Just a couple of points that I would like legitimate answers

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by johnojohnson, Nov 25, 2004.

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. 1, The Telegraph today (25/11/04), as part of an article reported the statements made by TCH on day two of HRHs speech and I quote:

    “The government argues that multi-battalion regiments would result in fewer battalions being unavailable for operations because of the need to retrain them for new roles. Instead, individual soldiers would move between battalions permanently committed to a particular role”

    If the above is true then why dismantle the “Regiments” to achieve the best of both worlds when you can train all of the army irrespective of cap-badge to be interchangeable when required. Remove the Honour of the cap badge and the role of HRH and you remove the reason of the armed forces. SOLIER FIRST, TRADESMAN SECOND

    2, As is known throughout HRHs armed forces, the MOD is not a military run operation, it is an accountancy run organisation. If this government is so set on reducing costs why are the armed forces subjected to the costs of developing new technology (see the “New HumVee”) and the overweight replacement for the harrier, 2 new carriers that cannot take the new plane, SA80 MRKII, Challenger replacement etc, etc and comms that do not work.

    3, I started a thread about the real numbers of in the Army and received the reply that 103,000 was the correct number. To this I would like to address the simple mathematical problem – commitment/countries/103000 troops does not equate to what and who is available. This number must include both TA (honourable people) and the ACF/CCF. This is the only way I can account for the oft-quoted number and shortage of available troops to be sent to the “difficult areas” of the world (Kiev is the next UN site).

    4, As expected the right horrible TCH MP WILL amalgamate 5 Scots regiments into one, how can HE prefix the final result with a “Royal” to become the “Royal Regiment of Scotland”. I am sure this honour ‘must’ be bestowed by HRH. Can we as a recognised organisation (army) request that HRH refuse to bestow this honour?

    5, If you are somewhat cynical and/or stray towards the conspiracy theorist angle then please consider the following idea that came to me over a newspaper and beer.

    The government, since 1997 has made no secret that they [the labour party] would like to remove HRH from the throne and become that we become a republic. To take the next logical step forward towards a totalitarian state (at the bLiar/ queens speech), the only thing between a democracy and a dictatorship is the armed forces. So to reduce this potential threat all you need to do is remove the armed forces by attrition and not giving the people a recourse to the global tradition of defence and via armed response.

    6, Cynical Me. Old, embittered seriously, seriously P”ssed off with the tabloid (Scum/Sport/Mirror) readers and bleeding hearts who run this fcuking country.
  2. This occurred to me last night, but I had been drinking...

    Listening to Blunktw@tt this morning on Radio 4 it sounded as if he was portraying the Home Office as the "Ministry of Love" which just wanted people to feel safe, just as long as they carried their ID cards and did not ask too many questions.

    Well, as soon as Bliar starts calling himself El Presidente, I'm off to man the barricades! :twisted:
  3. Agreed - the way Labour sometimes try to come across means one of three things...
    a) they genuinely have a vision of everyone in Britain holding hands in a circle and singing Kum By Ya
    b) they don't have a clue
    c) we are truly headed for an Orwellian nightmare. Start screening your house for cameras.
  4. 1. The logic of halting the arms plot is inescapable: the real question is whether we also need to lose infantry battalions and embrace the 'large regiment' concept in order to do so. I would suggest that the Army Council/PoD are far more committed to this than New Labour for the simple reason that the politicos see it as a vote loser.

    2. The MOD is an often chaotically organised ministry under a Secretary of State who is, at best, weak and self-serving. Procurement cock-ups happen for a range of reasons, including but not limited to: incompetence, corruption, political interference, mission/specification creep etc etc. Nothing new there and not worth blaming New Labour any more than all the preceeding governments.

    3. There are some problems in providing soldiers in operational areas for a variety of reasons, many related to the arms plot and training cycles. The figure of 103,000 is IIRC, the ceiling figure for the regular army, with actual strength a couple of thousand below. The TA aren't included and the ACF/CCF aren't part of the army at all.

    4. No, we can't. And don't forget that TCH is Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Defence; in formal terms he answers to her.

    5. The Government have never never never suggested that they want a republic because they know it would lose them a lot of votes. The rest of your conspiracy theory is cobblers. Don't forget that the reductions, amalgamations are being pushed by PoD as much as anyone.

    6. Have another beer and get over it.

    I bet I loathe and despise this government as much as you do, but if you attack them on these grounds, they'll just wriggle out of it. Why not blame them for the death of every single British soldier who has been killed in Iraq since the end of hostilities? If they had created a workable reconstruction plan - at government level, and involving the experts of DFID - and implemented it as soon as the war finished, my guess is that majority of those deaths would not have happened.
  5. chickenpunk.

    Thanks for the comments. Feeling somewhat paranoid at the moment.

    1, As I stated in the opening article, Soldier first tradesman second. while "in" this was the mantra above all. If you remove one regiment you also remove the support units. These units are not re-allocated but given the "brown envelope" irrispective of experience and qualifications.

    2, I agree with all but you closing argument, prior govenrments, mostly conservative, have realised the benifit of an effective armed force and commited themselves to a contstructive upgrade and not guaranteed there spending to a USA designed and developed substandard euipment list. take a close look at the "Euro-fighter" both before and after the ragime change...

    3, Granted there are training requirements and oversees commitments but and it is a big but, we are supposed to have 103000 regular troops but only 12-14,000 are commited to the current campaign so where are the other front line troops and why is there a major requirement for the TA (no offence meant)

    4, This government has never and I mean never requested input from HRH, she has no decision making facilities. The government of the time tells her who will be a member of the ruling dominion.

    5, PoD? unknown abreviation.

    6, on the agenda at 19:30rhs tonight.

    Aposite and incisive comment.
  6. PoD=Prince of Darkness=General Sir Michael 'Wacko' Jackson=Chief of the General Staff
  7. msr

    msr LE

    So you are asking the government which you 'loathe and despise' to come up with a coherent plan?

  8. The Government is already producing a 'British FBI'. Slowly turning our green and pleasent land into a American state......

    Open your eyes, they're trying to get big time gambling investment in the country too. Destroying the British way of life and replacing our culture with something empty and souless.

    Blair isn't representing the people, only his own interests.

    I'm voting lib-dem. Down with student fees, time to destroy the council tax and base it on income. At least the Libdems say what they mean and stick to it!!

    Conservitive = toss. Bunch of sly *******, that lot are just like Labour.
  9. B(LIAR) is in cahoots with the horse eating TW@T accross the channel. Its more likely he will call himself Le President. Lets get the ball rolling to celebrate the Millenium of 1066 by nuking France. I wont be here but It'll be fcuking brilliant to see all those little frog eating cnuts glow.
  10. johnojohnson wrote

    and threw in HRH more than once.

    Call me pedantic but the former HRH Princess Elizabeth has 52 years seniority as Queen and is therefore Her Majesty (HM). The military collective are Her Majesty's Armed Forces. It's important you know what to call the boss. Pity HM and (HRH) the Duke aren't running the show instead of TCH running us down. That's how it works ( or doesn't).

    We probably ( as a country) got the goverment we deserved. Hopefully the penny will drop with the electorate before the next election and we'll get Lee Kwan Yew, Ray Mallon and Rudolf Guilliani elected instead.

    I am surprised that TLA has passed you by.
  11. No. They should have done this before they committed us to fighting a war and policing its aftermath. It's all a bit late now.
  12. I stand corrected.

    Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second it is and not Her Royal Highness.

    PoD is a TLA of receint origin

  13. Hey everybody....

    First parade tomorrow, on with the orange armbands! Bliar out!!! :twisted:
  14. msr

    msr LE

    And the national lottery is exactly what? (Beyond a tax on those who can't do maths)

  15. A major source of funding for groups supporting asylum seekers, illegal immigrants criminals, homosexuals, ethnic minorities, AIDS-spreaders and other assorted scumbags. These are all 'good causes', apparently.