Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Quite | |
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 14:17:45 11/28/04 Sun In reply to: Trixta (UK) 's message, "Oh, the old mistake..." on 13:54:58 11/28/04 Sun I remember reading, when I was studying 20th Century History, something along the same lines in a work by one Corporal Adolf Hitler. In the Great War he joined up to his Austrian regiment and was at first posted to the French front. When the French inevitably collapsed, the line was quickly reinforced by the British Expeditionary Force, and he had the following to say about it: "I remember well my comrades' looks of astonishment when we faced the Tommies in person in Flanders. After the very first days of battle the conviction dawned on each and every one of them that these Englishmen did not exactly chime with the pictures they had seen fit to give us in the comic magazines and press dispatches." But my point was not that we are weak in battle - indeed, history is red with examples of British courage verging on the Truly Bonkers. The examples of the Scots charge at the walls of Havannah, Cuba, in 1759, with Claymores when they ran out of ammunition (and won), and the 150 men in the same year who, under Robert Clive, took on an army of 10,000 in Bengal (and also won), are cases in point... My assertion was that under the present government we have been politically emasculated as far as Ulster is concerned. Concession after concession has been granted on what we might call the 'honour' system, in the hope that separatist terrorists will 'feel bad' if they don't reciprocate. One can hardly blame them for thinking that Blair is the IRA's Father Christmas and that the 'English', whoever they might be, are 'weak' just at the moment. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Walking the fine line | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:09:16 11/28/04 Sun Look, Ed, I agree wholeheartedly at a personal level that, regardless of political or religious affiliation, the only good terrorist is the dead one. Too many compromises were made by TB, true - but bear in mind we also have Reid, Mandellson (nick-named Meddle-son in NI) and Mowlam to blame as well. By deliberately installing provo-friendly figures in the NI Ministerial post TB has capitulated most of what has been fought and died for in NI. Ironic, isn't it, that the one party in the UK a NI citizen cannot be part of is the same party that is now handing over concession after concession? Of the concessions the most that rankle me are: The PSNI: One catholic per one any-other-religion, not one catholic per one protestant as it is portrayed. In my dictionary that fits under discrimination, but as far as Blair is concerned it's Positive Discrimination (distasteful phrasing at its best). The banning of the flag: Government buildings, with the exception of the staunchly-loyalist, are prohibited from flying the Union Jack as it is deemed offensive. Personally I find the Tricolour offensive but would never dream of banning it - I'm a Brit and believe in freedom of expression, regardless of how distasteful that expression may be to my ears/eyes/stomach. The 'decommissioning' of weapons: The provos have consistently put only those weapons they cannot use beyond use - field guns, old AA missiles etc. The AK47s and Semtex are still in play. Until every single weapon and bullet is verified as having been utterly destroyed and not just smothered in concrete I would not say that they are living up to their end of the deal. The 'housekeeping' murders: Blair is consistently playing down the continuation of murder, punishment beating, extortion, drug-running, gun-running and intimidation as 'house-keeping' and thus not real terrorism. A turd by any other name... The cessation of intelligence gathering: Blair's reduction in the intelligence services acting in NI is criminal. INT 14 have all but been removed, and they were the greatest weapon we had against the Provos, so their efforts can be redirected against the 'real terrorists' half-a-world away. The burying of news: The Christmas bombing campaign is in full swing. I've just returned from Belfast and, thanks to getting access to the NI news, learned that the bombing campaigns and intimidation of police officers continue unabated. It would appear that as long as the bomb neither detonates nor kills someone outright the BBC does not feel compelled to let the rest of the UK know that it is in fact under direct attack from terrorists who live 45 minutes from the mainland. The election of murderers: We all know about this and it stinks that someone whose sole aim is, and always has been, the slaughter of Britons, now runs either the Education or the Health ministry. Believe me, Ed, when I say that I hate these people more than probably any other poster on this site, with more reason. However, unless we are prepared to throw off the gloves and adopt Stalinist tactics to defeat them then we have to accept that the IRA, with whatever prefix, cannot be utterly wiped out. We would have to stoop too low to conquer them and, in the end, are they worth it? As it stands at present we have two irreconcilable loons running the country and, until the likes of the UUP and the SDLP see the light and unite, NI will continue to be divided by morons who benefit more from the threat of the descent into civil war than from a prosperous future for NI. Does this make the English weak, or does it rather say that we are lead by a pro-republican government? I think the latter. After all, if we could convince TB that Gerry Adams was actually Gaelic for 'Usama's half-brother' it would be a different kettle of fish, until then we just have to wait for it to all kick off again - which it is already doing. FOOTNOTE: I talk about the Provos exclusively but spread my hate evenly across the spectrum of organisations - loyalist and republican alike. They're all scum but, where the IRA are arguably the world's most professional terrorist organisation the likes of the UDA are equally arguably the world's most incompetent (except, possibly, the SNLA). This reminds me of one of my favourite jokes (re-vamped): TB has called in the Ulster terrorists to take on the insurgents in Iraq and, taking representatives from both to the desert gives each a few square miles of desert and 1 week to see what they come up with. He returns a week later and goes up to the IRA man, who is standing in apparently untouched desert sands. "What did you do?" asks Tony. "Well we built a huge underground complex with multiple bunkers, ammo dumps, an underground hospital, several mortar launch points and the whole area's covered in landmines." Tony then goes to see the UDA man, who is standing in front of a red brick building with a sign hanging outside that reads 'The King Billy Arms'. "And what did you do?" asks Tony. "We built a social club!" :-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Point well taken | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:21:13 11/28/04 Sun I had not previously though about this aspect of the matter, but now that I come to consider it it seems more than plausible that our government should want to conspire to subvert the democratic choice of Ulstermen to remain in the UK. After all, they're doing something similar in Gibraltar. I shudder to think what should have happened if the Argentine had occupied the Falklands under Labour. And, of course, the theory that Labour can not wait to get Ulster of its hands is given weight by their deranged Euro-philia. From an EC point of view, the argument about whether or not NI should be British or Irish is completely academic, if one were to accept that within a generation we'd all just be provinces of Europe anyway. It would be like two children arguing over who gets which bedroom in a house which their parents have already sold. Ditto Scottish and Welsh devolution, not to mention the Gibraltar issue. Hm... I'm not usually partial to conspiracy theories, but with this one I'm not so sure! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Not conspiracy - incompetence | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:28:36 12/01/04 Wed Personally I love a good conspiracy theory - I have that kind of a sense of humour! However, in reality I agree with Ian Hislop's approach - not so much cloak-n-dagger, more cock-up 'n' cover-up. It's a lot more plausible when talking about human beings. I reckon Blair, drunk on the euphoria of gaining power and deluded in his 'I am the second coming' attitude towards the world fell into the trap of believing that the Northern Irish are reasonable people and if only somebody (i.e. him) could get them all to sit down they could talk their problems out and live happily ever after. What he has since learnt is that a person is an intelligent being, people are a whole different kettle of fish. Unable to admit he's made a huge cock-up in giving away so much on trust he now finds himself having to pin the blame on someone - and lo and behold, the RUC, British Army and Military Intelligence services are top of the list of whipping boys. Heaven forfend that anyone should point out that Sinn Fein's raison d'etre is the formation of a united socialist Irish state (their manifesto includes the overthrow of the Dublin government as well), that the DUP's main aim is the continued promotion of a Protestant Ulster (which has little room for republican Catholics in its remit) and that the average Northern Irish citizen really didn't care that much provided the bins get emptied and the lunatics weren't left running the asylum. Now, of course, our anti-terrorist government dare not even mention Northern Ireland unless suffixed by the words 'Peace Process' to try and cover up that if you are a Christian terrorist you get whatever you want, if you are a Muslim terrorist you get whatever Bush wants to give you (Napalm, HE, Daisy Cutter etc.). There are many, many conspiracies in NI, but Labour couldn't organise a conspiracy in a Masonic Lodge. They're just incompetent. As regards Gibraltar, he's screwed there too - it is British, it overwhelmingly wants to be British and, whether he likes it or not, it will do everything to remain British. What's more, the British people will support them. You almost feel sorry for him. Or at least I would almost feel sorry for him if I had time between swearing blind at him and laughing at him. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Gibraltar will fight and Gibraltar will be right? Hm... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:55:14 12/01/04 Wed I wish I had your faith, but I rather believe that Mr Blair exhibits a lethal cunning which is not to be underestimated. I admire the man's Commons performances, his political manoeuvring, and his unerring sense of just how much he can get away with. We shall see! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Indeed | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:40:57 12/01/04 Wed At the end of the day, Gibraltar is a Crown Colony, and will do what it is told. Mr Blair has demonstrated his lack of concern for the views of large numbers of people on more than a few occasions. I fear for them, I really do. Ed is right; Mr Blair’s tenure has been hallmarked by the perpetual use of spin, political misdirection, the out-manoeuvring of his political opponents, and overcoming adversity in the face of overwhelming odds. Successful Queen’s Council are rarely naïve or stupid. The problem we have is that this particular QC has complete contempt for the views of the jury. The level of cynicism and deceit with which this administration has associated itself with, is unparalleled in our history I believe. Their ability to further scrape the bottom of the barrel should never be underestimated. Federate the colonies; write down the constitution, and tie together the shoelaces of Government. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Argentina should have waited twenty more years, Blair would have sold the Falklanders out in an instant. | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:55:29 12/01/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Apparently, the RN are standing down their permanent patrol of the South Atlantic! | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:00:52 12/01/04 Wed But what do you expect when Hoon will only equip them with a few fisheries protection vessels and a rowing boat? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: But..... | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:28:23 12/02/04 Thu Don't the Falklands have their own protection vessel - with which they actually shoot at people, rather than just turning the other cheek like the RN in Gib. Presumably we could defend the islands with the tornadoes at Mount Pleasant if the Argies decided to creep up on us with a large invasion force again? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: hmm | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:53:00 12/02/04 Thu Remember that it was the reduction in defence forces, RN presence, and the resulting message, that provoked the first invasion. After the Falklands war, planned defence cuts were cancelled. Over the course of time, these defence cuts have more than transpired of course. I’m not aware of the capability of their permanent on-shore defences and patrol vessels. I would hope that the Tornado force would also be serviceable, with their engines fitted, should such a situation arise. In fact the original 1982 task force was about the size of our entire RN fleet today. Of course, the MOD peddles the usual BS about current and future ships being eminently more capable and sophisticated than their predecessors. However, for all their sophistication, an RN destroyer still cannot master the art of being in two places at once, and one type-45 on the seabed will decimate a much higher proportion of our fighting force than before. So, in military terms, their logic is half-baked. Hoon thinks our naval forces will be more effective with 8 destroyers than 12. Any defence posture is still beholden to the ultimate asset – political will. Do you really see Tony Blair sending off the entire fleet to keep the Falklands British, and defend our sovereignty, when he is hell-bent on denying it for the mainland? Britannia rules the waves! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: A fair analysis. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:19:42 12/02/04 Thu How fortunate, then, that the Argentine now owes us so much money that we could stop an expeditionary force just by calling in the debt. Golly, does that mean that we are now reduced to American-style imperialism? If so, perhaps we could try the same thing with Spain... as Cicero so wisely said, the sinews of war are limitless finances. Still, even if we could, that would be no reason to remove the Gibraltar defence batteries which point out of the Rock towards the Dons, and make the firepower of the RAF look like a troupe of Boy Scouts with pop-guns. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Indeed | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:40:46 12/02/04 Thu Yes, keep the batteries, and the apes may come in handy too? However, I doubt General Galtieri would have retreated at the first sign of the bank manager! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Future Navy | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:50:04 12/02/04 Thu I think the reality is that Argentina is currently too democratic and indebted to contemplate another invasion. They also lack the hardware, allegedly. It isn't only the UK that has cut back its military capability over the last two decades. I must confess I feel that the UK has maintained too large a surface fleet in relation to its defence budget. Not to say that I wouldn't like to see a big fleet, but I'm sceptical there aren't more cost effective ways to patrol the Atlantic, Med, Gulf and Caribbean than dozens of little firgates with pop-guns (no offence to the frigates). Given the lack of any serious naval threats other than the US and France, wouldn't the money be better spent on retaining our hunter-killer subs and developing a real amphibious landing and fixed wing aircraft carrying capability, while focusing R&D on minimalising these ships' need for armed surface support? I merely speculate. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Good Point | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:59:40 12/02/04 Thu You do have a point. There is indeed a growing consensus in the defence world that traditional naval power with traditional sea-battles, are a thing of the past, given that the destroyer’s role nowadays is merely a combination of air-defence and a mobile missile platform. However, these are generally the same people who say that heavy armour is a thing of the past also. Contemporary theory dictates that all future wars will involve air-power and highly mobile, light ground forces, and that the main battle tank is an anachronism. I believe this to be folly, as light forces are only effective against light opposition. Even the conflict in Iraq vindicated the main battle tank. I believe that naval assets are the key to power projection, rather than self-defence, and I think this still holds true. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Maybe you are right but... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:01:51 12/02/04 Thu Like I have said before, a strong Navy is an insurance policy. Hindsight is a dangerous thing indeed. I would agree that since the implosion of the USSR a lot of our ships have been over-potent for their used role. I feel, though, that Britain's close ties (far from being merely historical and romantic) with the Commonwealth dictate that we must keep up sufficient forces to mount a serious expedition to a trouble spot anywhere on the globe (say, to counter an invasion of Australia - Oz sent an army to the other side of the world in our hour of need!). A few years ago a large mainly Royal Navy task force HMS Albion HMS Invincible HMS Iron Duke HMS Manchester HMS Sir Galahad HMS Sir Tristram HMS Sir Percival HMS Fort George HMS Fort Rosalie Commando Helicopter Force Headquarters 845 squadron Naval Air Station (NAS) (Sea-King) 846 squadron NAS (Sea-King) 847 squadron NAS (Lynx- and Gazelle) 849 Bravo Fleet Special Boat Service Task Group Headquarters 17 Port & Maritime Det RLC Brambleleaf Oakleaf Naval Home Guard AREA 1592: 4 Cutters was simulating an invasion along the coast of Norway. A small diesel/electric Norwegian submarine, whose commander knew the coast very well, "sank" amongst others: Invincible (the aircraft carrier), Albion (the landing command ship) and Iron Duke and Manchester (the only serious escort vessels present). For this reason, it is worth keeping a good number of capable escorts available. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Ship titles in CANZUK Navies | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:22:32 12/02/04 Thu Presently they are: Britain - Royal Navy - HMS Canada - Royal Canadian Navy - HMCS Australia - Royal Australian Navy - HMAS New Zealand - Royal New Zealand Navy - HMNZS [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Royal Canadian Navy? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:24:57 12/02/04 Thu Jim, is there still such a thing? I thought that since the collapsing of the command structure, it had simply become Canadian Forces - Navy, or something similar? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Canadian Navy | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:28:32 12/02/04 Thu In 1968, the Canadian Forces were merged - the RCN became the Canadian Armed Forces Maritime Command. They were all put in ridiculous green uniforms (I know I wore one - what an embarrassment). When Brian Mulroney's Conservatives came to power in 1984, he restored navy blue uniforms and brought back the title RCN within the unifed command structure. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: In that case | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:32:16 12/02/04 Thu A letter is in order... There is no mention of the Royal prefix on the website Canadian Navy [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I have spoken to my MP (a Liberal) about that and will follow up | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:46:45 12/02/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Quite right - these things are important | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:35:32 12/02/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Argentina should have waited 2 more years | |
|
Author: Aussie [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:04:16 01/24/05 Mon Argentina should have waited 2 more years, then Australia would have had Britains carriers and the RN would have been powerless to respond, oh how i wish for the RAN to be grand again. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |