Alan Shatter doing his job!!!

Jawgap

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yeah sure, lets see anyone try that one on their superior officers in any military anywhere. Don't be ridiculous, soldiers are compelled to carry out orders in line with international law, not ask themselves "should I?"

The question you didn't answer is visible above.

You answered the question ("How can you square praise for undermining Irish defence capability (post invasion) with your agreement that a threat of invasion was understood to exist?") with "easily".

But then you didn't expand on it with any credible response apart from saying "easily".

How do you rationalize the above point in your mind?

Well his commanding officer was Major Shaun Chandler and the two of them have co-authored a number of COIN articles and do joint consulting work so I'm guessing his boss was ok with that approach - and his battalion commander (Lt Col Strickland) has lent his name to some of his writing so I'm guessing he's ok with having an officer under his command follow that approach.


The reason I am able to reconcile what they did is because it was morally courageous, and that's something that should be prized in a soldier - the character to do what's right, rather than what's easy or popular.

Cody Pomeray

Jawgap wrote: »

Well his commanding officer was Major Shaun Chandler and the two of them have co-authored a number of COIN articles and do joint consulting work so I'm guessing his boss was ok with that approach - and his battalion commander (Lt Col Strickland) has lent his name to some of his writing so I'm guessing he's ok with having an officer under his command follow that approach.


The reason I am able to reconcile what they did is because it was morally courageous, and that's something that should be prized in a soldier - the character to do what's right, rather than what's easy or popular.

As fascinating as that biography was, I'll take that as a "No, I'm not going to answer" then.

Jawgap

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

As fascinating as that biography was, I'll take that as a "No, I'm not going to answer" then.

Yet again I've answered it, but lets just leave it - you have your opinion I have mine and this has progressed beyond tedious.........

......I suspect anything I write will not be accepted or acceptable as an answer.

Cody Pomeray

Jawgap wrote: »

Yet again I've answered it, but lets just leave it - you have your opinion I have mine and this has progressed beyond tedious.........

......I suspect anything I write will not be accepted or acceptable as an answer.

I asked you how you can admit that there was understood to be a threat of invasion, and at the same time praise these men for having deserted their posts?

And then you go off on some tangent about some Lieutenant you met who filled you with some old blather about "the ethical issue", as if any army in the world would accept that defence in a deserter.

Not to mention the fact that you're apportioning ethical considerations to the Irish deserters when there is presumably nothing informing you of that.

Seanchai

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you feel this is an appropriate punishment for desertion, we don't have enough common ground for an intelligent conversation on the issue, frankly.

First, spare us this Shatter-like conceit about "intelligent conversation" - because neither you nor he have displayed anything approaching rationality or historical accuracy on this issue.

Some historical facts. They were traitors to this state. They took an oath to defend it and they broke it. They broke this oath not for heroic reasons but largely because pay was far greater in the British forces, a fact which Shatter typically ignored when trying to portray these self-serving people as heroes. The financial aspect of their decision is persistently whitewashed by people who feign a desire for "intelligent conversation".

Given this context the Irish state's treatment was generous. In WW I when people deserted the British state's forces during wartime they were taken out and executed. No debate. Instructively, the anti-Irish types astutely avoid criticism of the British state when it defended its sovereignty and took action against those who threatened it. When the Irish state does far less to its own deserters during wartime, then the complaints begin.

Only a Fine Gael government could have the required intellectual hatred of, and lack of commitment to, a sovereign Ireland to portray these cowards as heroes. A further example of this attitude is in the current campaign of Fine Gael's Brian Hayes to re-erect monuments to British imperial heroes in the Phoenix Park.

Seanchai

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

They left a corrupt bananna pretend country ..those men were heroes

And this succinctly sums up the sheer prejudice of the haters of a sovereign Irish state. Everything done for British nationalist/imperialist interests = good; everything done for Irish nationalist interests = bad.

Zambia

Excellent work wait till they are all dead then say sorry, on the face of it I don't see any huge case of treason involved.

They were young men who were trained to fight and wanted to. There was was a fight going on and they wanted in.

SeanW

Seanchai wrote: »

Only a Fine Gael government could have the required intellectual hatred of, and lack of commitment to, a sovereign Ireland to portray these "cowards" as heroes.

If you genuinely think that people who went to the front lines of WWII at great risk to life and limb to fight the Nazis were "cowards" then I have to agree with oscarBravo. There doesn't seem to be much common ground for a reasoned debate.

Cody Pomeray

SeanW wrote: »

If you genuinely think that people who went to the front lines of WWII at great risk to life and limb to fight the Nazis were "cowards" then I have to agree with oscarBravo. There doesn't seem to be much common ground for a reasoned debate.

Well I would agree with you on the cowards issue.

But then an attempt to ascribe benevolent motivations to these men is just as intellectually gullible.

