You say black, politicians say white

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by aberdeenlad, May 26, 2007.

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. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    Are politicians that stupid that they think people will believe them before they believe the soldiers.

  2. I think I must be that stupid also. I just noticed I put this topic under naval history. Any mods available to move this.
  3. Time for the MOD's press officer to woman one of the U/S vehicles in the middle of hostile territory then make the same claim! :roll: :evil: :D
  4. MPs have been around for centuries! What's unhistoric about that? :wink: :lol:
  5. Just lately, AAC, you're coming across as a right twat. You really, really , don't understand what it is to be a serviceman, do you?
  6. Oh dear... :oops: :oops: :oops:

    As a lifelong civvy, no. :oops: :oops: :oops: Sorry.
  7. Thread edited before it goes spinning off into the distance.

    AAC , please try not to drag every thread you post on off topic?


  8. I think what he meant to say was:

    "The success of our forces against the Taleban shows that they are among the best in the world, despite the lack of support and equipment they receive from us".
    [email protected]@rds" :evil:
  9. hhhmmmm.....

    without going all opsec that isn't ringing right here. Where i work does the level 4, 4th line activity on this vehicle, me oppo who sits next to me is the proj manager. Before it all goes down the common, "aren't politicians tossers" thread, there is a bigger picture to it.

    Opsec stops me going further, but lets just say the numbers don't stack up.
  10. Actually in fairness, both the servicemen and the politicians are correct.

    Please allow me to start by quoting from the BBC article the fourth paragraph: "The Ministry of Defence insisted troops were properly equipped to do their job." This statement purely means that the MOD believes the resources allocated to the front are adequate in quantity and quality. Also, I find that Lt Col Mayo supports the MOD's claim because he is quoted as saying that the situation is "tight, but not critical yet." So this does imply that the politicians are right and that the servicemen do have the required equipment.

    However the opinion of the serviceman differs, and it is acknowledged by the MOD that "there was a shortage and said huge investments had been made in equipment for the Army." So this implies that the situation in Afghanistan is not perfect, and that the troops need more vehicles. But in continuing my argument, I would like to consider the motivations for both the opinions.

    The politician's chief concern is always money. If Percy can do the job without, then he will do the job without because this decreases expenditure and this always looks good for the public back at home. The MOD who have to budget the war and pay for a host of other things from a small allowance are also looking to cut costs.

    The serving soldier's primary concern is and should be his life! As far as Percy considers it more vehicles will make the job easier and his life safer, therefore it becomes a requirement. Without the Land Rover's he is under-equipped and his life is in more imminent danger, and obviously the politicians need to listen to Percy's concerns because dead soldiers don't win votes.

    Finally drawing to a conclusion; both the politicians and the servicemen are right because they both have different needs and requirements. Whitehall needs to save money, the soldier needs his job to be a little less dangerous.
  11. Oh that was why! My apologies PTP & Streaky.
  12. An interesting and well informed argument Peter. BZ.

    I think I might have a bit more sympathy with the politicians case were their security arrangements to be put on a similar footing to service personnel in zones of conflict, rather than a position taken whereby the cost of Parliamentary security is not really an issue but those of service personnel is. I think much of the problem lies not so much with politicians lacking concern for others less fortunate than themselves, but simply an inability to truly empathise having never been in that position themselves. Too few MPs have Service experience. Too few civil servant have Service experience, and IMHO this is contributory factor in under-investment in personnel security.
  13. Ah, but isn't it the politicians that make the decision to go to war.

    Our politicians decision to go to war in Iraq and 'stan - they should have done their homework as to troops and equipment required and it would seem that they didn't (so nothing new here then). However they did make the decision therefore they should have ensured that the equipment was there and in good order.

    Please do not make apologies for politicians - they have a duty to the troops they are repsonsible for deploying :evil:
  14. Well actually the politicians DID do their homework. At the start of the operation the troops had sufficient vehicles and equipment, the trouble has only really arisen because these vehicles have been rendered useless by the enemy and replacements are taking too long to arrive.

    I agree that the politicians have a duty to protect the lives of the servicemen out in the theatre of operations by providing them with the neccessary equipment and training. But politicians also have a duty to the UK taxpayer to ensure that they do not waste money where it isn't needed. Unfortunately our Labour government are quite successful in failing both parties.
  15. That is exactly my point - if they had done their homework, the logistcs would have been their to repair/replace equipment, and decent medical facilities (in the UK) would have been available to troops injured in action - none of these facilities were there so they hadn't done their homework!
    What on earth do they think war is about?

    As to your comment about politicians' having a duty to the taxpayer - troops pay tax as well ergo the politicans' have a double duty to troops :evil:

    * Please explain to me how the (white elephant) Dome, the london Eye, the swinging bridge which had to be fixed and the under-costed Olympic village are important enough to be funded by the taxpayer (including HM Forces) - but the troops are of secondary importance?

    Did they do there homework watching John Wayne films?
  16. I never suggested that our Government were any good at it.
  17. My goodness Peter - you sound just like a politician ;-)
  18. Whilst your logic on the face of it looks OK one may not be quite as equable with ones commments if we also look at motivation. The percy is primarily motivated by staying alive, a reasonable and honorable motivation in this case. Our polititian on the other hand is motivated by reasons of fincial reward and self agrandisment, not so honourable, in my book anyway. So our friendly polititian is quite right if he says percy can have what he needs, but he keeps quiet about the conditions attached, such as giving 12 months notice, not costing any more and so on. The devil for poor percy is justifying his need and getting it satisfied in a timely fashion whilst the polititian sips his bitted in the HOC Bar.

Share This Page