Defence of the UK

Serious discussion of cycling issues
Saddle bum
Posts: 2042
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 14:50 pm
Contact:

Postby Saddle bum » Sat Jun 09, 2007 19:02 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by TimDanaher</i>

Which hot air has resulted in the scrapping of top-up tuition fees, free prescriptions for everyone, free bus travel for all pensioners, increased aid to farmers during the F&M crisis...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

And who pays for it?

----------------------

Molon Labe.

User avatar
alecstilleyedye
Posts: 1152
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:36 pm
Contact:

Postby alecstilleyedye » Sat Jun 09, 2007 19:24 pm

methinks george w would use the uk as a huge us airforce base[:(!]

if i had a better signature, i'd use that instead

User avatar
dondare
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 09:14 am

Postby dondare » Sat Jun 09, 2007 23:44 pm

If we couldn't defend ourselves today we'd all be speaking French tomorrow.
Or German.
Maybe Cantonese.

<b>You're not the boss of me.</b>

Keith Oates
Posts: 22032
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 19:51 pm

Postby Keith Oates » Sun Jun 10, 2007 00:04 am

Mandarin is more useful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-------------------------
Ride Daily, Keep Healthy

User avatar
mjones
Posts: 1912
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 19:04 pm

Postby mjones » Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:06 am

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by TimDanaher</i>

Which hot air has resulted in the scrapping of top-up tuition fees, free prescriptions for everyone, free bus travel for all pensioners, increased aid to farmers during the F&M crisis...

Cheers,

Tim

http://vizarch.blogspot.com
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Indeed, the luxury of being a devolved government that has powers to spend taxpayers' money, but not to raise it. If they are made accountable to the electorate for the money they take, as well as the money they give, then I suspect their priorities may become somewhat different.

pgscp
Posts: 1102
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 09:09 am
Contact:

Postby pgscp » Sun Jun 10, 2007 15:11 pm

We could build a new empire by invading and colonising all non aligned nations, we could then own Sweden, Lichenstein, Monaco, Switzerland, Finland, loads of little Pacific Islands, possibly Iceland, and why not Cuba just for fun. Might as well also attack Iran to add to the joint US/Uk empires of Afghanistan and Iraq. We could declare an English speaking commonwealth and send any body we did not like to Iraq.

Or we could retract to a self defence force, become neutral ourselves, cease to police the world, and concentrate on peaceful trade and banking, a bit like Switzerland. Taxation would be a lot less too.

Flying_Monkey
Posts: 8702
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 15:29 pm

Postby Flying_Monkey » Sun Jun 10, 2007 17:31 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tourist Tony</i>

What would happen? We'd end up selling ourselves out to some other government, possibly based in Brusse....oh, hang on...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Unlike say, selling ourselves (and our defence) out to the Americans, which is what we've done since WW2... that's so much more independent. We only paid off our post-war debts last year, our 'independent' nuclear deterent can't be lauched without their say-so, and we are obliged to supply the USA with all the signals intelligence gathered by GCHQ (amongst other things...).

I'd rather be European than an American lap-dog.

-----
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
-----

BigWomble
Posts: 452
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 15:33 pm

Postby BigWomble » Sun Jun 10, 2007 18:04 pm

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Vegetius (wise Latin bloke).

Ta - Arabic for moo-cow

ankev1
Posts: 3677
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 13:11 pm

Postby ankev1 » Sun Jun 10, 2007 20:26 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Flying_Monkey</i>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tourist Tony</i>

What would happen? We'd end up selling ourselves out to some other government, possibly based in Brusse....oh, hang on...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Unlike say, selling ourselves (and our defence) out to the Americans, which is what we've done since WW2... that's so much more independent. We only paid off our post-war debts last year, <b>our 'independent' nuclear deterent can't be lauched without their say-so</b>, and <b>we are obliged to supply the USA with all the signals intelligence gathered by GCHQ </b>(amongst other things...).

I'd rather be European than an American lap-dog.

-----
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
-----
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I detect a bit of economy with the truth in this.

I don't know to what extent you're right about the nuclear deterrent but it would be nice to see some proper proof.

As for the second, there is a sharing agreement between the Brits and yanks on certain areas of that material, which means that nothing like all the stuff which the Brits collect gets passed on to them.

Tourist Tony
Posts: 8614
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 16:15 pm

Postby Tourist Tony » Sun Jun 10, 2007 20:29 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Flying_Monkey</i>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tourist Tony</i>

What would happen? We'd end up selling ourselves out to some other government, possibly based in Brusse....oh, hang on...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Unlike say, selling ourselves (and our defence) out to the Americans, which is what we've done since WW2... that's so much more independent. We only paid off our post-war debts last year, our 'independent' nuclear deterent can't be lauched without their say-so, and we are obliged to supply the USA with all the signals intelligence gathered by GCHQ (amongst other things...).

I'd rather be European than an American lap-dog.

-----
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
-----
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I'd rather not be a lap-dog at all-neither Euro nor Yank.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Tourist Tony
Posts: 8614
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 16:15 pm

Postby Tourist Tony » Mon Jun 11, 2007 03:46 am

Yes, but Finland is now owned by Brussels. And Switzerland are outside the Eu, so they can't afford any weapons because their economy has collapsed.
Apparently.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

User avatar
nolf
Posts: 2027
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:27 am

Postby nolf » Mon Jun 11, 2007 04:15 am

You can never dispand the army.

If you did so it would take at least 20 years to get a new army of equivalent standard to the one disbanded.

It isn't just a case of training soldiers- you would have no-one to train them, no one to lead them, no equipment, no one trained to use the equipment, no strategic plans, no threat assesment from various countries, no battle tactics, no chance of defeating any foreign country without extensive training and to a large extent experience!
Everyone who had experience of battle and war would go back to normal jobs and who knows if they would still be alive when the army was restarted.

An army is a gradually entity that has to constantly change its tactics and methods of warfare to addapt to changing tactical circumstances and new technology.

If the army was got rid of then you would have years and years of work to learn, not only that but you would have to rely on foreign powers (porbably american) to train your new army. So your tactics and equipment would be based around a foreign powers equipment and tactics. You surrender your country to a huge amount of foreign control.

For this reason alone you need to keep your army. For things such as this you have to look at the next 100 years of what could happen instead of the next 5 or 10 years. And who can say whether or not there will be war in that time.

It's only sensible to prepare for the worst, by 2050 China will be the worlds no.1 economy and whos to say they won't take an aggressive foreign policy stance against the West, making it necessary for us to defend purselves against them.

Nuclear weapons defend us to an extent but the difficulty is when do you use them? Armies are much more appropriate.
If (for example) France became hostile to us- would you nuke them then?
If France became increasingly aggressive towards us and started to cut off diplomatic relations do you nuke them then?
If France imprisoned all UK citizens in jail do you nuke them then?
If France delcared war and started landing troops on the Sotuh coast do you nuke them then?
French troops are marching down Oxford Street do you Nuke them then?

In reality even if France had totally defeated you, nuclear weapons still don't work.
Using Nuclear weapons against a nuclear power guarantees an equal response. Nuclear weapons are in effect suicide. You can't defend yourself by comitting suicide, so if anyone were to call your bluff and invade, you'd be left helpess.

Thats why we need an army.


Pride speaks, but Elephants listen...

Flying_Monkey
Posts: 8702
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 15:29 pm

Postby Flying_Monkey » Mon Jun 11, 2007 08:38 am

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ankev1</i>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Flying_Monkey</i>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tourist Tony</i>

What would happen? We'd end up selling ourselves out to some other government, possibly based in Brusse....oh, hang on...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Unlike say, selling ourselves (and our defence) out to the Americans, which is what we've done since WW2... that's so much more independent. We only paid off our post-war debts last year, <b>our 'independent' nuclear deterent can't be lauched without their say-so</b>, and <b>we are obliged to supply the USA with all the signals intelligence gathered by GCHQ </b>(amongst other things...).

