Discussion in 'Strategic Defence & Spending Review (SDSR)' started by rockape34, Oct 24, 2010.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
HERE Mail on Sunday
Appart from one little detail mentioned on these halloed pages that (and I quote) "the airframes have had the arrse shagged out of them doing CAS in Helmand"
I've nothing against foreign aid as long as it is used to win friends and influence people that are strategicly and ecconomically useful (India being a prime example). But when the foreign aid takes less than a week to go to a numbered Swiss bank account, THATS a problem. The African despots tastes for Mercedes, Maybach and shopping trips for their wives/mistresses/daughters to London, Paris and Milan does not benefit the UK at all...
Does that mean there'll be a Union Jack on the side of India's new £700m aircraft carrier? Seeing as the UK gave them about that much in aid last year (or was it the year before?)
£800 million spread over three years.
Racists! How DARE you put the lives of UK cancer patients and Old Age Pensioners before the needs of the Indian Space programme.
Just because they have worked all their lives, paid their taxes and national Insurance contributions doesn't give them the right to see their taxes spent paying for little luxuries like life saving drugs or heating in winter.
Its all about making moral judgements don't you know.
Over the next five years, the Government will borrow more than £50 billion to fund various dodgy activities in poor countries.
So we borrow money to give to other countries, you couldn't make it up.
If he did, he might have said that ODA would be cut to zero. That would concentrate the minds of the political elite in poor countries.
Not a bad idea.
We need to make British aid more visible. The Union Jack is the most identifiable symbol of the UK, said Mr Mitchell. But we have to be *sensible so we dont put humanitarian workers at risk.
Good idea, although I thought it was the 'Union flag' not the Union Jack or am I just being picky.
We (as a country) have to start being more choosy who we give aid to, China, India, Russia and other economically growing states should have no aid at all, basically if you have a space/ nuclear programme then you do not qualify for aid, period. Any country that's hostile towards the UK, again should get no aid. Also aid money should be passed to a recognisible charity that is working in the country and not to the leader/ government of that country.
Whats the saying, ' Give me a fish and I'll eat for a day, give me a net and I'll eat for the rest of my life' or something like that.
What is the obsession with Harrier?
You are replacing it with a much more capable, newer, easier to maintain aircraft (yes in smaller numbers ... but sometimes less in more).
Yes what would India do if we stopped giving them money?
Maybe all the people of Indian descent might withdraw all their support over here and go and work over in India?
Maybe all the call centers in India will stop working for us and we will have to man them over here?
Maybe they will stop selling us all their goods?
Yes lots of things India could do if we stopped giving them free money.
Its the fact that its being withdrawn before a replacement is fielded.
In the meantime Argentina has decided to massively increase itse defence budget including the development of nuclear powered subs etc.
It is simple common sense.
You don't say you are skint and unable to afford a proper defensive capability and then give billions away to countries who have larger growth than us.
Oh and the EU is demanding we increase our contributions to such things as their Champagne budget.
The governments position on defence cuts whilst increasing foreign aid is indefensible.
That issue cropped up here a few months back and the increases were equal to the square root of **** all in real terms.
Well lets hope so or we'll be paying for this folly in blood..... but then again, hasn't that always been the way throughout history.
IVV is right. And losing Harrier now means none of the skills to run a carrier safely will exist in ten years. How long to learn from scratch? About ten years.
Is Argentina's 50% budget increase really that easy to dismiss? An amphibious capability is on the shopping list...
Don't get me wrong I think the capbilty gap is a mistake (hello pro-CVF here) but considering Argentine defence spendign was $1.7billion back in 2007 and around $1.8 billion an increase of 50% is still **** all in the grand scheme of things.
Perhaps, but look at their force levels.
Argentine Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Argentine Naval Aviation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Argentine Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
£3 billion. Nothing to the bunch of twerps now running this country. That said, it is quite a lot to waste on:
EUROPEAN SOVIET UNION
FAT AND OVERWEIGHT, FOUL-MOUTHED, ILL-MANNERED HARRIDANS AND OIKS IN THE NHS
CORRUPT AFRICAN DICTATORS
Separate names with a comma.