[moodymonster]

In China under Mao Tse-tung the families of condemned men were forced to pay for the bullet that would kill their father or their son. I was reminded of that exquisite little cruelty by the government’s confession last Monday that the bereaved families of troops killed in Iraq have been forced to pay hundreds of pounds to get access to the official records of their children’s deaths.

These documents are freely available to the army and to the coroner, but shocked and grieving families had to find the money. Apparently these large sums were to cover the cost of photocopying done by the coroner’s officials; one man had to pay £600. It is not enough, clearly, to sacrifice one’s husband or child: one has to pay to learn about their deaths. Harriet Harman said she was “surprised”.

The newly retired General Sir Mike Jackson emerged from years of discretion to say on Wednesday in his Dimbleby lecture that our armed forces are underpaid, under-equipped and poorly housed; they are shabbily treated and absurdly overstretched, attempting impossible tasks with inadequate means. We do not offer enough of our treasure for their blood.

If the government had deliberately set out to demoralise them and undermine recruitment it could hardly have done a better job. Only a couple of weeks ago the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had to admit that it had supplied British soldiers in Afghanistan with duff ammo. Shortly after our charming prime minister had been out to schmooze the troops fighting the Taliban, it emerged that they had been sent cheap and defective machinegun bullets made in Pakistan or the Czech Republic instead of the usual more expensive stuff. These cheap bullets kept jamming their machineguns during heavy fighting. British soldiers had to scrounge rounds from the Canadians and Americans. It was only when the Paras kicked up a fuss that anything was done.

Then there was the body armour scandal of 2003. The government sent troops into Iraq without enough enhanced body armour, having ignored requests from the army for two months. Sergeant Steven Roberts was killed by bullets on the fifth day of the invasion; he had selflessly given his own body armour to a colleague because there was not enough for everyone in his regiment. With body armour he would have survived. It has taken three years for the MoD to accept liability. Such prevarication only adds insult to bereavement.

The same goes for the delay in holding inquests into army deaths. There is, incredibly, a backlog going back to 2003, meaning that families have to wait years for an account of what happened.

One hardly knows where to begin with the substandard treatment offered to the armed forces. Dannatt has been bold enough to speak about this. So many military hospitals have been closed (largely under the Conservatives) that servicemen and women have to go into civilian wards and take their chances. One wounded paratrooper in uniform was screamed at by a Muslim visiting a patient. “You have been killing my Muslim brothers in Afghanistan,” he shrieked at a man who should have been enjoying a hero’s welcome. Another wounded soldier was told to remove his uniform for fear of “offending” anyone.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...496276,00.html

THE Royal Navy's surface fleet could be slashed nearly in half as part of government demands for massive cuts.
The Ministry of Defence has ordered the three armed services to find huge savings as the cost of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan spirals out of control.

'We have miles of undefended coastline open to terrorists and illegal immigrants. We have one ship in the whole of the Atlantic doing the work of three ships – a bit of time off Sierra Leone, then to the Falklands and then drug-busting in the Caribbean.

But Portsmouth North Labour MP Sarah McCarthy-Fry said: 'Personally, I am not so hung up on numbers, because a modern warship can do the equivalent of six warships from 20 years ago.'

(just a thought you dozy bint, everyone else's warships are much more capable than they were 20 years ago - also we have ships that are older than 20 years)
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/ViewArti...icleID=1922010

if the UK gov't were agents in the pay of a foreign power they couldn't do a better job of undermining this country. The way the armed forces are treated is a national disgrace and the people responsible should, at the very least, be removed from gov't over this and the general fiasco that is the UK under their 'management'.

[Doofy]

It's essentially down to Blair and his buds undermining everything so we completely lose independence... ...from Mandy and the rest of the folks in Babel.

[moodymonster]

The conservatives were running the armed forces down before Labour got in, they just didn't use them as much. Blair acts as though he has a vast and capable armed forces and uses them all over the world in war, buts continues to fund them on a very cheap peacetime budget. The forces are asked to cut warships etc to pay for bombs, missiles and bullets rather than the gov't providing extra funding.

The Army is now so small, apparently it is now a 'defence force', comprising of 21,000 combat troops (the other 80,000 are logistics and administration). The last time the armed forces were funded as they are now was back in the 1930s, and we know what happen in the 1940s.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

The conservatives were running the armed forces down before Labour got in

In case yer hadn't noticed, the Tories are also somewhat into the concept of the EU.

[moodymonster]

We know that the Europeans aren't the best people in the world to rely on to defend anyone (even though most of them are strengthening their own militaries). Part of them wanting us to be part of their big plan would be the UK's armed forces. It's not just about the EU. The way things are going the other countries in the EU would have the burden of providing the UK with defence.

I think there is an element of Rudyard Kipling's poem 'Tommy Atkins', coupled with a distrust/jealousy/dislike of the military by those in power. The gov't is made up of former members of CND and suchlike from the 60s.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

We know that the Europeans aren't the best people in the world to rely on to defend anyone (even though most of them are strengthening their own militaries). Part of them wanting us to be part of their big plan would be the UK's armed forces. It's not just about the EU. The way things are going the other countries in the EU would have the burden of providing the UK with defence.

I think there is an element of Rudyard Kipling's poem 'Tommy Atkins', coupled with a distrust/jealousy/dislike of the military by those in power. The gov't is made up of former members of CND and suchlike from the 60s.

What does the UK need with a standing army? Are they planning to invade someone? The cold war is over, and if Russia wanted to defeat you all they would have to do is turn off the gas line.

[moodymonster]

having a standing army is simple common sense, people tend to discover the point of having an army when they meet someone else's.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

having a standing army is simple common sense, people tend to discover the point of having an army when they meet someone else's.

Costa Rica has no standing army. They seem to do just fine.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Costa Rica has no standing army. They seem to do just fine.

Iceland has no standing army either. They're doing even better. An army needs to be used. It wants to be used. It is tempting to use it.

V

[nath]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

What does the UK need with a standing army? Are they planning to invade someone? The cold war is over, and if Russia wanted to defeat you all they would have to do is turn off the gas line.

Originally Posted by voodoo

Iceland has no standing army either. They're doing even better. An army needs to be used. It wants to be used. It is tempting to use it.

The primary goal of any army should be to remove the need for its own existence.

Ours has done pretty well in that respect, and if the change to a specialised low-footprint force dedicated to dealing with the primary threats of the modern age (ie teh terrists) also means that idiots like Blair have one less tool of incompetence at their disposal, all the better.

Britain faces no territorial threats that can't be addressed with a combination of small task forces and the nuclear deterrent. We no longer have need of a large standing army.

[moodymonster]

we do have need of an armed forces that is capable of fullfilling the requirements made of it.

countries that only operate small paramilitary forces depend on larger countries to defend them.

in a time of an uncertain future seeking to remove the ability to defend ourselves is manifestly wrong.

I would disagree that the primary role of any army is to remove the need for its existence, the primary goal is to defend its mother country. We don't know what new threats are around the corner - in the 1930s people like Foot opposed rearmament in the face of Germany's actions - if we'd listened to him we wouldn't be having this internet discussion now.

The UK relies of international trade, territorial threats is only one aspect of what the UK needs to defend itself from. Sometimes it is better to go out and stop a potential threat, rather than letting it get to your front door - because by then it is too late.

[moodymonster]

also if you look at Iceland it would appear that if the US were to remove it's base that Iceland would in fact raise it's own small armed forces.

[Powerbook]

PB.

[nath]

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

we do have need of an armed forces that is capable of fullfilling the requirements made of it.

Well, there's your chicken and egg. Exactly which of the requirements Blair has made of the UK armed forces since 1997 do you think were worthwhile endeavours?

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

countries that only operate small paramilitary forces depend on larger countries to defend them.

Or a nuclear deterrent. That usually does the job when it comes to territorial sovereignty.

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

in a time of an uncertain future seeking to remove the ability to defend ourselves is manifestly wrong.

We have the ability to defend ourselves. A large standing army is patently not necessary to do so.

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

We don't know what new threats are around the corner - in the 1930s people like Foot opposed rearmament in the face of Germany's actions - if we'd listened to him we wouldn't be having this internet discussion now.

That still doesn't justify the need for a large standing army. Nuclear proliferation has made large armies irrelevant in the pursuit of national defence. The only possible reason for them is repeated expeditions overseas, such as the disaster in Iraq.

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

Sometimes it is better to go out and stop a potential threat, rather than letting it get to your front door - because by then it is too late.

Well at least now we're getting down to it. I may have a dodgy dossier to sell you...

[Doofy]

The options are simple:

1) Retain a standing army.

2) Go for a Swiss-style militia. I don't know about you chaps, but I don't really fancy the idea of our friendly local chavs being required by law to keep an assault rifle in their homes.

3) Purchase a telephone answering machine and place the following message onto it in Russian/French/German/Spanish/Arabic: "We surrender"

Oh, and bring back national service while we're at it. Not totally military national service 'coz I'm sure there's some hedgerows need cutting and meals on wheels needing delivering. Four years national service gets you four years completely free education at uni. Job done.

[Sherman Homan]

Even when Britian had a standing army they refused to use it, preferring to have American boys die to save the Royal Family.