THE BRITISH THREAD II

@georgeob1,

Quote:

However, discussion is almost always a precursor to actions that do occur.

But only one of the plethora of discussions creates the action. It is easy to discuss silly ideas without any reference to them being put into practice. I consider a US withdrawal from NATO and relocating the UN as silly ideas which I can hardly imagine any serious people even contemplating. As cocktail party bravado they might be attractive.

Quote:

NATO assignments were once "career enhancing" for our military offcers: now that's where they put drones and low performers.

I'm surprised to see you say something like that George. I wasn't aware that drones and low performers could even be recruited into the American officer class let alone rise to high ranks and wear heavily medalled uniforms.

Quote:

I hear the subject discussed from multiple sources in the military, as well as business and even some academic communities.

It is certainly reassuring that A2K has such a well connected member as you must be to be able to say a thing like that.

Quote:

Our policy of encouraging the growth of a coherent European commumity is, at least in some quarters a related matter.

Some of Europe's policy makers look to what the US encourages as a guide on what not to do.

Quote:

NATO is increasingly becoming a diplomatic brueaucracy of ever decreasing revelance to real issues of security. The fact that the European members won't even allow the development of military planning for the defense of new members in Central Europe, from Poland to the Baltics illustrates both the dangerous illusions of the Western European powers and the increasing vacuity of the whole structure. Add to that the persistent unwillingness of the European members to meet their agreed defense expenditures and our growing frustrations with absurd restrictions imposed in joint operations in Afghanistan and other places, and American participants come quickly to the realization that the security guarantees are all one-way, of little value to us and supporting only illusions in Europe.

That's A2K's Laugh of the Week. It's the 12 inch brush dipped in crude oil attempting to put a message on the backside of a postage stamp. It's a puissant eye-roller is that old boy.

Dangerous illusions are an integral part of human nature and will not be going away in any reasonable view of the forseeable future. And it is difficult to imagine what "increasing vacuity" might mean when vacuity is already at the end of the asymptote.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Spendius has (hopefully) exhausted himself with an off hand dismissal of the central idea and peripheral, essentially empty critiques of the manner in which it was expressed. However he has not at all addressed the idea itself.

I wonder if he has noticed that the current Administration in this country, one so favored by Europeans, has turned out to be far less interested in Europe than its predecessors.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

There are plenty of people in Europe George who would be quite happy if the US took no interest in Europe.

Not that there is much chance of that happening. There may be signs of it on the west coast but not in the east.

I understand that the Jaguars are contemplating Wembley as their home field.

Quote:

Operating bases
The command has five main operating bases along with 80 geographically separated locations. These are:

United Kingdom
RAF Lakenheath (48 FW)
F-15E Strike Eagle (492 & 494 FS)
F-15C/D Eagle (493 FS)
HH-60G PaveHawk (56 RQS)
RAF Mildenhall (100 ARW)
KC-135 Stratotanker (351 ARS)
352d Special Operations Group (AFSOC tenant unit)
MC-130P Combat Shadow (352 SOG)
MC-130H Combat Talon II (352 SOG)
Italy
Aviano AB (31 FW)
F-16CG/DG (Block 40) (510 & 555 FS)
Germany
Spangdahlem AB (52 FW)
F-16CJ/DJ (Block 50) Fighting Falcon (22 & 23 FS)
A-10A/OA-10A Thunderbolt II (81 FS)
Ramstein AB (86 AW)
C-130E Hercules (37 AS)
C-20H (76 AS)
C-21A (76 AS)
C-40B (76 AS)

Secondary And Support Facilities:

Belgium
Chièvres Air Base (86 AW)
C-37 Gulfstream V (309 AS)
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Tuzla Air Base (Det. 401 AEG)
Cyprus
RAF Akrotiri
U-2S (part of deployed tenant unit from 9 RW of ACC)
Germany
Stuttgart-Echterdingen Airport (86 AW)
C-21A (HQ USEUCOM)
Hungary
Taszar Air Base
Italy
San Vito dei Normanni Air Station
Norway
Sola Sea Air Station (426 ABS)
Stavanger Air Station (Det. 426 ABS)
Portugal
Lajes Air Station (65 ABW)
Spain
Morón Air Base (86 AW, 496 ABS)
Turkey
İzmir Air Base
Ankara Air Station
Incirlik Air Base (39 ABW)
United Kingdom
501st Combat Support Wing RAF Alconbury
RAF Alconbury (423 ABG)
RAF Croughton (422 ABG)
RAF Molesworth (423 ABG)
RAF Upwood (423 ABG)
RAF Welford (424 ABS)
RAF Menwith Hill
RAF Fairford (420 ABG)
Operated as surge base, particularly for U.S. based B-52s and B-1Bs

Note: In addition to the above, several Munitions Support Squadrons (MUNSS) are geographically separated units (GSU) located throughout Europe assigned to the 52 FW at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany. MUNSS are located at Ghedi AB Italy, Buechel AB Germany, Volkel AB Netherlands, and Kleine-Brogel AB Belgium. They are co-located on other NATO main operating bases and work together with the host nation wing.

When NATO is dismissed with a wave of the arm in order to shock dinner party guests it is useful to know what it actually consists of.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

There are plenty of people in Europe George who would be quite happy if the US took no interest in Europe.

Agreed, but there are also many in Europe who would like to see us alter our lives here.

In any event the movement appears to be reciprocal. It is probably impoortant for both sides to think through the consequences.

A happy Christmas to you, yours and all Brits !

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I understand that the Jaguars are contemplating Wembley as their home field.

Yes, but does London want the Jags?

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

Maybe they would become the team of the US servicemen. At a guess I would say London does want them.

0 Replies

Santa is, of course, an elderly person and will soon be subject to the vagaries of some uncaring death panel. He can see Alaska from his house and he knows what's coming.

Still, with a good stock of Bailey's and the now commonly available medical-grade reefer, he and the Mrs likely have a few good years remaining even if we see a slow diminishment in under-the-tree stuff until the Chinese take over.

All of which is only peripherally relevant to the holiday greetings contained herein.

love from bernie and jane

1 Reply

@blatham,

Thanks Bernie. Best wishes.

George wrote-

Quote:

Agreed, but there are also many in Europe who would like to see us alter our lives here.

It is more the exporting of your chosen ways that is objected to in some quarters. Without that I don't think anybody would care much how you live.

If ever our judges catch the pomposity of that judge who sentenced the two idiots with the balloon with no kid in it I think the objection might be a valid one. If lying to an officer is that bad I hardly think there would be anybody left here free to go to work.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Wishing you a Happy Christmas Spendi. x

1 Reply

@Izzie,

Thanks Izzie. Same to you. Stay calm.

It's the only day in the year when the pub's shut.

0 Replies

Merry Christmas Britain! x

0 Replies

It's snowy. The bookies lose.

Merry Christmas. Good old Charles Dickens.

1 Reply

@McTag,

Special Xmas greeting to mr and mrs fiona whose card arrived yesterday. It was a lovely card on which they spared no expense using even the color cartridge in their bubble-jet printer. We will treasure it always.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I think that Tico has hit on the essential point, and done so in fewer words than I would have used.

It is generally an easy matter to rationalize inaction in the face of a complex and serious threat on the basis of narrow moral issues as the author of the Grardian piece did. However, that doesn't mean that doing so is necessarily wrong. History offers us many often contradictory lessons on such situations, and it is generally not possible to know with certainty which applies.

In the case at hand , I believe the evident facts that the bin Laden organization had been conducting an escalating series of attacks on the U.S., .........................etc(

Not so, I fear. Tico's "essential point" was to compare Blair/Bush's dilemma with the one faced by Neville Chamberlain in 1939 and before.

Note, we are talking about the invasion of Iraq, and not the attacks on Osama bin Laden.

I submit that there is no way Saddam Hussain can be compared with the threat Hitler posed at the time, (post-Kuwait, Saddam was a busted flush) and so Tico's bum is out the window once more.

Another thought occurred to me today: of all the ordnance employed in Afghanistan and Iraq (bullets, rockets, grenades, bombs, guns of all sizes) how much of it is manufactured in these countries?
None, I expect.
So we have imported the materiel for both sides, as well as importing a war.

1 Reply

@McTag,

Oh, I understand your point of view now. Abandoning your political principles and past policies and selling out allies whose territorial integrity you have pleged to support, provided that there is a perceived immediate danger (which itself grew during your previous inaction) is OK. However, acting to affirm previous principle, policy and committments is surely not permitted.

Nonsense !

By the way the historical record is pretty clear that had Britain and France opposed Hitler's military reoccupation of the Rhineland, the German Army would have quickly retreated and the several plots already afoot to remove the tyrant from power would very likely have removed him from the scene. Even at Munich, determined opposition by the spineless governments of Britain and France would have significantly improved their positions, both politically and militarily, and thereby significantly reduced the destruction and setbacks they subsequently suffered. By the standards you have expressed these early actions would certainly have been wrong. I can think of no clearer illustration of this very muddled line of reasoning.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

By the way the historical record is pretty clear that had Britain and France opposed Hitler's military reoccupation of the Rhineland, the German Army would have quickly retreated and the several plots already afoot to remove the tyrant from power would very likely have removed him from the scene.

Why do you name just those two and not Belgium and Italy as well? (Italy nad the UK were the guarantors named in the Locarno Treaty about the Rhineland Pact)

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I don't understand that first paragraph, but it doesn't sound like my point of view at all.

I want my government to do what it was elected to do: maintain and improve the safety of the country, and act within the law.
I reserve the right to criticise it, and call for the punishment of culprits, if it fails to do these things.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Why do you name just those two and not Belgium and Italy as well? (Italy nad the UK were the guarantors named in the Locarno Treaty about the Rhineland Pact)

Because it was France and Britain that dominated the Versailles treaty, including the provisions for the demilitarization of the Rhineland, and which alone had the power to influence the members of the always loose coalition of potential foes of Hitler in the Army and in industry. Italy was not a possible supporter - still in the grip of expansionist hopes kindled after WWI and emphasized by the Facist government in power there. Belgium didn't matter much.

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

I don't understand that first paragraph, but it doesn't sound like my point of view at all.

I was responding to this;

Quote:

I submit that there is no way Saddam Hussain can be compared with the threat Hitler posed at the time, (post-Kuwait, Saddam was a busted flush) and so Tico's bum is out the window once more.

It appears to me you are willing to rationalize Chamberlain's surrender because of the proximate danger then posed by Hitler, but unwilling to consider interventions done or contemplated at an earlier point in the development of such a threat.

While Saddam was not overtly connected to al Qaeda, both were potential key elements of the Islamist threat to the West which persists today. I believe the concern here was not so much Saddam himself but rather what might follow the collapse of his regime. Again, I believe our intervention in Iraq was an error because it has cost us too much and only perpetuated the illusions of our allies in Europe.

By the way the principal suppliers of arms to Saddam were France and Russia.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

It appears to me you are willing to rationalize Chamberlain's surrender because of the proximate danger then posed by Hitler, but unwilling to consider interventions done or contemplated at an earlier point in the development of such a threat.

I reserve the right to disagree with this, to which I will return tomorrow.

Until then, may your gods go with you.

1 Reply

THE BRITISH THREAD II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know