Jump to content

NATO


woody2

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 minute ago, woolley said:
1 hour ago, dilligaf said:

I won't mock the inflicted, but FFS

It's not a high bar when you think about the ones they've had from Nixon onward.

FFS, I've just spotted what I posted.

I meant "the afflicted" not inflicked. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

FFS, I've just spotted what I posted.

I meant "the afflicted" not inflicked. :o

Doesn't matter, Dilly, I knew what you meant and I'm not upset because I understand that the cleared blue water betwixt us isn't personal - at least not on my side!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, the stinking enigma said:

You forgot the mercenaries in brunei bazza. And the many that fight on behalf of corporations now. Otherwise, good work. Keep it up

Moot point and one I am aware of! Yes, the UK turned down the idea of the Ayrabs funding British military might in the Middle East on the basis of "British soldiers are not Mercs"..

On the other hand UK forces were seconded to some Arab forces and places such as Brunei. My neighbour and long term Island resident until ten years ago was in what I think they called the Trucial Scouts. or Trucial Oman Scouts formed by the British in 1951.

In 1971 it became the Union Defence Force I think when the United Arab Emirates was created (UAE)...The key difference to being a "Merc" or not a "Merc was that the forces were founded by the British and UK personnel invited to join or transfer so technically not mercenaries. 

I suppose the technical and legal difference is that they would swear allegiance to the Queen and then the UK would place the troops in the Arab countries but always under British control. Are they "Mercs". Well my neighbour got his UK Army pay, allowances, bonuses and good living conditions and a bonus from the Sheikh when they had done good on "Ops". The Arabs funded the extra pay. The Arabs also funded the water and fuel in the Gulf Wars.

He told me that in 1968 his take home pay as a technically an Ordnance Corps clerk of the British Army was £60 a week and the rest!

MF members may care to look up the Battle of Mirbat which was an SAS operation which single handedly secured the region for years.

Also in the context of "Mercs" look up Glubb Pasha...

I recall the Malaysian Wars in the 1960s and the UK was advertising short service commissions with gratuity for anyone willing to serve in British organised forces defending Malaysia from Indonesia. Three years service, about £3,750 a year and £3,750 bonus on leaving but remaining on reserve. Were they "Mercs"? Moot point. I know the British paid bounties to the natives for bringing in the heads of Indonesian insurgents. The Americans in Vietnam paid for ears.

All this well within living memory.

I note that the UK has now a base back in Bahrain and a frigate on station now or soon. What goes round comes round.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also recall the RAF had its own version of overseas secondments. RAF or very recent RAF pilots flew for the British forces organised for the Arabs countering insurgency. They were paid extra on top of RAF pay and flew as I recall the souped up version of the then RAF trainer the Jet Provost. Its upgraded version was the BAC Strike Master. Many small countries had them as their main air force 'plane.

British pilots flew them but their allegiance was to the Queen even retired pilots still on reserve following their regular service.

If your are on reserve following service you can still be recalled or invited to undertake duties.

I was at school with a fellow who retired from the RAF at 55 having joined at 18. Cranwell man! He was until recently still serving the RAF in Afghanistan as a member of the R.A.A.F (Royal Auxiliary Air Force) flying transports.

There are ways of not being labelled a mercenary whilst still taking the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
10 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said:

Why oh why oh why oh why oh why must the state sponsored bbc peddle this propaganda? Who else is china likely to be training to bomb? Maybe it just dawned upon them that they were getting wiped out too had the cuban missile crisis not been averted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45218741

The excellent BBC is not spreading propaganda. It's reporting the Pentagon analysis.

The story here is not that China is training for strikes on US targets. The story is that the Pentagon says that China is 'training for strikes' on US targets. That's very different. It might seem a subtle difference but it's very significant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said:

I'd agree with that. What we will both disagree on is why.

I suppose it depends what voice you read the article in. Perhaps it is supposed to be read with sceptical voice - as if you cannot believe they are really saying it. Perhaps that's what the quotes imply.

Or whether you assume that the typical reader takes the Pentagon position to be definitive. It's fair to assume that people can make their own judgement. Like you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...