European Politics Thread.

[spooky lynx 73]

BAE had modified Mi-24 to NATO standarts. Germans modified their MiG-29s to fit NATO specs in a short time. I doubt it will take longer for Brits to do the same. BTW, all the aircrafts can be made NATO-ready from the beginning. Just like Mi-17s for CzAF and Poland.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Please show us where UK and Germany are using Mi-24s and MiG-29s in their current fleet + active duty! Why should anyone bother to burn money into foreign developments/productions without getting a significant profitable/political gain? In how many NATO projects is Russia involved? How many years/decades Russia is behind US/EU research & development? Different strategies/doctrine still aren't always that compatible to each other. Because of economical reasons some countries do use old but upgraded russian stuff. One has "just" decide what is good enough to keep (+ upgrade it) and what makes sense to buy for next decades/future.

[PELHAM 10]

I checked my facts before posting thanks.

They didn't agree with yours.

Could you show us your sources? The facts are that the F-35 is already in production and the US and UK are already taking deliveries as this shows:

BAE Systems - EXTENDED F-35 MILITARY JET MANUFACTURING FACILITY OPENED date Friday 23 March 2012,

"BAE Systems employs almost 2000 employees on the F-35 programme."

"the facility when fully completed will enable workers to produce one F-35 aft fuselage set every day, compared to the current rate of one set per week. The extension is the second part of a three phase expansion plan to the facility as the programme gears up for peak rate production by 2016."

They can scrap production of those 2 carrriers too.

They look like little more than vanity ships to me.

All contracts can be cancelled.

Do you know what a legal contract is? Do you know that they have terms and conditions attached?

The MoD told MPs that "as the cancellation costs would have had immediate effect, the costs in the short term would have been significantly higher than proceeding with both carriers as planned; nearly £1bn more in financial year 2011/12 if both carriers had been cancelled".

"They [the previous Labour government] signed contracts so we were left in a situation where even cancelling the second carrier would actually cost more than to build it; I have this in written confirmation from BAE Systems". - UK Prime Minister

I didn't thnk a redesign would be "simple". I just think that the F35 project isn't operating on a reasonable time-line or budget either. Far from it.

It's operating on an utterly preposterous one that greatly overvalues the usefulness of the military capability it brings. It's a massive waste of time and money.

All these arguments about the problems involved in adding tail hooks and landing gear to Eurofighters made alot more sense to me before the F35 then went on to have all the exact same issues.

A certain group of people say this about every single defence contract. It's getting boring and is proved to be utterly false every time. The F-35 does not have the same issues as the Typhoon because the navalised C model is already in production. You do know they are producing 3 different types at once don't you? Also, the recent problem with the hook was vastly overstated in the media. Many stated that the entire rear of the aircraft would have to be redesigned - false again.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/01/dn-design-blamed-for-f35c-tailhook-issues-011712/

To start with a navalised Typhoon now would require a huge investment and a redesigned aircraft which would take years. All the money spent and new infrastructure built for the F-35 would be wasted.

An Su 33 is a kickarse airframe. Any old workhorse will do, all it has to do is carry a radar and fire missiles/drop bombs reliably.

Given that the Harriers WTF PWNED the Argies, just think what an Su 33 would do the them. Or Hornet too, if Russia/China is too big of an ideological bugbear for you.

Nothing ideological at all, it's simply logic and economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-33#Potential_operators

India was also viewed as another potential operator of the Su-33. The Indian Navy planned to acquire the Su-33 for the its aircraft carrier, the INS Vikramaditya, the refurbished Soviet Admiral Gorshkov, which was sold to India in 2004.[39] In the end, the rival MiG-29K was opted for, because of the Su-33's outdated avionics.[12][40][41] The size of the Su-33 reportedly led to concerns over potential difficulties in operating it off the Indian carriers, a constraint not shared by the smaller MiG-29K

Russia does not have the manufacturing capacity to produce the numbers of aircraft required or guarantee the quality. There are already more F-35s flying than either the SU-33 or Mig-29K despite those aircraft being in production/development for more than 22 years! If you doubt that add up the numbers here: wikipedia-List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft

The "Harrier PWNED the Argies" in 1982, 30 years ago, and they were not equiped with good radar or BVR missiles. While I admire your tenacity for your cause, I again would advise you to check facts before posting.

Edited April 20, 2012 by PELHAM

[Baff1 0]

Governments make the laws.

If they need to change the contracts, they can.

If they want to get out of a legally binding contract, they can simply legislate to do so.

Or they can appoint their own judge....

Or hold endless enquiries until people lose the will to live....

Or declare it a matter of national security....

This isn't a private sale we are discussing.

I don't care about Russian avionics and weapon systems. We use our own.

BAE can build them under lisence too. As long as the price is right, the capability is.

Why would I think the problems with F 35 under carriage and hook are of any greater overstatment in the media than I would of the Eurofighter?

it's a problem we have discussed on this forum with regards to navalised Eurofighter, so when I find out that the F 35 has it too, I afford it a degree of concern in accordance to the degree of concern it has been accorded to the "navalised Eurofighter" here.

I've been sold onthe argument. And now I find out that it applies to both airframes.

It's the same problem. Getting an Aeroplane that was designed for land use equiped to work off a ship.

The Harrier pwned the Argies 30 years ago, but the Argie airforce hasn't changed in the last 30 years.

Do we even need a fixed wing capability vs them at all when we have SAMS?

So what are you expecting these aircraft to be used for anyway?

Who are we buying them to fight?

What theatre outside of Argentina do we expect to fight a war in which we might have no superior ground based airstrips or allies without aircraft carriers in numbers quite beyond the need of us providing any extra?

So I'm not up for wasting a butt load of cash on them.

It's not value for money.

Vanity planes to operate off of vanity ships.

But where are the frigates and the Nimrods?

I didn't make a note of the web pages I referred to before posting, sorry. Just basic Google search stuff.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Baff1

[PELHAM 10]

Governments make the laws. If they need to change the contracts, they can. If they want to get out of a legally binding contract, they can simply legislate to do so. Or they can appoint their own judge.... Or hold endless enquiries until people lose the will to live.... Or declare it a matter of national security.... This isn't a private sale we are discussing.

That would cost more and do more harm than good to the UK economy. It's also not how things are done in a democracy because by legislating in that manner you would change the legal system completely. It would also be very unfair and subject to Judicial review here and abroad. How would the UK ever place a large defence contract in the future? Who would accept it if we simply tore up contracts whenever we pleased. The trick is not to sign stupid contracts in the first place like the last Labour Government did.

I don't care about Russian avionics and weapon systems. We use our own.

BAE can build them under lisence too. As long as the price is right, the capability is.

So you think that would be cheaper and more feasible than staying with the F-35? An aircraft is built around it's systems, you cant just rip out everything and replace it with other stuff. It would not work.

Why would I think the problems with F 35 under carriage and hook are of any greater overstatment in the media than I would of the Eurofighter? It's the same problem. Getting an Aeroplane that was designed for land use equiped to work off a ship.

The F-35C (how many times must I repeat this ... sigh) that is now in production and being delivered was designed from the start to be a carrier based aircraft. You clearly have no knowledge of the program. They are building 3 DIFFERENT aircraft all at once, F-35A, F-35B, F-35C. To navalise a Typhoon you would have to start with a new design.

The Harrier pwned the Argies 30 years ago, but the Argie airforce hasn't changed in the last 30 years.

Do we even need a fixed wing capability vs them at all when we have SAMS?

Who are we buying them to fight?

What theatre outside of Argentina do we expect to fight a war in which we might have no superior ground based airstrips or allies without aircraft carriers in numbers quite beyond the need of us providing any extra?

So I'm not up for wasting a butt load of cash on them.

It's not value for money. Vanity planes to operate off of vanity ships. But where are the frigates and the Nimrods?

I didn't make a note of the web pages I referred to before posting, sorry. Just basic Google search stuff.

SAMS can't win wars on their own. History has demonstrated that many times over.

Helicopters are no good in an air war. They would be very vulnerable because of their slow speed and limited range.

Just who we will the aircraft be used against? The surprise sudden conflicts over the last 40 years show it could be anywhere. NATO is a Northern Hemisphere based defence organisation, what happens if there is trouble elsewhere and there are no airfields?

The frigates and destroyers are listed here:

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

The Nimrod is on the junk pile where it belongs and is a classic example of the disaster of trying to fit new avionics into old airframes which is why buying Russian wouldn't work. Each refitted Nimrod was going to cost nearly a £1/2Billion each - I was in favour of scrapping that genuine money pit, I'm surprised you don't agree.

Edited April 20, 2012 by PELHAM

[Baff1 0]

So you think that would be cheaper and more feasible than staying with the F-35? An aircraft is built around it's systems, you cant just rip out everything and replace it with other stuff. It would not work.

Yes I more or less think anything imaginable would be cheaper than the F35 at this point. Especially considering some of the systems you describe aren't available for it yet and a running massive cost overruns. I would suggest to you that any off the shelf option from America or Russia would come in at around 1/3 to 1/2 of the cost and provide the same capability.

We have sod all frigates and destroyers. Ships that we use day in and day out. Woot that we are buying carrier we intend to mothball right out of the dock and another which we will have no planes for.

SAMS have demonstrated themselves exceptionally well in history.

They took out the Israeli airforce which was using the same planes Argentina currently has at the time.

SAMS are superior to airborne launched misiles in that they are larger so they can have a greater engagement range.

While a surprise engagement could happen anywhere, where could it happen that we don't have aceess to land based airstrips exactly?

What intrests do we have that need a fleet arm to protect?

I understand that the capability is wanted, but there are other capabilities that are more wanted.

You might note that the Navy's SAM ship program costing the same as the carrier program was chosen in preference to it. SAMS are more wanted than an air arm.

Nimrod is the plane that lets our ICBM subs know that they have not been shadowed before going deep. There is quite simply no aircraft more vital to our national defence than this one was.

Repeat about the F35 as often as you like. It's bloody expensive. It's by no means the only airframe capable of being navalised in the world. That they have tried to make the airframe fit 3 different purposes is having precisely the same sort of issues we would expect in anyother such adaptation.

As previously noted, the Germans had no trouble adapting Russian airframes. I can't take the idea that we would be unable to do so very seriously.

I don't want the UK to place any future orders with this company. There is no need and it doesn't help the long term UK defence industry either.

Fairness has nothing to do with it. If it did they wouldn't be attaching F22 design costs to the aircraft. We can legally default if we like. They aren't coming in on time or on budget. Everyone else is dropping orders and we should do the same.

[PELHAM 10]

Yes I more or less think anything imaginable would be cheaper than the F35 at this point. Especially considering some of the systems you describe aren't available for it yet and a running massive cost overruns.

I haven't described any F-35 systems? What I was saying is you can't take an Su-33 or Mig-29K, remove all the systems and replace them with equivalent western compnents cheaply. It would take years of design work and would be like building an aircraft twice over. It doesn't work which is why the Nimrod was scrapped, it's too expensive.

BTW did you know the Russians only have 19 Su-33's and are replacing the type as it's obsolete. Yet you recommended it for the UK?

What intrests do we have that need a fleet arm to protect?

These aircraft are not for the fleet air arm - it's a JV between the NAVY and RAF? It's called the "Joint Combat Aircraft" in the UK as it will be operated as a joint RAF Navy force. It's replacing the Harrier and Tornado. What interests will it protect - all of them. You can read this yourself here:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/f35jointstrikefighter.cfm

SAMS have demonstrated themselves exceptionally well in history.

They took out the Israeli airforce which was using the same planes Argentina currently has at the time.

That was in the 1960's when modern SAMS were used for the 1st time. The Israelis had no defence against them. Look at the wars in the last 30 years - they didn't do so well. Without air cover in the Falklands for example the SAM cover would not have been enough.

SAMS are superior to airborne launched misiles in that they are larger so they can have a greater engagement range.

Untrue, on many different levels. Think about it and look it up. Once again look at conflicts over the past 30 years and look at the success rate and the ease with which SAM sites were destroyed.

That they have tried to make the airframe fit 3 different purposes is having precisely the same sort of issues we would expect in anyother such adaptation.

Are you ever going to do some research on this? I repeat again, it's called the Joint Strike fighter because it's a joint service project to produce common designs to replace an array of aircraft.

They designed 3 different aircraft around as many common parts as possible to reduce costs rather than have each service develop it's own jet. It's 3 different aircraft - always was, that WAS the idea. The F-35C is not an after thought, it's a different aircraft from the other 2 and was designed that way from scratch.

The JAST program office was established on 27 January 1994 to develop aircraft, weapons, and sensor technology with the aim of replacing several disparate US and UK aircraft with a single family of aircraft;

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

As previously noted, the Germans had no trouble adapting Russian airframes. I can't take the idea that we would be unable to do so very seriously.

