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

To pay for the Iraqi Folly. What utter ARSEHOLES!

Grantland

"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!

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?

(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

"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.

"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?

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.

"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...

"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".

"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...