The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Well we had "Gulf 2:The Distraction" and, as per the norm with sequels, it was uninspired, a retread of the 1st one and an awful lot of noise from critics about why did they even bother?
The characters were pretty much the same, just different actors doing passable imitations (with the exception of what appeared to be Nick Nolte playing Saddam "Evil Hitler" Hussein).
And what was achieved?
The downfall of "Evil Tyrant" Hussein? Yep. Oh, except we only wanted the downfall because he got ideas above his station and decided he quite liked running a country handed to him in a coup assisted by MI5 & The CIA after he helped to get rid of those nasty Iranians (we like them now) back in the 1950s.
Ah, and that wasn't the reason given for the invasion - let's not forget that.
We were told Iraq possessed weapons that were "an immediate and clear threat". On national television by our illustrious elected leader.
And we were shown dossiers by James Earl-Jones alike Colin Powell.
Dossiers ripped from 11 yr old Uni thesis, with phrases changed and altered.
And satellite photos.
And no UN resolution.
And Weapons Inspectors saying "There is nothing there"
And Rumsfeld admitting they never really thought there was but hey, Sept 11th and all that (except 9 of the hijackers were from Saudi and had no connections to Iraq/Hussein)
Oh right, "He gassed his own people, he's evil. Nazis! Tyrant!".
Yes he did. With our full consent and knowledge and an increased credit line during and after with which to purchase more weapons to kill his own people. (go check it out for yourself).
But those weapons eh? Those deadly, 45 minute capability weapons that Blair went onto television to warn us against.
Those weapons that were never found before by inspections since 1991 right up until we started the invasion.
Those weapons that were the *ONLY* reason given for having to spend billions of £ and $ to surpress a laughably ill-equipped and threadbare army, led by a puppet dictator who outlasted his usefullness.
Those weapons that, despite having most of the "playing cards" people in captivity - including Hussein himself - we are still utterly unable to locate.
Because they were never there in the first place, as admitted by Rumsfeld and Hoon.
But that doesn't matter, because we freed those eye-raqis right?
We liberated those oppressed people who suffered under his regime.
Still no form of government though, not even an interim rule in place. Basic, if any, power facilities.
So where are the weapons? Where are these things offered as a reason to go in?
Where have these terrorist attacks gone that we were warned about with screaming panic headlines about "RICIN!!!!" and shutting down central London and making sure lots and lots of news footage of gasmasked soldiers and police were shown carring "simulated victims" out of train stations.
Where have the tanks gone that patrolled Heathrow in the run-up to the invasion?
Where are the chemical labs we were shown satellite pics of?
Where are the WOMD?
There's sporadic guerilla fighting (no longer reported though), but basically there is nobody to stop huge gangs of punchdrunk soldiers from tearing up every single bush to peek underneath and check.
We had the Hutton Inquiry. About the naming of a man who apparently committed suicide.
We had the deliberate smear attempts by government labelling him a "Walter Mitty" type.
But nobody seems to simply ask "So where are these weapons we were told would kill us in our beds?"
It's smoke and mirrors to distract you from the fact that nothing has been found.
Keep us stupid with Alistair Campbell & Blair squabbling with Gilligan & The BBC about "sexing up" dossiers (already admitted to be mostly fabrication by The White House, much to Blair's...well...nothing, nobody cared) and we wont ask where are the reasons for the invasion.
Don't bother looking on the news. You either have the BBC screaming about integrity or Blair smiling oily and throwing all manner of dust in your eyes.
Murdoch's strangle-hold ensures that if you watch Fox News, read The Sun or The Times? Then you'll get Blair-sanctioned cronyism, because those 2 are thick as thieves. A co-incidence that shortly before Blair announced the relaxation on monopoly ownership of media sectors, he and Cherie were guests flown to Australia (at the expense of Murdoch) to speak at a conference?
The Media are complicit in not reporting the details, they force sanitised versions of events down your gullet in between soap operas and game shows where you can win fabulous prizes!!!
For example, Fox again, you will not see any reporting on the genocide in East Timor by the Indonesian army (using Hawks supplied by? Thaaaat's right, The UK - along with water-cannon enabled anti-personnel vehicles).
And why will you not?
For the same reason you will find no discussion of China in Tibet or the genocide in Burma.
Because Murdoch is currently negotiating with the Far East to use his satellite channels and news programmes and he doesn't want to jepordise that by letting his puppets talk about massacres, brutality, murder and the desecration of places like East Timor.
You are spoonfed exactly what you are allowed to know, and for the most part meekly accept and allow yourself to get bogged down in details about "who said 45 mins?" and "Did Blair authorise Kelly's name being leaked?", instead of asking how it was allowed to happen in the 1st place with falsified evidence, blatant lies, misinformation, decades of sanctioned-murder by Hussein etc.
You should not be watching bloody Eastenders and voting for "I'm a Jungle in your Living Room", you should be marching down Whitehall. You should be demanding the elected representative for your interests and rights act with honour instead of blithely condemning people to death in wars thousands of miles away, and having the temerity to lie right in your face and get away with it.
We should be burning the heavens down and protesting at just how corrupt, self-serving and vile our political system has become.
Hundreds of thousands of people dead because of closed-door meetings between groups of people that play a deadly game of "I don't like you so you can't have any cake".
Soldiers are willing to die for this country.
We owe them a greater respect that to squander that level of committment over something as offensively false as the "Iraq War", just as we had no shame in sending troops thousands of miles away to fight in The Falklands, with Thatcher busy supporting the Argentinian Junta and unwilling to let them surrender, sinkin The Belgrano as it sailed away from conflict waters.
Headline from Murdoch crony editor in The Mirror? "GOTCHA!" at the death of 1,200 Argentinian servicemen sailing away.
We have not been involved in a "worthy" war since World War 2.
The rest have been business-led exercises in masturbatory financial gains.
So ask yourself where are these WOMD? Why have we not found them?
The anti-war arguments have remained exactly the same as last year, whilst the hawks have continually shifted the reasons and gains.
That speaks for itself.
The characters were pretty much the same, just different actors doing passable imitations (with the exception of what appeared to be Nick Nolte playing Saddam "Evil Hitler" Hussein).
And what was achieved?
The downfall of "Evil Tyrant" Hussein? Yep. Oh, except we only wanted the downfall because he got ideas above his station and decided he quite liked running a country handed to him in a coup assisted by MI5 & The CIA after he helped to get rid of those nasty Iranians (we like them now) back in the 1950s.
Ah, and that wasn't the reason given for the invasion - let's not forget that.
We were told Iraq possessed weapons that were "an immediate and clear threat". On national television by our illustrious elected leader.
And we were shown dossiers by James Earl-Jones alike Colin Powell.
Dossiers ripped from 11 yr old Uni thesis, with phrases changed and altered.
And satellite photos.
And no UN resolution.
And Weapons Inspectors saying "There is nothing there"
And Rumsfeld admitting they never really thought there was but hey, Sept 11th and all that (except 9 of the hijackers were from Saudi and had no connections to Iraq/Hussein)
Oh right, "He gassed his own people, he's evil. Nazis! Tyrant!".
Yes he did. With our full consent and knowledge and an increased credit line during and after with which to purchase more weapons to kill his own people. (go check it out for yourself).
But those weapons eh? Those deadly, 45 minute capability weapons that Blair went onto television to warn us against.
Those weapons that were never found before by inspections since 1991 right up until we started the invasion.
Those weapons that were the *ONLY* reason given for having to spend billions of £ and $ to surpress a laughably ill-equipped and threadbare army, led by a puppet dictator who outlasted his usefullness.
Those weapons that, despite having most of the "playing cards" people in captivity - including Hussein himself - we are still utterly unable to locate.
Because they were never there in the first place, as admitted by Rumsfeld and Hoon.
But that doesn't matter, because we freed those eye-raqis right?
We liberated those oppressed people who suffered under his regime.
Still no form of government though, not even an interim rule in place. Basic, if any, power facilities.
So where are the weapons? Where are these things offered as a reason to go in?
Where have these terrorist attacks gone that we were warned about with screaming panic headlines about "RICIN!!!!" and shutting down central London and making sure lots and lots of news footage of gasmasked soldiers and police were shown carring "simulated victims" out of train stations.
Where have the tanks gone that patrolled Heathrow in the run-up to the invasion?
Where are the chemical labs we were shown satellite pics of?
Where are the WOMD?
There's sporadic guerilla fighting (no longer reported though), but basically there is nobody to stop huge gangs of punchdrunk soldiers from tearing up every single bush to peek underneath and check.
We had the Hutton Inquiry. About the naming of a man who apparently committed suicide.
We had the deliberate smear attempts by government labelling him a "Walter Mitty" type.
But nobody seems to simply ask "So where are these weapons we were told would kill us in our beds?"
It's smoke and mirrors to distract you from the fact that nothing has been found.
Keep us stupid with Alistair Campbell & Blair squabbling with Gilligan & The BBC about "sexing up" dossiers (already admitted to be mostly fabrication by The White House, much to Blair's...well...nothing, nobody cared) and we wont ask where are the reasons for the invasion.
Don't bother looking on the news. You either have the BBC screaming about integrity or Blair smiling oily and throwing all manner of dust in your eyes.
Murdoch's strangle-hold ensures that if you watch Fox News, read The Sun or The Times? Then you'll get Blair-sanctioned cronyism, because those 2 are thick as thieves. A co-incidence that shortly before Blair announced the relaxation on monopoly ownership of media sectors, he and Cherie were guests flown to Australia (at the expense of Murdoch) to speak at a conference?
The Media are complicit in not reporting the details, they force sanitised versions of events down your gullet in between soap operas and game shows where you can win fabulous prizes!!!
For example, Fox again, you will not see any reporting on the genocide in East Timor by the Indonesian army (using Hawks supplied by? Thaaaat's right, The UK - along with water-cannon enabled anti-personnel vehicles).
And why will you not?
For the same reason you will find no discussion of China in Tibet or the genocide in Burma.
Because Murdoch is currently negotiating with the Far East to use his satellite channels and news programmes and he doesn't want to jepordise that by letting his puppets talk about massacres, brutality, murder and the desecration of places like East Timor.
You are spoonfed exactly what you are allowed to know, and for the most part meekly accept and allow yourself to get bogged down in details about "who said 45 mins?" and "Did Blair authorise Kelly's name being leaked?", instead of asking how it was allowed to happen in the 1st place with falsified evidence, blatant lies, misinformation, decades of sanctioned-murder by Hussein etc.
You should not be watching bloody Eastenders and voting for "I'm a Jungle in your Living Room", you should be marching down Whitehall. You should be demanding the elected representative for your interests and rights act with honour instead of blithely condemning people to death in wars thousands of miles away, and having the temerity to lie right in your face and get away with it.
We should be burning the heavens down and protesting at just how corrupt, self-serving and vile our political system has become.
Hundreds of thousands of people dead because of closed-door meetings between groups of people that play a deadly game of "I don't like you so you can't have any cake".
Soldiers are willing to die for this country.
We owe them a greater respect that to squander that level of committment over something as offensively false as the "Iraq War", just as we had no shame in sending troops thousands of miles away to fight in The Falklands, with Thatcher busy supporting the Argentinian Junta and unwilling to let them surrender, sinkin The Belgrano as it sailed away from conflict waters.
Headline from Murdoch crony editor in The Mirror? "GOTCHA!" at the death of 1,200 Argentinian servicemen sailing away.
We have not been involved in a "worthy" war since World War 2.
The rest have been business-led exercises in masturbatory financial gains.
So ask yourself where are these WOMD? Why have we not found them?
The anti-war arguments have remained exactly the same as last year, whilst the hawks have continually shifted the reasons and gains.
That speaks for itself.
Page:
Skarra wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Because you tackle the real source of the problem - the punishment
> for the crime, if people fear the consequences it drives down crime.
>
> So if people in Texas fear the ultimate punishment, the Death
> sentance, why do they still commit crime??? Hard punishment wont stop
> crime.
Because we're not Texas? For example, and this is just from recall of local paper stories - an 18 year old drugs user who assaulted a 90 year old woman and hospitalised her, all for the £5 in change she had in here purse, was given 1 year in jail, he appealed, reduced his sentence to 6 months, after 2 months got early release. I'm sure that served as a great deterrant to the local drug scum.
> "Most" - whose to say this time will not fall into that
> category?
>
> The past record of the Tory party.
Well, as Blair has shown, past records don't indicate the way the party will always go....
> So what do you suggest, we've no need for a new air-to-air
> fighter???
A new fighter yes, but not the Eurofighter. We shouldn't have comitted to what is basically a cold war weapon.
> But, as incidents like the Falklands shows, we really do need them.
> Then, most of the Harriers were tied up defending the ships. Few were
> left to give CAS. Something that we can't let happen again. Next war,
> we may not have the US with us, and we'll need big Supercarriers to
> aid any landwar.
Eh? We don't have the capability to fight a land war on our own anymore against all but the smallest of nations - most of which are in Africa and pretty difficult to get carrier borne aircrafy into them safely. Same as the Falklands, it won't happen again - the day when one nation attacked another is all but over and this is a new time with a new kind of conflict.
> Because not every troop needs weapons like that. Most of the Army are
> Peace-keepers, and the L-85 is alright for that.
