Torys create seperate new force directly answerable to minsiters to deal with immigrants

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Atrocious Joystick:
The chinese and japanese are more respected for whatever reason. But would still be considered immigrants.

Because they come from developed countries perhaps?

Anyway thank you for the explanation, I am trying to take more of an interest in topics dealing with other countries this year, more as a learning experience than anything else.

Seekster:

Atrocious Joystick:
The chinese and japanese are more respected for whatever reason. But would still be considered immigrants.

Because they come from developed countries perhaps?

Probably. And as someone said before they aren't known to cause problems. It's funny because both nationalists and multiculturalists seem afraid to admit that the problems we have aren't entirely due to cultural differences but alot of it comes down to what kind of people we've let into our country.

The multicultralists because then they can't claim it all boils down to ignorance and then they might have to admit they are who caused the problem and the nationalists because before they could finish the sentence there would be 3 articles and 5 music videos comparing them to hitler. The Swedish establishment is the world's worst abuser of godwin's law.

Atrocious Joystick:

Seekster:

Atrocious Joystick:
The chinese and japanese are more respected for whatever reason. But would still be considered immigrants.

Because they come from developed countries perhaps?

Probably. And as someone said before they aren't known to cause problems. It's funny because both nationalists and multiculturalists seem afraid to admit that the problems we have aren't entirely due to cultural differences but alot of it comes down to what kind of people we've let into our country.

The multicultralists because then they can't claim it all boils down to ignorance and then they might have to admit they are who caused the problem and the nationalists because before they could finish the sentence there would be 3 articles and 5 music videos comparing them to hitler. The Swedish establishment is the world's worst abuser of godwin's law.

The Swedes confuse me in many many ways. Not the least of which being that the people who invented line tactics (the standard method of fighting a land war for about 400 years in the western world...you know the one where you line up a bunch of infantry and take turns shooting at each other) are almost militantly neutral to the point of making their own military aircraft so they wont be seen as flying NATO or Russian built planes. To add to it the Swedish aircraft are dang good too...but they are probably never going to see any action so why did Sweden even bother?

Anyway I respect the Swedes but they confuse me, at least they gave the world Carameldansen (that was a Swedish band right?)

Sweden used to be pretty big on the whole war thing. Until about 1809 when we lost half the country (now Finland) to Russia in one peace treaty. So the current king was scrapped and we imported some tosser from France, took norway as a half-assed compensation for finland and pretended we had never really ben into that whole war thing anyway. It was so last year.

The military aircraft I think are just supposed to make a sweet buck being sold to other countries.

And karamelldansen is a safely guarded national secret. Not to be revealed to foreigners under the threat of execution.

Atrocious Joystick:

Sweden used to be pretty big on the whole war thing. Until about 1809 when we lost half the country (now Finland) to Russia in one peace treaty. So the current king was scrapped and we imported some tosser from France, took norway as a half-assed compensation for finland and pretended we had never really ben into that whole war thing anyway. It was so last year.

The military aircraft I think are just supposed to make a sweet buck being sold to other countries.

And karamelldansen is a safely guarded national secret. Not to be revealed to foreigners under the threat of execution.

Wait a moment wasnt it Peter the Great who took land from Sweden in order to have a Russian port on the Baltic...yeah thats where he built St. Petersburg (by the way when I say he built it I mean he actually did some of the work with his own hands). It was Gustav Adolphus I believe (think I got the spelling right) who pioneered the use of line tactics. Yes Sweden use to be a huge deal.

Ill have to look it up but I don't think the Swedes has sold many military aircraft to other countries. Sure they are nice but F-teens (F-15, F-16, F-18), Eurofighters, Dassaults, and Migs actually have combat experience which is a premium when you are buying something and hoping that if you ever do need it then it will be well worth the price you paid for it.

Peter the great lead a coalition of countries in the great northern war in order to contest Sweden's position in northern europe at the time (that's probably what you're thinking of). It was succseful and Russia gained Estonia, Livonia and some parts of Finland. And Sweden was basically castrated, or at least any imperial plans were.

The loss of all of Finland came much later. And was related to the whole Napoleon deal.

And I don't really know about the military aircraft. I just assumed that was the reason. You probably know better than me.

Atrocious Joystick:

Peter the great lead a coalition of countries in the great northern war in order to contest Sweden's position in northern europe at the time (that's probably what you're thinking of). It was succseful and Russia gained Estonia, Livonia and some parts of Finland. And Sweden was basically castrated, or at least any imperial plans were.

The loss of all of Finland came much later. And was related to the whole Napoleon deal.

And I don't really know about the military aircraft. I just assumed that was the reason. You probably know better than me.

I know the reason Sweden made their own is so they wouldnt be seen as siding with either NATO (and buying American or French or British aircraft) or the USSR (and buying Migs). Why they are still spending all this money to keep their fleet up to date when nobody is looking to fight with them and they arent looking to fight anyone is a mystery to me.

Seekster:
Why they are still spending all this money to keep their fleet up to date when nobody is looking to fight with them and they arent looking to fight anyone is a mystery to me.

Better to keep things ready in case of war, than go to war and have to rush around looking for a military. The operational lifespan of a military aircraft is long enough for the political situation to change quite a bit.

The British did this more than once with their navy and suffered for it, cutting back spending because there wasn't a war on, and finding themselves ill-equipped when (totally unexpectedly) they found themselves fighting with France again.

thaluikhain:

Seekster:
Why they are still spending all this money to keep their fleet up to date when nobody is looking to fight with them and they arent looking to fight anyone is a mystery to me.

Better to keep things ready in case of war, than go to war and have to rush around looking for a military. The operational lifespan of a military aircraft is long enough for the political situation to change quite a bit.

The British did this more than once with their navy and suffered for it, cutting back spending because there wasn't a war on, and finding themselves ill-equipped when (totally unexpectedly) they found themselves fighting with France again.

Damn if that isnt true. There is a whole menagerie of warplanes out there that will never fly because someone wanted to gain political points by cutting military spending. Fortunately most of those werent really efficient designs but in other cases...there are probably people dead right now because of that, I don't know I would need to look it up. You know the U2 spyplane is still in use right? They are planning to ax some of the drones that were supposed to replace it in the new budget Obama is proposing.

True but unlike the Swedes the British actually fight people every now and then and actually have foreign interests to protect. Who the hell is going to pick a fight with Sweden and who are the Swedes going to pick a fight with. Cold War is over, I don't get why they wouldnt just buy a few F-16s or F-18s or whatever and call it a day. I am kind of happy they don't though, the Swedish warplanes look cool and have cool names to boot.

Yeah I can see the French snapping and trying to reenact William the Conqueror.

thaluikhain:

The British did this more than once with their navy and suffered for it, cutting back spending because there wasn't a war on, and finding themselves ill-equipped when (totally unexpectedly) they found themselves fighting with France again.

Yes, as Britain's many defeats against the French Navy illustrate.

Oh, wait...

Back in the 18th century, everyone cut back the military in peacetime. However, from around 1700, the UK persistently maintained superiority in funding, quality and quantity of navy whether in wartime or peacetime.

Agema:

thaluikhain:

The British did this more than once with their navy and suffered for it, cutting back spending because there wasn't a war on, and finding themselves ill-equipped when (totally unexpectedly) they found themselves fighting with France again.

Yes, as Britain's many defeats against the French Navy illustrate.

Oh, wait...

Back in the 18th century, everyone cut back the military in peacetime. However, from around 1700, the UK persistently maintained superiority in funding, quality and quantity of navy whether in wartime or peacetime.

Actually there is a long tradition in Britain of having a strong navy and a relatively weak army. The reason for this isnt just due to the geographic advantage of Britain being an island, there is also a political reason. Namely parliament is much more happy to fund a navy than an army for a very obvious reason...the king can't use the navy to enforce his will like he could do with an army.

Seekster:

Actually there is a long tradition in Britain of having a strong navy and a relatively weak army. The reason for this isnt just due to the geographic advantage of Britain being an island, there is also a political reason. Namely parliament is much more happy to fund a navy than an army for a very obvious reason...the king can't use the navy to enforce his will like he could do with an army.

I don't think the latter really mattered at all, actually.

The English only developed a professional, standing army in the aftermath of the English Civil War. Troops were non-professionals raised as required by feudal muster. However, the Civil War (and more so the Glorious Revolution), demonstrated the concept of the king enforcing his will on parliament and the people was no longer a concern.

Seekster:
True but unlike the Swedes the British actually fight people every now and then and actually have foreign interests to protect. Who the hell is going to pick a fight with Sweden and who are the Swedes going to pick a fight with.

You'd bet the future of your nation that they won't find someone? Much better to have them in case things change later on.

Agema:

thaluikhain:

The British did this more than once with their navy and suffered for it, cutting back spending because there wasn't a war on, and finding themselves ill-equipped when (totally unexpectedly) they found themselves fighting with France again.

Yes, as Britain's many defeats against the French Navy illustrate.

Oh, wait...

The English Navy tended to win wars, but wasn't playing on God mode. The US stopped being British because of French naval victories, for example.

Agema:

Seekster:

Actually there is a long tradition in Britain of having a strong navy and a relatively weak army. The reason for this isnt just due to the geographic advantage of Britain being an island, there is also a political reason. Namely parliament is much more happy to fund a navy than an army for a very obvious reason...the king can't use the navy to enforce his will like he could do with an army.

I don't think the latter really mattered at all, actually.

The English only developed a professional, standing army in the aftermath of the English Civil War. Troops were non-professionals raised as required by feudal muster. However, the Civil War (and more so the Glorious Revolution), demonstrated the concept of the king enforcing his will on parliament and the people was no longer a concern.

No it was a concern but I am talking like prior to the English Civil War. I am trying to remember exactly when, I took a class on this specific topic in college but that was over a year or so ago.

thaluikhain:

Seekster:
True but unlike the Swedes the British actually fight people every now and then and actually have foreign interests to protect. Who the hell is going to pick a fight with Sweden and who are the Swedes going to pick a fight with.

You'd bet the future of your nation that they won't find someone? Much better to have them in case things change later on.

Agema:

thaluikhain:

The British did this more than once with their navy and suffered for it, cutting back spending because there wasn't a war on, and finding themselves ill-equipped when (totally unexpectedly) they found themselves fighting with France again.

Yes, as Britain's many defeats against the French Navy illustrate.

Oh, wait...

The English Navy tended to win wars, but wasn't playing on God mode. The US stopped being British because of French naval victories, for example.

No I get that but I am just saying it would be cheaper to actually buy aircraft from another nation than build your own, though I suppose it does create jobs for Saab.

And as for the Revolutionary War, the French Navy was instrumental in the battle of Yorktown. Without French Intervention eventually the British still would have lost but it would have taken a few more years so yeah we do appreciate the help from France. However the idea that America would have lost without the French in the Revolutionary War is simply not accurate. How exactly could the British have won the war?

Edit: And I looked it up, there are about four countries that buy some warplanes from Sweden.

Blablahb:

Stagnant:
Britain's closest neighbors are all EU states. Australia's closest neighbors are... well, kinda batty if they want to move to the home of everything poisonous everything.

And those will also have separate police forces dealing with immigrants. Here in the Netherlands we have the Vreemdelingenpolitie which doesn't follow normal police procedures, but delivers any suspect to the Dienst Terugkeer en Vertrek, meaning as much as Return and Departure Service.

Heck, if someone gets arrested without an ID and refuses to come up any identification afterwards, it's standard procedure to throw them into a cell for illegal aliens pending their return to wherever they came from, even if every single indication about them says they're totally Dutch. It's thoroughly unpopular among squatters and extreme-left scumbags who always relied on not carrying ID and then keeping their mouth shut untill mandatory release to escape punishment for their crimes when arrested. Now instead they're banged up untill they either finger a country they want to be deported to, or produce paperwork proving they're Dutch citizens or have an asylum seeker's status.

I kind of think some people need to get real if creating a similar service in the UK makes them respond with silly nazi comparisons.

So... you have to provide your papers when asked or you get thrown in jail... and you see the Nazi comparisons as silly? Hmmmm, odd.

Seekster:
No I get that but I am just saying it would be cheaper to actually buy aircraft from another nation than build your own, though I suppose it does create jobs for Saab.

Why cheaper to get them from someone else? If they have the manufacturing capability and you don't perhaps, but there are certain problems with doing that, a lot of mucking around to be done, dependance on foreign suppliers and all. It's also a nationalism thing, I'd wager.

Also...I don't know if the same happens with planes, but I'm told that buying warships from overseas is often much cheaper than building your own, because the builders don't expect you to actually fight any serious battles with them, and are content to cut the costs. Not likely an issue with production line stuff same as the constructing country uses itself, though, though you might find yourself short some of the fancy toys.

Seekster:
And as for the Revolutionary War, the French Navy was instrumental in the battle of Yorktown. Without French Intervention eventually the British still would have lost but it would have taken a few more years so yeah we do appreciate the help from France. However the idea that America would have lost without the French in the Revolutionary War is simply not accurate. How exactly could the British have won the war?

I phrased that badly, I'm not saying they would have won the war, merely that the French were a serious threat to Britain, despite what modern pop culture tells us.

(As an aside, if it wasn't for the French navy, the First Fleet wouldn't have been sent to Australia (at least not then), both to get there before the French could claim it, and because the British couldn't send convicts to the US after they'd just been driven out, with French assistance)

Kinguendo:
So... you have to provide your papers when asked or you get thrown in jail... and you see the Nazi comparisons as silly? Hmmmm, odd.

No, you have to be able to identify yourself. This is already the case pretty much anywhere. It's been mandatory to carry a form of ID since 2004, and even longer with our Belgian neighbours, and there are no problems with this. It's not like you get in trouble for walking your dog without a passport on you. In cases where it is to be blamed, for instance people driving a car and being pulled over for a traffic violation, people get a € 75 fine, and ussually one or two phonecalls are enough to either produce an ID or establish someone's identity. Worst case scenario you have nobody who can help you, and to come to the station for a bit untill someone is free to escort you home, collect your ID and establish your identity.

A wise policy, considering many fines and even criminal offenses weren't solved because of lack of ID or people giving a false name. Ussually the person whose name was used got in a lot of trouble trying to prove their innocence when the fine arrived on the doormat.

For instance Robert Hörchner was arrested and extradicted to Poland, where he spent months in prison on drug charges, because the actual drug criminal called himself Robert Hörchner when signing documents, such as the lease to an estate later found to contain a marijuana plantation.

Another was the arrest of another criminal who had given a false name. The result was a swat team accidently ramming someone's car during an attempt to block his path and arresting him with great show of force* because he ranked as one of the few criminals in this country considered armed and dangerous. Again it proved a case of mistaken identity. The car was total loss, the man required to see a doctor.

A particularly nasty case was that of a Surinamese entrepreneur*. A drug addict once gave his name when arrested (the two used to be classmates) leading to massive problems. For instance he couldn't fly anymore, because airport security ranked him as a harddrugs user, and immigration services as a persona non grata. The Financial Investigative service raided his home on two occasions for money laundering, and that was just two of many arrests he endured due to the identity theft. Note the date of that article: 2009, the government admitted the case and pledged to fix it. The problem started in 1999. A decade of shit because there was no compulsory ID in those days.


So obviously it is a good thing.

Cases we're talking about are mostly squatters and extreme-left scumbags who commit violence and other crimes, and when arrested refuse to give a name, don't carry papers on them, and will then stay quiet untill released, after which they will get away with whatever crime they committed because quite frankly, they don't know who to bring to court. And after two weeks, pretty much everyone who hasn't committed an extremely serious crime (murder, rape etc) is released.

The first cases were after violent break-ins on Camp Zeist, a former military base turned into a place for people awaiting deportation. The so-called Anarchistic anti-deportation group Utrecht used to destroy fences and other property and attack the police around there.

You're talking 20-30 people, a large part not even Dutch, ussually with criminal records the size of your arm for various crimes related to the extreme-left. Such groups overlap almost entirely with the squatter movements and animal rights terrorists. You thought the US had it bad with PETA? Try people why firebomb a family's house with small children in it because the father works for the Goods&Wares Inspection and refused to shut down an entire farm on demand. That's the kind of people this is about.


So if you ask me if I see nazis in this: Yes I do. The extreme-left activists that get incarcerated untill their identity can be established are indeed nazis. Compare their ideology to nazism and you'd find a nearly complete match, including anti-semitism.

thaluikhain:

The English Navy tended to win wars, but wasn't playing on God mode. The US stopped being British because of French naval victories, for example.

Yes, but this wasn't due to naval underfunding or lack of preparation.

The RN was heavily outnumbered and stretched to the limit fighting two and a half major naval powers, plus whatever few ships the US had available. It had to protect Britain, its overseas colonies, and the vital trades in between, plus run the logistical effort to North America. Criticising it for not quite managing such a vast task strikes me a little unfair.

Agema:

thaluikhain:

The English Navy tended to win wars, but wasn't playing on God mode. The US stopped being British because of French naval victories, for example.

Yes, but this wasn't due to naval underfunding or lack of preparation.

The RN was heavily outnumbered and stretched to the limit fighting two and a half major naval powers, plus whatever few ships the US had available. It had to protect Britain, its overseas colonies, and the vital trades in between, plus run the logistical effort to North America. Criticising it for not quite managing such a vast task strikes me a little unfair.

I didn't say it was due to underfunding, I was pointing out that the French navy was a legitimate cause for concern.

thaluikhain:

Seekster:
No I get that but I am just saying it would be cheaper to actually buy aircraft from another nation than build your own, though I suppose it does create jobs for Saab.

Why cheaper to get them from someone else? If they have the manufacturing capability and you don't perhaps, but there are certain problems with doing that, a lot of mucking around to be done, dependance on foreign suppliers and all. It's also a nationalism thing, I'd wager.

Also...I don't know if the same happens with planes, but I'm told that buying warships from overseas is often much cheaper than building your own, because the builders don't expect you to actually fight any serious battles with them, and are content to cut the costs. Not likely an issue with production line stuff same as the constructing country uses itself, though, though you might find yourself short some of the fancy toys.

Seekster:
And as for the Revolutionary War, the French Navy was instrumental in the battle of Yorktown. Without French Intervention eventually the British still would have lost but it would have taken a few more years so yeah we do appreciate the help from France. However the idea that America would have lost without the French in the Revolutionary War is simply not accurate. How exactly could the British have won the war?

I phrased that badly, I'm not saying they would have won the war, merely that the French were a serious threat to Britain, despite what modern pop culture tells us.

(As an aside, if it wasn't for the French navy, the First Fleet wouldn't have been sent to Australia (at least not then), both to get there before the French could claim it, and because the British couldn't send convicts to the US after they'd just been driven out, with French assistance)

They have nationalism in Sweden? Scratch that, they have nationalism in Europe still? I thought all the nationalists where impaled.

Hmm I don't know about how cheap it is to buy a warship versus a plane but I would wager that a warship per unit is going to be much more expensive (assuming its actually a design built warship and not a speedboat with a machinegun (which is the naval equipment of a technical...a technical by the way is the name for when you basically attach a machinegun or cannon to the back of a pickup and go to town like the Libyans did). I do know that warships tend to last longer than aircraft per unit at least. Its a lot easier to build newer versions of an aircraft than it is to build newer versions of a ship instead of just building a whole new ship. That said both ships and aircraft nowadays have a lot of provisions for upgrading them throughout their life.

On a side note, one of the most extreme examples of a warplane lasting a long time is the B-52.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress

The Boeing B-52 Stratofortress took its first flight in the early 1950s...at present with upgrades it is projected to remain in service probably until the 2040s. Right now its not unheard of for a current B-52 pilot to be flying the same aircraft their grandfather may have flown at some point. As I said though this is an extreme example.

Well the French Navy against the Royal Navy in a stright fight would be beaten sure but war is seldom a straight fight. The British were fighting in hostile territory (its not entirely unfair to compare the British situation in the Revolutionary War to the American situation in Vietnam) where the local population is more often than not hostile as well. The British enjoyed dominance at sea which was necessary to transport troops easily from one area to another and more importantly to supply an army about 1/3 of a world away from home. The last thing the British needed was to have their naval dominance on the shores of North America contested by the French. Plus the bulk of the French navy would threaten the shores of Great Britain meaning ships which may have gone to North America were needed to defend the shores of Britain from a much more powerful and a much closer threat.

In the end Great Britain lost the American Revolution for reasons similar to why America lost the Vietnam War (though in Vietnam the US never lost a battle), essentially the British public decided it wasnt worth it to continue and the pro-war parliament was defeated. One interesting tidbit though is that Lord Cornwallis, the general who was defeated at Yorktown, went on to be Governor-General of India and was involved in military action there.

Sorry I enjoy military history so I can tend to ramble on about it and get off topic.

thaluikhain:

I didn't say it was due to underfunding, I was pointing out that the French navy was a legitimate cause for concern.

You said:

thaluikhain:

The British did this more than once with their navy and suffered for it, cutting back spending because there wasn't a war on, and finding themselves ill-equipped when (totally unexpectedly) they found themselves fighting with France again.

Post 1700 or so, the British navy was maintained in a condition superior to any other navy on the planet, even in peacetime. It did not have supremacy: it could not guarantee victories at will, and could not readily dominate an alliance of other naval powers.

In other words, the British did not meaningfully suffer from cutbacks to their navy. They suffered from having to fight the French, Spanish, Dutch and Colonials all at the same time.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked