15594
Post by: Albatross
Not really her place to comment on our public finances, but hey-ho...
The Telegraph wrote:Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, and Robert Gates, the secretary of defence, both said they were worried about deep reductions in Britain’s Armed Forces and the consequences for international security.
The unusual public intervention came as talks on the defence budget went down to the wire, with defence chiefs making 11th-hour personal appeals to David Cameron against cuts last night.
The Daily Telegraph disclosed last month that US officials were privately concerned that British defence spending was about to fall below 2 per cent of gross domestic product, the minimum standard expected of Nato members. Mrs Clinton and Mr Gates, America’s two most senior figures on international relations and security, made those fears public in separate remarks.
In a BBC interview to be broadcast today, Mrs Clinton was asked whether defence cuts being made in Europe, and specifically in Britain, worried the US administration.
She replied: “It does. The reason it does is because I think we do have to have an alliance where there is a commitment to the common defence.
“Nato has been the most successful alliance for defensive purposes in the history of the world, I guess, but it has to be maintained. Now each country has to be able to make its appropriate contributions.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8065363/Hillary-Clintons-warning-to-Britain-over-cuts-in-defence-budget.html
Yeah, feth off Hilary.
Britain has done MORE than it's fair share regarding global defence (of America's interests) - we have to make cuts, it's just that simple. No-one wants to cut their defence budget, but we seem to have very little choice. I used to think it was just Republican propaganda, but it does seem like the Obama regime is either subject to a terminal case of 'foot-in-mouth syndrome', or they actually WANT to alienate their closest allies. There are wealthier countries than the UK that don't do half as much, in terms of global policing (so to speak).
Britain will still be able to defend its interests - it just won't be able to join in as many American wars of adventure for the time being. Tough.
25220
Post by: WarOne
What does Britain do with the military it does has, other than the Royal ones and those ones who fight in the Emprah's name?
514
Post by: Orlanth
A nasty rumour is going around that Obama told Brown early this year that he could expect no support over the Falklands and should just pull out and with the forces saved bolster Afghanistan instead. This is believable as Brown was so spineless he had a track record of just caving in to demands of foreign leaders him wirth more personality.
The current US administrationas policy is, make demands of allies and not give a feth over whether the demands are reasonable. Obama makes this doubly true over the UK.
Cuts are inevitable because the Blair regime sold our gold reseves at discount, and took out a mortgage on our grandkids ansd defered interest at extra cost so the low IQ squad would not realise that they were not the economic miracle makers. All this to pay for the six figure salaries of yes men to implement their dogmas. Cameron has to make the cuts big now, because if he does not the interest repayments due to hit next year will cut in too heavily and by the time it comes to the next election the herd will have assumed he was responsible for the humungus feth up our economy is.
5470
Post by: sebster
Albatross wrote:Britain will still be able to defend its interests - it just won't be able to join in as many American wars of adventure for the time being. Tough.
The rah-rah is fun and all but the reality is when you sign up to NATO you really are giving other NATO partners a right to comment if you don’t meet the minimum level of expenditure relative to GDP.
It's also kind of odd to assume the UK's economy is any less dependant on the secure supply of key resources such as oil.
30305
Post by: Laughing Man
The current US administrationas policy is, make demands of allies and not give a feth over whether the demands are reasonable. Obama makes this doubly true over the UK.
This is new with the current administration?
15594
Post by: Albatross
sebster wrote:Albatross wrote:Britain will still be able to defend its interests - it just won't be able to join in as many American wars of adventure for the time being. Tough.
The rah-rah is fun and all but the reality is when you sign up to NATO you really are giving other NATO partners a right to comment if you don’t meet the minimum level of expenditure relative to GDP.
...which the UK does. And there's no suggestion that budget cuts will change that. The UK spends 2.5% of it's GDP on defence - even if the the worst happens and 10% of that amount is cut, we'll still meet the minimum requirement under NATO.
Not that it isn't fun to try and be a smart-arse, of course. 
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The worry for the US is that the UK and Germany -- which was also warned -- are the heavy lifters in the NATO European contingent.
5470
Post by: sebster
Albatross wrote:...which the UK does. And there's no suggestion that budget cuts will change that. The UK spends 2.5% of it's GDP on defence - even if the the worst happens and 10% of that amount is cut, we'll still meet the minimum requirement under NATO.
The US appears concerned that the maths won’t fall into place quite that neatly.
Not that the total level of defence expenditure is really that great a measure of NATO commitments in the modern era. When facing the Soviets it certainly was, but now that most conflicts tend to be based , the key measure is less what you spend and more what you’re willing to send to some country on the other side of the planet, and it’s hard to say the UK doesn’t have a far better history of meeting it’s commitments there than other nations.
But the reality is the US is still far and away the heavy lifter in NATO operations, far more than they should be considering the growing parity in GDPs between the US and other NATO partners. I mean, US military spending is so high due to it’s own internal lunacy, not out of a need to make up for it’s partners, but that doesn’t mean everyone else should be accepting a free ride.
2 to 2.5% of GDP is not huge, and it’s an amount you can feel free spending because the US covers much of the rest. As much as the US really, really needs to cut it’s defence spending, I think the other developed nations need to commit more to their own ability to project force around the globe.
Not that it isn't fun to try and be a smart-arse, of course.
Damn straight it is.
25220
Post by: WarOne
sebster wrote: As much as the US really, really needs to cut it’s defence spending, I think the other developed nations need to commit more to their own ability to project force around the globe.
The U.S. is in a curious position regarding defense. As our dependence on the international community increases, what will we be using those armed forces for? Beat up and/or police nations without affiliation to the U.S. in some significant way? We can't go and fight the Chinese (not that will happen anyway). Rather, the money we do have should go to continue impoving our technological advantage over others in military operations and improve our internal defense rather than actions abroad (minus our duties overseas as a international police force and for counter-terrorism).
221
Post by: Frazzled
Orlanth wrote:A nasty rumour is going around that Obama told Brown early this year that he could expect no support over the Falklands and should just pull out and with the forces saved bolster Afghanistan instead. This is believable as Brown was so spineless he had a track record of just caving in to demands of foreign leaders him wirth more personality.
The current US administrationas policy is, make demands of allies and not give a feth over whether the demands are reasonable. Obama makes this doubly true over the UK.
Cuts are inevitable because the Blair regime sold our gold reseves at discount, and took out a mortgage on our grandkids ansd defered interest at extra cost so the low IQ squad would not realise that they were not the economic miracle makers. All this to pay for the six figure salaries of yes men to implement their dogmas. Cameron has to make the cuts big now, because if he does not the interest repayments due to hit next year will cut in too heavily and by the time it comes to the next election the herd will have assumed he was responsible for the humungus feth up our economy is.
"Miss me yet?"
George Bush, enjoying life in Margaritaland.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Laughing Man wrote:The current US administrationas policy is, make demands of allies and not give a feth over whether the demands are reasonable. Obama makes this doubly true over the UK.
This is new with the current administration?
At this level yes. The US stabbed us in the back before, over Suez. It was the US that pushed Nasser into an economic corner from which the decision came to nationalise the Canal without compensation. Then Eisenhower U-turned and supported Nasser. After that our help needed to be paid for one way or another.
Bush didnt take us forgranted, Blair did that. His idea of a deal was the UK will support the US if the US administration supports me. Thus opposition politicians were visibly snubbed by the White House and US propoganda pieces tried to elevate Blair. This only backfired because the Iraq War was unpopular, not because people sniffed out what was happening. I dont blame Bush at all for giving Tory and Lib Dem leaders the cold shoulder, or otherwise taking what he could from the UK. While diplomatic relationships between western countries are not supposed to be party political this was Blairs doing not Bushs. Bush looked after his own nations interests and played along, it got him Uk support for his adventures for free. It goes deeper than that, for example Blair didnt care about UK passport holders in Gitmo, he ought to have secured the special representation that prevented US passport holders from being sent there. This comparitive treatment was noticed by some at the time, however it was only after several months when the mainstream press took hold of the story noticed the difference and were bold enough to point fingers, or possibly found a way to release the story that bypassed the inordinate level of censorship that Blair imposed. Uk passport holders left Gitmo shortly after that. Blair didnt stick up for UK industry against US protectionism while allowing US induistry to avoid EU protectionism. He also practically gave away key military technologies developed in the UK, most notably working naval railguns and stealth warship hulls, while doing nothing when US senators blocked the export of expertise of similar valued technologies to the UK, notably latest generation stealth aircraft technology.
Blair only concerned himself with one thing, himself and getting re-elected. While being relected is a priority for any politician New Labour was unique in what he was willing to sacrifice (on behlaf of others) to get what he wanted. I am still suiprised how few people actually see this. The only concession that Blair got out of Bush was a very heavy leaning on the IRA. I am getting the impression that Obama isnt at all interested in sustaining the US end of that deal, which has shown.
Depending on your point of view it may or may not help that Cameron has flatly trefused to continue on those terms. If Bush-Blair was one sided Obama-Brown was doubly so, because Obama is lets face it an angliophobe, and Brown was politically spineless. Obama-Cameron is very frosty, Obama knows the free lunches are over, Cameron knows that Obama is no friend, but there is a respect there for this reason. Obama held Brown, and likely Blair in utter contempt.
Frazzled wrote:
"Miss me yet?"
George Bush, enjoying life in Margaritaland.
No, oh you mean Bush. Still no.
15594
Post by: Albatross
sebster wrote:
2 to 2.5% of GDP is not huge, and it’s an amount you can feel free spending because the US covers much of the rest. As much as the US really, really needs to cut it’s defence spending, I think the other developed nations need to commit more to their own ability to project force around the globe.
I don't want to get hung up on the numbers (as I'm not too sure of their accuracy), but 2.5% is more than 2% - which is what China spends. Germany only spends 1.3%, France 2.3%.
You say Germany does a lot of the heavy lifting but I'd say there's room for improvement there, considering that a) They are a richer country than the UK, and b) They don't currently meet the minimum NATO recommended level of expenditure. I mean, the UK spends more on defence than Russia. I don't think anyone can say that Britain doesn't do it's fair share, which makes it all the more stupid of Hilary Clinton to brief against her supposed allies. It just shows up her lack of class. Especially when you consider the events of last week - Cameron had the opportunity to stick the knife in and didn't take it. The right decision, in my opinion.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Yeah Seb, i have to ask, where do you feel that Germany does its part?
I mean, i might be wrong, unlike many internet intellectuals i havent just googled "Germans military operations" or anything, so i concede i might be wrong, but common sense dictates the contrary to me.
I did 4 tours of Iraq/Afghanistan and the Germans did pretty much feth all. Some Int work and such like, but the lions share of the work was us and the Yanks, followed (really far back) by the Dutch and The Spanish, some French air support (which wouldnt hit a barn door sat on the handle) and the Portugese.
Oh and 4 Irish guys! 
The Krauts secured KIA and we had to do their security for them!
So.. im not seeing Germanys heavy lifting from my own experience, how do they contribute?
(Ok ill go check google now!)
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
Well, Germany has the third largest number of soldiers in the ISAF after USA and UK.
The problem is the mentality at home. Our defence minister is very reluctant in calling this a "war" and as long it's not a "war" there's political-juristical stuff making real combat operations difficult, as far as I know. The populace in general is absolutely not fond of the war, from what I've noticed...many people think we shouldn't even be there. I mean, I don't really agree with them, but I can see where they are coming from. After WW2, the parole was something like "War should never be started again from German soil!" And sending troops over to Afghanistan...many people feel like it's exactly that.
Furthermore, there was this unfortunate incident with the tank trucks. You heard about that? Some Taliban/terrorists stole some fuel trucks and tried to escape with them. A German major thought they would use the fuel to increase the mobility of their guerilla forces and called an (american) airstrike on the trucks. Well, the trucks went kaboom, but also 142 people standing around the trucks at the moment of impact died, too. Civilians. The Taliban claimed they wanted to give the fuel for free to the poor populace...other people say, the Taliban were unable to get the trucks out of some mud and forced civilians at gunpoint to pull the trucks out of there. Well, anyway, huge mess, lots of civilian casualties, lots of accusations and the question was asked again why Germany shouldn't actually withdraw troops.
Since the tank truck incident, operations are a bit on the careful side. However, the German KSK managed to capture a high lieutenant of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, I forgot..but that was one of the most successful operations in the last months, not even a shot was fired. All very peaceful, non-warlike. 
