Vegas & The Aftermath - Diary

[tikay]

Amongst today's spam e-Mails, one entitled thusly, which really got me thinking......

"Generik Viagra - a new life for your penis".

A whole new meaning to "get a life".

Spam?

Well yes. Technically.

[bobby1]

Obama in Germany 2 days ago, in front of what was estimated to be a crowd of over 200,000.

Are there really 200,000 Germans interested in attending a speech by an American  Presidential Candidate? Or did the American Embassy impose some sort of 3-line Whip on American ex-pats?

It bothers me when a Prersidential Candidate speaks like a Statesman, or Royalty, too. He begun his speech like this....

"I come to Germany....."

Oh dear, the facade is cracking.

I don't think there was any 3 line whip involved here. Whether we like it or not the US president is the most powerful job in the world and whoever it is, impacts greatly on world politics. Obama (and just about any other democratic candidate) is more in-tune with a European way of thinking compared to Mc Cain. Also no doubt his race does play a part in his celebrity, an afro-american president is something unthinkable until recent years and the fact that this can possibly happen is a positive step forward.

I think he's the right man, (from a poor list of Candidates) & I'm very pro-him.

I just find it hard to believe 200,000, or allowing for Media hype, even half that number, would throng the streets of Germany to catch sight of him, & listen to what we can assume was a typical poltical speech, with all the cliches & rhetoric we come to expect from Politicians. ("I come to Germany", "For Our Children's Chuildren", "For a better America").

Still, his next stop is the UK, so maybe 200,000 will stand & listen to him here. Provided it does not clash with Big Brother, or Celeb Come Dancing.

Did he say he was proud to be A Merkin??

Thats always my favourite bit.

[bobby1]

I saw the a380 at farnborough air show last week it was amazing,but the star of the show was the return of the vulcan, I cant imagine what those argy's thought with the sound of that flying over, they must of thoughth oh well it was a nice life..

This is that Vulcan, at Farnborough last week.

Someone - Tighty, I think - gave me a wonderful book about the Vulcan Bombing raid on the Falklands Islands during that little bit of trouble there a few years back. They needed 17 air-tro-air refuelling sessions to get there & back! The "behind the scenes" story of the H-bomb strike on Hirosahima was no less enthralling.

I saw a great doc about the Falklands war last week Tony. In it they claimed that the biggest mistakle made by the Argies was not extending the runway at the airport in Port Stanley. When we sent our troops it took around 14 days to get there and with the 200 mile exclusion zone we were based 200 miles to the east. If they had added 70 yards to the runway before we got there they could have based their fighter planes there and crucially attacked us from there. As is was the runway was too short to launch these planes from.

 The prob the Argies had was they were flying their aircraft from Argentina, which was 350 miles away meaning that whenever they took off we knew they were coming and could counteract as it took them longer to get to the Falklands than us.

[tikay]

I saw the a380 at farnborough air show last week it was amazing,but the star of the show was the return of the vulcan, I cant imagine what those argy's thought with the sound of that flying over, they must of thoughth oh well it was a nice life..

This is that Vulcan, at Farnborough last week.

Someone - Tighty, I think - gave me a wonderful book about the Vulcan Bombing raid on the Falklands Islands during that little bit of trouble there a few years back. They needed 17 air-tro-air refuelling sessions to get there & back! The "behind the scenes" story of the H-bomb strike on Hirosahima was no less enthralling.

I saw a great doc about the Falklands war last week Tony. In it they claimed that the biggest mistakle made by the Argies was not extending the runway at the airport in Port Stanley. When we sent our troops it took around 14 days to get there and with the 200 mile exclusion zone we were based 200 miles to the east. If they had added 70 yards to the runway they could have based their fighter planes there and crucially attacked us from there.

 The prob the Argies had was they were flying their aircraft from Argentina, which was 350 miles away meaning that whenever they took off we knew they were coming and could counteract as it took them longer to get to the Falklands than us.

So true. At the climax of that - sorry those, they had several attempts - epic Bombing runs, we made a right pigs ear of trying to bomb the runway, & of all the scores of bombs we dropped, only 2 actually landed on the runway, one of those on the very edge. To be fair, the bomb runs had to be diagonally across the runway, rather than along the length of the runway, which would have been a shoe-in.

But it was a remarkabke military victory. Defending an Island is easy, & the Argies were "in residence". Plus, eveything we needed had to be guessed at 6 weeks earlier, & loaded onto Ships in Southampton, & they had to stop off & "re-assemble" at Ascension Island.

Two non-Military guys also did much to aid our cause. Anthony Parsons, our Ambassador at United Nations, was magnificent, a real old school, stiff upper lip Brit.

And Alexander Haig, surrounded by the crook Nixon for so long, & hampered by Kissinger's fence-sitting, was just brilliant, in his whistle-stop diplomacy thing, particularly with the mardy & difficult South American States.

It's a dreadful shame so many serviceman had to die, but I think the Falklands Campaign is something Great Britain can be rightly proud of. To capture a defended Island so many miles from home, in hostile weather, is a neat trick.

[bobby1]

I saw the a380 at farnborough air show last week it was amazing,but the star of the show was the return of the vulcan, I cant imagine what those argy's thought with the sound of that flying over, they must of thoughth oh well it was a nice life..

This is that Vulcan, at Farnborough last week.

Someone - Tighty, I think - gave me a wonderful book about the Vulcan Bombing raid on the Falklands Islands during that little bit of trouble there a few years back. They needed 17 air-tro-air refuelling sessions to get there & back! The "behind the scenes" story of the H-bomb strike on Hirosahima was no less enthralling.

I saw a great doc about the Falklands war last week Tony. In it they claimed that the biggest mistakle made by the Argies was not extending the runway at the airport in Port Stanley. When we sent our troops it took around 14 days to get there and with the 200 mile exclusion zone we were based 200 miles to the east. If they had added 70 yards to the runway they could have based their fighter planes there and crucially attacked us from there.

 The prob the Argies had was they were flying their aircraft from Argentina, which was 350 miles away meaning that whenever they took off we knew they were coming and could counteract as it took them longer to get to the Falklands than us.

So true. At the climax of that - sorry those, they had several attempts - epic Bombing runs, we made a right pigs ear of trying to bomb the runway, & of all the scores of bombs we dropped, only 2 actually landed on the runway, one of those on the very edge. To be fair, the bomb runs had to be diagonally across the runway, rather than along the length of the runway, which would have been a shoe-in.

But it was a remarkabke military victory. Defending an Island is easy, & the Argies were "in residence". Plus, eveything we needed had to be guessed at 6 weeks earlier, & loaded onto Ships in Southampton, & they had to stop off & "re-assemble" at Ascension Island.

Two non-Military guys also did much to aid our cause. Anthony Parsons, our Ambassador at United Nations, was magnificent, a real old school, stiff upper lip Brit.

And Alexander Haig, surrounded by the crook Nixon for so long, & hampered by Kissinger's fence-sitting, was just brilliant, in his whistle-stop diplomacy thing, particularly with the mardy & difficult South American States.

It's a dreadful shame so many serviceman had to die, but I think the Falklands Campaign is something Great Britain can be rightly proud of. To capture a defended Island so many miles from home, in hostile weather, is a neat trick.

The bit of the doc i loved said that the Argies based all their troops and ammo at the East of the Island as that is where we were based, so we sailed around the other side and got into the Island from the West coast.

They interviewed a ship captain who said, and how would you fancy this for a job, that he had the task of sailing the first ship into a narrow landing area with the sole job of checking the stait for mines. So basically you either get through ok, or your ship hits an explosive device.

[MPOWER]

I think the Falklands war had a massive influence on the world regarding what nations
were prepared to do to defend there sovereignty.   

This was at a time where Eastern block etc were considered our main threat.

And here you have a small Island in Europe the U.K Willing to send most its armed forces and
Thousands of civilians 8000 Miles to defend a small British colony in the South Atlantic.

God bless Maggie for making the world a safer place.

regards

M 

[Longy]

I think the Falklands war had a massive influence on the world regarding what nations
were prepared to do to defend there sovereignty.   

This was at a time where Eastern block etc were considered our main threat.

And here you have a small Island in Europe the U.K Willing to send most its armed forces and
Thousands of civilians 8000 Miles to defend a small British colony in the South Atlantic.

God bless Maggie for making the world a safer place.

regards

M 

Wow im not sure you could have posted something that i disagree with more.

Yeah the US and the rest of the world have taken massive notice of us defending an island in the pacific ocean mainly populated by sheep. Against the might of the Argentinian army, well known for its military history. The only thing to be learnt from this is that winning a war well does your chances of being re elected some good, when things aren't the best at home.

As for Maggie doing this for world peace, a big lol to that. I dislike Thatcher for a number of reasons, she was very cold hearted and didn't care who she hurt to achieve political goals. I kind of respect her ability to get the job done, but praising as some kind of humanitarian even Maggie herself would be taken aback.

[Jon MW]

I think the Falklands war had a massive influence on the world regarding what nations
were prepared to do to defend there sovereignty.   

This was at a time where Eastern block etc were considered our main threat.

And here you have a small Island in Europe the U.K Willing to send most its armed forces and
Thousands of civilians 8000 Miles to defend a small British colony in the South Atlantic.

God bless Maggie for making the world a safer place.

regards

M 

Wow im not sure you could have posted something that i disagree with more.

Yeah the US and the rest of the world have taken massive notice of us defending an island in the pacific ocean mainly populated by sheep. Against the might of the Argentinian army, well known for its military history. The only thing to be learnt from this is that winning a war well does your chances of being re elected some good, when things aren't the best at home.

As for Maggie doing this for world peace, a big lol to that. I dislike Thatcher for a number of reasons, she was very cold hearted and didn't care who she hurt to achieve political goals. I kind of respect her ability to get the job done, but praising as some kind of humanitarian even Maggie herself would be taken aback.

Every public piece of documentation regarding this shows that Thatcher went for the military option rather than on going diplomacy because of her strength of feeling regarding defending the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. So it's extremely disingenous to suggest it was for political gain and show's more about you projecting your negative feelings and assuming the reason rather than actually looking at the evidence.

And FWIW I think a lot of military and political 'pundits' didn't think we'd win, which would have been a disaster politically if we'd have ended having to negotiate a peace.

[Colchester Kev]

LOL @ politics rearing its head on the forum.  im all buckled in and ready for action.

[RED-DOG]

Here you go Kev.

[steeveg]

LOL @ politics rearing its head on the forum.  im all buckled in and ready for action.

yeah have strong opinions myself, but one thing this country should be proud of is we all support the soldiers who fight  for this country ,wheather we agree with the war or not

[Longy]

I think the Falklands war had a massive influence on the world regarding what nations
were prepared to do to defend there sovereignty.   

This was at a time where Eastern block etc were considered our main threat.

And here you have a small Island in Europe the U.K Willing to send most its armed forces and
Thousands of civilians 8000 Miles to defend a small British colony in the South Atlantic.

God bless Maggie for making the world a safer place.

regards

M 

Wow im not sure you could have posted something that i disagree with more.

Yeah the US and the rest of the world have taken massive notice of us defending an island in the pacific ocean mainly populated by sheep. Against the might of the Argentinian army, well known for its military history. The only thing to be learnt from this is that winning a war well does your chances of being re elected some good, when things aren't the best at home.

As for Maggie doing this for world peace, a big lol to that. I dislike Thatcher for a number of reasons, she was very cold hearted and didn't care who she hurt to achieve political goals. I kind of respect her ability to get the job done, but praising as some kind of humanitarian even Maggie herself would be taken aback.

