Britain's position
D. Crawley
Tony blair has been put in a tough spot at the moment. The possible war is
quite unpopular among the british people and even less popular among
Blair's own party (and remember blair's party are the only one who can
really boot him out of office at any time - without a general election).
Yet a division of armour has already been sent as well as an aircraft
carrier, and the HMS Ocean (a large troop carrier for our Royal Marine
Commando's). The image portrayed is that blair is a moderating
influence.
It looks bad at the moment because bush in only going to meet blair AFTER
the state of the union address. If bush announces war in the state of the
union address and then meets blair and then blair participates, well it
makes blair look like a Bush stooge. This is never popular for a leader.
Over the pond what is your opinion on the participation of the UK. Do you
think that building a coalition is important? What would you think if
blair pulled out (which I don't think he is going to).
Cheers
David
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Crawley, Magdalene College, Cambridge, CB3 0AG Tel: 01223 528 382
Fred J. McCall
:What is everyone's position on britain's influence in this whole affair.
:
:Tony blair has been put in a tough spot at the moment. The possible war is
:quite unpopular among the british people and even less popular among
:Blair's own party (and remember blair's party are the only one who can
:really boot him out of office at any time - without a general election).
:Yet a division of armour has already been sent as well as an aircraft
:carrier, and the HMS Ocean (a large troop carrier for our Royal Marine
:Commando's). The image portrayed is that blair is a moderating
:influence.
Blair's only real choice is whether Britain participates or not. If
we decide to fight this, we'll fight it alone if necessary.
:It looks bad at the moment because bush in only going to meet blair AFTER
:the state of the union address. If bush announces war in the state of the
:union address
He won't.
:and then meets blair and then blair participates, well it
:makes blair look like a Bush stooge. This is never popular for a leader.
:
:Over the pond what is your opinion on the participation of the UK. Do you
:think that building a coalition is important?
I think it would be nice, but not critical.
:What would you think if
:blair pulled out (which I don't think he is going to).
I'd think Britain had been taken over by the French. :-)/2
--
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed
and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks
that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has
nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more
important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature,
and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
James Anatidae
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0301...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk...
> What is everyone's position on britain's influence in this whole affair.
>
> Tony blair has been put in a tough spot at the moment. The possible war is
> quite unpopular among the british people and even less popular among
> Blair's own party (and remember blair's party are the only one who can
> really boot him out of office at any time - without a general election).
> Yet a division of armour has already been sent as well as an aircraft
> carrier, and the HMS Ocean (a large troop carrier for our Royal Marine
> Commando's). The image portrayed is that blair is a moderating
> influence.
>
> It looks bad at the moment because bush in only going to meet blair AFTER
> the state of the union address. If bush announces war in the state of the
> union address and then meets blair and then blair participates, well it
> makes blair look like a Bush stooge. This is never popular for a leader.
>
> Over the pond what is your opinion on the participation of the UK. Do you
> think that building a coalition is important? What would you think if
> blair pulled out (which I don't think he is going to).
>
totally alienated my other country (I hold dual US-New Zealand citizenship)
with both PM Helen Clark and Opposition Leader Roger Sowry publicly stating
that they will not allow NZ forces used in an invasion of Iraq. (Which is
probably a good thing, since we recently sold off most of our Air Force.)
If Blair sends troops, he's going to be looking for a new job real soon.
Maybe he can join Clinton on the lecture circuit!
--
"If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college."
- Girl in IHOP, relayed by Lewis Black
Wildwing's Storage Room
http://anatidae.homestead.com/frontdoor.html
Michael Barg
I strongly disagree. I think Blair will get no credit for going to
the brink and turning back. Those who oppose war will still be
furious that he helped Bush so far along with political cover. Those
who would support it with an appropriate UN resolution will see the
war unfold without it, and blame Blair for failing to either secur a
UN resolution, or prevent the war. And any atlanticist in the UK will
be mortified by the damage to the US-UK relationship that backing out
would cause.
For better or for worse, Blair has staked his career on this. He must
either convince the British people, convince the UNSC, or hope that
the war goes well and in the aftermath angst turns into support. If
in the aftermath of a relatively quick and bloodless war, it is seen
as unambiguously the right thing to have done, he's probably okay.
Regardless, I think the Brits are in for some exciting domestic
politics over the next few months.
Regards,
Michael Barg
John M. Atkinson
<pars...@citcom.net> wrote:
>Blair's a fool if he doesn't find someway to pull out. Bush has already
>totally alienated my other country (I hold dual US-New Zealand citizenship)
>with both PM Helen Clark and Opposition Leader Roger Sowry publicly stating
>that they will not allow NZ forces used in an invasion of Iraq. (Which is
>probably a good thing, since we recently sold off most of our Air Force.)
Which of the two platoons of the NZ Army was going to pull KP for us
if they decided to support us?
Frankly, any opponent that can stop a US heavy division's deliberate
attack can defeat the deployable firepower of the rest of NATO and
ANZAC combined.
--
John M. Atkinson
SGT, USA
The 'eathen in 'is blindness bows down to wood an' stone --
'E don't obey no orders unless they is 'is own.
The 'eathen in 'is blindness must end where 'e began
But the backbone of the Army is the Non-commissioned Man!
--Rudyard Kipling
James Anatidae
news:6f1n2vg7aco71cl1v...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:35:32 GMT, johnma...@y.com (John M.
> Atkinson) wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 19:53:24 -0500, "James Anatidae"
> ><pars...@citcom.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Blair's a fool if he doesn't find someway to pull out. Bush has already
> >>totally alienated my other country (I hold dual US-New Zealand
citizenship)
> >>with both PM Helen Clark and Opposition Leader Roger Sowry publicly
stating
> >>that they will not allow NZ forces used in an invasion of Iraq. (Which
is
> >>probably a good thing, since we recently sold off most of our Air
Force.)
> >
> >Which of the two platoons of the NZ Army was going to pull KP for us
> >if they decided to support us?
>
> protect the US Navy?
>
Hey, I'm already embarrassed by NZ's military readiness (or lack of). You
don't need to rub it in!
Jason Atkinson
<pars...@citcom.net> wrote:
>Hey, I'm already embarrassed by NZ's military readiness (or lack of). You
>don't need to rub it in!
What does NZ need a force-projection capable military for anyway?
Between the US Pacific Fleet and the Aussies, no one is going to mess
with you.
--
Cadet SGT, DELTA Company, Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets, Spirit of Delta
"Pride NOW, Tradition ALWAYS, HOTEL FOREVER!" HOTEL-04
"Oh yeah yeah, we're talking 'dark ages,' not 'the beginning of time'.
I guess we were all using 386's by then. Did 'Doom' come out before
or after the Battle of Hastings?" - Bluey, "Dragon Tails", Tim Dawson
gws
"James Anatidae" <pars...@citcom.net> wrote in message
news:b0fh9o$7mag$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> D. Crawley <da...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0301...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk...
> >
you
> > think that building a coalition is important? What would you think if
> > blair pulled out (which I don't think he is going to).
> >
> Blair's a fool if he doesn't find someway to pull out. Bush has already
> totally alienated my other country (I hold dual US-New Zealand
citizenship)
> with both PM Helen Clark and Opposition Leader Roger Sowry publicly
stating
> that they will not allow NZ forces used in an invasion of Iraq. (Which is
> probably a good thing, since we recently sold off most of our Air Force.)
>
> If Blair sends troops, he's going to be looking for a new job real soon.
> Maybe he can join Clinton on the lecture circuit!
I suggest that Blair's resolute support of the United States cause him
trouble only if the Iraq war goes badly. If the war progresses as
anticipated and Sadaam is deposed in a reasonable time at a reasonable
price, Blair will be George W. Bush's co-hero. The winners, after all,
write the history.
Grey Satterfield
gws
news:3e2beff2...@news.vt.edu...
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:06:24 -0500, "James Anatidae"
> <pars...@citcom.net> wrote:
>
> >Hey, I'm already embarrassed by NZ's military readiness (or lack of).
You
> >don't need to rub it in!
>
> What does NZ need a force-projection capable military for anyway?
> Between the US Pacific Fleet and the Aussies, no one is going to mess
> with you.
It is true that NZ does not "need" much of a military, but it also explains
why the U.S. doesn't pay undue attention these days to those who do not
contribute to their own defense. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Grey Satterfield
Owe Jessen
Atkinson) :
>
>What does NZ need a force-projection capable military for anyway?
>Between the US Pacific Fleet and the Aussies, no one is going to mess
>with you.
To have some deployable SAR-platform to use when the next
Round-the-World-Race goes thru the southern ocean.
Owe
--
21 ist nur die halbe Wahrheit!
www.owejessen.de
Mike Enderby
news:6f1n2vg7aco71cl1v...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:35:32 GMT, johnma...@y.com (John M.
> Atkinson) wrote:
>
> ><pars...@citcom.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Blair's a fool if he doesn't find someway to pull out. Bush has already
> >>totally alienated my other country (I hold dual US-New Zealand
citizenship)
> >>with both PM Helen Clark and Opposition Leader Roger Sowry publicly
stating
> >>that they will not allow NZ forces used in an invasion of Iraq. (Which
is
> >>probably a good thing, since we recently sold off most of our Air
Force.)
> >
> >Which of the two platoons of the NZ Army was going to pull KP for us
> >if they decided to support us?
>
> protect the US Navy?
The NZ Navy only has 11 ships (three frigates plus some support ships)[1].
The US Navy has just under 400 ships[2].
Now comparing the populations, NZ has 4 million people[3] and the US has 290
million people[4].
NZ has a ship per 363,000 people, the US has one per 725,000.
I think the NZ navy does too badly.
--
Mike Enderby
[1] http://www.navy.mil.nz/rnzn/voyage.cfm
[2] http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/lists/shipalfa.html
[3]
http://www.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/prod_serv.nsf/092edeb76ed5aa6bc
c256afe0081d84e/a244797d449e1535cc256b22000293f4?OpenDocument
[4] http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/popclock
Mike Enderby
news:6f1n2vg7aco71cl1v...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:35:32 GMT, johnma...@y.com (John M.
> Atkinson) wrote:
> >Which of the two platoons of the NZ Army was going to pull KP for us
> >if they decided to support us?
>
> protect the US Navy?
The NZ Navy only has 11 ships (three frigates plus some support ships)[1].
The US Navy has just under 400 ships[2].
Now comparing the populations, NZ has 4 million people[3] and the US has 290
million people[4].
NZ has a ship per 363,000 people and the US has only one per 725,000.
I think the NZ navy does not do too badly.
--
Mike Enderby
Ceri Jones
news:E2ZW9.1624$yV1....@newsfep4-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> NZ has a ship per 363,000 people and the US has only one per 725,000.
>
> I think the NZ navy does not do too badly.
>
Never let facts get in the way of a good needle :-)
--
THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE IS THE HIGHEST LAW
Michael Kennedy
"Mike Enderby" <mi...@menderby.co.uk> wrote in message
news:E2ZW9.1624$yV1....@newsfep4-gui.server.ntli.net...
Well, if we counted the ratio of sheep to frigates you would really look
bad. Everyone knows that the sheep are more important as well as a
potential natural resource the Iraqis might covet. How about the motto- "No
Sheep for Oil !". I like it.
Mike Kennedy
>
> --
> Mike Enderby
>
>
gws
I am sure that Hati's military is just as expensive on a per capita basis --
and certainly much more expensive, based on its gross national product --
than is NZ's. Inquiring minds, though, want to know the relevance of all
this?
Grey Satterfield
cMAD
> "Mike Enderby" <mi...@menderby.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:QWYW9.1617$yV1....@newsfep4-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > The NZ Navy only has 11 ships (three frigates plus some support ships)[1].
> >
> > The US Navy has just under 400 ships[2].
> >
> > Now comparing the populations, NZ has 4 million people[3] and the US has
> 290
> > million people[4].
> >
> > NZ has a ship per 363,000 people, the US has one per 725,000.
> >
> > I think the NZ navy does too badly.
>
> I am sure that Hati's military is just as expensive on a per capita basis --
> and certainly much more expensive, based on its gross national product --
> than is NZ's. Inquiring minds, though, want to know the relevance of all
> this?
Of all people, someone named Grey should not make the mistake of belittling
Colonel Hathi's troops.
Although they may be small in number, they are seasoned veterans: you can be
quite sure that all of them have seen the elephant.
cMAD <- Hup 2, 3, 4
Keep it up 2, 3, 4
Company sound off!
Oh, the aim of our patrol
Is a question rather droll
For to march and drill
over field and hill
Is a military goal!
Is a military goal!
gws
news:3E2D2427...@freenet.de...
ROFL! By the grace of God, I had finished my morning coffee before I read
this.
Grey Satterfield
Loren Pechtel
<mi...@menderby.co.uk> wrote:
>The NZ Navy only has 11 ships (three frigates plus some support ships)[1].
>
>The US Navy has just under 400 ships[2].
>
>Now comparing the populations, NZ has 4 million people[3] and the US has 290
>million people[4].
>
>NZ has a ship per 363,000 people, the US has one per 725,000.
>
>I think the NZ navy does too badly.
Such comparisons should be based on tonnage, not hull count.
Gml...@scvnet.com
>
> > "Mike Enderby" <mi...@menderby.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:QWYW9.1617$yV1....@newsfep4-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > > The NZ Navy only has 11 ships (three frigates plus some support
ships)[1].
> > >
> > > The US Navy has just under 400 ships[2].
> > >
> > > Now comparing the populations, NZ has 4 million people[3] and the US
has
> > 290
> > > million people[4].
> > >
> > > NZ has a ship per 363,000 people, the US has one per 725,000.
> > >
> > > I think the NZ navy does too badly.
How many frigates is a carrier worth?
Heck, why not count bass boats as part of the navy, in which case the state
of Texas has about one ship per 2.5 people.
> cMAD <- Hup 2, 3, 4
> Keep it up 2, 3, 4
> Company sound off!
>
> Oh, the aim of our patrol
> Is a question rather droll
> For to march and drill
> over field and hill
> Is a military goal!
> Is a military goal!
This is the story...
Of a man named Brady...
Bob
"John M. Atkinson" wrote:
>
> --
> John M. Atkinson
> SGT, USA
Hi John. I noticed the "SGT" in your sig.
Congratulations. Are you considering OCS or the Academy yet? ( although I
consider WO the best rank in the Army.)
Bob
>
Jason Atkinson
wrote:
Why on Earth would he want to go to the Academy?
Ogden Johnson III
>"John M. Atkinson" wrote:
>> John M. Atkinson
>> SGT, USA
>Hi John. I noticed the "SGT" in your sig.
>Congratulations. Are you considering OCS or the Academy yet? ( although I
>consider WO the best rank in the Army.)
Unless the USMA [and the other military academies for that matter, why
not USNA, the Army can *always* use officers with exposure to how the
other services live, and he'll have had sea time to boot ;->] uses
constructive ages for prior enlisted, John's too old for it. You have
to be 21 or younger upon reporting for plebe summer. It's the OCS or
WO route if he wants to become a zero.
OJ III
John M. Atkinson
wrote:
Right in one.
Although why I'd want to become an officer confuses me. Yeah, they
get better pay, but they spend the first 10 years of their career
kissing ass like madmen to make it to being a major, where someone
occasionally listens to them and they only have to kiss ass 90% of the
time. Near as I tell, the only officers that don't spend a majority
of their time kissing ass are the retired ones.
--
John M. Atkinson
But you, Roman, remember, these are your skills: to
govern the peoples with power and to establish the
habit of peace; to be sparing of the vanquished and
to crush the arrogant in war."
--Virgil, Aeneid
James Anatidae
news:3e2f3275....@news-server.hot.rr.com...
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:20:39 -0500, Ogden Johnson III <o...@cpcug.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >>"John M. Atkinson" wrote:
> >
> >>> John M. Atkinson
> >>> SGT, USA
> >
> >>Hi John. I noticed the "SGT" in your sig.
> >>Congratulations. Are you considering OCS or the Academy yet? ( although
I
> >>consider WO the best rank in the Army.)
> >
> >Unless the USMA [and the other military academies for that matter, why
> >not USNA, the Army can *always* use officers with exposure to how the
> >other services live, and he'll have had sea time to boot ;->] uses
> >constructive ages for prior enlisted, John's too old for it. You have
> >to be 21 or younger upon reporting for plebe summer. It's the OCS or
> >WO route if he wants to become a zero.
>
> Right in one.
>
> Although why I'd want to become an officer confuses me. Yeah, they
> get better pay, but they spend the first 10 years of their career
> kissing ass like madmen to make it to being a major, where someone
> occasionally listens to them and they only have to kiss ass 90% of the
> time. Near as I tell, the only officers that don't spend a majority
> of their time kissing ass are the retired ones.
