I've met quite a few people who, when the stated aims of ISIS are explained to them, say that this can't be true. When you explain that they are literally trying to enact a scenario from the Koran - you get accused of being racist!
Yes. It's almost worth sending ground troops in to entice them to the plains of Dabiq and then seeing the disappointment in their faces as Jesus fails to ride in and save the mujahideen from obliteration
It's arguable that such a defeat would be the most effective way to collapse their ideology, worldwide
The reality was we should never have joined WW1. Without that conflict, we would still live in a happier and more peaceful world, where there would be a balance of powers, not one power seeking permanent hegemony.
Actually it made sense for the UK to join WW1. If we had stayed out we know from German state papers that, had they beaten the French in 1914, then we would have been fighting the Germans on our own in 1915 or 1916 and from a much worse strategic position. The balance of powers of which you speak would not have happened.
A victorious Germany circa 1916 could not have invaded the UK: even Hitler circa 1940 could not do it. It might have caused some problems in Africa, with the German and British empires bumping in to each other, but other than that, not really.
The German plans for post war 1914-15, the terms they would in effect impose on a France, included (along with the ethnic cleansing of Belgium and its population be replaced with German ex-servicemen), the demilitarisation in fact the deindustrialisation of France, the German occupation of a coastal strip including all the channel ports. They would also have had the complete freedom to spend a couple of years building up their, already formidable, navy.
The result of that would have been a little more than some squabbles over borders in Africa. Invasion of the UK is a red herring and has been for a couple of hundred years. The way to defeat the UK and make it do your bidding is at sea.
The reality was we should never have joined WW1. Without that conflict, we would still live in a happier and more peaceful world, where there would be a balance of powers, not one power seeking permanent hegemony.
Actually it made sense for the UK to join WW1. If we had stayed out we know from German state papers that, had they beaten the French in 1914, then we would have been fighting the Germans on our own in 1915 or 1916 and from a much worse strategic position. The balance of powers of which you speak would not have happened.
Why would we have been fighting the Germans? They would never have attacked us, and they weren't genocidal Nazis. They would have ended up dominating continental Europe - not so very different from now. We should have done what the US did and grown fat on the profits.
If you have not got the intelligence to work that out I am not wasting my breath explaining it to you.
There seems to be a slight disagreement between the bookies and the exchange betting market for the by-election. William Hill have UKIP at 2/1 but with Betfair Exchange it's 11/4:
The counter-argument is that the bombing that France will be doing turning into a combined former-crusader-and-middle-eastern-colonial-power operation sounds like it might be helpful to the adversary.
We are a little bit in danger of acting the part required of us in their script.
Sykes-Picot & all that jazz.
We have asymmetric aims from ISIS. It's entirely possible that their desired strategy for us is also the correct strategy for us.
This is of course possible. But what concerns me is the possibility that that their desired strategy for Britain is the wrong strategy for Britain, but the correct strategy for the politicians in charge of the British government.
Judging from accounts in PPRune and elsewhere concerning what the UK has been doing in Iraq vs ISIS, the plan is to use air power for CAS, with some targeting of leadership. That is, most of the strikes will be in concert with locals on the ground making a push. The war is largely house to house/trench to trench. In such a circumstance, taking out a small number of strong point/heavy weapons turns an attack from a bloodbath that fails in 10 yards to a fairly certain victory. This, by the way, is where Brimstone *system* comes in. It has the capability to create a simultaneous group of hits on defined targets.
To understand the effect of this - consider a WWI style attack. Where just before you "go over the top", 90% of the defenders artillery and machine gun positions are destroyed in a matter of seconds.
The real question is how much will the US/UK/France etc do this - collapsing ISIS has not been the goal to date. For reasons that are not... unreasonable.
Can we take it that this is an acknowledgement on your part that the US (and its junior partners) have largely stood by and allowed ISIS to thrive, in order to undermine the Assad regime, whilst convincing their own populations that they were striving to take them down?
Despite usually hating the TV ads of Bookmakers, I must say the new Bet Victor effort is different class
Will they take a bet though? They even closed me down and I'm no OGH.
I used to work for them in 2000 and they took some big bets in those days, but I don't think any bookmaker takes a decent bet now really, unless it's from a muggerooni
The problem is that FOBTs have meant bookies closing accounts of any mug that gets lucky, and not just the sharks.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
The counter-argument is that the bombing that France will be doing turning into a combined former-crusader-and-middle-eastern-colonial-power operation sounds like it might be helpful to the adversary.
We are a little bit in danger of acting the part required of us in their script.
Sykes-Picot & all that jazz.
We have asymmetric aims from ISIS. It's entirely possible that their desired strategy for us is also the correct strategy for us.
This is of course possible. But what concerns me is the possibility that that their desired strategy for Britain is the wrong strategy for Britain, but the correct strategy for the politicians in charge of the British government.
Judging from accounts in PPRune and elsewhere concerning what the UK has been doing in Iraq vs ISIS, the plan is to use air power for CAS, with some targeting of leadership. That is, most of the strikes will be in concert with locals on the ground making a push. The war is largely house to house/trench to trench. In such a circumstance, taking out a small number of strong point/heavy weapons turns an attack from a bloodbath that fails in 10 yards to a fairly certain victory. This, by the way, is where Brimstone *system* comes in. It has the capability to create a simultaneous group of hits on defined targets.
To understand the effect of this - consider a WWI style attack. Where just before you "go over the top", 90% of the defenders artillery and machine gun positions are destroyed in a matter of seconds.
The real question is how much will the US/UK/France etc do this - collapsing ISIS has not been the goal to date. For reasons that are not... unreasonable.
So, to summarise. Somebody is having a war. We want to join in and we have special expertise that will make a difference. So, how many times is that?
* Gulf War I: we had airfield denial weaponry developed post-Falklands. We went in but the Iraqis put surface-to-air missiles at the end of the runway and a lot of Tornados turned into dune darts. * Gulf War II: we had 30 years of counter-insurgency experence in Northern Ireland so we went into Basra. The Iraqis built IEDs beyond Gerry's dreams and shredded the Land Rovers. * Afghanistan: we had over a century's worth of experience in the area. None of which counted. * Syrian Civil War: we have this "Brimstone" thing. It's really great. The war will be over by Xmas...
The counter-argument is that the bombing that France will be doing turning into a combined former-crusader-and-middle-eastern-colonial-power operation sounds like it might be helpful to the adversary.
We are a little bit in danger of acting the part required of us in their script.
Sykes-Picot & all that jazz.
We have asymmetric aims from ISIS. It's entirely possible that their desired strategy for us is also the correct strategy for us.
This is of course possible. But what concerns me is the possibility that that their desired strategy for Britain is the wrong strategy for Britain, but the correct strategy for the politicians in charge of the British government.
Judging from accounts in PPRune and elsewhere concerning what the UK has been doing in Iraq vs ISIS, the plan is to use air power for CAS, with some targeting of leadership. That is, most of the strikes will be in concert with locals on the ground making a push. The war is largely house to house/trench to trench. In such a circumstance, taking out a small number of strong point/heavy weapons turns an attack from a bloodbath that fails in 10 yards to a fairly certain victory. This, by the way, is where Brimstone *system* comes in. It has the capability to create a simultaneous group of hits on defined targets.
To understand the effect of this - consider a WWI style attack. Where just before you "go over the top", 90% of the defenders artillery and machine gun positions are destroyed in a matter of seconds.
The real question is how much will the US/UK/France etc do this - collapsing ISIS has not been the goal to date. For reasons that are not... unreasonable.
Can we take it that this is an acknowledgement on your part that the US (and its junior partners) have largely stood by and allowed ISIS to thrive, in order to undermine the Assad regime, whilst convincing their own populations that they were striving to take them down?
No. The reason that they haven't backed the Kurds etc in steamrollering ISIS is that the aftermath will probably fit the definition of war crimes. In Iraq and Syria, the US has been trying to build up Sunni-but-anti-ISIS forces to lead the way (with some, but not much success). The idea is that such groups are more likely not to shoot-and-loot their way through the civilian population.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
The reality was we should never have joined WW1. Without that conflict, we would still live in a happier and more peaceful world, where there would be a balance of powers, not one power seeking permanent hegemony.
Actually it made sense for the UK to join WW1. If we had stayed out we know from German state papers that, had they beaten the French in 1914, then we would have been fighting the Germans on our own in 1915 or 1916 and from a much worse strategic position. The balance of powers of which you speak would not have happened.
A victorious Germany circa 1916 could not have invaded the UK: even Hitler circa 1940 could not do it. It might have caused some problems in Africa, with the German and British empires bumping in to each other, but other than that, not really.
The German plans for post war 1914-15, the terms they would in effect impose on a France, included (along with the ethnic cleansing of Belgium and its population be replaced with German ex-servicemen), the demilitarisation in fact the deindustrialisation of France, the German occupation of a coastal strip including all the channel ports. They would also have had the complete freedom to spend a couple of years building up their, already formidable, navy.
The result of that would have been a little more than some squabbles over borders in Africa. Invasion of the UK is a red herring and has been for a couple of hundred years. The way to defeat the UK and make it do your bidding is at sea.
True: we are vulnerable to siege. Killing our food imports by sea kills us. But this requires the UK to maintain a strong Navy and blockade/bomb their ports, not a land invasion of Europe. Friendly relationships with a 1920's Imperial Germany can be ensured by being able to hurt them lots if they turn nasty. Which was well within the wheelhouse of a 1920's British Empire sans WWI.
Can anyone actually tell me why it's so absurd not to be bombing Syria as opposed to doing more in Iraq and correspondly others doing more in Syria?
I answered this when you asked it the other day. The main reason being we have capabilities that would be useful, and which cannot necessarily be easily replicated by the other forces.
The other factor is that our planes are based in Cyprus. It takes several hours and refuelling to attack a target in Iraq. Mobile targets have often moved by that point. We would be more effective bombing Syria than Iraq, crowded airspace permitting!
I would stick to doctoring.
Doing a "rooftop hop" they could be in downtown Bagdad or Mosul in little under an hour. Less if they go supersonic. No refuelling required. Faster on the way back as they would be lighter of course
Smug smartarse, hopefully Fox gets you in his operating theatre some day and expains military tactics to you
Smug Really? Why? Simply for pointing out a fact and that the original poster had the position entirely incorrect. Mind you as we only "have two planes" as you keep saying I don't suppose it matters much.
By the way Are you completely incapable of posting anything without a constant tirade of abuse to every other poster on here?
Oh and for the record ..... I am x military so don't need any lessons thanks.
As if I had not guessed by your smartarse answer. Fox gave his opinion and only a smug prat would start off with "stick to doctoring". Re abuse, I post to many other polite and sensible posters perfectly thank you, and only reply in kind to people like yourself.
Labour MPs "privately sharing graphics from Hillary Clinton’s US Presidential campaign asking if colleagues are 'Ready for Hillary'. The images are a less-than-subtle code by Benn supporters as they try to find out if he has the support of the backbenches." http://www.sunnation.co.uk/jez-enemies-clinton-plot/
Hopefully Corbyn shows the no use lowdown toerag the door soon.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
It wasn't Labour that scrapped the carriers, flogged all our Harriers to America, and gave a fifth of the army their cards.
No. The reason that they haven't backed the Kurds etc in steamrollering ISIS is that the aftermath will probably fit the definition of war crimes. In Iraq and Syria, the US has been trying to build up Sunni-but-anti-ISIS forces to lead the way (with some, but not much success). The idea is that such groups are more likely not to shoot-and-loot their way through the civilian population.
Unless your idea of fun is Ronda Campesinas?
Considering the fact that the US has been running a war in Syria based on the concept of giving weapons to islamist nutters, I find the idea that they have been keeping the pedal off the gas against ISIS in order to protect civilians to be 'quaint' to say the least. Not surprised the media haven't attempted to sell this one to the public - it needs considerable work.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
Maritime Patrol Aircraft.
Gosh, in which century are we talking about? So many to chose from particularly if we go back to the 19th century.
Anyway in recent times I think we were right to join WW1, WW2 (probably, but not wholly sure), Korea, Malaya, Borneo, Vietnam (possibly), Falklands, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan 2001-2005. Plus of course numerous nasty little campaigns which mainly only involved special forces e.g. Oman. The first Indo-Pakistan war had British soldiers fighting on both sides, honourably and correctly in my view but quite against HMG's instructions.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
Maritime Patrol Aircraft.
Like I said, total ignorance. The airplanes cancelled could never repeat never fly. The wings could not be stuck to the fuselage. Ever. Billions had been wasted on them and the defence budget shot to ribbons because of a string of things like that, not least aircraft carriers that could not be contractually cancelled. The defence review was carried out by well known right wing MP, Liam Fox.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
Maritime Patrol Aircraft.
The previous government contracted to purchase as aircraft (the MRA4) that was not going to to get an airworthiness certificate - it was judged irredeemably dangerous. It would have been, literally, illegal to use it. So it was cancelled.
During the gap, the UK has borrowed NATO assets and made do. While the MOD procurement branch was sorted out and while Project Seedcorn (UK crews flying American P8s) kept the skills alive. Indeed, just the other day, a UK crew won the top trophy in an ASW exercise while flying a P8.
We are now going to buy P8s - after all the initial problems were sorted out (5 years ago it was in development) at American expense. So, we are going to get some aircraft which actually have a certificate of airworthiness and have been extensively proof-tested by RAF expert aircrew.
There is nothing wrong with Corbyn offering a free vote to backbenchers. But the Shadow Cabinet should be expected to put forward a common position. One has to know where a Government and/or Government in waiting stand on key issues.
In any meaningful sense, the shadow cabinet is not a government in waiting.
Yes so he might as well replace it with one more in line with his position. He should take this oppurtunity and either fall or rise by taking a leadership role. I would in his position as they currently undermine him anyway.
Not sure there's a shadow cabinet that can be built in Jezza's image. Most Labour MPs seem to have at least a cague notion that the party needs to win to be relevant and can't win with apologists for murder and terrorism calling the shots.
Being a lazy git I didn't see Corbyn this morning but it looks like a very direct challenge to Benn and his ilk. I really don't see how Benn can remain in post but then I didn't really see how he could take the position in the first place. This kind of crisis was simply inevitable.
As long as Benn stays in post he is the most likely replacement for Corbyn, if he goes to the backbenches that diminishes dramatically
How desperate things are for labour if that nonentity is their heir in waiting
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
It wasn't Labour that scrapped the carriers, flogged all our Harriers to America, and gave a fifth of the army their cards.
No it was Labour that spent so much out of control that they not only ran up an obscene budget deficit but an insane military deficit as well. Putting that right required difficult choices but you wouldn't understand that would you?
To talk only of cuts while ignoring the deficit Labour left behind is completely innumerate.
The counter-argument is that the bombing that France will be doing turning into a combined former-crusader-and-middle-eastern-colonial-power operation sounds like it might be helpful to the adversary.
We are a little bit in danger of acting the part required of us in their script.
Sykes-Picot & all that jazz.
We have asymmetric aims from ISIS. It's entirely possible that their desired strategy for us is also the correct strategy for us.
This is of course possible. But what concerns me is the possibility that that their desired strategy for Britain is the wrong strategy for Britain, but the correct strategy for the politicians in charge of the British government.
......
To understand the effect of this - consider a WWI style attack. Where just before you "go over the top", 90% of the defenders artillery and machine gun positions are destroyed in a matter of seconds.
The real question is how much will the US/UK/France etc do this - collapsing ISIS has not been the goal to date. For reasons that are not... unreasonable.
So, to summarise. Somebody is having a war. We want to join in and we have special expertise that will make a difference. So, how many times is that?
* Gulf War I: we had airfield denial weaponry developed post-Falklands. We went in but the Iraqis put surface-to-air missiles at the end of the runway and a lot of Tornados turned into dune darts. * Gulf War II: we had 30 years of counter-insurgency experence in Northern Ireland so we went into Basra. The Iraqis built IEDs beyond Gerry's dreams and shredded the Land Rovers. * Afghanistan: we had over a century's worth of experience in the area. None of which counted. * Syrian Civil War: we have this "Brimstone" thing. It's really great. The war will be over by Xmas...
One Tornado was lost while a JP223 was actually attached to the airframe. The rest were lost in medium level bombing runs.... In Afghanistan - well, Butcher-And-Bolt would be considered a bit OTT in this day and age. The point about Brimstone is not that it will end the war by Christmas - it is that we have capabilities that are actually of some use (demonstrated).
Morning Hurst , totally agree, hard to believe that they got into it again after the slaughter in the Great War. Unfortunately the people who make the decisions are never involved in any sacrifice. As ever posturing by politicians who have no clue or plans and just get involved in knee jerk reactions, safe in the knowledge that it has no impact on them. It is a scandal that these donkeys can just send people to war on a whim and especially on the rubbish Cameron spouted on Wednesday regarding 70,000 ground troops.
Churchill went to fight on the front lines after the failure of the Gallipoli campaign. Perhaps Blair should have steppe down and gone to fight in Iraq ....
Yes, supping champagne well behind lines , he was a useless soldier and tactician.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
Maritime Patrol Aircraft.
Like I said, total ignorance. The airplanes cancelled could never repeat never fly. The wings could not be stuck to the fuselage. Ever. Billions had been wasted on them and the defence budget shot to ribbons because of a string of things like that, not least aircraft carriers that could not be contractually cancelled. The defence review was carried out by well known right wing MP, Liam Fox.
Complete ignorance? Well, I know about the failure of the Nimrod programme (probably more than you do judging by your comments above) but why is that if we did not need MPA have we now decided that we do and whose decision was that we should get rid of it and who has been helping us out tracking down intruding submarines in the past couple of years? Oh, and who was it who said that we had other systems that could and would do the job of specialist MPA? Yes, your man Fox.
Accusing others of ignorance whilst slavishly following the Conservative Party line does you no credit.
The counter-argument is that the bombing that France will be doing turning into a combined former-crusader-and-middle-eastern-colonial-power operation sounds like it might be helpful to the adversary.
We are a little bit in danger of acting the part required of us in their script.
Sykes-Picot & all that jazz.
We have asymmetric aims from ISIS. It's entirely possible that their desired strategy for us is also the correct strategy for us.
This is of course possible. But what concerns me is the possibility that that their desired strategy for Britain is the wrong strategy for Britain, but the correct strategy for the politicians in charge of the British government.
Judging from accounts in PPRune and elsewhere concerning what the UK has been doing in Iraq vs ISIS, the plan is to use air power for CAS, with some targeting of leadership. That is, most of the strikes will be in concert with locals on the ground making a push. The war is largely house to house/trench to trench. In such a circumstance, taking out a small number of strong point/heavy weapons turns an attack from a bloodbath that fails in 10 yards to a fairly certain victory. This, by the way, is where Brimstone *system* comes in. It has the capability to create a simultaneous group of hits on defined targets.
To understand the effect of this - consider a WWI style attack. Where just before you "go over the top", 90% of the defenders artillery and machine gun positions are destroyed in a matter of seconds.
The real question is how much will the US/UK/France etc do this - collapsing ISIS has not been the goal to date. For reasons that are not... unreasonable.
Can we take it that this is an acknowledgement on your part that the US (and its junior partners) have largely stood by and allowed ISIS to thrive, in order to undermine the Assad regime, whilst convincing their own populations that they were striving to take them down?
As ever , interfering in other countries and lining their own pockets whilst lying at home.
Would they run a 7 day 24 hour service not just taking pictures but providing Consultant Interventional Radiologist support including ITU beds as needed? Simply taking a few snaps is not enough. Any such system needs to be properly supported. Or are you expecting the GP to interpret the image, cannulate the middle cerebral artery and inject thrombolytics in his surgery?
*Alliance have some good lobbyists. They were recently awarded a NHS contract to operate a scanner bought by charitable donations, despite the NHS Trust saying they could do it in house £ 7 million cheaper
Yawn. No, of course they won't. They provide part of the service. So stop pretending the same organisation needs to do everything.
I can't talk about Alliance Medical in too much detail. But NHS England re-tendered four regions nationally with individual NHS trusts invited to tender. And they decided that Alliance Medical's proposition was the most attractive. They had a very specific proposition which I think will significant improve disease management and treatment protocols.
But perhaps you don't think that the Christie - as a leading global expert - should have a leading role in cancer imaging services on a nationwide basis but would rather it was handled by a local trust.
My point is that imaging without on-site Interventional radiology is futile for a stroke service. If that is required then we are back to my point. Stroke services need to be organised on a basis that serves at least a population of millions to be viable. That means closure or downgrading of some A/E departments in order to consolidate on one site. The logistics are the same whether delivered by private or NHS providers.
This is the point at which 7 day 24 hour state of the art services meets local hospital closures. Thay is part of the electoral minefield that Jeremy Hunt is wandering about in. He is either being foolish or mendacious in not making this clear.
The reality was we should never have joined WW1. Without that conflict, we would still live in a happier and more peaceful world, where there would be a balance of powers, not one power seeking permanent hegemony.
Actually it made sense for the UK to join WW1. If we had stayed out we know from German state papers that, had they beaten the French in 1914, then we would have been fighting the Germans on our own in 1915 or 1916 and from a much worse strategic position. The balance of powers of which you speak would not have happened.
A victorious Germany circa 1916 could not have invaded the UK: even Hitler circa 1940 could not do it. It might have caused some problems in Africa, with the German and British empires bumping in to each other, but other than that, not really.
The German plans for post war 1914-15, the terms they would in effect impose on a France, included (along with the ethnic cleansing of Belgium and its population be replaced with German ex-servicemen), the demilitarisation in fact the deindustrialisation of France, the German occupation of a coastal strip including all the channel ports. They would also have had the complete freedom to spend a couple of years building up their, already formidable, navy.
The result of that would have been a little more than some squabbles over borders in Africa. Invasion of the UK is a red herring and has been for a couple of hundred years. The way to defeat the UK and make it do your bidding is at sea.
True: we are vulnerable to siege. Killing our food imports by sea kills us. But this requires the UK to maintain a strong Navy and blockade/bomb their ports, not a land invasion of Europe. Friendly relationships with a 1920's Imperial Germany can be ensured by being able to hurt them lots if they turn nasty. Which was well within the wheelhouse of a 1920's British Empire sans WWI.
I am not sure it would have been, but we also seem to have slipped a few years here. War with Germany, assuming the beat the Frogs in 1914/15 would have been far more likely in the period 1916 -1918 than later.
However we are moving now into the realm of alternative-history and too far away from the reasons, for good or ill, of standing by our commitments in 1914.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
Is that our only one that can put to sea. Only thing we have plenty of is Admirals.
Would they run a 7 day 24 hour service not just taking pictures but providing Consultant Interventional Radiologist support including ITU beds as needed? Simply taking a few snaps is not enough. Any such system needs to be properly supported. Or are you expecting the GP to interpret the image, cannulate the middle cerebral artery and inject thrombolytics in his surgery?
*Alliance have some good lobbyists. They were recently awarded a NHS contract to operate a scanner bought by charitable donations, despite the NHS Trust saying they could do it in house £ 7 million cheaper
Yawn. No, of course they won't. They provide part of the service. So stop pretending the same organisation needs to do everything.
I can't talk about Alliance Medical in too much detail. But NHS England re-tendered four regions nationally with individual NHS trusts invited to tender. And they decided that Alliance Medical's proposition was the most attractive. They had a very specific proposition which I think will significant improve disease management and treatment protocols.
But perhaps you don't think that the Christie - as a leading global expert - should have a leading role in cancer imaging services on a nationwide basis but would rather it was handled by a local trust.
My point is that imaging without on-site Interventional radiology is futile for a stroke service. If that is required then we are back to my point. Stroke services need to be organised on a basis that serves at least a population of millions to be viable. That means closure or downgrading of some A/E departments in order to consolidate on one site. The logistics are the same whether delivered by private or NHS providers.
This is the point at which 7 day 24 hour state of the art services meets local hospital closures. Thay is part of the electoral minefield that Jeremy Hunt is wandering about in. He is either being foolish or mendacious in not making this clear.
Imaging isn't just about cardiology.
A friend was doing a Masters in Operations Research. He and his supervisor found the reaction to his suggestions of how to better utilise MRI equipment (based on what other medical systems round the world do) quite illuminating.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
It wasn't Labour that scrapped the carriers, flogged all our Harriers to America, and gave a fifth of the army their cards.
Labour did flog our sea harriers ... in 2006 I think.
''ts possible that if the Russians hadn't been so badly organised in their invasion of East Prussia then the Great War would indeed have been over by Christmas.''
Over estimation of russian capability was a key factor in WW1. It emboldened a France smarting after the indignities of 1870.
The desperate attempt by France to restore its prestige was, in my view, a prime mover in WW1.
Actually the Tsarist army was surprisingly effective. It roundly defeated the Austro-Hungarians in the Carpathians and turned Prezemsl into a WW1 Stalingrad. The Brusilov offensive of 1916 was also devastating, and the invasion of Ottoman Anatolia too.
Against the Germans they did not do so well (but who did? - until the British Imperial Army broke the back of the German Army in the 1918 battles). The Russian army was inadequate in artillery, communications and command processes, but nonetheless mobilised much quicker than the Germans thought possible. The Germans had to switch forces and Generals from the Western Front in order to win at Tannenberg.
By the end of 1918 it was war weariness, lack of food and equipment that defeated the Russians, but they were not alone in that. All powers apart from Britain experienced major mutinies and defeatism before the end of that terrible war.
Morning Hurst , totally agree, hard to believe that they got into it again after the slaughter in the Great War. Unfortunately the people who make the decisions are never involved in any sacrifice. As ever posturing by politicians who have no clue or plans and just get involved in knee jerk reactions, safe in the knowledge that it has no impact on them. It is a scandal that these donkeys can just send people to war on a whim and especially on the rubbish Cameron spouted on Wednesday regarding 70,000 ground troops.
Churchill went to fight on the front lines after the failure of the Gallipoli campaign. Perhaps Blair should have steppe down and gone to fight in Iraq ....
Yes, supping champagne well behind lines , he was a useless soldier and tactician.
Actually Mr G. that is a total travesty. When Churchill first went to France he was given a new commission, remember he had previously been a serving officer so not unusual at the time, and was posted to a brigade HQ. However, the brigadier ran a strict no-alcohol policy, which did not suit Churchill. So he wangled a posting to a frontline unit where, at the risk of his life in action, he could at least enjoy a glass or two of whiskey in the evenings.
As regards being a useless soldier and tactician, again the record doesn't support your assertion. Churchill was regarded quite highly by both his men and his superior officers.
If you want chapter and verse and all references you'll have to give me time because my papers on WSC in WW1 are in the attic.
One Tornado was lost while a JP223 was actually attached to the airframe. The rest were lost in medium level bombing runs.... In Afghanistan - well, Butcher-And-Bolt would be considered a bit OTT in this day and age. The point about Brimstone is not that it will end the war by Christmas - it is that we have capabilities that are actually of some use (demonstrated).
I know. That's the point I'm making. Having a war because a) we can and b) we have some useful kit are not necessarily good reasons.
I'm not unsympathetic to bombing if we take it for what it is: a desire to hurt those who have hurt us. That's not a bad reason and may in fact do some good. But if we tart it up with "exit strategies", "international law", and slapping ten-dollar words on two-cent atavism, we're only fogging an issue (warfare) which always requires clarity.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
It wasn't Labour that scrapped the carriers, flogged all our Harriers to America, and gave a fifth of the army their cards.
Labour did flog our sea harriers ... in 2006 I think.
The issue was that the Sea Harriers were tired to the point of falling apart. Updating them would be very expensive and limited, due to the limitations of a small, old air frame.
The real choice came down to - an expensive bodge that would last a few years, with little real capability (traditional British military procurement practice) , or a gap, followed by a real capability.
It is quite enjoyable listening to the anger from BAe and their supporters club concerning the fact the RC-135W and the P8s will be bought without "British customisation" - they stuffed up for years and billions and seem to think they are owed more. Hopefully Con Coughlin will self-combust....
The reality was we should never have joined WW1. Without that conflict, we would still live in a happier and more peaceful world, where there would be a balance of powers, not one power seeking permanent hegemony.
Actually it made sense for the UK to join WW1. If we had stayed out we know from German state papers that, had they beaten the French in 1914, then we would have been fighting the Germans on our own in 1915 or 1916 and from a much worse strategic position. The balance of powers of which you speak would not have happened.
A victorious Germany circa 1916 could not have invaded the UK: even Hitler circa 1940 could not do it. It might have caused some problems in Africa, with the German and British empires bumping in to each other, but other than that, not really.
The German plans for post war 1914-15, the terms they would in effect impose on a France, included (along with the ethnic cleansing of Belgium and its population be replaced with German ex-servicemen), the demilitarisation in fact the deindustrialisation of France, the German occupation of a coastal strip including all the channel ports. They would also have had the complete freedom to spend a couple of years building up their, already formidable, navy.
The result of that would have been a little more than some squabbles over borders in Africa. Invasion of the UK is a red herring and has been for a couple of hundred years. The way to defeat the UK and make it do your bidding is at sea.
True: we are vulnerable to siege. Killing our food imports by sea kills us. But this requires the UK to maintain a strong Navy and blockade/bomb their ports, not a land invasion of Europe. Friendly relationships with a 1920's Imperial Germany can be ensured by being able to hurt them lots if they turn nasty. Which was well within the wheelhouse of a 1920's British Empire sans WWI.
I am not sure it would have been, but we also seem to have slipped a few years here. War with Germany, assuming the beat the Frogs in 1914/15 would have been far more likely in the period 1916 -1918 than later.
However we are moving now into the realm of alternative-history and too far away from the reasons, for good or ill, of standing by our commitments in 1914.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
Is that our only one that can put to sea. Only thing we have plenty of is Admirals.
If your brain was dynamite it would not blow your cap off.
It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.
A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.
So what is your alternative to tackle ISIS? It's a perfectly credible and arguable position to say you are against bombing for those reasons, but less so if you think ISIS needs tackling but cannot come up with a credible alternative way forward.
I would start by strangling their economy (it is possible that bombing may help with this by destroying bridges, powerstations, government offices) by cutting off their funds from the Saudis and the Gulf states. This may need sanctions against these countries who fail to act against their own citizens.
Internally I would act against Islamist agitators in this country. I would revoke residence permits for non-nationals at the discretion of the Home Secretary, require dual-nationals to choose a passport, and revise and refresh treason legislation so that those who advocate violence against British forces or institutions can suffer the full force of the law.
I don't agree with the last point. Decent people need to allow some moral and intellectual space for the possibility that British forces can be used as instruments of evil in the same way that the Wehrmacht was under Hitler.At that point loyalty to humanity overrides loyalty to a particular state - eg Bonhoeffer - Stauffenberg. Many of us believe we reached that point under Blair in 2003 when we attacked Iraq.
Morning Hurst , totally agree, hard to believe that they got into it again after the slaughter in the Great War. Unfortunately the people who make the decisions are never involved in any sacrifice. As ever posturing by politicians who have no clue or plans and just get involved in knee jerk reactions, safe in the knowledge that it has no impact on them. It is a scandal that these donkeys can just send people to war on a whim and especially on the rubbish Cameron spouted on Wednesday regarding 70,000 ground troops.
Churchill went to fight on the front lines after the failure of the Gallipoli campaign. Perhaps Blair should have steppe down and gone to fight in Iraq ....
Yes, supping champagne well behind lines , he was a useless soldier and tactician.
Actually Mr G. that is a total travesty. When Churchill first went to France he was given a new commission, remember he had previously been a serving officer so not unusual at the time, and was posted to a brigade HQ. However, the brigadier ran a strict no-alcohol policy, which did not suit Churchill. So he wangled a posting to a frontline unit where, at the risk of his life in action, he could at least enjoy a glass or two of whiskey in the evenings.
As regards being a useless soldier and tactician, again the record doesn't support your assertion. Churchill was regarded quite highly by both his men and his superior officers.
If you want chapter and verse and all references you'll have to give me time because my papers on WSC in WW1 are in the attic.
