British military warned of critical small number of ships

[Balu]

British military warned of critical small number of ships

<footer class="footer-author"><time class="article-date-published" itemprop="datePublished" datetime="2016-11-21T00:01+0000">21 November 2016 • 12:01am</time> </footer><article itemprop="articleBody" data-insert-mobile-adslot="">The Royal Navy has a “woefully low” number of warships that risks leaving Britain vulnerable to future threats, MPs warn today.
The number of frigates and destroyers is “way below” what is needed and could fall further to “completely unacceptable” levels unless the Ministry of Defence quickly presses on with its ship building programme.
The Commons defence committee says it has “serious concerns” about the funding and timetable of plans to modernise the ageing fleet.

The Navy’s 13 Type 23 frigates are due to begin retiring at the rate of one a year from 2023, but the MoD has yet to agree a deal to replace them with the new Type 26 and Type 31 designs.
In total the Royal Navy has 13 frigates and six destroyers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/31/the-royal-navys-obsession-with-big-ships-leaves-it-unable-to-pro/), down from a combined fleet of 33 in 2000.
MPs also attacked the MoD for the "extraordinary mistakes" in the design of Type 45 destroyers after it emerged they had faulty engines and will need costly refits.
The MPs 48-page report, called Restoring the Fleet, said it was an “inexcusable failing” that the engines had not been designed to operate in hot regions such as the Gulf.

Dr Julian Lewis, chairman, said: “For decades, the numbers of Royal Navy escort vessels have been severely in decline.
“The Fleet is now way below the critical mass required for the many tasks which could confront it, if the international scene continues to deteriorate.
“What remains of our surface Fleet now faces a prolonged period of uncertainty, as the frigate class is replaced in its entirety and all our destroyers undergo urgent, major remedial work on their unreliable engines.”
Dropping below the current 19 ships even for a short time would be "completely unacceptable" and leave the UK lacking the maritime strength to deal with the threats it faces from areas like Russia, the committee said.
"As an island nation, the importance of the Royal Navy to UK defence must not be underestimated," the committee said.
"Our starting point in this report is our conviction that the current number of frigates, destroyers and personnel inadequately reflects the potential threats and vulnerabilities facing the UK and its interests overseas."

Frigates are due to leave service at the rate of one a year between 2023 and 2035 but MPs said the Government has not set out the necessary detail on how and when the Type 26 and lighter Type 31 replacements will be delivered.
MPs said the delays seemed to be caused by a lack of money. Their report comes only days after it was disclosed warships will be left without anti-ship missiles and be forced to rely on naval guns because of cost-cutting.
The Navy’s Harpoon missiles will retire from the fleet’s frigates and destroyers in 2018 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/royal-navy-to-lose-anti-ship-missiles-and-be-left-only-with-guns/) without a replacement, while there will also be a two year gap without helicopter-launched anti-shipping missiles.
An MoD spokesman said: "We are investing in a growing Royal Navy by building two aircraft carriers, the new Type 26 Global Combat Ship, Dreadnought and Astute class submarines, and offshore patrols vessels.
"We are also developing new class of Lighter General Purpose Frigate so that by the 2030s we can grow the size of the fleet. This major programme of investment will ensure that the Royal Navy remains one of the world's most modern and powerful navies with a genuine global reach."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/21/royal-navy-has-woefully-low-number-of-warships-that-risks-leavin/







</article>

[Drummond]

British military warned of critical small number of ships

<footer class="footer-author"><time class="article-date-published" itemprop="datePublished" datetime="2016-11-21T00:01+0000">21 November 2016 • 12:01am</time> </footer><article itemprop="articleBody" data-insert-mobile-adslot="">The Royal Navy has a “woefully low” number of warships that risks leaving Britain vulnerable to future threats, MPs warn today.
The number of frigates and destroyers is “way below” what is needed and could fall further to “completely unacceptable” levels unless the Ministry of Defence quickly presses on with its ship building programme.
The Commons defence committee says it has “serious concerns” about the funding and timetable of plans to modernise the ageing fleet.

The Navy’s 13 Type 23 frigates are due to begin retiring at the rate of one a year from 2023, but the MoD has yet to agree a deal to replace them with the new Type 26 and Type 31 designs.
In total the Royal Navy has 13 frigates and six destroyers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/31/the-royal-navys-obsession-with-big-ships-leaves-it-unable-to-pro/), down from a combined fleet of 33 in 2000.
MPs also attacked the MoD for the "extraordinary mistakes" in the design of Type 45 destroyers after it emerged they had faulty engines and will need costly refits.
The MPs 48-page report, called Restoring the Fleet, said it was an “inexcusable failing” that the engines had not been designed to operate in hot regions such as the Gulf.

Dr Julian Lewis, chairman, said: “For decades, the numbers of Royal Navy escort vessels have been severely in decline.
“The Fleet is now way below the critical mass required for the many tasks which could confront it, if the international scene continues to deteriorate.
“What remains of our surface Fleet now faces a prolonged period of uncertainty, as the frigate class is replaced in its entirety and all our destroyers undergo urgent, major remedial work on their unreliable engines.”
Dropping below the current 19 ships even for a short time would be "completely unacceptable" and leave the UK lacking the maritime strength to deal with the threats it faces from areas like Russia, the committee said.
"As an island nation, the importance of the Royal Navy to UK defence must not be underestimated," the committee said.
"Our starting point in this report is our conviction that the current number of frigates, destroyers and personnel inadequately reflects the potential threats and vulnerabilities facing the UK and its interests overseas."

Frigates are due to leave service at the rate of one a year between 2023 and 2035 but MPs said the Government has not set out the necessary detail on how and when the Type 26 and lighter Type 31 replacements will be delivered.
MPs said the delays seemed to be caused by a lack of money. Their report comes only days after it was disclosed warships will be left without anti-ship missiles and be forced to rely on naval guns because of cost-cutting.
The Navy’s Harpoon missiles will retire from the fleet’s frigates and destroyers in 2018 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/royal-navy-to-lose-anti-ship-missiles-and-be-left-only-with-guns/) without a replacement, while there will also be a two year gap without helicopter-launched anti-shipping missiles.
An MoD spokesman said: "We are investing in a growing Royal Navy by building two aircraft carriers, the new Type 26 Global Combat Ship, Dreadnought and Astute class submarines, and offshore patrols vessels.
"We are also developing new class of Lighter General Purpose Frigate so that by the 2030s we can grow the size of the fleet. This major programme of investment will ensure that the Royal Navy remains one of the world's most modern and powerful navies with a genuine global reach."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/21/royal-navy-has-woefully-low-number-of-warships-that-risks-leavin/







</article>Yes. Well spotted, Balu. I agree - to safeguard against threats, such as from a belligerent Putin, we DO need a stronger military machine.

Here's an illustration of why. Oh, and Balu ... don't forget to dismiss this, also, as 'lies' and 'propaganda', invented as a scurrilous attempt to malign good ol' 'much-misunderstood' Uncle Vladimir P .... :rolleyes:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11609783/Mapped-Just-how-many-incursions-into-Nato-airspace-has-Russian-military-made.html


RAF Typhoons were scrambled to intercept two Russian long-range bombers off northern Scotland on Wednesday, in the latest in a series of provocative operations by the country's air force.

As tensions between Nato and Russia have worsened over the Ukraine crisis, Moscow has significantly increased the number of military flights probing Nato airspace - and submarine activity probing its waters.

The number of interceptions over the Baltic States trebled last year and Nato members including Britain have stepped up air policing support in the area.

Russia’s TU-95 Bear bombers - strategic bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons - make probing flights towards UK airspace about once a month.

The Ministry of Defence says the Russian bombers have never violated Britain’s sovereign airspace, which extends 12 nautical miles from the coast, and publicly regards them as more of a routine nuisance than a threat.

But defence officials have expressed mounting concern over the nature of the flights. Michael Fallon, the then-defence secretary, said the appearance of Bear bombers over the Channel in February marked the first time they had been seen in that area “since the height of the Cold War.”

"We had to scramble jets very quickly to see them off,” he said.

OK, Balu ... over to you. I look forward to your reply telling me that this manifestation of Putin's belligerence is just 'a lie'. That we 'can trust Putin, that he poses no threat to the world's security and stability'. That he could not only be 'a good friend', but someone we 'can have good reason to trust'.

OR, you can start believing THE TRUTH. Putin's power-hungry (as Crimea proved), and a permanent threat to us all ... Putin's a firm believer in 'might is right' (as have all of the world's worst tyrants been). And to hell with diplomatic decency when it doesn't carry enough in dividends.

Hopefully Trump can get somewhere with him, though. Maybe Trump will succeed in clipping his wings a little ? I suspect Putin will give him respect simply because Trump will prove to be a stridently strong leader. As to how stable such a relationship can be, considering Putin's true nature ... time will tell.

[Bilgerat]

In 2014, the United States Coast Guard and the U.K. Royal Navy signed a Memorandum of Understanding, the aim of which was to strengthen the partnership between the two.

