Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVF Construction

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Liger30
    Armed Forces supporter
    • Jul 2010
    • 901

    Originally posted by MisterQ View Post
    SAo let me get this right, you think that mothballing in service kit in order to buy something new and expensive is a cut, jesus you must work for the MOD, the whole point of making cuts is to save money, not introduce new kit which not only costs money to procure but also needs crew conversion training. AS90 is VERY usefull, just because it hasn't been deployed in the 'Stan doesn't mean it couldn't do a job there (the germans have sent their pzh2000s and their doing fine). It's the same with the C2s, the only reason they aren't in Afghanistan is that others in our NATO battlegroup have their tanks in country instead.

    You want to think about saving money, ask yourself why we're buying ASCODs when new build upgraded Warrior chassis would be just as good and slot straight into the existing infrastructure.
    I think you are the one who does not get the point. Besides, it is not possible to use Warrior instead of ASCOD simply because Warrior's production line does not exist anymore, is closed from many years already and there's no way in hell it gets reopened.

    Cuts are made to save money. True. But i'm hoping we don't just get cuts. On the short term, many regiments of AS90 are probably going to be cut. I don't say it because i'm happy of it, but because it is very probable.
    The Archer is a cheaper and more effective, more mobile (lighter, greater firing range, less costy to maintain) piece of self propelled artillery, similar to what had been thought for the (cut) requirement LIMAWS(G). Air mobile, easier to get in the area, cheaper. I think it fits into a new vision of the Royal Artillery for the future.

    The L118 is awesome. The most strategically mobile gun available, light and agile. But it is not self propelled, and it is 105 mm only.
    The Navy is studying the 155 mm conversion of MK8. Everyone in NATO has 155 mm artillery. It does make sense to think about switching to M777 as soon as possible. The savings will come in the long term from having a single stockpile of ammo.

    Think about it. I'm not saying it will happen today, not tomorrow. But unless we want cuts to completely or almost completely erase entire capabilities (and mr. Fox correctly seems to rule this out) we'll have to think about cheaper and possibly more effective ways to fill requirements.

    AS90 did go to Stan', anyway, i think, even if in little numbers. But only time i heard of them having fired, it was from well inside Camp Bastion's walls. And you can imagine the logistic footprint of 50 tons sep howitzers deployed so far abroad. I know they do their job better. They would even better if the up-gunning to the 52 calibre barrels had gone ahead.
    But there will have to be changes, no...? Well, i'm suggesting.

    You, with all respect, instead, are suggesting something that's impossible. Warrior's production was closed, ultimately, and long ago.
    "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

    Comment

    • PMN1
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Aug 2006
      • 339

      Originally posted by John K View Post
      India has got larger armed forces than Britain, and we are giving them aid? Come off it!

      .
      A space programme, a nuclear weapons programme, an ABM porgramme and a carrier programme and as you say, people complain when WE dont give enough....

      Comment

      • swerve
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jun 2005
        • 13612

        Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
        You, with all respect, instead, are suggesting something that's impossible. Warrior's production was closed, ultimately, and long ago.
        The trouble with that is that is that we're not going to buy ASCOD off the shelf from Spain or Austria, we're going to set up a new production line in England for a new version of ASCOD. The same would have been done if CV90 had been selected.

        Somehow, this is possible, but new Warrior production wasn't considered as an option. Baffling, eh?
        Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
        Justinian

        Comment

        • pjhydro
          Rank 4 Registered User
          • Apr 2009
          • 886

          Originally posted by John K View Post
          Sorry old boy, but I really don't care if their relatives live in poverty in the Caribbean. I didn't cause it, and it's nothing to do with me. I live in Britain, and I want British taxpayers' money to be spent defending Britain, not wasted on some futile attempt to assuage the neo-colonial guilt of the Guardian reading classes.
          You would be willing to stand and look at a Black Britain and say that? You would look someone who is in the UK because their family were seized in Africa and taken to the other side of the world, (by some of your relatives) made to work for nothing but a blooded back and you could stand there and say "nothing to do with MY country".

          Why NEO-colonial guilt? Neo-colonial is a term bounded about by those who believe we should not be taking part in military intervention in Africa, it does not refer to original flavour colonialism. Also colonial is the wrong term to use when talking about slavery. Colonialism is a term that mainly refers to the penultimate phase of empire, late 19th century until the 1940s (after which we get collapse and abandonment, lets stop being so sanctimonious as to call it “giving them independence”) Slavery occurred in the earlier phases of empire when the emphasis was on trade and commerce rather than outright domination and rule.

