Armed Forces cracking under the strain

[Mao Cap]

Good article on the matter by that well-known looney leftie Matthew Parris. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article7043099.ece

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Who governs the Falklands should be a matter for its population. That is a basic human right. Being from the South many have connections to people who risked or even lost their lives for that principle. It would be a betrayal of them and the Islanders themselves.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

So then Thorpe Le Saint how many Argentinian settlers have ever lived on the Falklands? Surely have inhabited the islands for the longest the Islanders have the right to determine THEIR ISLANDS. The Islands were discovered by Europeans not Argies.

 

Well actually if you look at the Falklands then there are quite a lot of similarities with Hitler. We defeated a fascist military junta - the reason why Socialists like Michael Foot supported the war. Ironically Blair was against action

 

Instead of playing around in the student union I suggest you go to the library and read your facts up.

 

You arrogant, patronising, pseudo-intellectual. I've put forward my arguments and you've put forward yours, we'll have to agree to disagree. All I will say is that there are far more pressing concerns in our own nation that I fear will be over-looked or will not receive investment should we go to war over them again.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Maybe not pressing for you Thorpe Le Saint but not to those who live there or those and there relatives that fought and maybe died there to preserve the freedom of a people to live how they want to it is pretty important. To not show them respect is stunningly breath taking arrogance.

 

Is it patronising to point out that you should do you back ground reading before you start discussing and expressing strong opinions on a topic that is close to some peoples hearts and not yours.

 

Isn't it a pseudo intellectual who pretends to know a lot about an issue when he has not read up on his facts.

 

I will opt out of being rude to you.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Maybe not pressing for you Thorpe Le Saint but not to those who live there or those and there relatives that fought and maybe died there to preserve the freedom of a people to live how they want to it is pretty important. To not show them respect is stunningly breath taking arrogance.

 

Is it patronising to point out that you should do you back ground reading before you start discussing and expressing strong opinions on a topic that is close to some peoples hearts and not yours.

 

Isn't it a pseudo intellectual who pretends to know a lot about an issue when he has not read up on his facts.

 

I will opt out of being rude to you.

 

There is a world of difference between supporting those who serve in the armed forces, and the conflicts that the armed forces are made to serve in...

 

Plus, I KNOW someone who fought there on board HMS Onyx - so like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree Sergei.

[Gingeletiss]

You Mr Le Saint, are wrong on so many levels. Those living in the Falklands, are British subjects. Shall we ignore them, what next, give up the I.O.W, if the French claim it. There is barely a country on this planet, that still has it's original inhabitants. Hell, even the blacks in South Africa, migrated south from the centre, massacring all in their way..you never hear of the Hottentots any more!!.

 

The Argentinians are after something that they do not own. Last time it was to deflect attention away from their economic crisis, now they smell oil....tell me again, why Iraq invaded Kuwait!!!

[dune]

I recently watched a debate where they had the head of the Army, Navy and Airforce basically saying why their respective branches of the armed forces needed the most investment. The prevailing view was that the Army needed the lion share because of operations in Afghanistan, with the airforce second because of the support they offer in this theatre and the Navy basically dispensible.

 

I disagree. The first priority of any nation should be to defend its own territories from attack. The biggest threat we face is from Argentina and for that reason we need a strong Navy. If Argentina attack we need the ability to not only defend the Falklands, but to hurt them so badly they are destroyed as a Naval force thus rendering them incapable of mounting another war for decades.

[Thedelldays]

I recently watched a debate where they had the head of the Army, Navy and Airforce basically saying why their respective branches of the armed forces needed the most investment. The prevailing view was that the Army needed the lion share because of operations in Afghanistan, with the airforce second because of the support they offer in this theatre and the Navy basically dispensible.

 

I disagree. The first priority of any nation should be to defend its own territories from attack. The biggest threat we face is from Argentina and for that reason we need a strong Navy. If Argentina attack we need the ability to not only defend the Falklands, but to hurt them so badly they are destroyed as a Naval force thus rendering them incapable of mounting another war for decades.

with those sorts of debates...the issues in the here and now will win the arguement...IE afghanistan..

 

no one looks (or tries to) 15 years into the future...that is where the decisions we make now will hit the most..

there are very strong rumours that the RAF will take the biggest hit....some even say the RAF could go with the Army and Navy taking up the slack

[dune]

with those sorts of debates...the issues in the here and now will win the arguement...IE afghanistan..

 

no one looks (or tries to) 15 years into the future...that is where the decisions we make now will hit the most..

there are very strong rumours that the RAF will take the biggest hit....some even say the RAF could go with the Army and Navy taking up the slack

 

13 miserable years of Socialism means that cuts are inevitable.

[Saint Martini]

13 miserable years of Socialism means that cuts are inevitable.

 

Which country are you talking about?

[Amesbury Saint]

I hope one of our subs is sitting just outside their naval base.

[solentstars]

Which country are you talking about?

i agree with you st martine the guys just a nutty toryboy,who does not realize the country has been run by torys since thatcheism r came to power.

i love to know where these socialists are or is he saying the bankers who got us in this mess are socialists now !

[dune]

i agree with you st martine the guys just a nutty toryboy,who does not realize the country has been run by torys since thatcheism r came to power.

i love to know where these socialists are or is he saying the bankers who got us in this mess are socialists now !

 

The mess is the fact that as a nation we are broke!

 

The Major government layed the foundations for a decade of prosperity, but true to form the Socialists wasted the lot on beurocracy and keeping the idle workshy slobs (Labour voters) on benefits.

 

The banking crisis was a worldwide phenomenon, the problem is that Britain had no reserves to come out of the recession stronger than our rivals.

 

Socialism at it's best.

[solentstars]

The mess is the fact that as a nation we are broke!

 

The Major government layed the foundations for a decade of prosperity, but true to form the Socialists wasted the lot on beurocracy and keeping the idle workshy slobs (Labour voters) on benefits.

 

The banking crisis was a worldwide phenomenon, the problem is that Britain had no reserves to come out of the recession stronger than our rivals.

 

Socialism at it's best.

oh dear:rolleyes:we have no Socialists only two tory partys

[dune]

oh dear:rolleyes:we have no Socialists only two tory partys

 

Socialisms overiding principle = taking taxes from the workers to keep the bone ilde in benefits.

 

Socialisms effect = a bankrupt nation.

 

I'd say Gordon and Tony have done a marvelous job in creating another cycle of Socialist misery that a Conservative government will need to fix again.

[Saint Martini]

Socialisms overiding principle = taking taxes from the workers to keep the bone ilde in benefits.

 

Socialisms effect = a bankrupt nation.

 

I'd say Gordon and Tony have done a marvelous job in creating another cycle of Socialist misery that a Conservative government will need to fix again.

 

That is not correct. Do you want to give it another try?

[Gingeletiss]

I think he has hit the nail on the head IMHO.

[solentstars]

Socialisms overiding principle = taking taxes from the workers to keep the bone ilde in benefits.

 

Socialisms effect = a bankrupt nation.

 

I'd say Gordon and Tony have done a marvelous job in creating another cycle of Socialist misery that a Conservative government will need to fix again.

you are a really a tool so george bush a rightwing tory in america left a bankrupt country in a mess is a socialist and not the bankers who caused the worldwide slump which spread to europe and uk .

get your head out of the clouds and deal with reality .

[so22saint]

you are a really a tool so george bush a rightwing tory in america left a bankrupt country in a mess is a socialist and not the bankers who caused the worldwide slump which spread to europe and uk .

get your head out of the clouds and deal with reality .

 

to be honest, we all wanted the ability to borrow like ****ing lunatics to buy our plasmas & cars, and houses etc. and now we're looking for people to blame but we're all implicated.

 

Facts are:

 

*some* banking ****s created obscure derivatives and as is human nature, once they were seen as a good thing our herd mentality took over and it became normal practice to pile into toxic assets - eventually it was obvious that Mr and Mrs Bumble**** USA couldn't afford are 140% mortgage - and in fact neither could the 120% mortgagers over here.

 

*the government* decided to try and create social equality by loading the social welfare system with cash and taking on the NHS etc. In exactly the same way as the previous example this worked at first but the system (in this case public not private sector) carried on with the bandwagon past safe levels so after selling off our gold reserves, as much private sector as possible (DERA, The Royal Ordnance etc.) they had to turn to the international markets to keep borrowing to pay for the welfare state, which by now had stopped just supporting real families in need but had once again started supporting the feckless and lazy (and I personally know 3 families in Winchester who don't work and deliberately had an extra kid for a bigger house and more benefits. The important thing here being "don't" work not "can't" work)

 

*the population* is becoming increasingly dependent on 3rd parties and in my opinion less able to think or take responsibility for it's own actions. There's always somebody to blame, bankers, the government, the council, my boss etc. This attitude is there in some of the other countries I visit, and in some of the recent immigrants to our fine shores either. Note the lack of British people working in **** jobs - I can't remember the last time I saw a white face in a petrol station. I worked in one for years as a schoolboy then student. My point being that hardworking people from other countries understand that with a bit of gumption this country is just about free enough for you to make something of yourself, and it's generally a nice place to live, if you stop ****ing whinging.

 

By the way, I thought GW Bush was a grade A ***** - a scary **** who thought having 3 prayer meetings a day was a good way to run the worlds most powerful nation. I think it's fair to say though that he personally had *nothing* to do with the global meltdown

[solentstars]

to be honest, we all wanted the ability to borrow like ****ing lunatics to buy our plasmas & cars, and houses etc. and now we're looking for people to blame but we're all implicated.

 

Facts are:

 

*some* banking ****s created obscure derivatives and as is human nature, once they were seen as a good thing our herd mentality took over and it became normal practice to pile into toxic assets - eventually it was obvious that Mr and Mrs Bumble**** USA couldn't afford are 140% mortgage - and in fact neither could the 120% mortgagers over here.

 

*the government* decided to try and create social equality by loading the social welfare system with cash and taking on the NHS etc. In exactly the same way as the previous example this worked at first but the system (in this case public not private sector) carried on with the bandwagon past safe levels so after selling off our gold reserves, as much private sector as possible (DERA, The Royal Ordnance etc.) they had to turn to the international markets to keep borrowing to pay for the welfare state, which by now had stopped just supporting real families in need but had once again started supporting the feckless and lazy (and I personally know 3 families in Winchester who don't work and deliberately had an extra kid for a bigger house and more benefits. The important thing here being "don't" work not "can't" work)

 

*the population* is becoming increasingly dependent on 3rd parties and in my opinion less able to think or take responsibility for it's own actions. There's always somebody to blame, bankers, the government, the council, my boss etc. This attitude is there in some of the other countries I visit, and in some of the recent immigrants to our fine shores either. Note the lack of British people working in **** jobs - I can't remember the last time I saw a white face in a petrol station. I worked in one for years as a schoolboy then student. My point being that hardworking people from other countries understand that with a bit of gumption this country is just about free enough for you to make something of yourself, and it's generally a nice place to live, if you stop ****ing whinging.

 

By the way, I thought GW Bush was a grade A ***** - a scary **** who thought having 3 prayer meetings a day was a good way to run the worlds most powerful nation. I think it's fair to say though that he personally had *nothing* to do with the global meltdown

 

i agree with you it was the free market without any controls running rampant around the world, which nearly caused a worldwide slump and depression which governments of left and right are pumping in cash to stop.

i don,t believe the government is trying to create social equality basically they are they are another tory party.

if cameron is elected he will just be another clone of thatcher and blair in my opinion with the same policy's.

[lee_saint]

with those sorts of debates...the issues in the here and now will win the arguement...IE afghanistan..

 

no one looks (or tries to) 15 years into the future...that is where the decisions we make now will hit the most..

there are very strong rumours that the RAF will take the biggest hit....some even say the RAF could go with the Army and Navy taking up the slack

 

The RAF are having huge funding cutbacks, but not the amounts that have been branded around in the press. For years people have been hinting at the RAF and Army merging, with the Army Air Cps and the AGC taking up most of the slack. It won't happen, and not for a while, the only thing I can see is some of the lads in Int moving in with the Air or Int Cps in the Army, RAF Plod moving in the the red caps and many of the Air Ops working on Civi projects.

[Thedelldays]

I hope one of our subs is sitting just outside their naval base.

it soon will be i guess...HMS Sceptre is en route to the falklands right now

[dune]

it soon will be i guess...HMS Sceptre is en route to the falklands right now

 

when you say nuclear subs is this meaning the sub has a nuclear powered engine or deploys nuclear missiles or both?

[Thedelldays]

when you say nuclear subs is this meaning the sub has a nuclear powered engine or deploys nuclear missiles or both?

 

 

Nuc powered..the Missile carrying variety will never do any sort of recon ops whilst carrying those missiles...even though they are regarded as one of, if not the most quiet submarine in the world...which is remarkable considering their tonnage is not much less than a UK aircraft carrier

[Viking Warrior]

So Le Thorpe

 

"All this ****ing nationalism makes me sick. If you lot want to get off on "giving it the big one" over a collection of rocks in the south Atlantic, why don't you move down there"

 

Are you also suggesting the UK should be broken up as well

 

IOW, IOM Orkney Shetland Westerns Isles. They are also a collection of rocks as well. but hey your Okay in your comfortable semi detached surburban environment and F*** every body else

[Thedelldays]

The RAF are having huge funding cutbacks, but not the amounts that have been branded around in the press. For years people have been hinting at the RAF and Army merging, with the Army Air Cps and the AGC taking up most of the slack. It won't happen, and not for a while, the only thing I can see is some of the lads in Int moving in with the Air or Int Cps in the Army, RAF Plod moving in the the red caps and many of the Air Ops working on Civi projects.

 

well, heard more buzzez recently that the big cut backs in defence could well be the end of the RAF as we know it..

 

with many intel, maritime and sea projected strike capability going to the Navy and transport/ground attack/regiments going to the army..

 

obviously IF it happened it would all be slowly and a bit at a time..

[Micky]

Thought that this was quite interesting:

 

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Army-Recruits-In-Australia-Earn-Nearly-Twice-As-Much-As-British-Army-Counterpart/Article/201006215648710?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Page_Feature_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15648710_Army_Recruits_In_Australia_Earn_Nearly_Twice_As_Much_As_British_Army_Counterpart

 

Our guys have just had thier operational pay doubled, but in the grand scheme of things it is nothing but a pittance compared with what the Oz are paying their forces. Disgraceful.

[skintsaint]

I get paid nearly double on what I would be on in the UK out here for doing the same job, same with my missus. Its all relative.

[alpine_saint]

It has been the same in this country for decades. Politicians listen to the Public Will, which is largely anti-war [who isn't], but they take it too far and leave us too threadbare.

 

Been reading up on the TSR2, just for interest. Mid 1950's, the RAF issue a vague requirement for a supersonic strike aircraft, capable of flying all the way to Russia at high or extreme low level, smoothly and with just the fuel it could carry. The initial designs were drawn up. English Electric and Vickers were selected as joint manufacturers, with Vickers as senior partner, even though they had no experience in supersonic aircraft and EE had successful years of it. They argued where to build/test it, either at Vickers, who hadn't a long enough runway, or EE who had. So they built and tested it at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire, miles away from either company.

 

Then they changed the design at least 5 times in a major way, while the RAF changed/refined its requirements. In 1964, the engineers had overcome the difficulties and designed and built an aircraft that was at least 20 years ahead of its time [for example, it was better than the Tornado which came 15 years later], when the U.S. F-111 came up for offer. The British government decided to cancel TSR2, and buy the F-111 even though it was a much worse aircraft, had its own major difficulties, which the U.S. hadn't as yet overcome, but was cheaper at the time. They even destroyed the jigs, tools and equipment which made the TSR2 so it was much costlier to go back on the decision. By the time the U.S. sorted the problems, the cost of the F-111 was more than the TSR2, so we didn't buy it, and not a single job had been created within the main British aircraft industry, whereas before, potential customers has started to queue up for the completed TSR2.

 

That's how you f*** up an industry, and the armed force that depends on them, and the jobs and skills that go to waste. Only a British government could do it.

 

This has been the common perception of the TSR2 story for many years now. And I believed it too.

 

However, I read somwhere that some government documents have been recently de-classified that indicated that the TSR2 was cancelled because there was no weapon it could carry to justify its development and unit cost. Skybolt had just been cancelled by JFK and MacMillian had prevented the development of a high-yield version of the WE177 (it was later developed anyway)