Machinery Technicians and Electrician Mates from the Coast Guard would be sent to the Royal Navy

http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/2014/07/a-royal-relationship/

[Balu]

Yes. Well spotted, Balu. I agree - to safeguard against threats, such as from a belligerent Putin, we DO need a stronger military machine.

Here's an illustration of why. Oh, and Balu ... don't forget to dismiss this, also, as 'lies' and 'propaganda', invented as a scurrilous attempt to malign good ol' 'much-misunderstood' Uncle Vladimir P .... :rolleyes:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11609783/Mapped-Just-how-many-incursions-into-Nato-airspace-has-Russian-military-made.html



OK, Balu ... over to you. I look forward to your reply telling me that this manifestation of Putin's belligerence is just 'a lie'. That we 'can trust Putin, that he poses no threat to the world's security and stability'. That he could not only be 'a good friend', but someone we 'can have good reason to trust'.

OR, you can start believing THE TRUTH. Putin's power-hungry (as Crimea proved), and a permanent threat to us all ... Putin's a firm believer in 'might is right' (as have all of the world's worst tyrants been). And to hell with diplomatic decency when it doesn't carry enough in dividends.

Hopefully Trump can get somewhere with him, though. Maybe Trump will succeed in clipping his wings a little ? I suspect Putin will give him respect simply because Trump will prove to be a stridently strong leader. As to how stable such a relationship can be, considering Putin's true nature ... time will tell.

For those who are familiar with formal logic and used to think.
"Aggressive Russian had the nerve to come close to the borders of NATO countries after the Cold War was declared to be over." http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)

NATO countries in 1991
http://wadc.altervista.org/images/coldwar/warsaw-nato-eu.jpg


NATO countries in 2013.

http://mapoftheworld.ru/tema/nato/karta-stran-nato-v-evrope.jpg

[Gunny]

For those who are familiar with formal logic and used to think.
"Aggressive Russian had the nerve to come close to the borders of NATO countries after the Cold War was declared to be over." http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)

NATO countries in 1991
http://wadc.altervista.org/images/coldwar/warsaw-nato-eu.jpg


NATO countries in 2013.

http://mapoftheworld.ru/tema/nato/karta-stran-nato-v-evrope.jpg

Aggression is aggression.

[Drummond]

Aggression is aggression.

It is indeed.

Balu has no answer for his country's aggressive testing of international boundaries. He can't have, short of either (a) ridiculously saying it's 'all lies', or (b) admitting that Putin truly IS overly and unacceptably aggressive in areas of the world he shouldn't be taking on.

Regarding Balu's diversionary point .... NATO was always set up to be a defensive organisation. The Kremlin must know it has nothing to worry about from NATO, unless Russia becomes far more belligerent still. Russia's history of taking over countries is, after all, very well known .. and something to be defended against !!

[Gunny]

It is indeed.

Balu has no answer for his country's aggressive testing of international boundaries. He can't have, short of either (a) ridiculously saying it's 'all lies', or (b) admitting that Putin truly IS overly and unacceptably aggressive in areas of the world he shouldn't be taking on.

Regarding Balu's diversionary point .... NATO was always set up to be a defensive organisation. The Kremlin must know it has nothing to worry about from NATO, unless Russia becomes far more belligerent still. Russia's history of taking over countries is, after all, very well known .. and something to be defended against !!

Balu doesn't respond to me anymore. Guess I called him a commie one time too many.:laugh:

[Balu]

... NATO was always set up to be a defensive organisation. ...

Don't make my spaniel laughing! Think at least about the Yugoslavia, then about Iraq and Libya. :laugh:

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6847/14576209.1cc/0_fae2f_9094cd9b_orig.jpg

[Drummond]

Balu doesn't respond to me anymore. Guess I called him a commie one time too many.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I can't decide with Balu. Does he genuinely believe all the propaganda his people must have fed him ? If so ... that makes him a victim of it. I could sympathise if that were the truth of it.

Or, is he here as someone who is fully accepting, KNOWINGLY so, of his country's aggressions, and willingly supports them, thinking it's the world's role to just lie over and play dead in the face of it ??

As I say, I can't decide. I think that time will tell on this.

In the meantime, I have a message for Balu - something that hopefully he can chew over.

Balu -- you're obviously proud of your country. You're obviously patriotic about it, and you are pleased with the military might it has at its command. This is, in its way, all well and 'good'.

What concerns me is that you may think this is, and should be, the entirety of the picture.

Balu -- the 'might is right' psychology is one which tyrants have long since adopted to drive them on. The result, historically ... massive human suffering, misery, mass deaths. Consider Hitler, Pol Pot, and - yes - Stalin, too, as examples.

America has a mighty military machine of its own. But to America, the 'might is right' model is UNACCEPTABLE. There's more to America than just how powerful she can be ! America was founded on values which are meant to serve the human spirit, to enrich their lives ... theirs is absolutely NOT one of 'power for its own sake'. When America fights, you can be sure it's for a laudable cause .. and not one, for example, of simple power-hungry conquest.

One army fights for power. Another opposes it, and exists to defend high principles in the furtherance of its goals. WHICH power, Balu, has the right to win ? Which deserves support ?

And which is morally bankrupt, serving the 'cause' of .. tyranny ?

Think about it, Balu.

[Balu]

...America has a mighty military machine of its own. But to America, the 'might is right' model is UNACCEPTABLE. ...

Bingo! This is the best joke I ever heard. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/good.gif

[Gunny]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

I can't decide with Balu. Does he genuinely believe all the propaganda his people must have fed him ? If so ... that makes him a victim of it. I could sympathise if that were the truth of it.

Or, is he here as someone who is fully accepting, KNOWINGLY so, of his country's aggressions, and willingly supports them, thinking it's the world's role to just lie over and play dead in the face of it ??

As I say, I can't decide. I think that time will tell on this.

In the meantime, I have a message for Balu - something that hopefully he can chew over.

Balu -- you're obviously proud of your country. You're obviously patriotic about it, and you are pleased with the military might it has at its command. This is, in its way, all well and 'good'.

What concerns me is that you may think this is, and should be, the entirety of the picture.

Balu -- the 'might is right' psychology is one which tyrants have long since adopted to drive them on. The result, historically ... massive human suffering, misery, mass deaths. Consider Hitler, Pol Pot, and - yes - Stalin, too, as examples.

America has a mighty military machine of its own. But to America, the 'might is right' model is UNACCEPTABLE. There's more to America than just how powerful she can be ! America was founded on values which are meant to serve the human spirit, to enrich their lives ... theirs is absolutely NOT one of 'power for its own sake'. When America fights, you can be sure it's for a laudable cause .. and not one, for example, of simple power-hungry conquest.

One army fights for power. Another opposes it, and exists to defend high principles in the furtherance of its goals. WHICH power, Balu, has the right to win ? Which deserves support ?

And which is morally bankrupt, serving the 'cause' of .. tyranny ?

Think about it, Balu.

He believes it. It's what they are taught to think over there. Same as they believe they are somehow superior and entitled to other's resources.

Russia has been an antagonist toward the West since way before communism. They may change their name, but they remain who they are.

[Drummond]

Don't make my spaniel laughing! Think at least about the Yugoslavia, then about Iraq and Libya. :laugh:

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6847/14576209.1cc/0_fae2f_9094cd9b_orig.jpg

Iraq. A country led by a tyrant. A cruel, vicious tyrant. That tyrant had links with terrorist organisations. He was reputed to have a stock of WMD's. 'Never mind' his mass graves, the rape rooms, the gassing of the Kurds (... and WITH A WMD !).

This was all a situation requiring decisive action. In 2003, that action was taken.

Yugoslavia. A country formerly behind the Iron Curtain, a one-time satellite of Russia ... but with Tito opposing Stalin. Stalin responded against Tito's 'gall' with aggressive sanctions and blockades. It took Stalin's death for relations to improve. So I'd say the USSR's historic treatment of Yugoslavia is nothing you can be proud of.

Libya. What about it ?? It was ruled by a tyrant. It no longer is. Granted, Obama didn't plan sufficiently for a Libya after Gaddafi's overthrow ... but then, Obama has a history of prematurely withdrawing forces out of countries before they're ready for it.

Russia's record is the opposite, of course. Hungary, 1956, Czechoslovakia, 1968, Afghanistan, 1980 ... all examples of military Soviet occupation (actual military invasions) that persisted without good cause.

[Balu]

Iraq. A country led by a tyrant. A cruel, vicious tyrant. That tyrant had links with terrorist organisations. He was reputed to have a stock of WMD's. 'Never mind' his mass graves, the rape rooms, the gassing of the Kurds (... and WITH A WMD !).

This was all a situation requiring decisive action. In 2003, that action was taken.

Yugoslavia. A country formerly behind the Iron Curtain, a satellite of Russia ... with Tito opposing Stalin. Stalin responded against Tito's 'gall' with aggressive sanctions and blockades. It took Stalin's death for relations to improve. So I'd say the USSR's historic treatment of Yugoslavia is nothing you can be proud of.

Libya. What about it ?? It was ruled by a tyrant. It no longer is. You need to make your point clearer, I think ... I'm wondering if you've been fed some piece of propaganda unknown to people outside of Russia ? In the meantime ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya

"Who are the judges?" (с) (Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" / Russian classical literature /) :laugh:

https://www.stihi.ru/2008/03/25/767

[Drummond]

Bingo! This is the best joke I ever heard. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/good.gif

My God. Your country's propagandists have screwed with your head, big-time !!

Balu, I find your attitude incredible. How do you think your comments will be received by people who KNOW BETTER ?

[Drummond]

"Who are the judges?" (с) (Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" / Russian classical literature /) :laugh:

https://www.stihi.ru/2008/03/25/767

This is the best you can do ?

I hardly need to reply. Besides, history judges tyrannies critically. Maybe not histories invented by propagandists, as you have in your country - I'll give you that - still, truth has this funny way of prevailing.

[Drummond]

He believes it. It's what they are taught to think over there. Same as they believe they are somehow superior and entitled to other's resources.

Russia has been an antagonist toward the West since way before communism. They may change their name, but they remain who they are.:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Exactly ! Couldn't agree more.

[aboutime]

British military warned of critical small number of ships

<footer class="footer-author"><time class="article-date-published" itemprop="datePublished" datetime="2016-11-21T00:01+0000">21 November 2016 • 12:01am</time> </footer><article itemprop="articleBody" data-insert-mobile-adslot="">The Royal Navy has a “woefully low” number of warships that risks leaving Britain vulnerable to future threats, MPs warn today.
The number of frigates and destroyers is “way below” what is needed and could fall further to “completely unacceptable” levels unless the Ministry of Defence quickly presses on with its ship building programme.
The Commons defence committee says it has “serious concerns” about the funding and timetable of plans to modernise the ageing fleet.

The Navy’s 13 Type 23 frigates are due to begin retiring at the rate of one a year from 2023, but the MoD has yet to agree a deal to replace them with the new Type 26 and Type 31 designs.
In total the Royal Navy has 13 frigates and six destroyers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/31/the-royal-navys-obsession-with-big-ships-leaves-it-unable-to-pro/), down from a combined fleet of 33 in 2000.
MPs also attacked the MoD for the "extraordinary mistakes" in the design of Type 45 destroyers after it emerged they had faulty engines and will need costly refits.
The MPs 48-page report, called Restoring the Fleet, said it was an “inexcusable failing” that the engines had not been designed to operate in hot regions such as the Gulf.

Dr Julian Lewis, chairman, said: “For decades, the numbers of Royal Navy escort vessels have been severely in decline.
“The Fleet is now way below the critical mass required for the many tasks which could confront it, if the international scene continues to deteriorate.
“What remains of our surface Fleet now faces a prolonged period of uncertainty, as the frigate class is replaced in its entirety and all our destroyers undergo urgent, major remedial work on their unreliable engines.”
Dropping below the current 19 ships even for a short time would be "completely unacceptable" and leave the UK lacking the maritime strength to deal with the threats it faces from areas like Russia, the committee said.
"As an island nation, the importance of the Royal Navy to UK defence must not be underestimated," the committee said.
"Our starting point in this report is our conviction that the current number of frigates, destroyers and personnel inadequately reflects the potential threats and vulnerabilities facing the UK and its interests overseas."

Frigates are due to leave service at the rate of one a year between 2023 and 2035 but MPs said the Government has not set out the necessary detail on how and when the Type 26 and lighter Type 31 replacements will be delivered.
MPs said the delays seemed to be caused by a lack of money. Their report comes only days after it was disclosed warships will be left without anti-ship missiles and be forced to rely on naval guns because of cost-cutting.
The Navy’s Harpoon missiles will retire from the fleet’s frigates and destroyers in 2018 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/royal-navy-to-lose-anti-ship-missiles-and-be-left-only-with-guns/) without a replacement, while there will also be a two year gap without helicopter-launched anti-shipping missiles.
An MoD spokesman said: "We are investing in a growing Royal Navy by building two aircraft carriers, the new Type 26 Global Combat Ship, Dreadnought and Astute class submarines, and offshore patrols vessels.
"We are also developing new class of Lighter General Purpose Frigate so that by the 2030s we can grow the size of the fleet. This major programme of investment will ensure that the Royal Navy remains one of the world's most modern and powerful navies with a genuine global reach."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/21/royal-navy-has-woefully-low-number-of-warships-that-risks-leavin/







</article>


Sir Drummond. Have no fear with all of this SKY IS FALLING propaganda about the U.K being short, or having shortages of ships. Other than the political aspects (which are rather obvious for those politicians who want to spend more for Defense). All of you in the U.K. should remember...WE, THE USA....ARE YOUR FORMOST ALLY.
This reminded me of the WWII years with Churchill, and FDR..."THE LEND-LEASE". Where our ships became U.K. ships.
So, anyone who is crying WOLF over this....can, and should be expected today; knowing the plans of our NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT, who will be another Reagan in building up our ARMED FORCES to former levels rather quickly.
WE ALL NEED TO IRRADICATE ISIS.

[Balu]

My God. Your country's propagandists have screwed with your head, big-time !!

Balu, I find your attitude incredible. How do you think your comments will be received by people who KNOW BETTER ?

Here you managed to surpass yourself! http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/good.gif
If you would have known a few languages to have more than one source of information you would have been invaluable.
Unfortunately you don't realize that even THIS board is a source of information which in some extents is much more reliable than many of Mass Media. http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif

(http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)

[aboutime]

Here you managed to surpass yourself! http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/good.gif
If you would have known a few languages to have more than one source of information you would have been invaluable. http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)


Balu. Do you read? If so. You need to get caught up on the 21st century political atmosphere, and begin reading the Historical Documents of our country, rather than putting all of your faith in the propaganda (like our Democrat party does) that originates behind perpetual tactics of Repeating Lies that are called Facts, until they are believed as facts, which eliminate anything called TRUTH, or HONESTY.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Have no fear with all of this SKY IS FALLING propaganda about the U.K being short, or having shortages of ships. Other than the political aspects (which are rather obvious for those politicians who want to spend more for Defense). All of you in the U.K. should remember...WE, THE USA....ARE YOUR FORMOST ALLY.
This reminded me of the WWII years with Churchill, and FDR..."THE LEND-LEASE". Where our ships became U.K. ships.
So, anyone who is crying WOLF over this....can, and should be expected today; knowing the plans of our NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT, who will be another Reagan in building up our ARMED FORCES to former levels rather quickly.
WE ALL NEED TO IRRADICATE ISIS.

Very appreciated, Aboutime -- thank you !

As for ISIS ... of course, I completely agree.

Balu may come back with a reply along the lines of how much good Russia is doing in attacking terrorists in Syria. To some limited extent, I'd agree with him. I'd even cheer them on. Nonetheless, let's not kid ourselves ... Putin, as he always does, is acting to further his own agenda, and nobody else's. His agenda involves having the propping-up of Assad as his REAL goal.

Balu has boasted on this forum of Russia's precision-bombing capabilities (which the West also possesses, by the way, Balu). But anyone looking critically at the ruins of Aleppo today can't help but conclude that it's been indiscriminately smashed to near-ruin. Give it another month or two, and you can write off Aleppo AS a city.

But ... HOW COME ?? With all the 'precision' at its command, why weren't hospitals preserved, for example ? Why do we see on our TV screens reports, and images, showing that medical care for Aleppo's people is itself being smashed ? Not everybody in Aleppo, I submit, is a terrorist. Some will have been born there, and wanted nothing more than to live out their lives -- ordinary lives. With all of Russia's 'precision', how come they've acted as they have ?

Now --- if it's the case that Balu has been boasting, and Russia's military expertise is not at the level Balu claims for it, then OK, maybe Balu's (and Russia's) case is made stronger for it. But, what if all Russia really cares about is smashing to bits anything and anyone even capable of resisting Assad ... and that's both the beginning and the end of the matter, in their terms ? In that event .. Russia is willfully killing innocent and guilty alike.

[Drummond]

Balu. Do you read? If so. You need to get caught up on the 21st century political atmosphere, and begin reading the Historical Documents of our country, rather than putting all of your faith in the propaganda (like our Democrat party does) that originates behind perpetual tactics of Repeating Lies that are called Facts, until they are believed as facts, which eliminate anything called TRUTH, or HONESTY.:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Drummond]

Here you managed to surpass yourself! http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/good.gif
If you would have known a few languages to have more than one source of information you would have been invaluable.
Unfortunately you don't realize that even THIS board is a source of information which in some extents is much more reliable than many of Mass Media. http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif

(http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)

This board does indeed provide much of value, Balu. For example, we can see what your mindset (.. that of a typical Russian ?) truly is.

It is definitely instructive.

With a truly open mind, Balu, and with the command of English which you've demonstrated to us, you ARE capable of freeing yourself from the propagandist stranglehold your people have had over you. You can educate yourself as to the many crimes which Russia has historically committed. You can perceive to what extent those old aggressive attitudes linger, and where, even now, they're leading you.

You CAN. But, WILL you ? Or are you too mired in your country's propaganda output to free yourself of it ?

Study the history of America's foundation, Balu. Consider what she's fought for, over the ages. Compare all that with Russia's empire-building adventurism, and what it has done to the peoples it has subjugated.

[aboutime]

Very appreciated, Aboutime -- thank you !

As for ISIS ... of course, I completely agree.

Balu may come back with a reply along the lines of how much good Russia is doing in attacking terrorists in Syria. To some limited extent, I'd agree with him. I'd even cheer them on. Nonetheless, let's not kid ourselves ... Putin, as he always does, is acting to further his own agenda, and nobody else's. His agenda involves having the propping-up of Assad as his REAL goal.

Balu has boasted on this forum of Russia's precision-bombing capabilities (which the West also possesses, by the way, Balu). But anyone looking critically at the ruins of Aleppo today can't help but conclude that it's been indiscriminately smashed to near-ruin. Give it another month or two, and you can write off Aleppo AS a city.

But ... HOW COME ?? With all the 'precision' at its command, why weren't hospitals preserved, for example ? Why do we see on our TV screens reports, and images, showing that medical care for Aleppo's people is itself being smashed ? Not everybody in Aleppo, I submit, is a terrorist. Some will have been born there, and wanted nothing more than to live out their lives -- ordinary lives. With all of Russia's 'precision', how come they've acted as they have ?

Now --- if it's the case that Balu has been boasting, and Russia's military expertise is not at the level Balu claims for it, then OK, maybe Balu's (and Russia's) case is made stronger for it. But, what if all Russia really cares about is smashing to bits anything and anyone even capable of resisting Assad ... and that's both the beginning and the end of the matter, in their terms ? In that event .. Russia is willfully killing innocent and guilty alike.


Sir Drummond. Thank you. Very well said. Balu, on the other hand is probably convinced that there was never a HOLOCAUST during WWII. And, he probably isn't aware that the former U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A, with Great Britain were also ALLIES during those years as well.
Balu has been "PUTIN-IZED", by a former (maybe still) KGB leader. So, there's really no changing their minds. Brainwashing has been proven to be effective. Just listen, and watch all of the Liberal, Hillary Clinton Crybabies over here.
All I can say...and proudly so...Thank GOD Trump Won!

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Thank you. Very well said. Balu, on the other hand is probably convinced that there was never a HOLOCAUST during WWII. And, he probably isn't aware that the former U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A, with Great Britain were also ALLIES during those years as well.
Balu has been "PUTIN-IZED", by a former (maybe still) KGB leader. So, there's really no changing their minds. Brainwashing has been proven to be effective. Just listen, and watch all of the Liberal, Hillary Clinton Crybabies over here.
All I can say...and proudly so...Thank GOD Trump Won!

Oh, absolutely ! I'm delighted too that Trump won.

Balu will have to tell us what he believes about the Holocaust committed by Hitler's Reich against six million jews.

Unfortunately, I do know that Balu is inclined to reject at least one account of a Holocaust. I'm referring to SEVEN million, killed in Ukraine, by Stalin. This following account - to now, anyway - Balu has been inclined to summarily reject, calling it 'propaganda'.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm

Its introduction:


Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union, set in motion events designed to cause a famine in the Ukraine to destroy the people there seeking independence from his rule. As a result, an estimated 7,000,000 persons perished in this farming area, known as the breadbasket of Europe, with the people deprived of the food they had grown with their own hands.

Perhaps Balu will now have a rethink. I won't hold my breath waiting for one, though. Propagandist imperatives, and all that ...

The US and UK are indeed allies, and much has been made of our 'special relationship' (one I value). Balu can reflect on that one. I hope he does.

... Well, I can dream .... :rolleyes:

[Gunny]

Oh, absolutely ! I'm delighted too that Trump won.

Balu will have to tell us what he believes about the Holocaust committed by Hitler's Reich against six million jews.

Unfortunately, I do know that Balu is inclined to reject at least one account of a Holocaust. I'm referring to SEVEN million, killed in Ukraine, by Stalin. This following account - to now, anyway - Balu has been inclined to summarily reject, calling it 'propaganda'.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm

Its introduction:



Perhaps Balu will now have a rethink. I won't hold my breath waiting for one, though. Propagandist imperatives, and all that ...

The US and UK are indeed allies, and much has been made of our 'special relationship' (one I value). Balu can reflect on that one. I hope he does.

... Well, I can dream .... :rolleyes:

Stalin was easily as evil as Hitler. Their personalities weren't far apart.

[aboutime]

Stalin was easily as evil as Hitler. Their personalities weren't far apart.


One of my all-time hero's was General George Patton. And even he knew those RUSKIES would become our enemies, with Stalin who tried to fool FDR.

Fact is. Before Eisenhower fires Patton. He vocally voiced his opinion that
"WE SHOULDN'T STOP WITH THE NAZI'S, and KEEP ON GOING TO MOSCOW!"

How did that work out for all of us? Balu needs to go visit McDonalds, and get a quarter pound of PUTIN on a bun, with Fries, and watch him SHAKE!:laugh:

[Drummond]

Stalin was easily as evil as Hitler. Their personalities weren't far apart.

... and to begin with, they were both allies. That's a fact that tends to be forgotten.

[Drummond]

One of my all-time hero's was General George Patton. And even he knew those RUSKIES would become our enemies, with Stalin who tried to fool FDR.

Fact is. Before Eisenhower fires Patton. He vocally voiced his opinion that
"WE SHOULDN'T STOP WITH THE NAZI'S, and KEEP ON GOING TO MOSCOW!"

How did that work out for all of us? Balu needs to go visit McDonalds, and get a quarter pound of PUTIN on a bun, with Fries, and watch him SHAKE!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

A good man, undoubtedly.:saluting2:

[Black Diamond]

... and to begin with, they were both allies. That's a fact that tends to be forgotten.

Ayyup. Divided Poland between each other

[Gunny]

... and to begin with, they were both allies. That's a fact that tends to be forgotten.Hard to forget. Stalin thought he and Hitler were going to divide Europe. Hitler brought about his own destruction by attacking Russia. He couldn't fight a 3-front war.

[Drummond]

Hard to forget. Stalin thought he and Hitler were going to divide Europe. Hitler brought about his own destruction by attacking Russia. He couldn't fight a 3-front war.

Yes, exactly.

My understanding is that the Hitler-Stalin pact only ended because of Hitler's betrayal of Stalin. To begin with, I believe that Stalin couldn't even believe it !

Had Hitler not acted as he did, I've no reason to believe that Stalin wouldn't have remained loyal to that pact.

[Drummond]

No more commenting from Balu ?

Perhaps he has a hard time adjusting to the REAL world ... facing up to the reality of Russia's murky past ? And of present-day belligerence, again from Russia .. ?

[aboutime]

No more commenting from Balu ?

Perhaps he has a hard time adjusting to the REAL world ... facing up to the reality of Russia's murky past ? And of present-day belligerence, again from Russia .. ?


Sir Drummond. IF Balu does return. Ask him to share with us about the Russian Navy's expertise with Nuclear Submarines that seem to Blow up under water, or just sink due to their faulty, un-exact contruction failures that have killed HUNDREDS of sailors???

Wonder if he wants to talk about something so HIGHLY CLASSIFIED?

But then....why do we know about them if they are SO HIGHLY CLASSIFIED?

Something to slow him down. Or, maybe not. Ignorance is still....Bliss.

[Gunny]

No more commenting from Balu ?

Perhaps he has a hard time adjusting to the REAL world ... facing up to the reality of Russia's murky past ? And of present-day belligerence, again from Russia .. ?
Drummond ... the quickest way to define a worthy opponent is to see whether or not on a level playing field he'll stand and fight. Balu wants to hold one way conversations and preach to others. He's just another person trying to justify doing the wrong thing.

[Gunny]

Sir Drummond. IF Balu does return. Ask him to share with us about the Russian Navy's expertise with Nuclear Submarines that seem to Blow up under water, or just sink due to their faulty, un-exact contruction failures that have killed HUNDREDS of sailors???

Wonder if he wants to talk about something so HIGHLY CLASSIFIED?

But then....why do we know about them if they are SO HIGHLY CLASSIFIED?

Something to slow him down. Or, maybe not. Ignorance is still....Bliss.Could also ask him just how it is we happen to know when they blow up.:laugh:

[aboutime]

Sir Drummond. IF Balu does return. Ask him to share with us about the Russian Navy's expertise with Nuclear Submarines that seem to Blow up under water, or just sink due to their faulty, un-exact contruction failures that have killed HUNDREDS of sailors???

Wonder if he wants to talk about something so HIGHLY CLASSIFIED?

But then....why do we know about them if they are SO HIGHLY CLASSIFIED?

Something to slow him down. Or, maybe not. Ignorance is still....Bliss.


The SILENCE IS DEAFENING FROM BALU TODAY!:laugh:

[Drummond]

The SILENCE IS DEAFENING FROM BALU TODAY!:laugh:


Well, I see that he's not quite inactive on the board, to be fair.

However, he is giving the clear impression of avoiding THIS thread .... what a surprise .... :laugh::laugh::rolleyes: