At least they don't have to shout "bang"....yet

In a (belated) posting from the land of you-couldn't-make-it-up, news that, to save costs, the Parachute regiment is, err, not going to do any parachute training any more

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...7/nparas17.xml

Quote:

---

Parachute training in the Army is set to be halted for four years as part of a £1 billion cost-cutting programme by the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
The proposals mean that Britain will be without a parachute-trained force for the first time since the Second World War when the Parachute Regiment was created on the orders of Winston Churchill.
Documents leaked to The Sunday Telegraph reveal that no new recruits or even serving members of the Parachute Regiment or airborne forces will be trained in military parachuting from next year until 2011

---

:wall:

You're just cynical. This is clearly an example of Joined-up Government (TM).

If the paras just leap straight to their deaths, the MoD won't have to answer embarrassing questions about why they have no body armour, ammunition or usable boots.

Or:

:shocked2: :shocked2: :shocked2: :no:

It's not as though they have any 'planes to jump from though, is it?

Maybe the money they wasted invested in helicopters that can't fly is the reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

In a (belated) posting from the land of you-couldn't-make-it-up, news that, to save costs, the Parachute regiment is, err, not going to do any parachute training any more

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...7/nparas17.xml



:wall:

---

When's the last time we dropped troops by parachute? Didn't we discontinue it because we felt the paras were too valuable to be inserted by that method? If silence is so necessary, surely SAS would be more suited to that kind of mission than paratroopers.

PS. The Guards shouldn't spend so much time on horsework either. We lack combat troops, they're reportedly less fit than frontline units - ergo the logical conclusion would be for them to spend less time guarding the Queen, and more time in Afghanistan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

PS. The Guards shouldn't spend so much time on horsework either. We lack combat troops, they're reportedly less fit than frontline units - ergo the logical conclusion would be for them to spend less time guarding the Queen, and more time in Afghanistan.

---

To drift off-topic a moment: One of the compensations for being mildly dyslexic is mis-reading things. I first read the above as:

Quote:

---

The Guards shouldn't spend so much time on housework either.

---

That'll be an image to cheer me up from now on. :beam:

Quote:

---

The Guards shouldn't spend so much time on housework either.

---

But those Bearskin hats are just perfect for cleaning cobwebs from the ceiling .

This particually tickled me as when I was a little Army Cadet, sometimes we had to shout bang or "nagga, nagga" instead of actually firing blank rounds.

You get to sixteen, start mixing with regies and then next summer while your section is shouting themselves hoarse you load up the spare mags you nicked off them.

On a far more serious note, American Paras were used in IraqII, so it could happen and totally removing the capability is a bad idea, I assume that since they won't be jump-qualified they'll no longer be eligable for higher pay.:idea2:

Saves money, doesn't it.

:thumbsdown:

Sounding like some mad petitioner... clicky
Oh, and the Guards would be good at housework, they spend all their time polishing stuff...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

When's the last time we dropped troops by parachute? Didn't we discontinue it because we felt the paras were too valuable to be inserted by that method? If silence is so necessary, surely SAS would be more suited to that kind of mission than paratroopers.

PS. The Guards shouldn't spend so much time on horsework either. We lack combat troops, they're reportedly less fit than frontline units - ergo the logical conclusion would be for them to spend less time guarding the Queen, and more time in Afghanistan.

---

The Household Cavalry is a tank regiment and has served in recent theatres of conflict, as well as trotting up and down horse guards.

Most major militaries have parachute regiments, and airborne forces were used to secure airfields and oilwells in Iraq and Afghanistan. To dispense of such vitally important units is complete idiocy, just typical of this government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

When's the last time we dropped troops by parachute? Didn't we discontinue it because we felt the paras were too valuable to be inserted by that method? If silence is so necessary, surely SAS would be more suited to that kind of mission than paratroopers.

---

:furious3: GAAAAAAAAAAHH!!
:viking:
:fainting:

I was just reading in the Guardian about how overstretched the once glorious Royal Navy and Army and RAF are.

They are selling most of their ships.

They are 40% under strength in all infantry regiments.

They sold all their new Eurofighter Typhoons to Saudi Arabia or some place, so they are still going to have to use Tornados, which became obsolete about 30 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

The Household Cavalry is a tank regiment and has served in recent theatres of conflict, as well as trotting up and down horse guards.

---

Some chap at another forum reckoned they were a notch below regular units, on those occasions when they were in the field together. He felt they spent too much time in Blighty, and not enough time seeing real action, and that extra time in the field would do them good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Most major militaries have parachute regiments, and airborne forces were used to secure airfields and oilwells in Iraq and Afghanistan. To dispense of such vitally important units is complete idiocy, just typical of this government.

---

Aren't they meant to be inserted by helicopter?

Erm, the Tornado was introduced in 1979. Which was less than 30 years ago.

Quote:

---

Erm, the Tornado was introduced in 1979. Which was less than 30 years ago.

---

Would you like to read the article diablo said he read BKS ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/s...989468,00.html
Since it surprisingly doesn't say what he says it does

The British goverment must be fairly sure no major war is going to happen soon. Which I hope they are right, but if there is then alot of countries are screwed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Aren't they meant to be inserted by helicopter?

---

My son, PFC Smith, is a US para in Iraq. He jumped out of perfectly good airplanes for training, but they're inserted these days exclusively via Blackhawk helicopter.

Maybe diablodelmar is thinking of the US B-45 Tornado, introduced in 1948?

Bloody shame, the Brits having to draw down/merge so much. One hopes there's a group of Sergeants Major safeguarding the record of traditions and histories of these outfits.

No such luck, we don't need to draw down and one of the reasons for the merging of regiments is to destroy local loyalties and regimental identity, in order to make it easier to shift troops between regiments.

Anyone who knows anything about a military will tell you this is a recipe for disaster, unfortunately the consultants know knothing, full stop.

Clinton and liberals in the U.S. tried and are continuing to try to do the same thing in the U.S....and not without success. No matter how peacable you are, there are always people who will want to attack you so you always need to be prepared. The U.S. and UK need a large and fully trained military ready at all times. Cutting money to the military is one of the dumbest things someone could do. Maybe if they cut the welfare to all the illegal aliens instead...

That's quite a different situation, though. Clinton cut military budgets because the Cold War had ended and there was thought (and not just by him) to be no immediate threat.

Quote:

---

That's quite a different situation, though. Clinton cut military budgets because the Cold War had ended

---

Yeah remember that , throw lots of money at defence so the opposition have to throw lots of money at defence , see which one runs out of money first . Then stop throwing money and claim victory .

Quote:

---

Clinton and liberals in the U.S. tried and are continuing to try to do the same thing in the U.S....and not without success.

---

Whereas Bush and the"conservatives are wrecking the military and throwing money down the drain .
Oh and they are very lacking in success apart from wrecking the military which wasn't one of their aims I think . Though you can never be sure with those idiots .

Airborne training is useful in today's military mostly as a rite of passage which separates the mediocre from the incompetent. This role should not be underestimated. It has also been very useful in some recent situations, though usually more for reasons of logistical efficiency than tactical effectiveness.

Oh, and one more thing, if Ethiopia has daggone paratroopers and you don't, obviously this means that you suck. :thumbsdown:

There is no excuse for cutting back on the military like he did. The U.S. could not put up any type defence if attacked.
"Walk softly" That's ok, but you also must "Carry a big stick"!!
The U.S. has to be in a position where other nations will fear a war with them so much that they would never dream of attacking. THEN the U.S. can prosper. The U.S. has been steadily declining as a world power just as its military has.
When you played RTW, did you ever pay attention to those Latin proverbs? Those people weren't a bunch of dumb, inferior, cavemen, they knew what they were talking about. With the way society is structured, and our new technology, we could have world peace...but only if the world feared attacking us. No matter how peace loving you are, there are always oppurtunists seeking to enlarge their countries and make a name for themsleves. The U.S. will never be safe till IT makes ITSELF safe. Only by gaurding against attacks can we hope not to be attacked - not by leaving ourselves to the mercy of the world.
Say what ever leftist garble you like: It is the instruments of war that keep peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Maybe if they cut the welfare to all the illegal aliens instead...

---

Or cut welfare all together. Make them join the army if they cant pay for themselves! :laugh4:

On topic: America needs to start looking for a new lapdog... ethiopia maybe? :yes:

Quote:

---

Yeah remember that , throw lots of money at defence so the opposition have to throw lots of money at defence , see which one runs out of money first . Then stop throwing money and claim victory

---

Slightly OT Tribes but that was more or less what the US did, and it worked. Where's the beef? Given that the alternative was global nuclear devastation, much as it pains my black, freedom-hating Euroweenie heart to say it, I think you have to call this one for the Americans, and, yes, for Ronnie. Credit where its due.

(NB I still :smitten: :devil: )

Quote:

---

Oh, and one more thing, if Ethiopia has daggone paratroopers and you don't, obviously this means that you suck.

---

Pwned by Ethiopia, what next? Lets hope they don't have a cricket team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

There is no excuse for cutting back on the military

---

Of course there is and we have heard thousands of them.

It doesn't mean that any of them had any logical basis to them. We went from 18 Army Divisions to around 8 (10 on paper but many lack a 3rd brigade) and reduced the National Guard (which was 65% of on paper combat strength) to around half of what it was (The Army Reserve now has no combat units). The Armored Force was reduced by more than half and the Marines were reorganised into smaller less self supporting organisations.

But why does that matter. The UK and the US are both safe and have no enemies on their borders. Everyone knows that democratic first world nations need no military. It is all a waste of money which should be given to the public and all of those needy third world countries to take them out of poverty (or transferred to Swiss Bank Accounts).
~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

No matter how peace loving you are, there are always oppurtunists seeking to enlarge their countries and make a name for themsleves.

---

Yeah, quite a few of them in the US government right now.
I'd rather have the dutch play world police...:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

There is no excuse for cutting back on the military like he did. The U.S. could not put up any type defence if attacked.
"Walk softly" That's ok, but you also must "Carry a big stick"!!
The U.S. has to be in a position where other nations will fear a war with them so much that they would never dream of attacking. THEN the U.S. can prosper. The U.S. has been steadily declining as a world power just as its military has.

---

As Tribesman hinted, the main reason why Reagan increased military spending so much was to force the SU into matching them and thus bankrupting themselves. When Clinton took office, that reason didn't exist anymore.
In hindsight you can label it a wrong decision, you can even argue that even then it was a shortsighted thing to do- but a comparison with Blair's recent cuts doesn't hold a drop of water.

Quote:

---

When you played RTW, did you ever pay attention to those Latin proverbs? Those people weren't a bunch of dumb, inferior, cavemen, they knew what they were talking about. With the way society is structured, and our new technology, we could have world peace...but only if the world feared attacking us. No matter how peace loving you are, there are always oppurtunists seeking to enlarge their countries and make a name for themsleves. The U.S. will never be safe till IT makes ITSELF safe. Only by gaurding against attacks can we hope not to be attacked - not by leaving ourselves to the mercy of the world.
Say what ever leftist garble you like: It is the instruments of war that keep peace.

---

I have, but my reading on the Romans and Latin text isn't limited to RTW, but thanks anyway for the condescension. World peace is a utopian dream, the only thing you can hope (and the only thing you're really interested in) is that all violence happens far away from the US.

And roughly paraphrasing a wise man: it's impossible to avoid war and prepare for it simultaniously.

Getting the army up to strength would be relatively easy: cut social security significantly, and increase armed forces benefits, basically making service comparatively more attractive.

Yes, more poor people will be in the Army. So? More poor people are plumbers. it is a valid career and one that is essential, far more so than giving money to people when there are government jobs that need to be filled. Historically this was the case, and some things are always going to be true.

Although now a completely fair comparison, the SAS did start out jumpting out of planes but since that was a disaster they switched to ground veichles. Similarly if the need to keep and hold rather than distroy runways is no longer present then this might be a skill that is not going to be required in the future.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

There is no excuse for cutting back on the military like he did. Iran could not put up any type defence if attacked.
"Walk softly" That's ok, but you also must "Carry a big stick"!!
Iran has to be in a position where other nations will fear a war with them so much that they would never dream of attacking. THEN Iran can prosper.
When you played RTW, did you ever pay attention to those Latin proverbs? Those people weren't a bunch of dumb, inferior, cavemen, they knew what they were talking about. With the way society is structured, and our new technology, we could have world peace...but only if the world feared attacking us. No matter how peace loving you are, there are always oppurtunists seeking to enlarge their countries and make a name for themsleves. Iran will never be safe till IT makes ITSELF safe. Only by gaurding against attacks can we hope not to be attacked - not by leaving ourselves to the mercy of the world.
Say what ever leftist garble you like: It is the instruments of war that keep peace.

---

To make a bit different perspective.

Now add some news in the style of "New American threats on Iran", "The American congress has reinitiated conscription" and you'll see the issues of starting to have a too large army.

There's 2 main reasons for very large armies. It's either to defend yourself from a very real threat or to invade. If people cannot see the first, then they will suspect the second reason, which will make them see that the first reason is a very good one...

Quote:

---

Slightly OT Tribes but that was more or less what the US did, and it worked. Where's the beef?

---

The beef or more correctly worn out old mutton is that once again someone comes up with ..ooo look at clinton look at liberals see what they done , while completely ignoring the fact that "conservatives" do exactly the same .

You are right, because there will NEVER be world peace, as much as we may desire it, we must be prepared to defend ourselves. And what do we care if a crappy little country like Iran gets intimidated? We have to make our intentions known to the world. We could do it by staying out of complete BS wars like Clinton's war in Bosnia! Republicans like McCain are the problem. Bush messed up, too, but he did a heck of a lot more good than bad. We don't need to have the largest military in the world...simply the best. We certainly do NOT have one large enough now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

There is no excuse for cutting back on the military like he did. The U.S. could not put up any type defence if attacked.
"Walk softly" That's ok, but you also must "Carry a big stick"!!
The U.S. has to be in a position where other nations will fear a war with them so much that they would never dream of attacking. THEN the U.S. can prosper. The U.S. has been steadily declining as a world power just as its military has.
When you played RTW, did you ever pay attention to those Latin proverbs? Those people weren't a bunch of dumb, inferior, cavemen, they knew what they were talking about. With the way society is structured, and our new technology, we could have world peace...but only if the world feared attacking us. No matter how peace loving you are, there are always oppurtunists seeking to enlarge their countries and make a name for themsleves. The U.S. will never be safe till IT makes ITSELF safe. Only by gaurding against attacks can we hope not to be attacked - not by leaving ourselves to the mercy of the world.
Say what ever leftist garble you like: It is the instruments of war that keep peace.

---

I agree with you partially but not completely. There have been multiple nations that have bankrupted themselves on constant wars and large well trained standard armies. The France of Louis XIV is one example. Even today there are people in North Korea who are starving and living in poverty because a ridiculously high percentage of there budget goes into keeping one the worlds largest army. Standing army's, if anything are extremely costly. Can units not be raised relatively quickly to make up for any gaps in manpower? Paying for a two to three million strong standing army that chews up billions of dollars a year in peace time is ridiculous. There are better things that can be spent on. I am not avocation that we do away with a standing army, I'm just saying that it should not be at the same strength and size in peace time as it is in war time.
However it is a fine line. If you underfund the army in peace time then in a time of war the U.S. (or any other country for that matter) could be overran before there is time to mobilize it's forces. There is no resason what so ever to cut funding on new technolegy proper training of the army we have, and replacing obselete equitment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope

I agree with you partially but not completely. There have been multiple nations that have bankrupted themselves on constant wars and large well trained standard armies. The France of Louis XIV is one example. Even today there are people in North Korea who are starving and living in poverty because a ridiculously high percentage of there budget goes into keeping one the worlds largest army. Standing army's, if anything are extremely costly. Can units not be raised relatively quickly to make up for any gaps in manpower? Paying for a two to three million strong standing army that chews up billions of dollars a year in peace time is ridiculous. There are better things that can be spent on. I am not avocation that we do away with a standing army, I'm just saying that it should not be at the same strength and size in peace time as it is in war time.
However it is a fine line. If you underfund the army in peace time then in a time of war the U.S. (or any other country for that matter) could be overran before there is time to mobilize it's forces. There is no resason what so ever to cut funding on new technolegy proper training of the army we have, and replacing obselete equitment.

---

I believe that you misunderstand me. I am not saying we need an immense army, but simply one that could defend us if we were attacked. A good-sized, well-equipped, welltrained, wellinformed fighting force and the ability to raise more and supply them on the spot.
We can't claim that today, stuff has to change.
(I get you point, but I'm not saying we need a massive invasion force, but just a respectable army like ol' Teddy had.)

Quote:

---

(I get you point, but I'm not saying we need a massive invasion force, but just a respectable army like ol' Teddy had.)

---

Why? Even a small modern army can call in enough firepower to make any army from any point in the past ashamed. Anyone invading America would be obliterated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I believe that you misunderstand me. I am not saying we need an immense army, but simply one that could defend us if we were attacked. A good-sized, well-equipped, welltrained, wellinformed fighting force and the ability to raise more and supply them on the spot.
We can't claim that today, stuff has to change.
(I get you point, but I'm not saying we need a massive invasion force, but just a respectable army like ol' Teddy had.)

---

Well currently your army is poorly trained, badly organised and overweight. America is THE example that throwing money at the military is not the answer.

More importantly, something you all fail to realise is that it takes a year to train a soldier to an acceptable standard, six months at a push, maybe less for light infantry.

Therefore a defensive army needs to be able to hold out without significant re-enforcements for a year or more.

That's not possible for any current military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

And what do we care if a crappy little country like Iran gets intimidated?

---

China sez: "And what do we care if a crappy little country like the US gets intimidated?"

If what you say was official US policy, even I would turn to official anti-americanism and join Osama and his gang because I'd rather live without a big nation that thinks others are just crappy and should just be bombed to the stoneage if they don't do what the big one wants.
When we germans said similar things, you were surprisingly against us.:dizzy2:
Also keep in mind that by trade, those small, completely unimportant countries help finance your huge army.

Ironside you clever bugger , you managed to quote Saddam in your different perspective of Vuks post :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

believe that you misunderstand me. I am not saying we need an immense army, but simply one that could defend us if we were attacked. A good-sized, well-equipped, welltrained, wellinformed fighting force and the ability to raise more and supply them on the spot.
We can't claim that today, stuff has to change.
(I get you point, but I'm not saying we need a massive invasion force, but just a respectable army like ol' Teddy had.)

---

There is so much to misunderstand when it makes no sense.
So who exactly is it that you think is going to attack you and what exactly is your army able to do about the likely suspects ?
Bugger all unless either you have a massive invasion force (that you say you don't need) or you are going to nuke an entire region in an attempt to kill a couple of nuts who were hiding in a shack there but have since moved out .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

You are right, because there will NEVER be world peace, as much as we may desire it, we must be prepared to defend ourselves. And what do we care if a crappy little country like Iran gets intimidated? We have to make our intentions known to the world.

---

Is your intension that the "will of the US" is to do this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

The U.S. has to be in a position where other nations will fear a war with them so much that they would never dream of attacking. THEN the U.S. can prosper. The U.S. has been steadily declining as a world power just as its military has.

---

Because you're already there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Bush messed up, too, but he did a heck of a lot more good than bad. We don't need to have the largest military in the world...simply the best. We certainly do NOT have one large enough now.

---

What you do lack is boots on the ground for a (relativly) civil occupation in unruly territory, and way more where it matters, politicians that doesn't have "guts" to deploy the amount required (and that's been a severe issue since the invasion).
To get much more troops you would require a paradigm shift in the requitment of troops in the US.
You could hold Iraq by a little more uncivil occupation style, but that would make Bush's speech-writers focusing a bit on freeing the Iraqi people from thier worldly possessions and liberating them from the fragile crust known as mortality.
It would also make my first statement false...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ironside you clever bugger , you managed to quote Saddam in your different perspective of Vuks post :2thumbsup:

There is so much to misunderstand when it makes no sense.
So who exactly is it that you think is going to attack you and what exactly is your army able to do about the likely suspects ?
Bugger all unless either you have a massive invasion force (that you say you don't need) or you are going to nuke an entire region in an attempt to kill a couple of nuts who were hiding in a shack there but have since moved out .

---

Anyone who could attack us. If China and its allies attacked the U.S., how long do you think it would last? Not very...esp. with all the nukes Clinton gave them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Why? Even a small modern army can call in enough firepower to make any army from any point in the past ashamed. Anyone invading America would be obliterated.

---

Not quite, we have an army of men that can't even read a compass. Our military is the most pathetic thing in the world. We have so few men and so few defensive missiles that we could be crippled in ONE missile attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

China sez: "And what do we care if a crappy little country like the US gets intimidated?"

If what you say was official US policy, even I would turn to official anti-americanism and join Osama and his gang because I'd rather live without a big nation that thinks others are just crappy and should just be bombed to the stoneage if they don't do what the big one wants.
When we germans said similar things, you were surprisingly against us.:dizzy2:
Also keep in mind that by trade, those small, completely unimportant countries help finance your huge army.

---

I never said we shouldn't care about them or that we should attack them, but that we should not base or domestic or military policy on their opinions of us. We should do everything we REASONABLY can without endangering ourselves or hurting foriegn diplomacy, and if they don't like it: tough. What would you do if they said they were intimidated by our airport security? Get rid of it? We can have good relations with another country, but we don't need to be ruled by them.
Pardon me, but Germany is the farthest thing from a model country. In fact it is just about the most messed up country in the world.

We fought the Germans because of a screwed up web of diplomacy. America wanted war with Germany and so forced Japan into a war, and then instead of demoliting the Japenese who did horrible things to us, concentrated everything on Germany. Later nuking innocent civilians in an attempt to show Russia our power. The US's diplomacy has sucked quite a bit when you think of it.

The US doesn't need a massive Army. We need an Army that is quick and flexible, well able to approach hot spots throughout the world with enough force to knock out a small country, but not one big enough to take on a major regional power. Because if war ever comes between the US and China for example, its going to be a war fought with Nuclear Weapons not soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Not quite, we have an army of men that can't even read a compass. Our military is the most pathetic thing in the world. We have so few men and so few defensive missiles that we could be crippled in ONE missile attack.

---

You're exaggerating a tad. Remember the US outspends something like the next 20 biggest spenders in the world combined in Defence. If that doesn't give you a workable military, something has gone ridiculously wrong in the planning. If we had those kind of resources, there would have been twice as many pink bits on the map.

Perhaps, instead of demanding ever more cash for the military, you should start looking at what you want your military to do, and plan it accordingly.

Quote:

---

Not quite, we have an army of men that can't even read a compass. Our military is the most pathetic thing in the world. We have so few men and so few defensive missiles that we could be crippled in ONE missile attack.

---

But they would still be obliterated afterwards, so no one is going to do it.

Quote:

---

Anyone who could attack us. If China and its allies attacked the U.S., how long do you think it would last? Not very...esp. with all the nukes Clinton gave them.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
With all the Nukes Clinton gave them:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Do you mean the exchange of data as part of a test ban treaty:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Perhaps, instead of demanding ever more cash for the military, you should start looking at what you want your military to do, and plan it accordingly.

---

or just have no military at all, and spend the money on something useful (-obviously not possible) :shame: :2thumbsup:

OT: Is there a member ignore option on this site? Because I might just use it on Tribesman.

EDIT: No threats or personal attacks please. BG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

OT: Is there a member ignore option on this site? Because I might just use it on Tribesman.

---

Go to the User Control Panel, then Buddy/Ignore lists on the left hand side menu.

I jumped on a couple of lists just last week. :laugh4:

EDIT: Please don't respond to attacks by fanning the flames. Everyone calm down. BG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Pardon me, but Germany is the farthest thing from a model country. In fact it is just about the most messed up country in the world.

---

:inquisitive:
Oh ... well ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

The US doesn't need a massive Army. We need an Army that is quick and flexible, well able to approach hot spots throughout the world with enough force to knock out a small country, but not one big enough to take on a major regional power. Because if war ever comes between the US and China for example, its going to be a war fought with Nuclear Weapons not soldiers.

---

While I'll agree the US needs a more flexible army. Something I think we're working towards. I also don't see were the US military is so handicapped. Last I checked they had full first strike capability over China.

But a war with China will not involve nuclear weapons. It would if all goes well involve a first strike to China, wipping out communications and most of their airforce. It would then move to Korea and to India. A war with China would be a long one, and to win would involve alot of deforestation aerosols used by the US. War with China would be won by starving the worlds largest country to peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

OT: Is there a member ignore option on this site? Because I might just use it on Tribesman.

---

Oh, I love you all, too.
Guess what, I have noone on that list and tribes is one of the funnier members of the backroom. I don't even have PJ on my ignore list, IMO ignore lists are for people who take some issues way too serious and should visit the Frontroom more often.~;)
(Why do I think someone is going to hate me for promoting peace now?:help: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Oh, I love you all, too.
Guess what, I have noone on that list and tribes is one of the funnier members of the backroom. I don't even have PJ on my ignore list, IMO ignore lists are for people who take some issues way too serious and should visit the Frontroom more often.~;)
(Why do I think someone is going to hate me for promoting peace now?:help: )

---

So, join a discussion group, then ignore people... :inquisitive:

If persons don't want to hear conflicting views I am sure that there are more... partisan sites that would love to have some more... dedicated supporters.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scurvy

or just have no military at all, and spend the money on something useful (-obviously not possible) :shame: :2thumbsup:

---

Bribes?