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?
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.
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.
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?
FrancieBrady wrote: » We clean up the mess that other countries make internationally so it's swings and roundabouts in another sense.
Fratton Fred wrote: » Your sense of entitlement is outstanding.
what?
FrancieBrady wrote: » 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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » 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.
Fratton Fred wrote: » So the Irish government complain to the Russians for a laugh?
The navy doing "The" humanitarian work? They have provided a good contribution, I'd hardly call it "Cleaning Up" though.
FrancieBrady wrote: » And spending billions on a one use Air force is a measured response, how? When there is an arrangement in place with a willing service provider?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Well I would, because that is exactly what it is.
Fratton Fred wrote: » no need to buy an airforce, just acknowledge that your neighbour is doing you a favour.
The members of the Irish defence force do a good job and i do not want to show them any disrespect, but if you take Lebanon as an example, there are currently nearly 10,000 serving members of the UN mission. 210 of them are Irish.
FrancieBrady wrote: » There is no threat to us. It seems to me that as they consider this THEIR area of interest that it is us doing them a favour by allowing them to protect themselves that bit earlier. But tell us what is in the agreement first?.
Fratton Fred wrote: » LOL, you'd rather eat your own testicles and admit that the UK is doing something remotely good
FrancieBrady wrote: » How do you know it is not us that are doing the UK the favour?
FrancieBrady wrote: » I don't see a threat and there isn't one, .
Fratton Fred wrote: » How?
very difficult to see anything with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears
FrancieBrady wrote: » Maybe because the British asked could they do this in an area THEY designated as THEIR interest?
FrancieBrady wrote: » It's games Fred, to keep a 'war economy' going. If there is no 'threat' then one has to be manufactured. I have always been consistent about that on this site. Whether it is the US, the UK or Russia playing them. Being thankful for 'favours' my arse.
Fratton Fred wrote: » Why would they need to "Ask" to fly planes in international air space? What threat has been made by Russia to us? What threat has been made to the UK by Russia?
ok, for the umpteenth time, THE RUSSIAN BOMBERS ARE FLYING THOUGH INTERNATIONAL AIR SPACE THAT IS CONTROLLED BY IRISH AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL. THEY ARE CRISS CROSSING COMMERCIAL AIR LANES AND HAVE THEIR TRANSPONDERS TURNED OFF SO THEY ARE INVISIBLE TO IRISH AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ON THE GROUND AND OTHER PLANES IN THE SKY. THEY DO THIS WITHOUT HAVING FIRST LOGGED A FLIGHT PLAN. THIS IS A SEVERE HAZARD TO COMMERCIAL AIRLINES FLYING IN SOME OF THE BUSIEST AIR LANES IN THE WORLD. have you got this?
FrancieBrady wrote: » So why the need for an 'agreement'? I asked you YOU to tell us what threat has been made. Flying in international space is not a threat is it? And I have looked at the Aviation herald and pprune for actual incidents with commercial airliners off our coast and I cannot find one. Perhaps you could direct me to one off our coast? Media does tend to exaggerate these things as anyone on the aviation forum will tell you. Remember too that a jet tangling with an airliner isn't exactly gonna fly home unscathed.
Fratton Fred wrote: »
FrancieBrady wrote: » Can you point to actual incidents with commercial airlines? = NO apparently. Can you explain why there is an need for an 'agreement' if the UK is using international airspace, also = NO. I am off to open a thread asking why we don't have a space programme to guard against alien invasion, which seems as likely a threat as an attack by Russia on us.
Fratton Fred wrote: » http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/passenger-planes-dodged-russian-bombers-315623.html there's been no "incidents" as such, because these bombers are escorted by Norwegian/British/French/Spanish air force planes, flagging up where they are.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So a system/agreement that is working fine. We have no reason to think that these Russian aircraft would actually endanger civilian aircraft. Their goal is clearly to play games with the UK as they know that civilian radar won't pick them up but military radar will. Military radar that the UK has.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So, the other question - why the need for an 'agreement' if the UK is using international space? Is it likely that the UK 'asked' to use our air space to facilitate them? In which case that would be us doing them a favour.
Fratton Fred wrote: » yes, the system works fine. the UK isn't using Irish airspace, it is using Irish controlled airspace. That is the bit that Ireland does not own, but has the responsibility for controlling to ensure the safe passage of aircraft. the UK does not need permission to use it. Governments don't tend to share defence agreements, but I would imagine there is something in place that allows British Fighters to fly over Ireland when necessary, or if requested.http://avherald.com/h?article=4280c874&opt=0
Fratton Fred wrote: » 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.
A Little Pony wrote: » He isn't, he is just creating a ludicrous argument. Most Irish people are happy the RAF is defending them.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Exactly. And something they were likely to have asked for.
FrancieBrady wrote: » A Little Pony wrote: » He isn't, he is just creating a ludicrous argument. Most Irish people are happy the RAF is defending them. There is no 'argument' when you cannot show that there is a 'threat'.
FrancieBrady wrote: » There is no 'argument' when you cannot show that there is a 'threat'.
Fratton Fred wrote: » So the Irish government is doing the British government a favour, by letting it protect it's skies. okayyy.....:rolleyes:
FrancieBrady wrote: » By letting it use our airspace and our controlled space. There is no threat to us, they are NOT therefore protecting us. How much simpler can it be put? The Russians were here to get at the UK. We just happen to be in the way and allow the British to respond to the trolls. Has been going on for decades.
Fratton Fred wrote: » so all the reports about dangers to commercial flights in Irish Air Space are false are they? the reports of RAF typhoons responding to a mayday from a commercial flights, in Irish airspace, is false, right? The British are doing a job the Irish should do themselves.
Jawgap wrote: » .....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.
