Over half of British Kosovo bombs missed
Stephen Horgan
<Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:
>In article <aehfpscl9vgv7ilcq...@4ax.com>, Ian Geldard
><igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> writes
>>LONDON (Reuters) - More than half the bombs dropped by British planes
>>in last year's Kosovo war missed their targets, BBC radio reported on
>>Monday.
>
>Good. Another compelling reason to cut our ludicrously expensive and
>apparently incompetent armed forces to something like the Dutch model.
>The only difficulty is how to cope with several hundred thousand
>brainwashed morons who have been taught to kill people.
It's tommy this and tommy that and tommy walk behind,
but it's 'please to walk in front sir' when there's trouble in the wind.
Kipling
--
Stephen Horgan, Basildon, Essex, England
"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"
Hayek
http://www.horgan.co.uk
Gareth Jones
>On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:24:55 +0100, Robin
><Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:
>
>>In article <aehfpscl9vgv7ilcq...@4ax.com>, Ian Geldard
>><igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>LONDON (Reuters) - More than half the bombs dropped by British planes
>>>in last year's Kosovo war missed their targets, BBC radio reported on
>>>Monday.
>>
>>Good. Another compelling reason to cut our ludicrously expensive and
>>apparently incompetent armed forces to something like the Dutch model.
>>The only difficulty is how to cope with several hundred thousand
>>brainwashed morons who have been taught to kill people.
>
>It's tommy this and tommy that and tommy walk behind,
>but it's 'please to walk in front sir' when there's trouble in the wind.
Yeah, except that in Kipling's day there were defensive wars being
fought. There is very little "trouble in the wind" these days - just
foreign adventures, which is a bit different.
Gareth
Ian Geldard
18:54:38 GMT, ste...@horgan.co.uk (Stephen Horgan) wrote:
>It's tommy this and tommy that and tommy walk behind,
>but it's 'please to walk in front sir' when there's trouble in the wind.
It's about time we started to say "sod off" when they want us to engage in
bombing small nations, military occupation duties and other foreign adventures.
--
Ian Geldard
London, England
Ian Geldard
21:21:59 +0100, Gareth Jones <gar...@uberdog.net> wrote:
>Yeah, except that in Kipling's day there were defensive wars being
>fought. There is very little "trouble in the wind" these days - just
>foreign adventures, which is a bit different.
The Anglo-Boer Wars weren't defensive, they were about Imperial expansion and
the suppression of inconvenient independent Afrikaner republics.
Nor was the First World War defensive, it was simply an outcome of European
entanglements resulting from our secret military alliance in 1906 with France
(and Russia) in which we pledged to support any French military conflict with
Germany, either defensive or offensive.
Germany was no threat to the British Empire, but France and Russia were - which
is why we sided with them in the hope of buying them off.
Marc Living
<igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <p4lgpso9imndaqe20...@4ax.com>, on Mon, 14 Aug 2000
>21:21:59 +0100, Gareth Jones <gar...@uberdog.net> wrote:
>>Yeah, except that in Kipling's day there were defensive wars being
>>fought. There is very little "trouble in the wind" these days - just
>>foreign adventures, which is a bit different.
>The Anglo-Boer Wars weren't defensive, they were about Imperial expansion and
>the suppression of inconvenient independent Afrikaner republics.
And they were in the way - red from Cape to Cairo was the policy.
>Nor was the First World War defensive, it was simply an outcome of European
>entanglements resulting from our secret military alliance in 1906 with France
>(and Russia) in which we pledged to support any French military conflict with
>Germany, either defensive or offensive.
>Germany was no threat to the British Empire, but France and Russia were - which
>is why we sided with them in the hope of buying them off.
It wasn't quite that simple. Germany was certainly making threatening
noises about its "place in the sun", and seemed intent on building a
navy which could threaten the Royal Navy for the first time since
Napoleon.
Moreover, it had long been an axiom of British policy that if a single
power came to dominate continental Europe, that would be enormously
threatening to Britain.
--
Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK" to reply)
***********************************************
"The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall
would be to make Parliament utterly subservient
to his will; and the next to overturn or diminish
trial by jury ..." Lord Devlin
http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk
************************************************
Ian Geldard
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>>The Anglo-Boer Wars weren't defensive, they were about Imperial expansion and
>>the suppression of inconvenient independent Afrikaner republics.
>
>And they were in the way - red from Cape to Cairo was the policy.
Indeed.
>It wasn't quite that simple. Germany was certainly making threatening
>noises about its "place in the sun", and seemed intent on building a
>navy which could threaten the Royal Navy for the first time since
>Napoleon.
Well yes it was. And a lot of bluster it was too. The French and
Russian navies were building at a faster rate than Germany.
France was a greater threat to our "place in the sun". Remember
Fashoda? Not personally of course ;-)
As for the Russians, the greatest concern of Imperial planners was a
Russian advance through Afghanistan and the NWF to strike at India.
>Moreover, it had long been an axiom of British policy that if a single
>power came to dominate continental Europe, that would be enormously
>threatening to Britain.
And as a result we helped bring about the rise of Russian Bolshevism,
Italian Fascism and German National Socialism. Clever eh? It would
have been better had we stayed at home.
--
Ian Geldard
London, UK
John Bennett
Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote in message **
Snipped for getting off the thread.
John Bennett wrote:-)
Surely the whole point of this thread is to point out the futility of the
Kosovo debacle.
Half the aimed bombs missed their primary target, but they still hit their
Collateral Damage.
Why is the Serbian Baby Killer still on holiday in Italy, why is he not
being dragged kicking and screaming to the War Crimes Tribunal on the Hague?
