Feats Of Daring-do

[La_Dolce_Vita]

If a country has a defence it should be the best.

 

But the problem is whether the government knows what the best defence is. For example, you had the thread much earlier about upgrading Trident and the costs involved. Now the UK is altering the capability of the Royal Navy for what the government believes to be the new priorities.

[Lonan3]

Officers claim that if it was stationed in the River Thames, its weapon system would be able to single-handedly destroy any incoming airborne attack on Greater London.

 

Not necessarily the best news we've ever heard.

[jimbms]

It's fugly and a waste of space and cash

You think, why?

Because it doesn't look nice and it is not needed, is that more clear

Just wondered why you don't think it is needed, what should be done instead?

Quite simple, we have troops dying because they dont have correct equipment and body armour, spend it on that, we have kids needing help spend it on that, we have pensioners who have given lots dying of hunger and cold, spend it on that. But saying that make sure it is spent at home not some foriegn charity, fuck them look after our own first

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Quite simple, we have troops dying because they dont have correct equipment and body armour, spend it on that, we have kids needing help spend it on that, we have pensioners who have given lots dying of hunger and cold, spend it on that.

 

Ok, I see. Well Britain is still stuck in two rather fruitless conflicts but for god knows how long. If the government is going to be stupid enough to go invading Iraq and not wise enough to pull out of Afghanistan then I suppose we can hardly blame it for not thinking about the people actually doing the fighting there and their needs. If you put a priority over the lives of the British soldiers as opposed to the 'enemy' and inevitable collateral then yes, I would agree that money should be spent making the British forces in these conflicts more effective and less vulnerable. But from the perspective of planners I would imagine that if one can get the British Army somewhere and make them fight quite effectively then there really isn't much of a problem, especially if it allows the government to concentrate on the big projects that afford Britain a seat at the big diplomatic tables amongst other things.

 

Nevertheless, if Britain is going to be a world player it has to get hold of these large aircraft carriers and must update its destroyers and frigates. The Royal Navy doesn't want to be sitting around the Northern waters anymore (in respect of its strategy in the Cold War), that it certainly not what the government has planned for it. The mini aircraft carriers that Britain has would need to go if Britain is going to have any global expeditionary capability, they just can't do the job. And Britain needs the range from these upgraded weapons systems if it is ever going to be effective at gunboat diplomacy deep inland from the littoral of nations across the world.

I know Britain is a middle-weight power with the most stupid foreign policy of late, but for those who want to see Britain having any clout (however limited) the destroyer is a wise purchase.

 

But I don't think the country is that stuck it cannot get the right equipment and resources for its troops. It seems that the only time any efforts are made to remedy such a situation it is because something quite tragic has happened, or something embarrasing for government. For those who care about these soldiers or are (unfortunately) patriotic it isn't really good enough.

 

fuck them look after our own first

 

That seems a bit nasty, I don't see why British soldiers should take any priority over starving children in Mali, for example.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Officers claim that if it was stationed in the River Thames, its weapon system would be able to single-handedly destroy any incoming airborne attack on Greater London.

 

Not necessarily the best news we've ever heard.

 

I wouldn't worry too much, I don't think this destroyer will be hanging around Britain that much, wasn't why it was built. And who is likely in the foreseeable future to attack Britain with aircraft? You can't be sure what the future will hold but it is a bit unlikely.

[jimbms]

LDV starving in Mali is not my concern I don't care, why should I bail another nation out, I will never give money to overseas charity instead I opt to give to Manx charities only, and before you say it I do not have a heart or any morals just a swinging brick and cold logic putting myself first followed by the people around me if appropriate.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV starving in Mali is not my concern I don't care, why should I bail another nation out, I will never give money to overseas charity instead I opt to give to Manx charities only, and before you say it I do not have a heart or any morals just a swinging brick and cold logic putting myself first followed by the people around me if appropriate.

 

Don't know how you see it as cold logic. I am not saying you have a no heart or morals, I am not even saying you should give money to charity, just questioning why a charity on the Isle of Man is more deserving of one in another country. What difference does it make if the recipients live in another country? You are certainly not bailing out a nation but helping its people.

[thesultanofsheight]

You are certainly not bailing out a nation but helping its people.

 

No I think in many cases you are bailing out a nation.

 

Take Africa - my childrens children will still be raising money for Africa because despite the tragic plight of individuals - its a continent where fraud and kleptocracy is endemic and where successive regimes have got used to charitable donations. In some smaller African states half their GDP is from donations in one form or another. The money gets stolen, the lives of the people never ever get changed to the point where they can stop relying on charity any more, and then every few years a new government comes in and overflows the old one because they want a cut of the international aid they've been nicking.

 

I'm sorry I really would contribute to individual projects in Africa but charity begins at home i'm afraid.

[jimbms]

You are certainly not bailing out a nation but helping its people.

 

No I think in many cases you are bailing out a nation.

 

Take Africa - my childrens children will still be raising money for Africa because despite the tragic plight of individuals - its a continent where fraud and kleptocracy is endemic and where successive regimes have got used to charitable donations. In some smaller African states half their GDP is from donations in one form or another. The money gets stolen, the lives of the people never ever get changed to the point where they can stop relying on charity any more, and then every few years a new government comes in and overflows the old one because they want a cut of the international aid they've been nicking.

 

I'm sorry I really would contribute to individual projects in Africa but charity begins at home i'm afraid.

Not often I agree with you but ditto you answered much about the same as I was going to

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You are certainly not bailing out a nation but helping its people.

 

No I think in many cases you are bailing out a nation.

 

Take Africa - my childrens children will still be raising money for Africa because despite the tragic plight of individuals - its a continent where fraud and kleptocracy is endemic and where successive regimes have got used to charitable donations. In some smaller African states half their GDP is from donations in one form or another. The money gets stolen, the lives of the people never ever get changed to the point where they can stop relying on charity any more, and then every few years a new government comes in and overflows the old one because they want a cut of the international aid they've been nicking.

 

I'm sorry I really would contribute to individual projects in Africa but charity begins at home i'm afraid.

 

In cases where governments pay directly to foreign governments then yes it often does mean bailing out a nation.

 

But paying money to someone to a charity (it might be a British run charity) in another country isn't going to be bailing out another nation. Such an idea of the world gives the impression that each nation should be its own enclosed territory where matters should be sorted and fixed inside of there by the people within that nation and not from those without. The fact is that those much needing of charity may continue to need it in impoverished nations. And a good deal of the reason why these nations are in such a state is due to globalisation and the West's enforcement of free market trading and the post-decolonisation creation of ethnic conflict. There are other reasons, corrupt governments being an obvious one.

But it was more the matter of looking after 'our own' that I don't quite agree with. I can understand if it was one's own family or friends.

[jimbms]

But it was more the matter of looking after 'our own' that I don't quite agree with. I can understand if it was one's own family or friends.

Let's make quite simple, I don't even care if England and all in it sinks into the sea let alone some scrounging third world African doss hole (and before you say it yes I have been there and worked there and seen the corruption and laziness first hand which is more than you can say). The only people I care about after my family are the ones on this Island. Please don't waste your time with some long winded preaching because I don't care so it will be a waste of effort on your part

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Sorry if you think I am preaching to you, that is not my intention. I just don't see any good reason why all money should necessarily be kept within one's own nation. I don't, however, think charity should be the responsibility of the people like you and me but the West, I think, should contribute to the third world if the global economic order persists.

[jimbms]

......... I don't, however, think charity should be the responsibility of the people like you and me but the West, I think, should contribute to the third world if the global economic order persists.

Unless the world geography has changed since I was at school we are the west so therefore you are saying it is our responsability, that I do not accept. I suggest you go work in Africa for a year or two, not as some aid worker who only sees the poverty but in some other work where you get to see the real Africa i.e. the need to pay bribes even to get equipment into the country, where the easiest way to avoid airport queues at immigration is a passport, visa, 200 Marlboro and a bottle of Malt, where any government permit means you need to go with the application form, the right fee and a $1,000 bribe. They are the ones who have made their countries poverty stricken they should sort it not us.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Unless the world geography has changed since I was at school we are the west so therefore you are saying it is our responsability, that I do not accept.

 

It is the West's economic policies. i.e. the global economic system dictated by the West, that severely disadvantages those countries which were already impoverished or far poorer than the West. The Free Trade that the West wants Africa to operate means that Africa cannot possibly compete with the West. It is the responsibility of the West, but more specifically it isn't necessarily your or my RESPONSIBILITY to make charitable contributions. It is the capitalist class of the West who would have that responsibility, however, I agree that charity is not the answer to the world's problems. The international economic order needs to be radically changed in my view. But as I have said, I am not laying responsibility with you or any other worker for that matter.

 

I suggest you go work in Africa for a year or two, not as some aid worker who only sees the poverty but in some other work where you get to see the real Africa i.e. the need to pay bribes even to get equipment into the country, where the easiest way to avoid airport queues at immigration is a passport, visa, 200 Marlboro and a bottle of Malt, where any government permit means you need to go with the application form, the right fee and a $1,000 bribe. They are the ones who have made their countries poverty stricken they should sort it not us.

 

I would argue that they contribute to maintaining such poverty or worsening it.