Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 94

Thread: The UK welcomes President Trump

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Oxfordshire
    Posts
    2,221
    Thanks
    899
    Thanked 944 Times in 626 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by grumzed View Post
    Yes there is hypocrisy in demonstrating against Trump and not against Erdogan (for example) or many other despicables that happen to be important leaders. I think it would be better if people were fairer as to who they demonstrate against. I think that we all expect a bit more from our closest allies (like the USA), and combined with the shocking, and irrational, behaviour of Trump this has sparked a greater reaction. I don't believe it will make any difference at all, and may even have detrimental effects to the UK given Trump's vindictiveness, but I don't see it as a big enough issue to prevent such a demonstration. I just watched "Inside the American Embassy" and it was interesting to see. Trump has a multi millionaire businessman (formerly of Johnson and Johnson) as ambassador who IMO was totally out of his depth. Rex Tillerson was at the embassy when he was sacked by Tweet from Trump. It was interesting to see how the USA were trying to get the UK to spend even more on US arms, specifically more F35s. I forgot how many US jobs are created by the F35 development (something like 120,000) and a few thousand in the UK too, but costing the UK £45B over a period of time if the plan continues. The F35 at least pays Rolls Royce something for the Intellectual Property used in the vectored thrust systems.

    Yes MS, I don't think Sadiq Khan should be involved either. Having public office comes with diplomatic responsibilities!

    MS and DD, I would be interested to hear your views on how the British armed forces are provided for nowadays. I worked until recently in supplying integrated circuits to some companies who provide weaponry and comms equipment and had some interesting tours and given a deal of insight into the prices of the kit vs the cost which was somewhat shocking. The claim is to achieve very high standards of reliability but this is, at least in many cases, BS. It is certainly big business.
    It is necessary that the this story is unspecific for obvious reasons. My son is a troop leader in an armoured regiment and was recently on exercise. The vehicles within the regiment were introduced 47 years ago and the last western democracy other than the UK and Latvia, to use them was Belgium which replaced them in 2004. On the first day of the exercise on my son's own vehicle, the turret seized and the vehicle was out of the exercise for the remainder of the day whilst the turret was lifted and bearings replaced. On the fourth day of the exercise a rear half shaft snapped, screwing up the differential and again losing the vehicle for a day and a half, while on the same day a second vehicle in his troop suffered a seized gearbox. The fuel gauges are so inaccurate that they have to rod the tanks to know how much fuel they have with obvious occasional consequences. The new 'platform' that has been on the cards for a several years has now been put back until the early twenties. The present vehicles with the exception of a small number of updated units have flat hulls, providing far less protection or the occupants than 'V' hulls operated by other nations. Again an unwillingness to spend puts out troops in greater jeopardy.

    Since commissioning in the second half of last year my son has considered it necessary to spend some thousands of pounds on personal equipment including a military Garmin watch, leather as opposed to plastic boots, certain specialised clothing and a number of other items of equipment, all of which either help him to do his job more effectively or will serve more him efficiently than army standard issue. My wife and I are fortunately in a position to assist and have provided some of these items as 'gifts'. However the average enlisted soldier does not have access to such a source of supply and does not earn enough to pay for them himself. The result is that many of our combat soldiers, liable to risk their lives at a moments notice almost anywhere in the world are not kitted out sufficiently well to maximise their comfort under harsh conditions nor sufficiently well to maximise their safety. Despite the scandals regarding equipment and kit in Iraq and Afghanistan we have not learned the lesson and those needing body armour (primarily dismounted recon and infantry) can buy far superior body armour albeit at a price privately. That is a disgrace and reflects badly on every government of recent times including the current one.

    This is personal experience which one can't help but view against a backdrop of two multi-billion pound non-operational aircraft carriers.

    The number of soldiers, sailors and airmen has reduced massively, but this is less of an issue than it might have been if the likelihood of major conflict hadn't also reduced and the development of technology potentially enables our military to enter into combat more efficiently. More to the point is that the army , I don't know about the other arms, are finding it impossible to recruit sufficient numbers of competent individuals with the potential to be effective using the promised new technology to meet even the needs of our reduced military. Few, like the police or fire services, join the military forces to make money but under £15000 per annum for a new recruit and £18500 per annum for a private soldier is unacceptably low. There has been no general pay increase for well over five years but there is no Police Federation or Fire Service union to represent them.

    I recognise that there is a finite amount of financial resource available and that the NHS, Social Care, Transport, Education all have unique needs of their own but I personally believe that if we can't care for and protect the young men and women who are prepared to suffer maiming or death for their country, then we don't deserve to be defended in the event of need.

    Inevitably government tends to provide the bigger budget increases to those which areas which make the loudest noise and, of course are likely to deliver the most votes, In this connection I believe all governments have let down our armed forces for at least the last twenty years. I am disappointed that this government has failed to do more.

    I am particularly disgusted and appalled that this country considers the Marxist Leader of the Labour Party even remotely viable as Prime Minister. Jeremy Corbyn defended the IRA and mourned the passing of the murderer Martin McGuinness but was strangely silent about the 1000 plus British security forces who, doing their duty, were murdered by the IRA. Corbyn's contempt for our armed forces is well known. He has missed attending two consecutive Armed Forces Days, preferring to go to a rock concert instead.

    Frankly, and not just in connection with this post, every year that passes I feel an increasing shame in my country and many of its people, when once I felt pride.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Major Sinic For This Useful Post:

    DeppityDawg (10-07-2018)

  3. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,898
    Thanks
    344
    Thanked 1,093 Times in 795 Posts
    A sobering post Major. I donít have time to add anything now, but maybe Grumzeds question should be given its own thread, rather than be a part of the Trump visit protestz and balloonz circus (z on purpose). Otherwise I can see it falling victim to the usual ignorant guffawing from metropolitan liberals.

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Leaving the EUSSR
    Posts
    9,104
    Thanks
    2,006
    Thanked 1,801 Times in 1,420 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DeppityDawg View Post
    A sobering post Major. I don’t have time to add anything now, but maybe Grumzeds question should be given its own thread, rather than be a part of the Trump visit protestz and balloonz circus (z on purpose). Otherwise I can see it falling victim to the usual ignorant guffawing from metropolitan liberals.
    Mod note
    Posts copied and moved to new thread
    Since 1945 how often was the legitimacy of a general election result questioned and how many received 52% of the vote?

  5. #24
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,369
    Thanks
    71
    Thanked 164 Times in 142 Posts
    Wow! 45's Nato comments are going down a storm in Germany.

    " Arriving at Nato headquarters only hours after Trump singled out Germany for criticism, Merkel said: “I have experienced myself how a part of Germany was controlled by the Soviet Union. I am very happy that today we are united in freedom, the Federal Republic of Germany. Because of that we can say that we can make our independent policies and make independent decisions. That is very good, especially for people in eastern Germany.”
    She also hit back at Trump’s criticism that Germany contributed too little to European defence. “Germany does a lot for Nato,” she said.
    “Germany is the second largest provider of troops, the largest part of our military capacity is offered to Nato and until today we have a strong engagement towards Afghanistan. In that we also defend the interests of the United States.”
    Earlier the US president had accused Berlin of being a “a captive of the Russians” because of its dependence on energy supplies.
    At his first meeting of the summit, with the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, Trump described the relationship between Germany and Russia as "inappropriate."

    The Guardian

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,302
    Thanks
    793
    Thanked 462 Times in 348 Posts
    I've always thought it a bit short sighted to be too dependent on other countries for the basics. I suppose that makes me a nationalist. I hope not. We have no guarantees that other nations are not going to turn. With Russia we went from cold war to tepid bordering on luke warm but Putin has certainly made things around the world less comfortable. We have involved China in our infrastructure - who is to say that will not backfire? We are not yet at a point where we can unconditionally trust - not even in the EU!

    Without the restraints of diplomacy etc Trump says it as he sees it. I'm no fan but perhaps he has a point.
    ...till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me, xx

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    754
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 117 Times in 97 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by albertcornercrew View Post
    “Germany is the second largest provider of troops, the largest part of our military capacity is offered to Nato and until today we have a strong engagement towards Afghanistan. In that we also defend the interests of the United States.”
    There might be something in this for sure - I suspect that because of Germany's history and constitutionaly limitations, a larger share of its defence budget is spent directly on meeting NATO commitments - from this perspective, the "2% of GDP" metric might not be the best one - a better metric might be "% of GDP spent on directly supporting NATO commitments".

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    754
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 117 Times in 97 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by T00ts View Post
    I've always thought it a bit short sighted to be too dependent on other countries for the basics. I suppose that makes me a nationalist. I hope not.
    This is an understandable point of view, but unfortunately many countries including the UK spent the last decades doing the opposite - developing cooperative global ways of running the world and much more interdependencies between nations.

    Whether this was just an inevitable result of progress, or an ideological choice, is no doubt hotly disputed, but either way it would take a gargantuan change to roll things back to where they were 40 years ago.

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,302
    Thanks
    793
    Thanked 462 Times in 348 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Javert View Post
    This is an understandable point of view, but unfortunately many countries including the UK spent the last decades doing the opposite - developing cooperative global ways of running the world and much more interdependencies between nations.

    Whether this was just an inevitable result of progress, or an ideological choice, is no doubt hotly disputed, but either way it would take a gargantuan change to roll things back to where they were 40 years ago.
    Agreed and no doubt impossible. Trump is forcing us all to look at ourselves and possibly question those ideological choices. Perhaps it is a timely reminder of just how fragile globalisation might be.
    ...till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me, xx

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    7,908
    Thanks
    1,336
    Thanked 1,210 Times in 883 Posts
    Best way for Trump to retaliate is to put Sadiq Khan on a world no fly list. That'd learn him!

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Barry For This Useful Post:

    T00ts (12-07-2018)

  12. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Leaving the EUSSR
    Posts
    9,104
    Thanks
    2,006
    Thanked 1,801 Times in 1,420 Posts
    All this balloon business a little childish,but Khan opened the toybox and I think it's worth a few quid of anyones money to remind that such things can come back and bite you on the bum.
    https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/giant-...ly-over-london
    Since 1945 how often was the legitimacy of a general election result questioned and how many received 52% of the vote?

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to cromwell For This Useful Post:

    T00ts (12-07-2018)

Similar Threads

  1. Jeremy Corbyn: Don't sacrifice NHS to President Trump
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 29-01-2017, 08:19 PM
  2. President Trump's inauguration speech
    By Barry in forum United States Politics Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 24-01-2017, 04:27 PM
  3. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 13-11-2016, 03:12 PM
  4. Could a President Trump destroy the USA?
    By Hyperduck Quack Quack in forum United States Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 26-06-2016, 10:50 AM
  5. Look at Donald Trump for President?
    By political in forum United States Politics Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 26-04-2011, 06:59 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •