Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did I say 'mercenary, as defined by the Hague Convention'?

Look, you were trying to paint people signing up for the BA, who are not British as mercenaries....

FrancieBrady wrote: »

.....
But suffice to say I think it is wrong that armies are allowed to bolster their numbers with the hiring of foreign mercenaries (which Irish soldiers in the British army are, when you strip away all the niceties)

......

.....they're not. International law says they're not. Irish domestic law says they are not and UK domestic law says they are not.

Now, if you want to play your usual semantic games go ahead, but when you're done they'll still not be mercenaries.

You might be think of them as such, but you'd be wrong.

Jawgap wrote: »

Look, you were trying to paint people signing up for the BA, who are not British as mercenaries....

.....they're not. International law says they're not. Irish domestic law says they are not and UK domestic law says they are not.

Now, if you want to play your usual semantic games go ahead, but when you're done they'll still not be mercenaries.

You might be think of them as such, but you'd be wrong.

Did I say 'mercenary, as defined by the Hague Convention'?

What is the dictionary meaning of 'Mercenary'
A professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army,

It has also been claimed here that Irish soldiers join for personal gain, financial and career wise,
That also fits the 'dictionary' description:
A person primarily motivated by personal gain.

So I will continue to use the word to distinguish, thank you very much.
If you misunderstood, that, frankly, is your own jump to a conclusion.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did I say 'mercenary, as defined by the Hague Convention'?

You do not recognise any conventions seemingly, be they Hague, Geneva etc.

Any chance you would answer the question asked earlier? Given your idol DeValera actually hung some IRA , do you think that was a fairly good way to dissuade young men and women from joining the IRA at the time? Do you think Mrs Thatcher, who was soft on the IRA compared to DeValera, should have been harder on the PIRA, and hung some like he did?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is the dictionary meaning of 'Mercenary'
A professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army,

One definition in dictionary I saw is "a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national or party to the conflict and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities by desire for private gain""

Given no British soldiers died in conflict in 2016, what "conflict" or "hostilities" are you referring to Francie? And if there are "conflict" or "hostilities" with ISIS, perhaps we are all " a national or party to the conflict" given we are all infidels toin the eyes of ISIS. And few soldiers would have much "private gain" by joining the BA in any event, given their hourly earnings / wages are below the average industrial wage.
Hence it is best to go by the Hague convention definition.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did I say 'mercenary, as defined by the Hague Convention'?

What is the dictionary meaning of 'Mercenary'
A professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army,

It has also been claimed here that Irish soldiers join for personal gain, financial and career wise,
That also fits the 'dictionary' description:
A person primarily motivated by personal gain.

So I will continue to use the word to distinguish, thank you very much.
If you misunderstood, that, frankly, is your own jump to a conclusion.

Look, we're talking about the military and we're talking about citizens serving in other state's militaries......and the term is clearly defined in international law.

You may have engaged in defective research again (can I suggest expanding your sources byond Wikipedia and the Free Dictionary (it's free for a reason

)) or assumed it was not but the fact is, that the term is well defined......

.......and by any objective reasoning of it Irish people heading over to sign up for the BA etc are not mercenaries, even if they are economically motivated. They go in under the same T&Cs as everyone else, they don't receive "material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces" so they are simply just soldiers, sailors or aircrew.

So continue to regard them otherwise if you must, but it'll just be sounding indicating the depths of your deficiency on the point.

Jawgap wrote: »

Look, we're talking about the military and we're talking about citizens serving in other state's militaries......and the term is clearly defined in international law.

You may have engaged in defective research again (can I suggest expanding your sources byond Wikipedia and the Free Dictionary (it's free for a reason )) or assumed it was not but the fact is, that the term is well defined......

.......and by any objective reasoning of it Irish people heading over to sign up for the BA etc are not mercenaries, even if they are economically motivated. They go in under the same T&Cs as everyone else, they don't receive "material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces" so they are simply just soldiers, sailors or aircrew.

So continue to regard them otherwise if you must, but it'll just be sounding indicating the depths of your deficiency on the point.

YOU misunderstood my use of the term.
If I wanted to draw a distinction I would have used the 'as defined by the Hague Convention'. I DIDN'T, I used the word in it's ordinary meaning.

Using words in their ordinary meaning is the commoner practice.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

YOU misunderstood my use of the term.
If I wanted to draw a distinction I would have used the 'as defined by the Hague Convention'. I DIDN'T, I used the word in it's ordinary meaning.

Using words in their ordinary meaning is the commoner practice.

Yes, thus far you have convinced me of your knowledge of the 'Hague Convention' - btw, there's more than one that's why it's customary to refer to them as the Hague Conventions - so I'm sure you were going to use that definition before deciding on something more generic........in the interests of keeping it simple of course

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, thus far you have convinced me of your knowledge of the 'Hague Convention' - btw, there's more than one that's why it's customary to refer to them as the Hague Conventions - so I'm sure you were going to use that definition before deciding on something more generic........in the interests of keeping it simple of course

Maybe we should just refer to it as THC, sounds all knowledgeable and stuff when you sprinkle in a few acronyms.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I DIDN'T, I used the word in it's ordinary meaning.

Using words in their ordinary meaning is the commoner practice.

No you did not "use the word in it's ordinary meaning." You (and perhaps the odd extremist Republican) are the only person who has referred to Irish people who serve in the British Army as "mercenaries". If you google "irish mercenaries", nothing comes up about Irish people joining the British army.

And you still have not answered about DeValera, Francie, although you have dozens of posts praising him and admiring him. Simple yes or no answers will suffice.

"Given your idol DeValera actually hung some IRA , do you think that was a fairly good way to dissuade young men and women from joining the IRA at the time? Do you think Mrs Thatcher, who was soft on the IRA compared to DeValera, should have been harder on the PIRA, and hung some like he did?"

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Maybe we should just refer to it as THC, sounds all knowledgeable and stuff when you sprinkle in a few acronyms.

Off you go and do that, if you want

TLAs always sound good and it seems appropriate from a lot of your posts that you would settle on THC - which, in a military context, has a completely different meaning

:D:D:D

Jawgap wrote: »

Off you go and do that, if you want

TLAs always sound good and it seems appropriate from a lot of your posts that you would settle on THC - which, in a military context, has a completely different meaning :D:D:D

The moral of the story is if you want to discuss this with qualified military experts then open a thread on the Military forum.
Otherwise, be 'umble enough not to assume that everyone is going to understand the military terminology that trips so lightly from your keyboard and accept that if people are going to use specialist meanings for, otherwise normal, English words that they will indicate they are so doing.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The moral of the story is if you want to discuss this with qualified military experts then open a thread on the Military forum.
Otherwise, be 'umble enough not to assume that everyone is going to understand the military terminology that trips so lightly from your keyboard and accept that if people are going to use specialist meanings for, otherwise normal, English words that they will indicate they are so doing.

Look it's like someone coming out and officially declaring something fake - better to parse your statements.

Is it really a stretch to imagine that the word 'mercenary' has been defined in law somewhere? Do you really think that if they were mercenaries that it wouldn't be all over the media and that the government wouldn't have stepped in to stop people going?

.....and I'm neither qualified nor an expert, just someone who dabbles

Jawgap wrote: »

Look it's like someone coming out and officially declaring something fake - better to parse your statements.

Is it really a stretch to imagine that the word 'mercenary' has been defined in law somewhere? Do you really think that if they were mercenaries that it wouldn't be all over the media and that the government wouldn't have stepped in to stop people going?

.....and I'm neither qualified nor an expert, just someone who dabbles

Jawgap, YOU misunderstood the use of a simple English word.

Just as you thought it too much extra work to type 'Swiss Guard' so that everyone would easily understand, I used the word to quickly refer to 'Irish soldiers who are in the employ of a foreign army'.

Which is the meaning of the word.

That you find that pejorative use is no business of mine.

I won't be answering for it anymore too. Already way off the topic.

Here's were we where at:

Yes I do think they should 'if that army is being used in as an offensive, aggressive force that ignores the sovereignty of other nations because of their own 'necessities'.
Not really sure what the difficulty is that you seem to be having with the above.

Is the PSG being used in that way? Maybe somebody more expert than me can show us.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jawgap, YOU misunderstood the use of a simple English word.

Just as you thought it too much extra work to type 'Swiss Guard' so that everyone would easily understand, I used the word to quickly refer to 'Irish soldiers who are in the employ of a foreign army'.

Which is the meaning of the word.

That you find that pejorative use is no business of mine.

I won't be answering for it anymore too. Already way off the topic.

Here's were we where at:

Yes I do think they should 'if that army is being used in as an offensive, aggressive force that ignores the sovereignty of other nations because of their own 'necessities'.
Not really sure what the difficulty is that you seem to be having with the above.

Is the PSG being used in that way? Maybe somebody more expert than me can show us.

No, as I said I'm no expert and I'm not qualified but I knew enough to know how loaded a term like 'mercenary' is.......

.....oh, ok - I'll admit.......I also studied the Hague and Geneva Conventions for a project a long time ago and I knew the definition was there - I was just waiting to see if you did, then you offered up the Free Dictionary definition and it was like being tossed the keys to the sweet shop

...btw, there's more than one "Swiss Guard" which is why I used the generally accepted TLA for them - PSG. Just like I use BA, FFL, USMC, RN....

.....and you're objection to people from here joining the BA seems to relate to their history......well guess what? The PSG might well be a benign bodyguard force with a line in natty Michelangelo designed uniforms, legacy weapons and concealed automatic weapons but 'twas not always thus.....

.....and you know what? Nobody knows how an army might be used - that's why we have them. Five years ago if you said the Brits would have gone a whole year without a combat casualty you'd have been laughed at......five years from now who knows what and where the world will be.....and at some point in the next 2/3 years the Nordic Battlegroup will go back on alert and who knows in today's world where they (and the Irish contingent that are part of it) might end up and what they might end up doing.....

Jawgap wrote: »

.....and you're objection to people from here joining the BA seems to relate to their history......well guess what? The PSG might well be a benign bodyguard force with a line in natty Michelangelo designed uniforms, legacy weapons and concealed automatic weapons but 'twas not always thus.....

I am not just objecting to joining the BA, I used 'all armies that are used as an offensive, aggressive force that ignores the sovereignty of other nations because of their necessities'. Whatever they may be.

.....and you know what? Nobody knows how an army might be used - that's why we have them. Five years ago if you said the Brits would have gone a whole year without a combat casualty you'd have been laughed at......five years from now who knows what and where the world will be.....and at some point in the next 2/3 years the Nordic Battlegroup will go back on alert and who knows in today's world where they (and the Irish contingent that are part of it) might end up and what they might end up doing.....

Exactly, who knows.
But we have recent history to guide us. Talking about what 'might' happen in the future is irrelevant.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not just objecting to joining the BA, I used 'all armies that are used as an offensive, aggressive force that ignores the sovereignty of other nations because of their necessities'. Whatever they may be.

Exactly, who knows.
But we have recent history to guide us. Talking about what 'might' happen in the future is irrelevant.

Fukuyama thought so, then changed his mind

We should also Gerry to knock all this talk about ending partition on the head then

Jawgap wrote: »

Fukuyama thought so, then changed his mind

We should also Gerry to knock all this talk about ending partition on the head then

Not sure why this has to be done.

But anyway. :rolleyes:

Talking about the future of armies that are used in an offensive, aggressive force that ignores the sovereignty of other nations because of their necessities, whatever they might be, is irrelevant given that we know from recent history that this activity is unlikely to stop.

The topic is not about Gerry or political scientists if that is the Fukuyama that tripped off your keyboard.

DanielODonnell

I think any self respecting Irishman or even a self respecting Gael couldn't join the British Army, in my eyes they are essentially the modern version of Cromwell and his comrades. As a Catholic in Northern Ireland it is not something that you would even consider, it would be like spitting on the graves of recent murder victims and I wasn't alive during most of the troubles.

DanielODonnell wrote: »

As a Catholic in Northern Ireland it is not something that you would even consider.

You are quite wrong there. There are a lot of Catholics from N. Ireland - and even from the Rep of Ireland - in Irish regiments (and others) of the British army, and guess what, they always are treated fairly there, without any sectarian problems.
And you know what...many Catholics in N.Ireland would not consider the BA a foreign army either. Did you know 38.5% of Catholics in N. Ireland choose to have a UK passport, and 40.5% of catholics there have an Irish one?

Does anyone have any figures for Irish people working in the murky world of Private Defence/Military Contractors?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/03/britain-g4s-at-centre-of-global-mercenary-industry-says-charity

Britain is the “mercenary kingpin” of global private military industry, which has been booming ever since the “war on terror” began 15 years ago, according to a report seen exclusively by the Guardian.

The UK multinational G4S is now the world’s largest private security company, and no fewer than 14 companies are based in Hereford, close to the headquarters of the SAS, from whose ranks at least 46 companies hire recruits, says the report by British-based charity War on Want.

The huge increase in the number of private military and security companies, with contracts running into billions of pounds, signals the return of the “dogs of war” (mercenary) era that followed the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, said John Hilary, executive director of War on Want.

At the height of the occupation of Iraq, about 80 British companies operated in Iraq; there are now hundreds operating in areas of conflict around the world, bound only by a system of self-regulation.

In Libya, UK companies led the way after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the report stated. The Security Contracting Network, a recruitment forum for the industry, posted a message in the days following Gaddafi’s fall saying: “There will be an uptick of activity as foreign oil companies scramble to get back to Libya … follow the money, and find your next job.”Britain is the “mercenary kingpin” of global private military industry, which has been booming ever since the “war on terror” began 15 years ago, according to a report seen exclusively by the Guardian.

The UK multinational G4S is now the world’s largest private security company, and no fewer than 14 companies are based in Hereford, close to the headquarters of the SAS, from whose ranks at least 46 companies hire recruits, says the report by British-based charity War on Want.

The huge increase in the number of private military and security companies, with contracts running into billions of pounds, signals the return of the “dogs of war” (mercenary) era that followed the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, said John Hilary, executive director of War on Want.

At the height of the occupation of Iraq, about 80 British companies operated in Iraq; there are now hundreds operating in areas of conflict around the world, bound only by a system of self-regulation.

In Libya, UK companies led the way after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the report stated. The Security Contracting Network, a recruitment forum for the industry, posted a message in the days following Gaddafi’s fall saying: “There will be an uptick of activity as foreign oil companies scramble to get back to Libya … follow the money, and find your next job.”

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Does anyone have any figures for Irish people working in the murky world of Private Defence/Military Contractors?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/03/britain-g4s-at-centre-of-global-mercenary-industry-says-charity

Well if there was it wouldn't be very murky would it?

The US publish data on the nationality, tier, payment etc of operators retained by PMCs working on their contracts around the world. Figures available in their Defense Census reports.

PMCs are not mercenaries, as defined by international law.

Jawgap wrote: »

Well if there was it wouldn't be very murky would it?

The US publish data on the nationality, tier, payment etc of operators retained by PMCs working on their contracts around the world. Figures available in their Defense Census reports.

PMCs are not mercenaries, as defined by international law.

No, international law seems to be pretty vague when it comes to certain activities of the top tier of the UN.

Does the practice cause any concerns for you? Would you encourage our youth to go off to get their 'jollies' that way?

And yes actually, the activities of these companies could easily still be 'murky'.

tiger55

mikeym wrote: »

The Brits have pulled out of Afghanistan.

And they wont be going back.

And at the moment they are not involved in any combat operations.

They are annoying Trump of late though:ninja:

tiger55 wrote: »

They are annoying Trump of late though:ninja:

And what has that to do with the thread? According to the media I have seen, Trump has provided few details on whether he will continue the billions of dollars per year in military and development aid to Afghanistan, nor has he confirmed the future of the nearly 9,000 American troops still deployed there. There are probably more than a few "Irish" people in the US stationed in Afghanistan, but what has that to do with the price of butter?

tiger55 wrote: »

They are annoying Trump of late though:ninja:

It will indeed be interesting to see how Trump shakes up NATO alright.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, international law seems to be pretty vague when it comes to certain activities of the top tier of the UN.

Does the practice cause any concerns for you? Would you encourage our youth to go off to get their 'jollies' that way?

And yes actually, the activities of these companies could easily still be 'murky'.

A six point law with over 100 years of case law to back it up is vague?

Ok.

Does the UN use PMCs? In it's "top tier" activities whatever they are? They use them to protect their missions and personnel but surely recruiting them for anything else would be violation of their own rules (Resolution 44/34 refers)?

As a self-declared expert on the definition of mercenaries, what do you think?

Jawgap wrote: »

A six point law with over 100 years of case law to back it up is vague?

Ok.

Does the UN use PMCs? In it's "top tier" activities whatever they are? They use them to protect their missions and personnel but surely recruiting them for anything else would be violation of their own rules (Resolution 44/34 refers)?

As a self-declared expert on the definition of mercenaries, what do you think?

And again you twist.
I was referring to the UN's vague attitudes to Private Military Contractors. So down off that horse again there.

Top tier: in simple English, those at the top in a tiered organisation.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was referring to the UN's vague attitudes to Private Military Contractors.

The UN does not seem to have anything bad to say about PMC'c, seeing as you have brought PMC's up. What has the UN's attitude to PMC's to do with Irish people joining the British army? You may as well talk about last years UN statement which said Ireland’s abortion ban ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/un-says-ireland-s-abortion-ban-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading-1.2678246
A woman was subjected to "discrimination and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment due to Ireland’ s abortion ban, the United Nations has found.