Poo tin... Put@in...

1…171172174176177…219

Comments

  • MattFalle
    MattFalle Posts: 11,644
    how do you mean duplication?
    .
    The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
  • HilaryAmin
    HilaryAmin Posts: 160
    Too many supreme commanders probably.
  • MattFalle
    MattFalle Posts: 11,644
    theres only one.
    .
    The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    MattFalle said:

    how do you mean duplication?

    if we had one NATO army, navy and airforce it would look very different than drawing on the resources of 30 countries
  • MattFalle
    MattFalle Posts: 11,644
    surrey_commuter said:

    MattFalle said:

    how do you mean duplication?

    if we had one NATO army, navy and airforce it would look very different than drawing on the resources of 30 countries
    woah woah woah woah stop the bus!

    seriously????
    .
    The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    MattFalle said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    MattFalle said:

    how do you mean duplication?

    if we had one NATO army, navy and airforce it would look very different than drawing on the resources of 30 countries
    woah woah woah woah stop the bus!

    seriously????
    why
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,106
    edited July 2022
    surrey_commuter said:

    MattFalle said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    MattFalle said:

    how do you mean duplication?

    if we had one NATO army, navy and airforce it would look very different than drawing on the resources of 30 countries
    woah woah woah woah stop the bus!

    seriously????
    why
    How would that work though? Countries would have to fork out on their own Military as well as NATO. Most Countries are stretched as it is, more now than ever.

    I guess it might be good for a particular Country if they are making the majority of the hardware.
  • MattFalle
    MattFalle Posts: 11,644
    edited July 2022
    seriously?

    because every individual procurement purchase, exercise, operation, unit manouvre, recruitment process, job contract, HR policy, law, etc, etc would have to be approved and stadadised by every NATO nation.

    every PAM, course, lesson would have to be changed. every tactic.

    GB military law is governed by GB law - you now want Eddie from 2PARA to be tried under some NATO law for a punch up in MooMoos nightclub?

    every weapon, uniform, boot, vehicle would have to be replaced.

    france don't want troops in Northern Ireland, GB don't want troops in Reunion island.
    Holland can't really be bothered going to to have a scrap with Argentina down in the Falklands.

    NATO is a collective force of individual countries. each individual country takes responsibility for its own military.

    not really the best idea.
    .
    The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
  • MattFalle
    MattFalle Posts: 11,644
    edited July 2022
    britain can't even get the britsh army navy and air force to work together let alone a brigade of Bersaglieri
    .
    The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
  • MattFalle
    MattFalle Posts: 11,644
    MattFalle said:

    seriously?

    because every individual procurement purchase, exercise, operation, unit manouvre, recruitment process, job contract, HR policy, law, etc, etc would have to be approved and stadadised by every NATO nation.

    every PAM, course, lesson would have to be changed. every tactic.

    GB military law is governed by GB law - you now want Eddie from 2PARA to be tried under some NATO law for a punch up in MooMoos nightclub?

    every weapon, uniform, boot, vehicle would have to be replaced.

    france don't want troops in Northern Ireland, GB don't want troops in Reunion island.
    Holland can't really be bothered going to to have a scrap with Argentina down in the Falklands.

    NATO is a collective force of individual countries. each individual country takes responsibility for its own military.

    not really the best idea.

    where you gonna base them for one?
    .
    The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
  • MattFalle
    MattFalle Posts: 11,644
    who's gonna run each arm?
    .
    The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,107
    If there was a single NATO army, would the French brigades still be cheese eating surrender monkeys?
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    First.Aspect said:

    If there was a single NATO army, would the French brigades still be cheese eating surrender monkeys?

    We all joke but Macron is leading the "give Putin and off-ramp" chat....
    _
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,460
    MattFalle said:

    seriously?

    because every individual procurement purchase, exercise, operation, unit manouvre, recruitment process, job contract, HR policy, law, etc, etc would have to be approved and stadadised by every NATO nation.

    every PAM, course, lesson would have to be changed. every tactic.

    GB military law is governed by GB law - you now want Eddie from 2PARA to be tried under some NATO law for a punch up in MooMoos nightclub?

    every weapon, uniform, boot, vehicle would have to be replaced.

    france don't want troops in Northern Ireland, GB don't want troops in Reunion island.
    Holland can't really be bothered going to to have a scrap with Argentina down in the Falklands.

    NATO is a collective force of individual countries. each individual country takes responsibility for its own military.

    not really the best idea.

    I don't think anyone suggested it was a good idea, my reading was that it was in relation to what would be needed for European countries to get anywhere near the scale of the US.

    That said, there were plenty of Brexiteers that managed to persuade the public that an EU army was going to be a thing despite all the obvious issues you've raised.
  • masjer
    masjer Posts: 2,643
    edited July 2022
    MattFalle said:

    MattFalle said:

    seriously?


    france don't want troops in Northern Ireland, GB don't want troops in Reunion island.
    Holland can't really be bothered going to to have a scrap with Argentina down in the Falklands.

    france don't want troops in Northern Ireland, GB don't want troops in Reunion island.
    Holland can't really be bothered going to to have a scrap with Argentina down in the Falklands.

