What kind of country puts its hands up and says that we should defend ourselves? Youâre happy that we need the RAF to defend our skies?
Itâs over 800 years since we were last invaded. Iâd be willing to chance it.
1 Like
What a simpleton POV, Christ.
Why is anyone surprised? We have a teashock who never held a hurl in his hand in his life, ffs!
Costa Rica?
Plenty of countries donât have armies and are fine. We have a costly but entirely ineffective one that costs billions to supply and maintain. The irish airforce couldnât defend irish airspace today. The army could defend a beach for what an hour or two before being completey overwhelmed. But you think they are worthwhile uses of money as they are? Dont even get started on the navy
Our army has an unparalleled peacekeeping record. What countries donât have armies?
Whatâs wrong with the navy? You want to disband the navy too? You know weâre an island ya?
Iceland (is that an island im not sure) panama dont. But in an effort to make an argument you steamed in without reading what i wrote. No issue with maintaining a small force of say a thousand, with well trained officers and rangers etc to meet obligations. But no need to keep 9k or so 75% of which is basically a full time territorial army.
The navy is a disgrace, have left our waters inadequately patrolled and our fishing stocks, some of the best in the world, ravaged by cunts from other countries. So in a typical irish effort it was half arsed.
Iceland doesnât have an army or a navy? You understand which one is relevant to being an island?
What are the functions of the army that are unnecessary? You think 1000 can fulfil the same peacekeeping functions abroad as 7000? How will that work, you think instead of 6 month tours they should do 18 month tours or something? What youâre saying makes no sense.
The navy is a disgrace? Why? Is your answer to disband that too?
Iceland has no army or navy. So thats your no country never mind island shriek dealt with.
Whats the point in keeping a full time army the majority of whom do little for 2.5+ years at a time
The navy is a disgrace as it cannot adequately patrol irish waters. They could far better equip it from money wasted on the army
election in fingal in Nov
vote green
This appears to be nonsensical gibberish.
Have you a point to make? Ever, on this website
How long do you think is reasonable for a member of the army to be at home after a tour of duty? How long do you think tours should be?
I suppose if you only want there to be 1000 in the army and about 500 or so are abroad on duty at any one time, then you think they could do a year on and a year off?
Yes, my point was your post was nonsense.
How was it nonsense? Stop typing like a shrieking child. If something is wrong you say, thats wrong and ill show you why. Not just screech, THATS NONSENSE
Outstanding mathematics here. Completely arbitrary figure made up by you that you think forms an argument. Is this why you cant debate? Am i dealing with an adult here? Using your logic i propose only 100 be abroad at a time. Problem solved!
You said 1000 can fulfil our functions abroad. We have about 500 troops abroad on peacekeeping missions currently. You maintain 1000 can fulfil the same function. So I presume you think they should take 6 months on and 6 months off.
Thereâs nothing arbitrary about the figures. Theyâre the real figures and your proposed figures.
So, your post is wrong and Iâve shown you why.
Stop getting upset because someone challenged a statement you made and you canât back it up. Thatâs very snowflakey of you.