Jump to content

Defence of the Realm?


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Picked that info up from Newsnight, so I'll let you argue it out with Jeremy Paxman! :wink: However, back to the point: how can we "share" military assets with another Country? Just imagine if Maggy had asked to use a Carrier and some planes for the Falklands Campaign? Which reminds me, wern't the Argies using French Exocet missiles?! :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The French refused to join NATO under DeGaulle, but has since joined. Don't think we "rely" on NATO or the US, for Ops, maybe intell sharing - but as we can see from the Afghanistan debacle, NATO member commitment appears variable and less than uniform. We have committed around 10,000 to this futile war, well above our Euro neighbours - which poses the question, are we paying more in ??????s, as well as blood? :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UK does not maintain the ability to move lots of troops round the World nor can it supply them for extended periods, not enough ships, and if we did decide in invade another Country outside Europe we would struggle to give them air support, We have two small carriers that have to be used together, so when they had to resupply their would be no cover. The two new Super Carriers that are in the pipe line would cure it if they are ever built. Simply put the UK Armed Forces are very under resourced for playing peace keeper around the world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NATO troops in Afghanistan as at 6th August 2010

 

USA 78430 65.5% of total

UK 9500 7.9%

Germany 4590 3.8%

France 3750 3.1%

 

and a load of other countries with smaller numbers :wink::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What away to measure :shock::shock::shock:

 

They have less dead so they are sitting on their hands :shock::!:

 

Have you ever thought it could be down to the fact that they might have better equipment ie more helicopters, or the way they go out on patrol, ie with more fire power :!:

 

I find the way you measure abit strange, the more dead the better, :shock: If you put your measure to work on the second World War, The Russians come out very well :!:

 

Ps

The French had 58 dead when I looked :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The figures prove that British troops are being put in harms way by the British government in a way which other nations troops are not.

This cynical waste of life cannot be excused away by silly claims of inferior tactics, the professionalism of the British forces is second to none.

It seems that one government is prepared to pursue it's political ends at the cost of many lives while other governments are keeping their troops out of combat in pursuit of theirs.

But that's Labour for you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NATO was set up to defend W/Europe against a Warsaw Pact assault, during the period of the cold war. A clear mission with presumably a cohesive force contributed by it's various members. and lined up along the Iron Curtain. However, with the end of the cold war and the break up of the Soviet Empire, it was basically an orgainisation without a purpose, and imo should/could have been disbanded and it's assets redesignated to possibly a UN role. However, the powers that be, decided to widen it's remit by interventions in the Balkans and subsequently Afghanistan; however, for some strange reason, this organisation seems to have lossed some of it's cohesion, with troop commitment to Afghanistan appearing to be voluntary and variable. The Canadians and Dutch are (wisely) pulling out, whilst the British are punching well above their weight by Bliar's commitment to Bush's Wars. Bliar has no regrets at this commitment, and indeed, now confirms his Messianic megalomania, by suggesting that military intervention in Iran and Muslim fundementalism should be an option. He, and many current politicians, are in denial that such interventions are seen by hitherto moderate Muslims as Christian "Crusades", now proven to radicalise them. From Bush's pusuit posse of US special forces chasing Bin Laden into the mountains of Afghanistan, politicians justified a growing involvement, by the notion that it would make the streets of Britain and the US "safer". Sadly not; the London bombers were all home grown. The Taliban is now an enemy of the West, rather than being focused on a domestic agenda, and Al Quaeda have moved on to other safe havens, such as Somalia and the Yemen. SO - if we subscribe to the theory set out by the likes of Bliar - we should be invading those "safe havens" too, in some never ending Crusade against radical Islam. Obviously an option beyond the capacity of even the mighty US or the inclination of NATO allies; thus not an option - therefore, time to withdraw from the debacle and re-think our strategy. :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The figures prove that British troops are being put in harms way by the British government in a way which other nations troops are not.

 

No they do not :!:

 

Are you familar with French and British tactics, How do you know that the professionalism of the French army is less than the British.

 

And to think that any other mainstream political party would have not gone in with the Americans at the time is very naive :!:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except you will find the Warsaw pact was designed to defend against the imagined threat to the Eastern Bloc from NATO as it was signed in 1955, 6 years AFTER the North Atlantic Treaty (1949) :wink::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The figures prove that British troops are being put in harms way by the British government in a way which other nations troops are not.

 

No they do not :!:

 

Are you familar with French and British tactics, How do you know that the professionalism of the French army is less than the British.

 

And to think that any other mainstream political party would have not gone in with the Americans at the time is very naive :!:

 

Yes, they plainly do.

 

Nowhere have I stated that the calibre of one nations troops is lower than another, I believe it was you who lamely suggested that superior French tactics explained those awful figures.

Look up the Rules of Engagement laid down for their troops by the different nations for an explanation of what's really going on...

Hint; some troops are so deliberately hamstrung by their politicians that they can't do much more than stay in camp.

 

It was Labour who entangled us in the whole Middle East mess, no one else, I doubt that any other party at the time was steered by such an unprincipled US lackey, liar and war criminal as Blair, it's unfair to claim that any other party would have done the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...