<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Britain at war</title>
	<atom:link href="http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/07/17/britain-at-war/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/07/17/britain-at-war/</link>
	<description>Incisive and topical campaigns and commentary on today&#039;s issues and tomorrow&#039;s problems</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:18:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/07/17/britain-at-war/#comment-19549</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:38:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=4083#comment-19549</guid>
		<description>Guys - most of you are missing the point! It is not simply that there has not enough money! The MOD/Military have over teh last 20 odd years under both Tory and New Labour administrations have blown/wasted over GBP20bn on projects that have been cancelled. We continually want to reinvent the wheel, or have our own all singing and dancing toys! It is a fact that the Military hierarchy have stopped sensible off the shelf, cost effective, and most importantly military effective equipment from the international market place being purchased to support their own inter-service rivalries and grand projects. If you want some education on this, go to Defence of the Realm web-site. There is so much spin and counter-spin by both Government, the MOD and the Military and that I have some sympathy with those who can&#039;t see the wood from the trees. To put in a nutshell, the Military top brass have made &#039;selfish&#039; and disastrous decisions - FRES and the future Lynx to name but a couple, the MOD has been at the very least disingenuous and the Government have been guilty of not setting a clear objective and exit strategy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Guys &#8211; most of you are missing the point! It is not simply that there has not enough money! The MOD/Military have over teh last 20 odd years under both Tory and New Labour administrations have blown/wasted over GBP20bn on projects that have been cancelled. We continually want to reinvent the wheel, or have our own all singing and dancing toys! It is a fact that the Military hierarchy have stopped sensible off the shelf, cost effective, and most importantly military effective equipment from the international market place being purchased to support their own inter-service rivalries and grand projects. If you want some education on this, go to Defence of the Realm web-site. There is so much spin and counter-spin by both Government, the MOD and the Military and that I have some sympathy with those who can&#8217;t see the wood from the trees. To put in a nutshell, the Military top brass have made &#8216;selfish&#8217; and disastrous decisions &#8211; FRES and the future Lynx to name but a couple, the MOD has been at the very least disingenuous and the Government have been guilty of not setting a clear objective and exit strategy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alan jutson</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/07/17/britain-at-war/#comment-19548</link>
		<dc:creator>alan jutson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:30:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=4083#comment-19548</guid>
		<description>Adrian

Some of parts of our inner City&#039;s look a bit like some buildings over there, from what I have seen.

We probably have enough Afghan refugee&#039;s here already to train, without going abroad.

Seems we also have some who want to be in the Taliban, if Press reports are to be believed.

So we perhaps could set up our own training for conflict here without even going abroad.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Adrian</p>
<p>Some of parts of our inner City&#8217;s look a bit like some buildings over there, from what I have seen.</p>
<p>We probably have enough Afghan refugee&#8217;s here already to train, without going abroad.</p>
<p>Seems we also have some who want to be in the Taliban, if Press reports are to be believed.</p>
<p>So we perhaps could set up our own training for conflict here without even going abroad.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alan jutson</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/07/17/britain-at-war/#comment-19547</link>
		<dc:creator>alan jutson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:20:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=4083#comment-19547</guid>
		<description>Trevor

As does temperature 0- 50 degrees night - Day.

Reason altitude plays a part I am told is &quot;thinner air&quot; you need helicopters with more powerful engines to take off with maximum load than you do at lower altitudes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trevor</p>
<p>As does temperature 0- 50 degrees night &#8211; Day.</p>
<p>Reason altitude plays a part I am told is &#8220;thinner air&#8221; you need helicopters with more powerful engines to take off with maximum load than you do at lower altitudes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TrevorsDen</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/07/17/britain-at-war/#comment-19546</link>
		<dc:creator>TrevorsDen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:01:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=4083#comment-19546</guid>
		<description>I think we already have several mock Afghan towns over here.   So need to build any.
I think parts of Britain are probably more dangerous than Baghdad or Kabul so they would make good training grounds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think we already have several mock Afghan towns over here.   So need to build any.<br />
I think parts of Britain are probably more dangerous than Baghdad or Kabul so they would make good training grounds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TrevorsDen</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/07/17/britain-at-war/#comment-19545</link>
		<dc:creator>TrevorsDen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:55:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=4083#comment-19545</guid>
		<description>It was the Son of the Manse Irregulars.  Their motto being, &#039; Moral Compass ... Moi?&#039;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It was the Son of the Manse Irregulars.  Their motto being, &#8216; Moral Compass &#8230; Moi?&#8217;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TrevorsDen</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/07/17/britain-at-war/#comment-19544</link>
		<dc:creator>TrevorsDen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:53:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=4083#comment-19544</guid>
		<description>According to army-technology.com    --- over 1000 Chinooks have been build with at least 480 in use by the USA, who have ordered something over 100 more in 2008.

It adds - &quot;Chinooks are under licensed production by Agusta of Italy and Kawasaki in Japan. &quot;  which begs the question as to why we could not build our own under licence as well, and why we did not think to done this years ago when our need ought to have become apparent.

The RAF have 48, of which 8 are non-operational at the moment .  So we have less than one tenth of the Chinoocks of the US Army.  Is the US Army ten times the siz (ie 1 million srtrong) of ours?  I think not.

Wikipedia points out - &quot;Boeing has delivered 48 F-model helicopters to the United States Army; on August 26, 2008, Boeing announced that the Army has signed a five year contract, worth over $4.8 billion for 191 more, plus 24 options&quot; - so the USA are still buying Chinooks for all they are worth.