>
probably the best American general when it comes to pissing off his
superiors, seemed to have spent a large amount of his career before WW2
trying to impress them. I think MacArthur stopped doing the same once he
got that fifth star, which probably led to his downfall.
Well, that theory uses up a good deal of my military knowledge. :)
Fred J. McCall
The age limit is 23.
--
"Then up spoke brave Horatius the captain of the gate,
to every man upon this earth, death comest soon or late,
and what better way for man to die than facing fearful odds,
for the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his gods"
John M. Atkinson
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:Unless the USMA [and the other military academies for that matter, why
>:not USNA, the Army can *always* use officers with exposure to how the
>:other services live, and he'll have had sea time to boot ;->] uses
>:constructive ages for prior enlisted, John's too old for it. You have
>:to be 21 or younger upon reporting for plebe summer. It's the OCS or
>:WO route if he wants to become a zero.
>
>The age limit is 23.
Either way, I'm too old. Besides, they really don't want former NCOs
at the Academy. We'd have too much difficulty taking the Mickey Mouse
seriously.
charles krin
Atkinson) wrote:
>
>Although why I'd want to become an officer confuses me. Yeah, they
>get better pay, but they spend the first 10 years of their career
>kissing ass like madmen to make it to being a major, where someone
>occasionally listens to them and they only have to kiss ass 90% of the
>time. Near as I tell, the only officers that don't spend a majority
>of their time kissing ass are the retired ones.
yep, as a line officer...
that would be the one nice thing about going back in...I'd have missed
most of the ass kissing stages, and since I have expectations of
getting past COL....
ck
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)
Fred J. McCall
:On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 06:39:09 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>:Unless the USMA [and the other military academies for that matter, why
:>:not USNA, the Army can *always* use officers with exposure to how the
:>:other services live, and he'll have had sea time to boot ;->] uses
:>:constructive ages for prior enlisted, John's too old for it. You have
:>:to be 21 or younger upon reporting for plebe summer. It's the OCS or
:>:WO route if he wants to become a zero.
:>
:>The age limit is 23.
:
:Either way, I'm too old. Besides, they really don't want former NCOs
:at the Academy. We'd have too much difficulty taking the Mickey Mouse
:seriously.
My last active duty CO offered to pull strings to get me into the
Academy if I would stay in. I had to point out that at 27, I was too
old to take him up on the offer even if I wanted to.
Then in the Reserve I had one of the active duty officers on one of
the ships I went to try to convince me to take a commission and go
back active for a couple of years. I had to explain to him I couldn't
afford to take the pay cut.
Brian Sharrock
that on getting the first stripe about fifty percent of the
organisation can no longer bollock you, after the second stripe
the percentage drops to about thirty percent, and after the third
... you're not that bothered about being bollocked. Sgts' messing
is comfortable and affordable ... Warrant rank, in UK service, is
the optimum level to achieve.
Oh! congrats on the 'SGT' John, substantive?
--
Brian
John M. Atkinson
<bria...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote:
>> Well, that theory uses up a good deal of my military knowledge. :)
>>
>Probably since Pontius was a pilot, rankers have realised
>that on getting the first stripe about fifty percent of the
>organisation can no longer bollock you, after the second stripe
>the percentage drops to about thirty percent, and after the third
>... you're not that bothered about being bollocked. Sgts' messing
>is comfortable and affordable ... Warrant rank, in UK service, is
>the optimum level to achieve.
>
>Oh! congrats on the 'SGT' John, substantive?
If I understand that Britism, I think so.
If by that do you mean "They can only take it away from you if you
screw up real damn bad."
BlackBeard
>get better pay, but they spend the first 10 years of their career
>kissing ass like madmen to make it to being a major, where someone
>occasionally listens to them and they only have to kiss ass 90% of the
>time. Near as I tell, the only officers that don't spend a majority
>of their time kissing ass are the retired ones.
>
But by the time they make Major, the total number of asses they have to
kiss has been greatly reduced. The number of JO's kissing their ass has
been increased inversely proportional. The pyramid works!
;)
BlackBeard
Submarines once, Submarines twice...
" To laugh often and much; To win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; To earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; To appreciate beauty; To find the best in others;
To leave the world a better place, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition;
To know even one life has breathed easier because you lived.
This is to have succeeded".
D. Crawley
> get better pay, but they spend the first 10 years of their career
> kissing ass like madmen to make it to being a major, where someone
> occasionally listens to them and they only have to kiss ass 90% of the
> time. Near as I tell, the only officers that don't spend a majority
> of their time kissing ass are the retired ones.
It is sad when someone is a pip hunter. Do you think it always have to be
that way though? How much brown nosing do you think Slim did to rise from
private to field marshal.
Cheers
David
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Crawley, Magdalene College, Cambridge, CB3 0AG Tel: 01223 528 382
D. Crawley
> I think MacArthur stopped doing the same once he
> got that fifth star, which probably led to his downfall.
well the same comment has been made of Monty after he became Field
Marshal. So the question is, does getting to the very top make you a less
effective general.
D. Crawley
above and below him. The ranks liked him though - how many generals see
their men trying to discharge themselves from sick bay to fight a battle.
Cheerio
DC
> >
> Never thought about it that way, but I think you're right. Even Patton,
> probably the best American general when it comes to pissing off his
> superiors, seemed to have spent a large amount of his career before WW2
> trying to impress them. I think MacArthur stopped doing the same once he
> got that fifth star, which probably led to his downfall.
>
Cheers
David
RTO Trainer
me#mes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Does getting that 5th star/ becoming Field Marshal kill effectiveness
>
>> I think MacArthur stopped doing the same once he
>> got that fifth star, which probably led to his downfall.
>
>well the same comment has been made of Monty after he became Field
>Marshal. So the question is, does getting to the very top make you a less
>effective general.
>
I think Eisenhower, Bradley, Nimitz, and Marshall are examples that
that isn't the case.
I know less about Leahy, King, Halsey and Arnold.
John M. Atkinson
<da...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Well it seems that Monty spent all his time pissing off the officers both
>above and below him. The ranks liked him though - how many generals see
>their men trying to discharge themselves from sick bay to fight a battle.
Most of 'em, and it has nothing to do with the general, but with unit
cohesion.
If Monty's men loved him, they were idiots. He got more of them
killed for less reason. He was the best officer OKW had.
The English produce only one good officer per generation--and WWII's
was in Burma. Just like after Kitchner died, they were stuck with
that drooling incompetent of a mass murderer Haig.
Brian Sharrock
snip
> >
> >Oh! congrats on the 'SGT' John, substantive?
>
> If I understand that Britism, I think so.
>
Uhm, 'local', 'acting unpaid', 'acting paid', 'substantive'
> If by that do you mean "They can only take it away from you if you
> screw up real damn bad."
In the words of the well-know song;-
#Oh No! They can't take that away from me!#
At least not without a court martial ...
--
Brian
James Anatidae
news:sv713vo1l9gl9rqoh...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 01:31:30 +0000, "D. Crawley" <dac33@her#remove
> me#mes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Does getting that 5th star/ becoming Field Marshal kill effectiveness
> >
> >> I think MacArthur stopped doing the same once he
> >> got that fifth star, which probably led to his downfall.
> >
> >well the same comment has been made of Monty after he became Field
> >Marshal. So the question is, does getting to the very top make you a less
> >effective general.
> >
> I think Eisenhower, Bradley,
Uh, maybe you should read this:
http://www.americanheritage.com/AMHER/2000/03/over-under34.shtml
Owe Jessen
Atkinson) :
>
>If Monty's men loved him, they were idiots. He got more of them
>killed for less reason. He was the best officer OKW had.
I still like movie and book "A Bridge Too Far". About best officer of
OKW I'd like to through in v. Manstein.
Owe
--
21 ist nur die halbe Wahrheit!
www.owejessen.de
Danny Bhoy
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:18:45 -0000, "Brian Sharrock"
> <bria...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >Oh! congrats on the 'SGT' John, substantive?
>
> If I understand that Britism, I think so.
>
> If by that do you mean "They can only take it away from you if you
> screw up real damn bad."
>
'Local' ranks. My last active substantive rank was as a Temporary Cpl
but with a Local rank of Sgt. IIRC, temporary meant less than one
year in the rank and local was the rank that one carried in the unit
(the battalion). You drew your pay based on the substantive rank tho.
Also, did not qualify me for the divisional/base camp's Sgt's mess
however, only for my battalion's Sgts' rec room.
DB
Danny Bhoy
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:20:39 -0500, Ogden Johnson III <o...@cpcug.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >>"John M. Atkinson" wrote:
>
> >>> John M. Atkinson
> >>> SGT, USA
>
> >>Hi John. I noticed the "SGT" in your sig.
> >>Congratulations. Are you considering OCS or the Academy yet? ( although I
> >>consider WO the best rank in the Army.)
> >
> >Unless the USMA [and the other military academies for that matter, why
> >not USNA, the Army can *always* use officers with exposure to how the
> >other services live, and he'll have had sea time to boot ;->] uses
> >constructive ages for prior enlisted, John's too old for it. You have
> >to be 21 or younger upon reporting for plebe summer. It's the OCS or
> >WO route if he wants to become a zero.
>
> Right in one.
>
> Although why I'd want to become an officer confuses me. Yeah, they
> get better pay, but they spend the first 10 years of their career
> kissing ass like madmen to make it to being a major, where someone
> occasionally listens to them and they only have to kiss ass 90% of the
> time. Near as I tell, the only officers that don't spend a majority
> of their time kissing ass are the retired ones.
>
unique, I'm certain that NCOs will also brown nose their seniors AND
their officers. It is probably less than amongst the shoulder boards,
however. Personally I've always thought that one had to be a bit of a
bastard to rise above Major.
DB
Danny Bhoy
>
> > > >>Hi John. I noticed the "SGT" in your sig.
> > > >>Congratulations. Are you considering OCS or the Academy yet? (
> although
> I
> > > >>consider WO the best rank in the Army.)
> > > >
> >
> that on getting the first stripe about fifty percent of the
> organisation can no longer bollock you, after the second stripe
> the percentage drops to about thirty percent, and after the third
> ... you're not that bothered about being bollocked. Sgts' messing
> is comfortable and affordable ... Warrant rank, in UK service, is
> the optimum level to achieve.
>
WOs at least for certain vocations such as helo pilots which was the
case during VN.
Actually, I'm not sure whether or how the US WO system corresponds to
the UK/Commonwealth one.
DB
John M. Atkinson
wrote:
>Arse kissing is part of any job. Unless the USA NCO community is
>unique, I'm certain that NCOs will also brown nose their seniors AND
>their officers. It is probably less than amongst the shoulder boards,
>however. Personally I've always thought that one had to be a bit of a
>bastard to rise above Major.
Some do. But it's not a requirement.
Jason Atkinson
wrote:
>"Brian Sharrock" <bria...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3e301eab$0$28828$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk>...
If I understand correctly, what you call a warrant officer we call a
sargeant major.
gws
news:23192cb7.03012...@posting.google.com...
>
> I don't know if the USA still has the practice of producing instant
> WOs at least for certain vocations such as helo pilots which was the
> case during VN.
>
> Actually, I'm not sure whether or how the US WO system corresponds to
> the UK/Commonwealth one.
Here is a link to a brief description of warrant officers in the U.S. armed
forces.
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/almanac/almanac/people/insignias/officers.ht
ml
Grey Satterfield
Konfuzius
you get the more asskreeping you´ll become. The higher you get the more
likely you´ll become a marionette. I serve in the German Air Force.
Carsten
"D. Crawley" <dac33@her#remove me#mes.cam.ac.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.030124...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk...
edward ohare
<rtotr...@justice.com> wrote:
>I think Eisenhower, Bradley, Nimitz, and Marshall are examples that
>that isn't the case.
>
>I know less about Leahy, King, Halsey and Arnold.
Its been said luck is the residue of design, but with Halsey, I think
luck was the residue of... luck.
--
"This day in US military history" is a regular feature
of us.military.history. Please visit soon!
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>Yeah, the Brits have given us the traditions of 'Temporary' and
>'Local' ranks.
The RN and USN have done this for centuries. It's called "commodore."
Steve
--
Author of "The PaxAm Solution"
E-book version now available at:
http://riverdaleebooks.com/index.html
Brian Sharrock
"gws" <g...@oscn.net> wrote in message
news:jeaY9.13402$Vh....@news2.central.cox.net...
Navy and Air Force.
In principle the warrant derives from Parliament contrasting with
the Sovereign's commission.
'Warrant's are addressed as 'Sir' by all those below them and
respectfully by commissioned juniors either by RankTitle Surname
or Mister Surname. They are accommodated in the Sergeants' Mess.
AIUI, Army (and Marine) has two warrant ranks WO 1 and WO II
whose naming seem to differ from arm of service to arm of service.
The Air Force has one warrant rank called 'Warrant Officer' :).
The Navy, after forgetting to utilise the rank for decades(?)
reinstated warrants as Fleet Chief Petty Officers (or some such).
FWIW, the ranking Warrant on an RAF base is the Station Warrant
Officer called 'SWO' identified by a black, silver-topped, cane
badge of office. Not that everybody on the strength doesn't know
him anyway! SWOs have disciplinary responsibilities as well as
administration tasks, but erks boast;- "our station was so small
the SWO was only a Corporal", along with "we didn't need numbers,
we all knew each other'"
--
Brian
cMAD
> Of course it does, whether it´s in America or somewhere else. The more stars
> you get the more asskreeping you´ll become.
Actually, in English speaking countries, you only mention kissing ass. The
creeping inside goes without saying.
> The higher you get the more likely you´ll become a marionette.
It works slightly different, as I understand. Kissing ass is actually the key
qualification for getting promoted, because it ensures that you play by the
rules, i.e. you understand that making your superiors look good is your first
duty in _any_ job. You don't want to have anybody in any position to accomplish
anything who actually thinks the first priority of doing a job is doing the
job.
Doing a job will just keep you from getting fired - as long as your performance
on the job doesn't threaten the position of your superiors. As a first line of
defense, they'll use everything in their power to prevent you from doing a good
job. The power to prevent anybody from doing his job if they don't kiss your
ass is what being the boss is all about.
Only if that doesn't help, they get rid of you.
> I serve in the German Air Force.
Ground crew, undoubtedly.
cMAD
Howard Berkowitz
edward...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID (edward ohare) wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:10:51 -0600, RTO Trainer
> <rtotr...@justice.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I think Eisenhower, Bradley, Nimitz, and Marshall are examples that
> >that isn't the case.
> >
> >I know less about Leahy, King, Halsey and Arnold.
>
>
> Its been said luck is the residue of design, but with Halsey, I think
> luck was the residue of... luck.
Daring to get on topic, it did seem as if Jack Ryan's _Fighting Sailor_
was an approving book on Halsey. We never really see JPR's opinion on
Ray Spruance, who, in my mind, was more deserving of the fifth star than
Halsey.
Occasionally, I wonder that if Leslie McNair had lived (KIA while
observing the Normandy breakout), anyone might have considered him for
the list. Probably not with the number available -- mind you, Halsey
shouldn't have been out of consideration as an inspirational leader,
it's just I believe Spruance to have been the better admiral.
D. Crawley
kissing is the way to the top. In war-time armies the world over the guys
that get promoted are the ones that win the battles. Monty didn't just
alienate most of his superiors, he alienated the entire class of people
that his superiors came from.
Cheers
David
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Crawley, Magdalene College, Cambridge, CB3 0AG Tel: 01223 528 382
The works of the lord are great. Blessed all ye that take pleasure
therin
gws
news:uls23vods02ih0ufg...@4ax.com...
> On 24 Jan 2003 03:14:45 -0800, warm...@hotmail.com (Danny Bhoy)
> wrote:
>
>
> >Yeah, the Brits have given us the traditions of 'Temporary' and
> >'Local' ranks.
>
> The RN and USN have done this for centuries. It's called "commodore."
That's right. Senior captains who have staff jobs commanding squadrons of
ships are addressed by the honorific, "commodore." For a while, when rear
admirals in the U.S. Navy were first reduced to wearing one star instead of
two (traditionally all rear admirals had worn two stars), they were called
"commodore admirals." This created confusion because nobody knew whether
the "commodore" referred to was a captain or a one-star admiral. In a
fairly short time the Navy came to its senses and simply went back to the
old method of describing one-star admirals as "rear admiral (lower half)"
and the two-star variety as "rear admiral (upper half)."
Grey Satterfield
gws
news:hcb-77746A.1...@text.giganews.com...
I agree that Spruance was a better admiral than Halsey. Halsey was a
hot-shot inspirational leader, but he was impetuous (to put it mildly).
Spruance was not a naval aviator, but because of organizational quirks he
had two carriers under his command at the Battle of Midway and his decisions
there contributed significantly to our victory (well, we didn't lose, which,
in the event, was enough).
Grey Satterfield
loki
> It is true that NZ does not "need" much of a military, but it also
explains
> why the U.S. doesn't pay undue attention these days to those who do not
> contribute to their own defense. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
But isn't NZ still part of the British Commonwealth? That is not an ally
we can afford to upset.
Loki
Fred J. McCall
:"gws" <g...@oscn.net> wrote in
Somehow I don't see the UK getting upset because we don't pay a lot of
attention to what New Zealand wants....
Mike Chapman
"loki" <lo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b0tusb$v1r$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
In spite of the traditional ribbing that inevitably goes on between us
in Oz and the Kiwis, they do pull their weight - and more - in various
places around the world. Half their ground forces were in East Timor with
ours, they were in Vietnam with us, they were in North Africa and Italy
during WWII, they were heavily in North Africa and France in WW1, and
they've done their mostly unnoticed and unappreciated bit - including
peacekeeping operations even now - ever since they became a nation. They've
copped a disproportionately huge lot of casualties relative to their tiny
population, fighting in all the biggies of the just-gone century - not one
of which was anywhere near home territory - and no-one ever seems to say a
word of thanks to them.
So I suppose I shouldn't either.
<g>
--
Mike Chapman.
(Posted and e-mailed wherever possible)
Brian Sharrock
I can't understand how (your) Navy has come 'to its senses'
with Lower half and Upper half Admirals!
What is obvious is that the tradition of Pantomime Horses never
crossed the Atlantic -otherwise nobody could have countenanced
this nomenclature!
What's wrong with the progression;-
Captain (Four rings)
Commodore (one broad ring)
Temporary rank awarded to flotilla leader to bestow gravitas.
Substantive rank awarded to rising stars ...
Rear Admiral (one broad plus one 'normal' ring)
... works for us!
--
Brian
Brian Sharrock
"Mike Chapman" <mi...@paratech.com.au> wrote in message
news:10435024...@occy.pnc.com.au...
be feathered cloaks, in a twist over the entire nuclear
weapon question. When USN and RN warships would neither
confirm nor deny that the war-canoes _didn't_ have
embarked special weapons NZ government refused visiting
privileges. Apparently they expected ships visiting
their ports do declare themselves vulnerable then have to sail
across thousands of miles of 'oggin! When the USA and UK governments
collectively said "Blow that for a lark! If we can't visit you we're
not going to fight for you!' A-NZ-US-UK defence pact went out the window.
Because of the large number of exchanges between the RAN and RNZN
UK Defence contractors often found themselves restricted in what
could be said to Australian Commonwealth and Naval folk. A situation
rapidly exploited by German and Swedish competitors.
Funny old world isn't it?
--
Brian
Steve Bartman
<bria...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote:
>What's wrong with the progression;-
> Captain (Four rings)
> Commodore (one broad ring)
> Temporary rank awarded to flotilla leader to bestow gravitas.
> Substantive rank awarded to rising stars ...
> Rear Admiral (one broad plus one 'normal' ring)
> ... works for us!
Because the captain can be a commodore, but isn't a Commodore. By next
Tuesday he might not be a commodore, but the Commodore will remain
such.
Clear as mud.
The whole Commodore Admiral excursion was to appease the army and air
force who have a true one-star rank of Brigadier General. The USN went
from four stripes to two stars in one swoop, even though the pay was
the same as a one-star general's, and it made the sandcrabs envious.
Fred J. McCall
:What's wrong with the progression;-
: Captain (Four rings)
: Commodore (one broad ring)
: Temporary rank awarded to flotilla leader to bestow gravitas.
: Substantive rank awarded to rising stars ...
: Rear Admiral (one broad plus one 'normal' ring)
: ... works for us!
Because USN traditionally does not make 'Commodores' except in time of
war. In peacetime, it used to be that senior Captains filling such
billets as you described wore the title, but with no associated rank.
When the war started, they all got a bump to a single star. When the
war ended, everyone with a single star got a second one and they all
became Rear Admirals.
There is an institutional problem with this in the US, in that
operating without a 1-star rank gave folks problems when they had to
deal with their equals in other services (and abroad) who had a star.
It also could make that jump to 2-star from captain kind of hard.
So the Navy decided it needed a 1-star rank, but they didn't want to
screw up the tradition associated with Commodore. So they invented
this silliness with Rear Admiral (Lower Half).
I wish they'd done it different.
Mike Chapman
Hey, I never said they were particularly smart...
Howard Berkowitz
fmc...@earthlink.net wrote:
There can be, of course, special problems with the Lower Half of the
Rears of certain Rear Admirals of either Half. Being promoted to a
level to encourage Vice may be counterbalancing.
I still cherish a story out of Bethesda Naval Hospital of an especially
crochety Rear Admiral, who became aware of major-league staff snickering
while he was undergoing a very minor diagnostic procedure. "What's the
matter with you? Never seen anyone have his temperature taken rectally?"
"Yes, but not with a daisy."
edward ohare
>I agree that Spruance was a better admiral than Halsey. Halsey was a
>hot-shot inspirational leader, but he was impetuous (to put it mildly).
>Spruance was not a naval aviator, but because of organizational quirks he
>had two carriers under his command at the Battle of Midway and his decisions
What do you mean by "organizational quirks"? That Nimitz followed
procedure rather than putting who he wanted (or could) in command?
Actually, when he arrived in Yorktown, Fletcher was in overall
command. He gave up part of "being in command" when he told Spruance
to go ahead because Yorktown had to recover search aircraft, and gave
up the rest when Yorktown was disabled.
>there contributed significantly to our victory (well, we didn't lose, which,
>in the event, was enough).
Not saying Spuance wasn't lucky here. He needed every last piece of
luck and and they all came his way. But unlike Halsey, he didn't
tempt fate and make a career out of trying to force things.
gws
news:3e32e64b...@news.alt.net...
Agreed. In addition, Spruance, so far as I know, avoided skin rashes and
never rode his fleet off in response to a Japanese feint.
Grey Satterfield
Paul J. Adam
<johnma...@y.com> writes
>The English produce only one good officer per generation--and WWII's
>was in Burma. Just like after Kitchner died, they were stuck with
>that drooling incompetent of a mass murderer Haig.
Digging around, Haig was at least no more incompetent than other
generals of his age. (Evidence to the contrary, welcome).
It is amusing that Montgomery was cursed and criticised for being too
conservative... until he tries a bold and decisive stroke, which when it
fails (close, but not close enough and with no useful intermediate short
of complete success) he's cursed for being too adventurous.
(No argument about Slim, though. Notable that Field Marshal Slim and Lt.
Jary dominate the quotations in the 1980s Sandhurst precis)
--
Paul J. Adam
Michael Kennedy
"John M. Atkinson" <johnma...@y.com> wrote in message
news:3e2b7c1c...@news-server.hot.rr.com...
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 19:53:24 -0500, "James Anatidae"
> <pars...@citcom.net> wrote:
>
> >Blair's a fool if he doesn't find someway to pull out. Bush has already
> >totally alienated my other country (I hold dual US-New Zealand
citizenship)
> >with both PM Helen Clark and Opposition Leader Roger Sowry publicly
stating
> >that they will not allow NZ forces used in an invasion of Iraq. (Which
is
> >probably a good thing, since we recently sold off most of our Air Force.)
>
I saw this post on another news group and think it appropriate here.
Mike Kennedy (another content-free post)
Just a word of background for those of you who are not familiar with the
Daily Mirror newspaper which is published in England. It is a notorious,
left-wing daily and is usually very anti-American. It's kinda hard to
believe that they published this editorial.
The author is Tony Parsons. It is as follows:
September 11, 2002, ONE year ago, the world witnessed a unique kind of
broadcasting - the mass murder of thousands, live on television. As a lesson
in the pitiless cruelty of the human race, September 11 was up there with
Pol Pot's mountain of skulls in Cambodia, or the skeletal bodies stacked
like garbage in the Nazi concentration camps. An unspeakable act so cruel,
so calculated and so utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on
one thing - nobody deserves this fate.
Surely there could be a consensus: the victims were truly innocent, the
perpetrators truly evil. But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is
increasingly seen as America's comeuppance. Incredibly, anti-Americanism
has increased over the past year.
There has always been a simmering resentment of the USA in this country:
too loud, too rich, too full of themselves and so much happier than
Europeans, but it has become an epidemic.
And it seems incredible to me. More than that, it turns my stomach.
America is this country's greatest friend and our staunchest ally. We are
bonded to the US by our culture, language and blood.
A little over half a century ago, around half a million Americans died for
our freedoms, as well as their own. Have we forgotten so soon ? And
exactly a year ago, thousands of ordinary men, women and children - not just
Americans, but from dozens of countries - were butchered by a small group of
religious fanatics. Are we so quick to betray them ?
What touched the heart about those who died in the twin towers and on the
planes was that we recognized them. Young fathers and mothers, somebody's
son and somebody's daughter, husbands and wives. And children. Some
unborn. And these people brought it on themselves ? And their nation is
to blame for their meticulously planned slaughter ?
These days you don't have to be some dust-encrusted nut in Kabul or Karachi
or FinsburyPark to see America as the Great Satan. The anti-American
alliance is made up of self-loathing liberals who blame the
Americans for every ill in the Third World, and conservatives suffering
from power-envy, bitter that the world's only superpower can do what it
likes without having to ask permission.
The truth is that America has behaved with enormous restraint since Sept.
11.......... Remember, remember.
Remember the gut-wrenching tapes of weeping men phoning their wives to say,
"I love you," before they were burned alive.
Remember those people leaping to their deaths from the top of burning
skyscrapers.
Remember the hundreds of firemen who were buried alive.
Remember the smiling face of that beautiful little girl who was on one of
the planes with her mother.
Remember, remember - and realize that America has not retaliated for 9/11
in any way like it could have.
So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked up without a trial in Camp X-ray ?
Pass the Kleenex.
So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up after they merrily fired
their AK-47's into a sky full of American planes ? A shame, but maybe
next time they should stick to confetti.
AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of the world into a parking lot.
That it didn't is a sign of strength. American voices are already being
raised against attacking Iraq - that's what a democracy is for. How
many in the Islamic world will have a minute's silence for the slaughtered
innocents of 9/11 ? How many Islamic leaders will have the guts
to say that the mass murder of 9/11 was an abomination ?
When the news of 9/11 broke on the West Bank, those freedom-loving
Palestinians were seen dancing in the street. America watched all of that -
and didn't push the button. We should thank the stars that America is the
most powerful nation in the world. I still find it incredible that 9/11 did
not provoke all-out war. Not a "war on terrorism". A real war !
The fundamentalist dudes are talking about "opening the gates of hell", if
America attacks Iraq. Well, America could have opened the gates of hell
like you wouldn't believe. The US is the most militarily powerful nation
that ever strode the face of the earth. The campaign in Afghanistan
may have been less than perfect and the planned war on Iraq may be
misconceived. But don't blame America for not bringing peace and light to
these wretched countries.
How many democracies are there in the Middle East, or in the Muslim world ?
You can count them on the fingers of one hand - assuming you haven't had any
chopped off for minor shoplifting.
I love America, yet America is hated. I guess that makes me Bush's poodle.
But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in Riyadh.
Above all, America is hated because it is what every country wants to be -
rich, free, strong, open, optimistic. Not ground down by the past, or
religion, or some caste system.
America is the best friend this country ever had and we should start
remembering that. Or do you really think the USA is the root of all evil ?
Tell it to the loved ones of the men and women who leaped to their death
from the burning towers. Tell it to the nursing mothers whose husbands died
on one of the hijacked planes, or were ripped apart in a collapsing
skyscraper. And tell it to the hundreds of young widows whose husbands
worked for the New York Fire Department. To our shame, George Bush gets a
worse press than Saddam Hussein.
Once we were told that Saddam gassed the Kurds, tortured his own people and
set up rape-camps in Kuwait. Now we are told he likes Quality Street. Save
me the orange centre, oh mighty one !
Remember, remember, September 11. One of the greatest atrocities in human
history was committed against America.
No, do more than remember. Never forget.
Paul J. Adam
>killed for less reason. He was the best officer OKW had.
>
>The English produce only one good officer per generation--and WWII's
>was in Burma. Just like after Kitchner died, they were stuck with
>that drooling incompetent of a mass murderer Haig.
Apologies for the double reply.
To quote Eisenhower, "Those critics of Montgomery who assert that he
sometimes failed to attain the maximum must at least admit that he never
once sustained a major defeat" - very generous of Ike, after Market
Garden.
--
Paul J. Adam
James Anatidae
news:3e32cca8$0$2570$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...
>
the Soviet generals planned out World War III they could have said:
"Oh, and they'll most likely be some US Naval vessels carrying nuclear
weapons docked in New Zealand, so we'd better aim a few ICBMs that away to
take care of that."
or:
"New Zealand. Nothing of real strategic importance. We'll just reassign
the missiles marked down for them to Omaha instead."
Hey, somebody's got to play the coward. :)
--
"If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college."
- Girl in IHOP, relayed by Lewis Black
Wildwing's Storage Room
http://anatidae.homestead.com/frontdoor.html
Fred J. McCall
:Can you blame us for not wanting to make a target out of ourselves?
Yes, I can. It's called moral cowardice when you want the advantage
of the protection but want no risk yourselves.
:Hey, somebody's got to play the coward. :)
Yeah. And I wish I could put a little smiley after that.
--
You are
What you do
When it counts.
John M. Atkinson
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <3e30d0dd...@news-server.hot.rr.com>, John M. Atkinson
><johnma...@y.com> writes
>>The English produce only one good officer per generation--and WWII's
>>was in Burma. Just like after Kitchner died, they were stuck with
>>that drooling incompetent of a mass murderer Haig.
>
>Digging around, Haig was at least no more incompetent than other
>generals of his age. (Evidence to the contrary, welcome).
The Germans were too badly outnumbered, the French were French. Haig
had no excuse for incompetence.
>It is amusing that Montgomery was cursed and criticised for being too
>conservative... until he tries a bold and decisive stroke, which when it
>fails (close, but not close enough and with no useful intermediate short
>of complete success) he's cursed for being too adventurous.
He's cursed for being a goddamn murderer. He ignored intelligence
present that there were panzer corps on the ground and dropped the
paras right into their assembly area. Then he attacked on a 2-lane
front!??! That's gross incompetence.
--
John M. Atkinson
But you, Roman, remember, these are your skills: to
govern the peoples with power and to establish the
habit of peace; to be sparing of the vanquished and
to crush the arrogant in war."
--Virgil, Aeneid
edward ohare
>Agreed. In addition, Spruance, so far as I know, avoided skin rashes and
>never rode his fleet off in response to a Japanese feint.
Neither did he loose 100+ aircraft and a cruiser bow to a typhoon.
Mike Chapman
news:j3l63v8udm08qmk5q...@4ax.com...
> "James Anatidae" <pars...@citcom.net> wrote:
>
> :Can you blame us for not wanting to make a target out of ourselves?
>
> Yes, I can. It's called moral cowardice when you want the advantage
> of the protection but want no risk yourselves.
>
> :Hey, somebody's got to play the coward. :)
>
> Yeah. And I wish I could put a little smiley after that.
Oh, geez, lighten up, Fred. It's a perfect illustration of what happens when
the Green vote gets out of control, nothing more.
The Kiwis have contributed more than their fair share to international
operations in the last century. They'll get over the Greenie stuff one day.
Although I have to admit that David Lange and his cohorts have a lot to
answer for, the simple fact is that four million people can't sustain enough
of a full-on force to defend against a single CBG, so what do you expect
them to do? What do you want them to provide?
James Anatidae
>
> :Can you blame us for not wanting to make a target out of ourselves?
>
> Yes, I can. It's called moral cowardice when you want the advantage
> of the protection but want no risk yourselves.
>
Howard Berkowitz
<mi...@paratech.com.au> wrote:
REALLY GOOD headhunters to turn loose in Tikrit? -)
Mike Enderby
> > The Kiwis have contributed more than their fair share to international
> > operations in the last century. They'll get over the Greenie stuff one
> > day.
> > Although I have to admit that David Lange and his cohorts have a lot to
> > answer for, the simple fact is that four million people can't sustain
> > enough
> > of a full-on force to defend against a single CBG, so what do you expect
> > them to do? What do you want them to provide?
>
> REALLY GOOD headhunters to turn loose in Tikrit? -)
I think the kiwi SAS more than qualify in this role. Like the those from the
other side of the Tasman sea, its something they seem quite good at.
--
Mike Enderby
Mike Chapman
news:nfOY9.2611$6U3....@newsfep4-gui.server.ntli.net...
