Five Wars Blair to reduce our illustrious fighting Regiments.
* *
‘Don’t ask us to keep the
peace as well, Mr Blair.’
by
General Sir Michael Rose-
Former Commanding Officer of
the SAS who led the UN Forces in Bosnia.
Daily
Mail, Tuesday, 22nd July 2004.
Tony
Blair is now engaged in his [sixth] war in ten years and is arguably the
most warmongering British Prime Minister since Lord Palmerston.
Yet he does not seem to understand that wars not only
cost lives, but they also cost a great deal of money.
Even in periods of prolonged peace, defence cannot be
obtained on the cheap-partly because we have to keep up with new developments
in military technology but also because of the considerable expense of
maintaining all-volunteer forces.
Look
at America, where President Bush has waged a war against terrorism since
September 11, 2001.
He
has increased the U.S. defence budget by 35 per cent- from $76.4 billion to
$104.8billion- and has raised the strength
Of
his fighting services by 30,000 servicemen and women.
In the same period, Mr Blair has made only marginal
increases in the defence budget while the strength of our Armed Forces has
been greatly reduced.
At the end of the Cold War, the regular component of the
British Army numbered 116,000 and the reservists 69,000.
But
following yesterday’s announcement [Mon.21st July, 2004] by Geoffrey
Hoon
, The
Regular Army will be cut again to 102,000 and the Territorial Army will remain
under recruited at 43,000 strong.
The
Defence Secretary says we need to take account of the changed demands of
warfare.
He
wants to invest in technological rather than manpower- what he calls a network
enabled capability- in order to identify targets rapidly and destroy them with
precision weaponry.
Such
a capability, he rightly argues, would allow us rapidly to defeat an opponent
with few British causalities.
He
cites the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan and that of Saddam Hussein in
Iraq as examples.
The problem is that, while it is true that modern
technology can rapidly prevail against such old fashioned armies, the corollary
of war fighting is nation building, which is extremely manpower intensive.
In
1994, in Bosnia, the UN had more than 23,000 peacekeepers just to help the
delivery of aid. NATO has estimated that it would take ten times that number to invade
the country and enforce a peace settlement.
Today,
we have about half that number of soldiers in Iraq and, as a result, we are
failing.
With
so few troops, we simply cannot achieve the minimum level of security necessary
for nation building.
Each
day, scores of Iraqis are killed while re-construction is virtually at a
standstill.
To
succeed- to bring the Iraqi the peace and freedom we promised-we need to deploy
far larger numbers of troops on the ground in Iraq and they will have to remain
there for prolonged periods of time.
Moreover,
there has to be some rotation for those forces engaged in operations.
As Former Adjutant General of the British army (responsible
for manpower and human resources), I well know that a balanced force structure
requires having twice the number of soldiers engaged on training and administration,
as there are deployed on operations.
In
addition, as we face new threats and challenges, a properly balanced military
force will also have a planned reserve capability in order to deal with
unforeseen contingencies.
In
recent years, our Armed Forces have been too often over-stretched because there
was no such reserve.
It
therefore makes absolutely no sense for Hoon to reduce manpower and it is
pointless developing a war –winning capability if we have insufficient numbers
of soldiers to win the subsequent peace.
Our
Armed Forces have been starved of resources for too long.
In
every Defence Review-, which incidentally seems to happen with increasing
frequency- the Secretary of State for Defence tries to justify successive
reductions against promised future technological enhancements. But history teaches us that it is men, not weapons who win wars-and
ultimately the peace
Last
year, despite already serious under-manning in the Army, the Treasury
stopped all recruitment.
It
is hard to quantify the effect that such a cynical abuse of political power and
continuing over-stretch are having on commitment and morale.
Traditionally,
the regimental system enables soldiers to withstand much hardship, yet even
this is now under threat with plans to amalgamate old established county
regiments.
Such
reforms will undoubtedly weaken the ties of loyalty and comradeship that
That
causes men to fight in battle, and so willingly risk their lives in
peacekeeping.
Of
course, Armed Forces must re-equip and restructure in order to meet the demands
of modern war and many of the future Army structure changes make good sense.
But
the demands of the battlefield are enduring, and victory depends upon the
quality and commitment of our soldiers, sailors and airman.
That
is why they need to be supported not merely with words but
materially-particularly if Tony Blair truly wishes to continue his strategy of
military intervention across the world.
General
Sir Michael Rose is Former Commanding Officer of the SAS who led the UN Forces
in Bosnia.
*
13th October,2007
So You Want Out Of The EU
THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE
RENUNCIATION of
EU CITIZENSHIP
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Optout
Details from petition
creator
With the signing of
the Maastricht Treaty the people of Britain were
given
DUAL CITIZENSHIP
-both
EUROPEAN and
BRITISH
The extra tier of
citizenship was thrust upon the people without their
consent -and in many cases knowledge.
The PEOPLE of GREAT
BRITAIN should be allowed the option of opting out
of the EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP if they so wish. The
GOVERNMENT will then be able to provide those who
have opted out with
BRITISH
DOCUMENTATION
-only such as
British (not EU) passports, driving licences
and other national documents.
EU laws will also NOT
APPLY to those who
HAVE OPTED OUT OF
EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP
*
*
*
www.noliberties.com
[Latest Addition - June07]
*
www.eutruth.org.uk
*
www.thewestminsternews.co.uk
*
www.speakout.co.uk
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION
to the EU
www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs
*
VOTE
TO
LEAVE
THE
EUROPEAN
UNION
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE
TO SET YOU
FREE
THE
UK
INDEPENDENCE PARTY
www.ukip.org
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE
FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER
BUT
SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS
WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.
*
ONLY
PRO-PORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION
WILL
BRING
DEMOCRACY
BACK
TO
THE
ENGLISH
PEOPLE
*
Home Rule for
Scotland
WHY
NOT
HOME
RULE
for
ENGLAND
*
MAY/07
[All underlined words have a separate
bulletin]
ADDED NOV 1-2015
*
The
Queen,
Treason
and the
Coronation
oath
Together
with
Churchill,
King
George
VI saved
our
nation;
he was a
Monarch
to be
proud
of. But
his
daughter
the
Queen is
the only
monarch
to have
broken
all her
coronation
oaths,
by
signing
these
six
treaties
that
abolish
our
common
law, the
British
Constitution,
the
British
and
English
nations,
and our
sovereignty.
She has
also
committed
treason,
together
with
co-signatories
Ted
Heath,
Margaret
Thatcher,
John
Major,
Tony
Blair
and
Gordon
Brown.
Realising
that
under
the five
Treason
Acts
they
should
already
be
hanging
by the
neck
until
dead,
Tony
Blair
and the
Queen
signed
the
Crime
and
Disorder
Act,
1998,
which
secretly
abolished
much of
the
crime of
treason
(s36.3)
and
reduced
the
penalty
to life
imprisonment
- they
didn't
tell the
MP's
what
they had
just
voted
for.
1.4
million
British
Servicemen
gave
their
lives
for our
independence.
The
Queen
has
thrown
their
sacrifices
away and
made
them
worthless.
At
no
physical
risk to
herself,
she
could
have
fulfilled
her oath
and duty
as a
constitutional
check
and
balance,
by
refusing
to sign
the six
treaties
until an
in/out
referendum
had been
held. In
the
unlikely
event
the vote
went
against
her, she
was even
more
unlikely
to lose
her
crown
(not her
life or
a limb),
and
would
keep her
£9
billion
plus
palaces
either
way.
Those
servicemen's
lives
would
still
have
meant
something.
But she
was
always
keen to
sign;
and said
in
advance
she
would
sign the
last
treaty.
Princes
Charles,
William
or Harry
can now
never be
King.
You
can't
have a
King
without
a
Kingdom:
they can
only be
princes
of a
region
(principality)
within
Europe.
King
Edward
8th was
forced
to
abdicate
because
he was
too
overt as
a German
Nazi
supporter.
Mrs
Simpson's
divorce
was
merely
the
excuse.
The
Royal
Family
is a
German
Family -
real
surname
Saxe-Coburg
Gotha.
Windsor
is an
adopted
surname.
All four
of
Prince
Phillip's
sisters
married
high
ranking
German
Nazis.
After
they
lost the
war the
EU was
switched
from a
Nazi
basis to
a
communist
basis.
Between
the ages
of 12
and 22
Queen
Elisabeth's
political
and
constitutional
tutor
was Sir
Henry
Martin,
a Fabian
Communist.
It seems
clear
she was
well
trained
for her
subversion
and
treason.
Because
she
waves
and
smiles
at us
most are
fooled
into
thinking
she's
lovely;
in fact
the
Queen is
a member
of the
Illuminati,
a
Bilderberger,
head of
Freemasonry,
is
wholly
pro the
(German)
EU, and
has
abolished
this
nation
with
ruthless
determination.
It is so
obvious
she
cares
nothing
for
Britain
or the
British.
The
Queen's
aspirations
are not
ours;
she
clearly
serves a
much
darker
master;
the
faith
she
defends
cannot
be the
one we
think it
is. King
George
VI, the
one
recent
monarch
not
indoctrinated
with
Nazi or
Communist
philosophy,
must be
turning
over in
his
grave.
I
ask that
the law
be
enforced,
and the
Queen be
tried
for
treason
before
12
honest
people,
and not
by our
corrupt
judges.
And that
the
illegal
section
36.3
Crime
and
Disorder
Act be
declared
null and
void, so
that she
can hang
by the
neck
till
dead.
The new
EU
Hitler
doesn't
have to
get
elected
Its
worth
noting
that
Adolf
Hitler
first
had to
get
elected,
if on a
35%
minority
vote,
and then
get his
Enabling
Act
passed.
An EU
dictator
has no
such
problems.
Our EU
rulers
do not
submit
themselves
for
election
now. And
the
Queen
has
already
signed
the
Enabling
Act
(Civil
Contingencies
Act
2004).
The EU's
Hitler
will
have a
much
easier
rise to
power,
and will
have the
formerly
British
and
French
nuclear
weapons
from day
one.
Adolf
Hitler
killed
54
million
people.
The EU's
dictator
could
kill a
billion
at the
touch of
a
button,
with no
democratic
checks
and
balances
to
answer
to. How
could
any
aspiring
dictator
resist
the EU
opportunity?
For more
details go to :http://eutruth.org.uk
http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants2012.html |
|
|
*
*
*