Its interesting that the US Army names it helicopters after Red Indians (sorry Native Americans) - the wide ranging, raiding, quick movement of the red indian tribes clearly has a resonance lacking with Gordon Brown.

When one looks at the herculean tasks performed by RAF Chinooks on a regular basis it beggars belief that we do not have double the force.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to army-technology.com    &#8212; over 1000 Chinooks have been build with at least 480 in use by the USA, who have ordered something over 100 more in 2008.</p>
<p>It adds &#8211; &#8220;Chinooks are under licensed production by Agusta of Italy and Kawasaki in Japan. &#8221;  which begs the question as to why we could not build our own under licence as well, and why we did not think to done this years ago when our need ought to have become apparent.</p>
<p>The RAF have 48, of which 8 are non-operational at the moment .  So we have less than one tenth of the Chinoocks of the US Army.  Is the US Army ten times the siz (ie 1 million srtrong) of ours?  I think not.</p>
<p>Wikipedia points out &#8211; &#8220;Boeing has delivered 48 F-model helicopters to the United States Army; on August 26, 2008, Boeing announced that the Army has signed a five year contract, worth over $4.8 billion for 191 more, plus 24 options&#8221; &#8211; so the USA are still buying Chinooks for all they are worth.</p>
<p>Its interesting that the US Army names it helicopters after Red Indians (sorry Native Americans) &#8211; the wide ranging, raiding, quick movement of the red indian tribes clearly has a resonance lacking with Gordon Brown.</p>
<p>When one looks at the herculean tasks performed by RAF Chinooks on a regular basis it beggars belief that we do not have double the force.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TrevorsDen</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/07/17/britain-at-war/#comment-19543</link>
		<dc:creator>TrevorsDen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:22:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=4083#comment-19543</guid>
		<description>I believe the altitude (at ground level) at which operations happen in Afghanistan has a bearing on helicopter types as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe the altitude (at ground level) at which operations happen in Afghanistan has a bearing on helicopter types as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jean baker</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/07/17/britain-at-war/#comment-19542</link>
		<dc:creator>jean baker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 08:27:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=4083#comment-19542</guid>
		<description>Hopefully, the &#039;blogger&#039; will pass the &#039;very detailed account of the situation, using the defence department&#039;s own published statistics&#039; to Brown.

Brown&#039;s the equivalent of a pre-recorded android - Blair&#039;s responsible for invading Iraq &amp; Afghanistan under tenuous, implausible &#039;reasons&#039;.

The party line, amid the usual media spin and manipulation, appears to be withdrawal from Afghanistan - reportedly unwinnable, shifting responsibility in the process to save face.  You know, usual lack of honesty and transparency and hidden agendas ...........

It may well, of course, suit Bliar&#039;s &#039;Presidential&#039; aims to wipe the Afghanistan slate clean - always been totally &#039;self serving&#039; at taxpayers expense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hopefully, the &#8216;blogger&#8217; will pass the &#8216;very detailed account of the situation, using the defence department&#8217;s own published statistics&#8217; to Brown.</p>
<p>Brown&#8217;s the equivalent of a pre-recorded android &#8211; Blair&#8217;s responsible for invading Iraq &amp; Afghanistan under tenuous, implausible &#8216;reasons&#8217;.</p>
<p>The party line, amid the usual media spin and manipulation, appears to be withdrawal from Afghanistan &#8211; reportedly unwinnable, shifting responsibility in the process to save face.  You know, usual lack of honesty and transparency and hidden agendas &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..</p>
<p>It may well, of course, suit Bliar&#8217;s &#8216;Presidential&#8217; aims to wipe the Afghanistan slate clean &#8211; always been totally &#8216;self serving&#8217; at taxpayers expense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alan jutson</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/07/17/britain-at-war/#comment-19541</link>
		<dc:creator>alan jutson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=4083#comment-19541</guid>
		<description>Jean

Yes I am as frustrated as you are with many Government ideals, and manipulation of statistics to suit their own ends, but just trying to lighten the mood a little on a serious subject.

Unfortunately most political party&#039;s will manipulate figures to suit, Labour are not alone.

Suggest for detailed information on the helicopter situation, you look under Douglas Carswells blog of yesterday, where a fellow blogger gives a very detailed account of the situation, using the defence departments own published statistics.

Mr Brown of course seems to have it wrong again, hence his reason for not answering any questions</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jean</p>
<p>Yes I am as frustrated as you are with many Government ideals, and manipulation of statistics to suit their own ends, but just trying to lighten the mood a little on a serious subject.</p>
<p>Unfortunately most political party&#8217;s will manipulate figures to suit, Labour are not alone.</p>
<p>Suggest for detailed information on the helicopter situation, you look under Douglas Carswells blog of yesterday, where a fellow blogger gives a very detailed account of the situation, using the defence departments own published statistics.</p>
<p>Mr Brown of course seems to have it wrong again, hence his reason for not answering any questions</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jean baker</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/07/17/britain-at-war/#comment-19540</link>
		<dc:creator>jean baker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:38:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=4083#comment-19540</guid>
		<description>&quot;Ms Harman said  ... that there were more schools and hospitals ...&quot;

Is she saying the invasion is improving local amenities ?  An insult to those who&#039;ve given their lives fighting for Queen and country - whose shameless government is closing hospital departments and undermining education.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Ms Harman said  &#8230; that there were more schools and hospitals &#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Is she saying the invasion is improving local amenities ?  An insult to those who&#8217;ve given their lives fighting for Queen and country &#8211; whose shameless government is closing hospital departments and undermining education.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

