If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Paul J. Adam
writes In message , Dave Eadsforth writes Tirade number two over :-) applause Just throw money! Dave -- Dave Eadsforth |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Peter Kemp
writes On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:42:10 +0100, Dave Eadsforth wrote: I agree with most of what you said except... 3. Be distinctly more robust when dealing with the anti-military. Instead of just shrugging, tell them that the majority of people in the country do not want to be victims of their lamentable judgement - a weak military capability has NEVER served ANY population in recorded history. Hasn't bothered Iceland in the last thousand years or so, no is New Zealand at much risk despite their woeful military. On the flip side, having a military too strong has damaged dozens of countries around the world, whether from sheer overinvestment crippling the economy (USSR in times past, NK now), the miltary having too much political power, either through constitutional means or via coup d'etat (Pakistan, Liberia, etc ad nauseum), or simply soldiers terrorising their own civilians at the leaders behest (Iraq, Sudan etc etc etc) Yup, I'll accept those points - I was thinking of adequate military capability as opposed to overlarge for purposes of aggression or subjugation. Iceland and NZ do benefit from particular geopolitical profiles, but any island still needs a bit of reach if it is to avoid unwelcome infringements. Iceland did benefit from having an adequate and determined coastguard service as it was able to enforce a fishing settlement against the UK (setting the moral debate aside, they calculated Britain's response - and won...). Tirade number two over :-) A worthwhile tirade. I for one wished more election campaigns addressed more than schoolsandhospitals, and included things like foreign policy and defence. (Personal political position - an Extreme Centralist...) I'm slightly to the middle of that position myself :-) That should keep the canvassers occupied... Peter Kemp Cheers, Dave -- Dave Eadsforth |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:42:10 +0100, Dave Eadsforth wrote:
In the coming decades we are virtually certain to have to undertake more military operations around the world. While Britain may well do so, I question whether we will have to. We didn't have to in Iraq, for example. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk) |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Eadsforth" wrote in message
... In article , Paul J. Adam writes In message , Dave Eadsforth writes Tirade number two over :-) applause Just throw money! Dave Just put a 20mm or 30mm gun on if they don't want the Mauser.... I am sure they can rig a gun pod if they have to.... right? -- Dave Eadsforth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Bush's drills with the Alabama Guard confirmed" | Mike | Military Aviation | 17 | February 13th 04 04:23 PM |