# Why do we need an army?



## Brendan Burgess (28 May 2019)

I heard that the guy in charge of the Ranger unit had quit because of the contempt which the government has for the army.

But why do we need an army? 

Could we not have a Garda force with a special unit trained in defence in the unlikely event that they are ever needed. 

If the army does other duties like marine rescue, fine. But even then, could that not be done by one Garda force? 

Brendan


----------



## Leper (29 May 2019)

Do we need an army? - Yes. The island is still in recovery from illegal organisations which are/were heavily armed.  We don't know what would have happened the republic if we had no army during the height of the northern troubles. The IRA hasn't gone away, you know; neither has the UDA, UVF, etc. Eventhough the north is now largely in recovery there are still some ripples which could grow into a tsunami.  And Brendan thinks a special unit Garda force would have served the republic better! I don't think so. I haven't even mentioned peace keeping duties abroad.

Do we need a navy? Yes. We need somebody to protect our fishing waters which are under assault from fishermen of other nations, drug barons. I haven't even mentioned rescue facilities. Furthermore, our navy acquitted itself well in the Mediterranean recently.

Do we need the Air Corps? Yes. 

All of the above forces are understaffed and suffering morale difficulties. Each member pays income tax, PRSI etc on every cent earned. Some of them (according to a lady on RTE's main news recently) would be financially better off working in some menial jobs.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (29 May 2019)

Agree with Leper's points.  But also, the defense forces are the backstop against democracy somehow putting the looneys in power.  I know we associate that sort of army coup with African post colonial nations.  Thankfully the balm of economic and technological progress has ensured that Western democracies has generally provided “sensible” administrations.  But a severe economic reverse could put a looney left bunch in charge.  The army would have a responsibility to impose order in those circumstances.


----------



## odyssey06 (29 May 2019)

The one I'm not sure about is the 'navy'... in the sense of a military force.
If you look at the US Coastguard, it handles search, rescue, customs patrols. I think that's all we would need at sea.
It's more of an ethos & focus thing, 90% of what they do would be the same.

I think the mission in the Mediterranean is crazy, it's not a rescue mission, it's a ferry service.


----------



## Ceist Beag (29 May 2019)

+1 Leper. Just to include another responsibility of the army not mentioned, our peacekeeping duties with the UN.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (29 May 2019)

Leper said:


> Yes. The island is still in recovery from illegal organisations which are/were heavily armed. We don't know what would have happened the republic if we had no army during the height of the northern troubles. The IRA hasn't gone away, you know; neither has the UDA, UVF, etc. Eventhough the north is now largely in recovery there are still some ripples which could grow into a tsunami. And Brendan thinks a special unit Garda force would have served the republic better! I don't think so.



But why is a Garda force not the best way to deal with criminality of any kind? 

I am not suggesting we should just get rid of our army and not replace it.  Soldiers who are dealing with criminal activity would form a special unit of the Garda. 

I can't see how it makes sense to have two separate forces dealing with criminal activity. 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (29 May 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But also, the defense forces are the backstop against democracy somehow putting the looneys in power.



Again, why would the Garda not be the right response to that? 

And which looneys are you talking about here? 

If Sinn Féin and PPB and I4C get a majority and invite in the Russians to help us are you suggesting that the Army should intervene? 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (29 May 2019)

Leper said:


> Do we need a navy? Yes. We need somebody to protect our fishing waters which are under assault from fishermen of other nations, drug barons. I haven't even mentioned rescue facilities.



Yes, we need a navy. 

But why is it part of the army and not part of the Garda? 

Brendan


----------



## Ceist Beag (29 May 2019)

Because it sounds better to say we're bringing in the army Brendan!  They're (army, navy, air corps) actually all part of the Defence Forces and are a separate entity from the Gardai. Their role is very much a defensive role, compared to the Gardai who go after criminals. I don't see why it would serve us better to put them together.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (29 May 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Again, why would the Garda not be the right response to that?
> 
> And which looneys are you talking about here?
> 
> ...


_Boss_, _Ceist Beag_ has given an answer on your first point.  You can call them what you want but let's distinguish between society's policing needs and its defence needs.  We always need policing.  But we do not usually need actual defence activity, so in such times our defence forces have to pass the time doing boy scout activity.

Defence against what?  Surely not external attack.  (a) this seems so remote that any preparations would be disproportionate and (b) unless it is Scotland we are thinking of, we would be overwhelmed by any putative external force.

