h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What a pair of deeply unpleasant individuals.

Yes, there have been equipment shortages - name me an army anywhere and at any time that didn't want more equipment and men? Servicemen grumble, it's one of the few perks. As any Navy CPO will tell you, it's when the grumbling stops that the real problems start. The media seize upon such grumblings and blow them out of all proportion. You'll always find some Mrs Smith somewhere whining that her little Timmy is being forced to wear nasty, itchy shirts.

And where do shortages come from? People like you two. Governments are all too aware that every penny spent on defence is bitterly resented by those who would rather see it spent on some meedja studies student doing a two week study in Birmingham on the poor afflicted chavs who struggle to get by on a £50 a day crack fix.

As to mocking Remembrance Day,

Fanny, this November, if you can tear yourself away from your crime-free multi-culty idyll for an hour, go up to the Cenotaph and tell the people there they are part of a "superstitious death cult".

I would pay to watch the results.

Me too SWL

Novo

Hello Fanny,

I think you should do a little research into relatively recent history, within my lifetime, that is to say WW 2

What would you have wished us to do in 1939 / 1940.? Would you have preferred the young men and women who gave their lives so that you could live as you do today to say "No" , and allow Hiltler's jackbooted troops to reduce Britain to a Nazi State? There would have been precious little multi-culturalism here if that had happened.

People throughout history have scoffed at , and complained about the cost of their soldiers, but when the enemy is at the gates who do the populace cry out for? - those very soldiers.

Honour those who fought and died, honour those who fought and were injured in your name, so that you could enjoy freedom. They didn't die for politicians, nor for the Monarch, but for you and me and those we can still hold near and dear.

Novo

Freedom isn't free

Calm down, SWL.

Lets face some facts here Fanny like it or not and you clearly dont has views and an outlook you dont agree with. Now you havent spent one single minute as far as you know in his neighbourhood have you? So its rather overstretching even your well known seer like abilitites to suggest that what Fanny's reporting of his experience of his neighbourhood isnt truthful.

You gripe when you say other people are getting too personal, maybe you ought to read your own posts and do a little self reflection before you submit them


Back to the issue of the thread. I dont think its good enough to say hey other armies have shortages too is it? We have seen vast amounts of money wasted on unfit computer systems and poorly thought through sales of MOD property where the MOD had to lease back protperties at inflated prices. This government will it seems press ahead regardless of myown and other peoples reservations and downright protest against the purchase of more nuclear armoury. Its ridiculous to blame cuts in millitary spending on me or Fanny, but if it makes you feel better to do so please carry on.

"bitterly resented by those who would rather see it spent on some meedja studies student doing a two week study in Birmingham on the poor afflicted chavs who struggle to get by on a £50 a day crack fix.

How illuminating that your response ot my assertion that service personel should be better looked after is attack what you see as the excesses of cultural introspection and those who you see as being beneath you who happen to be afflicted with a medical condition. Good luck at the Charm Awards.

"this November...go up to the Cenotaph and tell the people there they are part of a "superstitious death cult"

Actually forget I think its best you forget about the Charm Awards. Why would anyone want to do that? I think that there are seriously irrational leaps made in our thinking about remeberance day but there bits I can go along with and given the spirit of the whole group of events I take what I see as the bad with the good. Critiscising some part of it does not mean that a person has no respect for any of it.

Maybe when you have stopped foaming at the mouth you will post a thoughtful reply rahter than this anger fuelled tosh.

one love

"Hurrah! For The Life Of A Soldier"
Tommy
By Rudyard Kipling, 1892

I went into a public- 'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls behind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play-
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you Mr Atkins," when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fighting', Lord! They'll shove me in the stalls!

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins," when the trooper's on the tide-
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins," when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll-
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes," when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy fall be'ind,"
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind-
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck 'im out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

For the thief and his sycophant, I'll happily make this personal given that this is the only language the pair of you comprehend.

Let others like SoRB try to engage you in reasoned debate. You don't listen to them either and resort to insults anyway.

I'll call it as I see it. The pair of you are repellant.

"What would you have wished us to do in 1939 / 1940.? Would you have preferred the young men and women who gave their lives so that you could live as you do today to say "No" , and allow Hiltler's jackbooted troops to reduce Britain to a Nazi State? There would have been precious little multi-culturalism here if that had happened.

If we are going to talk about what I would have prefereed, well obviously with hindsight "we" would have invaded long before the actual war started. That would have been the smart move but *they* (presumably you were too young to serve so its not really a "we" situation at all)...*they* didnt have hindsight then and we dont have it for what's happening now in the Gulf states. So any such talk about what I would rather have happened is only mildly diverting and entirely futile.



"People throughout history have scoffed at , and complained about the cost of their soldiers, but when the enemy is at the gates who do the populace cry out for? - those very soldiers.

If you are talking about WWII some of the people cried out for the enemy as some still do today. I could introduce you to a fair few people who would have prefered a German victory, they claim to be English and England loving patriots





"Honour those who fought and died,

No problem.

"honour those who fought and were injured

Ditto.


"in your name,

Stop this train, its time I got off.

"so that you could enjoy freedom.<book.

They didnt all do it for me and some of them who did the fighting would, they have told me, rather I wasnt enjoing the freedom they fought for. Some of them would have willingly it turns out have switched sides if they knew the shape of things to come.


"They didn't die for politicians, nor for the Monarch,

I think you should talk to some more people because I think you are only meeting one type of veteran.


"but for you and me and those we can still hold near and dear.<book.

My great-grandfather fought and was injured in WWI he took one look at his first great grandson decided he was to brown and never set eyes on me again.

one love

Afternoon Blicky,

I was actually addressing Fanny, not your goodself.

As a matter of history I think you are wrong. You cannot possible assert that you know anything about the motives, or wishes of those who were young in 1939.

I understand that you bring to these threads a very particular mindset, as well as a gift for expression. I don't know who would have preferred an occupation, and I would like you to wheel out some of those to whom you refer. A sub-set I presume?

As it happens I know a few veterans, one particularly who served in the RN on the Russian convys, including the infamous PQ 17. I'll ask why he did it.

Novo

I know who you were adressing but I answered anyway, your posts interested me.

"You cannot possible assert that you know anything about the motives, or wishes of those who were young in 1939.

I can as it happens with great ease assert all sorts of things.

What you mean to say is I cant possibly know about the motives of people who were young in 1939. Well you're wrong and yyou're also murdering the languag

Ive spent a little time in Old Comrades, ex-servicemens and various clubs not to mention knowing people who served in a number of conflicts through my family. So although I only have their word for it I do ave some idea of whatpeople were thinking.

"I understand that you bring to these threads a very particular mindset, as well as a gift for expression.



"I don't know who would have preferred an occupation, and I would like you to wheel out some of those to whom you refer.

Im terrible with names but I used to work in a centre where there were a number of "OAP" groups one included three men who told me quite bboldly that they would have prefered Nazi rule had they known the Uk would "end up like this", they were refering to a Dholl drumming class.

"A sub-set I presume?

very likely but ulikely you I dont attempt to pretend that all people who went forawrd to fight did it with the sole noble intention of keeping freedon alive for all.

one love

I didn't say ALL did either

Novo

Looking at your Uspace I see you around 70 years old which means you are very unlikely to have taken part in the fighting yet you refered to those who did as "us" a pretty all encompassing way of presenting the views of those who did enlist.

Im not trying to put a figure on how many people had what motives but the ideas you may have had were not universaly held and arent now.

one love

Morning all Yes I really should apologise for my disgraceful last post, (get it, last post ) But having read this on SWL's message threads, http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/F2264199?thread=3748250&latest=1 POST 73, I really couldn't resist. You know what they say SWL, if you're gonna dish it out, you have to be able to take it. I do happen to think there is a fair bit of truth in what I posted. And given the repeated foaming at the mouth attacks by SWL on Islamists I though he should try to look honestly at our culture. And over the centuries we have sent young men off to war, knowing full well they were going to their deaths, as certainly as any Islamic suicide bomber. So lets have a bit of honesty. Yes I know bad stuff happens in war, and maybe it's neccessary sometimes, but lets not pretend otherwise. And it certainly does look like those sailors were sent off without proper protection, and we all know about the duff equipment the soldiers have in Iraq. And yet we are happy to spend billions on Trident and its successor.

I'd just like to step in here, as I get rather annoyed when every time something like this happens the meeja and their sheep instantly jump to wild conclusions about what we should have done, and who was to blame for not doing it.

