Ill equipped and badly let down

Sminkey, i really dont know how u can approve of something that so obviously wastes so much money. I have nothing against real claims but when i see shortcomings in other areas and services it makes my blood boil knowing that a vast number of claimants are bogus, i can still work but they cant? No no no get them back off their lazy behinds and into doing some work like the rest of us, think of all the other uses for that money not just the forces but education, top up fees could be gotten rid of or reduced for starters.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.totaltwaddle.co.uk...

Come on now. You can't have a lot of casualties if your troops are well prepared. It's not a viable war without lots of casualties. Everyone knows there is plenty of money for this equipment. If it's not being used for it then there's a reason. The reason is the leaders don't care. These poor souls are cannon fodder for political gain. Cut thru the BS and that's what you are left with. Reality.

Originally posted by ufo3
Sminkey, i really dont know how u can approve of something that so obviously wastes so much money.

- The really funny thing about all this is that the UK's welfare bill for people out of and/or unable to work is actually very low at the moment because unemployment is so low.

This huge level of "waste" you imagine is nothing of the sort IMO.

(......and if you want to blame someone for those long-termers that are on the sick and shouldn't be go thank the tories who actively told people through the job centres when they were trying to disguise their gross unemployment figures cos that's where most of it comes from.)

I have nothing against real claims but when i see shortcomings in other areas and services it makes my blood boil knowing that a vast number of claimants are bogus, i can still work but they cant?

- A couple of anecdotal stories do not a nation of skivers make.

No no no get them back off their lazy behinds and into doing some work like the rest of us, think of all the other uses for that money not just the forces but education, top up fees could be gotten rid of or reduced for starters.

- Why the hell would anyone want to break the hard-won linkage between the better off having to invest in their own education, hmmm?

www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.dailymail.co.uk...

- Jayzuss wept, you use the Daily Mail as your (single) source?!

Coo, now there's a 'newspaper' to look to for accurate information about the UK's poor on benefits, not.
Next you'll be 'backing this up' with quotes from the Daily Torygraph.

www.totaltwaddle.co.uk...

- Snappy title.

......and as for the 'plight of the UK troops'?

I have to say that whilst I will admit there are undoubtedly times where things are either done poorly or the system fails them (but wake up, sadly this will always be so) the fact remains that the UK's troops are obviously equipped sufficiently to make 'mass casualties' a figment of a rather over-active, ill-informed, fervent and pessimistic imagination.

I know UK people out in Iraq and it is no fun at all but the sight of 'newspapers' who, from the comfort of London, try pretending that a few instances of things going wrong is typical for all out there just so they can attempt to score their rather lame anti-Labour party-political points makes me sick.

People like that simply use the situation, they really couldn't care less about the troops; if it had been the tories that had sent them they'd be staining their jocks with joy.

Wake up.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
How do the procedures work over in the UK. Does the MoD make all of the choices, does your equivalent of congress have any say in what the military does?

For a start our version of your congress would be our Parliament (you know housed in that big building by the london eye with big ben sitting on one corner) but it is the defense secretary (having listened to advisors fromt he various forces) that asks for the money from the Chancellor of the Exchequer (currently Gordon Brown) (he controls all the money in the UK). However, it is down to the Defense procurement Agency to actually order the items and is in charge of getting the goods ( often not at the best price)

We will never agree on this so lets just let it go.

Originally posted by ufo3
We will never agree on this so lets just let it go.

- OK, if you like, fair enough.

asks for the money from the Chancellor of the Exchequer (currently Gordon Brown) (he controls all the money in the UK).

Wait, one guy controls all the money in the UK?
Seems a bit risky to me.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

asks for the money from the Chancellor of the Exchequer (currently Gordon Brown) (he controls all the money in the UK).

Wait, one guy controls all the money in the UK?
Seems a bit risky to me.

- Westy do you work hard at 'thinking' like this?

Of course one guy doesn't 'control' all the money.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a little like the finance director of a large company. He is the man with day to day responsibility for implementing to ruling parties' economic program.
He does not operate alone but he is a senior member of the gov cabinet (in the present case he is the man most likely to take over from Tony Blair when TB retires from politics at the end of this coming 4-5yr period if reelected.
He also has a Parliamentary all party select committee he works with, the independant Bank of England and his various finance bills must pass through the House of Commons and subsequently the House of Lords three times (in each) where they may be amended before receiving 'Royal assent' and becoming law.
There is also an independant 'National Audit Office' to check financial probity.

Such are (some of) the checks and balances of the British system.

But, please, tell me you didn't really imagine in a modern developed country like the UK just one man is in charge of the money!?

[edit on 11-4-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Hey Britain still has a monarchy so I don't know what to think.

Anyway I did not know how the British government worked thank you for explaining it to me.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Hey Britain still has a monarchy so I don't know what to think.

- It's a 'constitutional Monarchy' Westy, mainly ceremonial with a few archaic practices and some 'power' they are wise not to actually use (cos if they ever tried to go against the democratically and duly elected gov there'd be hell to pay)

Anyway I did not know how the British government worked thank you for explaining it to me.

- You are welcome.

- It's a 'constitutional Monarchy' Westy, mainly ceremonial with a few archaic practices and some 'power' they are wise not to actually use (cos if they ever tried to go against the democratically and duly elected gov there'd be hell to pay)

Yeah I know they are mostly ceremonial, but why keep them around? I think there is no place for a monarchy in the 21st century ceremonial or not

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah I know they are mostly ceremonial, but why keep them around? I think there is no place for a monarchy in the 21st century ceremonial or not

So do something about it.

It's called nationalism. That sort of monarchy is something like people can look at and feel good about their country.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
why keep them around?

- Some people love all that 'tradition' stuff and also think it provides a non-political 'centre' around which all can feel aligned and give their allegiance to in a way that maybe a 'political President' does not.

Personally I disagree and would have an elected President tomorrow.

(But not in the US 'mould', I'd much rather the European version where the President is a-political and we retain the political parties as we do now, along with a Prime Minister)

I think there is no place for a monarchy in the 21st century ceremonial or not

- Well I don't disagree with that Westy, I think a hereditary system of such staggering priviledge is utterly inappropriate in todays world and retards British society in many ways not immeadiately obvious.
The underpimming of the crassy suffocating British class system being the most obvious.
(.....and just cos they keep quiet doesn't mean they aren't there.)

But until we have the vote on it and decide we are to have different we in the UK are stuck with them.

I suspect that when Elizabeth 2nd dies there might well be a move to a much more 'continental' style of Monarchy (where they are much smaller scale, utterly ceremonial and a hell of a lot less of a burden on the taxpayer).

I do not see Charles the 3rd as popular with the people and I have my doubts about his kids too.
Given what William has gone through I would expect his 'Kingship' to be something to be concerned about.

We shall see.

Damn, This Is Hard News

I didn't realize it was so bad. Any chance us Yanks can help you guys out?

God knows, the Brits have stood by us in thick and thin, and the idea of British soldiers having to endure these sorts of insults is heartbreaking to me.

If you can, please pass along at least the best regards of a guy in the western U.S. who loves Britain and her soldiers.

Here's hoping they stay as safe as they can and make it back okay when the job is done -- whenever the hell that may be.

Originally posted by Majic
Any chance us Yanks can help you guys out?

- Your administration and aero-business people won't even let us have the coding we bought and paid for in our Chinook helicopters, what makes you think they'd lend a hand here?

God knows, the Brits have stood by us in thick and thin, and the idea of British soldiers having to endure these sorts of insults is heartbreaking to me.

- That's kind (and true ) of you to say so.....although from the comments of some you'd be forgiven for thinking we were totally obligated rather than freely choosing to stand with our ally.
But anyway there are always logistical problems in big undertakings. By and large it is all worked out with little real damage done (although pity that poor guy - and his family - in that body armour episode).

If you can, please pass along at least the best regards of a guy in the western U.S. who loves Britain and her soldiers.

Here's hoping they stay as safe as they can and make it back okay when the job is done -- whenever the hell that may be.

- That's kind. Nice one Majic.

I do not know if the Pentagon will help the British but I hope they do, the Brits are always by our side on every war that we declare, we should at lest help them get equipped. Since its probably our fault in the first place that they are in the war.

Would you look at that, one of my few nonpartisan posts.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Would you look at that, one of my few nonpartisan posts.

- *picks himself up off of the floor*

Wow! I'm impressed Westy!

Guys, I'm back, I'm still mad and I really peed off with Hoon the Loon, Tony and Gordon.

To put the record straight about employment and those who speak out against the so called welfare state, I survived (just) on £8 a fortnight between two of us, for about 9 months. (This was because the rest went on bed & breakfast accomodation! After all the bills were paid, the £8 went on spuds, break and vegetables for soup.[God, but it was terribly boring!])

So, can you Yanks help us? I should think so, providing you don't make us pay for it!

'Something for nothing', I hear you cry. No guys. It's just that fighting this war on terrorism in Afghanistan and digging up all of Iraq trying to find those WMDs, is ruining our economy.

I mean, just how many more squaddies have to be sent to Iraq to look for WMDs. Of sorry. I forgot. There are none! Blair just wants our lads to get work experience and job satisfaction.

In 15 days time, all of us get the chance to get rid of Blair and his cronies. For God's sake. Do it right, so we can bring our guys home before any more die for Blair's lies!

Marines From Iraq Sound Off About Want of Armor and Men
But while most of Company E's work in fighting insurgents was on foot, the biggest danger the men faced came in traveling to and from camp: 13 of the 21 men who were killed had been riding in Humvees that failed to deflect bullets or bombs.

Toward the end of their tour when half of their fleet had become factory-armored, the armor's worth became starkly clear. A car bomb that the unit's commander, Capt. Kelly D. Royer, said was at least as powerful as the one on May 29 showered a fully armored Humvee with shrapnel, photographs show. The marines inside were left nearly unscathed.

Captain Royer, from Orangevale, Calif., would not accompany his troops home. He was removed from his post six days before they began leaving Ramadi, accused by his superiors of being dictatorial, records show. His defenders counter that his commanding style was a necessary response to the extreme circumstances of his unit's deployment.

Company E's experiences still resonate today both in Iraq, where two more marines were killed last week in Ramadi by the continuing insurgency, and in Washington, where Congress is still struggling to solve the Humvee problem. Just on Thursday, the Senate voted to spend an extra $213 million to buy more fully armored Humvees. The Army's procurement system, which also supplies the Marines, has come under fierce criticism for underperforming in the war, and to this day it has only one small contractor in Ohio armoring new Humvees.

Marine Corps officials disclosed last month in Congressional hearings that they were now going their own way and had undertaken a crash program to equip all of their more than 2,800 Humvees in Iraq with stronger armor. The effort went into production in November and is to be completed at the end of this year.

Defense Department officials acknowledged that Company E lacked enough equipment and men, but said that those were problems experienced by many troops when the insurgency intensified last year, and that vigorous efforts had been made to improve their circumstances.

Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis of Richland, Wash., who commanded the First Marine Division to which Company E belongs, said he had taken every possible step to support Company E. He added that they had received more factory-armored Humvees than any other unit in Iraq.

"We could not encase men in sufficiently strong armor to deny any enemy success," General Mattis said. "The tragic loss of our men does not necessarily indicate failure - it is war."

www.nytimes.com... nted=print&position=

their safety just must not be that high on his administration's priority list. How much has this war cost us again. Only one small contractor in Ohio has been working on these? There is no excuse. I can see why the marines took matters in their own hands...Are we really more efficient today? How many ships, planes, bombs, and other weaponry were kicked out in a days time during world war 2?

PULL out now..Pull out of Iraq while you can!!