So it is defence against internal threats.  Given this State's history possible IRA insurgency is not yet remote.  On my more controversial suggestion that they might hijack the democratic process in certain circumstamces, that does seem remote when you contemplate the current looney tunes in Dail Eireann.  But it is not so long ago that countries like Spain and Greece were ruled by generals because there was not sufficient confidence in democracy.  Democracy is the best system when it works.  But, for example, it clearly broke down in NI in the early 70s.  That was a full parliamentary democracy with universal adult suffrage but it was dysfunctional.  The British Goverment, backed by overwhelming military might, intervened and suspended the democratic process, and quite right too.

I would hope that if our country started to drift towards a Venezuela type situation that the powers that be (the elites?) would intervene with the backing of the army.


----------



## Purple (29 May 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Again, why would the Garda not be the right response to that?
> 
> And which looneys are you talking about here?
> 
> ...


The average pay in the Gardai, when you include the cost of their pension, is over €120,000 a year. I don't know what the average pay (including pension) is in the armed forces but I suspect it is considerably lower than that.
Would replacing the Army with additional Gardai be cost effective and is there that much commonality in their skill sets that it would be appropriate to do so?

I fully agree that we don't need a Navy. We need a Coast Guard.


----------



## Purple (29 May 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I would hope that if our country started to drift towards a Venezuela type situation that the powers that be (the elites?) would intervene with the backing of the army.


The elites and Army in Venezuela tries that when Chavez was elected and people here went nuts about it. It turns out they were right!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (29 May 2019)

Ceist Beag said:


> Their role is very much a defensive role, compared to the Gardai who go after criminals.



Most of the examples given earlier involved criminals - illegal fishing, the IRA, and the potential takeover by the looneys.


----------



## cremeegg (29 May 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> But why do we need an army?
> 
> Could we not have a Garda force with a special unit
> 
> Brendan



What an outrageous suggestion.

Armies provide security, the basic duty of any state.

Surely even you can see that.

To replace our army with the Gardaí would be a terrible mistake.

Europe would take a dim view of any suggestion of disbanding the army given current tensions.

Really there is no argument.

Summertime stuff. 

Apologies to OSG


----------



## joe sod (29 May 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I heard that the guy in charge of the Ranger unit had quit because of the contempt which the government has for the army.



or maybe more to the point why do we need a "department of defence", from listening to his points they seem to be getting in the way of the army operating efficiently, he revealed it was department cock ups that caused the air corp to be delayed by 4 hrs from putting out the gorse fires in donegal. Alarmingly there are no experienced  military staff working in the department of defence. Remember back in the financial crash when the department of finance had nobody with the relevant qualifications in banking and finance to deal with what was happening, the minister had to go outside to get proper advice


----------



## Purple (30 May 2019)

cremeegg said:


> What an outrageous suggestion.
> 
> Armies provide security, the basic duty of any state.
> 
> ...


Costa Rica, a country the same size and population as Ireland which is bordered by Nicaragua and Panama and near Colombia, El Salvador and Honduras, has no army and hasn't has one since the foundation of their State in 1948. If they don't need one why do we?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 May 2019)

Purple said:


> Costa Rica, a country the same size and population as Ireland which is bordered by Nicaragua and Panama and near Colombia, El Salvador and Honduras, has no army and hasn't has one since the foundation of their State in 1948. If they don't need one why do we?


How do you know these things _Purple_?


			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> Outside the _Fuerza Pública_, there is a small Special Forces Unit, the Unidad Especial de Intervencion (UEI) or Special Intervention Unit, an elite commando force which trains with special forces from around the world, but is not part of the main police forces. Instead it is part of the Intelligence and Security Directorate (DIS) which reports directly to the Minister of the Presidency. About 70 members strong, it is organized along military lines, although officially a civilian police unit.


Well it seems to be just a matter of name calling though at 70 its "army" is small.


----------



## elacsaplau (30 May 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> How do you know these things _Purple_?



Well, there's this thing called google (…….guess what wiki lists first as a country with no standing army).


----------



## Purple (30 May 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> How do you know these things _Purple_?


I was there on business a while back and it came up in a discussion.


----------



## odyssey06 (30 May 2019)

Purple said:


> I was there on business a while back and it came up in a discussion.



