Austerity-Battered U.K. ‘Retreating Behind a Nuclear Shield’- New York Times

So, the NYT’s theory is that America will be relying on the French for political and military support when the chips are down.

yeah, I can see that working :king:
It did in the mid 1770s...
 
Crumbling infrastructure, poor rail and rail networks, high taxation of those who in many cases can least afford it. Major retail groups shutting down, motor manufacturers leaving the country,high streets turning into ghost towns, high crime rates in inner city areas.

Must go, my handler has caught up with me and I have to hide my tablet.
 
Similar intersting piece about the future for UK intelligence and the soft (and hard) power it brings.

The Spies Who Came In From the Continent

If we are going to start intellligence operations in order to support our new globalist policy, what a bloody shame we've spent the past decade plus neglecting foreign languages in schools.

Why are teenagers in England becoming less likely to learn languages? | British Council

Wasn't it that خنزير Tony Blair who stopped the study of a foreign language at GCSE level? He of course has the advantage of speaking one...



Modern Foreign Languages – The 2004 unfortunate legacy


My bold.. surely you mean العضو التناسلي النسوي
 
My bold.. surely you mean العضو التناسلي النسوي
كس The word generally used for abusive purposes is

Pronunced "kus", it is literally 'vagina'; but when used harshly will be understood as the c-bomb.

From there we get the Neutron Bomb of swearing in Arabic -
كس أمك

Kus Ummak - Your Mother's C

Please don't ever use that, it is the worst possible thing to say in Arabic and could lead to arrest in certain countries and probably serious violence in most others.

I chose "Pig" as it has certain cultural associations that would be applied to him; without becoming coarse or vulgar. I could have gone for Donkey, which is my usual muttered favourite when exasperated.
 
It's the New York Times, so perhaps it has a slant but at the end of the day the NYT is read by a lot of very influential people in our most important ally.

I would be interested in whether people here would agree with the assessment.

"Experts say that France is gradually supplanting Britain as the leading European military ally of the United States, further weakening the “special relationship” between Britain and America — a deep concern at a time when both Brexit and the isolationism of President Trump are weighing on British security officials."

Austerity-Battered U.K. ‘Retreating Behind a Nuclear Shield’
Perhaps it has a slant? I assume you had your tongue fiirmly planted against your cheek when you typed that.
 
Often the reader has chosen that particular publication because it conforms to his or her mindset.

An interesting introduction to the mess was our attention being directed towards the newspapers. To my surprise it went from the Times to the Morning Star, the complete range of political slant.

It was then explained that the military is apolitical and serves the Government of the day...but, we should keep up with and have our own opinions about what was going on in the world. It was also pointed out that all newspapers had a political agenda.

Any event being reported on would be presented in a particular way, and, if we read a selection of reports on any event we stood a chance of seeing a variety of opinions and could then perhaps be better prepared to make a reasoned judgement.

These days my opinion is that nearly all tend to doom gloom and toxic reporting, but as they often say blood sells copy.
 
Douglas Murray's article this Friday in UnHerd was informative. He cites several examples of absolute nonsense published by the NYT.

The New York Times’ bizarre campaign against Britain
America's most prestigious paper keeps producing laughably inaccurate pieces presenting the UK as a racist hellhole
BY DOUGLAS MURRAY


Here are three paragraphs from the article:

"In no area in recent years has the NYT made itself more ridiculous than on the subject of the United Kingdom. Since those of us who live in the UK might be regarded as, if not experts, then at least well-informed observers, the paper’s coverage has stood out as being especially ridiculous or defamatory, depending on your mood that morning."

"Intent on portraying the entire United Kingdom as an austerity-ridden wasteland, Mr Goodman claimed in his piece that the Prescot library had closed when it was actually open. He claimed that the local fire station had been shut, despite a new one just having just been unveiled. He claimed the local museum had “receded into history” when the Prescot Museum was very much alive and well."

"In August 2018 the paper was back at it, in this case trying to attack Britain through the old staple of its food. In a culinary review written by one Robert Draper, readers of the NYT could learn that residents of the UK had been subsisting on boiled mutton and oatmeal until very recently. Indeed in his piece Mr Draper claimed that this was as recently as the time of his last trip to the country a decade earlier. That is, in 2008."

The New York Times' bizarre campaign against Britain - UnHerd

Having read that I did a search and found this informative article from 2017:

1579318295178.png


1579318237465.png


The article also refers to the TNY claims that the Sussex Royals (TM) have left the UK due to "racism".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-new-york-times-keeps-whitewashing-communisms-crimes/2017/11/10/129f28e0-c5c3-11e7-84bc-5e285c7f4512_story.html
 
Last edited:
"Oddly, the problems with the British military echo the debate over Brexit. “What does Britain actually want to be in the world?” Ms. Schake said. “They don’t know the answer.”"

This is basically what I posted a couple of years ago on this forum.
 
"Oddly, the problems with the British military echo the debate over Brexit. “What does Britain actually want to be in the world?” Ms. Schake said. “They don’t know the answer.”"

This is basically what I posted a couple of years ago on this forum.

All well and good but misses the context

The UK has just gone through the biggest domestic argument in a generation.
To the extent that families are no longer speaking to each other.

What does the UK want, that's easy and has been settled by a general election and a landslide victory for Boris.
The politicians have fought tooth and nail to prevent the electorate getting its wishes fulfilled but that is now over.

Even my elderly mother, who was a teacher, union rep and ardent member of CND back in the day (Including being a Greenham Common protestor) said yesterday that she likes the way Boris is taking the country.

So the answer to the question of what the UK wants to be in the world has returned to the ambitions it has had for centuries. It wants to be prosperous.

The approach has changed with the times and that no longer involves running a third of the planet, we just wnt to sell to it and buy from it
 

Maple

LE
Point of order, Duncan Sandys' 1957 White Paper kicked-off the UK hiding behind a Nuclear Shield


Because maintaining a conventional flexible Armed Force is sooo expensive and last century

TL:DR Duncan Sandys was a cockwomble
 
All well and good but misses the context

The UK has just gone through the biggest domestic argument in a generation.
To the extent that families are no longer speaking to each other.

What does the UK want, that's easy and has been settled by a general election and a landslide victory for Boris.
The politicians have fought tooth and nail to prevent the electorate getting its wishes fulfilled but that is now over.

Even my elderly mother, who was a teacher, union rep and ardent member of CND back in the day (Including being a Greenham Common protestor) said yesterday that she likes the way Boris is taking the country.

So the answer to the question of what the UK wants to be in the world has returned to the ambitions it has had for centuries. It wants to be prosperous.

The approach has changed with the times and that no longer involves running a third of the planet, we just wnt to sell to it and buy from it
Or provide a low tax offshore haven for those who wish to bank their gains (illgotten or otherwise) from it...
 
g being a Greenham Common protestor) said yesterday that she likes the way Boris is taking the country.

So the answer to the question of what the UK wants to be in the world has returned to the ambitions it has had for centuries. It wants to be prosperous.

The approach has changed with the times and that no longer involves running a third of the planet, we just wnt to sell to it and buy from it
If it wants just that why don't make yourself into a UK Defence Force......downsize it more, instead of shoveling more money into carriers etc. and other expensive toys to play with.

You know, like the Irish defence force or NZ defence one.
 

Yokel

LE
If it wants just that why don't make yourself into a UK Defence Force......downsize it more, instead of shoveling more money into carriers etc. and other expensive toys to play with.

You know, like the Irish defence force or NZ defence one.
Not an option due to our Geographical location, Worldwide interests, and dependency on seaborne trade. Even the neutrals like Sweden and Finland are noting the increased tension in Europe, and the likes of Japan are deploying forces to protect international shipping.

Being prosperous means engaging with the World - in addition to being will to defend our national and collective interests from obvious threats.
 
If it wants just that why don't make yourself into a UK Defence Force......downsize it more, instead of shoveling more money into carriers etc. and other expensive toys to play with.

You know, like the Irish defence force or NZ defence one.

I guess the next Defence Review will tell us which direction the UK will go.

I suspect it will be more RAF and more RN but a lot less expeditionary Army
Personally I'd be quite content with that.
The US is clearly less inclined to roll large lumps of its army in to other peoples business these days, consequently we won't be following the US in to quite as many ill advised expeditions in the foreseeable future.

I suspect the future lies in the ability to smite the enemies of the Queen from afar.
I imagine that Op Palliser will be the intended scale of future interventions
 
If it wants just that why don't make yourself into a UK Defence Force......downsize it more, instead of shoveling more money into carriers etc. and other expensive toys to play with.

You know, like the Irish defence force or NZ defence one.
Its an economy thing. Generally speaking, the more wealth one has the more defence/security one may potentially need to protect it becoming someone else's wealth.
This can either be in hard number/capabilities (upto and including CASD in our case), financial or mutual agreements.
In Germany's case, it has been mostly NATO.

Plus I suspect if we didn't have big armed forces, we'd have privateers again
 

Yokel

LE
I guess the next Defence Review will tell us which direction the UK will go.

I suspect it will be more RAF and more RN but a lot less expeditionary Army
Personally I'd be quite content with that.
The US is clearly less inclined to roll large lumps of its army in to other peoples business these days, consequently we won't be following the US in to quite as many ill advised expeditions in the foreseeable future.

I suspect the future lies in the ability to smite the enemies of the Queen from afar.
I imagine that Op Palliser will be the intended scale of future interventions
Do NATO and other activities that achieve deterrence or Geopolitical influence count as interventions? We could do with more armour and artillery - would that make the Army more expeditionary or less? Should be based defence planning on known threats or known vulnerabilities?

The Royal Navy's immediate to medium term planning is based on five capability areas:

Continuous At Sea Deterrence
North Atlantic
Carrier Strike
Future Commando/Amphibious Force
Forward Presence

The middle three are closely related. Have the Army and RAF done similar analysis?
 

Latest Threads

Top