an army of one

#1
#3
Very impressive ..... glad I have a broadband connection though!
 
#5
ViroBono said:
Anyone care to put it up on GIJargon, where Dubya can do no wrong?

have done. wonder what they'll think? oh yes they have to be told that first!
 
#6
quiller said:
ViroBono said:
Anyone care to put it up on GIJargon, where Dubya can do no wrong?

have done. wonder what they'll think? oh yes they have to be told that first!
The less bright ones jumped straight down his throat. Now they've all calmed down everyone's having a group hug.

So come on Quiller were you really trying to wind them up on purpose.....
 
#7
As my very first post on ARRSE, I'm not sure whether jumping into the lion's den (or in my case, throwing myself in front of the firing squad) is a good idea, but here I go...

Did it ever occur to the members of this site that you all can be just as harsh and judgemental and closed-minded at the Jargonites when some one doesn't agree with you?

I have been reading through some of your posts, and I must say, your thoughts and beliefs, though often different from mine, are very well-thought out and backed up, so I certainly respect your opinions. On this matter, however, it is almost humorous how similar you and the Jargonites can be..

*prepares for the onslaught*
 
#9
The problem quiller is the person doing the critical looking is a jackass named moore...this isn't a critical look it is a bent observation by a few morons that never served Thank God.

These ass wipes don't want to help the military, they want to further a political agenda of resentment against Bush...these same SOBs have gutted and disparaged the military every year they were in charge.

As for the layout and technology involved in creating the website...nice work, to bad broadband access is required to get the full affect

And BTW it was not recieved in a positive light on Jargon, and quiller had to back track and was offended by the response he got, making excuses for the reason he potsed it.
 
#10
Very good but what is also interesting is that I have heard that we in the UK armed forces are also about to face the brunt of the cost of the war.

History first:

Until last year when there was a war or deployment (Bosnia for example), the government paid for it from a fund set up specifically to pay for such unforeseen eventualities. Last year the government got rid of this fund and declared that if an emergency should happen costs fall where they lie.

Guess what?

Costs do fall where they lie for Op Telic. Guess what... the increase in defence budget does not cover TELIC.

Outcome:

The MOD is being asked to find in year savings to pay for Op TELIC. What does this really mean.

Well operationally what can we do without?

Army Medical Services (oh sorry they have already been pretty much chopped haven't they...the TA appear to have the only deployable Medical units).

Well OK what about logistics:

Well the DLO has done an excellent job of saving money in that area too and we are now down to the bare minimum of reseve stocks (probably prior to the war ... we probably don't have any now), so no fat to take from there.

Alright then what about the procurement process.

Well a number of projects are under fire (although I suspect Eurofighter isn't even though in the last ten years we have always had air supremacy). Expect some cuts I would suspect to some of the more Naval projects as ships cost a fortune and massive savings could be made by getting rid of some of those projects.

What else?

Well what else do we have? Yes you have guesseed it the easiest way to save money is by having less people. Stand by for cuts. Not little ones, big ones. The best way to save money is to cut regiments, battalions etc.

But you shout we are overstretched as it is?

Well no apparently not because we won in Iraq with 1 Armd Bde, 1 Cdo Bde and an Air Assault Bde that currently has no attack helicopters. Surely for medium scale ops thats all we need then?

Military staff, government officers, the next time we go to war we are going to lose, you undermine our ability to fight effectively by penny pinching in procurement and by not allowing our armed forces time to recuperate from deployment and train effectively for the next one. Governments in the last 13 years have slashed the military manpower and capability, they have not allowed time for these "reorganisations" to be evaluated, we hear them talk about overstretch as if it happens to someone else...well it doesn't happen to the Prime Minister, because he makes sure he sees his wife and kids most nights and gets his full entitlement to leave as well. Sadly after the next round of defence cuts (sorry money saving measures) I suspect that we will not have a viable defence capability.
 
#11
Just being devils advocate here and responding...but

The problem quiller is the person doing the critical looking is a jackass named moore...this isn't a critical look it is a bent observation by a few morons that never served Thank God.
Well has Bush ever served? If serving was a pre-requisite for having an opinion...It also seems strange that while I agree Michael Moore is a self obsessed arrsehole that takes up most crusades, he is actually standing up for the armed forces.

These ass wipes don't want to help the military, they want to further a political agenda of resentment against Bush...these same SOBs have gutted and disparaged the military every year they were in charge.
This comment seems strange to me, seeing as these people are objecting to what Bush is planning to do to the military, and perhaps Bush is the object of this attack because HE is gutting the military. Just a thought...

And BTW it was not recieved in a positive light on Jargon, and quiller had to back track and was offended by the response he got, making excuses for the reason he potsed it.
I think you'll find that Quiller didn't backtrack and became a little exasperated at the blanket support for Bush and his plans for the military. And as for a bunch of dick sucking spams offending him....ROFLMFAO!

What the fck do you think he was doing there and posting that for other than to wind you brainless twaats up you fcking dickwipe?
 
#12
Shotgun,
Yes Bush did serve he was a fly boy in the Texas Air National guard, but as you stated it really doesn't matter. Moore is just a self absorbed fcuk wit that couldn't find his dick if you cut it off and handed it to him.

No...they have never given 2 sh!ts about the military and never will. This is purely a vehical to advance their cause. These fcuk witted b*stards would screw their own dog if it got their liberal asses back in power. and after they screwed the dog they would have the dog pound come by and pick it up.

Finally Bush doesn't buget the military the congress does. The president makes policy and has to petition congress for funds. Congress drafts and approves the budget. Bush could only veto it, and hope that Congress doesn't over ride his veto.

The whole premise of the website is wrong, doesn't surprise me seeing that Bush is educated and Moore never saw the inside of a college except to fcuk the lab rats.

But thanks for responding shotgun.
 
#13
oh yes Bush served until it looked like he might have to go to vietnam then he bottled out.
More of a coward than clinton who at least objected to the war. Bush was pro war as long as he did'nt have to go :twisted:
 
#14
Some good points made from over the water though.
Using the logic that Moore is pro-US Army, would this make the Troops Out mob pro-British Army? I think not.
Hate to say it but the Spams probably have more info on this than we do.
(There, that almost sounded like an intelligent contribution, now back to pi55 taking).
 
#15
arkanstigger said:
Some good points made from over the water though.
Using the logic that Moore is pro-US Army, would this make the Troops Out mob pro-British Army? I think not.
Hate to say it but the Spams probably have more info on this than we do.
(There, that almost sounded like an intelligent contribution, now back to pi55 taking).
If Bliar was doing to the Brit army what Bush is doing to the US army then yes, maybe the pro-troops out mob might have a point if that was the basis of their gripe.

While I agree there are some good points all round, the link to that bit of Flash, and Moore, has a point too. It just seems strange that it takes an anti-war piece of software to support the troops, and the pro-war lobby is kicking them in the nuts.
 
#16
Shotgun said:
If Bliar was doing to the Brit army what Bush is doing to the US army then yes, maybe the pro-troops out mob might have a point if that was the basis of their gripe.
You mean BLiar isn't?
One of the most interesting points on the Moore thing was the cutting of funding the Vets hospitals. Would be nice if our Government provided such things. (OK we have the NHS, but hopefully you take my point).

The question is, is the treatment of the US troops Moore's gripe, or is he using it as a sympathetic vehicle for another agenda?
 
#17
arkanstigger said:
Shotgun said:
If Bliar was doing to the Brit army what Bush is doing to the US army then yes, maybe the pro-troops out mob might have a point if that was the basis of their gripe.
You mean BLiar isn't?
One of the most interesting points on the Moore thing was the cutting of funding the Vets hospitals. Would be nice if our Government provided such things. (OK we have the NHS, but hopefully you take my point).

The question is, is the treatment of the US troops Moore's gripe, or is he using it as a sympathetic vehicle for another agenda?
Moore as usual is taking up another crusade, but that being said, he does have a track record of standing up for the working bod against big business interests.

Him working to his own selfish and self serving agenda doesn't make him wrong though.

As for that fcker Blair, don't get me fckin started...
 
#18
Although drifting off-topic slightly, to answer the following point from CaliGirl:

Did it ever occur to the members of this site that you all can be just as harsh and judgemental and closed-minded at the Jargonites when some one doesn't agree with you?
I think a lot of this has to do with different cultures. Yes we speak the same language (broadly), but you will find Britons far more ascerbic, sarcastic, and direct than most Americans, therefore expect to see some rather cutting and judgemental comments.

As far as listening to an argument is concerned, threads about the fire fighter strikes earlier this year when soldiers were expected to cover for the striking firefighters led to a number of exchanges of views between soldiers and fire fighters on this site. Another recent thread in the NAAFI poking fun at some students with some "interesting" anti-war/anti-globalisation/anti-big business conspiracy theories got a good debate out of a number of people.

The key difference here is that even if people don't agree with your point of view, if you can defend it intelligably you might get the piss taken out of you in a very dry and almost confrontational way, but you won't be banned from the site, pilloried, castigated, or threatened. You may even win some converts to your point of view and even some grudging respect.
 
#19
The key difference here is that even if people don't agree with your point of view, if you can defend it intelligably you might get the piss taken out of you in a very dry and almost confrontational way, but you won't be banned from the site, pilloried, castigated, or threatened. You may even win some converts to your point of view and even some grudging respect
You're really fcking pisssing me off now that I can't get on that spam shyte site woop. I wouldn't mind but they didn't even give me a chance...not that it makes any difference because I probably would've ended up banned :D
 
#20
My point is simple, and I think most have gotten it. Moore and the libs use a situation to further their cause. Moore, Oliver Stone, Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen, et al [all the hollywood libs] dispise the military [a throw back to Vietnam].

The Bush administration is not nor can it cut the budget for the military without the congress approving it. As far as I know there are no plans to do so at this time.

Historically the military has always suffered severe cuts under a Democrat President, Clinton and Carter have been the worst offenders. Regan had to run a deficit to re-establish the military to a per-Carter standard and further strength it to win the cold war.

I have no idea what is going on in the UK but if the Labour party is as left as it seems, and the Torries are any thing like the Republicans, you are getting the shaft havng a Labour party running the show.

woopert said:
I think a lot of this has to do with different cultures. Yes we speak the same language (broadly), but you will find Britons far more ascerbic, sarcastic, and direct than most Americans, therefore expect to see some rather cutting and judgemental comments.
There is far more than a language barrier, there is a socio-political barrier as well. The freedoms that we in USA have are not found in Europe. The vastness of the country is a key factor. Europe has always had a sociolist leaning, and is more from the State down where the USA is more from the people up. Granted this too is slowly changing in the US but it is the libs that want to be more like Europe, and right now they are still in the minority. The only thing the libs have is the press and Hollywood, but not the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans.

Read what you see from the likes of Moore with caution, the Chicks with Dicks found out that if you speak out against something the majority of Americans believe in that the majority will vote with the wallet, another month or two and they won't be able to get a job as dishwasher.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top