I'd rather be European than an American lap-dog.

-----
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
-----
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I detect a bit of economy with the truth in this.

I don't know to what extent you're right about the nuclear deterrent but it would be nice to see some proper proof.

As for the second, there is a sharing agreement between the Brits and yanks on certain areas of that material, which means that nothing like all the stuff which the Brits collect gets passed on to them.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The UKUSA (UK-USA, but generally pronounce Yoo-Koo-Sa) agreement signed in 1946 or 1947 and still officially secret mandates exactly what I said. The original version of this, the BRUSA agreement, dates from WW2. It was supplemented by the CANUSA agreement and Britain also signed on behalf of Australia and New Zealand. All second parties, that is Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand are obliged to supply all SIGINT that the USA requires, with no reciprocity. There are also now many third parties, including Germany, Norway, Japan and so on, which have varying obligations.

The UKUSA agreement was first revealed in public by Duncan Campbell in some articles in the late 70s and early 80s, then in a book in Australia. An Australian minister admitted its existence in a TV prog later on. It's also described in rather more detail by James Bamford in his too books on the National Security Agency, 'The Puzzle Palace' and 'Body of Secrets.' There are also numerous bits of land in Britain that we are obliged to 'loan' to the Americans for SIGINT, for USAF use and various other bits and pieces - Menwith Hill in N.Yorks being the biggest SIGINT element (the main NSA base for the northern hemisphere). All telephone, fax and telex transmissions between Europe and the USA and vice-versa are passed through Menwith, and scanned using voice, word and other recognition software. It's also a downlink for most US military satellite systems and other things besides...

It's pretty well-known now that Britain would not be able to launch a nuclear strike without US approval - it was part of the deal for Trident and no doubt will be part of the deal for the replacement. I'll dig up some evidence if you really want, but it's not something that's really debated by most people who work in the area.

-----
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
-----

ankev1
Posts: 3677
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 13:11 pm

Postby ankev1 » Mon Jun 11, 2007 09:53 am

FM,

The UKUSA agreement was an agreement and the traffic is two way i.e. the obligations are mutual and freely entered into, which was not quite how it came across in your post. It is a fact that all the nations involved share what they are prepared to share, in other words, no one nation automatically hands over all it's stuff to the USA or vice versa.

I'd be wary of quoting Duncan Campbell if I were you. Like any other journalist he gets things wrong now and then and I don't think anybody has ever suggested that he has a privileged inside line to the establishment, unlike, oddly enough Frederick Forsyth who does occasionally get told what the establishment wants him to know.

Flying_Monkey
Posts: 8702
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 15:29 pm

Postby Flying_Monkey » Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:01 am

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ankev1</i>

FM,

The UKUSA agreement was an agreement and the traffic is two way i.e. the obligations are mutual and freely entered into, which was not quite how it came across in your post. It is a fact that all the nations involved share what they are prepared to share, in other words, no one nation automatically hands over all it's stuff to the USA or vice versa.

I'd be wary of quoting Duncan Campbell if I were you. Like any other journalist he gets things wrong now and then and I don't think anybody has ever suggested that he has a privileged inside line to the establishment, unlike, oddly enough Frederick Forsyth who does occasionally get told what the establishment wants him to know.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I am sorry, but are simply wrong about UKUSA. It is not remotely mutual in the sense of obligations being mutual. That is certainly not how the NSA see it at least...

Duncan Campbell is only one of many sources I have on this, some of whom are ex-insiders. I wrote my PhD thesis on SIGINT bases.

If you are suggesting you have inside information, you can contact me privately to confirm your credentials if you like. But believe me, I've met plenty of those who think they know, or worse, pretend they know...

-----
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
-----


Return to “Campaign”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest