Irish Swell British Army Ranks

[Evil Genius]

It might not be a perfect Referee, but the UN is the only one we've got. Therefore, if you can't/won't accept even the UN's legitmacy, then there is little point in my trying to debate with you.

Or you could at least admit there hand was forced and that they got it horribly wrong.

Whose "hand was forced"? If you mean the UN, they authorised Afghanistan, but declined to authorise Iraq, which is proof that they can resist being "forced" to approve anything they don't like.

I agree Saddam could (and should) have been "boxed in" by sanctions etc without the need for the invasion; however, that does not mean he still was not harbouring expansionist ambitions, nor that the passage of a mere decade or two in any way lessened the fears of his neighbours (or the Kurds, for that matter).

Bullsh*t. He was neutered, rendered incapable of evening attempting expansion. And if there was such a clear and present danger why wasn't that adduced as casus belli for the grimy 'war'?

Actually, the WMD, and their capacity to threaten neighbouring states as far as Cyprus were adduced by the US/UK as the casus belli. The fact that no WMD's were subsequently found, or even whether that might have been expected, is a separate matter.

Perhaps so, but for all that I deplore the way Blair deceived us into the invasion, it is still ridiculous for people in your or my situation to compare him with Hitler.

In your opinion (you can only be killed once, by whomsoever by whatever means).

Obviously an Iraqi who suffered during the invasion is going to think less fabourably about Bush/Blair than e.g. a German anti-Semite might about Hitler. They will both be subjective. But if you honestly consider that e.g. Blair is as bad as Hitler, then you either lack objectivity or you are an idiot.

Perhaps the problem is one of terminology. When I hear the word "mercenary", I think of people like this (after he started meddling in Angola and Equitorial Guinea, obviously):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Mann
What you and other critics appear not to accept is that all sorts of different people have all sorts of motives for becoming a soldier, and simply to lump together as "mercenaries" all those who are not serving their "own" country is an insult. For such people include not only those such as Irishmen or Indians who served in the BA down the centuries, but also e.g. those who from outside Spain who fought on opposing sides for the International Brigades or the Royalists during the Spanish Civil War.
Now you and I may agree easily enough on which of those sets of combattants we prefer, but by your definition, both sides may equally be called "mercenaries".
Tricky, isn't it?

Except that the volunteers who fought with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War were not waged. Not really that tricky, they took no money, per se, to fight for their beliefs. And money has been my key criterion all along.

Actually I thought your key criteria were a combination of money and fighting for a country other than ones own.
So do you consider e.g. those Irish people like O'Duffy who volunteered to fight (unwaged) for the Catholic/Royalist forces in 1935 not to be mercenaries, but those other Irish people who joined the British Army four years later to fight Hitler for pay to be so?
Or was e.g. Marine McKibbin from Westport still a mercenary had he actually been able to earn more money in Civvy Street than he did in the RM?
Indeed, there will be many British-born soldiers in the BA who remain in service, despite the fact they could easily earn more if they left.
And how do you assess volunteers born in the Commonwealth, who therefore have a connection with the UK that is not one of birthplace?
The fact that all of the above may have volunteered to join a legitimate army and fight in recognised conflicts, without money being their primary consideration, counts more for me in defining them than the country they were born in. Which is why I prefer to call them professional soldiers, rather than use your perjorative term, mercenaries.   

Afaik, most were within the last year, with all within the last two or three years. Certainly all were since Iraq and Afghanistan. The RIR Parade in Shropshire, for instance, was in August or September this year - just before those in Belfast and Ballymena. 
Believe me, such Parades are happening all the time throughout the UK. It is only those in NI which are deemed to be "newsworthy" enough to command attention from the national media.

Yet, military personnel in Britain have been lately advised not to wear their uniforms in civvy-street, obviously because the population in Britain are so very proud of them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cambridgeshire/7282348.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-505864/Afghan-heroes-home-Christmas-forced-change-uniforms-freezing-runway-using-airport-terminal.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/07/military
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3500926.ece

You originally claimed that no homecoming parades are able to be held anywhere in the UK, on the basis that they attract such opprobrium from the general population, indeed are not wanted to be held in the first place. That is patent nonsense, as demonstrated by the fact that such parades are now becoming the norm, rather than the exception, as the Armed Services return home to base after each overseas tour. And if I could be arsed, I could easily provide many more examples to prove that when they do so, the reception by all the local people who turn out is overwhelmingly welcoming, as those video clips demonstrate.
So that when you cite a few isolated examples e.g. of CO's requiring individual soldiers to wear civvies rather than uniform when out and about, you are clearly backtracking. Of course the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have provoked opposition amongst a section of the population, such that if on a night out, some squaddies e.g. from Catterick should decide to nip into Bradford for a curry, then it is only sensible not to wear uniform when entering an overwhelmingly Muslim area.
Indeed, long before the army was ever in Iraq or Afghanistan, soldiers have often had to take such precautions to avoid e.g. punch-ups with the locals, or rows over girls etc, when out in their local town centre on a Saturday night.
But none of this detracts from the fact that the average British citizen, even including many who disapprove of the invasion of Iraq etc, are quite capable of distinguishing between the politicians who send the forces in, and the the individual squaddies who make up those forces. Which is why all are pleased to see them home safe and sound from having done their duty.

P.S. Having just re-read properly the four links you make, three of those are actually the same incident, whereby RAF Regiment personnnel were advised not to wear uniform when out in Peterborough, and the fourth was an airport requiring soldiers to change into civvies when passing through the main terminal etc. Yet closer reading reveals that Wittering was likely an overreaction by a desk-bound staff officer or somesuch, and the Birmingham Airport incident appears to have followed confusion from the fact that some individual airlines do not carry anyone in military uniform, for security purposes.
So considering there are hundreds of thousands of military and related service personnel stationed on thousands of sites throughout the UK, if that's the best you can come up with, that's very poor indeed! 

[full back]

Has to be in the running for the GAAboard awards for longest post of the year

[Evil Genius]

Has to be in the running for the GAAboard awards for longest post of the year

That's the "So What?" and the "Adding Absolutely Nothing to a Serious Debate" Awards firmly sewn up for this year, too, I'd guess...

[full back]

Talk about boring people to death.............

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Whose "hand was forced"? If you mean the UN, they authorised Afghanistan, but declined to authorise Iraq, which is proof that they can resist being "forced" to approve anything they don't like.

The absence of proof, is not proof of absence. That they failed to authorise Iraq, does not mean that the Afghan resolution was free of coercion.

Actually, the WMD, and their capacity to threaten neighbouring states as far as Cyprus were adduced by the US/UK as the casus belli. The fact that no WMD's were subsequently found, or even whether that might have been expected, is a separate matter

You claimed he had creditable expansionist aspirations, which is patent nonsense. That they had to fabricate 'evidence' to prove he had WMDs, proves nothing other than they lied to invade.

Obviously an Iraqi who suffered during the invasion is going to think less fabourably about Bush/Blair than e.g. a German anti-Semite might about Hitler. They will both be subjective. But if you honestly consider that e.g. Blair is as bad as Hitler, then you either lack objectivity or you are an idiot.

You speak as though Bush and Blair come out of this with some kind of perverted honour. Insofar as the suffering Iraqis are concerned, Bush and Blair are every bit as bad as Hitler where Iraq is concerned -- you can't get any deader than dead, for example. In fact, the Germans did not wreak as much destruction as a matter of routine war, the Blitzkriegs notwithstanding. Your naivity in relation to this 'war' is rather enlightening, if somewhat unsurprising.

