Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

And don't forget rugby

sage & onion wrote:Both

hmmm oh yeh you are good at cricket, last time i checked the brits lost to the bengalis

Football hmmm when was the last time england won a major cup?? [/quote]

Still a ways to go in the cricket.

1966 World Cup Final England 4 West Germany 2, England Captained by Bobby Moore, Hat trick scored in final by Geoff Hurst, the other goal scored by Martin Peters, wow all three players came from West Ham United.[/quote]

oh man you sound like a WW2 veteran u must be reallllllllllly old!!

rudeboy wrote:

sage & onion wrote:Both

hmmm oh yeh you are good at cricket, last time i checked the brits lost to the bengalis

Football hmmm when was the last time england won a major cup??

Still a ways to go in the cricket.

1966 World Cup Final England 4 West Germany 2, England Captained by Bobby Moore, Hat trick scored in final by Geoff Hurst, the other goal scored by Martin Peters, wow all three players came from West Ham United.

oh man you sound like a WW2 veteran u must be reallllllllllly old!!

Where are you manners Rudeboy? WW2 veteran indeed! This is English history! Everybody knows about the 1996 World Cup. I bet S&O was about 11 at the time (just a guess!).

BM, please expect nothing more from Rudeboy, its all in his name.

Hasn't the US pretty much stripped the British army post WWII via economic agreements and other strategic signings? The glory days of the Brit's were in the pre-WWII era, fast forward to today and you'd see the British army is nothing more of a specialized fighting force who fill in the gaps for NATO. The Brit's have no army. If you get all of em together would they even fill up Wembley stadium? But off-course they have the "bomb", so that does nullify any threat to the mainland.

But what about strategic and diplomatic interests?Takes me back to 1972, when the RAF conducting a successful reconnaissance mission right into the heart of Libya straight from the RAF base in Mildenhall. (they did'nt even have french permission, so they flew via the Iberian peninsula, today Cameroon pleads for EU backing) They did so using an indigenously developed stealth aircraft the SR-71, the first successfully deployed stealth aircraft, the fastest (ever at 3.4 machs at way less than full throttle) and the most successful (never shot down despite 100's of missions).
So what happens then, the yanks come in, jointly create their own SR-71, call it Det SR-71 and later the BlackBird, and shortly after the RAF discontinues it from their service(wonder why), whilst Lockheed went on to create further variants.
The sad story of the British armed forces. Today their only source of pride being the Grurkha's. Sad indeed for a country that once upon a time boasted the most advanced naval fleet in the world.

MCL I worked for the USAF in the 70's. Although RAF Mildenhall has the status of an RAF base, it has always been the home of the USAF. Are you sure it was the RAF that did the recce to Libya?

I would dispute your claim that we can only have pride in the Gurkhas. We have some fine regiments in the British Army, including the SAS. It's not our fault that our Government would rather give our hard earned tax payers money to India and China and can't maintain our Forces. India having it's own space programme aswell! I think we need to stop paying for all our past indiscretions around the world and look to the future. I'm holding my breathe to see how much we will be sending to Japan.

Misery Called Life wrote:Hasn't the US pretty much stripped the British army post WWII via economic agreements and other strategic signings? The glory days of the Brit's were in the pre-WWII era, fast forward to today and you'd see the British army is nothing more of a specialized fighting force who fill in the gaps for NATO. The Brit's have no army. If you get all of em together would they even fill up Wembley stadium? But off-course they have the "bomb", so that does nullify any threat to the mainland.

But what about strategic and diplomatic interests?Takes me back to 1972, when the RAF conducting a successful reconnaissance mission right into the heart of Libya straight from the RAF base in Mildenhall. (they did'nt even have french permission, so they flew via the Iberian peninsula, today Cameroon pleads for EU backing) They did so using an indigenously developed stealth aircraft the SR-71, the first successfully deployed stealth aircraft, the fastest (ever at 3.4 machs at way less than full throttle) and the most successful (never shot down despite 100's of missions).
So what happens then, the yanks come in, jointly create their own SR-71, call it Det SR-71 and later the BlackBird, and shortly after the RAF discontinues it from their service(wonder why), whilst Lockheed went on to create further variants.
The sad story of the British armed forces. Today their only source of pride being the Grurkha's. Sad indeed for a country that once upon a time boasted the most advanced naval fleet in the world.

