Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
16 February 2011
01:1392808#1
Yesterday I read on BBC online news that the Government is scrapping 12 billion pounds worth of military war-machinary. Plus some more war material worth a few billion pounds.
Obviously, a lot less of the equipment will be produced in the future.
This means that the State will be able to invest in other spheres of society the money that is being saved in the production of new weaponry. Hopefully it will also mean that Britain will not get involved in wars abroad.
This could be an important basis to a new era of prosperity in Britain. I think there should be ways of congratulating the Government on these corrageous decisions.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
16 February 2011
01:2592810#2
Nothing like a spot of irony, Alex. Keep it up. I love it.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
16 February 2011
07:4292813#3
You do live in a bit of a dream world Alexander.
The reason these cuts are being made is to reduce the deficit and debt. There will be no extra cash to spend anywhere. Specifically in defence the previous government made huge spending commitments without even considered how they were funded, hence these very difficult and seemingly wasteful decisions. Personally I would cuts just about anything else but defence and spending in that area must be the no1 priority for increases when the deficit is dealt with. The world is too dangerous for it not to be.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
16 February 2011
10:4992829#4
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
16 February 2011
12:2292838#5
was an interesting article indeed, seems like the government is on course to increasing the deficit.
at the same time services are being cut in front of our eyes.
i think i will go for a lie down in a dark room for a while.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
16 February 2011
12:4392846#6
Surely it is spend to save - it may cost more this year for redundanies/writeoffs/etc but later years will be cheaper
Plus reductions in the money to councils and other government grants won't kick in until the next financial year
Been nice knowing you :)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
16 February 2011
12:5392849#7
no the figures are up to the end of last year, the redundances are only beginning to start now.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
16 February 2011
13:0992853#8
Barry, consider that the world I live in, in Britain, is a world of reality.
We need more Police. Crime is rising, and because of the deficit of the State, the Police Force is being cut. We need to combat crime in our Country. Young girls are being attacked in open areas, criminal-minded people know that the Police are unlikely to be around, and that they will have so much to do already, and might not have the sufficient resources to follow up on crimianl acts and investigate as much as they would need to.
Gun and knife carriers seem to think they are immune to the law. So we don't need to invest massive sums of money in war material to run about the world after other peoples created problems, but should think of investing more resources here at home to defend our own society.
We should introduce a strict campaign against crime here in Britain, with exemplary sentences on criminals, on those who commit violent crime, especially against women and children and people who in general are unable to defend themselves. We need a no mercy no compassion approach on the part of the Law towards violent criminals.
Instead we are getting double messages through: that crime will be fought, and at the same time that criminals are more likely to get let off with a ridiculous sentence if they are caught, or without being arrested at all.
We need to enrol hundreds of thousands more Police and community guards to protect our streets and combat crime. The money invested would go in the pockets of the added personel, who would invest it in the weekly shop or to pay the rent or mortgage, so it would not be wasted money, and would remain within the economy.
This is my vision of defence of our Country. And not sending thousands of young men to Afghanistan to chase armed Afghans around the hills of Kandaha. There are enough thugs here at home to chase and capture and consign to an exemplary prison sentence!
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
16 February 2011
21:5792905#9
What is the REAL evidence for the contentions in you last post Alexander D?
Please provide sources (excluding newspaper or wikipeadia articles)
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
16 February 2011
23:2592926#10
Real evidence for post 8 can be found in online BBC reports concerning the impressive rise in gun crime in London (almost 50% in 2009), and the rise in knife crime in London by about 8% in 2010.
As for young women being attacked, news-papers and TV are the norm when supplying sources, and should be considered real evidence here in Britain. Violent crime is on the rampage in Britain, and not to intervene thouroughly would mean that chaos would increase, in particular if the message becomes clear that the Police are being reduced in numbers and that violent crime is often going unpunished due to lack of Police resources.
As for Afghanistan, the ongoing massacre of British soldiers in Afghanistan is a bloodstain to our Country, a sheer sacrifice of our soldiers to a foreign cause, a mockery of our Nation!
It began with bullshit about training Afghan police, and then went on to fighting the war of some Afgan tribal government against other Afghans.
The Soviet army in 1978 intervened in Afghanistan exactly like that, to train Afghan soldiers to fight rebels, and then they ended up in a war of combat exactly like our troopers are doing now in Afghanistan, fighting armed men in their own country, and losing their own comrades, and returning to their home in the Soviet Union with blown off limbs, or in a coffin.
Our Army has gone the same way! This is the evidence. Afghanistan isn't worth the life of one British soldier! I couldn't give a toss if Afghan women wear burkas or trousers!
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
16 February 2011
23:2992927#11
Oh deary me
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
17 February 2011
09:1892948#12
We should not be in Afghanistan. How they run their benighted land is no concern of ours. No foreign power has succeeded there for a thousand years.
We also should never gave gone into Iraq in 2003. It was almost certainly an illegal war and only happened because of Blair's delusions of world statesmanship. Instead we should have finished the job in 1991. Letting Saddam go back to Baghdad was as bad as if we had stopped at the Rhine in 1945.
It is these foreign policy adventures which eat up the defence budget and lead to cuts elsewhere. They are nothing do do with defence of the realm.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
17 February 2011
09:3692952#13
I really dont care about Afghanistan if it kept its way of doing thing within its borders but no, when the Taliban was in control they did not. they provided training camps for terrorists and set about undermining Pakistan.
We do have a role there to prevent it from once again exporting terror and to protect a pro-west Pakistan government.
If you think the Islamist terror attacks have been bad so far, just think how much worse they would be if Pakistans nuclear arsenal fell into their hands.
Hopefully within a few years a pro-west Afghan regime will be strong enough to keep control within its borders and we can get out but until then...
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
17 February 2011
12:5592971#14
I reckon the best idea regarding the atom bombs in that area of the world would be for a group of countries to suggest that India and Pakistan agree to neutralise and dismantle their atomic arsenals, and in return receive some international economic aid.
Some of the oil-rich countries could also help out in that aspect.
Adding to that, the Afghan Taliban don't seem to have any intentions of taking the Pakistani atom bomb or nuclear war-head, and the Pakistani Taliban don't seem to have any such intention either.
The Pakistani Taliban are from the northern Pashtun-similar areas of Pakistan, and don't enjoy any support among the people in the rest of that country, in the same way as the Afghan Pashtun Taliban have no support in northern Afghanistan, where the people are Tajiks and Uzbeks.
It's more an ethnic than a religious conflict.
I think the former Taliban government in Kabul never had any intention of exportiung any form of terror or even ideology; they inherited Al Queda when they came to power, as H. Bin Laden was already there under the Mujahedin, who the Taliban kicked out. They probably didn't realise what Bin Laden was up to, and did state as much as soon as the 11/7 attacks happened.
Al Quaeda has long since transferred to Irak, to the northern Sunnite areas, where they carry out their attacks on civilian populations! All the American forces there in northern Irak over the years were unable to prevent this from coming about.
So the presence of American and British and other allied forces in Afghanistan is essentially useless and widely misses the mark!