But surely this is contradictory? You say we need carriers for a land war, but we're going to dump peace keepers into them??? If anything it's more essential for the best weapons to be used for peace keepers - ultimately a soldier needs a reliable weapon no matter their role.
> Belldandy wrote:
> Because you tackle the real source of the problem - the punishment
> for the crime, if people fear the consequences it drives down crime.
>
> So if people in Texas fear the ultimate punishment, the Death
> sentance, why do they still commit crime??? Hard punishment wont stop
> crime.
Because we're not Texas? For example, and this is just from recall of local paper stories - an 18 year old drugs user who assaulted a 90 year old woman and hospitalised her, all for the £5 in change she had in here purse, was given 1 year in jail, he appealed, reduced his sentence to 6 months, after 2 months got early release. I'm sure that served as a great deterrant to the local drug scum.
> "Most" - whose to say this time will not fall into that
> category?
>
> The past record of the Tory party.
Well, as Blair has shown, past records don't indicate the way the party will always go....
> So what do you suggest, we've no need for a new air-to-air
> fighter???
A new fighter yes, but not the Eurofighter. We shouldn't have comitted to what is basically a cold war weapon.
> But, as incidents like the Falklands shows, we really do need them.
> Then, most of the Harriers were tied up defending the ships. Few were
> left to give CAS. Something that we can't let happen again. Next war,
> we may not have the US with us, and we'll need big Supercarriers to
> aid any landwar.
Eh? We don't have the capability to fight a land war on our own anymore against all but the smallest of nations - most of which are in Africa and pretty difficult to get carrier borne aircrafy into them safely. Same as the Falklands, it won't happen again - the day when one nation attacked another is all but over and this is a new time with a new kind of conflict.
> Because not every troop needs weapons like that. Most of the Army are
> Peace-keepers, and the L-85 is alright for that.
But surely this is contradictory? You say we need carriers for a land war, but we're going to dump peace keepers into them??? If anything it's more essential for the best weapons to be used for peace keepers - ultimately a soldier needs a reliable weapon no matter their role.
Belldandy wrote:
> Because you tackle the real source of the problem - the punishment
> for the crime, if people fear the consequences it drives down crime.
So if people in Texas fear the ultimate punishment, the Death sentance, why do they still commit crime??? Hard punishment wont stop crime.
> "Most" - whose to say this time will not fall into that
> category?
The past record of the Tory party.
> But hang on, the Eurofighter was primarily what it's name suggests, a
> fighter, air to air. Development began back in the early 80's and,
> from one person who I used to know, earlier than that. It's not
> stealth - which the F22 is - and whilst it is an excellent plane -
> the maneouvers it can make have to be seen to be believed, something
> I'll guarantee from seeing it at last years Air Tattoo - I wonder who
> exactly it's going to take on in an air to air role? In Iraq not a
> single enemy fighter left base because the pilots knew they were
> outgunned and out-teched. In fact the original idea of the
> Eurofighter was to intercept Soviet bombers and fighter escorts. It's
> just a different world now.
So what do you suggest, we've no need for a new air-to-air fighter???
> In a way - US industry and our own both serve to profit from the
> program and we are the only nation in Europe to gain access to the
> JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) technology - which will make us the only
> ones in Europe with stealth equipped planes. In Iraq we did rely on
> the US for CAS but only because that was the way it was planned - we
> do have the capability ourselves, I wonder though how many more
> Iraq's there are left to be seen? Carriers are good in a way, but
> they do make damn big targets.
But, as incidents like the Falklands shows, we really do need them. Then, most of the Harriers were tied up defending the ships. Few were left to give CAS. Something that we can't let happen again. Next war, we may not have the US with us, and we'll need big Supercarriers to aid any landwar.
> I'm not saying it's total crap, just that it's proven unreliable.
> It's not much good if it works for most people and not all. If it is
> so good why do the SAS and Royal Marines, to name two, never use it
> and instead opt for the US standard M16 or M4?
Because not every troop needs weapons like that. Most of the Army are Peace-keepers, and the L-85 is alright for that.
> But not everyone has body armour, or even enough bullets, or filters
> for their tank. Stuff like Mini-Mi's is all well and good, but is it
> suitable for today's situations?
Yes, and lessons were learned and are being acted on.
> Because you tackle the real source of the problem - the punishment
> for the crime, if people fear the consequences it drives down crime.
So if people in Texas fear the ultimate punishment, the Death sentance, why do they still commit crime??? Hard punishment wont stop crime.
> "Most" - whose to say this time will not fall into that
> category?
The past record of the Tory party.
