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

[nightwolf]

Am I that intimating? Give it to me brief.

 

It was mor expanding on your point than going against it. But I've decided its not particularly worth the hassle, these threads are way too heated.

[danny]

You know, I just wrote a massively long - somewhat valid post to your reply and then deleted it.

 

*goes to sit in another thread*

 

 

Well if the money is not there, then dont send lads out to fight.

 

There are lots of places money could be saved. Even from defence. If the govenment would sort out how the hell they order equipment. the current system is that the MOD say they need X. the govenment say X is too expensive and we must buy Y the MOD say Y is not good enough but we buy Y any way. 18 months later the govenment ask y lads are dieing the MOD say because Y is not good enough. The govenment are then shamed in to buying Z. Y and Z normally end up costing around 3 times as much as X would have in the first place.

There are lots of places mony could be saved. The arts why shoiuld the country be funding the arts when we are at war? (not saying the arts shoudnt be funded but its a price i feel worth paying to save ladslives.)

The NHS is renowned to waste money left right and center (although it is an important service, this shoudnt give a right to waste money)

EMA why the hell should 16 year olds get money to go to college? I didnt. Theyve been going to school for 12 years without it what the difference?

 

Im not syaing all these ideas could single handly get enoug hmoney but they could all help.

 

Or we could just do what virtually everyone else in europe does and do nothing sit in kabul and shag whores. And let America and Denmark sort helmand out.

[LazyBoy]

Well if the money is not there, then dont send lads out to fight.

 

There are lots of places money could be saved. Even from defence. If the govenment would sort out how the hell they order equipment. the current system is that the MOD say they need X. the govenment say X is too expensive and we must buy Y the MOD say Y is not good enough but we buy Y any way. 18 months later the govenment ask y lads are dieing the MOD say because Y is not good enough. The govenment are then shamed in to buying Z. Y and Z normally end up costing around 3 times as much as X would have in the first place.

There are lots of places mony could be saved. The arts why shoiuld the country be funding the arts when we are at war? (not saying the arts shoudnt be funded but its a price i feel worth paying to save ladslives.)

The NHS is renowned to waste money left right and center (although it is an important service, this shoudnt give a right to waste money)

EMA why the hell should 16 year olds get money to go to college? I didnt. Theyve been going to school for 12 years without it what the difference?

 

Im not syaing all these ideas could single handly get enoug hmoney but they could all help.

 

Or we could just do what virtually everyone else in europe does and do nothing sit in kabul and shag whores. And let America and Denmark sort helmand out.

 

Well I got no problem with sorting out inefficiency, hell I see it every day, but every day new bills are being passed trough the commons attempting to do this, its not like it intentional.

 

With the arts thing, well if we expect to mature culturally as a country the arts need to be funded, no question. If your argument is, 'not whilst we are at war', well we're always at war with someone, the arts would never be funded. Granted if we're being invaded it goes, and it goes before the NHS, but for a war we started on behalf of someone else against someone we helped train, no thank you.

 

As for the EMA, I took it. My Dad was unemployed and my mum earned very little, and I wanted to go through six form. If I hadn't have taken the EMA I would've had to work. So as long as there is no abuse of the system I support it.

 

Thing is, we're in a recession, we're already massively in debt, largely because of the war, this operation already takes up a massive amount of the countries spending budget.

 

Thing that gets me about Afghanistan is that we've been fighting as a collective of the world's most powerful forces for 8 years now, against uneducated, poorly equipped third worlders, and more of our troops are dying now. Maybe brute force ain't the way to beat these guys.

[nightwolf]

Well if the money is not there, then dont send lads out to fight.

 

 

I do agree, possibly the only thing I happen to with yourself.

 

Otherwise I'd say to not earn yourself the enemy of the forum to keep your mouth shut about people on ema and JSA etc, alot of the forumites have or are on these types of benefits and alot of them are truly nice and deserving people, regardless of how you implied it, thats how people are seeing it.

[ipaul]

I think he means:

 

Why are we there? America were the ones that were attacked and yes they are an ally, but why are we there when other nations are not? And more importantly, are we there because of America? I understand Article 5, however would we have gone to war if America hadn't? Were we forced to enter this war simply because America wanted to retaliate and as an ally we had to back them up? If they had done nothing/not invaded, would we be there now, or are we only there because they invaded in the first place?

 

I think that's what he's saying, tell me if I'm wrong iPaul!

 

Pretty much, I was half trying to agree with Gizmo as well but never mind.

 

Well if the money is not there, then dont send lads out to fight.

 

There are lots of places money could be saved. Even from defence. If the govenment would sort out how the hell they order equipment. the current system is that the MOD say they need X. the govenment say X is too expensive and we must buy Y the MOD say Y is not good enough but we buy Y any way. 18 months later the govenment ask y lads are dieing the MOD say because Y is not good enough. The govenment are then shamed in to buying Z. Y and Z normally end up costing around 3 times as much as X would have in the first place.

There are lots of places mony could be saved. The arts why shoiuld the country be funding the arts when we are at war? (not saying the arts shoudnt be funded but its a price i feel worth paying to save ladslives.)

