Britain's naval power on the skids
 

Thank you Mr Blair and Mr Brown for being a swine to our Navy.

Navy chief calls for £1bn boost or become 'Belgium'

The way things are going.........................:damn:

Mweh, won't be long before Russia's navy is in better condiction than ours....hell...it probably already is!! :damn: :damn:

To think that we used to rule the waves :nope: :nope: :nope: :nope: :nope:

that was the first thing i thought when i saw that news....

A complete shoddy state of afairs. :nope::nope::nope::nope::nope::nope:
It complete outrages me that defence spending is cut year on year and the armed forces never get the best kit that money can buy and yet the nation and the Govement expects the armed forces to do more and more year on year.
People in power need to take a look in the mirror.:yep::yep:
BTW. The Austrailians spend a hight percentage of there GDP on there armed forces than we do!!!!
And we are supossed to be the big daddy of the comonwealth do me a favour:damn::damn::nope::nope:

Advice
 

Im from the US...

if you want your naval forces in a better state, then you better stop electing people like brown and blair into office. A Conservative Cantidate would increase military funding far more than a liberal one would. Look at George Bush. Most of the world hates him, but he has increased funding to the US's armed forces by about 300 percent.

Well the problem is that the UK is full of lilly livered Liberals and PC fools and would rather wast money on pandering to the views of select few. Rather than bring the armed forces to the 21st century.

Don't look at me. As you all know I am bloody sick of these wet liberals and PC Loonies, the problem is a lot of people have forgot how to think for themselves and can not see this stinking government is all smoke and mirrors. And if that swine Brown get's in, say good bye to your money as Brown will bring in more and more tax in. :damn:

No wonder are armed forces are bleed white. I got more respect for are armed forces in Iraq than that stinking lot of scum who sit on there fat backsides in Westminster.

Aye Steed that statement was not aimed at you at all mate. But the people who it was know who they are.:nope:
As i have said before the UK needs more poeple like yourself mate. Then maybe us members of HM Armed forces might get the funding and kit we need to keep the country safe and do all the jobs that seem to keep poping up.

Um, wars cost more than peace. And haven't benefits for soldiers been cut, terms of duty extended?

A large empire needs policing. At the time, a strong navy was the only way to go, and it worked. Maintaining a similiar force in this day and age would be prohibitively expensive. THere's only so much tax a government can take in, and I for one would prefer to see it spent on schools & hospitals. The new subs (delavyed as the are) and the CVF will go a long way towards improving Britains naval capabilities.

GB has done an awful lot for the UK economy since the turn of the century, I can't see that changing if he moves house to No 10. Unemployment is low, growth is steady and stable, and inflation isn't a problem (around 2%). He's taken the wrong approach to the NHS though, just chucking money at it won't solve anything.

Now answer this one
How can inflation be at 2% or whatever when local governments increase council tax at around 10-12%
Electric and Gas companies have increased prices at around the same figure if not higher

True wars cost more than peace but only cos of ordinance used
You still have to pay the armed forces whether they are sat in Aldershot or Iraq
The airforce still fly and ships still sail

What ships and airforce we have that is

The problem is the conservatives wont be a great deal better

All much of a muchness
:nope:

Because inflation isn't a composite of council tax and energy bills. I can't answer for local governments in the UK, I don't live there. Inflation rates differ across sectors. Medical inflation, for example, is at around 10%. This is why throwing a 9% increase at the Health budget has no effect.
Have you noticed the war(s) in the Middle East, and the possibility of war with Iran? Any sort of global instability results in oil price rises, which fuel worldwide inflation

I was answering loynokid's post about American military spending. An increase in expenditure says f-all about increase in capability.
True, armed forces always cost money. But I hardly think Geroge Bush would be asking for emergency appropriations bills amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars if all the US had going on were exercises.
Wars cost a hell of a lot more than peace and it's not just due to ammunition usage.

All i will say is that the army is very short of cash.:yep::yep:
My regiment has had to cancel two exersises this year alone as we have run out of cash and we can not do fark all about it till April.

Umm..that is simply not true.
The US Navy has actually fallen quite dramatically in force numbers (across the board, ships aircraft and personell) under Bush and the Republicans. As some have mentioned, the vast majority of that money is going towards the war(s). You should also check this out:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...future/agenda/
the conflicting Defense plans of Al Gore and Dubya during the 2000 election before 9/11. Al Gore wanted to increase the defense budget by more than twice the amount Bush did. Being liberal or conservative has nothing to do with it, plenty of liberal governments have increased spending and plenty of conservative governments have pared it back.:roll:

Ok, then who cut the Seawolf program?

I'll give you a hint: The congress between the Bushes.

Ok look at this
 

Remember when the US was in the Vietnam war? We lost because our leadership didn't have the guts to fully fund our troops over there and our leaders didnt have the guts to send enough troops. guess who our leaders were. Dems, liberal dems. thats all there is to it. Thats just one example of the trend. Conservatives support the military more than liberals do, there is no more to say, and there is no arguing it, (unless you are from california... lol):know:

Yeah, the Seawolf program was designed for a situation that no longer existed. It should have been cut. I would have expected a Republican congress to do the same

loynokid, liberals only speak against the military, wars and etc. When it comes to voting, they vote for all of those. The difference is that recently they've started being more virulent in their speech but wait and you'll see that while they speak against all of these, they don't hesitate voting for more troops, more money, etc. etc.

Don't let their appearance fool you. Unmask them.

Hmm:hmm:
1. The entire Seawolf program was canceled by the Bush 41 administration, under the direction of then SecDef Dick Cheney. The Clinton administration revived the program and pushed for the construction of three submarines of that class in order to keep Electric Boat running until the Virgina class could begin production.

2. Gutless liberals in Vietnam? Well, one of those liberals started that war, Lyndon Baines Johnson. I can't honestly think of a more liberal recent president than Johnson, he spent his terms instituting the largest public support program of modern times, the Great Society, and Civil Rights legislation that dealt a death blow to the south's official policies of racism.

Go ahead "unmask" me TteFAboB, I thought the Iraq war was moronic and without justification before it even started, while I was still in High School. I though Dubya was full of it then and I still do now, and thus far history seems to be bearing out my predictions as correct.

From your source -

BELGIUM ROYAL NAVY

2 Frigates
6 Minehunters
5 support ships
1 river boat
2 aircraft carriers
3 helicopter carrier "platform" vessels
17 frigates
8 destroyers
13 nuclear submarines
16 minehunters
24 patrol ships


um, wtf?

alternate - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6369655.stm

This sounds like the Kerry flip flop thing
 

So which one do they believe in then, they speak agaisnt the military and vote for it. I think that they should take one side or the other. for example... lets say mr jones hates the sun and hot weather, he has a chance to go to an indoor swimming pool or the beach on a lake. he chooses the lake. (there are no outside influences such as his girlfriend was going to the beach) Why does he choose the lake? there is no sensible answer that i can see. that was probably a pretty crappy example (lol) but it gets the point across. i just dont get it, and also did you catch the houses vote on the unbinding resolution to defie the president's decision for a 20,000 troop surge in Iraq? So i also dont think that they always vote for military strength.