Aardvark

Joint Chief of Staff/Joint Chief of the Defence Staff - sorry, can't recall who it is at the moment. Loose terminology.

Clippo

Aardvark wrote:-
Loose terminology by me also, I apologise. The interview I thought I saw on TV, & only the tail end of it, was I think the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir jock Stirrup. (any bets on his nickname being Jockstrap?)

I have tried to crosscheck this interview's details on the BBC website but can't find it. As I said, I only saw the tail end of it, including the man getting up out of his chair & departing. I think the reporter or whoever said he was retiring but you shouldn't read anything political into this - these Chiefs change regularly.

Aardvark also wrote :-

Please don't misinterpret the following comments as a personal attack upon you. Some of your statements in this thread I consider to have been reasonably balanced, (& also in many other post on different topics of the forum although naturally I won't have agreed will all of them) however, reading into some of the previous posts, I infer that you have had some military experience previously. I would politely point out, that if that was so & had your military analyses of different situations had been perceived to be so good, you yourself may have been the CDS now.
Since also by definition, the CDS has a vastly greater overview than you or anyof us here for that matter, of not only the Irael / Lebanon conflict but also all matters pertinent to UK military involvements and is advised by many other specialist experts (statistically it is improbable that they are all singing the same party tune), I rather tend to believe his analysis of disproportionality than I do yours.
I think also it's a complete red-herring in this post to hypothesise what the CDS's view of a totally different & unrelated conflict is.

chikrodah

Clippo wrote: You've presumably not had close contact with the military career politicians who rise to the vaunted levels of CDS, have you? Ever heard of the Peter Principle? :twisted:

Mikeuk

What a ridiculous statement. These posts are handed out to PC brown-nosers these days - just the same as senior police posts.

Take that ghastly PC scumbag General 'Sir' Mike Jackson. He's the kind of pinko creep who would have ended up polishing the boots of an earlier generation of soldiers.

Do you suppose that any decent serviceman who opposed this government's nefarious plans to fill the ranks of our once-proud armed services with dainty females and screaming queens would get a look in these days?

Aardvark

Promotion was not based on my ability to make analyses. Oddly I came top in the war studies paper on my officer training course, but because I was over half way down on leadership ability they gave the prize to the guy who came second!!!

I'm not CDS because I wasn't a very good navigator. Aircrew are promoted on ability in the air and on the ground so that although I achieved above average on the ground I could not be promoted because I was never better than high average in the air. By the time I stopped flying I was beyond redemption in promotion terms as I was still in a flying branch even though grounded!

Although I was a member of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies and read widely on military subjects, people with better marks for flying and basic admin who took no real interest in big picture military matters got promoted.

The last time a senior military man spoke out against government policy he was threatedned with the sack - ACM Michael Graydon tried it and failed. The Admiral who opposed the abolition of aircraft carriers (not to be confused with through deck cruisers) walked rather than accept the emasculation of the Royal Navy lying down.

Our senior military officers are forced to do the government's bidding - most would never have involved themselves in the Iraq adventure, but common sense went out of the window and our politicians invaded a sovereign state that was no threat to us with inadequate intelligence (actually made up intelligence) and no real understanding of what was involved. Now lookat the mess - the military would never have countenanced going into battle without the correct body armour and only one round each for the rear infantry battalion, but that's what Hoon made them do.

JCDS/CDS does his master's bidding. Wait until he has retired - look at Tim Garden, Tim Collins, Bob Stewart etc. They are taking regular pots at the government's inability to understand military matters.

Clippo

UKpatriot wrote:-

I used the word ‘crazed’ in a fanatical, blind hatred sense. My two dictionaries define ‘Craze’ as extreme enthusiasm or mania for something.

I have laboriously waded through all your posts to see if at any point you have given any consideration of the Israeli viewpoint. I could find none. On the contrary, in every post there seemed to me to be some kind of Israeli and or US condemnation. There are so many that I’d end up with a post longer than Keith’s if I quoted them all. But, not to disappoint you here are just a few :-

So, ‘crazed’ or ‘extremely enthusiastic’, - take your pick, I don’t mind.

-------------------------------------------
Ukpatriot wrote:-

Yourself & MikeUK – so yes you are technically correct in stating that more than one poster has made this accusation but you’ve also fallen into the trap of false condemnation because of your ‘extreme enthusiasm’ for one side’s cause to the detriment of not being able to accept that you might be even a tidgy bit wrong.

------------------------------------------
Your earlier response to Michael Hillier

So when did a terrorist organisation, & not even part of a sovereign nation’s armed forces have the international right to arrest anybody. Why did the same organisation amass reports of 2,000+ Katusha rockets if not to provoke war. Simple undeniable truth is that although the Israelis should not have been on Lebanese territory, it was Hezbollah who fired the first shots. Therefore, Hezbollah started it this time.

-------------------------------------------------

Ukpatriot wrote:- (in response to CDS report)

Your opinion only based on no facts at all. See my other post on this statement.

-------------------------------------------------

UK patriot wrote
Fatuous = silly, facetious, stupidly vain

I was using this word in the sense of stupidly silly. Different time, different place, different protagonists, different issues ……..

---------------------------------------------------------

UKpatroit wrote:-

Firstly, I don’t think I said ‘entire’ Arab/Islamic world ( if I did I did qualify that by excluding Egypt & Jordan), If I didn’t don’t twist my words.

Now, how many times have some or all of the Arab / Islamic nations actually tried to wipe Israel off the map by war? What is it 7-8-9 times. Seems a pretty fair bet that if they try again it will be militarily – that’s how! Also, & I have no link to this, but I recall when the latest leader of Iran came to office he promised to nuke Israel.
Have you been asleep & not concentrating UKpatriot?

--------------------------------------------------------

Oh dear UKpatriot, wrong again.

I tried to use simple language so that even you could understand.

-------------------------------------------------------

UKpatriot wrote –

They must be addressed simultaneously to avoid any accusations of perferential treatment.

Hang on !! I think I agree with that !!!

Regrettably I don’t think the UN works likes that & they can’t even agree on the first resolution to stop this stupid conflict.

ukpatriot

[quote="Clippo"]UKpatriot wrote:-

You're on sticky ground here. I didn't ask you for a dictionary definition of 'crazed', I asked you to provide specific comments made by me which persuaded you to direct that insult at me.

How many posts have you read from certain contributirs which have considered the Arab perspective?

What you should have found, if you cared to read my posts more thoroughly, is a desire for the UN to step into the region as a peacekeeping force. Which would ensure the sovereignty of Israel, preferably behind the 1967 borders So you are wrong again.

So? I do condemn Israei aggression and US stupidity. What do you find 'crazed' about that?

So?


Perhaps to retaliate if they were attacked... which is what has happened.

No. Hezbollah captured Israelis who were violating Lebanese sovereign territory, and Israel attacked. Hezbollah retaliated.

-------------------------------------------------

I think MikeUK and Aardvark have answered you. I have nothing to add to what they have said already.

Well, we have seen some quotes from Israeli leaders regarding their intentions towards their neighbours... most involving kicking the Arabs out by force and establishing a racist state of settlers. One terrorist, later Israeli PM, was described as 'Hitlerian'. Nice.


If I were you I'd stick to words of one syllable. You're plainly out of your depth using longer words.

Sense at last.

Interestingly enough, Hezbollah are ready for an immediate ceasefire, which is what most of us want. It's only the Yanks, Israeli regime and a handful of others who have procrastinated... why? So the Israelis can destroy yet more of lebanon and kill yet more Lebanese?

Michael Hillier

I was the treasurer of UKIP "Friends of Israel"

I will back Israel regardless of what ever they do in any way.

I will not and do not need to go into this any further.

I do understand that these things need to be talked about and debated unless you have nothing else to do for UKIP and this our own country.

We (UKIP) need a new leader who will take us forward and be able to lead us to some sort of victory. We need to be able to help this, our own country before we can even think of helping any other country whever that may be.

Israel and Lebanon can and will look after themselves. We all have our own reasons.

At this present moment we really need to look after our own country here in the UK.

We need a new leader and very quickly.

Sorry, but I just had to say this.

mkpdavies

That's right Michael.

I respect your position, but UKIP taking sides as a party is not on. Especially as there has been no discussion or feelers put out on how exactly the membership as a whole feel on the issue.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Mikeuk

I don't regard that as an acceptable position, and for two distinct reasons

1) I wouldn't support my own country 'regardless of what ever they do in any way' and I wouldn't expect any civilised person to take such a view. That was precisely the attitude which led Germany to disaster under the Nazis.

2) If such a 'blank cheque' attitude is unacceptable vis-a-vis one's own country it is a fortiori the case as regards a foreign country.

Israel is a foreign country.