This is what 8 years of fighting war on a peace time budget has done....

[Nicktendo]

Ha so true.

 

Next time someone moans about a dodgy iPod i'm gonna tell them they have no right to moan about their equipment as some parts of Africa have it so much worse...

 

Give our Service men and women some support for christ sakes.

 

I think the main issue people are taking is with the huge uproar over 8 deaths. Sure, it's a tradgedy as they are more preventable in some cases, however, the same could be argued for every unjust death within socitey, British or otherwise. Often on a much, much greater scale. How much more tax payers money do we need spent on the army/defence when there are much so many other, often much greater problems to deal with?

[Eddage]

Is there anything stopping the troops out there saying that until they are given sufficient equipment to do their job properly that they will effectively strike?

 

To be fair, I'm not really sure striking in the middle of a war zone is the best option...

[Guest Captain Falcon]

To be fair, I'm not really sure striking in the middle of a war zone is the best option...

 

And yet agreeing to go there when you know you aren't going to be fully supported enough to do your job is?

 

The military is always underfunded so it shouldn't have come as that much of a surprise to find themselves in this situation - it's always been like that.

[Eddage]

No, I mean the people who are already out there, you know, if they strike, they'll probably get blowed up...

[Gizmo]

Is there anything stopping the troops out there saying that until they are given sufficient equipment to do their job properly that they will effectively strike?

 

Wow, are you serious?

[Guest Captain Falcon]

Wow, are you serious?

 

Well not so much strike but refuse certain assignments on the basis that they don't have the necessary tools.

[Pyxis]

Is there anything stopping the troops out there saying that until they are given sufficient equipment to do their job properly that they will effectively strike?

 

Yeah, that's illegal and they would get sent to prison.

 

The politicians of this country are disgraceful and our armed forces have been seeing huge cuts in the last few years, especially in the Royal Navy.

 

Our politicians always lie about increases in defence spending and procurement each year, knowing that the people of this country are mostly too ignorant to know any better. Their short term cost saving strategies also add billions to the price of the equipment we purchase, like it did with the CVF, which cost an extra billion (dollars) thanks to delays.

 

Our Type 45 order has been halved from 12 ships to 6, our Astutes have been cut and the FSC that is going to replace our Type 22s and Type 23s seems to have been put on hold indefinitely, leaving us without any surface combatants to defend our carrier and amphibious task forces in the future. The government has been absolutely desperate to cut its Typhoon order for the RAF, but can't thanks to it's politician proof contract. The Army is going to have its manpower cut soon, cutting numbers to less than the 100,000 mark.

[gothic_hobbit]

The Army is going to have its manpower cut soon, cutting numbers to less than the 100,000 mark.

 

If that's true then why do I keep seeing adverts for army recruitment on television ?

 

You know the ones.... 'start thinking soldier' !

[Pyxis]

If that's true then why do I keep seeing adverts for army recruitment on television ?

 

You know the ones.... 'start thinking soldier' !

 

Well, its supposedly just a rumour:

 

