Poppy Protest

[NickP]

[quote user="pachapapa"]

Remember the Christmas football match in the trenches.

Featured in last nights film "Joyeux Noël" on france 3.

In the context of the subliminal message on this thread..... not wearing a poppy therefore I am a dirty unpatriotic traitor....the final disbanding of the Scots Brigade with a mass quoting Matthew and establishing that god is on the side of those who fight the germans who are hated by god the father, god the son and god the tiddly poo was particularly poignant. Brought a little wry smile to my photogenic gaze.

[/quote]

I think that having one didlo on this subject is enough,  but like buses here comes another one. By the way check your earlier posts PPP on one you say you emigrated from the UK in 1958 and on another you claim to be a student rioting and throwing ball bearings at horses in Grosvenor square in '68 any other fantasies you would like to share with us? [Www]

 

[pachapapa]

[quote user="NickP"][quote user="pachapapa"]

Remember the Christmas football match in the trenches.

Featured in last nights film "Joyeux Noël" on france 3.

In the context of the subliminal message on this thread..... not wearing a poppy therefore I am a dirty unpatriotic traitor....the final disbanding of the Scots Brigade with a mass quoting Matthew and establishing that god is on the side of those who fight the germans who are hated by god the father, god the son and god the tiddly poo was particularly poignant. Brought a little wry smile to my photogenic gaze.

[/quote]

I think that having one didlo on this subject is enough,  but like buses here comes another one. By the way check your earlier posts PPP on one you say you emigrated from the UK in 1958 and on another you claim to be a student rioting and throwing ball bearings at horses in Grosvenor square in '68 any other fantasies you would like to share with us? [Www]

 

[/quote]

No not '68 with the horses. The horses were 1967 ; 1968 was a different country and no horses.[:D]

What's a didlo?

[woolybanana]

sister of a d i l d o!

[NickP]

 South London expression for a half wit [:D]

[pachapapa]

[quote user="NickP"] South London expression for a half wit [:D][/quote]

Ahh! I thought you were talking dirty, something like a yo banana yo.[6]

[Braco]

[quote user="Russethouse"]For my benefit can you please explain what special threats we face that are not faced by say Germany, Sweden, or Switzerland?

 Did Germany, Sweden or Switzerland join the USA in invading Iraq ?
[/quote] Sorry I am not sure I understand your question. If you mean a threat from attack by a foreign country then I would say no. If you mean a threat from internal residents the answer as we already know is yes.

[woolybanana]

Germany is very close to the old Soviet Union and there are people there rebuilding the armed forces like crazy, and it aint for defence, for example.

[powerdesal]

[quote user="Braco"]The defence of the realm starts with a correct understanding of the threats. For my benefit can you please explain what special threats we face that are not faced by say Germany, Sweden, or Switzerland? I would ask that you do not include the rump of the empire as any leader worthy of the name should be able to negotiate acceptable agreements and guarantees.

.,[/quote]

Threat Analysis, as promised:-

UK Threat Analysis

Considered by area:

Europe. Direct “state-on-state” threat is zero, even though Russia is reportedly re arming and is certainly stepping up the probing flights to the edge of UK air space. Its difficult to figure out what the UK has that Russia could possibly want.

Far East. No direct or indirect threat envisaged

Middle East. Little direct threat, although the possibility of Iranian action affecting passage through the Straits of Hormuz certainly exists but would not be limited to UK interests. Indirect Terrorist threats exist but cannot be addressed in the region. Piracy is an ongoing threat affecting all nationalities.

Americas. North – no threat

South – High threat possibility, from joint action by Argentina + Chile + Brazil in respect of oil reserves in Falklands waters. Argentina is reportedly increasing the defence budget by 50% (no source available) and, in the medium term future could pose a threat to the F.I. Joint action with Chile and Brazil could reduce the time scale of the threat.

Asia. No direct threat, indirect threat possible in retaliation for involvement in Afghanistan.

Action needed.

Mitigate Asian indirect threat by withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, ie let them sort out their own problems.

Withdraw troops from BFG and reinforce the FI garrison to (possibly) Division strength.

Reinforce FI air defence (presently only ½ squadron of Typhoons) by increasing to full squadron of Typhoons + squadron of Tornadoes + squadron of Harrier GR9 dispersed in hides across the island. Consider reinstating Sea Harrier as close air support capability.

Cancel build of PoW and QE, cancel the scrapping of the Harrier force, restructure the ship building contracts to build type 45 destroyers to maintain jobs in British ship yards and to build up a naval patrol capability for home water oil rig protection, South Atlantic patrol presence, anti piracy cooperation with other nations etc.

Reinstate the Nimrod MRA4 order as its patently ridiculous for a maritime nation to not have a maritime patrol aircraft, if only to control the home waters.

Use the balance of troops to maintain a tight border control regime.

[just john]

What about our support commitment to NATO, and thereby other hotspots that might flare up?

Is it inconceivable that the FO have a watching brief on potential internal conflicts in which UK should have an involvement.

What is the scenario in Burma likely to develop into, civil war somewhere down the line?

[powerdesal]

NATO commitment would be maintained.

Burmese civil war is of no concern to Britain

[sid]

I've found this thread rather late in the day, but I have to say I'm horrified and appalled that the poppy can be equated to the swastika.

There have been a series of Remembrance programmes on UK this week and I'm currently watching a recorded re-run of Ian Hislop's series "Not Forgotten". Like most people on here I have never had to face the horrors of war and I can only guess what it was like for the boys going over the top in WWI.

It's not about governments, it's about ordinary men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for us!

I'm proud to wear the Poppy.

Sid

[Gluestick]

Excellent analysis, Steve.

For me, the nub of the OP's question as posed, is pretty much answered in your post.

Is war avoidable?

Clearly, from history, yes: by taking carefully structured analysis, including where and why forward potential threats exist and making significant provision to counter same. Before such threats escalate into uncontrolled and heinous war.

The main point of armed forces ought to be to pose such a counter- threat: and by their potential, dissuade a latent enemy from precipitate action.

i.e. cogent defence as against unfettered aggression.

It is reasonably clear that if intelligence from Argentina had been taken more seriously, expedient action by Britain and its allies would have prevented Galtiari's precipitate step in trying to seize the Malvinas: which was simply a populist last ditch political action, aimed at appeasing a wholly disgruntled electorate, fed up with his disastrous attempts at government.

If - that useless and loaded word! - Britain, France and more critically, America, had demonstrated greater wisdom at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference (Which created the Treaty of Versailles), then the socio-economic and political events succeeding, would not have plunged Europe into WWII.

And if - once more - the appeasers in Britain had have been more focused on the country's future stability and safety, rather than playing political games, then Britain would have been far better prepared: furthermore, a strong Britain and America (militarily) would have posed such a threat to Hitler, he would have probably been much more reticent in his actions. And more readily controlled.

France suffered the most from weak politicians and political self-service which, as always, flowed through to their armed forces.

Général d'Armée Gamelin was clearly completely the wrong man in the wrong place: and as so often a political appointee.

I am presently reading Hugh Sebag-Montefiore's "Dunkirk", "Fight to the last man" ( Penguin); a very sobering read.

[just john]

[quote user="Gluestick"]  I am presently reading Hugh Sebag-Montefiore's "Dunkirk", "Fight to the last man" ( Penguin); a very sobering read. [/quote]

Exactly, I'm reluctant to say should be compulsory, if for nothing else than hindsight shows us Human failures will always create problems.

[pachapapa]

......Withdraw troops from BFG and reinforce the FI garrison to (possibly) Division strength.

Reinforce FI air defence (presently only ½ squadron of Typhoons) by increasing to full squadron of Typhoons + squadron of Tornadoes + squadron of Harrier GR9 dispersed in hides across the island. Consider reinstating Sea Harrier as close air support capability.

Cancel build of PoW and QE, cancel the scrapping of the Harrier force, restructure the ship building contracts to build type 45 destroyers to maintain jobs in British ship yards and to build up a naval patrol capability for home water oil rig protection, South Atlantic patrol presence, anti piracy cooperation with other nations etc.

Reinstate the Nimrod MRA4 order as its patently ridiculous for a maritime nation to not have a maritime patrol aircraft, if only to control the home waters....

[:D]

Las Malvinas still preying on your mind or is it seriously the only theatre requiring strategic attention.

Dont forget Chavez's russian gear as well! Chile may well resolve the War of the Pacific hangover with Bolivia and Peru; even a referendum contemplated, so they could be counted in as well.

With Nestor dead and buried Piñera could manipulate a convenient "ménage à trois" with Cristina.

[pachapapa]

Certainly much of the comment in The Times this morning regarding the "Poppy Day" is cogent.

General fears ‘mawkish’ view of military.

mawkish [ˈmɔːkɪʃ]

adj

1. falsely sentimental, esp in a weak or maudlin way

2. nauseating or insipid in flavour, smell, etc.

[from obsolete mawk maggot + -ish]

mawkishly  adv

mawkishness  n

[Gluestick]

[quote user="pachapapa"]

Las Malvinas still preying on your mind or is it seriously the only theatre requiring strategic attention.[/quote]

You need to get up to speed on current affairs..............

See here:

Quite obviously, future martial conflicts are going to be mainly about resources; rather than land.

[pachapapa]

[quote user="Gluestick"][quote user="pachapapa"]

Las Malvinas still preying on your mind or is it seriously the only theatre requiring strategic attention.[/quote]

You need to get up to speed on current affairs..............

See here:

Quite obviously, future martial conflicts are going to be mainly about resources; rather than land.


[/quote]

Read it early this year, also covered in the Buenos Aires Herald (in english); frequently on TeleSurTV.

http://www.telesurtv.net/

[Gluestick]

Which would cover the Latin American perspective.

And clearly, since you read the news items, you still cannot synthesise the events and realities to the putative threat to British oil exploration companies, British Sovereignty and the British economic outlook.

Yet elsewhere, you insinuate you attended the Cass Business School............

Lucky I wasn't marking your course work!

[Www]

[just john]

[quote user="powerdesal"]NATO commitment would be maintained. Burmese civil war is of no concern to Britain[/quote]

Burma's Natural resources: petroleum, timber, tin, antimony, zinc, copper, tungsten, lead, coal, marble, limestone, precious stones, natural gas.
In Burma, however, foreign investment helps perpetuate the rule of a repressive, unelected junta. Full foreign ownership of companies operating in Burma is forbidden and almost all large investment in Burma is carried out through joint ventures with the military regime. Much is directed through companies owned and operated by Burma’s Ministry of Defence, notably the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings (UMEH). While very few Burmese benefit from foreign investment, the ruling military junta, the State Peace and Development Council (until November 1997 known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council, or SLORC) has imported over $2 billion in weapons since 1989.

 Official figures show over $10 billion in foreign investment approved since 1988, but less than a fifth of that has likely reached the country through 2000 - mostly in hotels and oilfield exploration. Singaporean firms dominate the former, while the American UNOCAL company and France’s TOTAL the latter.  burma campaign.org.uk foreign-investment

Nothing to worry about there then.

 

 

[woolybanana]

Are the Chinese involved in the exploitation of Burmese assets too, as they are in Africa?

[just john]

[quote user="woolybanana"] Are the Chinese involved in the exploitation of Burmese assets too, as they are in Africa?[/quote]

Not at the moment

 burmacampaign. China-Blocking-UN-Responsibility

The Burma Campaign UK condemned China for continuing to obstruct moves to discuss the humanitarian crisis in Burma

[Salty Sam]

[quote user="pachapapa"]

Certainly much of the comment in The Times this morning regarding the "Poppy Day" is cogent.

General fears ‘mawkish’ view of military.[/quote]

Some 124 pages of the newspaper (not including supplements), and your stated "much of the comment" amounts to less than one third of a page if you don't include the photograph.

[quote]General Fry said that he was uncertain about the direction of public support for Remembrance Day. "There is some of this that is good and laudable and there is some that is pretty mawkish", he said. "It is a question of trying to celebrate what is good and trying to avoid the Diana, Graceland stuff."[/quote]

[quote]Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United services Institute, agreed with General Fry. "We have moved into an age of recreational grief in our society and the Armed Forces are the recipients of it in the most direct form," he said. "other expressions of it are evident in the mawkish sentimentality over tragedies in the world of football and entertainment".

"General Fry suggested that the success of the charity Help for Heroes, which has raised £74 million, reflected a desire on the part of the public to reach out to the Forces "over the heads of the intervening elites" of politicians and generals. "Part of its success is that it has become part of a spontaneous political movement that its founders didn't intend or foresee," he said. [/quote]

Is it "mawkish" that the population of Wooton Bassett turns out each time a fallen serviceman is repatriated?

Are the "intervening elites" just a tad peeved that Help the Heroes has raised and continues to raise millions - which should have come from Government coffers in the first place?

If our servicemen and women are expected to go to war, do they not also deserve the respect of a populus for the ultimate sacrifice?

[quote user="pachapapa"]

mawkish [ˈmɔːkɪʃ]

adj

1. falsely sentimental, esp in a weak or maudlin way

2. nauseating or insipid in flavour, smell, etc.

[from obsolete mawk maggot + -ish]

mawkishly  adv

mawkishness  n

[/quote]

Perhaps we should start a campaign to reintroduce the word mawk, as some of the comments in this thread have been extremely nauseating.

However I doubt I'll experience any mawkish behaviour tomorrow at the march past and service of Remembrance. 

[powerdesal]

JJ,

Whilst I sympathise with the Burmese people and their plight, I consider that, as the UK is in serious financial difficulties, it is not in our gift to police the World. We can't afford such things at this time.

There are humanitarian crises in many parts of the World but we can't afford to solve those either. We no longer have an Empire and need to get our problems sorted out before trying to sort out the problems of others. Harsh it may be but I'm afraid that reality is like that.

Diplomatic efforts without a doubt but thats all we can afford.

[powerdesal]

Las Malvinas still preying on your mind or is it seriously the only theatre requiring strategic attention.

Not really, I am more concerned about the Falkland Islands

[just john]

[quote user="just john "] [quote user="powerdesal"]NATO commitment would be maintained. Burmese civil war is of no concern to Britain[/quote]
Official figures show over $10 billion in foreign investment approved since 1988, but less than a fifth of that has likely reached the country through 2000 - mostly in hotels and oilfield exploration. Singaporean firms dominate the former, while the American UNOCAL company and France’s TOTAL the latter.  burma campaign.org.uk foreign-investment [/quote]

[quote user="powerdesal"]JJ, Whilst I sympathise with the Burmese people and their plight, I consider that, as the UK is in serious financial difficulties, it is not in our gift to police the World. We can't afford such things at this time. There are humanitarian crises in many parts of the World but we can't afford to solve those either. We no longer have an Empire and need to get our problems sorted out before trying to sort out the problems of others. Harsh it may be but I'm afraid that reality is like that. Diplomatic efforts without a doubt but thats all we can afford.[/quote]

I agree entirely, but don't we have a commitment to the UN  . . . and France?,
things are not always as we would wish

  burmacampaign. China-Blocking-UN-Responsibility

The Burma Campaign UK condemned China for continuing to obstruct moves to discuss the humanitarian crisis in Burma