FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Defence cuts... Right or Wrong? Good? Bad? Neccessary?

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Ok, let's a good old 'debate' on what's happening with our nation's defences.

This will probably get heated but let's keep the insults to a minimum eh?

1) An aircraft carrier without any aircraft on it. Pointless?

2) Two new aircraft ordered that won't have any aircraft on them for a few years either. Even more pointless?

3) Deals with arms manufacturers that are too expensive to break. Tell 'em to go fuck, we ain't got enough dosh, and if they want further deals in the future then play ball now?

4) Not enough soldiers as it is and already spread too thin on the ground. Can we afford to lose more troops?

5) Get out of Afghanistan and save a fuck load of money and keep all the ships, planes and personnel we have at the moment?

6) 7 new Attack-class nuke subs. Do we really need 7 more when the Yanks have got blimmin' loads of 'em?

~

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ertnbeckyCouple
over a year ago

oldham

i was thinking very similar this morning too having watched the news

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Ark Royal is two years overdue a refit according to Channel Four News, this refit would take between 20 and 30 months as the work required to bring the carrier into the 21st century are said to be considerable.

So either way we are going to be without an Aircraft Carrier, there was absolutely no way the new government would have been able to cancel both of the new carriers as work on the first is already well under way.

I can't see Ark Royal being decommisioned before HMS Illustrious completes it's refit in the summer of 2011, that would be plain stupid.....and Cameron isn't stupid is he?.....is he?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uton_coupleCouple
over a year ago

luton

before we consider what ordanance we need in these modern times its worth looking back in history to consider what needs we had in the past , and how wars were fought

we had the blanket bombing of coventry , london , and in germany we had the same in dresden etc

also a few nuclear bombs were droped in japan

as far as tactics go , if the french resistance blew up a railway line , the germans lined up 100 villiagers and shot them , or sent them off to concentration camps

there was some real heavy battles etc , like the siege of stalingrad

it dont work like that anymore

take the pirates of somalia , there a big problem to the UK and USA

we got trident , and the US have got a bigger trident

between us there umpteen aircraft carriers , landing craft , jet fighters , tanks , you name it

what can we do to stop the pirates ?

fuck all

at the moment we are at war in afghanistan , what is our objective there ?

it seems we are there to either stop the terrorist training camps , even though they can move them , or start others in another country at the drop of a hat

( they can do that easier than i can move house )

and / or introduce democracy , build new schools , infastructure etc

so what ordanance do the soldiers need there ?

perhaps a cheque book and a t shirt with TWAT written on the back

in my opinion all these big toys are a fucking joke , a total waste of money

the only thing they are any good for is the future king to sit behind the steering wheel and show what a big man he is

even though if anything happened it would be too dangerous for him to go anywhere near any action as he would shit his pants

apart from that why should we be concerned about defending the "nation"

its not our nation its the queens nation

if there was a serrious threat of being invaded i think i would sell up and go live in somewhere like argentina

let the queen defend her own fecking nation like king harold tried , it wasnt too dangerous for him to be up front near the action was it ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

leaving us without a working aircraft carrier for a decade is madness

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"before we consider what ordanance we need in these modern times its worth looking back in history to consider what needs we had in the past , and how wars were fought

we had the blanket bombing of coventry , london , and in germany we had the same in dresden etc

also a few nuclear bombs were droped in japan

as far as tactics go , if the french resistance blew up a railway line , the germans lined up 100 villiagers and shot them , or sent them off to concentration camps

there was some real heavy battles etc , like the siege of stalingrad

it dont work like that anymore

take the pirates of somalia , there a big problem to the UK and USA

we got trident , and the US have got a bigger trident

between us there umpteen aircraft carriers , landing craft , jet fighters , tanks , you name it

what can we do to stop the pirates ?

fuck all

at the moment we are at war in afghanistan , what is our objective there ?

it seems we are there to either stop the terrorist training camps , even though they can move them , or start others in another country at the drop of a hat

( they can do that easier than i can move house )

and / or introduce democracy , build new schools , infastructure etc

so what ordanance do the soldiers need there ?

perhaps a cheque book and a t shirt with TWAT written on the back

in my opinion all these big toys are a fucking joke , a total waste of money

the only thing they are any good for is the future king to sit behind the steering wheel and show what a big man he is

even though if anything happened it would be too dangerous for him to go anywhere near any action as he would shit his pants

apart from that why should we be concerned about defending the "nation"

its not our nation its the queens nation

if there was a serrious threat of being invaded i think i would sell up and go live in somewhere like argentina

let the queen defend her own fecking nation like king harold tried , it wasnt too dangerous for him to be up front near the action was it ?"

My God why are you even in this Country ? why do you hate it so much ?

I wish you cared a fraction for our servicemen facing bigger dangers from lack of equipment than you do for what the Royals do.

For your information British Servicemen do not fight for Royalty, no matter what the Royals may think, they fight so that you and I can sleep safely in thier beds, they fight to cut down the threat of terrorism which would be an everyday occurence if it was not for what they are willing to do to prevent it.

I am not saying the war in Iraq or Afghanistan is right or wrong, I am saying have some respect for those that protect you, to do that they need our support and they need the correct equipment.

If the government sorted out the procurement system they would not only have enough money to do what the MOD want but they would have enough to do it with the cuts still applied.

If we want independance from the USA then we need a strong military ability of our own.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok, let's a good old 'debate' on what's happening with our nation's defences.

This will probably get heated but let's keep the insults to a minimum eh?

1) An aircraft carrier without any aircraft on it. Pointless?

2) Two new aircraft ordered that won't have any aircraft on them for a few years either. Even more pointless?

3) Deals with arms manufacturers that are too expensive to break. Tell 'em to go fuck, we ain't got enough dosh, and if they want further deals in the future then play ball now?

4) Not enough soldiers as it is and already spread too thin on the ground. Can we afford to lose more troops?

5) Get out of Afghanistan and save a fuck load of money and keep all the ships, planes and personnel we have at the moment?

6) 7 new Attack-class nuke subs. Do we really need 7 more when the Yanks have got blimmin' loads of 'em?

~

"

this makes sense, we should stick to a "defence" budget and stick to just that, what we need to "defend" our country.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Prince William served for two and a half months in Afghanistan in the Household Cavalry, on the front line.

He was withdrawn because Bild newspaper in Germany posted details of his wherabouts making the safety of him and the men he served with comprimised.

He was clearly annoyed and upset at being withdrawn from Helmand so I fail to see how anyone could question his bravery simply because they themselves harbour an obvious deep hatred of the Royal Family.

I have the deepest respect for anyone who serves in Afghanistan, they don't need to prove themselves to people who sit at home and criticise them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"leaving us without a working aircraft carrier for a decade is madness"

You're right, it is total madness but the reasoning behind it that we forego our sea-based aircraft capability now in order to re-establish it by the end of the decade. If we fail so make the cutbacks we have to make now we will go bankrupt as a country and then all our ships and carriers etc will sit in port rusting. Brown wanted to keep on spending as he knew damned well how much he had fucked things up and by pretending we still had lots of money and a credit line worth something he was hoping nobody would notice just how skint we were/are. A Tory win was always going to expose Labour's sheer lunacy on spending and that's what Brown desperately didn't want uncovered.

So now we're left with a trimmed down Armed Forces as well as all the other cuts that must be made to get us back on an even keel in - hopefully - five to ten years (it will take longer than the four years Osbourne is predicting, that much is certain)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Prince William served for two and a half months in Afghanistan in the Household Cavalry, on the front line.

He was withdrawn because Bild newspaper in Germany posted details of his wherabouts making the safety of him and the men he served with comprimised.

He was clearly annoyed and upset at being withdrawn from Helmand so I fail to see how anyone could question his bravery simply because they themselves harbour an obvious deep hatred of the Royal Family.

I have the deepest respect for anyone who serves in Afghanistan, they don't need to prove themselves to people who sit at home and criticise them."

Hear! Hear! Absolutely.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uton_coupleCouple
over a year ago

luton


"before we consider what ordanance we need in these modern times its worth looking back in history to consider what needs we had in the past , and how wars were fought

we had the blanket bombing of coventry , london , and in germany we had the same in dresden etc

also a few nuclear bombs were droped in japan

as far as tactics go , if the french resistance blew up a railway line , the germans lined up 100 villiagers and shot them , or sent them off to concentration camps

there was some real heavy battles etc , like the siege of stalingrad

it dont work like that anymore

take the pirates of somalia , there a big problem to the UK and USA

we got trident , and the US have got a bigger trident

between us there umpteen aircraft carriers , landing craft , jet fighters , tanks , you name it

what can we do to stop the pirates ?

fuck all

at the moment we are at war in afghanistan , what is our objective there ?

it seems we are there to either stop the terrorist training camps , even though they can move them , or start others in another country at the drop of a hat

( they can do that easier than i can move house )

and / or introduce democracy , build new schools , infastructure etc

so what ordanance do the soldiers need there ?

perhaps a cheque book and a t shirt with TWAT written on the back

in my opinion all these big toys are a fucking joke , a total waste of money

the only thing they are any good for is the future king to sit behind the steering wheel and show what a big man he is

even though if anything happened it would be too dangerous for him to go anywhere near any action as he would shit his pants

apart from that why should we be concerned about defending the "nation"

its not our nation its the queens nation

if there was a serrious threat of being invaded i think i would sell up and go live in somewhere like argentina

let the queen defend her own fecking nation like king harold tried , it wasnt too dangerous for him to be up front near the action was it ?

My God why are you even in this Country ? why do you hate it so much ?

I wish you cared a fraction for our servicemen facing bigger dangers from lack of equipment than you do for what the Royals do.

For your information British Servicemen do not fight for Royalty, no matter what the Royals may think, they fight so that you and I can sleep safely in thier beds, they fight to cut down the threat of terrorism which would be an everyday occurence if it was not for what they are willing to do to prevent it.

I am not saying the war in Iraq or Afghanistan is right or wrong, I am saying have some respect for those that protect you, to do that they need our support and they need the correct equipment.

If the government sorted out the procurement system they would not only have enough money to do what the MOD want but they would have enough to do it with the cuts still applied.

If we want independance from the USA then we need a strong military ability of our own."

soldiers DO fight for royalty , this is what they sign up for

British Army - Oath of Allegiance: Encyclopedia II - British Army - Oath of Allegiance

All soldiers must take the Oath of Allegiance on joining the Army. Those who believe in God use the following words: I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me. [2] Others replace the words "swear by Almighty God" with ...

it doesnt mention anything about the man in the street

i have every respect for soldiers fighting abroad , but the tactics they are ordered to use make them fit for nowt else but target practice ie twats

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

By describing our troops serving in Afghanistan as 'Twats' you have plunged to an all time low in my opinion.

I find that absolutely disgusting

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Prince William served for two and a half months in Afghanistan in the Household Cavalry, on the front line.

He was withdrawn because Bild newspaper in Germany posted details of his wherabouts making the safety of him and the men he served with comprimised.

He was clearly annoyed and upset at being withdrawn from Helmand so I fail to see how anyone could question his bravery simply because they themselves harbour an obvious deep hatred of the Royal Family.

I have the deepest respect for anyone who serves in Afghanistan, they don't need to prove themselves to people who sit at home and criticise them."

Thought it was Harry not William.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay


"Prince William served for two and a half months in Afghanistan in the Household Cavalry, on the front line.

He was withdrawn because Bild newspaper in Germany posted details of his wherabouts making the safety of him and the men he served with comprimised.

He was clearly annoyed and upset at being withdrawn from Helmand so I fail to see how anyone could question his bravery simply because they themselves harbour an obvious deep hatred of the Royal Family.

I have the deepest respect for anyone who serves in Afghanistan, they don't need to prove themselves to people who sit at home and criticise them.

Thought it was Harry not William."

Sorry Typo by me....it was Harry

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok, let's a good old 'debate' on what's happening with our nation's defences.

This will probably get heated but let's keep the insults to a minimum eh?

1) An aircraft carrier without any aircraft on it. Pointless?

2) Two new aircraft ordered that won't have any aircraft on them for a few years either. Even more pointless?

3) Deals with arms manufacturers that are too expensive to break. Tell 'em to go fuck, we ain't got enough dosh, and if they want further deals in the future then play ball now?

4) Not enough soldiers as it is and already spread too thin on the ground. Can we afford to lose more troops?

5) Get out of Afghanistan and save a fuck load of money and keep all the ships, planes and personnel we have at the moment?

6) 7 new Attack-class nuke subs. Do we really need 7 more when the Yanks have got blimmin' loads of 'em?

~

"

If people could only work things out rationally we wouldn't need armed forces anywhere near as large as we have and maybe not at all.

We have to have cuts the figures show that but it should be in all areas including the armed forces.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I am as patriotic as the next man and totally respect the jobs our Servicemen and women do for us. But...

I simply don't see the need for Defence spending being anywhere near the level it is now. And can't fathom the need to replace Trident either.

Why isn't the Defence budget subject to the same devastating cuts that all other departments seem to be? Because Hillary Clinton turns up and tells Dave she is worried?

Let the Americans spend the money. £700bn according to the news last night.

What people have never explained is who exactly is coming to invade this sceptred isle? No-one.

We go round the world making enemies and trying to show we are still some kind of world power. The end result is enormous expense and huge loss of life on all sides. We don't end up safer either we end up more vulnerable to folks wondering why we occupy their country.

Look at what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. The insurgents now get paid to form the police force. We blow the place to bits and then compensate the people and rebuild the nation at massive cost.

Terrible terrible mistakes have been made and for no purpose.

Let's give the servicemen and women what they deserve which is the resources to fight legitimate battles and keep the nation safe. Make the services fit for the 21st century and let's get a grip on our place in the world these days.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eakcoupleCouple
over a year ago

peak district

This is just an exercise by a bunch of bean-counters, none of the cabinet have been in the forces or lived through a war, so they just don't understand the dangers.

The defence budget is peanuts compared to welfare, and we're sending foreign aid to China, India and Pakistan. These all have the bomb, and the first two also have space programmes, so why are we wasting our money on them? The government could spend OUR money better if they really wanted.

Let's hope no country with submarines decides to hold us to ransom - with no RAF anti-sub Nimrods and less RN anti-sub Frigates, we're going to be very vulnerable. And as for the aircraft carriers without aircraft... it would be funny if it wasn't pathetic, and dangerous!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *4FantasyCouple
over a year ago

Spalding

Kaz here,

In my opinion in these terrorist ridden times we need what we need. If the army, airforce, navy etc need items then they should have them. Any one slagging off the forces are despicable in my opinion they are there for the good of this country and lay their lives down for us. Warfare has changed from 60 years ago and we are no longer playing on a level playing field but playing with psychos. (Hitler was obviously a nut job but long gone!) I hope we also have plenty of money for intelligence and counter terrorism on the mainland here too.

Kazx

Kazx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *erekduvallCouple
over a year ago

swansea

Bad,.............I am of the opinion that ALL the cuts planned by this Govt. (though there is need to look at spending) will lead this Country down a very sorry path, as I am sure History will prove.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he_original_poloWoman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

Will they be selling off all the stuff they are scrapping on ebay?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn

ffs, just bought a small house in Findhorn next to the RAF base ... now it's closing and I get no pilot cock.

there is no justice in this world.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *-and-KCouple
over a year ago

Back of Beyond

Its amazing that they are making such savage cuts.

Before they won the election they made many promises, seems that none of them are going to be kept now.

I saw a discussion on BBC2 back in May and all of the commentators said that whichever of the parties you voted for, red or blue, either of the two very different policies would get the country back on track by 2014/15.

I reckin we would have been better letting labour try and spend us out of this mess rather than the tories crucifying everything and anyone in pursuit of saving money.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adchickCouple
over a year ago

Cyprus

As someone who works within the Military, believe me, the cuts aren't as bad as we first feared.

The 7,000 soldiers that will be cut will be natural wastage, as will the bulk of the 25,000 civil servants who run their back offices.

It's also over the next 4 years so the immediate impact will not be seen.

We always knew the Navy would get the bulk of the cuts, which in my opinion is a shame, this is an island, we do need a naval defence.

However, the streamlining of Battalions was something that was being talked about anyway.

As for why we are in Afghanistan...... it's called an Asometric war. We fight them in their own countries to keep them out of ours. Keep them busy within their own boundaries and it stops (thats the theory anyway) the bulk of the terrorists coming over here and disrupting our own liberty and putting OUR public at risk.

I won't say what I personally feel about the war and the cuts but they could have been alot worse.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Initially Plymouth has escaped the worse of the cuts which is good for this area, but it is important to stress that it is the amount of jobs that also dissapear from the private sector when bases/docks/airfields close.

The private sector has a great part to play in the services and supplies that go into these establishments and military cuts are like an iceberg.....often bigger under the waterline than what appears on the surface.

A terrible shame all around

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Why we need to be spending billions on any nuclear weapons beats us,its just a waste of money that could be used elsewhere.

Lets face it,if that sort of shit hit the fan it wouldn't matter whether we had them or not.

The best thing we could have done in the past was to declare neutrality like Switzerland,you never see them on the bones of there arse or under terrorist threat!

If this country spent half as much on the quality of life instead of how to destroy it we'd all be better off!

XXXX

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Its amazing that they are making such savage cuts.

Before they won the election they made many promises, seems that none of them are going to be kept now.

I saw a discussion on BBC2 back in May and all of the commentators said that whichever of the parties you voted for, red or blue, either of the two very different policies would get the country back on track by 2014/15.

I reckin we would have been better letting labour try and spend us out of this mess rather than the tories crucifying everything and anyone in pursuit of saving money."

Here's an exercise for you:

Take your annual household income and work out how much you spend, on what, and how much you can do without.

Include all the payments to credit cards etc in your outgoings.

Is your income higher than your outgoings?

Yes?

Good for you. You're one of the few.

Now, you have unlimited borrowing facilities from the bank, but only if you continue to make the minimum payment each month, which increases the more you borrow.

The tipping point comes when you cannot meet the minimum monthly payment AND the bank says 'no more borrowing'.

Where does that leave you?

You outgoings are higher than your income and your debts are spiralling out of control with higher interest rates because you've defaulted.

It's not difficult to see that spoend, spend, spend leads to debt, debt, and more debt if you can't afford to spend, spend, spend in the first place.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andcCouple
over a year ago

London and Cheshire

Do you need aircraft on an aircraft carrier?

The time of both bombers and fighter aircraft is numbered, has drone aircraft become ever more sophisticated, their will be less need for manned aircraft. I can see a time where we have aircraft carriers with just drones doing all the work, perhaps not in the next few years but sooner than most think.

All these major pieces of kit cannot stop a terrorist getting on a tube and blowing himself up and that is the immediate danger!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As is said before, many of these cuts will occur through wastage and voluntary redundancies, some of the changes were inevitable.

the new carriers....there is an incredible expense just to get them to main gate, this money is gone....it is not like we can ask for it back, it would make more sense to continue...as they have explained. As it is, only one will, at any time, be deployable...which isn't actually any change to what was initially intended.

ark royal will be with us for a few more years yet...it's not going to be put on plinths tomorrow to sit in a dry dock for the forseeable future.

the biggest, and to me, worrying loss, is the one in 6 deployable battalions that they intend to cut. We run the services with a float of - say 40%...this allows for recruitment, promotion and natural wastage...this will bumph that figure considerable. As we know we are already running on a negative capacity and we are indeed in theatre and our land forces are already incredibly stretched over there...i do concern how it is going to affect not just the numbers, but the moral.

the truth is (and I'm not tory flyer), when labour came into power all those many moons ago (or ten years or so), they stopped considering defence as a strategic necessity and started considering it as an asset....it is now considered a business and everything is capital and revenue and we have no actual money, just assets. This does not and cannot work (with relation to defence)...and I think the past ten years has done much to demonstrate that fact.

the country is run by bean counters...with very little success.

perhaps they need bigger calculators, if only they could afford them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *umpkinMan
over a year ago

near the sounds of the wimborne quarter jack!


"Will they be selling off all the stuff they are scrapping on ebay?"

Have a look at mod-sales.com for loads of hardly used kit for sale!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

if there was a serrious threat of being invaded i think i would sell up and go live in somewhere like argentina

let the queen defend her own fecking nation like king harold tried , it wasnt too dangerous for him to be up front near the action was it ?"

I'm not going to give the space of repeating everything you wrote above this...however....the reason there is no real threat against this country, is because we have a defence in place that works to deter that from happening.

tax the stupid

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adchickCouple
over a year ago

Cyprus


"

the biggest, and to me, worrying loss, is the one in 6 deployable battalions that they intend to cut. We run the services with a float of - say 40%...this allows for recruitment, promotion and natural wastage...this will bumph that figure considerable. As we know we are already running on a negative capacity and we are indeed in theatre and our land forces are already incredibly stretched over there...i do concern how it is going to affect not just the numbers, but the moral.

"

This has come directly from the MoD's intranet site which is available freely, on the internet. It obviously doesn't say everything that we get to see at work, but it says enough about the deployable battalions.

In order to meet this new structure the Army will:

• reduce by around 7,000 to about 95,000 personnel by 2015, but with no changes to combat units involved in Afghanistan, and an assumption, for now, of a requirement of about 94,000 by 2020;

• reduce by one the number of deployable brigades, as we restructure to five multi-role brigades;

• significantly reduce our non-deployable regional administrative structure; and

• rationalise our deployable headquarters by reducing the communications and logistics support to Headquarters ARRC and convert the second of our operational divisional headquarters to a force preparation role.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"i have every respect for soldiers fighting abroad , but the tactics they are ordered to use make them fit for nowt else but target practice ie twats"

Simply by posting that comment alone you demonstrate that you obviously do not have respect for soldiers fighting abroad. If it wasn't for so called 'twats' you would be speaking German.

By the way. Servicemen nowadays fight for their oppo's, that is, each other - their mates. In a just war such as WWII or perhaps the Falklands they fight for their oppo's and their country and countrymen. The Royal Family or the Government of the day do not warrant a second, or even first, thought.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uton_coupleCouple
over a year ago

luton


""i have every respect for soldiers fighting abroad , but the tactics they are ordered to use make them fit for nowt else but target practice ie twats"

Simply by posting that comment alone you demonstrate that you obviously do not have respect for soldiers fighting abroad. If it wasn't for so called 'twats' you would be speaking German.

By the way. Servicemen nowadays fight for their oppo's, that is, each other - their mates. In a just war such as WWII or perhaps the Falklands they fight for their oppo's and their country and countrymen. The Royal Family or the Government of the day do not warrant a second, or even first, thought."

i have every respect for our soldiers

it is from there own mouths ive heard them complain how they have been treated like prats

i could type here reams and reams of instances that have caused them to say this

the somme , 19000 dead in one day due to artilliary positioning blunder

tripoli

so on and so forth

havent you ever heard the term "cannon foder" ?

they even say they are treated like prats for the smallest of reasons like not being issued with a flak jacket

to have the troops in afghanistan operating in the manner they are is ridiculous

every man and his dog is giving sucre to the taliban the moment you turn your back , with no opurtunity of reprisal

and what happens when they return after having there limbs blown off

they get help from charitys like help the heroes , poppy appeal , and others

they should be given all the help they need as a right , not from a flaming charity , that really is treating them like prats

by the way , they swear allegience to the crown , and there superior officers

mayby they should change that to "there mates" or "oppos"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You should have said that in the first place then. Soldiers saying that they're 'treated like prats' is a mile away from you calling them 'twats. And I don't give a flying one who they swear allegiance to [but it's definitely not their 'superior officers] you won't find a single soldier, sailor or airman that will tell you he/she is fighting for the Queen or Royal Family.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uton_coupleCouple
over a year ago

luton

the taliban in afghanistan have now said that most of the money that funds there activitys like setting up roadside bombs , bombs that seem to kill one of our soldiers on a weekly basis

comes from the united kingdom

i wonder how much money SHEIKH ABU HAMZA has donated to there fighting fund ?

money by the way he got from benefits

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/profile/abu-hamza.shtml

it just might be that you me and the soldiers spend there wages in the uk , pay tax , and that tax goes to benefits that fund the taliban

funny old world aint it ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uton_coupleCouple
over a year ago

luton


"You should have said that in the first place then. Soldiers saying that they're 'treated like prats' is a mile away from you calling them 'twats. And I don't give a flying one who they swear allegiance to [but it's definitely not their 'superior officers] you won't find a single soldier, sailor or airman that will tell you he/she is fighting for the Queen or Royal Family."

they might not tell you that , and they might not think that

but what they say and think , and what is the facts are two different things

The British Army is the land warfare branch of Her Majesty's Armed Forces in the United Kingdom

and they swear allegiance TO HER

mayby we should ask the government to change the name of the armed forces , and who it is that they actually swear allegiance to

but i think i know what the answer to that one will be

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eakcoupleCouple
over a year ago

peak district

Servicemen and -women swear allegiance to the Queen as Head of State, not to her personally. The Head of State represents ALL the nation, all the people, so you are really swearing allegiance to them. It would be the same if we were a republic - the oath would have to be to the President, whether the holder of the post was President Thatcher or President Brown (god forbid!). If the Queen dropped dead tomorrow the armed forces wouldn't all have to swear another oath to King Charles.

People might be confusing our oath with that taken in WW2 Germany. The German forcers swore allegiance to Hitler, as a person and not just as the head of state. That's one of the reasons he was unchallenged by his own side.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Servicemen and -women swear allegiance to the Queen as Head of State, not to her personally. The Head of State represents ALL the nation, all the people, so you are really swearing allegiance to them. It would be the same if we were a republic - the oath would have to be to the President, whether the holder of the post was President Thatcher or President Brown (god forbid!). If the Queen dropped dead tomorrow the armed forces wouldn't all have to swear another oath to King Charles.

People might be confusing our oath with that taken in WW2 Germany. The German forcers swore allegiance to Hitler, as a person and not just as the head of state. That's one of the reasons he was unchallenged by his own side."

This is all getting a bit tedious. I am fully aware of what the oath is and where 'officially' the allegiance and duties are ascribed having taken the very same oath. What I am saying is that the reality is very different. I agree with the comments made by Luton Couple reference funding but the more things change etc. This is the same scenario as 'The Troubles' in Northern Ireland. How much was creamed off from every pint, meal etc bought by ordinary people to support/fund 'The Cause'?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"This is all getting a bit tedious. I am fully aware of what the oath is and where 'officially' the allegiance and duties are ascribed having taken the very same oath. What I am saying is that the reality is very different. I agree with the comments made by Luton Couple reference funding but the more things change etc. This is the same scenario as 'The Troubles' in Northern Ireland. How much was creamed off from every pint, meal etc bought by ordinary people to support/fund 'The Cause'? "

I'm pretty sure the MI6's counter terrorism money moving electronic surveillance people know exactly what money is flowing from which place to where. Sometimes it's better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

For example..

Afghanistan's main produce is poppies, which produces opium, which, when purified further, produces heroin. Rural farmer's are enganged in producing it like our farmer's produce wheat or corn. It is their main source of income and their fragile economy would be totally destroyed were we to eliminate that source of income overnight (ie burning the poppy fields), which in turn would drive them straight into the waiting arms of the Taliban who will reward them with nice new fields of poppies to grow in areas where we can't go. By leaving the siut as it is we restrict the Tsliban from turning the minds of the people over there thereby preventing them from ever gaining a real foothold in the country again. They in turn have a certain amount of funds arriving from the UK from muslim supporters over here but we know where that money has come from, how much and where it is being spent. Don't believe we don't know - we do.

By driving the opium farmer's into the Taliban fold we will also drive all the revenue raised from it into Taliban coffers too, and then you'll see far more sophisticated weapons being used far more acurately against coalition forces trying to stabilise the country.

Look beyond the sensationalist media representation of what's going on and see the real story of Afghanistan, it's people, it's problems, and it's financial infrastructure and you'll see we can't just go in and blitz the place.

The Americans saw the results of that sort of folly in Vietnam.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Agree with much of what you say Wishy regarding tracking of money but I think you overstate the level of knowledge the Intelligence Service has of the cash flow to terrorist organisations. Much of it goe, in cash, through informal, unofficial channels or 'hawala'. There is a major drive to make the more official, electronic [ergo easily monitored] systems more attractive than 'hawala'. It is estimated that the 9/11 attacks cost circa 200,000 USD to set up and execute. It is easy to hide such a small amount in 'hawala' transfers given that Citibank in New York handle three TRILLION dollars every day. It's interesting stuff though and a massive task for the intelligence agencies world wide.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Having been born in the Uk, worked in the Uk and now being an Ex-Pat, yes I still pay taxes to the 'Crown' I'm baffled!

There's no need for an Aircraft carrier!

What people need to focus on here is that there is 'Global Recession'

There's a need for cuts, unfortunately it's the people at the lower scale and hardest hit that maybe will feel the brunt!

Despite being loyal to your Country, sometimes requires those that where elected make the decisions.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uckscouple2007Couple
over a year ago

Bucks

Search nimrod in other category on eBay

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 22/10/10 16:09:44]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *HAGADELICCouple
over a year ago

south london

When will the political class realise that simply arming to fight the most recent war is a mistake? Things come out of the blue. If the UK wants to be taken seriously we need aircraft carriers we need strong armed forces.

No-one saw the Falklands war coming.

There was a lot of talk before the election that "front line services" would be protected well if the armed forces aren't in the front line what are?

As for Trident- what's the common factor between all permanent memebers of the UN security council?

strategic nuclear missile submarines- it's owning Strategic nuclear weapons that is the ticket to the top table -that lets us at least have a small say at the highest levels alongside the USA Russia China and France...

Our armed services are bloody good they in some ways are paying the price for ( over the years) getting on with what they've been given making the best of things and getting through by guts and skill. Feel that poiliticans too often say " oh the generals/ admirals always whine it's a game they'll get on with it if push comes to shove"

Eventually if this goes on the Uk is going to get humiliated by the 3rd or 4th rate country....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *plpxp2Couple
over a year ago

Middlesbrough

Well there is one positive here: Camerons is very popular in Argentina

Thinking about national security, does it really make sense to advertise that we have no planes for our carriers for 10 years?

Then to cap it all this week a 1 billion pound sub that can sit off the UK coast and track a ship leaving New York cannot see a sandbank when on the surface, not the UK's best week

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale


"When will the political class realise that simply arming to fight the most recent war is a mistake? Things come out of the blue. If the UK wants to be taken seriously we need aircraft carriers we need strong armed forces.

No-one saw the Falklands war coming.

There was a lot of talk before the election that "front line services" would be protected well if the armed forces aren't in the front line what are?

As for Trident- what's the common factor between all permanent memebers of the UN security council?

strategic nuclear missile submarines- it's owning Strategic nuclear weapons that is the ticket to the top table -that lets us at least have a small say at the highest levels alongside the USA Russia China and France...

Our armed services are bloody good they in some ways are paying the price for ( over the years) getting on with what they've been given making the best of things and getting through by guts and skill. Feel that poiliticans too often say " oh the generals/ admirals always whine it's a game they'll get on with it if push comes to shove"

Eventually if this goes on the Uk is going to get humiliated by the 3rd or 4th rate country...."

Like in Afghanistan 150yrs ago?

When will we realise we are nothing more than a middle-ranking European power with delusions of grandeur? We are still believing our fading dreams of empire & haven't noticed the world moving around us.

We cling to the coat-tails of another fading empire (the US) in order to legitimise our self-delusions.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he_original_poloWoman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

If we are going to be letting the Frenchies put their aircraft on our aircraft carriers...... will it be pay and display or meter? I can't see it working if it's a pay on exit system.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *xccvvMan
over a year ago

Yorkshire North East

Not sure why someone so upset as to the servicemen and women serving now swearing their allegiance to the Queen ?

Having served in the Army I found it an honour and a privilege to wear the Queens uniform and take the Queens shilling, they may not know our countries history saying that we have become a diverse country in recent years

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"before we consider what ordanance we need in these modern times its worth looking back in history to consider what needs we had in the past , and how wars were fought

we had the blanket bombing of coventry , london , and in germany we had the same in dresden etc

also a few nuclear bombs were droped in japan

as far as tactics go , if the french resistance blew up a railway line , the germans lined up 100 villiagers and shot them , or sent them off to concentration camps

there was some real heavy battles etc , like the siege of stalingrad

it dont work like that anymore

take the pirates of somalia , there a big problem to the UK and USA

we got trident , and the US have got a bigger trident

between us there umpteen aircraft carriers , landing craft , jet fighters , tanks , you name it

what can we do to stop the pirates ?

fuck all

at the moment we are at war in afghanistan , what is our objective there ?

it seems we are there to either stop the terrorist training camps , even though they can move them , or start others in another country at the drop of a hat

( they can do that easier than i can move house )

and / or introduce democracy , build new schools , infastructure etc

so what ordanance do the soldiers need there ?

perhaps a cheque book and a t shirt with TWAT written on the back

in my opinion all these big toys are a fucking joke , a total waste of money

the only thing they are any good for is the future king to sit behind the steering wheel and show what a big man he is

even though if anything happened it would be too dangerous for him to go anywhere near any action as he would shit his pants

apart from that why should we be concerned about defending the "nation"

its not our nation its the queens nation

if there was a serrious threat of being invaded i think i would sell up and go live in somewhere like argentina

let the queen defend her own fecking nation like king harold tried , it wasnt too dangerous for him to be up front near the action was it ?"

You made some very good points...just wanted to add a few things if you dont mind...About a year ago I started researching the Somali pirates because I read an article that offered another perspective on the whole affair.

According to Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy for Somalia confirmed to Al Jazeera the world body has "reliable information" that European and Asian companies are dumping toxic waste, including nuclear waste, off the Somali coastline.

Allegations of the dumping of toxic waste, as well as illegal fishing, have circulated since the early 1990s.

Nick Nuttall, a UNEP spokesman, told Al Jazeera that"Somalia has been used as a dumping ground for hazardous waste starting in the early 1990s, and continuing through the civil war there," he said.

The war in Afghanistan is just another Iraq..ie bullshit! We were told by our governments that AlQeada (Binladen) was responsible for 9/11...therefore we must invade Afghanistan...If that was true...then fair enough, but according to Insider accounts published in the British, French and Indian media US officials threatened war against Afghanistan during the summer of 2001 and had troops already stationed on the Pakistani border days before 9/11 (research it for yourself)

The reason we invaded Afghanistan was because of the pipeline that carries natural gas from neighbouring states through Afghanistan into the Caspian sea (worth approx $3 trillion) unfortunately...the Taliban said..."No" to the pipeline...so we invaded!

We were lied to about Iraq's WMD's at a cost hundreds of British soldiers lives lost...and to date the cost of Iraqis who have died as a result of our bullshit invasion stands at over 1.1 million people....FOR WHAT? A FUCKING LIE..And what fucks me off even more is the fact that they are trying the same shit all over again with Iran...As that son of a thousand fathers once tried to say but failed..."Fool me once shame on you...Fool me twice...shame on me!

I wonder if the people of this country will fall for it again...if we do...then Einstein was right when he said..." Only two things are infinite...The Universe...and Mans stupidity!

Ps...If Binladen is responsible for 9/11...why hasnt the FBI accused him on their most wanted site?

He,s on the site...but when the Guardian contacted the FBI in 2006 and asked why they hadnt accused Binladen of 9/11...they replied..."Because we have no evidence whatsoever to implicate Binladen in any way to 9/11"

Bit strange dont you think"?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"No-one saw the Falklands war coming".

Everyone saw the Falklands Conflict [it was never officially acknowledged as a 'war' - God knows what the difference is]coming. Argentina couldn't wait for us to withdraw HMS Endurance which although only a 'survey' vessel. The Tory Govt with Thatcher in charge at the time promptly carried out massive cuts of the Armed Forces. The Royal Navy in particular suffered severe cuts including HMS Endurance. This sent the signal to Argentina that we didn't give a flying one about the Falklands. No one, literally no one thought it was possible to send a task force big enough to retake the islands all that way undetected and unmolested by a well armed, well trained [the regulars were at least - we trained them!]resupplied, dug in enemy. The cuts meant that we had to commandeer cross channel ferries, cruise ships and civilian container vessels. How ironic that victory in Falklands saved Thatchers government when it was a conflict of their own making that cost more than 200 British servicemen their lives.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""No-one saw the Falklands war coming".

Everyone saw the Falklands Conflict [it was never officially acknowledged as a 'war' - God knows what the difference is]coming. Argentina couldn't wait for us to withdraw HMS Endurance which although only a 'survey' vessel. The Tory Govt with Thatcher in charge at the time promptly carried out massive cuts of the Armed Forces. The Royal Navy in particular suffered severe cuts including HMS Endurance. This sent the signal to Argentina that we didn't give a flying one about the Falklands. No one, literally no one thought it was possible to send a task force big enough to retake the islands all that way undetected and unmolested by a well armed, well trained [the regulars were at least - we trained them!]resupplied, dug in enemy. The cuts meant that we had to commandeer cross channel ferries, cruise ships and civilian container vessels. How ironic that victory in Falklands saved Thatchers government when it was a conflict of their own making that cost more than 200 British servicemen their lives."

A little misinformed but with the right feelings, HMS Endurance was to be withdrawn as a result of a decsion made by the previous Labour government.

Margaret Thatcher was, before the Conflict responsible for bringing the Armed Forces salaries back up above the threshold designated for the poor, prior to that British Servicemen serving in Northern Ireland were recieving supplementary benefits from the DHSS because thier wages were below the official breadline deemed necessary to live on.

It was also a Labour Party descision to scrap plans for the new aircraft carriers the Navy had asked for, instead they decided we did not need aircraft carriers of any size other than the Hermes/Invincible class which could carry Helicopters only.

The Torries got lucky because without aircraft carriers the campaign could never have taken place, the luck was that the newly developed (from older designs) Sea Harrier proved to be excellent on the short take off landing strips of the small carriers even some of the Land Harriers were quickly fitted out to work from the carriers too.

Margaret Thatcher also authorised the re-forming of the Parachute Brigade, at the start of the Falklands Campaign the previous Labour government had deemed the Brigade unnecessary and withdrawn the support elements, the UK had been left with 3 battalions of Para infantry, 7 Royal Horse Artillery airborne trained though mostly carrying out public duties with gun carriages, 9 Squadron Royal Engineers (para trained) and 205 (formerley 216) Para Signal Squadron, no other troops necessary to the operation of a Parachute Battalion were para trained. (paras get a £1 a day extra and are deemed expensive)

When a ship is regiestered in Britain the law requires ship plans to be passed to the Admiltary for assesment as to how such ships can be used in times of War and to plan for any changes that would be necessary (the helicopter decks fitted to the QE2, Canberra, Uganda and other ships were already planned out ready for shipyards to install quickly as soon as the ships were built.

As throughout our maritime history, merchant vessels are always utilized in times of war, more merchant ships were lost in the 2ndWW than any naval ship losses.

Very few merchant ships were actually used by comparison with Naval ships including RFA ships a rare thing.

Having transport ships like the ferries is an expense this country cannot afford in peacetime, better to spend that money on warships and utilize the Merchant ships as always.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Misinformed? Moi? Endurance was withdrawn by John Notts Defence Re_iew in 1981 - nothing to do with the previous Labour Govt [BTW I'm apolitical]. In his autobiography Nott actually states;

“I must confess that I wasn’t much aware of the Falkland Islands before the invasion. I had a huge globe in my room in the Ministry of Defence and I went over to it to rediscover the geographical position of the Falklands. I was a bit horrified to see how far away they were.”

Nott was heavily criticised by the Royal Navy at the time and by many strategic defence analysts since. Indeed the latest Coalition Defence Re_iew has been likened to the 'disastrous' 1981 re_iew in many ways. With regards to scrapping aircraft carriers this was a result of the Labour govt re_iew in 1966. Hermes was already in service as a 'strike' carrier. She was later converted to an anti submarine warfare [ASW/commando carrier. Her typical aircraft compliment according to Janes was; Mid - Late 60's 12 Sea Vixen FAW2s, 7 Buccaneer S2s, 4 Gannet AEW3s, 1 Gannet COD4, 5 Wessex HAS3s and 1 Wessex HAS1; 1970's 20 Sea King and/or Wessex helicopters); 1980's 5 Harriers and 12 Sea King helicopters. The Sea Harrier, purposely designed for a maritime role, entered service in 1980. During the Falklands Hermes reverted to her 'strike' role and was Flagship. She carried 26 Sea Harriers Royal Navy, 4 Harriers [Ground Attack]of the Royal Air Force, and 10 Sea Kings. Despite the 1966 re_iew HMS Invincible entered service as a 'light aircraft carrier' although she was known to us matelots as a 'through deck cruiser'. Launched in 1977 she was not commissioned until 1980. Her compliment of aircraft was normally 9 Sea Harriers and 12 rotary winged aircraft. The ground attack harriers [RAF]were able to operate from carriers because of the ramps at the bow and after being protected from the effects of salt water. Not counting submarines approximately 72 surface vessels took part in the campaign. Of these 32 could be considered combat vessels, 15 were requisitioned civilian vessels [including the 11th Mine Counter Measures Squadron consisting of refitted Hull stern trawlers], 25 were RFA's. Can't comment on the 'pongo' side of things but there's no doubt in my opinion that the cuts were Tory Govt ones and that the naval element of them precipitated the Falklands War.

Don't you just love this site? Stimulation in every way.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uelozCouple
over a year ago

Blackpool


"before we consider what ordanance we need in these modern times its worth looking back in history to consider what needs we had in the past , and how wars were fought

we had the blanket bombing of coventry , london , and in germany we had the same in dresden etc

also a few nuclear bombs were droped in japan

as far as tactics go , if the french resistance blew up a railway line , the germans lined up 100 villiagers and shot them , or sent them off to concentration camps

there was some real heavy battles etc , like the siege of stalingrad

it dont work like that anymore

take the pirates of somalia , there a big problem to the UK and USA

we got trident , and the US have got a bigger trident

between us there umpteen aircraft carriers , landing craft , jet fighters , tanks , you name it

what can we do to stop the pirates ?

fuck all

at the moment we are at war in afghanistan , what is our objective there ?

it seems we are there to either stop the terrorist training camps , even though they can move them , or start others in another country at the drop of a hat

( they can do that easier than i can move house )

and / or introduce democracy , build new schools , infastructure etc

so what ordanance do the soldiers need there ?

perhaps a cheque book and a t shirt with TWAT written on the back

in my opinion all these big toys are a fucking joke , a total waste of money

the only thing they are any good for is the future king to sit behind the steering wheel and show what a big man he is

even though if anything happened it would be too dangerous for him to go anywhere near any action as he would shit his pants

apart from that why should we be concerned about defending the "nation"

its not our nation its the queens nation

if there was a serrious threat of being invaded i think i would sell up and go live in somewhere like argentina

let the queen defend her own fecking nation like king harold tried , it wasnt too dangerous for him to be up front near the action was it ?

My God why are you even in this Country ? why do you hate it so much ?

I wish you cared a fraction for our servicemen facing bigger dangers from lack of equipment than you do for what the Royals do.

For your information British Servicemen do not fight for Royalty, no matter what the Royals may think, they fight so that you and I can sleep safely in thier beds, they fight to cut down the threat of terrorism which would be an everyday occurence if it was not for what they are willing to do to prevent it.

I am not saying the war in Iraq or Afghanistan is right or wrong, I am saying have some respect for those that protect you, to do that they need our support and they need the correct equipment.

If the government sorted out the procurement system they would not only have enough money to do what the MOD want but they would have enough to do it with the cuts still applied.

If we want independance from the USA then we need a strong military ability of our own.

soldiers DO fight for royalty , this is what they sign up for

British Army - Oath of Allegiance: Encyclopedia II - British Army - Oath of Allegiance

All soldiers must take the Oath of Allegiance on joining the Army. Those who believe in God use the following words: I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me. [2] Others replace the words "swear by Almighty God" with ...

it doesnt mention anything about the man in the street

i have every respect for soldiers fighting abroad , but the tactics they are ordered to use make them fit for nowt else but target practice ie twats"

yes all of our armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch and are all proud to and proud to defend our country ....as for tactics you have obviously never served so how do you know what the tactics are .......twats after 12 years in the best regiment in the world and serving my queen and country (and yours) i take serious offence at that .....if you dislike this country or are so willing to sell it short with your fear of invasion then leave ..........now please don't wait..........there may be a war and you would be conscripted then where would you be !!!!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

very informative about the Naval aspect of the Falklands Conflict and I bow to superior knowledge, well notwithstanding that we always use merchant ships in times of war and it's not a bad policy.

To the next poster ..... Best Regiment in the world - yay 2 Para then

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uton_coupleCouple
over a year ago

luton


"before we consider what ordanance we need in these modern times its worth looking back in history to consider what needs we had in the past , and how wars were fought

we had the blanket bombing of coventry , london , and in germany we had the same in dresden etc

also a few nuclear bombs were droped in japan

as far as tactics go , if the french resistance blew up a railway line , the germans lined up 100 villiagers and shot them , or sent them off to concentration camps

there was some real heavy battles etc , like the siege of stalingrad

it dont work like that anymore

take the pirates of somalia , there a big problem to the UK and USA

we got trident , and the US have got a bigger trident

between us there umpteen aircraft carriers , landing craft , jet fighters , tanks , you name it

what can we do to stop the pirates ?

fuck all

at the moment we are at war in afghanistan , what is our objective there ?

it seems we are there to either stop the terrorist training camps , even though they can move them , or start others in another country at the drop of a hat

( they can do that easier than i can move house )

and / or introduce democracy , build new schools , infastructure etc

so what ordanance do the soldiers need there ?

perhaps a cheque book and a t shirt with TWAT written on the back

in my opinion all these big toys are a fucking joke , a total waste of money

the only thing they are any good for is the future king to sit behind the steering wheel and show what a big man he is

even though if anything happened it would be too dangerous for him to go anywhere near any action as he would shit his pants

apart from that why should we be concerned about defending the "nation"

its not our nation its the queens nation

if there was a serrious threat of being invaded i think i would sell up and go live in somewhere like argentina

let the queen defend her own fecking nation like king harold tried , it wasnt too dangerous for him to be up front near the action was it ?

My God why are you even in this Country ? why do you hate it so much ?

I wish you cared a fraction for our servicemen facing bigger dangers from lack of equipment than you do for what the Royals do.

For your information British Servicemen do not fight for Royalty, no matter what the Royals may think, they fight so that you and I can sleep safely in thier beds, they fight to cut down the threat of terrorism which would be an everyday occurence if it was not for what they are willing to do to prevent it.

I am not saying the war in Iraq or Afghanistan is right or wrong, I am saying have some respect for those that protect you, to do that they need our support and they need the correct equipment.

If the government sorted out the procurement system they would not only have enough money to do what the MOD want but they would have enough to do it with the cuts still applied.

If we want independance from the USA then we need a strong military ability of our own.

soldiers DO fight for royalty , this is what they sign up for

British Army - Oath of Allegiance: Encyclopedia II - British Army - Oath of Allegiance

All soldiers must take the Oath of Allegiance on joining the Army. Those who believe in God use the following words: I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me. [2] Others replace the words "swear by Almighty God" with ...

it doesnt mention anything about the man in the street

i have every respect for soldiers fighting abroad , but the tactics they are ordered to use make them fit for nowt else but target practice ie twats

yes all of our armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch and are all proud to and proud to defend our country ....as for tactics you have obviously never served so how do you know what the tactics are .......twats after 12 years in the best regiment in the world and serving my queen and country (and yours) i take serious offence at that .....if you dislike this country or are so willing to sell it short with your fear of invasion then leave ..........now please don't wait..........there may be a war and you would be conscripted then where would you be !!!!!!"

i know what tactics are for the folowing reasons

they are in the history books , and those accounts of history can be compared to factual statements made by people deployed using the tactics concerned , such as my father who fought for 5 years in italy , france , greece , iraq , to name but a few , on ACTIVE service during WW2

when the usa invaded iraq after they annexed a neighbouring country the tactics used were those of hanibal who fought the romans a few thousand years ago , the tactics hanibal used are still taught today in american milliatary academys

if you watch the news , the tactics in afganistan are talked about on a daily basis , so you dont need to serve in the forces to have an understanding about tactics

you assume that i have never served , thats a very big assumption to make by a person that has no idea what i have done , or who i have worked for in my life

personal info like that is not a thing that i am prepared to go into on a web thread like this but heres a few places ive worked in

buck house , windsor castle , houses of parliament , northwood , gchg , awre , ruth lab , frimly green , roehampton , deepcut , chicksands

as for the word "prat" my father says he was treated like a prat when after the war he went to the labour exchange for a job and they told him to fuck off

and he says ( and so do i ) when a soldier comes back from afganistan with a limb missing and has to get help from either the british legion ( charity ) or help the heroes ( charity ) they are treated like prats

because they should have all there treatements etc BY RIGHT

not a fucking ( charity )

that treatement should be provided , and paid for by the state , namely the queen

it is her land and empire that they were defending when wounded

she is the one that rakes in money from the country , she even owns the fucking sea bed off the coast

we have to pay tax for any gravel we scoop of the sea bed , and tax for putting wind farms offshore

this year it will be 37 million quid for wind farm tax going the the queen

let her use that money to help the heroes

as for me and my fear of invasion i am going to do exactly the same thing as the queen

she has strategic plans so that if invasion is iminent she has a neutral country that she will fuck off to , while she leaves the armed forces here to try sort out the shit

the armed forces will be fighting on the beaches , in the fields , in the streets

and she wont be here

so what good for her is good enough for me

by the way

prince harry wont be here either , he will be with the queen , and will probably have the same half a dozen sas troops sorounding him that he had when he did his bullshit pr 6 weeks in iraq

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"before we consider what ordanance we need in these modern times its worth looking back in history to consider what needs we had in the past , and how wars were fought

we had the blanket bombing of coventry , london , and in germany we had the same in dresden etc

also a few nuclear bombs were droped in japan

as far as tactics go , if the french resistance blew up a railway line , the germans lined up 100 villiagers and shot them , or sent them off to concentration camps

there was some real heavy battles etc , like the siege of stalingrad

it dont work like that anymore

take the pirates of somalia , there a big problem to the UK and USA

we got trident , and the US have got a bigger trident

between us there umpteen aircraft carriers , landing craft , jet fighters , tanks , you name it

what can we do to stop the pirates ?

fuck all

at the moment we are at war in afghanistan , what is our objective there ?

it seems we are there to either stop the terrorist training camps , even though they can move them , or start others in another country at the drop of a hat

( they can do that easier than i can move house )

and / or introduce democracy , build new schools , infastructure etc

so what ordanance do the soldiers need there ?

perhaps a cheque book and a t shirt with TWAT written on the back

in my opinion all these big toys are a fucking joke , a total waste of money

the only thing they are any good for is the future king to sit behind the steering wheel and show what a big man he is

even though if anything happened it would be too dangerous for him to go anywhere near any action as he would shit his pants

apart from that why should we be concerned about defending the "nation"

its not our nation its the queens nation

if there was a serrious threat of being invaded i think i would sell up and go live in somewhere like argentina

let the queen defend her own fecking nation like king harold tried , it wasnt too dangerous for him to be up front near the action was it ?

My God why are you even in this Country ? why do you hate it so much ?

I wish you cared a fraction for our servicemen facing bigger dangers from lack of equipment than you do for what the Royals do.

For your information British Servicemen do not fight for Royalty, no matter what the Royals may think, they fight so that you and I can sleep safely in thier beds, they fight to cut down the threat of terrorism which would be an everyday occurence if it was not for what they are willing to do to prevent it.

I am not saying the war in Iraq or Afghanistan is right or wrong, I am saying have some respect for those that protect you, to do that they need our support and they need the correct equipment.

If the government sorted out the procurement system they would not only have enough money to do what the MOD want but they would have enough to do it with the cuts still applied.

If we want independance from the USA then we need a strong military ability of our own.

soldiers DO fight for royalty , this is what they sign up for

British Army - Oath of Allegiance: Encyclopedia II - British Army - Oath of Allegiance

All soldiers must take the Oath of Allegiance on joining the Army. Those who believe in God use the following words: I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me. [2] Others replace the words "swear by Almighty God" with ...

it doesnt mention anything about the man in the street

i have every respect for soldiers fighting abroad , but the tactics they are ordered to use make them fit for nowt else but target practice ie twats

yes all of our armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch and are all proud to and proud to defend our country ....as for tactics you have obviously never served so how do you know what the tactics are .......twats after 12 years in the best regiment in the world and serving my queen and country (and yours) i take serious offence at that .....if you dislike this country or are so willing to sell it short with your fear of invasion then leave ..........now please don't wait..........there may be a war and you would be conscripted then where would you be !!!!!!

i know what tactics are for the folowing reasons

they are in the history books , and those accounts of history can be compared to factual statements made by people deployed using the tactics concerned , such as my father who fought for 5 years in italy , france , greece , iraq , to name but a few , on ACTIVE service during WW2

when the usa invaded iraq after they annexed a neighbouring country the tactics used were those of hanibal who fought the romans a few thousand years ago , the tactics hanibal used are still taught today in american milliatary academys

if you watch the news , the tactics in afganistan are talked about on a daily basis , so you dont need to serve in the forces to have an understanding about tactics

you assume that i have never served , thats a very big assumption to make by a person that has no idea what i have done , or who i have worked for in my life

personal info like that is not a thing that i am prepared to go into on a web thread like this but heres a few places ive worked in

buck house , windsor castle , houses of parliament , northwood , gchg , awre , ruth lab , frimly green , roehampton , deepcut , chicksands

as for the word "prat" my father says he was treated like a prat when after the war he went to the labour exchange for a job and they told him to fuck off

and he says ( and so do i ) when a soldier comes back from afganistan with a limb missing and has to get help from either the british legion ( charity ) or help the heroes ( charity ) they are treated like prats

because they should have all there treatements etc BY RIGHT

not a fucking ( charity )

that treatement should be provided , and paid for by the state , namely the queen

it is her land and empire that they were defending when wounded

she is the one that rakes in money from the country , she even owns the fucking sea bed off the coast

we have to pay tax for any gravel we scoop of the sea bed , and tax for putting wind farms offshore

this year it will be 37 million quid for wind farm tax going the the queen

let her use that money to help the heroes

as for me and my fear of invasion i am going to do exactly the same thing as the queen

she has strategic plans so that if invasion is iminent she has a neutral country that she will fuck off to , while she leaves the armed forces here to try sort out the shit

the armed forces will be fighting on the beaches , in the fields , in the streets

and she wont be here

so what good for her is good enough for me

by the way

prince harry wont be here either , he will be with the queen , and will probably have the same half a dozen sas troops sorounding him that he had when he did his bullshit pr 6 weeks in iraq "

What nonsense..... having taken the Oath in 1986 and still serving the Queen and Country I can assure you that you do need to serve to have an understanding of tactics and having done 2 tours each of Telic and Herrick I can assure you that our TTPs change daily!!!! have you heard of 'Mission Command'?

As for us all being TWATS..... what a stupid narrow minded comment, I have many friends who came back in boxes or wheel chairs and they (and their families) have never thought as themselves as TWATS..... that must be an opinion that you (and your father) have.

Fully agree that the state should provide for the needs of the injured and not charity..... but it does not, and if it did I somehow think you would be one of the first ones to open a thread slagging it off anyway.

thank you for your insight into your wealth of Military knowledge and your skill as a tactician, but I cant actually recall any recent conflicts being fought in buck house , windsor castle , houses of parliament , northwood , gchg , awre , ruth lab , frimly green , roehampton , deepcut , chicksands. Anybody can read about it and profess to know about it but actually doing it is totally different.

And one final point, you mentioned Prince Harry and his 6 week PR stunt, if I recall he actually deployed to Afghanistan and not Iraq

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uton_coupleCouple
over a year ago

luton

DONCASTERCOUPLE

thanks for pointing out the typo regarding harry

the pr stunt was in afghanistan not iraq

i notice you said nothing to contradict the fact it was a pr stunt

im glad you agree the oath says nothing about country , it only mentions the queen and superiors , perhaps it should be changed to include it

as regards tactics im not talking about who recons 1 mile up the road tommorow , im talking about things like blanket bombing , or perhaps the advance or retreat of a thousand troops , or the tactic of invading a country to build schools and set up a system of democracy

i have no animosity towards anyone serving in the forces , my complaint is the way there treated regarding the fact they are looked after by charitys when returning home wounded , or not having basics like flak jackets etc , when in whitehall they recently bought chairs to sit on at 10 grand a lump , and have had a meditation lounge build costing millions

on this quote someone else suggested i might leave the country now if im scared of invasion , they might suggest the same to the queen , because she has the same plans as me , and like her i will piss off when i see fit and not before

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Luton_Couple:

You amaze me sometimes in your ability to talk utter nonsense. Your anti-Royalty stance blinds you to any form of reason at all. You seem to be indicating that you served in the forces, so at some point you took the Oath and then took the Queen's shilling, which isn't really the Queen's shilling, it's ours, but the phrase is used as an expression and not meant to be taken literally.

The Queen, her family AND the government would ALL leave the UK if we were invaded for two reasons:

1) to prevent an invading force using them to prop up a puppet government.

2) to co-ordinate a campaign of resistance.

We had French and Polish leaders over here in WW2 and that was instrumental in co-ordinating resistance to Germany in France and Poland.

You know all this so why are you being so belligerent and, well, tbh, prattish - to use a word you're familiar with.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uton_coupleCouple
over a year ago

luton


"Luton_Couple:

You amaze me sometimes in your ability to talk utter nonsense. Your anti-Royalty stance blinds you to any form of reason at all. You seem to be indicating that you served in the forces, so at some point you took the Oath and then took the Queen's shilling, which isn't really the Queen's shilling, it's ours, but the phrase is used as an expression and not meant to be taken literally.

The Queen, her family AND the government would ALL leave the UK if we were invaded for two reasons:

1) to prevent an invading force using them to prop up a puppet government.

2) to co-ordinate a campaign of resistance.

We had French and Polish leaders over here in WW2 and that was instrumental in co-ordinating resistance to Germany in France and Poland.

You know all this so why are you being so belligerent and, well, tbh, prattish - to use a word you're familiar with."

i said i "worked" in those establishments no more than that , to indicate i have conversed personaly with those directly involved with defence

in most of the things i say on the threads its from personal experience as opposed to cutting and pasting off wikepedia etc

you say the queen could be used to prop up a puppet government , that indicates to me that your agree the queen has influence over a government even though it is supposed to be democratic

also you say if the queen was in exile overseas she could orchistrate a campaign or resistance , that can mean only one thing , the queen is in command of the armed forces

as you well know she is the only one that can declare war !

all im trying to point out is that when we defend our country ( the thread is about defence ) the queen has more to defend than the bloke living in a council house , or rented room somewhere , or indeed the bloke who looks out of his window and sees the bedfordshire yeoman pub

it is her empire , she gets all the benefits from the land , gravel extraction from the sea bed , rent for offshore windfarms , duchy of cornwall , crown estates , so on and so forth

so she should get on her horse and go to afganistan , the front line

that is how royalty should conduct themselves

but they have it all sewn up now like a box of kippers

even the police have to swear alleagence to the queen

look ........ you cant vote the queen out

all you can do is to oppose her and overthrow her or the monarch in power by force

you cant complain if i oppose the queen because by its very nature the monarch is there by either blood line , or brute force

i dare say her ancestors sat there writing letters just like im doing now , because at the time they were not in power but had designs on overthrowing whoever was

just because there has been a very long time since there was a change of blood line doesnt mean it wont happen in the future

all it takes is another crocodile to come along thats a bit bigger and a tad hungry

so if i want to snarle i will

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

It makes anything you say on any given subject very difficult to attach any sense of credibility to. Your anti-Royalist stance pervades right through all you say.

You've mentioned before that you spend part of your time in Spain. They have a monarch do they not? Try and criticise their monarch as vociferously over there as you do ours over here and you may well get the same reaction.

We live in a state headed by a monarch, and most of us are in perfect harmony with that. Her Majesty has no real power at all and she can only declare war if her Prime Minister ORDERS her to.

She can appoint a government but only when the PEOPLE tell her which one we want, and the moment she decides that she doesn't want to declare war or she refuses to accept a change of government she'll find herself deposed faster than Speedy Gonzalez on amphetamine.

She is a figurehead, someone to rally behind, for the country to unite behind in the face of enemies who would see us defeated, but she also acts as a foundation for the Commonwealth, a bedrock, an anchor, that would leave us isolated and alone were we to become a republic. It would also leave all those little far flung places who are Commonwealth members wide open to invasion from neighbouring countries who have long lusted after a foothold outside of their own territories. We provide that umbrella of safety for those tiny little nations and yes, we pay to improve their lives, but we also get back so much more from them too. Canada, India, Australia - all Commonwealth countries that provide lucrative trade deals with the UK and Her Maj plays a huge part in securing those contracts with Royal Warrants, State Visits etc. You do her a disservice as she has been a wonderful monarch in her 50 solid years of service to her country.

She's my Queen and it will be a sad day indeed when she goes. Anyone who claims to be British and then slates her with their next breath is not British in my eyes as they clearly have no understanding of what it is to BE British.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *thwalescplCouple
over a year ago

brecon

A Russian sub is loose "somewhere" in the waters off the UK, and normally it wouldnt be a problem, as the Nimrod would track it, and the russkies knew it..... until.... they grounded the nimrod planes.

Now we have to rely on the French (I know, bit of an oxymoron that statement), or hope that there is an American aircraft carrying out training in the UK if we hope to keep an eye on the slippery russkie bastards.

Over the last year or so, russian planes have been regularly encrouching into UK airspace, and the RAF had sent our fly-boys to "escort" them away.

With fewer planes, the chances of a russian plane being able to actually get close enough to be a "real" threat is growing. And to those that say "but the Russians are no longer a threat" ..... watch this space, just cos the Russian bear hasnt growled recently, doesnt mean it is toothless.

Shrinking the Navy to something approaching the size of Portugals navy is not only an extremely bad move for defence, but also for all the other jobs the navy do all around the world, transporting food aid, patrolling of other nations shores to combat piracy and drug smuggling etc.

And then there is the Army. Admittedly, having a massive "cold war / European defence" army based on the predicted tank battles against the Russians in Germany is out-dated, but having a credible defence force means lots of boots on the ground, and lots of expensive armoured kit to keep them safe as they drive around, as well as all the support arms to enable them to do their job.

If, on a global stage, you want to be able to "reach out and touch someone", whether its for a conflict (the Falklands, the Gulf etc) or for security (Afganistan), then you need a big (combined services) hammer to smack them with, simples!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uton_coupleCouple
over a year ago

luton


"It makes anything you say on any given subject very difficult to attach any sense of credibility to. Your anti-Royalist stance pervades right through all you say.

You've mentioned before that you spend part of your time in Spain. They have a monarch do they not? Try and criticise their monarch as vociferously over there as you do ours over here and you may well get the same reaction.

We live in a state headed by a monarch, and most of us are in perfect harmony with that. Her Majesty has no real power at all and she can only declare war if her Prime Minister ORDERS her to.

She can appoint a government but only when the PEOPLE tell her which one we want, and the moment she decides that she doesn't want to declare war or she refuses to accept a change of government she'll find herself deposed faster than Speedy Gonzalez on amphetamine.

She is a figurehead, someone to rally behind, for the country to unite behind in the face of enemies who would see us defeated, but she also acts as a foundation for the Commonwealth, a bedrock, an anchor, that would leave us isolated and alone were we to become a republic. It would also leave all those little far flung places who are Commonwealth members wide open to invasion from neighbouring countries who have long lusted after a foothold outside of their own territories. We provide that umbrella of safety for those tiny little nations and yes, we pay to improve their lives, but we also get back so much more from them too. Canada, India, Australia - all Commonwealth countries that provide lucrative trade deals with the UK and Her Maj plays a huge part in securing those contracts with Royal Warrants, State Visits etc. You do her a disservice as she has been a wonderful monarch in her 50 solid years of service to her country.

She's my Queen and it will be a sad day indeed when she goes. Anyone who claims to be British and then slates her with their next breath is not British in my eyes as they clearly have no understanding of what it is to BE British."

spain ........ the part of spain i visit the most is catalonia , they absolutely detest the monarchy , they have there own flag , there own language ( that where i visit trust me they speak it ) to the point of cocking a deaf one to casteliano , and are fighting politicaly like crazy to become independant from spain

in fact they have recently added a blue star to the old flag of 5 red stripes on a yellow backdrop to promote the indepencia party ( or something like that )

in the north of spain is the well known ETA group , euskadi ta askatasuna ( basque lands for freedom )another part of spain that would gladly shoot the king

as far as the commonwealth goes australia are very near to getting shot of her , most of the others are independant , and a few are still pissed off for being expoited like the raj in india with there tea plantations worked by virtual slaves , talking of slaves some countries were used solely for the purpose of obtaining slaves

the commonwealth is nothing to be proud of i certainly am not , at least i had nothing to do with the wicked way those countries were exploited hundreds of years ago by the likes of liz 1

what was done to the native american indian ranks alongside the holacaust , we should hang our heads in shame

the queen is the only person that can declare war , you say someone tells her to do this or not as the case may be , and if she dissagrees will be booted out

who is going to boot her out ?

seeing as the police force take an oath to do her bidding , and the monarchy are themselves some of the highest ranking generals in the armed forces

talking of armed forces this advert came on whils i was typing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8doC4IDHbWI

soldiers returning home from fighting under the name of the crown , blinded etc and having to rely on CHARITY

lets have a bit of pomp and ceremony where the crown helps wounded soldiers

or at least lets do something so they are looked after as a right

to have to go on the telly and ask for charity to help wounded service personel beggars belief

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

as for the word "prat"

But you didn't say 'prat' did you? And the context in which you used the term could only be interpreted as derogatory.

You have, shall we say, a unique _iew on many things including military tactics [Military Academies also still refer to Tsun Zhu], the constitution of this country and the role of the Monarch to mention but three. I could say many things about your posts but I think 'Dear God Almighty' sums it up nicely

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Today, of all days, is a perfect example of why defence cuts are a BAD THING.

Who, a few months ago, could have predicted the Britain would be evacuating UK citizens from Libya?

Who'd have imagined Cumberland would have to be redepolyed to assist? What if there hadn't been such an asset nearby when HMG can't even organise a simple charter flight?

That's why defence cuts are a BAD THING. You never know what's coming round the corner.

Safe home all.

PS I believe there's a whiff of Brylcreem over Libya too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ensualfire88Man
over a year ago

Edinburgh

Defence cuts don't mean we wouldn't have a had a) a boat or b) a plane.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uckoldandWifeCouple
over a year ago

Manchester


"Today, of all days, is a perfect example of why defence cuts are a BAD THING.

Who, a few months ago, could have predicted the Britain would be evacuating UK citizens from Libya?

Who'd have imagined Cumberland would have to be redepolyed to assist? What if there hadn't been such an asset nearby when HMG can't even organise a simple charter flight?

That's why defence cuts are a BAD THING. You never know what's coming round the corner.

Safe home all.

PS I believe there's a whiff of Brylcreem over Libya too.

"

Couldn't the government just tell a commercial airline to cancel a few holiday flights to go save some lives instead and ask a passing tanker or cruise ship to pick people up lol, don't need an army, navy and airforce on expensive standby to rescue a load of well paid oil workers do we?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Couldn't the government just tell a commercial airline to cancel a few holiday flights to go save some lives instead and ask a passing tanker or cruise ship to pick people up lol, don't need an army, navy and airforce on expensive standby to rescue a load of well paid oil workers do we?"

Clearly they couldn't.

You might consider having Cumberland on patrol in the Med as being 'expensive' but consider the cost of the alternative. How many British lives might have been lost had HMG dithered further?

Reports suggest the first civillian flight out was paid for by UK oils companies.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ensualfire88Man
over a year ago

Edinburgh


"You might consider having Cumberland on patrol in the Med as being 'expensive' but consider the cost of the alternative. How many British lives might have been lost had HMG dithered further?

Reports suggest the first civillian flight out was paid for by UK oils companies."

How many British lives?

Due to dithering, or lack of a ship?

At what cost?

Depends what value you're putting on each life.

What difference does it make who paid for the first flights out?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Answering the OP, I am frustrated with what is happening within defence and how it is being portrayed in the news.

Under-resourced, under-budgeted...yet facing more and more cuts.

Dr Fox writes that this is down to bad management of the contracts.

How wonderful of him...how much has he actually researched this?

this government has come in and made too many swift decisions leading to short term, if somewhat short sighted, decisions.

the mod were informed 12 years ago that we could not afford to enter into conflict for another ten years, based on the cost of the war in bosnia and the middle east that preceded this latest one.

2 years later we have a government sending our troops inot battle yet again.

the mod never had the money for this and had to rob peter to pay paul.

11 years later we're questioning the gap in the budget and blaming it on bad management.

ill informed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Defence cuts are an excellent thing and they don't go far enough.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Defence cuts are an excellent thing and they don't go far enough.

"

why?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No reflection on the brave folks who work for our Forces. However...

having followed the US into 2 ill thought out and lengthy conflicts that have gone on for a decade are we any safer?

And when was the last time that our nuclear weapons were used or even threatened to be used. Total waste of money.

Why don't we accept our place in the world instead of dreaming that we are anything other than yes men to the Americans?

The waste has been enormous. Nimrod etc. Giant cost overrruns.

Use the defence money for health and education for me. Only my OP though.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"No reflection on the brave folks who work for our Forces. However...

having followed the US into 2 ill thought out and lengthy conflicts that have gone on for a decade are we any safer?

And when was the last time that our nuclear weapons were used or even threatened to be used. Total waste of money.

Why don't we accept our place in the world instead of dreaming that we are anything other than yes men to the Americans?

The waste has been enormous. Nimrod etc. Giant cost overrruns.

Use the defence money for health and education for me. Only my OP though."

the purpose of a nuclear deterrent is actually in it's name...it's a deterrent.

we don't want to use them! we also don't want others using them on us...it's a deterrent to prevent that.

as for whether the wars have offered any kind of benefit...well, how would we know what would have happened if we didn't go in? we did come under attack form extremists and that threat still exists. it's a matter of who's streets you'd rather fight it on. not that i condone war, but ask yourself that question

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

If a group of Brits decide that the lure of lucrative wages is worth going to a well known trouble spot then how is it the British taxpayer's responsibility to get them out when it all goes tits up?

I'm not saying they should be abandoned to their fate but they should damn well appreciate that we don't HAVE to go and get them and they should be bloody grateful when we do - and hand over some of that lucrative pay packet they've been earning - tax free!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adchickCouple
over a year ago

Cyprus


"Defence cuts are an excellent thing and they don't go far enough.

"

As someone who works for the service.... don't blame the MOD for what we get into and what we are sent to fight for, and don't blame us for the way we spend our budgets.

Blame the politicians who tell us what to do, what to buy, where to go and then slash our budgets whilst we are trying to do those things, correctly and whilst trying to keep our military safe.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"...........

Dr Fox writes that this is down to bad management of the contracts.

How wonderful of him...how much has he actually researched this?

this government has come in and made too many swift decisions leading to short term, if somewhat short sighted, decisions.

....................

"

Fox has been banging on of late about how delays add costs to any project yet (almost) the first announcement he made was to postpone the new submarine contract for 5 years in order to appease his Lib Dem chums.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If a group of Brits decide that the lure of lucrative wages is worth going to a well known trouble spot then how is it the British taxpayer's responsibility to get them out when it all goes tits up?

I'm not saying they should be abandoned to their fate but they should damn well appreciate that we don't HAVE to go and get them and they should be bloody grateful when we do - and hand over some of that lucrative pay packet they've been earning - tax free! "

It matters not a jot where they are, what job they're doing or how much they're being paid - tax free or not.

They're British subjects in danger overseas and entitled to the protection of HMG -even if the current lot aren't particularly good at the job.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"...

as for whether the wars have offered any kind of benefit...well, how would we know what would have happened if we didn't go in? we did come under attack form extremists and that threat still exists. it's a matter of who's streets you'd rather fight it on. not that i condone war, but ask yourself that question

"

Yes, but we started the Iraq war against a country that was not a threat to us: if we hadn't, then that invisible threat couldn't have been used against us. Iraq would have continued to be ruled by Saddam; it wouldn't have been a democracy, but more of its civilians would be alive today, than its decimated population after enormous civilian and other deaths that have happened during the war. I do believe there would be a greater number of that country's people alive, compared to now, even though Saddam was a murderous evil doer, against his own people (though no threat to the UK).

Are we safer as a result of having started that, as well as other wars? In all likelihood, no, we're actually at greater risk: the same extremists that you mention, that exist here, as well as in other countries, have grown to hate us even more since our invasions. Our warmongering has just stoked the flames, and it's no coincidence that our terror threat alert remains at Severe 'This means that a terrorist attack is highly likely'.

Sadly, after having enraged ever more people, this has made it easier for terrorist groups to recruit and plan plots against us.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LBishCouple
over a year ago

near bury st edmunds

Mr Bish has served in the Infantry for nearly 22 years now and im sure he would have a lot to say about this thread if he wasnt out of the country right now. First of all im sure he would say to them that recon we should pull out of afghan then if they wasnt there then what the fuck would they do, be board at home staffing on and off a gate. doing PT each mornig etc etc. He deffinatly joined up to serve our country not to just sit in a army base. As do most of the guys and girls that join up, otherwise what would be the point. I think the armed forces should be provided with what they need to defent the country, they have made cuts in the past without thining of the future and now there is not nearly enough specialized bomb disposal units for thats needed, dues to cuts years ago when there was no war on. So they have to think about the future as well as saving money.

What really pisses me off is the care they get when injured as a poster earlier said they have to be looked after by charitys. Many single guys that leave the army end up on the streets as they are not porvided with council housing when they leave, unlike married soldiers, also dispicalble. Cosidering the wages bankeers etc etc get there pay could better refelct the jobs they do and the unsocial hours and working away.

Rant over this is MY opinion im sure if MR Bish was here he would have lots to say after serving nearly 22 years of his life in the army. We should all RESPECT these man and women for the protection they provide, wether it be to the queen or Us, Its OUR country they are protecting.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Mr Bish has served in the Infantry for nearly 22 years now and im sure he would have a lot to say about this thread if he wasnt out of the country right now. First of all im sure he would say to them that recon we should pull out of afghan then if they wasnt there then what the fuck would they do, be board at home staffing on and off a gate. doing PT each mornig etc etc. He deffinatly joined up to serve our country not to just sit in a army base. As do most of the guys and girls that join up, otherwise what would be the point. I think the armed forces should be provided with what they need to defent the country, they have made cuts in the past without thining of the future and now there is not nearly enough specialized bomb disposal units for thats needed, dues to cuts years ago when there was no war on. So they have to think about the future as well as saving money.

What really pisses me off is the care they get when injured as a poster earlier said they have to be looked after by charitys. Many single guys that leave the army end up on the streets as they are not porvided with council housing when they leave, unlike married soldiers, also dispicalble. Cosidering the wages bankeers etc etc get there pay could better refelct the jobs they do and the unsocial hours and working away.

Rant over this is MY opinion im sure if MR Bish was here he would have lots to say after serving nearly 22 years of his life in the army. We should all RESPECT these man and women for the protection they provide, wether it be to the queen or Us, Its OUR country they are protecting. "
I could not agree with you more, this country is renowned for it's armed forces everywhere in the world except in it's own country. Our government should be bending over backwards to help everyone of them and their families.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LBishCouple
over a year ago

near bury st edmunds

Well said, OURS is one of the best armed forces anywhere. Bish has worked alongside the americans and i best not repeat what he thinks lol. But the way they are disregarded once out of the armed forces is shocking. when making the cuts they just need to remember what may or maynot happen in the future and if we will have enough trained soliders and equipment.

To all the service men and women of the UK, Keep up the great work and keep safe no matter where you are.

xxx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Mr Bish has served in the Infantry for nearly 22 years now and im sure he would have a lot to say about this thread if he wasnt out of the country right now. First of all im sure he would say to them that recon we should pull out of afghan then if they wasnt there then what the fuck would they do, be board at home staffing on and off a gate. doing PT each mornig etc etc. He deffinatly joined up to serve our country not to just sit in a army base. ........... "

I kinda understand what you're saying but I'm not convinced the UK can continue to arrange a supply of armed conflicts just to stop servicemen and women getting bored.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"If a group of Brits decide that the lure of lucrative wages is worth going to a well known trouble spot then how is it the British taxpayer's responsibility to get them out when it all goes tits up?

I'm not saying they should be abandoned to their fate but they should damn well appreciate that we don't HAVE to go and get them and they should be bloody grateful when we do - and hand over some of that lucrative pay packet they've been earning - tax free!

It matters not a jot where they are, what job they're doing or how much they're being paid - tax free or not.

They're British subjects in danger overseas and entitled to the protection of HMG -even if the current lot aren't particularly good at the job."

Frankly, that's bullshit.

If you (sic) decide to opt out of the tax rules that the rest of us live by then you sink or swim on your own. There is no automatic right to be bailed out - at the taxpayers expense (those that domicile and pay taxes in the UK), and then be able to say, "Hey, I'm a Brit, send a fucking warship to get me you twats!"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LBishCouple
over a year ago

near bury st edmunds


"Mr Bish has served in the Infantry for nearly 22 years now and im sure he would have a lot to say about this thread if he wasnt out of the country right now. First of all im sure he would say to them that recon we should pull out of afghan then if they wasnt there then what the fuck would they do, be board at home staffing on and off a gate. doing PT each mornig etc etc. He deffinatly joined up to serve our country not to just sit in a army base. ...........

I kinda understand what you're saying but I'm not convinced the UK can continue to arrange a supply of armed conflicts just to stop servicemen and women getting bored.

"

Im not saying just to stop them being board, how would you fight terrorisum then?. If we was getting bombed all the time and they was all coming from afghan then what would you want to do? How would you fight it? I understand you cant keep them over there to stop the boardom, im not trying to say that. I was more commenting on the ppl who say get the poor soldiers out of there. ok get them out of there to do what??? sit on camp with sod all to do? Most soldiers want to fight or do something other than drills guard duty etc etc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If a group of Brits decide that the lure of lucrative wages is worth going to a well known trouble spot then how is it the British taxpayer's responsibility to get them out when it all goes tits up?

I'm not saying they should be abandoned to their fate but they should damn well appreciate that we don't HAVE to go and get them and they should be bloody grateful when we do - and hand over some of that lucrative pay packet they've been earning - tax free!

It matters not a jot where they are, what job they're doing or how much they're being paid - tax free or not.

They're British subjects in danger overseas and entitled to the protection of HMG -even if the current lot aren't particularly good at the job.

Frankly, that's bullshit.

If you (sic) decide to opt out of the tax rules that the rest of us live by then you sink or swim on your own. There is no automatic right to be bailed out - at the taxpayers expense (those that domicile and pay taxes in the UK), and then be able to say, "Hey, I'm a Brit, send a fucking warship to get me you twats!"

"

You may well think it's bullshit but it's one of the reasons why a British passport is so highly prized.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Mr Bish has served in the Infantry for nearly 22 years now and im sure he would have a lot to say about this thread if he wasnt out of the country right now. First of all im sure he would say to them that recon we should pull out of afghan then if they wasnt there then what the fuck would they do, be board at home staffing on and off a gate. doing PT each mornig etc etc. He deffinatly joined up to serve our country not to just sit in a army base. ...........

I kinda understand what you're saying but I'm not convinced the UK can continue to arrange a supply of armed conflicts just to stop servicemen and women getting bored.

Im not saying just to stop them being board, how would you fight terrorisum then?. If we was getting bombed all the time and they was all coming from afghan then what would you want to do? How would you fight it? I understand you cant keep them over there to stop the boardom, im not trying to say that. I was more commenting on the ppl who say get the poor soldiers out of there. ok get them out of there to do what??? sit on camp with sod all to do? Most soldiers want to fight or do something other than drills guard duty etc etc.

"

I've never served with anyone who WANTED to fight.

Once they're told to do it, they do it with total professionalism but it isn't something they want to do.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uckscouple2007Couple
over a year ago

Bucks

at least the kit my employer makes is mandatory across all the 3 services else i'd be joining the likes of the unemployed guys who are on here all the time

.dave.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If a group of Brits decide that the lure of lucrative wages is worth going to a well known trouble spot then how is it the British taxpayer's responsibility to get them out when it all goes tits up?

I'm not saying they should be abandoned to their fate but they should damn well appreciate that we don't HAVE to go and get them and they should be bloody grateful when we do - and hand over some of that lucrative pay packet they've been earning - tax free!

It matters not a jot where they are, what job they're doing or how much they're being paid - tax free or not.

They're British subjects in danger overseas and entitled to the protection of HMG -even if the current lot aren't particularly good at the job.

Frankly, that's bullshit.

If you (sic) decide to opt out of the tax rules that the rest of us live by then you sink or swim on your own. There is no automatic right to be bailed out - at the taxpayers expense (those that domicile and pay taxes in the UK), and then be able to say, "Hey, I'm a Brit, send a fucking warship to get me you twats!"

"

These people are simply trying to improve their lot in the only way they know how.

Unlike those within this country that systematically defraud, rob or legally avoid paying their taxes etc in this country.

With each British person returned home I would love to see any politician or banker taken and left behind in their stead.

Only the most naive amongst us believe a word they say, so what use are they ?

Apart from actively undermining this country whilst institutionally fleecing us all of course.

They know as we all do, we all have to live with whichever party that's voted into power. We all then watch as they safely milk the systems in place with no realistic fear of any consequence or reprisal.

BTW, how was your 3/6 month paid leave from work last year ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LBishCouple
over a year ago

near bury st edmunds

course they want to do something other than sit in camp, not saying fight but they like the adrenaline they like to do what they signed up for. Bish rather be in afghan then sat on his arse in camp all the time thats for sure.

As for the comment above about enjoying payed leave, not sure in what context it is but bugger me if they not entitled to payed leave after seving in afghan for 6 months being shot at. sheeeshhhhh.

sometimes i wonder why the sevice men bother with some of the ppl who slate them. Like Bish says no-one ever talks about the armed forces or gives a shit inless something like afghan is going on etc. When its all quiet no-one usually gives a toss.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"course they want to do something other than sit in camp, not saying fight but they like the adrenaline they like to do what they signed up for. Bish rather be in afghan then sat on his arse in camp all the time thats for sure.

As for the comment above about enjoying payed leave, not sure in what context it is but bugger me if they not entitled to payed leave after seving in afghan for 6 months being shot at. sheeeshhhhh.

sometimes i wonder why the sevice men bother with some of the ppl who slate them. Like Bish says no-one ever talks about the armed forces or gives a shit inless something like afghan is going on etc. When its all quiet no-one usually gives a toss.

"

I would hazard a guess that alot of countries are re_iewing their defences, given the upheavel in the middle East and North Africa...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"BTW, how was your 3/6 month paid leave from work last year ?

"

It was 7 months in fact, and it was lovely tyvm.

One of the perks of being only one of a handful of engineers trained in what I do.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"BTW, how was your 3/6 month paid leave from work last year ?

It was 7 months in fact, and it was lovely tyvm.

One of the perks of being only one of a handful of engineers trained in what I do. "

guess how many nuclear engineers they are..and what they're paid and what leave they don't get?

the thing that always concerns me about these convos is that it turns into a debate about ill-thought through wars and we forget about the other work we do...like saving lives, intercepting drug couriers....folk are so blinkered. they focus on whats printed.

whats the menetary value of publishing the good deeds they do? no-one wants to know...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Generals and Admirals in defence cuts warnings....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12574757

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Generals and Admirals in defence cuts warnings....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12574757"

You'd expect these guys to think they way the do but it's difficult to escape the conclusion that, if the proposed cuts go ahead, there'll simply be some tasks our armed forces are unable to fulfill.

That might be another invasion of the Falklands, another 'Saddam invades Kuwait' situation somewhere else in the world, some fisheries or North Sea oil/ gas protection, anti-piracy work in the Gulf of Aden and beyond, anti-drug smuggling work in the Caribbean and beyond.

We might, as a nation, decide that's acceptable - but I doubt it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Generals and Admirals in defence cuts warnings....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12574757

You'd expect these guys to think they way the do but it's difficult to escape the conclusion that, if the proposed cuts go ahead, there'll simply be some tasks our armed forces are unable to fulfill.

That might be another invasion of the Falklands, another 'Saddam invades Kuwait' situation somewhere else in the world, some fisheries or North Sea oil/ gas protection, anti-piracy work in the Gulf of Aden and beyond, anti-drug smuggling work in the Caribbean and beyond.

We might, as a nation, decide that's acceptable - but I doubt it."

...even saving lives of folk lost in mountains or at sea..let's not forget that

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"BTW, how was your 3/6 month paid leave from work last year ?

It was 7 months in fact, and it was lovely tyvm.

One of the perks of being only one of a handful of engineers trained in what I do.

guess how many nuclear engineers they are..and what they're paid and what leave they don't get?

the thing that always concerns me about these convos is that it turns into a debate about ill-thought through wars and we forget about the other work we do...like saving lives, intercepting drug couriers....folk are so blinkered. they focus on whats printed.

whats the menetary value of publishing the good deeds they do? no-one wants to know..."

I have no idea about nuclear scientists and their renumeration packages.

Someone asked me a question and I answered it.

I have been informed by my bosses that had they known what they know now I would not have been on stand down for 7 months. At the time Virgin were telling us that the project I was working on was about to restart 'imminently', and they said that on a monthly basis. My company didn't want to lose me so they told me to sit tight. I didn't want to lose the job I had as I actually enjoy doing it, so I sat tight.

It was a one off and won't be repeated.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"BTW, how was your 3/6 month paid leave from work last year ?

It was 7 months in fact, and it was lovely tyvm.

One of the perks of being only one of a handful of engineers trained in what I do.

guess how many nuclear engineers they are..and what they're paid and what leave they don't get?

the thing that always concerns me about these convos is that it turns into a debate about ill-thought through wars and we forget about the other work we do...like saving lives, intercepting drug couriers....folk are so blinkered. they focus on whats printed.

whats the menetary value of publishing the good deeds they do? no-one wants to know...

I have no idea about nuclear scientists and their renumeration packages.

Someone asked me a question and I answered it.

I have been informed by my bosses that had they known what they know now I would not have been on stand down for 7 months. At the time Virgin were telling us that the project I was working on was about to restart 'imminently', and they said that on a monthly basis. My company didn't want to lose me so they told me to sit tight. I didn't want to lose the job I had as I actually enjoy doing it, so I sat tight.

It was a one off and won't be repeated."

£44k basic, with benefits....which are looking at being cut.

in industry their counterparts are earning circa £110k

...yet we think we pay too much for defence and for our service men

they certainly don't do it for money that's fo sho

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ingleguy1973Man
over a year ago

peterborough

for anyone who asks what are we doing in afghanistan?

my brother and i have both come close to being blown up. for him, he was innocently walking to work in london on 7/7. for me, it was while leading a patrol through kabul.

all he had with him was a brief case and a mobile. i had state of the art body armour and helmet, a comprehensive personal first aid kit and a trained trauma medic on the patrol plus many years of experience to rely on.

i have been back to afghanistan since and will gladly go again if means that millions of people in the UK can go about their daily business without fear of terrorism.

that is why we need our armed forces, that is why we are in afghanistan and that is why i am proud to serve Queen and Country.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

But (and I say this with the utmost respect for all the armed forces,UK or otherwise) we are in Afghanistan and we still have the fear of terrorism, and we always will because if it isn't Afghanistan, it'll be someplace else..

Sadly it's just the way of the world nowadays and we can invade other people's countries till the cows come home and nothing will change ...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ingleguy1973Man
over a year ago

peterborough

very true but i genuinely believe that the by removing safe havens for terrorists we are reducing their capability to attack this country.

i would sooner fight them in afghanistan than have them kill and injure innocent people in this country.

also, the purpose of terrorism is to terrorise... but there is a difference between the fear of terrorism and an actual attack.

that is the nature of counter-insurgency and asymetric warfare. TB and AQ know they can never win through conventional means and have resorted to trying to punch above their weight in other ways.

and let us not forget, these people want to destroy the very things that we all take for granted. if they had their way, women would become second class citizens, no television, no music, no pubs and clubs etc etc and as for swinging, all of us on this site would find ourselves in jail or worse!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"for anyone who asks what are we doing in afghanistan?

my brother and i have both come close to being blown up. for him, he was innocently walking to work in london on 7/7. for me, it was while leading a patrol through kabul.

all he had with him was a brief case and a mobile. i had state of the art body armour and helmet, a comprehensive personal first aid kit and a trained trauma medic on the patrol plus many years of experience to rely on.

i have been back to afghanistan since and will gladly go again if means that millions of people in the UK can go about their daily business without fear of terrorism.

that is why we need our armed forces, that is why we are in afghanistan and that is why i am proud to serve Queen and Country."

Alot of us, understand why the forces are over in Afgan...

Our streets are safer..thanks to the brave efforts of all who serve out there on our behalf .....

God bless all those who are or have been involved over there...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I totaly agree! But I feel for the para s they've lost so many good men out there and are now on standby for Libya !!! Why is this our fight?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I totaly agree! But I feel for the para s they've lost so many good men out there and are now on standby for Libya !!! Why is this our fight? "

Why was Germany invading Poland our fight?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

In what can only be described as yet another Tory led coalition u turn it transpires at least two Nimrods, from Waddington, will be kept in service.

It just goes to show that no matter how clever Liam Fox thinks he is there's no telling what's coming round the corner.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *leasureDomeMan
over a year ago

all over the place


"In what can only be described as yet another Tory led coalition u turn it transpires at least two Nimrods, from Waddington, will be kept in service.

It just goes to show that no matter how clever Liam Fox thinks he is there's no telling what's coming round the corner."

yep ,your right you can never tell who's gonna have a pop at who next ,but as the yanks say the nuke threat is now from dirty conventional bombs in major cities ,you got to ask why we are spending 100 billion over 10 years on trident ,i mean thats all the cuts made so far in one swoop. and if someone lit a dirty bomb who you going to shoot that trident missile at ? .

if its deterent lets pretend we got em like we did with the hydrogen bombs in the 50s or better still keep the ones we got and fire the 64 warheads we have anyway,if it ever got to the point of Mutually Assured Destruction scenario we wouldnt be around to find out if they went off or not ...lmao

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Clive Fairweather, a good chap in his day, has warned that "the (Tory led coalition) government may be forced to try to buy back former commandos from private companies to cope with a special forces recruitment crisis"

Hasn't he, or anyone from the Con Dem 'coalition' heard about bolting the stable door.............?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adchickCouple
over a year ago

Cyprus


"Clive Fairweather, a good chap in his day, has warned that "the (Tory led coalition) government may be forced to try to buy back former commandos from private companies to cope with a special forces recruitment crisis"

Hasn't he, or anyone from the Con Dem 'coalition' heard about bolting the stable door.............?"

Who said that the above practice only started when the current government came into power?

I think you will find the timings that the papers are reporting are a little off!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

cutbacks

rising unemployment

increasing (somewhat fictional) threats

fear fear fear

all it needs is one big boooooooooooom of terror

and then you are free to conscript

with a massive resource of unemployed folks who are right in the front of the queue

and you would need that level of numbers to secure certain oil resources

especially after funding iraq for so many years to push on the khuzestan region of iran - and iraq - dear oh dear failed

cos Iran are Persians - and are not a pushover - damn

what will we do

hmmmmmmmmmm well first lets fuck iraq and take theirs anyways

job done

but oil rules the world

and theres Iran running its bourse on the 4th largest reserve on the planet

ooooooooooooo bad guys bad guys maybe with nukes oooooo my god

holocaust deniers - terrorist supporters - nasty nasty nasty peoples

lets well lets try n secure the surrounding regions - lets maybe deal with libya - lets pressure syria - lets try n knock out their pals

then

then we can take em

led right up a garden path to oil

we are going to war with Iran folks and thats gonna be huge - budget cuts and bullshit - your gonna need a lot of boots on the ground cos you aint just bombing them with flashy aircraft

the US already declared war on Iran on March 20th 2008 - the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network was the beginning of strangling supplies and resources to Iran

check out Hubberts peak on oil

and the scary reality is we passed it years ago - the world is now running out oil at a rate that demand is faster than stock and its accelerating day by day

if your a big player in the world you neeeeeeeeeeeed oil big time!

and Iran has shed loads

budget cuts my ass we are going to hammer them and we will if we have to cause a big bang so the finger points the right way

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We can debate the rights and wrongs of the 'cuts' and where (if at all) they should take place.

But what we as a nation should never forget is exactly what the last Labour Government did:

Liam Byrne so accurately said: "There is no money left!"

They left a £38 Billion hole in the Defence budget.

They screwed us and future generations with their 'PFI' contracts for schools and hospitals.

They committed us to bailing out Euro nations for the next 7 years and this was AFTER they lost the Election.

They signed contracts for 2 aircraft carriers that HAD to be built as the cost of cancelling was greater so Gordon Browns constituents could be kept in work.

So the best Defence Plan I can see for this country is never EVER let Labour anywhere near government again!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

we are gonna need those carriers

thats for certain

and ships are not built in kirkcaldy and cowdenbeath - an aircraft carrier especially 2 as well as the other deals for new destroyers - are not just built in one place - they are built all over the country before final assembly

defence is also very very complex now

taking nothing at all from the friends and family i know doing it ......

but there is no armed force waging its way toward the uk - al queda in the UK have so far made the IRA look like superstars - and the IRA have still posed far more threat to the Uk

defence is about politics and resources - oil and gas

look at how much an oil transport driver got paid in iraq compared to a british soldier who can get blown apart and shot at - and is often tasked to support and back up that oil transport

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"..........

They signed contracts for 2 aircraft carriers that HAD to be built as the cost of cancelling was greater so Gordon Browns constituents could be kept in work.

............ "

As cheekykarma has pointed out, bits of these ship are built all over the UK - they're just assembled in Fife.

Without the carrier orders, UK shipbuilding would have died a swift and undignified death.

Nobody imagines an island race can survive without a navy and, I hope, nobody anticipates a time when we might have to source those ships from a foreign power.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

just like to add to voyeur

also during our time of extreme streched resources those sneaky argentinians are after the falklands again and voiced hmmm maybes about it

thats why we have a navy

i wouldnt want to bet - but i do - we have launch silos on that island - as well as other interests - and nice wildlife too

its very strategic

which is why we were ready in the war to risk i think 3 SAS squads on a suicide mission to deal with the exocet - but yaaaay MI6 sorted that out with sneaky trade deals

eventually we will merge into europe and be one team - a super european state - and as long as our pals play ball we will have quite a force

the world is merging to unions - the north american union - the asian union the european and the african union

thats merging us into 4 currencies - and then its easier to merge us all into one single currency and global government

but its risky

and sceptic as i am - i think before we get to that great idea of a world union together as one

we are gonna all fight again

and the major panic in that - is that we are in trouble with oil

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

....................

and the major panic in that - is that we are in trouble with oil

"

If our increasing corpulent First Minister, Him Immensity Alex Salmonella, is to be believed - oil is no longer a problem.

How, exactly, you run a Range Rover Overfinch on renewable wind power has yet to be explained.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"..........

They signed contracts for 2 aircraft carriers that HAD to be built as the cost of cancelling was greater so Gordon Browns constituents could be kept in work.

............

As cheekykarma has pointed out, bits of these ship are built all over the UK - they're just assembled in Fife.

Without the carrier orders, UK shipbuilding would have died a swift and undignified death.

Nobody imagines an island race can survive without a navy and, I hope, nobody anticipates a time when we might have to source those ships from a foreign power."

Oh don't misunderstand me I am happy they are building the carriers and generally happy with what they are having to do to get the country back in shape.

Pity they didn't say to the Yanks that we would only by the Joint Strike Fighter if it was built here under licence. As they do to us when buying aircraft.. And then we would have the aircraft for the carriers ..and what a formidable force they will be.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

just like to add to voyeur

also during our time of extreme streched resources those sneaky argentinians are after the falklands again and voiced hmmm maybes about it

thats why we have a navy

i wouldnt want to bet - but i do - we have launch silos on that island - as well as other interests - and nice wildlife too

its very strategic

................... "

There are no launch silos on Falkland.

That's why, if you accept the UK must remain a nuclear weapon power, we will maintain and, in due course, replace Trident and the submarine delivery system.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

lol alex salmond is an arsehole!

we sold out our oil - where we could have been like norway - or smarter with it

we could have said NO! fuck you - cos we know your gonna want it

we could have said no we will loan your equipment and pay ya back

but no we flogged it - so its not scottish oil

alex salmonds great ideas to make it scottish again is just - ehhhhh hallo - can we have this man tested for drugs!

the media etc and OPEC will consistently tout the idea that oil is not a worry

hmmm - have a look at what happened when arentina hit peak oil

it nearly collapsed

the big big big big secret in the world is all the rest of it - is way way way past peak

why car companies are all falling over themselves now to look at leccy - its why we are building nuclear fusion plants and the ITER project in France - and its why china russia even india are racing to the moon not to plant flags - but to mine!

helium 3 isotopes

but we need oil to get there!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"lol alex salmond is an arsehole!

we sold out our oil - where we could have been like norway - or smarter with it

we could have said NO! fuck you - cos we know your gonna want it

we could have said no we will loan your equipment and pay ya back

but no we flogged it - so its not scottish oil

alex salmonds great ideas to make it scottish again is just - ehhhhh hallo - can we have this man tested for drugs!

......................

"

In fairness to the puir soul he's married to woman, Moira, twice his age.

Eck is 56. Draw your own conclusions

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i dont know at all there is launch silos on the falklands

but considering our pals america - and looking at a map - and then thinking where is a good spot to have an ICBM launch point..........

and if we did or did not - we would still have no idea where

in the early 90s a russian first strike map plan was released showing its targets in the event of a full scale strike

who knows how realistic it was ......

but the west coast and highlands of scotland were fucked by target points - especially around garelochead for obvious reasons

and the falklands were heavily targetted

why nuke an island with nothing on it but walrus

it may just be a submarine base

it may just be a decoy

all of the above make it strategic and worth holding

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

i dont know at all there is launch silos on the falklands

but considering our pals america - and looking at a map - and then thinking where is a good spot to have an ICBM launch point..........

......................

"

With Astute class submarines there's no real need for land based missile silos.

That said, the Falklands location is 'possibly' where UK subs spend a bit of their time on the grounds that distance is no real drawback when the use of Trident is considered and hanging around the South Atlantic (or 'maybe' hanging around the South Atlantic) might be the disincentive the Argentinians need.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

.....................

in the early 90s a russian first strike map plan was released showing its targets in the event of a full scale strike

who knows how realistic it was ......

but the west coast and highlands of scotland were fucked by target points - especially around garelochead for obvious reasons

..........................

"

That's why we need 4 and not 3 Astute, or successor, class Trident missile submarines.

There must ALWAYS be one at sea, somewhere no amount of surveilance can deter it from its task.

That's why the current SDSR mustn't reduce our nuclear capacity in the way it has comprehensively f***-up the number of pilots available for Eurofighter ground attack work and so on.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anny PepperoniMan
over a year ago

Matlock

am I on the right site??? I thought this was a condom thread!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

.....................

in the early 90s a russian first strike map plan was released showing its targets in the event of a full scale strike

who knows how realistic it was ......

but the west coast and highlands of scotland were fucked by target points - especially around garelochead for obvious reasons

..........................

That's why we need 4 and not 3 Astute, or successor, class Trident missile submarines.

There must ALWAYS be one at sea, somewhere no amount of surveilance can deter it from its task.

That's why the current SDSR mustn't reduce our nuclear capacity in the way it has comprehensively f***-up the number of pilots available for Eurofighter ground attack work and so on."

Germany amongst many other country's manage well without. I really don't see why we waste all the money we do on arms.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

well the thing with subs is they are the ultimate in first strike firepower

but they are usually what maybe 150 meteres submerged at launch depth or less

meaning they are closer to satellite - aircraft - and ship detection than when they run deep

and the slightest hit - knock - and that entire machine is fucked and gone

stealth is their weapon - but you find one - you can so easily fuck it up

so we will always need land based launch sites - and in terms of redundancy you always want a secret spot up the sleeve as well as less accurate mobile launchers - both of which are harder to hide in todays satellite age - seeing as we all have sooooo many "weather sattelites"

the land based threat is still the number one to certain scenarios

we are told ooo iran will want to chuck a nuke at israel by the news

but we all know - within 20 mins of that america and the uk would launch from land base sites and iran could not stop them

putting iran into the stone age - and russia and china would have to not dare get involved due to the MAD agreement and the fact iran if they did launched a hostile nuclear act on a protected territory

and it would be insanity to score maybe what half or 1 or even lets say 2 millon hits - to have your 60 mill population bombed into the stone age with 20 to 40 to 50 megatonne icbms

despite the bullshit - you can survive a nuclear blast quite well

you can rebuild etc - chernobyl was way different as that was an exposed ongoing reaction - whereas a bomb uses all its energy up in that first flash - fallout is limited

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top