Not our business

What is it with military commanders that demand we get into ever greater conflicts with areas of the world that we have simply no business being in? Take the middle east, (please) the whole area is a train wreck of competing tribes, factions and religious strife and that's just the muslims. Yet Col Tim Collins believes that somehow or other we should get ourselves involved despite the lessons of the past which tells us that it never works.
Telegraph.

One of Britain’s most respected commanders has compared the massacres in Iraq with genocides carried out by Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot, accusing the Government of failing in its “moral obligation” to intervene.
Col Tim Collins, famed for his inspirational speech on the eve of the 2003 Iraq War, said that Britain’s politicians have “left for lunch” as he urged David Cameron to recall Parliament to debate the crisis.
He told The Telegraph that ancient civilisations will be “extinguished” unless Britain joins air strikes and provides arms to Kurdish forces, and suggested that troops should be stationed in Iraq to provide training and support.
Gen Sir Mike Jackson, Chief of the General Staff during the Iraq War, added his voice to calls for Britain to join the air strikes on “humanitarian” grounds and to bring an end to the “appalling” atrocities being committed in Iraq.

Sorry as I am to see ancient civilisations extinguished, it really is none of our business, we shouldn't even be wasting fuel on aircraft to drop aid, never mind drop bombs. In the end all we do is rile up our own barbarians that our government invited in and don't have the guts to remove root and branch from our own civilisation and so are heading us down exactly the same path as the middle east, civil war, until one side dominates the other. If it's islam then barbarism sets in, the religion itself more or less guarantees it in the way its written and interpreted.
There is no place for islam in a civilised society and we should not be helping any islamic groups. Evacuate Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists etc, but just fence the barbarians in and let them fight it out amongst themselves.

They just can't help themselves

The urge by powers that be to show off their 'powers' on a world stage by meddling in things which don't concern them amazes me at times. The UK public have already made it pretty clear that another countries problems are not our concern the further away said country is; In the case of Syria we don't want our troops there doing another 'Iraq' so when thwarted in their intentions to do that, the idiots supposedly governing us and advising said government chose another tack...
BBC.

The UK drew up plans to train and equip a 100,000-strong Syrian rebel army to defeat President Bashar al-Assad, BBC Newsnight can reveal.
The secret initiative, put forward two years ago, was the brainchild of the then most senior UK military officer, General Sir David Richards.
It was considered by the PM and the National Security Council, as well as US officials, but was deemed too risky.
The UK government did not respond to a request for comment.

Ye gods! don't we have enough problems with muslims without training a bloody army of them how to do a proper job? Yes the civilian deaths are a tragedy, but they aren't our tragedy and Syria's problem is a civil war which they need to resolve themselves though the temptation to meddle and allow it to draw juhadis in to the conflict in order to wipe them out is tempting... just so long as we do not allow any of our homegrown ones back here.
Fortunately the government seems to have deemed it too risky, although I rather suspect the cost of it, rather than the fact that we'd be arming and training a bunch of jihadis in many instances will have been the deciding factor, after all, look how well that worked in Afghanistan.
No, Syria is not our problem, other than the islamoloons from here that go over to fight there of which my favoured solution is cancelling the passport of any who do go over there to fight and deporting them instantly if we catch them sneaking back in.
Had we gone down General Richards path we would have been storing up no end of problems for that part of the world, as if they don't have enough of their own without us arming and training them. I doubt Israel would be any too happy either.
Still, thank god in this case that the government lost its nerve...

None of our business

Apparently the people of the west's reluctance to engage in wars in foreign countries will encourage our enemies to exploit us according to a top Army general...
Telegraph.

A “moral disarmament” in the West that has resulted in a reluctance to engage in conflicts will be exploited by Britain’s enemies, the head of the army has warned.
General Sir Peter Wall said a decade of “politically awkward campaigning” over Iraq and Afghanistan has led to an appetite to “defend on the goal line”.
But adversaries will take advantage of such “reticence” and may have already changed their expectation on how the UK will react to provocation, he warned.
Although he did not name Russia, the comments come at a time when President Vladimir Putin is testing the West’s mettle in a tense stand-off over Ukraine.

You'll have to pardon me the suspicion that if we aren't involved in armed conflict that Sir Peter Wall might well be out of a job...
The thing is though yes we know we have enemies and another of my suspicions is that the government invited the bastards in to live amongst us in the form of islamics. If we are to be in a war then I want the army here to deal with those whom I just know would love to turn us into one of those misogynistic, homophobic barbaric shitholes they believe are the best possible worlds in the form of a shariah run state.
Unlike Sir Peter Wall most of the UK public are now coming to the conclusion that endless wars with distant foreign states are really none of our business. The Ukraine is none of our business, Iraq was none of our business, Afghanistan should have been levelled back to the stone age (save only that might have been an improvement) for their involvement in training terrorists and then left alone to get on with things and levelled again if they tried something stupid again.
These countries are not worth the loss of life of a single soldier, their problems are not our problems unless they directly attack us, hell we shouldn't even bother with aid as all it does is keep the utter bastards in charge rich and on top rather than encouraging their people to rise up and get rid of them.
No, Sir Peter Wall is wrong, they can plot but our response should be to ignore them unless they directly attack us and then our response should be to level their infrastructure to give them so many problems at home that they'll leave us alone.
And hell no should we take in their refugees.

Not fed up exactly...

Apparently Defence Secretary Philip Hammond believes we're fed up with long wars in foreign lands and he's partly right, but as ever he tries to spin things in a manner consistent with the governments thinking...

Mail.

Politicians must pledge that future wars will be short with clear goals that will convince a ‘war-weary’ public, says Defence Secretary Philip Hammond.
A decade of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan has led to a ‘climate of scepticism’ and an ‘irrational fear’ about military intervention in broken states, he says.
Even the threat of terrorism from volatile foreign countries no longer convinced British people that war was necessary.
His comments – made at the weekend during a debate at the Munich Security Conference – came as it emerged that he had urged ministers to lobby unions to back Trident.
Mr Hammond fears that Labour will ‘wobble’ over the need for a nuclear deterrent and has called for the unions to press Labour on the threat this would pose to Britain’s shipbuilding industry.
But his warning of an ‘irrational’ fear of war among British voters will provoke more controversy. ‘There is a climate of scepticism about engagement in failed or failing countries, a fear of getting entrapped in longer term, deeper forms of engagement,’ he said.
‘Increasingly we need to present intervention as time-limited and with strictly defined ambitions.
‘We are at a point in the UK where there is a war-weariness after ten years of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I believe that we're actually weary of being drawn into wars and conflicts with countries that are actually none of our business. Yes I could sort of see a point about being drawn into Afghanistan, but only to destroy the terrorist training camps funded by the Saudi's. After that we should simply have monitored the place and occasionally nipped in to level them as and when necessary. As it is, we forced the Taliban out of Afghanistan and into northern Pakistan and destabilised their border region leading to more radical islamic influences causing problems in that country.
As for Iraq, weapons of mass destruction or not, we have achieved nothing there save only to radicalise more Muslims and have caused internal problems for other religions which believe it or not were actually protected to a degree by Saddam Hussein.
If and it's a big if we are to wage a war we need a clearly seen set of objectives and also we need a clearly defined exit strategy, a sort of job's done lets bugger off and leave them too it move.
We have no interests really in the Middle East, certainly nothing worth fighting over and if we do then it should be the equivalent of a smash and grab raid. No troops on the ground at all, simply bombs from the air, drone strikes if you will.
That's why the UK public did not want involvement in Syria, not because we thought it would be a long war, but because it was none of our damned business if Syrians want to butcher each other.
That our politicians can't see that is a given, in this as with many things the general public is at least a decade ahead of them.
Our only interest military wise should be a few protectorates abroad and the French, no one else should interest us from a military point of view.

Colonists claim colonists are occupying 'their' land.

Argentina must be in severe economic difficulties or its government in trouble, because as with Spain they've focussed on something that they have hyped up in their nations psyche in order it appears to distract from their people what a shithole they apparently live in.
Telegraph.

Argentina has ridiculed Britain as an impotent colonial aggressor on the wrong side of history in the Falklands dispute, insisting it will not be cowed by "verbal and military threats" as "the lion roars but does not inspire fear".
In a lengthy denunciation of British policy published in Argentine daily Pagina 12 (Page 12), Héctor Timerman, the country's foreign minister, painted Argentina as a valiant underdog cheered on by the world in its David and Goliath-esque battle with an arrogant but ailing colonial power.
He accused Britain of "inappropriate" aggression in its attempt to maintain sovereignty over the Falklands, attributing such behaviour to its "failed attempt to confuse the world" - a reference in part to the islands' 2013 referendum - over what he characterised as the "colonial and military occupation of Argentine territory".

I do wonder what the 35 indigenous groups or Argentine Amerindians make of Mr Timerman's claims to a set of islands 300 miles off its coast. After all, it's the Argentinian colonists who are occupying their land after all. There's also the oddity that the UK gives Argentina £2 million in direct aid and another £7 to £50 million via the G20 group. Perhaps we should look at this source of funding and give it to more worthy (grateful) causes.
As for their economy, they defaulted the payments of their foreign debt, they are currently being taken to court in the United States for the millions of Dollars that they still owe, and now they put themselves on the same footing as a Military Junta that launched an unprovoked and cowardly attack in the middle of the night without a Declaration of War. Only this time without an air-force which has been grounded as unable to be flown safely.
Still no doubt there are a few leftards out there more than happy to hand a people who voted to remain part of the United Kingdom overwhelmingly to a corrupt bankrupt foreign power simply because it's always our fault in their eyes...

Jobsworths uber alles

There are those out there without a spark of humanity, whose adherence to petty rules and regulations forms their raison d'etre and to whom an exception has to be authorised from on high.
Such is the life of a Department of Work and Pensions civil servant who applied the letter of the law to a poppy seller.
Express.

