Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Jawgap · 17-01-2017 11:52AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Seems somebody disputes that one too Fred.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons

http://spartacus-educational.com/spartacus-blogURL5.html

i.e. He changed or had his mind changed.

My last word on your Hero are his own words:

.....and Roosevelt approved the shipping and stockpiling of chemical munitions in the Italian campaign.....a decision that led directly to the explosion of the John Harvey, 83 military deaths from mustard gas exposure and uncounted civilian casualties.....

......the US also presided over the development and use of Napalm.....

.....developed and deployed Agent Orange and other defoliants.....

.....not to mention the deployment and use of atomic weapons.....

......and yet despite this legacy Gerry and the Shinners pitch a fit when denied access to the building where decisions taken about these substances were made

Fratton Fred · 17-01-2017 11:54AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Seems somebody disputes that one too Fred.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons

http://spartacus-educational.com/spartacus-blogURL5.html

i.e. He changed or had his mind changed.

My last word on your Hero are his own words:

You need to look up the word "Lachrymatory" Churchill uses it a lot when he talks of chemical weapons

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 11:54AM

Jawgap wrote: »

.....and Roosevelt approved the shipping and stockpiling of chemical munitions in the Italian campaign.....a decision that led directly to the explosion of the John Harvey, 83 military deaths from mustard gas exposure and uncounted civilian casualties.....

......the US also presided over the development and use of Napalm.....

.....developed and deployed Agent Orange and other defoliants.....

.....not to mention the deployment and use of atomic weapons.....

......and yet despite this legacy Gerry and the Shinners pitch a fit when denied access to the building where decisions taken about these substances were made

You wouldn't be engaging in The Whataboutery Game there would you?

Jawgap · 17-01-2017 11:57AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You wouldn't be engaging in The Whataboutery Game there would you?

Ah, 'whataboutery'.......the last refuge of the morally bankrupt Shinner - to be used once the inherent contradiction of their morally dubious but politically convenient positions on matters historical are pointed out

Continue.....

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 12:01PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Ah, 'whataboutery'.......the last refuge of the morally bankrupt Shinner - to be used once the inherent contradiction of their morally dubious but politically convenient positions on matters historical are pointed out

Continue.....

There is no 'contradiction'.
I simply laid out the facts that Churchill was not a career 'hero' but had some extremely dark impulses and was a racist.

I made no comment on other leaders or countries so there is no 'contradiction'.

Professor Moriarty · 17-01-2017 12:01PM

If there is a European war, Ireland's 'neutrality' will like a daisy in a bull's mouth.

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 12:03PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You need to look up the word "Lachrymatory" Churchill uses it a lot when he talks of chemical weapons

I know about that. I also know what was developed at Porton and that Churchill ordered 500,000 Anthrax bombs in 1944 and that you are clutching at straws.

Jawgap · 17-01-2017 12:06PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is no 'contradiction'.
I simply laid out the facts that Churchill was not a career 'hero' but had some extremely dark impulses and was a racist.

I made no comment on other leaders or countries so there is no 'contradiction'.

Absolutely - the word arch-imperialist spring to mind when one considers him.....

.......I was merely pointing out that those who would be viscerally against anyone joining the BA, and who deputise Churchill and his political legacy into their argument, seem to have no problem tugging at the coat tails once a year of the holder of the office that has as 'glorious' a record at respecting human rights as the office of Prime Minister of HM Government, First Lord of the Treasury and Minster of Defence......

.......that kind of moral equivocation suggests political expediency is at play.

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 12:09PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Absolutely - the word arch-imperialist spring to mind when one considers him.....

.......I was merely pointing out that those who would be viscerally against anyone joining the BA, and who deputise Churchill and his political legacy into their argument, seem to have no problem tugging at the coat tails once a year of the holder of the office that has as 'glorious' a record at respecting human rights as the office of Prime Minister of HM Government, First Lord of the Treasury and Minster of Defence......

.......that kind of moral equivocation suggests political expediency is at play.

That would have some relevance if I was a member of SF, I am not.

And what I don't do is hero worship any leader. I appraise them all on their record.

ohnonotgmail · 17-01-2017 12:12PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That would have some relevance if I was a member of SF, I am not.

And what I don't do is hero worship any leader. I appraise them all on their record.

and yet somehow you still manage to hold Gerry and his IRA chums in high regard.

Jawgap · 17-01-2017 12:14PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I know about that. I also know what was developed at Porton and that Churchill ordered 500,000 Anthrax bombs in 1944 and that you are clutching at straws.

Ah yes.....that old chestnut - based on quotes from Cabinet Minutes taken out of context.....(hint: don't rebut with a quote from the Robert Harris book - it's been debunked).....

......and of course you conveniently leave out the fact that the manufacturing of such bombs was the sole preserve of the US who had developed the necessary aersolisation technology.

Jawgap · 17-01-2017 12:15PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That would have some relevance if I was a member of SF, I am not.

And what I don't do is hero worship any leader. I appraise them all on their record.

I believe you.

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 12:15PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and yet somehow you still manage to hold Gerry and his IRA chums in high regard.

For some of what they did, yes. Just like I hold Dev in high regard for some of what he did too. Even Churchill, I have agreed, had a few fine hours.

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 12:17PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Ah yes.....that old chestnut - based on quotes from Cabinet Minutes taken out of context.....(hint: don't rebut with a quote from the Robert Harris book - it's been debunked).....

......and of course you conveniently leave out the fact that the manufacturing of such bombs was the sole preserve of the US who had developed the necessary aersolisation technology.

I didn't compare Churchill to anybody else, nor the UK to any other country.

There is NO contradiction so can we stop the fabrication?

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 12:18PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I believe you.

No you don't. But you seem to think it matters.

Junkyard Tom · 17-01-2017 12:24PM

Jawgap wrote: »

that kind of moral equivocation suggests political expediency is at play.

Moral equivalence is the term you're looking for and you did indeed engage in whataboutery when you skewed off in this direction:

Jawgap wrote: »

.....and Roosevelt

Also, I see you've tried to employ the 'you're a shinner' method of trying to discredit a person's views instead of actually engaging with thier individual points.

You need to raise your discussion game.

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 12:30PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Moral equivalence is the term you're looking for and you did indeed engage in whataboutery when you skewed off in this direction:

Also, I see you've tried to employ the 'you're a shinner' method of trying to discredit a person's views instead of actually engaging with thier individual points.

You need to raise your discussion game.

It's fabulously and easily predictable when the debate reaches a certain stage.

Jawgap · 17-01-2017 12:47PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Moral equivalence is the term you're looking for and you did indeed engage in whataboutery when you skewed off in this direction:

Also, I see you've tried to employ the 'you're a shinner' method of trying to discredit a person's views instead of actually engaging with thier individual points.

You need to raise your discussion game.

Oh, I tend to eschew such terms - only because when people start tossing them ('moral equivalence' whataboutery, various pig Latin phrases etc) it starts to sound like a first year PhilSoc debate that's spilled over into the common room.

Plus, I'm not trying to discredit anyone - just looking for some transparency.

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 12:51PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Oh, I tend to eschew such terms - only because when people start tossing them ('moral equivalence' whataboutery, various pig Latin phrases etc) it starts to sound like a first year PhilSoc debate that's spilled over into the common room.

Plus, I'm not trying to discredit anyone - just looking for some transparency.

But you decided to ignore some factual transparency on Churchill's career to go on a deflecting and pointless crusade about a comparison I never made with some added 'your a shinner' ranting. OK :rolleyes:

Jawgap · 17-01-2017 12:59PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But you decided to ignore some factual transparency on Churchill's career to go on a deflecting and pointless crusade about a comparison I never made with some added 'your a shinner' ranting. OK :rolleyes:

Factual transparency

:D:D

And posted without a hint of irony - my hat is doffed to you

Anyway, I wonder if the RN is getting a bump in recruitment too from the Republic......those new carriers won't drive themselves.

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 01:29PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Factual transparency :D:D

And posted without a hint of irony - my hat is doffed to you

Anyway, I wonder if the RN is getting a bump in recruitment too from the Republic......those new carriers won't drive themselves.

They might need a few competent sparkies first. They won't power themselves.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/732628/Navy-aircraft-carriers-obsolete-dodgy-wiring-report

And they aren't very effective on their own. More money to be found post Brexit. Money trees?

To reluctantly employ a footballing analogy, it's like a manager investing in two new star strikers at the expense of the rest of the team. That strategy doesn't win trophies.

Jawgap · 17-01-2017 02:55PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They might need a few competent sparkies first. They won't power themselves.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/732628/Navy-aircraft-carriers-obsolete-dodgy-wiring-report

And they aren't very effective on their own. More money to be found post Brexit. Money trees?

Not at all - they've got the Type 45s in place, 4 more attack boats are due to enter commission over the next decade, and - most importantly - the 'Tides' are coming on stream, with one undergoing acceptance trials, one just launched and two more in the works. More than enough capacity to keep a CBG on station. 'Big Lizzie' herself will be on sea trials in the first part of this year.

Probably best not to get your info from the Daily Express - not exactly known as a bastion of objectivity is it?

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 02:58PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Not at all - they've got the Type 45s in place, 4 more attack boats are due to enter commission over the next decade, and - most importantly - the 'Tides' are coming on stream, with one undergoing acceptance trials, one just launched and two more in the works. More than enough capacity to keep a CBG on station. 'Big Lizzie' herself will be on sea trials in the first part of this year.

Probably best not to get your info from the Daily Express - not exactly known as a bastion of objectivity is it?

You speak of 'objectivity'? On this thread?
Carry on. :rolleyes:

Jawgap · 17-01-2017 03:03PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You speak of 'objectivity'? On this thread?
Carry on. :rolleyes:

No, I speak of sources - the Daily Express isn't exactly an authoritative one but I can see why it appeals to Shinners......;)

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 03:23PM

Jawgap wrote: »

No, I speak of sources - the Daily Express isn't exactly an authoritative one but I can see why it appeals to Shinners......;)

Well you know what you need to do then? Contradict the source.

Regardless of the article, it seems all is not plain sailing and it may just be an expensive vanity project.

Here is some more reading for those on the strict Ruler Of The Waves diet.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/defence-and-security-blog/2015/dec/09/white-elephants-on-the-ocean

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/05/28/us_navys_big_mistake_--_building_tons_of_supercarriers_107984.html

Jawgap · 17-01-2017 03:37PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well you know what you need to do then? Contradict the source.

Regardless of the article, it seems all is not plain sailing and it may just be an expensive vanity project.

Here is some more reading for those on the strict Ruler Of The Waves diet.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/defence-and-security-blog/2015/dec/09/white-elephants-on-the-ocean

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/05/28/us_navys_big_mistake_--_building_tons_of_supercarriers_107984.html

Well colour me surprised - inter-service rivalry and politics leading to the criticism of big ticket projects - really, who'd have thunk it? Well done on your scoop :rolleyes:

Personally, I'd recommend you get a grip on the theory first. The demise of the large fighting ship has been predicted since the glory years of Athenian thalassocracy and Themistocles.

Sure, F-35s can't land boarding parties, but in the current debate on A2/AD aren't they a useful tool to have to clear the way? Difficult to land any boarding party in a less than benign air control environment.

Plus, how do you think power can be projected from the sea without a carrier force? The army may give you persistence, the Air Force may be give you poise but it's the navy that delivers presence

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 03:45PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Plus, how do you think power can be projected from the sea without a carrier force? The army may give you persistence, the Air Force may be give you poise but it's the navy that delivers presence

'coz the guys with the big boat have no power?

You know what they say about big flashy cars being certain anatomical part extensions?

Would have been cheaper all round for the Brits to just accept the French are probably the US's new bitch.
But of course they will persist.

Jawgap · 17-01-2017 03:51PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'coz the guys with the big boat have no power?

You know what they say about big flashy cars being certain anatomical part extensions?

Would have been cheaper all round for the Brits to just accept the French are probably the US's new bitch.
But of course they will persist.

Well it's all about the form of power you want to project in the littoral.

Difficult, for example, to launch amphibious operations on to a hostile shore off just helicopter carrier (LHA) - or exert influence outside the range of land based aircraft (a sub lurking beneath the waves won't give much presence

)

Flat-tops just facilitate the projection of military power.

.....and I'm guessing the UK is still the US' bitch given the proposals for inter-operability, the fact they're buying the F-35 from them and the procurement of Trident for the new Dreadnought subs......

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 03:55PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Well it's all about the form of power you want to project in the littoral.

Difficult, for example, to launch amphibious operations on to a hostile shore off just helicopter carrier (LHA) - or exert influence outside the range of land based aircraft (a sub lurking beneath the waves won't give much presence )

Flat-tops just facilitate the projection of military power.

.....and I'm guessing the UK is still the US' bitch given the proposals for inter-operability, the fact they're buying the F-35 from them and the procurement of Trident for the new Dreadnought subs......

As they say, we will see.

Plenty of game changers afoot.

Jawgap · 17-01-2017 04:11PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As they say, we will see.

Plenty of game changers afoot.

.......plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Comments