Churchill ordered it and the fleet was mostly sunk on 3rd July 1940,killed 1300 ish French sailors at the port of Mers-el-Kabir in Algeria.Didn't trust our French friends not to hand their ships to the Germans.I know it sounds a bit strange but there you go jimmy.Ive been watching too much History channel while Ive been off sick.
[quote][cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Any country with pretensions to remaining sovereign and independent retains its own defence capability.
This is a first step to what will eventually become a common EU defence capability by the Europhile Cameron.
The man is either a traitor or too thick to fully appreciate the consequences of his actions.[/quote]
Rubbish, what about Nato? We've been signed up to that long enough and people don't seem to complain very much.
This current deal is all about Britain and France trying to save face and convince themselves for a little bit longer that they are still global powers. It's farcical in many ways because our military strength now is like a farmer with a pitch fork standing next to a United States Behemoth. We've been in a prolonged state of de-mobilisation since 1945.
I am in no way undermining the valiant efforts and sacrifices of the service men and women that we do have, but I do believe the British public have such a skewed sense of the power and resourcefulness of the British military and their capabilities, that this belief that we have a right to 'do what we want, where we want' is utter nonsense. The British military has always, even at its very height, fostered co-operation with foreign powers. We've fought wars by ourselves, but rarely won them alone.
Some good points there EG,like the comparison with the farmer,but I really got the feeling that NATO was an organisation that made sure the big lad was in the right playground with the little boys in case the other big lad piled in.
in google type french military victories and click im feeling lucky
dont forget we had the channel as our main line of defence against german agression, the french have sweet fa. I imagine it would have been a similar picture if we didnt have a stretch of water in the way
Don't think it would have been the same razil, down to good leadership and fighting spirit. Do you realise that Wellington never (never) lost a battle?
[cite]Posted By: richie8[/cite]Churchill ordered it and the fleet was mostly sunk on 3rd July 1940,killed 1300 ish French sailors at the port of Mers-el-Kabir in Algeria.Didn't trust our French friends not to hand their ships to the Germans.I know it sounds a bit strange but there you go jimmy.Ive been watching too much History channel while Ive been off sick.
I put the words GIVE in capitals for a reason. The French did not give their ships to the Germans. Of course Churchill ordered it and it did happen, but not because he 'didn't trust the French'. The French hardly had a choice: they had been defeated and had signed an armistice in defeat. You hardly think that they would have wantingly ceded control of their own country to the Germans, do you? It's not like they were forming a 'partnership' as you seem to be suggesting. They were occupied, defeated, humiliated. What your saying sounds strange because it is just not true. Either you misunderstood or The History Channel is wrong. I presume it's the former.
By the way, this is just another example of the way people like to warp the truth to encourage hatred of the French in England, and likewise by a similarly stupid minority, hatred of the English, in France.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Any country with pretensions to remaining sovereign and independent retains its own defence capability.
We gave up our sovereignty along time ago.
You are right as we are now increasingly becoming a mere province of a country called EU and this is just one more step along the path. However you will not find any politicians from the Labour, Liberal or Conservative parties who will admit it as it will prove how the independence of the UK has been stolen by stealth without the consent of the people.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Any country with pretensions to remaining sovereign and independent retains its own defence capability.
This is a first step to what will eventually become a common EU defence capability by the Europhile Cameron.
The man is either a traitor or too thick to fully appreciate the consequences of his actions.
Rubbish, what about Nato? We've been signed up to that long enough and people don't seem to complain very much.
This current deal is all about Britain and France trying to save face and convince themselves for a little bit longer that they are still global powers. It's farcical in many ways because our military strength now is like a farmer with a pitch fork standing next to a United States Behemoth. We've been in a prolonged state of de-mobilisation since 1945.
I am in no way undermining the valiant efforts and sacrifices of the service men and women that we do have, but I do believe the British public have such a skewed sense of the power and resourcefulness of the British military and their capabilities, that this belief that we have a right to 'do what we want, where we want' is utter nonsense. The British military has always, even at its very height, fostered co-operation with foreign powers. We've fought wars by ourselves, but rarely won them alone.
The fundamental distinction between this and NATO is that, until now we still retained our own independent defence capability whilst agreeing to cooperate with other NATO countries.
This agreement shares resources in other words we no longer retain our own independent capability.
