oh well, at least he's not talking about privatising the NHS anymore...
January 10, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Anonymous
said...
Liam Fox is a fucking pillock, he never says or does anything useful.
January 10, 2007 at 10:42 AM
Anonymous
said...
He is just pissed off the Poles bought f-16's and not some tin-pot BAE plane. The only people corrupt and stupid enough to do business with Anthony (CEO of BAE) were the Saudis. The Poles are spending masses on defence while the UK cuts its Navy in half and is stretched to the max. Fox has lost the plot.
January 10, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Anonymous
said...
Liam Fox is prone to saying things that later come back to haunt him. Anybody asked him lately why he resigned his membership of the Glasgow University Union? It's an interesting answer.
January 10, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Anonymous
said...
In a risky region that for centuries has been Europe's prime war zone...
And why? Because it's 'diverse'. The UK is looking more and more the same and will suffer in the same way.
...he wants to destabilise new allies. Haven't the Neo-Cons got enough wars going?
Invasion and immigration: two things a certain little group loves and pays politicos like Bliar and Shameron to deliver.
January 10, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Anonymous
said...
Good ole Liam, on the ball and scoring an own goal. Perhaps he should be demanding that the UK be tossed out of NATO, as our defence spending is totally inadequate and predicated by the Treasury not needs.
Bedehouse...the French arn't in NATO, they kicked out NATO in the '50's and disengaged at the same time. NATO didn't agree with their aims and ambitions, and De Gaulle always considered France first,
January 10, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Anonymous
said...
That fuckwit is only in the shadow cabinet on sufferance. He wants to invade Iran. He is also extremely unpleasant to work with - I should know.
January 10, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Anonymous
said...
I though Liam fought a good leadership campaign and attracted many like myself in the Tory party....but....he's made a twat of himself as Shadow Defence sec. Talk about open goals - a truly incompetent Des Browne (only there 'cos he's a mate of Broon) and badly equipped troops in Afghanisatan and Iraq paying in blood and he's achieved a fraction of what Mark Harper of Andrew Rosindell have achieved with their clever questions. Dave - Sack him.....
Penfold and Bodehouse, you're both correct on whether France is in NATO. France is a member of the political committe (recently re-admitted) but not a member of the military committee. So it is both not a member of NATO and not. (Typical Froggies.)
Recently, France used it's membership of the political committee to obstruct NATO's ability to offer assistance to fellow member Turkey to act in self defence if the Iraq war spilt over. Previously, when France was a member of the political committee, all the important decisions were made in the military committee and the political one was unused.
IMHO NATO should be closed down. De jure, it is a mutual defence pack but can anybody seriously imagine France, Germany, Belgium, Spain or Italy coming to our aid if the UK was in serious trouble and it didn't suit their purposes? It only ever existed de facto as a one-way agreement by the UK and the US to defend continental Europe against the Warsaw Pact. Now that threat has gone away, so has the need for NATO.
In it's place we should have bilateral defence agreements with countries that are actually our friends and who fought alongside us in previous conflicts, e.g. Poland. (Liam Fox to take note.)
January 10, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Anonymous
said...
Anyonebutblair : Spot on. Good campaign even impressed Mrs Crackers. But since then a blackhole of achievement when he should be on the front pages exposing our corrupt mismanagement of armed forces, our lack of matching military commitments with proper funding and giving backing to top officers critical of the political and MOD fuckups. What a fucking useless minister. Sack him.
January 10, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Anonymous
said...
"In it's place we should have bilateral defence agreements with countries that are actually our friends and who fought alongside us in previous conflicts, e.g. Poland. (Liam Fox to take note.)"
err ... Yugoslavia. War time allies ... the nazis executed whole villages of them for putting up resistance ... aided and abetted by the Croats ... yet we turn our backs on them ...
January 10, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Anonymous
said...
Surely Flanders has been Europe's prime war zone, with the Rhineland and Lombardy close behind.
'Dave' get the shadow ministers he deserves...I get the impression that he has zero interest in our armed forces...and can't even see any political advantage in exploting Labour's abysmal record...
January 10, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Anonymous
said...
Sod Europe.
We should be trying to reforge the alliance we had with the Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders. I know that during the last unpleasantness we dropped the ball with the Antipodes, forcing them to rely the septics for help. And our pathetic Euro first approach over the last thirty years can't have helped, but maybe if we're suitably contrite they might just trust us again.
It's certainly worth a try because quite frankly I'd trust them more than I would the French or any of the other euro sops. Except maybe the Poles. Think about it - on whom would you rather rely when the poo hits the fan? An Aussie Digger with a gun in his hands and violence in his eyes or a Belgian.
January 10, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Anonymous
said...
STOP IT.
At a CCHQ press briefing yesterday Fox did NOT make some off-the-cuff remarks to the effect that Poland and Hungary should have their NATO memberships suspended because they aren't spending enough on defence - thereby rescinding their security guarantee.
If you want to write pro-NuLab propaganda, go and work for them. This is supposed to be a site for us proud Britons campaigning for a party which actually cares about our country and wants it both from the Communists - the Conservatives.
January 10, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Anonymous
said...
I bet those BRitish soldiers in Iraq and Afhhanistan wish Polish soldiers weren't there..............I am afraid Fox is just lightweight..........part of the Balsawood Tendency
Anonymous 11:47, Absolutely I include Yogoslavian states as better potential allies than France. Further afield, Canada, India and Austrailia are more important to our security than most NATO 'allies' in likely future conflicts.
In fact Russia, unstable as it always has been, always seems to be on our side in a really serious conflicts (Napoleonic and two world wars). France, on the other hand, has a nasty habbit of always popping up on the wrong side of the fence whenever there's a war on: think Falklands, WWII (token resistance), Iraq War I & II.
January 10, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Anonymous
said...
John Bull, were you there? Who did the speaking clock when you were absent?
January 10, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Anonymous
said...
By the way, Mr Norton, since the Dark Ages the entire continent could be described as aprime war zone. Another reason why I think we should be involved with it as little as possible.
Time he was put out to pasture. The world has already experienced the wit and wisdom of the fully caffenated Dick Chesney: we really don't need need Liam's decaf take on being irrational in the service of being controversial. The Conservatives need a proper grown up in this role.
January 10, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Anonymous
said...
the remittance man said:
"Think about it - on whom would you rather rely when the poo hits the fan? An Aussie Digger with a gun in his hands and violence in his eyes or a Belgian."
Now, now, stop it, you're making me feel all gooey inside
The irony stems initially from our seeing on television the ultimate ignominy of the Estonian Army turning up for a firefight in Afghanistan alongside the British Army – and better equipped, having purchased the Mambas which the MoD so carelessly and cheaply discarded.
NATO is a joke anyway. Does anyone actually think that most of the continental countries would raise a finger if say the US, UK, Canada or Eastern Europe were actually attacked.
The question should be why is the UK in NATO? We only seem to get anything out of it from the US. Far better to have bilateral treaties with the countries we choose and not compromise Britain's freedom to determine its own foreign policy.
Question - If Lynton Crosby ran CCHQ during the 2005 BGE, then what exactly was Fox doing?
January 10, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Anonymous
said...
Sorry AG79, didn't want to get you all over excited there.
I just think we should be siding with the right sort; chaps who can make up a decent cricket XI or rugby XV.
Imagine the whole Colditz experience with just the Euros for company. Quite apart from the fact they'd lower the tone of any escapes, they'd refuse to understand the lbw rule and complain that rugby was too rough and insist on table tennis instead.
January 10, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Anonymous
said...
"It all comes back to me now...", said Liam Fox, as he spat into the wind...
January 10, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Anonymous
said...
always seems to be on our side in a really serious conflicts (Napoleonic and two world wars).
Russia was allied to Germany 1939-41 and supplied oil and wheat and materials to help Germany defeat Britain. Lenin made a separate peace with Germany at Brest-Litovsk to free up German troops for the Western Front.
Britain guaranteed Poland in March 1939 and the USSR invaded Poland on 17th September 1939
Polish Air Force pilots protected London during the Battle of Britain - 303 Squadron was the highest-scoring
Actually after 9/11 NATO did invoke its committment to asssit the USA with its defence.
Then they most of them said they had not troops. If they did have troops then they were'nt allowed to fight. Then they did not agree with the US anyway so withdrew support from Iraq.
Without doubt, Fox has made a complete arse of himself over this issue.To call for Poland and Hungary's NATO suspension at a time when Russia is flexing its muscle sends all the wrong signals and shows a real poverty of strategic thinking. Eurosceptic Warsaw, in particular, could be a real ally to us within the EU. Thank God, the man wasn't elected party leader.
Without doubt, Fox has made a complete arse of himself over this issue.To call for Poland and Hungary's NATO suspension at a time when Russia is flexing its muscle sends all the wrong signals and shows a real poverty of strategic thinking. Eurosceptic Warsaw, in particular, could be a real ally to us within the EU. Thank God, the man wasn't elected party leader.
Voyager, nobody's saying Russia is reliable, just more reliable than the French. In both the Napoleonic and the World Wars the Russians started off supporting our enemies. Then they saw sense and supported us. My guess it that it will pan out pretty similar with Iran too.
The object of our foreign policy then should be to ensure that this happens sooner rather than later, just as it has been for the last two centuries, rather than lazily assuming that they will go on be our enemies (as our own 'experts' at the FCO seem to be doing currently).
... Poland and Hungary should have their NATO memberships suspended because they aren't spending enough on defence - thereby rescinding their security guarantee.
With Fox you must always look to the man's selfish intentions. What does Fox stand to personally gain from Poland and Hungary being expelled from NATO? Ibramovich/Putin sponsorship for yet another of his "charities", like his now infamous Atlantic Bridge Club, or perhaps this is another clumsy attempt to ingratiate himself into a BAe non-exec directorship? Either way take whatever Liam Fox says with a massive pinch of salt.
Colditz I think more French prisoners escaped than any others, held there. The Polish Corps fought in the Northa African and Italian campaign, Monte Cassino being of particular note. The Battle of Britian Polish pilots excelled.
January 10, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Anonymous
said...
Perhaps the other NATO members could all pay a little extra-surely taxpayers in other countries would understand!
they'd refuse to understand the lbw rule and complain that rugby was too rough and insist on table tennis instead
Easy there, amongst the Contis, it may be that the Eyeties specify a minimum of 7 reverse gears on their tanks but they're actually getting pretty good at Rugby
January 10, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Anonymous
said...
Personally I'd like to bring the Polish and Czech Armies into the British Army as 1940-45 and scupper the Eurocorps by building our own
nice idea voyager, add in a few more regiments of Ghurkas, some Fijians and a few more street fighters from Glasgow and bingo...sheer aggression on a stick...and not a coward to be seen!
January 10, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Anonymous
said...
Is Liam out of the closet yet?
January 10, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Anonymous
said...
Anon 10.54
So,why did he resign his membership of the Glasgow University Union? Spill the beans.
January 10, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Anonymous
said...
Why the fuck hasn't Liam Fox fucking laid into the Government over slashing the Navy in half?!
It's his fucking JOB to do it. I haven't heard a PEEP.
What the fuck does he think he's playing at?
Fucking useless twat.
Dave won't sack him though. He'd cause too much trouble on the backbenches. Cornerstone would wank furiously at the prospect of him being their tearaway leader.
January 10, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Anonymous
said...
Anon-4:52 This lady was obviously a great loss to the diplomatic corps. Dave wants everybody to be nice,and he's the boss-for now!
January 10, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Anonymous
said...
A rabid neo-con, a closet gay, and a fucking liability to the Tory Party.
Can't Dave arrange for Leanne to take a walk in the woods a la Dr Kelly.
January 10, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Anonymous
said...
I can just imagine some blokes cum running down that chin )+: Just before he laps it all up like a thirsty dog.
January 10, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Anonymous
said...
I thought it has been established thaat any bunch of blokes who want to have a Fox torn to shreds by a pack of ravenous dogs can do what they want despite the aw. So go to it boys. Remember what Ms Imbruglio said about the tosser.
All these scientists presently busying their minds with 'Dark Matter' should put their researches his way, they will discover the mysteries of Waste-Of-Space which balances out all the unanswered questions in the universe.
January 10, 2007 at 6:39 PM
Anonymous
said...
"I can just imagine some blokes cum running down that chin )+: Just before he laps it all up like a thirsty dog. "
Crossing the line?
January 10, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Anonymous
said...
So more Frenchies escaped than Brits. Mayhap that's because more of them surrendered in the first place.
And as for the French and Italians playing rugby. The southwest of France, where rugby is strongest, did used to be English after all. And the North of Italy was the immediate postwar garrison area of the SA Armoured Division, so it's not difficult to see how some locals were converted to South Africa's official religion.
But sadly both nations remain largely wedded to the round ball game. And I'll wager that it would be damned difficult to find many natives of either who could explain the lbw rule.
I don't ddoubt that the Poles and the Czechs would make stout allies, sporting deficiencies aside. But as they rather painfully discovered, it's very difficult to render assistance to ones freinds when you are seperated by a lot of hostile or even neutral territory.
No, I remain convinced that our best interests lie in palling up with the former colonials and maintaining a decent navy like any right thinking island nation should.
RM
ps Guido, your blogger thingy won't let me sign in as me
January 10, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Anonymous
said...
Alfred of Wessex said:
"...when (not if) we are swallowed up by the Evil Empire - we won't have an independent foreign or defence policy."
I was under the impression that day has already come thanks to Lapdog Tone
Conservative and Labour MEPs refuse the leave grouping led by the most murderous politicalgroup of the last century (International Socialism).
January 10, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Anonymous
said...
"France, on the other hand, has a nasty habbit of always popping up on the wrong side of the fence whenever there's a war on: think Falklands"
I'm no lover of the frogs but I thought Mrs T said Mitterand was actually quite helpful during that conflict?
"Anybody asked him lately why he resigned his membership of the Glasgow University Union?"
I am intrigued, please enlighten me...
January 11, 2007 at 1:01 AM
Anonymous
said...
CityUnslicker said...
Actually after 9/11 NATO did invoke its committment to asssit the USA with its defence.
Then they most of them said they had not troops. If they did have troops then they were'nt allowed to fight. Then they did not agree with the US anyway so withdrew support from Iraq.
so great help all in all then, eh?
-----
Look, i thought we had established that Iraq had absolutly f*** all to do with 9/11, hence the nato force in afghanistan...
Nice trip back from the oval office was it?
anyways, you all might hate the EU, but if it's done nothing else its helped keep the peace in europe, arguing that our hard fought for allies should be thrown out of our alliances (and I much prefer poland and Hungary on this side of the iron curtain) just reinforces my view of the tory front bench... 1 plank short of canoe
The Czechs and Poles were often units of choice when it came to tough german killing missions in WW2, since they excelled at it and with little motivation required.
Polish pilots indeed enjoyed a high number of 'kills' in the Battle of Britian, complemented by their abilty to pick off Luftwaffe airmaen dangling from their parachutes. I liked the earlier comment about bringing the Polish and Czech armies into the British army as in WW2, not as daft as you might think, the reputation of the British Army remains extremely high among European military forces, aside from anything else for two reasons (1) lot's of 'match' practice and (2) for having to do it all with such duff kit and a government that keeps expecting them to do it all with less!
For all it's heavyweight bureacracy NATO works, and in the defence sense the EU works (god, I can't beleive I am saying that..). Rule of thumb generally is that where NATO goes the EU follows...eastern Europe, Kosovo etc.
I've observed the NATO PA and it works, it keeps the US talking to the French (very amicably as I have seen) and other disparate opinions at the table. Arguing to expel / exclude members is idiocy, plain and simple.
But the real point is of course that Lame Fox doesn't know what he is talking about, which seems to point to another crap government with no understanding of basic principles in International Relations or Military Affairs.
I'd watch the French bashing if I was you all, althougth the old jokes are the best...
1. Q. How many French soldiers have died defending Paris?
A. None. they've never tried..
2. Q. Why does the Champs Elysee have trees down either side?
A. Because the German Army likes to march in the shade. (I told this one in the NATO officers mess in Sennelager, Germany in 1990 to a group of French and German officers, well the germans thought it was funny...)
...that actually the French have taken the power out of more than one german attempt to 'unite Europe'in the past while everybody else either quit, tried to stay away, or like the Brits had a puny wee army when they'd had plenty of time to realise what was coming!
Iw ould be just great if we had politicians who read history, learned from it and acted accordingly.
Bunch of fuckwits all.
January 11, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Anonymous
said...
With Minekiller's incisive observations & his final, somewhat acerbic phrase, I am somewhat nervous about placing my head above the parapet, in the face of such distinguished commenters
However, I wonder if anyone inside or outside Government has considered the potentially dangerous implications of having Estonia within NATO
?? Is it wise to station NATO jets in Riga, so provocatively close to St Petersburg
Russia is a (potential) Super-Power, or at least there must many within the Russian Military who would like Russia to be a Super-Power
It is not only the British Military who have an Interest in Foreign Adventures. For Senior Officers in their Smart Uniforms - inflated pay, job opportunities, promotions, early retirements with inflated inflation-proof pensions, holidays in exciting places abroad ... presumably the Russians have an equivalent of a Place in the House of Lords ... ah, the smooth feel of ermine (or is that black sable)
... anyways, you all might hate the EU, but if it's done nothing else its helped keep the peace in europe.
One word: bollocks. Has the EU helped keep the peace? Has it, balls. What kept Europe in peace since WW2 has been significant numbers of US, UK and other troops stationed in Germany under the NATO banner. France, for what it's worth, was only a limited member of NATO unless its own borders were directly threatened, as one might expect. One might say that NATO has held the peace in Europe IN SPITE of the EU.
January 11, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Anonymous
said...
The EU has helpede to kept the peace in Europe. Although as Julian says NATO has had far more to do with it then the EU. But the cost has become to high, and not just in cash terms.
What would be the point of a later day Adolf Hitler invading other European countries when all he would have to do would be to become elected president of a future United States of Europe?
Peace has been acheived by selling off our freedom as individual free people and nations, not in themselves capable of doing too much real harm to ourselves or the rest of the world. This to create something quite sinister.
Europe has now all the united superpower pan-national socialist potential capable of all the horrors visited on humanity by Nazi Germany, and some.
The nations of Europe have now such a Geobells like controll over their national broadcast media I have no confidence we the people would be informed about these horrors, if it were happening this very day.
Almost the only thing our current European news media is interested in is slagging off, America, individual freedom, the free-market and fermenting anti-semitism on an hourly basis. Something Adolf Hitler would not now have to waste his time and his peoples money and effort on.
Building large national power blocks and alliences does not stop wars, it just makes those wars bigger and more terrible when those alliences collapse, or get overconfident.
Remember this warning, Quote
"The BIGGEST WARS always follow the longest periods of peace."
My history teacher.
January 11, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Anonymous
said...
BTW Just if anyone was interested on how one could create long term peace.
This can only be done in the long run by a nations wealth and therfore POWER being almost entirely in the hands of the ordinary people that produced it. Wealth independently obtained and invested, in as diverse a manner as practical.
PEACE THOUGH FREE TRADE.
European hegemony run by rich socialist authoritarian governments over reletively poor people is the last thing that world peace needs now, in the past, or in the future.
January 11, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Anonymous
said...
Remember this warning, Quote
"The BIGGEST WARS always follow the longest periods of peace."
....
wow! that really was a long peace between WW1 and WW2
no disrespect, but if you think you're history teacher came up with the formula which explains why and when wars occur with that nugget of wisdom, then he's one plank short of a canoe too... besides I would try to forge a lasting peace, than be in continuous war.
to Julian, really consider this, WW2 came about because of economic instability leading to the far left and right to grow, ww3 hasn’t yet come about, in part, because of the EC and a plan to keep the European economy buoyant through free trade, of course the Marshall plan had something to do with it, of course, Nato helped keep the peace, of course there was a feeling that war achieved little, and the tiny matter of the cold war (note sarcasm) but the proliferation of free markets, as opposed to the protectionism of the inter war period, brought about largely by the EC and the later EU, has had one hell of a part to play in why Germany hasn’t decided to invade everywhere else for the third time in 100 years. Argue that the EU should be a minimal institution and should be cut back giving nations and people more power all you like, you’ll have a friend in me, but for god's sake man, for a bunch of Thatcher worshipers recognise a free market when you see one and what its done for peace in Europe.
Thirdly the EU is not run by a load of socialists, its run by a load of incompetent old fools in suits; much like the Tory party I might add... the largest group in parliament is the EPP-ED after all...
January 11, 2007 at 9:07 PM
Anonymous
said...
?? Is it wise to station NATO jets in Riga, so provocatively close to St Petersburg
They are Belgian F-16s.
Frankly I find it much more disconcerting that the Russians have bases near Estonia and still retain that submarine base at Murmansk...........if the Russians were more peace-loving they would not be so provocative with their deployments - it was after all the USSR that invaded Estonia as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
BTW when will Russia return the Kurile Islands to Japan and Vladivostok to China ?
January 11, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Anonymous
said...
Charles Kennedy knows why Liam left the Glasgow University Union...
January 11, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Anonymous
said...
This is boring...
But the EU is wank.
This post is supposed to be about slagging off Foxy.
CUNT!
January 12, 2007 at 8:34 AM
Anonymous
said...
I think that people are missing the point. In the absolute Fox is right: Hungary is spending less of its GDP than it should under its NATO obligations. It is quite clear that it has cynically promised to do so and then reneged once in the NATO club. By doing this Hungary is spivving off of us and the others in NATO. We will have to defend Hungary but Hungary will give nothing to us of any use via NATO. It is, in defence pact terms quite damaging and if left as is will encourage the dissolution of NATO. Defence pacts where one group live off of another don't last very long. Fox has seen the problem in time. No other British politician has. Good for him.
January 12, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Anonymous
said...
what a pillock. guess who's out in iraq with 1,700 soldiers - the Poles. and Afghanistan? Poland again. 1000 Poles out there.
January 13, 2007 at 7:09 PM
Anonymous
said...
"Personally I'd like to bring the Polish and Czech Armies into the British Army as 1940-45 and scupper the Eurocorps by building our own"
good idea. and why not? by about 2010 the whole Polish population will be living in england anyway. might as well let the Polish army join us anyway.
January 13, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Anonymous
said...
Wouldn't it be simpler, better, easier, more productive, etc., to kick Mr. Fox out of Tories instead of kicking Poland and Hungary out of NATO?
66 comments:
oh well, at least he's not talking about privatising the NHS anymore...
Liam Fox is a fucking pillock, he never says or does anything useful.
He is just pissed off the Poles bought f-16's and not some tin-pot BAE plane. The only people corrupt and stupid enough to do business with Anthony (CEO of BAE) were the Saudis. The Poles are spending masses on defence while the UK cuts its Navy in half and is stretched to the max. Fox has lost the plot.
Liam Fox is prone to saying things that later come back to haunt him. Anybody asked him lately why he resigned his membership of the Glasgow University Union? It's an interesting answer.
In a risky region that for centuries has been Europe's prime war zone...
And why? Because it's 'diverse'. The UK is looking more and more the same and will suffer in the same way.
...he wants to destabilise new allies. Haven't the Neo-Cons got enough wars going?
Invasion and immigration: two things a certain little group loves and pays politicos like Bliar and Shameron to deliver.
Good ole Liam, on the ball and scoring an own goal.
Perhaps he should be demanding that the UK be tossed out of NATO, as our defence spending is totally inadequate and predicated by the Treasury not needs.
Bedehouse...the French arn't in NATO, they kicked out NATO in the '50's and disengaged at the same time. NATO didn't agree with their aims and ambitions, and De Gaulle always considered France first,
That fuckwit is only in the shadow cabinet on sufferance. He wants to invade Iran. He is also extremely unpleasant to work with - I should know.
I though Liam fought a good leadership campaign and attracted many like myself in the Tory party....but....he's made a twat of himself as Shadow Defence sec. Talk about open goals - a truly incompetent Des Browne (only there 'cos he's a mate of Broon) and badly equipped troops in Afghanisatan and Iraq paying in blood and he's achieved a fraction of what Mark Harper of Andrew Rosindell have achieved with their clever questions.
Dave - Sack him.....
penfold, you are very wrong sir.
http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm
Boring policy post but important nonetheless:
Penfold and Bodehouse, you're both correct on whether France is in NATO. France is a member of the political committe (recently re-admitted) but not a member of the military committee. So it is both not a member of NATO and not. (Typical Froggies.)
Recently, France used it's membership of the political committee to obstruct NATO's ability to offer assistance to fellow member Turkey to act in self defence if the Iraq war spilt over. Previously, when France was a member of the political committee, all the important decisions were made in the military committee and the political one was unused.
IMHO NATO should be closed down. De jure, it is a mutual defence pack but can anybody seriously imagine France, Germany, Belgium, Spain or Italy coming to our aid if the UK was in serious trouble and it didn't suit their purposes? It only ever existed de facto as a one-way agreement by the UK and the US to defend continental Europe against the Warsaw Pact. Now that threat has gone away, so has the need for NATO.
In it's place we should have bilateral defence agreements with countries that are actually our friends and who fought alongside us in previous conflicts, e.g. Poland. (Liam Fox to take note.)
Anyonebutblair : Spot on. Good campaign even impressed Mrs Crackers. But since then a blackhole of achievement when he should be on the front pages exposing our corrupt mismanagement of armed forces, our lack of matching military commitments with proper funding and giving backing to top officers critical of the political and MOD fuckups. What a fucking useless minister. Sack him.
"In it's place we should have bilateral defence agreements with countries that are actually our friends and who fought alongside us in previous conflicts, e.g. Poland. (Liam Fox to take note.)"
err ... Yugoslavia. War time allies ... the nazis executed whole villages of them for putting up resistance ... aided and abetted by the Croats ... yet we turn our backs on them ...
Surely Flanders has been Europe's prime war zone, with the Rhineland and Lombardy close behind.
'Dave' get the shadow ministers he deserves...I get the impression that he has zero interest in our armed forces...and can't even see any political advantage in exploting Labour's abysmal record...
Sod Europe.
We should be trying to reforge the alliance we had with the Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders. I know that during the last unpleasantness we dropped the ball with the Antipodes, forcing them to rely the septics for help. And our pathetic Euro first approach over the last thirty years can't have helped, but maybe if we're suitably contrite they might just trust us again.
It's certainly worth a try because quite frankly I'd trust them more than I would the French or any of the other euro sops. Except maybe the Poles. Think about it - on whom would you rather rely when the poo hits the fan? An Aussie Digger with a gun in his hands and violence in his eyes or a Belgian.
STOP IT.
At a CCHQ press briefing yesterday Fox did NOT make some off-the-cuff remarks to the effect that Poland and Hungary should have their NATO memberships suspended because they aren't spending enough on defence - thereby rescinding their security guarantee.
If you want to write pro-NuLab propaganda, go and work for them. This is supposed to be a site for us proud Britons campaigning for a party which actually cares about our country and wants it both from the Communists - the Conservatives.
I bet those BRitish soldiers in Iraq and Afhhanistan wish Polish soldiers weren't there..............I am afraid Fox is just lightweight..........part of the Balsawood Tendency
Anonymous 11:47, Absolutely I include Yogoslavian states as better potential allies than France. Further afield, Canada, India and Austrailia are more important to our security than most NATO 'allies' in likely future conflicts.
In fact Russia, unstable as it always has been, always seems to be on our side in a really serious conflicts (Napoleonic and two world wars). France, on the other hand, has a nasty habbit of always popping up on the wrong side of the fence whenever there's a war on: think Falklands, WWII (token resistance), Iraq War I & II.
John Bull, were you there? Who did the speaking clock when you were absent?
By the way, Mr Norton, since the Dark Ages the entire continent could be described as aprime war zone. Another reason why I think we should be involved with it as little as possible.
Time he was put out to pasture. The world has already experienced the wit and wisdom of the fully caffenated Dick Chesney: we really don't need need Liam's decaf take on being irrational in the service of being controversial. The Conservatives need a proper grown up in this role.
the remittance man said:
"Think about it - on whom would you rather rely when the poo hits the fan? An Aussie Digger with a gun in his hands and violence in his eyes or a Belgian."
Now, now, stop it, you're making me feel all gooey inside
The irony stems initially from our seeing on television the ultimate ignominy of the Estonian Army turning up for a firefight in Afghanistan alongside the British Army – and better equipped, having purchased the Mambas which the MoD so carelessly and cheaply discarded.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/01/neither-here-nor-there.html
NATO is a joke anyway. Does anyone actually think that most of the continental countries would raise a finger if say the US, UK, Canada or Eastern Europe were actually attacked.
The question should be why is the UK in NATO? We only seem to get anything out of it from the US. Far better to have bilateral treaties with the countries we choose and not compromise Britain's freedom to determine its own foreign policy.
Question - If Lynton Crosby ran CCHQ during the 2005 BGE, then what exactly was Fox doing?
Sorry AG79, didn't want to get you all over excited there.
I just think we should be siding with the right sort; chaps who can make up a decent cricket XI or rugby XV.
Imagine the whole Colditz experience with just the Euros for company. Quite apart from the fact they'd lower the tone of any escapes, they'd refuse to understand the lbw rule and complain that rugby was too rough and insist on table tennis instead.
"It all comes back to me now...", said Liam Fox, as he spat into the wind...
always seems to be on our side in a really serious conflicts (Napoleonic and two world wars).
Russia was allied to Germany 1939-41 and supplied oil and wheat and materials to help Germany defeat Britain. Lenin made a separate peace with Germany at Brest-Litovsk to free up German troops for the Western Front.
Britain guaranteed Poland in March 1939 and the USSR invaded Poland on 17th September 1939
Polish Air Force pilots protected London during the Battle of Britain - 303 Squadron was the highest-scoring
Actually after 9/11 NATO did invoke its committment to asssit the USA with its defence.
Then they most of them said they had not troops. If they did have troops then they were'nt allowed to fight. Then they did not agree with the US anyway so withdrew support from Iraq.
so great help all in all then, eh?
Without doubt, Fox has made a complete arse of himself over this issue.To call for Poland and Hungary's NATO suspension at a time when Russia is flexing its muscle sends all the wrong signals and shows a real poverty of strategic thinking. Eurosceptic Warsaw, in particular, could be a real ally to us within the EU. Thank God, the man wasn't elected party leader.
Without doubt, Fox has made a complete arse of himself over this issue.To call for Poland and Hungary's NATO suspension at a time when Russia is flexing its muscle sends all the wrong signals and shows a real poverty of strategic thinking. Eurosceptic Warsaw, in particular, could be a real ally to us within the EU. Thank God, the man wasn't elected party leader.
Voyager, nobody's saying Russia is reliable, just more reliable than the French. In both the Napoleonic and the World Wars the Russians started off supporting our enemies. Then they saw sense and supported us. My guess it that it will pan out pretty similar with Iran too.
The object of our foreign policy then should be to ensure that this happens sooner rather than later, just as it has been for the last two centuries, rather than lazily assuming that they will go on be our enemies (as our own 'experts' at the FCO seem to be doing currently).
... Poland and Hungary should have their NATO memberships suspended because they aren't spending enough on defence - thereby rescinding their security guarantee.
With Fox you must always look to the man's selfish intentions. What does Fox stand to personally gain from Poland and Hungary being expelled from NATO? Ibramovich/Putin sponsorship for yet another of his "charities", like his now infamous Atlantic Bridge Club, or perhaps this is another clumsy attempt to ingratiate himself into a BAe non-exec directorship? Either way take whatever Liam Fox says with a massive pinch of salt.
Poor Liam....not everyones cuppa tea.....
Colditz I think more French prisoners escaped than any others, held there. The Polish Corps fought in the Northa African and Italian campaign, Monte Cassino being of particular note. The Battle of Britian Polish pilots excelled.
Perhaps the other NATO members could all pay a little extra-surely taxpayers in other countries would understand!
Remittance, 1.05pm
they'd refuse to understand the lbw rule and complain that rugby was too rough and insist on table tennis instead
Easy there, amongst the Contis, it may be that the Eyeties specify a minimum of 7 reverse gears on their tanks but they're actually getting pretty good at Rugby
Personally I'd like to bring the Polish and Czech Armies into the British Army as 1940-45 and scupper the Eurocorps by building our own
nice idea voyager, add in a few more regiments of Ghurkas, some Fijians and a few more street fighters from Glasgow and bingo...sheer aggression on a stick...and not a coward to be seen!
Is Liam out of the closet yet?
Anon 10.54
So,why did he resign his membership of the Glasgow University Union? Spill the beans.
Why the fuck hasn't Liam Fox fucking laid into the Government over slashing the Navy in half?!
It's his fucking JOB to do it. I haven't heard a PEEP.
What the fuck does he think he's playing at?
Fucking useless twat.
Dave won't sack him though. He'd cause too much trouble on the backbenches. Cornerstone would wank furiously at the prospect of him being their tearaway leader.
Anon-4:52 This lady was obviously a great loss to the diplomatic corps.
Dave wants everybody to be nice,and he's the boss-for now!
A rabid neo-con, a closet gay, and a fucking liability to the Tory Party.
Can't Dave arrange for Leanne to take a walk in the woods a la Dr Kelly.
I can just imagine some blokes cum running down that chin )+:
Just before he laps it all up like a thirsty dog.
I thought it has been established thaat any bunch of blokes who want to have a Fox torn to shreds by a pack of ravenous dogs can do what they want despite the aw. So go to it boys. Remember what Ms Imbruglio said about the tosser.
All these scientists presently busying their minds with 'Dark Matter' should put their researches his way, they will discover the mysteries of Waste-Of-Space which balances out all the unanswered questions in the universe.
"I can just imagine some blokes cum running down that chin )+:
Just before he laps it all up like a thirsty dog. "
Crossing the line?
So more Frenchies escaped than Brits. Mayhap that's because more of them surrendered in the first place.
And as for the French and Italians playing rugby. The southwest of France, where rugby is strongest, did used to be English after all. And the North of Italy was the immediate postwar garrison area of the SA Armoured Division, so it's not difficult to see how some locals were converted to South Africa's official religion.
But sadly both nations remain largely wedded to the round ball game. And I'll wager that it would be damned difficult to find many natives of either who could explain the lbw rule.
I don't ddoubt that the Poles and the Czechs would make stout allies, sporting deficiencies aside. But as they rather painfully discovered, it's very difficult to render assistance to ones freinds when you are seperated by a lot of hostile or even neutral territory.
No, I remain convinced that our best interests lie in palling up with the former colonials and maintaining a decent navy like any right thinking island nation should.
RM
ps Guido, your blogger thingy won't let me sign in as me
Alfred of Wessex said:
"...when (not if) we are swallowed up by the Evil Empire - we won't have an independent foreign or defence policy."
I was under the impression that day has already come thanks to Lapdog Tone
http://e-ukip-home.blogspot.com/
UKIP MEP joins fascist grouping in EU Parliament - read about it here.
Keep looking in for an update at 10pm
Conservative and Labour MEPs refuse the leave grouping led by the most murderous politicalgroup of the last century (International Socialism).
"France, on the other hand, has a nasty habbit of always popping up on the wrong side of the fence whenever there's a war on: think Falklands"
I'm no lover of the frogs but I thought Mrs T said Mitterand was actually quite helpful during that conflict?
"Anybody asked him lately why he resigned his membership of the Glasgow University Union?"
I am intrigued, please enlighten me...
CityUnslicker said...
Actually after 9/11 NATO did invoke its committment to asssit the USA with its defence.
Then they most of them said they had not troops. If they did have troops then they were'nt allowed to fight. Then they did not agree with the US anyway so withdrew support from Iraq.
so great help all in all then, eh?
-----
Look, i thought we had established that Iraq had absolutly f*** all to do with 9/11, hence the nato force in afghanistan...
Nice trip back from the oval office was it?
anyways, you all might hate the EU, but if it's done nothing else its helped keep the peace in europe, arguing that our hard fought for allies should be thrown out of our alliances (and I much prefer poland and Hungary on this side of the iron curtain) just reinforces my view of the tory front bench... 1 plank short of canoe
Good day to you Guy!
The Czechs and Poles were often units of choice when it came to tough german killing missions in WW2, since they excelled at it and with little motivation required.
Polish pilots indeed enjoyed a high number of 'kills' in the Battle of Britian, complemented by their abilty to pick off Luftwaffe airmaen dangling from their parachutes. I liked the earlier comment about bringing the Polish and Czech armies into the British army as in WW2, not as daft as you might think, the reputation of the British Army remains extremely high among European military forces, aside from anything else for two reasons (1) lot's of 'match' practice and (2) for having to do it all with such duff kit and a government that keeps expecting them to do it all with less!
For all it's heavyweight bureacracy NATO works, and in the defence sense the EU works (god, I can't beleive I am saying that..). Rule of thumb generally is that where NATO goes the EU follows...eastern Europe, Kosovo etc.
I've observed the NATO PA and it works, it keeps the US talking to the French (very amicably as I have seen) and other disparate opinions at the table. Arguing to expel / exclude members is idiocy, plain and simple.
But the real point is of course that Lame Fox doesn't know what he is talking about, which seems to point to another crap government with no understanding of basic principles in International Relations or Military Affairs.
I'd watch the French bashing if I was you all, althougth the old jokes are the best...
1. Q. How many French soldiers have died defending Paris?
A. None. they've never tried..
2. Q. Why does the Champs Elysee have trees down either side?
A. Because the German Army likes to march in the shade.
(I told this one in the NATO officers mess in Sennelager, Germany in 1990 to a group of French and German officers, well the germans thought it was funny...)
...that actually the French have taken the power out of more than one german attempt to 'unite Europe'in the past while everybody else either quit, tried to stay away, or like the Brits had a puny wee army when they'd had plenty of time to realise what was coming!
Iw ould be just great if we had politicians who read history, learned from it and acted accordingly.
Bunch of fuckwits all.
With Minekiller's incisive observations & his final, somewhat acerbic phrase, I am somewhat nervous about placing my head above the parapet, in the face of such distinguished commenters
However, I wonder if anyone inside or outside Government has considered the potentially dangerous implications of having Estonia within NATO
?? Is it wise to station NATO jets in Riga, so provocatively close to St Petersburg
Russia is a (potential) Super-Power, or at least there must many within the Russian Military who would like Russia to be a Super-Power
It is not only the British Military who have an Interest in Foreign Adventures. For Senior Officers in their Smart Uniforms - inflated pay, job opportunities, promotions, early retirements with inflated inflation-proof pensions, holidays in exciting places abroad ... presumably the Russians have an equivalent of a Place in the House of Lords ... ah, the smooth feel of ermine (or is that black sable)
Your obedient servant etc
GE
... anyways, you all might hate the EU, but if it's done nothing else its helped keep the peace in europe.
One word: bollocks. Has the EU helped keep the peace? Has it, balls. What kept Europe in peace since WW2 has been significant numbers of US, UK and other troops stationed in Germany under the NATO banner. France, for what it's worth, was only a limited member of NATO unless its own borders were directly threatened, as one might expect. One might say that NATO has held the peace in Europe IN SPITE of the EU.
The EU has helpede to kept the peace in Europe. Although as Julian says NATO has had far more to do with it then the EU. But the cost has become to high, and not just in cash terms.
What would be the point of a later day Adolf Hitler invading other European countries when all he would have to do would be to become elected president of a future United States of Europe?
Peace has been acheived by selling off our freedom as individual free people and nations, not in themselves capable of doing too much real harm to ourselves or the rest of the world. This to create something quite sinister.
Europe has now all the united superpower pan-national socialist potential capable of all the horrors visited on humanity by Nazi Germany, and some.
The nations of Europe have now such a Geobells like controll over their national broadcast media I have no confidence we the people would be informed about these horrors, if it were happening this very day.
Almost the only thing our current European news media is interested in is slagging off, America, individual freedom, the free-market and fermenting anti-semitism on an hourly basis. Something Adolf Hitler would not now have to waste his time and his peoples money and effort on.
Building large national power blocks and alliences does not stop wars, it just makes those wars bigger and more terrible when those alliences collapse, or get overconfident.
Remember this warning, Quote
"The BIGGEST WARS always follow the longest periods of peace."
My history teacher.
BTW
Just if anyone was interested on how one could create long term peace.
This can only be done in the long run by a nations wealth and therfore POWER being almost entirely in the hands of the ordinary people that produced it. Wealth independently obtained and invested, in as diverse a manner as practical.
PEACE THOUGH FREE TRADE.
European hegemony run by rich socialist authoritarian governments over reletively poor people is the last thing that world peace needs now, in the past, or in the future.
Remember this warning, Quote
"The BIGGEST WARS always follow the longest periods of peace."
....
wow! that really was a long peace between WW1 and WW2
no disrespect, but if you think you're history teacher came up with the formula which explains why and when wars occur with that nugget of wisdom, then he's one plank short of a canoe too... besides I would try to forge a lasting peace, than be in continuous war.
to Julian, really consider this, WW2 came about because of economic instability leading to the far left and right to grow, ww3 hasn’t yet come about, in part, because of the EC and a plan to keep the European economy buoyant through free trade, of course the Marshall plan had something to do with it, of course, Nato helped keep the peace, of course there was a feeling that war achieved little, and the tiny matter of the cold war (note sarcasm) but the proliferation of free markets, as opposed to the protectionism of the inter war period, brought about largely by the EC and the later EU, has had one hell of a part to play in why Germany hasn’t decided to invade everywhere else for the third time in 100 years. Argue that the EU should be a minimal institution and should be cut back giving nations and people more power all you like, you’ll have a friend in me, but for god's sake man, for a bunch of Thatcher worshipers recognise a free market when you see one and what its done for peace in Europe.
Thirdly the EU is not run by a load of socialists, its run by a load of incompetent old fools in suits; much like the Tory party I might add... the largest group in parliament is the EPP-ED after all...
?? Is it wise to station NATO jets in Riga, so provocatively close to St Petersburg
They are Belgian F-16s.
Frankly I find it much more disconcerting that the Russians have bases near Estonia and still retain that submarine base at Murmansk...........if the Russians were more peace-loving they would not be so provocative with their deployments - it was after all the USSR that invaded Estonia as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
BTW when will Russia return the Kurile Islands to Japan and Vladivostok to China ?
Charles Kennedy knows why Liam left the Glasgow University Union...
This is boring...
But the EU is wank.
This post is supposed to be about slagging off Foxy.
CUNT!
I think that people are missing the point. In the absolute Fox is right: Hungary is spending less of its GDP than it should under its NATO obligations. It is quite clear that it has cynically promised to do so and then reneged once in the NATO club. By doing this Hungary is spivving off of us and the others in NATO. We will have to defend Hungary but Hungary will give nothing to us of any use via NATO. It is, in defence pact terms quite damaging and if left as is will encourage the dissolution of NATO. Defence pacts where one group live off of another don't last very long. Fox has seen the problem in time. No other British politician has. Good for him.
what a pillock. guess who's out in iraq with 1,700 soldiers - the Poles. and Afghanistan? Poland again. 1000 Poles out there.
"Personally I'd like to bring the Polish and Czech Armies into the British Army as 1940-45 and scupper the Eurocorps by building our own"
good idea. and why not? by about 2010 the whole Polish population will be living in england anyway. might as well let the Polish army join us anyway.
Wouldn't it be simpler, better, easier, more productive, etc., to kick Mr. Fox out of Tories instead of kicking Poland and Hungary out of NATO?