Army faces biggest cuts since Crimea Michael Smith THE Ministry of Defence intends to cut army manpower to its lowest level since the Crimean war. Plans to axe three infantry battalions - a total of 1,800 men - are being discussed despite the overstretch caused by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This would see the size of the army drop below 100,000 for the first time since the 1850s. The army is so desperate to protect funding for Afghanistan that it could offer cuts only in infantry units to meet demands for savings. General Sir David Richards, the incoming head of the army, offered to sacrifice The Green Howards, the regiment of General Sir Richard Dannatt, the current head of the army. The plan was discussed at a high-level meeting of the army, the navy and the RAF in Whitehall last Tuesday. The defence ministry said this weekend it could not discuss the proposed cuts because next year's planning round was "ongoing". The RAF proposed the scrapping of Harrier jump jets while the navy proposed axing Type42 destroyers early, and putting back the replacement for its frigates for 20 years. "This is the opening move in what could be the bloodiest spending round yet," a senior defence source said. "All three services will get new defence chiefs over the next two months. This is going to hit them like a speeding train." The infantry units under threat are those that have deployed abroad recently and are not due to go to Afghanistan over the next three or four years, the sources said. One battalion from each of the Yorkshire Regiment, the Mercian Regiment and the Royal Regiment of Scotland will go. The Green Howards are the battalion of the Yorkshire Regiment earmarked for the axe. The official "trained manning requirement" of the army is 101,790, so the loss of three battalions, of roughly 1,800 men in total, would take the strength of the army to below 100,000. Charles Heyman, a former infantry officer who edits The Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, a military guide, said the proposed cuts were "stark raving mad". He added: "If we were to withdraw from Afghanistan it would be fine but with the government saying operations there will go on for 10 years it is sheer lunacy. It will do severe damage to morale within the infantry and within the wider army." Richards has called for a "ruthless focus" on Afghanistan. He is determined to ensure that the army is seen to be successful to restore its reputation for counter-insurgency, which he believes has been badly damaged in Iraq.

 

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/9883/t/Times-Rumour-Mill.html

[nightwolf]

Yeah, that's illegal and they would get sent to prison.

 

Now that is interesting, fight without the right equipment which can as we have seen lead to death or go to prison..

 

Its definately something to cover somebodies back that for sure.

[Ramar]

Soo...the soldiers have no right to complain about shoddy equipment because people have it worse elsewhere? In that's the case, I don't want to hear anyone complain on this forum ever again.

 

Post of the topic right there.

 

The armed forces gets too much grief from people who think we either don't need them or think their job is pointless or a waste. Yet with out our armed forces we'd be shitting our beds nightly.

 

Support the troops, give them the equipment they need.

[Emasher]

I think militaries are more important than a lot of people think they are. What if a major conflict begins and better equipment becomes a priority after it is already too late to purchase it and get it to the troops. The comparison between this and other workers not having hard hats is a good description of my opinion on the subject also.

[MATtheHAT]

HAHAHA my wages didnt go up anything like 200%. I got about £6 a day extra. And somehting like £1400 tax relief, which we only get to compensate for the fact we get taxed for working abroad where as any civilian who works abroad does not.

 

Just put your notice in.

 

Best thing I ever did was leaving the Armed Forces.

[McPhee]

There is money it just goes to people who a born and die in benfits. Who claim benefits because they get more in doing so than they would in working.

 

While i agree with you there isn't a great deal that can be done with that one. The government needs to support those who can't work and by doing so it's very difficult to stop people from exploiting the system. The only way it's going to change is if these people are made to feel incredibly guilty about doing it. I'd love to see the PM come on TV and blame people like that for the death of every soldier in Afghanistan.

 

Here we go again...

 

I'm already sick of seeing this all over the news. No offecne to the people that have been killed and the families affected but millions and millions of people die everyday in 'avoidable' circumstances.

 

As has already been previously mentioned: "Africa"

 

The difference is the people in the army choose to be there. They choose to risk life and limb for this country. They could have had a different (and much safer) future but they made the decision to represent this country and it's interests by signing on to the armed forces. If the government isn't doing everything in it's power to ensure the safety of the men and women that make up our armed forces then that is disgraceful.

 

Does a few hundred/thousand/whatever civillians dying every day in Africa somehow make the unnecessary deaths of our troops less tragic? Or are you simply hiding behind these people so you don't have to face the FACT that people are dying in Afghanistan to protect your sorry, ungrateful ass?

 

You say that you're sick of seeing this stuff all over the news? Well sorry, but i'm pretty sure there's a few hundred men on the front lines in Afghanistan that are "sick" of seeing their buddies body parts flying through the sky in a shower of blood, guts and shrapnel. At least be greatful for their sacrifice if you can't find it in yourself to be disguisted that the sacrifice has to be made in the first place.

Edited July 12, 2009 by McPhee

[danny]

While i agree with you there isn't a great deal that can be done with that one. The government needs to support those who can't work and by doing so it's very difficult to stop people from exploiting the system. The only way it's going to change is if these people are made to feel incredibly guilty about doing it. I'd love to see the PM come on TV and blame people like that for the death of every soldier in Afghanistan.

 

 

 

The difference is the people in the army choose to be there. They choose to risk life and limb for this country. They could have had a different (and much safer) future but they made the decision to represent this country and it's interests by signing on to the armed forces. If the government isn't doing everything in it's power to ensure the safety of the men and women that make up our armed forces then that is disgracefull.

 

Does a few hundred/thousand/whatever civillians dying every day in Africa somehow make the unnecessary deaths of our troops less tragic? Or are you simply hiding behind these people so you don't have to face the FACT that people are dying in Afghanistan to protect your sorry, ungrateful ass?

 

You say that you're sick of seeing this stuff all over the news? Well sorry, but i'm pretty sure there's a few hundred men on the front lines in Afghanistan that are "sick" of seeing their buddies body parts flying through the sky in a shower of blood, guts and shrapnel. At least be greatful for their sacrifice if you can't find it in yourself to be disguisted that the sacrifice has to be made in the first place.

 

Post of the thread. Bassically my point but i dont have as good skills with my words.

 

Is there anything stopping the troops out there saying that until they are given sufficient equipment to do their job properly that they will effectively strike?

 

No there is not. You bassicaly go to prison. The same applys to the police. But for some reason that is beyond me not the fire brigade.

 

Good job! You managed to single-handedly insult a good portion of the members on this board who have been actively searching for work for months, including myself, and one who was made redundant only last week. Fuck you.

 

I think you didnt understand what i meant. the post i was commenting on implied that the bottom 10% of a class joins the millitary, simply not true. The lowest 10% sign on for life. That dosent mean everyone who claims benefits. Just the people who make a career out of it.

[Iun]

Depends how long hes working there for. It is true i have several friends in the merchant navy. They do no pay tax.

 

I guess I should have joined the f*cking Merchant Navy then shouldn't I?

 

Not only do I pay tax on my UK savings, plus the interest accruing on my student loan, I also pay tax on my Chinese income in the UK AND pay tax in China, plus my socal security and health insurance. And the only reason I do all this is because I want to stay on the level. No-one else I know here does the same, in fact, most Chinese nationals don't pay tax if they can avoid it.

 

I'm now married to Mrs Iun (forgot to mention that ) so I'm pretty much aiming for permanent/semi permanent residence here.

 

Anyway, back to topic.

 

No-one wants an army, but it would be suicide not to have one. Don't like what they're doing? TS. So long as they're not breaking the law, then they are doing their jobs right. We'd need them if we were invaded, and then you wouldn't be complaining.

 

If yu don't like the army's role in foreign countries, vote. Labour helped instigate these two wars, and yet they're still in power. Send them a message: put someone else in charge! Or you could come to Chna whereyou get locked up for dissident behaviour.You choose.

 

The soldiers have a physically and psychologically difficult job to do, made worse by budget cuts and soapdodging greebos whining at home. I don't like war, I don't like killing, but ultimately these men need the right equipment, whether you like it or not. I don't believe that things like fertility therapy should be free on the NHS, but I'll support the people who carry out the work, and kick up a fuss if they run out of test-tubes.

 

Be against the war, by all means, but never, ever blame the soldiers.

 

"See, there's three kinds of people: dicks, pussies, and assholes. Pussies think everyone can get along, and dicks just want to fuck all the time without thinking it through. But then you got your assholes, Chuck. And all the assholes want us to shit all over everything! So, pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes, Chuck. And if they didn't fuck the assholes, you know what you'd get? You'd get your dick and your pussy all covered in shit! "

[Fierce_LiNk]

Whether there's 8 deaths or 8000, you should try to look beyond the fact that it's a number. I think of individual people with lives and families, and now they are not here anymore. To us, when someone dies, it may seem like a number, and I guess we don't really comprehend how horrendous it is unless you know of someone involved. I find it horrifying whenever I turn on the news and hear of people being killed in any environment, but I can bet my life that what I feel is nowhere near what the families of those who have passed must be feeling.

 

With the subject of war, again, I probably do not understand it anywhere near as well as any politician or solider out there fighting it. I feel for these guys who are out there. They are serving their country and doing the Government's bidding, and at the very least the Government should be ensuring that they are given the right tools to do the job. If they can't do that, then how they expect the soldiers to do the work to the best of their ability, or how can they ensure that these soldiers will have some degree of safety? When your own Government can't help you, then you just have to wonder who will.

 

On an unrelated note, I was reading up on some background information on the film Rambo, which of course deals with the impact of War (notable the Vietnam War) on the life of a man trying to return to normality. After a bit of website jumping, I came across these two websites:

 

Not All Homeless people are drug addicts and drunks

 

Information on Cold War Veterans

 

"While accurate figures are hard to come by, the number of homeless veterans is about 1 in 3.

Sources vary in their figures, even the VA is not sure. One claim is 299,000 on any given night and 400,00 during the year. And 30 percent of the homeless veterans are from the Cold War and Vietnam."

 

I found that shocking and saddening. It makes you wonder exactly what these people are fighting for.

[EEVILMURRAY]

I Don't F*cking Believe This! Can Everyone Stop Gettin' Shot? :

A delightful Lock Stock quote there.

[danny]

I guess I should have joined the f*cking Merchant Navy then shouldn't I?

 

I would seriously advise you that you speak to an acountant then. As far as i am aware you could stand to gain a lot of money. If you are outside of the UK for x amount of days every year you are exemt from tax at least a certain ammount. I know some people choose to carry on paying there national insurance though. Other wise you will loose out in old age.

[jayseven]

This thread... makes me... sighragelaugh.

 

More people have died from knife crime in the UK in teh same period. You say you joined up to help your country? The majority of the country don't give a shit about any of these 'wars' that our armies are involved in. The 'peacekeeping' doesn't better serve us civilians directly at all. Join the fire brigade, drive an ambulance. Be a teacher. Just because you risk your lives for my country doesn't mean I have to be at all thankful for it. Because I'm not.

 

But the govenment employ these people and put them in harms way, so should therefore take car of them. Hence the difference.

 

If you think people who join the millitary know deaths are inevertable and should deal with it then you are a fool.

How about we talk about risk and not death? You are wearing full body armour and you have a gun on you. There is a quantity of risk of bodily harm being caused to a party somewhere on the line. Sure, you don't wanna die, but frankly entering a warzone and not realising that death is a possible outcome makes you the fool.

 

There is money it just goes to people who a born and die in benfits. Who claim benefits because they get more in doing so than they would in working. The govenment has its prioritys wrong. 20 a year? I dont not think so. If there is no money then the govenment should not place people in danger. But they have so they should do everything in there power to make the money available to win the war and secure the countrys safety.

Or on roads, on the NHS, to schools, the police, charities, research, banks... The way I see it, the army takes a large chunk of money away from all these other sectors that would, frankly, better serve the country.

 

But, of course, there's politics. Lots of black and white boxes, red tape and bullshit and ignorance around. One person says the world would work better this way, another laughs in their face.

 

Well i joined to serve my country and do something to help the world and the people in it. Not to go on operation certain death. I have no wish for my body or more likely pieces of my body to be returned to the UK in a box. Im aware that it is a possablity but it is my belief that everything that can possibly done to prevent it should be done.

The americans got there heads of the services out to afghanistan and said what do you need?

