[EyeBrock]

Tricks wrote:

Glad to have you back EyeBrock!

I've been busy lately!

[PluggyRug]

The fact that the CIA or CSIS has not incarcerated C123 or that Brasso fella proves that their conspiracy rhetoric is totally off the wall, the ceiling, the porch and all other places where bullshit has a penchant to adhere.

[Wada]

Why has eveyone conviently forgot the US trying to kidnap an Iranian member of parliment not so long ago and without UN sanction. This is one gate that swings both ways.

[Johnny_Utah]

stratos wrote:

Sounds more like they are trying to show the rest of the Muslim world that they are big and bad and not affriad of the west. Kind of sad realy when one thinks about the resluts if the west ever realy gets PO'ed at them.

Iran seems to beg for a fight then backs off when the west gears up for one.

That's pretty much it, Iran's trying to gain themselves a reputation and support from the rest of the Middle East if and when a strike is launched against their Nuke Reactors..

[BartSimpson]

GreatBriton wrote:

Quote:

Canada is coming close to surpassing UK naval power without having to spend a penny to do so.

Are you out of your mind? Canada has virtually no navy apart from a few fishery protection vessels. Where are Canada's aircraft carriers, for a start?

The Royal Canadian Navy has 33 warships:

And the UK Navy has 44 of which it recently announced 13 will be mothballed or sent to the breakers.

That makes 33 warships.

And in the same announcement the UK Navy announced that the plans to build additional destroyers have been cancelled.

So while the UK Navy for now is more powerful than Canada's if the UK Navy fails to invest in itself as planned while Canada simply maintains the status quo then at some point Canada will have a more powerful Navy simply because Britannia chooses not to rule the waves.

So in the immediate future the Canadian and UK Navy will have parity in hull numbers.

In the not so distant future Canada will have more ships, more powerful ships, and better ships simply because the UK is choosing to repeat the mistakes of the 1920's and 1930's.

[BartSimpson]

RUEZ wrote:

Donny_Brasco wrote:

I say fuck-em. I hope those army types are sent to a Guantanamo-style prison in the desert. Give the west a little taste of our own medicine. Its time the bullies got some payback.

Hey coward, when all these "army types" are locked up in prison who is going to fight for you?

Not me. If I come across the wogs toturing Donny I'm just going to quietly slip away and let them go about their business.

[Zipperfish]

In war, the first casualty is the truth, so I don't believe anything I hear from either side. I'm sure that US and American soldiers routinely patrol Iranian waters and Iranian land. That's not knew. And on the waters, no one even pretend to know whose water is whose, since much of it is in dispute anyway. The Iranians have been complaining about it since the US and British conquered Iraq. As, of course, Iranians have infiltrated the border to the Iraqi side.

The interesting question is what the Iranians hope to gain. It's interesting that they selected British soldiers to detain. The British were ready to pull out of Iraq. Detaining Bristish soldiers is just likely to galvanize Britain to stay in Iraq, one would think.

The most likely scenario is that Iran uses this opporuntity to humiliate US and Britain and to crow about their prowess to its own people, and then lets them go. They're probably taking a good look at the technology of the equipment captured wiht the soldiers too.

[BartSimpson]

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=301942007

MINISTERS will today be challenged to justify their handling of the Royal Navy amid growing doubts about Britain's future as a major maritime power.

The Conservatives are planning to use a parliamentary debate to raise questions about Labour's commitment to the navy as critical spending decisions approach.

Senior MPs military figures are expressing increasing anxiety for the navy's prospects in the years to come.

Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, earlier this month warned that Britain could be left with naval power no greater than that of Belgium unless Gordon Brown gives his service enough money in this summer's Comprehensive Spending Review.

Among the issues worrying MPs and officers are:

• The "mothballing" of several warships, which have been placed on a reduced state of readiness in order to cut operating costs.

• The much-delayed process of ordering two aircraft carriers. First announced in 1998, the carriers have still not been formally ordered from shipbuilders. MPs on the Commons Defence Committee this month warned that could delay delivery so much that Britain is left without working carriers in the next decade.

• A review of the three main naval bases at Faslane on the Clyde, Portsmouth and Devonport, could lead to one being closed and the other two being reduced in size.

• The question mark hanging over major new projects like the Type 45 destroyers. Six of the ships have been ordered, but two could be cancelled, depending on the Treasury review. Insiders also fear that one Astute class nuclear-powered submarine could be cancelled.

According to the Conservatives, Britain now has only 25 working frigates and destroyers, with another six at risk.


*****

The UK will soon only have 33 warships.

[EyeBrock]

BartSimpson wrote:

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=301942007

MINISTERS will today be challenged to justify their handling of the Royal Navy amid growing doubts about Britain's future as a major maritime power.

The Conservatives are planning to use a parliamentary debate to raise questions about Labour's commitment to the navy as critical spending decisions approach.

Senior MPs military figures are expressing increasing anxiety for the navy's prospects in the years to come.

Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, earlier this month warned that Britain could be left with naval power no greater than that of Belgium unless Gordon Brown gives his service enough money in this summer's Comprehensive Spending Review.

Among the issues worrying MPs and officers are:

• The "mothballing" of several warships, which have been placed on a reduced state of readiness in order to cut operating costs.

• The much-delayed process of ordering two aircraft carriers. First announced in 1998, the carriers have still not been formally ordered from shipbuilders. MPs on the Commons Defence Committee this month warned that could delay delivery so much that Britain is left without working carriers in the next decade.

• A review of the three main naval bases at Faslane on the Clyde, Portsmouth and Devonport, could lead to one being closed and the other two being reduced in size.

• The question mark hanging over major new projects like the Type 45 destroyers. Six of the ships have been ordered, but two could be cancelled, depending on the Treasury review. Insiders also fear that one Astute class nuclear-powered submarine could be cancelled.

According to the Conservatives, Britain now has only 25 working frigates and destroyers, with another six at risk.


*****

The UK will soon only have 33 warships.

You are still wrong. The Royal Navy web site gives 94 vessels that fly the White Ensign.

[BartSimpson]

EyeBrock wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=301942007

MINISTERS will today be challenged to justify their handling of the Royal Navy amid growing doubts about Britain's future as a major maritime power.

The Conservatives are planning to use a parliamentary debate to raise questions about Labour's commitment to the navy as critical spending decisions approach.

Senior MPs military figures are expressing increasing anxiety for the navy's prospects in the years to come.

Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, earlier this month warned that Britain could be left with naval power no greater than that of Belgium unless Gordon Brown gives his service enough money in this summer's Comprehensive Spending Review.

Among the issues worrying MPs and officers are:

• The "mothballing" of several warships, which have been placed on a reduced state of readiness in order to cut operating costs.

• The much-delayed process of ordering two aircraft carriers. First announced in 1998, the carriers have still not been formally ordered from shipbuilders. MPs on the Commons Defence Committee this month warned that could delay delivery so much that Britain is left without working carriers in the next decade.

• A review of the three main naval bases at Faslane on the Clyde, Portsmouth and Devonport, could lead to one being closed and the other two being reduced in size.

• The question mark hanging over major new projects like the Type 45 destroyers. Six of the ships have been ordered, but two could be cancelled, depending on the Treasury review. Insiders also fear that one Astute class nuclear-powered submarine could be cancelled.

According to the Conservatives, Britain now has only 25 working frigates and destroyers, with another six at risk.


*****

The UK will soon only have 33 warships.

You are still wrong. The Royal Navy web site gives 94 vessels that fly the White Ensign.

No, I am not. http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2230

They list 44 warships here.

Auxilliaries are not warships.

[GreatBriton]

Britain must leave Iran in no doubt of its anger

26/03/2007


HMS Cornwall

The last time Iranian forces kidnapped British naval personnel from Iraqi territorial waters, in 2004, the hostages were released after three days.

So it must remain our earnest hope that the current outrage in the Gulf will also turn out to be no more than another act of bellicose posturing by Teheran, and that HMS Cornwall will shortly welcome its crew members back on board, all safe and well.

More doubtful is how the behaviour of our Government, especially that of a Prime Minister who can no longer command respect at home or abroad, and his perennially invisible Foreign Secretary, will have materially helped that happy outcome.

Yesterday Tony Blair used the platform of the EU summit to tell us what we already knew, namely that the Iranian action was "unjustified and wrong", and stressed how seriously Britain is taking the situation, adding: "It is the welfare of the people that have been taken by the Iranian government that is most important."

This was fine as far it went, but it was not enough.

To offer sympathy with the loved ones of the prisoners is appropriate, and expresses the sentiments of us all.

But Mr Blair is supposed to be our leader, not our mouthpiece, and neither homely platitudes nor dark hints cut any ice with the likes of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Revolutionary Guards.

There may be neither political will nor public support for an invasion of Iran, but we do have the power to hurt that country grievously without committing our forces to another long haul, and the threat must be made explicit: release these prisoners, or else.

We must not delude ourselves about the cause of this crisis.

When his people were abducted, the commander of the Cornwall was quick to say that it was probably all just a misunderstanding; but our naval officers are trained to be adroit diplomats, ever alert for ways of preventing an incident from becoming a shooting match.

The Iranians have yet to respond to that pacific gambit, preferring instead to exploit the fears of innocent families, and with them the civilians of an entire nation, just like the terrorists they are.

And, true to the profile, they do this in support of an agenda that seems perverse to the civilised mind.

If Iran desires a lifting of sanctions, rather than their intensification, it would be prudent for it to stop lying to us about the details of its nuclear programme, to stop arming and directing insurgents in southern Iraq, and to stop violating Iraqi territorial waters.

Instead, it chooses to deepen our hostility, believing, against all the evidence, that threats rather than conciliation will weaken Western resolve, and even that it will be rewarded in some way for releasing the prisoners unharmed.

It is Mr Blair's job now to trumpet unequivocally the folly of such a belief.

We wait anxiously to see whether this weakened and discredited Prime Minister has the necessary spine to do what is required, or whether Britain will persist in presenting its weakest aspect to a potential enemy.

telegraph.co.uk

[GreatBriton]

BartSimpson wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=301942007

MINISTERS will today be challenged to justify their handling of the Royal Navy amid growing doubts about Britain's future as a major maritime power.

The Conservatives are planning to use a parliamentary debate to raise questions about Labour's commitment to the navy as critical spending decisions approach.

Senior MPs military figures are expressing increasing anxiety for the navy's prospects in the years to come.

Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, earlier this month warned that Britain could be left with naval power no greater than that of Belgium unless Gordon Brown gives his service enough money in this summer's Comprehensive Spending Review.

Among the issues worrying MPs and officers are:

• The "mothballing" of several warships, which have been placed on a reduced state of readiness in order to cut operating costs.

• The much-delayed process of ordering two aircraft carriers. First announced in 1998, the carriers have still not been formally ordered from shipbuilders. MPs on the Commons Defence Committee this month warned that could delay delivery so much that Britain is left without working carriers in the next decade.

• A review of the three main naval bases at Faslane on the Clyde, Portsmouth and Devonport, could lead to one being closed and the other two being reduced in size.

• The question mark hanging over major new projects like the Type 45 destroyers. Six of the ships have been ordered, but two could be cancelled, depending on the Treasury review. Insiders also fear that one Astute class nuclear-powered submarine could be cancelled.

According to the Conservatives, Britain now has only 25 working frigates and destroyers, with another six at risk.


*****

The UK will soon only have 33 warships.

You are still wrong. The Royal Navy web site gives 94 vessels that fly the White Ensign.

No, I am not. http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2230

They list 44 warships here.

Auxilliaries are not warships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy

[GreatBriton]

The Royal Navy of the United Kingdom is the oldest of the British armed services (and is therefore the Senior Service). From the early 18th century to the middle of the 20th century, it was the largest and most powerful navy in the world, playing a key part in establishing the British Empire as the dominant power of the 19th and early 20th centuries. During the Cold War, it was transformed into a primarily anti-submarine force, hunting for Soviet submarines, mostly active in the North Atlantic Ocean. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, its role for the 21st century has returned to focus on global expeditionary (blue water) operations.

The Royal Navy is the second-largest navy in the world in terms of gross tonnage. There are currently 91 commissioned ships in the Royal Navy, including aircraft carriers, submarines, mine counter-measures and patrol vessels. There are then further vessels of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

The Royal Navy is a constituent component of the Naval Service, which also comprises the Royal Marines, Royal Fleet Auxiliary and associated reserve forces under command. The Naval Service had 38,710 regular personnel as of November 2006.


Of the Royal Navy

The British Royal Navy is commonly referred to as the "Royal Navy" both in the United Kingdom and other countries. Commonwealth navies also include their national name e.g. Royal Australian Navy. Some navies of other monarchies, such as the Koninklijke Marine (Royal Netherlands Navy) and Kungliga Flottan (Royal Swedish Navy), are also called "Royal Navy" in their own language.


The Royal Navy has historically played a central role in the defence and wars of England, Great Britain and later the United Kingdom. As Britain is an island, invasion requires an enemy to cross the sea; in bellicose times Britain is reasonably safe from invasion only with naval superiority over all possible combinations of enemies. Moreover, a large navy was vital in maintaining the security of supply and communication with the Empire.


wikipedia.org

[GreatBriton]

BartSimpson wrote:

GreatBriton wrote:

Quote:

Canada is coming close to surpassing UK naval power without having to spend a penny to do so.

Are you out of your mind? Canada has virtually no navy apart from a few fishery protection vessels. Where are Canada's aircraft carriers, for a start?

The Royal Canadian Navy has 33 warships:

And the UK Navy has 44 of which it recently announced 13 will be mothballed or sent to the breakers.

That makes 33 warships.

And in the same announcement the UK Navy announced that the plans to build additional destroyers have been cancelled.

So while the UK Navy for now is more powerful than Canada's if the UK Navy fails to invest in itself as planned while Canada simply maintains the status quo then at some point Canada will have a more powerful Navy simply because Britannia chooses not to rule the waves.

So in the immediate future the Canadian and UK Navy will have parity in hull numbers.

In the not so distant future Canada will have more ships, more powerful ships, and better ships simply because the UK is choosing to repeat the mistakes of the 1920's and 1930's.

I'm realising that you're the same person who also said that Canada will soon have a larger population than Britain, although in the end I showed you that Canada's population, even though it's growing quite a bit faster than Britain's, won't overtake Britain's for at least another 100 years or so if current trends continue, or even longer if in 50 years time Britain's starts growing faster than Canada again.

[BartSimpson]

GreatBriton wrote:

I'm realising that you're the same person who also said that Canada will soon have a larger population than Britain, although in the end I showed you that Canada's population, even though it's growing quite a bit faster than Britain's, won't overtake Britain's for at least another 100 years or so if current trends continue, or even longer if in 50 years time Britain's starts growing faster than Canada again.

Huh? You're mistaking me for someone else as I have never made that comparison be it on or off this forum.