Fcukface wrote: » Im sure this idea needs to be ironed out a bit but here it goes. The US government spends $25 billion every year on private security firms to tour Iraq since the "invasion". Ireland has a army that would be well able to do this job for the Americans. Couldnt we contract out the Irish army to do this job and make a hell of allot of money that could help us out of this ressesion? I have heard that the US government is having alot of trouble with its current private contractors. There has been reports of drunken shootings and beatings by these contractors. Besides our nutrality couldnt we do this job and make enough money to get us out of this ressesion?
bridgitt wrote: » Good idea but our lads could not take the heat , and would run a mile from live bullets. They would go on strike if it was the Americans who were paying, and sue years later for over-exposure to sunlight ( well they sued for over-exposure to noise ).
Rob67 wrote: » You probably thought your post was being funny, God knows I had to put up with the deaf jokes for long enough... But what a stupid remark to make. There are families whose father's/ brothers have died in the service of this state as a result of combat, are you truly belittling their sacrifice? You should be ashamed of yourself. As for the rest of your post, immaturity at it's best.
segaBOY wrote: » Would seriously compromise our neutrality
conorhal wrote: » Is this the same Irish army that's full of hearing impared privates that sue for emotional distress every time they get shot at or wander across a training excersise that simulates casualties and the prospect of a casualty has left them so emotionally damaged that they need a fat pay out? Yeah, good luck with that.
Rob67 wrote: » I really love it when people generalise like this, I mean, it really shows how much they truly understand the Defence Forces as they are now.:rolleyes: Fortunately, in regards to ex-members suing the state for damages, those individuals are few and far between in the great scheme of things. I am under no illusions that a good number of claims were exaggerated, thankfully they are no longer serving. There were, however, a substantial amount of soldiers who were placed in situations were there was no PPE in place when it was already acknowledged that it should have been made available. I can testify to the after-effects of firing a 120mm mortar without hearing protection, my ears were ringing for a number of hours afterwards, thankfully no damage and I still have perfect hearing. Of course, I don't expect you to comprehend the volume such a weapon makes.
Rob67 wrote: » You probably thought your post was being funny, God knows I had to put up with the deaf jokes for long enough...But what a stupid remark to make. There are families whose father's/ brothers have died in the service of this state as a result of combat, are you truly belittling their sacrifice? You should be ashamed of yourself. As for the rest of your post, immaturity at it's best.
Sand wrote: » OP is probably having a joke. Does remind me of the book on the UN peacekeeping ops ( "We did nothing"?) mentioned that countries like Pakistan and India were massive contributors to UN peacekeeping ops because the UN paid a bonus for soldiers deployed on their missions. Countries like Ireland tended to give the bonus to their soldiers (hence peacekeeping deployments being attractive for more than simply the challenge/adventure) but the Indians and Pakistanis kept the cash for the government budget. In effect, their national armies were being deployed as UN mercenaries. On a related note, the author of the book interviewed some of the Indian and Pakistani commanders who complained about being talked down to by western soldiers with zero combat or deployment experience when the Indians and Pakistanis were the ones with combat experience. In all honesty, their combat experience came mainly from shooting at each other! Added to this, the author would not have been privy to operations planning discussions, so the respective commander may have had some mad idea and got it shot down by someone a bit more moderate, politically astute and probably in charge, as a result they may have a bit ticked off. I can be definitively certain of one thing; the U.N. has dropped the ball on many occasions, Somalia included and I am no big fan of theirs. Irish peacekeepers didnt get a good writeup in that book - the author (Linda Polman) mentioned she left the company of Irish soldiers when they started making remarks about the Indians being responsible for a plague of flies, had also sneered at the idea that they listen to orders coming from Indians inside the UN structure, and had dismissed the Indians as little better than peasants. As to the author saying the Irish blamed the other groups in regards to fly infestations, obviously she didn't get the Irish sense of humour and took umbrage, however, I never got to go to Somalia (wrong corps) so I can't absolutely refute her claim. If it were true, well that would be embarrassing and disappointing. Another point Polman pointed out was that the Western soldiers - Irish amongst them - got the easy duty and the safest camps right in the center, whilsts the 3rd world troops and soldiers were given the most dangerous duties and were camped on the fringes where they were most at risk. If I remember correctly the only time that Irish Troops interacted so closely with the Indian and Pakistani armies whilst on UN missions, was in Somalia in '93 or so. The Irish provided approx 100 pers as part of a transport company, so they weren't involved in camp security operations as such, the Irish were there to assist in the relief operations by transporting necessary supplies. Camp security was the tasking of the Indian and Pakistani Battalions, seeing as they could provide a larger volume of troops at relatively short notice. Given Polman discovered an implicit condition of Western troop deployments to UN missions was that their soldiers would be at little or no risk, its exceptionally unlikely Irish troops would be deployed in areas where serious, sustained combat is likely. That would rule Iraq right out. The Irish government would never agree to sending a large unit overseas to a sustained combat environment as it would be, firstly, too expensive (huge investment requirement for updated war-fighting equipment and munitions), a logistical nightmare (we don't have heavy lift capability for troop/ equipment transport) and thirdly, it would be domestic political suicide. Having said all that the guys in Chad are not sitting on the backsides, it is proving to be the most operationally intense mission that Irish troops have ever been engaged in. Also, the British Army was defeated in Iraq - its the great dirty secret of the British Army in Iraq. They were beaten. They had more combat experience and better equipment and funding than the Irish Army could dream of and they were beaten and couldnt wait to leave. Throwing the Irish Army into anything like that sort of conflict would simply be a slaughter, given the average combat experience and equipment levels. We don't have the number of troops that the British have to hand, although, man for man or woman for woman, they are equal to, and in certain cases, superior to British soldiers, if given the same equipment.
Sand wrote: » OP is probably having a joke. Does remind me of the book on the UN peacekeeping ops ( "We did nothing"?) mentioned that countries like Pakistan and India were massive contributors to UN peacekeeping ops because the UN paid a bonus for soldiers deployed on their missions. Countries like Ireland tended to give the bonus to their soldiers (hence peacekeeping deployments being attractive for more than simply the challenge/adventure) but the Indians and Pakistanis kept the cash for the government budget. In effect, their national armies were being deployed as UN mercenaries. On a related note, the author of the book interviewed some of the Indian and Pakistani commanders who complained about being talked down to by western soldiers with zero combat or deployment experience when the Indians and Pakistanis were the ones with combat experience.
Irish peacekeepers didnt get a good writeup in that book - the author (Linda Polman) mentioned she left the company of Irish soldiers when they started making remarks about the Indians being responsible for a plague of flies, had also sneered at the idea that they listen to orders coming from Indians inside the UN structure, and had dismissed the Indians as little better than peasants.
Another point Polman pointed out was that the Western soldiers - Irish amongst them - got the easy duty and the safest camps right in the center, whilsts the 3rd world troops and soldiers were given the most dangerous duties and were camped on the fringes where they were most at risk.
Given Polman discovered an implicit condition of Western troop deployments to UN missions was that their soldiers would be at little or no risk, its exceptionally unlikely Irish troops would be deployed in areas where serious, sustained combat is likely. That would rule Iraq right out.
Also, the British Army was defeated in Iraq - its the great dirty secret of the British Army in Iraq. They were beaten. They had more combat experience and better equipment and funding than the Irish Army could dream of and they were beaten and couldnt wait to leave. Throwing the Irish Army into anything like that sort of conflict would simply be a slaughter, given the average combat experience and equipment levels.
In all honesty, their combat experience came mainly from shooting at each other! Added to this, the author would not have been privy to operations planning discussions, so the respective commander may have had some mad idea and got it shot down by someone a bit more moderate, politically astute and probably in charge, as a result they may have a bit ticked off.
