White paper:

  • Thread starter one_flew_over
  • Start date
We're about to get shafted

Same people, different time.
What's the numerical limit between an Army and a Defence Force? We can't be far off it now.
"Counter-terrorism and counter proliferation operations in particular will require rapidly deployable forces able to respond swiftly to intelligence and achieve precise effects across the world," he said.
Yep, we'll be able to deploy much quicker without all those superfluous things we traditionally bring with us. What do we call them again? Oh yeah, eqipment and soldiers. :evil:
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon told BBC News that Britain required "smaller forces able to move at very short notice to perhaps anywhere in the world".

"Our armed forces have to go through the kind of change that modern businesses have gone through relying on technology to deliver effect."
Ah! Mr Hoon would that be like "The Millenium Dome" or "The millenium Bug" roughly 1.25b I believe or there abouts of useful technology.
I don't think anyone would disagree with having an army of the 21st Century.
But let's face it we are still waiting for technology that was supposed to be in force in the 80's and 90's. So maybe not for the current generation either then
I can't believe these idiots are still in power, and still making decisions on what they know nothing about.

There is no, repeat FCKING NO!!!!, substitute for MEN with the proper experience and training, regardless of technolo-fcking-gee, when it comes to conflict and conflict resolution. Have we learned nothing from the Yanks umpteen fckups relying on technology?

Put half a dozen good soldiers with the minimum of equipment and no fancy technology up against a hundred, or even a thousand, half trained PC braindead cnuts from anywhere, with every bit of technology available and my money is on the soldiers.

For fcks sake, have the Afghans with nothing more than a homemade rifle taught us nothing, the Vietnamese, even the fcking Iraqi's lately.

The man on the ground properly trained and motivated is the finest piece of technology.

Thes fcking idiots look at conflicts like Telic where technology is great, sure, because IT'S FLAT BARREN LAND PERFECTLY SUITED, and come up with the final solution.

I'll have to stop now because this is getting fcking silly, politicians and bean counters deciding what's best.
Shotgun wrote:
There is no, repeat FCKING NO!!!!, substitute for MEN with the proper experience and training, regardless of technolo-fcking-gee, when it comes to conflict and conflict resolution. Have we learned nothing from the Yanks umpteen fckups relying on technology?
Couldn't agree more. This is what comes of allowing into to high office those wiyhout military experience. I'm not all that sure on British politicians but I include such people as Rumsfeld in this. He was a navy pilot, which I don’t consider the same as having military experience.

I’ve never met a pilot yet who hasn’t told me that AIRPOWER won WW2. They can’t explain, though, why German war production reached its maximum in November ’44, after the height of the Allied bombing campaign. It only started to decline when the Allies troops started to overrun the factories. "Troops" as in – “dumb teeth arms”, people actually on the ground.

It seems that without actual experience, men/women in office start believing all that hi-tech crap will really work. Ask the Rangers and Seals on that ridge in Afghanistan if they thought having a gee-whiz AC-130 for support was a good idea. The USAF brigadier general running the ground op (WTF?) sent it home at dawn because it was too valuable to risk in daylight! Of course, they didn’t have supporting artillery so that left the troops to die. I guess they weren’t as valuable as a f*cking airplane!

How to prevent this? Well, frankly, I don’t know. The pool of politicians who served and fought in WW2, Korea, etc is being thinned by time. In this country, I don’t think much of the Vietnam Vets, even though I am one. I don’t want to bore you to death w/US politics but:
- W. Bush - that speaks for itself.
- Wesley Clarke - a creature of the Clintons- don’t need any more of that.
- Kerry - another navy bullshit artist. Seemly went in the service only so he could say “I’m a vet” when he became a career pol. Doesn’t seem to get it. Recently referred to “…Muslim speaking nations…”.

Unfortunately, your high pols seem to be sliding down the US path with their eyes open. The things I’ve read about the reform of the TA system sound very much like someone wants a “Reserve Component” like the US. I can see, in the near future, the next step – abandoning the regimental system you have now – The “Royal Corps of Infantry” takes over. (And it will be an actual corps, or maybe division – can’t afford more). The step after that is to delete “Royal”. You’ll just be numbers and the great unaccountable factor that has made yours the best Army in the world – tradition properly understood – will be gone.

I’d like to vote the bastards out here but who do you vote in? The only guys I'd vote for right now for Prez are Colin Powell, who isn’t running, and Teddy Roosevelt, who’s dead. Argh – this next year is going to be interesting.

I do hope your army survives better than ours did.
This p*sses me off so f*cking much!
And what's worse, is that we can't do a thing about it. Fine, I'm not even in the "proper" Army yet, but all of my family have been soliders as far back as I can trace, and it's depressing and sad to see this great and glorious institution get sent down the plug hole by a bunch of militarily un-educated fools who believe that the Armed Forces are simply a reflection of a modern business.
How on earth can they think this? Do business go out, and put their lives on the line for the greater good? No.
Perhaps I am far too idealistic, having been brought up with stories of all that is great and good about our country and about our Forces... But someone has to make some noise! Chiefs of Staff, COs, all the way down. Start ranting and raving like me, and perhaps this God-awful, piss poor excuse of a government might take notice, and realise that their decisions are completely and utterly unjustifiable, given our current situation and commitments.
Ugh... Rant over. Now I'm in a bad mood. :evil:
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon told BBC News that Britain required "smaller forces able to move at very short notice to perhaps anywhere in the world".

"Our armed forces have to go through the kind of change that modern businesses have gone through relying on technology to deliver effect."
Whey, hey, does this mean we will get more than one PC with a modem for the entire Sqn to access the army's intranet ?


Excellent Post.

Those of us in the TA/Army Reserve/Militia/Adult Cadet Force remember Sir Michael Walker from an exercise called SDR or the Strategic Defence Review. You know the sort of thing. Make massive cuts , for a more effective Army? Doesn't work does it. Not sure what's going on in Sir Michaels head, as his pay scale is nose bleed compared to mine, but I had expected him to fight the Army's corner, not roll over and die. maybe, as per Blackadder , he has a cunning plan?

Rumsfeld is just plain evil. Sorry to speak badly of one of your politicos in this fashion, but he hasn't got a scooby , and it shows. All the "We will hunt them down and kill them" rhetoric, is not going to help. Especially when it comes from a speccy twat , who wouldn't look out of place in a torchlit rally. The whole swing this administration has taken from "America the beautiful, home of the Brave and Free" to "This is not America" is worrying to observe on this side of the pond.

I see your point on Kerry, but at least he has "pissed down his leg" and exchanged brass , unlike most of the current incumbents in the Administration today. I'd like to see Col-in not CO-lin Powell run for President too. You need a man who realises the Military, is the last best move , and not the first.

I don't want to get into hammering shrub 43 , but I think deep down, he probably is motivated by what he sees as the best reasons for doing things. Unfortunately, his administration has a totally different agenda, which one day, they might let him in on.

I see China has gone right-flanking, and caught him out over Taiwan. Well, after all , he didn't say WHICH China in the One China policy now, did he?

It was obvious to a blind man how this was going to pan out. Bush43 and the idiots advising him, get all fangs out over North Korea, as they continue to smokescreen and flimflam American and world opinion about the "Avis of Evil" Bush 43, by bigging up North Korea, painted himself, into a nice big corner.

China says "Hey we can help, just as long as you shut your necks on Taiwan" Axis of Evil? Don't make me laugh. Kim-il-sung II is taking the Saddam bluff route. He doesn't dare develop Nuclear weapons and display them, not unless he wants 2,000,000 Chinese and Russian troops dropping in for dinner.

But , as 43 continues to create Flashpoints out of nowhere, to show what a big strong President he is , he has to give concessions. To be blunt, he's doing a Neville Chamberlain with the Chinese. But at least Chamberlain had the ulterior motive of buying time to rearm and re-equip for an inevitable European war. Bush is having to give China concessions left right and centre, because he CAN'T back down over North Korea.

All of a sudden "Slick Willie's" seeming "appeasment" of North Korea, a policy so harshly criticised, seems to make perfect sense. It was designed to keep a lid on North Korea and keep them talking, they were having to co-operate with the US, but still allowed to save face, AND it kept Chinas nose out of North Korea, and more importantly out of Americas relationship with Taiwan. But then again, slick boy had DIPLOMATS working for him, not shitehawks.

I see yesterday, the North Koreans said essentially, we are in deep shit , we need to get this sorted, we need fuel and food, in return we will stop talking about and developing Nukes. 43's reponse? Not good enough, we want to know it is totally eradicated and removed. How the fugg are they going to prove that? Remember Iraq? Who the hell is advising 43?

There comes a time, when you can show what a great leader you are, by being magnanimous (sp) and offering a hand of friendship and reconciliation , and of course, allowing the North Koreans to save face. Instead of forcing them into a position, through famine and starvation, to contemplate a drive south to McDonalds ,Seoul

Sorry, rambled a bit, but the bottom line after Geo-politics is

Sir Michael, you must have a really good reason, or a really good knowledge of the future commitments of our armed forces, to be so vocal in supporting this policy.

We hope :(
Excellent back to you. I agree. Rambled? Well, I do it all the time.

I’m not sure why Bush (I don’t want to seem dense but: “43”?) decided to back everyone into a corner. It doesn’t seem to be all about economics, the usual reason. It seems to be a combination of needing a substitute for the Soviet Union, and preemptive strikes against perceived enemies. My thought is that Bush, and/or his advisors, believe there are many in this country who would respond favorably to the policy.

There is a generation of young Americans out there who feel no responsibility regarding the Vietnam era. This includes politicians. I believe there are many who think that with just a few adjustments, we could have won that. They don’t understand that there was no way to “win” an end-of -colonialism war of independence involving at least 3 different ethnic groups in 2 different countries with common borders with our, at the time, greatest enemy. (Err, that last sentence. At least Joseph Conrad have been proud of me.)

Which is to say that they don't understand the differences between Vietnam and what's going on now. Consequently, there is some acceptance of the bully boy tactics being used. I think it will work up to a point. After that, you must adjust. To me, all warfare is compromise.

The lack of experience in Asia of the US government shows badly in our dealings with North and South Korea, and China. Your comments regarding saving face are so true.

A (vague) simile: This isn’t a football (of any sort) game. It’s like going to a party alone and trying to leave with at least one of the babes present, maybe two if you’re really good, having already planed to give them a ride home in the AM.

I’m starting to ramble now so that’s enough. I don’t know where it’s all going but I’m sure China will eventually be involved. I think the next US administration ought to understand that.

I’m hoping there isn’t too much above that would require you to be reading my mind to understand.
Just a quick one before I reply in depth

The current President is Bush 43 , his father was Bush 41. Clinton was errr "Mr. Hilary 42" :D


PartTimePongo said:
Just a quick one before I reply in depth

The current President is Bush 43 , his father was Bush 41. Clinton was errr "Mr. Hilary 42" :D
I though Bill was "Mr Lewinsky 69"

Surely this "restructuring" requires
1. The actual ordering of new kit (not yet happened)
2. Delivery of same (don't hold your breath)
3. Training in new methods and techniques (yessir and when exactly would you like us to fit that in)
4. The Peace Dividend from NI actually happening and not kicking off again.
5. Keeping recruitment up (current embargo notwithstanding)

Why am I not flussed with that warm fuzzy feeling?
1. The actual ordering of new kit (not yet happened)
They're not even past the cardboard model stage yet for some of the kit they're talking about :?
flash to bang you missed the most important one

Gordon Browns economic fantasies comming true
So what are the tories saying, what about Patrick (Mad) Mercer, Shadow Minister for Homeland Security is he saying. He is ex inf, selling us down the swannie no doubt:evil:

Latest Threads