Re: british government moves warships into the region
bmo...@nyx.net
> the british government under gordon brown has ordered its warships to
> move into the region surrounding burma.
yes
> they demand that burma accept
> british aid
no
> and are prepared to use force to ensure their foreign
> policy objectives are met. they intend to indiscriminately drop
> blankets and headache pills in the amount of 5 million pounds.
>
> what does the british government want in exchange for this generocity?
> mating rights?
rst0wxyz
> On May 14, 6:30 pm, ayaz <hackedyetag...@japan.com> wrote:
>
> > the british government under gordon brown has ordered its warships to
> > move into the region surrounding burma.
>
> yes
No warship is needed here.
bmo...@nyx.net
> On May 15, 1:41 pm, bmo...@nyx.net wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 6:30 pm, ayaz <hackedyetag...@japan.com> wrote:
>
> > > the british government under gordon brown has ordered its warships to
> > > move into the region surrounding burma.
>
> > yes
>
> No warship is needed here.
I think they need all the help they can get. The warship apparently
can also handle disaster relief tasks.
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=12000
A British Royal Navy frigate has been ordered to stand by off Burma
with emergency aid for the survivors of cyclone Nargis. The 4,900-ton
HMS Westminster will join US and French warships waiting in
international waters off the Burmese coast, ready to rush relief
supplies to the Irrawaddy delta if instructed by the UN or invited by
the Burmese regime.
HMS Westminster is one of 23 frigates described as the mainstay of
Britain’s Royal Navy fleet. Originally designed for anti-submarine
warfare, the ship evolved into a powerful and versatile multipurpose
vessel with the capability to operate anywhere in the world.
The frigate is designed to conduct a wide range of other tasks,
disaster relief work and embargo-enforcement and surveillance
operations.
>
>
>
>
> > > they demand that burma accept
> > > british aid
>
> > no- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
rst0wxyz
> On May 15, 2:15 pm, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 1:41 pm, bmo...@nyx.net wrote:
>
> > > On May 14, 6:30 pm, ayaz <hackedyetag...@japan.com> wrote:
>
> > > > the british government under gordon brown has ordered its warships to
> > > > move into the region surrounding burma.
>
> > > yes
>
> > No warship is needed here.
>
> I think they need all the help they can get. The warship apparently
> can also handle disaster relief tasks.
>
> http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=12000
>
> A British Royal Navy frigate has been ordered to stand by off Burma
> with emergency aid for the survivors of cyclone Nargis. The 4,900-ton
> HMS Westminster will join US and French warships waiting in
From past Western power incursions on their sovereignty, this is
precisely why they do not want Western aids. It is being forced on
them with the power of the gun.
demor...@aol.com
> On May 15, 1:41 pm, bmo...@nyx.net wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 6:30 pm, ayaz <hackedyetag...@japan.com> wrote:
>
> > > the british government under gordon brown has ordered its warships to
> > > move into the region surrounding burma.
>
> > yes
>
> No warship is needed here.
A vote should be forced in the UN Security Council so that China and
Russia can be put on record.
demor...@aol.com
> On May 15, 2:27 pm, bmo...@nyx.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 2:15 pm, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 1:41 pm, bmo...@nyx.net wrote:
>
> > > > On May 14, 6:30 pm, ayaz <hackedyetag...@japan.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > the british government under gordon brown has ordered its warships to
> > > > > move into the region surrounding burma.
>
> > > > yes
>
> > > No warship is needed here.
>
> > I think they need all the help they can get. The warship apparently
> > can also handle disaster relief tasks.
>
> >http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=12000
>
> > A British Royal Navy frigate has been ordered to stand by off Burma
> > with emergency aid for the survivors of cyclone Nargis. The 4,900-ton
> > HMS Westminster will join US and French warships waiting in
>
> From past Western power incursions on their sovereignty, this is
> precisely why they do not want Western aids. It is being forced on
> them with the power of the gun.
Rusty: Chinese are too busy trying to eat, so there is no time for
democracy. Burmese are too busy trying to maintain their sovereignty,
so there is no time for food.
bmo...@nyx.net
> On May 15, 2:27 pm, bmo...@nyx.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 2:15 pm, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 1:41 pm, bmo...@nyx.net wrote:
>
> > > > On May 14, 6:30 pm, ayaz <hackedyetag...@japan.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > the british government under gordon brown has ordered its warships to
> > > > > move into the region surrounding burma.
>
> > > > yes
>
> > > No warship is needed here.
>
> > I think they need all the help they can get. The warship apparently
> > can also handle disaster relief tasks.
>
> >http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=12000
>
> > A British Royal Navy frigate has been ordered to stand by off Burma
> > with emergency aid for the survivors of cyclone Nargis. The 4,900-ton
> > HMS Westminster will join US and French warships waiting in
>
> From past Western power incursions on their sovereignty, this is
> precisely why they do not want Western aids. It is being forced on
> them with the power of the gun.
No, it's not. Maybe it should be (saving lives is more important) but
at any rate, it is *not* currently being forced on them as any kind of
"Western power incursion".
"ready to rush relief supplies to the Irrawaddy delta if instructed by
the UN or invited by the Burmese regime."
It is unfortunate that the junta is so paranoid. This partially
because of past Western colonialism, yes, but it is mainly because the
junta has much to hide. Regardless of the cause, the result will be
that many many will die because Burma cannot handle this on its own.
> > international waters off the Burmese coast, >
> > HMS Westminster is one of 23 frigates described as the mainstay of
> > Britain’s Royal Navy fleet. Originally designed for anti-submarine
> > warfare, the ship evolved into a powerful and versatile multipurpose
> > vessel with the capability to operate anywhere in the world.
>
> > The frigate is designed to conduct a wide range of other tasks,
> > disaster relief work and embargo-enforcement and surveillance
> > operations.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
rst0wxyz
Hummmm!!! Should be interesting to see how Russia and China would
vote!!!!
aozo...@aol.com
> On May 15, 1:41 pm, bmo...@nyx.net wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 6:30 pm, ayaz <hackedyetag...@japan.com> wrote:
>
> > > the british government under gordon brown has ordered its warships to
> > > move into the region surrounding burma.
>
> > yes
>
> No warship is needed here.
No corrupt Generals needed to rule Burma!
PaPaPeng
>
>A British Royal Navy frigate has been ordered to stand by off Burma
>with emergency aid for the survivors of cyclone Nargis. The 4,900-ton
>HMS Westminster will join US and French warships waiting in
>international waters off the Burmese coast, ready to rush relief
>supplies to the Irrawaddy delta if instructed by the UN or invited by
>the Burmese regime.
This is bullshit. The RN and FN ships were on wartime duty off Iraq
and are equipped as such. Lean and mean. They carry no relief
supplies nor do these ships have even a modest capacity (in a 4,900
tons hull)to carry supplies other than for a village or two. To do
even that they have to load up in India or a nearby port first,
something that wasn't done. What good can they do?
bmo...@nyx.net
I realize you fancy yourself an expert on all things naval, but I
suspect you are mistaken here.
PaPaPeng
Then provide the rebuttal on technical details.
bmo...@nyx.net
I don't know all the technical details. But the article says the ships
are ready to rush supplies and you insist that they are not. Why
should we believe you rather than the article? How do you know?
Perhaps someone on sci.military.naval can respond to your claim that
the British warships cannot possibly be of help to the Burmese relief
effort. Your claim seems highly suspect to me.
PaPaPeng
>>
>> >I realize you fancy yourself an expert on all things naval, but I
>> >suspect you are mistaken here.
>>
>> Then provide the rebuttal on technical details.
>
>I don't know all the technical details. But the article says the ships
>are ready to rush supplies and you insist that they are not. Why
>should we believe you rather than the article? How do you know?
>
>Perhaps someone on sci.military.naval can respond to your claim that
>the British warships cannot possibly be of help to the Burmese relief
>effort. Your claim seems highly suspect to me.
Small warships so quickly and conveniently offshore ready to help?
What can they do? The coast port facilities are wreaked. What
equipment or supplies can they bring ashore to bear using their
lifeboats? The crew size of their ship is around 150 or less, most of
whom will be needed to man the ship. What can a dozen or two sailors
do except get in the way? I haven't come across any mainstream
report making a case for them to be allowed to do rescue work. But I
do see a lot of nonsense about the West having the moral right to
invade, overthrow the government and to force their "aid" onto
Myanmar.
Ray O'Hara
"PaPaPeng" <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1m4s24hi9n5e40vqq...@4ax.com...
other than you no one is mentioning invading burma.