A VETERAN soldier has lost his jobseeker’s allowance – because he was selling poppies instead of “actively seeking work”.
The decision to take away the benefit from father-of-four Stephen Taylor, 60, who served in Cyprus, Kenya and Northern Ireland, caused outrage last night.
He admitted when he signed on at his local Jobcentre that he had spent 24 hours over a two-week period selling poppies to raise charity funds for veterans.
His honesty was rewarded by staff deeming he was in breach of rules governing benefit payments and his £71.20-a-week allowance was withdrawn.
The former pub manager has been out of work for a year and has now missed out on four weekly payments for selling the poppies outside an Asda store in Bury, Greater Manchester, in the run-up to Remembrance Day.

This is the mindset of those who work for the state, all must be declared and penalties will be given for breaches of the rules no matter what you're doing. It wasn't as if Mr Taylor was even earning money, as he was selling poppies, technically he wasn't actively seeking work so the Dept of  Work and Pensions penalised him for doing a good deed and having the temerity to honestly admit to them what he was doing. Had he just sat in his house with his feet up, no problem, down the pub (assuming he can afford too) no problem, shopping, no problem. Sell poppies for a very worthy cause down comes the wrath of the state...

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: “We make it clear to people what the rules are and that they risk losing their benefits if they don’t play by them. Sanctions are only used as a last resort.

Sounds like they were used as a first resort here and no doubt someone in the Debt feels particularly smug about putting the boot into a veteran soldier.
In other news, Trafford Council landed a £300,000 bill because a bunch of asylum seekers were dumped on them by the Home Office.
Makes you wonder just where the priorities of the government in the UK are, doesn't it?

Defending our interests

In recent years the governments ideas of what our interests are and what they actually are differs by a great degree. They'll often use humanitarian interests to excuse a military adventure in support of economic interests, which is not the same thing at all. After all, other than oil, we didn't have any real interest in what Saddam Hussein got up too in Iraq, sure he was a destabilising influence on the region, but what isn't?
We interfered in the Balkans, again an area ripe for civil war and if anything left an even bigger mess than when we started as we basically supported the wrong sides and handed over Kosovo to those who didn't own or have a right to it in the first place. The seeds of WW2 were sown in the armistice of WW1 and that's pretty much what we've done in the Balkans...
Again and again we've in recent years taken military action in areas that aren't our concern and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Still, at least some of our MP's are beginning to realise this...
Express.

THE large number of military veterans among MPs is likely to make the House of Commons “more cautious” when voting on sending troops abroad, a Sunday Express survey has found.
A total of 62 MPs, almost 10 per cent of the 650, have served in the Armed Forces.
However, rather than making for a more gung-ho chamber, those who have “felt the heat and smelled the cordite” are likely to be more hesitant in voting for military action overseas.
All the 15 MPs surveyed by the Sunday Express agreed that experience of active service has taught them the importance of caution.
Dan Jarvis, a former paratrooper and special forces major who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, said: “There is no doubt those who experience conflict first-hand are extremely cautious about making sure that deploying troops is only done as a final resort. The fact that I’ve been to war in two places means I understand the implications of putting boots on the ground.” Mr Jarvis, the only Labour MP with an Army background, added: “History will look very carefully at some of the advice provided in the mid-Nineties about our abilities to sustain activities in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Yes, hindsight is a great tool in judging the mistakes of the past, though a little foresight would do our MP's far more good. I mean can you imagine us sending troops to Afghanistan or Iraq? Allowing mass uncontrolled immigration, multiculturalism rather than integration... even the Labour Party electing Gordon Brown.
Then again some leftards believe that mass uncontrolled immigration was and is a good idea...
I don't really ascribe to conspiracy theories, but I do suspect that economic influences rather than humanitarian interests have been at the core of British and the EU's foreign policies for the last couple of decades. Oil being one economic factor, precious metals being another, I suspect water will be the next.
Perhaps it's time to bring the troops home and withdraw from the world for a while whilst we sort out the internal threats to this country from those who live here and hate the very idea of England.
Then, and only then should we look to sorting out other peoples problems, but not with troops, voluntary aid sounds about right and the government doesn't get to volunteer us either...
We certainly need the ability to deal with any direct threats to our country, but Afghanistan or Iraq... even the Balkans were no threat and if anything we made things worse.
Let the world sort itself out, we have enough problems of our own without sticking our noses in elsewhere.

Freedom of choice

Every year at this time I choose to wear a poppy to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, willingly or not. This is my choice, I do it to honour the fallen and those who live with the consequences of serving their country in the armed services. As for those who choose not to wear a poppy or even wear a white one, that is there choice too, so long as it's an informed choice and not something else...
Telegraph.

A female vicar has sparked fury by refusing to wear a poppy when she conducts this year's remembrance service because the symbol 'advocates war'.
American-born Reverend Patricia Jackson announced the controversial decision at a meeting of the clergy.
The vicar, who calls herself Rev PJ, told local councillors it was her "democratic right" not to wear the poppy when she conducts the service at Hadley Methodist Church in Telford, Shropshire on November 10.
She refused to give a reason for her decision but a spokesperson at the Telford circuit said it was because Rev Jackson is in favour of peace.
A church spokesman said: "Reverend Jackson is happy to wear a white poppy but doesn't want to wear a red one because she feels it advocates war which is something she does not believe in.

I foresee a vicar in a world of trouble soon, however that's her choice. However i do believe the idiot woman is misinformed as to the red poppy's significance as it does not commemorate war, does not glorify war nor does it advocate militarism. It reminds us of sacrifice and those who fell as well as those who served. There is precious little glory in war as any conversation with soldiers, sailors or airmen will tell you. Nor does the horror of seeing your friends killed or maimed give them anything other than grief.
As for the white poppy, well it was used by the Women's Cooperative back in 1933 as a symbol to end all wars, six years later the UK was fighting for its life agains the Nazi's, there was the horror of the concentration camps and the systematic murder of foreign nationals on their own soil by the Einsatzgruppen der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD. The white poppy to me symbolises the peace at any price mindset of the hard of thinking aka the left who are happy to disarm civilisation, though no one else. These were the same people who wanted to ban the bomb (only for the UK) spied upon their own citizens and raved about the socialist paradises across the iron curtain and who still bitterly regret the people there throwing off the yoke of the communists.
The white poppy to me does not symbolise peace, but surrender, this is my view and one which I hold too which is why I will never wear one and do not care for those who do. However this is their choice as it is the vicars choice.
That said, why the hell is she still doing the remembrance service for the fallen if she chooses not to honour their memory?

Not in my name, not in my interests

Cameron was whining to the press today about having to give up his cherished dream of emulating Tony Blair and leading his nation into war, albeit a war at arms length and not one that has anything to do with us.
Telegraph.

"The judgment of the Joint Intelligence Committee is that a chemical weapons attack did occur in Damascus last week; that it is highly likely that the Syrian regime was responsible; that there is some intelligence to suggest regime culpability; and that no opposition group has the capability to conduct a chemical weapons attack on this scale."
The Government's position on the legality of any action makes clear that if action in the UN security Council is blocked, the UK would still be permitted, under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, to take exceptional measures including targeted military intervention in order to alleviate the overwhelming humanitarian suffering in Syria."
The Cabinet endorsed the recommendation from the National Security Council and the Prime Minister will set out the proposed government response in the House this afternoon.

Ok so it was Assad (probably), so what? Doesn't make him any less culpable than the atrocities committed against Christians and Assad supporters that has been committed by the rebels. This is a CIVIL WAR it has nothing to do with us whatsoever. I don't care if international law does not allow chemical weapons, it doesn't allow slavery either yet both appear to be practised by islamic states.
An Express Online poll revealed that only eight per cent of the public backed any form of intervention in Syria, I presume that those are the islamoloons infesting this country along with their allies in the hard of thinking leftist socialists, as they appear to be the only ones supporting the rebels, not even Galloway supports the fanatics whom Cameron wants to aid. A significant 41 per cent of people are against action by Britain in any circumstances, whilst only 39 per cent would only agree with a launch if the UN confirmed chemical weapons have been used by the Syrian regime and then sanctions a strike.
In other words we don't want to be drawn into a muslim problem, we have enough problems with them here.
Syria is not worth the life of a single person loyal to this country, if anything we could I suppose send our problem muslims to go fight for the rebels whilst arming Assad and dealing with their nuisance value that way.
Win win...

At the going down of the sun and in the morning...

Picture from Richard Cherry photography

For The Fallen

With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children,
England mourns for her dead across the sea.
Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit,
Fallen in the cause of the free.

Solemn the drums thrill; Death august and royal
Sings sorrow up into immortal spheres,
There is music in the midst of desolation
And a glory that shines upon our tears.

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted;
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

They mingle not with their laughing comrades again;
They sit no more at familiar tables of home;
They have no lot in our labour of the day-time;
They sleep beyond England's foam.

But where our desires are and our hopes profound,
Felt as a well-spring that is hidden from sight,
To the innermost heart of their own land they are known
As the stars are known to the Night;

As the stars that shall be bright when we are dust,
Moving in marches upon the heavenly plain;
As the stars that are starry in the time of our darkness,
To the end, to the end, they remain.

Laurence Binyon (1869-1943)

Sad

One of the joys of my life was attending an air show at Biggin Hill and watching the older planes lovingly preserved by enthusiasts flying or in a few cases left on the ground for engineers (and others) like me to look at and occasionally have a look under the covers. Whilst my own enthusiasms go elsewhere I couldn't help but admire the dedication and no doubt the personal costs that went into looking after these planes. So rooting around the various MSM outfeeds today I ran across an article that saddened me greatly...
BBC.

