Author Topic: You and Whose Navy?  (Read 1412 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mart

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5249
  • Where's my cow?
You and Whose Navy?
« on: June 17, 2011, 08:49:50 PM »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13803111

If those rowdy gauchos don't watch their step we'll despatch, um.......

S'what I was saying, if you don't have a big visible and, at first glance expensively pointless, floating grey lump to swan about in people start taking liberties.

If we had a nice Nimitz class barge parked up it would be Si Senor, more corned beef?

Be bloody Gibraltar next, then the Channel Islands and Isle of Wight.


Sometimes I think you have to march right in and demand your rights, even if you don’t know what your rights are, or who the person is you’re talking to. Then, on the way out, slam the door.

Offline itspavagain

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 254
  • Hello !
Re: You and Whose Navy?
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2011, 09:04:05 PM »
Can't we sell the Falkland Islands to China (being the only country that actually has the money to pay for them)?

Ringer

  • Guest
Re: You and Whose Navy?
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2011, 11:17:11 PM »
We have three typhoons there we are told that they can do the job three are needed to keep one in the air. Still lybia is was beaten weeks ago, but there is no one left in their government to surrender it to us.

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
Re: You and Whose Navy?
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2011, 09:44:35 PM »
We have three typhoons there we are told that they can do the job three are needed to keep one in the air. Still lybia is was beaten weeks ago, but there is no one left in their government to surrender it to us.

What on earth are you talking about Ringer?

And yes the Aircraft Carriers are an obsene waste of money but then so is all the Foreign Aid we are payingout.  Trouble is Cameron is as much a war mongerer as Blair and he would rather spend money on that than actually do some social good and look after the less fortunate. 
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Ringer

  • Guest
Re: You and Whose Navy?
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2011, 10:16:33 PM »
Simples happy to explain, there are 3 Operational Typhoons (Fighters on the Falklands) which is about as many as are attacking deployed in Lybia flying from Italy. We have won the war in Lybia haven't we? As it costs us all tens of millions a week? But Gaddaffi has not surrendered, if no one surrenders to you and hands over the country, you cannot take possession of the country/infrastructure/services as both Napoleon found that out in Moscow and Rumsfeld in Iraq.

You are funding A bombs and space programmes on the Asian subcontinent with your taxes and at the same time fighting two wars, but hey ho we are flush with dosh here and Osborne is a lying Alan B'stard! Or is that Danny Alexander? Not sure how we can be brassic and at the same time have Toffs sloshing the dosh all over the world in wars and in aid, so you are wrong they are aiding less fortunates, but not on these shores.

Richard one for you, If I say bring the troops home and save money am I being unpatriotic?

Offline Mart

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5249
  • Where's my cow?
Re: You and Whose Navy?
« Reply #5 on: June 20, 2011, 08:26:52 PM »
Here's another triumph of MOD Euro procurement:

Airbus was forced to abandon the public debut of the A400M, the troop carrier running four years late and developed at a cost of more than €20bn (£17.6bn) for Britain, France, Germany and four other nations.

The flypast, scheduled for today, would have been one of the highlights of the week-long show but the gearbox problem in one of the huge turbo-props is the latest setback for a project plagued by delays and squabbles which have extended to a row over the name.

Airbus has nicknamed the plane "Grizzly" but an indignant RAF intends to call the aircraft Atlas to reflect its endurance capabilities when it makes its debut at Farnborough next month. Air Chief Marshall Sir Stephen Dalton has said "Grizzly" would be accepted "over my dead body."

There are doubts about whether Atlas will be cleared for take off in time for the British air show following the discovery of the gearbox problem. Domingo Urena-Raso, Airbus Military chief executive, said that "flight test requirements are very demanding at the moment."

The long development delays have exasperated politicians and air forces while engineers have wrestled with the technical challenges posed by the advanced turbo-prop technology. The programme was on the brink of cancellation last year but Britain and other buyers reluctantly agreed to stump up another €3.5bn to get the plane into service.



One of the technical challenges being wrestled with is the French made propellers, they, um, crack. As for old Domingo reckoning flight tests are very demanding has he issued a demand to future naughty people not to anything nasty to his aeroplane. Assuming the bloody thing gets there.

Evidently it has ground attack capability, summed up as follows on ARRSE:

Does showering the ground beneath you with engine parts and propeller blades really count as ground attack?
Sometimes I think you have to march right in and demand your rights, even if you don’t know what your rights are, or who the person is you’re talking to. Then, on the way out, slam the door.

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
Re: You and Whose Navy?
« Reply #6 on: June 20, 2011, 09:23:57 PM »
Richard one for you, If I say bring the troops home and save money am I being unpatriotic?

No Ringer and we should do just that for two reasons:

1.  It would save British Lives and

2.  It would save billions of pounds of much needed money that is needed for much more important things such as looking after the elderly and the less fortunate in our own country.

for something that could go on for years.

Don't we ever learn from history, so why do we continue to make the same mistakes?
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Tobes

  • Regents
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4951
Re: You and Whose Navy?
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2011, 12:34:50 AM »
Quote
Don't we ever learn from history, so why do we continue to make the same mistakes?

I'm not saying this to be contentious - but I suspect we often do it because many of the same people who want a free national health service and decent pensions for all are also the same sort of people who campaign against despots, corrupt regimes, religious zealots and single party states who run their countries as though the world was still in the medieval period....

Its something of a cognitive dissonance. When governments do nothing or do too little, everyone complains: 'Why didn't we stop the serbs in Kosovo?' - 'Why did we not stop Idi Amin?' ... and yet when we do step in to try and save civilians from their own regimes, we have to face up to the financial cost.

That said, there's OIL in Libya. Lots of it. If there is a regime change, no doubt we'll actually see the military costs re-payed with lots of interestin terms of fat contracts from the grateful new administration...
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it - [attributed to] Voltaire... 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessita' - William of Occam.... 'You have a right to feel offended, but just cos you are offended doesn't mean you are right'

Offline Mart

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5249
  • Where's my cow?
Re: You and Whose Navy?
« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2011, 07:31:54 PM »
That said, there's OIL in Libya. Lots of it. If there is a regime change, no doubt we'll actually see the military costs re-payed with lots of interestin terms of fat contracts from the grateful new administration...

Yup.

I reckon if you are going to introduce people to democracy through military means it's sorely tempting to prioritise those with stuff that their newly democratically elected government will give you access to.

I can only assume we are going into dope when Afghanistan is properly liberated, maybe we'll exchange the dope for arms, which has a kind of familiar ring to it.

I'm reasonably sure that one of our Middle Eastern adventures gave the opportunity to shift a load of munition which was getting near it's sell by date (which would make it dangerous?) and we got some recompense for dropping and hurling it at the designated oppressors of freedom.

It is not as if this kind of arrangement is without precedent, Ruth Kelly responded to a FOI request in 2002 with the following:

At the end of the First World War the United Kingdom debt to the United States amounted to around £850 million. Repayments of the debt were made between 1923 and 1931. In 1931, President Hoover of the United States proposed a one-year moratorium on all War debts, which allowed extensive international discussions on the general problems of debt repayment to be held. However, no satisfactory agreement was reached. In the absence of such an agreement no payments have been made to, or received from, other nations since 1934.

At the time of the moratorium the United Kingdom was owed more by other nations (£2,269 billion) than the outstanding principal it owed the United States ($4,368 billion—at 1934 exchange rates this was around £866 million).

Second World War debt

Under a 1945 Agreement the United States Government lent the United Kingdom a total of $4,336 million (around £1,075 million at 1945 exchange rates) in war loans. These loans were taken out under two facilities: (i) a Line of Credit of $3,750 million (around £930 million at 1945 exchange rates); and (ii) a Lend-Lease loan facility of $586 million (around £145 million at 1945 exchange rates), which represented the settlement with the United States for Lend-Lease and Reciprocal Aid and for the final settlement of the financial claims of each government against the other arising out of the conduct of the Second World War.

Under the Agreement the loans would be repaid in 50 annual instalments commencing in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing international exchange rate conditions and the level of the United Kingdom's foreign currency and gold reserves. The United Kingdom has deferred payments on six occasions. Repayment of the war loans to the United States Government should therefore be completed on 31 December 2006, subject to the United Kingdom not choosing to exercise its option to defer payment.

As at 31 March 2001 principal of $346,287,953 (£243,573,154 at the exchange rate on that day) was outstanding on the loans provided by the United States Government in 1945. The Government intend to meet its obligations under the 1945 Agreement by repaying the United States Government in full the amounts lend in 1945.

All World War II debts owed to the United Kingdom by other countries have either been repaid or settlements have been agreed with the countries concerned. Details are provided in the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom and their successor the Supplementary Statements to the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts for the financial years 1945–46 to 1987–88 and the following Command Papers:


http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2002-02-28.38424.h if you want to look at the Command Papers (?)

I think there's a case that by adopting an isolationist policy we might actually end up with less means to look after our own behind our own borders, a military invasion is the national version of a marketing campaign, even some of the language is common.

Not saying it's right but I think there is a kernel of truth in it.

Sometimes I think you have to march right in and demand your rights, even if you don’t know what your rights are, or who the person is you’re talking to. Then, on the way out, slam the door.