PaPaPeng
<mary.p...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> Small warships so quickly and conveniently offshore ready to help?
>> What can they do? The coast port facilities are wreaked. What
>> equipment or supplies can they bring ashore to bear using their
>> lifeboats? The crew size of their ship is around 150 or less, most of
>> whom will be needed to man the ship. What can a dozen or two sailors
>> do except get in the way? I haven't come across any mainstream
>> report making a case for them to be allowed to do rescue work. But I
>> do see a lot of nonsense about the West having the moral right to
>> invade, overthrow the government and to force their "aid" onto
>> Myanmar.
>
>
>other than you no one is mentioning invading burma.
>
1.) ASIA HAND
The case for
invading Myanmar
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/JE10Ae01.html
If ever there was an opportunity for the United States to take out an
"outpost of tyranny", as Washington likes to call Myanmar, it is now.
The tardy response of the junta in allowing in foreign aid for its
cyclone-devastated population provides a strong moral case for a
United Nations-approved, US-led humanitarian intervention. Such a move
would also allow President George W Bush to burnish his legacy, which
to date will be judged harshly due to his pre-emptive military
policies waged exclusively in the name of fighting terror. - Shawn W
Crispin (May 9, '08)
There were more such calls especially just after the cyclone hit a
fortnight ago. They're about over-riding or ignoring the authority of
the military regime, to criticize them in pregtty undiplomatic
language. The Myanmar news is off the headlines now.
Keith Willshaw
>
>>>
>>> >I realize you fancy yourself an expert on all things naval, but I
>>> >suspect you are mistaken here.
>>>
>>> Then provide the rebuttal on technical details.
>>
>>I don't know all the technical details. But the article says the ships
>>are ready to rush supplies and you insist that they are not. Why
>>should we believe you rather than the article? How do you know?
>>
>>Perhaps someone on sci.military.naval can respond to your claim that
>>the British warships cannot possibly be of help to the Burmese relief
>>effort. Your claim seems highly suspect to me.
>
>
> Small warships so quickly and conveniently offshore ready to help?
SE Asia is an area of critical importance to world trade. With traditional
alliances with nations like Singapore and Malaysia its hardly surprising
there
are ships in the region
> What can they do? The coast port facilities are wreaked. What
> equipment or supplies can they bring ashore to bear using their
> lifeboats?
They have these things called 'Helicopters' which are rather useful
in disaster relief.
Keith
PaPaPeng
>
>There were more such calls especially just after the cyclone hit a
>fortnight ago.
From Rusty's earlier post:
Aid at the Point of a Gun
By ROBERT D. KAPLAN
Published: May 14, 2008
Mae Sot, Thailand
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/opinion/14kaplan.html?th&emc=thMORE
than 60,000 people may have died as a result of Cyclone Nargis in
Myanmar, and at least 1.5 million are homeless or otherwise in
desperate need of assistance. The Burmese military junta, one of the
most morally repulsive in the world, has allowed in only a trickle of
aid supplies. The handful of United States Air Force C-130 flights
from Utapao Air Base here in Thailand is little more than symbolic,
given the extent of the need.
France’s foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, has spoken of the
possibility of an armed humanitarian intervention, and there is an
increasing degree of chatter about the possibility of an American-led
invasion of the Irrawaddy River Delta....(more..)
PaPaPeng
<nospamf...@kwillshaw.nospamdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Small warships so quickly and conveniently offshore ready to help?
>
>SE Asia is an area of critical importance to world trade. With traditional
>alliances with nations like Singapore and Malaysia its hardly surprising
>there
>are ships in the region
The original post referred to RN and French warships that can only
have come from war patrol off Iraq. These two countries' warships do
not normally operate in this area. Since they were not reported to
have stopped off at any port to pick up relief supplies then what they
can spare out of their own rations and emergency medical supplies is
insignificant. Their intentions are very likely honorable. But the
Myanmar regime does not want to open their door to foreign warships.
William Black
The point about warships from a 'blue water' navy is that they can operate
as coastal secure stable helicopter platforms and small warehouses.
It's like having a big truck that can go anywhere, doesn't need refuelling
or servicing because the ship takes care of that, and doesn't need roads or
a supply network to feed it goods because the goods (the relief supplies)
come in on other helicopters.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
rst0wxyz
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 22:13:54 -0400, "Ray O'Hara"
>
> >> Small warships so quickly and conveniently offshore ready to help?
> >> What can they do? The coast port facilities are wreaked. What
> >> equipment or supplies can they bring ashore to bear using their
> >> lifeboats? The crew size of their ship is around 150 or less, most of
> >> whom will be needed to man the ship. What can a dozen or two sailors
> >> do except get in the way? I haven't come across any mainstream
> >> report making a case for them to be allowed to do rescue work. But I
> >> do see a lot of nonsense about the West having the moral right to
> >> invade, overthrow the government and to force their "aid" onto
> >> Myanmar.
>
> >other than you no one is mentioning invading burma.
>
> 1.) ASIA HAND
> The case for
> If ever there was an opportunity for the United States to take out an
> "outpost of tyranny", as Washington likes to call Myanmar, it is now.
> The tardy response of the junta in allowing in foreign aid for its
> cyclone-devastated population provides a strong moral case for a
> United Nations-approved, US-led humanitarian intervention. Such a move
> would also allow President George W Bush to burnish his legacy, which
Iraq was also a poor country under a dictatorship very much like
Burma. What make you think Burma is different and easy that it would
save George Worthless Bush's presidency and his legacy? It might turn
out to be another Iraq. Iraq didn't have any friends, but Burma has
China, and Mother Nature's harsh condition of rain and flood, which
would make Burma worse than Iraq to fight a war.
> to date will be judged harshly due to his pre-emptive military
> policies waged exclusively in the name of fighting terror. - Shawn W
> Crispin (May 9, '08)
We are now finding out, that there is no worse terror than Mother
Nature with her full fury.
>
> There were more such calls especially just after the cyclone hit a
> fortnight ago. They're about over-riding or ignoring the authority of
> the military regime, to criticize them in pregtty undiplomatic
> language. The Myanmar news is off the headlines now.
Better off headline than be on headline. There is nothing pretty with
Mother Nature fury.
PaPaPeng
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>The point about warships from a 'blue water' navy is that they can operate
>as coastal secure stable helicopter platforms and small warehouses.
[ http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=12000
A British Royal Navy frigate has been ordered to stand by off Burma
with emergency aid for the survivors of cyclone Nargis. The 4,900-ton
HMS Westminster will join US and French warships waiting in
international waters off the Burmese coast, ready to rush relief
supplies to the Irrawaddy delta if instructed by the UN or invited by
the Burmese regime...]
Myanmar's port facilities are wrecked. What small warehouse? The
only supplies aboard the frigate are her own stores for station duty
off Iraq.
HMS Westminster is a Type 23 frigate (see photo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_23_frigate At 4,200 tons, a small
hull fully packed with shipboard weapons. It cannot take on refugees
(security concerns) and limited very space to do so anyway.
Class and type: Frigate
Displacement: Standard:3500tons
Full Load:4200tons
Length: 133m (436ft 4in)
Beam: 16.1m (52ft 10in)
Draught: 7.3m (24ft)
Speed: 28knots
Range: 14,485km (9000miles) at 15knots
Complement: 181
Aircraft carried: one Lynx HMA.Mk3/8 or Merlin HM.Mk 1 helicopter
The RN Lynx heliocopter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Lynx is
capable only for limited local rescue work. Maybe drop a few supplies
deliveries. Its crew of 2 or 3 and its weapons systems take up all the
space. It isn't equipped for S&R winch capability or for transporting
refugees to a safer zone.
French ships are likely the same class. The Myanmar government
doesn't welcome USN ships of any size or color.
William Black
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 12:57:01 +0100, "William Black"
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>The point about warships from a 'blue water' navy is that they can operate
>>as coastal secure stable helicopter platforms and small warehouses.
>
> Myanmar's port facilities are wrecked. What small warehouse? The
> only supplies aboard the frigate are her own stores for station duty
> off Iraq.
But there are plenty of ships standing slightly further out that ARE
carrying supplies.
Modern warships, by their very nature, are versatile.
> The RN Lynx heliocopter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Lynx
Has been dumped for a Merlin.
Do try and keep up, this is a naval group...
We all know you don't know bugger all about ships but this information is
freely available at the source you quoted.
> The Myanmar government
> doesn't welcome USN ships of any size or color.
I wonder why...
Keith Willshaw
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:13:01 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> <nospamf...@kwillshaw.nospamdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Small warships so quickly and conveniently offshore ready to help?
>>
>>SE Asia is an area of critical importance to world trade. With traditional
>>alliances with nations like Singapore and Malaysia its hardly surprising
>>there
>>are ships in the region
>
>
> The original post referred to RN and French warships that can only
> have come from war patrol off Iraq.
Incorrect. Ships have made cruises through SE Asia on many occassions
> These two countries' warships do
> not normally operate in this area. Since they were not reported to
> have stopped off at any port to pick up relief supplies then what they
> can spare out of their own rations and emergency medical supplies is
> insignificant. Their intentions are very likely honorable. But the
> Myanmar regime does not want to open their door to foreign warships.
They carry helicopters, these are rather useful for disaster relief
Keith
Keith Willshaw
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 12:57:01 +0100, "William Black"
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>The point about warships from a 'blue water' navy is that they can operate
>>as coastal secure stable helicopter platforms and small warehouses.
>
> [ http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=12000
>
> A British Royal Navy frigate has been ordered to stand by off Burma
> with emergency aid for the survivors of cyclone Nargis. The 4,900-ton
> HMS Westminster will join US and French warships waiting in
> international waters off the Burmese coast, ready to rush relief
> supplies to the Irrawaddy delta if instructed by the UN or invited by
> the Burmese regime...]
>
> Myanmar's port facilities are wrecked. What small warehouse? The
> only supplies aboard the frigate are her own stores for station duty
> off Iraq.
>
UN flights are dropping supplies at the airport. Helicopters
are rather good at moving them up country, as the Chinese
government has been doing in disaster relief following the
earthquake
> Beam: 16.1m (52ft 10in)
> Draught: 7.3m (24ft)
> Speed: 28knots
> Range: 14,485km (9000miles) at 15knots
> Complement: 181
> Aircraft carried: one Lynx HMA.Mk3/8 or Merlin HM.Mk 1 helicopter
>
> The RN Lynx heliocopter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Lynx is
> capable only for limited local rescue work. Maybe drop a few supplies
> deliveries. Its crew of 2 or 3 and its weapons systems take up all the
> space. It isn't equipped for S&R winch capability or for transporting
> refugees to a safer zone.
>
Incorrect. A Lynx can carry up to 12 passengers or six stretchers
and the helicopter can land in plenty of clearings
> French ships are likely the same class. The Myanmar government
> doesn't welcome USN ships of any size or color.
HMS Westminster isnt a USN ship
Keith
PaPaPeng
<keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Incorrect. Ships have made cruises through SE Asia on many occassions
Yes but only on special visits. They do not patrol SE Asian waters
and not on east side Indian Ocean waters. They have no base and no
normal business in that area.
>
>> These two countries' warships do
>> not normally operate in this area. Since they were not reported to
>> have stopped off at any port to pick up relief supplies then what they
>> can spare out of their own rations and emergency medical supplies is
>> insignificant. Their intentions are very likely honorable. But the
>> Myanmar regime does not want to open their door to foreign warships.
>
>
>They carry helicopters, these are rather useful for disaster relief
>
>Keith
These ships arrived promptly (one or two days sail) and were not
configured for relief operations. Do look at the WIKI picture and
specs for the Lynx. The helicopter normally carried will be an ASW
helo. A fully sexed up ASW Lynx has little if any room for
passengers. You certainly don't want outsiders in that helo messing
around with all that hardware. Now figure out the shit the ship's
captain will be in if that helo develops mechanical problems while
carrying out relief work. Its not even about crashing. Its just
about the misuse and degradation of a critical weapons system.
Fred J. McCall
Let's see just how much PingPongPoo gets wrong in just a few
sentences, shall we?
:
:Small warships so quickly and conveniently offshore ready to help?
:What can they do? The coast port facilities are wreaked. What
:equipment or supplies can they bring ashore to bear using their
:lifeboats?
:
Hint: Such ships have both helicopters and ship's boats (not
lifeboats, which are something different, but real boats).
:
:The crew size of their ship is around 150 or less, ...
:
Hint: The crew size of their ship is around 185, which is larger than
150 vice less.
:
:... most of whom will be needed to man the ship.
:
Hint: On a warship at anchor at least 75% of the crew is routinely
available for other duties. Generally they pull liberty, but Myanmar
is not precisely a liberty area.
:
:What can a dozen or two sailors do except get in the way?
:
Hint: We're talking on the order of 100 people, medical supplies,
food, fresh water, a helicopter, etc.
