Royal Navy to get Two new carriers after all

a reply to: ispyed

These days, it's more a case of "Britannia waives the rules".

All this money spent on "Defence" and yet I can't remember the last time we actually had to defend ourselves in the decades since WWII, which our city overlords had a hand in setting up anyway, just like the first one.

Falklands? Nah, that just Maggie proving she had balls and fighting a war for people she didn't really give a s**t about previously, but the oil around that area is another matter and the corporate boys do so love oil!

Iraq? Nope, just another arse-licking decision to join Shrub's coalition of the bought and blackmailed.

Afghanistan? Wrong again, that was another one like Iraq, nothing to do with us but America told us we had to join.

So who are we going to be fighting that we need 2 huge aircraft carriers? Maybe if we stopped acting like America's bitch and told them to go poke their special relationship where the sun don't shine, we'd be a hell of a lot better off. That though takes someone with balls, not the spineless career boys and criminals we get chosen for us by the old boy network.

In short, we don't need these carriers at all. We don't need to get involved in banker created wars at all, and we should spend the money where it is needed, not so some toff admiral can claim bragging rights. Scrap the whole "nuclear deterrent" as it's pointless and maybe we'll be left alone and not perceived as a threat to anyone!

a reply to: Britguy

Britguy………..

we are ALL guilty of stupidity in this regard……just look at everybodies adjulation and 'worship' of over paid footballers, racing drivers, music pop (engineered dancing monkey) bands to line the pockets of a few moguls, X-factor and other assorted TV crap …..


I would much rather have a strong Navy and world projection than carry on rewarding individuals whom actually have little in the way of substance or role-model ability……….. HOWEVER we all, as a society carry that stupid sharade on and on and on……!

ps - i'm with you on most things actually (especially MP's lining their pockets) BUT believe me……people whom work in the health service are fairly rewarded……… i'm in that environment and the number of times I see nurses from all areas 'taking a breather' and being non productive is actually ALOT more than they would like to admit….

Regards

PDUK

a reply to: Britguy

OK. Let's say we scrap the carriers and Trident (I'm not really defending that one, I'd prefer no nukes and bigger conventional forces but it's a reality) keep stripping back the forces further and further, and then we get faced with a real enemy. Then what?

What if the IS or Ukraine situations (or god forbid both) turn into a really hot shooting war that we cannot avoid. Do you suppose you can build equipment and train personnel to use it as the enemy marches towards you?

Look at the situation between 1919 and 1939 to see what our disarmament folly almost led to. The same folly people promote now, the same delusion that "no-one wants to attack us". Disarmament then almost led to disaster and even encouraged German aggression in the face of allied weakness. Thankfully the military equipment we needed then was cheaper and quicker to build, we won't get that luxury if there's a next time.

a reply to: Britguy

It does annoy me, attitude like that - it is precisely what led to World War 2. I suppose you'd have us totally disarm and only raise an Army/Navy when we're attacked? I suppose we'd just kindly ask our would be invaders to hold on for 2 years while be build and Army and Navy? Like that'll work....

It's also notable that every time these anti-war types pop up, they only choose the conflicts which fit their argument - even though they distort the facts - and ignore all the others where the UK forces have done a bang up job, such as Sierra Leone, the Balkans and many different humanitarian missions around the globe..

Peace, love and hippy-tree hugging is fine and dandy, but only if the world is full of hippy tree-huggers. It isn't, though. As I said to you before, the wise man who wants peace prepares for war. Waiting for War to come to you before preparing is a sure fire way of losing.

a reply to: ispyed

This "tiny little island" has the worlds 6th largest economy and interests all over the globe - that's why we need these Carriers.

China only has one because they are only now able to afford to have one - they will be building more, that is for certain. We need two so we can maintain a 100% readiness - simple logistics, although judging by your puerile attitude, I doubt you understand this.

As for the "rules the waves" snark - we still have one of the largest and most advanced Navies on the planet, so really all those bigger, more bad-ass countries than ours who don't should be ashamed. We're one of a handful of countries - which doesn't include everyone's favourite "superpower" Russia - who can project power on a global scale.

a reply to: stumason

I am by no means a "Hippy Tree Hugger", but I am vehemently anti-war, when those wars are always created by those who seek power over us, and by that I point the finger of guilt at our own overlords as much as any perceived foreign enemy. The bankers crave war, it's good for business, which is why the "defence" industry has grown to hold so much power and influence. Where wars do not exist, they create them.

I have said it many times before, follow the money! Look at where those previously impoverished goat herders suddenly get fleets of shiny new vehicles with heavy machine guns bolted to the back. Look at where they get the smallarms and rockets from, and at the end of the trail you will find those who are profiting massively, and I am sure it will in some instances lead right back to our own halls of power.

Is it really worth the spend? Is it really worth the death and suffering on both sides to increase the power and wealth of the elitist bastards who don't lift a finger to join the fight themselves?

If peace broke out all over, there would be hell to pay and they'd have to keep creating new enemies and conflicts. In fact, they already are and have been for a very long time.

Thus, I steer well clear of all the celebrations of death, the emotive "hero" worship, cooked up by the PR men to rally the masses. It is nothing more than organised death porn and programming by those with a financial interest in keeping the conflicts going.

originally posted by: Eyemin
a reply to: pikestaff

Watched a clip now i am looking for the whole thing.... lol looks great ty

Not sure I understand that message.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: ispyed

This "tiny little island" has the worlds 6th largest economy and interests all over the globe - that's why we need these Carriers.

Incorrect. We, the people, do NOT have interests all over the globe, the corporations do. We are being asked to fight for corporate greed and the pillaging of foreign nations. The profits are huge, so what's a few dead troops and others maimed for life compared to a new yacht or Lamborghini for the execs?

a reply to: Britguy

Whittling down you emotional diatribe against those dastardly bankers - it's all getting a bit tired now - on your point of "follow the money" if you're on about IS, for example, you won't end up in London, or New York. You'll end up in Riyadh or Doha. The fact you don't realise this and instead believe the whole "evil Western bankers are behind everything" BS is telling.

As for you "defence industry holding so much power" - this doesn't follow. The defence industry in the UK has steadily declined over the past two decades to the point where many shipyards are closed, the last remaining tank factory shut two years ago and BAe are shedding jobs in it's aircraft arm. If the "bankers" really wanted war to prop up the "defence industry", we'd have seen far more war and not the decline we have seen instead.

Compared to where we were in the inter War period, or during the Cold war, the defence industry has all but evaporated. All that remains is the bare minimum to service our armed forces.

Just more typical "Military Industrial Complex" conspiracy BS which, when you take it apart, isn't actually made up of anything solid, just crazy talk.

a reply to: Britguy

Jesus, you really are drinking from the kool-aid, aren't you?

The "people" rely on those "evil" corporations for their jobs, their livelihoods and their futures. If our trade interests are harmed, we the "people" are the ones who suffer.

But anyway, we have other interests outside of the corporate/business world, but it is clear your narrow-minded world view blinds you to that. You'd make an excellent politician.

a reply to: stumason

Kool Aid? Never touched the stuff, nasty chemical laden filth!


So the corporations are benevolent and look out for the interests of the people and the country as a whole? Are you serious? The get away with off-shoring thousands of jobs, and as a bonus get to payy little, if anything, to the treasury in tax due to carefully exploited loopholes and hordes of expensive lawyers.

Trade? Really, do we really make anything worth trading any more?

As for the defence industry being in decline, if that was really the case, where do all the arms come from that equip our forces? It's another off-shoring job, foreign players lobby better than British workers and after a few bungs we get expensive crap like the F-35!

Still, each to their own I suppose, and if you are happy believing that the government, bankers and corporations have our best interests at heart, then carry on believing it.

originally posted by: Britguy
So the corporations are benevolent and look out for the interests of the people and the country as a whole? Are you serious? The get away with off-shoring thousands of jobs, and as a bonus get to payy little, if anything, to the treasury in tax due to carefully exploited loopholes and hordes of expensive lawyers.

I never said they were "benevolent", did I? People do rely on them for their livelihoods though.

And the whole "tax" thing is total distraction and nothing to do with the corporations, but the convoluted tax system designed by morons which allows such things to take place. Either way, even my employer, who is famous for "paying no tax", does indeed pay and contributes far more to the Exchequer than the Guardian or the bleeding hearts would have you believe. Just on in income tax and NI contributions alone it adds to our economy, not to mention the huge amount of VAT it generates, before we even get into corporation taxes.

originally posted by: Britguy
Trade? Really, do we really make anything worth trading any more?

I don't even know why I am going to dignify this with a reply, but if you genuinely did know what you were talking about, you'd know that we still manufacture a great deal of products, from Cars, Aircraft, trains, ships, engines, turbines, pharmaceuticals, to food produce...the list goes on. I recommend you actually look into this and not believe the BS you've clearly been fed - I say this as you evidentially haven't actually done any legwork yourself.

originally posted by: Britguy
As for the defence industry being in decline, if that was really the case, where do all the arms come from that equip our forces? It's another off-shoring job, foreign players lobby better than British workers and after a few bungs we get expensive crap like the F-35!

The two don't follow. The defence industry has downsized because the Military has downsized. We still make a great deal of our equipment here in the UK, we just don't need that much of it! My point was that if the Defence industry needed propping up with wars, as you claimed that is what those "evil bankers" do, we'd see the opposite holding true. We do not.

originally posted by: Britguy
Still, each to their own I suppose, and if you are happy believing that the government, bankers and corporations have our best interests at heart, then carry on believing it.

And when did I say that?

Wonder what kind of military Scotland will be left with if they separate from UK. Not like the queen will be obliged to protect them from what ever threat may come. Also a separate Scotland would not necessarily be part of NATO.

a reply to: Xeven

The Queen will remain Head of State of an iScotland, not that she actually has any power. I think an iScotland's defence plans hinge on being surrounded by powerful countries which would defend her, as they only plan to have a single Brigade in the Army (plus support formations) and a small Coastguard sized Navy of a Frigate plus Patrol craft.

And no, iScotland needs to accept the existence of Nuclear Weapons to join NATO - if they insist on closing Faslane, then it is likely that the existing NATO countries will not accept her. It is simple SNP fantasy that they will be able to negotiate special rules for Scotland, the same applies for the EU as it happens.

Anyhoo, I actually expect the vote to go 60/40 in favour of the No's, despite the media panic over the past week based on a YouGov poll as that polling site has been flooded with Yes voters at the behest of the SNP urging members to sign up to YouGov on mass to sway the numbers.