    NATO was never going to be involved in NI troubles. Reunion and Falklands are in the Southern Hemisphere, so no involvement there either.
  • MattFalle
    MattFalle Posts: 11,644
    Pross said:

    MattFalle said:

    seriously?

    because every individual procurement purchase, exercise, operation, unit manouvre, recruitment process, job contract, HR policy, law, etc, etc would have to be approved and stadadised by every NATO nation.

    every PAM, course, lesson would have to be changed. every tactic.

    GB military law is governed by GB law - you now want Eddie from 2PARA to be tried under some NATO law for a punch up in MooMoos nightclub?

    every weapon, uniform, boot, vehicle would have to be replaced.

    france don't want troops in Northern Ireland, GB don't want troops in Reunion island.
    Holland can't really be bothered going to to have a scrap with Argentina down in the Falklands.

    NATO is a collective force of individual countries. each individual country takes responsibility for its own military.

    not really the best idea.

    I don't think anyone suggested it was a good idea, my reading was that it was in relation to what would be needed for European countries to get anywhere near the scale of the US.

    That said, there were plenty of Brexiteers that managed to persuade the public that an EU army was going to be a thing despite all the obvious issues you've raised.
    i hope you're right but SC's post read to the MFs that he felt the right and correct option would be to unify the individual Arms in each individual nation under one commander, which is probably the worst idea ever after the adoption of the SA80.
    .
    The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Pross said:

    MattFalle said:

    seriously?

    because every individual procurement purchase, exercise, operation, unit manouvre, recruitment process, job contract, HR policy, law, etc, etc would have to be approved and stadadised by every NATO nation.

    every PAM, course, lesson would have to be changed. every tactic.

    GB military law is governed by GB law - you now want Eddie from 2PARA to be tried under some NATO law for a punch up in MooMoos nightclub?

    every weapon, uniform, boot, vehicle would have to be replaced.

    france don't want troops in Northern Ireland, GB don't want troops in Reunion island.
    Holland can't really be bothered going to to have a scrap with Argentina down in the Falklands.

    NATO is a collective force of individual countries. each individual country takes responsibility for its own military.

    not really the best idea.

    I don't think anyone suggested it was a good idea, my reading was that it was in relation to what would be needed for European countries to get anywhere near the scale of the US.

    That said, there were plenty of Brexiteers that managed to persuade the public that an EU army was going to be a thing despite all the obvious issues you've raised.
    You are indeed correct. As I said we could triple spend and still not be able to project power.
  • MattFalle
    MattFalle Posts: 11,644
    britain will never, ever project power, especially to those who look closely at such things.

    jingoist flagshggrs may think that britain may/can project power but it ain't so so.
    .
    The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    The UK is a nuclear power. That is a projection of power.
    As a member of the G7, that is a projection of power.

    Even the BBC World Service is a projection of power.
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,106
    shirley_basso said:

    The UK is a nuclear power. That is a projection of power.
    As a member of the G7, that is a projection of power.

    Even the BBC World Service is a projection of power.

    And Snap made a song called "I've got the power".
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    shirley_basso said:

    The UK is a nuclear power. That is a projection of power.
    As a member of the G7, that is a projection of power.

    Even the BBC World Service is a projection of power.

    I think you're confusing 'projection' with 'influence'. Either that, or I missed the bit where BBC World Service employees got into a firefight with the Taliban in Helmand....
  • MattFalle
    MattFalle Posts: 11,644
    shirley_basso said:

    The UK is a nuclear power. That is a projection of power.
    As a member of the G7, that is a projection of power.

    Even the BBC World Service is a projection of power.

    errrr. no.

    the UK's nuclear programme is pretty shocking. So let's rule that out.

    G7 - not really if everyone laughs at you.


    World Service? not really. bet Sky Sports has more followers.

    just grasping straws.
    .
    The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    imposter2.0 said:

    shirley_basso said:

    The UK is a nuclear power. That is a projection of power.
    As a member of the G7, that is a projection of power.

    Even the BBC World Service is a projection of power.

    I think you're confusing 'projection' with 'influence'. Either that, or I missed the bit where BBC World Service employees got into a firefight with the Taliban in Helmand....
    imposter2.0 said:

    shirley_basso said:

    The UK is a nuclear power. That is a projection of power.
    As a member of the G7, that is a projection of power.

    Even the BBC World Service is a projection of power.

    I think you're confusing 'projection' with 'influence'. Either that, or I missed the bit where BBC World Service employees got into a firefight with the Taliban in Helmand....
    I imagine the BBC could deploy more people to Helmand than the british army and probably better equipped
  • MattFalle
    MattFalle Posts: 11,644
    imposter2.0 said:

    shirley_basso said:

    The UK is a nuclear power. That is a projection of power.
    As a member of the G7, that is a projection of power.

