Irish Mercenary injured in Afghanistan

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Thu Dec 02, 2010 14:41

it IS 2010 already.

And you are still hypnotised by primitive baubles like crowns. So much that you are prepared to kill in its name without taking the trouble to work out who is pulling your strings.And not even for a decent hit-man's wage.

Aye, the list goes on. Empire on empire till we reach the mother of all parasitic extractors, the nuclear axis of Anglo/US corporate and financial dominance of us all for the wealth and glory of the dynasty that brought us everything from famine and slavery to race-war and drone-dropped depleted uranium on women and kids to ensure monopoly control of 'its' oil..
As another anglo-irishman put it, how do you sleep?

by A Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:11

Why do yo think there are no people from other European countries fighting alongside you?

What's different about Ireland?

by Irish Ranger - Mercanary Thu Dec 02, 2010 03:02

I have no problem with what I am friend, My problem is with those who refuse to "move on" and get over the fact that there are Irishmen/women in service to foreign states. Like I have alrewady stated, there seems to be no "problem" with those who "ply" their "trade" in the ranks of France and America. Why is there such uproar over service to The Crown? This is 2010, not 1910. Build a bridge, get over it and move on.
And btw. There is little monetary gain in the military of ANY nation, If I was fighting for money as is assumed I would have spent the £2500 on a close protection course and joined a private security firm contracted to a country, thereby making a monetary gain and qualifying as a "mercenary". I earn just above minimum wage. What I am is an Irish Soldier in service of The Crown. Like millions before me who have fought and fell for Britian, France, Spain, Germany, America, Russia and the list goes on. Faugh a Ballagh.

by dictioary corner Wed Dec 01, 2010 22:18

"I choose to ply my trade in the UK because the option was not open to me in Ireland."

If you see soldiering as a "trade" and you go wherever you can "ply" it-that is, where people will pay you for your work- then, my friend, you are a mercenary.

You owe no service to the British Crown, you fight because you want to be a soldier in some army. Presumably if the British wouldn't take you you'd go somewhere else.

Why not embrace the fact? Admit you are a mercenary and move on.

by Irish Ranger - Mercenary Wed Dec 01, 2010 16:31

"blinkered by the philosophy and politics of his beloved crown and her armed forces" as you seem to be so farmiliar with the polocies of HM Governemnt and Armed Forces, please, do tell me what is blinkering me? its hardly the blinding hatred of sectarianism and false republicanism that are the politics of the free state. a state and government put into power and kept in power by those who are too lazy or ignorant to look for better options. Who watched on in amazment as the country's economy collapsed around them and then blamed the government, a government that people as quick to forget they themselves voted in, and kept in power. 91 years Ireland stood as an independant nation. now she crawls on her belly to the purse of Angela Merkel. Now, tell me, if I am blinded by the politics of Britian, What has happened to Ireland? or are we "mercenaries" to be held accountable for its collapse also?

I need not your pity friend. however, I in turn, pity your blindness.

God Save Ireland.

by Irish Ranger - Mercenary Wed Dec 01, 2010 16:12

Do you deny me my democratic right to choose?

by Irish Ranger - Mercenary Wed Dec 01, 2010 16:08

I notice that you failed to comment on Irelands commitment to the ISAF Afganistan mission.

by Lord Kitchener at my Hamster. Wed Dec 01, 2010 14:57

Irish Ranger talks about his personal commitment to the crown, his Irishness, and his personal reasons to sign up for deployment in Afghanistan. He doesnt understand that the personal was removed from him when he signed up the the shilling. He is a foolish paddy willing to be cannon fodder for adventure. Pity the fool.

He has witnessed with his own eyes the folly of war and its consequence but is blinkered by the philosophy and politics of his beloved crown and her armed forces. Pity the fool.

He is in pain.

by Irish Ranger - Mercenary Wed Dec 01, 2010 13:52

The only shame to Ireland at this time are those in government. Many, like myself would have joined the Irish Defence Forces if the finance department would have funded the military, grown a spine and moved to discharge the 22 year Private soldiers to make room for new blood. I have no regrets for my past, and my service to The Crown. I was never a "goon" or "lackey" and I am quite assured that None who critisize here spent ANY time in iraq or Afganistan, because if they had they would have seen what I saw. Countries bereft of any future aside from torture at the whim of their respective "leaders". whereas the 1960/70/80's support of both UK and US governments for these regimes in the cold war is alot to blame for the situations at the present time, Both nations soldiers cannot be held accountable for the political stratagems of their governments. To those who imply that SOLDIERS have "right" to say no to their superiors etc, if, by your previous comments, that you all are indeed, intrinsic parts of the Irish Republican movments, you were to, as a member of say, the ira, question your "army counsil" and reject an order, what would the result be? You claim to have your alligence to the ira, an orginisation that ruled the streets by fear and terror. an orginisation which claims to seek the unification of Ireland into a republic that welcomes ALL reguardless of religious view or political inclinaition. yet you seem to be a pack of bitter, small minded bigots riddled with sectarian hatred. how many of you were directly affected by the "occupation" of Ulster?

"terrorist (ˈtɛrərɪst) — n a. a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon " my interest in Iraq or Afganistan is not now, and never was, politically motivated.

If you all, detest Britian as much as you claim, ask yourselves these small questions, do you watch/support football or rugby? do you watch british soaps on tv? eat custard? use a telephone? would you refuse service to a british national in a shop/pub? do you use english or gaeilge in your daily conversations?
I am a Soldier. I am Irish, I was born in Limerick, I was raised in The "republic". I have an Irish accent, Irish parents and an Irish passport. I choose to ply my trade in the UK because the option was not open to me in Ireland. I ask not for forgivness nor do I ask for approval, because I know in my heart that I have NOTHING to be ashamed of. I do not, and never have hated anyone for their beliefs, esp if they are not what I believe. I have a dog, I have a "bird" and I have a home. And I do what I do, so that I do not have to worry that some Islamic "terrorist" can not have the opertunity to take those from me. because be under no illusions. They ARE terrorists.
It seems that you seem to think that all the people fighting against NATO/ISAF forces in Afganistan are local poorly armed/trained farmers valiantly defending their homes from the "murderious allies." Such niaviety is laughable, there have been several arrests of British nationals, german,turkish,russian(chechens) and others after operations in both Iraq and Afgan. And indeed there have been reports confirmed of "Southern Irish voices" heard over the Taliban used airwaves in Afgan.

"soldier : a person who has enlisted with, or has been conscripted into, the armed forces of a sovereign country and has undergone training and received equipment to defend that country or its interests"

The mercenary argument. EVERY serving member of HM Forces gets paid. end of. Does that make everyone in the British Armed Forces a "mercenary"? There seems to be no argument against irishmen fighting for France in The Foreign legion. Or Irish Nationals in the service of America. do your objections against war only apply to those Irishmen/women fighting under the Union Jack?
What about the Irish nationals who have gained a nursing qualification through enlistment in The Queen Alexandras Royal Army Nursing Corp? Do they, who may have unwittingly as a civilian after service treated people who "hate" them also deserve your contempt?
I was incorrect in my initial comment about the government. Those who are a "shame" to Ireland are the bigots, the ignorant, the facist minded minority of Irishmen/women who have destroyed my country with their misguided hate. Those who willingly to deny the rights they so adamantly profess and seek for themselves. Those who would deny democracy for the people they disapprove of, whilst crying their bitter tears because democracy is denied to them.

God Save Ireland.

by Irish Ranger. - Mercenary. Wed Dec 01, 2010 13:11

There are 7 Irish Defence Force Soldiers in Afganistan at this time. The Irish permitting the Americans to use Shannon as a "stop over" for troops bound for the gulf/afgan.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Wed Aug 04, 2010 16:57

Like the Shannon airport authorities?

by wo Wed Aug 04, 2010 16:38

Those who take part in the imperial wars of other states bring shame on all Irish people.

The Irish government could pass a law preventing its citizens joining foreign armies.

Does any political party have a law like that in its manifesto?

by look it up Fri Sep 05, 2008 14:42

I could be wrong, but I don't think the fire service or the police are usually involved in invasions of developing-world countries are they? They hardly do any fighting at all, and the definition of a mercenary is a soldier who fights for money (as opposed to one who fights for ideological reasons or to defend his or her community), so this person fits that definition.

It would be a bit unusual to call someone who lived their whole life in Dublin before joining the British army an immigrant. Unless you mean an immigrant to Afghanistan? He did not join the Afghan army though, which could have been a possible route to making Afghanistan a better place, if you buy all that stuff. He chose instead to enlist in the British army and go wherever he was sent and do whatever he was told to do.

For money and adventure reasons.

Given the history of the British army over the last five years or so, he could hardly be described as an idealist.

by Arthur Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:54

While I recognise many people's distaste at someone from Ireland joining the British Army and I thouroughly disagree with the adventurism currently ongoing in Iraq and to a lesser degree, but still a disagreement with, in Afghanistan, I think the hyperbole of calling these people "mercenaries" denigrates your argument rather than augmenting it.

A country's army, navy etc. are its defence forces and indeed its security forces too. Many armies do use mercenaries and the "security companies" in Iraq are a despicable example of this.

However, to extend your logic any Irish person working in a public security force for a foregn country is a mercenary; that would make the many Irish women and men in police and indeed fire services in Britain and the US [of which there are many] "mercenaries".

I'd call them "immigrants" contributing to the society they live in. You may disagree with the military of a particular country, as is your and mine right, but I think it's grossly unfair to them to label them as mercenaries. We can disagree with their master's motives without bringing our level of argument to that low.

by gallowglass Thu Sep 04, 2008 23:21

Soldier fom "Royal Irish Regiment" killed in Afghanistan

according to the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7598896.stm

They are describing him as a British Soldier.

In the week when the NATO admitted killing civilians in Afghanistan, hopefully his family won't be too devastated at the use his life was put to.

by ger Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:37

Whatever about the lunatics and backwoodsmen who left the bomb in Omagh (and the Geneva Convention regards as a war crime only a "deliverate" attack on the civilian population) in 1998, you havee too admit that they are fighting for a clearly defined objective, on principle, and in their own country.

They are wrong. Their actions are hindering the advent of a united Ireland, and there is an alternative available to them in that they could pursue their objectives by political means. They are deeply riddled with informers, and there is a strong possibility at the very least, that the Omagh bomb could have been prevented, but whatever else you can say about them, they are not mercenaries.

This Dublin man who was injured will go anywhere he is sent and kill anyone he is told to. For money and adventure.

by Jed Fri Aug 22, 2008 02:14

I notice the people who condemn this guy and berate him for his "war crimes" were all very quiet on another recent Indy story detailing the tribute to the Omagh dead.
Maybe you would like to go to that story and condemn the "war criminals" who happily slaughtered their fellow countrymen and women, born and unborn, and scarred hundreds of other fellow Irishmen and women physically and mentally. After all, the people who did this claim to be combatants fighting a war. And by your definition soldiers who attack unarmed civilians are war criminals. Then surely you have no quibbles about berating the RIRA who planned and executed the Omagh massacre as war criminals as well? Or does that just apply when its combatants outside your Republican beliefs?

by realist Wed Aug 20, 2008 16:27

"The solider joined the army to see the world and make a difference,"

Yeah so Concern, Goal, MSF and all the other aid agencies and NGO's weren't taking any applications then?

Or does the difference have to be the sort you make with a rifle?

He is a mercenary. He doesn't care about the people of Afghanistan, and neither do his paymasters, who were happy to deal with the Taliban up to 2001. They will send soldiers wherever it is in their economic interest to do so- Gordon Brown has said he will send british soldiers to secure oil interests in Nigeria.

The IRA fought for Ireland. You may not agree with them, but they were not mercenaries like this deluded character.

by people Wed Aug 20, 2008 15:36

I have read all your comments and im absolutely disgusted with some of you. 1 Comment read that they would not shed a tear if they seen his coffin. this is a person at the end of the day with a family. you disgust me. Would you shed a tear if a member a member of the ira? there crimes were far worse that this soldiers

There are alot of young men just like him that have joined the irish army and have since transferred into the royal irish rangers in the british army because of the simple fact that we are a neutral country and the irish army does nothing.

The solider joined the army to see the world and make a difference, i know this because i know the soldier in question. he is fighting in afghanistan to bring an end to the rain of terror that has been there for years. innocent people are being murdered every day and if it takes an army to go in and resolve this then i am all for it regardless of there nationality

i am disgusted with comments made against this soldier, do not presume you know him simply because of an article. if he was looking for glory and praise, surely he would be grasping at his 15 minutes of fame since he was injured but instead he hasent spoken out about it. he wants to get on with his life

I admire his courage to do the job of his choice when though that may lead him into severe danger. Some of you do not know what the word courage means

If one of your family or friends decided to join the british army, would you decide you didnt care if they lived or died? of course not so grow up. this is not old ireland, we are no longer at war with the british. grow up and move on

by Custard Fri Aug 08, 2008 16:37

Whilst on the subject of the courageous freedom loving Irish fighters , then let us also remember that it was our lads who assisted in the slaughter of hundreds of the Native Americans!

by Sceptic Fri Aug 08, 2008 09:38

“biggest and most evil empire the world has ever known”

Biggest by some measures maybe but hardly the most evil. In terms of comparisons of the treatment of subject people’s the Japanese, Belgian and Portuguese empires were very much worse. The USSR was arguably an empire of sorts and its record was pretty horrendous by liberal or humanitarian standards, certainly very much more oppressive than the British. Ditto the nazi occupation of parts of europe and the USSR. The writer reveals his Anglophobia which would cloud his judgment on the merits of the argument about this particular solder who was an enlisted man and not a hired assassin. References to the “Butchers Apron” merely confirm an atavistic and narrow minded Anglophobia. In fact the flag is a superimposition of the crosses of the various saints of constituent parts of the UK. It is a symbol of inclusion which is one reason many Irish and Scots fought in the British forces over the centuries.

by volunteer Thu Aug 07, 2008 01:41

Right lets get things straight here. this guy is a hired goon, a paid assasin, a lackey, cannon fodder for the biggest and most evil empire the world has ever known. The way people were goin on there ya swear it was 1914 all over again. Yer man the Righteous Pragtemist up above would have been urging people to over and fight other peoples battles while we had our own problems here.he let his argument fall at the final hurdle there. I was readin it goin where is this goin,but i find in this argument,it can be stripped down to,
Are you a supporter of imperialists and their war machines and cronies
Or are you for the people who resist to this for their liberty and pride(without pay).
we all know the human side, he has a family, a bird, maybe even a cuddley dog but the reality is, if it was 15years ago up the north there is no doubt i would not shed a tear seeing his coffin going off covered in the Butchers apron.

by baghram Tue Aug 05, 2008 17:52

You seem to have to a great deal of trouble to find a definition that suits you, but please explain- if there is nothing wrong with it- why are going to such lengths to avoid calling him by what he clearly is- a mercenary. He is a hired soldier who fights for money and adventure. Do you think he is there for the cause of human rights or out of some sort of conviction? Come on...

by jager996 Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:20

A much abused word this, particularly in the mouths of the Left. A simple definition, and the one they seem to favour, is that of a hired foreign soldier and this seems sufficient for many people who wish to denigrate the likes of young Mr Martn Delaney mentioned above. There is however a comprehensive UN accepted definition of what a Mercenary actually is according to International law (and the Geneva Convention) and under that definition Mr Delaney and other British soldiers from the republic are definitely NOT mercenaries, no more than were the many tens of thousands of Irishmen who served in the British and other allied forces in WW2.
Briefly, there are a number conditions to be fullflled but prominent amongst them are that the soldier should have been hired to participate in one specific conflict and that he be hired under different terms of service and renumeration to that of members of the enlisting countries armed forces. To me, these two conditions in particular are at the centre of what a mercenary is. I'm not going to detail all of the other conditions but clearly on the basis of the ones I've just mentioned he cannot be a mercenary. He is a member of a country's regular armed forces and serves under exactly the same terms of service (including renumeration) as his colleagues. Furthermore, he has not enlisted for a particular conflict but will serve wherever and however he is directed.

To put this in perspective, compare him to a member of a Private Military Company such as Executive Outcomes serving in say, Sierra Leone a few years ago, an entirely different scenario and these men were clearly mercenaries, not that there is necessarilly anything wrong with that you understand. Anyway, the best of luck to Martin Delaney for a speedy recovery from his wounds and to all NATO soldiers serving in Afghanistan.

by Lemuel Sat Jul 26, 2008 21:53

There is by definition no such thing as an unpaid mercenary.

mer·ce·nar·y
–noun
3. a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.
4. any hireling.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mercenary

As far as I know, the Irishmen who fought in the Spanish civil war went as volunteers, and so you may call them many things - e.g. republicans or loyalists, nationalists or fascists, freedom-fighters or idealistic dreamers - but not mercenaries.

by bird watcher Sat Jul 26, 2008 15:45

Sceptic, why do you keep claiming that citizens of other European countries can fight with the British army? You must know it's a lie.

Quote: In a statement yesterday, the MoD said stiffly: "We have no plans to change our recruitment rules." These state that only British and Commonwealth nationals can join the British army; other foreigners must live here for five years and then take citizenship.

Yet the MoD acknowledged this was not the full story. There is what it called "special dispensation for people from the Republic of Ireland".

The Guardian,
19th March 2008
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/19/military1

As for those who are comparing the occupation of Afghanistan to the Spanish Civil War, what would you call the German and Italian troops who fought for Franco? Mercenaries? Then so were the Irish men who fought in Spain. People who fight in foreign armies are mercenaries. Get over it.

by Bazooka Joe Sat Jul 26, 2008 15:41

Justin Morahan wishes this British soldier a speedy recovery? I do not. My sympathies and best wishes are with the Afghanis who face these NATO/ISAF thugs every day and give them hell.

Good luck to the Afghanis in their resistance. I wonder how Mr Delanies family would like it if some gang decided to come into their home in Ministers Park in Lusk and attack them like the RIR and their Crusader chums do in Afghanistan? Would they resist? Would they term such home invaders mercenaries of just plain thugs with guns? But lets hope that doesn't happen, justified retribution as it may well be, one would not wish to wear out the prayers of Justin Morahan for such fine people!!!!

by Jim Sat Jul 26, 2008 14:48

There is no conflict that Irishmen have not fought in.
Irish warriors served as mercenaries in Roman armies.
Irish mercenaries are mentioned in the Shakespeare play Macbeth.
During the Crusades Anglo-Irish nobles along with other Europeans fought the Saracens in the Holy Land.
Irish fought in the armies of the various kings and queens of Europe during the wars of religion.
Irishmen fought with the Spanish Armada and fought with the Royal Navy too.
After the defeat in 1690 Irishmen fought in the ranks of various European armies or they fought in India and Africa in the ranks of the British Army.
Irishmen wore British redcoats and also fought on the side the American colonists during the American War of Independence.
Irishmen.
There were Irish wearing British Red and French Blue during the Napoleonic Wars.
Irishmen fought for Italian unification and fought to protect the Papal States.
The Blue and Grey armies of the American Civil War had Irish units.
Irishmen fought with Custer against the Redman.
Irishmen were cattlemen and railroad tycoons and gunslingers and fought one another.
Irishmen fought the Zulu at Islandwana and the Mahdi at Omdurman and carried on up the Kyber and in the Crimea.
There were Irish on the side of the Boers and fighting against the Boers.
Irishmen fought the Hun at the Somme and Johnny Turk near Basra and Sulva Bay.
Irishmen fought as rebels and as British soldier during Easter 1916.
Irishmen were IRA and RIC, Irregulars and Staters.
Irishmen fought on the side of the Whites and the Reds on the Russian steppes.
They died on hot Spanish hills for Socialist Brotherhood or for Catholic Spain.
Irishmen went ashore at Juno and Sword and Iwo-Jima.
Others fought in German field-grey with SS insignia on their lapels on the Eastern Front.
Irishmen fought in the cold mountains of Korea, the stinking jungles of Vietnam as French Foreign Legionaires or US grunts.
They fought as hired guns for African liberation movements or dictators.
Irishmen yomped across the Falklands.
Irishmen fought to liberate Kuwait and later Baghdad.
Today they fight on wherever there is a scrap.

They come home again and again and again with a mysterious tan and few words and look for no sympathy.

by Sceptic Sat Jul 26, 2008 14:13

Describing a foreign volunteer as a “mercenary” is to ignore the distinction between this category and mercenaries. Really this controversy is about bad grace and small minded Anglophobia from the usual quarters. Describing the British forces as terrorist while presumably holding the PIRA to be a proper army and not terrorist is just part of the usurpation of language to try to invert reality to your distorted world view. Besides being in the British forces is not incompatible with republicanism. Or are Tom Barry, James Connolly, Emmet Dalton and Erskine Childers all “mercenaries” by the same token? And in any case there is no inherent conflict between being Irish and serving in the forces of our neighbours. It’s a lot better than wearing black hoods in graveyards each easter and going on ad nauseam about your various victimhoods, grievances, resentments and hatreds.

“It does not accept recruits from any other European country. They make an exception for the Republic of Ireland, counting it as a "commonwealth" country.”
This is not right – it accepts recruits from non-commonwealth places as well. Anyway ROI would have a special status as an ex UK area as it does also in the common travel area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary

by Mike - Judean Popular Peoples Front Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:10

Show me one square foot of land on this earth that hasn’t been "stolen" by one person/group of people from another person/group of people at any point in time.

As for Irish people listing in foreign armies being "mercenaries" what of the thousands of Irish people who fought in the Spanish civil war?

Were they:
1) Soldiers ?
2) Mercenaries ?
3) Depends on which side they fought ?

by Buckbowski Fri Jul 25, 2008 17:21

He was fighting for a terrorist organisation which repeatedly, illegally, invades other countries and as yet has failed to learn its lesson. However I do wish the lad a speedy recovery and hopefully, during his recovery, he can develop a sense of decency.

As for the Northern Ireland issue, the unionists are in possession of stolen property and therefore their opinion as to who should govern the land, is completely irrelevant. As with all issues of theft, the land should be returned, peacefully, to its rightful owners - the people of Ireland. And if they dont like it there is plenty of room for them on the "mainland"!

by Lemuel Gulliver IV Fri Jul 25, 2008 17:11

My condolences to all who have suffered injury or loss of loved ones in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else. I don't know who suffers more, civilians or soldiers, but I wish all may know an end to suffering.

Having said that, I would say that courage and wisdom are mutually independent dimensions of the human spirit.

Four illustrations:
1. The British soldiers fighting the Afghan resistance in this latest attempt to conquer Afghanistan are courageous but unwise, for they have learnt little from the failures of previous British and Soviet campaigns.

2. The Afghan civilians who fled to Pakistan when NATO forces invaded their country were wise but not courageous.

3. The crew of an aircraft that bombs an Afghan wedding party are neither courageous nor wise.

4. And the five peace activists who took hammers to a military aircraft parked at Shannon Airport in February 2003 were both wise and courageous, for they risked imprisonment to save the lives of soldiers and civilians in the impending invasion of Iraq.

by wiki Fri Jul 25, 2008 14:18

-What word would you use to describe a soldier in a foreign army?”
"Just that – an enlistee or officer cadet who is foreign born. "

The dictionary however, calls them mercenaries.

mer·ce·nar·y - (from Old French mercenaire, from Latin mercēnnārius, from mercēs, wages, price.)
A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

"Contrary to another assertion above most European defence forces will accept enlistees from other European States "

Whatever "most European defence forces might do, it's the The British army that is being discussed here. It does not accept recruits from any other European country. They make an exception for the Republic of Ireland, counting it as a "commonwealth" country. It would be possible by legislation to prevent Irish citizens from serving in foreign armies, and it says a lot about Ireland that we don't do that.

For those who are suffering from what the Australians call "colonial cringe" at the moment- try this thought experiment: Imagine if someone from Dublin had been injured fighting with the Taliban. How would the mainstream media describe this person?

by Sceptic Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:31

Questions

“What word would you use to describe a soldier in a foreign army?”
Just that – an enlistee or officer cadet who is foreign born. Contrary to another assertion above most European defence forces will accept enlistees from other European States unless there is a national service requirement in their own country that is unfulfilled though the French Foreign Legion would overlook that.

“What motivates people to fight for foreign armies, if not money (and maybe a youthful desire for "adventure")?
The desire for adventure does not need to be confined to the youthful. What motivates anyone take up any livelihood? It will be a mix of factors. Few people would join the militarily to become rich – it is not well remunerated job. The opposite is the case – people who enlist are not financially motivated at all. Idealism would be a motivating factor for many people – putting the world to rights in various trouble spots. Serving a worthy cause etc.

“Why did the UN (in reality the US and NATO ) not care about Afghanistan and the Taliban before the attacks of September 2001?”
The UN can only really care about what its major members care about. The US did not care greatly about the Taliban prior to Sept 11 because it was not apparent how dangerous and ambitious the terrorists they were protecting were. The attacks and the Al Qaeda presence gave a legitimate cause to intervene. That said there is a legitimate point that the international community including the US should have done more to assist Afghanistan following the Soviet pullout.

by Justin Morahan Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:15

As an attempting pacifist, I symapthise with Martin Delaney on his injuries and wish him a speedy recovery

by Raewald - none Wed Jul 23, 2008 23:25

Martin Delaney is a brave soldier no matter how you word your pro sf/ira editorial.

by Rghteous Pragmatist Wed Jul 23, 2008 22:08

The majority of people in Northern Ireland have consistently voted for pro-UK parties and this demonstrates that the majority of people in Northern Ireland want to remain part of the UK.

The IRA were attempting to force the majority in Northern Ireland to accept Irish unification against their will (the repression of Catholics by Protestant did not justify further injustice).

The IRA did not recognise the democratically elected Dail Eireann or the legitimacy of the Republic of Ireland or the will of the majority of people in the 26 counties to pursue political reunification of Ireland by peaceful negotiation with Northern Protestants.

What tactics did the IRA use?
Did they limit their attacks to members of the British Army or the RUC and obey the rules of war by sparing civilians?

No. They deliberately targetted innocent men women and children and used these atrocities and the threat of further atrocities to attempt to force political change in Ireland.

They excused their crimes because Loyalists and British forces killed civilians too which made cold-blooded murder justifiable in their eyes.

So no I would not support the "armed struggle" if that's what you mean.

Northern Ireland in 1968 when the violence began was riven with corruption of the democratic system but so too was the Southern United States.

Martin Luther King used non-violence to force the government to give blacks their rights.

The Civil Rights Movement in Northern Ireland was infiltrated and eventually hijacked by SF/IRA who has a undemocratic socialist revolutionary agenda.

SF/IRA retains its undemocratic socialist revolutionary agenda and has merely made a strategic not a moral decision to give up violence (for now) and use democratic means.

If SF/IRA loses seats, the Adams/McGuinness wing will lose ground to dissidents who are already threatening the lives of civil servants working for the new Stormont government.

Therefore I would support young Irishmen in ranks of the British Army fighting the Taliban and I would not support self-styled heroes fighting a cause that has a been a dead end for the past 30 years.

Besides no Irish government is going to occupy the six counties against the will of a hostile loyalist majority that would transform this island into a Bosnian-style hellhole.

by A10 Wed Jul 23, 2008 22:05

But not if they are a minority fighting against a majority decision of the people of Ireland over the last 75 years not to reclaim a part that was decided to stay with the British empire for whatever reasons by force of arms.
Nor is anyone "fighting for Irish freedom "anymore...It is more like fighting to smuggle diesel,grugs,and knee cap anyone who gets in the way of profit,er sorry Irish freedom.
The war is over...Go home.

by JJ O' Kelly Wed Jul 23, 2008 21:02

Do you support Irish men and women when they fight for our own freedom?

by Righteous Pragmatist Wed Jul 23, 2008 19:32

Irishmen have fought for the freedom of oppressed people time and again.

For American Independence, freedom from Spanish colonial rule in South America, to free black slaves from the Confederates, on the side of the Boers, for the freedom of small nations in the Great War, against the Nazis and the Japanese in the Second World War, against communism in Korea and Vietnam.

Today Irishmen fight for the freedom of Iraqis and Afghans against the tyranny of Islamic fundementalism.

Sad are the eyes
Yet no tears
The flight of the wild geese
Brings a new hope

Rescued from all this
Old friends
And those newly found
What chance to make it last

When there's danger all around
And reason just ups and disappears

Time is running out
So much to be done
Tell me what more
What more
What more can we do.

There were promises made
Plans firmly laid
Now madness prevails
And lies fill the air.

What more, Oh
What more
What more can we do.
What chance to make it last

What more
What more can we do.

by Mike - Judean Popular Peoples Front Wed Jul 23, 2008 19:12

What motivates people to fight for foreign armies, if not money (and maybe a youthful desire for "adventure")?

A strong belief (albeit in many cases misguided) in what that army may have been percieved as fighting for ?

What motivated the Polish people who joined the British army in 1939 ?

And (assuming we are talking about countries with no national service/military slavery) there are few concievable motives for anyone chosing to fight for their OWN countries military other than those already discussed or being brainwashed with patriotism.

by JJ O'Kelly Wed Jul 23, 2008 18:22

He is am Irishman in the employ of the very military which brought war on the Irish people and continues to occupy part of his country. A disgrace whatever else you call him.

by A10 Wed Jul 23, 2008 18:04

When you have been working long enough,you lose any of the crappy naive alturistic youthful ideas you might have on world changing.Please do take an intrest in your work,somone smarter and more ruthless and better at arse kissing will use it to climb their career ladder.
Yes if somone offered more money to change my job,of course I would take it.It's called getting on in the World and career promotion.I'm sure you might have heard of it?????

Anon.Amazing that propaganda line.Ever hear this one by another Irishman[GB Shaw]
Irish history is somthing the English should always remember ,and the Irish should try and forget."

Maybe if pure,republic innocent Ireland could have actually provided jobs and work,maybe all these tratiourous Irish men wouldnt have run off to take the Queens shilling? Bury the Provo line, it is old hat,and your enemy is now to be found in Brussells,not Westminister anymore.

by septic Wed Jul 23, 2008 17:37

What word would you use to describe a soldier in a foreign army?

What motivates people to fight for foreign armies, if not money (and maybe a youthful desire for "adventure")?

Why did the UN ( in reality the US and NATO ) not care about Afghanistan and the Taliban before the attacks of September 2001?

by Sceptic Wed Jul 23, 2008 17:27

A person who enlists in the armed forces, even if not in his country of origin, is not a mercenary. If you adopt a definition of payment for services then every professional soldier, even if serving in forces of his own county, would be a mercenary which would be absurd.

Afghanistan is not being occupied. Under UN mandate friendly foreign forces are assisting in stabilizing and nation building. It is a worthy and noble endeavour. Another Islamist takeover of Afghanistan would be a disaster for any sort of progress especially the position of women and girls.

by career girl Wed Jul 23, 2008 16:55

That's pretty sad A10, that you work solely for the money. Most of us have some interest in what we are doing, or feel we are improving the world in some way by our work.

Presumably if a higher bidder came along you'd drop what you are doing and jump too their tune. I hear there is lots of money too be made in Iraq at the minute- have you considered that ?

by anon Wed Jul 23, 2008 16:09

But unlike this gun for hire, we are not all voluntary paid members of a foreign imperialist army that, incidentally, has an appalling record of murder and mayhem on this fair isle of ours. Followers of the butcher's apron.

by A10 Wed Jul 23, 2008 15:52

of Mercenaries.All of us who work then are in that category.We are hirlings or work solely for monetary gain.

by grammar Wed Jul 23, 2008 15:26

http://www.answers.com/mercenary&r=67

mer·ce·nar·y (mûr'sə-nĕr'ē) pronunciation
n., pl. -ies.

One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.

by Richard J Daley Wed Jul 23, 2008 15:22

Surely the word "mercenary" is a noun, at least when it is used in that context? i.e. that Irishman is a mercenary.