Paratrooper

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 17 2002,01:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 17 2002,01:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hope you are not going to suggest that ethnicity is a factor in Europe! Â <span id='postcolor'> No but culture and geographical connection. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Edit: Oh, and Britain can't be compared to Sweden hundreds of years ago! That is a truly pointless analogy. <span id='postcolor'> History repeats itself.<span id='postcolor'> Lol! Swedish History doesn't repeat itself in Britain! The Situations are not actually very similar. I don't think the central power will just absorb Eastern Europe, I think it will force reform, and a looser union, that allows the new nations to retain their so recently won autonomy.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 17 2002,01:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 17 2002,01:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You make it sound as if Britain is on the verge of collapse! This is just not the case, we have a modern technology based economy. I am not against the EU, not at all, I just want to preserve Britain's autonomy and identity within it. I don't want it to be what you want it to be. I think my cause will be served when Eastern Europe and Turkey/Cyprus come it.<span id='postcolor'> These things take time. It took us nearly 100 years to realise that we were fucked. As for Eastern Europe in the EU - I think that it will make EU much stronger. They just need to get their infrastructure rebuilt after what the communists did for 50 years. The cost of that is however small to the potential gains. Anyway, Eastern Europeans are more Europeans that you on that island of yours are <span id='postcolor'> I hope you are not going to suggest that ethnicity is a factor in Europe! Â Edit: Oh, and Britain can't be compared to Sweden hundreds of years ago! That is a truly pointless analogy.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (GreyKnight @ Aug. 17 2002,01:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, it is almost such a difference. Not quite lasers and spaceships but not so far away either. I am talking of my own observations in Kosovo. Now it is possible that the British KFOR isn't representative of the British military in general, but they were a sad sight. They were under equipped as hell - they had to borrow the most elementary logistical stuff from the French and the Germans and what is more sad from the KLA and the Yugoslav army. Their APC's were old. Their weapons were old etc. The French had everything more or less computerized. Each soldier had a palm-held device that showed the position of everybody in the squad. The platoon commander could see all the squads. The company CO could see all the platoons.. etc They all hade wireless communication gear, computers everywhere. All very modern. At the same time the Brits were forced to borrow some old diesel generators from the Yugoslav army to get their heating to work<span id='postcolor'> LOL. Â I admit I am not aware of those points, but I am pretty certain that in reality we are extremely well equipped. Â We do have fully computerised battle gear. Â Our SAS can be equipped with rifles who's sights are linked to head up displays in the operators helmets which are in turn linked to AWACs aircraft and GPS satellites and so forth. Â Pretty cutting edge stuff. Â We are also launching the Challenger 2 tank (which is having some teething problems with desert conditions), but is still a very hi-tech battle tank. Everbody has to ask people for help now and again, the fact is that our troops always end up being put into dumb ass situations where the logistical lines won't reach. Â We'd rather ask for help than struggle on in adverse conditions - wouldn't you?<span id='postcolor'> We have some world beating weapons, I don't know where denoir got that crap about old APCs. Warrior is first rate. But we do have a shortage of some of the simple stuff. Longbow should provide an exellent radio link.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 17 2002,01:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 17 2002,01:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The French had everything more or less computerized<span id='postcolor'> I'd aslo rarther have tough well trained soldiers than Palm-pilots! Bayonnets not batteries!<span id='postcolor'> Well, kind of proves my point. You run around with your bayonnet when they order an artillery strike by clicking on their palm-pilots. As for well trained soldiers. Yes. In the classical meaning. However that is no longer wanted either. The enlisted men of the British military are the lowest educated people I have ever met (not officer however). They are meant to follow orders and be cannon fodder. Not really compatible with today's military requirement specifications.<span id='postcolor'> What do you think the officers are for? I don't think you have had a very representative view of the British Army. There is alot of talent in there actually, and I know some of it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 17 2002,01:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 17 2002,01:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Britain is now fourth. Besides, that makes us a world player.<span id='postcolor'> Yes and Nigeria is 12:th. Does that make them a world player? Anyway, what I am afraid of is that Britain will make the same mistake that Sweden did 250 years ago. It took us 200 years to recover from that. We were during the 18th century one of the worlds strongest nations. When the industrial revolution came we still lived on our beliefs that we were the greatest and that our old system was the best. That royally fucked us for 200 years. From the middle of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th, we were one of the poorest countries in Europe, totally underdeveloped. Only because we didn't want to accept the inevitable changes. I am afraid that this is happening to Britain just as we speak. You shouldn't be so negative about the EU. As I see it they are your last hope..<span id='postcolor'> You make it sound as if Britain is on the verge of collapse! This is just not the case, we have a modern technology based economy. I am not against the EU, not at all, I just want to preserve Britain's autonomy and identity within it. I don't want it to be what you want it to be. I think my cause will be served when Eastern Europe and Turkey/Cyprus come it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The French had everything more or less computerized<span id='postcolor'> I'd aslo rarther have tough well trained soldiers than Palm-pilots! Bayonnets not batteries! EDIT: Sorry for the salvo of posts, I replied as I realised I had been beaten to the post, so to speak.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Aug. 17 2002,01:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So we wont be accused of unilateralism. Sorry, but when you say, "Look! My country's a military power!" you immediately hold yourself up to the benchmark- America.<span id='postcolor'> I don't pretent America isn't numero uno! I want Britain to help their freind (even when we diagee profoundly we are allied nations). I find all this EU power "to rival America" distasteful.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No but realise it. The grand days of queen Victoria are long gone. <span id='postcolor'> Keep it relevant! Britain is now fourth. Besides, that makes us a world player. The EU has no real trans-national influence, that is just a fantasy. It is inward looking and inward acting. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It must be very hard for you Paratrooper. You are one of the few conservative Europeans here. <span id='postcolor'>It is as I argue against most eloquent opposition. At least I am proof; Conservative European is not an oxymoron!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Aug. 17 2002,01:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lol Para, your ass is showing. How is Britain a military power? You knocked over Argentina 20 years ago, but what since then? Youve participated in NATO and UN interventions that have involved almost every other nation represented in NATO. Hell, America has been steamrolling backwater nations for 30 years now, and you act like its something special. I say, get over yourself!<span id='postcolor'> When did I say we conquered anywhere? Where did I say we were on par with America? I said we are a world power, not the foremost one! Just read what I write! We are militarily powerful, we can defend ourselfes and our allies, with weapons of great destruction on the WMD scale and conventionally against invasion of territory. This is a fact. America asks for our help in wars. They don't need it, they want it!

I personaly don't miss wobble. I disagree with alot of you on alot of things, but I like the fact that discussion on here is a little more adult. I just hate spam. I have no time for it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Aug. 17 2002,00:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lmao, the sun has already set on Britains Empire, but you just cant realize that youre just another country once again, not a mover and a shaker. Hell, the about the only thing people can really say about Britain post WW2 is that theyve produced some great rock bands. But thats about it.<span id='postcolor'> No-one has an empire, it is not a measure of national influence!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 17 2002,00:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 17 2002,00:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Britain is a world player: we may not rule a fourth of the world anymore but no-one does! Britain has a permanant place on the security council, nuclear weapons, the fourth largest economy in the world and first class armed forces. We are a world player, like the USA, france and others. A huge empire is not needed to sit at the top table. <span id='postcolor'> Whatever makes you sleep better at night. As ran said Britain is not a major power, the EU is. Even that is irrelevant in today's globalization.You want your own cars? What for, they will in the end just be bought by either General Motors or Daimler-Chrystler. I would like to welcome you to the 21.st century, Paratrooper. Your mercantilistic ideas have gone out of fashion a long time ago. The nation-state is nothing. Globalization and internationalization is everything. You may not like it, but that is the world we live in. Clinging on to some old ideals won't change anything. As for the stuff you listed: Security council: yes because you were a major power 50 years ago when it was formed. Nuclear weapons: Yes and so does Pakistan Fourth largest economy: Eh? You are ranked number 19 with GDP/Capita. Sweden is ranked number 6 and that doesn't mean that we are a world player.. Armed forces: For instance the french are about 20 years ahead of you in terms of modern equipment.<span id='postcolor'> The EU is not a unified international presence. It makes its self felt within the Union, not outside. The nation is a very real thing. This global world idea is a conceit. Money moves globally, not the national concept. British cars would be a powerful symbol of industry. They would also be an economic boon, jobs are still local aren't they? GDP per capita is NOT a measure of national wealth! GNP is. Britain is the fourth richest. Unlike our nearest rivals Germany and Japan we are a major military presence. As for the Fench army? Just what have they done that compares to Britain, yes, recently? The Royal Marines, Paras, SAS, SBS are respected around the world, no French regements are! Our tanks, artillery etc. are also world class. I'm not saying France is not powerful, they are, but not more than Britain. Britain and the nation state are very much alive, your dreams are a long way off from becoming fact. The Nation shall out live all of us. Humans have always lives in tribes and always will.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (GreyKnight @ Aug. 17 2002,00:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No Paratrooper, it's not the avatar - us Brits have to stick together . Â Don't change it!<span id='postcolor'> Ok, as long as its just my outspoken opinions...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 17 2002,00:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">here's a story i head about Snatch. During production, they needed some males to be Brad Pitt's boxing partner. So Guy Richie made a radio ad saying, "We are looking for some able-bodied ppl to appear in boxing scene. If you are interested, please come to this place." Unfortunately, it did't go through well, so Richie made another radio ad, but added some extra lines. It read "We are looking for some able-bodied ppl to appear in boxing scene with Brad Pitt. If you are interested, please come to this place." next day, 3000 screaming girls showed up, but no guys <span id='postcolor'> I though snatch was pretty naff, trying to capitalise of the far more original Lock Stock.

Long running debates would be impossible, It would also be impossible to moderate well!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 16 2002,19:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 16 2002,19<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Would you say the Swedish car industry is good or bad for Sweden. Wouldn't you want one if it wasn't there?<span id='postcolor'> There is a big difference. Your motivation for Britain to have its car industry is because you consider Britain to be a "major power" and all "major powers" are supposed to have car industries. Your interests are obviously not econimical and you don't care if it is good or bad for the country as long as you get a certain status. You made that perfectly clear in the beginning of this discussion when you said that it was bad from BBC to make a profitable investment in an American film just because it portrayed American and not British soldiers.<span id='postcolor'> Right. I want the benefits that other major powers have from a car industry. It is because we are a world player that I think it is possible and neccessary. Yes I do think that a car industry is a matter of national pride, I would be a fool to say it isn't. A country that produces its own cars sends a message of industrial and financial competance to the world. Britain is a world player: we may not rule a fourth of the world anymore but no-one does! Britain has a permanant place on the security council, nuclear weapons, the fourth largest economy in the world and first class armed forces. We are a world player, like the USA, france and others. A huge empire is not needed to sit at the top table. The BBC will not make it's Å4 million back from BoB. Its the avatar isn't it. Should I change it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 16 2002,19:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 16 2002,18:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 16 2002,18<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I really think we should have these things wich all other major powers do!<span id='postcolor'> Well, there it is. Some form of misplaced national jealousy. This isn't 1930's any more. Or 1830 for that matter.<span id='postcolor'> It's not misplaced national jealousy to want your nation to lead the world.  It's just national pride and a hope for your country to be better than it already is.  The problem is that for a long time, Britain was the pre-eminent power in the world.  So when a Brit expresses a desire for his nation to be a world class power, it's some sort of neo-imperialism  Nationalistic pride isnt a bad thing <span id='postcolor'> Britain is a world class power! Thats why our lack of a car industry is so inexcusable.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 16 2002,18:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 16 2002,18<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I really think we should have these things wich all other major powers do!<span id='postcolor'> Well, there it is. Some form of misplaced national jealousy. This isn't 1930's any more. Or 1830 for that matter.<span id='postcolor'> Wanting a healthy industrious national is NOT "national jealousy"! Would you say the Swedish car industry is good or bad for Sweden. Wouldn't you want one if it wasn't there? Nordin: very true.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Aug. 16 2002,18:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ol , yeah , maybe you could earn money and economically sinistred regions could be a lil' bit better to live in<span id='postcolor'> I agree, industry would help the regions. Thats one of the main reasons why I really feel we should makw an effort to revive the car industry.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Aug. 16 2002,17:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So it doesnt matter if the series paid back the investment? Because I am certain it has! Â HBO Originals have this odd habit of making a LOT of money. Â And it will make a heck of a lot more once it is released to DVD. Considering that a lot of the episodes were filmed in the UK, it DID support British film. Â After all, they dont import all the cameramen, technicians, wardrobe people, extras, etc. Â Your beef is that it doesnt show history the way you want to see it. Well, I am sad to say, Band of Brothers didnt really include very much of the British people at all. After all, it was about that particular company of Americans! <span id='postcolor'> agreed<span id='postcolor'> If only we had a film industry like you French do! There would be much less complaining about Hollywood as they would have competition. We don't make many cars, and we don't make many films! I really think we should have these things wich all other major powers do!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 16 2002,17:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Paratrooper you are really starting to display a nasty trait of chauvinism.<span id='postcolor'> I think I can say millions of pounds on an Ameri-centric film was money poorly spent without being 'nasty'. The series was good, but I just don't like the BBC's money spent abroad. The British film industry is dieing as we speak!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Aug. 16 2002,16:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lol just look at my last edit.<span id='postcolor'> Great! Anyway, it won't be untill next summer, or the summer after.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Aug. 16 2002,16:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 16 2002,16:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Aug. 16 2002,16:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 16 2002,16:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I really don't mind a film about American soldiers, there are lots of British films after all, but why pay for it?<span id='postcolor'> because it has a chance to attract spectators<span id='postcolor'> We could have just bought it and played it on television, we didn't have to pay to make half of it!<span id='postcolor'> it's not because it doesn't talk about you that you don't have to pay for it british investissers though it would work and it worked if we continue in your logic , why a french realisator made a film with a lot of french money (along with other currencies) to make a film called "stalingrad" ?<span id='postcolor'> I am saying that: it is one thing to buy an American film, It is another to pay to make one! Especially as it marginalises the British war effort. Worth buying, not paying to make!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Aug. 16 2002,16:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 16 2002,14:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Aug. 16 2002,14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 16 2002,07:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I really can't wait to get into the University Ofiicer corps. I may even be in Canada on exercise next summer!<span id='postcolor'> <!--emo& Â Brace yourself, mosquitos and heat are unbarable. Don't try the CDN beer BTW. Other than that it's pretty good. Â <span id='postcolor'> Canadian beer? The fact I have never heard of any can't be good! Â <span id='postcolor'> Dude, <span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>You do not want to disespect our beer!!</span> Â Â Â Â And Paratrooper,from what I hear from my friends in the reserves, if you end up on excersises here, you'll be having plenty of it, like it or not <span id='postcolor'> I look forwards to it! Is it like American beer?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Aug. 16 2002,16:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 16 2002,16:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I really don't mind a film about American soldiers, there are lots of British films after all, but why pay for it?<span id='postcolor'> because it has a chance to attract spectators<span id='postcolor'> We could have just bought it and played it on television, we didn't have to pay to make half of it!