Where he could regale his erstwhile co defendants , Lard Robinson, Dr Death
Jamie Shea, William (is that some genetic material upon your dress)
Jefferson Clingon, Madeline Allbricht, et al, with his wit and repartee',
concerning his attempts at being au fait with the pop culture, he obviously
adores.
This lying cheating excuse for a Prime Minister will adorn the pages of
history alongside his friend and mentor Billy Jeff as the two most hateful
members of the latter days of the last Millennium and the beginning of the
new.
Mr Sebastian
ethnic cleansing and the use of terror is futile. The
threads I am reading are going on about how crap the
military are, well yes, there are times when things go
astray, it's a dangerous thing. But please remember that
the military is run by the politicians who are terrified of
body counts and will give the most stupid orders in order
to make the press like them ("well can we knock the tanks
out without killing the crew? Well just wound them then!")
Pressure is put on the politicians by the media. The
bombing was a political response, NO soldier would ever use
just air power, you can't keep the peace from 50,000ft. so
stop asking us to.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Stephen Horgan
wrote:
>ste...@horgan.co.uk (Stephen Horgan) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:24:55 +0100, Robin
>><Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <aehfpscl9vgv7ilcq...@4ax.com>, Ian Geldard
>>><igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>LONDON (Reuters) - More than half the bombs dropped by British planes
>>>>in last year's Kosovo war missed their targets, BBC radio reported on
>>>>Monday.
>>>
>>>Good. Another compelling reason to cut our ludicrously expensive and
>>>apparently incompetent armed forces to something like the Dutch model.
>>>The only difficulty is how to cope with several hundred thousand
>>>brainwashed morons who have been taught to kill people.
>>
>>It's tommy this and tommy that and tommy walk behind,
>>but it's 'please to walk in front sir' when there's trouble in the wind.
>
>Yeah, except that in Kipling's day there were defensive wars being
>fought. There is very little "trouble in the wind" these days - just
>foreign adventures, which is a bit different.
>
It takes decades to build up a decent armed forces. If you want to
dismantle ours then you have to be utterly confident that no war which
you would regard as justified will ever occur.
Such an attitude in the aftermath of WW1 would have seen Hitler take
over the world.
Stephen Horgan
<igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <399a4066...@news.netdirect-online.co.uk>, on Mon, 14 Aug 2000
>18:54:38 GMT, ste...@horgan.co.uk (Stephen Horgan) wrote:
>
>>It's tommy this and tommy that and tommy walk behind,
>>but it's 'please to walk in front sir' when there's trouble in the wind.
>
>It's about time we started to say "sod off" when they want us to engage in
>bombing small nations, military occupation duties and other foreign adventures.
If not us, then who? Or do we want a world were war becomes once again a
successful and normal part of foreign policy, only this time with
nuclear weapons?
Gareth Jones
>>Yeah, except that in Kipling's day there were defensive wars being
>>fought. There is very little "trouble in the wind" these days - just
>>foreign adventures, which is a bit different.
>>
>It takes decades to build up a decent armed forces. If you want to
>dismantle ours then you have to be utterly confident that no war which
>you would regard as justified will ever occur.
It is a difficult area. On the one hand, a standing army provides a
certain amount of protection, on the other hand, it allows the
executive to wage war with relatively little need to seek the approval
of the people or of parliament. I wonder how many of the conflicts we
get involved in would actually be fought if the government had to ask
parliament for money, or ask men to enlist.
>Such an attitude in the aftermath of WW1 would have seen Hitler take
>over the world.
Whether that is true or not I don't know - I don't know much about the
size of the standing forces before WWII.
I do think however, we could defend our mainland possessions simply
with nuclear force. Places like the Falkland Islands would be harder
to defend....
That argument would have to be left to those with more military
knowledge though....my main point is that we have large and expensive
forces, that are always sold to the public as being for "defense",
when in reality they are used more often for political reasons in
foreign conflicts. Vast numbers of people are killed by our tax money,
but because we have standing forces, there is little need to justify
the action at the time to the British people.
Gareth
Gareth Jones
>On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 09:58:41 +0100, Ian Geldard
><igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <399a4066...@news.netdirect-online.co.uk>, on Mon, 14 Aug 2000
>>18:54:38 GMT, ste...@horgan.co.uk (Stephen Horgan) wrote:
>>
>>>It's tommy this and tommy that and tommy walk behind,
>>>but it's 'please to walk in front sir' when there's trouble in the wind.
>>
>>It's about time we started to say "sod off" when they want us to engage in
>>bombing small nations, military occupation duties and other foreign adventures.
>
>If not us, then who? Or do we want a world were war becomes once again a
>successful and normal part of foreign policy, only this time with
>nuclear weapons?
We *do* have a world were war is a normal part of foreign policy.
I presume the reference to nuclear weapons is in connection with the
gulf war? I'm personally not at all convinced that the continued
action against Iraq has anything to do with a real belief by the US
that Iraq has a viable nuclear weapons programme.
Gareth
Lucky at love unluckyatcards
Mr Sebastian <philrile...@sebastian.freeserve.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:1ad5cfac...@usw-ex0109-068.remarq.com...
> So nice of you to point out that trying to stop rape,
> ethnic cleansing and the use of terror is futile.
Why was it only the Serbs who were picked on.?
Rape! Ethnic Cleansing! Terror!
Sounds familiar does it?
It should, it is a daily occurrence in Kosovo.
Yet Natzo stands idly by and does nothing, why?
Stupid of me, I almost forgot, Billy Jeff is coming to the end of his term
in office and Maddy Albrecht is going back to her lesbian lovers in LA.
Not long now and we'll have another, think with your mouth prezzy in the
shite house, chummying upto Bliar.
Wonder who the next poor sacks of shit will be.?
The ones needed to boost a flagging presidency in the run up to the
elections in 2004.?
The people most likely to put Dubya back into the hot seat for
another.............?
Ian Geldard
Horgan) wrote:
>If not us, then who? Or do we want a world were war becomes once again a
Hopefully nobody. But if the Norwegians, Ecuadoreans or Thais want to
engage in military adventures in Sierra Leone or some other faraway
land about which we know little and care even less, then good luck to
them.
>successful and normal part of foreign policy, only this time with
>nuclear weapons?
But that's exactly what our support for US imperialism is doing, it is
aiding the US in its bid for world supremacy. Continually aiding US
aggression against Serbs or Iraqis etc. will ensure that these nations
will do their best to acquire weapons to retaliate against the US and
their allies.
Ian Geldard
wrote:
>We *do* have a world were war is a normal part of foreign policy.
Not only that, but we don't even bother to declare war anymore. Even
Nazi Germany used to do that to its victims. But we haven't declared
war on anyone since 1939, despite having dropped how many tons of
bombs and killed how many people in how many places since 1945?
Rather than the likes of Libya, North Korea and Iraq, it is we who are
acting as a rogue state for our military aggression against countries
in violation of international law and without a declaration of war.
>I presume the reference to nuclear weapons is in connection with the
>gulf war? I'm personally not at all convinced that the continued
>action against Iraq has anything to do with a real belief by the US
>that Iraq has a viable nuclear weapons programme.
It hasn't. The US wants to crush a state which could threaten it's
client states in the Middle East: Isreael, Saudi Arabia etc.
The imposition of sanctions which have now lasted for ten years and
includes bicycles, pencils and tampons on its list of proscribed items
has nothing to do with stopping Iraq getting a nuclear weapon (why
didn't they impose sanctions on Israel who now already have them?),
but about devastating a country and waging war on a people.
Ian Geldard
Horgan) wrote:
>It takes decades to build up a decent armed forces. If you want to
>dismantle ours then you have to be utterly confident that no war which
>you would regard as justified will ever occur.
But why are we expected to send troops half way round the world to
take part in wars which do not concern us? We're not an Imperial power
anymore and we should stop acting like one. Rather we should
concentrate on the defence of our home islands and not as a side-kick
to the sole remaining world imperial power, the USA.
I used to be a great supporter of NATO in the days before the collapse
of the Warsaw Pact, and took part in many anti-CND activities, but
NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia finally convinced me that the
organisation needs to be disbanded.
It is now nothing more than a dangerous instrument of US imperialism.
>Such an attitude in the aftermath of WW1 would have seen Hitler take
>over the world.
But such an attitude prior to WW1 would have seen Hitler eke out his
days as a painter and decorator in Vienna.
Robin
Horgan <ste...@horgan.co.uk> writes
>On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 21:21:59 +0100, Gareth Jones <gar...@uberdog.net>
>wrote:
>
>>ste...@horgan.co.uk (Stephen Horgan) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:24:55 +0100, Robin
>>><Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <aehfpscl9vgv7ilcq...@4ax.com>, Ian Geldard
>>>><igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>>LONDON (Reuters) - More than half the bombs dropped by British planes
>>>>>in last year's Kosovo war missed their targets, BBC radio reported on
>>>>>Monday.
>>>>
>>>>Good. Another compelling reason to cut our ludicrously expensive and
>>>>apparently incompetent armed forces to something like the Dutch model.
>>>>The only difficulty is how to cope with several hundred thousand
>>>>brainwashed morons who have been taught to kill people.
>>>
>>>but it's 'please to walk in front sir' when there's trouble in the wind.
>>
>>fought. There is very little "trouble in the wind" these days - just
>>foreign adventures, which is a bit different.
>>
>dismantle ours then you have to be utterly confident that no war which
>you would regard as justified will ever occur.
>
>over the world.
Judging by some of the posters attitudes in these NG he might have well
as won :(
--
Robin
a goss
Horgan) wrote:
We could use our para military police force which has seen an increase
in numbers over the last 20 yrs while there has been a decrease of
numbers in the military.
we have almost as many police personnel as we have service wo/men for
fighting a war. One cop per approx 50 people is about right I believe.
--
'The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it'. Woodrow Wilson
Alan G
mma...@my-deja.com
ste...@horgan.co.uk (Stephen Horgan) wrote:
> If not us, then who? Or do we want a world were war becomes once again
a
Uh, let me explain. We *have* a world where war is regarded as a
successful and normal part of foreign policy; every time that Sick Willy
needs to distract the media, he goes and bombs some minor nation and
gets Baby-Killing Bliar to send British troops to join them. We want a
world where war is *not* regarded as a successful and normal part of
foreign policy, which is why we oppose Sick Willy's random bombings and
Baby-Killing Bliar' spending our taxes blowing up people we've never met
and have no argument with.
Mark
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
a goss
sorry that should be 1 per 500
blush
Sid Cochran
"Ian Geldard" <igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vv6qpsctu2sndl6s8...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:33:53 GMT, ste...@horgan.co.uk (Stephen
> Horgan) wrote:
>
> >It takes decades to build up a decent armed forces. If you want to
> >dismantle ours then you have to be utterly confident that no war which
> >you would regard as justified will ever occur.
>
> take part in wars which do not concern us? We're not an Imperial power
> anymore and we should stop acting like one. Rather we should
> concentrate on the defence of our home islands and not as a side-kick
> to the sole remaining world imperial power, the USA.
Funny. This bit of an adventure in Kosovo was sold in the USA on the
basis that we owed it to Western Civilization (and all Europe) to move
our troops in the theatre to Kosovo and or Serbia and sort Milosevitch's
mail for him. Now, after the fact, I'm getting comments from at least
one North American Slav, that it's all right that we held an air war in
Kosovo and didn't go to the point of occupying Belgrade, because
we destroyed a smuggling infrastructure situated in Belgrade. It's as
annoying to be told that WE are pulling YOUR chestnuts out of the
fire (in Kosovo) as it must be for you if/when YOU are told that
the Tommies went into Desert Storm to pull OUR chestnuts out
of the fire. An unlovely parity in being deceived, I call it. Certainly
no sort of a deceit is impossible to our government; Ian, but
you make the call about yours. Then, too, it's possible that the
movement to the shooting came from Ms. Albright, in a sort of
'Wag the Dog' scenario, to distract attention from Mr. Clinton's
problems with Congress.
squidley
>
> I used to be a great supporter of NATO in the days before the collapse
> of the Warsaw Pact, and took part in many anti-CND activities, but
> NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia finally convinced me that the
> organisation needs to be disbanded.
>
> It is now nothing more than a dangerous instrument of US imperialism.
>
> >Such an attitude in the aftermath of WW1 would have seen Hitler take
> >over the world.
>
Ian Geldard
<squi...@ballistic.com> wrote:
>you make the call about yours. Then, too, it's possible that the
>movement to the shooting came from Ms. Albright, in a sort of
>'Wag the Dog' scenario, to distract attention from Mr. Clinton's
>problems with Congress.
This was a major factor in the operation, as was the imperialist urge
"to do something".
N.B. I'm for the American Republic, but not the American Empire.
Stephen Horgan
wrote:
>ste...@horgan.co.uk (Stephen Horgan) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 09:58:41 +0100, Ian Geldard
>><igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <399a4066...@news.netdirect-online.co.uk>, on Mon, 14 Aug 2000
>>>18:54:38 GMT, ste...@horgan.co.uk (Stephen Horgan) wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's tommy this and tommy that and tommy walk behind,
>>>>but it's 'please to walk in front sir' when there's trouble in the wind.
>>>
>>>It's about time we started to say "sod off" when they want us to engage in
>>>bombing small nations, military occupation duties and other foreign adventures.
>>
>>If not us, then who? Or do we want a world were war becomes once again a
>>successful and normal part of foreign policy, only this time with
>>nuclear weapons?
>
>We *do* have a world were war is a normal part of foreign policy.
>
No we don't. For most of human history is was considered right and
proper for nation states to go to war with each other to achieve their
foreign policy objectives, where such a war involved conflict on a
massive scale and only ended with the destruction of one of the
combatants or a treaty settlement that usually formalised the defeat of
on side or the other. Today, the idea that nations have the right to
enter into such conflicts is generally held to be wrong and there have
been a relatively small number of such conflicts since 1945, at least
compared to earlier periods in human history.
>I presume the reference to nuclear weapons is in connection with the
>gulf war? I'm personally not at all convinced that the continued
>action against Iraq has anything to do with a real belief by the US
>that Iraq has a viable nuclear weapons programme.
>
The point is general. If the moral view of full-scale war as a foreign
policy tool becomes that it is acceptable then such wars will be fought
with the full panoply of modern weapons.
Stephen Horgan
<igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:35:01 GMT, ste...@horgan.co.uk (Stephen
>Horgan) wrote:
>
>>If not us, then who? Or do we want a world were war becomes once again a
>
>Hopefully nobody. But if the Norwegians, Ecuadoreans or Thais want to
>engage in military adventures in Sierra Leone or some other faraway
>land about which we know little and care even less, then good luck to
>them.
>
This is the 21st century. Any part of the world is only 30 minutes away
from destruction by a ballistic missile launched form any other part. On
a more prosaic level, our prosperity is utterly dependant on global
commerce. The idea that we can sit it out and be utterly unaffected
while the rest of the world goes to hell is ludicrous.
>>successful and normal part of foreign policy, only this time with
>>nuclear weapons?
>
>But that's exactly what our support for US imperialism is doing, it is
>aiding the US in its bid for world supremacy. Continually aiding US
>aggression against Serbs or Iraqis etc. will ensure that these nations
>will do their best to acquire weapons to retaliate against the US and
>their allies.
Both Serbia and Iraq have waged wars of aggression and conquest against
their neighbours. If we and US had not become involved via international
institutions then all of the world would have come to see those
institutions as useless. Aggressive nations would see wars of conquest
as a successful foreign policy tool. Other nations would rearm against
the aggressors. Eventually such conflicts could not but directly affect
us. Do you want a return to 19th century international relations with
the addition of modern weapons?
Stephen Horgan
wrote:
>ste...@horgan.co.uk (Stephen Horgan) wrote:
>
>>>Yeah, except that in Kipling's day there were defensive wars being
>>>fought. There is very little "trouble in the wind" these days - just
>>>foreign adventures, which is a bit different.
>>>
>>It takes decades to build up a decent armed forces. If you want to
>>dismantle ours then you have to be utterly confident that no war which
>>you would regard as justified will ever occur.
>
>It is a difficult area. On the one hand, a standing army provides a
>certain amount of protection, on the other hand, it allows the
>executive to wage war with relatively little need to seek the approval
>of the people or of parliament. I wonder how many of the conflicts we
>get involved in would actually be fought if the government had to ask
>parliament for money, or ask men to enlist.
>
The idea that armies could be raised to order went out of fashion in the
middle ages, and with good reason.
>>Such an attitude in the aftermath of WW1 would have seen Hitler take
>>over the world.
>
>Whether that is true or not I don't know - I don't know much about the
>size of the standing forces before WWII.
>
They were rather lager and more relatively capable than our armed forces
today. For example the Royal Navy of the period was the largest in the
world.
>I do think however, we could defend our mainland possessions simply
>with nuclear force. Places like the Falkland Islands would be harder
>to defend....
>
So, if someone engages in an act of aggression against us we have to
burn their cities because that is all we can do? What if they gamble
that we wouldn't have the political will to do it?
>That argument would have to be left to those with more military
>knowledge though....my main point is that we have large and expensive
>forces, that are always sold to the public as being for "defense",
>when in reality they are used more often for political reasons in
>foreign conflicts. Vast numbers of people are killed by our tax money,
>but because we have standing forces, there is little need to justify
>the action at the time to the British people.
>
For hundreds of years British foreign policy has been to keep conflicts
well away from our own shores. You don't wait until they are marching
down Whitehall.
Stephen Horgan
<igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:33:53 GMT, ste...@horgan.co.uk (Stephen
>Horgan) wrote:
>
>>It takes decades to build up a decent armed forces. If you want to
>>dismantle ours then you have to be utterly confident that no war which
>>you would regard as justified will ever occur.
>
>But why are we expected to send troops half way round the world to
>take part in wars which do not concern us? We're not an Imperial power
>anymore and we should stop acting like one. Rather we should
>concentrate on the defence of our home islands and not as a side-kick
>to the sole remaining world imperial power, the USA.
>
The best way to defend our country is promote peace, not to sit by and
allow dictators to thrive through the use of military force.
>I used to be a great supporter of NATO in the days before the collapse
>of the Warsaw Pact, and took part in many anti-CND activities, but
>NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia finally convinced me that the
>organisation needs to be disbanded.
>
So we disband NATO. What if a conflict then develops in Europe or do you
think that 26 miles of water renders us immune to the effects of modern
war.
>It is now nothing more than a dangerous instrument of US imperialism.
>
What imperialism? Where's the empire? A substantial body of opinion in
the US would love the withdraw and let the rest of the world get on with
it, hardly the attitude of a nation bent on world conquest.
>>Such an attitude in the aftermath of WW1 would have seen Hitler take
>>over the world.
>
>But such an attitude prior to WW1 would have seen Hitler eke out his
>days as a painter and decorator in Vienna.
How so. If we had had no armed forces the militaristic imperial Germany
would have conquered Europe. Their war aims were actually very similar
to those of the Nazis, though without the genocide.
Marc Living
Horgan) wrote:
>
>Both Serbia and Iraq have waged wars of aggression and conquest against
>their neighbours.
Wrt Serbia, this is only true if you are defining "aggression" as
"trying to keep their country together" and "conquest" as "not
conquering anything".
Sid Cochran
news:39a0dab6...@news.netdirect-online.co.uk...
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 13:05:43 +0100, Ian Geldard
> <igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:35:01 GMT, ste...@horgan.co.uk (Stephen
> >Horgan) wrote:
> >
> >>If not us, then who? Or do we want a world were war becomes once again a
> >
> >Hopefully nobody. But if the Norwegians, Ecuadoreans or Thais want to
> >engage in military adventures in Sierra Leone or some other faraway
> >land about which we know little and care even less, then good luck to
> >them.
> >
> This is the 21st century. Any part of the world is only 30 minutes away
> from destruction by a ballistic missile launched form any other part. On
> a more prosaic level, our prosperity is utterly dependant on global
> commerce. The idea that we can sit it out and be utterly unaffected
> while the rest of the world goes to hell is ludicrous.
>
> >>successful and normal part of foreign policy, only this time with
> >>nuclear weapons?
> >
> >But that's exactly what our support for US imperialism is doing, it is
> >aiding the US in its bid for world supremacy. Continually aiding US
> >aggression against Serbs or Iraqis etc. will ensure that these nations
> >will do their best to acquire weapons to retaliate against the US and
> >their allies.
I would buy some of that, except I would denominate it as 'EU imperialism,'
not American, insofar as it concerns the affair in Kosovo. Admittedly,
Clinton has not found a way to get out of Iraq, Servia and Macedonia,
Haiti and many other places. Basically, we don't want an Empire, but
our experience is that having a force deployed over there creates an
economic saving for us. It has had the effect over the last 50 years
of calming you folk and suppressing your warlike instincts, so that
we don't have to get *real mad*, mobilize ten million men, send 'em
over there, and blow down people's houses. At least, not often.
Kosovo was an aberration in that direction, I'll admit, even if we
didn't blow down *many* people's houses. And we don't have
any territorial demands on Europe, unlike some of the other
'imperialists' you have dealt with over the past couple of hundred years.
Sid Cochran
Tyler, Texas
>
> Both Serbia and Iraq have waged wars of aggression and conquest against
> their neighbours. If we and US had not become involved via international
> institutions then all of the world would have come to see those
> institutions as useless. Aggressive nations would see wars of conquest
> as a successful foreign policy tool. Other nations would rearm against
> the aggressors. Eventually such conflicts could not but directly affect
> us. Do you want a return to 19th century international relations with
> the addition of modern weapons?
>
Lucky at love unluckyatcards
Sid Cochran <squi...@ballistic.com> wrote in message > > >>If not us, then
who? Or do we want a world were war becomes once again a
> > >
> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >
> > from destruction by a ballistic missile launched form any other part. On
> > a more prosaic level, our prosperity is utterly dependant on global
> > commerce. The idea that we can sit it out and be utterly unaffected
> > while the rest of the world goes to hell is ludicrous.
> >
> > >>successful and normal part of foreign policy, only this time with
> > >>nuclear weapons?
> > >
> > >But that's exactly what our support for US imperialism is doing, it is
> > >aiding the US in its bid for world supremacy. Continually aiding US
> > >aggression against Serbs or Iraqis etc. will ensure that these nations
> > >will do their best to acquire weapons to retaliate against the US and
> > >their allies.
>
> I would buy some of that, except I would denominate it as 'EU
imperialism,'
> not American, insofar as it concerns the affair in Kosovo. Admittedly,
> Clinton has not found a way to get out of Iraq, Servia and Macedonia,
> Haiti and many other places. Basically, we don't want an Empire,
Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
Americans HAVE built an army base in Kosovo, they are not going home in any
short time.
American Coal Mining Companies have moved into Kosovo to help the Albanians
Exploit their natural reserves.
When they proposed doing it with the Serbs, they were sent packing with a
Flea in the ear.
Note American, not EU or other Natzo members, just exclusively American.
but
> our experience is that having a force deployed over there creates an
> economic saving for us. It has had the effect over the last 50 years
> of calming you folk and suppressing your warlike instincts, so that
> we don't have to get *real mad*, mobilize ten million men, send 'em
> over there, and blow down people's houses. At least, not often.
> Kosovo was an aberration in that direction, I'll admit, even if we
> didn't blow down *many* people's houses.
You blew down plenty of people's houses, you call it "Collateral Damage", I
call it Bloody Murder of the first degree.
You Didn't hit many Military targets, seems your forces are all mouth and
trousers, big on boasting small on action.
Don't take it out on me, take it out on your ordnance industry and your
armed forces.
And we don't have
> any territorial demands on Europe, unlike some of the other
> 'imperialists' you have dealt with over the past couple of hundred years.
You cannot be serious?
>
> Sid Cochran
> Tyler, Texas
>
> >
PS, try cutting and hacking.
Ian Geldard
Aug 2000 13:35:29 GMT, ste...@horgan.co.uk (Stephen Horgan) wrote:
>The idea that armies could be raised to order went out of fashion in the
>middle ages, and with good reason.
Not so, Britain had a very small standing army in 1914 compared with
those on the continental Europe and it was expected that any army
required to defend the home islands would be raised by volunteers.
Conscription was widely opposed and considered unBritish.
>They were rather lager and more relatively capable than our armed forces
>today. For example the Royal Navy of the period was the largest in the
>world.
Whereas our army was one of the smallest of the so-called Euorpean
powers.
>So, if someone engages in an act of aggression against us we have to
>burn their cities because that is all we can do? What if they gamble
>that we wouldn't have the political will to do it?
Very few of the conficts were were involved with in the previous
century were directed against us, it started with act of Imperial
aggression against the Boer republics and ended with the illegal
aerial bombardment of Yugoslavia.
>For hundreds of years British foreign policy has been to keep conflicts
>well away from our own shores. You don't wait until they are marching
>down Whitehall.
And the best way of doing that is to keep out of other people's wars
and conflicts.
--
Ian Geldard
London, England
Steve The sausage
Thank God the Americans did this during WWII !
--
The Government charge UK motorists 80% tax on petrol and diesel.
Outside of large cities, public transport is non-existent or inadequate.
------------ Visit http://www.boycott-the-pumps.com ------------------
Ian Geldard
GMT, new...@hotmail.com (Steve The sausage) wrote:
>>And the best way of doing that is to keep out of other people's wars
>>and conflicts.
>
>Thank God the Americans did this during WWII !
A pity they did this in 1917.
Sid Cochran
The World went to interesting places following Versailles in 1919.
I suppose you and the French would have won without us, and would
have been pleased not to have us mess up the negotiations at Versailles
in 1919. Then what, Ian? Do you try to avoid the Depression, and if
so, how.? Do LLoyd George and Clemenceau impose something
like the Morgenthau Plan (pastoralization) upon Germany in 1919?
Tell me more about the brave new world that didn't come about
because the US joined the Allies in 1917.
Sid Cochran
Tyler, TExas
Ian Geldard
Aug 2000 16:18:24 -0500, "Sid Cochran" <squi...@ballistic.com> wrote:
>Let me get this straight: You're sorry we helped you out in 1917-1918?
Yep, that's right. However, it would have been even better had Britain
stayed out as well in 1914.
>The World went to interesting places following Versailles in 1919.
Indeed it did due the blunders at Versailles.
>I suppose you and the French would have won without us, and would
>have been pleased not to have us mess up the negotiations at Versailles
>in 1919. Then what, Ian? Do you try to avoid the Depression, and if
There wouldn't have been anything like the Versailles Treaty.
>so, how.? Do LLoyd George and Clemenceau impose something
>like the Morgenthau Plan (pastoralization) upon Germany in 1919?
No because the Allies wouldn't have won. In all liklehood it would
have been a stalemate, or a narrow German tactical victory.
>Tell me more about the brave new world that didn't come about
>because the US joined the Allies in 1917.
Germany wouldn't have collapsed and would have remained a strong
military power. The Nazis would never have arisen and the German
Reichswehr would have assisted the White forces in Russia during the
Civil War (I think there would still have been a Bolshevik Revolution
at this point) ensuring the defeat of Bolshevism.
No Nazis and no Bolsheviks. Don't you think the world would have been
a better place?
Sid Cochran
> In article <F2ho5.275601$t91.2...@news4.giganews.com>, on Mon, 21
> Aug 2000 16:18:24 -0500, "Sid Cochran" <squi...@ballistic.com> wrote:
>
> >Let me get this straight: You're sorry we helped you out in 1917-1918?
>
> Yep, that's right. However, it would have been even better had Britain
> stayed out as well in 1914.
>
> >The World went to interesting places following Versailles in 1919.
>
> Indeed it did due the blunders at Versailles.
>
> >I suppose you and the French would have won without us, and would
> >have been pleased not to have us mess up the negotiations at Versailles
> >in 1919. Then what, Ian? Do you try to avoid the Depression, and if
>
> There wouldn't have been anything like the Versailles Treaty.
>
> >so, how.? Do LLoyd George and Clemenceau impose something
> >like the Morgenthau Plan (pastoralization) upon Germany in 1919?
>
> No because the Allies wouldn't have won. In all liklehood it would
> have been a stalemate, or a narrow German tactical victory.
>
> >Tell me more about the brave new world that didn't come about
> >because the US joined the Allies in 1917.
>
> Germany wouldn't have collapsed and would have remained a strong
> military power.
Interesting possibility to take to alt.history.what-if. But No communists
requires the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk to work. That's the one that allowed
Hindenburg-Ludendorf to take their troops out of the Russian Front and
move them into France. But the Brest-Litovsk Treaty was with the
Communist regime of Lenin and company. Kerensky had already been
turned out by the Communists, and Lenin entered into the treaty with
the Germans with the concept, No war, but no Peace' already firmly
in mind. The Sixth Battle Squadron (USN) was a *nice thing to have*
for Jellicoe, but the decision in the North Sea had been made in July,
1916, at Jutland, so the Blockade would still have had its effect on
the Home Front, charged after the war with disloyalty to the still-
victorious armies in France and Russia.
By your leave, I must report a significant difference in the mileage
available on your change to the course of time. Even with the
relative victories in the field that you propose, the Home Front is
*still* going to come unglued in September-October, 1918,
and the High Seas Fleet is *still* going to mutiny in late October,
1918. This alone is going to cause an Armistice to follow almost
immediately, and with it, the Internment of the High Seas Fleet at
Scapa Flow. This, in turn, makes Germany unable to resist
renewed blockade, just as it was in our time-line, and makes
it out of the question for Germany to resist an even harsher
'Diktat of Versailles.'
Continuing Germany's woes, Austria-Hungary is still going
to break down in October, 1918, not affected by the absence of the
Yanks from lines before them, the Kaiser may or may not make a
break for the Dutch border in early November, and Rosa
Luxemburg is still going to make a tremendous burden on
the new Republican Germany with her brand of Communism,
making political life in Berlin in and after 1919 'interesting',
in the Chinese sense.
> The Nazis would never have arisen and the German
> Reichswehr would have assisted the White forces in Russia during the
> Civil War (I think there would still have been a Bolshevik Revolution
> at this point) ensuring the defeat of Bolshevism.
>
> No Nazis and no Bolsheviks. Don't you think the world would have been
> a better place?
>
A lovely dream, if true. Alas, I think not. Submit it to the
experts in a.h.w-i, Ian, and let them chew on it.
Regards,
Sid Cochran
Tyler, Texas
Stephen Horgan
<igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <39a1dcc9...@news.netdirect-online.co.uk>, on Sun, 20
>Aug 2000 13:35:29 GMT, ste...@horgan.co.uk (Stephen Horgan) wrote:
>
>>The idea that armies could be raised to order went out of fashion in the
>>middle ages, and with good reason.
>
>Not so, Britain had a very small standing army in 1914 compared with
>those on the continental Europe and it was expected that any army
>required to defend the home islands would be raised by volunteers.
>Conscription was widely opposed and considered unBritish.
>
The British army in 1914 was considerably larger than it is today. For
example, in the Boer war or 1900-02, the British army in South Africa
alone was nearly 500000 strong. This was only small compared to
continental Europe because the continental model was to have practically
every adult male either in the army or in the reserve forces.
>>They were rather lager and more relatively capable than our armed forces
>>today. For example the Royal Navy of the period was the largest in the
>>world.
>
>Whereas our army was one of the smallest of the so-called Euorpean
>powers.
>
It would probably have been categorised as the 5th or 6th largest in the
world at that time.
>>So, if someone engages in an act of aggression against us we have to
>>burn their cities because that is all we can do? What if they gamble
>>that we wouldn't have the political will to do it?
>
>Very few of the conficts were were involved with in the previous
>century were directed against us, it started with act of Imperial
>aggression against the Boer republics and ended with the illegal
>aerial bombardment of Yugoslavia.
>
Numerous conflicts, including world wars one and two, impinged on our
national interest. British policy wasn't to wait until an enemy landed
on the south coast before getting involved.
>>For hundreds of years British foreign policy has been to keep conflicts
>>well away from our own shores. You don't wait until they are marching
>>down Whitehall.
>
>And the best way of doing that is to keep out of other people's wars
>and conflicts.
What is the definition of another person's war or conflict? A nations
vital interests extend way beyond its own shores. This has never been
more true than today, with modern intercontinental weapons and the
globalisation of trade.
Ian Geldard
<squi...@ballistic.com> wrote:
I take your points and indeed much depends on timings and other
factors as to what the probability of each outcome would have been.
Hindsight is, of course, a marvellous thing. Nobody could have known
what was to be the outcome of the war in August 1914.
However, it had been the Liberal Party's position for some time to
stay out of European entanglements, and an alliance with Russia was
considered with horror - it being the least liberal of all European
nations - the land of the knout and pogrom. France was considered to
be the greatest threat to the Empire.
So much so that the secret pledge to support France (and hence Russia)
in any military conflict with Germany - given as part of the Entente
Cordiale - was witheld not only from the House of Commons where it
would have been heavily defeated - but even from the Cabinet. Only
four people were in on it: Asquith, Haldane, Grey and the leader of
the House.
When it was revealed, there was consternation, and two members of the
cabinet resigned. But by then it was too late. France emboldened by
the secret pledge from the Gang of Four had pressed ahead and gave
encouragement to Russia.
The rest, as they say, is history.
Ian Geldard
Horgan) wrote:
>Numerous conflicts, including world wars one and two, impinged on our
>national interest. British policy wasn't to wait until an enemy landed
>on the south coast before getting involved.
But involvement in these wars nearly led to just that. Germany in 1914
and 1939 had no designs on Britain or the Empire, but as a result we
were almost defeated and occupied. We gambled and won, but it could
easily have turned out quite different.