Our generals have said we need 2000 more men so that we can hold land we are taking rather than allowing the taliban back in. The govenment said no on financial grounds. Its getting to the point of WW1 and sending men over the top. Why where at a standstill we cant move the war forward. Were just loosing more good young men and women.

You may want to define 'moving the war forward'. Any government whose public is outraged at 10 deaths in a week is going to have a hard time with getting the public to accept a larger assault, a larger risk of bodies returning in bits and whatever.

 

Our country is not a war machine. We do not have an economy simply to fund the front line. My priorities are different to yours, and that is why I'd rather give a fiver to the homeless then to the army. The homeless guy, if not on drugs, will be cost-efficient with his fiver. The army will spend it on 30 seconds worth of bandwidth.

[Nicktendo]

This thread... makes me... sighragelaugh.

 

More people have died from knife crime in the UK in teh same period. You say you joined up to help your country? The majority of the country don't give a shit about any of these 'wars' that our armies are involved in. The 'peacekeeping' doesn't better serve us civilians directly at all. Join the fire brigade, drive an ambulance. Be a teacher. Just because you risk your lives for my country doesn't mean I have to be at all thankful for it. Because I'm not.

 

 

 

 

How about we talk about risk and not death? You are wearing full body armour and you have a gun on you. There is a quantity of risk of bodily harm being caused to a party somewhere on the line. Sure, you don't wanna die, but frankly entering a warzone and not realising that death is a possible outcome makes you the fool.

 

Or on roads, on the NHS, to schools, the police, charities, research, banks... The way I see it, the army takes a large chunk of money away from all these other sectors that would, frankly, better serve the country.

 

But, of course, there's politics. Lots of black and white boxes, red tape and bullshit and ignorance around. One person says the world would work better this way, another laughs in their face.

 

 

You may want to define 'moving the war forward'. Any government whose public is outraged at 10 deaths in a week is going to have a hard time with getting the public to accept a larger assault, a larger risk of bodies returning in bits and whatever.

 

Our country is not a war machine. We do not have an economy simply to fund the front line. My priorities are different to yours, and that is why I'd rather give a fiver to the homeless then to the army. The homeless guy, if not on drugs, will be cost-efficient with his fiver. The army will spend it on 30 seconds worth of bandwidth.

 

Post of the thread right there.

[Dyson]

Think I agree with jayseven on some points, especially the final bit about homeless/army. Good point.

[Goafer]

This thread... makes me... sighragelaugh.

 

More people have died from knife crime in the UK in teh same period. You say you joined up to help your country? The majority of the country don't give a shit about any of these 'wars' that our armies are involved in. The 'peacekeeping' doesn't better serve us civilians directly at all. Join the fire brigade, drive an ambulance. Be a teacher. Just because you risk your lives for my country doesn't mean I have to be at all thankful for it. Because I'm not.

 

I said I was out of this thread, but I had to come back since this post absolutely disgusts me. The soldiers are doing the most difficult job possible, day and night. Just because more people have died of knife crime/aids/famine/whatever, doesn't make the deaths of soldiers due to lack of equipment any more tolerable. End of. The government made the decision to go to war in another country, they should provide the best equipment possible to ensure the job is done as safely as possible (same as any job).

 

Far too many people can't see the difference between the army and the government and end up hating/disrespecting the army/soldiers. Our soldiers deserve respect, wheter or not the government does is debateable.

 

 

How about we talk about risk and not death? You are wearing full body armour and you have a gun on you. There is a quantity of risk of bodily harm being caused to a party somewhere on the line. Sure, you don't wanna die, but frankly entering a warzone and not realising that death is a possible outcome makes you the fool.

 

They're not complaining about the possibilty of dieing, they're complaining about the possibilty of dieing unneccasarily due to poor equipment. See what I meant by this thread is going round in circles?

 

 

 

I can't really fault the rest of the post, but it's mainly a gripe with the governments decisions. No excuse to be ungrateful to our troops who are trying to make a difference their own way. Hate the game, not the player.

 

 

 

 

It's also worth noting that a lot of the soldiers may have joined before the war started, so may not have known what they were getting themselves into. Obviously they know there's the possibility of war, but they didn't know the politics that would lead to it, meaning they may have signed up for the countries defence, but are now fighting a war they disagree with as much as the public.

[navarre]

I fully endorse the war in Afghanistan. Fine, you don't have to believe it's in the best interests for UK security (which, may I add, it probably is), but the Taliban are the most evil bastards to embrace this planet since the Nazis. I feel it not a British obligation, but a human obligation to fight the Taliban. And that's why, when I learn that the government aren't providing our troops with the correct equipment, it infuriates me. My personal belief is that the Government should be providing the appropriate resources wherever necessary, whatever the cost may be. Cut education funds, cut business funds, cut whatever you need to cut in spending (bar the NHS), just give these men what they need. That said, the British military is still very technologically capable of fighting and winning out there, and our resources are still a hundred times better than the Talibans. Oh, and we never hear any of the Taliban casualties. From what I understand, they are sustaining far higher casualties than we are. Oh well, I suppose they are an insurgency, where official statistics aren't practically and tactically available to give out...

 

The 'peacekeeping' doesn't better serve us civilians directly at all. .

 

I take it you didn't loose any relatives in 7/7 then?

[danny]

This thread... makes me... sighragelaugh.

 

More people have died from knife crime in the UK in teh same period. You say you joined up to help your country? The majority of the country don't give a shit about any of these 'wars' that our armies are involved in. The 'peacekeeping' doesn't better serve us civilians directly at all. Join the fire brigade, drive an ambulance. Be a teacher. Just because you risk your lives for my country doesn't mean I have to be at all thankful for it. Because I'm not.

 

I dont expect anyone to be greatful waht i do expect is the govenment to hold up there end of the deal and be a responsable employer and minimise risk just as every civilian employer has to. There will always be risk i dont dispute that, there will always be death i dont dispute that. But many of the current deaths are avoidable.

But it does effect you. This country was a safe haven for terror. (do not confuse iraq and afghan) At least on of the london bombers had trained in afghan fact. The majority of people have never been in a fire or an ambulance so are no better served by either of thos services either going off your logic.

 

 

 

How about we talk about risk and not death? You are wearing full body armour and you have a gun on you. There is a quantity of risk of bodily harm being caused to a party somewhere on the line. Sure, you don't wanna die, but frankly entering a warzone and not realising that death is a possible outcome makes you the fool.

 

You miss the point we know there will be deaths, we all knew this the day we signed up. BUT that does not mean the govenment can send lads to there deaths without having to answer for each and everyone. If a lads gets shot in the face thats unavoidable. If a lad gets blown up in a land rover, when the govenment has know for the last 8 years they are not safe or fit for purpose that is avoidable.

 

 

You may want to define 'moving the war forward'. Any government whose public is outraged at 10 deaths in a week is going to have a hard time with getting the public to accept a larger assault, a larger risk of bodies returning in bits and whatever.

 

Keeping fighting over the same land for years on end is pointless. To move the war on we need to be able to hold the land and prevent them coming back until they are eventually squeazed out/killed. This dosent endanger more lifes. This means you dont have to attack a village every year or every other year.

 

Our country is not a war machine. We do not have an economy simply to fund the front line. My priorities are different to yours, and that is why I'd rather give a fiver to the homeless then to the army. The homeless guy, if not on drugs, will be cost-efficient with his fiver. The army will spend it on 30 seconds worth of bandwidth.

 

Well maybe someone should have told the grining muppet tony blair this before he got us in above our heads. And the RBL have figures sugesting that in large citys over 50% of homless people are ex servicemen with mental health issues caused by serving who have just been abandoned by the govenment. So theres a good chance you would be doing us a favour any way.

 

I fail to see how anyone can even promote the idea that lads should be sent to fight without the risks being minimised. The mind boggles.