Originally Posted by julescolt_uk

Blair said in his speach that the cuts are in order for military expenditure to increase matching commitments..........not in the short term............but in the long term.....Well, Mr Bliar, we need money now!

Could You give me the paragraph it comes in, please

Originally Posted by spike7451

Sven,
Look here;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6254253.stm

then click on th link to the right of the lying cnuts face=

"Video and Audio news"

read some of the comments hereHave your say esp the one by andy comment..Tosser

''Public Debate'' is not what the military needs right now.It's a proper commitment from Government to fund the Forces,to reflect the needs of our present foreign policy.That mean money!

and the French. They have over 50,000 more personnel than the UK

French Army numbers include the Gendarmerie which we would consider Police but they see as Paramilitary Police

Private in the UK around £1600
Legion Pte in France around 1100 Euro (£726)
French Private around 950 Euro (£627)

Per Month before stoppages

However, arnt Privates in in the French army actually conscripts so payment is as low as the French government can get away with?

Legion have always been paid particularly badly.

the french foreign legion are paid quite well when outside metropolitan france, which is their raison d'etre and as leave is in short supply the legionaires tend to have hugh wodges of cash when out and about.
[unless things have changed in the last few years]

Said by a reporter on Westcountry news tonight –

“Even though the Prime Minister feels the public and journalist are cynical about Labours Defence policy he believes he has the full support and understanding of the armed forces!

Are we all retired folks on this thread and completely out of touch with the serving guys and gals?

B***ocks!

Bliar justifies his so call ethical intervention Foreign policy (but Zimbabwe etc doesn't count) and tries to set the conditions for his 'place in history' on the back of the hard work of the Services. But by asking for 'public debate' he is setting the conditions for Brown to reduce us back to a Defence Force. The public love us and support us, or are indifferent, but there is no great support for or understanding of the operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. Therefore Jo Public wants us out of foreign parts and back home to deal with firestrikes, bird 'flu and the domestic terrorist threat. Consequently the ground is prepared for Brown to hack back the defence bill and re-orientate to internal security.

The question is would this internal navel gazing and domestic security only policy actually serve British interests, or would the cash just be blown on 1984/Big Brother ID cards and other repressive leglislation that undermines our civil liberties without actually improving security.

I hate the barstewards.

Originally Posted by WhiteHorse

Originally Posted by spike7451

Sven,
Look here;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6254253.stm

then click on th link to the right of the lying cnuts face=

"Video and Audio news"

read some of the comments hereHave your say esp the one by andy comment..Tosser

I see that Sven has decided not to continue the discussion. I wonder why? Unable to counter points or put the normal spin on this as Mein Fuhrer is very quotable tonight??

Come on Sven, don't let us down or have you not yet received the correct spin from central office yet? :D

Originally Posted by Ratcatcher

I do think we are respected in some quarters, and kilo for kilo our troops are some of the best in the world, but as a nation we punch way over our height and weight, and anything our forces achieve at the moment is in spite of the political establishment, not because of it....

Ahhhh! That old chestnut...

It's one of those urban legends that will not die. Personally, I think it's one of the biggest lies perpetuated by a succession of blue then red supporters in HMG.

Politically, as a permanent member of the UNSC we are one of the worlds top 5.

Economically, by GNP are are also ranked at 5, and projected to stay there in the short term. Above us are The US, Japan, Germany and China. Behind us are France, Italy, Canada, Spain then Brazil.

By military spending, we are ranked number #2 in actual terms according to SIPRI and the CIA and number #5 according to Globalsecurity.

Now, although it's true that we are happily banging our way around South East Asia - we are but mere lackies to the the US. On our own, we can do precisely what?

"Punching above our weight," implies that we are doing more than we should be doing, or are capable of. Is our military the 5th most capable in the world (or higher)?

- By number of active troops, we are ranked #28.
- By number of troops on UN PKO, we are ranked #40.
- By number of troops on quasi-UN jolly japes, we are ranked #2.

In a straight one-on-one fight I expect there are at least a dozen states - possibly a score - that would come of better than us in the long run.

"Punching above our weight." Well, we are now certainly the 2nd most hated nation in the world because of our chicken punches....