Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

OxfordColours · 24-01-2017 10:08AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

The PMSC's are just an extension of a governments armed services, with plausible deniability.

OxfordColours · 24-01-2017 10:09AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Most of us have bailed from it because of the amount of civvy ****e that's posted, and pedantic/semantic arguments that most of you in this thread love.

knucklehead6 · 24-01-2017 10:11AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Francie, lets get to the crux of the matter.

You, and a few others think that anyone joining the BA is a mercenary and they shouldn't do it. I seem to recall you mentioning that ANYONE working outside Ireland/the nation of their birth is paying taxes and therefore a mercenary. Are you likely to change your mind? No.

Jawgap, and a few others think that joining the BA is not a mercenary activity, and that if a person wants to be a soldier, let them be a soldier. Are they likely to change their mind? No.

So that is two diametrically viewpoints in the thread, neither of which is open to seeing it from the other ones point of view. Debate, in my opinion, is all about being open to questioning your own convictions as a result of points made by others. Neither side is showing this openness in this thread, hence my flogging a dead horse analogy.

That's all I have to say on this matter. You can reply if you want to, you can accuse me of taking my ball home. All I'm taking home is my whip that was used on the poor horse...

FrancieBrady · 24-01-2017 10:11AM

OxfordColours wrote: »

Most of us have bailed from it because of the amount of civvy ****e that's posted, and pedantic/semantic arguments that most of you in this thread love.

There are more people in the world than Military people. Or hadn't you noticed?

OxfordColours · 24-01-2017 10:18AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There are more people in the world than Military people. Or hadn't you noticed?

Yes, and a lot of them like to wade into military chat despite no military experience, sadly.

Wanderer78 · 24-01-2017 10:20AM

Hmm dole or potentially get blown to pieces in a country you truly shouldn't be in but were sent there by some ignorant people, dole please!

FrancieBrady · 24-01-2017 10:22AM

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Francie, lets get to the crux of the matter.

You, and a few others think that anyone joining the BA is a mercenary and they shouldn't do it. I seem to recall you mentioning that ANYONE working outside Ireland/the nation of their birth is paying taxes and therefore a mercenary. Are you likely to change your mind? No.

ANYONE working outside the country, anyone who leaves a job for a better paid one etc can of course be described as being 'mercenary'.
I don't understand the abject fear of a perfectly ordinary and normal word.

The company president was a mercenary man who had no problem firing his employees to increase his own salary.

If Jason wants to be a mercenary, he will have to forget about morals and follow the orders of the person signing his paychecks.

The mercenary restaurant manager is trying to cut costs by selling inferior meat as prime cuts.

Although the young woman swore she loved the old man, everyone knew the marriage was a mercenary one.

Jawgap, and a few others think that joining the BA is not a mercenary activity, and that if a person wants to be a soldier, let them be a soldier. Are they likely to change their mind? No.

So that is two diametrically viewpoints in the thread, neither of which is open to seeing it from the other ones point of view. Debate, in my opinion, is all about being open to questioning your own convictions as a result of points made by others. Neither side is showing this openness in this thread, hence my flogging a dead horse analogy.

That's all I have to say on this matter. You can reply if you want to, you can accuse me of taking my ball home. All I'm taking home is my whip that was used on the poor horse...

When somebody descends into diversion rather than back up what they are contending (it is simple to cut and paste links) and then constructs a 'reason' to depart, it kinda of speaks to the state of their argument in my opinion.

I was not by the way making any argument about PMSC, I was asking questions about them. My mind is not made up on them at all.

maryishere · 24-01-2017 10:23AM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Hmm dole or potentially get blown to pieces in a country you truly shouldn't be in but were sent there by some ignorant people, dole please!

Thanks to the B.A. effectively defending these islands during WW2, the Cold war etc, at least you have that choice.

OxfordColours wrote: »

Most of us have bailed from it because of the amount of civvy ****e that's posted, and pedantic/semantic arguments that most of you Francie in this thread love.

I remember Francie saying the PIRA was an army, a proper army, and Irish people who joined regiments of the B.A. like the Royal Irish Regiment or Irish Guards were just "mercenaries". When the dictionary definitions of an army were produced Francie was then asked that if the PIRA was an army, where was its known headquarters, had it even fought according to the geneva convention and was it the armed force of a country...was it the armed force of a nation or democratically elected government or dictator or what?

FrancieBrady · 24-01-2017 10:25AM

OxfordColours wrote: »

Yes, and a lot of them like to wade into military chat despite no military experience, sadly.

And ask for info and data from 'dabblers'. Denied though.

24-01-2017 10:29AM

maryishere wrote: »

Thanks to the B.A. effectively defending these islands during WW2, the Cold war etc, at least you have that choice.

The Germans turned their attentions east post 1940, otherwise they could have invaded and occupied these islands with ease if they turned their full attentions in this direction. 'Effective defense' in the era of the Cold War and nuclear weapons?? You are funny.......

Wanderer78 · 24-01-2017 10:33AM

maryishere wrote:

Thanks to the B.A. effectively defending these islands during WW2, the Cold war etc, at least you have that choice.

Gimme a break with this ****, these countries start wars, involve themselves in other countries matters, all in the name of 'democracy', me hole! Sending kids to their death is what they specialise in! I'm glad I talked my young english cousin out of joining the army, I made him realise, he can work doing whatever he wants, save, and still travel the world, and he 'll more than likely come home alive with incredible stories. Disturbing what ****e they tell kids to get them to sign up. No human should experience war!

FrancieBrady · 24-01-2017 10:37AM

And as if to underline the hypocrisy we get a post pontificating about the sanctity of the Geneva Convention when that very poster is over on another thread cheerleading Australia's breaking and continued flouting of International Law because it aligns with what people on that thread have called her 'racist views'.

https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2016/05/17/CCPR-C-116-D-2233-2013-English-cln-auv_(1).pdf

I have no idea if she is a racist but she is certainly being a tad hypocritical.

maryishere · 24-01-2017 10:41AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The Germans turned their attentions east post 1940, .

And what country was alone in standing up to Nazism in 1940?
And where did the Arctic convoys ( there were 78 convoys between August 1941 and May 1945, sailing via several seas of the Atlantic and Arctic oceans), which brought military supplies etc, sail from? The UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II
It was not Develera who stood up to Nazism anyway. As said before and elsewhere"Several countries suffered invasions in spite of their efforts to be neutral. These included Nazi Germany's invasion of Denmark and Norway on 9 April 1940—then Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg on 10 May 1940".

maryishere · 24-01-2017 10:44AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And as if to underline the hypocrisy we get a post pontificating about the sanctity of the Geneva Convention when that very poster is over on another thread cheerleading Australia's breaking and continued flouting of International Law because it aligns with what people on that thread have called her 'racist views'.

I do not have racist views, I was merely pointing out Australias treatment of economic migrants / refugees and contrasting it to Europes treatment of economic migrants / refugees. Even though Europe means well, more people drown getting to Europe because they are encouraged to make the crossing.

maryishere · 24-01-2017 10:52AM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Gimme a break with this ****, these countries start wars,

They try to defend democracy. Not a perfect system, but thats the way it is.
The problem is, to put it simply for you, there were always be baddies in the world with guns.
You think nobody should have stood up to Hitler for example? Or after Saddam invaded little Kuwait , an international coalition should not have liberated it.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Sending kids to their death is what they specialise in!

How many people died last year in armed conflict in the B. Army. None.

Over a hundred people die on French roads every bank holiday weekend alone.f

Wanderer78 wrote: »

No human should experience war!

Correct, and thanks to certain countries, our generations are pretty lucky.

FrancieBrady · 24-01-2017 10:58AM

We will 'defend democracy' by bombing you into the acceptance of 'our gifts'.

:D

Wanderer78 · 24-01-2017 11:04AM

maryishere wrote:

They try to defend democracy. Not a perfect system, but thats the way it is. The problem is, to put it simply for you, there were always be baddies in the world with guns. You think nobody should have stood up to Hitler for example? Or after Saddam invaded little Kuwait , an international coalition should not have liberated it.

Oh dear Lord, please be aware, democracy doesn't exist anywhere, period! Noam Chomsky has correctly called it a 'plutocracy'. We must never forget, 'WMD's! Democracy, yea right!

Baddies with guns, maybe we should arm all the 'good guys' with guns, that should 'solve' things!

Liberate, oh deary me!

24-01-2017 11:11AM

maryishere wrote: »

And what country was alone in standing up to Nazism in 1940?

Doing a great job they were too. They got their arses handed to them by the Germans in May and June of 1940. The debacle at Dunkirk effectively left the British as an army with without any effective warfighting material. As I said the Germans if they hadn't launched their campaign against Russia could have invaded Britain if they really wanted to.

FrancieBrady · 24-01-2017 11:12AM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Oh dear Lord, please be aware, democracy doesn't exist anywhere, period! Noam Chomsky has correctly called it a 'plutocracy'. We must never forget, 'WMD's! Democracy, yea right!

Baddies with guns, maybe we should arm all the 'good guys' with guns, that should 'solve' things!

Liberate, oh deary me!

I was amazed to read in one of the links about PMSC's that one of the many companies has up to 10,000 staff.
This is an area that has no regulation and a UN dithering over doing that.
The question is why, and what is the future of this activity?

The majority of these 'companies' are based in and frequently work for countries and corporations in those countries which have had recent history of using their armies in aggressive and offensive missions which ignore the sovereignty of other countries because it is deemed to be what Dev called, way back in the 40's, 'their necessity'.

Democracy is being defended? Very doubtful imo.

Wanderer78 · 24-01-2017 11:21AM

FrancieBrady wrote:

The majority of these 'companies' are based in and frequently work for countries and corporations in those countries which have had recent history of using their armies in aggressive and offensive missions which ignore the sovereignty of other countries because it is deemed to be what Dev called, way back in the 40's, 'their necessity'.

Sure I use to work for an American cooperation making products for the American military, in little old Ireland, neutral me arse! Chomsky is right yet again, rogue nation!

FrancieBrady · 24-01-2017 06:02PM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Sure I use to work for an American cooperation making products for the American military, in little old Ireland, neutral me arse! Chomsky is right yet again, rogue nation!

Our neutrality has steadily diminished over the years, and those who think it important to keep an eye on those who have historically shown they can't be trusted with the sovereignty of other nations, are depicted as loons and crazies. We are becoming a nation of hat doffers again in the face of this.
I mentioned the word 'arrogant' in the same sentence as 'the British' over in another forum today, in relation to an air incident, and the ball got taken home again.

maryishere · 24-01-2017 10:18PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Our neutrality has steadily diminished over the years

Were we ever really neutral when we could not defend ourselves? Did you know the RAF has been asked to defend Ireland in the case of incoming hijacked or unfriendly jets?
Not too long ago Russian ‘Bear’ bombers were involved in ‘very unusual’ activities over Irish skies, chased away by the British.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/how-much-to-protect-skies-above-ireland-311799.html

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-air-force-asked-defend-ireland/

Ireland neutrality in WW2 done nothing to help the poor unfortunate neutral countries invaded by the Nazis, such as Norway and Denmark etc. Our neutrality then done nothing to help poor unfortunate citizens of those countries sent to extermination camps by the Nazis, or used as slave labour. The bodies of some of those who came across the Atlantic to help liberate Europe from the Nazis were washed up on our shores, and I'm sure they appreciated not having ports or airports to help in the attle of the Atlantic,
On the Allied side there was 36,200 sailors killed
36,000 merchant seamen killed
3,500 merchant vessels lost
175 warships lost
741 RAF Coastal Command Aircraft lost in anti-submarine sorties.

Those people helped liberate the neutral countries invaded by the Nazis. We as a country did not, but at least 100,000 volunteers helped the allied war effort.
Neutrality is not worth a **** unless someone else can do the dangerous, dirty work.

FrancieBrady · 24-01-2017 10:44PM

The 'war' is over for nearly 80 yrs.
For 40 of those years the BA had boots on the ground in this country and killed innocent Irish and had a profound negative affect on thousands of Irish citizens.

I owe the BA are, precisely nothing.
Nor do we 'owe' them an hour of the life of one of our young people.

maryishere · 24-01-2017 11:19PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'war' is over for nearly 80 yrs.

72 years actually, assuming you mean WW2. If you mean the Cold War, much less than that.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

For 40 of those years the BA had boots on the ground in this country

Almost 38 years in N. Ireland, which is part of the UK. It was the longest continuous deployment in the British military's history. Not long after arriving, there was a referendum in N.I. asking the electorate if they wished to remain part of the UK, and 99% voted that they did. When the army arrived, they were handed cups of tea and sandwiches by some Catholics.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

and killed innocent Irish and had a profound negative affect on thousands of Irish citizens.

Considering over 300,000 British personnel served in N. Ireland and terrorists killed over 1000 of them in thousands of attacks, innocent casulties were very low. The achieved their objective in getting the terrorists on both sides to surrender their arms / explosives / put them beyond use.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I owe the BA are, precisely nothing.

Nobody said you did.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nor do we 'owe' them an hour of the life of one of our young people.

Your idol Sean Russell did not owe the Nazis an hour of his life either when he tried to collaborate with them, on behalf of the IRA. Still, its a democracy we live in, you can be against Irish people joining the PSNI, you can be against Irish people joining Irish regiments in the B. Army etc.

FrancieBrady · 24-01-2017 11:39PM

maryishere wrote: »

Nobody said you did.

Well could you do us all a favour and quit the guilt tripping. Its irrelevant to me and I am sure others, the debt you feel you owe.

maryishere · 24-01-2017 11:51PM

lol I do not owe any debt. I would assume people who join the services overseas do it as a career move, for money, for adventure, for camaradie, for travel, for training in different fields etc.

jack o shea · 25-01-2017 02:29AM

Any "irishman" joining the British army deserves a riddling from isis or whoever they piss off next.....

Manic Moran · 25-01-2017 07:05AM

Deleted User wrote: »

maryishere wrote: »

And what country was alone in standing up to Nazism in 1940?

Doing a great job they were too. They got their arses handed to them by the Germans in May and June of 1940. The debacle at Dunkirk effectively left the British as an army with without any effective warfighting material. As I said the Germans if they hadn't launched their campaign against Russia could have invaded Britain if they really wanted to.

As someone who makes his living studying WW2 history, there is a combination of misrepresentation here, and outright fantasy. The British Expeditionary Force gave as good as they got in 1940, their situation at Dunkirk was precipitated by the failings of their allies. No matter how good your guys are, if the lads holding your flanks are defeated, you're in a lousy situation. That the British were able to evacuate as many of their soldiers as they did, and a withdrawal under pressure is the most difficult military operation of them all, is a testament to them. The Germans never had a hope of successfully invading mainland UK. The issue would start and stop with the Royal Navy.

25-01-2017 09:45AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Germans never had a hope of successfully invading mainland UK. The issue would start and stop with the Royal Navy.

Not with the logististics available for Sealion I agree, but with say the equivalent of what was built up for the invasion of the USSR for an amphibious landing I would hazard a yes, they would have succeeded.

Jawgap · 25-01-2017 10:17AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Not with the logististics available for Sealion I agree, but with say the equivalent of what was built up for the invasion of the USSR for an amphibious landing I would hazard a yes, they would have succeeded.

No, they wouldn't.

For example, they had pretty much no anti-shipping capacity in the Luftwaffe in 1940 (aside from one Gruppe) and what little they had was poised to used modified large calibre naval shells as anti-shipping weapons.

Difficult to amount an invasion in the face of flotillas of aggressively manoeuvring destroyers bearing down on you......especially if you've conceived the operation as a 'river crossing on a broad front' and are using barges with a low freeboard in historically stormy waters, and are hoping to support the landings with air cover only and not large volumes of naval gunfire.

Plus the Heer had no tradition of amphibious operations - they were an continental land army. Even the Allies when it came to mounting OVERLORD had to learn from the numerous mistakes they made during TORCH, HUSKY, AVALANCHE and SHINGLE.

HUSKY, for example, was actually larger, in some regards compared to OVERLORD but it was also a catalogue of errors.

They may well have crossed, got ashore and even developed a lodgement but in terms of then being supplied, sustained etc they've have not faired well given their supply lines would have extended back across the Channel, and across Europe to Germany.

Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Comments