The NHS is renowned to waste money left right and center (although it is an important service, this shoudnt give a right to waste money)

EMA why the hell should 16 year olds get money to go to college? I didnt. Theyve been going to school for 12 years without it what the difference?

 

Im not syaing all these ideas could single handly get enoug hmoney but they could all help.

 

Or we could just do what virtually everyone else in europe does and do nothing sit in kabul and shag whores. And let America and Denmark sort helmand out.

 

Sorry, I know mine isn't perfect, but could you please try and sort your grammar and your spelling out? It's pretty hard to take anything you say seriously when it's so hard to read. Just saying.

[blender]

There is something about this whole thread that makes me really hate the army and feel less guilty for those people getting hurt on behalf of "us". I'm not sure that was the intention of the topic poster. Maybe its just people who moan endlessly without any sense of "realism"....but worse of all, its those that think that their profession is so much more deserving than anyone elses. (e.g. nurses and teachers are just as bad). (conversely, i bet the army type hate people that dont listen and wonder why they bother doing the heroics. )

 

I really think we should just get cheaper soldiers that smoke less and are more expendable. The whole military should just outsorce regiments to some excolonial 3rd world countries. Then economically, militarily and politcally we would all be happy.

Edited July 14, 2009 by blender

[Mr_Odwin]

I really think we should just get cheaper soldiers that smoke less and are more expendable. The whole military should just outsorce regiments to some excolonial 3rd world countries. Then economically, militarily and politcally we would all be happy.

 

This is a horrendous option. No lives are more expendable than others.

[Gizmo]

Don't worry Odwin. It's only blender.

[navarre]

I personally believe that everyone should support any action, regardless of scale, against the pure, malevolent evil that is the Taliban. They're so ridiculously anti-human they make Pol Pot look like an alright kind of chap. I believe that there is little more honourable that fighting against the Taliban.

 

Erh, The fish? Great post. Sort of reminds me of my earlier post, old chap:

 

 

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

 

The Taliban are evil. They see it as holy war, where Islamic soldiers are fighting Christian civilisations. Oddly enough, even Iran, perhaps the most hostile of the Islamic states, was prepared to overthrow the Taliban regime, as the Taliban were Iran's enemy. The whole world can see the twisted ideology the Taliban fight for- intolerance of other religions, hatred of women, extreme punishments for minor crimes- and now the Taliban are getting their just desserts.

 

 

There is something about this whole thread that makes me really hate the army and feel less guilty for those people getting hurt on behalf of "us". I'm not sure that was the intention of the topic poster. Maybe its just people who moan endlessly without any sense of "realism"....but worse of all, its those that think that their profession is so much more deserving than anyone elses. (e.g. nurses and teachers are just as bad). (conversely, i bet the army type hate people that dont listen and wonder why they bother doing the heroics. )

 

I really think we should just get cheaper soldiers that smoke less and are more expendable. The whole military should just outsorce regiments to some excolonial 3rd world countries. Then economically, militarily and politcally we would all be happy.

 

I can only accept that post in a light hearted manner, because I like to believe most people on here have an IQ higher than a three year old.

[danny]

therwise I'd say to not earn yourself the enemy of the forum to keep your mouth shut about people on ema and JSA etc, alot of the forumites have or are on these types of benefits and alot of them are truly nice and deserving people, regardless of how you implied it, thats how people are seeing it.

 

I wasnt saying people shoudnt take it. Just that if we are looking of ways to save money to save lives that would be high up on my list. I managed and so did everyone else on my course. So i dont see an argument for virtually every college student aged 16 to get it.

 

Thing that gets me about Afghanistan is that we've been fighting as a collective of the world's most powerful forces for 8 years now, against uneducated, poorly equipped third worlders, and more of our troops are dying now. Maybe brute force ain't the way to beat these guys.

 

We havent really though. As we just occupied kabul mostly for the first few years. The current war didnt start properly until 2006. And its been under manned ever since. When we took over helmand an MP (dont know his name) made a famous speach about how we could win without a single shot beig fired, just goes to show how badly the govenment understand the whole situation.

 

The whole military should just outsorce regiments to some excolonial 3rd world countries. Then economically, militarily and politcally we would all be happy.

 

This is already done to an extent. The millitary has loads of ranks from ex colonys. Very large numbers from Fiji, the west indies and many african countrys south africa, ghana, zimbabwe etc. Thats not to mention the Gurkhas who dont come from an ex colony. here have been several of these soldiers die, it hasnt been politically any better for the govenment when they have. And neither should it be.

[Gizmo]

Most people I know manage to hold down a part time job and attend school at 16. I'm sure if you really needed extra money to make it through school, you'd manage too.

 

The EMA system is inherently flawed in that it is abused more than it is used: in order to make it possible for the 10% that need it, they need to make it possible for the other 90% to take the money and spend it on clothes and movie tickets, while their friends who don't get it have to work for their trips to the cinema.

 

Off topic though, sorry.

[fex]

Can you ever defeat the Taliban?

[danny]

Can you ever defeat the Taliban?

 

 

Maybe not but we can kill a lot of the horrid bastards trying. If not we can at least make afghan stable enough so that it does not turn it to what it was.

A country where its people were abused, women lived as second class citizens and breading ground for terror to be raged over the western world.

[Pyxis]

I think armies are highly needed in most countries and that the Afghan war is crucial, however the military always tries to push more and more of the countries budget to stay competitive and it reaches extremes of the US.

 

You are right about the US defence budget and how it has rocketed during these conflicts (the navy were planning on building $4 billion destroyers...), but the story is different for the UK:

 

Government figures show that 2.5 per cent of the UK's GDP — or around £32 billion — was likely to be spent on defence in 2005/6 compared with 4.4 per cent in 1987/88.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540160/Defence-spending-is-lowest-since-the-1930s.html

 

That quotes a 2.5% figure for 2005/6. I believe that it is now just 2.3% of GDP. Defence expenditure isn't growing with the growth of our economy. The percentage of GDP that we spend on the military has halved in the last 20 years. I think it needs to be fixed between 2.5-3%. On top of this, we are also suffering from defence inflation like the rest of the world, which is a lot higher than normal inflation.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Pyxis

[LazyBoy]

Maybe not but we can kill a lot of the horrid bastards trying. If not we can at least make afghan stable enough so that it does not turn it to what it was.

A country where its people were abused, women lived as second class citizens and breading ground for terror to be raged over the western world.

 

And yet, even with the magical power of the democracy, it ain't changed:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/law-will-let-afghan-husbands-starve-wives-who-withhold-sex-1740229.html

[danny]

And yet, even with the magical power of the democracy, it ain't changed:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/law-will-let-afghan-husbands-starve-wives-who-withhold-sex-1740229.html

 

Rome wasnt built in a day. Womens rights didnt take change in the western world in one swoop. They no longer have to wear the burkha, they can go to school and theres a load more examples that i cant think of right now. These things will change but the people need to change with it. Just as they did in the rest of the world.

 

We could tell them what to do. But that isnt really democracy we have to let them get on with there policys while we help with the security, we are there at there request (although if they didnt request us to stay we probably would any way)

[Sheikah]

This is a horrendous option. No lives are more expendable than others.

 

Although Blender's points aren't right, this is also very wrong. I wouldn't mind sending murderers to the front line while pulling back the troops.

[LazyBoy]

So how long do we keep the armed forces there before we take them out? When is the 'mission' there complete?

[Dan_Dare]

Hahaha I can't believe you seriously suggested we cut funding for the arts to fund a war. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

[danny]

As things stand probably forever. Unless the land can be held were just going around in circles. If the correct tools for the job are given mostly more troops to allow us to hold the land. And our supposed 'allys' doing the same, then the mission would end when afghan forces could take control of the security of there own forces. Probably over a gradual draw down as has been seen in Iraq. With NATO troops in camps just waiting for a request if things go belly up and the local forces cant deal with a situation.

 

Hahaha I can't believe you seriously suggested we cut funding for the arts to fund a war. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

 

Its just not nessicery. I never said it would fund a war. But if a few million could save 1 life in my eyes it would be worth doing. It was just one example of something that is not nessicery.

[LazyBoy]

As things stand probably forever. Unless the land can be held were just going around in circles. If the correct tools for the job are given mostly more troops to allow us to hold the land. And our supposed 'allys' doing the same, then the mission would end when afghan forces could take control of the security of there own forces. Probably over a gradual draw down as has been seen in Iraq. With NATO troops in camps just waiting for a request if things go belly up and the local forces cant deal with a situation.

 

But say we're successful in that. Say we hand them over a safe country. Then what happens when this country continues to make extremist laws? What happens when a persevering climate of conservatism, third world economics and religious extremism breeds new Taliban? Do we invade again?

[Goafer]

Hahaha I can't believe you seriously suggested we cut funding for the arts to fund a war. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

 

So art is more important than peoples lives? People have, and will continue to die due to lack of proper equipment. No one is going to die from a lack of a decent easel/camera/guitar/whatever. Now the ideal solution would have been to assess whether war was financially doable before we went in. But we have gone in now and the government has an obligaition to provide adequate equipment to the troops.

 

"Don't worry Mrs Soldiers Mum, he may be dead, but with the money we put into the arts, he sure as hell is going to get one awesome statue in his name!"

 

The arts aren't going to protect us from 9/11 and 7/7. Art is a luxury, defence/counter terrorism is a necessity.

[danny]

But say we're successful in that. Say we hand them over a safe country. Then what happens when this country continues to make extremist laws? What happens when a persevering climate of conservatism, third world economics and religious extremism breeds new Taliban? Do we invade again?

 

Well we have to do our best to stop it from happening. Whats the alternative? Just let it happen because it might happen again in the future?

[Dan_Dare]

 

 

 

Its just not nessicery. I never said it would fund a war. But if a few million could save 1 life in my eyes it would be worth doing. It was just one example of something that is not nessicery.

 

It's completely necessary.

[danny]

It's completely necessary.

 

What when compared to saving younglads lives?