No, really, Germany doesn't do so much because, well...for Americans it's more or less normal to go "Oorah! We're the good guys! Support our troops! In the name of freedom!", the Brits can do this, too, although a bit less, from what I heard. Now...Germany? After two World Warsof being the BAD guys? If ANYBODY in Germany goes "Hurra! Support our brave troops in the war!", EVERYONE instantly thinks "O gak, this sounds like 1939."
The fear of getting anywhere near Wehrmacht-style is still big.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Witzkatz wrote:Well, Germany has the third largest number of soldiers in the ISAF after USA and UK.
The problem is the mentality at home. Our defence minister is very reluctant in calling this a "war" and as long it's not a "war" there's political-juristical stuff making real combat operations difficult, as far as I know. The populace in general is absolutely not fond of the war, from what I've noticed...many people think we shouldn't even be there. I mean, I don't really agree with them, but I can see where they are coming from. After WW2, the parole was something like "War should never be started again from German soil!" And sending troops over to Afghanistan...many people feel like it's exactly that.
They're not following their NATO obligations. I see, sit on their ass for fifty years protected from the Russian Bear by the US nuclear shield, but when it comes to put up or shut up time, well suddenly they get moral. Typical.
Get us out of NATO...NOW.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Part of the problem is that the US is increasingly becoming aware that its current level of defense expenditures cannot be maintained without compromising the rest of the American economy in some way. We have a lot of issues that need to be taken care of at home, and quickly, but we need to get the money from SOMEWHERE.
But if our allies are making cuts, that means the US can't if we want to maintain military superiority over potential adversaries, which as you can imagine is quite a conundrum. And we DO need to maintain military superiority. Some very intelligent people, both retired and active duty military, are predicting that we will be in Mexico pretty soon, hell even the US gov't says that we'll probably going to end up fighting a war on our doorstep (in this case to try to keep the established government from collapsing in a drug-fueled civil war), and there is the ever present of the Chinese, as well as the threat to South Korea posed by the North, and let us not forget the theological nutjobs that are running Iran...
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Frazzled wrote:Witzkatz wrote:Well, Germany has the third largest number of soldiers in the ISAF after USA and UK.
The problem is the mentality at home. Our defence minister is very reluctant in calling this a "war" and as long it's not a "war" there's political-juristical stuff making real combat operations difficult, as far as I know. The populace in general is absolutely not fond of the war, from what I've noticed...many people think we shouldn't even be there. I mean, I don't really agree with them, but I can see where they are coming from. After WW2, the parole was something like "War should never be started again from German soil!" And sending troops over to Afghanistan...many people feel like it's exactly that.
They're not following their NATO obligations. I see, sit on their ass for fifty years protected from the Russian Bear by the US nuclear shield, but when it comes to put up or shut up time, well suddenly they get moral. Typical.
Get us out of NATO...NOW.
Actually, part of the thing is that Germany didn't contribute much in the way of "line troopers", but contributed a very large proportion of Special Forces from their KSK units for operations in capturing HVTs. Those same KSK also did alot of bodyguard work for VIPs in Afghanistan as I remember.
33279
Post by: BearersOfSalvation
Frazzled wrote:Get us out of NATO...NOW.
I agree - what does NATO really do for the US anymore? Back in the cold war era, it obviously had a purpose, but now it doesn't seem to have any reason to exist. Yes, we got some extra troops for the initial war in Afghanistan on the basis of the treaty, but the long-term assistance is all just through regular diplomacy, not as part of the treaty. It seems like NATO exists now for European nations to have the US spend money and lives to do the heavy lifting in military ventures while they save money and act as backseat drivers. Look at the Kosovo war - it was right in continental Europe, and yet all of NATO that wasn't the US couldn't bring effective military force to bear, US intervention was required to resolve the situation.
If all of NATO minus the US can't deal with a single second-rate country getting aggressive right in their own backyard, what's the gain to the US for being involved?
221
Post by: Frazzled
BearersOfSalvation wrote:Frazzled wrote:Get us out of NATO...NOW.
I agree - what does NATO really do for the US anymore? Back in the cold war era, it obviously had a purpose, but now it doesn't seem to have any reason to exist. Yes, we got some extra troops for the initial war in Afghanistan on the basis of the treaty, but the long-term assistance is all just through regular diplomacy, not as part of the treaty. It seems like NATO exists now for European nations to have the US spend money and lives to do the heavy lifting in military ventures while they save money and act as backseat drivers. Look at the Kosovo war - it was right in continental Europe, and yet all of NATO that wasn't the US couldn't bring effective military force to bear, US intervention was required to resolve the situation.
If all of NATO minus the US can't deal with a single second-rate country getting aggressive right in their own backyard, what's the gain to the US for being involved?
Word. The Cold War is over. Time to move on and protect OUR borders.
9401
Post by: whatwhat
BearersOfSalvation wrote:Look at the Kosovo war - it was right in continental Europe, and yet all of NATO that wasn't the US couldn't bring effective military force to bear, US intervention was required to resolve the situation
Erm, it was the US's idea to bring NATO into the Kosovo conflicts you know. That's usually how it happens. The US says it want to go to war then complains when nobody else wants to go with them.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
It was an intra-European conflict and there is an argument that if the EU wants to keep things running smoothly they can't allow all sorts of beastly civil wars and ethnic cleansing to break out around the place.
However the EU lacked the balls and capability to do anything serious about it.
33279
Post by: BearersOfSalvation
whatwhat wrote:Erm, it was the US's idea to bring NATO into the Kosovo conflicts you know. That's usually how it happens. The US says it want to go to war then complains then nobody else wants to go with them.
You're seriously asserting that Germany, the UK, France, and all of the other non-US NATO members were just fine with the massacres and open military aggression going on in Serbia and Kosovo, and that it was just the US that wanted to do anything about it? That it was only the US behind the multiple UN resolutions condemning the situation and calling for military force to enforce various restrictions? Yeah, right.
It is usually how it happens though - Europe needs the US to do the heavy lifting, they get the US to do it, then complain that the US did it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Death to the Clan McCleod! oh wait that doesn't have anything to do with this thread...
9401
Post by: whatwhat
Erm less that more it wasn't legitimate by UN policy to intervine.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
Frazzled wrote:
Get us out of NATO...NOW.
One thing I don't get about this right now...if the USA weren't part of the NATO in 2001, then they would have invaded Afghanistan alone, probably. Sure, other countries might have contributed on a voluntary basis, but there would've been no NATO law making the multiple nations contribute as they do now.
So, you're complaining that Europe doesn't do enough, so you don't want the "little" help not at all anymore...so you have to fight your wars alone again?
And, with Germany having the third largest amount of soldiers in Afghanistan, I don't get why you're so angry at us. What about other Eurpoean countries apart from UK and G that do even less?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Witzkatz wrote:
One thing I don't get about this right now...if the USA weren't part of the NATO in 2001, then they would have invaded Afghanistan alone, probably. Sure, other countries might have contributed on a voluntary basis, but there would've been no NATO law making the multiple nations contribute as they do now.
So, you're complaining that Europe doesn't do enough, so you don't want the "little" help not at all anymore...so you have to fight your wars alone again?
I'm ok with that if we can get out of NATO. I don't want any Americans to die to keep Europeans safe in their beds.
And, with Germany having the third largest amount of soldiers in Afghanistan, I don't get why you're so angry at us. What about other Eurpoean countries apart from UK and G that do even less?
I have plenty of rage to go around.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Under the NATO treaty, an attack on any member is considered as an attack on them all.
The difficulty with the Afghanistan situation was that the attack on the US was a terrorist act, perpetrated by a non-governmental organisation, from a country that could barely be described as a nation with a functioning government.
This meant the attack was not an act of war as foreseen in the treaty, and allowed reluctant members a get out.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Thats a crock. Afghanistan was not allowing us permission to go after Al Qaeda. The US should respond in kind to this breach of the treaty.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
I'm ok with that if we can get out of NATO. I don't want any Americans to die to keep Europeans safe in their beds.
The interesting thing is...if european NATO troops wouldn't be in Afghanistan (because US would do this in their own since you want them to be out of the NATO), probably there would have been less threats from Al Qaeda to european nations. So, no need to keep Europeans safe in their beds if they wouldn't be participating in ISAF.
I think Germany and other nations should participate in Afghanistan and not withdraw troops. However, I can't completely agree with your "Brave Americans die only to defend cowardly Europeans!" school of thought. Everybody is doing something in Afghanistan, US definitely does the most, but don't play down efforts and achievements by other countries.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Witzkatz wrote:I'm ok with that if we can get out of NATO. I don't want any Americans to die to keep Europeans safe in their beds.
The interesting thing is...if european NATO troops wouldn't be in Afghanistan (because US would do this in their own since you want them to be out of the NATO), probably there would have been less threats from Al Qaeda to european nations. So, no need to keep Europeans safe in their beds if they wouldn't be participating in ISAF.
I think Germany and other nations should participate in Afghanistan and not withdraw troops. However, I can't completely agree with your "Brave Americans die only to defend cowardly Europeans!" school of thought. Everybody is doing something in Afghanistan, US definitely does the most, but don't play down efforts and achievements by other countries.
And if we hadn't supported the Mujihadeen to stop the Soviets who were threatening Europe and their allies in Asia, but instead had just gone home thousands upon thousands of Americans would be alive.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Frazzled wrote:Witzkatz wrote:I'm ok with that if we can get out of NATO. I don't want any Americans to die to keep Europeans safe in their beds.
The interesting thing is...if european NATO troops wouldn't be in Afghanistan (because US would do this in their own since you want them to be out of the NATO), probably there would have been less threats from Al Qaeda to european nations. So, no need to keep Europeans safe in their beds if they wouldn't be participating in ISAF.
I think Germany and other nations should participate in Afghanistan and not withdraw troops. However, I can't completely agree with your "Brave Americans die only to defend cowardly Europeans!" school of thought. Everybody is doing something in Afghanistan, US definitely does the most, but don't play down efforts and achievements by other countries.
And if we hadn't supported the Mujihadeen to stop the Soviets who were threatening Europe and their allies in Asia, but instead had just gone home thousands upon thousands of Americans would be alive.
Yes. Stop them from taking afghanistan... Shortly before the breakup of the soviet union and the inevitable release of afghanistan.. When you're applying hindsight to something, it's probably best to actually look at it realistically. The soviets would never have managed to fully pacify afghanistan before crumbling under their own weight and in that inevitable event afghanistan would have been cut lose due to it's status as a very unwilling and very empty territory of little strategic value.
But hey, at least we supported terrorist anti imperial extremists with advanced weapons, eh? It's like we were Iran before we learned to hate Iran!
21967
Post by: Tyyr
chaos0xomega wrote:And we DO need to maintain military superiority. Some very intelligent people, both retired and active duty military, are predicting that we will be in Mexico pretty soon, hell even the US gov't says that we'll probably going to end up fighting a war on our doorstep (in this case to try to keep the established government from collapsing in a drug-fueled civil war),
I'm getting that feeling as well. The country seems to be tearing itself apart and I can see US "peace keeping" forces heading down south.
and there is the ever present of the Chinese,
The Chinese are a minimal military threat to the US. They have no real power projection capability that would allow them to threaten us meanwhile we have almost nothing but power projection options after spending the last half century doing just that. Not to mention we're their biggest customer. Sure we will butt heads over things but at this point neither side is going to want a shooting war and will most likely do anything they can to avoid one. China is only a real concern to Russia and even then not much of one.
as well as the threat to South Korea posed by the North,
The North is up in the air. So long as Kim Jong Il and his spawn can keep living the high life and the peasants don't make too much of a fuss they will be perfectly happy to sit in their little luxurious bubble and let their country go to hell. The problem is that if things get too bad and the serfs too restless, and Kim or his brood think they might get deposed they might take one last swing at the South. The problem is that the peninsula is small and it will get ugly fast if a war breaks out there.
and let us not forget the theological nutjobs that are running Iran...
I doubt it. Iran has a lot to hate on right now in their own backyard. Iraq, Israel, etc. They are busy trying to build themselves into a regional superpower and I can't see them pushing things so far as to trigger an all out war against the US. They'll flip us off every chance they get but not a full on war.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
Frazzled wrote:
"Miss me yet?"
George Bush, enjoying life in Margaritaland.
:looks in wallet:
Not one bit.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Frazzled wrote:Thats a crock. Afghanistan was not allowing us permission to go after Al Qaeda. The US should respond in kind to this breach of the treaty.
What you say may well be true, however it does not contradict or refute the points I made.
I would also remind you that the UK supported with blood and treasure the invasion of Afghanistan.
Our reward was massive US import tariffs on UK made steel.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Quit dumping?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
So Turkish, Canadian, Mexican and Thai steel was fine but UK steel was dumped?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kilkrazy wrote:So Turkish, Canadian, Mexican and Thai steel was fine but UK steel was dumped?
Turks make steel? Canadians make steel? (real question, I was shocked when you said Brits make steel). I thought only steel came from India and China.
Pro Tip-you want to have fun? Take your credit guys, who come from a very cold northern country, to a steel plant tour.
In suits
In July
Have them stand over a furnace and a 20 foot by 60 plate of red hot steel as its being thinned and rolled.
Priceless. 
15594
Post by: Albatross
Frazzled, Britain has had a steel industry for several hundred years. Steel was being made here when you lot were still throwing tomahawks at each other.
It's not as big business here as it used to be (Britain used to be the worlds No.1 producer of Iron and Steel) - it's all about financial services now.... Which is bad for my hometown. Not many stockbrokers THERE.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Middlesbrough- The Ironsiders!
We friggin INVENTED steel!
21967
Post by: Tyyr
Ugh, Chinese steel. Screw that. Give me French steel. Subsidized all to hell and back so they toss in the trace metals like it's going out of style.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Sheffield steel had and still has a quality to it. The techniques we used to make mass produced higher quality steel was sold by short sighted officials to the Chinese a few years ago.
Typical really, lost a long term advantage so that some quick money came in for the treasury to squander.
Even now the UK makes large volume high quality steel and is known for it, hence the protectionism. UK steel competed with the US market in ways that cheap Indian and then Chinese steel did not. It still is better quality than US high grade steel, so an incentive was needed for certain industries to buy from home.
As mentioned above this was Blairs fault not Bushs, Blair was happy to see us pay the price so long as he got what was valuable to his own personal ends. Other leaders defended their own trade better.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Albatross wrote:Frazzled, Britain has had a steel industry for several hundred years. Steel was being made here when you lot were still throwing tomahawks at each other.
It's not as big business here as it used to be (Britain used to be the worlds No.1 producer of Iron and Steel) - it's all about financial services now.... Which is bad for my hometown. Not many stockbrokers THERE.
So what? We had a massive steel industry as well that made yours look like blacksmiths, but its mostly gone now. As noted, you want steel you mostly go to India and China. No one else can compete against their dumping and low labor rates.
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
If I may venture my opinions?
Who cares if Hillary Clinton runs her mouth off? I can appreciate that we have certain commitments to the US in terms of military aid and suchlike, but it seems to me that we're still doing our bit. If she wants to whine a bit to justify her position in the US government, then good for her. After all, even though we are allies with the United States that doesn't mean we shouldn't put our own needs as a country first.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Maybe we should just annex the UK... they could give us some culture, we could give them some influence, together we would be legend...wait for it...ary.
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
That'd be ironic, given the nature of the USA's creation. 
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
chaos0xomega wrote:Maybe we should just annex the UK... they could give us some culture, we could give them some influence, together we would be legend...wait for it...ary.
I have often considered this as a theoretical option. There would be a number of difficulties, one of which would be the allocation of statehood to the different parts of the UK.
Should the entire UK come in as a single state, which would instantly become the most populous and richest in the Union? Or should it be split into two, three or even four states -- England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland?
In the second case, how would the Senatorial votes play out? Would Scotland always vote the opposite way to England, out of historical resentment?
England has always been the most conservative of these regions, but all of British politics is left wing compared to mainstream US, so perhaps the four new States would form a leftish voting block, consistently electing Democractic candidates, or even form a new party. The massive number of votes accruing from the UK would transform the electoral landscape.
10667
Post by: Fifty
Well, England alone, let alone the UK, would massively disrupt the make-up of Congress, for sure, and could easily tip the balance in the Senate. When it comes to the Presidential College (Is that what it is called?) votes, I reckon we could pretty much guarantee a lurch to the left for American politics.
More importantly though, is whether we'd have a combined football team, or whether we would continue to play as England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and USA...
514
Post by: Orlanth
Membership of the United States can be by negotiation. Such as happened with Texas.
An absorbtion of the UK would likely also include an absorbtion of Ireland.
There is enough voice in Northern Ireland to demand seperate state identity. England, Wales and Scotland would be serperate states because they are seperate states.
The USA doesnt have subdivided sports teams so those would go.
Could this happen, unlikely but possible, and almost certainly out of economic necessity rather than force. We are buring respources at such a heavy rate that if the EU fails to make its mark in ther global resources stakes individual states might find other alliances.
I think Ireland joining the USA is far more likely.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Wales isn't a separate state. It has been a principality and dependency of England since the late 13th century.
That said, there is a different cultural and linguistic identity, so "statehood" would be entirely appropriate within the United States as long as the Welsh wanted it. I mean, it's moving that way anyway with the Cardiff Assembly.
Wales would become about the 35th largest state in terms of GDP and population.
Part of the difficulty of integrating the UK into the USA would be to disentangle aspects of government spending such as the amount of public jobs in Wales, like the DVLA, if the UK regions were brought in as separate states.
I don't see Eire joining the USA at the moment, they seem to get more out of the EU. I also don't see Northern Ireland integrating with Eire, either within the EU or as a US state.
Of course there is also a huge issue of whether the existing USA population would want to incorporate the British Isles.
Any views on that from Dakka's US members?
21967
Post by: Tyyr
You seem like a decent lot, the more the merrier.
91
Post by: Hordini
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:That'd be ironic, given the nature of the USA's creation.
Yes, it certainly would. Unfortunately it would be lost on many, as the British do not understand irony.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Indeed.
So based on one reply, which I think we can agree is unanimous, the US would not be worried about that fact that, overnight, the British would come to comprise 20% of the population.
91
Post by: Hordini
Kilkrazy wrote:Any views on that from Dakka's US members?
Let me preface this by saying that I really do like the UK in general, as well as Ireland.
That said, while I find the thought interesting, my biggest concern would actually not be how well the new states from the British Isles would get along with the rest of the states in the continental US, but rather how well the new island states would get along with each other. The fact that so much animosity remains even to this day is concerning, and the thought, which unfortunately doesn't sound that far-fetched, of a situation like the state of Scotland always voting against the state of England, or something similar with England and Ireland, is very discouraging. While we certainly have disagreements in the US, but they tend not to be quite so state vs. state, and I would even go as far as to say our disagreements tend to be less bitter.
England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Ireland are all in extremely close proximity to each other, yet they still seem to have a lot of difficulty coming to agreements and generally getting along, while in the US, states tend to get on quite well with their neighbors. So I guess my feeling on the matter is, while I love all you guys, I think it'd be better if you had some of your own differences worked out a little bit better before we opened the can of worms that would involve any part of the UK or Ireland becoming a US state.
21967
Post by: Tyyr
According to the media illegal immigrants are already 50% of the population so I'm not worried.
Besides, even the most conservative British politician would be disavowed from the Democratic party for being too radical so the political implications would be about zero.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Ha! You're right about that!
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
Hordini wrote:Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:That'd be ironic, given the nature of the USA's creation.
Yes, it certainly would. Unfortunately it would be lost on many, as the British do not understand irony.
WTF?
Really? Really really? Really really really
10667
Post by: Fifty
Mr Mystery wrote:Hordini wrote:Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:That'd be ironic, given the nature of the USA's creation.
Yes, it certainly would. Unfortunately it would be lost on many, as the British do not understand irony.
WTF?
Really? Really really? Really really really
Interesting...
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
Mr Mystery wrote:Hordini wrote:Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:That'd be ironic, given the nature of the USA's creation.
Yes, it certainly would. Unfortunately it would be lost on many, as the British do not understand irony.
WTF?
Really? Really really? Really really really
Looks like you fell for the trap there.
Either that, or I fell for the trap you placed in response to the trap, thus making me the trapped one.
10667
Post by: Fifty
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Mr Mystery wrote:Hordini wrote:Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:That'd be ironic, given the nature of the USA's creation.
Yes, it certainly would. Unfortunately it would be lost on many, as the British do not understand irony.
WTF?
Really? Really really? Really really really
Looks like you fell for the trap there.
Either that, or I fell for the trap you placed in response to the trap, thus making me the trapped one.
More and more interesting...
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
I for one would welcome our brethren across the pond into our union. The big question though, aside from how the UK should be divided, is what to do with the crown? Would we have to integrate the crown into the overall system somehow? Or would we accept the UK in as a Kingdom that maintains its state level politics as it currently maintains its national level? Then theoretically the question becomes "Does the Crown answer to the President?"
As for the political situation, it could only be for the best. The US system of two powerhouse parties is running this country into the ground. Bringing in new ones from overseas would serve to shake up the current foundation in Washington in a good way, giving the majority of the population that identifies itself as "Independent" a fighting chance to find better candidates to vote for that stand a realistic chance at winning an election.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:If I may venture my opinions?
Who cares if Hillary Clinton runs her mouth off? I can appreciate that we have certain commitments to the US in terms of military aid and suchlike, but it seems to me that we're still doing our bit. If she wants to whine a bit to justify her position in the US government, then good for her. After all, even though we are allies with the United States that doesn't mean we shouldn't put our own needs as a country first.
A very reasonable position. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kilkrazy wrote:Wales isn't a separate state. It has been a principality and dependency of England since the late 13th century.
That said, there is a different cultural and linguistic identity, so "statehood" would be entirely appropriate within the United States as long as the Welsh wanted it. I mean, it's moving that way anyway with the Cardiff Assembly.
Wales would become about the 35th largest state in terms of GDP and population.
Part of the difficulty of integrating the UK into the USA would be to disentangle aspects of government spending such as the amount of public jobs in Wales, like the DVLA, if the UK regions were brought in as separate states.
I don't see Eire joining the USA at the moment, they seem to get more out of the EU. I also don't see Northern Ireland integrating with Eire, either within the EU or as a US state.
Of course there is also a huge issue of whether the existing USA population would want to incorporate the British Isles.
Any views on that from Dakka's US members?
We're kind of busy with Mexico at the moment, but sure why not.
Sign up Mexico at the same time. UK would split into states of no more than 10MM each. That would be counterbalanced by Mexico's states which are of a similar population. Tell Puerto Rico to gak or get off the pot once and for all. Maybe annex Canada at the same time. Lets do it. 2015., the year the USA Biggie Sizes!
8471
Post by: olympia
What's the story with the new British aircraft carriers? It would be a pity if those things got cut.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Kilkrazy wrote:Indeed.
So based on one reply, which I think we can agree is unanimous, the US would not be worried about that fact that, overnight, the British would come to comprise 20% of the population.
I'd love it. Brits are great.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
ShumaGorath wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Indeed.
So based on one reply, which I think we can agree is unanimous, the US would not be worried about that fact that, overnight, the British would come to comprise 20% of the population.
I'd love it. Brits are great.
Im great mate, the rest of them arent much cop though. 
15594
Post by: Albatross
olympia wrote:What's the story with the new British aircraft carriers? It would be a pity if those things got cut.
Nah, looks like they're going ahead. The cuts are going to be less than forcast after a 'personal intervention' from Cambo.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
mattyrm wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Indeed.
So based on one reply, which I think we can agree is unanimous, the US would not be worried about that fact that, overnight, the British would come to comprise 20% of the population.
I'd love it. Brits are great.
Im great mate, the rest of them arent much cop though.
But I hate you. This throws my whole world upside down.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Matty's a... 'one-off', let's say.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Sign up Mexico at the same time. UK would split into states of no more than 10MM each. That would be counterbalanced by Mexico's states which are of a similar population. Tell Puerto Rico to gak or get off the pot once and for all. Maybe annex Canada at the same time. Lets do it. 2015., the year the USA Biggie Sizes!
We don't want Mexico. Not yet anyway. First there needs to be a long-drawn out, politics induced quagmire of a war to pacify the drug cartels and eliminate other such 'undesirables' (for lack of a better term) from the population. Then we can annex Mexico... maybe... really, we should have just annexed them during the Mexican American War, but that boat sailed about 200 years ago. Canada on the other hand... lets do it.
Speaking of Puerto Rico, IIRC, there is supposed to be another Plebescite to determine their status next year.
What's the story with the new British aircraft carriers? It would be a pity if those things got cut.
I hear conflicting things. Some say they are being axed, a few others say they are going to be kept, some say there are going to be modifications to the program (they will continue construction but at a much slower rate and are going to lose a good bit of the intended bells and whistles).
20880
Post by: loki old fart
mattyrm wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Indeed.
So based on one reply, which I think we can agree is unanimous, the US would not be worried about that fact that, overnight, the British would come to comprise 20% of the population.
I'd love it. Brits are great.
Im great mate, the rest of them arent much cop though.
Self praise is no recommendation.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
chaos0xomega wrote:
Sign up Mexico at the same time. UK would split into states of no more than 10MM each. That would be counterbalanced by Mexico's states which are of a similar population. Tell Puerto Rico to gak or get off the pot once and for all. Maybe annex Canada at the same time. Lets do it. 2015., the year the USA Biggie Sizes!
What's the story with the new British aircraft carriers? It would be a pity if those things got cut.
I hear conflicting things. Some say they are being axed, a few others say they are going to be kept, some say there are going to be modifications to the program (they will continue construction but at a much slower rate and are going to lose a good bit of the intended bells and whistles).
Part of the problem is that they have been ordered without launch catapults, so the only aircraft that will be able to fly off them is the F35, which is going to cost £100 million per aircraft, so we won't be able to afford any planes to go with the carriers.
16689
Post by: notprop
I for one welcome our new(?) American overlords and throw in my hat for the position of Anglo-american cultural unification minister (sectretary).
First on the list of information programmes - Association Football, America's new favourite sport..............
God Save Ronald McDonald!
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
lol, bringing proper association football to America would be a godsend. American Football doesn't really interest me...
I also look forward to what the impact on the NHL would be
32644
Post by: Mr Mystery
But if we joined America, I'd have to start spelling badly.
Colour, not color.
Night, not nite.
Favour, not Favor.
Etc.
And it's toe-mah-toe. Not toe-may-toe.
16689
Post by: notprop
Kilkrazy wrote:chaos0xomega wrote:
Sign up Mexico at the same time. UK would split into states of no more than 10MM each. That would be counterbalanced by Mexico's states which are of a similar population. Tell Puerto Rico to gak or get off the pot once and for all. Maybe annex Canada at the same time. Lets do it. 2015., the year the USA Biggie Sizes!
What's the story with the new British aircraft carriers? It would be a pity if those things got cut.
I hear conflicting things. Some say they are being axed, a few others say they are going to be kept, some say there are going to be modifications to the program (they will continue construction but at a much slower rate and are going to lose a good bit of the intended bells and whistles).
Part of the problem is that they have been ordered without launch catapults, so the only aircraft that will be able to fly off them is the F35, which is going to cost £100 million per aircraft, so we won't be able to afford any planes to go with the carriers.
Nothing that a 40year old plane and a ramp couldn't sort out. Chin up old bean where's that Dunkirk spirit!
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Mr Mystery wrote:But if we joined America, I'd have to start spelling badly.
Colour, not color.
Night, not nite.
Favour, not Favor.
Etc.
And it's toe-mah-toe. Not toe-may-toe.
Nah, you'd be fine. You ever here someone from the Deep South of the USA speak? Hell, try to understand a cajun, lord knows I cannot and their my own countrymen.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
notprop wrote:Nothing that a 40year old plane and a ramp couldn't sort out. Chin up old bean where's that Dunkirk spirit!
If you're talking about the Harrier I've heard they're being cut.
221
Post by: Frazzled
chaos0xomega wrote:
Sign up Mexico at the same time. UK would split into states of no more than 10MM each. That would be counterbalanced by Mexico's states which are of a similar population. Tell Puerto Rico to gak or get off the pot once and for all. Maybe annex Canada at the same time. Lets do it. 2015., the year the USA Biggie Sizes!
We don't want Mexico. Not yet anyway. First there needs to be a long-drawn out, politics induced quagmire of a war to pacify the drug cartels and eliminate other such 'undesirables' (for lack of a better term) from the population. Then we can annex Mexico... maybe... really, we should have just annexed them during the Mexican American War, but that boat sailed about 200 years ago. Canada on the other hand... lets do it.
Speaking of Puerto Rico, IIRC, there is supposed to be another Plebescite to determine their status next year.
What's the story with the new British aircraft carriers? It would be a pity if those things got cut.
I hear conflicting things. Some say they are being axed, a few others say they are going to be kept, some say there are going to be modifications to the program (they will continue construction but at a much slower rate and are going to lose a good bit of the intended bells and whistles).
I think you're confusing "don't want" with "already here." Lets make it official and get the oil and cool pyramids. Automatically Appended Next Post: notprop wrote:I for one welcome our new(?) American overlords and throw in my hat for the position of Anglo-american cultural unification minister (sectretary).
First on the list of information programmes - Association Football, America's new favourite sport..............
God Save Ronald McDonald!
Just visualize a UK/Mexico football team. GOAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL!
Plus the UK would join up with countries that have fought France, and won (  ).
21967
Post by: Tyyr
Mr Mystery wrote:But if we joined America, I'd have to start spelling badly.
Colour, not color.
Night, not nite.
Favour, not Favor.
Etc.
And it's toe-mah-toe. Not toe-may-toe.
We'd be saving you from a lot of extraneous U's. You're welcome.
91
Post by: Hordini
Tyyr wrote:Mr Mystery wrote:But if we joined America, I'd have to start spelling badly.
Colour, not color.
Night, not nite.
Favour, not Favor.
Etc.
And it's toe-mah-toe. Not toe-may-toe.
We'd be saving you from a lot of extraneous U's. You're welcome.
I'm with Tyyr on the frivolous U's, but I'd like to point out that "nite" isn't the proper spelling of "night" anywhere, America or otherwise.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Unless its Nick at Nite of course.
91
Post by: Hordini
Frazzled wrote:Unless its Nick at Nite of course.
Yes, of course. That ought to go without saying.
16689
Post by: notprop
Frazzled wrote:.......................................
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote:I for one welcome our new(?) American overlords and throw in my hat for the position of Anglo-american cultural unification minister (sectretary).
First on the list of information programmes - Association Football, America's new favourite sport..............
God Save Ronald McDonald!
Just visualize a UK/Mexico football team. GOAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL!
Plus the UK would join up with countries that have fought France, and won ( ).
I get where you're coming from.
So second film to be produced by the AACU (kinda ring to that?) would be an educational film on History.
The third would have to be a film introducing mainland americans to the intracacies of the pointless rabble rousing from scotland and how to eat a deepfried Mars bar.
The fourth would have to be a film introducing new Island americans to the intracacies of the pointless rabble rousing from texas and how to eat a deepfried chicken and 4 gallon cokes.
NOw how do we spin it when the population become aware that you only wanted us for our oil and haggis?
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
It would be interesting to see America's reaction when you see some actual left wing politicians throwing their hats (or perhaps the state's hats?) into the ring
I would hope that the UK joining the USA would mean the creation of a third party (or even a third and fourth) so that you guys can actually get some choice and movement in your politics.
I would also hope that the UK then gets some control over how Hollywood rapes our history and poop out a load of rubbish (see the latest Robin Hood film, as well as other more annoying ones such as U571, etc). And with our newfound access to guns, you'd better take notice or we'll pop a cap in LA's ass!
Oh, and we also expect some access to all the military tech descended from all the stuff we have given you over the years
221
Post by: Frazzled
SilverMK2 wrote:It would be interesting to see America's reaction when you see some actual left wing politicians throwing their hats (or perhaps the state's hats?) into the ring
I would hope that the UK joining the USA would mean the creation of a third party (or even a third and fourth) so that you guys can actually get some choice and movement in your politics.
I would also hope that the UK then gets some control over how Hollywood rapes our history and poop out a load of rubbish (see the latest Robin Hood film, as well as other more annoying ones such as U571, etc). And with our newfound access to guns, you'd better take notice or we'll pop a cap in LA's ass!
Oh, and we also expect some access to all the military tech descended from all the stuff we have given you over the years
I think the merger should come with the requirement that the President have to go before Congress weekly and get harangued just like your Prime Minister goes before Parliament. That would be epic cool.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I would pay good money to see Dennis Skinner, widely known as "The Beast of Bolsover", throw it down in Congress.
21967
Post by: Tyyr
SilverMK2 wrote:And with our newfound access to guns, you'd better take notice or we'll pop a cap in LA's ass!
Believe me, no one will try and stop you.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Frazzled wrote:I think the merger should come with the requirement that the President have to go before Congress weekly and get harangued just like your Prime Minister goes before Parliament. That would be epic cool.
All those in favour say "Aye!":
"RABBLERABBLERABBLE!"
20880
Post by: loki old fart
Trident is getting put on hold.
The two aircraft carriers will be built. The first will have helicopters, till the second one is built.
Then the first will be sold or mothballed.
Arkroyal will be scrapped, as will the planes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321713/Cameron-announces-defence-cuts-Trident-hold-years.html
Former Navy chiefs Admiral Lord West and Admiral Sir Jonathon Band have both warned that the absence of jets on board the carriers would make it impossible to retake the Falklands
if the Argentinians chose to invade.
For the next ten years the UK will have just one active carrier, armed with helicopters, with HMS Queen Elizabeth entering service in 2016.
That will leave the UK dependent on the French or Americans to help in the event of a new Falklands crisis over the next decade.
You'll lend us one won't you
11029
Post by: Ketara
No. The announcements haven't been made yet. This is what the Daily Mail THINKS he will announce.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
We'll see
Stupid enough to be right
11029
Post by: Ketara
Considering the Mail has changed what they think the cuts will be virtually every day for the last week, I'd rather just wait and see what they actually are.
It's like their infamous list of things which give you cancer, like scrambled eggs and apples. *rolls eyes*
15594
Post by: Albatross
loki old fart wrote:Trident is getting put on hold.
The two aircraft carriers will be built. The first will have helicopters, till the second one is built.
Then the first will be sold or mothballed.
Arkroyal will be scrapped, as will the planes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321713/Cameron-announces-defence-cuts-Trident-hold-years.html
Former Navy chiefs Admiral Lord West and Admiral Sir Jonathon Band have both warned that the absence of jets on board the carriers would make it impossible to retake the Falklands
if the Argentinians chose to invade.
For the next ten years the UK will have just one active carrier, armed with helicopters, with HMS Queen Elizabeth entering service in 2016.
That will leave the UK dependent on the French or Americans to help in the event of a new Falklands crisis over the next decade.
...and if all THAT wasn't bad enough, Lady Diana is DEAD! NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!111!!!!1!
Seriously, read better newspapers. Most of that is just alarmist bollocks.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Agreed. I recommend buying the Times and the Independent. The Independent for anything not to do with war/Israel/military projects, as they're a bunch of leftist snobs, and the Times to cover those gaps competently.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Yup, I read The Times and The Economist. Seriously.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Don't you guys have, like, the third or fourth most powerful military in the world? You guys can beat Argentina. If you really want to.
11029
Post by: Ketara
No, because all our MoD money goes to backscratching deals for guys in the arms trades on pointless IT upgrades, continuing a slowed project to privatise military training, stashing redundant pieces of kit, and other absurdities. The MoD is in the biggest need of an overhaul it's ever been.
I mean, haven't you guys ever wondered how we spend the third largest amount in the world on our military, and yet we can't afford a 100,000 men?
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
I have wondered that actually. If there was ever a time to say it, now it is "Oh how the mighty have fallen." I'm almost curious to see if the Argentine's will attempt to retake the Falklands in a few years, and what sort of international shitstorm that will kick up.
Precursor to an ideological revolution in the UK perhaps?
11029
Post by: Ketara
The Argentine's won't try it again. They'd never succeed in landing, there's a massive fortified airbase there now, as opposed to a handful of marines.
Not only that, the Argentine military and economy is in an even worse state than it was there. Tack on British nuclear subs having the capability to sink any kind of Argentine vessel they like, and it's a foregone conclusion.
In other words, the Falklands won't happen again.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Theres nothing better to temporarily heal an ailing economy and restore the faith of a nations citizens than a well-timed war. I wouldn't say that they wouldn't try, their success is another matter.
Besides that, with possible cuts, there is always a chance that the defense force will be lightened further. IIRC, all it took for the first attempt was the announcement that a single ship was being withdrawn.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Theres nothing better to temporarily heal an ailing economy and restore the faith of a nations citizens than a well-timed war.
Yep, sure did work in Iraq, vietnam, Afghanistan, the first falklands war, Russias attack on georgia, the six day war, and hundreds of internecine conflicts in africa and east asia! Oh wait. No. Thats not actually true at all, it just provided united and extreme wartime governmental stimulus to a set of lagging industrial complexes in prewar America at a time when significant other infrastructural and social investments were starting to bear fruit. It's a fun myth though. Besides that, with possible cuts, there is always a chance that the defense force will be lightened further. IIRC, all it took for the first attempt was the announcement that a single ship was being withdrawn.
You know that war happened 30 years ago right? I know it's sort of England's "thing" but argentina isn't really their great satan. They should be more worried about protecting industrial investments abroad and locally from terrorists then an island across the ocean that at this point no one cares that much about. The threat of American intervention with it's superbuddy alone should keep the argentinians off. One Nimitz (we've got a few) carries more airpower then the country of argentina and it's highly unlikely that we wouldn't respond to an unwarranted act of agression at this time and in that area.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
ShumaGorath wrote:Theres nothing better to temporarily heal an ailing economy and restore the faith of a nations citizens than a well-timed war.
Yep, sure did work in Iraq, vietnam, Afghanistan, the first falklands war, Russias attack on georgia, the six day war, and hundreds of internecine conflicts in africa and east asia!
Oh wait. No. Thats not actually true at all, it just provided united and extreme wartime governmental stimulus to a set of lagging industrial complexes in prewar America at a time when significant other infrastructural and social investments were starting to bear fruit.
It's a fun myth though.
I said temporary, implying that it didn't really work all that well.
You know that war happened 30 years ago right? I know it's sort of England's "thing" but argentina isn't really their great satan. They should be more worried about protecting industrial investments abroad and locally from terrorists then an island across the ocean that at this point no one cares that much about. The threat of American intervention with it's superbuddy alone should keep the argentinians off. One Nimitz (we've got a few) carries more airpower then the country of argentina and it's highly unlikely that we wouldn't respond to an unwarranted act of agression at this time and in that area.
Oh, you mean just like how we helped out our buddies the first time?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Oh, you mean just like how we helped out our buddies the first time?
Like I said, 30 years ago. Times change and it's been a long time.
5534
Post by: dogma
chaos0xomega wrote:Theres nothing better to temporarily heal an ailing economy and restore the faith of a nations citizens than a well-timed war.
How many wars in the history of the world, particularly those that weren't about seizing territory (given that few wars are, these days, about seizing territory), have been accompanied by economic growth?
chaos0xomega wrote:
Besides that, with possible cuts, there is always a chance that the defense force will be lightened further. IIRC, all it took for the first attempt was the announcement that a single ship was being withdrawn.
That chance is always present.
5470
Post by: sebster
Orkeosaurus wrote:Don't you guys have, like, the third or fourth most powerful military in the world? You guys can beat Argentina. If you really want to.
It isn’t just about having the most powerful armed forces, it’s about the amount of force you can project into another part of the world. It’s a lot cheaper to fight a defensive war closer to home.
Argentina, deploying into a largely undefended island reasonably close to home, had a considerable advantage over the UK who had to travel a hell of a long way and land on a now defended island. It speaks volumes for the relative scale of the two militaries that the UK still managed to win decisively.
Ketara wrote:No, because all our MoD money goes to backscratching deals for guys in the arms trades on pointless IT upgrades, continuing a slowed project to privatise military training, stashing redundant pieces of kit, and other absurdities. The MoD is in the biggest need of an overhaul it's ever been.
I mean, haven't you guys ever wondered how we spend the third largest amount in the world on our military, and yet we can't afford a 100,000 men?
Ummm, because the levels of support available to modern troops, the very support that makes them so much better than anything that’s ever come before, is really expensive?
5534
Post by: dogma
sebster wrote:
It isn’t just about having the most powerful armed forces, it’s about the amount of force you can project into another part of the world. It’s a lot cheaper to fight a defensive war closer to home.
Argentina, deploying into a largely undefended island reasonably close to home, had a considerable advantage over the UK who had to travel a hell of a long way and land on a now defended island. It speaks volumes for the relative scale of the two militaries that the UK still managed to win decisively.
Exactly.
There are 4 tiers of military strength in the world:
1) US.
2) UK, France.
3) China, Germany, Russia, Japan, Israel, Iran.
4) Everyone else.
sebster wrote:
Ummm, because the levels of support available to modern troops, the very support that makes them so much better than anything that’s ever come before, is really expensive?
Pretty much.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Ketara wrote:No, because all our MoD money goes to backscratching deals for guys in the arms trades on pointless IT upgrades, continuing a slowed project to privatise military training, stashing redundant pieces of kit, and other absurdities. The MoD is in the biggest need of an overhaul it's ever been.
I mean, haven't you guys ever wondered how we spend the third largest amount in the world on our military, and yet we can't afford a 100,000 men?
This.
Someone on Radio 4 said the question that has to be answered is why every single major MOD project takes twice as long as expected, costs twice as much as budgeted, and doesn't work properly in the end.
5470
Post by: sebster
Albatross wrote:I don't want to get hung up on the numbers (as I'm not too sure of their accuracy), but 2.5% is more than 2% - which is what China spends. Germany only spends 1.3%, France 2.3%.
Yeah, the UK spends more than other NATO partners. But that is less of an argument for the UK to spend less, and more of an argument for the rest to spend more.
You say Germany does a lot of the heavy lifting but I'd say there's room for improvement there, considering that a) They are a richer country than the UK, and b) They don't currently meet the minimum NATO recommended level of expenditure.
Umm, I didn’t say that. I didn’t mention Germany at all. Killkrazy mentioned the UK and Germany were the heavy lifters, in my post I just pointed that no European country is pulling it’s weight, and in combination they’re a long way short of where they should be. Europe should not have been dependant on US support to intervene in the Balkans.
I mean, the UK spends more on defence than Russia.
Which says more about the woefully small size of Russian GDP than it does about anything else.
I don't think anyone can say that Britain doesn't do it's fair share, which makes it all the more stupid of Hilary Clinton to brief against her supposed allies.
It does more than the other European members of NATO. The issue is whether Europe should accept that they as a group of nations do not have any real level of force projection, if they should be comfortable relying on the US.
mattyrm wrote:Yeah Seb, i have to ask, where do you feel that Germany does its part?
I didn't say it. I don't think it. I don’t know where Albatross got that idea from. And that goes beyond their expenditure as a % of GDP... the level of German commitment to Afghanistan and the unwillingness to expose their troops to fire is simply ridiculous. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:Word. The Cold War is over. Time to move on and protect OUR borders.
Well, the idea that modern military operations have anything to do with defence of your own borders is laughable, as I’ve mentioned to you many times before. You’re flanked by two very big oceans, and there is no country on Earth with the force projection capabilities to invade and control a population of 300 million, let alone get past all those carrier groups you have out there.
You have that very big military in part because you need to protect key resources overseas, and in part because you have a political system that keeps giving dumptrucks of money to your military.
That said, I do agree that if NATO doesn’t mean enough to the European nations to maintain basic levels of expenditure then I don’t see any value in you remaining in it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: whatwhat wrote:Erm, it was the US's idea to bring NATO into the Kosovo conflicts you know. That's usually how it happens. The US says it want to go to war then complains when nobody else wants to go with them.
Uhh, no. There was support in Europe to commit ground troops, the desire to just maintain the air campaign was American. What complicates things is the reality that without US commitment a ground campaign would have been under resourced, and to be honest I’m kind of surprised how indifferent Europe is to that. Automatically Appended Next Post: Witzkatz wrote:One thing I don't get about this right now...if the USA weren't part of the NATO in 2001, then they would have invaded Afghanistan alone, probably. Sure, other countries might have contributed on a voluntary basis, but there would've been no NATO law making the multiple nations contribute as they do now.
NATO is a mutual defence treaty, nothing required NATO partners to send troops to Afghanistan other than the belief that we needed to get AQ and the Taliban out of Afghanistan. That's kind of why the number of troops committed by various countries were all over the place.
Also, lots of troops from non-NATO countries were committed/
5534
Post by: dogma
More importantly, if the role of the military is to protect the US, why should it protect a border that clearly supplies cheap labor?
It isn't like anyone really cares about random proles being killed by random foreign proles.
I mean, Fraz tells us all that people are brutal, so why not let them be?
5470
Post by: sebster
Albatross wrote:Yup, I read The Times and The Economist. Seriously.
Yeah, I really liked reading The Times when I was in the UK. It's a conservative paper done properly.
15594
Post by: Albatross
sebster wrote:Umm, I didn’t say that. I didn’t mention Germany at all.
Yeah, feth knows where I got THAT from... my mistake.
20880
Post by: loki old fart
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593
1 For the daily mail, seems they got it right
lets hope their wrong about everything else.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Yeah, that was in The Times yesterday. My point still stands.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
So the Navy is to be cut to 19 surface ships.
I wonder if that includes minehunters or whether it means "real warships".
The Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force has 48 ships of small frigate size and upwards.
5394
Post by: reds8n
loki old fart wrote:
1 For the daily mail, seems they got it right
It's almost like they might have seen this reported on the BBC 22:00 news last night !
221
Post by: Frazzled
chaos0xomega wrote:Theres nothing better to temporarily heal an ailing economy and restore the faith of a nations citizens than a well-timed war. I wouldn't say that they wouldn't try, their success is another matter.
Besides that, with possible cuts, there is always a chance that the defense force will be lightened further. IIRC, all it took for the first attempt was the announcement that a single ship was being withdrawn.
Here's an interesting question.
Venezuela buys a nuke from the Chinese or Russians.
Argentina invades the Falklands. Chavez says he's best bugs with the Argentinians and if the UK attacks he'll nuke you.
What does the UK do?
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Frazzled wrote:Venezuela buys a nuke from the Chinese or Russians.
Argentina invades the Falklands. Chavez says he's best bugs with the Argentinians and if the UK attacks he'll nuke you.
What does the UK do?
We flood their airwaves with continuous episodes of "Bill and Ben the Flowerpot Men" until they crack and sign over any and all mineral weath they have to us. We then storm the beach using the surviving members of Iron Maiden and Black Sabbath supported by helicopters with giant speakers playing high level rock/metal to collect Chevez's surrender.
All SOP for our armed forces.
221
Post by: Frazzled
SilverMK2 wrote:Frazzled wrote:Venezuela buys a nuke from the Chinese or Russians.
Argentina invades the Falklands. Chavez says he's best bugs with the Argentinians and if the UK attacks he'll nuke you.
What does the UK do?
We flood their airwaves with continuous episodes of "Bill and Ben the Flowerpot Men" until they crack and sign over any and all mineral weath they have to us. We then storm the beach using the surviving members of Iron Maiden and Black Sabbath supported by helicopters with giant speakers playing high level rock/metal to collect Chevez's surrender.
All SOP for our armed forces.
Excellent. That wraps that up quite nicely.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Frazzled wrote:
Venezuela buys a nuke from the Chinese or Russians.
Argentina invades the Falklands. Chavez says he's best bugs with the Argentinians and if the UK attacks he'll nuke you.
What does the UK do?
Watch the USA go into meltdown at Chavez having nukes.
11029
Post by: Ketara
errr.....loki, you're quoting another article of the Mail predicting stuff again. Exactly what you were doing before. You see, what the newspapers do, is string together lots of extraneous facts, to make a supposition seem like a fact.
Jeez man, wait until it's actually unveiled before flying off the handle at the government.
Ummm, because the levels of support available to modern troops, the very support that makes them so much better than anything that’s ever come before, is really expensive?
The levels of support? You mean all those helicopters we don't have enough of? Or our ever shrinking surface fleet? Or the terrible levels of care offered to injured soldiers and their families? Our lack of military hospitals? Our often inferior kit and equipment bought from arms dealers who spent their time wining and dining civil servants?
There's a reason we cannot afford 100,000 men, and it's mainly because the civil service pisses it all up the wall much the way the NHS and education sector does. It's just less obvious, because the public and press don't often see the military up close.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Frazzled wrote:chaos0xomega wrote:Theres nothing better to temporarily heal an ailing economy and restore the faith of a nations citizens than a well-timed war. I wouldn't say that they wouldn't try, their success is another matter.
Besides that, with possible cuts, there is always a chance that the defense force will be lightened further. IIRC, all it took for the first attempt was the announcement that a single ship was being withdrawn.
Here's an interesting question.
Venezuela buys a nuke from the Chinese or Russians.
Argentina invades the Falklands. Chavez says he's best bugs with the Argentinians and if the UK attacks he'll nuke you.
What does the UK do?
Sips a Gin & Tonic with a smirk whilst watching the Venezuelans trying to figure out how to succesfully deliver a nuclear missile across the Atantic before we can. Or are we pretending that Venezuela has the money and expertise to maintain an ICBM site? I just want to know how developed this particular fantasy is.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Albatross wrote:Frazzled wrote:chaos0xomega wrote:Theres nothing better to temporarily heal an ailing economy and restore the faith of a nations citizens than a well-timed war. I wouldn't say that they wouldn't try, their success is another matter.
Besides that, with possible cuts, there is always a chance that the defense force will be lightened further. IIRC, all it took for the first attempt was the announcement that a single ship was being withdrawn.
Here's an interesting question.
Venezuela buys a nuke from the Chinese or Russians.
Argentina invades the Falklands. Chavez says he's best bugs with the Argentinians and if the UK attacks he'll nuke you.
What does the UK do?
Shipping container on a freighter. London harbor.
Or for more fun, sitting on top the new Tequila Sunrise ICBM. (visions of Southpark)
Sips a Gin & Tonic with a smirk whilst watching the Venezuelans trying to figure out how to succesfully deliver a nuclear missile across the Atantic before we can. Or are we pretending that Venezuela has the money and expertise to maintain an ICBM site? I just want to know how developed this particular fantasy is.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Even if that worked (and it really, really, really wouldn't) the UK government has enough nuclear weapons to turn Venezuela into a desert. That's the problem with these little 'what if...' scenarios - they have absolutely zero possibility of happening, so why bother discussing them?
Venezuela would NEVER risk war with the UK. Ever. Neither would Argentina, not anymore.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Albatross wrote:Even if that worked (and it really, really, really wouldn't) the UK government has enough nuclear weapons to turn Venezuela into a desert. That's the problem with these little 'what if...' scenarios - they have absolutely zero possibility of happening, so why bother discussing them?
Venezuela would NEVER risk war with the UK. Ever. Neither would Argentina, not anymore.
Why not?
Literally. Chavez says, stay out of the Falklands or we'll nuke you or give the nuke to Argentina. Are you going to risk that, for some island?
Edit: why are you getting angry?
Another scenario. What if Argentina says it now has a nuke? What do you do?
11029
Post by: Ketara
Well, considering we already have the falklands, it wouldn't be a case of him saying 'stay out of there' as much as it would be, 'give it to us'.
And to put it bluntly, we would then reply. 'No. And if we get hit with a nuke, your entire country will go up in flame'.
That would be called stalemate, and since we already hold the islands, I believe that's round 1 to us.
You could say,. 'ah, but what if he did use the nuke', but he wouldn't. That's why it's called nuclear deterrence. Otherwise you guys and the soviets would have blown the planet to smithereens yonks back. Good old mutually assured destruction.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ketara wrote:Well, considering we already have the falklands, it wouldn't be a case of him saying 'stay out of there' as much as it would be, 'give it to us'.
And to put it bluntly, we would then reply. 'No. And if we get hit with a nuke, your entire country will go up in flame'.
That would be called stalemate, and since we already hold the islands, I believe that's round 1 to us.
You could say,. 'ah, but what if he did use the nuke', but he wouldn't. That's why it's called nuclear deterrence. Otherwise you guys and the soviets would have blown the planet to smithereens yonks back. Good old mutually assured destruction.
I meant after Argentina invades.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a better scenario.
What if the Argentians ally themselves with Cthulu and unleash an undead/squiggly army to invade the Falklands and blockade it from your navy?
11029
Post by: Ketara
Well, considering they'd never make it to the beaches, I think the latter scenario is more likely.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Frazzled wrote:Ketara wrote:Well, considering we already have the falklands, it wouldn't be a case of him saying 'stay out of there' as much as it would be, 'give it to us'.
And to put it bluntly, we would then reply. 'No. And if we get hit with a nuke, your entire country will go up in flame'.
That would be called stalemate, and since we already hold the islands, I believe that's round 1 to us.
You could say,. 'ah, but what if he did use the nuke', but he wouldn't. That's why it's called nuclear deterrence. Otherwise you guys and the soviets would have blown the planet to smithereens yonks back. Good old mutually assured destruction.
I meant after Argentina invades.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a better scenario.
What if the Argentians ally themselves with Cthulu and unleash an undead/squiggly army to invade the Falklands and blockade it from your navy?
Won't happen.
Kid_Kyoto has a Cthulhu statue and me and him have got an understanding based on the fact that both our wives are Japanese. I think you'll agree that is a pretty sound basis for a military deterrent foreign policy.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Works for me.
5470
Post by: sebster
Frazzled wrote:Here's an interesting question.
Venezuela buys a nuke from the Chinese or Russians.
Argentina invades the Falklands. Chavez says he's best bugs with the Argentinians and if the UK attacks he'll nuke you.
What does the UK do?
I see you plan to stop reading the news and base your beliefs about the world entirely on Tom Clancy novels is beginning to pay dividends.
221
Post by: Frazzled
We're having a nice conversation about Cthulu, and you come along and ruin it with a personal attack. Way to go Sebster.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Frazzled wrote:
Here's an interesting question.
Venezuela buys a nuke from the Chinese or Russians.
Argentina invades the Falklands. Chavez says he's best bugs with the Argentinians and if the UK attacks he'll nuke you.
What does the UK do?
Shipping container on a freighter. London harbor.
Or for more fun, sitting on top the new Tequila Sunrise ICBM. (visions of Southpark)
Send in a group of 'negotiators'.
A while later Kirshner asks 'Chavez, where is your nuke.'
Chavez replies ' stuff the nuke I cant find my balls.'
221
Post by: Frazzled
The weiner dog legions are onside with that conflict resolution scenario also.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Okay, to summarise the review, it is as follows:-
-Overall spending cuts of 8%
-Trident is to be scaled back, cutting the stockpile of missiles from 160 to 120, and maximum number or warheads per submarine from 48 to 40.
-Cut 7,000 troops.
-Reduce the holdings of Challenger 2 battle tanks by 40% and heavy artillery by 35%;
-Buy both new Carriers, and fit both with catapult and arrestor gear.
- Decommission either the helicopter landing ship HMS Ocean or HMS Illustrious
-Scrap the Ark Royal immediately.
- Decommission either the helicopter landing ship HMS Ocean or HMS Illustrious, and reduce the number of naval personnel by 5,000 to 30,000
-Remove the Harrier fast jet fighters from service, while scaling back the number of Tornados;
-Withdraw the C-130 Hercules transport fleet ten years earlier than planned, as the new A400M enters service.
-Scrap the planned Nimrod MRA4 maritime reconnaissance aircraft, despite spending £3 billion on its development;
-Overall the Ministry of Defence will cut the number of civil servants by 25,000.
28292
Post by: Catyrpelius
You should just buy one of our fancy new Super Carriers....
Its sad to see any country have to scale back defense spending :(
Ketara wrote:Okay, to summarise the review, it is as follows:-
-Overall spending cuts of 8%
-Trident is to be scaled back, cutting the stockpile of missiles from 160 to 120, and maximum number or warheads per submarine from 48 to 40.
-Cut 7,000 troops.
-Reduce the holdings of Challenger 2 battle tanks by 40% and heavy artillery by 35%;
-Buy both new Carriers, and fit both with catapult and arrestor gear.
- Decommission either the helicopter landing ship HMS Ocean or HMS Illustrious
-Scrap the Ark Royal immediately.
- Decommission either the helicopter landing ship HMS Ocean or HMS Illustrious, and reduce the number of naval personnel by 5,000 to 30,000
-Remove the Harrier fast jet fighters from service, while scaling back the number of Tornados;
-Withdraw the C-130 Hercules transport fleet ten years earlier than planned, as the new A400M enters service.
-Scrap the planned Nimrod MRA4 maritime reconnaissance aircraft, despite spending £3 billion on its development;
-Overall the Ministry of Defence will cut the number of civil servants by 25,000.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Ketara wrote:Okay, to summarise the review, it is as follows:-
-Overall spending cuts of 8%
-Trident is to be scaled back, cutting the stockpile of missiles from 160 to 120, and maximum number or warheads per submarine from 48 to 40.
-Cut 7,000 troops.
-Reduce the holdings of Challenger 2 battle tanks by 40% and heavy artillery by 35%;
-Buy both new Carriers, and fit both with catapult and arrestor gear.
- Decommission either the helicopter landing ship HMS Ocean or HMS Illustrious
-Scrap the Ark Royal immediately.
- Decommission either the helicopter landing ship HMS Ocean or HMS Illustrious, and reduce the number of naval personnel by 5,000 to 30,000
-Remove the Harrier fast jet fighters from service, while scaling back the number of Tornados;
-Withdraw the C-130 Hercules transport fleet ten years earlier than planned, as the new A400M enters service.
-Scrap the planned Nimrod MRA4 maritime reconnaissance aircraft, despite spending £3 billion on its development;
-Overall the Ministry of Defence will cut the number of civil servants by 25,000.
That last item shows one of the basic problems. We currently have about one civil servant for every two actual armed forces personnel.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We could mothball the tanks and artillery in case they are needed in the future.
I think we should keep the Harriers. It is an excellent aircraft and can be flown off helicopter carriers, plus, we won't have any F35s for years.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Frazzled wrote:Albatross wrote:Even if that worked (and it really, really, really wouldn't) the UK government has enough nuclear weapons to turn Venezuela into a desert. That's the problem with these little 'what if...' scenarios - they have absolutely zero possibility of happening, so why bother discussing them?
Venezuela would NEVER risk war with the UK. Ever. Neither would Argentina, not anymore.
Why not?
Literally. Chavez says, stay out of the Falklands or we'll nuke you or give the nuke to Argentina. Are you going to risk that, for some island?
Edit: why are you getting angry?
Another scenario. What if Argentina says it now has a nuke? What do you do?
We (The U.S.) would be occupying either of those countries the day before the nuke was delivered. This is a ridiculous and hairbrained example and I can't tell if you're just having fun or as paranoid as you seem.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Having fun. I think the Cthulu discussion would have given it away.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Two words.
Stealth. Haggis.
No one except the French can stand against them.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kilkrazy wrote:Two words.
Stealth. Haggis.
No one except Leichtenstein can stand against them.
Corrected your typo. I think we've proven France can't stand against them.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
France has Andouillettes. Regrettably, Haggises hold no terror for them.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kilkrazy wrote:France has Andouillettes. Regrettably, Haggises hold no terror for them.
What is that?
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Ketara wrote:
-Buy both new Carriers, and fit both with catapult and arrestor gear.
Thats interesting, I wonder if they are going to purchase the C instead of the B then? Or possibly purchase an altogether different aircraft?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Frazzled wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:France has Andouillettes. Regrettably, Haggises hold no terror for them.
What is that?
Trust me, you really don't want to know.
They are delicious, though.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:France has Andouillettes. Regrettably, Haggises hold no terror for them.
What is that?
Small andouille sausages made with tripe instead of normal meat.
I think its been proven that terrible food is not a correlate of being difficult to conquer. Look at Poland.
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:France has Andouillettes. Regrettably, Haggises hold no terror for them.
What is that?
Small andouille sausages made with tripe instead of normal meat.
I think its been proven that terrible food is not a correlate of being difficult to conquer. Look at Poland.
Pah! Barbarian, Polish food can be just fine.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Erm, erm, erm, things I ate in Miami.
Pirogi!
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
Pah! Barbarian, Polish food can be just fine.
Well, any food can be just fine, but Polish food is fine at lower rate than all other foods.
I'm almost pure polak, and once you've eaten Czernina you will understand.
We make good trucks, not good food.
8471
Post by: olympia
Ketara wrote:
-Trident is to be scaled back, cutting the stockpile of missiles from 160 to 120,
120 MIRVs is hardly a credible deterrent. Time for Attack Plan R.
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Pah! Barbarian, Polish food can be just fine.
Well, any food can be just fine, but Polish food is fine at lower rate than all other foods.
I'm almost pure polak, and once you've eaten Czernina you will understand.
We make good trucks, not good food.
I like Polish sausage. Is that even Polish? Automatically Appended Next Post: olympia wrote:Ketara wrote:
-Trident is to be scaled back, cutting the stockpile of missiles from 160 to 120,
120 MIRVs is hardly a credible deterrent. Time for Attack Plan R.
Don't forget to confiscate all the personal transistor radios.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
I like Polish sausage. Is that even Polish?
Sometimes, but not very often. Unless you buy it at an ethnic deli its almost always just some random smoked sausage.
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:
I like Polish sausage. Is that even Polish?
Sometimes, but not very often. Unless you buy it at an ethnic deli its almost always just some random smoked sausage.
mmmm...random smoked sausage...
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
Sips a Gin & Tonic with a smirk whilst watching the Venezuelans trying to figure out how to succesfully deliver a nuclear missile across the Atantic before we can. Or are we pretending that Venezuela has the money and expertise to maintain an ICBM site? I just want to know how developed this particular fantasy is.
Are you under the illusion that the primary barrier to nuclear technology is financial or technical?
North Korea built them, the only places further down on the totem pole are Niger and Somalia.
15594
Post by: Albatross
dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Sips a Gin & Tonic with a smirk whilst watching the Venezuelans trying to figure out how to succesfully deliver a nuclear missile across the Atantic before we can. Or are we pretending that Venezuela has the money and expertise to maintain an ICBM site? I just want to know how developed this particular fantasy is.
Are you under the illusion that the primary barrier to nuclear technology is financial or technical?
North Korea built them, the only places further down on the totem pole are Niger and Somalia.
Well, they ARE backed by the Chinese... So not exactly.
It is me you're quoting by the way - Frazzled made a bit of an error, making it look like he posted that instead of me. His reply was sort of jumbled into my original post.
Yes, North Korea has nuclear weapons - to my knowledge they have nowhere near the range needed to strike the UK. It's all very well asking 'what if Venezuela had nukes HURRR' as Frazzled did, but without a delivery system capable of hitting the UK the point is moot.
514
Post by: Orlanth
North Korea is not backward technologically, allowing for the leaders focus communist states usually are not due to the advantages of centralised planning.
North Korea appears backward because what technology it has is very poorly distributed.
India is similar though for completely different reasons and on a different scale. India has a huge peasant population and in much of the rural areas the best transport available is the donkey, yet they also are a nuclear power and have an active space program.
5470
Post by: sebster
Frazzled wrote:We're having a nice conversation about Cthulu, and you come along and ruin it with a personal attack. Way to go Sebster.
You think that was a personal attack? Seriously? Enough to get all moderator over it? Wow. Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma wrote:Well, any food can be just fine, but Polish food is fine at lower rate than all other foods.
I'm almost pure polak, and once you've eaten Czernina you will understand.
We make good trucks, not good food.
I liked Pirogis a lot when I was Poland. I tried to make them here, and it really didn't work. My girlfriend was vomiting the next day, which may or may not have been related.
5534
Post by: dogma
Albatross wrote:
Yes, North Korea has nuclear weapons - to my knowledge they have nowhere near the range needed to strike the UK. It's all very well asking 'what if Venezuela had nukes HURRR' as Frazzled did, but without a delivery system capable of hitting the UK the point is moot.
Ah, ok, that makes more sense.
I'd argue that whether or not a given state has nuke is irrelevant; especially given that hostility in the international arena isn't what it used to be. Automatically Appended Next Post: sebster wrote:
You think that was a personal attack? Seriously? Enough to get all moderator over it? Wow.
He does that. Sometimes it even leads to banning Shuma.
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Sips a Gin & Tonic with a smirk whilst watching the Venezuelans trying to figure out how to succesfully deliver a nuclear missile across the Atantic before we can. Or are we pretending that Venezuela has the money and expertise to maintain an ICBM site? I just want to know how developed this particular fantasy is.
Are you under the illusion that the primary barrier to nuclear technology is financial or technical?
North Korea built them, the only places further down on the totem pole are Niger and Somalia.
Wait, I didn't write that. You're quoting someone else. Anyone who tries to get me to drink gin and tonic is going to 230 jacketed hollow points in the face. That stuff is concentrated ass juice.
Rum however, is proff of the existence of God, or the great Speghetti Monster, I don't care which.
18499
Post by: Henners91
Albatross wrote:Britain has done MORE than it's fair share regarding global defence (of America's interests) - we have to make cuts, it's just that simple. No-one wants to cut their defence budget, but we seem to have very little choice. I used to think it was just Republican propaganda, but it does seem like the Obama regime is either subject to a terminal case of 'foot-in-mouth syndrome', or they actually WANT to alienate their closest allies. There are wealthier countries than the UK that don't do half as much, in terms of global policing (so to speak).
Britain will still be able to defend its interests - it just won't be able to join in as many American wars of adventure for the time being. Tough.
You're being pointlessly angry, it sounds like they were just worried that the cuts would be deeper than they've turned out; we are indeed subject to obligations as members of NATO and clearly the US was worried that we were going to default on those with radical cuts... we haven't and thus the story isn't exactly relevant anymore.
Of course if we come at it from a standpoint of principles rather than political realism, we should just flog off all of the forces and "do a Sweden"; seriously, who wants to kill the Swedes, eh? Automatically Appended Next Post: Hrm just realised that your first post was a tad bit old; so perhaps your anger was justified then... but tell me, Albatross, feel any different now?
15594
Post by: Albatross
No, not really. Clinton is a crappy politician - you brief against your enemies, not your friends. For someone so blatantly undiplomatic as her to be in the postion she is is mind-blowing.
18499
Post by: Henners91
It's undiplomatic to raise concerns about an ally, that is undergoing a lot of radical cuts, might cut its armed forces a tad excessively and force the US Military to stretch itself too thin? Ultimately it's a matter of principle and American national interest and as much as it might hurt our feelings, who can blame them for wanting assurances that their own austerity might be challenged by their main ally weakening itself excessively? That is to say, the Yanks can hardly make cuts themselves if we're leaving holes in the line.
But, as I said, things weren't *too bad* and the concerns were unfounded, but it's not like she could've known that. I think she's done a lot of good work as Secretary of State.
Hell, I hope she runs in 2016 even though she said she won't...
15594
Post by: Albatross
Henners91 wrote:It's undiplomatic to raise concerns about an ally, that is undergoing a lot of radical cuts, might cut its armed forces a tad excessively and force the US Military to stretch itself too thin?
Publically, yes. It's hamfisted. Typically so, in her case.
Ultimately it's a matter of principle and American national interest and as much as it might hurt our feelings, who can blame them for wanting assurances that their own austerity might be challenged by their main ally weakening itself excessively?
I see. And I happen to think that it's a matter of principal that as much as it might hurt their feelings, the Secretary of State for the USA should mind her own fething business and leave us to run our affairs. There was never any suggestion that the UK would fail to meet it's NATO obligations, and the fact that she would comment on it publically is insulting. How are you not getting this?
But, as I said, things weren't *too bad* and the concerns were unfounded, but it's not like she could've known that.
No, but she could have kept her mouth shut until she did, instead of insulting a principal ally. Again, HOW are you not getting this?
18499
Post by: Henners91
Well, we're NATO members so it *is* her business, especially considering the fact we're America's number two. I also don't really see why it's insulting for her to comment on it publicly; surely some people agree with her?
I don't think she insulted us but clearly you're a bit more touchy on the subject than myself.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Henners91 wrote:Well, we're NATO members so it *is* her business, especially considering the fact we're America's number two.
Cool, voice the concerns in private then. That would be the professional thing to do. But then both Clintons are shameless media-whores, so...
I also don't really see why it's insulting for her to comment on it publicly; surely some people agree with her?
You REALLY don't see how it could appear arrogant, coercive and presumptuous to make a statement the intent of which seems to be to embarass another sovereign nation into undertaking (or rather, not) a desired course of action. We are strategic partners of the USA, we are military allies, we are important diplomatic and trade partners - we are many things to them, but a 51st state we are not. We are our own country, with our own business to attend to. She would do well to remember that.
It's not just me - there seem to be many republicans who feel that the Obama administration has done much to potentially alienate the USA's principal ally.
I don't think she insulted us but clearly you're a bit more touchy on the subject than myself.
Well yes, unlike you I'm not naive enough to believe that we don't need substantial defence spending or a nuclear deterrent. It WOULD be nice if everyone was nice, and we could spend billions on helping the 'disadvantaged' - but not everyone is nice, and the Number 1 priority of the state should be its defence. I would have ringfenced it and found savings elsewhere.
11029
Post by: Ketara
To use a comparison Henners, it would be like David Cameron calling a press conference and announcing he doesn't think Obama's health plan is a good idea.
The fact is, it would be
a)none of his business really.
b) insulting to the current US administration
It's nothing to do with touchiness, and a good deal to do with being diplomatic, especially with your nation's principal ally.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ketara wrote:To use a comparison Henners, it would be like David Cameron calling a press conference and announcing he doesn't think Obama's health plan is a good idea.
The fact is, it would be
a)none of his business really.
b) insulting to the current US administration
It's nothing to do with touchiness, and a good deal to do with being diplomatic, especially with your nation's principal ally.
You're not in a mutual health treaty with each other, so it's really very different.
11029
Post by: Ketara
*shrugs*
Okay. Reverse the situation, and have Cameron commenting negatively the US about THEIR defence cuts. Regardless, it's still rather undiplomatic.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Ketara wrote:*shrugs*
Okay. Reverse the situation, and have Cameron commenting negatively the US about THEIR defence cuts. Regardless, it's still rather undiplomatic.
Can you imagine what Frazzled or Fateweaver would have to say about THAT??!!? 
There'd be tears before bedtime, of that I have no doubt. Me? I'm just a bit annoyed at the wife of a politician's presumption.
221
Post by: Frazzled
My first response would be "wait an oilfield service company that makes valves and blowout preventers is questioning US military spending? Thats odd."
5394
Post by: reds8n
Albatross wrote:Well yes, unlike you I'm not naive enough to believe that we don't need substantial defence spending or a nuclear deterrent.
But you are naive enough to think that Clinton said this without prior approval from the MOD/Downing Street however right ?
So she could say her piece, Britain could "stand firm" and tell the American to "mind her own business".. sideline Liam "leaky and loathed" Fox totally -- where was he .. what was he doing ? ... and then, amazingly enough !, we don't make cuts quite that bad entirely due to "personal intervention from the Prime Minister David Cameron" -- as reported by every news outlet, whilst poor old sidelined Liam Fox -- still reeling from having his Neocon thinktank charity statuts slapped down in court and inabality to appoint a suitable PA, is left with egg on his face and answering accusations and whispers about his suitability for the role and his drinking habits.
And then Clinton flies home, safe in the knowledge that the two expensive ships will still be built, which involves several American firms.
So she secures American jobs and gets to pretend that America is THE BOSS OF US.
David cameron looks good -- he stood up to the Americans and "saved" the British armed forces.
And Liam Fox is left looking even more useless and redundant and much less of any sort of threat or rival to David Cameron.
Chin chin, trebles all around.
Say what you like about David Cameron's team but they are fething slick as anything when they need to be.
15594
Post by: Albatross
/entire wardrobe of clothes fashioned out of tinfoil
Seriously, is rabid paranoia a *prerequisite* of being red?
5394
Post by: reds8n
No paranoia at all. Just an understanding of how politics and spin doctoring works.
Clinton and several USA top brass met and were briefed by several MOD personnel quite recently.
Cameron sidelined Fox -- cf the appointment of Col. Jim Morris especially -- and it's an open secret he was put into Defence to fail. Fox wanted the FO, but didn't stand a hope in hell of getting it, not since he ran against Cameron in the leadership contest. Everyone knows they don't get on.
Cameron is noted -- you yourself pointed it out -- as being the one who stepped in to sort things out/save the day.
And the stories about Fox's lifestyle ran in... The Mail on Sunday... which is so tory supporting it looks like it's short of air at times its so blue.
If what Clinton did was such a terrible breach of ettiquette and stomped all over diplomacy where was all the official complaints and nosie then ? Nowhere, as it didn't matter and was entirely useful for the stories being spun.
18499
Post by: Henners91
I'd still maintain that it IS their business and the intent clearly wasn't to embarrass us but say say "I have a bad feeling about this".
15594
Post by: Albatross
reds8n wrote:No paranoia at all. Just an understanding of how politics and spin doctoring works.
Sure.
Clinton and several USA top brass met and were briefed by several MOD personnel quite recently.
Shocking, considering she's secretary of state for our principal ally.... If that was the case, why brief against UK gov't as if she didn't know what the outcome of the review would be?
Cameron sidelined Fox -- cf the appointment of Col. Jim Morris especially -- and it's an open secret he was put into Defence to fail. Fox wanted the FO, but didn't stand a hope in hell of getting it, not since he ran against Cameron in the leadership contest. Everyone knows they don't get on.
'Everyone knows'....  Hardly convincing, red.
Cameron is noted -- you yourself pointed it out -- as being the one who stepped in to sort things out/save the day.
...by leaning towards the amount of cuts Fox thought acceptable, as opposed to the 20% the Chancellor allegedly wanted? I thought they didn't get on?
And the stories about Fox's lifestyle ran in... The Mail on Sunday... which is so tory supporting it looks like it's short of air at times its so blue.
Right, so that makes them immune from reporting the news? Not every newspaper is like the Mirror, you know....
It's worth pointing out that I hate the Daily Mail.
If what Clinton did was such a terrible breach of ettiquette and stomped all over diplomacy where was all the official complaints and nosie then ? Nowhere, as it didn't matter and was entirely useful for the stories being spun.
...Or a huge diplomatic row is not exactly what the country needs at the moment, perhaps? Nevertheless, I didn't say that so you can stop mischaracterising me right there. Poor form. I PERSONALLY found it offensive, and thought it was undiplomatic, in addition to being a tad insulting. That's a far fething cry from saying it 'stomped all over diplomacy' and you know it.
Also, there was the usual 'Downing St. sources were said to be furious, etc.' type noise in the redtops.
5534
Post by: dogma
Diplomacy isn't necessarily about being nice to people, or even following proper etiquette. Indeed, the standards of etiquette that exist in the diplomatic community are often assumed to be, at least in part, designed to be ignored. This allows individual diplomats to express strong distaste in a way that is more meaningful than simply saying so. Talleyrand, on of the most skilled diplomats in history, was infamous for this.
I actually think this was a pretty savvy move by Clinton, as it allows the US to point to protesting an event that may or may not have significant negative implications for NATO.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ketara wrote:*shrugs*
Okay. Reverse the situation, and have Cameron commenting negatively the US about THEIR defence cuts. Regardless, it's still rather undiplomatic.
That wouldn't be undiplomatic as much as incoherent. The US spends a significantly greater % of GDP on defence. For any NATO member to complain about US cuts would be non-sensical. Automatically Appended Next Post: Albatross wrote:There'd be tears before bedtime, of that I have no doubt. Me? I'm just a bit annoyed at the wife of a politician's presumption.
When you say 'politician's wife' you mean Secretary of State Clinton, yeah? I think it's fair to assume she was acting in her role as Secretary of State, and not so much out of being the wife of a former President. Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma wrote:Diplomacy isn't necessarily about being nice to people, or even following proper etiquette. Indeed, the standards of etiquette that exist in the diplomatic community are often assumed to be, at least in part, designed to be ignored. This allows individual diplomats to express strong distaste in a way that is more meaningful than simply saying so. Talleyrand, on of the most skilled diplomats in history, was infamous for this.
I actually think this was a pretty savvy move by Clinton, as it allows the US to point to protesting an event that may or may not have significant negative implications for NATO.
There seems to be this idea in the thread that Clinton was trying to influence the cuts by making her public statement... but this late in the process that just isn't possible. You don't commit to long term spending cuts on Monday and announce them on Tuesday.
5394
Post by: reds8n
why brief against UK gov't as if she didn't know what the outcome of the review would be?
She wasn't actually breifing against the UK Govt. That's precisely the point I'm making. What she did was provide and get a nice little pr boost for those concerned.
'Everyone knows'.... Hardly convincing, red.
Have a dig around, it's common knowledge, same as the rancour between Blair and Brown was, even in the early days. Given the fact that they come from opposing ends of the Con. spectrum it's hardly surprising is it, especially if you factor in the leadership contest as well.
But here's a quote from this weekend..
Defence Secretary Liam Fox last night faced astonishing claims by senior Tory sources concerning his drinking habits – and a suggestion that he could be sacked for alleged disloyalty to David Cameron.
The Mail on Sunday has been told that Dr Fox’s conduct has been discussed at a senior level of the Government – and in some quarters of the Ministry of Defence – where there is said to be a concern about his ‘partying’ lifestyle.
The claims came after Mr Cameron was forced to intervene in a bitter feud between Dr Fox and Chancellor George Osborne, and reduced proposed defence cuts by £1 billion.
But Dr Fox’s provocative tactics in the battle – which saw the leak of a private letter from him to Mr Cameron attacking the ‘draconian’ cuts – have led some to question his judgment and his Cabinet future. An insider said: ‘Liam can be a bit embarrassing at times.
‘Some people are saying you cannot go on having a Defence Secretary who is not in full control of his department, or at times, it seems, himself. If you drew up a list of Ministers likely to be moved at the first major Cabinet reshuffle, Liam has put himself firmly in pole position.’
The most shocking aspect of the claims against Dr Fox concerns his drinking. He enjoys the occasional social drink and one source said: ‘When Liam has a drink he tends to get very carried away and becomes very chatty, a bit more chatty than is sensible for a Defence Secretary. It is a job which requires great discretion at all times.’
The claims were dismissed by friends of Dr Fox last night as a ‘baseless smear’.
One said: ‘Whoever is putting this kind of thing around should be ashamed and doesn’t know what they are talking about. Liam’s integrity is beyond doubt. He commands wide respect in the Ministry and in the Tory Party.’
The row comes as tension builds between Dr Fox and Mr Cameron over plans to slash the £37 billion defence budget, and a series of snubs by the Prime Minister.
First, Mr Cameron took over the public announcement about defence cuts to be unveiled on Tuesday. Then he asked Foreign Secretary William Hague to make a Commons announcement tomorrow about Britain’s strategic defence and foreign policy aims – leaving Dr Fox on the sidelines again.
To add insult to injury, Mr Cameron recruited his own military adviser, Colonel Jim Morris, a battle-hardened Royal Marine honoured for leading 45 Commando during a bloody six-month tour of duty of Afghanistan in 2008.
One of Dr Fox’s junior Defence Ministers said: ‘Liam has taken Morris’s appointment very badly.’
Well-placed observers have also questioned Dr Fox’s standing with defence chiefs.
‘They like Liam but they do not take him very seriously,’ said one.
‘He would much rather have been Foreign Secretary than Defence Secretary because he knew it could be a poisoned chalice. He is more interested in hanging out with friends in the US talking about bombing Iran than the nuts and bolts of the MoD, such as whether Army homes are properly maintained.’
Another senior MP said: ‘Liam’s reputation for going out partying and clubbing does not win him friends in the MoD. His decision to take on Cameron and Osborne in a media war is high-risk. If you go public against No 10 and 11 they will screw you in the end. Liam and Cameron have never really got on and Osborne derides him intellectually.’
Dr Fox stood against Mr Cameron in the 2005 Tory leadership contest but came third.
The article here :
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100056795/david-cameron-is-confident-liam-fox-will-overplay-his-hand-say-tory-sources/
gives a fairly succinct summary of the bad blood atwixt them.
The blood ties and bloodbath of the Miliband rivalry have made us forget the equally bitter race for the Tory leadership that gripped the Right in 2005. When the pink-cheeked posh boy beat David Davis, the “man of the people” went off in a huff. No such theatrics for the other defeated candidate: Liam Fox chose to fight from within the fold, setting himself up to the Right of the soggy-Tory Cameroonians. Everyone was struck by how vicious his close allies could be about the new leader – behind Cameron’s back, of course
The PM, according to a well-placed source, has Dr Fox in his sights. He is convinced that his waiting game will soon pay off and that a Fox slip-up, either personal or political, is imminent.
Whether spectacular or quietly humiliating, the implosion of “the Churchill of the Coalition” would be much relished in No 10: an appropriate reward for five years’ patience.
...by leaning towards the amount of cuts Fox thought acceptable, as opposed to the 20% the Chancellor allegedly wanted? I thought they didn't get on?
err... Osbournbe wanted a 10% cut in the defense budget, Fox argued for 4%.. Cameron decided upon 7%. They don't get on.
Also, there was the usual 'Downing St. sources were said to be furious, etc.' type noise in the redtops
precisely : no one in Govt. actually cared, and it was spun as a chance for Cameron to not bow down to the USA and steering his own path etc etc etc.
514
Post by: Orlanth
reds8n wrote:
'Everyone knows'.... Hardly convincing, red.
Have a dig around, it's common knowledge, same as the rancour between Blair and Brown was, even in the early days. Given the fact that they come from opposing ends of the Con. spectrum it's hardly surprising is it, especially if you factor in the leadership contest as well.
I take this at face value. Sometimes you just cannot give your proofs online, but if you know enough credible sources you can be sure what you say is true. I get the feeling Red knows some middle-senior civil servants.
15594
Post by: Albatross
sebster wrote:
Albatross wrote:There'd be tears before bedtime, of that I have no doubt. Me? I'm just a bit annoyed at the wife of a politician's presumption.
When you say 'politician's wife' you mean Secretary of State Clinton, yeah? I think it's fair to assume she was acting in her role as Secretary of State, and not so much out of being the wife of a former President.
Did you seriously miss the intended slight in what I said? Let me spell it out: I DO NOT TAKE HILARY CLINTON EVEN REMOTELY SERIOUSLY.
@red - They might NOT get on - I still think your conspiracy theory is a far cry from what actually took place. This whole thing was just another example of her 'mis-speaking', nothing more. And how is making potentially insulting comments about the UK government NOT briefing against the UK government?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
An interesting perspective on the cuts from The Register.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/20/comment/
514
Post by: Orlanth
Just two points on that mess of an article, I wont bother with more, though there is something blatantly wrong with just about every paragraph.
Much of it was caused by Nimrod: much, much more by the Eurofighter, a Tory project originally. Sure, Brown in his final months locked the MoD into a contract for aircraft carriers which has meant the Coalition being unable to cancel them - but it was the Tories who locked the MoD into its insane order for no less than 232 Eurofighters, which is still grinding on and costing money to this day. (In the end we will get many less, but only because the programme's horrific cost overruns have breached a cost ceiling. No money has been saved.) The Tories have cost us far more with Eurofighter (£20bn+) than ever Labour did with carriers (£5-6bn).
Ok, the Tories ordered it, but who ran the government since then.
The Royal Navy will retain no less than 19 largely pointless frigates and destroyers, and its witless plans for new Type 26 frigates - basically retreads of existing Type 23s - will move ahead.
This will have been immensely popular across most of the RN, whose wildly overmanned officer corps is dependent on there being plenty of frigates and destroyers for any hope of promotion - or indeed continued employment. But it's not just Cold War thinking - it's early Cold War thinking. As soon as capable antisubmarine helicopters came into service in the 1970s the antisubmarine frigate was obsolete: as soon as capable sea-skimming missiles appeared in the 1980s the case for air-defence destroyers was fatally weakened.......
......What the navy actually needs for real wars of every type - as opposed to the Cold War of the 1960s - is proper aircraft carriers and amphibious ships.
Muppet. Though the frigate has an ASW fleet role and the destroyer has an AAW fleet role that only applies to fleet operations. Frigates and destroyers are general purpose vessels. You cant make a fleet out of just carriers and amphibious support ships. Armchair admirals are all very well, we can all be one, but this guys idea of a navy reads a lot like a childs opinion.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
sebster wrote:Frazzled wrote:We're having a nice conversation about Cthulu, and you come along and ruin it with a personal attack. Way to go Sebster.
You think that was a personal attack? Seriously? Enough to get all moderator over it? Wow.
The guy banned me for it. Consider yourself lucky.
221
Post by: Frazzled
ShumaGorath wrote:sebster wrote:Frazzled wrote:We're having a nice conversation about Cthulu, and you come along and ruin it with a personal attack. Way to go Sebster.
You think that was a personal attack? Seriously? Enough to get all moderator over it? Wow.
The guy banned me for it. Consider yourself lucky.
Wait, if that guy banned you, how did you manage to post? OMG a doppleganger's stolen Shuma's skin and is now posting on the intranets! Everyone kiss your asses goodbye, get out your Cthulu idols and spark up the Weiner Dog signal. Only the combined forces of the Weiner Legions and Cthulu can save us now!
15594
Post by: Albatross
ShumaGorath wrote:sebster wrote:Frazzled wrote:We're having a nice conversation about Cthulu, and you come along and ruin it with a personal attack. Way to go Sebster.
You think that was a personal attack? Seriously? Enough to get all moderator over it? Wow.
The guy banned me for it. Consider yourself lucky.
Happy Frazzled Day! What presents did you get? I got the ability to divert arguments I'm not winning. I think it might come in handy....
21853
Post by: mattyrm
I got a sock with some walnuts in...
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Pah! I've got a bag of old brass doorknobs.
Oh sorry, I thought we were still on the topic of military equipment.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Hmm, I got guns and Texmex.
I guess we all know who thinks Frazzled mod is bestest mod.
Perhaps quit personally attacking people Shuma and you won't get banned. Neat how that works, isn't it?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Fateweaver wrote:Hmm, I got guns and Texmex.
I guess we all know who thinks Frazzled mod is bestest mod.
Perhaps quit personally attacking people Shuma and you won't get banned. Neat how that works, isn't it?
In other news I found out:
1) take weiner dogs camping and girl scouts will flock to you like geese.
2) by lunchtime Tbone the Terror does not like girl scouts.
3) the sight of a deer makes Rodney the Shanker stop cold. The sight of a herd of deer makes him go berserk however.
|
|