    Even the BBC World Service is a projection of power.

    I think you're confusing 'projection' with 'influence'. Either that, or I missed the bit where BBC World Service employees got into a firefight with the Taliban in Helmand....
    well they do say the pen is mightier than the sword but, tbh, if someone is having a pop at me I'd rather have a Kalash than a Parker roller ball from WH Sith.
    .
    The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
  • Munsford0
    Munsford0 Posts: 678
    MattFalle said:

    imposter2.0 said:

    shirley_basso said:

    The UK is a nuclear power. That is a projection of power.
    As a member of the G7, that is a projection of power.

    Even the BBC World Service is a projection of power.

    I think you're confusing 'projection' with 'influence'. Either that, or I missed the bit where BBC World Service employees got into a firefight with the Taliban in Helmand....
    well they do say the pen is mightier than the sword but, tbh, if someone is having a pop at me I'd rather have a Kalash than a Parker roller ball from WH Sith.
    Is that the WH Sith of Jedi stationery fame?
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    imposter2.0 said:

    shirley_basso said:

    The UK is a nuclear power. That is a projection of power.
    As a member of the G7, that is a projection of power.

    Even the BBC World Service is a projection of power.

    I think you're confusing 'projection' with 'influence'. Either that, or I missed the bit where BBC World Service employees got into a firefight with the Taliban in Helmand....
    imposter2.0 said:

    shirley_basso said:

    The UK is a nuclear power. That is a projection of power.
    As a member of the G7, that is a projection of power.

    Even the BBC World Service is a projection of power.

    I think you're confusing 'projection' with 'influence'. Either that, or I missed the bit where BBC World Service employees got into a firefight with the Taliban in Helmand....
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,290
    edited July 2022
    MattFalle said:

    seriously?

    because every individual procurement purchase, exercise, operation, unit manouvre, recruitment process, job contract, HR policy, law, etc, etc would have to be approved and stadadised by every NATO nation.

    every PAM, course, lesson would have to be changed. every tactic.

    GB military law is governed by GB law - you now want Eddie from 2PARA to be tried under some NATO law for a punch up in MooMoos nightclub?

    every weapon, uniform, boot, vehicle would have to be replaced.

    france don't want troops in Northern Ireland, GB don't want troops in Reunion island.
    Holland can't really be bothered going to to have a scrap with Argentina down in the Falklands.

    NATO is a collective force of individual countries. each individual country takes responsibility for its own military.

    not really the best idea.

    So do you reckon this EU army idea touted around by the likes of Macron is a good plan?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • MattFalle
    MattFalle Posts: 11,644
    .
    Stevo_666 said:

    MattFalle said:

    seriously?

    because every individual procurement purchase, exercise, operation, unit manouvre, recruitment process, job contract, HR policy, law, etc, etc would have to be approved and stadadised by every NATO nation.

    every PAM, course, lesson would have to be changed. every tactic.

    GB military law is governed by GB law - you now want Eddie from 2PARA to be tried under some NATO law for a punch up in MooMoos nightclub?

    every weapon, uniform, boot, vehicle would have to be replaced.

    france don't want troops in Northern Ireland, GB don't want troops in Reunion island.
    Holland can't really be bothered going to to have a scrap with Argentina down in the Falklands.

    NATO is a collective force of individual countries. each individual country takes responsibility for its own military.

    not really the best idea.

    So do you reckon this EU army idea touted around by the likes of Macron is a good plan?
    more intergration yes, deffo, but a single unified force? nope.

    all of the above plus too many egos, too many political issues attached to the EU, who would be in, who would be part in, who wpuld be out..... be a nightmare.

    its an idea thats been flogged for years - why do I want to say even from the Thatcher era? but its never going to happen

    an ever expanding intergrating NATO is the way fwd I believe
    .
    The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
  • MattFalle
    MattFalle Posts: 11,644
    sorry - i was wrong.

    been touted since the 50s.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_army
    .
    The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Stevo_666 said:

    MattFalle said:

    seriously?

    because every individual procurement purchase, exercise, operation, unit manouvre, recruitment process, job contract, HR policy, law, etc, etc would have to be approved and stadadised by every NATO nation.

    every PAM, course, lesson would have to be changed. every tactic.

    GB military law is governed by GB law - you now want Eddie from 2PARA to be tried under some NATO law for a punch up in MooMoos nightclub?

    every weapon, uniform, boot, vehicle would have to be replaced.

    france don't want troops in Northern Ireland, GB don't want troops in Reunion island.
    Holland can't really be bothered going to to have a scrap with Argentina down in the Falklands.

    NATO is a collective force of individual countries. each individual country takes responsibility for its own military.

    not really the best idea.

    So do you reckon this EU army idea touted around by the likes of Macron is a good plan?
    Why not?
    _

Categories