BS: British Army at it again

Subject: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 06:00 AM

Hundreds of British troops have had to be sent home from Bosnia.
They and other EU forces are no longer needed to keep the peace and rebuild.
The Muslim people NATO moved in to protect are now secure.
And not a drop of oil in the place.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Grab
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 06:58 AM

What are they "at", Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 07:14 AM

Grab,
Strictly, Britain has no army.
Numbering less than 100,000 it is merely a national defence force.
What it is at, is taking on a disproportionate role in the world's trouble spots.
It has more threads about it started here than any other army, and usually with titles like this one.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:31 AM

Ah, but Keith, will the crime rate in Bosnia now fall dramatically, particularly in the sector of motoring offences and parking tickets?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Grab
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 01:32 PM

I think you'll find they do call it an army, Keith... :-)

And I still don't get it. What did you start the thread for? Is it defence of the British Army, being asked to do lots of difficult and risky jobs around the world? Or to criticise how they do that job? Is it to criticise the UK politicians who decide to take on those jobs? Or to criticise the UN who asks them to do peacekeeping duties? Or to criticise the foreign nations who go postal and need peacekeepers in there? Or to be glad that one round of peacekeeping is done and the poor sods can go home?

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 01:44 PM

The 6,000 European peace keeping forces in Bosnia have now been reduced to 2,500, note European.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: skipy
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 02:12 PM

Kieth, please clarify your point.
Regards Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:35 PM

How many Irish "European" troops are present Ard? Bet they don't get speeding fines and parking tickets, not to mention all those non-existent convictions for murder and rape - Valiant lads, every one of them, to a man - Eh?

Grab, what they may well call it is imaterial. I believe that what Keith is refering to is the standard put on Germany under the terms of the Treaty Of Versielles. Germany was allowed a "Defence Force" whose number could not exceed 100,000 men, however to be strict in its application they were not allowed:
- Armour
- Heavy Artillery
- An Air Force
- Submarines, or any naval unit larger that a Cruiser of a stipulated tonnage (This latter restriction created the design known as the "Pocket Battleship")

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: ard mhacha
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:57 AM

Teribus Surely even a died in the wool Brit like you is aware of the role played by the Republic of Irelands troops as peacekeepers throughout most of the worlds trouble spots.
Forgive me if I stray from the point, I thought you as a Rugby fan would have been impressed by the conduct of the Irish fans at the game with England, surely a lesson in manners for the soccer yobos of England, repeat score Ireland 43 England 13, not bad, what ,what, old boy.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Sparticus
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 03:46 AM

ard,

They were lucky!























That they got away so lightly.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 03:54 AM

Agreed - it was a good match, and given the significance of the setting, an object lesson in reconciliation. Somehow an Irish victory seemed appropriate. Next time, however... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 04:08 AM

Very good score, Ard, and well deserved. Just you wait though...;-)

How was the behaviour of the English rugby fans?

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 04:24 AM

Hello Dave.

Grab and Skipy, I wanted to start a good news thread about the army, after a stream of accusing ones.
The army has been in Bosnia for 15 years, first with UN then NATO and now EU. A genocide was prevented and the country stabilised.
I understood that an army is defined as being in excess of 100 000.
Being understrength those on deployment work round the clock and suffer chronic sleep deprivation. That should make them aggressive and incompetent but they perform as well as any army and better than most, notwithstanding the abuse they get on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 05:08 AM

Keith, I really don't think you are going to convince some people here that the British army is good news. Even though some of those people would have been living under the Nazi yoke, without the British army.

live with it.

some of us have blind spots. I have the same sort of thing with traditional folk music, when the traditions don't even extend back to my parents. For many people it is the heartbeat of life - to me, it offends my intelligence.

there is no blueprint saying we all have to feel the same - otherwise the Nazis might as well have won.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Alan Bateman
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 06:03 AM

Gun crime in Britain is at an all time high. Police say most of the illegal guns on the streets of Britain today came in from Bosnia.

I clearly remember British soldiers arriving home from here being charged with bringing illegal weapons into the the country. Were these just souvenirs or memento's ?

Gardi in Dublin found the body of a man floating in the river. He was wearing stockings, suspenders and a padded bra under his English rugby shirt.

The police removed the English rugby shirt from the body to save the dead man's family any embarrassment.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:10 AM

Alan,
In November 1993, the Government agreed to allow 1000 Bosnian men who had been detained in Bosnian Serb camps to come to the UK with their families (a total of 4,000). The Refugee Council, together with the British Red Cross set up a programme to receive and settle Bosnian refugees. Reception centres were established in various parts of the UK responsible for the initial accommodation and welfare of the refugees prior to the move into more independent living arrangements. In 1995, a further 500 Bosnian refugees were offered temporary refuge in the UK, plus some 20 medical evacuees. The majority of refugees from Bosnia did not arrive under the 'programme'. Around 14,000 Bosnians applied for asylum independently after the war in Bosnia broke out.

Violent events in Kosovo at the beginning of 1999 led to the largest exodus of refugees of the decade. Some 900,000 people were forcibly expelled from Kosovo. As part of a contingency plan, the UK government asked the Refugee Council and its three partner agencies, the British Red Cross, Refugee Action and the Scottish Refugee Council, to organise a reception programme for Kosovar evacuees

Most of the guns from Bosnia will have been brought in by the thousands of refugees who now live here.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: ard mhacha
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:18 AM

Captain Ginger, The English Rugby fans were tops, they took their defeat in good spirits, this info from my two nephews who were at the game.To get back to the incomprehensible theme of this Thread,I fail to see why all of the European peace keeping forces didn`t get a mention,I shouldn`t wonder when I see Keith`s name at the top.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 08:01 AM

Ard, second sentence of thread,
"They and other EU forces are no longer needed to keep the peace and rebuild."

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 08:02 AM

It was me that asked about the English fans. Ard. Glad they were well behaved. Nice to know we are not all yobs and hooligans:-)

I'm also very pleased that the political significance of the game did not go un-noticed. I believe both the GAA and the RFU behaved impecably and wish that we could all do the same.

Now if only we can all work towards getting that bloody dirge of an anthem stopped at EVERY event the world could be a much happier place:-)

Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 08:04 AM

Its comprehensible Ard in the light of you and your mates always getting the boot in about the English army 'at every social gathering' - as the folksong says.

Its obviously something Keith feels strongly about, in the opposite direction that you do.

The poor chap suffers from a sense of injustice

say something soothing to him, like God save the Queen, or Well done Keith! - you've certainly made me see things differently.....

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 08:33 AM

Excellent game Ard and a very good result for the Irish lads. I now sincerely hope somebody does turn over France for I would hate to see them win the Grand Slam on that one minute and thirty-eight lapse on the part of the Irish after having fought so well to get back into the game and lead against France.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: greg stephens
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 09:23 AM

ard mhacha: out of historical sensitivity and innate good manners, the English team did indeed allow the Irish team to win. This is, however, unlikely to be repeated.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Grab
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:13 AM

Sounds good Keith - I'll go with that. :-) Sorry, I really didn't follow where you were going with those initial posts.

Does the UK really get disproportionate assignments on UN peacekeeping missions? Have to dig out some stats. Likely there's always going to be *some* peacekeeping mission going on, but dunno whether it's disproportionate.

My problem with "peacekeeping" is that it only seems to work if the other two sides want peace. If they don't (as in NI, Bosnia, Iraq and Palestine), the peacekeepers are generally screwed, because they don't have the numbers to do anything significant. And worst-case, the troops get drawn into one side or the other (as in NI), become part of the problem and perpetuate the circle of violence.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Dotsy
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:50 PM

Didn't do much of a job peace keeping in Kenya, Ulster or the Congo.
Why the thread title ?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: ard mhacha
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 01:27 PM

Dave I am with you all the way, I would prefer to see ALL national anthems confined to history, although if you are allowed one at every game, the Welsh anthem would do for me.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: ard mhacha
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 01:40 PM

Greg, This was our fourth win in a row, we also went five in a row from 1972-76, very good for our wee country.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 01:48 PM

Grab,

There is a general misconception with regard to the role of UN "Peacekeepers", that they are sent into situations to "solve" things. They are not, and the restrictions on the make up of "peacekeeping" forces and their numbers and their tasking clearly prevent any such action.

