Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#1
Defence Chief General Sir David Richards attacks the Armed Forces Cuts that have left the Armed Forces unable to carryout
the tasks demanded by Ministers...who have made the cuts in the first place...................?????
Do our Ministers listen to the people at the ``work face``before they make their decisions to cut..?...or do they just obey the
Chancellor of the Exchequer ?
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#2
Why not ask the likes of Malcolm Rifkind to take up the slack? I'm sure he is a board member of company that already does much in the defence sector, for a not inconsiderable sum.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#3
What a joke....
Highlighting what a general has said here is an apologist for the government that starved the armed forces of funds for 13 years while doling out cash freely to every scrounging economic migrant, domestic waster and minority group going. They failed to match commitments to spending sending our troops into war ill-equipped and vulnerable.
I am against defence cuts, defence is the most important role of government and it is the only part of public spending that should be increased.
But to take this from Reg Hansell is like taking a lecture on humanity from Adolf Hitler.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#4
or josef starling.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#5
true... - Stalin I think you mean though...
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#6
as far back as i can remember military coves have been dumped after going through the trauma of conflict with no concern for their mental health.
the cuts now are at a time when more conflicts loom on the horizon, improving the training of reservists is not the answer in my view.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#7
barry,thats the gezzer.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#8
thats a bit crass vic.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#9
# 8.....spot on.....
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#10
barryw
you cant go on blaming gordon brown
this govt (your govt) doesn't have to cut the forces
but it chooses to
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#11
Keith - I have already said I am against cutting the forces. It is the only part of public spending I would not cut.
It was Brown who failed to fund Defence commitments over 13 years leaving them in a poor state. It is a fact much as you might like to hide it.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#12
Vic - I am factually correct. They did not make the resources available to fund those orders, that is the whole point. It is easy to order stuff but if you do not allocate the funds to the defence budget it is just pie in the sky. The only government department not to benefit from Brown's spending spree was the armed forces.
Personally I would spend a lot more on defence and I would cut all other budgets to do so. It is not as if I am actually defending the government over the defence cuts but we must also acknowledge the appalling position Labour left Defence in.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#13
Vic - I have said nothing of the kind. Read what I have really been saying, don't you understand English?
Try researching and finding out about how they left the forces procurement. I would have thought you would be better informed.
English comprehension is clearly not something you are any good at.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#14
#13....somewhat impolite.....
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#15
Obviously Vic is posting in this thread as Banquo's ghost.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#16
What we need is an Island Army, equipped for the defence of our own Country.
Ends.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#17
That depends on what we want to be - Global Policemen or just defending our shores; obviously not the latter as we don't do that now.
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#18
#14 - Kettle and pot.
Alexander - defending this country means a lot more than just defending our shores. Look at history.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#19
Barryw;
It's accepted labour were no better than the presently conservative led govt
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#20
No better - they (Labour) were appalling with making unfunded defence commitments, ordering R&D and then failing to fund the purchases. Sending troops into war without the equipment they needed.
They were far worse and had no excuses. We had what they boasted as a long period of growth during which they spent £billions on every conceivable politically correct project going. The ONLY department of government not to benefit from Brown's open cheques was Defence, the most important department of all.
At least the coalition are doing what they are against a background of trying to resolve the economy and the need to make massive spending cuts.
As I have said, I think Defence is the only department that should not be cut, indeed I would have increased defence spending and would cut every other budget to do so. Sadly the government decided that Defence had to carry a share of cuts.
Bad as that is, it is nothing like as bad as Labour behaved.