Come on. Own up. You heard they had no standing army and were planning a takeover.


----------



## Sophrosyne (30 May 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Could we not have a Garda force with a special unit trained in defence in the unlikely event that they are ever needed



How would this work?

Justice and Defence combined into one department under the control of one Minister?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 Jun 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Defence against what?  Surely not external attack.  (a) this seems so remote that any preparations would be disproportionate and (b) unless it is Scotland we are thinking of, we would be overwhelmed by any putative external force.


I see Scotland are sabre rattling over Rockall!


----------



## Leper (8 Jun 2019)

1. If the UK attacks Rockall, we'll need bigger prisons for the amount of prisoners-of-war we'll take.
2. I bet our navy is on red alert to take on the Royal Navy.
3. I'm just imagining our Air Corps arming our aircraft.

My spies in the UK (my sister and brother-in-law and their kids) inform me that Teresa May is shaking in her shoes about the might of the Irish Defence Forces. I can hear the representatives of the lowest members of our army (their wives and girlfriends) calling for a farewell-to-arms unless higher pay is given immediately. I can hear the army  television "wags" screaming for the Gardaí to be sent to the front as their expenses and overtime rates are much higher than an army private, corporal, sergeant etc.

In the North, those appearing to be more British than the British themselves will rush to the coast and border armed to the teeth with an issue that can make them look good and give them a licence to do what they want to do. In Belfast the black taxis and other taxis probably will square up to each other at the foot of the Falls Road.

I don't know if I can sleep with the oncoming struggle over the fishing rights of a lonely, unoccupied windswept island sorry rock over two hundred miles from the Donegal coast. This is a godsend for Leo Varadkar and will keep the recent election results from the news.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 Jun 2019)

Leper said:


> 1. If the UK attacks Rockall, we'll need bigger prisons for the amount of prisoners-of-war we'll take.
> 2. I bet our navy is on red alert to take on the Royal Navy.
> 3. I'm just imagining our Air Corps arming our aircraft.
> 
> ...


It would be rash to take on the might of the UK.  But if we bide our time, with a bit of luck, Scotland will become independent.  We should be secretly building up our army and especially navy capability so that at the opportune time we can plant a tricolor on Rockall.  We should also be mobilizing our substantial Celtic supporting fifth column in Scotland so that it is fully prepared for the inevitable conflict. There seems to me something fishy about Scotland choosing this particular time to rattle that sabre.


----------



## Leper (9 Jun 2019)

In a previous life, I was in the FCA. I served at the front in Youghal for two summers. Now, I'm getting worried, because of my extensive military experience I might get a call-up to fight the Brits. Then I might not be able to post here for a while.


----------



## Purple (10 Jun 2019)

Given his recent successes in North Korea is there any chance we can get Shane Ross to take up residence on Rockall and put this issue to bed, to the satisfaction of the people of Sandyford and it's hinterlands, for once and for all.


----------



## johnwilliams (14 Jun 2019)

we need to do like the chinese did with our recycling and land fill and build a island there ,plant a flag on it and presto we have a new territorial water limit


----------



## PMU (15 Jun 2019)

Every democratic state has a moral obligation to protect its citizens against external aggression and internal subversion. This is distinct from policing and envisages an armed response against aggressors. That's why you have defence forces.

As a member of the European Union, if we believe in it and have benefited from it, we also have an obligation to defend it.  But we don't.  We just take the cash and the benefits the EU offers.  As far as am aware, Ireland is unique in not participating in any of the European defence bodies, provided for by the Treaty of the European Union. So we appear to be getting a 'free ride' on external defence, e.g. sheltering behind both NATO and the EU but not contributing.

One of Europe's greatest failures was its inability to act to prevent massacres taking place on European soil, e.g. in Bosnia and Kosovo after the breakup of Yugoslavia.  Thank God for the military intervention of NATO and the diplomacy of politicians like Bill Clinton and Tony Bair that prevented atrocities continuing, while Europe dithered.  Hopefully increased EU military co-operation through the common security and defence policy will prevent such things happening again.  Of course, Ireland doesn't participate in this.

Ireland spends the second lowest proportion of its GDP (0.55%) on defence, way below the EU average of 1.55%, and it would be prudent to shift expenditure away from the Celtic tiger vanity projects and the pet projects so beloved by our politicians  to increasing our defence capability and increasing it in coordination with Europe.