The last airworthy Vulcan bomber will fly for the final time next year, the trust which funds the aircraft has confirmed.
The XH558 has been based at South Yorkshire's Robin Hood Airport since March 2011 after the RAF Lyneham base closure was announced.
It has been decided that "challenging modifications" to both wings would not be sustainable to the old aircraft.
The Vulcan to the Sky Trust said it decided not to fund the repairs.
Trust chief executive Dr Robert Pleming told supporters: "At the end of next year, she will need a £200,000 modification to her wings to increase her flying life.
"We know that you would do your upmost to fund this work, but for a number of reasons we have decided not to ask you to take this risk."

The 'Vulcan' was of course the main reason I attended the air show as I'd been reading and monitoring the groups progress for quite a while and was overjoyed when they managed to get the 'tin triangle' back into airworthiness.
No, it's not exactly going to break hearts, though perhaps it will with some enthusiasts,but the world is definitely a less fun place to be with me this morning...

That 'Asian' word again

I don't know why the MSM do it, they aren't really fooling anyone but they have got to get over the misuse of the word 'Asian' when describing the activities of a certain religious group.
Express.

SOLDIERS guarding the Paralympics have been told to keep in large groups after a spate of unprovoked attacks on servicemen.
In the worst incident, a lone off-duty soldier was targeted by four Asian men who abused him for being in the Army before attacking him yards from his base.

Asia is a big bloody place and I suspect the guys attacking the soldiers weren't Chinese either, nor any of the oriental Asians. Nor somehow do I suspect they come from the old Soviet Asian states but rather the Indian sub continent and either one of the Islamic states festering therein. So just who the Express thinks they are fooling is anyone's guess, certainly not the public at large. Perhaps it's just to keep the commision on racial equality happy not to go into specifics or the local Guardianistas who would squeal 'waycist' had such a connection been made.
Still this is the Islamic republic of Tower hamlets we're talking about, a place of peace and tolerance amongst the religion teachers being bludgeoned near to death for teaching Muslim pupils about other religions, non Muslim shop assistants being threatened for not wearing a veil and the site of gay free zone stickers put up by Islamics despite the initial claims it was the EDL doing it. Also the place where a woman was dragged off a bus and beaten up by Asian thugs only to have the UAF video it and laugh about it.
Yes, that Tower hamlets, home of the Muslim postal vote, where only whites can be racist according to the corrupt Lee Jasper the one who suggested there were similarities between the extremist Anders Breivik and Mayor of London Boris Johnson.
A place where one day there will be rioting and carbeques like the Banlieues of France where the Islamic areas have become no go areas for civilised people, mostly meaning non Islamics.
No doubt the 'Asians' making these attacks don't think they are unprovoked, after all the Army is deployed in Afghanistan and the Islamic sense of grievance knows no end, though it might just be racism rearing its ugly head, not that I'd expect anyone caught to have the racist tag added to any charges, the Rhea Paige incident will have told anyone what to expect from the CPS and Judges on anything along those lines.
Nor do I expect politicians to do anything about the plague we have to deal with in the sense of Islamic immigration, not unless it's too little too late.No, we'll be told we're racists, bigots Nazi's, fascists etc, which we aren't but there's no stopping the anti-English left wing liberals when they go off on one.
Doesn't make us wrong though, does it?

You pay peanuts...

It was bound to happen when the companies providing security for the Olympics decided to go for the lowest common denominator failed to get acceptable staff to assist people attending the games.
Mail.

G4S Olympic security guard faces sack after calling soldier who had served in Afghanistan a 'baby killer'

• Asian guard is also said to have spat at the serviceman during confrontation
• Pair were working at the archery contest at Lord's Cricket Ground
• G4S has begun urgent internal investigation into claims

Under-fire private security firm G4S was at the centre of another embarrassing Olympics scandal today after an employee allegedly
called a soldier a 'baby killer' as they worked at a Games venue.The Asian civilian guard, who faces the sack, is said to have spat at the serviceman and made the abusive remark at the archery contest at Lord's Cricket Ground.
The remark is believed to have been a reference to the soldier's service in Afghanistan.

There's that ubiquitous 'Asian' tag again, which is a gross insult to the vast majority of Asians who are polite, civilised and generally not Islamic in nature. You can pretty much accept that if the roles had been reversed the police would most likely have been called and an arrest made for a hate crime. As it is there's the usual embarrassed quotes from the various agencies involved, "isolated incident", "Urgently investigating", etc. etc. Nothing from the police though whom you just know would have been called in if the roles had been reversed.
Now you may not agree with our troops being in Afghanistan, though God alone knows they are better behaved than the Islamic Taliban against whom they are ranged. But you'll never convince some people of that, mostly Muslims and the hard of thinking (aka socialists) but you don't take it out on the troops, nor do you spit at the troops themselves, spitting is a disgusting and vile habit and carries the risk of TB and other nasty diseases being spread.
So what will happen? I expect the guard will be sacked, however no criminal charges will be filed, the guy won't end up being detained and his family put into care (as happened to Emma West) nor will he be deported to a shit heap country where his views are acceptable to the masses. Simply because he's one of the states pets, ie, coloured and a Muslim.
Some people are amazed the soldier didn't punch his lights out, but then again I suppose the soldier is infinitely more disciplined and civilised than any Muslim security guard.

Or we could just stop fighting foreign wars.

What is it with politicians in that when it comes to savings they always look in the wrong places? Instead of cutting waste, getting rid of Quangos and fake Charity Donations, Of ridding themselves of the middle management consultant mentality or various chief executives. They immediately plump for frontline services?
Express.

THE Army will have to rely on help from mercenaries and foreign soldiers in future wars, the Defence Secretary announced yesterday.
Regiments face being axed or merged as part of Government plans to reduce the number of Army personnel from 102,000 to 82,000 by 2020.
Private military contractors, Nato allies and Territorial Army reservists doubled to 38,000 with a £1.8billion investment will plug the gaps, Philip Hammond told the Royal United Services Institute.
Mr Hammond outlined plans for civilians to provide “logistics support” for frontline soldiers. Vital tasks such as catering may be out-sourced, he said, with Britain relying on foreign powers in other areas like transport.
Mr Hammond told his audience that the Army will “rethink the way we deliver every aspect of military effect in order to maximise capability at the front line”.

Only a lunatic would put the safety and transport of their armed services into the hands of factors out of our direct control, well lunatic/politician/civil servant, take your pick. The terms seem to be interchangeable these days. There's also the slight problem in that any armed force under 100,000 isn't actually an army, it's a civil defence force.
At the end of the day though, you have to look at government spending, it's still rising yet services are being cut here there and everywhere. Which beggars the question of where the hell is the money going?
It can't all be going on pensions, the NHS, green subsidies and the EU along with Quangos and Fake Charity consultants can it?
I have to admit, I'm beginning to wonder though.

Combined savings...

I'm not a great one for the government spending cash on waste however in a bit of whimsy it occurred to me that we might just be able to justify this...
MSN.

The Army is set to station soldiers and high velocity surface-to-air missiles on top of a block of residential flats to ward off any airborne terror threats during the Olympics.
Residents in the private, gated flats in Bow, east London, have received a leaflet warning them that a team of 10 soldiers and police will be stationed at the building - home to 700 people - for the duration of the Games.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) leaflet says the missiles will only be fired as a last resort, said 28-year-old resident Brian Whelan, a journalist.
He said: "They are going to have a test run next week, putting high velocity missiles on the roof just above our apartment and on the back of it they're stationing police and military in the tower of the building for two months. It's a private, gated community with an old watch tower which is now a lift shaft.

With a suitable target for practice with this...
Mail.

Revelations about a deal to spend millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on private jets to whisk the EU's top officials around the globe in luxury was met with fury by one senior Conservative MEP.
The European Commission has just signed a contract costing more than €12 million (£10million) for private jets to ferry senior Commissioners such as Britain's Baroness Ashton, President Jose Manuel Barroso, and their acolytes between meetings, reported The Sunday Times.
Only on Wednesday the Commission provoked fury by proposing an inflation-busting 6.8 per cent increase in the EU's budget for 2013.

I mean, what's not to like, the army gets target practice and we get rid of some of the higher lower echelons of the parasite class...
Ok, it's a bit costly, but come on, it would bring joy to millions...

Compare and contrast (another one)

It turns out some of our soldiers are going hungry when in training, there are a few reasons for this, one is a Pay As You Dine system introduced by the previous government to give them a choice of eating on the base or outside and which has naturally not kept pace with inflation, another being the tendency of some recruits to either blow on binges as some young people have a tendency to do, or use it to fund trips to see family. Either way the end result is that some recruits doing the hardest part of their training are going hungry.
Express.

 HUNGRY soldiers are training on empty stomachs because they cannot afford three meals a day.
The situation is so bad that one soldier told the Sunday Express he would rather be serving in Afghanistan because at least the food there was “better and free”.
Almost a fifth of all trainees regularly go without at least one meal a day, according to a report submitted to MPs.
It means infantry soldiers, who can expect to be risking their lives on the frontline a year after they join, are not consuming the number of calories the Army says they need.
While food prices have increased, pay at lower ranks has failed to keep up with inflation. A recruit earns less than £14,000 a year, rising to £17,265 when he passes basic Phase 1 training. Yet they pay £540 a month, two-thirds of their take-home pay, for food and accommodation.

As I said, there are reasons for this happening and not all of it is down to the MOD, but expecting all their young recruits to behave rationally is probably not the wisest move they could have made either. That and the fact that the price of food has gone up far more than their wages has not helped at all.
Yet strangely enough if you're an enemy of the state rather than a defender of it, money does not seem to be a problem...
Telegraph.

Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is still being paid to groups linked to Islamist extremism, more than a year after David Cameron vowed to outlaw the practice.
People associated with one “extremist” group whose grant was terminated after the Prime Minister’s pledge are now being used to induct new staff into the Government’s own Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism (OSCT), the Home Office division responsible for directing Britain’s anti-terror efforts. Only last week the same individuals were awarded thousands of pounds of fresh public funding.
Meanwhile, the Civil Service has solicited “fast-stream” recruits for the top ranks in Whitehall from a group which has hosted numerous extremists and terrorist supporters, including the al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was linked to a number of international plots before his death last year.
Another body linked to the extremist sect Hizb ut-Tahrir, the public funding of which Mr Cameron condemned as long ago as 2009, is still receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money, to educate primary-age children in Hizb ut-Tahrir ideology.
The Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS), has been used by the Civil Service to recruit new “fast-stream” trainees for its top ranks.
FOSIS has hosted numerous extremist and terrorist speakers at its annual conference and other events, including Azzam Tamimi, who supports suicide bombing, Haitham al-Haddad, who believes that music is a “prohibited and fake message of love and peace”, and Anwar al-Awlaki.
Several convicted terrorists have been officers of university Islamic societies affiliated to FOSIS and have attended its events. FOSIS has been condemned by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, and Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, for its failure to “fully challenge terrorist and extremist ideology”.

Yes, that's right, if you are no friend of the UK, money is no object, these are the people who no doubt would be cheering the desecration of the Desert Rats graves in Benghazi, the killing of soldiers in Afghanistan and the various Islamic murders worldwide in their so called jihad.
I've long thought that the upper echelons of the civil service are besotted with "Arab lovers" and have far more sympathy with Islamics than is healthy or desirable owing to their misplaced hatred of Israel. Something I think that blinds them to the menace within, though spending the publics money on their favoured pets rather than necessities has often been the case in the past.
Yet in the end, what do we want, our soldiers to go hungry in training or Islamic extremists given cash to recruit and train more extremists, which appears to be the case here? That plus the people they forward on get into sensitive areas where they can warn the extremists about possible targets or sanctions. We appear to be financing our very own internal fifth column here.
I still maintain that there is no place for Islam in a civilised society, though I don't have an issue with individual Muslims. Nothing I've read this morning and afternoon has come close to changing my mind on this, we should not be funding, financing or giving aid to the enemies of our country and way of life. Islam is not a civilised or peaceful religion, it's a totalitarian, fascistic, warlike, thought control cult and it needs to be removed from our society like the cancer it is.
We are fools if we believe otherwise and probably doomed if we don't.

 

None of our business

Why is it that under the most stringent cut backs in military spending that politicians keep coming up with pledges to send in the troops if necessary to places we have no business being?

Telegraph.

Britain could send military reinforcements to the Gulf if the dispute with Iran escalates, according to Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary.
He said the decision to send HMS Argyll as part of an international flotilla of warships through the sensitive Strait of Hormuz on Sunday sent a "clear signal" to Tehran.
The deployment defied explicit Iranian threats to close the waterway. It coincided with an escalation in the West's confrontation with Iran over the country's nuclear ambitions.
Iran has threatened to close the strait – through which 35 per cent of the world's tanker-borne oil exports pass – in retaliation for sanctions against its oil exports.
The EU agreed an oil embargo on Monday against Iran as part of sanctions over its nuclear programme.
The measures include an immediate embargo on new contracts for crude oil and petroleum products while existing ones are allowed to run until July.

 Yes I know Iran has nuclear ambitions, yes I know they could make a real nuisance of themselves in the Straits of Hormuz if they wanted too, but frankly the amount of ships we could send compared to the Americans is minuscule and would be much better deployed elsewhere say like the Falklands or off the coast of Somalia hanging pirates from the yardarm.
Our armed forces have been gutted by the politicians in Westminster in both this government and the last and quite frankly it's time we brought them home and had a major rethink in just what it is we want to do with them vis home defence and force projection. Should we have them out in Afghanistan keeping the peace or should we simply leave that place to go back to barbarism again with occasional flattening of terrorist camps as and when we find them by cruise missiles, after all, it would be far more easier simply to declare the place a no go zone and allow India to deal with the Pakistani problem.
Our troops and navy should only be where they are wanted keeping an eye on aggressors to us, yes Iran is a problem, but it's a problem easily solved by simply funding its enemies right on its door, not by sending warships into restricted waters. Same with Afghanistan, simply play the tribes off against each other and fund them to attack Pakistan and Iran.
We could and still will need a professional and reasonably large set of armed forces, but we need them closer to home or in areas where we have obligations, the Middle East and Afghanistan don't count for either of those criteria.

 

The final insult

Protocols and policies, the refuge of the jobsworth when faced with criticism over something they've done which flies in the face of common sense and compassion. Excuses will be offered and occasionally an apology, sometimes compensation and the platitude that "lessons will be learned." Usually far too late.
Express.

A SOLDIER killed in Afghanistan had £433 deducted from his final pay because he had failed to complete “a full month’s” work.
Lance Corporal Jordan Bancroft, 25, was shot dead in Helmand province in August 2010. More than year later, as the Ministry of Defence finally settled his outstanding wages, £433.13 was deducted because he had died 10 days before pay day.
Yesterday his father Tony, 47, called the action “a disgrace”, adding: “It’s a massive slap in the face for us and especially Jordan, who laid down his life for his country. I had to read the letter a good few times to take it in. It seems £433.13 is all his life is worth to them.”
Taxi driver Mr Bancroft, from Earby, Lancs, and his family had raised £10,000 for his son’s regiment and £6,000 for the Help For Heroes charity.
He said: “It’s not the amount they’ve taken that upsets me because it’s not about the money, it’s the principle. We’ve raised a lot of money for his regiment and yet the MoD have no qualms about taking £400 from us. The regiment has been great; it’s the MoD who have done this.”

It will be a written policy somewhere that will have been followed to the letter, chances are the person doing it wont have even known who Jordan Bancroft was yet the utter lack of compassion is not fitting for someone who died whilst serving their country. I'm even sure the MOD could point out hundreds of cases where something similar has been done without complaint from people too stunned and grieving over their loss to challenge the MOD's complete lack of compassion. This can also be seen in its attempts to cut costs by removing £250 million from Servicemen’s allowances for serving in non hostile areas overseas.or between postings yet failed to sort out the massive overspending on contract renegotiation for necessary equipment.
The treatment of our armed forces is a disgrace and this is frankly a PR disaster for the MOD, though again I expect some sort of apology, lessons will be learned etc then business as usual. Perhaps those who make this sort of decision should be given a rifle themselves and sent to Afghanistan to serve, pour encourager les autres...
One way of bucking their ideas up.

If only...

Sometimes the odd story comes along that makes me smile and think if only...
Express.

A BRITISH warship was at the centre of extraordinary international tension when it was accused of targeting the US president’s wife Michelle Obama.

The American Secret Service reacted furiously when they noticed the missiles on HMS Edinburgh were aiming directly at Mrs Obama’s hotel suite in South Africa.

The agents complained and one told the British crew: “You can’t point those guns at the First Lady.”

The Royal Navy warship was docked alongside Mrs Obama’s exclusive Cape Town hotel as she embarked on her first major overseas tour without her husband Barack since he became President.

Red-faced British officers were forced to reassure her security detail that the Type 42 destroyer was only carrying blank rockets, known as “drills” and explain that the weapons were on show for ceremonial reasons following the death of an officer.

 Seriously though, the Royal Navy is not going to target the wife of the U.S. president, much as we might like too at times, but we exist in a world of grown ups, not the American Secret Service world. And, whilst a good few of us might like to see the odd U.S. president looking down the barrels of a Royal Navy rocket salvo, we know that isn't going to happen either. We know Obama doesn't like us, we know why too, the man is a racist of the "he can'r be a racist as he's black" type so beloved of socialist numpties and liberal idiots. He seems to think or believe that his Mau Mau supporting descendents in Kenya had some sort of moral high ground rather than being murderous scum. But he's entitled to his (wrong) beliefs, just doesn't make him anyone I like is all.
A simple phone call and not a full fledged panic by the Secret Service would probably have sorted out the problem immediately instead of intruding on the sorrow and grief of the crew of HMS Edinburgh.
Still if only we dared, might do the silly buggers the world of good to realise that they aren't that loved by their friends and allies, never mind their enemies.

Moral idiocy

I have no problem with contentious objectors, providing of course they make their feelings known before landing themselves in a situation at which they have moral qualms. Where I draw the line though is if someone joins one of the armed services and then has an attack of conscience or uses it as an excuse to avoid duty, which is why I have no sympathy at all with Michael Lyons.
BBC.

A Royal Navy medic who refused to attend rifle training because of his objection to the war in Afghanistan has lost an appeal against his detention.
Michael Lyons, 25, from Plymouth, was detained after being found guilty at a court martial of disobeying a legal order by refusing to attend training.
He said he had a "moral objection" to bearing arms.
He was dismissed from the service later. He lost his challenge at the Court of Appeal.
Lyons was sentenced in July to seven months' detention at a military correction facility in Colchester, Essex.
Lord Justice Toulson, sitting with Mr Justice Openshaw and Mr Justice Hickinbottom, threw out his conviction appeal.
They also dismissed his appeal against his "manifestly excessive" sentence.

I cannot image what on earth possessed the guy to join a military service and not expect to come into contact with weapons at some stage, even if it's simply for personal defence. Granted the Navy, like the RAF are not exactly on the front line where it comes to facing armed aggressors face to face, but the principle stands, if you are asked to bear arms, even if it's for self defence, you wear a gun, orders are orders and this is not an illegal order.
The only circumstances in which I could see any form of problem in this would if we had conscription, where you had no choice but to be where you were. This is where the conscientious objector get out clause comes into play, you simply opt out. But this guy only seems to have developed a conscience after he learned he might end up in harms way by refusing personal weapons training.
Frankly this is a good decision by the judges and my personal opinion of  Michael Lyons is that he's a coward and that's about as mild as I can get it as my deepest opinions would involve considerably more intemperate language.