Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 01:55PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you are happy to quote from any site that suits your agenda without doing any due diligence as to the veracity of the site? Were the poor english skills in the article not a clue?

Do what any other poster is expected to do. Contradict the link with your own.
You say it is biased, that indicates that you know of 'unbiased' reports.
Please link to them, I HAVE ALREADY said I accept the link I posted may be biased.
There are plenty more saying the same sort of things.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/return-of-the-mercenary/388616/ *WARNING May cause seizure! LOOK at all that use of the word 'armies' (small 'a'):D
http://www.fpri.org/article/2006/04/private-military-companies-and-the-future-of-war/
http://www.seanmcfate.com/the-modern-mercenary.html
LOOK at that 'PRIVATE ARMIES' on the front of a buke now! You guys have a lot of emails to send!

ohnonotgmail · 23-01-2017 02:03PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do what any other poster is expected to do. Contradict the link with your own.
You say it is biased, that indicates that you know of 'unbiased' reports.
Please link to them, I HAVE ALREADY said I accept the link I posted may be biased.
There are plenty more saying the same sort of things.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/return-of-the-mercenary/388616/ *WARNING May cause seizure! LOOK at all that use of the word 'armies' (small 'a'):D
http://www.fpri.org/article/2006/04/private-military-companies-and-the-future-of-war/
http://www.seanmcfate.com/the-modern-mercenary.html
LOOK at that 'PRIVATE ARMIES' on the front of a buke now! You guys have a lot of emails to send!

"may be biased"?

you do realise that links 1 and 3 have the same source, right? and the source is a former PMC who is promoting his book? and you think that his incorrect use of the word "army" for publicity purposes helps your point?
and even he says

McFate draws a distinction between these types of support contractors, used for defense and training, and mercenaries, who stage offensive operations on behalf of a client.

and the second link doesnt support what you say.

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 02:16PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

"may be biased"?

you do realise that links 1 and 3 have the same source, right? and the source is a former PMC who is promoting his book? and you think that his incorrect use of the word "army" for publicity purposes helps your point?
and even he says

and the second link doesnt support what you say.

I am not saying anything, I asked some questions.

Why wouldn't they quote a book by a former PMC. is writing a book automatically 'biased' now?
You can of course clear all this up by quoting 'unbiased' sources.

A few more articles, reports:

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21566625-business-private-armies-not-only-growing-changing-shape-bullets-hire

https://www.caat.org.uk/issues/corporate-mercenaries/war-on-want-corporate-mercenaries-report.pdf

*WARNING, contains use of 'army' and 'mercenary' words.

ohnonotgmail · 23-01-2017 02:26PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not saying anything, I asked some questions.

Why wouldn't they quote a book by a former PMC. is writing a book automatically 'biased' now?
You can of course clear all this up by quoting 'unbiased' sources.

A few more articles, reports:

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21566625-business-private-armies-not-only-growing-changing-shape-bullets-hire

https://www.caat.org.uk/issues/corporate-mercenaries/war-on-want-corporate-mercenaries-report.pdf

*WARNING, contains use of 'army' and 'mercenary' words.

you are still going on about the use of the word "army"? and you complain about the pedantry of others? Go ahead, knock yourself out. You'll be wrong but that hasnt stopped you in the past.

apart from the misuse of the word army what do think those articles actually show? The War on Want article is nearly a decade out of date. the economist article is a little more recent but still does not different between private security companies and mercenenaries. It doesnt really say very much though at all that is new..

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 02:32PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you are still going on about the use of the word "army"? and you complain about the pedantry of others? Go ahead, knock yourself out. You'll be wrong but that hasnt stopped you in the past.

apart from the misuse of the word army what do think those articles actually show? The War on Want article is nearly a decade out of date. the economist article is a little more recent but still does not different between private security companies and mercenenaries. It doesnt really say very much though at all that is new..

You have been asked to link to the 'unbiased' articles you mentioned. You either made the existence of them up or you don't want to post them.

*I was just making you aware that the use of the word 'army' isn't the great sin you think it is. It can and is legitimately used by a lot more people than me.

Jawgap · 23-01-2017 02:43PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you link to this?

Yes, I could, but why would I bother given you've been so quick to denigrate other research previously posted - a quick google will give you all you need......

......and all a lot more recent than 2012

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 02:53PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, I could, but why would I bother given you've been so quick to denigrate other research previously posted - a quick google will give you all you need......

......and all a lot more recent than 2012

I cannot find this 'research'. Curious that somebody so quick and precise about 'correct terminology' doesn't want to show off these findings;

"All signs seem to be that this activity will only grow".......even though the research shows otherwise

Are we 'allowed' to draw our own conclusions about two posters claiming something exists but won't link to it? Like 'who' thinks it won't 'grow'? That is kind of important, no?

I will keep looking for the benefit of others using these forums though.

knucklehead6 · 23-01-2017 03:00PM

for those of you who haven't been following this thread and are wondering what it's about here's a quick summary

FrancieBrady : GRRRR All Irish people who join the BA or any other army apart from the Irish army (and the IRA) are mercenaries. And all armies are bad.

Jawgap : They are not mercenaries. Show me a dictionary that calls them mercenaries. I'm using TLA's with reckless abandon and give the impression that i know what I'm talking about. and I'm more reasonable than Francie

Maryishere : BUT DEV HUNG IRA MEMBERS..... ANSWER THAT

Francie : i like Dev.

Random Others : GRRR Must not join BA... Irish is BA are pissing on graves.
Random Others: Totally acceptable to join BA, if you want to be a soldier, be a soldier.

That's a brief summation of the 1400 odd posts here so far

Jawgap · 23-01-2017 03:02PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I cannot find this 'research'. Curious that somebody so quick and precise about 'correct terminology' doesn't want to show off these findings;

Are we 'allowed' to draw our own conclusions about two posters claiming something exists but won't link to it? Like 'who' thinks it won't 'grow'? That is kind of important, no?

I will keep looking for the benefit of others using these forums though.

As per my previous posts - the US DoD census provides a breakdown of their PMSC spending.....and the work done at Uppsala......although I doubt such academically rigorous work as done by that university would be to your liking as they don't agree with your preconceptions......for example one of their papers contains the following.....

When PSMCs are discussed from the point of view of international humanitarian law the question is sometimes asked whether they should not rightly be categorized as mercenaries. Since mercenary is a loaded concept, the discussion whether PSMCs should be placed in that category or not is not always very fruitful.

Jawgap · 23-01-2017 03:04PM

knucklehead6 wrote: »

for those of you who haven't been following this thread and are wondering what it's about here's a quick summary

That's a brief summation of the 1400 odd posts here so far

Except I didn't ask for a dictionary definition, I just insisted on the internationally accepted definition......

......no harm in insisting on the precise use of language is there?

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 03:05PM

Jawgap wrote: »

As per my previous posts - the US DoD census provides a breakdown of their PMSC spending.....and the work done at Uppsala......although I doubt such academically rigorous work as done by that university would be to your liking as they don't agree with your preconceptions......for example one of their papers contains the following.....

Which has what to do with you point in bold here:

"All signs seem to be that this activity will only grow".......even though the research shows otherwise

I understand that this is tedious for others knucklehead6, but the pedantry and blocking to the conversation that is going on is crazy.

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 03:06PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Except I didn't ask for a dictionary definition, I just insisted on the internationally accepted definition......

......no harm in insisting on the precise use of language is there?

I used words in their commonly used way, YOU ASKED for definitions as described in the Hague Conventions. Jesus H.

Jawgap · 23-01-2017 03:10PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which has what to do with you point in bold here:

I understand that this is tedious for others knucklehead6, but the pedantry and blocking to the conversation that is going on is crazy.

You know......I was going to reply.....but what's the point? I've pointed you towards two sources and it's clear you've not engaged with either (as evidenced by your opening sentence).

I suggest reviewing the figures there, doing a Google Scholar search to drag out the journal articles that have cited them and make your own mind up.....

.....you won't accept any secondary or third party analysis I post up so go to the well and do your own.

knucklehead6 · 23-01-2017 03:10PM

there's a pair of ye in it!!

and for what it's worth, I have no issue with people joining the BA or any other national force (apart from that shower of goons ISIL) and don't consider them mercenaries.

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 03:13PM

Jawgap wrote: »

.....you won't accept any secondary or third party analysis I post up so go to the well and do your own.

Link to it man. Copy and pasting is easy to do.

Jawgap · 23-01-2017 03:13PM

knucklehead6 wrote: »

there's a pair of ye in it!!

and for what it's worth, I have no issue with people joining the BA or any other national force (apart from that shower of goons ISIL) and don't consider them mercenaries.

You're not wrong there

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 03:14PM

knucklehead6 wrote: »

there's a pair of ye in it!!

and for what it's worth, I have no issue with people joining the BA or any other national force (apart from that shower of goons ISIL) and don't consider them mercenaries.

I am getting hung up on the use of specific words and refusing to link to stuff I claim exists?
I don't think so.

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 03:21PM

To be clear, I am looking for specific research that states that the growth in PMC's will not grow as per Jawgap's statement here:

completely hypothetical......

......as has been explained to you, PMCs don't take on or in raw recruits they want experienced personnel.

......and yes, your expertise as amply displayed on this thread, leads me to conclude that you are right that "All signs seem to be that this activity will only grow".......even though the research shows otherwise, and the tendency now is not to intervene with boots

....personally, if it was me, I'd be staking my money on the growth of militarisation of the police......but sure what would I know.

.....and if you are going to come up with some nonsense about Trump forget it - the Republicans believe in a large military, but they also believe it shouldn't be sent anywhere.

I would also like Ohnonotgmail to link to what he claims are 'unbiased' articles and reports.

Simple request. Denied so far. Which goes against the spirit of the charter here, i.e. to post links/sources when asked for them.

Jawgap · 23-01-2017 03:23PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Link to it man. Copy and pasting is easy to do.

Yeah, you know what?

@knucklehead6 was pretty spot on with their sanity check intervention.....

.....I'm stepping away from this pig wrestle because there really is nothing to suggest the next 14, 140 or 1400 posts will be any more constructive than has heretofore been the case - I start pulling data from the DoD, you'll keep going in your pedantry.....and it'll just keep rolling down the track.......you have your relevant facts and it's clear nothing will shift you from that position.

FrancieBrady · 23-01-2017 03:32PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Yeah, you know what?

@knucklehead6 was pretty spot on with their sanity check intervention.....

.....I'm stepping away from this pig wrestle because there really is nothing to suggest the next 14, 140 or 1400 posts will be any more constructive than has heretofore been the case - I start pulling data from the DoD, you'll keep going in your pedantry.....and it'll just keep rolling down the track.......you have your relevant facts and it's clear nothing will shift you from that position.

So no data/research showing that the use of PMC's will not grow. Rather we have reports highlighting these facts. (If they are not facts please dispute with contradictory sources)

Today, the PMSC industry comprises hundreds of companies
operating in more than 50 countries worldwide and working
for governments, international institutions and corporations.
They provide a wider array of services than traditional
mercenaries, and employ better public relations machines. They
are involved in direct combat, operational support, the provision
of security, intelligence gathering, training, technical assistance
and post-conflict reconstruction.
PMSCs also encompass a wide variety of legal structures:
private companies, companies listed on the stock market, and
subsidiaries of much larger entities. Over the last 10 years these
companies have moved from the periphery of international
politics into the corporate boardroom, and are now seeking to
become a respectable part of the military sector

In Saudi Arabia, US-based PMSCs play a key role in
protecting the monarchy from unrest. Until recently BDM,
parent of Vinnell, provided logistics, intelligence and
maintenance services to the Saudi air force.Vinnell itself
trains the Saudi national guard, while Booz Allen Hamilton
runs the military staff college. SAIC supports the navy and
air defences, and O Gara protects the Saudi royal family and
trains local security forces.
• In Afghanistan, 150 employees of DynCorp are guarding
President Karzai and other leading figures in the Afghan
government.
• In Russia, tens of thousands of demobilised soldiers from
the former Soviet armed forces have joined PMSCs. One
example is the Moscow-based Alpha Firm, formed out of
the elite Soviet special forces unit and now a subsidiary of
British PMSC ArmorGroup. Contract soldiers have been
found alongside regular forces in Chechnya and have
defended facilities in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Kazakhstan.
• In East Timor, Australian forces leading the UN Transitional
Administration peacekeeping force in 1999 depended on
logistics outsourced to PMSCs, while the UN employed
private intelligence and security firms to assist.
• Israeli PMSC Silver Shadow has worked in the Republic of
the Congo, Angola and Colombia, where they assisted
Defence Systems Limited in providing security for BP.
• In Liberia, Intercon Security personnel guard the US
embassy, and have been involved in combat with rebel
forces during sieges.

https://www.caat.org.uk/issues/corporate-mercenaries/war-on-want-corporate-mercenaries-report.pdf

maryishere · 23-01-2017 07:44PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How this 'army' has come to be seen as a benign career path by some Irish people is actually quite flabbergasting.

But you have no problem with the relatively small number who joined the PIRA.

It was against the law to join the Provisional IRA, it was never against the law to join the B.A.and indeed hundreds of thousands of Irish people have done so over the years.

24-01-2017 01:55AM

maryishere wrote: »

But you have no problem with the relatively small number who joined the PIRA.

It was against the law to join the Provisional IRA, it was never against the law to join the B.A.and indeed hundreds of thousands of Irish people have done so over the years.

Gives you a sense of pride eh mary?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/24/india.randeepramesh

FrancieBrady · 24-01-2017 02:13AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Gives you a sense of pride eh mary?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/24/india.randeepramesh

The shutters have come down 17-pdr. 'We cannot deflect with pedantry about common English words or post simple links so we take the ball home'.

Classic really.

maryishere · 24-01-2017 02:19AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Gives you a sense of pride eh mary?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/24/india.randeepramesh

And the controversal author, Amaresh Misra, who made the claims is a very discredited person, who also has claimed that the 2008 Mumbai attacks were organized jointly by the CIA, Mossad and RSS. Big deal, he is out to sell his little book. According to more reliable and generally accepted reports, the 2008 Mumbai (Bombay) attacks were a series of attacks that took place in November 2008, when 10 members of Lashkar-e-Taiba, an Islamic militant organisation based in Pakistan, carried out a series of 12 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks lasting four days across Mumbai. If Amaresh Misra cannot even grasp what happened in 2008, what hope has he of grasping what happened in 1857? According to the media, the lad Misra was arrested by Lucknow police from Gurgaon, for threatening to kill Narendra Modi and posting inflammatory comments against RSS on social media sites.

knucklehead6 · 24-01-2017 08:39AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The shutters have come down 17-pdr. 'We cannot deflect with pedantry about common English words or post simple links so we take the ball home'.

Classic really.

I think its more a case of everyone being equally intractable in their views, and instead of taking their ball home, people have realised that the horse is dead and flogging it isn't doing anyone any good.

FrancieBrady · 24-01-2017 09:29AM

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I think its more a case of everyone being equally intractable in their views, and instead of taking their ball home, people have realised that the horse is dead and flogging it isn't doing anyone any good.

Read back with an open mind. I asked several times for links from two posters. Denied.
Instead they got into a huff over the use of ordinary English words. Words used liberally in the numerous 'links' I posted and was ONLY asking questions about their content. I even agreed not to use the term 'private armies' if it upset posters so much. But no, not good enough.

The specialist forums here like the Military one would not tolerate that evasive behaviour I am sure.

Atoms for Peace · 24-01-2017 09:33AM

When there's a perfectly good French foreign legion why take the queens shilling? :pac:

24-01-2017 09:50AM

maryishere wrote: »

And the controversal author, Amaresh Misra, who made the claims is a very discredited person, who also has claimed that the 2008 Mumbai attacks were organized jointly by the CIA, Mossad and RSS. Big deal, he is out to sell his little book. According to more reliable and generally accepted reports, the 2008 Mumbai (Bombay) attacks were a series of attacks that took place in November 2008, when 10 members of Lashkar-e-Taiba, an Islamic militant organisation based in Pakistan, carried out a series of 12 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks lasting four days across Mumbai. If Amaresh Misra cannot even grasp what happened in 2008, what hope has he of grasping what happened in 1857? According to the media, the lad Misra was arrested by Lucknow police from Gurgaon, for threatening to kill Narendra Modi and posting inflammatory comments against RSS on social media sites.

The article already mentions that his views are controversial. Did you even notice that? I'm guessing not. Whats not in dispute is the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands who died in British reprisals in the aftermath of the 1857 uprising with many accounts of the savagery inflicted on the native Indians. Of course its the British we are talking about here so your morals on them are at best less than clear on their actions.

OxfordColours · 24-01-2017 10:02AM

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

When there's a perfectly good French foreign legion why take the queens shilling? :pac:

Met anyone who has come back from the FFL? They don't always come back in great shape. It's a tough life, far removed from the western european way of life that we enjoy these days.

Having said that, the French Army have a brilliant set up. I'm quite jealous of how well they treat their troops.

FrancieBrady · 24-01-2017 10:02AM

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

When there's a perfectly good French foreign legion why take the queens shilling? :pac:

My suspicion is that the practice of joining a foreign army is only ok if the foreign country's foreign policy aligns with their world view.

That is why I responded to the contention that these young people are only joining for financial gain-career opportunity- or 'jollies' with the question 'would that be ok if the young person wanted to join ISIS or the British Army of the period 17-pdr is talking about or armies that get involved in the illegal ignoring of sovereignty.

Essentially what you are doing when you join a foreign army is offering a 'blank template for hire'.
The rise of PMSC's seems to me to be a very worrying adaption if not an exploitation of the above.

I am open to be persuaded otherwise but taking somebody's word that contrary info/data is out there is not good enough.

Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Comments