It was a joke among journalists etc. that no late 19th cent war was complete without Churchill at the front somewhere. He may have been one of the few people who resigned from the army to see more action - after annoying generals with his newspaper articles and books on their failings, they had the idea to bench him in the UK for the Boer war. So he resigned his commission and went as a journalist. Where he saw more action than many soldiers...
As to being a useless tactician - it is rathering interesting to hear the comments of Gallipoli veterans. Such as Atlee. Who thought that it was a good idea turned into a disaster by bad generalship. There were three points (at least) in which charging ahead, rather than dithering, would have won the campaign, before it became another trench front.
Personally I think a military merger between us and France has been on the cards with 'the powers that be' for some time. It would prevent Britain from ever again forming ambitions to be a world power, tying us to continental Europe for good, and at the same time prevent France from drifting toward Russia and against the US as it is perpetually tempted to do, tying it to 'The West' for good. It's part of long term US geopolitical strategy.
Look at those aircraft carriers we were meant to be 'sharing' with France. Now we can't defend our borders without their help, and they can't escort their carriers without ours. Very shortly it will no doubt be presented as a 'necessity' for our 'security'.
...A friend was doing a Masters in Operations Research...
I can cope with Hallow'een, Prom night, High School, yellow school buses. But some things a sacrosanct. This is Britain. It's "Operational Research", not "Operations Research".
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
Is that our only one that can put to sea. Only thing we have plenty of is Admirals.
...A friend was doing a Masters in Operations Research...
I can cope with Hallow'een, Prom night, High School, yellow school buses. But some things a sacrosanct. This is Britain. It's "Operational Research", not "Operations Research".
I'm not pedantic. I'm precise...:-)
Ha Ha
Which was my friends supervisors reaction to the careful advice he received, in the best British style, to destroy my friends academic career - "not a team player" etc.....
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
It wasn't Labour that scrapped the carriers, flogged all our Harriers to America, and gave a fifth of the army their cards.
Labour did flog our sea harriers ... in 2006 I think.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
It wasn't Labour that scrapped the carriers, flogged all our Harriers to America, and gave a fifth of the army their cards.
Labour did flog our sea harriers ... in 2006 I think.
It is quite enjoyable listening to the anger from BAe and their supporters club concerning the fact the RC-135W and the P8s will be bought without "British customisation" - they stuffed up for years and billions and seem to think they are owed more. Hopefully Con Coughlin will self-combust....
Quite. They think we should "improve it" by spending billions to, in all likelihood, make it worse.....
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
It wasn't Labour that scrapped the carriers, flogged all our Harriers to America, and gave a fifth of the army their cards.
Labour did flog our sea harriers ... in 2006 I think.
Labour's mistake. Like the one they made with Nimrod. The harriers were ground attack harriers and their role could be carried out better by tornadoes.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
It wasn't Labour that scrapped the carriers, flogged all our Harriers to America, and gave a fifth of the army their cards.
Labour did flog our sea harriers ... in 2006 I think.
Can anyone actually tell me why it's so absurd not to be bombing Syria as opposed to doing more in Iraq and correspondly others doing more in Syria?
I answered this when you asked it the other day. The main reason being we have capabilities that would be useful, and which cannot necessarily be easily replicated by the other forces.
The other factor is that our planes are based in Cyprus. It takes several hours and refuelling to attack a target in Iraq. Mobile targets have often moved by that point. We would be more effective bombing Syria than Iraq, crowded airspace permitting!
I would stick to doctoring.
Doing a "rooftop hop" they could be in downtown Bagdad or Mosul in little under an hour. Less if they go supersonic. No refuelling required. Faster on the way back as they would be lighter of course
.
As if I had not guessed by your smartarse answer. Fox gave his opinion and only a smug prat would start off with "stick to doctoring". Re abuse, I post to many other polite and sensible posters perfectly thank you, and only reply in kind to people like yourself.
Poor response as usual.
Mr l Fox did not give his 'opinion' as you infer he stated it as an absolute fact "takes several hours", "they have to refuel" he said. I correctly pointed out that was bollox it wasn't absolutely necessary and it's quicker should they wish to hit an identified target that Fox had categorically stated " would actually be long gone." In fairness it still might be long.bygone of course and even shorter travel may miss it. I just get fed up with made up theories to try and support a point. Which brings me back to you of course as a master of this process.
You still have not provided any link or evidence to support your consistent "two plane theory.". Not surprising as normal......... You also still have not provided evidence of your "liar and halfwit" statement from yesterday. I see you have now started on the French minister as well today.
Meanwhile I also suggest you look at your own many posts and reflect on the smugness and abuse from just about every single one. Make It easy you don't even have to move off this thread for eveidence.
Just for reference...... DYOR
Distance from Cyprus to Iraq is: 642.8 Miles
(1034.4 Kilometers / 558.2 Nautical Miles)
Approximate travel time from Nicosia, Cyprus to Baghdad, Iraq is 1 hrs, 33 mins (commercial speed)
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
It wasn't Labour that scrapped the carriers, flogged all our Harriers to America, and gave a fifth of the army their cards.
Labour did flog our sea harriers ... in 2006 I think.
It is quite enjoyable listening to the anger from BAe and their supporters club concerning the fact the RC-135W and the P8s will be bought without "British customisation" - they stuffed up for years and billions and seem to think they are owed more. Hopefully Con Coughlin will self-combust....
Quite. They think we should "improve it" by spending billions to, in all likelihood, make it worse.....
It was a joke among journalists etc. that no late 19th cent war was complete without Churchill at the front somewhere. He may have been one of the few people who resigned from the army to see more action - after annoying generals with his newspaper articles and books on their failings, they had the idea to bench him in the UK for the Boer war. So he resigned his commission and went as a journalist. Where he saw more action than many soldiers...
As to being a useless tactician - it is rathering interesting to hear the comments of Gallipoli veterans. Such as Atlee. Who thought that it was a good idea turned into a disaster by bad generalship. There were three points (at least) in which charging ahead, rather than dithering, would have won the campaign, before it became another trench front.
In WW2, Churchill at the Admiralty opposed the navy escorting convoys and sent the expert on anti-submarine warfare back to sea. Norway was another Churchillian fiasco, and he supported bombing German civilians rather than freeing up Lancasters for anti-submarine patrols; at the end of the war, fighting our way up through Italy was similarly misconceived.
Though as someone or other said, Churchill was often wrong but he was right the one time it really mattered.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
It wasn't Labour that scrapped the carriers, flogged all our Harriers to America, and gave a fifth of the army their cards.
Labour did flog our sea harriers ... in 2006 I think.
Labour's mistake. Like the one they made with Nimrod. The harriers were ground attack harriers and their role could be carried out better by tornadoes.
Tell it to the marines. The US Marines think they got a brilliant deal at a fire sale price and aim to keep flying Harriers till at least 2025.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
It wasn't Labour that scrapped the carriers, flogged all our Harriers to America, and gave a fifth of the army their cards.
Labour did flog our sea harriers ... in 2006 I think.
The issue was that the Sea Harriers were tired to the point of falling apart. Updating them would be very expensive and limited, due to the limitations of a small, old air frame.
The real choice came down to - an expensive bodge that would last a few years, with little real capability (traditional British military procurement practice) , or a gap, followed by a real capability.
It is quite enjoyable listening to the anger from BAe and their supporters club concerning the fact the RC-135W and the P8s will be bought without "British customisation" - they stuffed up for years and billions and seem to think they are owed more. Hopefully Con Coughlin will self-combust....
Excellent post, Sir.
Of course, the gap between the retirement of the Sea Harriers and the arrival of the new carriers was only supposed to have been six years.
BAe, not known as Big And expensive for nothing, really does need sorting out. Nationalisation is probably not the right answer but their near monopoly on UK defence procurement and their sense of entitlement to profits at the expense of the UK taxpayer should be broken.
It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.
A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.
So what is your alternative to tackle ISIS? It's a perfectly credible and arguable position to say you are against bombing for those reasons, but less so if you think ISIS needs tackling but cannot come up with a credible alternative way forward.
I would start by strangling their economy (it is possible that bombing may help with this by destroying bridges, powerstations, government offices) by cutting off their funds from the Saudis and the Gulf states. This may need sanctions against these countries who fail to act against their own citizens.
Internally I would act against Islamist agitators in this country. I would revoke residence permits for non-nationals at the discretion of the Home Secretary, require dual-nationals to choose a passport, and revise and refresh treason legislation so that those who advocate violence against British forces or institutions can suffer the full force of the law.
Labour could never agree with the treason legislation......
...A friend was doing a Masters in Operations Research...
I can cope with Hallow'een, Prom night, High School, yellow school buses. But some things a sacrosanct. This is Britain. It's "Operational Research", not "Operations Research".
I'm not pedantic. I'm precise...:-)
Ha Ha
Which was my friends supervisors reaction to the careful advice he received, in the best British style, to destroy my friends academic career - "not a team player" etc.....
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
It wasn't Labour that scrapped the carriers, flogged all our Harriers to America, and gave a fifth of the army their cards.
Sad the sea harriers went but there were serious cost issues involved in maintenance etc. I still think it was probably the wrong decision but they were constrained with available funds. Decisions had to be made and quickly. The same goes for the carriers. The refit costs of naval warships are just eye watering and although you can extend the life for an additional period it always has to be balanced on what the returns will be.
Building more carriers to replace them well yes. The main problem though is shipbuilding has to be looked at years in advance and I wonder if we could have sustained the costs of the new carriers and the refit costs of the existing plus the fleet of Sea harriers.
The worse position to be in a ship build is not to have all your planning spot on before you start the build ( or refit) as subsequent changes are again seriously costly. The second worse ( some might say No 1) is to agree to a contract that costs you more in cancellation charges than it does to effectively construct and take delivery. Procurement process seems to be an issue here with the new carriers more than anything else.
All governments need to get this part right so we get the maximum " bang for our tax payer buck" .
...A friend was doing a Masters in Operations Research...
I can cope with Hallow'een, Prom night, High School, yellow school buses. But some things a sacrosanct. This is Britain. It's "Operational Research", not "Operations Research".
I'm not pedantic. I'm precise...:-)
Ha Ha
Which was my friends supervisors reaction to the careful advice he received, in the best British style, to destroy my friends academic career - "not a team player" etc.....
I hope your friend's career survived
His supervisor had a quiet word with a Professor at the hospital. The careful-advice character suffered a small career failure himself. Plus a public humiliation when what he had tried to do was deliberately made known.
"Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help."
I am against getting involved in this war for reasons I spoken about often enough and am not going to repeat again. However, I think that point is so powerful that were I an MP I would vote in favour of war because of it and in spite of my misgivings.
At the moment we need the French for the defence of the British Isles and our vital national interest. They have capabilities which, through the stupidity of the fool Cameron and his sidekick Osborne we have given up, but still need. So when the French ask us for help I think we have to give it.
Rubbish. For a start the French carrier is being defended by a UK warship. Our own defence procurement was totally messed up by labour. We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
It wasn't Labour that scrapped the carriers, flogged all our Harriers to America, and gave a fifth of the army their cards.
Labour did flog our sea harriers ... in 2006 I think.
Labour's mistake. Like the one they made with Nimrod. The harriers were ground attack harriers and their role could be carried out better by tornadoes.
Tell it to the marines. The US Marines think they got a brilliant deal at a fire sale price and aim to keep flying Harriers till at least 2025.
They are not sea harriers. They are ground attack aircraft that can operate under the umbrella of marine equivalent of sea harriers and more importantly he fighter cover of the US Navy and their 100,000 tonne aircraft carriers.
The USA operate a large number of harriers and use their purchase as a source of spares. The harrier fleet was updated over a period of 10 years (the basis of the £600m claim ) and although we sold them 74, only about 40 were actually still serviceable when we sold them in 2010.
Morning Hurst , totally agree, hard to believe that they got into it again after the slaughter in the Great War. Unfortunately the people who make the decisions are never involved in any sacrifice. As ever posturing by politicians who have no clue or plans and just get involved in knee jerk reactions, safe in the knowledge that it has no impact on them. It is a scandal that these donkeys can just send people to war on a whim and especially on the rubbish Cameron spouted on Wednesday regarding 70,000 ground troops.
Churchill went to fight on the front lines after the failure of the Gallipoli campaign. Perhaps Blair should have steppe down and gone to fight in Iraq ....
Yes, supping champagne well behind lines , he was a useless soldier and tactician.
Actually Mr G. that is a total travesty. When Churchill first went to France he was given a new commission, remember he had previously been a serving officer so not unusual at the time, and was posted to a brigade HQ. However, the brigadier ran a strict no-alcohol policy, which did not suit Churchill. So he wangled a posting to a frontline unit where, at the risk of his life in action, he could at least enjoy a glass or two of whiskey in the evenings.
As regards being a useless soldier and tactician, again the record doesn't support your assertion. Churchill was regarded quite highly by both his men and his superior officers.
If you want chapter and verse and all references you'll have to give me time because my papers on WSC in WW1 are in the attic.
Hurst I applaud yopu knowledge , but I am very biased against him after his performance in Glasgow, confining Scottish troops to barracks and putting tanks and English troops to the crowd. He will remain an arsehole of the first order to me for that I am afraid, no matter his other exploits or however irrational.
Comments
I've met quite a few people who, when the stated aims of ISIS are explained to them, say that this can't be true. When you explain that they are literally trying to enact a scenario from the Koran - you get accused of being racist!
Yes. It's almost worth sending ground troops in to entice them to the plains of Dabiq and then seeing the disappointment in their faces as Jesus fails to ride in and save the mujahideen from obliteration
It's arguable that such a defeat would be the most effective way to collapse their ideology, worldwide
The result of that would have been a little more than some squabbles over borders in Africa. Invasion of the UK is a red herring and has been for a couple of hundred years. The way to defeat the UK and make it do your bidding is at sea.
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/8378499/Oldham-West-and-Royton-By-Election.html
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.121439788
We play a full part in NATO. Your anti Cameron rhetoric is pathetic and based on ignorance.
* Gulf War I: we had airfield denial weaponry developed post-Falklands. We went in but the Iraqis put surface-to-air missiles at the end of the runway and a lot of Tornados turned into dune darts.
* Gulf War II: we had 30 years of counter-insurgency experence in Northern Ireland so we went into Basra. The Iraqis built IEDs beyond Gerry's dreams and shredded the Land Rovers.
* Afghanistan: we had over a century's worth of experience in the area. None of which counted.
* Syrian Civil War: we have this "Brimstone" thing. It's really great. The war will be over by Xmas...
Unless your idea of fun is Ronda Campesinas?
Anyway in recent times I think we were right to join WW1, WW2 (probably, but not wholly sure), Korea, Malaya, Borneo, Vietnam (possibly), Falklands, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan 2001-2005. Plus of course numerous nasty little campaigns which mainly only involved special forces e.g. Oman. The first Indo-Pakistan war had British soldiers fighting on both sides, honourably and correctly in my view but quite against HMG's instructions.
During the gap, the UK has borrowed NATO assets and made do. While the MOD procurement branch was sorted out and while Project Seedcorn (UK crews flying American P8s) kept the skills alive. Indeed, just the other day, a UK crew won the top trophy in an ASW exercise while flying a P8.
We are now going to buy P8s - after all the initial problems were sorted out (5 years ago it was in development) at American expense. So, we are going to get some aircraft which actually have a certificate of airworthiness and have been extensively proof-tested by RAF expert aircrew.
To talk only of cuts while ignoring the deficit Labour left behind is completely innumerate.
In Afghanistan - well, Butcher-And-Bolt would be considered a bit OTT in this day and age.
The point about Brimstone is not that it will end the war by Christmas - it is that we have capabilities that are actually of some use (demonstrated).
Accusing others of ignorance whilst slavishly following the Conservative Party line does you no credit.
However we are moving now into the realm of alternative-history and too far away from the reasons, for good or ill, of standing by our commitments in 1914.
Against the Germans they did not do so well (but who did? - until the British Imperial Army broke the back of the German Army in the 1918 battles). The Russian army was inadequate in artillery, communications and command processes, but nonetheless mobilised much quicker than the Germans thought possible. The Germans had to switch forces and Generals from the Western Front in order to win at Tannenberg.
By the end of 1918 it was war weariness, lack of food and equipment that defeated the Russians, but they were not alone in that. All powers apart from Britain experienced major mutinies and defeatism before the end of that terrible war.
As regards being a useless soldier and tactician, again the record doesn't support your assertion. Churchill was regarded quite highly by both his men and his superior officers.
If you want chapter and verse and all references you'll have to give me time because my papers on WSC in WW1 are in the attic.
I'm not unsympathetic to bombing if we take it for what it is: a desire to hurt those who have hurt us. That's not a bad reason and may in fact do some good. But if we tart it up with "exit strategies", "international law", and slapping ten-dollar words on two-cent atavism, we're only fogging an issue (warfare) which always requires clarity.
The real choice came down to - an expensive bodge that would last a few years, with little real capability (traditional British military procurement practice) , or a gap, followed by a real capability.
It is quite enjoyable listening to the anger from BAe and their supporters club concerning the fact the RC-135W and the P8s will be bought without "British customisation" - they stuffed up for years and billions and seem to think they are owed more. Hopefully Con Coughlin will self-combust....
As to being a useless tactician - it is rathering interesting to hear the comments of Gallipoli veterans. Such as Atlee. Who thought that it was a good idea turned into a disaster by bad generalship. There were three points (at least) in which charging ahead, rather than dithering, would have won the campaign, before it became another trench front.
Look at those aircraft carriers we were meant to be 'sharing' with France. Now we can't defend our borders without their help, and they can't escort their carriers without ours. Very shortly it will no doubt be presented as a 'necessity' for our 'security'.
I'm not pedantic. I'm precise...:-)
Which was my friends supervisors reaction to the careful advice he received, in the best British style, to destroy my friends academic career - "not a team player" etc.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2119894/MoD-tried-cover-selling-Harrier-jets-Americans-knock-price-112m-600m-refit.html
Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy said:
What ever happened to him?
Though as someone or other said, Churchill was often wrong but he was right the one time it really mattered.
Of course, the gap between the retirement of the Sea Harriers and the arrival of the new carriers was only supposed to have been six years.
BAe, not known as Big And expensive for nothing, really does need sorting out. Nationalisation is probably not the right answer but their near monopoly on UK defence procurement and their sense of entitlement to profits at the expense of the UK taxpayer should be broken.
Building more carriers to replace them well yes. The main problem though is shipbuilding has to be looked at years in advance and I wonder if we could have sustained the costs of the new carriers and the refit costs of the existing plus the fleet of Sea harriers.
The worse position to be in a ship build is not to have all your planning spot on before you start the build ( or refit) as subsequent changes are again seriously costly. The second worse ( some might say No 1) is to agree to a contract that costs you more in cancellation charges than it does to effectively construct and take delivery. Procurement process seems to be an issue here with the new carriers more than anything else.
All governments need to get this part right so we get the maximum " bang for our tax payer buck" .
They are ground attack aircraft that can operate under the umbrella of marine equivalent of sea harriers and more importantly he fighter cover of the US Navy and their 100,000 tonne aircraft carriers.
The USA operate a large number of harriers and use their purchase as a source of spares.
The harrier fleet was updated over a period of 10 years (the basis of the £600m claim ) and although we sold them 74, only about 40 were actually still serviceable when we sold them in 2010.
He will remain an arsehole of the first order to me for that I am afraid, no matter his other exploits or however irrational.