With the prisoners voting thing I don't think I'd be happy with prisoners having the vote, but if you look at the argument, prison is there to rehabilitate (albeit not very well) individuals and release them back into society as law abiding citizens, and I think we'll all accept that being able to vote is a crucial part of society and how can you be well placed to go back into society if you don't have a say in it, especially those on short term stays. If you are imprisoned for 6 months, or 90 days, and their is a GE in that time I don't see why you should accept a government that could be in power for 5 years, the majority of which you are a free person.
[quote][cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: EGAddick[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Any country with pretensions to remaining sovereign and independent retains its own defence capability.
This is a first step to what will eventually become a common EU defence capability by the Europhile Cameron.
The man is either a traitor or too thick to fully appreciate the consequences of his actions.[/quote]
Rubbish, what about Nato? We've been signed up to that long enough and people don't seem to complain very much.
This current deal is all about Britain and France trying to save face and convince themselves for a little bit longer that they are still global powers. It's farcical in many ways because our military strength now is like a farmer with a pitch fork standing next to a United States Behemoth. We've been in a prolonged state of de-mobilisation since 1945.
I am in no way undermining the valiant efforts and sacrifices of the service men and women that we do have, but I do believe the British public have such a skewed sense of the power and resourcefulness of the British military and their capabilities, that this belief that we have a right to 'do what we want, where we want' is utter nonsense. The British military has always, even at its very height, fostered co-operation with foreign powers. We've fought wars by ourselves, but rarely won them alone.[/quote]
The fundamental distinction between this and NATO is that, until now we still retained our own independent defence capability whilst agreeing to cooperate with other NATO countries.
This agreement shares resources in other words we no longer retain our own independent capability.
Therefore one is not comparing like with like.[/quote]
But losing capability does not mean losing our soverignty or independence, which is what you originally said. Also we are only sharing, we have not given up our right to fight. Britain has been losing it's capability to protract it's power across the world since 1945. The enormity of the economic disaster this country is in has meant we have lost our ability to send an aircraft carrier anywhere in the world.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Any country with pretensions to remaining sovereign and independent retains its own defence capability.
This is a first step to what will eventually become a common EU defence capability by the Europhile Cameron.
The man is either a traitor or too thick to fully appreciate the consequences of his actions.
Rubbish, what about Nato? We've been signed up to that long enough and people don't seem to complain very much.
This current deal is all about Britain and France trying to save face and convince themselves for a little bit longer that they are still global powers. It's farcical in many ways because our military strength now is like a farmer with a pitch fork standing next to a United States Behemoth. We've been in a prolonged state of de-mobilisation since 1945.
I am in no way undermining the valiant efforts and sacrifices of the service men and women that we do have, but I do believe the British public have such a skewed sense of the power and resourcefulness of the British military and their capabilities, that this belief that we have a right to 'do what we want, where we want' is utter nonsense. The British military has always, even at its very height, fostered co-operation with foreign powers. We've fought wars by ourselves, but rarely won them alone.
The fundamental distinction between this and NATO is that, until now we still retained our own independent defence capability whilst agreeing to cooperate with other NATO countries.
This agreement shares resources in other words we no longer retain our own independent capability.
Therefore one is not comparing like with like.
But losing capability does not mean losing our soverignty or independence, which is what you originally said. Also we are only sharing, we have not given up our right to fight. Britain has been losing it's capability to protract it's power across the world since 1945. The enormity of the economic disaster this country is in has meant we have lost our ability to send an aircraft carrier anywhere in the world.
If a country does not have an independent defence facility how can it remain sovereign and independent which Cameron, Miliband and Clegg will tell you we still are even though we transparently are not because of subservience to ourmasters in the EU?
Therefore, in my view losing capability does mean losing soveignty and independence.
If Argentina invade the Falklands again for instance we would need to go cap in hand to the French and hope they agreed to help us defend it. Previously we defended it on our own.
Suez anyone? The french fleet sinking was debated in some depth on another thread a few months back.
Ex-tory MP and belmarsh resident Jonathon Aitken said on radio 4 today that he doubted many prisioners would vote and that most he knew were conservative with a small c or BNP or UKIP with a big B or big U.