As has been put to you before, how many Russian Aircraft do the Germans have now?

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

Answer - 0. If they were good enough why didn't they order more? Why did India refuse the SU-33, already gave you the reason. (Outdated, no viable manufacturing base.)

I don't want the UK to place any future orders with this company. There is no need and it doesn't help the long term UK defence industry either.

It shows once again that you don't know anything about the project. In my previous post I pointed out the 1000's of UK employees working on the project at BAE and the major role the UK is taking in building it. Rolls Royce are producing the lifting fan for the F-35B. As a level 1 partner we also get a technology transfer which no one else will get. In what way does that not benefit the UK economy, defence industry and future?

It involves around 130 firms across the country and is projected to increase UK GDP by £28.7bn over the period between 2009 and 2036.

Edited April 21, 2012 by PELHAM

[Prydain 1]

Why can't the UK just buy Russia hardware off the shelf? I do.

But I bet you aren't buying military hardware you crackhead.

The UK cannot buy Russian equipment off the shelf for three reasons.

1. Politically we cannot. It isn't just that we are in the USA's sphere of influence and our own diplomatic relations with Russia are at an all time low, the issue is more complex than that. Russia wouldn't really want to sell us anything that they consider advanced, it isn't going to be worth it to their government in terms of internal politics either.

2. Compatibility. Why buy a piece of hardware if your going to have to refit it anyway? Every piece of Russian hardware will be a HC.3 nightmare all over again except this time you have to redo anything with a computer in it. Since we have a requirement to standardise with the rest of NATO too there would be issues with using any Russian munition.

Basically if we purchased something like an aircraft we would have to strip the whole thing and rebuild it with new computers, new weaponry and a whole host of other things.

3. Effectiveness. No doubt that Russia has a great deal of equipment that I, personally would have loved to see picked up by the British military but from AK-103 to MiG-35 what would be an improvement over the equipment we already have to warrant investment? I would wager that finding a gem in Russian equipment, something that is far and a way better to the point of being noticeably more advanced/efficient, isn't out there. A lot of western 'kit' has been used in conflicts in the past 20 years, not to say that Russian equipment hasn't, but tried and tested kit is what procurement agencies will opt for.

As far as the navalised Typhoon goes, if you think something is navalised just because you put a hook on it then it just shows how far you are from knowing anything about what you are talking about. Just get this into your noggin: IT CANNOT AND WILL NOT HAPPEN.

[Baff1 0]

I haven't described any F-35 systems? What I was saying is you can't take an Su-33 or Mig-29K, remove all the systems and replace them with equivalent western compnents cheaply. It would take years of design work and would be like building an aircraft twice over. It doesn't work which is why the Nimrod was scrapped, it's too expensive.

BTW did you know the Russians only have 19 Su-33's and are replacing the type as it's obsolete. Yet you recommended it for the UK?

These aircraft are not for the fleet air arm - it's a JV between the NAVY and RAF? It's called the "Joint Combat Aircraft" in the UK as it will be operated as a joint RAF Navy force. It's replacing the Harrier and Tornado. What interests will it protect - all of them. You can read this yourself here:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/f35jointstrikefighter.cfm

That was in the 1960's when modern SAMS were used for the 1st time. The Israelis had no defence against them. Look at the wars in the last 30 years - they didn't do so well. Without air cover in the Falklands for example the SAM cover would not have been enough.

Untrue, on many different levels. Think about it and look it up. Once again look at conflicts over the past 30 years and look at the success rate and the ease with which SAM sites were destroyed.

Are you ever going to do some research on this? I repeat again, it's called the Joint Strike fighter because it's a joint service project to produce common designs to replace an array of aircraft.

They designed 3 different aircraft around as many common parts as possible to reduce costs rather than have each service develop it's own jet. It's 3 different aircraft - always was, that WAS the idea. The F-35C is not an after thought, it's a different aircraft from the other 2 and was designed that way from scratch.

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

As has been put to you before, how many Russian Aircraft do the Germans have now?

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

Answer - 0. If they were good enough why didn't they order more? Why did India refuse the SU-33, already gave you the reason. (Outdated, no viable manufacturing base.)

It shows once again that you don't know anything about the project. In my previous post I pointed out the 1000's of UK employees working on the project at BAE and the major role the UK is taking in building it. Rolls Royce are producing the lifting fan for the F-35B. As a level 1 partner we also get a technology transfer which no one else will get. In what way does that not benefit the UK economy, defence industry and future?

It involves around 130 firms across the country and is projected to increase UK GDP by £28.7bn over the period between 2009 and 2036.

And how much is the F35 program expected to cost us?

I suspect we'll make a profit on Eurofighter over that time and a loss on F35.

As I understand it in the wars fo the last 30 years, SAMS have been very difficult to defeat indeed.

In Iraq they needed to develop a secret Stealth bomber to defeat them over at great expense and over a period of decades, and in Iraq 2 they had to fly NAP and attack with Apaches before the planes could get in.

I don't think we have much to worry about on either fronts in any naval engagement.

I don't care what the Indians and Germans want to buy. I'm neither Indian nor German.

The Russians only have limited fleet air arm. I don't expect them to have vast numbers of such planes.

Asking me to look things up isn't helping you any.

The things I read simply don't agree with you.

I'm not professing to be any great expert on the F35 project. But the more you tell me to look things up, the more I am aware that you are no great expert either. So please stop breaking my balls until you are.

I was reading today over at militaryphotoes, that predicted F35C full production date is now 2027. This depends on the US order which they have deferred for 5 more years.

I think that's why the government is suggesting switching to the F 35 B, whose production cycle is dependant on the USMC order due to come in years earlier.

So production timeline really isn't a criteria we have any control of in the F35 program.

---------- Post added at 17:35 ---------- Previous post was at 17:24 ----------

But I bet you aren't buying military hardware you crackhead..

They make the best NV old son.

I swear by it.

Russia will be happy to sell us an export variant airframe. They love money and they know we can buy elsewhere.

They routinely sell combat airframes to NATO countries.

We have to refit all the hardware we buy. Par for the course.

Russian airframes are highly effective. All they need to do is get from A to B with a load of weapons onboard.

To be the white van of the skies.

I'm not intrested in vanity planes to inspire the wrists of teenage boys. I just want something cheap that does the job.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Baff1

[nettrucker 142]

Hi everybody

this is a very interesting documentary. I can only recommend everyone to watch.

ZWU65Zbka4E&feature=relmfu

pqBlVBhv0ag&feature=relmfu

JBhAvUTW5ZE&feature=relmfu

Please watch the last part on youtube. At the end of part 4 there is a short advertisement for another documentary which might be against the forum rules therefore I didn't embed the last part.

I personally be expecting the next stock exchange crash within the end of 2013 at the latest . . . most probably earlier. And the next one is going to be a lot worse.

The people got to wake up because we are running out of time.

[PELHAM 10]

Hi everybody

this is a very interesting documentary. I can only recommend everyone to watch.

I personally be expecting the next stock exchange crash within the end of 2013 at the latest . . . most probably earlier. And the next one is going to be a lot worse.

The people got to wake up because we are running out of time.

So the next stock exchange crash will happen in 2013 and will be larger, based on what evidence? I doubt that as there isn't that much left to crash lol and everyone is managing debt more carefully. Anything is possible though, it would take some sort of disaster or conflict not related to the financial world to do what you say. Nothing in the video apart from a re-run of past history and known facts.

[nettrucker 142]

Well that's my personal opinion.

Was there evidence of the crash in 2008?

You want evidence. Man look at all the corruption and the fraud. Especially financial fraud is encouraged in our current system. They get away with it. They have the best lawyers money can buy.

In any case take a look at this article

http://moneymorning.com/2011/10/12/derivatives-the-600-trillion-time-bomb-thats-set-to-explode/

Big banks and finacial istitutions know that they'll get bailed out also in the future. It's a win - win situation for them.

If we let the "too big to fail" banks file for bankruptcy the stock markets are going to crash immediately. The debt crisis is spiraling out of control worldwide. With the current bailouts we increase our debt even more.

- The dollar is going to crash also due to the constant wars which adds huge debt on nations. To counter the debt crisis the fed injects more money into circulation which will lead to unavoidable inflation.

I really don't know what more evidence you need and if so, I stongly suggest you do some research on what the financial experts say. You gotta research on your own, I can't do that for you. You are free to believe whatever you want.

It's a matter of time and I personally believe that we're running short of it.

[mrcash2009 0]

So the next stock exchange crash will happen in 2013 and will be larger, based on what evidence? I doubt that as there isn't that much left to crash lol and everyone is managing debt more carefully.

No evidence of direct timing, but no evidence at all? And your saying we have not much to crash (even more easily done then) and people are managing debt? Any evidence that this will keep things a float based on the fact that its not everyone who started this ball rolling in the first instance, just trying to deal with it while it gets piled on with "measures".

Anything is possible though, it would take some sort of disaster or conflict not related to the financial world to do what you say.

I agree with this, and looking at current geopolitical situations on the earth, and the flimsy financial world in many areas, its not something to cast off without cast iron evidence, I think the evidence is mainly all around right now, esp in the sticky area of Iran and its potential domino effect. Here's hoping that it isn't the case, but it looks like a strong one.

You have to remember that it doesn't take allot for the dominoes to fall, we have lots of unemployed console fighting youth right now ripe for free work schemes or military, so that's also an interesting aspect.

You then have UK being told to panic buy (well almost told) ... and that's all hanging in the balance, fuel & its it use for transportation and food basics is super flimsy, let alone any price hikes or stoppages due to external conflict issues.

But as you said "Anything is possible" well, the gates are wide open at the moment on many levels & scenarios.

If the world situation right now was a game of simcity "World edition", we would have the ultimate scoreboard leader currently, covering most aspects and potential outcomes :)

Or should that smiley be ...

:16_6_8:

Edited April 22, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

Was there evidence of the crash in 2008?

I predicted the 2008 crash as early as 2004 before most of you even knew what one looked like. If you look up my posts from a year ago (occupy debate) I relate the tale about how I cautioned everyone at a business dinner about excessive borrowing and they all had a joke by waving their credit cards at me. I calmly sold all my shares and investments and battened down the hatches, took out a small mortgage despite being offered one several times larger and laughed inwardly when the panic started. The evidence was there then, 80-100% mortgages lol, what more evidence do you need that something is wrong with the system. If there was any evidence now I would be crowing about it as loud as you.

Funny that predicting financial doom only becomes fashionable after the fact. I predict 5 years of financial monotony before they lose their heads and start lending in a ridiculous manner again. (Unless there is war or massive natural disaster it will be reasonably stable for the next 5 years.)

In any case take a look at this article

http://moneymorning.com/2011/10/12/d...et-to-explode/

That backs up what I have just said. He is saying there will be a massive disaster if Germany and France fail the same way as Greece, but that will not happen. Greece is a special case. Their borrowing to fund their ridiculous public sector and lax tax system was criticised for decades. I can't understand why anyone let them into the Eurozone or lent them any money. That disaster has been waiting to happen for 30 years, long before the Euro was even thought of. I remember walking through the overgrown remnants of an Olympic training village in the 1990's and thinking to myself that the country looked more like a mismanaged 3rd world African nation than anywhere else I had seen in Europe! (the structure was built for the 1996 bid and then abandoned)

All I can say is if things start looking too good to be true, get rid of your debt, and when the crash happens buy some cheap shares in something that can't fail like a utility. The profit will double in 2 years and it's easy money. The phrase that signalled the inevitability of the coming doom to me was, "No return to boom and bust". When I heard that I knew the wheels had truly come off. I didn't realise the banks would fail though - that was the surprise for me. I could not believe just how crazy they had been.

---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

You then have UK being told to panic buy (well almost told) ... and that's all hanging in the balance, fuel & its it use for transportation and food basics is super flimsy, let alone any price hikes or stoppages due to external conflict issues.

See the big picture for once...... do you not realise that was done on purpose?

Edited April 22, 2012 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

I predicted the 2008 crash as early as 2004 before most of you even knew what one looked like.

Funny that predicting financial doom only becomes fashionable after the fact.

Such as shame that in other areas you cant see anything for toffee and use tin foil comments :)

See the big picture for once...... do you not realise that was done on purpose?

Wow this really is a role reversal, on purpose? Tin foil hat? .... I did that so you know how that feels like :) Yes on purpose to who's gain? I notice costs went up as a result in places, and no actual strike happened, although looks like that might change soon, quick ... panic buy again, its best for the country! ... dear me.

I want to see Pelham's tin foil-a-LOL-meter and find out where the meter readings go after a months worth of reading, is it up ... will it be down ... :cool:

Question: Do people think we are in:

1. Credit crunch

2. Recession

3. Global Depression

Edited April 22, 2012 by mrcash2009

[Baff1 0]

So the next stock exchange crash will happen in 2013 and will be larger, based on what evidence? I doubt that as there isn't that much left to crash lol and everyone is managing debt more carefully. Anything .

I think the bond market is set for a crash.

Not everyone is managing their debt more carefully at all.

Predicting a crash is not the difficult part, predicting when is.

[PELHAM 10]

Yes on purpose to who's gain? I notice costs went up as a result in places, and no actual strike happened, although looks like that might change soon, quick ... panic buy again, its best for the country! ... dear me.

Would you like a hint??? >Tax< (Ssssh don't tell anyone I said it LOL)

---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 PM ----------

Predicting a crash is not the difficult part, predicting when is.

True not even I can do that, I knew it would happen but didn't know when, I thought it would be around 2006 but it took another year. That's how you can tell Nettrucker's post is nonsense, he has predicted when a crash will occur LOL.

Edited April 22, 2012 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

Would you like a hint??? >Tax< (Ssssh don't tell anyone I said it LOL)

So, your trying to tell me that the was told to the public in order to get more money from them in tax on the fuel price rise as a result? As in, they new this and told people to panic buy even though there wasn't even a strike on the cards at the time anyway? Are you suggesting this government would do that, even in this financial time?

[Baff1 0]

True not even I can do that, I knew it would happen but didn't know when, I thought it would be around 2006 but it took another year. That's how you can tell Nettrucker's post is nonsense, he has predicted when a crash will occur LOL.

I'd been predicting that last crash for 20 or 30 years. I still lost 2/3 of my shirt in it.

Even Vince Cable The Anti-business Minister predicted it!

But if Nettrucker got it right, then the chances are he is a very rich man and we should let him get to the bar ahead of us.

[PELHAM 10]

I predict the eventual outcome will be a state of idiocracy, the signs are ominously growing stronger year by year.

[nettrucker 142]

That's how you can tell Nettrucker's post is nonsense, he has predicted when a crash will occur LOL.

I said that I'm expecting it . . . I didn't say that I'm predicting it. For me there's quite a subtle difference.

[PELHAM 10]

I said that I'm expecting it . . . I didn't say that I'm predicting it. For me there's quite a subtle difference.

So expecting a crash in 2013 is not a prediction? I see.

[Rovka 14]

Question: Do people think we are in:

1. Credit crunch

2. Recession

3. Global Depression

I'd rather would call it option 4: Sticking to a system of clear-cut idiocy. A form of idiocy that is bound to return ever again.. Why? Well people do not learn from their mistakes made, atleast not on the neccessary massive scale, as would be needed for an most optimal globally acceptable result.. Pointing accusative fingers is all most do, and so did I, but I wonder what new way would be implementable and able to work then, if this current system of fraud and corruption doesn't cut it.. For one, whatever will be, people always ruïn it..

[nettrucker 142]

Hi all

just to brighten up the mood

The Goldman Sachs coup that failed in America has nearly succeeded in Europe—a permanent, irrevocable, unchallengeable bailout for the banks underwritten by the taxpayers.

In September 2008, Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, managed to extort a $700 billion bank bailout from Congress. But to pull it off, he had to fall on his knees and threaten the collapse of the entire global financial system and the imposition of martial law; and the bailout was a one-time affair. Paulson’s plea for a permanent bailout fund—the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP—was opposed by Congress and ultimately rejected.

By December 2011, European Central Bank president Mario Draghi, former vice president of Goldman Sachs Europe, was able to approve a 500 billion Euro bailout for European banks without asking anyone’s permission. And in January 2012, a permanent rescue funding program called the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) was passed in the dead of night with barely even a mention in the press. The ESM imposes an open-ended debt on EU member governments, putting taxpayers on the hook for whatever the ESM’s Eurocrat overseers demand.

The bankers’ coup has triumphed in Europe seemingly without a fight. The ESM is cheered by Eurozone governments, their creditors, and “the market†alike, because it means investors will keep buying sovereign debt. All is sacrificed to the demands of the creditors, because where else can the money be had to float the crippling debts of the Eurozone governments?

There is another alternative to debt slavery to the banks. But first, a closer look at the nefarious underbelly of the ESM and Goldman’s silent takeover of the ECB . . . .

The Dark Side of the ESM

The ESM is a permanent rescue facility slated to replace the temporary European Financial Stability Facility and European Financial Stabilization Mechanism as soon as Member States representing 90% of the capital commitments have ratified it, something that is expected to happen in July 2012. A December 2011 youtube video titled “The shocking truth of the pending EU collapse!â€, originally posted in German, gives such a revealing look at the ESM that it is worth quoting here at length. It states:

The EU is planning a new treaty called the European Stability Mechanism, or ESM: a treaty of debt. . . . The authorized capital stock shall be 700 billion euros. Question: why 700 billion? [Probable answer: it simply mimicked the $700 billion the U.S. Congress bought into in 2008.] . . . .

[Article 9]: “. . . ESM Members hereby irrevocably and unconditionally undertake to pay on demand any capital call made on them . . . within seven days of receipt of such demand.†. . . If the ESM needs money, we have seven days to pay. . . . But what does “irrevocably and unconditionally†mean? What if we have a new parliament, one that does not want to transfer money to the ESM? . . . .

[Article 10]: “The Board of Governors may decide to change the authorized capital and amend Article 8 ... accordingly.†Question: . . . 700 billion is just the beginning? The ESM can stock up the fund as much as it wants to, any time it wants to? And we would then be required under Article 9 to irrevocably and unconditionally pay up?

[Article 27, lines 2-3]: “The ESM, its property, funding, and assets . . . shall enjoy immunity from every form of judicial process . . . .†Question: So the ESM program can sue us, but we can’t challenge it in court?

[Article 27, line 4]: “The property, funding and assets of the ESM shall . . . be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation, or any other form of seizure, taking or foreclosure by executive, judicial, administrative or legislative action.†Question: . . . [T]his means that neither our governments, nor our legislatures, nor any of our democratic laws have any effect on the ESM organization? That’s a pretty powerful treaty!

[Article 30]: “Governors, alternate Governors, Directors, alternate Directors, the Managing Director and staff members shall be immune from legal process with respect to acts performed by them . . . and shall enjoy inviolability in respect of their official papers and documents.†Question: So anyone involved in the ESM is off the hook? They can’t be held accountable for anything? . . . The treaty establishes a new intergovernmental organization to which we are required to transfer unlimited assets within seven days if it so requests, an organization that can sue us but is immune from all forms of prosecution and whose managers enjoy the same immunity. There are no independent reviewers and no existing laws apply? Governments cannot take action against it? Europe’s national budgets in the hands of one single unelected intergovernmental organization? Is that the future of Europe? Is that the new EU – a Europe devoid of sovereign democracies?

Full article

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30403

Video related

EPcWHBPYOSU

[mrcash2009 0]

Pointing accusative fingers is all most do' date=' and so did I, but I wonder what new way would be implementable and able to work then, if this current system of fraud and corruption doesn't cut it.. For one, whatever will be, people always ruïn it..[/quote']

Well that's if you dont educate yourself in the system itself only to know not much, and take the crap fed to you and then .. well, assist on ruining it with a helping hand (media & advertisments, loans ... credit offers ... etc).

For the UK folk and "alternative" ways of looking at a situation (which isnt alternative at all in the end) its worth check the British Constitution Group as at least one example, if for nothing more than getting an overview:

TZRzHAlH73k

Read "The Constitution" section.

http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/

A VERY important aspect no matter you view is "Legal Fiction" (google it):

http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/article/legal-fiction-how-they-control-us

Thus, YOUR NAME the company was created and existed alongside Your Name the flesh and blood boy created and named by your parents. But in the absence of the knowledge of the existence of the former everybody was led to believe that everything applied to the latter – as devious a plan surely as selling land on the sun to the unsuspecting.

When officialdom then asks the question ‘Are you Your Name?’ What they are really asking is ‘Do you accept the liabilities for YOUR NAME the company (i.e. the person)?’ and when you say YES – you are unwittingly accepting the liabilities placed upon the ‘person’ (company) that they own and through which they establish their authority over you .

Brings a whole new meaning to "Avatar".

Roger Hayes in reference to Lawful Banking System:



I4ZcTwsubzk

The lawful banking system I have posted before, its interesting to see alternatives to what we know to be corrupt, but is then looked at with cynical views when we are already being ripped a new one currently, and willingly ;) Although the interesting part is the beginning reference the court.

Edited April 23, 2012 by mrcash2009