If this is a statement from the UK military authorities, I can believe it. All the British forces have been reduced below the minimum for our commitments; the Royal Navy, in particular, is absurdly weak
As regards reservists, Britain is very lax in its provision for patriotically-inclined citizens to serve the Nation. I was unable to join the Royal Navy or the Army as a career, thirty-two years ago, as I had, and still have, mild asthma. I did get to serve my country by joining the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service, as a cook, but Maggie Thatcher disbanded the Reserve component of this useful adjunct to Naval power, in order to save a few quid.
I can still cook! Could I not be given a barracks role in the TAVR? This releases one younger and fitter Army chef to go into the field and cook for the front-line troops, whilst I stay at HQ and cook for the stay-at-home echelons?
Dagnabbit, the UK should pull out from all overseas commitments. The will to mobilise the Nation is long-lost, and the enthusiast who could help out in peripheral, but vital, ancillary roles is spurned. The UK appears to have abandoned all military rationale, over-uses its troops in foreign assignments, and spurns people who could, in a reservist, home-serving role, release the younger and fitter for combat service.
As for conscription, how does one train those who can hardly read to decipher the Company HQ noticeboard. How will the average RSM respond to being called M8 (mate). How does one teach someone to zero-in a rifle when the meaning of zero is not understood.
2007-07-20 11:48:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by ? 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
The war can not continue the way it is going, no wonder no one wants to re-enlist, what do they expect, us to spend a half or a third of our military careers in the middle east?? Unless they drafted a few hundred thousand men, and made a few new divisions, I don't see a solution to this problem, although I don't think a draft or conscription is the correct answer either.
2007-07-21 00:28:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Conscription is not necessary. We have plenty of reserves, only about 110,000 out of 485,000 of our Army and about 20,000 out of 180,000 Marines are currently deployed. That leaves almost 75% of our troops not in a combat zone, besides the fact that almost half the Army and two thirds of the Marine Corps has NEVER seen a deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan.
2007-07-20 18:04:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by Dave 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Well I've already done my bit so think it might be your turn Captain Pugwash. Why do American's answer questions like this. Well Sir I tip my hat to you. Wasn't being patronising but still our colonial cousins rock up to answer. I admire you letting your lad serve think I'd try to put him off myself. Your obviously older than me but I did 3 tours of Bosnia, 2 of Kosovo a NI stint 2 tours of Iraq and 1 tour of Afghanistan. Check us two pulling up a sand bag.........all the best
Foghorn the answer is simply this. Historically Britain has been a world power, probably no greater Empire. But we relied on our imperial subjects to fight our wars, which today we do not have. Without conscription, which is what Captain P is referring to there is now way our tiny island can sustain what Blair has commited. Uncle Sam has the man power, we don't from voluntary means. I agree with national service by the way.
2007-07-20 18:07:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by Manc Lush 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
If that is the case then somebody right up there at the top of the world banks mountain will be receiving a blue peter badge for a job half well done, how many more of our husbands sons wives and daughters to go?
2007-07-21 02:02:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
O.K. Paul,
I had heard this about 3 months ago. I have a solution, I now know how / where to acquire several thousand recrutes, WITH EXPERIENCE, BEGGING for the chanch to enlist !!!!!!!! A very little known law of ours. The problem is, I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SET UP THE PROGRAM !!!!!!! Or, how to get the "Powers That Be" to listen to an ol' Vet., with two Honorable Discharges, from 50 years ago !!!!
Uncle Wil
2007-07-20 18:07:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's deliberate, it is the vehicle to create a United Nations standing army that will take over Americas and Great Britains roles in conflicts. Be afraid, very afraid because the intention is that they will impose martial law in the UK AND THE USA while their troops are out of the countries.
2007-07-20 18:04:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by tucksie 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Labour supporters, the unemployed and all Neds.
Use grubby immigrants as cannon fodder or protecting vehicles from IED's.
1992-1997 discharged with severe injury.
Grandad 1939-1945.
Your son's a brave young man- Godspeed to him and his mates.
We're all proud of him mate.
2007-07-21 06:41:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by B.o.B 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No worries mate. Start a recruitment drive. Nothing could be easier. Just convince the people that our island is under threat, which it is, and wham you'll see more queues outside the recruiting offices than there are waiting for the next Hairy Spotter.
2007-07-21 02:51:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The U.S. has plenty of military troops. It's where you put the troops that count and that has been a problem. There should be no troops in Japan, South Korea and Europe for instance. Those should be placed into those places as if they were perment bases until the threats die down. There would be no need for rotation then. Then when they are no longer needed there, they should be based in another temp base till they have to be in another area for years.
2007-07-20 18:11:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by gregory_dittman 7
·
0⤊
1⤋