Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by buttonsin3s, Oct 1, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Is now addressing Labour, live on BBC Parliament.
sounds like another load of hot air to me
Saw his lips move, but could only make out "waffle, waffle, what do you want to hear, i'll say it. Waffle, waffle".
Ainsworth couldn't even address an envelope. He is a pathetic waste of a skin.
He's quote at length in the Telegraph in which he says that we won't commit more troops unless there is sufficent kit for them to do their job.
Yes, I know we all think he's a t0sser, but is he not saying what we want to hear from him, not merely because we want to hear it? Could it actually be that on the advice/instructions given to him by the MOD/Army, he is not going to send more troops unless we first buy more kit?
He makes a point about a high enough troop density needing to be achieved before our forces can do their job, and before that can happen, the equipment must be in place, and it won't happen until the equipment gets to theatre in readiness.
This isn't Ainsworth speaking so much as him passing on, correctly, what the Brass are saying. To be fair to Ainsworth, he could just as easily be spouting the gobment line - but he isn't.
He used an expression which broadly said "If we withdraw, Taliban will be seen to have won".
Which sums up Liarbour's attitude. it is all about form and not about substance. If they could pull out with a myth of having "won" holding sway until history kicked in, the boys and girls would have been home a week last Thursday. So all Bob and his cronies are doing is preserving the image of roughty-toughty war fighting, using British Army lives as if they were seed corn, without addressing the fundamental issue of just how focussed and how much sacrifice as a nation we need to make to win.
It is a big "how much" by the way...
This is where the underfuding of the Forces suits Labour. Its a win/win for them as they see it. They will trot out the line 'We will not send troops to Theatre unless they are properly equipped' which is right, but they will make no attempt at procuring that equipment so they save money ! C*nts.
Ainsworth's predecessor, John Hutton, really wanted the job yet he resigned 6 months later, why? He said that there were 'too many people playing armchair general', I have been told by a reliable source that this comment translates as 'too much interference from No. 10'.
If Gordon tells Bob to send more troops without the required equipment, do you think he is going to say no?
More or less what he said on stage, was what was said in the Telegraph, thanks for the link Biped.
Yes, I agree, the gear needs to be out before the lads and lassies and the gear has to be on the training area as well.
The point I was trying to make (badly) was we've been in Afghan for 8 years and the role has changed, but why wait till now to listen to the Staff and the commanders on the ground? Why wait, to what many people see as the last months of government, to make a speech saying, more or less, what commanders on the ground have been saying for a few years now.
Time for my medication methinks.
We finally get the kit. He says cannot deploy as tps as not trained
We train the tps. He says that spares and wksps not in place.
We fix that. He says eqpt is in Dubai with no way to get it to Afghanistan.
We get it there. He says the mission has changed & we need different kit
usw usw etc etc
It's the New Liebour Way, image is everything, substance is nothing.
New Liebour, 12 years of smoke and mirrors.
Showing your years in the Fatherland there, ORC!
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say something deeply unfashionable: while I agree with the thrust of more or less all the above posts, my gut instinct about Ainsworth is that, were he left to his own devices, he'd try to do the best he could for the Forces in general and the Army in particular. I freely concede that I may have been led up the garden path by a politico even more devious, dishonest and cunning than we've come to expect as the norm from Zanu NL (after all, he's not in Cyclops' Cabinet for nothing), but my firm impression is that this gauche, semi-articulate man has his heart in the right place, and has been at least partly won over by the qualities of the Service personnel he's been exposed to, in stark contrast to the ghastly pantomime he sees around him in his political life. I don't doubt that Hutton was a much more promising prospect intellectually, but Blundering Bob, for all his faults, strikes me as being perhaps the closest the Goon Show can come to sincerity. Of course, his hands will remain firmly tied by Cyclops and his creature in the Treasury, and I'll raise a glass to his departure next May(?) (Lord, let it be so!) along with the rest of the cretinous crew, but I confess that, in a whimsical, possibly irrational way, part of me will be sorry to see the back of him.
thought the thread title was like a game. I was going to say Bob Ainsworth is a w4nker.
You are not alone. The question is, will he do any good before he, like the others lose their jobs?
Probably not - as you perhaps suggest, anything approaching a bold move on his part, especially if it involved buckets of cash, would immediately result in the Black Spot from Cyclops. Pity, really ...
Separate names with a comma.