self for filling need for war.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by EarlyChop, Sep 22, 2011.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Last edited: Sep 22, 2011
  2. Which is a bit rich, considering Simon is a member of the journalistic profession, not known for always telling the truth. Simon himself was just this month caught repeating lies that fitted in nicely with his political opinions.

    As for being foretold, there is nothing in that article that suggests any great powers of foresight.

    PS. what does "self for filling need for war" actually mean?
  3. That got me worried, I thought this thread was about eating, not a self-fulfilling need for war.

    The spelling and grammar nazi has left the building
  4. I think she's looking after her mum.
  5. The whole article pins on Eisenhowers belief that defence contractors and organisations financially invested in defence spending would become more influential in congress and Uk politics. Over the years since the cold war has that not happened?

    By "Self fulfilling need for war" I mean the effect of considerable reductions in defence spending on the economies of the world.

    Edited - sodding keyboard.
  6. I still think it's spelt self-fulfilling
  7. I'm allowed to make spoolen mistakes, I'm a ****.
  8. It's an opinion, though not one with a rationale I would agree with.
  9. No argument here ^_~
  10. Was an interesting article though.
  11. Seadog

    Seadog War Hero Moderator

    I think that the OP means (in his two month old link) self-fulfilling................. (already noticed by other posters)

    Where to start picking holes in Jenkin's article? Swedes don't play the 'invent enemies' game? So no Russian submarines (real and imagined) are getting depth charged by Swedes, ever?

    General Eisenhower's 'industrial military' warning has made him a darling of pinko commie fag subversives (PCFSs) everywhere. I see where Eisenhower is coming from but Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of the armies than crushed Nazi Germany from the West, much of it made possible by the military (General Marshall) industrial (name it) complex. Germany had declared war on the US but was Germany a serious threat to the US? American military industry came on in leaps and bounds as a result of going to war (on both fronts).

    As for 'former general' Congress reinstated Eisenhower to 5* general on completion of his Presidency. Eisenhower had a point but I think it is overstated by PCFSs looking for a very senior uniformed champion. I used to overstate Admiral Mountbatten's 'objections' to nuclear weapons as a way of showing the more hygienic CND chicks that they could shag a matelot because we were like; peace and love man. It worked, naive hippies.:-D
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2011
  12. Not too well researched "Why do we still go to war? We seem unable to stop. We find any excuse for this post-imperial fidget and yet we keep getting trapped. Germans do not do it, or Spanish or Swedes" The Swedes are neutral and have been for over a century, such a status is unusual. As for the Germans, they do have presence in Afghanistan, what started out as "peacekeeping" has turned into a war. The German justification was " the defence of Germany in the Hindukush". That's a helluva long front! The article is never the less food for thought. Chickens and eggs.
  13. The article, in my opinion has some merit, though the targets for his accusation (sovereign Nations) is missplaced.

    We will always stay longer than necessary in a conflict when large private security companies have a need to satisfy their shareholders. Afghanistan, Iraq and I'm sure the emerging 'market' in Libya is a multi-billion dollar industry.

    The minute private companies became involved in Intelligence, Strategic-level research etc, UOR, and local officials are permitted to own the security companies which 'protect' new projects we are inevitably going to be passengers on the gravy train. When budgeting for projects in Afghanistan an additional 50% of the total value is found to provide for security. The same Ministers demanding money from International partners are owners of massive building and security companies who magically appear to win the contracts.

    In addition, there are many Insurgents who will be rather enjoying having us as a galvanising influence in Afghanistan. Their power depends on it.

    I'm not going to criticise it too much though, because I would give my left bollock to get in on the act again.
  14. " It, of course, defines its commitments itself."

    Neither the RAF, RN or Army define their commitments themselves. The SDSR has done that for it us it didn't mention keeping ships off of Libya, or for that matter the military commitment that is going to be required to support the Olympic games next summer.

    When 1SL says, "an extended war in Libya would mean "challenging decisions about priorities"", he means do you want a ship off Libya or do you want it somewhere else.

    The size of the Navy is being reduced. Well that is fine, we are servants of the Government, but very soon they are going to realise that you cannot have your cake, eat it, and influence the world with it all at the same time.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page