Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

What are the new ships for?

phil1972 said:
sweeney said:
BTW, Putin is a lovely man.

Mr Putin has just torn up a conventional arms limitation treaty, if that ain't enough justification to say we need more than our current home islands defense capability, I don't know what would!

Thats coz the Amerikan government are destabilisng Ukraine, stuffing rockets into europe faster than a fast thing, throwing cash at terrorst movements in the caucasus and supporting Estonian aggression. Torn up? Holy crap I'm suprised they aren't invading!
 
sweeney said:
phil1972 said:
sweeney said:
BTW, Putin is a lovely man.

Mr Putin has just torn up a conventional arms limitation treaty, if that ain't enough justification to say we need more than our current home islands defense capability, I don't know what would!

Thats coz the Amerikan government are destabilisng Ukraine, stuffing rockets into europe faster than a fast thing, throwing cash at terrorst movements in the caucasus and supporting Estonian aggression. Torn up? Holy crap I'm suprised they aren't invading!

The Ukraine doesn't need any help from the US to destabilise, being next door to Russia is enough, as for the rockets, what about all the systems the Russiians have sold to Iran and others of that ilk, and of course Russia never gives terrist organisations money now do they, and of course Russian was never agressive towards any of the Baltic states.
 
Maxi_77 said:
... and of course Russia never gives terrist organisations money now do they, and of course Russian was never agressive towards any of the Baltic states.

I like the way you are thinking comrade!
 
sweeney said:
I did say that oil slick. Thats my point. If it works for them, why shouldn't it work for us? I supose it depends on whether we (that we being whichever set of backstabbing palm greasing wretches are in govt) want to get involved in issues around the globe.


And your starter for 10, which of our EU 'allies' refused to sell us artillery rounds during the Gulf War because they didn't agree with what we were doing?
 
Oil_Slick said:
sweeney said:
I did say that oil slick. Thats my point. If it works for them, why shouldn't it work for us? I supose it depends on whether we (that we being whichever set of backstabbing palm greasing wretches are in govt) want to get involved in issues around the globe.


And your starter for 10, which of our EU 'allies' refused to sell us artillery rounds during the Gulf War because they didn't agree with what we were doing?

erm... france? belgium? all of them? Of course if you are dutch, your starter for 10 would be "which of our EU allies woudln't provide air cover in Bosnia becuase the request was sent using the wrong fax header"? That would be us then.

Anyway it seems the concensus is "carriers? yes please! We'll figure out what to do with them when we've got them".
 
sweeney said:
Oil_Slick said:
sweeney said:
I did say that oil slick. Thats my point. If it works for them, why shouldn't it work for us? I supose it depends on whether we (that we being whichever set of backstabbing palm greasing wretches are in govt) want to get involved in issues around the globe.


And your starter for 10, which of our EU 'allies' refused to sell us artillery rounds during the Gulf War because they didn't agree with what we were doing?

erm... france? belgium? all of them? Of course if you are dutch, your starter for 10 would be "which of our EU allies woudln't provide air cover in Bosnia becuase the request was sent using the wrong fax header"? That would be us then.

Anyway it seems the concensus is "carriers? yes please! We'll figure out what to do with them when we've got them".


Actually it was the French commander who refused them aircover at Srebrenica
 
Oil_Slick said:
Actually it was the French commander who refused them aircover at Srebrenica

actually thats not correct. British UN officials championed the non aviation aggression stance (as per the April 92 no fly corridors in and around the bosnian capital).

But I cannot be arsed to carry this on when all I asked was whether there is kind of a coherent policy regarding the RNs future role.
 
sweeney said:
Oil_Slick said:
Actually it was the French commander who refused them aircover at Srebrenica

actually thats not correct. British UN officials championed the non aviation aggression stance (as per the April 92 no fly corridors in and around the bosnian capital).

But I cannot be arsed to carry this on when all I asked was whether there is kind of a coherent policy regarding the RNs future role.

The decison on the day to supply aircover rested with a French General, Bernard Janvier… and as to us? The Dutch had their own F-16's in theatre, trying to point the finger at Britain is just bullshit.
 
sigh... On the day? You sounded a bit like a rap star then.. No wait, thats back in the day.

What day? Which day exactly? The day the Serb heavy armour moved in or the recce elements deployed? I suppose it depends which book you are reading. The dutch board of enquiry says it was the Brits, you say the French. The Hague (tribuneral, not William) says it was just about everybody. Doesn't really matter now.

Anyway you crash on if you want. You are doing brilliant. Like I said, I cannot be arsed. I'm off for me dinner.
 
sweeney said:
Oil_Slick said:
Actually it was the French commander who refused them aircover at Srebrenica

actually thats not correct. British UN officials championed the non aviation aggression stance (as per the April 92 no fly corridors in and around the bosnian capital).

But I cannot be arsed to carry this on when all I asked was whether there is kind of a coherent policy regarding the RNs future role.

Of course there is a co-herent policy, look at the RFAs and ex container ships that have been converted to RFA use - a few tweaks and they can soon be converted back so it will be HMS Ferry xxxxxxxxx
 
Because me grandad was a full on commie. Fought in spain before the war against the fascists. Sneaked into the andrew in 37. Odd choice, but then I did it too.

I wanted to support liverpool and england. Oh christ I really did. Me grandad took me to Austria playing the soviet union when I was 6. Then if taht wasn't bad enough he lumbered me with rotherham as well. In the school playground every kid wanted to be keegan or shilton. I got to be Desayev or Blokhin. Kids came back from Spain on their hols... We came back from Sochi on the black sea.

It wasn't all bad though. I got to see inside the soviet union, GDR etc etc. But now I'm left with 2 shit footy teams. I cannot really change now otherwise I've wasted 32 odd yeards! So there we are. Simple innit?
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top