How Bliar is destroying our Forces

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by rockape34, Jun 18, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Christopher Booker's Notebook:
  2. Really?

    Obviously not a reader of ARRSE then.
  3. Hmmm... while we'd all like Blair to treat the armed forces with some respect the author does make some poor comments, in my opinion

    The RG31 thing has been discussed here and the general consensus is that the RG31 probably wouldn't stop most IEDs, indeed it's been mentioned by one arrser that they should go back to the wolf.

    The carriers - we need them - if we didn't have them we'd complain. Fcuked if he does and fcuked if he doesn't. At the end of the day the RN still needs to be able to project air power (even if they don't have the planes for the new carriers yet)

    The TA - I'm sorry but that's kinda what they're there for. The TA should be used, otherwise there's not a huge amount of point. And who the fcuk is he to comment on morale? I don't know what morale is like - perhaps arrsers would like to contribute - but is there also not a general consensus the current kit on Telic is pretty good?

    What has he got against the French? OK, I don't like the French either. But if it benefits us to have our carriers built by the French then why the hell not? First of all he has a go at JSF, how we're trying to keep the yanks happy by being in ghanistan and Iraq, then has a go because we have joint projects with the EU - How many projects could we afford to run on our own? Obviously at times - like Typhoon - its gone seriously wrong, but I'm sure there are other cases (tornado?), and will be cases in the future of joint projects working well.

    He writes for the telegraph, anti-blair is fine, but he's bringing in anti-europe, very VERY limited ideas on what kit is capable of doing and making assumptions about morale. Cnut
  4. Pretty sure we would be better of tag teaming with America rather than Europe. Let's face it, time after time most of the countries in Europe have just collapsed rather than fight.

    Edit to add on Crabbys last post.

    Ref the TA, is there still not a great number of people out there (who have not neccesarily served in any capacity) who still believe the role of the TA is more akin to the Cold War and as such they are currently being "misused"?
  5. Even though Lockheed doesn't want us to have their source code so we can maintain OUR own aircraft (JSF) and Bush doesn't have the balls to stand up to them?

    The US have fcuked us about just as much as any european country. Also remember how many european countries are, or were, in Iraq. And however much we hate the french they did commit to Kosovo, Bosnia and are peacekeeping in Ivory Coast. Surely the idea of the European force is to help sort out problems like the 3 conflicts just listed a bit quicker and without the US getting a look in
  6. True, I just don't know how that will work though, by being tied up with the European RRF we lose a fair degree of independance of operation. If the Yanks don't get a look in and if Germany and France don't want to go or Spain wants to quit in the future do we just go it alone?

    Edit to add.

    I think we have withheld the information on some of our kit that we have shared with the Americans. It is in part good business sense.
  7. At the risk of serious incoming my way I would suggest that France and Germany are prepared to become involved in serious Humanitarian problems - especially those close to home; ie. the Balkan states.

    Therefore anything "localish" and anything that is a threat to French and German interests they will have no option but to be involved. Spain doesn't count, a country that allows something like the Madrid bombings to change their election result so they pull out of Iraq when previously commited shows a distinct lack of balls from the population and they don't deserve to be counted as a nation. At least Germany and France had the balls to stand up to America for what they thought, knowing what the backlash would be like. They might still be spineless but less so than Spain
  8. That is pretty much why the Americans may be a better bet.

    What is localised though nowadays? The Gulf may not be seen as local, but the fuel that comes to Europe from there would certainly make problems in that area "local". Likewise the drugs that come from Afganistan would surely make that area local.

    It all depends on how you deal with the problem, in transit or at source.
  9. Fcuk europe. We're the BRITISH Army. Cant be arrsed to elaborate, I get upset. (not mega chuffed about the US either but their certainly the colleagues of choice).
  10. When I heard of the Spanish pull-out, I had visions of the Spanish PM brandishing a piece of paper & declaring 'Peace in Our Time' .
  11. Crabby, may I nick this? An excellent summation of the European situation, although I think I would have had to add the fearless Italian warriors in here. There because they have to be, not because they want to be and only just. 20 Bde would have a couple of observations on the Italian contribution to Op TELIC 3 post Al Nasiriyah which is frightening in the extreme.
  12. Agreed. Much as people slag off the "coalition of the willing" perhaps we shouldn't forget the contribution of the Italians and Polish. Also what about the countries currently committed in Afghanistan - Canada for example (not european, but they've made a significant contribution).

    You have to admire any political party and its leader that has the backbone to go ahead with something that WILL make them unpopular with a section of the population. Perhaps someone should remind the Spannish that Al Queda were targetting western targets long before Aghanistan, let alone Iraq - and pulling out doesn't make them any less of a target.

    The worst thing about this kind of article is it may provoke a knee-jerk reaction that this government is famed for. The worst thing possible would be the cancelling of the carriers or a sudden pull out from one of the countries mentioned. What's needed is a "measured response" and sensationalist cr*p like this author has written will not help. I'd like to know who his source on Americans walking away unscathed from RG31s is, also who his source on morale is?

    Re. Chocolate frog on the TA: I know a lot of people still see the TA like that, but that situation passed with the fall of the Berlin Wall. To have a resource like the TA and not use it - especially for specialists and those who volunteer for ops - would be madness.
  13. I know that that situation passed with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Just some madmen don't.
  14. Source for a lot of this was Richard North well known Euro sceptic

    His blog has an article claiming the research for the article was his:

    "In today's Sunday Telegraph, based on research carried out by this Blog, Christopher Booker explains why they are allowed to happen."

    EU Referendum

    A case of a sceptic using 'facts' to meet his own agenda? There ARE some good points here....
  15. Sorry Crabby, but you have completely missed the reasons why France got involved in the Balkans. It had fcuk all to do with willing to put their soldiers lives at risk in the defence of the innocent and the UN Security Council resolutions, and everything to do with trying to thwart the US and the British (Ed to add: and keep chummy with their old Serb pals).

    If you examine the French conduct in Bosnia and Kosovo you will soon see that they have done more harm than good. They are irreversibly pro-Serb (to the active detriment of everything else), and if they can come up with a way of confounding the US or Brit led agenda in the region they will do so. I saw numerous incidents (especially in Kosovo), where the presence of the French caused incidents (the Serbs knew that they could hide behind the French soldiers) and led to the breakdown of the fragile relations between the Albanian and Serb communities.

    In the Ivory Coast, same as in most of West Africa, Chad, Ethiopia and Zaire their involvement has been about retaining French influence and trying to maintain the myth of a French Africa. Mostly these interventions have been to prop-up friendly dictators (who strangely then when an purchased French weapons) and gave oil contracts to Elf, etc. Forgotten about Mitterand?

    As for buying European weapons, hopefully the 2 carriers will be a success (if they ever get built). I do object to the Treasury and the PM making the UK forces buy untried EU weapons for X billion euros when there is a more capable, combat proven US or RSA design available off the shelf for under half the cost. Smart procurement anyone?

    One of the reasons why the US is unwilling to let the UK have the source code is that the lovely scum from BAe (British waste-of-space as was) would steal the code. Code that cost the US rather a lot of money. You can see an identical situation with Microsoft and the EU. Why should MS give away its source code (so much of it that the little that is kept 'secret' could be reverse-engineered within a year)? This code has cost MS billions of USD to develop and refine over the years, and you think it is fair that they just give it to their competitors?

    Cynical? Moi? Rein!