Lt Kije Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 So previous to this Labour administration our government never sent our troops anywhere. Our armed services are not as big as they used to be Don't get me wrong Asp, I want to spend more on them but your figures are meaning less Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Firstly they aren't "MY" figures. Secondly, in the past when our forces have been sent to fight spending has increased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 At least when Maggie sent the troops to the Falklands they were fighting our war for our reasons...... I wonder if Gordon would show as much concern for the dead soldiers as he did for that pig ugly average singer from Scotland on BGT a while back. How I would love to see him drive past the lines of people in Wooton Basset following a hearse or two. He would be in line for a bit more of a rough ride then. I mean what kind of prime minister gets booed by his own countries veterans like Brown did in Normandy last month!! The man and his government are a joke and he is only hanging in to try and make sure the dreaded Euro treaty gets ratified before the Tories get in. Hopefully Ireland will throw the next referendum out as well!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 The problem with "Defence Spending" is that it is built around our foreign policies and imagined current threats - so our strategy governs the amount required. The budgetry debate over "Trident" is an example: a Nuclear deterent is a relic of the cold war and of political aspirations " to be at the table" with the "big boys". The purchase of two new carriers, also demonstrates an aspiration to project power beyond our own shores, and be a major "player" on the "world stage". So we need a debate about precisely what - we are defending against, where the current threats are etc. And IMO, the threats have changed considerably to counter terrorism both globally and domestically - thus requiring a re-orientation of our capabilities to intelligence and special force operations, which co-incidentaley will prove more affordable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I know where you got the figures Asp I checked I worked for a defence contacter at the time of the first gulf war, sadly for me it was for the navy.We were working on a torpedo that could tell the diferance between NATO ships and non NATO ships. All work stopped because Maggie stop the budget for it as the RAF needed bombs thats where the extra money came from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I know where you got the figures Asp I checked I worked for a defence contacter at the time of the first gulf war, sadly for me it was for the navy.We were working on a torpedo that could tell the diferance between NATO ships and non NATO ships. All work stopped because Maggie stop the budget for it as the RAF needed bombs thats where the extra money came from. Well now it all comes clear!! We lost the Falklands to the Argentinians because that nasty evil Maggie took money from the project LtKije was working on so that the RAF could have some bombs. OOPS!! thats not right is it? Didn't Britain actually win the conflict in the Falklands? And wasn't our defense spending, as a percentage of GDP, something like twice what it is now? And am I right in thinking we weren't actually into the 8th year of a war in Afghanistan having just finished fighting a war in Iraq? Funny anecdote though LtKije, I'm laughing my socks off! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Oh dear asperity how sad are you Before you quote figures on defence spending as you have done why don't you look at the size of our armed services they are smaller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I'm not at all sad LtKije. However you are pompous and ignorant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 For pompous and ignorant please look no further than your mirror Yes spending is down on our armed sevices asperity but are armed sevices are smaller now are you getting there yet or do you need more help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 You carry on living in your dream world LtKije, and I will carry on living in reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Reading between the lines you've grasped it and you now know that the figures you posted were meaningless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 You read into it what you like but I am not agreeing with anything you have posted. I haven't manufactured any figures whereas you have just vaguely stated that the size of the armed forces is smaller. If that is meaningful then I'm Einstein's cleverer brother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Getting back to Afghanistan and this spurious debate about helicopters, which seems to have animated the Tories: the Russian had huge numbers of helicopters (and tanks) when they were there; but the CIA provided AT and AA weapons to a certain Mr Bin Laden and Co, to shoot them down - giving rise to the formation of Al Quaeda. As for Afghanistan being or becoming a training base for terrorism; there are about 13 rogue or failed States around the World, where Al Queda can and are seeking sanctuary - so are we going to invade them all? Sorry, but this whole sorry mess has been created by Bush and Bliar; and has more to do with piping Russian gas and oil to gulf ports than any rational "war on terror" - and our young lads are paying for it - in blood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 You may have something on the oil and gas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 With no possibility of a military victory, perhaps we should be looking for a political compromise with the Taliban I've no doubt we will in due course, especially if they oppose / kill those who would use Afghanistan as a terrorist base/training ground. Remember the saying, the enemy of your enemy is your friend....and work out who is who. The Times: The president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, has urged the West to develop a new strategy for his country, warning that more troops will not necessarily improve security. ?Military operations are no longer enough,? he said as the deaths of British and coalition soldiers in Afghanistan reached their highest monthly total of the eight-year war. ?We have to rethink the way we do things ? without that there won?t be any improvement.? Karzai called for negotiations with the Taliban. Even Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, should be encouraged to attend talks, he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 The president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, has urged the West to develop a new strategy for his country, warning that more troops will not necessarily improve security. A nuke perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 As I've suggested; a realistic "strategy" would be along the following lines:- 1) Improved Intelligence Services, both at home and abroad, with a globally based central command and control, data base etc; with agents in deep cover amongst the disaffected communities. Thus allowing PRECISE identification and location of groups/cells, to be terminated by "smart weapons" (drones etc) or by special forces. 2) A Counter- Propaganda Service, again on an international basis, using all forms of communication (EG inter-net etc) and agents within disaffected communities to CHALLENGE radical ideas at source, and stem recruitment. Added to this, targeted financial investment in economic improvement and education in order to "drain the swamp" of ignorance that sustains radicalisation. I suggested this approach way back in 9/11; when Bush called on a posse of coalition forces to "go get 'em"; leading to the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq (where there were no "terrorists", with the exeption of Saddam). What Bush and Bliar have done, is the global strategic equivalent of "the charge of the light-brigade". We can of course, add that we need much tighter border controls and scrutiny of global movements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2009 An interesting phrase being used by our top military men re: Afghanistan; that they need to "write down" the opposition - in the old days, it was called "attrition" - based on WW1 Gen Hague's theory that if we kill their soldiers at a greater rate than they kill ours, we will finish up as last man standing. Errm, what it accepts however, is lots more of OUR lads returning in body bags. And for what? - a corrupt regime, elected on the basis of a corrupt election and with views from the middle ages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifles Posted August 30, 2009 Report Share Posted August 30, 2009 And for what? - a corrupt regime, elected on the basis of a corrupt election and with views from the middle ages. I think the Afghan government is also corrupt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted August 30, 2009 Report Share Posted August 30, 2009 And for what? - a corrupt regime, elected on the basis of a corrupt election and with views from the middle ages. I think the Afghan government is also corrupt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted August 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2009 nice one rifles! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted September 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Interesting that none of the convicted bomb plotters came from or were trained in Afghanistan - perhaps our Army needs to re-deploy to Bradford?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifles Posted September 7, 2009 Report Share Posted September 7, 2009 Agreed Obs , saw them In Afghan and Iraq from Bradford , Brmingham and London. Very distinct accents, although some were identified afterwards from tattoo's and personal information found on their bodies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted September 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2009 That raises an interesting question: we've lost around 400 dead and 14,000 wounded: assuming a kill ratio of around 10:1 for these operations, we never get sight of all the Taliban dead on the TV news.? I know the Taliban have a policy of taking their dead off the field, but that's surely not possible if under accurate fire? During WW2, the Gurkas used to bring back an ear from each Jap killed, for an accurate record! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifles Posted September 8, 2009 Report Share Posted September 8, 2009 Politics............... for the media to be in the immediate zones they have to sign their life away. Our Government would not like Joe Public to see the enemy full of holes on TV, be it men women or children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.