Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About baff

  • Rank
  1. baff

    War against terror

    It's illegal because they are signitories of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Can't really avoid that one. @johnWayne  I don't remember any tank charges through Belfast.Or helicopter gunships firing Tow rockets at suspects cars. Or children gunned down outside their homes by soldiers. When they lorry bombed Londons tallest building, there was no carpet bombing of Ireland and America for supporting terrorists. The troops weren't sent in to make the people of Ireland and the U.S.A. pay for supporting terrorism. The Birmingham Six were set free and compensated with millions of pounds for false imprisonment, not electrocuted, stripped naked and forced to bugger eachother until they confessed enough to be excuted. A big wall wasn't built around Belfast and it's citizens houses systematically destroyed. Palestine isn't getting a free pass on the violence. Anything but. The state of Palestine is getting tank blitzs and military retaliation for the actions of terrorists. The Israeli's really don't need any extra support to deal with the Palestinian violence at all.  There have been recorded cases that Hamas has fired rockets from Lebanon. funny. Unlike shooting stone throwing children with tanks or just driving over people in bulldozers. which is less funny. Here is a set of before and after pictures of an American girl in Rafah. IMAGE REMOVED: Warin pretty funny stuff ay? IMAGE REMOVED: Warin First he ran her down, then he reversed back over. @ AKM No government can survive without the broad support of it's people. We demonise the leaders, but only a populous movement gives them actual power. You can blame only the Nazi's if you like but under the Tsarists 30 years earlier the Germans were just the same. Without the broad support of the German people neither war would have begun. They liked war, as a nation they were good at it. Similarly you could blame George Bush and the "neo cons"* only for the war in Iraq but he was re-elected, the American people as a whole are into it. The population didn't exactly riot and overthrow him. Outraged gun enthusiasts have not attempted to assasinate him. It was the same for Adolph. They loved him. If they had won, they still would. (*)please excuse the cliched yankee flamebait. I know he's an easy target. (Thats not to say that about half the population of any country is not usually against it's own government. If Osama bin Laden or Gerry Adams managed to kill Tony Blair, a lot of English people would throw a party. Half the population of Britain were pro Nazi and totally anti a war with Germany in 1939).
  2. baff


    Yes heavier armor at the front lighter at the back. perhaps in the name of simplicity a LAWS rocket to the front of an Abrams has no effect but to the rear kills it. thats sort of thing would be a nice touch.
  3. baff

    European Politics Thread.

    Are you joking? You do know that Britain is involved in a shitload of pan-European companies, ranging from Airbus to Siemens. Your economy is completely tied to the European industry, which is in open competition with other giants such as the US. Britain is nothing, absolutely nothing today on its own. The problem is that a good portion of your illiterate Sun reading population (which unfortunately for you are a significant demographic force) lives in some Victorian-era fantasy. What exactly do you think you have that you can sell? Do you honestly think that BAE can compete with Boeing and Airbus? Or that the Americans will have a sense of "fair play" and promote British products rather than their own American ones? The US has a more or less complete industry - they don't need you at all. At least in Europe you have some influence. No i'm not joking. BAE is peanuts compared to what we earn from the U.S. We could throw BAE in the rubbish bin. (BAE is half owned by Boeing? or Lockheed Martin?, it's not an especially competitive company but we have a large enough military to keep it in orders. Most of BAE's foreign orders come from America, Arabia and India). All of our European trade added together does not come close to our income derived from the U.S. You have a misrepresentative idea of how Britain makes it's money. Foreign trade is important to us, but it's not top of the list. Britain is a banking nation. (note the traditionally high intrest rates and strong pound). We don't make our money from trade. (othewis we would have a lower valued economy to capital;ise on that and lower intrest rates to promote start ups). We make it from investing. (From stock markets, insurance, money markets, global free trade, pension funds, futures, underwriting and shipping). Most of that money is invested in America. We own American business. Those companies that you wish to compete with belong to us. Twice a year they send us our share of their profits. (And each month they pay us our banking fee's). (It's nothing to do with loving or trusting the yanks, they are massively unpopular here. We are still financially in bed with them. i understand that this is not very fashionable, but with the $ so weak I can't even (profitably) sell up and re-invest elsewhere currently. As much as I would like to see them with a bloody nose, I would much rather retire with my pension intact). Yes, in a perfect fair and market-driven world. It doesn't work that way however. It is size that matters, unless you are large enough, you're dead globally regardless of how hard you work. International economic deals are primarily about politics and reciprocal industrial arrangements (If you buy our Airplane, we'll build you a telecom system for half the price and grant you these loans...). The European countries are simply too small individually to make any difference. Alone, they have to live of the scraps of the larger economies and live with terms dictated by others. Ah well, but you see, you in Britain elected this guy Tony and we in Sweden elected this guy Göran to take care of the interest of our countries. And these guys meet on occasion and they seem to think it is a jolly good idea to increase cooperation. What you or I personally think is our private business. The politicians that the people have elected are doing the job they got a mandate for. That, you see, is called representative democracy. It's not just what I think, it's what we think. Tony Blair is replaceable. He likes his job. He knows full well that the instant he tries for further European integration, thats the day he will be replaced. Hence he is referendum dodging. (Has been for the last 8 years) Tony Blair is intrinsically aware of British public opinion on Europe and his Chancellor is also aware of the finacial problems. We did vote him in, but on the specific condition that he would give us a referendum on both the Euro and the EU constitution. The reason he has refused to bring those referendums, is that he knows they cannot be won here. Tony Blair is a very weak leader currently he is unable to make any contraversial decisions without triggering a leadership challenge. The European issue (and the finacial troubles brought on by trying to join the Euro), put paid to the previous government and Mr Blair's tactic has simply been to repestedly refuse to face the issue until "after the next election". Of course he thinks it is a good idea. What european leader doesn't want to be the first "President of Europe"? The Abraham Lincoln of the 21st century? i'll drink to that.i'll buy the first round too if you'll join me. GDP per capita 2004 Britain 119 France 111 Germany 109 http://www.finfacts.com/ireland....8.shtml They are all pretty similar. The employment rates differ quite substantially however. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_cap Source: CIA World Factbook, March 2005 20. Germany $26214.12 per person  21. Sweden $25985.33 per person  22. France $25888.77 per person 23. Finland $25776.44 per person  24. United Kingdom $25426.55 per person Or for a different set of numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...._capita Apparently it depends on which method you use to calculate the GDP, but yes they are pretty similar - and that's my point exactly. You claim that the unemployment is hurting the economy, while the figures don't seem to indicate that. The French and German are earning as much money as you are and</b> they have shorter work hours, longer vacation etc As nations we earning similar amounts.I don't claim that unemployment is hurting the economy, I claim that it is hurting society Here in Britain we can afford a much higher unemployment rate and still make our money just the same. The problem here is the distribution of that money throughout society. Rather than just give people money for doing nothing in hard times we hire them to do "public works". Public spending has grown by 10% in the last 8 years to balance out the global downturn. P.S. I agree about the nature of statistics wholeheartedly. I posted the first one I found on a google search for "capita Europe gdp" I would much rather conceed any point than spend my life googling for different results. (you are a wise and talented a man. A pleasure to debate with). Yeah and that's mostly a load of bull. For instance about 8,000 jobs have been outsourced to the new member states. At the same time some 150,000 jobs were created due to the increased trade with those states. So the "outsourcing" scare is mostly a load of crap. I seem to remember visiting a BMW factory in South Africa once and they make Volkswagon in Mexico. Thats about  as much as I know about German outsourcing. In Britain most of our industry has been outsourced for some time. We haven't made anything here for years. Call centres in India is the latest fashion. Formerly they were seen as the saviour of unemployment hotspots like Wales. Well, let's see, what is better that you have a 5% lower unemployment or that 90% of your population get shorter hours and and more holidays.. geee, not a too difficult question, is it? Well, at least not if you care about your people, that is. For those 5% it is yes. Thats 5% of the population that couldn't afford holidays at all previously. 5% of the population who were formerly poor. (We are a social society too. We just do it differently). You want to have your cake and eat it. You want to get paid more than the jobs worth, go home early and have a great holiday. And if the boss argues the workforce in France and Germany goes on strike,( not just that companies workforce, but the whole nation). The company losses more money,(as does  every company in the nation), and then when the factories close the workforce cry about the government not doing enough to get them investment. The british model is to take the unions on head on and break them. Thats the labour reform we did here 20 odd years ago. Yeah, 25 years to be precise, when you joined the common market. You owe your "success" to the European Community. The relative performance to the other large EU states (growth of 3.5% instead of 2% and unemployment of 5% instead of 8%) is because you are screwing your population out of benefits that other Europeans have). There is much too much self congratulation going on in Britain currently. talking of self congratulation, do you really beleive that the Germans and French made Britain rich in the last 20 years? LMAO. Nonetheless we have been growing faster than anyone else in the EU. Who would have though our economies would be considered on a par with Those of France or Germany 20 years ago? Our population will take those "benefits" as they can afford them as individuals, not inflexibly as the state demands. Our populations don't feel "screwed out of their benefits", they feel richer than they have ever been. They feel like Home owners. With cars. And DVD players. And Broadband. And  bigger cars. And TV's in every bedroom. Widescreen TV's. I-pods. Nvidia and ATI's in every home! And you are still misinterpreting the source of British income. half of all foreign trade is in the Euro zone, but we don't do a lot of trade. Further to this, the trade we actually do is in defecit. We buy far more goods from Europe than we sell there. It is us that makes you rich, not the other way round. Our favourite goods come from China, they are so cheap we can afford many of them. This more than anything else raises our standard of living. So signing up to an EU wide protectionism against Chinese goods, (many of which made in British sponsored factories),  would directly hurt the pockets of each and every British citizen.
  4. baff

    European Politics Thread.

    I absolutely see and understand your point. I think your missing my point. we can't compete globally as a "common market" if we aren't prepared to work harder for less money. If your not intrested in doing what it takes to be part of an effective common market, then there really isn't any point in entering into one with you. Further to this it is competely against the financial intrests of the British people to create any kind of competition with the U.S. Â Why on earth you might think the British people could be intrested in that sort of arrangement is beyond me. If that is in any way your aim, once again, we're not the partners you are looking for. I agree. I don't need you to decide what is "reasonable" however. Opinions differ, your welcome to your own. I'm perfectly happy with mine. Since we clearly differ on exactly what they are, you'll perhaps understand why I don't wish to enter into any treaty on it with you. (*)and creating increasingly favourable conditions for unemployment does that how? GDP per capita 2004 Britain 119 France 111 Germany 109 http://www.finfacts.com/ireland....8.shtml They are all pretty similar. The employment rates differ quite substantially however. You imply the French and German governments are protecting the rights of their workers by enforcing higher wages and lower work hours and "solid vacations", but all they are actually doing is driving business out of their countries completely. (And I'm not talking about into other EU zones either). "Outsourcing" is the current buzzword. What's better, jobs with less holidays and longer hours or no jobs?. It is of note that 95% of GDP in any society is created by only 5% of the population. (Almost half of the employee's in Britain work for the government and create no GDP whatsoever). The importance of high employment in a society is not so much the influx of GDP, but it's distribution throughout the population. As for whats Britain is doing to make it so economically successful? It's not what it's doing now, it's what it did 20 years ago. I don't suppose it will last.
  5. baff

    War against terror

    The Israeli government gives financial grants to settlers to move into the occupied territories. (Even to this very roadmapped day). It also Forceably destroys Palestian building on the borders to create a safe no mans land, (and then builds in that no mans land and has to knock down some more Palestinan buildings to make it safe again, and so on. Your living in the past if you think Israel lives in fear of it's neighbours. The Yom Kippur war reversed all that. It's the regional superpower. It bombs it's neighbours at will and without retaliation. They daren't even return fire. I'm aware that it is an artificially created nation and that the Palestinians were kicked out to make room for them, I'm also aware that the they grabed a load of land off of Syria in the six day war. Something I feel they were very justified to do. To say they are surrounded on all sides by people who hate them is a bit of an understatement. The entire world hates them. It takes a truley horrific society to completely turn around the sympathies of the entire planet in 60 years flat. By the way exactly what kind of proof were you suggesting anyone would need about Israeli WMD? Why not read up on some of it for yourself here (taken from a U.S. bias) at http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
  6. baff

    Wildlife and civillians

    Flocks of small birds startling from trees is pretty high on my list. Perhaps they only startle if someone nearby is in a standing position, or running....or firing a gun... It would be intresting if a kangaroo, cow or a deer totalled your vehicle on a blind bend. (and then if you could trade in the wreck for a couple of camels perhaps). Or if you could herd the sheep into your bedroom. Maybe someone will mod a sheepdog.
  7. baff


    Being a tank driver is as boring as ever. It's the loader who gets to play with all the intresting integrated battlefield systems.
  8. baff


    The M16 has been more or less completely phased out and replaced by the M4 now. It shouldn't be that common in 2010 since it already isn't today. OICW isn't going to happen at all. They have already chose, bought and equiped M4's in it's stead. There won't be any refit until they wear them out first.
  9. baff

    1970 vs 2010

    Munitions are the fastest changing equipment currently. They are using a lot of them and they get upgraded with each new batch. Humvee's will be replaced too, since they have lost so many. So far they have been replacing them with mothballed M113's. M16's have just been replaced (last 3-4 years maybe?) by M4's, not OICW as Ghost Recon suggested, so they are here to stay for a while yet. (How many rounds fired does it take to wear out a rifle, and how many does the average soldier fire a year? work that out and you will have a good idea when you will see the next generation of rifles coming into service in the U.S. )
  10. baff

    Armed Assault - should the name be changed?

    What are your boys named please? Armed Assault is a pretty "war game" sounding name, It isn't called Thelma And Louise Go Shopping, or Sim Hairdresser. I think it is the game that will make the name, not the otherway round.
  11. baff


    They can always add new weapons systems later on as they get adopted in expansion packs and patches.
  12. baff

    The Iraq thread 4

    The "you just hate America" card has already been played in a thousand other threads. Sorry, but I'm wise to that kind of casual dismissal. What are my opinions about America please? (and why do you think they are so warped?) I wasn't aware that I had discussed them with you. Having my opinions dismissed by conveniently "paranoid" Americans who prefer to dismiss other peoples views as "mindless yankee bashing" rather than address the issues at hand, is a very poor debating trick and you'll have to do better. These are three statements I consider to be factual. Which do you consider to instead be a "warped opinion of America"? Saddam will be found guilty regardless of what happens in any trial. Saddam is not a prisoner of the Iraqi's. He is held in a U.S. military base. The largest political party in Iraq was outlawed and barred from standing for government in the recent "free" Iraqi election.
  13. baff

    The Iraq thread 4

    I agree. Better to just execute him without trial than make a mockery of your own justice system. But then you can't reinstall him later, when he is feeling more compliant (and the Iraqi's are feeling a little more rebellious). The Iraqi government won't stay America's pet for very long. It never does. It's more civilised to keep hold of all the previous leaders and exiles so that you have someone to take over neatly again next time you fancy a regime change.
  14. baff

    War against terror

    Israel is a rogue state. It is has illegal WMD and it is more than a threat to regional security, it is an active participant in it's instability. It's a violent and repressive culture engaged in a cynical land grab from it's weaker neighbours. Considering the history of the Jewish people in the last century the behaviour of the Israeli society is all the more sickening. No one people in all the world should know better. It is very difficult in the extreme to have sympathies with the state of Israel. It takes a really ugly bunch of people to be less lovable than the Palestinians.
  15. baff

    The Iraq thread 4

    Saddam is an American prisoner. "Iraqi justice" must get U.S. approval first. The whole Iraqi government has been setup and vetted by the U.S. Judicial system and all. Letting Saddam live won't demonstrate that the government was freely elected* in any way. It's not even remotely democratic. The largest political party in the land was outlawed from standing entirely. Although I entirely agree, it would be rather more civilised of them not to kill him. Perhaps a nice exile to a remote island or house arrest in some pleasant little fortress in the hills for the rest of his life. Prosecuting former leaders as war criminals is not civilised at all. (*)If they put Saddam up for re election, that might demonstrate a free democratic process.