Irish Swell British Army Ranks

[thejuice]

Which aspects of British culture would that be?

[nifan]

True.  I couldn't care about any language especially, but one that is fairly useless even less. If people want to learn it, fine. However, it is most apparent when it is being used for Political reasons.

Your entitled to not care, but many people do. Latin and Greek are next to useless but some people are extremely interested in these languages, even though these languages arent even indigenous to the area.

it is most apparent to YOU when used for political reasons.
It is obviously not so apparent to you when people study it from school upwards, including to PhD level, when they go to the gaeltacht etc etc.

True. But the contemporary culture of Ireland hardly oozes the Book of Kells and is more closely defined in things that are Political, usually with a strong whiff of 'Brits-to-blame' jammed together with what is actually British culture.

And British culture rarely oozes the magna carta.
You sound like some of the posters from here who claimed any sort of unionist/NI culture was simply anti-irishness.

You cant discount elements of irish culture and then accept elements of shared or british culture.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

I think you'll find that I gave my view and the perception that is Irish culture.  I don't know anyone who thinks of the Book of Kells as the dominant thing in Irish culture. I never claimed a "direct line" or any such thing. 

As the person who first mentioned them, the point about the Book of Kells and the Annals was not to claim their "dominance" but to illustrate the long lineage of the Irish language and culture.  It was to rebut your assertion that Irish language and culture was formed of "British Culture with some anti-Brit stuff stuck on" and that the Irish Language was cobbled together.

I don't know what you mean by dominance of one item in a culture to be honest.

There is no doubt that the Gaelic revival in the latter part of the last century (including the GAA formation) had political overtones.  However this has to be taken in the context of the highly politicised efforts to eradicate said culture in the years predating that.  The Penal Laws of the late 18th century and the National School Act of 1836 were political acts to eradicate aspects of Irish culture (especially the language).  So there was a political kickback from that...so what?  

That does not invalidate the long cultural history that pre-dated these events.

It also makes a mockery of your blanket dismissal of Irish culture.

/Jim.

[ardmhachaabu]

You lot must be bored to reply to this clown, let's face it he doesn't deserve replies.

nifan, I have met quite a lot of 'youseuns' who have the same respect for the language as some of 'ussuns' to the extent that they organise classes in some quite unexpected locations and are well-attended by genuine folks who want to learn it.

[Doogie Browser]

I am convinced that Roger's rantings about Irish Culture are are more a fear on his behalf, he is so ambivalent and blind towards Irish culture that he cannot even appreciate its values and place within society.  His view is sadly shared by a large amount of Love Ulster types, their paranoia towards Irishness and Irish people is actually dangerous.  It is exactly the kind of rubbish that loyalists have been fed for years by politicians i.e. Dublin is the enemy and hate all things associated with it.  If they say it enough they will believe, sad. 

[Mack the finger]

 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cBGkhPx529g

[Evil Genius]

Erm, in case it has slipped your notice, neither the Afghans nor the Iraqis posed any kind of expansionist problem. And despite Saddam's designs on sadism, he wasn't quite in the same league as Hitler. So, my point remains, when non-native nationals enlist for an army other than their own, when that army is currently involved in offensive aggression, they're mercenaries.

Once again, you conflate Iraq and Afghanistan in your attempt to discredit those of whom you disapprove. Afghanistan is/was an entirely legal operation, sanctioned by the UN (including unanimously by the Security Council), as I posted elsewhere.
As for Iraq not posing "any kind of expansionist problem", that is not a concept which would find much favour in Kuwait or Iran, for example. As for "Saddam's designs on sadism", I have no idea what this means; nonetheless, "Not as Bad as Hitler" hardly counts as a character reference, especially for someone who is estimated to have been responsible for the deaths of more Muslims than anyone who has ever lived.

Would this be the same kind of international recognition as that was afforded Saddam in the 1980s, or the international recognition of Hitler's seizure of the Sudetenland, a recognition bestowed by Chamberlain no less (and Daladier), in 1938?

Obviously not. There is no question that the British Government is the legitimate authority, with its duly constituted armed forces being equally legitimate.
Speaking of which, it is notable, I think, that it was the British Government and army which eventually stood up to Hitler in 1939, thereby dividing the German assault onto two fronts and buying crucial time for the Allies to mobilise and prevent them conquering the whole of Europe. And as I noted, and you have ignored, critical to the British effort was e.g. the over 1 million Indian Nationals who volunteered to join the British Army and fight in campaigns stretching from the Far East, to North Africa, and to Europe etc. So once again, would you say these soldiers were "mercenaries"?
Indeed closer to home, would you characterise as "mercenaries" all those hundreds of thousands of Irish men and women who joined the British Army in the First and Second World Wars?

"undeafeated army"?!... Like Afghanistan and Iraq have been such resounding victories. And why couldn't the British Army parade through a city in Britain, why is it that no Britons wanted them to parade through their town or city? Was that because they were fighting such a glorious and virtuous war? Or was it more that the Britons could see it for what it was, and that that wasn't pretty.

How has this idea arisen that the British Army cannot "parade through a city in Britain" or that "no Britons [want] then to parade through their town or city"? That is a myth, as testified by any number of warmly received parades the length and breadth of the UK.
Indeed, for Irish Regiments alone, there have been such parades in Liverpool and Shropshire (never mind those other British towns/cities, Belfast and Ballymena):
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xxdNgsIkh9M
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fAaRdosqwXo&feature=related
Or the briefest of searches on YouTube reveals e.g. The Royal Anglians in Norwich:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bgRRC19uOrY&feature=related
The Gurkhas in Maidstone:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cxAJSfv7q7Y&feature=related
The Royal Engineers, also in Maidstone:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ttW9CIMqInA&feature=related
The Royal Green Jackets receiving the Freedom of Westminster:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VPqenl0NpOs&feature=related
The Yorkshires in their home county:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ccWlIx1QOZ0&feature=related
Or the Combined Services in Winchester:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=q56R0X3Xxeg&feature=related
Or the Hampshires in their home county:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=f8mJagGXhaI&feature=related
The Argyles in Stirling:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NCrKriXvkLo&feature=related
The Coldstreams in Windsor:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MCq_IPLQIs4&feature=related

Just because there were no counterdemonstrations organised to make such parades "newsworthy" does not mean they are not happening...

[mylestheslasher]

Erm, in case it has slipped your notice, neither the Afghans nor the Iraqis posed any kind of expansionist problem. And despite Saddam's designs on sadism, he wasn't quite in the same league as Hitler. So, my point remains, when non-native nationals enlist for an army other than their own, when that army is currently involved in offensive aggression, they're mercenaries.

Once again, you conflate Iraq and Afghanistan in your attempt to discredit those of whom you disapprove. Afghanistan is/was an entirely legal operation, sanctioned by the UN (including unanimously by the Security Council), as I posted elsewhere.
As for Iraq not posing "any kind of expansionist problem", that is not a concept which would find much favour in Kuwait or Iran, for example. As for "Saddam's designs on sadism", I have no idea what this means; nonetheless, "Not as Bad as Hitler" hardly counts as a character reference, especially for someone who is estimated to have been responsible for the deaths of more Muslims than anyone who has ever lived.

Would this be the same kind of international recognition as that was afforded Saddam in the 1980s, or the international recognition of Hitler's seizure of the Sudetenland, a recognition bestowed by Chamberlain no less (and Daladier), in 1938?

Obviously not. There is no question that the British Government is the legitimate authority, with its duly constituted armed forces being equally legitimate.
Speaking of which, it is notable, I think, that it was the British Government and army which eventually stood up to Hitler in 1939, thereby dividing the German assault onto two fronts and buying crucial time for the Allies to mobilise and prevent them conquering the whole of Europe. And as I noted, and you have ignored, critical to the British effort was e.g. the over 1 million Indian Nationals who volunteered to join the British Army and fight in campaigns stretching from the Far East, to North Africa, and to Europe etc. So once again, would you say these soldiers were "mercenaries"?
Indeed closer to home, would you characterise as "mercenaries" all those hundreds of thousands of Irish men and women who joined the British Army in the First and Second World Wars?

"undeafeated army"?!... Like Afghanistan and Iraq have been such resounding victories. And why couldn't the British Army parade through a city in Britain, why is it that no Britons wanted them to parade through their town or city? Was that because they were fighting such a glorious and virtuous war? Or was it more that the Britons could see it for what it was, and that that wasn't pretty.

How has this idea arisen that the British Army cannot "parade through a city in Britain" or that "no Britons [want] then to parade through their town or city"? That is a myth, as testified by any number of warmly received parades the length and breadth of the UK.
Indeed, for Irish Regiments alone, there have been such parades in Liverpool and Shropshire (never mind those other British towns/cities, Belfast and Ballymena):
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xxdNgsIkh9M
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fAaRdosqwXo&feature=related
Or the briefest of searches on YouTube reveals e.g. The Royal Anglians in Norwich:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bgRRC19uOrY&feature=related
The Gurkhas in Maidstone:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cxAJSfv7q7Y&feature=related
The Royal Engineers, also in Maidstone:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ttW9CIMqInA&feature=related
The Royal Green Jackets receiving the Freedom of Westminster:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VPqenl0NpOs&feature=related
The Yorkshires in their home county:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ccWlIx1QOZ0&feature=related
Or the Combined Services in Winchester:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=q56R0X3Xxeg&feature=related
Or the Hampshires in their home county:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=f8mJagGXhaI&feature=related
The Argyles in Stirling:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NCrKriXvkLo&feature=related
The Coldstreams in Windsor:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MCq_IPLQIs4&feature=related

Just because there were no counterdemonstrations organised to make such parades "newsworthy" does not mean they are not happening...

Only you could equate a country of extremely poor people with hardly a thing to their name joining the army of the country that was responsible for their woes as being some sort of endorsement for that army. When people have children that are hungry they will do just about anything to put food on the table. Of course there were others that had some sort of idiotic military tradition.

[Evil Genius]

Only you could equate a country of extremely poor people with hardly a thing to their name joining the army of the country that was responsible for their woes as being some sort of endorsement for that army. When people have children that are hungry they will do just about anything to put food on the table. Of course there were others that had some sort of idiotic military tradition.

Ah right, so all the millions who have volunteered from all over the world down the centuries were either starving or idiots. Thanks for clearing that one up.

P.S. To which category do those present-day volunteers from the Republic of Ireland belong?

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Once again, you conflate Iraq and Afghanistan in your attempt to discredit those of whom you disapprove. Afghanistan is/was an entirely legal operation, sanctioned by the UN (including unanimously by the Security Council), as I posted elsewhere.
As for Iraq not posing "any kind of expansionist problem", that is not a concept which would find much favour in Kuwait or Iran, for example. As for "Saddam's designs on sadism", I have no idea what this means; nonetheless, "Not as Bad as Hitler" hardly counts as a character reference, especially for someone who is estimated to have been responsible for the deaths of more Muslims than anyone who has ever lived.

1.   The UN does not exactly have an exemplary record where its sanctions, unanimous or otherwise, are concerned. And, they really have been vindicated where Afghanistan is concerned, haven't they?
2.   Kuwait and Iran, vis-à-vis Iraq's expansionist aspirations, were not contemporary issues, i.e., there was absolutely no chance of Saddam attempting a land-grab. If there had, the US and Britain would not have had to fabricate so many lies in an effort to justify their 'war'. A measure of your desperation to justify that you have to reach back so far, methinks 
3.   Perhaps the now close to one million dead Iraqis as a result of the US and Britains' 'Shock-and-Awe' (read total destruction) invasion and occupation might find the distinction between Hitler and Bush and Blair a little difficult to discern too.

Obviously not. There is no question that the British Government is the legitimate authority, with its duly constituted armed forces being equally legitimate.
Speaking of which, it is notable, I think, that it was the British Government and army which eventually stood up to Hitler in 1939, thereby dividing the German assault onto two fronts and buying crucial time for the Allies to mobilise and prevent them conquering the whole of Europe. And as I noted, and you have ignored, critical to the British effort was e.g. the over 1 million Indian Nationals who volunteered to join the British Army and fight in campaigns stretching from the Far East, to North Africa, and to Europe etc. So once again, would you say these soldiers were "mercenaries"?
Indeed closer to home, would you characterise as "mercenaries" all those hundreds of thousands of Irish men and women who joined the British Army in the First and Second World Wars?

I did draw a distinction between defensive operations and offensive aggression. I would be prepared to give benefit of the doubt to those who signed up in good faith when faced with the Nazi threat. You cant's seem to understand that anyone who signs up at the current time will undoubtedly be involved in overseas offensive operations on the behalf of a country other than their own, ergo, they are mercenaries.

How has this idea arisen that the British Army cannot "parade through a city in Britain" or that "no Britons [want] then to parade through their town or city"? That is a myth, as testified by any number of warmly received parades the length and breadth of the UK.

When was the most recent of those parades in Britain? I've no doubt there was a time, whilst the general populace were still of the opinion that these 'wars' were somewhat noble in nature, that such parades were quite acceptable, even  desirable. That was before they were disabused of such flights of fancy, however.

[mylestheslasher]

Only you could equate a country of extremely poor people with hardly a thing to their name joining the army of the country that was responsible for their woes as being some sort of endorsement for that army. When people have children that are hungry they will do just about anything to put food on the table. Of course there were others that had some sort of idiotic military tradition.

Ah right, so all the millions who have volunteered from all over the world down the centuries were either starving or idiots. Thanks for clearing that one up.

P.S. To which category do those present-day volunteers from the Republic of Ireland belong?

The later.

[Evil Genius]

1.   The UN does not exactly have an exemplary record where its sanctions, unanimous or otherwise, are concerned. And, they really have been vindicated where Afghanistan is concerned, haven't they?

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.

2.   Kuwait and Iran, vis-à-vis Iraq's expansionist aspirations, were not contemporary issues, i.e., there was absolutely no chance of Saddam attempting a land-grab. If there had, the US and Britain would not have had to fabricate so many lies in an effort to justify their 'war'. A measure of your desperation to justify that you have to reach back so far, methinks  

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).

3.   Perhaps the now close to one million dead Iraqis as a result of the US and Britains' 'Shock-and-Awe' (read total destruction) invasion and occupation might find the distinction between Hitler and Bush and Blair a little difficult to discern too.

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.

I did draw a distinction between defensive operations and offensive aggression. I would be prepared to give benefit of the doubt to those who signed up in good faith when faced with the Nazi threat. You cant's seem to understand that anyone who signs up at the current time will undoubtedly be involved in overseas offensive operations on the behalf of a country other than their own, ergo, they are mercenaries.

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?

When was the most recent of those parades in Britain? I've no doubt there was a time, whilst the general populace were still of the opinion that these 'wars' were somewhat noble in nature, that such parades were quite acceptable, even  desirable. That was before they were disabused of such flights of fancy, however.

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.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

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.

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'?

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).

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.

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

[mylestheslasher]

EG - What is your opinion on countries that enabled Sadam to become expansionist for a time. I'm talking about the US, British and Germans that sold Sadam gas that he used 1st against the Iranians in the Iran v Iraq war, a war he started with the blessing of the west for fear of Iran. He then went on to use them against the Kurds after the Iranians had vacated the Kurdish villages of Iraq. Do you see nothing even slightly wrong with arming a mass murder, standing by as he does your dirty deeds and then sending an army in to overthrow him for having "weapons of mass destruction" - weapons your government gave him? Don't you see anything wrong with this picture when millions of people get killed for being in the middle of these little games? This is quite clearly morally wrong.

[Roger]

I am convinced that Roger's rantings about Irish Culture are are more a fear on his behalf, he is so ambivalent and blind towards Irish culture that he cannot even appreciate its values and place within society.  His view is sadly shared by a large amount of Love Ulster types, their paranoia towards Irishness and Irish people is actually dangerous.  It is exactly the kind of rubbish that loyalists have been fed for years by politicians i.e. Dublin is the enemy and hate all things associated with it.  If they say it enough they will believe, sad. 

I have no fear of "Irish Culture", I am Irish.  I just don't like parts of the republican Irish culture which is dominant in the republic and trumpeted by republicans in N Ireland. Can't see how that is dangerous.  Are the frequent ranters on here about other Irish cultures such as Orangism dangerous or is that just a culture that shouldn't be allowed in Ireland and Irish culture? There is a mix of cultures in Ireland, 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, whilst Irishmen have been contributing positively to British culture, country and army for hundreds of years to the present time and are so entwined as someone else on here has said. 

I have however noted that many British Irishmen have a jaundiced view and indeed a prejudice to "Irish" culture in general which has been to their loss.  I would include myself in that, which is nothing to be proud of but I think it's fairly honest approach and not dangerous in the slightest.  I think when people cover up or deny their prejudices it is more dangerous.