Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu 22 Jul, 2004 10:59 pm
by Jon
After the Iraq War leaked papers from the MOD stated that Britain would not be able to fight another major war for at least 5 years. Now the government has ordered massive defense cuts, claiming that the forces do not need to be the strength they were any more because the Soviet Union has broken up (only 14 years ago). Are these cuts really taking place because of a change in strategy or because the government wants more funds diverted to the NHS, etc?
Oh well, better than what the Greens would do if they ever reach power - "we aim to remove Britains WMDs including its defensive nuclear missile capability."
Posted: Fri 23 Jul, 2004 8:38 am
by bigbart
El Prez wrote:Beast will open a new Forum asap, it will be called the 'Royal Air Planes'. Dropping the word Force is commensurate with the remaining capabilities.
And at this rate the Navy will soon be called the Royal Dinghy
Posted: Sat 24 Jul, 2004 8:42 pm
by Edwards159
A number of Scottish infantry regiments are proposed to be combined. And i read that the Royal welch Fussiliers are to be combined with a welsh regiment
Posted: Fri 30 Jul, 2004 10:42 am
by bigbart
rabby wrote:It's the first time since the 6th century that
FRANCE have had a bigger navy than us!!

I hate polititians.

At least the tories understood the armed forces, Thatcher gave them the cash to do what they had to do, not tie both hands behind the force's back and blindfold them.

I know this is a bit late...but wasn't Thatcher the one who refused to let falklands veterans go on parade if they had lost a limb or had some other disfigurement from the war? Thatcher was a bitch. She didn't give a f**k about the soldiers themselves. She just wanted power, that's why the forces were well funded.
Posted: Fri 30 Jul, 2004 11:01 am
by Edwards159
All politicians want power