120 Irish troops to join EU battle group

johntrenchard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
991
The point is that under the ridiculous 'Triple Lock', the US, UK, France, Russia and China can prevent Ireland deploying troops on missions that the government wants to join.

Are you happy that ultimate decision on the deployment of Irish troops is subject to veto in Washington, London, Paris, Moscow and Beijing?

Any such decision should be for the Cabinet and the Dail alone.
darn good point.


Our politicians use the UN and EU to hide behind with regards to our defence forces.

The more courageous thing would be to come flat out and argue for NATO membership. And put it to a vote. Instead we get backdoor stuff via this "UN" that controls our defence policy.

Cant think of any other country in the world that has such a craven attitude with regards to its military.
 


Aspherical123

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
2,579
Why are they in the Nordic battle group when they dont have the training or equipment for such a theatre?

They must be borrowing alot of gear.

The UK-Dutch Battlegroup would be a more logical choice.
 

Passer-by

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
1,428
Why are they in the Nordic battle group when they dont have the training or equipment for such a theatre?

They must be borrowing alot of gear.

The UK-Dutch Battlegroup would be a more logical choice.
There isn't much peace keeping to do in Scandinavia these days. :)

The Battle Group is on standby for deployment outside the EU. It could be anywhere depending on where the UN, the European Council and the governments of their respective member states want to deploy them.
 

former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,492

Aspherical123

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
2,579
There isn't much peace keeping to do in Scandinavia these days. :)

The Battle Group is on standby for deployment outside the EU. It could be anywhere depending on where the UN, the European Council and the governments of their respective member states want to deploy them.
But if potentially needed also in the nordic battlegroups theatre, which is why they also have trained in arctic warfare using vehicles like the bandvagen etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandvagn_206
 
Last edited:

Dohville

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
2,516
Why are they in the Nordic battle group when they dont have the training or equipment for such a theatre?

They must be borrowing alot of gear.

The UK-Dutch Battlegroup would be a more logical choice.
Can you imagine the wailing and grinding of teeth if it was revealed that the "free state army" was "under the command of crown forces"?

However, they have the training, and they have the gear. This isn't the first time they have trained in with the Nordic Battle Group.
 

Aspherical123

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
2,579
Can you imagine the wailing and grinding of teeth if it was revealed that the "free state army" was "under the command of crown forces"?

However, they have the training, and they have the gear. This isn't the first time they have trained in with the Nordic Battle Group.
They dont have Bandvagns or other cold weather gear or other things like helos, engineering eqiupment, top cover needed to support such a force.

The Nordic Battlegroup has its Operational Headquarters (OHQ) in Northwood, outside London. It also has UK land force generals in command postions.

The EU Battlegroup Concept and the Nordic Battlegroup


Sweden also contributes the main portion of the force, the core of which is a mechanised infantry battalion.

The infantry battalion can be reinforced with support resources such as engineering, logistics, anti-aircraft, intelligence, transport helicopter, medical or mine clearance units. Should the need arise, combat aircraft with an airbase unit or special forces can also be deployed.
 
Last edited:

Luke McFadden

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
30
the Irish on UN missions carry out what duties are assigned to them diligently for the most part but also contribute a lot to local economies by buying gifts for their loved ones back home from local merchants and consuming large quantities of drink and food, that helps a lot as foreign currencies, dollars and euros in particular, are manna from heaven in countries in such crisis that they require a UN presence. Irish UN units also provided medical/dental facilities for the use of civilians in war-ravaged zones and were impartial ... the contribution was and probably still is more humanitarian than military ...
 

sidney higginbottom

Active member
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
282
the Irish on UN missions carry out what duties are assigned to them diligently for the most part but also contribute a lot to local economies by buying gifts for their loved ones back home from local merchants and consuming large quantities of drink and food, that helps a lot as foreign currencies, dollars and euros in particular, are manna from heaven in countries in such crisis that they require a UN presence. Irish UN units also provided medical/dental facilities for the use of civilians in war-ravaged zones and were impartial ... the contribution was and probably still is more humanitarian than military ...
so send 500 gap year students or nuns and give them a €1000 'trinket allowance' - by and large they don't cost the kind of money that training and equipping a 500 man infantry battalion costs.

i fear you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of the most basic building blocks of peacekeeping operations - and that you actually believe some of the crap you might read about Irish units having a 'unique capability' that no other units have, because, as we all know, Irish units are the only units in the world that a) actually carry out their mandate, b) buy stuff locally c) provide local humanitarian assistance and support even when its not neccesarily in the mandate, and d) don't flog all their weapons, equipment, vehicles, fuel, and ammunition to local beligerants or gangsters.

the unpallatable truth is that every single army in Europe generally does as good a job on UN/EU/NATO PK ops as the Irish Army, as do the Indians, Canadians, Americans, Australians, Brazilians and New Zealanders.
 

Luke McFadden

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
30
dear Sidney, my point was that the humanitarian orientation of an operation is crucial. I didn't say the Irish UN men on the ground are any better or any worse than anyone else, I said we carry out our tasks diligently for the most part. And I didn't read about it, I served as an infantryman with an Irish UN battalion in the 1980s in Lebanon. Where did you serve?
 

sidney higginbottom

Active member
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
282
Where did you serve?
Bosnia - UNPROFOR and IFOR, Kosovo with KFOR, Sierra Leone with OP PALLISER.

PK jobs aren't difficult - they might be occasionally exasperating, but they aren't technically difficult - the only two difference between units that succed and units that fail (assuming the mandate/force concentration actually allows them to succeed) is a commitment by the political leadership of the contributing force to actually fulfill the mandate, rather than sit in patrol bases collecting the UN fees, and a commitment by the chain of command within the force contributor that this is a serious job that will be done to the best of their ability.

we probably both have examples of units where neither was obviously the case, and i'm prety sure they'd be the same culprits....
 

Luke McFadden

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
30
good man Sidney, you've seen quite a bit of the world fair play to you. I would say that peacekeeping is a very modern development whereby civilian populations request impartially and any level of impartially is extremely difficult to achieve in the very imperfect world we live in. The French were quickly taken away from operational UN duties when they went into Lebanon in 1978 because they were not impartial. As the former colonial power in that region they were playing with a loaded hand so to speak, were engaging in fire-fights with various militas and siding one hundred percent with the Israelis. The subsequent make-up of UNIFIL tried to rectify that level of impartiality by including countries with no bone to pick, like Ireland, Nepal, Ghana, Norway, Holland etc. It's a difficult balance to strike but the natives were more receptive to a military presence that did not have a colonial or biased nature. It's a new concept in the long history of human conflict, the blue-beret wearing soldier who is risking his or her life for the tenets set out in the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights, the basic principles of the UN. Consequentially, we have to take the 'softly softly' route when cast into the chaos of a war-zone with traumatised civilians and little if any central government.

I see Richardson, the British general who was tasked in 2000 with evacuating Freetown was recently given the top job of overall C-I-C. He went beyond his remit and took on the RUF and the West Side Boys with brilliant results, saved thousands of people from getting slaughtered and I think only lost one paratrooper in the process. The Royal Irish Regiment were there as well and I know two lads from County Kilkenny and County Waterford who were out there and loosed off a few rounds from their at-that-time dodgey SA80s. That was a fantastic decision by Gen Richards that saved the lives of many ordinary, decent Africans and they'll be grateful to him for a long time I'm sure.

There's a place and time for every kind of intervention, from a more laid-back, impartial and friendly approach as is often typified by Irish DF contributions, to the more offensive type of operation that Richards led in Sierra Leone in defiance of Tony Blair and his cabinet (after the operation was a great success Blair, ever the opportunist, claimed the glory for Richard's inititive.) If we had Richards and a brigade of men available when Rwanda kicked off there would have been a very different outcome.

As the old people used to say in the midlands village I come from, every cripple has his own way of walking ...
 

Edmund Blackadder

Active member
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
230
This is so much s**t, there isnt and will never be an EU army, lets be straight about this, there is only two guys in Europe that can force entry, england and france, france is a maybe. As I am married to a brit i'l tell you who the brits would fight for, 1 themselves and colonys, 2 ireland (some self interst and they are considered kin), 3 Canada, oz, nz, us, (kin) 4 norway (always have) portugal (oldest ally) belize, singapore (obliged with 5PA) brunie. france maybe if threat from east and maybe a future threat to uk, the rest...........never. lets look at a scenario, current dispute ref fishing between denmark and canada, only countrys that can back up eu with force? uk France, can u imagine telling the f#ing brits to fight canada? the reply (when they had finished laughing) would be a missile in brussels. look at their strategic posture, echelon, 5 eyes all of it is uk, us, can, oz, nz, you really think herman van nobody thinks the brits wouldnt nuke the continent before throwing a rock at canada?
 

Edmund Blackadder

Active member
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
230
This is so much s**t, there isnt and will never be an EU army, lets be straight about this, there is only two guys in Europe that can force entry, england and france, france is a maybe. As I am married to a brit i'l tell you who the brits would fight for, 1 themselves and colonys, 2 ireland (some self interst and they are considered kin), 3 Canada, oz, nz, us, (kin) 4 norway (always have) portugal (oldest ally) belize, singapore (obliged with 5PA) brunie. france maybe if threat from east and maybe a future threat to uk, the rest...........never. lets look at a scenario, current dispute ref fishing between denmark and canada, only countrys that can back up eu with force? uk France, can u imagine telling the f#ing brits to fight canada? the reply (when they had finished laughing) would be a missile in brussels. look at their strategic posture, echelon, 5 eyes all of it is uk, us, can, oz, nz, you really think herman van nobody thinks the brits wouldnt nuke the continent before throwing a rock at canada?

even more comedy.............ireland withdraws from common fishing treaty, eu asigns naval assets to "protect" spanish fishing fleet, uk warships in area as consider uk water (british isles inc gb + ri) who do you think the uk warship sinks? escalates, uk sides with ireland as political scene in uk demands, eu sends assets, uk ssn sink assets, tlam on ranging eu air bases, canada patrols west of ire water.................cant be assed with this, its a no brainer, e.u. army is horse s**t
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,330
I like the assuredness of the ideas expressed blackadder.
 

firefly123

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
27,994
Ok lads. No more call of duty: Modern warfare for ye! Off to bed now and dream of world peace!
Too many Facebook friends in Germany for us to fall for the evil 'hun' thing again.
 

Edmund Blackadder

Active member
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
230
I like the assuredness of the ideas expressed blackadder.
.....................................................dont back me, put one out there on a gb board, ie if you have to choose between ireland or canada and say romania, who will the uk back? I could have said france but that would be just teasing. . . . what happened to the french navy in ww2?
 

yobosayo

Well-known member
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
3,311
Does one need a secret decoder ring in order to open the triple lock?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top