Before UN peacekeepers are deployed the following conditions must be met:
- The parties involved in the conflict must be willing to negotiate a settlement;
- There must be a clear demarcation line dividing the combatants;
- All fighting must have stopped, there must be a "local" ceasefire in place;
- If fighting should break out between the combatants, the UN peacekeepers are automatically and immediately withdrawn.

Restrictions related to Peacekeeping Forces:
- Their numbers have to be comensurate with the task at hand, i.e. they cannot "swamp" the area;
- They must be impartial in the execution of their duties;
- Their primary duty is to present a dividing line between the combatants and monitor the ceasefire;
- Their "Rules of Engagement" only cover responding to fire directly at them by one side or the other.
- They are not allowed heavy weapons such as artillery or armour (Tanks, etc), armoured personnel carriers are allowed and soft skinned transport;
- They are not allowed tactical air support of any kind, although transport helicopters and transport aircraft are permitted.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 01:51 PM

Some people do seem to find it remarkably hard to recognise irony in a thread title.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Cool as Folk
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 03:56 PM

So good to see the Irish enthusiastic about the English sport of Rugby. It would appear that soccer (another English sport)is the most popular sport in Ireland ! Really can't see a hurling match taking place in Lords can you ?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: ard mhacha
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 07:17 AM

McGrath, Yes the irony of it all being transported from a now tranquil Bosnia to the hell-hole which is Afghanistan. You don`t have to point out that some of us have according to you,"missed the point", far from it, just indicating the stupidity of an army which sometimes meekly questions their masters, but in the end meekly obeys.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: ard mhacha
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 07:24 AM

Cool as folk, I was a spectator on a few occasions in London in the 1960S, during the Whit week-end Gaelic games at WEMBLEY.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 08:40 AM

the whole point of having an army isn't actually to organise tranquil days out for them

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Les from Hull
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:08 AM

EUFOR troop strength

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Big Phil
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 09:05 AM

Do not know what they are AT, but I will wager the British army will be the best in the world AT what they are doing.
Bring the Troops home. NOW. Heroes one and all.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 05:52 PM

ROTFLMAO

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 01:12 PM

from Ave Imperatrix
by Oscar Wilde

For not in quiet English fields
Are these, our brothers, laid to rest,
Where we might deck their broken shields
With all the flowers the dead love best.

For some are by the Delhi walls,
And many in the Afghan land,
And many where the Ganges falls
Through seven mouths of shifting sand.

And some in Russian waters lie,
And others in the seas which are
The portals to the East, or by
The wind-swept heights of Trafalgar.

And thou whose wounds are never healed,
Whose weary race is never won,
0 Cromwelrs England! must thou yield
For every inch of ground a son?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 03:11 AM

Seven British Royal Marines have been arrested on suspicion of murder.
More here.


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/seven-royal-marines-held-over-afghan-murder-201739065.html

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 04:02 AM

Thanks Martin.
No point in waiting until actual charges have been made, never mind a conviction.
If it was a breach of Rules of Engagemnt, remember ours are stricter than anyone else's.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 04:28 AM

I just thought it important that people are made aware of the story in case it didn't make the international news. PR is very important.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Dead Horse
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 09:44 AM

Ah. The good old 'Rules of Engagement' is rearing its ugly head again.
If a rioter is in the act of throwing a bomb, he must be warned that the troops are armed and will shoot. In Northern Ireland we were obliged to warn the bomber three times before it was deemed OK to shoot.
If he has already thrown the bomb he is no longer, in himself, a threat - so you are not entitled to shoot him. You can arrest him, and he will no doubt go through the process of law and be sent to prison with others of his kind who will all learn to be better at what they do. Then he will be released and go back to doing what he did before - only better.
But his face is well known to the soldiers on the streets so he has become a bit of a liability to his mates, who send him to the States to collect funds through NORAID which will go directly to Gaddafi to provide arms and explosives to kill and maim many more soldiers and innocent civilians. And a few years down the line he will probably claim compensation for loss of human rights, or be invited to share the future running of the country.
How much better to have put a 7.62 sleeping pill into his brain when you had the chance.
There is nothing like having to fight a war with one hand tied behind ones back, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,mayomick
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 10:48 AM

Interesting take on things from Dead Horse. That's the very sort of psychopath cum peace-keeper we've had to put up with over the years.    Fighting a war with one hand tied behind his back and fantasising about murdering somebody with a bullet to the brain. I assume that that's what Dead Horse refers to when he writes about " a 7.62 sleeping pill" Such charming army slang ! War is war and all that.

Successive UK governments always maintained though that , during the course of the recent troubles in Ireland , British soldiers were not taking part in a war , but assisting the police force to keep the peace and stop the mad paddies from murdering each other. Isn't that what they told you all you when they sent you out on to the streets, Dead Horse?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: bubblyrat
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 01:11 PM

Please stop referring to personnel as" Royal Marines" ; yes, they are IN the Royal Marines ,but they are only "Marines" . I was in the Royal Navy , but I wasn't a "Royal Sailor" , nor was my late , ex-Royal Air Force father a "Royal Airman".
                              Meanwhile ,think about this ; for many years now ,under International Law , anti-personnel mines have been proscribed , and nobody , especially members of the British Armed Forces ,is /are allowed to use or deploy them. The Taliban , however ,and other terrorist organisations , don't hesitate to use these dreadful , despicable , Improvised Explosive Devices ( yes, Anti-Personnel mines )that blow mens' legs ,arms and balls off , so I have every sympathy for members of our Armed Forces if they are sometimes less than kind and charitable towards their captives on occasion .

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 02:30 PM

Nice to see Dead Horse admitting the role of the British army in the North of Ireland. A round from an SLR seems to have been his cure for all ill's. Rioting was the preserve of children over there, few would have been sent to the states to raise funds.

Anyway, it is all water under the bridge now, Sinn Fein took control of the Provisionals back in 1986, their political approach paid off, they are now in government and making governmental decisions and earning world respect and the British army went home without a battle honour to their name after 30 years.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 02:06 AM

You misrepresent what Dead Horse said.
He was a soldier who wanted to be allowed to fight the enemy, but was under restrictions that gave his enemy the advantage.
A gunman tries to kill you, and you are only allowed to fire back when he is in the aim, not when he is maneuvering.
If they catch you, you are tortured and killed.
Their clever lawyers will probably get them off, or there will be an eventual amnesty anyway.
To keep the streets safe for others, you have to be on them.
They can shoot you in the back from a safe distance and run away.
A stolen car crashes through your road block, but you must not shoot.

No other army in the world is ever expected to show such restraint.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 03:04 AM

Not a lot of point in arguing Keith. our minds are made up. their minds are definitely made up.

persoanlly I resent the life of every English kid in army unform lost on the streets of NI, or in the shitholes o Afghanistan and and Iraq.

What has been the bloody point of any of it. McGuinness in government over in Ireland, all kinds of dodgy buggers in all the other places.

When I lived in the mining areas (ex mining areas -where jobs for kids had dried up in mining and manufacturing) there seemed to be a funeral in some nearby village every week for some local kid. Why and for what have those families been to hell and back?

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 03:44 AM

Keith, I don't think it appropriate that you answer for another member, unless they instructed you to do so.

Keith, you express frustration at the rules of engagement. These rules (as stated in the blue and yellow cards issued prior to your deployment tour) are laid out by the Ministry of Defence and the appropriate government departments. Soldiers are expected to follow orders, I do hope you understand that.

The war in the North of Ireland was guerrilla. It wasn't conventional. Units operating in rural or urban areas had to improvise according to the terrain. A Mk 15 was ideal in border regions for use against forfeited barracks. A proxy van was ideal for use against torture centres such as Gough,Castlereagh or a forensic lab. A lot of the centres were deliberately built in residential areas by the M.O.D. to use residents as human shields.

I will accept the government publicly placed restrictions on what a soldier on the ground could or could not do, but privately they allowed a lot more, often turning a blind eye and soldiers knew that firing a plastic or rubber bullet into the face of a young child, as they often did would never result in a prosecution.

As I said it is all immaterial now. Canary Wharf in 96 had the British government on the phone to intermediates,let's just say in the knowledge that in those days of February 1996 similar events could have occurred. The seven man army council of the Provisional army saw five of it's members selected for key governmental positions. Militant Unionism were told by Tony Blair at St, Andrews, accept Sinn Fein in government or prepare for a declaration of joint sovereignty between Dublin and London.

And then there was the Northern Bank deposit, 26 million placed in a bank awaiting collection in the knowledge that no road blocks would be in place anywhere within a 37 mile radius of the bank and no prosecutions would ever follow.

So, a generous pension fund set up courtesy of the British taxpayer, governmental positions given and not forgetting the disbandment of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the notorious Royal Ulster Constabulary thrown in as a sweetener.

All in all, not hard to see who the winners and losers were in this game.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 05:24 AM

I was expressing my opinion, not answering for anyone else.
The "bloody point of any of it" was that bombs, bullets, intimidation and murder were not allowed to subvert the democratically expressed will of the people.
NI was not forced against the will of its people into a union with Eire.
The kind of arrangement that now exists could have been had decades ago.
All the gunmen did was deprive NI of decades of prosperity, and bring untold misery into thousands of lives.
History will not be kind to them.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 05:44 AM

"The kind of arrangement that now exists could have been had decades ago."
Not with a unionist veto sitting in Stormont carving out electoral regions as they did., nationalists were treated as second class as you are aware.

Sinn Fein would never have gained seats or a voice in local government, the Unionist majority would have seen to that.

The only way it could happen was forcing the British government to remove the unionist government as they did in 1972, then force the British government to the table. It worked, the results are there to be seen. Technically shafting the Ulster Unionists. Carson must be revolving in his grave.

By the way, 11 members of that band who played sectarian songs outside the catholic church in July were arrested by police yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 06:54 AM

Those bandsmen deserve their fate.
Sinn Fein would never have gained seats or a voice in local government,
The Nationalist SDLP used democratic means to represent Nationalists.
Sinn Fein started to get electoral success when it stopped supporting violence.
The British government was forced to remove the Unionist government not by paramilitary might, but by the Civil Rights movement and British public opinion.
The bombings and shootings just entrenched enmity and hatred and derailed the progress that was being made.

If you believe violence is acceptable against a people who do not like or want what you are selling, you are just the same as the Taliban.
No difference in bombing Canary Wharf or flying a plane into it.
Death crazed fanatics.

Subject: RE: BS: British Army at it again
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 13 Oct 12 - 07:24 AM

I agree with your sentiments Keith, the SDLP are now a minority party, Sinn Fein speak for Nationalists and republicans.

Sinn Fein never openly supported violence, they took the conventional political route from 1986, I think you will agree that a lot happened over there after that date much of it involved Sinn Fein members being charged with terrorist activity, so their success wasn't as a result of their 1986 approach.

Direct Rule came in 1972, the Civil Rights movement in the North of Ireland was all but dead by that stage. British public opinion didn't come into it, there was never a referendum held. American pressure of Britain's abuse of Human Rights such as the torture of political suspects in 1971 "The Hooded Men" something they were later found guilty of in a European Court, also played a part.

I do feel the military campaign by the Provisionals brought about change. Britain was well aware the device used in London in February 1996 had siblings and the panic calls from London to an Irish government official requesting a meeting with Provisional representatives the next day proved that. It will always remain a bone of contention among senior members of the movement, fortunately a certain will known individual got his way. That was the day Keith that changed the political situation.