Every public piece of documentation regarding this shows that Thatcher went for the military option rather than on going diplomacy because of her strength of feeling regarding defending the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. So it's extremely disingenous to suggest it was for political gain and show's more about you projecting your negative feelings and assuming the reason rather than actually looking at the evidence.

And FWIW I think a lot of military and political 'pundits' didn't think we'd win, which would have been a disaster politically if we'd have ended having to negotiate a peace.

I would be interested to see this documentation, im not suggesting you are lying and you no doubt have more knowledge on the subject than myself. For my own sake im not going to argue any further as you are correct in assuming I dislike the women greatly and don't fancy being banned.

[Colchester Kev]

LOL @ politics rearing its head on the forum.  im all buckled in and ready for action.

yeah have strong opinions myself, but one thing this country should be proud of is we all support the soldiers who fight  for this country ,wheather we agree with the war or not

Yep I agree 100% ... having lived in Colchester for many years, and now Portsmouth ... I am very aware of how bloody good our boys are, i have a few mates that are in the Paras (based at Colchester) and i have heard some stories that will make you have sleepless nights !!

I have also been to just about every war museum in the country, and a fair few abroad (yes I am a WW11 nerd and have a wide interest in military from WW11 onwards).

The bravery and strength of mind and character of the Men & Women who wear the "uniform" is something that we should be thankful for every day of our lives.

I remember when i went on my travels to Europe to see battlefields, Concentration camps, Prisoner of war camps and the most sobering of sights i will probably ever witness in my life which were numerous war cemeteries with white grave stones stretching as far as the eye could see.

They shall not grow old as we who are left grow old.
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
WE WILL REMEMBER THEM.

[celtic]

LOL @ politics rearing its head on the forum.  im all buckled in and ready for action.

yeah have strong opinions myself, but one thing this country should be proud of is we all support the soldiers who fight  for this country ,wheather we agree with the war or not

do we?

[Jon MW]

I think the Falklands war had a massive influence on the world regarding what nations
were prepared to do to defend there sovereignty.   

This was at a time where Eastern block etc were considered our main threat.

And here you have a small Island in Europe the U.K Willing to send most its armed forces and
Thousands of civilians 8000 Miles to defend a small British colony in the South Atlantic.

God bless Maggie for making the world a safer place.

regards

M 

Wow im not sure you could have posted something that i disagree with more.

Yeah the US and the rest of the world have taken massive notice of us defending an island in the pacific ocean mainly populated by sheep. Against the might of the Argentinian army, well known for its military history. The only thing to be learnt from this is that winning a war well does your chances of being re elected some good, when things aren't the best at home.

As for Maggie doing this for world peace, a big lol to that. I dislike Thatcher for a number of reasons, she was very cold hearted and didn't care who she hurt to achieve political goals. I kind of respect her ability to get the job done, but praising as some kind of humanitarian even Maggie herself would be taken aback.

Every public piece of documentation regarding this shows that Thatcher went for the military option rather than on going diplomacy because of her strength of feeling regarding defending the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. So it's extremely disingenous to suggest it was for political gain and show's more about you projecting your negative feelings and assuming the reason rather than actually looking at the evidence.

And FWIW I think a lot of military and political 'pundits' didn't think we'd win, which would have been a disaster politically if we'd have ended having to negotiate a peace.

I would be interested to see this documentation, im not suggesting you are lying and you no doubt have more knowledge on the subject than myself. For my own sake im not going to argue any further as you are correct in assuming I dislike the women greatly and don't fancy being banned.

Primarily political diaries at this point - if the Cabinet and other papers are covered by the 30 year rule then a clearer/non-biased idea of the motivations behind it will be available fairly shortly.

Looking at the effect of something (eg a big election victory) and assuming a corellation with the cause of it (eg winning a war) is a common logical error - but as I suggested it was far from clear that we would win when we started.