Syria is a great finishing school for Russia's military. Some time soon they're going to be squaring off against NATO troops. I'm very pessimistic about how things are going to turn out in Europe.
Thank goodness Tony trained our Army boys up in Afghan and Iraq, before cleverly starting the decline in numbers from 102,000 down to 82,000 by 2020, about the time the Russians will start stamping their feet and rattling their sabres. There are more hairdressers in the UK than military personnel.
Incidentally 3 to 4 times as many Brits went to Syria to join ISIS (400 to 500) than joined the TA (170) in 2014
Luckily though, Blair commissioned a second, unnecessary Aircraft Carrier (HMS Prince of Wales) at a cost of £3 billion, yes, thats right £3 billion, before dumping us into financial oblivion but obscene personal wealth, which is most probably going to be put straight into mothballs.
Still Costa Rica dont have an Army and they are doing fine.....
Not going to get into an argument about it but I think you will find the cuts in numbers of armed servicemen has accelerated under Cameron.
No, it has continued fairly steadily, but saying Cameron is as bad as Blair is missing the point.
£3billion buys a lot of hospitals though, which is pretty much unarguable
Missing your point perhaps. Not mine.
Care to elucidate what your point actually is?
Certainly. You opened you post (above) by stating that, and I paraphrase that "Tony" started the decline in numbers (troops) from 102k down to 82 k by 1920. You conveniently forget to add that The Cameron government have had plenty of opportunity to stop or reverse that decline but have not. Blaming Blair seems a little rich.
So is my point true or not? Please feel free to use facts to support your idea that my point that Bliar started the decline in Army numbers. Forgetting crap that follows is great for you but separate from my point. Edit OK I get it now. You think that any criticism of that self serving lying shit Blair means that I must support Cameron. Maybe you need to look at that.
I think Blair started the decline in English rugby as well. Is there anything else we can blame him for?
Syria is a great finishing school for Russia's military. Some time soon they're going to be squaring off against NATO troops. I'm very pessimistic about how things are going to turn out in Europe.
Thank goodness Tony trained our Army boys up in Afghan and Iraq, before cleverly starting the decline in numbers from 102,000 down to 82,000 by 2020, about the time the Russians will start stamping their feet and rattling their sabres. There are more hairdressers in the UK than military personnel.
Incidentally 3 to 4 times as many Brits went to Syria to join ISIS (400 to 500) than joined the TA (170) in 2014
Luckily though, Blair commissioned a second, unnecessary Aircraft Carrier (HMS Prince of Wales) at a cost of £3 billion, yes, thats right £3 billion, before dumping us into financial oblivion but obscene personal wealth, which is most probably going to be put straight into mothballs.
Still Costa Rica dont have an Army and they are doing fine.....
Not going to get into an argument about it but I think you will find the cuts in numbers of armed servicemen has accelerated under Cameron.
No, it has continued fairly steadily, but saying Cameron is as bad as Blair is missing the point.
£3billion buys a lot of hospitals though, which is pretty much unarguable
Missing your point perhaps. Not mine.
Care to elucidate what your point actually is?
Certainly. You opened you post (above) by stating that, and I paraphrase that "Tony" started the decline in numbers (troops) from 102k down to 82 k by 1920. You conveniently forget to add that The Cameron government have had plenty of opportunity to stop or reverse that decline but have not. Blaming Blair seems a little rich.
So is my point true or not? Please feel free to use facts to support your idea that my point that Bliar started the decline in Army numbers. Forgetting crap that follows is great for you but separate from my point. Edit OK I get it now. You think that any criticism of that self serving lying shit Blair means that I must support Cameron. Maybe you need to look at that.
I think Blair started the decline in English rugby as well. Is there anything else we can blame him for?
Yes loads Are you going to have a grown up conversation, or are you going to continue supporting the indefensible?
Syria is a great finishing school for Russia's military. Some time soon they're going to be squaring off against NATO troops. I'm very pessimistic about how things are going to turn out in Europe.
Thank goodness Tony trained our Army boys up in Afghan and Iraq, before cleverly starting the decline in numbers from 102,000 down to 82,000 by 2020, about the time the Russians will start stamping their feet and rattling their sabres. There are more hairdressers in the UK than military personnel.
Incidentally 3 to 4 times as many Brits went to Syria to join ISIS (400 to 500) than joined the TA (170) in 2014
Luckily though, Blair commissioned a second, unnecessary Aircraft Carrier (HMS Prince of Wales) at a cost of £3 billion, yes, thats right £3 billion, before dumping us into financial oblivion but obscene personal wealth, which is most probably going to be put straight into mothballs.
Still Costa Rica dont have an Army and they are doing fine.....
Not going to get into an argument about it but I think you will find the cuts in numbers of armed servicemen has accelerated under Cameron.
No, it has continued fairly steadily, but saying Cameron is as bad as Blair is missing the point.
£3billion buys a lot of hospitals though, which is pretty much unarguable
Missing your point perhaps. Not mine.
Care to elucidate what your point actually is?
Certainly. You opened you post (above) by stating that, and I paraphrase that "Tony" started the decline in numbers (troops) from 102k down to 82 k by 1920. You conveniently forget to add that The Cameron government have had plenty of opportunity to stop or reverse that decline but have not. Blaming Blair seems a little rich.
So is my point true or not? Please feel free to use facts to support your idea that my point that Bliar started the decline in Army numbers. Forgetting crap that follows is great for you but separate from my point. Edit OK I get it now. You think that any criticism of that self serving lying shit Blair means that I must support Cameron. Maybe you need to look at that.
Not really. If you are going to make a point by stating facts it's always helpful in my opinion to give all of the relevant ones. Not just the ones that suit you.
Yes Blair started the reduction in numbers but the continuation of that policy is purely Cameron's. I don't know or really care what you think of either.
Right, so what I posted was true. I apologise for not detailing every subsequent butterfly effect you might consider relevant. Glad we sorted that out. ;-)
Comments
Are you going to have a grown up conversation, or are you going to continue supporting the indefensible?
Yes Blair started the reduction in numbers but the continuation of that policy is purely Cameron's. I don't know or really care what you think of either.
I apologise for not detailing every subsequent butterfly effect you might consider relevant.
Glad we sorted that out.
;-)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-24/russia-takes-over-mid-east-moscow-gets-green-light-strikes-iraq-sets-alliance-jordan