British ******s axe 20% AF, 10% Army, 20% Navy

[Grantland]

To pay for the Iraqi Folly. What utter ARSEHOLES!

Grantland

[Ian]

"Grantland" > wrote in message
...
> To pay for the Iraqi Folly. What utter ARSEHOLES!
>
> Grantland

I would like to say that you're jumping the gun a bit. But then I've worked
in the defence industry long enough to realise that when a paper gets a leak
like this, its usually right.

But still they'll expect our troops to go all over the world, and do the
same job, with even less kit etc. And so the downward spiral continues!

[IanDTurner]

Now think about the logical continuation of this thread.

With that level of drawdown, the RAF will not have sufficient manpower to man
all the proposed Eurofighter sqns.

What do you reckon the next defence in a year or two will be then?

[Ian MacLure]

(Grantland) wrote in news:40df108c.113911496@ct-
news.iafrica.com:

> To pay for the Iraqi Folly.

No, to pay for the entitlements the electorate demands.

> What utter ARSEHOLES!

Yes, a fair description of Labor IMHO.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Grantland" > wrote in message
...
> To pay for the Iraqi Folly. What utter ARSEHOLES!
>

Perhaps they would be better equipped to cover their national security
responsibilities if they didn't have a massive welfare state to pay for.

But alas, such is the story with Europe these days; bare-bones military
expenditures in favor of wasteful and unnecessary social programs. Depend on
the USA to provide most security, then accuse them of 'imperialism'. What a
joke.

[Tuollaf43]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message >...
> "Grantland" > wrote in message
> ...
> > To pay for the Iraqi Folly. What utter ARSEHOLES!
> >
>
> Perhaps they would be better equipped to cover their national security
> responsibilities if they didn't have a massive welfare state to pay for.
>
> But alas, such is the story with Europe these days; bare-bones military
> expenditures in favor of wasteful and unnecessary social programs.
> Depend on
> the USA to provide most security, then accuse them of 'imperialism'. What a
> joke.

err - the US Carriers, bombers and tanks protect the Europeans from
whom exactly? Who is about to murder the germans, rape the french and
pillage the Brits? For instance I am at a loss to understand who
threatens the physical security of the UK? Why does UK or France need
Carriers?

[Robert Briggs]

Tuollaf43 wrote:

> err - the US Carriers, bombers and tanks protect the Europeans from
> whom exactly? Who is about to murder the germans, rape the french and
> pillage the Brits? For instance I am at a loss to understand who
> threatens the physical security of the UK? Why does UK or France need
> Carriers?

Not many moons back, we were given to believe that Saddam threatened the
physical security of UK interests.

Specifically, the impression was given that his "45-minute" weapons
included missiles with sufficient range to hit Akrotiri.

Bliar and Buff'oon now tell us that that was not *their* interpretation
of the relevant bits of the dossier, but they didn't bother to tell that
to Paxo or Kirsty on Newsnight at the time.

[L'acrobat]

"Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
...
> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
>...
> > "Grantland" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > To pay for the Iraqi Folly. What utter ARSEHOLES!
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps they would be better equipped to cover their national security
> > responsibilities if they didn't have a massive welfare state to pay for.
> >
> > But alas, such is the story with Europe these days; bare-bones military
> > expenditures in favor of wasteful and unnecessary social programs.
> > Depend on
> > the USA to provide most security, then accuse them of 'imperialism'.
What a
> > joke.
>
> err - the US Carriers, bombers and tanks protect the Europeans from
> whom exactly? Who is about to murder the germans, rape the french and
> pillage the Brits? For instance I am at a loss to understand who
> threatens the physical security of the UK? Why does UK or France need
> Carriers?

I see you've not heard of the Falklands...

[Tuollaf43]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message >...
> "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Grantland" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > To pay for the Iraqi Folly. What utter ARSEHOLES!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps they would be better equipped to cover their national security
> > > responsibilities if they didn't have a massive welfare state to pay for.
> > >
> > > But alas, such is the story with Europe these days; bare-bones military
> > > expenditures in favor of wasteful and unnecessary social programs.
> > > Depend on
> > > the USA to provide most security, then accuse them of 'imperialism'.
> What a
> > > joke.
> >
> > err - the US Carriers, bombers and tanks protect the Europeans from
> > whom exactly? Who is about to murder the germans, rape the french and
> > pillage the Brits? For instance I am at a loss to understand who
> > threatens the physical security of the UK? Why does UK or France need
> > Carriers?
>
> I see you've not heard of the Falklands...

oh yes, _that_ "Just War".

[L'acrobat]

"Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
om...

> > > err - the US Carriers, bombers and tanks protect the Europeans from
> > > whom exactly? Who is about to murder the germans, rape the french and
> > > pillage the Brits? For instance I am at a loss to understand who
> > > threatens the physical security of the UK? Why does UK or France need
> > > Carriers?
> >
> > I see you've not heard of the Falklands...
>
> oh yes, _that_ "Just War".

I'm sure that the Brits living on the Falklands were delighted at the
prospect of coming under the Argentinean 'justice' system.

and neither France nor the UK could ever need carriers again...

[Mike]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Grantland" > wrote in message
> ...
> > To pay for the Iraqi Folly. What utter ARSEHOLES!
> >
>
> Perhaps they would be better equipped to cover their national security
> responsibilities if they didn't have a massive welfare state to pay for.
>
> But alas, such is the story with Europe these days; bare-bones military
> expenditures in favor of wasteful and unnecessary social programs. Depend
on
> the USA to provide most security, then accuse them of 'imperialism'. What
a
> joke.
>
>
>
Sorry. Security against whom? I don't know of any protection the US has
provided for Britain in the past 15 years.

[Steve]

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 04:40:45 GMT, "L'acrobat"
> wrote:

>Why does UK or France need Carriers?

To project force globally perhaps? :-)


--
Steve.

[tw]

"Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
om...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Grantland" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > To pay for the Iraqi Folly. What utter ARSEHOLES!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps they would be better equipped to cover their national
security
> > > > responsibilities if they didn't have a massive welfare state to pay
for.
> > > >
> > > > But alas, such is the story with Europe these days; bare-bones
military
> > > > expenditures in favor of wasteful and unnecessary social programs.
> > > > Depend on
> > > > the USA to provide most security, then accuse them of 'imperialism'.
> > What a
> > > > joke.
> > >
> > > err - the US Carriers, bombers and tanks protect the Europeans from
> > > whom exactly? Who is about to murder the germans, rape the french and
> > > pillage the Brits? For instance I am at a loss to understand who
> > > threatens the physical security of the UK? Why does UK or France need
> > > Carriers?
> >
> > I see you've not heard of the Falklands...
>
> oh yes, _that_ "Just War".

About as just as they come really. Unless you regard annexing sovereign
territory against the wishes of the inhabitants as the height of justice.

[Pooh Bear]

L'acrobat wrote:

> "Tuollaf43" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > err - the US Carriers, bombers and tanks protect the Europeans from
> > whom exactly?

Since the fall of the Easten Bloc and USSR - exactly no-one.

> >Who is about to murder the germans, rape the french and
> > pillage the Brits?

The Americans ?

> >For instance I am at a loss to understand who
> > threatens the physical security of the UK? Why does UK or France need
> > Carriers?

To look *cool* man !

Hey - those new UK carriers are in the 'Nimitz Class' ! Let's show those Yanks
we can play in their backyard too !

> I see you've not heard of the Falklands...

The Falklands fiasco was caused by the cheap erronious 'corner shop mentality'
economics of Margaret Thatcher's ( right wing cost-cutting ) administation that
resulted in the Argies foolishly thinking we didn't care about the Falkland Is
any more.

Big mistake !


Graham

[Nemo l'Ancien]

>
>
>>>For instance I am at a loss to understand who
>>>threatens the physical security of the UK? Why does UK or France need
>>>Carriers?
>

And why the US need them?