Irish Army In Chad

elvis jaffacake

Hagar wrote: »

This is Chad, I can't see Lislea or Dominic McGlinchy on the map anywhere, please try get back on topic. Thanks.

There's a place in Nigeria called lisleanna, if that's close enough?:D

eroo

elvis jaffacake wrote: »

Your of course right, except the ERU was not "formed" so much as a renamed unit (the old STF), and given extra job's, the same way the wing traces their history back to the 60's although they only formed up in 1980.:)


waitaminute...your that kid "eroo" from IMO?...jeez were you even born then?......I feel old

Well,the ERU weren't there,the Special Task Force were..completely different I would say!As for 'your that kid from IMO',just because you were alive then doesn't make you a ****ing expert!Same goes for other users on that site who shoot down anyone 'below them' or anyone who isn't a ****ing know it all...in other words no open discussion...on a DISCUSSION forum!

NoQuarter

Hagar wrote: »

This is Chad, I can't see Lislea or Dominic McGlinchy on the map anywhere, please try get back on topic. Thanks.

hmmmm......is lake chad actually in nigeria??!?;):p

arybvtcw0eolkf

king-stew wrote: »

hmmmm......is lake chad actually in nigeria??!?;):p

WAS... It was in Nigeria..

Its in Parnell St. now

Hagar

Thread re-opened by user request.

Please stay on topic this time.

eroo

Minister seeks Chad date for troops

Minister for Defence Willie O'Dea will today seek a definite date to deploy Irish troops to Chad when he visits the mission's headquarters in Paris.

Fifty members of the elite Army Ranger Wing are expected to get the go-ahead to travel to the war-torn country next week after being delayed by rebel activity since February 1.

Mr O'Dea will hold talks with the operation's commander, Co Limerick native Lieutenant General Pat Nash.

His spokeswoman said: "The minister will receive detailed briefings on the operation plan and rules of engagement for the mission for which 450 Irish troops will be deployed.

"He will seek a definitive date for deployment of the Rangers and receive intelligence briefings on rebel activity in the area of operations.

"He will also seek assurances that Irish troops will be safe."

Mr O'Dea has described this mission as one of the most challenging ever undertaken by the defence forces.

Irish troops will be protecting more than 400,000 refugees and internally displaced people who have fled their homes due to the conflict in Darfur.

The ultimate aim is to create the conditions to allow them to return to their homes.

Mr O'Dea will meet the French deputy defence minister in Paris to discuss recent political developments in relation to the mission.

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/mheyidgbcwid/

Sean/Telnor

eroo wrote: »

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/mheyidgbcwid/

<A Quick Note - Thanks for re-opening the Fourm - please just kick any trouble makers that dont heed warnings from it, if needs be.>

I was reading on the Tele-Text news, that the Minister of defence had the meeting and now the date is set for next Thursday
.

OS119

Sean/Telnor wrote: »

I was reading on the Tele-Text news, that the Minister of defence had the meeting and now the date is set for next Thursday
.

so the go/no meeting go is at the end of next week and the initial deployment will be a week or so after that?

it might be me being cynical, but does anyone get the feeling that this is being kicked into the grass to give the rebels in Chad enough time to carve up the country and make the situation there so unstable that the whole op will 'regretably' have to cancelled as the ground situation is not 'permissive enough'?

Sean/Telnor

OS119 wrote: »

it might be me being cynical, but does anyone get the feeling that this is being kicked into the grass to give the rebels in Chad enough time to carve up the country and make the situation there so unstable that the whole op will 'regretably' have to cancelled as the ground situation is not 'permissive enough'?

na, i wouldn't say so. We have to go in either way, so surely it would be in our best interest to go in early and secure chad as much as we can. if we go in, we will keep up our UN military leader status.

We will be securing the Refugee camps in chad (east) and protecting the boarder of Chad (east) and Darfur (west)

OS119

Sean/Telnor wrote: »

na, i wouldn't say so. We have to go in either way, so surely it would be in our best interest to go in early and secure chad as much as we can. if we go in, we will keep up our UN military leader status.

We will be securing the Refugee camps in chad (east) and protecting the boarder of Chad (east) and Darfur (west)

so why so much delay? the job has been agreed in principle for four months, the ground forces allocated for the same time, the politics were in place in Chad - and everyone knew they were going to get worse rather than get better - so how come it got delayed for 'technical' reasons and then for political reasons that everyone knew were coming and and would be best confronted by having the EU force already in place rather than waiting to go?

the helicopter issue was the most ridiculous balls, if the IG really wanted to get on with this - and success was always more likely the quicker they the force was in place - they could have both provided their own and hired in commercial sfuff as is the norm on UM PK jobs.

a complete sham from start to finish.

Sean/Telnor

OS119 wrote: »

so how come it got delayed for 'technical' reasons and then for political reasons that everyone knew were coming and and would be best confronted by having the EU force already in place rather than waiting to go?

the helicopter issue was the most ridiculous balls, if the IG really wanted to get on with this - and success was always more likely the quicker they the force was in place - they could have both provided their own and hired in commercial sfuff as is the norm on UM PK jobs.

a complete sham from start to finish.

Maybe you are just looking into it too much looking for a conspericy. maybe not, i couldn't begin to pertend i know all the answers. But in my opionion, looking at it. We couldn't go becase we had no planes to get us and the equip there and no helicoptors. the choppers are a 100% need as it is desert country and if our men got pinned down, they would have to be left for dead - the enemy would reach them before we did. so its a Drop in Lift out tactic.

No one forsaw Chad Capital being attacked, now its over with pockets of rebels here and there (outside the city)

The Irish and French are peace keeping - our mission is to look afrter refeguees and food suplies. not ingage in a war. we are there to make sure innocent people aren't killed by both sides. It would be foolish to jump into the middle of a warzone and leave your men for dead. This is why our army is respected within the UN - we dont rin in shooting and loose loads of men - we look at the situation and plan out which is the....smartiest way of completing the mission. thats what I would think... i could be wrong.

sorry about the mad spellin here and there. in work and feeling lazy

Cato

Sean/Telnor wrote: »

The Irish and French are peace keeping

i thought it was peace enforcement? and sweden and some others are going as well?...

Irish_Army01

Sean/Telnor wrote: »

The Irish and French are peace keeping -... i could be wrong.

You are wrong. Think I mentioned this before.. you talking about things you have no clue about.

The Mission is Peace Enforcement.

The Swedes have already landed in country with "other Units".

NoQuarter

that would be peace Enforcement!;)

a slip of the finger is no fault of the mind eh?

Irish_Army01

king-stew wrote: »

that would be peace Enforcement!;)

a slip of the finger is no fault of the mind eh?

LMAO!! why I outta!! lol

Sean/Telnor

Irish_Army01 wrote: »

You are wrong. Think I mentioned this before.. you talking about things you have no clue about.

The Mission is Peace Enforcement.

The Swedes have already landed in country with "other Units".

Like i said my friend, i only talk about things that i hear about fron the media and other soldiers. Theres no need to get mean about things. Thats what these forms are all about - sharing info. if im not sure about something i will say so and someone can correct me on it if im wrong or slightly off.

Like i said "i could be wrong"

I said french and irish but i didnt say that was all there is there. I'm getting tired of saying someting and you jumping on it for no other reason than to cause trouble. take a deep breath, and stop being so rude to me please.

anyway. So does anyone know if it is the normal rules of engagement mission, where you cant fire unless fired upon or can the troops protect the civ's or is it just the ones in the camps they can protect. I have mates who were in Liberia and saw horrible things, people being killed and couldn't do anything about it because they were not being attacked.

uptherebels

OS119 wrote: »

the helicopter issue was the most ridiculous balls, if the IG really wanted to get on with this - and success was always more likely the quicker they the force was in place - they could have both provided their own and hired in commercial sfuff as is the norm on UM PK jobs.

firstly we dont have enough and if we did send them they would need a major refitting to be able to operate in the heat and dust in chad and i seriously doubt if any commercial company would have helicopters with the necessary equipment for military use and if they did they certainly wouldnt put them in harms way as helicopters are expensive

Hagar

Irish_Army01 take it easy. It's a discussion forum. If you feel someone is mistaken feel free to point out where you think he is wrong and post what you think is correct. That way we all might learn something. It's dogmatic and rude just to keep saying "You're wrong, I'm right, I told you this before". It gets us nowhere.

twinytwo

Sean/Telnor wrote: »

The Irish and French are peace keeping

is there even a thing as peacekeeping anymore surley by just being there it is peace enforcement. I mean how can u "keep the peace" in **** storm.. I mean the nigerians are backing the rebels and im sure other countries have their fingers in the pot as well. I mean this whole thing is tribal this is going to turn into probally the biggest problem the un has faced to date.Hopefully our lads will all come home

Sean/Telnor

twinytwo wrote: »

is there even a thing as peacekeeping anymore surley by just being there it is peace enforcement.

I think it is peace enforcement. mis-use of words on my part.

Im sure it will be a hard mission alright.

Kaiser_Sma

I wonder what the cost to benefit ratio of using french troops in chad is. Obviously it's beneficial to use the troops already stationed there, that have the most experience operating there and (at least to other political entities and to the french them selves) have an obligation to be there. But at the same time having the former colonial power, exacerbates tensions and throws into question the degree of interventional intention for the entire peace keeping/enforcing force.
If it where possible, would it be more beneficial to send in another nation with an armed force of a similar quality?

eroo

nigerians are backing the rebels

Really,I thought it was mainly Sudan?

OS119

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

I wonder what the cost to benefit ratio of using french troops in chad is. Obviously it's beneficial to use the troops already stationed there, that have the most experience operating there and (at least to other political entities and to the french them selves) have an obligation to be there. But at the same time having the former colonial power, exacerbates tensions and throws into question the degree of interventional intention for the entire peace keeping/enforcing force.
If it where possible, would it be more beneficial to send in another nation with an armed force of a similar quality?

in many situations it would be the ideal, having the former colonial power around can make theactual and perceived impartiality of pure peacekeeping ops extremely difficult - often because some groups still have a cordial relationhip (as with the Chad government) while others very much don't (as with the rebel groups) - on the other hand there are a very limited number of states with the capability to put large numbers of well trained, well equipped and well lead troops into situations where there may be fisticuffs.

actually they can be counted on the fingers of four hands, and most of them have 'baggage' of some kind. usually with UN or UN mandated ops you get a choice between using well trained, equipped troops from a state that may well have other interests beside the wording of the mandate, or the dross of the world who do little other than abuse the locals, rip off the UN as to the amount of work they do and who flog all of their equipment, uniforms, weapons, ammunition and fuel to the various warring parties.

take your pick....

cp251

With reference to the threat by the rebel rabble to the Irish troops to be deployed there. Perhaps their leaders need to read up on the history of Irish soldiers in battle. If they did, they might sensibly reconsider their attitude. In former wars the best troops the French had were the Irish. Sometimes the best troops the British had were the Irish. In other times the Irish were among the elite of the Americans and one or two other countries out there.

The Irish army might be a mere shadow of former glories but the character of the Irish soldier has not changed. There is a long and glorious tradition of valour among Irishmen in battle.

It is a cliche, but there you are. You can be sure though that most Irish soldiers would consider the very idea of it as embarrassing and overblown. But history proves otherwise.

SHH

My father is in the army and he's putting allot of thought into going, if he does go I hope he doesn't die :rolleyes:

Hagar

According to this mornings TV3 News there are 50 ARW going to Chad today.

Also on the RTE News website.

RTE wrote:

Fifty members of the elite Army ranger wing are due to depart for Chad later today.

Three weeks ago their deployment was suddenly cancelled because of an outbreak of hostilities in the central African country.

The Army Rangers will prepare the way for the arrival of a further 400 soldiers over the next few months.

The troops will protect hundreds of thousands of refugees who have fled the turmoil in neighbouring Darfur.

Shortages of helicopters and medical backup delayed the departure of the Army Rangers before Christmas. Conflict within Chad itself held them up for the past three weeks.

Now Lieutenant General Pat Nash, the Irish commander of the 3,700-strong multi-national EU force, says all the necessary back-ups have been organised.

Just before midnight tonight, the 50 rangers will leave Dublin on a seven-hour charter flight to Chad.

On arrival in the capital, N'Djamena, the Army Rangers will make a 600-mile overland journey to the east of the country.

They will start patrols immediately and identify suitable base camps for the 400 remaining Irish troops due by the middle of May.

biscuit_sligo

a lad i know is going today! does that mean hes a ranger?:eek:

twinytwo

biscuit_sligo wrote: »

a lad i know is going today! does that mean hes a ranger?:eek:

could be pilot.. or engineer.. or could be in the rangers but if he is young i doubt it

twinytwo

cp251 wrote: »

With reference to the threat by the rebel rabble to the Irish troops to be deployed there. Perhaps their leaders need to read up on the history of Irish soldiers in battle. If they did, they might sensibly reconsider their attitude. In former wars the best troops the French had were the Irish. Sometimes the best troops the British had were the Irish. In other times the Irish were among the elite of the Americans and one or two other countries out there.

The Irish army might be a mere shadow of former glories but the character of the Irish soldier has not changed. There is a long and glorious tradition of valour among Irishmen in battle.

It is a cliche, but there you are. You can be sure though that most Irish soldiers would consider the very idea of it as embarrassing and overblown. But history proves otherwise.

Audy Murphy.. most highly decorated American soldier of ww2.. irish

c-90

twinytwo wrote: »

could be pilot.. or engineer.. or could be in the rangers but if he is young i doubt it

do the air corps send pilots to fly overseas?

cushtac

c-90 wrote: »

do the air corps send pilots to fly overseas?

Nope.

Chuck U Farley

twinytwo wrote: »

could be pilot.. or engineer.. or could be in the rangers but if he is young i doubt it

[FONT=&quot]What age do you class young.
How young should a ranger to be? [/FONT]

Chuck U Farley

twinytwo wrote: »

could be pilot.. or engineer.. or could be in the rangers but if he is young i doubt it

[FONT=&quot]What age do you class young.
How young should a ranger be? [/FONT]

c-90

cushtac wrote: »

Nope.

then how could he be a pilot?

Irish_Army01

There are Cooks, Medics and Drivers gone with the ARW as support so he could be one of those.

The Black Oil

Good old Willie was on with Pat the Plank this morning.

Kaiser_Sma

cp251 wrote: »

With reference to the threat by the rebel rabble to the Irish troops to be deployed there. Perhaps their leaders need to read up on the history of Irish soldiers in battle. If they did, they might sensibly reconsider their attitude. In former wars the best troops the French had were the Irish. Sometimes the best troops the British had were the Irish. In other times the Irish were among the elite of the Americans and one or two other countries out there.

The Irish army might be a mere shadow of former glories but the character of the Irish soldier has not changed. There is a long and glorious tradition of valour among Irishmen in battle.

It is a cliche, but there you are. You can be sure though that most Irish soldiers would consider the very idea of it as embarrassing and overblown. But history proves otherwise.

Well i don't mean to be a kill joy but theres no real evidence to sugest that there is some genetic or cultural tendancy for irish people to be better soilders then any other country. While you may find some cultural differnce between a european soilder and an african for example may effect the way they fight, it really is down to training, equipment and individual merit. Most other things are coincidental.

yeah not to mention the French having their hand in it too, they are supplying the Chad Govt with ammunition. Its supposed to be a neutral force.

Now that the French have admitted to supplying the ammo I reckon the rebels will see the force as a legitimate target



http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2008/0215/1202938413090.html

France's military admitted yesterday that it had transported munitions to the Chadian army during the recent rebel attack on the capital, N'Djamena, earlier this month.

cp251

cp251 wrote: »

With reference to the threat by the rebel rabble to the Irish troops to be deployed there. Perhaps their leaders need to read up on the history of Irish soldiers in battle. If they did, they might sensibly reconsider their attitude. In former wars the best troops the French had were the Irish. Sometimes the best troops the British had were the Irish. In other times the Irish were among the elite of the Americans and one or two other countries out there.

This depends on how determined/fanatical the rebels are.
Take the Vietnamese for example, they suicidally took on units with formidable histories in the Vietnam war. The often had entire divisions annihilated but they inflicted casualties.

We dont have the firepower then yanks in Nam had, maybe the rebels dont have the determination the Vietnamese did but its far too easy for them to inflict some serious casualties on our boys, its not good enough when lives are on the line, for our politicians to send troops abroad on a mission that should be neutral and aimed at helping the refugees from Darfur when it is cynically used by the French as a way of aiding and propping up a post colonial, corrupt government.

If any of our troops bleed there the blood is on the hands of the politicians.

Good luck to the soldiers. Fingers crossed for them.

twinytwo

Chuck U Farley wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]What age do you class young.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]How young should a ranger to be? [/FONT]

i mean he could be but i think the avarage age for the rangers is around 30... obviously their are guys in it younger than that

twinytwo

Does anyone else find it fishy that its our troops that get put furthest from the Airport which is vital for supplies as well as getting stationed in a ****hole?

Dinter

twinytwo wrote: »

Does anyone else find it fishy that its our troops that get put furthest from the Airport which is vital for supplies as well as getting stationed in a ****hole?

I hope it's not setting the scene for another Jadotville or Niemba.

Hagar

The ARW are better prepared than the Irish Army were in the early 1960s.
Lessons were learned, expensive lessons.

Ronan Raver77

Good story in yesterdays Herald (page 26)...An account of "Mono" a 26 yr old Ranger.The article also appears in the current edition of An Cosantoir. If i have time over the weekend i will type it all out..Unless its online somewhere..

Hagar

Hagar wrote: »

The ARW are better prepared than the Irish Army were in the early 1960s.
Lessons were learned, expensive lessons.

What was learnt exactly?

I do not believe for a second that lessons learnt in the 60s will have any bearing on any prospective casualties that we may take.

This nonsense I hear about how highly trained a unit is does not make one bullet proof - the ARW are among the best in the world do not get me wrong - but all it takes is a finger on a trigger, a gun pointed the right way and someone can be killed.

No matter how well armed or trained our troops are *IF* the rebels get it into their heads that this is not a neutral exercise then they can easily kill some of our people.

Its just not good enough to be there when the French are not being neutral. It puts our soldiers into an unacceptable position.

This is not worth a single life if the French arent neutral, let them do this themselves. Our politicians are responsible for any deaths or injuries we take over there.

The soldiers do not have a union only representatives - its the job of the people and the opposition and the politicians in power to look after their welfare when they so bravely and unquestioningly go into harms way.
Especially when lives are on the line!
Its the least we can do.

Dinter

Deleted User wrote: »

The soldiers do not have a union only representatives - its the job of the people and the opposition and the politicians in power to look after their welfare when they so bravely and unquestioningly go into harms way.
Especially when lives are on the line!
Its the least we can do.

Over in the politics forum there's a thread giving out about the Minister looking for assurances for the safety of the Irish troops.

Although I agree with them it puts your admirable sentiments in context.

Dinter

Dinter wrote: »

Over in the politics forum there's a thread giving out about the Minister looking for assurances for the safety of the Irish troops.

Although I agree with them it puts your admirable sentiments in context.

Not quite sure I follow you?
The minister asking for assurances that soldiers will be safe in a war zone is cringeworthy to say the least, the soldiers know the risks and frankly its embarrassing.

I am rambling on about the rights and wrongs of taking a side in the war. Which we are guilty of by association with the French and in that case I think losses would be unacceptable. If the French want to take sides then let them and let them do all the work. Should be nothing to do with us.

c-90

^^^ +1

arybvtcw0eolkf

Deleted User wrote: »

If the French want to take sides then let them and let them do all the work. Should be nothing to do with us.

Damn straight, and most of you guys haven't a damned clue what your talking about.