          As for the 'Granuiad' it is one of the reasons we gave up slavery, it is also one of the key protagonists in the fight to end child labour in the UK, extend workers rights, give you the right to a union and the right to protest. While there is a lot wrong with it, it is also a very British institution and one I am frankly very proud of.

          Originally posted by John K View Post
          If Britain is not the world's policeman, it certainly isn't the world's daddy either. India has got larger armed forces than Britain, and we are giving them aid? Come off it!
          Yes we gave India almost a Billion in aid last year. Ever been to India? We give them aid because it is poor, very poor. They have a huge army because they pay their soldiers peanuts and they need one otherwise their country would be defenceless and at the mercy of a dozen militant groups and the situation would be worse. To give you an idea of the reality GDP per capita in the UK is around 35,000 dollars India is about 1000. That isn’t just a huge disparity it is a monumental gulf and again partly due to two centuries of asset stripping by the UK.

          Which would you rather…a tiny proportion of our wealth to help solve education, AIDs, poverty etc in Africa OR British and European soldiers having to fight in peacekeeping ops in order to restore order in an unstable, desperate and starving Africa. I would assume you are against British soldiers being killed for the cause of Africa? Defence money can sometimes mean not just buying arms, we can attain the aims of UK defence in many different ways.

          You want to stop immigration to the UK I am sure (inference I know, but probably a good one?) then raising the living standards of poorer countries is the best way to do it. You want the UK economy to grow, then raising living standards in one of the worlds largest barely tapped markets would help massively.

          Originally posted by John K View Post
          As a matter of record, slavery did not make Britain rich.
          As a matter of record it did. Can I point you in the direction of Simon Schama’s a History Of Britain and his fantastic book on the trade Rough Crossings. Also for a more economic out look there is Slavery, Atlantic trade and the British economy, 1660-1800 by Ken Morgan.

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british..._gallery.shtml might be a good starter for you.


          Originally posted by John K View Post
          It made some British people rich, and made the ports of Bristol and Liverpool rich,
          So you are ok with that? It made the country as a whole rich I’m afraid.

          Originally posted by John K View Post
          but the main impact of slavery on most British people was to rot our teeth with cheap sugar.
          Thats so nearly racist as to be insulting. “It was so terrible, we took thousands from their native homes and all we got was a tooth rot” Never visit London or any major UK city and say that aloud, please!

          Originally posted by John K View Post
          The industrial revolution made Britain rich, that's what set Britain apart from states such as France, Spain and Portugal which all had large colonial holdings built on the slave trade.
          Look at the sources above and I can pass many others your way, I’m afraid it has been accepted historical fact (for years) that the UK economy like much of the west was built on a bed rock of slavery, its in the national curriculum and taught to year 8s, its on the A-level syllabus, its taught at university.

          You are correct in stating that the Industrial revolution set us apart BUT did you ever stop for one moment to ask how did we afford the industrial revolution? Where did the capital to fund it all come from? I’m afraid it comes from Britain’s Holocaust, the Slave trade.
          Last edited by pjhydro; 14th July 2010, 19:59.

          Comment

          • StevoJH
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jun 2008
            • 1024

            Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
            Yes we gave India almost a Billion in aid last year. Ever been to India? We give them aid because it is poor, very poor. They have a huge army because they pay their soldiers peanuts and they need one otherwise their country would be defenceless and at the mercy of a dozen militant groups and the situation would be worse. To give you an idea of the reality GDP per capita in the UK is around 35,000 dollars India is about 1000. That isnt just a huge disparity it is a monumental gulf and again partly due to two centuries of asset stripping by the UK.
            - 130 Fighters to be ordered is not "peanuts"
            - The dozens of quite advanced frigates and destroyers they are building are not "peanuts"
            - The SSBN's they are constructing are not "peanuts"
            - The Aircraft carriers they are constructing are not "peanuts"

            Enough said.
            Can't wait to join the 'real' world. Hopefully only one week to go....

            Comment

            • pjhydro
              Rank 4 Registered User
              • Apr 2009
              • 886

              Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
              Britain did nothing that the rest of the world did not do.
              He did it too miss!

              Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
              Slavery was common practice in Africa before than it was in the rest of the world. Most african slaves were regularly bought from other african tribes who enslaved its own people as a daily work.
              It was like that when I got here!

              Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
              While slavery is not nice, your vision of the "evil empire" is seriously flawed. When africa was powerful, it came in Europe seeking slaves. The saracen pirats didn't do that? The arabs did not do that?
              How many europeans have been killed, slaughtered, and sold as slaves?
              They did it first miss!

              Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
              It was common practice of an age now gone. The old Britain wasn't evil. Not more evil than anyone else. So, our regret should be commesurate to this simple truth. The rest is bleeding heart stuff.
              Well you can't blame me miss, i'm not apologising it happened ages ago and they should be like sooo over it by now, god, its like sooo old....

              Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
              International aid must be used strategically. And UK, Europe, are not responsible of the state of Africa more than Africa itself is. If Africa had been developing before colonialism began, there would have been no colonialism, simple as that.
              Well it was their fault, i mean look at them....their different, if they had been more like us miss we wouldn't have done it.

              Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
              If Europe was building empires with rifles and unitary nations and Africa was fighting with rocks and spears and in tribes, it means they were already underdeveloped well before colonialism began.
              See miss, I mean they were asking for it really.

              Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
              Proof is the beating that Italy took in more than an occasion trying to build its own empire in Africa attacking the Negus, who had a not-so-underdeveloped army.
              And then they had the cheek to fight back miss, they hit us so we kept hittin' em back.

              Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
              Or you really believe that, had it been the other way around, with Africa strong and Europe weak, they wouldn't have colonized us...?
              Well if we hadn't done it miss they would have started and then my mum.....


              Come on is this the best argument against "slavery guilt" you have?

              What if I change the word slavery to "Holocaust" in all your phrases and African to Jew? is that more or less acceptable?

              Comment

              • pjhydro
                Rank 4 Registered User
                • Apr 2009
                • 886

                Originally posted by StevoJH View Post
                - 130 Fighters to be ordered is not "peanuts"
                - The dozens of quite advanced frigates and destroyers they are building are not "peanuts"
                - The SSBN's they are constructing are not "peanuts"
                - The Aircraft carriers they are constructing are not "peanuts"

                Enough said.
                sigh. I said, and I quote "They have a huge army because they pay their soldiers peanuts" The average Indian Soldier is paid just over 100 a year. If we paid our soldiers that we could have over a 150 soldiers for the starting wage of a private currently.

                ENOUGH SAID.

                Would you rather they faced millitant groups, china and Pakistan with sticks and rocks? Or is an unstable India desirable?

                Comment

                • Stryker73
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jun 2010
                  • 274

                  Nothing worse than a wet flagellating Brit.

                  Maybe we could get a few Germans to fund our schools? Hell maybe the Danes should be funding our health service!

                  Comment

                  • pjhydro
                    Rank 4 Registered User
                    • Apr 2009
                    • 886

                    Originally posted by Stryker73 View Post
                    Nothing worse than a wet flagellating Brit.
                    Pardon? Sorry does actually understanding the world, having the facts to hand and realising that aid can actually constitute as defence budget in that it prevents conflicts and the need for UK soldiers to die make me wet? What if we had given the aid that is now flooding (at the requst of the Army) into Afghanistan years ago, decades ago. We wouldn't have more then 300 dead UK servicemen in Hellmand and seen the UK defence budget destroyed, the UK military overstretched tot he point of breaking, cancellations in projects, massive cuts etc etc etc

                    Originally posted by Stryker73 View Post
                    Maybe we could get a few Germans to fund our schools? Hell maybe the Danes should be funding our health service!
                    What on earth has that got to do with the price of bacon?

                    Anyway, we just allow right wing religious nutters and readers of the Daily Mail to set up crazy academies where they can teach creationism and pseudo-science (wouldn't happen in Germany).

                    Comment

                    • pjhydro
                      Rank 4 Registered User
                      • Apr 2009
                      • 886

                      Anyway Back to the CVF....

                      Comment

                      • Stryker73
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jun 2010
                        • 274

                        Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
                        Pardon? Sorry does actually understanding the world, having the facts to hand and realising that aid can actually constitute as defence budget in that it prevents conflicts and the need for UK soldiers to die make me wet?
                        That doesn't make you wet at all. Foreign aid is a perfectly valid tool for conflict prevention. It's your Guardianista guilt trip that makes you wet, you'll be going all Simon Jenkins on us next.

                        I refuse to be held responsible for anything some relative of mine did 60 years ago. I feel the same contempt for the British who bang on about the second world war.

