FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > How much should we spend...
How much should we spend...
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
A lot more than we spend now,sadly we need to.However,I think we could cut are nuclear weapons which would save a lot,scrap trident and have many more conventional forces.
Maybe we do not need to spend more if we get rid of nuclear. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
But if we spend less on defence and so many say scrap trident, and the submarines etc how much are we going to damage the economy? There are I believe in the region of 600 uk companies in the supply chain for nuclear submarines, what'll happen to those? All the UK nationals that work on UKEO projects? Barrow in Furness would be disaster zone economically, many of the engineers and SME's would move abroad to find work.
I find it strange how so many lament the loss of our other industries but are quite willing to scrap our defence industry without a second thought...
Ginger |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"Way less. But will never happen especially with the Tories. Fingers are too deep into the BAE pie."
It will never happen full stop,a lot of peole are employed in the defence industry so labour would do nothing about it either
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"But if we spend less on defence and so many say scrap trident, and the submarines etc how much are we going to damage the economy? There are I believe in the region of 600 uk companies in the supply chain for nuclear submarines, what'll happen to those? All the UK nationals that work on UKEO projects? Barrow in Furness would be disaster zone economically, many of the engineers and SME's would move abroad to find work.
I find it strange how so many lament the loss of our other industries but are quite willing to scrap our defence industry without a second thought...
Ginger "
Which is exactly the narrative the spin doctors for the military-industrial complex like hearing, because it means the message of their PR and lobbying campaigns is working.
We should keep pouring money into an industry because it keeps people in work?
All that does is create a culture of greed and inefficiency because the industry doesn't haven't to compete and evolve - everything is handed to it on a plate.
I agree we want to keep skilled employment. But at any price? No. Do a cost per job analysis and see which industry gives you the most return. That may be defence spending, or it may not.
The military-industrial complex has risen and fallen throughout history. The most recent shrinkage when the Cold War came to an end. Sites close, workers transition, the world moves on.
The idea we should spend, spend, spend just to keep people in work, rather than adjust our defence spending to the geopolitical climate, is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.
The tail, in this case, being the PR lobby for the military-industrial complex.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"But if we spend less on defence and so many say scrap trident, and the submarines etc how much are we going to damage the economy? There are I believe in the region of 600 uk companies in the supply chain for nuclear submarines, what'll happen to those? All the UK nationals that work on UKEO projects? Barrow in Furness would be disaster zone economically, many of the engineers and SME's would move abroad to find work.
I find it strange how so many lament the loss of our other industries but are quite willing to scrap our defence industry without a second thought...
Ginger
Which is exactly the narrative the spin doctors for the military-industrial complex like hearing, because it means the message of their PR and lobbying campaigns is working.
We should keep pouring money into an industry because it keeps people in work?
All that does is create a culture of greed and inefficiency because the industry doesn't haven't to compete and evolve - everything is handed to it on a plate.
I agree we want to keep skilled employment. But at any price? No. Do a cost per job analysis and see which industry gives you the most return. That may be defence spending, or it may not.
The military-industrial complex has risen and fallen throughout history. The most recent shrinkage when the Cold War came to an end. Sites close, workers transition, the world moves on.
The idea we should spend, spend, spend just to keep people in work, rather than adjust our defence spending to the geopolitical climate, is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.
The tail, in this case, being the PR lobby for the military-industrial complex.
"
We should spend spend spend because that is what keeps us safe in an unstable world.
At the start of WW2 we had run our forces down and look at the struggle we had as a nation.
Peace is intertwined with strong defence. As long as the spending is for defence and not invasion.
If you think Putin is one bit different from Stalin you are mistaken !!@ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we stopped sticking our nose where it doesn't belong, we wouldn't need to spend and spend and spend more on our defence. "
Fully agree on this.
A lot of problems in the world today stem back to the u.s. And uk interfering around the world.
This includes the terrorism threats and refugee crisis.
It's an unstable world and we helped to cause it
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How do people view Army 2020, a success or a failure? What are your views on the planned strike division? "
We have majorly fucked up the goal of this in terms of recruitment, or well capita has, our recruitment of "New blood" has dwindled and the lads made redundant are being asked to come back, not sure about the strike force yet
I think people who live in the attitude of if we didn't have trident or a nuclear deterrent than the world would ensue on laying down thiers are simply deluded and the fact people want to get rid of our nuclear threat is ludicrous, the warfare is changing into more cyber warfare but the threat for mutual assured destruction is needed.
We need to spend alot more on the stuff we have now and stop shelving tanks and planes and start figuring out other means aswell, like Ajax, new weapon systems etc....
There is a real need for more spending and it has to be MORE than the REQUIRED 2% GDP for NATO.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If the strike devision works then it will be an okay idea with the rerolling of them units but we are desperately undermanned and that's why so many units with real history are being disbanded and that history is lost, 35 engineer regiment is a prime example
The new Ajax will help however I think it will have the same status as the CVRT Spartans and always be Red on JAMES  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do people view Army 2020, a success or a failure? What are your views on the planned strike division?
We have majorly fucked up the goal of this in terms of recruitment, or well capita has, our recruitment of "New blood" has dwindled and the lads made redundant are being asked to come back, not sure about the strike force yet
I think people who live in the attitude of if we didn't have trident or a nuclear deterrent than the world would ensue on laying down thiers are simply deluded and the fact people want to get rid of our nuclear threat is ludicrous, the warfare is changing into more cyber warfare but the threat for mutual assured destruction is needed.
We need to spend alot more on the stuff we have now and stop shelving tanks and planes and start figuring out other means aswell, like Ajax, new weapon systems etc....
There is a real need for more spending and it has to be MORE than the REQUIRED 2% GDP for NATO.
"
This... and better decision making on where we project force. It should be used for defence, not creating problems for ourselves and the world |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
We should spend spend spend because that is what keeps us safe in an unstable world.
At the start of WW2 we had run our forces down and look at the struggle we had as a nation.
Peace is intertwined with strong defence. As long as the spending is for defence and not invasion.
If you think Putin is one bit different from Stalin you are mistaken !!@"
a.k.a. an arms race
Britain's problem is it wants to be a nuclear power and a conventional power.
Its budget is enough to be one, or the other, but not both. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"But if we spend less on defence and so many say scrap trident, and the submarines etc how much are we going to damage the economy? There are I believe in the region of 600 uk companies in the supply chain for nuclear submarines, what'll happen to those? All the UK nationals that work on UKEO projects? Barrow in Furness would be disaster zone economically, many of the engineers and SME's would move abroad to find work.
I find it strange how so many lament the loss of our other industries but are quite willing to scrap our defence industry without a second thought...
Ginger "
The annual cost for maintaining trident in its current form is £5.56Bn, not to mention the £167Bn that has been green for updating the system with new subs and missiles over the next 30 years.
If we scraped the nuclear defence system it would go some way to the UK living up to its obligations under the United Nations non proliferation pact which we sign on to 30 years ago.
But the question does remain what to do with the skilled labour and research associated with the program. Well, the labour could be a simpler issue then normally spoke about in the media. All of these people both directly involved on the tech and supply chains could use their skills in newer industrial and infrastructure projects considering the transferability of the skills.
New power generation projects springs to mind immediately, such as tidal generation. Such as the £1.3Bn tidal lagoon the government just rejected.
The money could be spread across infrastructure, social and conventional defence budgets.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Whilst there's increased supposed threat from Russia, I'm inclined to think that the UK military spending is too high and should be reduced. The UK should rely on alliances predominantly, which are funded, potentially meaning more of UK military funding is paid for them. The nuclear weapons should also be reduced/not replaced at end of life imo.
Health spending is insufficient and has been for a long time and - if no further revenue is to be raised - more government spending should be delivered to health and social care funding. (It's almost certain that greater UK revenue should be raised for these though). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"Whilst there's increased supposed threat from Russia, I'm inclined to think that the UK military spending is too high and should be reduced. The UK should rely on alliances predominantly, which are funded, potentially meaning more of UK military funding is paid for them. The nuclear weapons should also be reduced/not replaced at end of life imo.
Health spending is insufficient and has been for a long time and - if no further revenue is to be raised - more government spending should be delivered to health and social care funding. (It's almost certain that greater UK revenue should be raised for these though)."
Maybe we should also consider reducing the foreign aid budget. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
What exactly is this threat from Russia?
I'm not aware of any action or statement that could be considered a military threat to the safety of these islands.
Sure, they are meddling in territories outwith Russia, just as the UK is meddling in territories.
Sure, they are assassinating individuals considered traitors on foreign soil, just as the UK is assassinating individuals considered traitors on foreign soil.
But show me the evidence Russia is a direct threat to the UK, now or in the past.
We both play cat and mouse with each other's submarines in the north Atlantic, practising for the day when we need to knock each other's vessels to the bottom of the sea.
We both prod each other's air space with military aircraft.
Why?
To justify defence spending? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What exactly is this threat from Russia?
I'm not aware of any action or statement that could be considered a military threat to the safety of these islands.
Sure, they are meddling in territories outwith Russia, just as the UK is meddling in territories.
Sure, they are assassinating individuals considered traitors on foreign soil, just as the UK is assassinating individuals considered traitors on foreign soil.
But show me the evidence Russia is a direct threat to the UK, now or in the past.
We both play cat and mouse with each other's submarines in the north Atlantic, practising for the day when we need to knock each other's vessels to the bottom of the sea.
We both prod each other's air space with military aircraft.
Why?
To justify defence spending?"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It always gets me that the world would rather spend more on trying to find more ways to kill each other than making the world a better place to live 
"
Human nature  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"... on defence? "
About what we're currently spending - and we should have a proper re-think on how to spend it. Giving up on ridiculous notions of power projection would be a start.
Defending the actual UK and meeting NATO commitments is as much of an expense as our economy can afford. That needs to be realised.
One more thing. Gavin Williamson has no chance of getting 3% of GDP because he's a childish, deplorable excuse of a politician - widely despised by his colleagues - who's even more incompetent in his role than Fallon was. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"But if we spend less on defence and so many say scrap trident, and the submarines etc how much are we going to damage the economy? There are I believe in the region of 600 uk companies in the supply chain for nuclear submarines, what'll happen to those? All the UK nationals that work on UKEO projects? Barrow in Furness would be disaster zone economically, many of the engineers and SME's would move abroad to find work.
I find it strange how so many lament the loss of our other industries but are quite willing to scrap our defence industry without a second thought...
Ginger
Which is exactly the narrative the spin doctors for the military-industrial complex like hearing, because it means the message of their PR and lobbying campaigns is working.
We should keep pouring money into an industry because it keeps people in work?
All that does is create a culture of greed and inefficiency because the industry doesn't haven't to compete and evolve - everything is handed to it on a plate.
I agree we want to keep skilled employment. But at any price? No. Do a cost per job analysis and see which industry gives you the most return. That may be defence spending, or it may not.
The military-industrial complex has risen and fallen throughout history. The most recent shrinkage when the Cold War came to an end. Sites close, workers transition, the world moves on.
The idea we should spend, spend, spend just to keep people in work, rather than adjust our defence spending to the geopolitical climate, is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.
The tail, in this case, being the PR lobby for the military-industrial complex.
"
But the business of killing innocent people is oh so important to the economy  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"But if we spend less on defence and so many say scrap trident, and the submarines etc how much are we going to damage the economy? There are I believe in the region of 600 uk companies in the supply chain for nuclear submarines, what'll happen to those? All the UK nationals that work on UKEO projects? Barrow in Furness would be disaster zone economically, many of the engineers and SME's would move abroad to find work.
I find it strange how so many lament the loss of our other industries but are quite willing to scrap our defence industry without a second thought...
Ginger
Which is exactly the narrative the spin doctors for the military-industrial complex like hearing, because it means the message of their PR and lobbying campaigns is working.
We should keep pouring money into an industry because it keeps people in work?
All that does is create a culture of greed and inefficiency because the industry doesn't haven't to compete and evolve - everything is handed to it on a plate.
I agree we want to keep skilled employment. But at any price? No. Do a cost per job analysis and see which industry gives you the most return. That may be defence spending, or it may not.
The military-industrial complex has risen and fallen throughout history. The most recent shrinkage when the Cold War came to an end. Sites close, workers transition, the world moves on.
The idea we should spend, spend, spend just to keep people in work, rather than adjust our defence spending to the geopolitical climate, is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.
The tail, in this case, being the PR lobby for the military-industrial complex.
But the business of killing innocent people is oh so important to the economy "
That's arms sales by the likes of bae systems to dodgy human rights abusing countries like isreal the Saudis etc...
Oh, and training them too |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
More than we do now OP, but a lot more importantly we need to return to producing our own militarises equipment and consumables rather than allowing foreign businesses to profit from our procurement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Trump thinks 4%, which is more than the US is currently spending. Is this excessive? "
I don't think he realises that not everyone is as bloodthirsty and trigger happy (with his big red button) as he is. We should be spending more on trying to promote peace, as opposed to building big armies and buying big guns, hence keeping arms manufacturers in business and falling into the trap of having to upgrade them all the time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Trump thinks 4%, which is more than the US is currently spending. Is this excessive?
I don't think he realises that not everyone is as bloodthirsty and trigger happy (with his big red button) as he is. We should be spending more on trying to promote peace, as opposed to building big armies and buying big guns, hence keeping arms manufacturers in business and falling into the trap of having to upgrade them all the time. "
To be fair, defence engagement is a key part of what the military is gear towards, especially the Army since their 2020 plan. This includes promoting peace and developing indigenous forces so they can counter threats themselves, rather than relying on external forces. Think how much better it would have been if the Iraqi forces had been able to stand against ISIS. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
The US isn't spending 4 % of its GDP on NATO.
Trump made it up - he lied.
NATO's own website says it is something like 3 %.
The common goal is 2 %.
Trump just raised the bar to 4 %.
It's a pretext for what comes next.
Trump's meeting with Putin.
What's the deal?
Putin agrees to weaken Iran.
Trump agrees to weaken Europe.
Europe won't pay, so neither will he.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The US isn't spending 4 % of its GDP on NATO.
Trump made it up - he lied.
NATO's own website says it is something like 3 %.
The common goal is 2 %.
Trump just raised the bar to 4 %.
It's a pretext for what comes next.
Trump's meeting with Putin.
What's the deal?
Putin agrees to weaken Iran.
Trump agrees to weaken Europe.
Europe won't pay, so neither will he.
"
And why should he? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Trump thinks 4%, which is more than the US is currently spending. Is this excessive?
I don't think he realises that not everyone is as bloodthirsty and trigger happy (with his big red button) as he is. We should be spending more on trying to promote peace, as opposed to building big armies and buying big guns, hence keeping arms manufacturers in business and falling into the trap of having to upgrade them all the time.
To be fair, defence engagement is a key part of what the military is gear towards, especially the Army since their 2020 plan. This includes promoting peace and developing indigenous forces so they can counter threats themselves, rather than relying on external forces. Think how much better it would have been if the Iraqi forces had been able to stand against ISIS."
His "argument" about increasing spending to 4% was that he doesn't want the US to pay for "defending Europe in Europe". The only destabilising/threat in Europe, comes from Russia and Trump is making it worse by supporting the break up of the EU and cozying up to Putin. Sara J above was spot on in saying that if Putin agreed to weaken Iraq, Trump would "repay" the favour by weakening Europe. Trump's agenda is a lot deeper than what initially looks like.
As for Iraqi forces etc, what we already spend is more than enough to simply help out countries in need. Had we not stuck our nose that much in Iraq (blindly following the US), ISIS and the like wouldn't have gained such momentum and become a threat not only for Iraq but for the western world in general. We're supposedly going in, all guns blazing, to "help" and we end up semi-fixing one problem, while, at the same time, creating another, for which we then need to spend more on defence in order to defend ourselves (and others) from. Vicious circle which *we* are in part responsible for starting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Trump thinks 4%, which is more than the US is currently spending. Is this excessive?
I don't think he realises that not everyone is as bloodthirsty and trigger happy (with his big red button) as he is. We should be spending more on trying to promote peace, as opposed to building big armies and buying big guns, hence keeping arms manufacturers in business and falling into the trap of having to upgrade them all the time.
To be fair, defence engagement is a key part of what the military is gear towards, especially the Army since their 2020 plan. This includes promoting peace and developing indigenous forces so they can counter threats themselves, rather than relying on external forces. Think how much better it would have been if the Iraqi forces had been able to stand against ISIS.
His "argument" about increasing spending to 4% was that he doesn't want the US to pay for "defending Europe in Europe". The only destabilising/threat in Europe, comes from Russia and Trump is making it worse by supporting the break up of the EU and cozying up to Putin. Sara J above was spot on in saying that if Putin agreed to weaken Iraq, Trump would "repay" the favour by weakening Europe. Trump's agenda is a lot deeper than what initially looks like.
As for Iraqi forces etc, what we already spend is more than enough to simply help out countries in need. Had we not stuck our nose that much in Iraq (blindly following the US), ISIS and the like wouldn't have gained such momentum and become a threat not only for Iraq but for the western world in general. We're supposedly going in, all guns blazing, to "help" and we end up semi-fixing one problem, while, at the same time, creating another, for which we then need to spend more on defence in order to defend ourselves (and others) from. Vicious circle which *we* are in part responsible for starting."
What substantial difference do you think there would have been in ISIS in Iraq if the UK hasn't have been involved in the US led campaign? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
The US walking out of NATO is a fantastic opportunity for the UK.
Without the US, the only NATO member that can offer the nuclear shield is the UK.
Step forward, Mrs May.
Assuring the security of Europe could utterly transform your prospects with the EU.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"The US walking out of NATO is a fantastic opportunity for the UK.
Without the US, the only NATO member that can offer the nuclear shield is the UK.
Step forward, Mrs May.
Assuring the security of Europe could utterly transform your prospects with the EU.
"
What about France? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Its not Russian troops storming across borders we need to worry about, it's the various "proxy" wars that could be a problem.
Look at history..
USA & allies vs Korea (China/Russia)
USA vs Vietnam (Russia)
USA & allies vs Syria (Russia)
Ukraine vs Rebels (Russia)
See a pattern?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Its not Russian troops storming across borders we need to worry about, it's the various "proxy" wars that could be a problem.
Look at history..
USA & allies vs Korea (China/Russia)
USA vs Vietnam (Russia)
USA & allies vs Syria (Russia)
Ukraine vs Rebels (Russia)
See a pattern?
"
USA & allies cause a lot of shit? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
What about France?"
France returned to NATO a few years ago, yes. But as I understand things, it retained the independence of its nuclear arsenal.
Currently, NATO's deterrent against an attack with nuclear weapons against a member state is provided by the United States.
It has nuclear weapons stored in various NATO countries, both strategic and tactical.
I suspect this is where Trump gets his grossly inflated measure of the US meeting 90 per cent of NATO costs.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
What about France?
France returned to NATO a few years ago, yes. But as I understand things, it retained the independence of its nuclear arsenal.
Currently, NATO's deterrent against an attack with nuclear weapons against a member state is provided by the United States.
It has nuclear weapons stored in various NATO countries, both strategic and tactical.
I suspect this is where Trump gets his grossly inflated measure of the US meeting 90 per cent of NATO costs.
"
Except that it isn't grossly inflated. Inflated yes, but not grossly.
Last year 70.1% of the NATO defence expenditure came from the USA. $602.8 billion, funded by the US.
By comparison the UK, (which contributes proportionately more than most European countries) provided 5.9%
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But if we spend less on defence and so many say scrap trident, and the submarines etc how much are we going to damage the economy? There are I believe in the region of 600 uk companies in the supply chain for nuclear submarines, what'll happen to those? All the UK nationals that work on UKEO projects? Barrow in Furness would be disaster zone economically, many of the engineers and SME's would move abroad to find work.
I find it strange how so many lament the loss of our other industries but are quite willing to scrap our defence industry without a second thought...
Ginger
Which is exactly the narrative the spin doctors for the military-industrial complex like hearing, because it means the message of their PR and lobbying campaigns is working.
We should keep pouring money into an industry because it keeps people in work?
All that does is create a culture of greed and inefficiency because the industry doesn't haven't to compete and evolve - everything is handed to it on a plate.
I agree we want to keep skilled employment. But at any price? No. Do a cost per job analysis and see which industry gives you the most return. That may be defence spending, or it may not.
The military-industrial complex has risen and fallen throughout history. The most recent shrinkage when the Cold War came to an end. Sites close, workers transition, the world moves on.
The idea we should spend, spend, spend just to keep people in work, rather than adjust our defence spending to the geopolitical climate, is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.
The tail, in this case, being the PR lobby for the military-industrial complex.
We should spend spend spend because that is what keeps us safe in an unstable world.
At the start of WW2 we had run our forces down and look at the struggle we had as a nation.
Peace is intertwined with strong defence. As long as the spending is for defence and not invasion.
If you think Putin is one bit different from Stalin you are mistaken !!@"
I agree with you and I think the other point being made sort of agrees with what your saying also. I think that point is is that we should spend what we need to spend on defence to defend ourselves. Whether that spending has beneficial or adverse effects on the rest of the economy should have no consideration in it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" (...)
What substantial difference do you think there would have been in ISIS in Iraq if the UK hasn't have been involved in the US led campaign? "
I don't know and I suppose we'll never know. The damage is done. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
" (...)
What substantial difference do you think there would have been in ISIS in Iraq if the UK hasn't have been involved in the US led campaign?
I don't know and I suppose we'll never know. The damage is done. "
Hypothesize about the difference you think it would have made. I mean France wasn't involved, but they have had plenty of terrorist attacks on their streets, so what difference would it have made if the UK hadn't been involved? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
" (...)
Hypothesize about the difference you think it would have made. I mean France wasn't involved, but they have had plenty of terrorist attacks on their streets, so what difference would it have made if the UK hadn't been involved?"
I'm pretty sure the French sent an aircraft carrier to attack ISIS after the first atrocity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" (...)
What substantial difference do you think there would have been in ISIS in Iraq if the UK hasn't have been involved in the US led campaign?
I don't know and I suppose we'll never know. The damage is done.
Hypothesize about the difference you think it would have made. I mean France wasn't involved, but they have had plenty of terrorist attacks on their streets, so what difference would it have made if the UK hadn't been involved?"
ISIS don't attack only countries that were involved in the conflicts in the middle east. They attack the west in general.
What our involvement (and the whole coordinated involvement by the west) achieved, was to "justify" and enhance their hatred of the west and help them to use it as propaganda in order to recruit more mindless fanatics and thus increase their numbers and spreading of hate.
Had it been only the US and/or a couple of other countries, I doubt it would have reached the levels it has.
And I didn't say that we shouldn't have been involved. I said we shouldn't have been involved "so much". Just because the US thinks of themselves as a global policeman, doesn't mean that we have to follow their lead all the time, like a rookie who's trying to impress.
That's just my take. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
" (...)
What substantial difference do you think there would have been in ISIS in Iraq if the UK hasn't have been involved in the US led campaign?
I don't know and I suppose we'll never know. The damage is done.
Hypothesize about the difference you think it would have made. I mean France wasn't involved, but they have had plenty of terrorist attacks on their streets, so what difference would it have made if the UK hadn't been involved?
ISIS don't attack only countries that were involved in the conflicts in the middle east. They attack the west in general.
What our involvement (and the whole coordinated involvement by the west) achieved, was to "justify" and enhance their hatred of the west and help them to use it as propaganda in order to recruit more mindless fanatics and thus increase their numbers and spreading of hate.
Had it been only the US and/or a couple of other countries, I doubt it would have reached the levels it has.
And I didn't say that we shouldn't have been involved. I said we shouldn't have been involved "so much". Just because the US thinks of themselves as a global policeman, doesn't mean that we have to follow their lead all the time, like a rookie who's trying to impress.
That's just my take. "
So they would have attacked us either way, just for being western then? So we may as well use all of the tools at our disposal, including military assets to stop it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
One way of collecting revenue is by policing on the cheap.
More cameras to dish out fines from littering to parking fines by using a camera..
Sell weapons to Saudi Arabia too.. Get them till registers "kerchinging" 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Drones are the future. They can fly non stop for 2 days. So if you had a couple circling the more stabby areas of london 247 the crime rate would drop. If that's a success we could look at arming them to. Saving money from court time and imprisonment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Drones are the future. They can fly non stop for 2 days. So if you had a couple circling the more stabby areas of london 247 the crime rate would drop. If that's a success we could look at arming them to. Saving money from court time and imprisonment. "
I like dystopian cyberpunk stories too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