Stephen Horgan
In 1914 Germany had exactly those designs, hence construction of the
large High Seas Fleet in an attempt to counter the Royal Navy. In 1939,
Hitler's primary war aim was expansion to the east but his regime was
militaristic, violent and expansionist. Predicting its final designs if
lesser objectives were achieved is impossible with any degree of
certainty. Certainly there were none of the checks and balances of
democratic regimes. The British government was not about to gamble on
Hitler's good wishes.
British foreign policy for centuries has been not to allow a hostile
power to occupy the coastline of Europe because such a power would
threaten British trade. Until relatively recently trade was not only for
prosperity, it was also for survival as Britain did not grow enough to
feed itself. The reality of the threat was illustrated during the
Atlantic campaign when Britain was nearly starved into submission. What
would have happened if Hitler, having defeated all other enemies, could
have devoted all of his energies to blockading Britain?
Ian Geldard
Horgan) wrote:
>In 1914 Germany had exactly those designs, hence construction of the
>large High Seas Fleet in an attempt to counter the Royal Navy. In 1939,
No it didn't. It wanted a navy capable of defending its own, rather
limited Imperial possessions: South West Africa, Tanganyika, Papua
etc. It also wanted to have the capability to defend itself against a
naval 'hunger blockade' directed against Germany. What was wrong with
that?
>Hitler's primary war aim was expansion to the east but his regime was
>militaristic, violent and expansionist. Predicting its final designs if
Many non-Britons would accuse Britain of the same. The Boers certainly
would certainly agree, as might Zulus, Hindus or Serbians.
>lesser objectives were achieved is impossible with any degree of
>certainty. Certainly there were none of the checks and balances of
>democratic regimes. The British government was not about to gamble on
>Hitler's good wishes.
But it was a gamble, a huge gamble, that a pledge of support to Poland
- which we could not possibly carry out - would stop Hitler. It was a
fantasy. Declaring war on Germany in 1939 *could* have resulted in
defeat, occupation and destruction of the Empire.
>British foreign policy for centuries has been not to allow a hostile
>power to occupy the coastline of Europe because such a power would
>threaten British trade. Until relatively recently trade was not only for
Like the French you mean.
>Atlantic campaign when Britain was nearly starved into submission. What
>would have happened if Hitler, having defeated all other enemies, could
>have devoted all of his energies to blockading Britain?
Hitler thought that the survival of Britain and the British Empire was
vital to world security. He was an Anglophile. His admiration of
Britain was even included in Mein Kampf.
It was even suggested (by German generals) that Hitler interfered in
the western campaign in 1940 to allow our troops to be evacuated at
Dunkirk rather than allow a full-scale ground assault that had been
advocated by General Guderian etc.
Stephen Horgan
<igel...@capital.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:08:29 GMT, ste...@horgan.co.uk (Stephen
>Horgan) wrote:
>
>>In 1914 Germany had exactly those designs, hence construction of the
>>large High Seas Fleet in an attempt to counter the Royal Navy. In 1939,
>
>No it didn't. It wanted a navy capable of defending its own, rather
>limited Imperial possessions: South West Africa, Tanganyika, Papua
>etc. It also wanted to have the capability to defend itself against a
>naval 'hunger blockade' directed against Germany. What was wrong with
>that?
>
Defending far-flung Colonies does not require squadron after squadron of
dreadnoughts. The French, who had a much larger empire than the Germans,
did not feel the need to build anything a navy anything like the size of
the German fleet, In any case, none of the German colonies had the
basing facilities for the huge numbers of ships that the Germans
operated. The High Seas fleet had the single objective of matching the
Royal Navy.
>>Hitler's primary war aim was expansion to the east but his regime was
>>militaristic, violent and expansionist. Predicting its final designs if
>
>Many non-Britons would accuse Britain of the same. The Boers certainly
>would certainly agree, as might Zulus, Hindus or Serbians.
>
The issue is the British view of the Germans.
>>lesser objectives were achieved is impossible with any degree of
>>certainty. Certainly there were none of the checks and balances of
>>democratic regimes. The British government was not about to gamble on
>>Hitler's good wishes.
>
>But it was a gamble, a huge gamble, that a pledge of support to Poland
>- which we could not possibly carry out - would stop Hitler. It was a
>fantasy. Declaring war on Germany in 1939 *could* have resulted in
>defeat, occupation and destruction of the Empire.
>
Given the objectives of the British government, their actions in the
period 1936-39 were misguided. But there was nothing wrong with the
objectives.
>>British foreign policy for centuries has been not to allow a hostile
>>power to occupy the coastline of Europe because such a power would
>>threaten British trade. Until relatively recently trade was not only for
>
>Like the French you mean.
>
Absolutely. When the French threatened to dominate europe under Napoleon
I, Britain fought them in a war that lasted off and on for nearly 20
years.
>>Atlantic campaign when Britain was nearly starved into submission. What
>>would have happened if Hitler, having defeated all other enemies, could
>>have devoted all of his energies to blockading Britain?
>
>Hitler thought that the survival of Britain and the British Empire was
>vital to world security. He was an Anglophile. His admiration of
>Britain was even included in Mein Kampf.
>
No rational British government would stake the survival of the British
people on the good opinion of a megalomaniac dictator. What if Hitler
changed his mind, as people have been known to do from time to time?
>It was even suggested (by German generals) that Hitler interfered in
>the western campaign in 1940 to allow our troops to be evacuated at
>Dunkirk rather than allow a full-scale ground assault that had been
>advocated by General Guderian etc.
Given that allowing the escape of the British army was a blunder of
monumental proportions, German generals can be forgiven for trying to
find a good excuse. The fact is that Goering claimed that he could close
the channel through air interdiction and then pummel the British into
surrender. That, a desperate rearguard action and the fact that the
panzers needed to regroup after their pell-mell advance through France
saved the British army.