If the reports are to be believed, this was the fault of the Iranians. Not the government, not the MoD, not the RN, not the captured sailors and not the CO of Cornwall.

Lets put this in persepctive.

Allegedly, it was a routine boarding of of a small Indian merchant vessel. Two boats carrying small arms should've been more than sufficient, but if anything untoward kicked off then they had the helicopter, presumably armed, as backup. They were probably well within the frigate's weapons range anyway (~130km).

Iranian patrol boats patrolling Iranian waters are not unusual. They would not have been seen as a threat until they crossed the border - only 1.7km away - a couple of minutes at the speed these boats can go.

Despite what a lot of surprisingly prescient civilian punters appear to be implying, no-one would have expected what happened next. We are not at war with Iran. Our boats did the right thing by not shooting back - that would have been suicide. The frigate did the right thing by not firing at the Iranian boats - that would have risked our boats. We don't know what kind of discussions went on over the airwaves while all this was happening, but for the UK to initiate any kind of aggressive action could easily have resulted in the deaths of the sailors and caused a major political incident; all for what was probably believed to be a misunderstanding at the time.

Undoubtedly it would not have happened had the frigate been in visual range. But why would you need to divert a 5,200-tonne capital ship to intercept every tin-pot cargo boat entering Iraqi waters? If people are really saying that we should not have sent vulnerable rigid raiders, then we're going to need an awful lot of new frigates, and frigates are a bit more expensive. I estimate about 100,000 times more expensive.

It is exactly the same pointless argument as saying that soldiers in Iraq would not have been killed if their vehicles had been more heavily armoured. Add more armour, they'll use bigger bombs, and the same argument applies - but the meeja won't be happy until everyone has their own personal-issue tank. It is equally ludicrous to suggest that a fully-armed ocean-going warship is the minimum requirement for every naval mission.

SWL is right; if we are to provide the services with the best equipment money can buy, then someone needs to provide the money to buy it.

No sorry if my boss knows IM in danger doing a job they make it safe or I dont go.

You say there are alternatives and the one you miss is that those service personnel shouldnt be thre in the first place.

Its a long digression and you all know it already but diplomacy is at every turn being undermined because war is profitable and lets face it.

Whatever the intentions of the people in uniform they are sent out by politicians whose intentions are not always linked tot he owrds coming out of their mouths.

>>>Allegedly, it was a routine boarding of of a small Indian merchant vessel.

From the reports I've been reading it was a small Indian vessel they'd been interested in for quite a while, a fact that might not seem important right now, but keep reading

------

>>>>Two boats carrying small arms should've been more than sufficient, but if anything untoward kicked off then they had the helicopter, presumably armed, as backup.

Cock-up N°1: The helicopter wasn't there when it was needed... It was on the deck of the Cornwall being refuelled when the rigid raiders left the merchantman after the boarding.

They'd been thinking about this merchantman for quite a while, which leads me to ask the question - why send your rigid raiders out so far from your ship that your helicopter won't be able to cover them for the duration of the operation?

------

>>>They were probably well within the frigate's weapons range anyway (~130km).

130 km for a harpoon - which is no earthly good against a number of small, fast moving, patrol boats. If you want to protect a rigid raider with a Batch 3 Type 22 Frigate, unless you're willing to start lobbing 4.5 inch shells into an area you're own men are located, you need to be close enough in to use the bofors guns on the sides.

(otherwise speaking, within visual range of the vessels)

------

>>>Iranian patrol boats patrolling Iranian waters are not unusual. They would not have been seen as a threat until they crossed the border - only 1.7km away - a couple of minutes at the speed these boats can go.

You're in the middle of a war zone, anything floating and unidentified is a threat... As you say, those things can move at a hell of a rate, so if they get within 15 miles of you you'd better be prepared for anything... Ok, your RoE stop you from opening fire on the things, but you sure as heck want to know what every boat moving within that range is... In actual fact, the threat radius is much wider than that, as the Iranians have several small patrol boats fitted with Chinese copies of the Exocet - so, in an ideal world, you want your helicopter up IDing anything that comes within 30 or 40 miles of you.

------

>>>Despite what a lot of surprisingly prescient civilian punters appear to be implying,


This particular civilian has a slight advantage - six months on a minesweeper in the Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war and a second trip out their on one of the Cornwall's sister ships...

>>> no-one would have expected what happened next.

Despite the fact that it's happened before? Despite the fact that the Iranians have shot up civilian tankers and mined the gulf in the past?
If you're in an area like that you'd better darned well expect the unexpected to happen. Despite the fact we _are_ involved in a shooting war in the area, and it would have been quite easy for a couple of Persian-speaking Iraqis to have been driving those boats?

In this case we appear to have been caught fast asleep.

------

>>>We are not at war with Iran. Our boats did the right thing by not shooting back - that would have been suicide.

On that we agree.

------

>>>The frigate did the right thing by not firing at the Iranian boats - that would have risked our boats.

But the point I made earlier was that it was too far away to shoot at them even if they'd wanted to.

------

>>> We don't know what kind of discussions went on over the airwaves while all this was happening, but for the UK to initiate any kind of aggressive action could easily have resulted in the deaths of the sailors and caused a major political incident; all for what was probably believed to be a misunderstanding at the time.

Agreed again, but the phrase "Speak softly and carry a big stick" springs to mind...

With the frigate conspicuous by its absence, they'd forgotten to bring the big stick.

------

>>>Undoubtedly it would not have happened had the frigate been in visual range. But why would you need to divert a 5,200-tonne capital ship to intercept every tin-pot cargo boat entering Iraqi waters?

Why not? That's the frigate's job - intercepting and searching cargo vessels. If you've been following a suspected vessel for a protracted period, why not board it when you're within range? That'd be SOP anyway (unless you were overstretched and had committed yourself to stopping a second vessel at the same time).

You're in the middle of a war zone - don't take unnecessary risks.

>>>If people are really saying that we should not have sent vulnerable rigid raiders, then we're going to need an awful lot of new frigates, and frigates are a bit more expensive. I estimate about 100,000 times more expensive.

Nope - to stop this happening - all you needed was for the frigate to have been about 10 miles further north (15 minutes run at full speed).



------

>>>It is exactly the same pointless argument as saying that soldiers in Iraq would not have been killed if their vehicles had been more heavily armoured. Add more armour, they'll use bigger bombs, and the same argument applies - but the meeja won't be happy until everyone has their own personal-issue tank.


So should we just go back to bows and arrows then? Shouldn't we do all that is financially possible to protect our men?
Was 15 minutes worth of fuel that expensive?

------

>>>It is equally ludicrous to suggest that a fully-armed ocean-going warship is the minimum requirement for every naval mission.

Well, in the middle of the Persian Gulf - I'd say it _was_ the minimum you need for operations of this sort - if it wasn't, why'd the government send it out there in the first place? Why not send out a couple of our own patrol boats?

----

>>>SWL is right; if we are to provide the services with the best equipment money can buy, then someone needs to provide the money to buy it.

Only part of the problem - spending money on equipment is only useful if the equipment is in the right place to do the job - in this case it wasn't.

Hi Blicky

<< Looking at your Uspace I see you around 70 years old which means you are very unlikely to have taken part in the fighting yet you refered to those who did as "us" a pretty all encompassing way of presenting the views of those who did enlist.>>

Not really Blicky, I used the word 'us' meaning the nation as a whole.
Bear in mind that I was asking a question of Fanny, not making a wider point. Nothing further from me on this because we are going way off-topic.

Novo

for Whisky and Daveblackeye for a couple of very educational posts - I found them useful at any rate.

All I keep thinking with this is that Iran seems to have made a serious mistake, which is surprising because they have been playing an absolute blinder over the nuclear issue.

They've pretty clearly decided to get themselves some nukes, they stirred up enough trouble in the Lebanon to keep Israel on a short leash, and kept the US occupied in Lebanon and Iraq. That'd they've managed to keep Israeli jets out of their sky is quite an achievement. They only needed to keep it up for a few years and then they'd have nukes and be safe.

Then they start this - awfully misjudged, they actually given someone a good reason to kick off on them and retain the high ground. Given the renewal of Trident Britain can't play the "you shouldn't have nuclear weapons" card but we do have every right in the world to respond to the kidnapping of our troops.

I agree. Very informative.

Can anyone explain the reasoning behind the watered-down statement from the UN? Given that the RN was working under the auspices of that organisation, we surely have a right to expect stronger condemnation?

Could it be they are lily-livered cowards who are only there to line their own pockets while seeming to be protecting the undepriviledged and oppressed and by making a bigger fuss might mean them actually having to get involved in a serious way?