Philip Whitehouse

"Can one really design an aircraft as a full blown fighter, a ground attacker and flying from an aircraft carrier?". It has been done: witness the F-4 Phantom, and the FA-18 Super Hornet. Still, I support your advocacy for the SAAB JAS Gripen- superb aircraft.

But surely,whether a particular individual chooses to be a Christian or not is rather beside the point. Of course, the cross is of religious significance. How can it be anything else ? Like it or not, Western Civilization is found on Christian terms. It's an inherent part of western culture and therefore cannot be ignored. Western philosophy, Western thinking is rather an amalgamation of Athens and Jerusalem (to put it geographically). It's undeniable..

I thought that the "First of Foot" was the Royal Scots, with a lineage so ancient that were nicknamed "Pontius Pilate's Bodyguard". THe Coldstreams, as the second Regiment of the Household Brigade, nevertheless have the motto "Second To None".

And yet the Coldstream Guards: lineal descendents of General Monck's regiment of the New Model: became part of her Majesty's Brigade of Guards

Not sure about that. Individual Corps and Regiments carry the "Royal" title; Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers etc. How does the Civil War come into the picture ?

At the certain risk of killing and injuring the very people you are trying to help ?

Couldn't the same be said for "The Royal Navy "and "The Royal Marines" ? Conversely, it would be quite wrong to call the British Army,"The Royal Army".

Are we not we getting a geographical feature- the Mekong Delta, confused with an aeronautical design feature ?

"Dance ?" If you mean "France", no, -:it was an English Civil War. I suppose you could say that the House of Lancaster won in the end, when Henry Tudor- Henry VII- won at the Battle of Bosworth (1485)

One thing's for sure. I will now have to obtain and read this bloody book.

That's what I hoped your attitude would be. Life's too short for recriminations. The very reason why the British and French descended upon the Suez Canal- and isn't that what this all about ?- is that the Canal is not just another piece of infrastructure: it's in a league of its own,with the possible exception of the Panama Canal. Thus, ever since its construction it's been guarded by the British Army; to prevent any hostile forces from deploying cannon along its banks. (And the USA thought similarly about the Panama cut:- hence the Panama Canal Zone). It's the reason why the British Empire occupied Egypyt entirely in 1882. THis attitude continued during WW1, against the Ottomans, and WW2 against Rommel. So perhaps you can imagine the consternation when Abdul Nasser unilaterally decided to nationalize the whole enterprise. Whether, in retrospect, this attitude by Britain and France was correct is something else entirely. At the time it was a certain cause for alarm. "Provoked and Necessary" were certainly true when applied to the Malayan Emergency of the 1950s and the later Malaysian "Confrontation" of the mid-60s,: these conflicts were concluded happily. Whether the same could be said of the Vietnam War is entirely debatable: wouldn't you say ?

Given the rather dismissive tone of your response, I thought long and hard about responding. But still... Of course I'm not welded to my my own opinions ,otherwise why would I bother with this forum ? I don't know where your own research took you, but I can assure you that the Suez canal was, and is, of paramount importance to Europe's prosperity, and any threat its integrity had to be taken seriously. The only other comparable feature in the world is the Panama canal. But unlike the Panama Canal, the Suez Canal does not have any locks- which makes your contention that "a few cannons would close the canal in a hurry" slightly ridiculous. I must admit that your final paragraph is a mystery- to me anyway. Would you care to elucidate ?

Surely you're not saying that the B29 was not operational in WW2 ?

Sorry. What article ?

What's a "Pontoon Boat" ?