Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Shortsighted Politicians Over Defence.
An unstable world with a major war in Europe which the mad Putin has control over Russias nuclear missiles, a war in the Middle East, global conflicts. But against the experts our politicians will not fund properly our depleted armed forces. This dangerous time should be the signal to fund our services properly. Discuss please.
Answers
Should we not help our friends and alies? Should we give in to bullies, tyrants and megalomaniac
19:58 Sat 09th Mar 2024
Rosetta - I said nothing about 'restoring the Empire' I believe that a number of politicians seek kudos for talking, and wanting to spend money, as though we still gave an Empire.
We were a world power, we are not one anymore, and to expect a defence budget commensurate with being a world power ie not sustainable.
In order to defend ourselves, we would need to bankrupt the country.
My position is that spending billions of pounds to make a small number of suits pretend that we can seriously resist a super power is nonsense.
We would be better investing a much smaller amount in Nato, and building our alliances so the West can protect itself as a unified force.
That would be a more realistic approach than pretending we can match Russia, or any other nation, in a war scenario.
Retrocop - We attempt to deal with illegal migration with a degree of compassion and humanity that would probably not be present if boats were full of invading soldiers.
You are perfectly entitled to oppose my view, and debate my points.
You are not entitled to offensively deride my personal integrity and courage.
I have no reason to believe Putin and the Kremlin wouldn't grab the chance to have control over all of Europe if they thought they could. But in any case, that isn't the issue. Everyone in a defense contract needs to contribute resource according to their ability. Those who fail to pay the premium can't expect to claim aid when they need it.
First they came for the Ukrainians but they weren't in NATO so I ignored it. Then they came for eastern NATO members, but I'd decided not to contribute so I ignored it. Then they came for mid-European NATO members but I was still clinging to the idea I would be safe, so I ignored it. Then they came for me and my country, and no one still around was willing to help me.
Andy, thats the first time you have mentioned contributions to NATO, prior to that it was a rant against defence spending because it was based on power hungry generals and vested interests in the arms industry. I dont think you thought through your stance, which at one time seemed to be of appeasement and "we cant win so why bother as we are too small and insignificant , and too far away anyway" (not direct quotes but a distilation of your views.
Its one thing to debate, its another thing to get overtaken by your want to argue at any price, because I really dont believe you think we should leave our country unprotected.
Maybe take a chill pill
Where were NATO and America when we cobbled together a task force to protect the interests of British citizens living under a Union flag at Government House Port Stanley back in 1982. We were very much alone and without our depleted Navy and museum piece Vulcan bombers the people on the British Protectorate of the Falkland Isles would be forced to speak Spanish and drive on the right because of a tin pot Argentinian dictator. Galtieri has gone but the nut who is currently President of Argentina still wants his Malvinas back and poses a threat. Looks like someone here would gladly give the British protectorate back to them.
Rosetta - //
Andy, thats the first time you have mentioned contributions to NATO, prior to that it was a rant against defence spending because it was based on power hungry generals and vested interests in the arms industry. I dont think you thought through your stance, which at one time seemed to be of appeasement and "we cant win so why bother as we are too small and insignificant , and too far away anyway" (not direct quotes but a distilation of your views. //
You make a fair point about NATO - but then that's the nature of debate, people respond to points, and the sets another thought going, and that's expressed, and so on. Anything else would be one statement, the definitve response, ending in 'End of' and the thread would stop there.
I did not make my full position clear I think.
I am not against simply abandoning our defence, but I balk at spending the billions and billions it would need if we were to think of ourselves on a par with the superpowers.
My contention is that we do not have anything like that spending power, and we should be content with the defence we have, instead of constantly looking to spend billions more for something which is not really going to make that much difference.
Russia and enemy powers are always going to increase and update their weapons, but they can afford to, they are happy to leave their people starving so they can buy armaments.
My suggestion is, that as we can never begin to come close to matching them, we should simply spend carefully and wisely, and not look to be a 'world power' when we are no longer of that status.
// Its one thing to debate, its another thing to get overtaken by your want to argue at any price, because I really dont believe you think we should leave our country unprotected. //
I don't want to 'argue at any price' at all, nor do I want to leave our country unprotected, as I hope I have now clarified.
We should have defence comensurate with our size and position in the world, and realistically assess the chances of ever needing to use it in a war situation.
I maintain that our allies would help us defend ourselves, as we would help them, and the future should be strengthening our alliances in Nato, not simply spending unaffordable billions of pounds, when our country is in such dire need of that cash in so many areas.
You are perfectly entitled to oppose my view, and debate my points..... You are not entitled to offensively deride my personal integrity and courage.
chrissakes retro - say "yes andy you are quite right again" or else he will pull the thread ( again). Did not your dead late dad ( dog by his side) say to his much betters and elders - "yes sir" thinking "you are a damned fool sir"
yes indeedy - Didnt a danish defence minister campaign on defence costs being one empty room with a tape recorder " we surrender".
Now the problem with the Falklands is this
Madeleine Jana Korbel Albright was an American diplomat and political scientist who served as the 64th United States secretary of state from 1997 to 2001.
wondered if las islas malvinas eran argentinas
oops ( she thought they were Argie)
In good AB tradition I renamed her - Not-all-that-bright but it was never taken up - ho hum I am a poet ignored
Peter - //
You are perfectly entitled to oppose my view, and debate my points..... You are not entitled to offensively deride my personal integrity and courage.
chrissakes retro - say "yes andy you are quite right again" or else he will pull the thread ( again). Did not your dead late dad ( dog by his side) say to his much betters and elders - "yes sir" thinking "you are a damned fool sir" //
I have not pulled any threads, so please stop making false accusations, which you cannot back up.
Stop stirring, stick to the point, and leave me out of your nonsense.
I am not going to keep asking.
Russia and enemy powers are always going to increase and update their weapons, but they can afford to, they are happy to leave their people starving so they can buy armaments.
er-er ( that is a buzzer) Merkel's ostpolitick ( = German policy towards eastern europe) allowed trade to Russia and a great improvement in living standards after 1990, and THAT allowed rearmament.
she later said - I have been wrong for 20 y ( ooopsie) - I think echoing Nicholas II words before abdication - 1917 have I been wrong for 20y - - - The British Ambassador said - yes your majesty...
Russia is NOT starving - watch more TV
AH: " I ponder the need to maintain anything more than a token defence system, which is unlikely to be called upon at all." - if we want to be part of NATO we must spend the agreed% of GDP. I can see why the US gets angry at Europe for not pulling it's weight. We should all agree to spend the same % of GDP, currently the US spends 3.5 that's what all NATO members should be spending. We do not spend enough. I know you like to knock us Andy but we are still no 6 in the world of 195 countries.
https:/
TTT - // We should all agree to spend the same % of GDP, currently the US spends 3.5 that's what all NATO members should be spending. We do not spend enough. //
That surely cannot be equitable.
3.5% of America's GDP makes far less of a whole in its national budget, because it's budget is many times higher than ours.
The payment should be based on national reserves, and ability to pay.
// I know you like to knock us Andy but we are still no 6 in the world of 195 countries. //
I don't 'knock' anyone, thank you.
And you rather prove my point - we are Number 6, but our suits want us to spend as though we are Number One, or indeed any of the other countries who are higher than us.
We haven't got that level of money to spend in that area.
Latest Posts
Computers3 mins ago
Technology3 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Starmer Claims First Job Was On A Farm...
News15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.