Yeah, not their real mission, but a little job satisfaction along the way
isn't such a bad thing, is it?
[:<)
Denver Fletcher
...
> Yeah, not their real mission, but a little job satisfaction along the way
> isn't such a bad thing, is it?
A friend of mine was in the SAS. He spent some time with the pommie
chappies, came back with this groovy t-shirt, complete with the dagger 'n'
all, and this motto:
"Who Cares Who Wins?"
I think there's something in that for all of us; don't youuuu?
Mike Enderby
You mean a mission to that area would count as R&R[1]?
--
Mike Enderby
[1] Rest and Recreation
gws
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 21:24:40 GMT, "gws" <g...@oscn.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Agreed. In addition, Spruance, so far as I know, avoided skin rashes and
> >never rode his fleet off in response to a Japanese feint.
>
>
> Neither did he loose 100+ aircraft and a cruiser bow to a typhoon.
Ah, USS Pittsburgh (CA-72). Here is a link that contains a picture of the
old girl with her bow gone:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-p/ca72-l.htm
For a man of his reputation, old Bull wasn't very lucky, was he?
Grey Satterfield
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:j3l63v8udm08qmk5q...@4ax.com...
:> "James Anatidae" <pars...@citcom.net> wrote:
:>
:> :Can you blame us for not wanting to make a target out of ourselves?
:>
:> Yes, I can. It's called moral cowardice when you want the advantage
:> of the protection but want no risk yourselves.
:>
:> :Hey, somebody's got to play the coward. :)
:>
:> Yeah. And I wish I could put a little smiley after that.
:
:Oh, geez, lighten up, Fred. It's a perfect illustration of what happens when
:the Green vote gets out of control, nothing more.
I only need to "lighten up" if you consider the truth too heavy to
bear.
:The Kiwis have contributed more than their fair share to international
:operations in the last century. They'll get over the Greenie stuff one day.
When you have to go back a century to make that statement, I think you
merely add strength to my position.
:Although I have to admit that David Lange and his cohorts have a lot to
:answer for, the simple fact is that four million people can't sustain enough
:of a full-on force to defend against a single CBG, so what do you expect
:them to do? What do you want them to provide?
At the very least, it might be nice if they didn't spit at the cop who
keeps their neighborhood quiet or criticize him because he carries a
gun....
--
"This is a war of the unknown warriors; but let all strive
without failing in faith or in duty...."
-- Winston Churchill
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
No doubt. That doesn't change what it is.
--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
will never know.
Peter Skelton
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"James Anatidae" <pars...@citcom.net> wrote:
>
>:Can you blame us for not wanting to make a target out of ourselves?
>
>Yes, I can. It's called moral cowardice when you want the advantage
>of the protection but want no risk yourselves.
SOrt of like the US during the Napoleonic Wars :)
>:Hey, somebody's got to play the coward. :)
>
>Yeah. And I wish I could put a little smiley after that.
____
Peter Skelton
Fred J. McCall
:On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 03:23:16 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>"James Anatidae" <pars...@citcom.net> wrote:
:>
:>:Can you blame us for not wanting to make a target out of ourselves?
:>
:>Yes, I can. It's called moral cowardice when you want the advantage
:>of the protection but want no risk yourselves.
:
:SOrt of like the US during the Napoleonic Wars :)
We were a little busy resisting British kidnappers in those days.
Even fought a war over it, as I recall.
--
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed
and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks
that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has
nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more
important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature,
and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Geoff Edwards
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:But isn't NZ still part of the British Commonwealth? That is not an ally
>:we can afford to upset.
>
>Somehow I don't see the UK getting upset because we don't pay a lot of
>attention to what New Zealand wants....
I'm not sure that's right.
Most Brits have a more affectionate view of NZ than they do of Oz
Geoff
Geoff Edwards
>:we can afford to upset.
>
>Somehow I don't see the UK getting upset because we don't pay a lot of
>attention to what New Zealand wants....
>
Oops - sorry Fred. I misread the author of your post and took the
"we" to mean Brits. Which it didn't.
Peter Skelton
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>:On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 03:23:16 GMT, Fred J. McCall
>:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:
>:>"James Anatidae" <pars...@citcom.net> wrote:
>:>
>:>:Can you blame us for not wanting to make a target out of ourselves?
>:>
>:>Yes, I can. It's called moral cowardice when you want the advantage
>:>of the protection but want no risk yourselves.
>:
>:SOrt of like the US during the Napoleonic Wars :)
>
>We were a little busy resisting British kidnappers in those days.
>Even fought a war over it, as I recall.
Fought a little war with France, changed sides fought a war with
Britain. If Napoleon had won, it would have been bad for the US.
The US lived under the shelter of the RN for a century and a bit,
didn't contribute much. It wasn't needed, the US had other issues
to deal with, there isn't much wrong with that part of US
behaviour during the period.
There isn't much wrong with New Zealand's behaviour now. It is
not cowardice in either case - anybody who suggests that either
Kiwis or Americans are cowards is seriously disconnected from
their histories.
____
Peter Skelton
Geoff Edwards
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Digging around, Haig was at least no more incompetent than other
>generals of his age. (Evidence to the contrary, welcome).
>
Agreed
>It is amusing that Montgomery was cursed and criticised for being too
>conservative... until he tries a bold and decisive stroke, which when it
>fails (close, but not close enough and with no useful intermediate short
>of complete success) he's cursed for being too adventurous.
Monty's worst enemy was Monty.
He never would admit a mistake. He was always trying to rewrite
history.
Every other general accepts that "no plan survives the first contact
with the enemy", but not our Monty.
He promised Caan in 24 hours. When he failed, he said he had only
promised it within 24 hours of him being ready (which made it about 72
hours after H-hour on D-day). When he didn't do that either, he
claimed that he said that he would be in a position to assault Caan 72
hours after H-hour
Caan turned into an endless meat-grinder (much of the meat being
Aussies and Kiwis - see other parts of this thread). It did force the
Germans to pull units out of other places and divert reinforcements to
the battle, effectively weakening the opposition to Patten's
break-out.
After the event, Monty tried to claim that that was what he intended
all along, but he had never revealed this master=plan to Ike (whom he
had thereby out-thought and out-planned) because Ike might not have
approved of the sacrifice for the benefit of Patten whom Ike disliked
intensely (he being so fonds of Monty - according to Monty, that is).
Monty was an opportunist who was elevated partly by his own efforts
and partly by those of Churchill. Britain desperately needed a hero,
and second Allemain was the first "victory" for the British ("Before
Allemain we never had a victory; after it, we never had a defeat")
The battle which Monty won was, technically, Second Allemain. The
real victory was when Wavell (I think it was Wavell) stopped Rommell
at first Allemain. Monty then breezed in to collect the trophy,
delaying his attack until he was certain he had superiority in men and
materiel, and logistical and intelligence support. Even then, he
chose to fight a battle on basically WW1 tactics.
While we are on the subject of WW2 "bests", my nomination for the best
piece of generalship: Patten disengaging along a fifty mile front,
swinging his entire army through ninety degrees and attacking north -
all in atrocious conditions yet in less than 36 hours - to end the
Battle of the Bulge.
Mike Enderby
news:i2083vs4cp30hlv17...@4ax.com...
Especially for one regular, who is engaged to a kiwi!
--
Mike Enderby
gws
> While we are on the subject of WW2 "bests", my nomination for the best
> piece of generalship: Patten disengaging along a fifty mile front,
> swinging his entire army through ninety degrees and attacking north -
> all in atrocious conditions yet in less than 36 hours - to end the
> Battle of the Bulge.
I agree. One of Patton's great achievements, perhaps the greatest, was his
race through snow and bitter cold to relieve the Battered Bastards of
Bastogne.
Grey Satterfield
Howard Berkowitz
<g...@oscn.net> wrote:
And credit where credit is due to his logistics and signal people. This
is totally from memory, but I seem to remember them having to move some
thousands of miles of telephone wire _fast enough to keep up_.
Grant E
restaurant with an american about NZ's no nukes policy.
Started out as a light hearted discussion which turned sour when I
questioned US need to have so many of the fuckers. (nukes)
As was then labelled anti american (never mind that I was in America of my
own free will creating bi-lateral ).
As the arguement got more heated, hell I was only trying to understand their
logic by providing arguemnet, his final was to call over three other
americans who were also dining thereby winning the arguemnt by sheer
physical presence.
A cowardly kiwi? No way... I woulda whipped their ass'.
But discretion can be the better part of valour....right?
...and in their actions they proved my point and thereby lost the arguement.
I gave up the nuclear issue and defending NZ's stance when I was roomed up
in a hotel with an Amish person.
He, of all people I thought, we be non nuclear.
I was wrong, I surreptiously showed him a couple of bumper stickers I had
taken over to promote the non nukes approach. Well the look of shock on his
face was enough to convince me it was a lost cause..
The no nukes is a NZ owned thing, it is ours and we have a right to stand by
it as much as America owns the right to defend freedom.
So get fucked as they say.
"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:hmv73vgvkd3bgeqc6...@4ax.com...
Geoff Edwards
>Started out as a light hearted discussion which turned sour when I
>questioned US need to have so many of the fuckers.
I understand that they reckon that Saddam has, at most, two nukes in
Iraq.
But if he uses one, he'll suddenly find he has about twenty - mostly
delivered by the USAF
Geoff
Fred J. McCall
"Grant E" <no...@here.nz> wrote:
:I recall I was in LA in about 1986 having an arguement in a fast food
:
Mike Chapman
news:KTPY9.2067$7O1.4...@news02.tsnz.net...
He didn't have to go halfway around the planet for that.
The Army Reserve here in Oz had that unofficial motto for well over a
decade, particularly those elements of the GRes who often work closely with
SASR. The back of the T-shirt read:
SASR: Who Dares, Wins.
GRES: Who Cares Who Wins?
Mike Chapman
>
> [1] Rest and Recreation
They amend [1] to read Rack and Ruin.
Mike Chapman
> "Mike Chapman" <mi...@paratech.com.au> wrote:
>
> :"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> :news:j3l63v8udm08qmk5q...@4ax.com...
> :> "James Anatidae" <pars...@citcom.net> wrote:
> :>
> :> :Can you blame us for not wanting to make a target out of ourselves?
> :>
> :> Yes, I can. It's called moral cowardice when you want the advantage
> :> of the protection but want no risk yourselves.
> :>
> :> :Hey, somebody's got to play the coward. :)
> :>
> :> Yeah. And I wish I could put a little smiley after that.
> :
> :Oh, geez, lighten up, Fred. It's a perfect illustration of what happens
when
> :the Green vote gets out of control, nothing more.
>
> I only need to "lighten up" if you consider the truth too heavy to
> bear.
Which part of the "truth" are you referring to?
> :The Kiwis have contributed more than their fair share to international
> :operations in the last century. They'll get over the Greenie stuff one
day.
>
> When you have to go back a century to make that statement, I think you
> merely add strength to my position.
I think that was a misperception, with my usual lack of clarity of
expression. Perhaps I should make it clearer; that over the course of the
last century or so - not limited purely or necessarily to the Twentieth
Century - I consider they have done their fair share. Their last battalions
only just left East Timor a few weeks ago, after having supported us from
the start of our involvement there a couple of years ago. IIRC they still
have commitments to UN peacekeeping obligations elsewhere in the world, and
they do keep their commitments. They supported us with the Bali bombing
atrocity, as well.
I don't have the speed of internet connection to allow me the luxury of
tracing all of NZ's military involvement throughout the world, but at least
since the Boer War they have been fielding forces offshore in all sorts of
operations ranging from Africa to Asia, whenever asked to do so.
> :Although I have to admit that David Lange and his cohorts have a lot to
> :answer for, the simple fact is that four million people can't sustain
enough
> :of a full-on force to defend against a single CBG, so what do you expect
> :them to do? What do you want them to provide?
>
> At the very least, it might be nice if they didn't spit at the cop who
> keeps their neighborhood quiet or criticize him because he carries a
> gun....
Um, they formally pulled out of the ANZUS treaty when they brought in the
no-nukes policy in - what, 1986 or so?
So my read on what they've said is something along the lines of, "You don't
need to patrol here, although you're welcome to cruise nearby. But if you
want to park in our driveway, we'd appreciate it if you visited in a
four-cylinder, not a supercharged V8, because we have noise regulations in
place."
Hey, I'm not defending their decision to implement a nuclear NIMBY, and even
a lot of NZites disagree with the decision, and did so at the time. But the
NZ Government of the time believed in the implementation, and almost twenty
years later, it hasn't been reversed. I guess it's as much their right to
choose what parks in their driveway as it is the US's right to build
whatever it wants to scoot down the freeway with. I think they've earned
that right within their territorial waters.
cMAD
> It ain't even a GOOD troll, Grant....
Yep. Not quote up to a.b.t-c's Troll-In-Residence, the Esteemed Mr McCall.
cMAD
Brian Sharrock
>
snip
> >
> > So the Navy decided it needed a 1-star rank, but they didn't want to
> > screw up the tradition associated with Commodore. So they invented
> > this silliness with Rear Admiral (Lower Half).
>
> There can be, of course, special problems with the Lower Half of the
> Rears of certain Rear Admirals of either Half. Being promoted to a
> level to encourage Vice may be counterbalancing.
>
> I still cherish a story out of Bethesda Naval Hospital of an especially
> crochety Rear Admiral, who became aware of major-league staff snickering
> while he was undergoing a very minor diagnostic procedure. "What's the
> matter with you? Never seen anyone have his temperature taken rectally?"
>
> "Yes, but not with a daisy."
Did this scuttlebutt circulate before or after the "Carry on Doctor"
black'n'white film/movie in which Hattie Jacques played the Matron and
the measuring stick was a daffodil stem?
--
Brian
Brian Sharrock
>
> "Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:bis73v06f4pi4ap6t...@4ax.com...
> > "Mike Chapman" <mi...@paratech.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > :"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > :news:j3l63v8udm08qmk5q...@4ax.com...
> > :> "James Anatidae" <pars...@citcom.net> wrote:
> > :>
>
> > At the very least, it might be nice if they didn't spit at the cop who
> > keeps their neighborhood quiet or criticize him because he carries a
> > gun....
>
> Um, they formally pulled out of the ANZUS treaty when they brought in the
> no-nukes policy in - what, 1986 or so?
> So my read on what they've said is something along the lines of, "You
don't
> need to patrol here, although you're welcome to cruise nearby. But if you
> want to park in our driveway, we'd appreciate it if you visited in a
> four-cylinder, not a supercharged V8, because we have noise regulations in
> place."
>
The point is the NZ government required visiting war-canoes to stipulate
that they did not embarked special weapons before allowing port facilities.
This is tantamount to the warship stating that they were particularly
vunerable to any attack by 'hostiles' on departure. Your 'I can stipulate
what you can park on my driveway' analogy is more like; "you can park
in a dangerous area then walk several miles hollering out "It's OK!
I haven't got any bullets! You can attack me with impunity!". The irony
is that few war-canoes would have such weapons embarked when entering
harbour for a run ashore.
> Hey, I'm not defending their decision to implement a nuclear NIMBY, and
even
> a lot of NZites disagree with the decision, and did so at the time.
Nobody expects New Zealand to shoulder the burden of acquiring, maintaining
and training for the possesion of Nuclear weapons. During the period after
the defeat of the Axis powers 'am Iron Curtain descended ... ". An
expansionist communist-adhering dictatorship was exporting tyrrany
at the point of Kalishnikovs, Migs, etc. etc. Allied Naval units
could have experienced hostile submarine-launched rockets being launched
at any moment. Whole cities may have been subjected to obliteration
from Soviet Sea Forces missile attack - so UK doctrine was to track,
localise, identify such submarines ... and threaten the prospect of
surrounding the submarine with instant bundles of sunshine. What the
NZ government demanded was the UK Government assist GRU by
identifying which of our ships had these dustbin sized devices ...
No way! Jose!
> But the
> NZ Government of the time believed in the implementation, and almost
twenty
> years later, it hasn't been reversed. I guess it's as much their right to
> choose what parks in their driveway as it is the US's right to build
> whatever it wants to scoot down the freeway with. I think they've earned
> that right within their territorial waters.
>
With the demise of fUSSR, the UK (and USA?) has declared that tactical
nuclear weapons are no longer embarked on ships at sea, so the point is
moot. However, what NZ demands, to use your analogy, is that vehicles
parked and or scooting down the freeway festoon themselves with signage
saying "Dodgy doorlock", "Smash here", "Extra key hidden under rear
offside wheel-arch", "Security code for the Hi-Fi (ICE) is NNNN".
Surprise, surprise, the citizenry might not see too many naval folk
visiting their territorial waters.
--
Brian