You can always tell armed conflict's in the offing when you see economic illiterate

[Burney]

tweets/Facebook posts from people saying how much missiles cost and how many homelesses could be put up or nurses or teachers employed with that money, etc, etc.

The fact that those missiles are in many cases designed and built in the UK by companies employing thousands and paying untold millions in UK tax revenues that then get spent on homelesses, nurses, teachers, etc, etc is of course a bit too complicated for their tiny fvcking brains.

It really is amazing how many people still appear to think that capital expenditure at a macro level is a zero sum game.

[Sir C]

tweets/Facebook posts from people saying how much missiles cost and how many homelesses could be put up or nurses or teachers employed with that money, etc, etc.

The fact that those missiles are in many cases designed and built in the UK by companies employing thousands and paying untold millions in UK tax revenues that then get spent on homelesses, nurses, teachers, etc, etc is of course a bit too complicated for their tiny fvcking brains.

It really is amazing how many people still appear to think that capital expenditure at a macro level is a zero sum game.

Plus you've got to use them by their 'Best Before' date or they go off and you have to replace them anyway. Probably.

[Burney]

Plus you've got to use them by their 'Best Before' date or they go off and you have to replace them anyway. Probably.

:nod: That's absolutely true. We've paid for them already and there's no trade-in option for ordnance when they become obsolete (although you can flog them on to Brazil or whatever, I suppose). Given which, we might as well drop them on some brown chaps. Or Russki chaps for that matter.

[Billy Goat Sverige]

Plus you've got to use them by their 'Best Before' date or they go off and you have to replace them anyway. Probably.

:nod: The US has a load of MOAB that go out of date this year.

[Rich]

tweets/Facebook posts from people saying how much missiles cost and how many homelesses could be put up or nurses or teachers employed with that money, etc, etc.

The fact that those missiles are in many cases designed and built in the UK by companies employing thousands and paying untold millions in UK tax revenues that then get spent on homelesses, nurses, teachers, etc, etc is of course a bit too complicated for their tiny fvcking brains.

It really is amazing how many people still appear to think that capital expenditure at a macro level is a zero sum game.

Surely we won't actually be shooting any of our missiles? Provide support to the Americans, sure. But get our hands dirty? I don't think so.

[Peter]

tweets/Facebook posts from people saying how much missiles cost and how many homelesses could be put up or nurses or teachers employed with that money, etc, etc.

The fact that those missiles are in many cases designed and built in the UK by companies employing thousands and paying untold millions in UK tax revenues that then get spent on homelesses, nurses, teachers, etc, etc is of course a bit too complicated for their tiny fvcking brains.

It really is amazing how many people still appear to think that capital expenditure at a macro level is a zero sum game.

So you are saying that the homeless and the nurses should be hoping for a nice, big war? THe more missiles we use the more we need.

And of course, injuries are big business for the nurses.

Surprised to see you championing the war economy, b. It is practically socialism.

[Sir C]

:nod: That's absolutely true. We've paid for them already and there's no trade-in option when they become obsolete. Given which, we might as well drop them on some brown chaps. Or Russki chaps for that matter.

I have some questions about our reasoning for such action, though.

1. Surely it is in our interest for Assad to be in charge, rather than Islamists?
2. Killing civilians with gas is naughty, no doubt, but is it really any naughtier than killing them with barrel bombs or good old-fashioned AK-47s?
3. Surely the first bomb we drop will trigger another flood of 'refugees', all claiming to be fleeing the wanton death and destruction committed by the West :-(

[Burney]

So you are saying that the homeless and the nurses should be hoping for a nice, big war? THe more missiles we use the more we need.

And of course, injuries are big business for the nurses.

Surprised to see you championing the war economy, b. It is practically socialism.

National defence is one of the few areas where I have a use for government, p. It's therefore one of the few areas for which I don't resent paying tax. After all, who else is going to do it?

And anyway, what I really resent are the morons who seem to think that spending money in one place means it's not available in another. That's not how economies work.

[Rich]

I have some questions about our reasoning for such action, though.

1. Surely it is in our interest for Assad to be in charge, rather than Islamists?
2. Killing civilians with gas is naughty, no doubt, but is it really any naughtier than killing them with barrel bombs or good old-fashioned AK-47s?
3. Surely the first bomb we drop will trigger another flood of 'refugees', all claiming to be fleeing the wanton death and destruction committed by the West :-(

Please, allow me:

1. I don't really understand this part. I think we want to enforce democracy on countries that have no history of it. I.e. the Islamists wouldn't be voted in.
2. It's more indescriminate, with children being more susceptible to the effects (particularly with chlorine) since it's very dense and is at its greatest concentration when close to the ground. Even the most evil dictator surely cannot wish to punish kids.
3. That's Merkel/Macron's problem, really. We have an sea border so need not worry. Just make sure we're checking lorries at Callais.

[Burney]

I have some questions about our reasoning for such action, though.

1. Surely it is in our interest for Assad to be in charge, rather than Islamists?
2. Killing civilians with gas is naughty, no doubt, but is it really any naughtier than killing them with barrel bombs or good old-fashioned AK-47s?
3. Surely the first bomb we drop will trigger another flood of 'refugees', all claiming to be fleeing the wanton death and destruction committed by the West :-(

I think there's a rather bigger picture, tbh. This isn't about Assad. Nobody really cares if middle Eastern savages slaughter their populace by whatever means. It's simply what This is about showing Iran and Russia that the West is sick of their sh1t; that that limp-wristed fanny Obama is no longer in charge and that red lines will not be crossed with impunity.

[Rich]

I think there's a rather bigger picture, tbh. This isn't about Assad. Nobody really cares if middle Eastern savages slaughter their populace by whatever means. It's simply what This is about showing Iran and Russia that the West is sick of their sh1t; that that limp-wristed fanny Obama is no longer in charge and that red lines will not be crossed with impunity.

Do you not feel that Mrs May is a leetle bit limp of wrist? Though I suppose she will just go along with whatever Don wants.

[Sir C]

I think there's a rather bigger picture, tbh. This isn't about Assad. Nobody really cares if middle Eastern savages slaughter their populace by whatever means. It's simply what This is about showing Iran and Russia that the West is sick of their sh1t; that that limp-wristed fanny Obama is no longer in charge and that red lines will not be crossed with impunity.

Ah, we're back to The Great Game, I suppose.

It's all very well, but if a Sukhoi 35 engages a Typhoon and comes off second best, that means war. And war is bad for business. Unless you're in the war business.

I wish I was in the war business.

[Peter]

National defence is one of the few areas where I have a use for government, p. It's therefore one of the few areas for which I don't resent paying tax. After all, who else is going to do it?

And anyway, what I really resent are the morons who seem to think that spending money in one place means it's not available in another. That's not how economies work.

I agree. Morons! Like suggesting that if we leave the EU we can spend more on the NHS. What sort of ****ing idiot would say something like that! Or vote for it......

Those complaining now should come and see you, b. You can tell them that isnt how economies work :)

[Burney]

Do you not feel that Mrs May is a leetle bit limp of wrist? Though I suppose she will just go along with whatever Don wants.

I would certainly say she's limp of wrist if she went through the idiotic business of asking for Parliament's consent. A sitting Prime Minister does not require Parliament's say-so for taking military action. It's a dangerous precedent that's been set in recent years and it needs to stop.

[Burney]

I agree. Morons! Like suggesting that if we leave the EU we can spend more on the NHS. What sort of ****ing idiot would say something like that! Or vote for it......

Those complaining now should come and see you, b. You can tell them that isnt how economies work :)

You should take that up with the people who actually voted for that, p. If you can find one. :shrug:

[Burney]

Ah, we're back to The Great Game, I suppose.

It's all very well, but if a Sukhoi 35 engages a Typhoon and comes off second best, that means war. And war is bad for business. Unless you're in the war business.

I wish I was in the war business.

Well the Turks shot down an SU-24 and Russia - predictably - did fvck all. Russia's all wind and p1ss.

[Sir C]

Well the Turks shot down an SU-24 and Russia - predictably - did fvck all. Russia's all wind and p1ss.

Christ, a Sukhoi-24? Saved them the bother of scrapping the poor old thing, I suppose.

[Rich]

Ah, we're back to The Great Game, I suppose.

It's all very well, but if a Sukhoi 35 engages a Typhoon and comes off second best, that means war. And war is bad for business. Unless you're in the war business.

I wish I was in the war business.

Aren't the Su-35 and EF2000 build for different things? I've always seen the Su-35 and thought it was a very fast, heavy air to ground aircraft? Whereas the EF2000 is a nimble, slightly scatty air to air fighter jet?

I'd have thought that the Tornado was a better comparison to the Su-35.

[Sir C]

Aren't the Su-35 and EF2000 build for different things? I've always seen the Su-35 and thought it was a very fast, heavy air to ground aircraft? Whereas the EF2000 is a nimble, slightly scatty air to air fighter jet?

I'd have thought that the Tornado was a better comparison to the Su-35.

Christ knows, they all look the same to me.

[Burney]

Christ, a Sukhoi-24? Saved them the bother of scrapping the poor old thing, I suppose.

Sure, but the principle was the same. The Russians were pushing their luck by encroaching on Turkish airspace, the Turks weren't having it, shot the bugger down and the Russians backed off. This is their gameplan - it's based on the idea that the West won't react. When it does, they'll back down.

[redgunamo]

I think there's a rather bigger picture, tbh. This isn't about Assad. Nobody really cares if middle Eastern savages slaughter their populace by whatever means. It's simply what This is about showing Iran and Russia that the West is sick of their sh1t; that that limp-wristed fanny Obama is no longer in charge and that red lines will not be crossed with impunity.

Not just the West, imo

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYwOdCIWAAI2_86.jpg:large

[Sir C]

Sure, but the principle was the same. The Russians were pushing their luck by encroaching on Turkish airspace, the Turks weren't having it, shot the bugger down and the Russians backed off. This is their gameplan - it's based on the idea that the West won't react. When it does, they'll back down.

K. If you're sure.

[Burney]

Not just the West, imo

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYwOdCIWAAI2_86.jpg:large

Oh, sure. But he's one of us now. Kind of.

[Burney]

K. If you're sure.

The alternative is giving Putin and Iran a free hand to do what they want in the region. :shrug: There seems little point in the US being the world's only military and economic superpower if it's going to pussy out every time Vlad waves his little willy.

[redgunamo]

The alternative is giving Putin and Iran a free hand to do what they want in the region. :shrug: There seems little point in the US being the world's only military and economic superpower if it's going to pussy out every time Vlad waves his little willy.

Yes, everyone does appear to have assumed the Donald was on about American missiles .. :rubchin:

[Peter]

You should take that up with the people who actually voted for that, p. If you can find one. :shrug:

Why cant I take it up with the people who campaigned on it, including the current Foreign Secretary? I mean, if he doesnt understand the basics of how the economy works......

[Burney]

Why cant I take it up with the people who campaigned on it, including the current Foreign Secretary? I mean, if he doesnt understand the basics of how the economy works......

Feel free. However, if you're going to take personal issue with every silly, simplistic claim made with the intention of winning election or referendum campaigns, it's going to take a while.

[Peter]

Feel free. However, if you're going to take personal issue with every silly, simplistic claim made with the intention of winning election or referendum campaigns, it's going to take a while.

True. Perhaps I should just sit on here and use these examples every time you pour scorn on people for expressing views that are slightly less silly than those we are presented with by our politicians.

In a sense, by the way, it IS how economies work. When you have a taxation ceiling, precipitated by a post THatcher consensus on the basic rate of income tax and an unwillingness to enforce corporation tax, public spending has a ceiling as well. With finite resources each area of expenditure constitutes a choice- a pound spent here is a pound less available there.

Guns and butter, b. Was always thus.

[Burney]

True. Perhaps I should just sit on here and use these examples every time you pour scorn on people for expressing views that are slightly less silly than those we are presented with by our politicians.

In a sense, by the way, it IS how economies work. When you have a taxation ceiling, precipitated by a post THatcher consensus on the basic rate of income tax and an unwillingness to enforce corporation tax, public spending has a ceiling as well. With finite resources each area of expenditure constitutes a choice- a pound spent here is a pound less available there.

Guns and butter, b. Was always thus.

Of course there's a ceiling. If there weren't, socialist economic policies would actually work. ;-) However, the point is that in a complex economy, spending a million here does not mean that there is not a million elsewhere. Indeed, by spending that million on a missile whose design and manufacture involves the employment of thousands (who then provide tax revenue with their wages) by a company that is also contributing to the public purse, that is a much wiser investment of public money than p1ssing it up the wall by keeping a bunch of winos in hostels for a week, which achieves nothing other than to make a few people feel better about themselves.

[Peter]

Of course there's a ceiling. If there weren't, socialist economic policies would actually work. ;-) However, the point is that in a complex economy, spending a million here does not mean that there is not a million elsewhere. Indeed, by spending that million on a missile whose design and manufacture involves the employment of thousands (who then provide tax revenue with their wages) by a company that is also contributing to the public purse, that is a much wiser investment of public money than p1ssing it up the wall by keeping a bunch of winos in hostels for a week, which achieves nothing other than to make a few people feel better about themselves.

Possibly. The alternative is that the missile is being built anyway, the people employed anyway and if we didnt buy it the company would sell it abroad thus helping with exports. We could then spend the money we saved on hostels for winos, or crystal healing centres for gypsies- or to replace Britain's ageing collection of traffic cones, some of which have been in service since the 80s.

[redgunamo]

True. Perhaps I should just sit on here and use these examples every time you pour scorn on people for expressing views that are slightly less silly than those we are presented with by our politicians.

In a sense, by the way, it IS how economies work. When you have a taxation ceiling, precipitated by a post THatcher consensus on the basic rate of income tax and an unwillingness to enforce corporation tax, public spending has a ceiling as well. With finite resources each area of expenditure constitutes a choice- a pound spent here is a pound less available there.

Guns and butter, b. Was always thus.

Not at all, because smart people are always able to come up with totally new revenue streams.

For instance, long ago, my hounds trained my young sons to open the big outdoor larder we use for smoking various meats, so they could help themselves. Of course, it's forbidden for children to enter but they weren't to know, were they; they're just kids. Thus, at a stroke, the swindling, brutish canines were able to almost double their daily intake of food until their villainy was discovered after some weeks.

[World's End Stella]

Not at all, because smart people are always able to come up with totally new revenue streams.

For instance, long ago, my hounds trained my young sons to open the big outdoor larder we use for smoking various meats, so they could help themselves. Of course, it's forbidden for children to enter but they weren't to know, were they; they're just kids. Thus, at a stroke, the swindling, brutish canines were able to almost double their daily intake of food until their villainy was discovered after some weeks.

So your hounds are smarter than your sons, eh red? :sherlock:

[Rich]

The alternative is giving Putin and Iran a free hand to do what they want in the region. :shrug: There seems little point in the US being the world's only military and economic superpower if it's going to pussy out every time Vlad waves his little willy.

I imagine it's quite big, actually. Not sure why.

[Rich]

Yes, everyone does appear to have assumed the Donald was on about American missiles .. :rubchin:

Can't we use our shiny new Destroyers to do something? Might as well even include this exercise as part of HMS QEII's sea trials.

[Burney]

I imagine it's quite big, actually. Not sure why.

I would argue that a man who feels the need to project himself as that manly is almost certainly hung like a Chinese mouse, r.

[Peter]

Not at all, because smart people are always able to come up with totally new revenue streams.

For instance, long ago, my hounds trained my young sons to open the big outdoor larder we use for smoking various meats, so they could help themselves. Of course, it's forbidden for children to enter but they weren't to know, were they; they're just kids. Thus, at a stroke, the swindling, brutish canines were able to almost double their daily intake of food until their villainy was discovered after some weeks.

Right, but we are not talking about smart people. We are talking about government.

[redgunamo]

So your hounds are smarter than your sons, eh red? :sherlock:

This is not about intelligence. People, especially children, enjoy feeding animals and animals, especially dogs, enjoy, indeed rely on, being fed.

[Burney]

Possibly. The alternative is that the missile is being built anyway, the people employed anyway and if we didnt buy it the company would sell it abroad thus helping with exports. We could then spend the money we saved on hostels for winos, or crystal healing centres for gypsies- or to replace Britain's ageing collection of traffic cones, some of which have been in service since the 80s.

So you're suggesting we ought to not bother, slash defence spending and outsource our defence to the US as if we were Portugal or Ireland, p? This seems an interesting strategy in terms of our international standing, I must say.

[redgunamo]

Can't we use our shiny new Destroyers to do something? Might as well even include this exercise as part of HMS QEII's sea trials.

I think we've pretty much decided it's not really our business anymore; these foreign military engagements are a tougher sell nowadays and the Donald was elected, in part, to do an awful lot less of it.

I reckon we let the locals handle things. For example, today's Saudi military man is completely unrecognisable from the spoiled, lazy, feckless bunch I dealt with in Desert Storm. They're ready.

[Burney]

I think we've pretty much decided it's not really our business anymore; these foreign military engagements are a tougher sell nowadays and the Donald was elected, in part, to do an awful lot less of it.

I reckon we let the locals handle things. For example, today's Saudi military man is completely unrecognisable from the spoiled, lazy, feckless bunch I dealt with in Desert Storm. They're ready.

:nod: And that way, they'll need us to sell them lots of lovely replacement kit. :cloud9:

[Sir C]

I think we've pretty much decided it's not really our business anymore; these foreign military engagements are a tougher sell nowadays and the Donald was elected, in part, to do an awful lot less of it.

I reckon we let the locals handle things. For example, today's Saudi military man is completely unrecognisable from the spoiled, lazy, feckless bunch I dealt with in Desert Storm. They're ready.

A number of their top politicos graduated from Cranwell, apparently.

I must say I'm surprised that they were awarded wings. These people aren't gentlemen, are they?

[PSRB]

tweets/Facebook posts from people saying how much missiles cost and how many homelesses could be put up or nurses or teachers employed with that money, etc, etc.

The fact that those missiles are in many cases designed and built in the UK by companies employing thousands and paying untold millions in UK tax revenues that then get spent on homelesses, nurses, teachers, etc, etc is of course a bit too complicated for their tiny fvcking brains.

It really is amazing how many people still appear to think that capital expenditure at a macro level is a zero sum game.

Quite, my inheritance is intrinsically linked to BAE share price.......

[Peter]

So you're suggesting we ought to not bother, slash defence spending and outsource our defence to the US as if we were Portugal or Ireland, p? This seems an interesting strategy in terms of our international standing, I must say.

No. As you know, I think we should tax people like you up the arse and spend a ****ing fortune on everything but people like you won't vote for that.... so we have to make choices from a limited pot.

I am just pointing out that there are choices while you seem to think we can spend what we fancy on whatever we want.

Our international standing :hehe::hehe:

[Peter]

Quite, my inheritance is intrinsically linked to BAE share price.......

And mine to property prices inLondon. THank god for Russian oligarchs :)

[redgunamo]

A number of their top politicos graduated from Cranwell, apparently.

I must say I'm surprised that they were awarded wings. These people aren't gentlemen, are they?

I wouldn't be surprised. We simply don't make our own like we used to. They is practically all pooves nowadays, as the man said.

One young redgunamo, some sort of nephew, will probably end up at Sandhurst; he'll be the seventh such (I was the third) and he's definitely not the sort :-\

[Rich]

I think we've pretty much decided it's not really our business anymore; these foreign military engagements are a tougher sell nowadays and the Donald was elected, in part, to do an awful lot less of it.

I reckon we let the locals handle things. For example, today's Saudi military man is completely unrecognisable from the spoiled, lazy, feckless bunch I dealt with in Desert Storm. They're ready.

The Don seems quite keen to get stuck in, though. Surely we can provide some air to air refueling as a token gesture?

[redgunamo]

The Don seems quite keen to get stuck in, though. Surely we can provide some air to air refueling as a token gesture?

That's just banter; he's trolling. We will certainly play an advisory and supporting role though. And not just as a token either.

[Rich]

That's just banter; he's trolling. We will certainly play an advisory and supporting role though. And not just as a token either.

What's redgunamo's prediction, then? No Tomahawks, no fighter jets, no submarines? :-(

[Sir C]

That's just banter; he's trolling. We will certainly play an advisory and supporting role though. And not just as a token either.

I saw a video on youtube of a US Marine attempting a Royal Marine's fitness test. He failed it in the most embarrassing fashion, and looked horrified as he did so. :clap:

Useless septics.

[redgunamo]

What's redgunamo's prediction, then? No Tomahawks, no fighter jets, no submarines? :-(

Well, we're clearly the decisive power so we'll act decisively at the right moments. In fact, I'd have to check but I reckon we've been doing that already for some time.

One thing about so called "Mad Dog" Mattis; he does not throw his men's lives away cheaply. As I said the other week, keep an eye on these lads:

http://media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2017/09/14/694940094001_5576400201001_5576368941001-vs.jpg?pubId=694940094001

[Rich]

Well, we're clearly the decisive power so we'll act decisively at the right moments. In fact, I'd have to check but I reckon we've been doing that already for some time.

One thing about so called "Mad Dog" Mattis; he does not throw his men's lives away cheaply. As I said the other week, keep an eye on these lads:

http://media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2017/09/14/694940094001_5576400201001_5576368941001-vs.jpg?pubId=694940094001

Who are they? Pirates?

[redgunamo]

Who are they? Pirates?

:hehe: Of a sort, yes.

http://www.awimb.com/showthread.php?604750-Hmm-has-everybody-forgotten-about-this-JackWoltz&highlight=carter

[redgunamo]

I would certainly say she's limp of wrist if she went through the idiotic business of asking for Parliament's consent. A sitting Prime Minister does not require Parliament's say-so for taking military action. It's a dangerous precedent that's been set in recent years and it needs to stop.

It seems the Donald may have caught Mrs May with her knickers down :-\ #FusionGPS

[World's End Stella]

I think we've pretty much decided it's not really our business anymore; these foreign military engagements are a tougher sell nowadays and the Donald was elected, in part, to do an awful lot less of it.

I reckon we let the locals handle things. For example, today's Saudi military man is completely unrecognisable from the spoiled, lazy, feckless bunch I dealt with in Desert Storm. They're ready.

I agree :nod:

Even this latest Assad atrocity I find it difficult to get worked up about. Is killing innocent people with chemical weapons *really* that different than with bombs?

Not to mention that some of the people taking the moral high ground on this spent years dropping napalm on people who wanted to reunify their country.

I don't see a compelling reason for launching into Assad at this point if I'm honest.

[Burney]

I agree :nod:

Even this latest Assad atrocity I find it difficult to get worked up about. Is killing innocent people with chemical weapons *really* that different than with bombs?

Not to mention that some of the people taking the moral high ground on this spent years dropping napalm on people who wanted to reunify their country.

I don't see a compelling reason for launching into Assad at this point if I'm honest.

If you mean Vietnam, that is a quite extraordinary interpretation of the Soviet-backed communist invasion of a sovereign state. Presumably you regard the Korean War in the same way?

[Sir C]

If you mean Vietnam, that is a quite extraordinary interpretation of the Soviet-backed communist invasion of a sovereign state. Presumably you regard the Korean War in the same way?

Yes, the average inhabitant of Saigon would be fascinated in hearing WES's view of this matter; and they'd do it STILL refusing to call their city Ho Chi Minh...

[Burney]

Yes, the average inhabitant of Saigon would be fascinated in hearing WES's view of this matter; and they'd do it STILL refusing to call their city Ho Chi Minh...

Nonsense. They were all yearning for liberation by the North Vietnamese Army. That's why 2 million of them left the place by any means they could (including risking death on entirely unseaworthy vessels) following the 'liberation'.

[SWv2]

I have one main concern about this potential conflict which I would like to raise.

It is not in any way going to impact on this summer's World Cup now is it??

[World's End Stella]

If you mean Vietnam, that is a quite extraordinary interpretation of the Soviet-backed communist invasion of a sovereign state. Presumably you regard the Korean War in the same way?

'Soviet-backed communist invasion' - well, that's how the Americans saw it. The North Vietnamese and their supporters in South Vietnam rather differed. And the reality is that the overwhelming majority of Vietnamese people were either pro-VC or if forced to choose between the Americans and their puppet government (which is exactly what Diem was) would have chosen the VC simply because they were Vietnamese.

There's a reason the Americans lost, Burney, and it has nothing to do with their military strategy.

[Sir C]

I have one main concern about this potential conflict which I would like to raise.

It is not in any way going to impact on this summer's World Cup now is it??

By June or July it's all going to be over one way or another, sw.

I suspect that here on the mainland a few survivors will be living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. No doubt you lot will still be swarming across the 'Irish' sea to ponce off our welfare system and dig our canals, but whatever, none of us are going to be watching football.

[Burney]

'Soviet-backed communist invasion' - well, that's how the Americans saw it. The North Vietnamese and their supporters in South Vietnam rather differed. And the reality is that the overwhelming majority of Vietnamese people were either pro-VC or if forced to choose between the Americans and their puppet government (which is exactly what Diem was) would have chosen the VC simply because they were Vietnamese.

There's a reason the Americans lost, Burney, and it has nothing to do with their military strategy.

LOL! The majority of the Vietnamese people just wanted to be left the fvck alone and for people from both sides to stop killing them.

The idea that the VC were a popular local guerilla army is a myth. These people used to have to brutalise, murder and intimidate in order to get the help of the local population. That is not 'support' in any sense.

[Burney]

I have one main concern about this potential conflict which I would like to raise.

It is not in any way going to impact on this summer's World Cup now is it??

I hope so. And it would serve FIFA right if it did for giving the thing to Russia in the first place.

Mind you, it would be a bit awks if the Donald launched missile strikes just before kick off tonight. :-(

[World's End Stella]

LOL! The majority of the Vietnamese people just wanted to be left the fvck alone and for people from both sides to stop killing them.

The idea that the VC were a popular local guerilla army is a myth. These people used to have to brutalise, murder and intimidate in order to get the help of the local population. That is not 'support' in any sense.

Nothing you have said there is inconsistent with my post. But you seem to have missed the most important part, so I will highlight it for you again:

the overwhelming majority of Vietnamese people were either pro-VC or if forced to choose between the Americans and their puppet government (which is exactly what Diem was) would have chosen the VC simply because they were Vietnamese

There was virtually no support for Diem, and therefore for the Americans, amongst the peasantry while the idea of a reunified Vietnam free from foreign influence carried some weight. The VC were no angels, but they were also not an utterly corrupt set of elitists backed by a foreign power.

[Sir C]

Nothing you have said there is inconsistent with my post. But you seem to have missed the most important part, so I will highlight it for you again:

the overwhelming majority of Vietnamese people were either pro-VC or if forced to choose between the Americans and their puppet government (which is exactly what Diem was) would have chosen the VC simply because they were Vietnamese

There was virtually no support for Diem, and therefore for the Americans, amongst the peasantry while the idea of a reunified Vietnam free from foreign influence carried some weight. The VC were no angels, but they were also not an utterly corrupt set of elitists backed by a foreign power.

Nah, not really.

[World's End Stella]

Nah, not really.

Yeah, really. And the fact that you had a really nice banh mi in Saigon doesn't change that fact. :-)

[Sir C]

Yeah, really. And the fact that you had a really nice banh mi in Saigon doesn't change that fact. :-)

That's right. Also, the conversations I have had with Vietnamese people over the course of multiple visits to Vietnam are entirely meaningless. Yes. Even the ones with guys who fought with ARVN and were subsequently despatched to re-education camps.

All meaningless because you saw a documentary on Sky and remembered 12% of the information. :thumbup:

[Burney]

nothing you have said there is inconsistent with my post. But you seem to have missed the most important part, so i will highlight it for you again:

there was virtually no support for diem, and therefore for the americans, amongst the peasantry while the idea of a reunified vietnam free from foreign influence carried some weight. The vc were no angels, but they were also not an utterly corrupt set of elitists backed by a foreign power.


Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Yup. You wouldn't catch North Vietnam being backed by any foreign powers. And as for the idea of them not being corrupt, you have to be fvcking kidding.

[World's End Stella]

That's right. Also, the conversations I have had with Vietnamese people over the course of multiple visits to Vietnam are entirely meaningless. Yes. Even the ones with guys who fought with ARVN and were subsequently despatched to re-education camps.

All meaningless because you saw a documentary on Sky and remembered 12% of the information. :thumbup:

And all those conversations held by Vietnam historians like Stanley Karnow, Neil Sheehan, David Halberstam etc etc and all that research they did that led to an endless number of books which I and a great many other people have read can all be ignored, despite them pretty much all concluding the same thing, because you and V went to Vietnam, stayed at a few expensive hotels, drank cocktails and ate a banh mi.

Sure. :-)

[World's End Stella]

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Yup. You wouldn't catch North Vietnam being backed by any foreign powers. And as for the idea of them not being corrupt, you have to be fvcking kidding.

:sigh: North Vietnam fought their own battles, Burney. I'm really not bothered where their arms came from. And you have - yet again - ignored the fundamental point.

[Sir C]

And all those conversations held by Vietnam historians like Stanley Karnow, Neil Sheehan, David Halberstam etc etc and all that research they did that led to an endless number of books which I and a great many other people have read can all be ignored, despite them pretty much all concluding the same thing, because you and V went to Vietnam, stayed at a few expensive hotels, drank cocktails and ate a banh mi.

Sure. :-)

You weren't there, man. :shrug:

[World's End Stella]

You weren't there, man. :shrug:

Neither were you. Not when it mattered.

[eastgermanautos]

tweets/Facebook posts from people saying how much missiles cost and how many homelesses could be put up or nurses or teachers employed with that money, etc, etc.

The fact that those missiles are in many cases designed and built in the UK by companies employing thousands and paying untold millions in UK tax revenues that then get spent on homelesses, nurses, teachers, etc, etc is of course a bit too complicated for their tiny fvcking brains.

It really is amazing how many people still appear to think that capital expenditure at a macro level is a zero sum game.

Yeah right man! And here's another thing: the money generated by these weapons of war create a new generation of radicals. Case in point, the Black Panther Party. The reason those cats felt able to act on their whims is that they grew up moderately well off. How? Because their parents had gotten jobs in defense industry manufacturing in the 40s and 50s.

So, if you want to see the world explode, liberals, endorse military spending. The cracked out renegades of tomorrow will thank you.

[eastgermanautos]

That's right. Also, the conversations I have had with Vietnamese people over the course of multiple visits to Vietnam are entirely meaningless. Yes. Even the ones with guys who fought with ARVN and were subsequently despatched to re-education camps.

All meaningless because you saw a documentary on Sky and remembered 12% of the information. :thumbup:

Um, I would not necessarily brag about my sex tourist escapades if I were you.

:titsup:

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

And mine to property prices inLondon. THank god for Russian oligarchs :)


I have similar conditions to you but I would rather the market be depressed for a while otherwise my inheritance tax bill will force me to sell a property