If we had another Falklands scenario again not only would we be short on aircraft carriers but the Navy is far smaller than it was in 1982 after years and years of defence cuts, especially the last 13 where they lost more than a ship a year, so arguing that we would have been in a position recently and then in a possible future conflict we wouldn't, is redundant. That is even before assessing whether or not Argentina would have the strength or will to attempt it in the first place.
I don't believe that a reduction in capability effects a country's sovereignty, and there is a time limit to this deal too I believe. No where on this thread have I said this is a good deal but I'm yet to be convinced it's a bad one either.
It's interesting that so many people consider the relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU as being one of them and us ! We (theUK) don't have "masters in Europe" we are a fully participating member state with the same rights and vetoes as all other member states. I for one am glad that in the last fifty years that Europe has come together for peace, trade and greater good. Does not mean I trust a eurocrat any more than I do David Cameron but certainly not less.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]It's interesting that so many people consider the relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU as being one of them and us ! We (theUK) don't have "masters in Europe" we are a fully participating member state with the same rights and vetoes as all other member states. I for one am glad that in the last fifty years that Europe has come together for peace, trade and greater good. Does not mean I trust a eurocrat any more than I do David Cameron but certainly not less.
Agree. I'd go a bit further: regarding decisions about whather to go to war I would trust the EU more than the UK government.
I dont mind foreign people in the main so sharing and caring with those cute french people with their berets set at a jaunty angle and carrying those french sticks seems a spiffin idea to me. As for the tories letting prisoners vote, yes why not, very compassionate and touchy feely...and yes I did vote for that Cameron chappie, not because I have any grasp of politics but it was an easy way to thourouly piss off my parents, and any pain I can bring them is surely worth the country going to the dogs!
[cite]Posted By: windscreen[/cite]I dont mind foreign people in the main so sharing and caring with those cute french people with their berets set at a jaunty angle and carrying those french sticks seems a spiffin idea to me. As for the tories letting prisoners vote, yes why not, very compassionate and touchy feely...and yes I did vote for that Cameron chappie, not because I have any grasp of politics but it was an easy way to thourouly piss off my parents, and any pain I can bring them is surely worth the country going to the dogs!
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]Ouch, Windscreen. I feel your pain.
Not comparing "sad" stories,,,but...
My Dad voted BNP: My "wife" is Guyanise,
He loves Her, but wanted to make a Protest vote....
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]I think technically all NATO countries would be obliged to 'help' in the event of another Falklands, whether that is practical is another question
It’s often mentioned on the news that “we wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves if Argentina invaded the Falkland islands again” – but how likely is this ? Surely there is very little chance that Argentina would invade again, at least anytime soon ?
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]I think technically all NATO countries would be obliged to 'help' in the event of another Falklands, whether that is practical is another question
It’s often mentioned on the news that “we wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves if Argentina invaded the Falkland islands again” – but how likely is this ? Surely there is very little chance that Argentina would invade again, at least anytime soon ?
It would be interesting to see how we got on if the French decided to invade the Falklands...
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]I think technically all NATO countries would be obliged to 'help' in the event of another Falklands, whether that is practical is another question
It’s often mentioned on the news that “we wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves if Argentina invaded the Falkland islands again” – but how likely is this ? Surely there is very little chance that Argentina would invade again, at least anytime soon ?
I wouldn't be so sure about that. It may not happen soon but I think it will happen.
Earlier this year there was a dispute between the two countries:
Comments
This is a first step to what will eventually become a common EU defence capability by the Europhile Cameron.
The man is either a traitor or too thick to fully appreciate the consequences of his actions.
Brilliant Smudge!
This is a first step to what will eventually become a common EU defence capability by the Europhile Cameron.
The man is either a traitor or too thick to fully appreciate the consequences of his actions.[/quote]
Rubbish, what about Nato? We've been signed up to that long enough and people don't seem to complain very much.
This current deal is all about Britain and France trying to save face and convince themselves for a little bit longer that they are still global powers. It's farcical in many ways because our military strength now is like a farmer with a pitch fork standing next to a United States Behemoth. We've been in a prolonged state of de-mobilisation since 1945.
I am in no way undermining the valiant efforts and sacrifices of the service men and women that we do have, but I do believe the British public have such a skewed sense of the power and resourcefulness of the British military and their capabilities, that this belief that we have a right to 'do what we want, where we want' is utter nonsense. The British military has always, even at its very height, fostered co-operation with foreign powers. We've fought wars by ourselves, but rarely won them alone.
We gave up our sovereignty along time ago.
dont forget we had the channel as our main line of defence against german agression, the french have sweet fa. I imagine it would have been a similar picture if we didnt have a stretch of water in the way
Don't think it would have been the same razil, down to good leadership and fighting spirit. Do you realise that Wellington never (never) lost a battle?
I put the words GIVE in capitals for a reason. The French did not give their ships to the Germans. Of course Churchill ordered it and it did happen, but not because he 'didn't trust the French'. The French hardly had a choice: they had been defeated and had signed an armistice in defeat. You hardly think that they would have wantingly ceded control of their own country to the Germans, do you? It's not like they were forming a 'partnership' as you seem to be suggesting. They were occupied, defeated, humiliated. What your saying sounds strange because it is just not true. Either you misunderstood or The History Channel is wrong. I presume it's the former.
By the way, this is just another example of the way people like to warp the truth to encourage hatred of the French in England, and likewise by a similarly stupid minority, hatred of the English, in France.
You are right as we are now increasingly becoming a mere province of a country called EU and this is just one more step along the path. However you will not find any politicians from the Labour, Liberal or Conservative parties who will admit it as it will prove how the independence of the UK has been stolen by stealth without the consent of the people.
The fundamental distinction between this and NATO is that, until now we still retained our own independent defence capability whilst agreeing to cooperate with other NATO countries.
This agreement shares resources in other words we no longer retain our own independent capability.
Therefore one is not comparing like with like.
This is a first step to what will eventually become a common EU defence capability by the Europhile Cameron.
The man is either a traitor or too thick to fully appreciate the consequences of his actions.[/quote]
Rubbish, what about Nato? We've been signed up to that long enough and people don't seem to complain very much.
This current deal is all about Britain and France trying to save face and convince themselves for a little bit longer that they are still global powers. It's farcical in many ways because our military strength now is like a farmer with a pitch fork standing next to a United States Behemoth. We've been in a prolonged state of de-mobilisation since 1945.
I am in no way undermining the valiant efforts and sacrifices of the service men and women that we do have, but I do believe the British public have such a skewed sense of the power and resourcefulness of the British military and their capabilities, that this belief that we have a right to 'do what we want, where we want' is utter nonsense. The British military has always, even at its very height, fostered co-operation with foreign powers. We've fought wars by ourselves, but rarely won them alone.[/quote]
The fundamental distinction between this and NATO is that, until now we still retained our own independent defence capability whilst agreeing to cooperate with other NATO countries.
This agreement shares resources in other words we no longer retain our own independent capability.
Therefore one is not comparing like with like.[/quote]
But losing capability does not mean losing our soverignty or independence, which is what you originally said. Also we are only sharing, we have not given up our right to fight. Britain has been losing it's capability to protract it's power across the world since 1945. The enormity of the economic disaster this country is in has meant we have lost our ability to send an aircraft carrier anywhere in the world.
If a country does not have an independent defence facility how can it remain sovereign and independent which Cameron, Miliband and Clegg will tell you we still are even though we transparently are not because of subservience to ourmasters in the EU?
Therefore, in my view losing capability does mean losing soveignty and independence.
If Argentina invade the Falklands again for instance we would need to go cap in hand to the French and hope they agreed to help us defend it. Previously we defended it on our own.
Ex-tory MP and belmarsh resident Jonathon Aitken said on radio 4 today that he doubted many prisioners would vote and that most he knew were conservative with a small c or BNP or UKIP with a big B or big U.
I don't believe that a reduction in capability effects a country's sovereignty, and there is a time limit to this deal too I believe. No where on this thread have I said this is a good deal but I'm yet to be convinced it's a bad one either.
Agree. I'd go a bit further: regarding decisions about whather to go to war I would trust the EU more than the UK government.
Not comparing "sad" stories,,,but...
My Dad voted BNP: My "wife" is Guyanise,
He loves Her, but wanted to make a Protest vote....
It’s often mentioned on the news that “we wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves if Argentina invaded the Falkland islands again” – but how likely is this ? Surely there is very little chance that Argentina would invade again, at least anytime soon ?
A Democratic-Republican in Boston, in fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbridge_Gerry
I wouldn't be so sure about that. It may not happen soon but I think it will happen.
Earlier this year there was a dispute between the two countries:
Oil drilling row