----------



## cremeegg (15 Jun 2019)

Why do we need an army is an interesting question.



PMU said:


> Every democratic state has a moral obligation to protect its citizens against external aggression and internal subversion. This is distinct from policing and envisages an armed response against aggressors. That's why you have defence forces.



Is a reasonable answer.

Unfortunately it is not the answer to a perhaps more pertinent question, what are we using the army for ?

The answer to which seems to be to wage war in Africa. https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ireland-has-quietly-joined-a-dangerous-war-1.3925891


----------



## Carnmore (20 Jun 2019)

We don't need an army and don't have an effective one anyway; in the event of an attack the RAF would initially provide protection followed by NATO and the Americans.

Financial commentator Jill Kirby has been a proponent of abolishing the army for years; an annual cost of €500m to maintain a standing 'army' has been mentioned, which is an abomination for what is at best a ceremonial unit. 

The ARW are supposed to be a crack special operations unit; I recently heard a former member on the radio and he sounded like a spokesperson for the Dads Army Appreciation Society.


----------



## Carnmore (20 Jun 2019)

Purple said:


> The average pay in the Gardai, when you include the cost of their pension, is over €120,000 a year.



That's infuriating. I'd be better off not knowing that 



Purple said:


> I fully agree that we don't need a Navy. We need a Coast Guard.
> 
> I agree


----------



## PMU (21 Jun 2019)

Carnmore said:


> The ARW are supposed to be a crack special operations unit; I recently heard a former member on the radio and he sounded like a spokesperson for the Dads Army Appreciation Society.


That's a bit harsh.


----------



## Carnmore (21 Jun 2019)

PMU said:


> That's a bit harsh



More like a bit understated


----------



## Carnmore (21 Jun 2019)

No wonder they won they're the best trained in the world; all they do is train.


----------



## johnwilliams (21 Jun 2019)

ok but the top guys were deployed in Afghanistan /iraq at the time so couldn't be in 2 places at once


----------



## joe sod (22 Jun 2019)

Carnmore said:


> We don't need an army and don't have an effective one anyway; in the event of an attack the RAF would initially provide protection followed by NATO and the Americans.



So what do you suggest we subcontract out our defence to the british army, that did not work out too good the last time. As for NATO first we would have to join it and guess what we would need an army and commit it to protecting all other countries in NATO including believe it or not Turkey.  Oh and I forgot Trump is putting huge pressure on all NATO countries to commit 2% of GDP spending to defence so we would have to spend more on defence by having a NATO protective umbrella. I think irish people are a bit delusional about defence and the real world. Just because nothing really bad has happened in our region since WW2  does not mean that will always be so, remember Trump toyed with the idea of removing US protection from NATO


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2019)

We spend €0.639 billion a year on our armed services and have a standing army of 7,300 and 1,800 reservists.
Sweden, a country with a little over twice our population, spends €5.6 billion a year on their armed services and has a standing army of 22,500 with 34,500 reservists. 
Sweden can defend itself. Ireland can't. Our army cannot defend the State. We should either have a proper one or none at all.


----------



## odyssey06 (24 Jun 2019)

Purple said:


> We spend €0.639 billion a year on our armed services and have a standing army of 7,300 and 1,800 reservists.
> Sweden, a country with a little over twice our population, spends €5.6 billion a year on their armed services and has a standing army of 22,500 with 34,500 reservists.
> Sweden can defend itself. Ireland can't. Our army cannot defend the State. We should either have a proper one or none at all.



Then we'd have to get our hands dirty with producing weapons systems for that army. The Irish Times & RTE et al wouldn't tolerate that.
Our current fake neutrality means they get to whinge about US soldiers and RAF planes, while keeping their own slate 'unsullied'.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> Then we'd have to get our hands dirty with producing weapons systems for that army. The Irish Times & RTE et al wouldn't tolerate that.
> Our current fake neutrality means they get to whinge about US soldiers and RAF planes, while keeping their own slate 'unsullied'.


We could just buy the weapons. We don't have to make them. 
I agree about our fake neutrality.


----------



## Leper (24 Jun 2019)

Purple said:


> We could just buy the weapons. We don't have to make them.
> I agree about our fake neutrality.



Please expand. What is our fake neutrality?


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2019)

In order to be neutral you have to be able to defend yourself. We can't defend ourselves. 
Anyway, Ireland is not a Neutral State, rather we are an unaligned State.
We have relied on the taxpayers of NATO States to fund our safety for the last 70 years and we make a virtue of China and Russia having a veto over whether or not we can send the few troops we have overseas.


----------



## odyssey06 (24 Jun 2019)

Leper said:


> Please expand. What is our fake neutrality?



True neutrality looks like Switzerland or Sweden who patrol their borders land, sea and air with modern capable forces.
We have an agreement with the RAF because we have no modern intercept ability should an incident occur in our airspace.
We're not serious about neutrality. Being serious about neutrality would mean committing a much higher amount of resources. 

Maybe it doesn't make sense for us to do so, but in doing so it renders any criticism we might make of US or UK defence policy adolescent.


----------



## Leper (24 Jun 2019)

Whatever agreement it is (and I wasn't aware of it) it is a good deal for Ireland and a good deal for the UK. I'll take neutrality in any form. The last thing I want for my grandchildren to be involved in is a serious war.


----------



## odyssey06 (24 Jun 2019)

Leper said:


> Whatever agreement it is (and I wasn't aware of it) it is a good deal for Ireland and a good deal for the UK. I'll take neutrality in any form. The last thing I want for my grandchildren to be involved in is a serious war.



You probably didn't hear about it because it was a secret agreement.

_Reports – confirmed by independent sources in both Britain and Ireland – that a secret deal has been reached between the Irish and British governments to allow the RAF to shoot to kill in Irish-controlled airspace in the event of a terrorist incident involving civil aviation in our skies. _








						Tom Clonan: Why it's time to have an open and honest debate about our neutrality
					

Security expert Tom Clonan says any decisions about our status must be taken by the Irish people in a transparent and ethical manner.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2019)

Leper said:


> The last thing I want for my grandchildren to be involved in is a serious war.


I agree with you but, for example, we could not send troops to help stop a genocide unless the Chinese and Russians gave us permission. I do think we should look at that.


----------



## Leper (24 Jun 2019)

I want the Irish troops to protect me and the rest of the nation. I don't want them getting involved in exterior genocides. They've been fighting each other in the Middle East for thousands of years. I have no reason to believe they'll stop fighting each other in the next hundred years. As far as I am concerned they can keep fighting each other forever. Like I said I don't want my (or any others' grandchildren) fighting wars that do not concern them or us.

If the Brits or the French, the Germans, the Chinese, the Yanks, the Russians want to get involved, that's their business, not ours. Neutrality is best for us and I think we should keep it that way.


----------



## Purple (25 Jun 2019)

Leper said:


> If the Brits or the French, the Germans, the Chinese, the Yanks, the Russians want to get involved, that's their business, not ours. Neutrality is best for us and I think we should keep it that way.


Yea, but it’s more complicated than that. It’s not just a case of them fighting each other, it’s more outside powers fighting each other through them.
We benefit from cheap oil and we build our economy and pay for our public services by stealing taxes from the countries which start those wars and remain economically powerful because of it.
We are in the Western boat, floating on a sea of suffering. We can’t pretend that we are not part of it, just because we refuse to pay for it but rather reap the benefits while hiding behind those on the front line.


----------



## Leper (25 Jun 2019)

Purple said:


> We are in the Western boat, floating on a sea of suffering. We can’t pretend that we are not part of it, just because we refuse to pay for it but rather reap the benefits while hiding behind those on the front line.



1. Yes we can pretend. And the electric car is gaining momentum and relatively shortly we won't need their bloody petrol. It'll be two fingers from us; so let them keep fighting each other as long as they leave us alone.

2. On another note:- The RAF and Royal Navy used to send long distance helicopters out into the atlantic west of our shores to rescue sea users in distress. The helicopters used to be refuelled in Cork airport and our army used to protect the aircraft. They  also protected the crew in the public dining hall at the airport. The fear was that one of our bar stools activists would take a shot at the old enemy.


----------



## Purple (25 Jun 2019)

Leper said:


> 1. Yes we can pretend. And the electric car is gaining momentum and relatively shortly we won't need their bloody petrol. It'll be two fingers from us; so let them keep fighting each other as long as they leave us alone.


Just remember that when you buy an electric car in Ireland it may actually be running on turf.
We'll need their oil and gas for a while yet. For my children's lifetime at least.


----------



## Carnmore (25 Jun 2019)

Leper said:


> 1. Yes we can pretend. And the electric car is gaining momentum and relatively shortly we won't need their bloody petrol. It'll be two fingers from us; so let them keep fighting each other as long as they leave us alone.



Is this intended to be irony..how do you think the electricity is generated? Wind power is supplementary and is hugely dependent on fossil fuels for the manufacture and maintenance of the turbines. 
Relatedly, Ireland would have to legislate to allow nuclear power to be generated in Ireland but is quite happy to use it via the interconnector


----------



## Carnmore (25 Jun 2019)

joe sod said:


> So what do you suggest we subcontract out our defence to the british army, that did not work out too good the last time.



It's already the de facto situation. The Irish 'defence' forces are an unaffordable joke.


----------



## cremeegg (25 Jun 2019)

Every country uses it natural resources as best it can to meet its needs, human resources, agricultural resources, whatever.

Ireland's geographical location gives us a temperate climate, and little threat of foreign aggression from any external power except the British.

We have finally (I hope its final) resolved the UK situation, a military response to our defence requirements is nonsensical. We do not have the population or the militarised society to militarily resist say a US invasion, but we do have the political positioning to make it extremely unlikely. (Compare our situation with North Korea, they have built a military defence to deter the threat of US invasion, lucky them ! )

The British also provide us with a military defence against any other possible agressor. Not out of love for us, but in their own vital interests. They are not going to allow Russia invade Ireland.

To spend money on a military defence where little threat exists and in the unlikely event that a threat did materialise we could not counter anyway, is foolish.

We do take responsibility for our own defence, we recognise our extremely fortunate geographical position, we recognise that it is in our nuclear armed neighbour's interest that no foreign power be allowed attack us, we build deep political and trading relationships with our neighbours.


----------



## Peanuts20 (27 Jun 2019)

whatever about needing an army, do we really still need the FCA or whatever it is called these days?


----------



## Leper (27 Jun 2019)

Peanuts20 said:


> whatever about needing an army, do we really still need the FCA or whatever it is called these days?



Of course, we need the FCA. I was a member once and served at the front in Youghal where we defended the south coast against invasion. We did daily patrols in case the Russians or Brits might try to sneak in west of Waterford. If they did we were the only defence between the beaches and Dublin. And when extras were needed  for Barry Lyndon and Saving Private Ryan the FCA were there to help and we didn't need training in warfare. Hollywood got a good deal; so did we. When we were needed, we stood up to the challenges.

Incidentally, the FCA still takes recruits male and female. Don't hesitate to encourage your off-spring to join. They will learn how to shoot, defend themselves, march and a plethora of life skills plus comradeship and get paid too while they are away at camp.


----------



## Purple (27 Jun 2019)

The Free Clothes Association makes more sense than a standing army that couldn't defend us in a fit.


----------



## cremeegg (27 Jun 2019)

Purple said:


> The Free Clothes Association makes more sense than a standing army that couldn't defend us in a fit.



Fools Carrying Arms

OSG strikes again


----------



## odyssey06 (27 Jun 2019)

Leper said:


> Of course, we need the FCA. I was a member once and served at the front in Youghal where we defended the south coast against invasion. We did daily patrols in case the Russians or Brits might try to sneak in west of Waterford. If they did we were the only defence between the beaches and Dublin. And when extras were needed  for Barry Lyndon and Saving Private Ryan the FCA were there to help and we didn't need training in warfare. Hollywood got a good deal; so did we. When we were needed, we stood up to the challenges.



Which side did you fight on in the Seven Years War then?


----------



## Leper (27 Jun 2019)

Well you may laugh, but when the chips are down they always sent for Gunner Leper.


----------



## joe sod (27 Jun 2019)

cremeegg said:


> We do take responsibility for our own defence, we recognise our extremely fortunate geographical position, we recognise that it is in our nuclear armed neighbour's interest that no foreign power be allowed attack us, we build deep political and trading relationships with our neighbours.



By that logic, canada also does not need an army. I doubt the americans would tolerate the canadians free loading on their defence spending. Afterall the canadians are also in a "fortunate geographical position" probably alot more fortunate than us. But Canada is a serious grown up country so would never entertain such a notion. In any case what would the savings from having no army be used for probably wasted on even higher salaries and more welfare.


----------



## Purple (28 Jun 2019)

joe sod said:


> In any case what would the savings from having no army be used for probably wasted on even higher salaries and more welfare.


That's very cynical... oh, no, now that I think of it it's actually correct.


----------



## PMU (28 Jun 2019)

cremeegg said:


> The British also provide us with a military defence against any other possible agressor.


That defence includes two Irish regiments - the Irish Guards and the Royal Irish Regiment.


----------



## Purple (28 Jun 2019)

PMU said:


> That defence includes two Irish regiments - the Irish Guards and the Royal Irish Regiment.


Nordies and those who took the queen's shilling. He who pays the piper calls the tune.


----------



## Peanuts20 (28 Jun 2019)

Leper said:


> Of course, we need the FCA. I was a member once and served at the front in Youghal where we defended the south coast against invasion. We did daily patrols in case the Russians or Brits might try to sneak in west of Waterford. If they did we were the only defence between the beaches and Dublin. And when extras were needed  for Barry Lyndon and Saving Private Ryan the FCA were there to help and we didn't need training in warfare. Hollywood got a good deal; so did we. When we were needed, we stood up to the challenges.
> 
> Incidentally, the FCA still takes recruits male and female. Don't hesitate to encourage your off-spring to join. They will learn how to shoot, defend themselves, march and a plethora of life skills plus comradeship and get paid too while they are away at camp.



and whilst you were defending the Baroney of Imokilly, the Dutch, German and British hippies invaded West Cork.


----------



## johnwilliams (28 Jun 2019)

joe sod 
"So what do you suggest we subcontract out our defence to the british army, that did not work out too good the last time " 
when are you referring to ?


----------



## Leper (30 Jun 2019)

Personal Account while serving at the Front:- Peanuts20 was sleeping comfortably in some leafy Cork suburb while we were patrolling cross country with dead-on co-ordinates on the coast east of Castlemartyr we came across the occasional VW van painted with colourful flowers and brightly painted backgrounds. All of them had UK number plates. We didn't recognise them as Brit invaders with their sitting in the lotus position, forefingers touching thumbs and promising only love. We must have made a good impression with our Lee-Enfield rifles complete with bayonet. Most of them were not exactly ads for Pantene but could have made a few bob out of some anti-dandruff shampoo. All they had to do was shake their heads for us to be put under fire from lethal sprays of dandruff (could have been our first whiff of chemical warfare), but they didn't. I reckon they were fearful of our potential fire power after some dodgy chips in a Youghal take-away grease pan the night before.

Then there were the potato fields. Fair play to the Germans who utilised the space between the drills to grow some green leaves plants. We shared the occasional smoke with them. Their roll-your-owns were superior to ours and we felt a lot better leaving the theatre of battle for some reason unknown to us. The Russians never came though. I reckon their intelligence provided them of our might putting the fear of God into them.

We saw action on the last Sunday in a football game against the Slua Muirí contingent. We were able to swop our Hotspur for their Beano comics. We also encountered our crack force Cór Gaelach who spoke as Gaeilge. But, they had good 64 page Commando comics to swop and they were written in English. Nothing like swopping comics to promote bonding amongst "craic" troops.


----------



## Deiseblue (30 Jun 2019)

Comrades in arms ?
In light of ongoing pay negotiations on Army pay the Irish Times is reporting that the Government is to consult with Military Associations on the possibility of affiliating with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
An armed wing of ICTU - be afraid, be very afraid !!


----------



## Purple (1 Jul 2019)

Deiseblue said:


> Comrades in arms ?
> In light of ongoing pay negotiations on Army pay the Irish Times is reporting that the Government is to consult with Military Associations on the possibility of affiliating with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
> An armed wing of ICTU - be afraid, be very afraid !!


They have a political wing; the Labour Party, a propaganda wing; the Nevin REsearch Institute (and no shortage of "useful idiots" to disseminate that propaganda) and now they could be getting a military wing. The Revolution may not be that far away Comrades!!


----------



## cremeegg (6 Jul 2019)

Seems the army is asking itself the same question and finding so looking for a role, in bailing out ISIS.









						Government rejected military plan to bring home suspected Isis supporter Lisa Smith
					

US officials had agreed to assist in operation to extract suspected Isis supporter from Syria




					www.irishtimes.com
				





_"There is significant dissatisfaction within J2 and the higher levels of the Defence Forces with the Government’s decision."_

Who do these people think they are being dissatisfied with the governments decision.

They think that Ireland should put itself under obligation to the US military.  Fortunately the govt seem to have more sense.

It does take the conversation on from "why do we need an army" to "might the army become a problem"


----------



## joe sod (6 Jul 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Who do these people think they are being dissatisfied with the governments decision.



first of all Lisa smith does not deserve this level of attention from the authorities, i dont know why they are wasting so much time and money on her. If it was a man in her position, even if it was proved he did not commit any attrocities, he would be left to rot over there, and rightfully so. Let the yazidi women that fought isis deal with her, they have first hand experience of isis. Lisa Smith had full knowledge of what the yazidi women were subjected to before she went to Syria, it was world news in 2014.


----------



## Itchy (6 Jul 2019)

cremeegg said:


> It does take the conversation on from "why do we need an army" to "might the army become a problem"



If you're not with me, you're against me? Is that it?



cremeegg said:


> Fortunately the govt seem to have more sense.



I haven't seen any evidence to confirm that!



cremeegg said:


> Who do these people think they are being dissatisfied with the governments decision.



Very strong language given you have absolutely no idea of the facts of the situation. You are referring to a news report of a decision made two months ago. Its a bit late for a leak of their "dissatisfaction".  Theres plenty of dissatisfaction given the diabolical state of our national security apparatus and the complete ineptitude of the policy makers at designing any kind of coherent Defence policy. I dont think this decision is the cause of that.

As regards planning, the DF don't do solo runs. An exercise like this requires them to be directed to establish what would be required in order to complete a specific task. The government indicate the constraints and limitations that they are bound by and any planning is conducted within those boundaries. They receive a plan, the plan outlines the risks and they decide to go or not based on that. That's how it works. 

Assistance and cooperation with allies does not put us "under obligation". Assistance and cooperation is always on a case by case or by agreement. There is NO movement on the ground without the US military, that is the reality. Any plan involving the movement of Lisa Smith will require the US military to be involved.




joe sod said:


> first of all Lisa smith does not deserve this level of attention from the authorities, i dont know why they are wasting so much time and money on her. If it was a man in her position, even if it was proved he did not commit any attrocities, he would be left to rot over there, and rightfully so. Let the yazidi women that fought isis deal with her, they have first hand experience of isis. Lisa Smith had full knowledge of what the yazidi women were subjected to before she went to Syria, it was world news in 2014.



Joe, its already gov policy to try to repatriate her. Charlie Flanagan indicated this as early as March. The reality is she should be prosecuted for her actions but she is effectively in a failed state where this cant/wont be achieved. In this circumstance, it is a complete abdication of our responsibilities to leave her there. Throwing someone to the wolves cant be our policy. She cant be prosecuted appropriately there, and she is a risk to non-IS people over there. 

Complicating the situation is of course her daughter, an innocent Irish citizen and the fact that Ireland has been exposed as being completely incapable of handling this type of situation, despite plenty of warning and opportunity. 

The legal framework isn't in place to deal with the situation, we dont have the capacity to investigate her actions in Syria, our intelligence architecture isn't up to scratch, and we have no national security policy. We are caught with our pants down. However, its symptomatic, successive governments have been abdicating/ignoring our security responsibilities for decades.


----------



## cremeegg (6 Jul 2019)

Itchy said:


> The legal framework isn't in place to deal with the situation, we dont have the capacity to investigate her actions in Syria, our intelligence architecture isn't up to scratch, and we have no national security policy.



You have convinced me, we should immediately develop the ability to investigate possible times in Syria, and Yemen and China etc.

Typical military delusions of grandeur more like.


----------



## joe sod (6 Jul 2019)

Itchy said:


> The legal framework isn't in place to deal with the situation, we dont have the capacity to investigate her actions in Syria, our intelligence architecture isn't up to scratch, and we have no national security policy. We are caught with our pants down. However, its symptomatic, successive governments have been abdicating/ignoring our security responsibilities for decades.



correct, but we are in a similar situation to most european countries, (albeit much worse), these isis returnees should be tried in a european wide nuremburg style trial, or the international war crimes court in the hague. That way intelligence can be gathered on a european wide basis and they can still the beans on each other like what happened in nuremburg. What they are saying can be checked against what others are saying, they all talk in the end. She wont face any justice if she gets back to ireland, thats a certainty


----------

