Germany's invasion of Denmark and Norway on 9 April 1940—then Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg on 10 May 1940. The Swiss co-operated with the Nazis in taking money looted from Jews, it suited the Nazis to have a safe haven, a good bit of which was German speaking, for their booty.

You still have not answered the following:
And given Nazi Germany invaded neutral countries, and deported their citizens etc, who do you think should fight such regimes as the Nazis?

Or in more recent times, Kuwait was invaded by Iraq (1990). Kuwait had the 4th biggest army in the world at the time : Kuwaits military might was more comparable to that of Switzerland.

You have not answered the following: ..given DeValera killed some IRA men in jail in his time - do you think if Thatcher in the eighies had killed some IRA men in jail - or had been as brutal on IRA prisoners as DeValera had been - would have IRA activity have reduced like it did in WW2?

You're all over the place. Imperialist intervention under the guise of world policing is not good enough and if destroying the lives of innocent people the world over. Why will the U.S and U.K not back the U.N and make it a funtioning peacekeeping force? Because they're not after peace.they're after assets. Read the shock docterine by Naomi Klien if you want to learn about american and u.k neoconservative interventions around the world.