LindermyerWhat a pointless discussion.
Back in te day when the cold war was at full swing and the evil Soviet just about to recht the Rhine and Paris, NATO thought about what they need to win the airwar in 2010.
The first thing they wanted was a replacement for the F-15C. A fighter that could dominate the FoB. That became the F-22 designed to fight iside the enemies airspace and take on their latest Su-27 developments inside the enemy airspace.
The second was a fighter to replace the aging F-4s in allied forces. A fighter good at defending friendly airspace from enemy fighters and with a secondary ground attack role. That became EF.
The third was a replacement for the F-16. Multirole, primarilyused for strike missions (lookwhat the uSAf F-16 mostly do) but good enough in the air-to-air areana to defend against modern threats. That became the JSF.
And today put them into the described roles and you will see that each them is better than the others doing the job that they were meant to do back as late as the early 70ies.
Exactly my understanding of it.
F22 – offensive fighter sweeps
Typhoon Defensive fighter – (Before Stealth comes into it – Being LO helps you to hide – it doesnt help you detect, The Tiffy has good thrust and a big ole radar married with (to be married with) a fantastic missile – ideal for air defence)
Typhoon also was planned to have a secondary attack role (I wont say strike because i am not aware of any plans for it to penetrate defended airspace.
F35 is a bit of an odd ball – I thought it was to be a light attack ie jag, harrier, f16/ 18 replacement – it seems to have grown to be the strikev aircraft of choice – perhaps testament to a well thought out design.
i believe the UK has it right for once F35 offensive Typhoon Air defence
– I wonder if we could get the us to buy into tiffy – that would drop unit costs and operating costs + give them a modern capable and potentially cheaper airframe
LindermyerAbsolutely! and we’ve been paying the price of that for years.
We left Africa- exactly! Did we teach them good governance? Did we show them how WE ran it? No we up and left and left people who had never governed themselves to it, what did we think would happen???
I disagree when the British left we had left all the infrastructure required as for training them unfortunatly some were further down that road than others. Britain wanted to hand over over aperiod of years – many countries were unprepared to wait, unfortunate all round .
,
Fair enough, we agree!Sadly you were badly taught by bad and lazy teachers. I’m afraid my profession is full of them, I would guess you were taught WW1 by watching Blackadder and Slavery by watching Roots?? BTW the Caribbean slaves are the African ones….
Roots yes WW1 sadly just very left wing teachers (who were far more comfertable with the russian revolution, who believed all Officers = upper class = oppresssors).
I was trying to say not all came from main land africa and chose a poor example my apologiesI think it needs condemning really, whoever does it! Even at the time there were many in Britain that were uncomfortable with it, especially in the 18th Century.
sorry clarification i wont condemn britains part and britains alone its all or nothing, here isnt a nation on eart that hasent taken traded or been slaves at some point – best forgiven all round.Interestingly the title of Simon Schama’s chapter in History of Britain on this is called “The Wrong Empire” that it was a very un-english thing, that after pursuing an empire of commerce we got diverted into another route that involved slavery, we endded up with the wrong empire.
Yes its my understanding that britains Empire was built on trade territory was rarely taken by force, and in many ways was a force for good, the slave trade being an abhorration in many ways
I agree to a point but India needs a massive armed forces in order to keep stability and peace. It has a huge number of militant groups within its borders, it has two nations either side of it who have fought major wars with it and is prone to natural disasters. India is caught between a rock and hard place really.
Agreed but At the same time we need to project power to ensure those countries who we have said we will protect are protected, again this will save a war. Im not convinced india needs a space programe or 3 carriers however.You see I am the other way round, I have seen first hand the damage NGOs do in Africa. terrible abuses of power, particularly the religious NGOs and my loathing for the US Peace Corps knows few boundaries. NGOs are the bane of Africa and are now causing far more problems than they claim to solve. Government to Government is definately the way ahead, tied to improvements in governance and anti-corruption measures.
religious NGO and the likes of the peace corps tend to be to politically motivated.
Others i will bow to youre experience, sadly government to government i cant see how (other than by a few well placed 7.62mm) you can prevent the massive embezzlement seen as perks, Crucially Africa needs to want to help itself and be seen to want to help its self
You see I agree with you 100%. You will not hear a dispute of that from here. I would like to see the NGOs out for the most part and then aid held in government hands (ours) and only handed over in return for good governance. After a few beers I can give you more radical solutions….maybe another time.
It would appear we are not so diametrically opposed as i first thought .
As an aside have you ever read ‘the state of africa’ worth reading how (white ruled) south africa conducted its affairs
Lindermyer[QUOTE=pjhydro;1610071]You would be willing to stand and look at a Black Britain and say that? You would look someone who is in the UK because their family were seized in Africa and taken to the other side of the world, (by some of your relatives) made to work for nothing but a blooded back and you could stand there and say “nothing to do with MY country”.
Why NEO-colonial guilt? Neo-colonial is a term bounded about by those who believe we should not be taking part in military intervention in Africa, it does not refer to original flavour colonialism. Also colonial is the wrong term to use when talking about slavery. Colonialism is a term that mainly refers to the penultimate phase of empire, late 19th century until the 1940s (after which we get collapse and abandonment, lets stop being so sanctimonious as to call it “giving them independence”) Slavery occurred in the earlier phases of empire when the emphasis was on trade and commerce rather than outright domination and rule.
As for the ‘Granuiad’ it is one of the reasons we gave up slavery, it is also one of the key protagonists in the fight to end child labour in the UK, extend workers rights, give you the right to a union and the right to protest. While there is a lot wrong with it, it is also a very British institution and one I am frankly very proud of.
Yes we gave India almost a Billion in aid last year. Ever been to India? We give them aid because it is poor, very poor. They have a huge army because they pay their soldiers peanuts and they need one otherwise their country would be defenceless and at the mercy of a dozen militant groups and the situation would be worse. To give you an idea of the reality GDP per capita in the UK is around 35,000 dollars India is about 1000. That isn’t just a huge disparity it is a monumental gulf and again partly due to two centuries of asset stripping by the UK.
Which would you rather…a tiny proportion of our wealth to help solve education, AIDs, poverty etc in Africa OR British and European soldiers having to fight in peacekeeping ops in order to restore order in an unstable, desperate and starving Africa. I would assume you are against British soldiers being killed for the cause of Africa? Defence money can sometimes mean not just buying arms, we can attain the aims of UK defence in many different ways.
You want to stop immigration to the UK I am sure (inference I know, but probably a good one?) then raising the living standards of poorer countries is the best way to do it. You want the UK economy to grow, then raising living standards in one of the worlds largest barely tapped markets would help massively.
As a matter of record it did. Can I point you in the direction of Simon Schama’s a History Of Britain and his fantastic book on the trade Rough Crossings. Also for a more economic out look there is Slavery, Atlantic trade and the British economy, 1660-1800 by Ken Morgan.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/building_britain_gallery.shtml might be a good starter for you.
Firstly Blacks weren’t the only slaves shiped abroad whites, particuarly the Irish were shipped under the euphenism indentured workers –
Secondly when the uk left africa it left some very rich well structured nations (see Sierra Leone) that they now live in poverty is nothing to do with the slave trade (and incidently when are the vikings, phonecians corsairs etc apologising to me) The situation they are in now is (mostly) the result of massive corruption on a monumental scale.
Note some of our european neighbours when leaving their colonies did so in some cases in a most spiteful manner literally abandoning them withoutgovenment advice or help.
If you want to debate that the drawing of colonial borders without regard to peoples and cultures has fuelled many civil wars and is also a factor on poverty, well it will be a short debate on that im in agreement
National curriculum – this managed to teach me that whites were the only people to take slaves (not true) and only africans were slaves (again what about the carribean)
(it also taught me that in ww1 the officers were safe behind the lines and sent the men to die which is why enlisted dead outnumber the officers 10 -1
realism has taught me that as enlisted men outnumber officers about 30-1 in infantry regiments that officer casualties were inordinatly high)
sadly our education tends to teach what is politicaly acceptable as opposed to the truth.
back to the slave trade – that was the way of the world then yes african backs may have built the UK but British backs built rome. so while i do not condone the slave trade i will not condemn it.
What I will condemn is the despicable and inhuman manner in which slaves were treated and transported during this period – That even by those standards was awful. Sadly Black people were thought to be subhuman and by dehumanising them they became less valuable than livestock – more tragically this isnt the English behavour at that time but human nature in general.
As for aid India does not need our aid – time they spent money on welfare rather than weapons.
Africa – Now in case you have the wrong idea I would like to find work with an aid agency in Africa – but I dont think another penny should be sent to africa (except to NGO).
For clarity – I do not think another penny should be sent to an african country, to many leaders syphon to much off.
All aid should be delivered in the form of food/clothing/skillled labour ( teachers included) training and education and machinery where required. this the man on the street will benifit from.
Every penny given to an african Government is a penny wasted corruption means little if any gets where its needed, and I have come to the conclusion that our aid money is only prolonging the agony and that radical action is required.
LindermyerGosh, you can also blow it away. I didn’t see a modern military aircraft where the seats “go through the roof”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ6bwylElsw&feature=related
canopies tend to be ejected in there entirety or have a detcord blow out panel (for want of abetter description) Both of these choices would have massive structural integrity and or safety implications.
As another poster has pointed out aft facing seats would be the biggest practical lifesaver.
Incidently having flown backwards it bothers me not at all -of course all the customers objections could be smoke and mirrors because its estimated that you would lose a row of seats on each aircraft (why the airlines dont want it)
LindermyerWhy? Isnt it a fairly common occurence? :confused:
Ah the beauty of being in opposition
The ability to take the political and moral high ground in any situation whilst not having to deal with reality.
(Labour and Nuclear disarmanent in the 1980s anyone)
LindermyerEGPH,you can’t win.
The big difference between yourself and the great majority of posters here is that we actually lived through those times.
It’s one thing to read dispassionately accounts of events,but quite another to be confronted with the immediate evidence of those atrocities at the time they actually happened.Over twenty years later,I’m still haunted by the faces of two British soldiers who were dragged from their car and beaten to death by a mob.
I accept that you’ve heard first-hand accounts from people who experienced these events,and so have I,having relatives who lived in Belfast at the time.Yes,there were shameful events on both sides,but you have to accept that the posters who disagree with you really do know what they’re talking about.
I remember that awful and barbaric incident well *
I also recall the incident not long before where michael stone machine gunned and grenaded the mourners at a republican funeral (tragically this may well have been the spark for the above).
I remember Enniskillin (thankfully we were not attending that year)
I remember the high street of my home town being devestated by a 1000lb lorry bomb.
I have friends on both sides of the divide (please excuse the expression it becomes more redundant as time goes on but you know what i mean) yet regardless of sympathies I can find no one, who either wishes for a return to the troubles or believes that the IRA, INLA, UVF etc were nothing but murdering gangsters.
Some people on both sides resented the armies presence.
But now we have the likes of EGPH glorifying terrorists as freedom fighters palaptably calling for the old days – catch yerself on son read a balanced view
*there was some W~~##r on radio 2 (or 4) last week, who was claiming that the two soldiers were deliberatly set up by the army to get the army sympathy as lives didnt matter to the officers
Incidently EGPH you do realise that the Irish are British -everybody on these green and pleasant lands is -take a look at a map its all the British Isles – admitadley for political (historical ?) reasons Eire objects to this but none the less British we technically all are –
So which british should leave?
Edit not looking for, sympathy boasting, or black cat rights – just trying to punch through the ignorance layer with emphasis
LindermyerEGPH,you can’t win.
The big difference between yourself and the great majority of posters here is that we actually lived through those times.
It’s one thing to read dispassionately accounts of events,but quite another to be confronted with the immediate evidence of those atrocities at the time they actually happened.Over twenty years later,I’m still haunted by the faces of two British soldiers who were dragged from their car and beaten to death by a mob.
I accept that you’ve heard first-hand accounts from people who experienced these events,and so have I,having relatives who lived in Belfast at the time.Yes,there were shameful events on both sides,but you have to accept that the posters who disagree with you really do know what they’re talking about.
I remember that awful and barbaric incident well *
I also recall the incident not long before where michael stone machine gunned and grenaded the mourners at a republican funeral (tragically this may well have been the spark for the above).
I remember Enniskillin (thankfully we were not attending that year)
I remember the high street of my home town being devestated by a 1000lb lorry bomb.
I have friends on both sides of the divide (please excuse the expression it becomes more redundant as time goes on but you know what i mean) yet regardless of sympathies I can find no one, who either wishes for a return to the troubles or believes that the IRA, INLA, UVF etc were nothing but murdering gangsters.
Some people on both sides resented the armies presence.
But now we have the likes of EGPH glorifying terrorists as freedom fighters palaptably calling for the old days – catch yerself on son read a balanced view
*there was some W~~##r on radio 2 (or 4) last week, who was claiming that the two soldiers were deliberatly set up by the army to get the army sympathy as lives didnt matter to the officers
Incidently EGPH you do realise that the Irish are British -everybody on these green and pleasant lands is -take a look at a map its all the British Isles – admitadley for political (historical ?) reasons Eire objects to this but none the less British we technically all are –
So which british should leave?
Edit not looking for, sympathy boasting, or black cat rights – just trying to punch through the ignorance layer with emphasis
LindermyerHypocracy indeed kev but this…
…
is very illuminating…
I am now convinced he is a dreamer or a troll,nobody can be as naive as this young man surely…although ‘brainwashed’ does spring to mind,this thread is just a waste of time for all concerned.
rgds Baz …out.
I thought he had said he wasnt Irish, hence my queering his ‘our’ and ‘we’
LindermyerHypocracy indeed kev but this…
…
is very illuminating…
I am now convinced he is a dreamer or a troll,nobody can be as naive as this young man surely…although ‘brainwashed’ does spring to mind,this thread is just a waste of time for all concerned.
rgds Baz …out.
I thought he had said he wasnt Irish, hence my queering his ‘our’ and ‘we’
LindermyerI have stated many many times that I am in no way supporting the murder of innocent civilians. In 1969 the Republican movement were being pushed into a corner by Loyalists. Do we sit down and let our people and movement by ripped apart by loyalists or do we give them some of their own medicine!! Yes innocent civilians get stuck in the middle but the British Army have killed many civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s all the collateral damage. Any attacks where innocent civilians were targeted specifically absolutely appal me whoever the perpetrators.
Sorry our people I thought you had stated you were not Irish
2) The british army were sent in in 1969 to stop the persecution of the republican/catholic minority.
And how do attacks on the british armed forces equate to attacking the loyalist who persecuted the republicans – since they werent the persecuters.
Attacks aimed at legitimate targets that inadvertantly kill or maim bystanders result in collateral damage attacks aimed at civillians do not result in collatoral damage they are the targets and thats called terrorism.
I find Youre arguments specious at best & do not stand up to scrutiny when logic is applied.
LindermyerI have stated many many times that I am in no way supporting the murder of innocent civilians. In 1969 the Republican movement were being pushed into a corner by Loyalists. Do we sit down and let our people and movement by ripped apart by loyalists or do we give them some of their own medicine!! Yes innocent civilians get stuck in the middle but the British Army have killed many civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s all the collateral damage. Any attacks where innocent civilians were targeted specifically absolutely appal me whoever the perpetrators.
Sorry our people I thought you had stated you were not Irish
2) The british army were sent in in 1969 to stop the persecution of the republican/catholic minority.
And how do attacks on the british armed forces equate to attacking the loyalist who persecuted the republicans – since they werent the persecuters.
Attacks aimed at legitimate targets that inadvertantly kill or maim bystanders result in collateral damage attacks aimed at civillians do not result in collatoral damage they are the targets and thats called terrorism.
I find Youre arguments specious at best & do not stand up to scrutiny when logic is applied.
LindermyerThis might be a slightly more balanced view of ulster history,one of the interesting little tidbits is what I expected,that the people moving to ulster from scotland were actually returning from whence their forefathers came 😉
quote from this article
IE in simple language…historically ireland never was 1 nation
edit…oops forgot link LOL
If memory serves me correctly was not Wolfe Tone (1798 ringleader) a prod
LindermyerThis might be a slightly more balanced view of ulster history,one of the interesting little tidbits is what I expected,that the people moving to ulster from scotland were actually returning from whence their forefathers came 😉
quote from this article
IE in simple language…historically ireland never was 1 nation
edit…oops forgot link LOL
If memory serves me correctly was not Wolfe Tone (1798 ringleader) a prod
LindermyerI take it then EGPH that as an opressed minority you also support ETA and condemn the imperialists in Madrid who will not give the Basque region its independence.
You appear to have a very perverse view of northern irelands history, I can only conclude that you have been given youre history from a very biased source or are trolling
Please re read what others have written – at no time has any one said the british army was right or justified what has been said is that the mistake (for that is what it was) is a tragedy.
Re freedom fighters and terrorists being one in the same whilst a point that can be argued on, quite simply once you are attacking and targeting civillians you are a TERRORIST no ifs and or buts.
LindermyerI take it then EGPH that as an opressed minority you also support ETA and condemn the imperialists in Madrid who will not give the Basque region its independence.
You appear to have a very perverse view of northern irelands history, I can only conclude that you have been given youre history from a very biased source or are trolling
Please re read what others have written – at no time has any one said the british army was right or justified what has been said is that the mistake (for that is what it was) is a tragedy.
Re freedom fighters and terrorists being one in the same whilst a point that can be argued on, quite simply once you are attacking and targeting civillians you are a TERRORIST no ifs and or buts.
Sign In
