U.S.-Russia relations

[Montegriffo]

Are any of these women hawkish or at least not cucks? I know Marine Le Pen is the type of woman leader I could get behind but these women.... idk. Seems kind of weird that Europe is being so unmarshal.

Likely they aren't so hawkish, but just like Maggie, never assume that all women wouldn't be hawks. It depends actually what the role of the defence minister is. Defence ministers usually can be a far more "managerial" position with a hands off approach with the military they are supervising. With Great Powers, the role is much more active.

Think about it nuke, if your are the Commanding general of the Armed Forces of some nation, which is it better from your perspective: to have a clueless woman that knows she's totally clueless in military matters or some guy that messes things up?

But in reality I think it is what it looks like: The position of the defence minister isn't viewed to be very important, hence it is used as a place to fill the female quota. There's a valid point in that the defence minister ought to be a civilian, and hence there would be civilian control over the military, but still the best defence minister ought to know what the military is about.

We have had two female defence ministers: the first one was good, put a lot of focus in the military and had the right spirit. The other one was totally clueless and absolutely lost as a defence minister, one of the worst. She had been a social worker before turning into a career politician. Tells it all. We have now a politician 46-year old reserve lieutenant who was a military historian, a docent of military history in the Finnish National Defence University and previously the chairman of the defence committee in the Parliament. I think he's definately one of the best there has been ever.



Yet I think Mattis will be a good defence minister... or at least the prospects are very good. Because in the end it comes down to just how functional the Trump administration in general will be.

Smitty is going to disagree with me here but I would assert that the milk snatcher was not hawkish at all until she saw it as a way to save her arse with the Falklands campaign. She was in fact reducing military spending and concentrating on crushing the unions and saving the economy at home and was pretty much hated by all until the crisis fell into her lap. Afterwards she fell in love with the military because when she said jump they said how high, not why.

[ssu]

Smitty is going to disagree with me here but I would assert that the milk snatcher was not hawkish at all until she saw it as a way to save her arse with the Falklands campaign. She was in fact reducing military spending and concentrating on crushing the unions and saving the economy at home and was pretty much hated by all until the crisis fell into her lap. Afterwards she fell in love with the military because when she said jump they said how high, not why.

With this there's a problem: the Falklands war was a huge gamble. The British lost quite many ships, 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, and 3 support vessels. If some Argentinian submarine could have gotten it's torpedoes working, then if one of those small aircraft carriers were sunk, that would have been the end of it and the remnants of the British Fleet would have had to turn around and give it up. And the end of the Conservative administration also. And the end of the British Navy's image.

That really wasn't a way just "save her arse" at home. Not many Prime Ministers would make such a move, actually.

Not a picknick...

[Montegriffo]

Exactly my point, wasn't her life she was gambling. Her political life was nearly over at the time she chose to roll the dice.

[Montegriffo]

Wasn't mrs T who won the war. It was the brave men of the Royal navy, marines, paras and even the Ghurkas that won it. A lot of them paid the ultimate price for "her" victory.

[ssu]

Wasn't mrs T who won the war. It was the brave men of the Royal navy, marines, paras and even the Ghurkas that won it. A lot of them paid the ultimate price for "her" victory.

And basically in the war lies a good lesson for any country that has overseas territories: have the true ability to defend them and deterrence, then possible enemies won't try you. If it looks like you don't have the means to defend your territories, they can try to get it from you.

If the British Navy would have had it's old flat top Audacious carriers, even just one, with the F-4 Phantoms, would Argentina tried to take Falklands? I don't think so. The Sparrow armed F-4 would have been a match for the Argentinian aircraft with only short range heat seeking missiles. The Buccaneers would have also carried a punch. The Harrier was untried in combat and was thought to be just an oddity for Air Shows.

Royal Navy Phantom with 4 Sidewinders and 4 Sparrows. Plus had better radar than the Argentinians fighters had.


The scrapped Ark Royal with Phantom and Buccaneer aircraft among others:


But no, it was scrapped in 1979, not even preserved but sold to metal, as the Royal Navy just adapted to it's NATO role as an Soviet anti-submarine Hunter force. Hence the Argentinians thought they had a chance.

And above all, do not that the British nuclear deterrent didn't have any role. The Argentinians knew well that for few Islanders and a giant flock of sheep, the British wouldn't deploy their nuclear deterrent.

If you don't have deterrence and don't look to have the will to use it, bad things can happen.

[Montegriffo]

You had to bump the thread didn't you? Now I'm gonna get a baton round in the chest and a painful neckhold from Smitty for dissing his old Lady.

[Smitty-48]

Wasn't mrs T who won the war. It was the brave men of the Royal navy, marines, paras and even the Ghurkas that won it. A lot of them paid the ultimate price for "her" victory.

Was the Iron Lady who won the war, because was the Iron Lady who took the hard decisions to do what must be done, the forces couldn't have won the war, without her backing them to the hilt, through thick and thin, in the face of a bunch of leftist panty waists wailing and blubbering seditiously throughout.

As for paying the price, if you took the Queen's Schilling of your own free will, don't come crying to me after, when the Iron Lady sends you over the top, you're not a victim, you're not a hero, just doing the fuckin' job, maam, ready, aye ready, at HM service, contract of unlimited liability therein.

Sniffling pathetically, as the "victims" of your own Queen's Schilling? What are you, the Americans now?

[ssu]

Back to the subject, seems like Christmas came early to the Kremlin this year...

Sergei Markov, a pro-Kremlin political commentator, said Mr. Trump’s pick represented a decisive break with a foreign-policy establishment in Washington that is intent on stoking confrontation with Moscow.

“This Cold War that was started with Russia is completely artificial,” he said.

Added Mr. Markov: Mr. Trump’s pick for top diplomat is “some kind of Christmas gift from the American people to the Russian people.”

See Moscow Sees Rex Tillerson as Chance to End Sanctions, Reboot U.S. Ties

Anyone remember the "completely artificial" little green men that started this Cold War again? No?

[de officiis]

U.S. intelligence has collected information that Russia is considering turning over Edward Snowden as a "gift" to President Donald Trump — who has called the NSA leaker a "spy" and a "traitor" who deserves to be executed.

That's according to a senior U.S. official who has analyzed a series of highly sensitive intelligence reports detailing Russian deliberations and who says a Snowden handover is one of various ploys to "curry favor" with Trump. A second source in the intelligence community confirms the intelligence about the Russian conversations and notes it has been gathered since the inauguration.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rus ... al-n718921

Hmm.

[TheReal_ND]

Wow. Can the MSM be any more biased? Sure it's believable in this case but "as a gift," and "to curry favor," "according to (unnamed) senior officials." Jesus Christ dude. Journalism is fucking dead.