As to the author saying the Irish blamed the other groups in regards to fly infestations, obviously she didn't get the Irish sense of humour and took umbrage, however, I never got to go to Somalia (wrong corps) so I can't absolutely refute her claim. If it were true, well that would be embarrassing and disappointing.
The Irish provided approx 100 pers as part of a transport company, so they weren't involved in camp security operations as such, the Irish were there to assist in the relief operations by transporting necessary supplies. Camp security was the tasking of the Indian and Pakistani Battalions, seeing as they could provide a larger volume of troops at relatively short notice.
Having said all that the guys in Chad are not sitting on the backsides, it is proving to be the most operationally intense mission that Irish troops have ever been engaged in.
We don't have the number of troops that the British have to hand, although, man for man or woman for woman, they are equal to, and in certain cases, superior to British soldiers, if given the same equipment.
peter_de_tool wrote: » neutrality is the refuge of the coward!
Sand wrote: » Quite possibly, but they still would have had more experience of combat than the average Western soldier who might have better equipment and better training, but less combat experience. Their views might have seemed mad to a western soldier, theres no indication the officer corp in India or Pakistan is packed with Sun Tzu types, but if they have experience of what works in theory and what works in practise then its worth giving them a little attention. Their complaint to Polman was that they were dismissed. And I cant confirm it either, but its one of two occassion she encounters Irish soldiers on peacekeeping duty and neither occassion was retold as a positive experience ( the other was an Irish soldier driving her jeep in Haiti who spent his time encouraging his observant Muslim compatriot to eat the local pigs - probably a clearer example of her misunderstanding the Irish art of slagging but by her version neither her nor the other UN soldier found it amusing). The Irish soldiers she was talking to in Somalia were amongst a group of European soldiers relaxing whilst off duty and may have been embarrassed into slagging off the Indians, given a German soldier had mentioned the Irish were under Indian command/protection. Polman noted that - Western armies, despite their modern vehicles, artillery and weapons would provide the logistics and non-combat expertise. The 3rd world soldiers would do the fighting and dying at the sharp end of things. It isnt a specifically an Irish fault - its that western countries in general think the UN peacekeeping is a good thing, but want the poorer soldiers, from countries where life is cheap to do the dying whilst their own soldiers are in camp. It's a cynical view, but it seems to be the case amongst UN missions - they tend to be underfunded and undermanned, with the actual combat troops being hard to find outside of the usual circle of asian and african contributors who tend to have the least equipment and training. I dont disagree, but Chad isnt the same as Iraq or Afghanistan. Lawless certainly, but the same level of directed hostility against Irish troops? I dont disagree that with proper equipment and training Irish soldiers cant be "competitive". Theres more than a few Irishmen who have deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan under different flags, and indeed theres Irish soldiers (non combat role as I understand) in Afghanistan as it stands. But even allowing the funding for equipment isnt the same, it would be optimistic to assume that the average combat experience of a member of an army thats effectively been on continuous combat deployment since late 2002/early 2003 can be matched by an army that has just hasnt had that same level of depoyment. If you were to drop an Irish battalion into Afghanistan tommorrow, theyd eventually learn to cope, but theyd have to learn all the lessons already absorbed by others and in while theyre learning on the job the death toll would be higher than the army could cope with. Hence I would be pessimistic - if after 4 years of Basra, the British with all their resources and 4 years of experience (indeed they were utterly confident in their ability to handle Iraq on the basis theyd dealt with Northern Ireland) were driven back into a few fortified bases besieged by guerrillas ( the same guerrillas routed by a mixture of Iraqi army backed by US army) then I doubt the Irish army is going to have much success renting itself out as a mercenary force in very hostile enviroments like Iraq. Either way, its all moot. The OP was having a joke. Its not going to happen, and everyone agrees it could never happen.
thebman wrote: » That's what all the weapons companies say anyway :rolleyes:
