scary
-
Content Count
140 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by scary
-
-
Loathe as I am to get involved in this demonstration of Godwin's Law, I just can't let some of this wibble pass.
Yes, sometimes it was necessary to operate rigidly. But easy ways does not happen. But the purposes have been reached. And owing to it we have won the second world war. And you too, by the way. Really you think that your landing in Normandy was a determinative of war? LOLIt was one of many decisive moments in the war, without which victory would not have been a certainty.
Quote[/b] ]Your "British Empire" already by that moment has lost all power. You were afraid to be put out from the island. Americans have helped. But if the red Army has not crushed 160 German divisions - your landing simply would smear on a beach of Normandy.The British Empire (doesn't require inverted commas), lost its power after the war, and not embarking on an offensive in northern France had nothing to do with fear, it was because Britain wanted to win. At the beginning of the war, the British Army was not built for large scale conventional warfare, it was a colonial police force. The BEF was sent into northern Europe early with the knowledge that it would probably be beaten back, it just had to delay the Axis powers long enough to allow Britain to get on a war footing. It succeeded in doing that but lost a lot of heavy equipment during the Dunkirk evacuation.
If the Allies hadn't been fighting in Europe, Africa and the Far East, the Red Army would have been a red stain.
Quote[/b] ]Germans by that moment, have already been beaten out from territory of the USSR. They receded. You send to finish off already half-dead opponent.The best of the Axis troops were on the Western Front. Getting sent to the Eastern Front, was more often than not, a punishment. And who do you think was being fought against in Africa and on the Italian Front?
Actually, you'll find it was the US that allowed the Cold War to develop. Churchill wanted to carry on the fight pushing the Soviets out of Eastern Europe.Quote[/b] ]An, after that - look at the man who start a cold war!Quote[/b] ]So what? First of all - it was nonagression pact.No it wasn't. The USSR tried to join the Tripartite pact, with the proviso that it could annex Finland. Trying to annex a country is not an act of non-aggression.
Quote[/b] ]It was in 1939.Um, no, talks started in 1939 and continued until 1941. 1939 would be when the war in Europe started.
Quote[/b] ]Britain had been fighting the Axis longer than the USSR.Through the sea, yes. If passage was not - England would grasp for some months, as well as all Europe.
What the cock has England got to do with anything? The UK, the Commonwealth and the Allies had been fighting the Axis powers at sea, on land and in the air for two years before the Soviets got involved. How long do you think the USSR would have lasted without the damage caused in those two years?
Quote[/b] ]I know. Stalin trusted Hitler. He thought that Hitler observes the contract.Which goes to show that as well as being a coward and an evil, murdering tossbag, Uncle Joe was an idiot.
Quote[/b] ]In occasion of other theatres of war - basically there was a sea war. Or war in territory of colonies. English and the French colonies, by the way. It was a small local ground wars.Real greater war was only in the Europe and in the USSR. With massive tank battles, infantry and artillery attacks.
You have opened the second front only when have seen that we have started to win.
Do you actually think the Western Desert and North African campaigns were small local ground wars? Buy yourself a book on the history of WWII, make sure it's a big one and slap yourself around the head with it.
But if you look at the general level of the world powers and mentality at that time you'll find that Churchill was responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in the terror bombings of Dresden.Hitler was responsible for the bombing of Dresden. Something to do with invading Poland, killing untermensch and the Blitz.
Quote[/b] ]The nukes over Japan, just because the USSR advanced and would take Tokyo before the US.The only thing the USSR did in the Far East was to invade Manchuria, which was a requirement of Yalta, they never got anywhere near Japan, never mind Tokyo.
Quote[/b] ]I think the workers and peasants army of the USSR crushed more than 70% of the fascist forces.The other allied powers helped too. But not as much as western propaganda wants it to be. People are getting brainwashed from kindergarten and up. Same thing with religion and "democracy".
I'm not saying anyone is denying the role of the USSR here, but that picture sums up a lot.
The only thing that picture sums up is the how inept the Soviet leadership was.
War isn't a computer game where points are racked up for number of kills. The strategic victories - destruction of the Axis war machine, control of logistic routes, destruction of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine - were by the Western Allies.
Not to mention stopping them from developing the A-bomb. How long would mighty Russia have lasted if instant sunshine was being dropped on its cities?
Well, probably I have incorrectly expressed. I wished to tell that all the basic events of that war occured in overland fights in the Europe and the USSR. ~70 % of army of Germans have been destroyed by the Soviet army. And only owing to existence of the USSR - these of 70 % have been destroyed there. Because differently - they would send on all other fronts and you would lose.The most important battlefield of WWII was the North Atlantic. Without it, British convoys wouldn't have got American supplies through to the USSR. The Soviets would have been reduced to throwing rocks - which in a lot of cases, they already were.
Without the Soviets the war would have certainly lasted longer but as the Axis powers would never have got across the English Channel it would still have been won eventually.
Quote[/b] ]The USA against Japan - anybody especially did not interfere. As well as they especially did not interfere with an event outside of Pacific. At least an 1943.Really? And what is the most common flag on this list of military operations in S.E. Asia? Was the BPF on a sight seeing cruise?
Quote[/b] ]Do not doubt, I know history.You clearly don't.
-
Surprised he was allowed to wear a non-issued bit of armour though. I thought the MoD were strict about only letting soldiers wear body armour that had been certified as 'effective' by them (apart from UKSF-types anyway)... but I suppose his nan is the Queen.That's the new Blackhawk plate carrier which is half way between being trialled and issued.
They should be in general service sometime during Herrick 8.
It still used Osprey plates it just doesn't have the fragmentation filler.
-
its a baseball cap... I can go buy one in town here in Copenhagen. It doesn't thus entail that I'm attached to some covert special forces unit operating out of my office.A likely story. Clearly a double bluff. Just come clean and admit you were the third one on the balcony.
I could, but then I'd also have to admit the only baseball cap I could find was one of those red and yellow jobbies with the helicopter blades on top. Not quite the same.
Ideal for conducting a CTR at Legoland. I never have trusted them pirates, it's the eyes.
Two Words: Fucking. Mint.Ahh, thank you, Sir. However this linky is mintier than a Colgate factory.
I fail to see how this is of any importance in the bigger picture of rethinking NATOs strategy in Afghanistan to focus more on reconstruction , raising local forces and doing something about the drugs production and useage. Those are the real issues , aren't they , so why get so upset about this?Who's upset? It's a morale boost.
-
At the end of the day, this country is run by the government, the Royal Family are just people who, for some strange reason, get rich off of the taxes of the British people.They pay a damn site more into the system than they get back and are probably the best national Ambassadors in the world, which is something money can't buy.
Quote[/b] ]I mean, at the end of the day, if he dies our country won't drop dead, i mean i could understand if the entire labour party joined the Infantry.I suspect there would be a spike in the instances of blue on blue.
Quote[/b] ]And i totally agree with the guys commenting back on the ye olde days when KINGS and other royals would go to battle, but heres the difference, when our royals went to war, they did so only ever in a time of desperate need, well our kings anyway, our kings would only ever go to war if our lands were ever in dangerGo give your history teacher's head a wobble. When our Royals went to war it was for profit and territory. Except when it was with the French, they just deserved a damn good thrashing.
Quote[/b] ]Plus this war is a joke, I'm all for supporting your men out there, but he was selfish and idiotic in his decision to go out there, as hes putting our men in danger fighting in a war thats unjustifiable,He's a Cornet, not CDS, he was told to go and he went.
Oddly enough, your average Taliban wouldn't be able to tell Cornet Wales from Britney Spears, even less so when Cornet Wales is wearing Osprey, Mk6A and a shemagh.
Quote[/b] ]i could understand if the Germans were invading again, but he went over there to shoot at villagers with AK47's who are doing no more then protecting there land, whats the bloody point?Been there have you? Any evidence that it is villagers with AK47s protecting their land? If not, feel free to wind your neck in.
Quote[/b] ]Thats the main reason i never joined the army even though it was my plan since i was 13, hell no am i going to risk my life for crap pay, dodgey equipment fighting a BS war when there are much more justifiable locations to "liberate" (Zimbabwe for one)I'm quite sure I get paid more than you, have no issues with dodgy equipment and Zimbabwe wanted its independance and got it. It's not our fault sub-Saharan Africa suffers from endemic corruption. France would have been a better example.
Quote[/b] ]And if a militiaman is ever close enough to see prince Harry, he'd already be dead, check alot of the footage coming out of Afghanistan, most the combat is fought at a distance double football fields.What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Quote[/b] ]Either way, when we leave the Middle East, it will be all for no reason because I'm damn sure the Taliban has grown double since we attacked their countries and I'm pretty sure we aren't going to want to stick around for the centuries it would take to wipe out every Middle Eastern Muhadjadeen intent on protecting their countries from invaders.How are you damn sure? Do you have some facts or are you just guessing?
When you've finished with your history teacher, turn your attention to your geograpy teacher. Afghanistan is in Central Asia, not the Middle East.
Quote[/b] ]Would you like it if the Taliban came over here and dropped bombs all over our houses and set up camps in our towns, telling us the way our government is treating us in unfair and wrong, and they were here to bring Sharia law to our country?Or if they were providing facilities for training Al Qaeda who wanted to fly planes into tall buildings in order to establish an Islamic planet?
Quote[/b] ]every soldier in the British Armed forces, chose to join the armyWrong.
Quote[/b] ]every British soldier also has the right to deny active service, they chose to go.Of course, there is a big conference where everyone that wants to go puts their name into a hat.
Quote[/b] ]My childhood mate is in Afghanistan at the moment, he chose to go so thats his responsibility, i told him if he dies he would have died for nothing, he didn't care why they were there or what they were doing, i mean how could he, no one knows why we are there anymore.I'm glad I don't have 'mates' like you.
Quote[/b] ]get off my dick because I'm not up the arse of the army and actually have the will to generate my own thoughts and opinions rather then turn sheep.Are they really your own thoughts and opinions or are they those of the hippy, poofy the-world-is-all-fluffy-and-nice group at school/college? Have you ever spoken to Afghanis and asked them what they want?
I'd ride twenty quid that his "childhood mate" muttered something along the lines of "Dick" as he walked away.I'll have 20 on it being his imaginary friend that doesn't exist.
- Prince Harry goes to Afghanistan as a soldier.- Media reported that Prince Harry is in Afghanistan.
- The British Ministry of Defense announces that Prince Harry will be withdrawn from Afghanistan.
So? Â
I don't get why there should be a fuss about any of the above mentioned three points.
Because point two led to point three. It shouldn't be up to the media to dictate who can do what job. It's no different than the media printing names and addresses of people serving in Afghanistan.
its a baseball cap... I can go buy one in town here in Copenhagen. It doesn't thus entail that I'm attached to some covert special forces unit operating out of my office.A likely story. Clearly a double bluff. Just come clean and admit you were the third one on the balcony.
Apparently, it's a so-called.... "Special forces tactical cap" and can be purchased from the internet, but I ask why would he do that?Because he is a ginger and no one, not even Terry Taliban, deserves to be exposed to ginger hair. I believe it is against the Geneva Conventions.
The Taliban are Pushtun, they are the organized extension of the Pushtun tribe, the Pushtun tribe is the majority of Aghanistan. They support the talibs. They want the talibs. They want them to rule.The pushtun also live in Pakistan, yes. But to say the taliban are not afghanis is horseshit.
The Pashtuns make up about 1/3 of the population of Afghanistan, which means that 2/3 aren't Pashtun. Most of the current Taliban are Pakistani Pashtun and most of the Pashtun do not support the Taliban.
To quote yourself, that's a load of bullshit you just posted there, quite frankly.
Quote[/b] ]Yea how about you do that? "Research" isn't watching the TV like a zombie. It's called the lie box for a reason.As I'm on leave from somewhere sandy ending in 'stan', perhaps you would like to tell me what research I should do.
-
jeapordising the safety of our future King and the lads serving with him.Do you know something the rest of us don't?
My thoughts exactly.Nice to see him serve though, I find it wierd to see royality serve, as they mostly avoid it.
Huh? The British Royal Family has an exemplary service record:
HM The Queen was a driver/mechanic in WW2.
Prince Philip was in the Royal Navy in WW2 earning a Greek War Cross of Valour and was MiD.
Prince Charles was a fast jet and rotary wing pilot serving in both the RAF and the RN.
Prince William is currently in the RAF and was a Cornet in the Household Cavalry.
Prince Andrew was a rotary wing pilot in the RN and flew as chaff in the Falklands war. He was a career Officer, serving for 22 years.
Prince Edward had a short lived career as one of the chosen few but failed his training.
The Duke of Kent was a career Officer in the Army, serving 21 years.
Prince Michael of Kent served 20 years in the Army and is curently President of SSAFA.
George VI served in the RN in WW1 and the RAF at its inception.
George V served 14 years in the RN.
Almost all the Royals have honourary appointments across the Commonwealth that they take very seriously and a good slice of the senior positions in Armed Forces charities are held by Royals.
I'd take any of the first family over the cowards in the Houses of Parliament any day.
And a pox in both New Idea and Drudge.
-
Yea let's link to BBC and other liberal media and listen to them instead of a homepage of cuban citizen-internet-activists. Let's listen to what big business says about income they could've got if Cuba was free market like Dubai.1. You've linked to the BBC. Apparently, it must be reliable when its coverage agrees with your agenda, but when it doesn't it is all some liberal lie.
2. The BBC is not a business, it makes no money, not a penny. It is owned by the British public, in essence, it is a socialist media entity.
Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] ]So the whole world is in a great conspiracy against the island paradise of Cuba?The whole capitalist world, yes.
The whole capitalist world doesn't care about Cuba. If it was hit by a meteor tomorrow, no one would notice.
Quote[/b] ]Yea compare Germany to Cuba. Haha. Why not compare Liberia or Bangladesh with Cuba then?Because your argument is that Cuban socialism is the best form of governance, not that there are countries worse off than Cuba. I could argue that Mont Blanc is the tallest mountain in the world, as long as we only compare it to smaller ones.
All of the people you are trying to convince that Cuba is their salvation live in the countries that are better than Cuba. Guess what - none of us want to live in a worse country. All of your 'Cuba, it's not as shit as Somalia' bollocks is fooling no one.
Quote[/b] ]No media is unpartisan. Everything represents a certain class' interests. BBC is a partisan liberal propaganda company that represent the interets of the current ruling class.See above. You are making yourself look stupid. The BBC is NOT a business.
Quote[/b] ]GDP per capita is measured in dollars. The value of the cuban money is very low compared to the dollar because of the american trade embargo. And besides, free healthcare and no starvation, high standards doesn't count in to GDP.I'd explain exchange rates to you, but I don't think it would help.
Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] ]The map shows two Carribean islands. Is that really your idea of evidence? Here, for your delectation, is a lesson in evidence:Clicky clicky. Jamaica had some isolated cases of malaria in the last year caused by infected people travelling to the island, other than that the only Carribean island with malaria is Hispaniola.
If you didn't spend your time chasing 'information' on Wikipedia on the fly and, instead, concentrated on learning you would, perhaps, be less clueless.
Big carribean islands.
What do we read under haiti?
http://www.nathnac.org/ds/c_pages/country_page_HT.htm
Dominican Rep:
http://www.nathnac.org/ds/c_pages/country_page_DO.htm
Then check Cuba:
"No risk of malaria".
Pretty funny. Isn't it? Wonder why. The neighbouring island has a lot of malaria. Cuba had it, but no longer. No malaria on slands pfft. Just admit you're wrong.
Are you for fucking real? You must be being deliberately obtuse as no one could possibly be this dense.
I shall repeat: 'the only Carribean island with malaria is Hispaniola'. Hispaniola is the island of Haiti/Dominican Republic. Repeating exactly what I have just said but using different words does not prove me wrong, especially as I am not.
Malaria is not native to the Carribean; there is only one Carribean island with malaria - that island only has it because there is no policy between the two countries on it for eradicating the disease as one of those countries is far too busy being in an almost permanant state of civil war; Cuba not having malaria means bugger all, in the same way as Canada not having Yellow Fever. If Cuba was the medical utopia you want us to believe, it would have eliminated the other mosquito borne disease of Dengue Fever that is actually endemic to the region - but they haven't.
Quote[/b] ]some picturesYour first photo is of a market, not a house. The big sign on the side saying 'Bronx Terminal Market' gives it away.
Your next two pictures are of derelict buildings, not houses. The shutters on the doors, grass were people would be walking, and the absence of people and signs of life give it away. You do understand the difference between an empty building and a habited one?
There is nothing wrong with the Greek house, it has a roof and presumably windows behind the shutters. It could do with a touch of paint, but that is cosmetic, not structural. It certainly won't have a family to a room.
Quote[/b] ]But this is what you define as slum:No, the definition of slum is:
A heavily populated urban area characterised by sub-standard housing and squalour.
Quote[/b] ]There are no such things in Cuba.
There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!
We've seen the photos of sub-standard housing and squalour. You are not talking to your brainwashed commie minions.
Quote[/b] ]There's no socialism anywhere in Europe. But the communist movement is strong.If you're representative of the communist movement, I don't think we have anything to worry about.
Quote[/b] ]I think it's remarkable that a country like Cuba can do better than the US and european countries even though it's a third world country.I think it's remarkable that someone could say something so stupid.
A third world country is not doing better than a first world country, being first world is better than being third world. The third placed football team in League two is not doing better than the 9th placed team in the Premiership.
Is it ever going to sink in that people do not want your socialist utopia. I am an adult, I neither need nor want the state babysitting me. If or when I get to the point where I can't sustain my own existence than I will do what all other animals do and die. The day the state thinks it can decide what I need is the day I start a very bloody coup.
-
The cuban parliament which is elected by the people, elects the president. You have a naive picture of Cuba when you think the president decides everything. He's not like your "democratic" kings and queen-parasites before the end of ww1.From the FCO:
Cuba is a one-party state. Â There is a high level of social control and a strong police presence. Â There are widespread restrictions on freedom of speech, association and assembly for Cuban nationals. Â Political demonstrations or gatherings not sanctioned by the government may be broken up and should be avoided. Â The Cuban government discourages Cubans working in the tourist industry from developing personal relationships or accepting gifts from foreign nationals. Â The Government is however clear that it continues to welcome British tourists, and there has been no hostility shown to individual British visitors.
Castro is both head of the executive and head of state. There is absolutely no separation of powers. Castro, therefore, gets to make all the decisions.
Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] ]It is up to you to verify your claims, not me, so you provide the links.Sure, here's a link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3344489.stm [...]
More than 260 deaths in one week in east of england. Now be proud and wave your flag.
As -snafu- has pointed out, Winter Fuel Payments. No one has died because they couldn't afford heating, they died because they were old/ill. That's how nature works, things are born, get weak, and die - even in Cuba.
Quote[/b] ]I never heard about any of your queens freeze to death. But yea, when one castle gets cold they can always go to another.Bitter, much?
Quote[/b] ]Yes you're being oppressed when you produce wares for X dollars a month, but get paid Y. The owners take X-Y as profits, and they don't have to work for it. And when people strike against this, the owners/capitalists use their state, their police and army to crush the protestors.Do you think people find businesses in a christmas cracker? People work to start a business, they work to develop products and services, marketing, distribution, suppliers, administration, they're not sat in their mansions, having another prole thrown on the fire whilst being fed freshly peeled grapes by nubile Amazonian twins.
Quote[/b] ]You have a nice picture of the third world.I should do, I've been to enough of it.
Quote[/b] ]And your kind of people are the reason to why the third world still exists.Endemic corruption is why most of the third world is third world, not me.
Quote[/b] ]Neo-colonialism, unfair trade policies and embargos. Yea, mr expert. Cuba is a communist country. When I last looked they had a worker-state. A communist society is state and class-less. There haven't been any yet, it takes many generations of socialism and a world revolution before you can get that far. Cuba only describes itself as socialist, which is correct. Calling it a communist country is ignorant.My bold. Do you see what you did there?
Quote[/b] ]During communism there are no borders even, so talking about communist countries is a contradiction. Oh, so trade is suddenly "capitalist" mr expert? How's that?Trade is kind of the point of capitalism. Look it up on Wikipedia if you don't believe me.
Quote[/b] ]Cuba can be compared to other countries in the region, and it does better than those. That's a fair comparison because the history of colonialism and US-exploitation is the same in the carribean region.Hmm, should I retire to Cuba or the BVI? Collapsing hovels and nutty dictator or Pusser's Rum and bikini clad ladies?
Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] ]People arrive on the island with malaria, through a simple program of anti-malarial drugs and quarantining malaria is eradicated. It is a very easy thing to do on a small island. Try doing some research on how many Caribbean islands have malaria instead of comparing Cuba to South America, which is not an island and to which malaria is native.Being communist isn't immunisation against malaria and Fidel Castro hasn't driven all the mosquitoes out of Cuba.
On a small island? How do you make Cuba a small island? And why didn't they do that program before Castro? Why did literacy increase dramatically (and now at a rate higher than the developed country Sweden). It's the same reason.
It being a piece of land surrounded by water, which is quite small is what makes it a small island. As opposed to Australia, which is a large island, or Switzerland which is not an island.
Quote[/b] ]And besides you're wrong:Not possible, I'm never wrong. In fact, I foresee a Wikipedia link.
Quote[/b] ] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Malariageodistribution.pngThe map shows the malaria distrubution. Do you see that blue in the carribean? Pfft, no malaria on "small" "islands".
The map shows two Carribean islands. Is that really your idea of evidence? Here, for your delectation, is a lesson in evidence:
Clicky clicky. Jamaica had some isolated cases of malaria in the last year caused by infected people travelling to the island, other than that the only Carribean island with malaria is Hispaniola.
If you didn't spend your time chasing 'information' on Wikipedia on the fly and, instead, concentrated on learning you would, perhaps, be less clueless.
Quote[/b] ]It's no slum. Those are a few pictures of a few individual houses with no background info. Go to greece or the US or whatever country and you'll find the same standard. But still no slum.It's a slum. I've been to Greece and the US and no, they haven't the same standard.
-
Did Tony Blair decide everything?No. But as he was a Prime Minister, not a President, that is hardly surprising. You clearly have no idea how a parliamentary democracy in a constitutional monarchy works.
Quote[/b] ]In Cuba [...] There's no torture like in the US.If Cuba are so opposed to torture, why do they lease Guantanamo Bay to the the US?
Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] ]And how would people freeze to death due to unpaid electricity bills in a country that rarely gets cold enough for people to freeze to death? And how would not paying an electricity bill stop people from using their gas central heating?Well, read the newspapers carefully this winter.
If this has been reported in the newspapers in the past it will still be on their websites. It is up to you to verify your claims, not me, so you provide the links.
Unfortunately, you will find it difficult to link to figments of your imagination, so rather than have you waste your time I shall point out the obvious: I live in the UK so, therefore, know damn well what the climate is; that the major source of heating is gas, not electricity; the cost of living; the cost of utilities; minimum levels of income, etc.
Me spending all of today, in December, outside, in a t-shirt, without freezing to death, is not part a liberal-media-supra-governmental conspiracy designed to bring about the downfall of Cuba - they didn't change the weather or my perception of it, I'm not dead and I didn't have a small fire burning in my underpants to keep me warm.
Quote[/b] ]So Cuba is the poorest country in the world? No cars? No industries? No irrigation? Why is Cuba an achiever and not let's say Jamaica?Jamaica has achieved a hell of a lot more than Cuba. Not being Cuba is an achievement in itself.
Quote[/b] ]You arguments are based on strange assumptions. I guess that's what people learn due to liberal media. You're defending your own oppressors. They make you do it.Help, help, I'm being oppressed! It's a good job you're here as a beacon of all things that aren't nuts, to save me. Although I'm confused - first you tell me to read the newspapers, but then you say that it is all a conspiracy by the liberal media. Or is it just a conspiracy when their reporting disagrees with your agenda?
Quote[/b] ]Sure, Haiti does so much better. In fact Cuba has one of the highest living standards in the third world just because of their system that doesn't allow exploitation. Cuba has always been a third world country. And it isn't Cuba's fault. Embargos, capitalist aggression, terrorism etc. They still do much better than most countries.Great, one of the highest in the third world. A pile of horse manure might smell less than a pile of cow manure, but it's still a steaming heap of shit.
Embargos should have no effect on a communist country as said country shouldn't be trading, otherwise it becomes state capitalist. As the US is the only country that observes the embargo, are you saying that Cuba cannot survive without the US?
What the chuff is 'capitalist aggression'? Were they offering to buy things in a threatening manner?
If there is terrorism then there are clearly some unhappy people in Cuba - I wonder why that could be.
Cuba's third world status is Cuba's fault. Adults accept something known as personal responsibility, that way they know how to improve. Children blame everyone else for all their woes.
Quote[/b] ]Tell me, why don't you compare Cuba to the emirates? That would be great.Why don't you compare Cuba to any of the countries that do better than it? Is it because their existence destroys your argument?
Quote[/b] ]Oh! That explains why there was malaria before the revolution.People arrive on the island with malaria, through a simple program of anti-malarial drugs and quarantining malaria is eradicated. It is a very easy thing to do on a small island. Try doing some research on how many Caribbean islands have malaria instead of comparing Cuba to South America, which is not an island and to which malaria is native.
Being communist isn't immunisation against malaria and Fidel Castro hasn't driven all the mosquitoes out of Cuba.
Quote[/b] ](referring to life expectancy) And the US is a super power. Cuba still does better. What does that say?That many Americans are obese. That people die when they get old.
Life expectancy is not going to rise exponentially, it will reach a plateau. Late seventies/early eighties is probably that plateau.
Quote[/b] ]That's what houses look like in most parts of the world, including all parts of Europe and Asia. Welcome to earth. Those houses look fine. They are no shacks. There are no slums. Wonder why? Only in cuba, in whole Latin America.Did you even look at the photos? A house with its roof caved in is not 'fine'. People in all parts of Europe and Asia don't live in buildings with windows bricked-up and they don't live a family to a room.
You can argue that black is white all you want, it won't change the fact that this is a slum:
Plenty more images of Cuban slums here.
Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] ]They sold arms and traded with open arms.Quote[/b] ]After being coerced out of the Commonwealth trading bloc? Try again.Wiki:
Quote[/b] ]However, neither Britain nor the US were willing to apply economic pressure upon their multinational interests in South Africa, such as the mining company Anglo American. A high-profile case claiming compensation from these companies was thrown out of court in 2004.It's a good idea to read your own links.
First, from the same page as your wiki quote:
Quote[/b] ]From 1964, the US and Britain discontinued their dealings of armaments to South Africa.And Secondly, from your Anglo-American link:
Quote[/b] ]Anglo American plc (LSE: AAL, JSE: ANGLO) is a world-wide group of companies, originally founded in South AfricaSir Ernest Oppenheimer founded the Anglo American Corporation
Sir Ernest Oppenheimer being a German emigre to South Africa. So your 'proof' of British and American collusion is linking to a South African company started by a German.
Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] ]Really? I seem to remember volunteering. Much be the decadent Western media and government propaganda affecting my memory.What about WW2? Vietnam? Volunteers? Draft? Everything isn't Iraq. It's an exception.
The UK wasn't in Vietnam and hasn't had subscription since 1960 - and that was due to the aftermath of WW2. As the UK has been on active operations every year since WW2, Iraq is not the exception, it is the norm. In the whole of its very long history, Britain has had conscription for a grand total of 24 years. Every single British soldier, sailor and airman of the last 47 years has been a volunteer and conscientious objector status existed for the periods of conscription, which, despite your back-pedalling, completely refutes your assertion that:
Quote[/b] ]All soldiers are forced to fight in any war. -
Every year you hear about hundreds of people freezing to death in the UK due to unpaid electricity bills.And how would people freeze to death due to unpaid electricity bills in a country that rarely gets cold enough for people to freeze to death? And how would not paying an electricity bill stop people from using their gas central heating?
Perhaps you could link to where you 'heard about' these hundreds of people that no one else has heard of. Although it may be difficult to link to figments of your imagination.
Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] ]Do you even know what that means?(about sustainable development)
? Do you know what "fact" means?
I'll take that as a no, you don't know what that means, then.
And fact would be the opposite of fiction; fiction like Robin Hood and frozen people.
Quote[/b] ]Here you can read them:http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report.pdf
Page 19.
More info:
Well, thanks for that, Sparky. I am quite capable of using Google for myself, though.
As you clearly need the meaning of this explaining to you, what the WWF is saying is that a country with virtually no industrial capacity and very limited car ownership is environmentally friendly, something that would be obvious to anyone that hadn't been repeatedly dropped on their head as a child.
Quote[/b] ]Wow, what an argument. 27 Developed countries with strong economies do better than the third world country cuba. Why not mention the fact that Cuba has no space program? How odd. Most be due to socialism.Cuba's third world economy would be Cuba's fault, no one else's, due to its brand of socialism. Just think how well Cuba could do with an economy.
Quote[/b] ]How many perform worse? What about Haiti Mexico the superpower US? The rest of south america? Cuba performs better than them all.And worse than the evil capitalist pig-dog that is Europe. And parts of Asia. And Canada. And Aus/NZ.
Quote[/b] ]Isn't a higher life expectancy what you would expect when you compare a rich country to a poor former colony and later gambling den? Somehow Cuba outperforms the US anyway.By a month, which is statistically meaningless. And I'd rather live a month less at US standards of living than live a month longer at Cuban standards of living. But I get one year and one month more than Cuba at a higher standard of living than the US, so there.
Quote[/b] ]Yeah, the antarctic. Let's skip the comparison cuba vs developed countries, cuba vs superpowers, and talk about cuba vs antarctica! No malaria, no people either. They must have a splendid system there.Why has cuba no malaria when all surrounding third world  countries have?
You're not very bright, are you? Cuba is an island, malaria is distributed by infected Anopheles mosquito which are not native to Cuba and don't swim. Many of the Caribbean islands don't have malaria and the ones that do have got it from accidental introduction by man.
France has rabies, Britain does not, despite them being within viewing distance of each other. Do you think that is because Britain has a far superior health service and economical system or because it is an island?
Quote[/b] ]No, cuba is unique in South America. People have real homes, no shacks. Living in a shack is like being homeless.Of course they have real homes. Who cares if the roof has fallen in, or being crammed one family to a room in a delapidated, bricked-up hotel.
Quote[/b] ]You assume things you know nothing about. Yeah, 10% growth is because of tourism mr expert.Unless you're going to back up your drivel with evidence of other industries, Cuba has tourism and cigars, nothing else.
Quote[/b] ]Just like in the UK then...Apart from the financial sector, service industry, petro-chems, entertainment and high-end manufacturing, it must be tourism that makes the UK the fifth largest economy in the world. Â
Quote[/b] ]Sure Hitler had a global commitment too. You're breaking international law and nobody told you to play world sheriff or deputy.I call Godwin.
Nobody told us to play world sheriff in 1939 either, but we did.
Quote[/b] ]Yea, you're the boss. US is just your puppet.Or perhaps neither is a puppet, both have similar aims and, therefore, work together to achieve them. Co-operation, it's the future.
Quote[/b] ]During the apartheid loads of people were shot dead, imprisoned, tortured. Was that good? Well according to the US and UK it was ok as they supported that country.Apart from the UK being the first country to sever relations with South Africa after the PM publically condemned the Apartheid policies in his Wind Of Change speech made in the South African Parliament in 1960. Very supportive.
Quote[/b] ]They sold arms and traded with open arms.After being coerced out of the Commonwealth trading bloc? Try again.
Quote[/b] ]Castro has a much higher support by his own people and in whole South America.As long as you like the Henry Ford model of democracy: you can vote for anyone you want so long as it's me.
Quote[/b] ]All soldiers are forced to fight in any war.Really? I seem to remember volunteering. Much be the decadant Western media and government propaganda affecting my memory.
Quote[/b] ]Why is it bad that cubans unselfishly stopped a rascist advance down in Africa?Who made Cuba the world sheriff?
-
Quote[/b] ]
Near the top? In what way? Like when people freeze to death every winter because they can't pay their electricity bills? Unemployment? Is that good?Quote[/b] ]the existing order seems just fine, after all the UK is near the top so why mess with a winning formula?People freezing to death? What are you wibbling about? Aside from the fact that the UK rarely gets cold enough for people to freeze to death, when it does get that cold it is nothing that a thick pair of socks and a wooly pully can't deal with. People did manage to survive in much colder climates long before the invention of central heating. And not one person doesn't receive enough money to pay reasonable utility bills.
The UK has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, there are approximately 600,000 job vacancies at any one time - enough for more than 1.6% of the working population. Anyone unemployed in the UK that is capable of working is unemployed out of choice, people aren't migrating from Eastern Europe for jobs that don't exist.
Quote[/b] ]Cuba is the only country in the world with sustainable development according to WWF.Do you even know what that means?
Quote[/b] ]It has less child mortality rate than the US (that's a common measure of the healthcare standard).And there are 27 countries with lower infant mortality rate that Cuba. All of them Western Democracies.
Quote[/b] ]Higher life expectancy than the US.By 0.1 years, which is statistically meaningless. And there are 36 countries with higher life expectancy that Cuba - some of them US territories.
Quote[/b] ]No malaria and such diseases.The Antarctic has no health care provision or economic system at all but has no Malaria. I don't think the presence of mosquitos is very relevant to how good a country's political system is.
Quote[/b] ]No homelessness and no exploitation. High economic growth the latest ten years too.Instead of being homeless, people get to live in wriggly tin shacks. Great.
If Cuba's economic growth doubled in the next year it would still be a third word shit heap. And most of its growth is from tourism - Western tourists bringing their ill-gotten gains from exploiting the all the poor people of the world.
Quote[/b] ]Or why did Cuba manage to get environment friendly that quick and not any other countries?Indigienous African tribes are environmentally friendly too. It comes from living in mud huts or shacks and having limited or no means of production.
Quote[/b] ]UK might be one of the biggest economies, yes. But normal people don't benefit from it. Those who own and rule the country do.Those who own and rule the country? Back here on planet Earth, no one owns or rules the country. Last time I looked we ranked substantially higher than Utopian Cuba for standard of living and have one of the highest levels of social mobility.
Have you ever been outside your own little world of propaganda - or are you just a spoilt rich kid rebelling against daddy? Jealousy is such an ugly trait.
Quote[/b] ]Why do you have that high military spendning?Because we have many global commitments and prefer expensive quality over cheap quantity.
Quote[/b] ]Well, it seems like you like to go to other countries and oppress, rob and burn.Everyone needs a hobby.
Quote[/b] ]Little brother of the US!We'd be its dad, as it happens.
Quote[/b] ]I don't understand how you can be proud of a country where people freeze to death, go unemployed, homeless, sell themselves for money etc while royals have castles that could fit tens of thousands of people.Tens of thousands in a castle? I suppose if they were herded in like cattle and didn't mind sharing a bed.
Personally, I just can't move for all the frozen, unemployed, homeless people. Someone really should do something about them, they make the place look untidy.
Quote[/b] ]UK is a country where those who got more money get better education/healthcare and are guaranteed a better life.I must have missed the bit were my income was asked for when using the NHS or schools.
Quote[/b] ]So when did the USSR [...] do that?When they invaded, robbed and oppressed the satellite states to provide Mother Russia with a really big human shield.
I've heard that Gulags weren't that comfortable either.
Quote[/b] ]Did Robin Hood oppress rob and burn in your opinion too?Erm, yes. What with the whole 'robbing from the rich to give to the poor' thing being a fairy tale. Not being able to separate fantasy from reality happens to you a lot, doesn't it?
Quote[/b] ]You like monarchy?Yes, they look pretty. We tried the whole Republican thing once - we didn't like it. Rather a lot of countries have done the same. Why do you think so many independant countries of the former Empire have retained the Monarchy?
Quote[/b] ]That's what your military and country wants you to think.I've been there more than once, sweety pie. I've spoken with Afghans. You haven't.
Quote[/b] ]Your army has control over the capital only.We're tri-service, if you don't mind and have control over the whole of the north.
Quote[/b] ]The resistance movement is growing, but has little chance against your helicopters and tanks.The resistance is being steadily pushed towards Pakistan, and we don't have that many helicopters there. We have even less tanks, somewhere in the region of none. Besides, it's my war-face and 1,000 yard stare that frightens them off.
We don't often have hostages, it being quite pleasant here (apart from corpses of the frozen, unemployed, homeless, of course).Quote[/b] ]Do you bomb hostages in your own country too?Did you go to the same school of propaganda as Comical Ali?
-
Nice post, countered my arguments with points backed up by evidence and good explanation (and a bit of cheeky humour). Like I said in the Iraq thread I will look up those couple books you mentioned.Thank you very much, sir. Although, having defended crabs and matelots makes me feel dirty.
There is a lot of misconception regarding the Navy, not only because most of its work is done out of the public (and media's) eye, but because it has the singularly worst PR known to man.
Quote[/b] ]Although suspect L, D and D at least gave me an insight into defence procurement. Indeed there has been some cock-up's but it is not in a dire situation. However I think that money should be saved somewhere (no un-necessary cuts though) and the soldiers should get a pay rise. Would this actually be possible?L, D and D certainly did point a lot of people in the direction of defence procurement, and the premise of giving the public an insight into the business is a good one, it's just unfortunate that the book was tainted with the author's prejudices.
Money savings in procurement could come from giving back the power the services used to have, thus trimming the civil servant bean-counters out of the equation who will, on submission of project 'x', be quoted a cost of, say, 100 million, reject the design of 'x' - a piece of equipment they have no experience with - order it to be redesigned, which costs 6 million, and the now redesigned 'x' is quoted at 98 million, so the whole thing costs 4 million more than if they kept their mouths shut. Take a look at CVF for an example: civil service interference repeatedly changing the design and then settling on something very similar to the original has cost more than one of the hulls will.
Other savings could be made by returning what were traditionally service jobs to the services instead of paying companies like Sodexho, Flagship etc. to do them badly.
Pay doesn't actually come out of the same budget as procurement, it is a ring-fenced separate fund and has no impact on the size of other areas of the budget.
It's a good job this is anonymous because I would get strung up otherwise, but I don't think a pay rise is the way to go. To be honest, I don't think the overall package is that bad. There aren't many places were you would be taken on as a trainee with no qualifications for 12.5k, rising to 15.5k after initial training. When allowances, additional pay for AdQuals and length of service, trade pay and retention bonuses are taken into account, coupled with the comparatively low cost of living and add on the military pension, the pay does compare quite favourably with civilian jobs. Recruitment isn't the issue, retention is where the problems lie, especially among SNCOs.
Welfare has the negative effect on retention, in that many people, especially as they start getting into the properly grown-up age bracket, don't want to spend months of their life away from their families, whether on ops or exercise. The modern world is a fairly easy place to live quite comfortably in and many people place quality of life above money. What the answer is, I haven't got a clue, it's way beyond my payscale.
Quote[/b] ]I would, if you don't mind answering, like to ask you Scary what you think of the situation with Officers. Is it true that each force has more officers than they need? And that some surplus officers are being put in 'pointless' desk jobs?Ahh, Page's other bee in his bonnet. If you take a look here, specifically at table 2.8, you will see the relative changes across all ranks in the Armed Forces over the last 17 years.
You will notice that OF4 and above hit certain numbers and remain fairly consistent despite the overall number of personnel falling slightly over the last 10 years, but there are good reasons for this.
Firsly, some professionally qualified personnel, such as surgeons, enter with rank that allows them to compete with civilian pay - they usually enter at OF3 or 4, which skews the figures.
Secondly, many posts are not suitable for JOs. Rather than just being camps/ships etc. COs, Senior Officers also have positions in tri-service command, NATO, EU, Government advisory, Liason Officers with foreign militaries, theatre command, project management and as Defence Attaches at Embassies.
Thirdly, there is the strategic element. In the event of there being a major shooting match that requires the use of reserve forces or perhaps even general conscription, it is very easy to fill the low ranking positions, it is not easy to fill the posts that require 15+ years service.
Finally, there is retention. If a glass ceiling is created, whereby good Officers are kept in lower ranks, then they will leave. Not many people that could easily command a 6 figure salary on civvy strasse would be happy being stuck at OF5 for 10 years. It's better to have an SO3 doing a SO2 job than to have no one doing the SO2 job.
When taken as a whole, we are short of Officers just as we are short of Other Ranks. Are there Officers riding an easy desk until retirement? Some, but not many - I worked for a 2* for a while and he worked solidly from 0800 to 1800 and then took his laptop home, often finishing around 2200. There was a 2 month waiting list on his calendar for anyone wanting an appointment likely to last an hour.
-
Taken from the Iraq Thread, this conversation is more appropiate in here.
Right the guns. The L85 wasn't perfect when it came out. Lot's of problems were reported and it took 15 years for the next variant to be put in service.Of course the L85 wasn't perfect when it first entered service, nothing is. When the AR-15 was first issued it was truly awful, it has taken over 40 years to get to where it is now and the two standard variants combined perform less well than the single L85A2 that has only gone through one major upgrade even though the AR-15 has gone through many.
Quote[/b] ]I take it your talking about 'appropriate sovereignty' here. This is the governments excuse to keep feeding BAE huge amounts of cash. What they mean is to be able to fight without reliance on foriegn defence manufacturers.At the strategic level, being self-supporting is hugely important. Being reliant on a foreign manufacturer isn't a good thing when you have a tiff with that country. We don't know who our friends will be next week, never mind in the next decade.
Quote[/b] ]However the theory does not work in reality. We are still dependent on other countries for our aircraft etc. to operate.No we are not. At the moment we are choosing to co-operate with other countries with certain items for financial, political and other reasons. However, we retain the capacity and capability to manufacture those items on our own if necessary.
Quote[/b] ]America could really stop us going to war if they wanted to.No more than we could stop them.
Quote[/b] ]And if a lot of countries don't want us going to war then it is probable we shouldn't.Why not? It has never stopped us before.
Quote[/b] ]Giving BAE money may give some jobs in the UK but not a lot. Most of BAE's business is now overseas anyway so it doesn't do much good.BAe's overseas business is because they are buying other companies out, not because work is being transfered abroad, even then, it's profits make themselves noticed in the UK. Around 1 million jobs in the UK are involved in defence, it is our largest area of manufacturing and accounts for a substantial part of our GDP.
BAe isn't the only company that gets to play in the UK's military theme park, anyway.
Quote[/b] ]And last of all defence money is for defence. There is an entire other government dept. dedicated to employment.Many of these things are interlinked. Dividing lines are blurred.
Quote[/b] ]Yesterday's wars. What he means by that is the MoD are still buying equipment for fighting a conventional war.That would be preparing for tomorrow's wars, which is what we do. Fight today's war, prepare for tomorrow. Also, much of this equipment does have uses in today's arenas.
Quote[/b] ]Same goes for army organisation. What the hell do we need 100-200 eurofighters for? Do the terrorists have fighters of their own? No. That money should have went to buying helicopters or gorund attack jets. Not to mention that the eurofighter was incredibly expensive and very late. More money was forked out for a cas version. Remember when it had 2000 attached to it's name? The year 2000 has been and past and there was no eurofighter in service at that time. Oops, bet that was someone's career over.Lots of myths in here I'm afraid. For starters, Eurofighter is the company, Typhoon is the aircraft. The Typhoon has worked out to cost on par with other similar aircraft. The reasons its cost grew are down to the Germans moving the goalposts on an almost daily basis, and to a lesser extent, the Spanish who are also responsible for some of the delays (which are minor in the grand scheme of things, if necessary it could have been brought in service more quickly).
Now for the major mythbusting. The RAF always required the Typhoon to be swing role, they were alone in the partner nations for this requirement as the intention was for it to also replace Jaguar. From the very beginning of its development it was required to have a ground attack capability on par with its fighter capability. More money need not have gone on ground attack jets because it is a ground attack jet. More money was not forked out for a CAS version, CAS development just happened to be after fighter development for whatever reason the shiny arsed air jockeys decided. Block 5 planes are coming with all the capabilities as standard, the older planes will be upgraded incrementally. This type of spiral development has been standard for many years because of the complexities of modern avionics and systems software.
Quote[/b] ]Expensive toys. Eurofighter's in which quite a few are going to be mothballed - not enough pilots to fly all of them - even the RAF don't want all of the eurofighters that have been bought and then more money is needed from us to develop a CAS versionThe RAF bought some of the excess planes that the Germans reneged on as it was financially expedient to do so. It kept the per-unit cost down, eliminated (a very large) cancelation penalty and means the RAF has all of the aircraft it requires for its service life which is cheaper than replacing them as they wear out/crash into welsh hills/get hit by nasty men.
What we have, if you ask any FAC that has been training with them, is the best CAS asset on the planet - which is a good thing.
Quote[/b] ]Anti-submarine Merlins that probably are not going to see much use and the frigates. Useless for fighting subs, vulnerable to aircraft and expensive. If you want to destroy a sub use another sub or an aircraft. Very cost effective methods.The fact that the Merlins have an anti-submarine role is neither here nor there. All large ships carry a helicopter for various roles one of which is ASuW. The additional cost of equipping them for ASuW is negligable and it is mush better to have and not need than need and not have. Merlin is that good a helicopter that POTUS is replacing his Marine 1 fleet with them.
I don't know where you've got this idea that submarines are good at destroying other submarines, they're not, they are good at sinking skimmers and a few other tasks, but ASuW is not one of those. The RN knows how to conduct maritime warfare, it's been doing it succesfully for nearly 1,500 years and even took over the world for some time.
Subs are sandwiches, incidentally, submarines are boats.
Quote[/b] ]But we don't need all these traditional ships that the navy loves. Something like HMS Ocean or an aircraft carrier would have been better for humanitarian assistance than a frigate.Capital ships without protection are just big targets. Without a DD/FF screen, any enemy would just put you and all your equipment at the bottom of the oggin before you became a threat. Big floaty tin boxes are relatively cheap, stuff for sinking big floaty tin boxes is even cheaper, defending big floaty tin boxes is where the cost comes in.
DD/FF are the Naval fleet's body armour. What you are essentially saying is that we should stop protecting sailors because soldiers are more important. If we did that, Terry Taliban and Alvin Qaeda and their friends would turn their attention to cutting off the logistics tail of the coalition.
Wars are won primarily with logistics and intelligence, the RN are the main providers of both. Without them any ground force would be unarmed and blind.
Quote[/b] ]If you could show any examples of what action they were in in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and East Timor I would appreciate it.Iraq - Initial invasion was amphibious. Amphibious operations don't happen without naval bombardment. DD/FF screen prevented Iraq from putting LPD's, CVS, etc. with all their warfighting equipment in Neptune's icy hands. Currently provide Comms relay, SIGINT/COMMINT etc., protect vital oil platforms from attack (which have been attempted), provide an open seaway for the delivery of essential supplies. If an emergency evacuation is required, ensure that ground forces don't have to swim home.
Afghanistan - See Iraq apart from amphib. landing.
Sierra Leone - Provided fleet protection for HMS Invincible and HMS Ocean. HMS Norfolk landed the rescue party for President Kabbah. Numerous missile locks were recorded on the fleet in addition to receiving small arms fire.
Kosovo - Provided fleet protection for both the RN and the Charles de Gaulle carrier group. HMS Argus was used as a casualty reception facility.
East Timor - Provided vanguard for INTERFET. Provided the SBS troop that led the landings.
How well would the Falklands have gone without the RN?
Quote[/b] ]The type 23 frigate only has the ability to find a quiet submereged submarine. To listen to the echoes the ship must be travelling slowly. The sound pulses from the sonar also give the ships position away to the sub bfore the ship can find the sub. So why did we keep buying the 23's in the 1990's? The frigates also have a anti-sub chopper on them which does the anti-sub job better than the 23 can. In 2006 six of the 23's are going to be fitted with sonar 2087 however it is questionable if these are going to do as their advertised - by spotting the sub before the sub can sink it. 2087 is costing about 30 million quid for each 23. Moreover the rest of them are going to be left with the old sonar. Why bother when helicopters and aircraft can do the job better?Type 23s use towed arrays that don't give away the position of the vessel and search much larger areas of the ocean than the dipping sonar on a helicopter can. The Type 23 is the best ASuW platform currently available. Helicopters and aircraft cannot do the job better, they are complimentary and alone are easily defended against.
The RN bought more frigates in the 90s because it cannot operate with 50 year old vessels. The RN currently has 17 frigates, in 2005 there were 19, in 2000 there were 21, in 1990 there were 35, in 1980 there were 53 and in 1960 there were 84. I think there may be a pattern in there that suggests your supposition of the RN being obsessed with frigates is somewhat wide of the mark.
There is a simple equation to all this: the Royal Navy needs ships, the Army needs men, and the RAF needs planes. Sniping at any one of them to attempt to improve another is detrimental to the whole.
-
Actually, sod it, I give up. I've dragged this thread off topic now. Thanks for the recommended books Scary. I'll be ordering them once I get some pay.We do appear to be veering towards a discussion on the wider view of UK defence procurement so I will answer your points in the European Politics thread later.
The two books, whilst certainly not light reading, are very good. The author (linky for short bio) is very highly regarded and spent the best part of 20 years at the top end of procurement. He has also written a third, more recent book, 'Dinosaur in Permafrost' but I haven't got around to reading that one just yet.
thank you for giving such a well constructed post. Â I agree 100% absolutly with everything you say, and i stand corrected on the CAS RAF situation.Don't mention it, you'll make my head swell.
-
My opinions are taken from an extremely well researched book that actually takes a critical look at the present composition and organisation of HM Forces. The author is also a veteran of the forces himself.Page's book is about as well researched as the part of the map that says 'here be dragons'. The man is a bitter and twisted passed over former MCDO that has never been to sea on anything other that a minesweeper. He has no experience of frigates, destroyers or capital ships and a very limited view of RN operations, never mind land and air ops. He left on a low note after being told he would have to serve on larger vessels if he ever wanted promotion. After 11 years in the Andrew he was a Lieutenant and he has a chip on his shoulder the size of Ayers Rock because of it.
Quote[/b] ]He argues that the forces are not equipped to fight the types of wars we are fighting now.What exactly is it the fighting forces don't have? Let's look at the blurb on the back of his book:
WHY are British Soldiers sent off to war to put their lives at risk, with some of the worst guns around?
What worst guns would they be? All of the British Armed Forces guns are amongst the most highly rated in the world, some are the most highly rated. And what the toss would a Clearance Diver Junior Officer know about guns anyway?
WHY are decisions being made by the MoD with an eye above all for the interests of British Aerospace?
The strategic importance of maintaining high tech defence manufacturing capability. The cost effectiveness when business taxes and employee taxes are taken into account. Keeping people off the dole queue. The fact that they can and do make some bloody good equipment.
There is a reason that the UK is the world's third largest defence manufacturer.
WHY are we still fighting yesterday's wars?
Err, what? Yesterday's Wars? Are we waiting for the 3rd Shock Army? Are we manning the trenches at Ypres? Are we giving the French yet another damn good thrashing?
No.
WHY is our tax money being wasted on useless, insanely expensive toys?
What useless, insanely expensive toys would they be then? There aren't many things in HM's trainset that haven't been used in the last 5 years.
Quote[/b] ]For example the Navy keeps ordering expensive and useless frigates.The RN hasn't ordered a frigate since 1996. And I do seem to remember them being used in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and East Timor since then, not to mention the evacuation of British Citizens from Lebanon and various other instance of humanitarian assistance. Far from useless.
Quote[/b] ]How are they supposed to help fight low intensity urban conflicts?Force protection, guarding oil platforms in the Gulf, SIGINT, keeping the logistics route open, providing a safe HQ, emergency force extraction and they had a rather important part to play in the initial invasion. They also have to do all the things they did before the low intensity urban conflicts and be ready for all the things they may have to do in the future.
Quote[/b] ]Not to mention the fact they are useless for fighting subs.Huh? The RN is the world leader in ASuW. The primary role of the RN in NATO is ASW and MW/MCM. All FFs are equiped with Sting Ray and have the best detection equipment available.
Quote[/b] ]I could cite a lot more examples.Factually correct ones?
Quote[/b] ]There is a point in arguing over defence. It NEEDS to be under proper public scrutiny. Not the media type ie the Snatch Landrover.Indeed there is, but not by using that book.
Quote[/b] ]I strongly suggest you buy Lions Donkeys and Dinosaurs: Waste and Blundering in the military by Lewis Page (www.lewispage.co.uk). It is a very recent book and it will open your eyes to how corrupt defence procurement is. If you care the slightest bit about the forces then you should buy it. After all, don't you want the Army to have the best chance of winning this war?I would suggest he doesn't. If the paper was more absorbant he would possibly find it useful, but as it is the author has zero understanding of the tri-service environment and very little understanding of the single-service one. Junior diving Officers on minesweepers also tend not to have much involvement with the procurement process. In reality, British defence procurement, whilst certainly having problems, is the most open in the western world. If you want to see real procurement blundering, look at the US or France.
In essence, L,D & D amounts to 'British manufacturing is bad, buying American will solve all procurement woes.' He is under the impression that large scale procurement is akin to nipping to the shops for a new washing machine. It is an ill-informed rant that may make for good soundbites on Sky News, but offers no real substance or even anything new.
If you want some genuine insight, try Bill Kincaid's 'A Dinosaur in Whitehall' or 'Dancing With the Dinosaurs'.
I think the RAF is failing in one of its roles. Â I believe it can no longer provide effective close air support.Typhoon is being deployed for CAS in Afghanistan shortly, JSF are doing a dandy job right now. While the RAF may be Brylcream wearing crustaceans liable to throw a hissy fit if they're in anything less than a four star hotel, they are very good at CAS.
-
Quote[/b] ] ÂNot unless Taiwan was shipped some way north it wouldn't.
NATO's remit covers an area from the eastern border of Russia/some of the former USSR across the North Atlantic to the west coast of Russia. The US would probably expect some assistance from allied nations, but it would have nothing to do with NATO. When Argentina invaded the Falklands there was no NATO support for the UK because it was outside of the NATO zone.
NATO forces are already operating outside their remit. Invoking Article 5 right after 9/11 and operating under the umbrella of an UN mandate there is no problem at all for NATO forces to operate outside their usual remit.
Apples and Oranges. 11th September occured in the NATO zone and Afghanistan is in the NATO zone. The US military being engaged whilst operating around Taiwan would be of no relevence to NATO. The most likely source of assistance would be ANZUS with possible assistance from some NATO nations but not under the NATO umbrella - for NATO to get involved would require the threat to be taken to the US/Europe. NATO has never operated outside its zone and is unlikely to ever do so.
It's a moot point anyway as the US doesn't have the capability of conducting such a large scale operation presently and has proved to be inadequate at jungle warfare at the best of times.
-
It´s about interests and you seem to forget that the USA are a part of NATO and if they get attacked in a "Defend Taiwan" scenario there will be NATO support if asked for.Not unless Taiwan was shipped some way north it wouldn't.
NATO's remit covers an area from the eastern border of Russia/some of the former USSR across the North Atlantic to the west coast of Russia. The US would probably expect some assistance from allied nations, but it would have nothing to do with NATO. When Argentina invaded the Falklands there was no NATO support for the UK because it was outside of the NATO zone.
-
It's not a blue water navy, those submarines all operate in shallow waters. They can probably been seen from the air.There aren't very many of them and being diesal they have to surface often. I'd take a reasonable bet that the U.s. navy has the exact location of all of them.
Oddly enough I do know that the IRIN isn't blue water capable. I even know that blue water is nothing to do with depth. I also know that they can't 'probably be seen from the air', what with them operating in a deep water seaway and not a swimming pool.
There are 3 Kilos, in addition to Iran's very new home built vessels. Exactly how many do you think are needed to patrol a narrow strait and the NAG, and how many do you think it needs to attack a capital ship? Kilos are not diesel, they are diesel-electric and can stay submerged for a number of days - more than enough time to approach a fleet, bang off some torpedos and retreat. And you would lose that bet - I hate having to repeat myself but, for clarity, the USN is dire at ASW, they couldn't find a boat in a bathtub, on the surface, with a big neon arrow pointing to it. The Kilos have penetrated the US fleet undetected on a number of occasions.
Quote[/b] ]Also a rocket powered torpedo won't sink an aeroplane.A torpedo can sink a lot of aeroplanes if it hits an aircraft carrier.
Quote[/b] ]All of Irans surface vessels are 100% vulnerable to airstrike.The bulk of IRIN's skimmers are fast attack craft which are not '100% vulnerable to air attack'. Hitting a 23m LOA, 4m beam Cat14 with an even smaller Radar signature that is travelling at 50 knots with a fast jet is more than a little difficult. When they swarm attack, you're in trouble.
Quote[/b] ]Silkworm has a range of 90 km, an F 18 Hornet 360 miles.Carrier beats Silkworm.
Aegis, won't be used. (Not much point since they don't actually work).
Your obsession with Silkworm is a tad annoying, if you're looking for a pat on the back because you can quote figures you have Googled, you're not going to get one. Silkworm is the least effective of Iran's missiles, pretending the others don't exist won't make it true. Iran can launch its missiles from its FACs, boats and a/c, the range of the missiles is irrelevent.
Carrier does not beat Silkworm, and it certainly doesn't beat Sunburn. I suggest you get back to Google and look up Aegis, it is always in use and is an 'it', not a 'they' - if you're going to present yourself as an authority on naval warfare, it helps if you know what you are talking about.
Quote[/b] ]US carriers have a strike range of 360 miles. They won't be entering the gulf until any Silkworm threat and mine threat is cleared. They will be able to operate at the top end of the gulf.What exactly do you think the USN is going to be clearing mines with? I say again, the USN's MW capability is on a par with its ASW capability, dire. AShMs - not just Silkworm - are not going to be cleared without putting boots on the ground.
Quote[/b] ]But then they don't have to. The U.S. has access to much better static airstrips in all the countries surrounding Iran. Carriers are just a part of the airforces available for deployment.B52 will be free to operate in Iran the moment it's tiny outdated airforce is destroyed. So realistically speaking, within an hour of the first second of the first strike.
The US has no access to airstrips for use of an attack against Iran without the host country's permission - no country is going to risk Iranian reprisals because the US wants to go on another jolly jape.
Perhaps you should give the Pentagon and MOD the Int you've spent your life collecting regarding the IRIAF, because neither one is under the impression that it is tiny and outdated.
Quote[/b] ]Although they also have stand off capability weapon systems like Tomahawks which can be laucnhed from 600 miles away.Google again?
Quote[/b] ]I would suggest to you, that since the American's have been practising with war games, that they may not send in their assault ships first come the real thing. In fact they may not send in any assault ships at all for an airstrike. (They can't fly!As strange as it seems, when the Pentagon were playing those war games, they did actually know what they were doing - the amphibious ships were there as part of a battle group as they would be in real life. The Iranians aren't stupid, they would not just attack random vessels, they would concentrate their attack on the vessels with an offensive role i.e. carriers, cruisers and LPD/LPH rather than than DD/FF.
Quote[/b] ]The Iranians can close the gulf. They have the equipment. What they can't do is keep it closed for long. Sooner or later they will find all the silkworms, sink all the subs and sweep all the mines.Sooner is my bet.
You haven't got anything left to bet with. Finding all the AShMs would be a long and bloody task - unless the Iranians lob them all at the US fleet in the first few minutes, which is a probability. The US would take an awfully long time to clear mines as they are rubbish at it. And a sub is a sandwich, a submarine is a boat - people that know anything about naval warfare know that.
You haven't been through BRNC, CTCRM or even Cranwell or RMAS. When you have, your assertions will mean more - until then you would be better off accepting that some people know more about these things than you. It takes more than reading moronicly poor studies by SOAS and watching 'Ultimate Weapons' on Channel Five, I'm afraid.
The day I start getting instructed in the finer points of maritime, littoral and amphibious warfare by a civvy armchair Admiral is the day I go for a quiet, lonely walk with the Mess Webley.
Ahmadinejad meny times stated in his speaches (of hate, not irrationality) that Israel must be wiped from the world maps. How do you think he'll do/achieve this, with a razorblade? Can't you foresee a menacing chain reaction and its consequences after Israel will be 'wiped from the world's maps'?As has been pointed out in this thread and many others - he never said that or anything like it, he was deliberately mis-translated. To paraphrase simply, he said that Israel won't exist one day... because the late Ayatollah Khomeni said so. There was no threat, no mention of maps or of wiping.
I hope the west has learned never to bother with reconstruction or any kind of rebuilding. It's a waste of time, money and life.It is if you don't plan for it, like Rumsfeld. If you do plan for it, it works quite well, see the numerous Empires through history for examples.
similar to northern Ireland, its the same happend there ok so british retreated to the north, & threatend to basicly ethnic cleanse Irleand, once they regrouped, so the Irish had to settle for Peace, dident mean all the people who lost family to the Convict soldiers were accepting that.So in the North The british government Supports the Minority who support the government, where as the majority are against, hence the IRAQ situation.
Did that come from Sinn Fein's 'Big Bumper Book of How Evil The British Are And How All Your Problems Are Their Fault' or was it a Hollywood film with the plucky 'Oirish' character bravely standing up to the evil British with financial assistance from a group of understanding and distressed Irish*-Americans. (* Irish in the sense that they once ate a potato)
Because it's bollocks.
-
Iran has the best maritime defenses in the world?No it doesn't.
It has a couple of diesal submarines some speed boats some mines and some silkworms.
The most dangerous of these are the silkworms with a 90 mile range they could close the gulf. But not for long.
Likewise the mines could also be used to close the shipping lanes, but again, not for long.
The Silkworms are dangerous because they can be moved or hidden from the air.
The rest is cannon fodder.
I take it you've not been involved in a study of Iranian military capabilities or the planning of military action against Iran?
Iran has D/E Kilos, one of the quietest boats in service, equiped with Hoots, the fastest torpedo in service - this is in addition to their own build midget, minelaying and SDV boats. Iran has no need for SSNs as it doesn't require extended submergence. Iranian Kilos have penetrated the US fleet in the Gulf on numerous occasions.
Iran's surface fleet includes large quantities of missile craft, semi-submersible attack craft, fast attack craft and speedboats with crew-served weapons, all suitable for swarm attacks.
Iranian Noors(Saccade) are as good as US Harpoons, Kowsars are incredibly difficult to track and intercept and Moskits(Sunburn) are probably the best AShM in service and were specifically designed to beat Aegis. Iran has large quantities of each, far more than the USN can effectively deal with.
Quote[/b] ]The U.S. has the best maritime defences in the world or arguably the Russians.Iran is a third world country. They haven't got dick all.
You clearly don't understand the difference between 'maritime defence' and 'blue-water navy'.
In a recent war-game conducted by the US, simulating an attack on Iran, the USN/USMC lost half their fleet, with 16 major war vessels on the seabed, 5 of the 6 amphibious assault ships were lost, as were numerous carriers and large cruisers - and 20,000 KIA. These war-games are notoriously slanted toward US victory and they only included known Iranian equipment.
The USN is woefully inadequate at ASW and MW and is absolutely reliant on allied navies for the provision of both. The VMF is a hodge-podge mix, primarily of death-traps, with a huge lack of support infrastructure and not enough money for fuel. There hasn't been an exceptional navy in the world since the 50s/60s before NATO re-allignment divided responsibilities - PLAN may develop one ever the next 20 years unless other nations try to compete.
Quote[/b] ]Logistical support of a U.S. airstrike on Iran would prove very easy, they have 13 aircraft carriers and airbases in Iraq, Saudi, Kuwait and Uzbekistan, plus access to more in Oman and Israel if they needed more.The B52's can even fly direct from the U.S.
Which shows how little knowledge you have of strike operations. US carriers aren't going anywhere near Iran unless the AShM threat etc. is eliminated. Flying from other countries would require their permission, which would be unlikely considering potential Iranian retaliation, and long-range strategic bombers would be sitting ducks to the IRIAF without fighter escorts.
Quote[/b] ]An attack on Iran would result in almost no loses whatsover. Probably none.This is why uninformed civvies shouldn't plan military operations.
Quote[/b] ]I agree that many of Iran's targets are hardened.Those facilities that a JDAM cannot destroy, must still connect to the surface somewhere. Those connections can all be destroyed.
And repaired within a week at substantially less cost than a splashed B-52/F-117.
I thought they had the sunburn but it seems they don't.They do - and are probably in the process of developing their own version.
The best thing to do with Iran would be to leave them alone, then the population would vote for someone slightly less nuts than Ahmadinejad. But that would let loose a Euro oil bourse on the world and the US wouldn't like that.
-
It's another third world country.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Actually, yes I do.
Actually, no you don't.
Quote[/b] ]Iran is a third world country. It is a member of the third world.Which part of that am I getting wrong?
As are all it's neighbours, including Saudi Arabia.
So are Taiwan and South Korea and a whole host of others.
Depending on which definition is used, a Third World country is undeveloped or has a low standard of living. Neither definition applies to Iran. As the HDI map below shows, Iran has a medium standard of living and it is not undeveloped - it is a Second World country. The same applies to Saudi Arabia, whilst Taiwan and South Korea are both First World Nations.
Quote[/b] ]Militarily Iran is a minnow compared to the U.S.It has nothing in it's arsenal capable of countering a U.S. aerial assault or even a British one.
It would be a complete rout comparable with Cortez and the Inca's or the British Army and the Masai.
Just like their militarily superior neighbour, Saddam Hussein, was.
Iraq had nothing in comparison to Iran's military: Iran has probably the best maritime defences in the world; Iran is mountainous so there would be no big, sweeping tank battles a la Gulf War I; Iran has a very well defended border utilising those mountains; there is no easy route into Iran to provide logistical support; Iran's strategic targets are mostly underground, out of reach of PGMs/TLAM; there is very limited intelligence regarding the location of mobile Iranian missile defences; Iran is also a damn sight bigger than Iraq.
Any attack on Iran would result in massive losses to the US of both personnel and capital equipment that the US population and Government would have no stomach for unless they were experiencing a direct threat, which they aren't.
These plans are nothing new, every country with an expeditionary military has contingency plans for attacks on most countries/groups of countries. They will have various plans for attacking Russia, China, South Africa, France... the more likely the war, the more often the plans are updated, it doesn't mean there will be another war next week.
Besides, all this persistant sabre rattling is mutually beneficial to both the Bush adminstration and ArmadillosJacket, a war wouldn't be.
-
Gnat @ Aug. 17 2007,12:58)]Not just the British, many others too.Think that's why the post just refers to RAF, rather than British airmen. Pilots from all over the Commonwealth and occupied Europe (and I believe other places as well) flew under the RAF during the Battle of Britain.
It wasn't just the RAF, some flew for the RN too.
Don't forget the Senior Service.
-
But the first part just doesn't fit in there:"Personnel will also be barred from playing multi-player computer games and sending text messages, photographs and audio or video material without permission if they relate to defence matters."
Maybe because they have a hard time monitoring chat that occurs in a game?
I wouldn't read too much into the bit about multi-player games, it's just really badly worded is all. No one is about to be court-martialled for playing BF online. However they probably would if they told D3ath2Infidel$ that the 3rd Foot and Mouth would be at X on the Y whilst playing.
.........interesting point on the lack of a first Amendment right of free speech in the UK. Â I have looked and found nothing to contradict you.There is no lack of a right to free Speech in the UK. Everyone has the right to free speech within certain limitations, the same as it is in any other liberal democracy, including the US. No country has total freedom of speech.
If I wish to protest, even on my own, I must apply for a lisence. I need state approval.No you don't.
Quote[/b] ]Once a protest needs state approval, it is no longer a free protest. It is a state approved protest.Indeed, but as this isn't the case in the UK it is irrelevent.
Quote[/b] ]By example, recent politically embarassing protests have been banned against George Bush when he visited, and also against the Chinese Premier.Protests against Bush were not banned, they were simply not allowed down Whitehall for security reasons, which was incidentally at the request of the (not so)Secret Service. They went ahead elsewhere. It is not difficult to understand that policing tens of thousands of people within rock throwing range of one of the most unpopular people in the world would be rather difficult. I've yet to see a mass protest on the lawn of the Whitehouse.
Similarly, protests against the Chinese Premier were not banned. Here is a picture of some of those protestors on The Mall waving the (banned in China) Tibetan flag. Civil liberties groups whinged that the public weren't given Hu's exact itinerary, but civil liberties groups do just tend to whinge, it is still not a ban.
Quote[/b] ]Perhaps the most famous recent protest ban has been against Brian Haw the lone Iraq War protester who's 4 year vigil outside the Houses of parliament led to new legislation criminalising him.Wrong. The Government enacted some bollocks legislation to save themselves some embarrassment, but it is hardly difficult to overcome the minor restrictions. Brian Haw is not an Iraq War protestor. He has been there since the 2nd June 2001, quite some time before Iraq, Afghanistan and even September 11th. Unless he is a new Nostradamus, he is just an evangelical fruitloop that has spent most of his life trying to paint the world pink and fluffy when he should really get a  job instead of being a professional protestor bankrolled by the British population.
Quote[/b] ]A lisence is now required, which he was not granted. The police took him away.Again, wrong. Under clause 132 of the SOCPA, authorisation must be sought from the Commissioner of the Met for protests within 1km of Parliament Square (with an exemption for Trafalgar Square) six days in advance, unless that is not reasonably practicable then no less than 24 hours. As long as the protest is correctly organised authorisation cannot be denied. Gordon Brown has said he intends to repeal clauses 132-137. Brian Haw has not been denied authorisation and was not taken away by the police.
Quote[/b] ]It is not true to say he posed any risk to saftey. That people may have been hurt. Nor is it true to say that the aims of the new legislation was to protect the public.They just didn't like his message, so they shut him up.
Brian Haw was given authorisation to protest with plaques totaling no more than 3 sq metres. As this picture shows, he has a habit of taking over the pavement with his badly written placards as well as wailing into a loudhailer. Because of this some of his placards (not him) were taken away by the police. As he is still there with his loudhailer and now sub 3 sq metres of placard, 'they' haven't done a very good job of shutting him up.
Quote[/b] ]Steet gatherings are covered by the Criminal Justice Bill introduced in 2002, this reduces the number of people legally allowed to gather in the street from the 6 legislated in the 1984 Prevention of Terrorism Act down to 2.Try again. The Criminal Justice Act 2002 covers the following
Part 1 makes amendment to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 such as extension of powers to stop and search.
Part 2 makes certain provision in relation to bail, such as grant and conditions.
Part 3 contains measures in connection with conditional cautions given by the police.
Part 4 deals with the charging and release of persons in police detention and introduces a new method of instituting proceedings.
Part 5 makes various provision with regard to disclosure, including initial duties of disclosure by the prosecutor, defence disclosure and contents of defence statement.
Part 6 makes provision related to the allocation and transfer of offences, for instance, the transfer of cases to the Crown Court.
Part 7 makes certain arrangements in connection with trial procedure, including application by the prosecution for complex or lengthy trials, or where there is danger of jury tampering, to be conducted without a jury.
Part 8 deals with the provisions necessary to enable live links to be used in criminal proceedings, including matters relating to rules of court.
Part 9 is about prosecution appeals and includes restrictions on reporting and offences where this is contravened.
Part 10 makes provision for retrial for serious offences and covers matters such as new evidence, the interests of justice, restrictions on reporting and offences where this is contravened.
Part 11 on evidence, consists of three Chapters, the first in relation to evidence of "bad character", the second dealing with hearsay evidence and its admissibility, and the third is supplementary.
Part 12 on sentencing, consists of 8 Chapters. Chapter 1 makes certain general provisions about sentencing, such as its purpose, reductions in sentences for guilty pleas, increases for racial or religious aggravation, definition of community sentence, etc. Chapter 2 deals with community orders and Chapter 3 with prison sentences of less than 12 months. Chapter 4 makes further provision about orders given under Chapters 2 and 3, such as the duties of a responsible officer, unpaid work requirement, drug rehabilitation requirement, etc. Chapter 5 makes provision in connection with dangerous offenders and, for example, specifies relevant offences. Chapter 6 deals with the release of prisoners on licence and includes provision for recall. Chapter 7 makes other provision about sentencing, such as deferment, and Chapter 8 is supplementary.
Part 13 miscellaneous, contains various provision such as guilty pleas and non-attendance at court, jury service, etc.
Part 14 general, deals with matters such as orders and rules, commencement, etc.
Nothing in there restricting congregating in a public place. There is also no mention of it in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984, which would be irrelevent anyway as it was only a temporary emergency act that had to be renewed every year, was amended in 1989 and replaced completely by the Terrorism Act 2000, which was itself replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which has been amended as the Terrorism Act 2006 for Section 3 being in breach of the ECHR. There is nothing in that, either.
Quote[/b] ]That is not to suggest that I have seen police officers arresting couples on streets all over the U.K., only that they may do so if they see fit.No they cannot, which is why you haven't seen it, unlike in the 'free' US where there are laws against loitering.
Quote[/b] ]This particular drop in numbers was part of the legislation used to curb the Rave scene. A crack down on impromptu unlisenced dance parties.Do keep up, old bean. The rave scene was around in the late 80s/early 90s and was halted by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which specifically defined raves, it also criminalised some previously civil offences but did not extend to restricting lawful protest.
Quote[/b] ]@Gisen, One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.There are a million reasons why I may wish to support one above another.
The civil war in England brought about the primacy of parliament and the birth of the modern democracy.
Actually, it brought about a military dictatorship ruled by a puritanical religious nut. Hence, the Restoration.
Quote[/b] ]The American revolution, the French Revolution and the Russian Revulotion are all widely considered to be have been very advantageous to the populations.Who on Earth would consider the Russian Revolution advantageous to the population?
Quote[/b] ]The right to bear arms is a constitutional safeguard the American people have to stop their governments abusing their power.No it isn't. Despite the nonsense espoused by the NRA of America, the Second Amendment was a way of providing a cheap (essentially free) Army/Police for a new, and therefore poor, country. There is a clue in the 'necessary for the security' part. England had (and technically still has) the same law. An oppressive regime could easily overturn the Second Amendment by a 28th Amendment  limiting arms to a blunt mango. Other countries stop abuse of power by having a separation between the State and the Executive, which is why the UK has a Parliament and a Monarchy. The Government may pay for the military but the military work for the Monarch.
Quote[/b] ]The Orange revolution in the Ukraine might be another example of when people wish to have ultimate power over their governments. When sedition is a good thing.I don't think poisoning the oppostion would go down too well here either. Although poisoning all three main party leaders would perhaps get a quiet hurrah.
Quote[/b] ]In Britain most people don't want a revolution.Probably because we don't need one.
Quote[/b] ]Neither do we want to advocate racism or religious intolernce here.There is no KKK in great Britain.
No, we have the NF and Combat 18 instead.
Quote[/b] ]Despite having less political freedom than North Koreans,Say what? You just can't move in North Korea for all the protests
Quote[/b] ]we are not especially unhappy. We have another kind of freedom that is greater than political freedom, we have financial freedom.Financial freedom requires political freedom.
Quote[/b] ]Yes the internet is an open channel and that is why soldiers on active duty are NOT WELCOME TO THE INTERNET.Odd that it is provided at bases, in theatre, on board ships, etc.
Quote[/b] ]That is why they are seeking to restrict it's use.No, they are seeking to clarify things after the Government cocked up the post Cornwall incident media ops to stop any future embarrassment. And not forgetting the fake photos from the beginning of the war.
Quote[/b] ]I'm sure you'll agree that passing messages via butterflies is infinitely more difficult than using a chatroom.With the current problems with retention I really don't see the MOD banning chatrooms and other forms of contact with families and friends, it really wouldn't be good for morale in hot, sandy places.
Quote[/b] ]Most certainly you cannot 100% prevent spying. Shall we all stop trying then...... Â Is that really what you are proposing?I'm quite sure the army is also looking into ways of reinforcing it's firewalls too.
I'm sure LIAG have all that in hand. They're rather good at these things.
Quote[/b] ]Quite apart from the obvious stupid slips that all humans are capable of making, there are people out there actively engaged in leaking information to our enemies.It's not enough to trust soldiers to make informed decisions for themselves, because as the incident with the Iranian spy indicates, some of those soldiers are not necessarily batting for the same team.
Approximately 500,000 people are involved in the UK's defence. One Corporal giving minor information to a country we are not at war with is good reason not to trust them all, is it? Heads up for you: not only was he caught, he was caught by soldiers trusted to make informed decisions for themselves. Do you see how that works?
Quote[/b] ]Quite apart from the obvious security breaches, appealing to soldiers common sense isn't the brightest thing to do. It's not exactly something they are reknowned for having a lot of.Well, thanks for that bit of ignorant, classist bigotry. Later, I may go play with traffic. I probably won't make diatribes that assert waffle as fact, though.
Of course, when I say 'play with traffic' I mean pulling civvies out of the 2 metres of flood water they have just driven their small car into. Yes, it's definitely us that take the Queen's shilling that lack CDF.
Quote[/b] ]There are no end of orders soldiers are given and expected to obey without understanding. Yes, many soldiers may ignore them. But those soldiers caught doing so will be disciplined.Well, I've never been given an order I didn't understand, nor have I given any that haven't been understood. There is no ignoring in either direction, either.
Quote[/b] ]A soldier that does not understand the reasons for any rules is free to learn more about why, but he is not free to break them.Those soldiers that do seek to learn more, are liable to end up promoted.
Of course not all soldiers can learn every element of the armed forces operational procedures.
Nor is their any importance to teach them.
Is a lesson on internet security a more valuable use of resources than a lesson on how to spot IED's? It might be in the intelligence corp, but it isn't in the infantry.
I take it you are not basing that on all your years of military experience? Because, to be blunt, it's nonsense. We are not fighting WWI, the infanteer is not just a bullet sponge, it is a technical trade with lots of shiny things that go bang.
Quote[/b] ]Sometimes you have to just follow orders and trust in those elsewhere in the chain of command to have got their jobs right. Right or wrong it's the army way.I can't see this being popular with the average squaddie as it results in a loss of privilages.
But to my mind it's been a wide open gaping hole in our communications security for over 15 years now.
It has not been a hole of any kind, the rules have always been there they have just been updated to specify modern technology.
It is not going to be at all unpopular. All members of the British Armed Forces are well aware of the importance of OpSec and PerSec. Pretty much everyone has been on operations and many have had plenty of exposure to the Troubles. After decades of service personnel and their families being targetted by Nationalists, no one is stupid enough to not understand why there are restrictions. Some of us still have our little mirrors to check for car bombs.
Now after that awfully long post I must dash. It's high tea here in polite society.
-
BvS10 (Viking) is also available at that price with good armour, anti-personnel mine resistant undercarriage and a footprint light enough not to set off heavier mines, they carry four up front, eight in the back and are fully amphibious. Not that useful in an urban setting, though.nice bit of kit that...
Absolutley hoofing bit of kit, they've shrugged off a few RPGs with barely a scratch and they are the only vehicle that hasn't got stuck in the ground. And the air-con works.
The Cloggies recently put in an order for ~70, some of which are a new ambulance variant, which is good news. As Royal essentially designed them, the RN own almost 50% of the intellectual rights and gets a nice little paycheque in return. A procurement scheme with BigAndExpensive that actually worked out financially beneficial has got to be a first.
Quote[/b] ]what do you reckon to the new kit though, in the form of the vector mastiff and bulldog? With these new purchases I saw the panthers taking a very back seat in the role of things... although so far I've only seen the bulldog actually going out and doing the work it was designed for... not seen head nor tail of the mastiff or the vector since the MoD paraded them on salisbury.Vectors look good to me. I doubt I'll get to use one as they're a pongo thing but, as I said before, our unarmoured/marinised version is excellent. I've seen the Vectors being thrown around and they seem quite happy with all the armour. Extra windows in the back would probably have been useful, or perhaps an extra hatch for top cover.
Mastiff I'm not too sure about. They're well armoured but they're enormous and I doubt their weight and suspension won't severely hamper them x-country. One of the considerations was that they should be less intimidating than CVR(t). Obviously no one actually looked at one, they just assumed that tracks=straight from the fiery pits of Hades; wheels=cute and fluffy. The other offering from Force Protection appear much more useful to me, Cheetah looks like an ideal alternative to SNATCH.
Bulldog is probably the best option while waiting for FRES which is likely to be at least ten years away. It provides a familiar vehicle with a vastly improved power pack, steering unit and armour. It even gets a more warry name.
As da12thMonkey said, Panther is just part of a normal procurement program, unlike the UOR of Mastiff/Vector. There was a round hole noticed years ago and Panther is the round peg to fit it. I doubt many will be deployed in Iraq, possibly a few will be in AFG, but most will be in UK/Germany and probably a batch in BATUS.
...the current FRES program that will one day replace the CVR(t) and FV-430 series...Ahh, but don't forget what the masters in the ivory tower said: 'FRES, CVF, JSF' - choose two. A confusing thing to say considering the latter two are totally reliant on each other.
We could end up with a bicycle, a canoe and a pigeon.
Don't get me wrong, but wouldn't the Mastiff would be perfectly able to fulfill the LMV's role? Both vehicles have been running in a number of the same competitions.No it wouldn't, they're a completely different class of vehicle. You don't need a 20tn chuffing big thing to carry a few comms systems when a much more discreet and mobile 6.5tn vehicle can do it. Because of the terrain and roads in AFG, Mastiff is pretty much not an option there anyway.
Quote[/b] ]Anyway thanks for clearing up the different purposes for the vehicles. That kinda explains why different vehicles are selected by the UK. But that still doesn't explain why other countries (like Croatia) select it as a patrol vehicle.It depends on what future plans the country has: they may want the option of multiple variants for different roles, and especially with a smaller military, it can work out cheaper to buy one expensive vehicle in six different variants than to buy six different cheaper vehicles.
If they only have the one vehicle in different variants covering many roles then it only requires one support infrastructure to operate and maintain them all and one training facility for the crews. Six different vehicles would require six different support infrastructures and six different training facilities and they wouldn't be able to swap crews between vehicles without additional training.
-
1999, at the last Royal Tournament. A team of ex Field Gunners have had a couple unofficial races. This is them, they've got some videos on there too. The Bottom three are of a full race, but you may need binoculars to see it properly.
The Royal Navy have been doing a pull-it-and-make-it-go-bang race, which is nowhere near as good, but this year they are supposed to be bringing back the proper 'Cliff and Chasm' at Collingwood, I think from March to June. If they've got any sense, they need to make it a regular thing, they've just got to keep Health & Safety away.
-
I wouldn't worry about Defence Spending Reviews, every year they look at scrapping something that cannot be scrapped only to decide that they could never scrap it. It's just paying lip service to the bean counters in the MoD.
Next year it will be boots or rifles or something which they'll discover they can't do without, and end up finding a paperclip supplier that is 0.005% cheaper than the current one.
The Red Arrows budget is only 5.6m pounds and considering how powerful a recruiting tool they are, how much of an advertisment for UK Plc they are and how high profile they are, that is exceptionally cheap. Just for recuitment alone the RAF would have to spend substantially more than that on an advertising campaign to compensate.
They RAF moved Australia just to prove a point, they'll not lose the Crimson Crabs any time soon. Now if we could only bring the Field Gun run back...
Military History Thread
in OFFTOPIC
Posted
Assuming the war went as was expected and the Red Horde was travelling rapidly towards the Rhine, Royal's primary role would have been to insert into Scandinavia, get behind the forward line and attack the logistic elements. If all went well there could well have been an additional role of entering deeper behind Soviet lines for strategic attacks on military infrastrucure.
A similar attack from the south, travelling through the Balkan states was also a possibility.
Under no circumstances would Royal be used in a conventional role against such an enemy, 3 Cdo Bde isn't constructed with that intention. A small unit with no armour against a mass line of rapidly advancing armoured infantry would be suicide, that was BAOR's job.