This is a wind up, right? you’ve been listening to your friends MCL who too, appear to struggle with reality. I suggest you take a look at the following websites then return with your more informed comment on the ‘Sad story of the British armed forces’.

BM is exactly right, RAF Mildenhall and the sister base RAF Lakenheath play host to the USAF, and the USAF 95th Reconnaissance Squadron fly from Mildenhall, not the RAF.

The SR-71 was in service with the USAF from 1964 to 1998 although none were brought down in enemy action Twelve of the 32 aircraft manufactured were destroyed in accidents!


http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk

http://www.army.mod.uk/home.aspx

http://www.raf.mod.uk

Focusing on Operation El Dorado there were a few reports recently published which stated that the USAF definitely worked in tandem with RAF.
USAF control over proceedings was merely political and operationally restricted to American pilots flying the SR-71 (owing entirely to political pressure I would think).

Aah... so it would be the American pilots then who managed to crash twelve of their limited stock of 32?

Dillon wrote:Aah... so it would be the American pilots then who managed to crash twelve of their limited stock of 32?

What are you scoffing at?

So long as the Soviets or Libyan's didn't bring any down...then why bother? (if they had, the whole world would've known) All of the crashes were non-combat related.

The SR-71 was way ahead of it's time and was infact (as many experts not politicians would suggest) inspired (or plagarised) by the Bristol 188. As stated earlier economic pressure ensued that only America would develop such a concept. Why do you find it so hard to believe that ur own country was capable of such engineering marvels?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... sq-content


Besides why is the website not updated?
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations- ... /index.htm

Is'nt the ark royal decommissioned?

On the contrary MCL, the UK has a rich history of sharing technology with it’s allies and comes as no surprise to me that the technology developed during the development of a Mach 3 experimental aircraft at Filton contributed to the SR71 and indeed contributed directly to the Concorde which again was developed in Filton from the late 60’s.

So did you look at the referenced websites MCL, still think the British armed forces are a sad story?

The Ark Royal was officially decommissioned three days ago.

Dillon wrote:
So did you look at the referenced websites MCL, still think the British armed forces are a sad story?

Err shouldn't you be comparing with other armed forces, navies?

Once we eliminate French and US support the British army independently looks like an incomplete jigsaw puzzle. Case in point? Apparently you guys have carriers and will have some more, but still lack carrier strike capabilities. And btw the RAF has no interceptor capable of intercepting the Russian Sukhois (just saying).
Anyways I retirate, military invasion of ur mainland is seemingly impossible (via immigration....maybe lol ), but global policing? Now that's a thing of past. The curtain has finally dropped.

Misery Called Life wrote:Err shouldn't you be comparing with other armed forces, navies?

Err, and why would I wish to do that? My comments are in response to your previous and rather ignorant questions and statements, my intention is to educate, not compare sticks;

Misery Called Life wrote:

Hasn't the US pretty much stripped the British army post WWII via economic agreements and other strategic signings?

The glory days of the Brit's were in the pre-WWII era, fast forward to today and you'd see the British army is nothing more of a specialized fighting force who fill in the gaps for NATO.

The Brit's have no army. If you get all of em together would they even fill up Wembley stadium?

The sad story of the British armed forces. Today their only source of pride being the Grurkha's.

The answers to the above are in the pages I referenced earlier, I suggest you read them for your enlightenment, and Great Britain never were global policemen, we did and still do just look after our own and being fully paid up members of NATO have commitments there as well.

Dillon wrote:Err, and why would I wish to do that? My comments are in response to your previous and rather ignorant questions and statements, my intention is to educate, not compare sticks;

Not entirely sure if that was patriotism or logic speaking.... nonetheless, I admit, my analogy was a bit exaggerative (and irrelevant loll). You see I wasn't exactly expecting a linear response, I was aiming for a bit more bravado (are you a lawyer by any chance?)
But to sum up I was not entirely off-target either, disarmament does seem to be the buzzword as far as the UK military is concerned. Not that it's a bad thing, but this policy does seem to be aimed at creating an increased dependency of ur other military allies.

Misery Called Life wrote:But to sum up I was not entirely off-target either, disarmament does seem to be the buzzword as far as the UK military is concerned. Not that it's a bad thing, but this policy does seem to be aimed at creating an increased dependency of ur other military allies.

Disarmament would appear to be the buzzword in who’s circles MCL? It most certainly isn’t in the current language of the MOD or any of the Armed Services within the United Kingdom? There is a world of difference between fiscal due diligence, prudent budgetary control and the ‘buzzword disarmament’ YOU speak of, I wonder in who’s circles you DO move in, hearing such language?

this policy does seem to be aimed at creating an increased dependency of ur other military allies?

As members of the European Union we ‘Europeans’ do a little more than just trade black puddings and sausages on the Saturday morning Farmers Markets you know

Am I a Lawyer? Another bloody insult.

Dillon wrote:This is a wind up, right? you’ve been listening to your friends MCL who too, appear to struggle with reality.

Disarmament would appear to be the buzzword in who’s circles MCL? There is a world of difference between fiscal due diligence, prudent budgetary control and the ‘buzzword disarmament’ YOU speak of, I wonder in who’s circles you DO move in, hearing such language?

I'm beginning to sense a certain prejudice towards my friends What's up with that? :lol)

The thread itself was bordering on the ridiculous, Brit V/s USA?? C''monnn!!
The logical debate would be about technology but you counter with prudent budgetary control(!!!), I speak of sovereignty, you speak of allies, I speak with logic you with patriotism..... Guess it's best to put a sock in this debate right here.
So to sum up yaa in a war UK would start no chance, but Argentina is still 100(000) years aways from ever claiming the Falklands, Somali pirates will get a whooping and the UK military has enough infrastructure and sophistication to tackle any emergency(god forbid) that may befall the mainland !!! (happy now?)

Well No, not really! even your summary is as ridiculous and misleading as your first post!

Misery Called Life wrote:The thread itself was bordering on the ridiculous, Brit V/s USA?? C''monnn!!
The logical debate would be about technology but you counter with prudent budgetary control(!!!)

My budgetary control comment was regarding your claim of the UK disarmament ‘buzzword’ which simply doesn’t exist, I don't believe the question of technology has ever been tabled?

I speak of sovereignty, you speak of allies, I speak with logic you with patriotism

I have previously stated “The answers to the above are in the pages I referenced earlier, I suggest you read them for your enlightenment, and Great Britain never were global policemen, we did and still do just look after our own and being fully paid up members of NATO have commitments there as well.

That is a sovereign’s right to which I clearly stated ‘we look after our own’ with no mention of allies, and you have the nerve to call the following logic?;

Hasn't the US pretty much stripped the British army post WWII via economic agreements and other strategic signings?

The glory days of the Brit's were in the pre-WWII era, fast forward to today and you'd see the British army is nothing more of a specialized fighting force who fill in the gaps for NATO.

The Brit's have no army. If you get all of em together would they even fill up Wembley stadium?

The sad story of the British armed forces. Today their only source of pride being the Grurkha's.

Really?

As well as a patriot, I speak with absolute logic and only deal in absolute fact, no opinions, no assumptions, it’s all there in the annals of history and published in the references I persistently keep pointing you towards and you obstinately persist in avoiding.

So to sum up yaa in a war UK would start no chance,

I really don’t understand what this means?

And again as I said previously, we protect our own, wherever in the world they may be.

Now tell me, and more I think to the point, what is it that you don’t particularly like about the British Armed Forces that has convinced you of their inept capabilities? Or is it simply a disliking for everything British for some unknown reason? I’d rather tackle the real problem at hand than waste my time answering mindless lightly veiled antagonistic comment if this is in fact the case. Come on spill the beans, what are you, an Argentinean who felt the sharp end of a paratroopers anger in the Falklands in 1982? Someone who’s still walking about with a chip on your shoulder after your Great, Great Grandfather told you of the hideous practices of the Evil British Empire back in the turn of the 17th Century? Perhaps even an Ex Ghurka who retired from Hong Kong and missed out on his retirement in the UK and had to go back home to his mud hut on the mountain? Or are you just rattling cages? come on, tell me the story, I'm a Brit and I'm proud of my Britishness and EVERYTHING that it stands for, what are you?



-- Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:40 am --

I find it truly amazing, how one can speak volumes without saying a word!