> But hang on, the Eurofighter was primarily what it's name suggests, a
> fighter, air to air. Development began back in the early 80's and,
> from one person who I used to know, earlier than that. It's not
> stealth - which the F22 is - and whilst it is an excellent plane -
> the maneouvers it can make have to be seen to be believed, something
> I'll guarantee from seeing it at last years Air Tattoo - I wonder who
> exactly it's going to take on in an air to air role? In Iraq not a
> single enemy fighter left base because the pilots knew they were
> outgunned and out-teched. In fact the original idea of the
> Eurofighter was to intercept Soviet bombers and fighter escorts. It's
> just a different world now.
So what do you suggest, we've no need for a new air-to-air fighter???
> In a way - US industry and our own both serve to profit from the
> program and we are the only nation in Europe to gain access to the
> JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) technology - which will make us the only
> ones in Europe with stealth equipped planes. In Iraq we did rely on
> the US for CAS but only because that was the way it was planned - we
> do have the capability ourselves, I wonder though how many more
> Iraq's there are left to be seen? Carriers are good in a way, but
> they do make damn big targets.
But, as incidents like the Falklands shows, we really do need them. Then, most of the Harriers were tied up defending the ships. Few were left to give CAS. Something that we can't let happen again. Next war, we may not have the US with us, and we'll need big Supercarriers to aid any landwar.
> I'm not saying it's total crap, just that it's proven unreliable.
> It's not much good if it works for most people and not all. If it is
> so good why do the SAS and Royal Marines, to name two, never use it
> and instead opt for the US standard M16 or M4?
Because not every troop needs weapons like that. Most of the Army are Peace-keepers, and the L-85 is alright for that.
> But not everyone has body armour, or even enough bullets, or filters
> for their tank. Stuff like Mini-Mi's is all well and good, but is it
> suitable for today's situations?
Yes, and lessons were learned and are being acted on.
Skarra wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Yet robbery, violent crime, sex crimes, muggings - the crimes that
> really effect people - are still on the up, despite these increased
> numbers.
>
> Yes. But even if they are on the up, wouldn't less police make the
> situation worse? I really struggle to see how less police can do any
> good at all.
Because you tackle the real source of the problem - the punishment for the crime, if people fear the consequences it drives down crime.
> Since the dawn of time, the opposition has said it will cut
> bureaucracy, and yet, most fail to deliver.
"Most" - whose to say this time will not fall into that category?
> Eurofighter, that would be our version of, say the F-22. At the
> moment we sometimes relied on Buccaneer aircraft in the Gulf.
But hang on, the Eurofighter was primarily what it's name suggests, a fighter, air to air. Development began back in the early 80's and, from one person who I used to know, earlier than that. It's not stealth - which the F22 is - and whilst it is an excellent plane - the maneouvers it can make have to be seen to be believed, something I'll guarantee from seeing it at last years Air Tattoo - I wonder who exactly it's going to take on in an air to air role? In Iraq not a single enemy fighter left base because the pilots knew they were outgunned and out-teched. In fact the original idea of the Eurofighter was to intercept Soviet bombers and fighter escorts. It's just a different world now.
> The Super-Carriers, at the moment, our troops relied on US
> carrierborn aircraft for their CAS. The Ark Royal and the like just
> can't cut it anymore. And the Harrier is on its way out. Soon to be
> replaced by a new aircraft jointly being developed with the US. So
> Labour has got them to foot most of the design bill. Clever ay.
In a way - US industry and our own both serve to profit from the program and we are the only nation in Europe to gain access to the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) technology - which will make us the only ones in Europe with stealth equipped planes. In Iraq we did rely on the US for CAS but only because that was the way it was planned - we do have the capability ourselves, I wonder though how many more Iraq's there are left to be seen? Carriers are good in a way, but they do make damn big targets.
> Also, don't forget Labout are the first Government to bring in the
> AH-64. Somethink we should have got as soon as its potential was
> recognised.
Fair point, but even so I think we'd have gotten most of the US tech regardless of which government we had (out of labour/conservative anyway) and it's as reliant on who won the US presidency as well. On paper, for example, Bush and Blair make strange people to be close allies.
> Maybe so, but the L-85 is still a good weapon. It was in fact so
> accurate, marksmanship awards had to be changed. And it can work in
> combat, ask the Republican Guard, oh, thats right, the SA-80 killed
> most of them.
I'm not saying it's total crap, just that it's proven unreliable. It's not much good if it works for most people and not all. If it is so good why do the SAS and Royal Marines, to name two, never use it and instead opt for the US standard M16 or M4?
> And Labour are overhauling aspects of the Armed forces. After all,
> now, every 4 man squad has a Mini-Mi.
But not everyone has body armour, or even enough bullets, or filters for their tank. Stuff like Mini-Mi's is all well and good, but is it suitable for today's situations?
One thing Labour did, which was long overdue, was set up the rapid deployment force, as well as the deal with the US for the newer version cruise missile. The planned expansion of MI5 is another good step, but the fact remains we sent troops into harms way without the proper equipment. There is also, of course, the outstanding way in which Blair moved to solidify our friendship with the USA post 9/11 and our continued support for the war on terror.
> Belldandy wrote:
> Yet robbery, violent crime, sex crimes, muggings - the crimes that
> really effect people - are still on the up, despite these increased
> numbers.
>
> Yes. But even if they are on the up, wouldn't less police make the
> situation worse? I really struggle to see how less police can do any
> good at all.
Because you tackle the real source of the problem - the punishment for the crime, if people fear the consequences it drives down crime.
> Since the dawn of time, the opposition has said it will cut
> bureaucracy, and yet, most fail to deliver.
"Most" - whose to say this time will not fall into that category?
> Eurofighter, that would be our version of, say the F-22. At the
> moment we sometimes relied on Buccaneer aircraft in the Gulf.
But hang on, the Eurofighter was primarily what it's name suggests, a fighter, air to air. Development began back in the early 80's and, from one person who I used to know, earlier than that. It's not stealth - which the F22 is - and whilst it is an excellent plane - the maneouvers it can make have to be seen to be believed, something I'll guarantee from seeing it at last years Air Tattoo - I wonder who exactly it's going to take on in an air to air role? In Iraq not a single enemy fighter left base because the pilots knew they were outgunned and out-teched. In fact the original idea of the Eurofighter was to intercept Soviet bombers and fighter escorts. It's just a different world now.
> The Super-Carriers, at the moment, our troops relied on US
> carrierborn aircraft for their CAS. The Ark Royal and the like just
> can't cut it anymore. And the Harrier is on its way out. Soon to be
> replaced by a new aircraft jointly being developed with the US. So
> Labour has got them to foot most of the design bill. Clever ay.
In a way - US industry and our own both serve to profit from the program and we are the only nation in Europe to gain access to the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) technology - which will make us the only ones in Europe with stealth equipped planes. In Iraq we did rely on the US for CAS but only because that was the way it was planned - we do have the capability ourselves, I wonder though how many more Iraq's there are left to be seen? Carriers are good in a way, but they do make damn big targets.
> Also, don't forget Labout are the first Government to bring in the
> AH-64. Somethink we should have got as soon as its potential was
> recognised.
Fair point, but even so I think we'd have gotten most of the US tech regardless of which government we had (out of labour/conservative anyway) and it's as reliant on who won the US presidency as well. On paper, for example, Bush and Blair make strange people to be close allies.
> Maybe so, but the L-85 is still a good weapon. It was in fact so
> accurate, marksmanship awards had to be changed. And it can work in
> combat, ask the Republican Guard, oh, thats right, the SA-80 killed
> most of them.
I'm not saying it's total crap, just that it's proven unreliable. It's not much good if it works for most people and not all. If it is so good why do the SAS and Royal Marines, to name two, never use it and instead opt for the US standard M16 or M4?
> And Labour are overhauling aspects of the Armed forces. After all,
> now, every 4 man squad has a Mini-Mi.
But not everyone has body armour, or even enough bullets, or filters for their tank. Stuff like Mini-Mi's is all well and good, but is it suitable for today's situations?
One thing Labour did, which was long overdue, was set up the rapid deployment force, as well as the deal with the US for the newer version cruise missile. The planned expansion of MI5 is another good step, but the fact remains we sent troops into harms way without the proper equipment. There is also, of course, the outstanding way in which Blair moved to solidify our friendship with the USA post 9/11 and our continued support for the war on terror.
Belldandy wrote:
> Yet robbery, violent crime, sex crimes, muggings - the crimes that
> really effect people - are still on the up, despite these increased
> numbers.
Yes. But even if they are on the up, wouldn't less police make the situation worse? I really struggle to see how less police can do any good at all.
> Less bureaucracy? Sounds a good idea to me.
Since the dawn of time, the opposition has said it will cut bureaucracy, and yet, most fail to deliver.
> Not really, because this isn't the 80's. Certainly we need to better
> equip our existing forces and ensure we don't have a repeat of the
> Iraq supply shortages. But the Conservatives have pledged to do that.
> If you look at the current programs under Labour - Eurofighter and
> the Super carriers, you have to wonder just who we're going to use
> these against.
Eurofighter, that would be our version of, say the F-22. At the moment we sometimes relied on Buccaneer aircraft in the Gulf.
The Super-Carriers, at the moment, our troops relied on US carrierborn aircraft for their CAS. The Ark Royal and the like just can't cut it anymore. And the Harrier is on its way out. Soon to be replaced by a new aircraft jointly being developed with the US. So Labour has got them to foot most of the design bill. Clever ay.
Also, don't forget Labout are the first Government to bring in the AH-64. Somethink we should have got as soon as its potential was recognised.
> At the same time as we have these mutli billion pound
> programs for systems we have limited use for our troops are stuggling
> with crap like the SA-80. I've read a lot of bad stuff about this
> weapon, I can think of nothing worse for combat troops than being
> equipped with a weapon you have little confidence in - any regiment
> that has the option to, in our military, has gone for an alternative
> weapon.
Maybe so, but the L-85 is still a good weapon. It was in fact so accurate, marksmanship awards had to be changed. And it can work in combat, ask the Republican Guard, oh, thats right, the SA-80 killed most of them.
And Labour are overhauling aspects of the Armed forces. After all, now, every 4 man squad has a Mini-Mi.
> Yet robbery, violent crime, sex crimes, muggings - the crimes that
> really effect people - are still on the up, despite these increased
> numbers.
Yes. But even if they are on the up, wouldn't less police make the situation worse? I really struggle to see how less police can do any good at all.
> Less bureaucracy? Sounds a good idea to me.
Since the dawn of time, the opposition has said it will cut bureaucracy, and yet, most fail to deliver.
> Not really, because this isn't the 80's. Certainly we need to better
> equip our existing forces and ensure we don't have a repeat of the
> Iraq supply shortages. But the Conservatives have pledged to do that.
> If you look at the current programs under Labour - Eurofighter and
> the Super carriers, you have to wonder just who we're going to use
> these against.
Eurofighter, that would be our version of, say the F-22. At the moment we sometimes relied on Buccaneer aircraft in the Gulf.
The Super-Carriers, at the moment, our troops relied on US carrierborn aircraft for their CAS. The Ark Royal and the like just can't cut it anymore. And the Harrier is on its way out. Soon to be replaced by a new aircraft jointly being developed with the US. So Labour has got them to foot most of the design bill. Clever ay.
Also, don't forget Labout are the first Government to bring in the AH-64. Somethink we should have got as soon as its potential was recognised.
> At the same time as we have these mutli billion pound
> programs for systems we have limited use for our troops are stuggling
> with crap like the SA-80. I've read a lot of bad stuff about this
> weapon, I can think of nothing worse for combat troops than being
> equipped with a weapon you have little confidence in - any regiment
> that has the option to, in our military, has gone for an alternative
> weapon.
Maybe so, but the L-85 is still a good weapon. It was in fact so accurate, marksmanship awards had to be changed. And it can work in combat, ask the Republican Guard, oh, thats right, the SA-80 killed most of them.
And Labour are overhauling aspects of the Armed forces. After all, now, every 4 man squad has a Mini-Mi.
Belldandy wrote:
> Skarra wrote:
> Also, wouldn't the Tory's cut about 80,000 jobs from the civil
> servants in order to save money?
>
> Less bureaucracy? Sounds a good idea to me.
Surely that depends on what they actually do?
I know bureaucracy has become something of a dirty word, but really, we need a certain amount of it to, quite simply, make things work.
Maybe the civil service should be more efficient, but Howard wants to cut functions of the civil service too. Yet he hasn't offered all that much as to what public functions should be for the chop. It's a dangerous degree of trust from someone who, well, has abandoned most of what he used to stand for in favour of more popular ideas. Has he really changed?
> Skarra wrote:
> Also, wouldn't the Tory's cut about 80,000 jobs from the civil
> servants in order to save money?
>
> Less bureaucracy? Sounds a good idea to me.
Surely that depends on what they actually do?
I know bureaucracy has become something of a dirty word, but really, we need a certain amount of it to, quite simply, make things work.
Maybe the civil service should be more efficient, but Howard wants to cut functions of the civil service too. Yet he hasn't offered all that much as to what public functions should be for the chop. It's a dangerous degree of trust from someone who, well, has abandoned most of what he used to stand for in favour of more popular ideas. Has he really changed?
Skarra wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> 2 of those 3 will actually result in me having more money as opposed
> to being abstract ideas.
>
> Yes, but won't these plans to cut public spending, and therefor tax,
> damage things like the police?
>
> I mean, won't it mean at least 1000 less officers on the street,
> where as Labour have managed to put more police on the streets than
> at any other time in History.
Yet robbery, violent crime, sex crimes, muggings - the crimes that really effect people - are still on the up, despite these increased numbers.
> Also, wouldn't the Tory's cut about 80,000 jobs from the civil
> servants in order to save money?
Less bureaucracy? Sounds a good idea to me.
> Don't forget their plans for cuts to the Defence sector. Post 9/11,
> isn't that a bad idea. They did this just before the Falklands, and
> dam near cost us that one.
Not really, because this isn't the 80's. Certainly we need to better equip our existing forces and ensure we don't have a repeat of the Iraq supply shortages. But the Conservatives have pledged to do that. If you look at the current programs under Labour - Eurofighter and the Super carriers, you have to wonder just who we're going to use these against. At the same time as we have these mutli billion pound programs for systems we have limited use for our troops are stuggling with crap like the SA-80. I've read a lot of bad stuff about this weapon, I can think of nothing worse for combat troops than being equipped with a weapon you have little confidence in - any regiment that has the option to, in our military, has gone for an alternative weapon.
> Belldandy wrote:
> 2 of those 3 will actually result in me having more money as opposed
> to being abstract ideas.
>
> Yes, but won't these plans to cut public spending, and therefor tax,
> damage things like the police?
>
> I mean, won't it mean at least 1000 less officers on the street,
> where as Labour have managed to put more police on the streets than
> at any other time in History.
Yet robbery, violent crime, sex crimes, muggings - the crimes that really effect people - are still on the up, despite these increased numbers.
> Also, wouldn't the Tory's cut about 80,000 jobs from the civil
> servants in order to save money?
Less bureaucracy? Sounds a good idea to me.
> Don't forget their plans for cuts to the Defence sector. Post 9/11,
> isn't that a bad idea. They did this just before the Falklands, and
> dam near cost us that one.
Not really, because this isn't the 80's. Certainly we need to better equip our existing forces and ensure we don't have a repeat of the Iraq supply shortages. But the Conservatives have pledged to do that. If you look at the current programs under Labour - Eurofighter and the Super carriers, you have to wonder just who we're going to use these against. At the same time as we have these mutli billion pound programs for systems we have limited use for our troops are stuggling with crap like the SA-80. I've read a lot of bad stuff about this weapon, I can think of nothing worse for combat troops than being equipped with a weapon you have little confidence in - any regiment that has the option to, in our military, has gone for an alternative weapon.
Yeah, I'll be voting Libdem. The tories are laughably out of touch with reality and are on course for yet another humiliation, and labour are getting more like the tories of old. In my opinion, if they dropped Blair and went for Brown, then they'd be unassailable.
Goatboy, is your real name Michael Moore by any chance? Mind, he didn't do it 'til he got married, which means you've been lying about all those conquests of yours.
Belldandy wrote:
> 2 of those 3 will actually result in me having more money as opposed
> to being abstract ideas.
Yes, but won't these plans to cut public spending, and therefor tax, damage things like the police?
I mean, won't it mean at least 1000 less officers on the street, where as Labour have managed to put more police on the streets than at any other time in History.
Also, wouldn't the Tory's cut about 80,000 jobs from the civil servants in order to save money?
Don't forget their plans for cuts to the Defence sector. Post 9/11, isn't that a bad idea. They did this just before the Falklands, and dam near cost us that one.
I'm a Labour boy through and through. If not Labour, Lib Dems. For no reason would i even consider voting Tory. Not only do i see their plans and un-reachable, but bad for the country.
> 2 of those 3 will actually result in me having more money as opposed
> to being abstract ideas.
Yes, but won't these plans to cut public spending, and therefor tax, damage things like the police?
I mean, won't it mean at least 1000 less officers on the street, where as Labour have managed to put more police on the streets than at any other time in History.
Also, wouldn't the Tory's cut about 80,000 jobs from the civil servants in order to save money?
Don't forget their plans for cuts to the Defence sector. Post 9/11, isn't that a bad idea. They did this just before the Falklands, and dam near cost us that one.
I'm a Labour boy through and through. If not Labour, Lib Dems. For no reason would i even consider voting Tory. Not only do i see their plans and un-reachable, but bad for the country.
It's very easy to say "We'd have done it this way" when Labour messes up. Truth is, our country is still in a bad way from the LAST time the Tories were in power. I sure as hell don't want to let them finish the job.
Page: