Who asked the British to 'protect' our airspace from the Russians or anyone else ?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Your sense of entitlement is outstanding.

You are not explaining very well so you come up with something ridiculous. I see NO need to protect against something that is no threat.
If someone wants to burn up billions playing games and by so doing keep a 'war economy' going essentially then rock on Tommy. I ain't gonna lose any sleep over it or feel inferior.
Wake me up when these guys do actually threaten.

what?

Our peacekeeping record and our Navy doing the humanitarian work caused by the **** up all this war mongering and aggression has caused in the world.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You need to show that it is a 'favour'. You haven't. For all we know the UK may have asked to be allowed to do this.

There is always the danger if the 'neighbour' uses his shotgun that my family would be seen as co-aggressors. i.e. Shannon.
So this 'agreement' is not without it's risks for us.

But go ahead and show us how this is a 'favour'? Are other countries in the habit of doing similar favours with no return for themselves?

Your sense of entitlement is outstanding.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We clean up the mess that other countries make internationally so it's swings and roundabouts in another sense.

what?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Its kind of odd that you are happy for your wife and kids to walk past a strange man with a machete on dark evenings, so they can get in and out of the house.

I guess you'd better thank your lucky stars your neighbour is happy to do you this favour then, so you don't have to go to the expense of buying your own shotgun.

You need to show that it is a 'favour'. You haven't. For all we know the UK may have asked to be allowed to do this.

There is always the danger if the 'neighbour' uses his shotgun that my family would be seen as co-aggressors. i.e. Shannon.
So this 'agreement' is not without it's risks for us.

But go ahead and show us how this is a 'favour'? Are other countries in the habit of doing similar favours with no return for themselves?

We clean up the mess that other countries make internationally so it's swings and roundabouts in another sense.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because the neighbour is 'happy' to do it, because it is in his interests and he and his shotgun industry get a bonus from all this?
If he is not willing and happy to do it, and this guy actually poses a threat to me, then I would then have to look into getting my own shotgun. But as I pose no threat to the guy with the machete he is unlikely to attack anyway and is ACTUALLY provoking a reaction from my neighbour.

Its kind of odd that you are happy for your wife and kids to walk past a strange man with a machete on dark evenings, so they can get in and out of the house.

I guess you'd better thank your lucky stars your neighbour is happy to do you this favour then, so you don't have to go to the expense of buying your own shotgun.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Someone stands outside your house with a machete and a baseball bat, what do you do? He isn't threatening you, he is just standing there. Not on your property, but your wife and children have to walk past him to get to your car?

you dial 999, but realise that the Guards were all let go thirty years ago to save money. So your neighbour comes out with his shot gun and tells the guy to **** off, which he promptly does. You thank him and your neighbour tells you not to worry, if he comes back he will get his shotgun again.

Sure, your neighbour doesn't want him there either, but why should it all fall on your neighbour's shoulders to protect your street?

Because the neighbour is 'happy' to do it, because it is in his interests and he and his shotgun industry get a bonus from all this?
If he is not willing and happy to do it, and this guy actually poses a threat to me, then I would then have to look into getting my own shotgun. But as I pose no threat to the guy with the machete he is unlikely to attack anyway and is ACTUALLY provoking a reaction from my neighbour.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have to show how they are doing us a favour.

We haven't been threatened by anyone so you would have to prove we have need for an expensive air force regardless of what the British take on themselves to do in their own interests.

Someone stands outside your house with a machete and a baseball bat, what do you do? He isn't threatening you, he is just standing there. Not on your property, but your wife and children have to walk past him to get to your car?

you dial 999, but realise that the Guards were all let go thirty years ago to save money. So your neighbour comes out with his shot gun and tells the guy to **** off, which he promptly does. You thank him and your neighbour tells you not to worry, if he comes back he will get his shotgun again.

Sure, your neighbour doesn't want him there either, but why should it all fall on your neighbour's shoulders to protect your street?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is no need for an Irish Air force, because the British are doing Ireland a favour.

Yes?

You have to show how they are doing us a favour.

We haven't been threatened by anyone so you would have to prove we have need for an expensive air force regardless of what the British take on themselves to do in their own interests.
We can assume that both countries are happy with the 'agreement' and that they want to do what they are doing. If they were not then one side would be complaining.

Gatling

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is no need for an Irish Air force, because the British are doing Ireland a favour.

Yes?

Seems to be a shared consensus among a lot of people ,
Why spend when someone else is doing the job and picking up the tab ,

A bit of a copout really ,we should have an airforce capable of defending our Sovereign airspace and state and an airforce to be proud of ,
Currently 7 PC 9s and a casa Martine patrol aircraft isn't a lot to sing about compared to countries with similar sized population and GDPs

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have lost me?
There is an 'agreement' between two countries. An 'agreement' indicates that both are happy with the arrangement.
So what is the need for an expensive Irish air force?

There is no need for an Irish Air force, because the British are doing Ireland a favour.

Yes?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it is "Their" area of interest, as they can't exactly lay claim to international air space controlled by a foreign country

You have lost me?
There is an 'agreement' between two countries. An 'agreement' indicates that both are happy with the arrangement.
So what is the need for an expensive Irish air force?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said earlier. It clearly suits the British to do this. They have identified it as 'Their' area of interest.
Nobody seems to know what the agreement is, just that there is one. So for now I am going to assume that it suits both sides. Because I was taught that is what an 'agreement' means when I was at school.

it is "Their" area of interest, as they can't exactly lay claim to international air space controlled by a foreign country

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd guess one of the reasons, though, the Brits are interested in escorting Russian aircraft off that part of our coast is because it's on the exit route from Faslane? And their flight paths cross over the Rockall Trough and Porcupine Abyssal Plain - the reputed patrol stations for the RN (and French) missile boats?

I'm guessing they'd want to know exactly what type of Russian aircraft is operating over that bit of water and what they do when they're there - so it really is about protecting British and NATO's interests.

it needs to be done and lets face it, the RAF pick these things up from the Norwegians North East of Scotland, escort them to down to somewhere west of Brest and hand them over to the French, wait for them to return from their Spanish holliers and escort them back again.

It isn't really that much of a deal to escort them around Irish controlled air space for a bit and realistically, gives a few biggles types an opportunity to make it in to the newspapers. It probably makes a nice change from scaring sheep whilst doing the mac loop.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you spend money on expensive fighter aircraft and protect our airspace, in return we'll........

I'd guess one of the reasons, though, the Brits are interested in escorting Russian aircraft off that part of our coast is because it's on the exit route from Faslane? And their flight paths cross over the Rockall Trough and Porcupine Abyssal Plain - the reputed patrol stations for the RN (and French) missile boats?

I'm guessing they'd want to know exactly what type of Russian aircraft is operating over that bit of water and what they do when they're there - so it really is about protecting British and NATO's interests.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you spend money on expensive fighter aircraft and protect our airspace, in return we'll........

As I said earlier. It clearly suits the British to do this. They have identified it as 'Their' area of interest.
Nobody seems to know what the agreement is, just that there is one. So for now I am going to assume that it suits both sides. Because I was taught that is what an 'agreement' means when I was at school.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which, as there is an agreement to do it (hence you have to assume it is mutually beneficial) means there is absolutely no need to waste money on this. We buy in services all the time.

you spend money on expensive fighter aircraft and protect our airspace, in return we'll........

Triangle

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Neutrality has been ignored such as Norway in WW2 by the British which only pulled the Norwegians into it to be only invaded by the Germans. However many other countries still maintained their neutrality such as Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal and Ireland of course etc

This is why I love boards so much, people can argue themselves in a circle.

To prove a point that neutrality protects:
You first state that a country has ignored neutrality.
You then pointed out a number of countries that were not invaded, ignoring any reasons why.
Ignored the point that it has happened and neutrality will not protect a country.

You also come across as anti British and I think you're letting your heated emotions rule your thinking. Might be time to take a step back, cool off, and reassess your thinking!

Fratton Fred wrote: »

no, there isn't. Mainly because the Royal Air Force do the job.

Which, as there is an agreement to do it (hence you have to assume it is mutually beneficial) means there is absolutely no need to waste money on this. We buy in services all the time.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

True.
The Russians did this for years during the cold war and the Americans and British do it too away from home.

Some people are overly impressed by boys toys. Which is what an expensive air force would be for us, a toy. I see nothing presented here that shows a need.

There simply isn't a need, bar ego, to have one.

no, there isn't. Mainly because the Royal Air Force do the job.

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Certain countries like waving their willy's at each other

True.
The Russians did this for years during the cold war and the Americans and British do it too away from home.

Some people are overly impressed by boys toys. Which is what an expensive air force would be for us, a toy. I see nothing presented here that shows a need.

There simply isn't a need, bar ego, to have one.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So what is the problem?

would you prefer someone translate in to Irish, as English obviously isn't your first language:rolleyes:

AndyBoBandy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So what is the problem?

Certain countries like waving their willy's at each other

Fratton Fred wrote: »

not if they are in international air space

So what is the problem?

darkpagandeath wrote: »

There has been no militarisation of the Garda, They have been given certain equipment they can use in situations. They just don't walk around when they like brandishing guns or this equipment.

.....and does the fact that they now have 'certain equipment' that was previously the sole preserve of the military, not meet the definition of 'militarisation' in your world?

....and to be clear, they're the good guys so I don't have any fundamental objection to them having the biggest stick in the fight, but to deny that even the Guards have been subject to a degree of militarisation is just simply denying the facts in front of your own eyes.

Btw, any more on the "specific legislation" for ATCP? This must be the third time I've asked - if you don't know just say so.....;) - or just continue to ignore the question.

Jawgap wrote: »

Way to miss the point.....

.....if you look back you'll see I was referring to the recent trend of the police militarisation.

The point of relating the tale about the unarmed Guard detaining the SAS team was to show that at a time when the State faced a much greater existential threat, we didn't militarise our police.

Now, the ISIS threat is in no way a threat to existence of the Iridh State.....the threat of an attack is negligible as to non-existent, so, as I said earlier, if you want to be concerned about something , be concerned about the way weak minded, hysterical fools (really just useful idiots) scaremongering over the ISIS bogeyman are playing right into the hands of a security establishment that wants to accumulate and power and resources as an ends in itself, not a means to defend us.

...by all means, continue to spectacularly miss the point.

There has been no militarisation of the Garda, They have been given certain equipment they can use in situations. They just don't walk around when they like brandishing guns or this equipment.

Jawgap wrote: »

Again which legislation? You said ATCP was specific legislation - which legislation? If you don't know it's ok to say.

And again I spoke about the trend of the Guards being militarised. You do understand the concept of a trend?

Btw, seen as you are so knowledgeable on ATCP and the specific legislation - is a DF unit carrying out ATCP attached, as you suggest, or detached (and do you understand the difference)?

I thought It was self explanatory, No need to get bogged down in point scoring. There is specific legislation. Well unless you can point to the Defence forces being able to operate in Ireland without permission and without letting relevant jurisdictions aware of there movements in civilian areas.

bored_stupid

President John F. Kennedy once said .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EuGsu_Y0YA

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The Army acting on Irish soil in attachment to the police force Is done under specific legislation. If The Garda were militarised they would not have needed the specific help of the army would they.

Again which legislation? You said ATCP was specific legislation - which legislation? If you don't know it's ok to say.

And again I spoke about the trend of the Guards being militarised. You do understand the concept of a trend?

Btw, seen as you are so knowledgeable on ATCP and the specific legislation - is a DF unit carrying out ATCP attached, as you suggest, or detached (and do you understand the difference)?

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No idea, That's why the militarised Irish army helped the Garda. Case in point Garda were not and are not Militarised.

Way to miss the point.....

.....if you look back you'll see I was referring to the recent trend of the police militarisation.

The point of relating the tale about the unarmed Guard detaining the SAS team was to show that at a time when the State faced a much greater existential threat, we didn't militarise our police.

Now, the ISIS threat is in no way a threat to existence of the Iridh State.....the threat of an attack is negligible as to non-existent, so, as I said earlier, if you want to be concerned about something , be concerned about the way weak minded, hysterical fools (really just useful idiots) scaremongering over the ISIS bogeyman are playing right into the hands of a security establishment that wants to accumulate and power and resources as an ends in itself, not a means to defend us.

...by all means, continue to spectacularly miss the point.

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, I brought up the issue of increased militarisation of the police and how scaremongering was driving it and facilitating those who wanted.

In support of that I posted a photo of ASU Gardaí in tactical gear carrying high velocity assault weapons in support of my contention.

You deflected, but did seem concede that the Guards now had capabilities previously the preserve of the military and the defence forces.

You also seem to think the Guards' needs in this regard is absolute, so I pointed to a time when the State faced a much more significant existential threat than ISIS could ever offer, and an unarmed Guard, backed by the DF in their ATCP role, an SAS team - 8 troopers armed with Sterling sub-machine guns, browning HiPowers and Remington pump action shot guns.

You, btw, said the ATCP role of the DF "is specific legislation" - are you going to post that legislation up?

And you suggested the SAS weren't a threat to civilians - I pointed out how at least one civilian casualty had come about through their operations. There were others, but you could argue either way that they were or weren't civilians.

The Army acting on Irish soil in attachment to the police force Is done under specific legislation. If The Garda were militarised they would not have needed the specific help of the army would they.