As honourable as anti-Fascism is, there is absolutely nothing to show that these men deserted out of anti-Fascism.

Congratulating someone for a motivation you do not know they had is about as thick as it gets.

oscarBravo

Seanchai wrote: »

[The present government has an] intellectual hatred of, and lack of commitment to, a sovereign Ireland...

Like I said, no basis for an intelligent conversation.

EURATS

oscarBravo wrote: »

Like I said, no basis for an intelligent conversation.

Well if it's not pro British gibberish...it can't be intelligent can it? We can't all hide behind boards.ie admin privileges..can we?

SeanW

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Well I would agree with you on the cowards issue.

But then an attempt to ascribe benevolent motivations to these men is just as intellectually gullible.

As honourable as anti-Fascism is, there is absolutely nothing to show that these men deserted out of anti-Fascism.

Congratulating someone for a motivation you do not know they had is about as thick as it gets.

I'm not disputing that soldiers deserted their (neutral) army, nor that this was not a crime. But all crimes have aggravating and mitigating factors.

And anyone who left, yes, deserted the Irish army to join the British army knew that this would have only one consequence for them personally - going to the front lines of the war, where there was a considerable likliehood of being killed or seriously injured. Good pay or not, I can't see anyone joining the BA during WWII for any reason except to fight the Nazis.

The question therefore, for those who deserted, is that of aggravation vs. mitigation. Again, I'm not disputing that those who left their posts to join the BA - technically - committed a crime.

What I feel though is that the mitigation, in this case their overwhelmingly good reason for desertion, outweighs the crime and the aggravating factors.

Cody Pomeray

Interesting

***un-scientific, non-technical, unapologetic, unacceptable to oscarbravo***

"National self loathing" AND [English speaking OECD Member State] per head of population in order of increasing order of hits:

██ United States of America: 0.0003

████ Australia: 0.003

████ Canada: 0.003

████ Britain: 0.003

████ New Zealand: 0.004

████████████ Ireland: 0.013

Cody Pomeray

SeanW wrote: »

I can't see anyone joining the BA during WWII for any reason except to fight the Nazis.

Hang, on you think there were 75 million allied forces who were only motivated to fight for a principle, including all of those Irish deserters ?


......

SeanW

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Hang, on you think there were 75 million allied forces who were only motivated to fight for a principle, including all of those Irish deserters ?


......

What other reason could one have for going head first into the front lines of a war with lots of fighting and killing?

Cody Pomeray

SeanW wrote: »

What other reason could one have for going head first into the front lines of a war with lots of fighting and killing?

Wait a minute you believe soldiers under active duty are always motivated by principle?

What an enormous co-incidence that they should converge together at the same place, same time, in utter agreement with their commanding officers and political heads of state.

There is not a puzzled enough emoticon.

Jawgap

Seanchai wrote: »

....They were traitors to this state. ......

Then the obvious question is why weren't they charged with treason under the Art 39 of the Constitution and the Treason Act 1939? Both were in force at the time. The fact is Ireland has never charged much less convicted anyone of treason, even during the 1970s and 1980s.

SeanW wrote: »

What other reason could one have for going head first into the front lines of a war with lots of fighting and killing?

Generally, soldiers fight for a lot of reasons - some are conscripted and not given a choice; some for reasons of principle and 'fair play'; some for ideological reasons; for monetary / economic reasons; a sense of adventure; because their mates are going.....etc

I'm all for those lads getting their pardon, but I think it's a mistake to assume they were all principled idealists fighting for freedom, I suspect a lot went because they wanted to see some action.

On a broader note, it might interesting to note how they were treated relative to other alleged deserters. We know by name who the 4900 or so absentees were who will benefit from this pardon but to my knowledge the State has never named never mind blacklisted personnel who absented themselves before, for example, a UN deployment?

Equally, it's arguable that the greatest test our Defence Forces ever faced was the so-called "Operation Armageddon" - the move to the border with the possibility of advancing to seize territory in Northern Ireland - literally outgunned and outnumbered they were expected to cross and launch surprise attacks in Northern Ireland.

Soldiers who absented themselves during this period were not named (to my knowledge) never mind blacklisted.

Scofflaw

EURATS wrote: »

Well if it's not pro British gibberish...it can't be intelligent can it? We can't all hide behind boards.ie admin privileges..can we?

Like any user of the forum, Admins or whatever will be, and have been, warned or sanctioned when it's required. Unlike certain users, they tend to desist from the behaviour in question.

More generally, posters are reminded that this is not AH, and to spare us the heavily over-used humorous images and clever nicknames.

moderately,
Scofflaw

EURATS

And now we have Shatter getting away with failure to give a specimen.
Must try the old asthma/way home from work excuse next time I am at a checkpoint.