Hint: Get in the way OF WHAT? Part of the reason this is such a
disaster is that the central government isn't doing anything to get in
the way of.
:
:I haven't come across any mainstream
:report making a case for them to be allowed to do rescue work.
:
Hint: Your myopia and intellectual laziness doesn't alter reality.
:
:But I
:do see a lot of nonsense about the West having the moral right to
:invade, overthrow the government and to force their "aid" onto
:Myanmar.
:
Hint: Your delusions don't alter reality, either.
I agree with you, though. We should stop begging their government to
let us help their people. Instead, we should fly over and paper the
place with leaflets saying, "This would be food, but your present
government prohibits us from giving you any aid."
--
"May God have mercy upon my enemies; they will need it."
-- General George S Patton, Jr.
Keith Willshaw
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:50:23 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Incorrect. Ships have made cruises through SE Asia on many occassions
>
> Yes but only on special visits. They do not patrol SE Asian waters
> and not on east side Indian Ocean waters. They have no base and no
> normal business in that area.
>>
>>> These two countries' warships do
>>> not normally operate in this area. Since they were not reported to
>>> have stopped off at any port to pick up relief supplies then what they
>>> can spare out of their own rations and emergency medical supplies is
>>> insignificant. Their intentions are very likely honorable. But the
>>> Myanmar regime does not want to open their door to foreign warships.
>>
>>
>>They carry helicopters, these are rather useful for disaster relief
>>
>>Keith
>
> These ships arrived promptly (one or two days sail) and were not
> configured for relief operations. Do look at the WIKI picture and
> specs for the Lynx. The helicopter normally carried will be an ASW
> helo. A fully sexed up ASW Lynx has little if any room for
> passengers.
The Lynx helicopters carried by British warships have been used
for disaster relief on many occasions
> You certainly don't want outsiders in that helo messing
> around with all that hardware.
You dont carry ASW armament when involved in rescue duties
> Now figure out the shit the ship's
> captain will be in if that helo develops mechanical problems while
> carrying out relief work.
None , he would be carrying out his orders
> Its not even about crashing. Its just
> about the misuse and degradation of a critical weapons system.
Warships are built to go in harms way.
Keith
Fred J. McCall
:On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:13:01 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
:<nospamf...@kwillshaw.nospamdemon.co.uk> wrote:
:
:>> Small warships so quickly and conveniently offshore ready to help?
:>
:>SE Asia is an area of critical importance to world trade. With traditional
:>alliances with nations like Singapore and Malaysia its hardly surprising there
:>are ships in the region
:
:The original post referred to RN and French warships that can only
:have come from war patrol off Iraq.
:
Jesus H. Christ, PingPongPoo, do you *NEVER* bother to check facts
before you shill?
The vessel in question was conducting JOINT TRAINING EXERCISES with
India. In other words, it probably has it's usual full complement of
food, medical supplies, fuel, etc.
:
:These two countries' warships do
:not normally operate in this area. Since they were not reported to
:have stopped off at any port to pick up relief supplies then what they
:can spare out of their own rations and emergency medical supplies is
:insignificant.
:
How many dead people in an 'insignificant'?
A modern major warship could probably provide aid to thousands of
people. Sure, they might only be able to feed such a number for a
handful of days, but that provides time to bring in yet more supplies
and the ship can run off to someplace nearby, replenish, and do it all
over again.
There's nothing special about 'relief supplies', PingPongPoo. It's
just food, medicine, water, etc.
Stuff ships routinely carry.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
PaPaPeng
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Hint: We're talking on the order of 100 people, medical supplies,
>food, fresh water, a helicopter, etc.
>
>Hint: Get in the way OF WHAT? Part of the reason this is such a
>disaster is that the central government isn't doing anything to get in
>the way of.
Hint. Has any warship been allowed in?
Hint: Nope.
Hint: Everything then is moot.
Fred J. McCall
:On Sat, 17 May 2008 15:55:35 -0700, Fred J. McCall
Hint: Your 'hints' describe the PROBLEM, you silly shilling shit.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
bmo...@nyx.net
The US is not in a position to invade Burma. For many reasons ;-)
If a decision is made to force anything on Burma it will need support
from the Chinese or the Russians or both.
Andrew Swallow
Hint: The Westeners are talking about sending WARships not commercial
ships.
Andrew Swallow
PaPaPeng
>The US is not in a position to invade Burma. For many reasons ;-)
>
>If a decision is made to force anything on Burma it will need support
>from the Chinese or the Russians or both.
The US sent out a trial balloon using Laura Bush as the mouthpiece. It
went over to the US public like a lead balloon. No one in the
administration went there again - publicly insist on aggressive aid
efforts and disregard Yanamar refusal. The mainstream media which was
strident at first soon fell in line.
PaPaPeng
<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>Hint: The Westeners are talking about sending WARships not commercial
>ships.
>
>Andrew Swallow
Hint: Its an outright admission then that the intent of the West is
to regime change the Myanmar government? So what's next? The Seventh
Fleet. Its in the neighboorhood and otherwise unused.
Jim Walsh
(in article <1m4s24hi9n5e40vqq...@4ax.com>):
> But I do see a lot of nonsense about the West having the moral right to
> invade, overthrow the government and to force their "aid" onto Myanmar.
Did you read about people dying because the junta can't deliver aid to them?
So what if you can't figure out how the navy can help. They are offering to
help, and given the scope of the disaster it is evil to reject it.
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jim Walsh
(in article <vbht24ltf5dsbdh4l...@4ax.com>):
>
> The original post referred to RN and French warships that can only have come
> from war patrol off Iraq.
Nonsense. There are not now nor have their ever been French warships
assisting the war effort in Iraq.
And, if the RN ship were taken from duty in Iraq to deliver water and food in
the flooded areas of Southern Burma, I for one will applaud. A much better
place for them.
Jim Walsh
(in article <vbht24ltf5dsbdh4l...@4ax.com>):
> Since they were not reported to have stopped off at any port to pick up
> relief supplies then what they can spare out of their own rations and
> emergency medical supplies is insignificant. Their intentions are very
> likely honorable. But the Myanmar regime does not want to open their door to
> foreign warships.
If the leaders of Myanmar had their people's interest at heart, they would
welcome aid from every source.
Jim Walsh
(in article <2r7u24huvck8ostoh...@4ax.com>):
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 12:57:01 +0100, "William Black"
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> The point about warships from a 'blue water' navy is that they can operate
>> as coastal secure stable helicopter platforms and small warehouses.
>
> [ http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=12000
>
> A British Royal Navy frigate has been ordered to stand by off Burma
> with emergency aid for the survivors of cyclone Nargis. The 4,900-ton
> HMS Westminster will join US and French warships waiting in
> international waters off the Burmese coast, ready to rush relief
> supplies to the Irrawaddy delta if instructed by the UN or invited by
> the Burmese regime...]
>
> Myanmar's port facilities are wrecked. What small warehouse? The
> only supplies aboard the frigate are her own stores for station duty
> off Iraq.
You don't know that.
> HMS Westminster is a Type 23 frigate (see photo)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_23_frigate At 4,200 tons, a small
> hull fully packed with shipboard weapons. It cannot take on refugees
> (security concerns) and limited very space to do so anyway.
You don't know that.
> Class and type: Frigate
> Displacement: Standard:3500tons
>
> Full Load:4200tons
> Length: 133m (436ft 4in)
> Beam: 16.1m (52ft 10in)
> Draught: 7.3m (24ft)
> Speed: 28knots
> Range: 14,485km (9000miles) at 15knots
> Complement: 181
> Aircraft carried: one Lynx HMA.Mk3/8 or Merlin HM.Mk 1 helicopter
>
> The RN Lynx heliocopter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Lynx is
> capable only for limited local rescue work. Maybe drop a few supplies
> deliveries. Its crew of 2 or 3 and its weapons systems take up all the
> space. It isn't equipped for S&R winch capability or for transporting
> refugees to a safer zone.
Every bit of help might save many lives.
> French ships are likely the same class. The Myanmar government
> doesn't welcome USN ships of any size or color.
Because the leaders of Myanmar do not care if the Burmese in the delta die.
Jim Walsh
(in article <5mnu24hg7b3d2u43i...@4ax.com>):
>
> These ships arrived promptly (one or two days sail) and were not configured
> for relief operations.
You don't know that.
--
Jim Walsh
(in article <bpnu24p999kjj8eru...@4ax.com>):
> PaPaPeng <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I haven't come across any mainstream
>> report making a case for them to be allowed to do rescue work.
> Hint: Your myopia and intellectual laziness doesn't alter reality.
Which is another way of saying that you, PaPaPeng will defend the decisions
of the thugs and goons running Burma even to the extent of making up stuff.
>> But I
>> do see a lot of nonsense about the West having the moral right to
>> invade, overthrow the government and to force their "aid" onto
>> Myanmar.
> Hint: Your delusions don't alter reality, either.
>
> I agree with you, though. We should stop begging their government to
> let us help their people. Instead, we should fly over and paper the
> place with leaflets saying, "This would be food, but your present
> government prohibits us from giving you any aid."
I am for bombing Burma with relief supplies.
Jim Walsh
(in article <2d5v24hf13kod3892...@4ax.com>):
No. Dead Burmese are not "moot". They are dead because your beloved thugs and
goons did not care.
Jim Walsh
(in article <bpsv241700119o056...@4ax.com>):
You would rather Burmese died than their government followed normal disaster
relief policies.
Even the CCP makes more sense than you. The CCP is doing what the Burmese
junta did not do: accept aid (and aid workers) from all over the world.
Jim Walsh
(in article <ysWdnSIrYpEJerLV...@bt.com>):
False.
People from all over the world have been talking about using every kind of
transport to deliver aid.
Fred J. McCall
:On Sat, 17 May 2008 19:50:00 +0800, PaPaPeng wrote
:(in article <vbht24ltf5dsbdh4l...@4ax.com>):
:
:>
:> The original post referred to RN and French warships that can only have come
:> from war patrol off Iraq.
:
:Nonsense. There are not now nor have their ever been French warships
:assisting the war effort in Iraq.
:
:And, if the RN ship were taken from duty in Iraq to deliver water and food in
:the flooded areas of Southern Burma, I for one will applaud. A much better
:place for them.
:
<sigh>
I ALREADY TOLD YOU WHERE THEY CAME FROM!!!!!
The RN ship was involved in training exercises with the French and the
Indians. This means:
1) It started out much closer to Myanmar than it would have done were
it involved in something with regard to Iraq and/or the Middle East.
2) Because it was engaging in training exercises, it probably wasn't
being allowed to fall very far below fully loaded levels of fuel,
provisions, etc.
What that means is that it could ferry in provisions and water to keep
several thousand people fed for a number of days just by offloading
its normal provision load. Then replenish and do it again.
It could put 100 people inshore to help with rescue and sorting
through rubble, medical supplies and emergency medical people to do
first aid on the injured to stabilize them until they can be gotten to
a hospital, etc.
But obviously the government of Myanmar can't have any of that going
on. They're no doubt going to use this disaster to wipe out as many
of their opponents as they can. Just don't send any aid into any
parts of the country that have been unfriendly to the current
government.
There's your reason why they don't want us ugly old Westerners running
around providing aid. We might help the wrong people.
--
"We come into the world and take our chances.
Fate is just the weight of circumstances.
That's the way that Lady Luck dances.
Roll the bones...."
-- "Roll The Bones", Rush
Fred J. McCall
:On Sun, 18 May 2008 06:49:57 +0800, PaPaPeng wrote
:(in article <5mnu24hg7b3d2u43i...@4ax.com>):
:>
:> These ships arrived promptly (one or two days sail) and were not configured
:> for relief operations.
:>
:
:You don't know that.
:
The other thing he "doesn't know" is that it really doesn't make all
that much difference if they have been "configured for relief
operations" or not. Modern warships carry lots of food, fuel, tools,
medical supplies, and trained personnel.
PingPongPoo has no idea of what the capabilities of modern warships
are. This is why he thinks bolting a few land-based missile systems
onto a supertanker somehow makes it the match of a CVBG.
JJS
wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 19:59:51 -0700 (PDT), bmo...@nyx.net wrote:
>
> >The US is not in a position to invade Burma. For many reasons ;-)
> >
> >If a decision is made to force anything on Burma it will need support
> >from the Chinese or the Russians or both.
>
>
> The US sent out a trial balloon using Laura Bush as the mouthpiece.
> went over to the US public like a lead balloon. No one in the
> administration went there again - publicly insist on aggressive aid
> efforts and disregard Yanamar refusal.
No one took it seriously once they spent more than a second thinking
about it.
>The mainstream media which was
> strident at first soon fell in line.
No this isn't China. The media here are rather unruly.
Joe