Actually I thought your key criteria were a combination of money and fighting for a country other than ones own.
So do you consider e.g. those Irish people like O'Duffy who volunteered to fight (unwaged) for the Catholic/Royalist forces in 1935 not to be mercenaries, but those other Irish people who joined the British Army four years later to fight Hitler for pay to be so?
Or was e.g. Marine McKibbin from Westport still a mercenary had he actually been able to earn more money in Civvy Street than he did in the RM?
Indeed, there will be many British-born soldiers in the BA who remain in service, despite the fact they could easily earn more if they left.
And how do you assess volunteers born in the Commonwealth, who therefore have a connection with the UK that is not one of birthplace?
The fact that all of the above may have volunteered to join a legitimate army and fight in recognised conflicts, without money being their primary consideration, counts more for me in defining them than the country they were born in. Which is why I prefer to call them professional soldiers, rather than use your perjorative term, mercenaries.   

Ho hum, look at what I originally said, money yes, and the fact that it is for a country other than your own is, sort of, blindingly obvious. You have your preference, I have mine.

You originally claimed that no homecoming parades are able to be held anywhere in the UK, on the basis that they attract such opprobrium from the general population, indeed are not wanted to be held in the first place. That is patent nonsense, as demonstrated by the fact that such parades are now becoming the norm, rather than the exception, as the Armed Services return home to base after each overseas tour. And if I could be arsed, I could easily provide many more examples to prove that when they do so, the reception by all the local people who turn out is overwhelmingly welcoming, as those video clips demonstrate.
So that when you cite a few isolated examples e.g. of CO's requiring individual soldiers to wear civvies rather than uniform when out and about, you are clearly backtracking. Of course the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have provoked opposition amongst a section of the population, such that if on a night out, some squaddies e.g. from Catterick should decide to nip into Bradford for a curry, then it is only sensible not to wear uniform when entering an overwhelmingly Muslim area.
Indeed, long before the army was ever in Iraq or Afghanistan, soldiers have often had to take such precautions to avoid e.g. punch-ups with the locals, or rows over girls etc, when out in their local town centre on a Saturday night.
But none of this detracts from the fact that the average British citizen, even including many who disapprove of the invasion of Iraq etc, are quite capable of distinguishing between the politicians who send the forces in, and the the individual squaddies who make up those forces. Which is why all are pleased to see them home safe and sound from having done their duty.

P.S. Having just re-read properly the four links you make, three of those are actually the same incident, whereby RAF Regiment personnnel were advised not to wear uniform when out in Peterborough, and the fourth was an airport requiring soldiers to change into civvies when passing through the main terminal etc. Yet closer reading reveals that Wittering was likely an overreaction by a desk-bound staff officer or somesuch, and the Birmingham Airport incident appears to have followed confusion from the fact that some individual airlines do not carry anyone in military uniform, for security purposes.
So considering there are hundreds of thousands of military and related service personnel stationed on thousands of sites throughout the UK, if that's the best you can come up with, that's very poor indeed! 

OK, so I should proof-read what I post links to in future  , though the fact that RAF, even the RAF, personnel have to be circumspect about what they wear in public is a powerful indication of just how unpopular these squalid little wars are. And you have actually succeeded now in boring me to death. So, I'm dead!

[Rossfan]

I just don't like the anti-Brit bits which in my view are in the games, songs, place names, general psyche that Brits are to blame and are not nice people, 

I know I shouldnt even bother to reply to such an unknowing eejit but ..For your info Roger you thicko - 95% of Irish place names ( i.e in all 32 Counties) are simply anglicised spellings/pronunciations of the original Irish langauge names for the places which are hundreds if not thousands of years old.
They were there long before there were such things as "Brits" and you can rest assured they will still be there long after there are such things as "Brits"
3,000 years of culture and heritage will not disappear because some thick Unionists dont know what Country they live in.

[nifan]

some thick Unionists dont know what Country they live in.

I assume you are talking about derry. Why must everyone make such a fecking deal about what people choose to call the place.

[Rossfan]

No Nifan - I'm talking about those "anti Brit" placenames like Ballymena/Baile Meanach,Ballynahinch/Baile na hInse,Ballynafeigh/Baile na ....?,Larne/Latharna,Shankill/Sean Chill,.............and about 100,000 more all over Ireland that were getting up that Roger's nose.
Maybe he should move to more Brit named places like Salthill or Strandhill or Summerhill.......
I'm not sure how you got onto Doire/Derry unless amybe you just wanted to plug tyour own place?

[nifan]

I misread country for county....

[Roger]

I know I shouldnt even bother to reply to such an unknowing eejit but ..For your info Roger you thicko - 95% of Irish place names ( i.e in all 32 Counties) are simply anglicised spellings/pronunciations of the original Irish langauge names for the places which are hundreds if not thousands of years old.
They were there long before there were such things as "Brits" and you can rest assured they will still be there long after there are such things as "Brits"
3,000 years of culture and heritage will not disappear because some thick Unionists dont know what Country they live in.

The personal insults are amusing but you have taken the wrong end of the stick. Whilst not overly clear I was actually referring to the Republic of Ireland and the way it is named Ireland and the way Northern Ireland is The North, "here" or 6 Counties. That said, Nifan and your own wee conversation could highlight the county situation in Londonderry, and that's before Offaly and Laois are considered.  Counties are not 3000 years of Gaelic culture but they were British administrative areas but whilst convenient for republicans too in that culture some names are just too Brit to handle. 

[Jim_Murphy_74]

I know I shouldnt even bother to reply to such an unknowing eejit but ..For your info Roger you thicko - 95% of Irish place names ( i.e in all 32 Counties) are simply anglicised spellings/pronunciations of the original Irish langauge names for the places which are hundreds if not thousands of years old.
They were there long before there were such things as "Brits" and you can rest assured they will still be there long after there are such things as "Brits"
3,000 years of culture and heritage will not disappear because some thick Unionists dont know what Country they live in.

The personal insults are amusing but you have taken the wrong end of the stick. Whilst not overly clear I was actually referring to the Republic of Ireland and the way it is named Ireland and the way Northern Ireland is The North, "here" or 6 Counties. That said, Nifan and your own wee conversation could highlight the county situation in Londonderry, and that's before Offaly and Laois are considered.  Counties are not 3000 years of Gaelic culture but they were British administrative areas but whilst convenient for republicans too in that culture some names are just too Brit to handle. 

What's the beef with Offaly and Laois?  Unhappy they are no longer King's County and Queen's County?

Do you think that after the British government authorised a war of terror on people that said people really wanted to have their area named after the head of said government?

Time to get real here.  You are really clutching at straws now.   Just like people could be anti-British Army with being anti-British, so too someone might just be anti-King/Queen. 

/Jim.

[Declan]

I just don't like parts of the republican Irish culture which is dominant in the republic

Mmmm - Where do you start analysing this? Not even a grasp of the Queen's English.

[nifan]

and that's before Offaly and Laois are considered. 

People can rename the counties, towns etc of their country in whatever manner they choose, god knows our lot renamed enough. We have to accept those things and move on.

[Roger]

What's the beef with Offaly and Laois?  Unhappy they are no longer King's County and Queen's County?

I gave my view only to be called names by those in denial.  Personally the anti-Brit sentiment south of the border doesn't effect me but observing isn't a crime. I mentioned the names given by republican culture to places in Ireland, but was really referring to the names of the states in Ireland.  I was pulled up for it on a tangent about ancient names of places in Ireland but that tangential argument interestingly highlights the county system (British) which was adopted by republicans and anything too Brit got renamed something more in keeping with the republican Politics but which was never the name for that county dating back 3000 years. Currently the county system has seen two changed and one other has people in denial about it for this reason.

Do you think that after the British government authorised a war of terror on people that said people really wanted to have their area named after the head of said government?

Comments like to make worthy the anti-Brit nature within "Irish" culture (ie that of Irish Republicans) but this has moved from denial to justification of it.

[Roger]

People can rename the counties, towns etc of their country in whatever manner they choose, god knows our lot renamed enough. We have to accept those things and move on.

Fair point.  But you can't deny the reason for it and call anyone who observes it as stupid and chat about 3000 years of history for a county. What about the names of the states in Ireland? Who has moved on?