Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

General Election 2016 - debate about defence policy of competing parties

13»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭Ren2k7


    sparky42 wrote: »
    So, so far FG and FF each have put proposals for some increases of some nature, Labour hasn't really suggested anything and I wouldn't rate SF's plans as being anything positive towards the Defence Forces.

    To sum up:

    FF: Bigger army, increased emphasis on neutrality
    FG: Bigger NS, more Rangers, stick to the WP on the rest
    Lab: Unionise the military
    SF: Neutrality, neutrality, neutrality

    I personally favour FG's plans here, they make the most sense though SF's plans don't necessarily mean a weakened DF, just more of the same, an underfunded Defence Forces.

    But Ireland is no different than any other country when it comes to the attitude by the left and right towards the miltary. In the US the centre left Dems want to cut back on military spending, the Republicans want to increase military spending. In Britain Labour wants to ditch Trident and cut spending while the Tories want to do the opposite. It's not exactly surprising that in Ireland the argument between FG, FF (right) and Lab, SF (left) follows on similar lines.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,338 ✭✭✭Negative_G


    Its interesting to see that both FG and Labour both specifically make reference to veterans.

    Is this just a lame attempt to try and grab a few votes?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Negative_G wrote: »
    Its interesting to see that both FG and Labour both specifically make reference to veterans.

    Is this just a lame attempt to try and grab a fee votes?

    I'd say yes to be honest.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,338 ✭✭✭Negative_G


    sparky42 wrote: »
    I'd say yes to be honest.

    I don't get the whole veteran thing. I understsnd some of these guys can serve for 30 years + and spend time away from their families in unfriendly environments overseas. But in reality they get remunerated for it, generous leave and additional holidays as well as the generous overseas allowances and arguably get better paid than their counterparts in the British army. Why do some think the government still owe them something after all that time?

    I fully expect a 'you never served, what would you know' response from someone but the whole thing smacks of entitlement to me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Negative_G wrote: »
    I don't get the whole veteran thing. I understsnd some of these guys can serve for 30 years + and spend time away from their families in unfriendly environments overseas. But in reality they get remunerated for it, generous leave and additional holidays as well as the generous overseas allowances and arguably get better paid than their counterparts in the British army. Why do some think the government still owe them something after all that time?

    I fully expect a 'you never served, what would you know' response from someone but the whole thing smacks of entitlement to me.

    One issue I wonder about is mental health issues that they may or may not be suffering from post service? I mean I remember talking to someone from the Navy post the Air India crash who said some of those on recovery suffered mental issues afterwards and weren't treated? I mean we've had troops that have been shelled on UN missions, hit IED's etc, do they get all the mental health treatments post deployments (considering Ireland's mental health system isn't exactly "good" in the first place)?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,338 ✭✭✭Negative_G


    sparky42 wrote: »
    One issue I wonder about is mental health issues that they may or may not be suffering from post service? I mean I remember talking to someone from the Navy post the Air India crash who said some of those on recovery suffered mental issues afterwards and weren't treated? I mean we've had troops that have been shelled on UN missions, hit IED's etc, do they get all the mental health treatments post deployments (considering Ireland's mental health system isn't exactly "good" in the first place)?

    Certainly those type of support mechanisms should be in place for genuine cases and I omitted it from my previous post as I hadn't thought about it. Absolutely there would be a small minority who would've witnessed things that would take its toll on the mind. I know there are services in place and people to speak to, its how affective these services are that is the question.

    I'd argue that paramedics and fire man are liable to see just as much on a day to day basis so the corporate knowledge is there on how to deal with it I suppose, within the public sector.

    I can't help but feel FG promise of a medal is another attempt to win a few cheap votes. A medal for doing nothing means SFA in my eyes, regardless of any centenary.


Advertisement