                        Comment

                        • pjhydro
                          Rank 4 Registered User
                          • Apr 2009
                          • 886

                          Originally posted by Stryker73 View Post
                          That doesn't make you wet at all. Foreign aid is a perfectly valid tool for conflict prevention. It's your Guardianista guilt trip that makes you wet.
                          Actually the Guardian has a very mixed stance on slavery guilt and is generally against an apology, as am I. What would an apology mean? It is meaningless. The crime is so great that an aplogy uttered hundreds of years after the event would be hollow. Does it mean we should not deal with the long term results of countries actions though....?

                          Originally posted by Stryker73 View Post
                          I refuse to be held responsible for anything some relative of mine did 60 years ago. I feel the same contempt for the British who bang on about the second world war.
                          You personally, no, us collectively as a country that benefited from the trade to such a huge degree and still essentially does, yes. Aplopgy no, helping, yes. I am interested in conflict prevention here, a stable, richer, fed Africa is good for stability and good for our industry...think markets opportunities!

                          Comment

                          • PMN1
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Aug 2006
                            • 339

                            Originally posted by PMN1 View Post
                            A space programme, a nuclear weapons programme, an ABM porgramme and a carrier programme and as you say, people complain when WE dont give enough....
                            And according to the Times of India, Indian defence chiefs have approved $11bn of funds to boost the country's submarine fleet. The cash is intended to see India become the first non-Western nation to deploy long-touted, much feared "air independent propulsion" (AIP) submarine technology.

                            Comment

                            • MisterQ
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jan 2008
                              • 475

                              Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                              I think you are the one who does not get the point. Besides, it is not possible to use Warrior instead of ASCOD simply because Warrior's production line does not exist anymore, is closed from many years already and there's no way in hell it gets reopened.

                              Cuts are made to save money. True. But i'm hoping we don't just get cuts. On the short term, many regiments of AS90 are probably going to be cut. I don't say it because i'm happy of it, but because it is very probable.
                              The Archer is a cheaper and more effective, more mobile (lighter, greater firing range, less costy to maintain) piece of self propelled artillery, similar to what had been thought for the (cut) requirement LIMAWS(G). Air mobile, easier to get in the area, cheaper. I think it fits into a new vision of the Royal Artillery for the future.

                              The L118 is awesome. The most strategically mobile gun available, light and agile. But it is not self propelled, and it is 105 mm only.
                              The Navy is studying the 155 mm conversion of MK8. Everyone in NATO has 155 mm artillery. It does make sense to think about switching to M777 as soon as possible. The savings will come in the long term from having a single stockpile of ammo.

                              Think about it. I'm not saying it will happen today, not tomorrow. But unless we want cuts to completely or almost completely erase entire capabilities (and mr. Fox correctly seems to rule this out) we'll have to think about cheaper and possibly more effective ways to fill requirements.

                              AS90 did go to Stan', anyway, i think, even if in little numbers. But only time i heard of them having fired, it was from well inside Camp Bastion's walls. And you can imagine the logistic footprint of 50 tons sep howitzers deployed so far abroad. I know they do their job better. They would even better if the up-gunning to the 52 calibre barrels had gone ahead.
                              But there will have to be changes, no...? Well, i'm suggesting.

                              You, with all respect, instead, are suggesting something that's impossible. Warrior's production was closed, ultimately, and long ago.
                              Their is no ASCOD (or CV90) line in the UK either, but their setting one up for this order, not to mention the Warrior maintainance line already exists.

                              As for many regiments of AS90, 5 is not "many" regiments, ARCHER is not cheaper, because we already own AS90, it is not more deployable because it's too heavy for a C130J (both require C-17 to shift), and you have no idea about maintainance costs because no ARCHERS have gone into service.

                              I am going to say it again, buying ARCHER to replace AS90 would not save any money, it would cost a bloody fortune, and add yet another chassis to the already massive maintainance load

                              Comment

                              • Grim901
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • May 2009
                                • 1143

                                Can we leave this stupid debate please, neither of you will get the other to see your point of view. NOR does it have anything to do with CVF.

                                The only thing that needs to be said is that no one here believes the funds for CVF (or the rest of our defence budget) should be cut and given to the poor Africans.

                                Comment

                                • Liger30
                                  Armed Forces supporter
                                  • Jul 2010
                                  • 901

                                  Originally posted by MisterQ View Post
                                  Their is no ASCOD (or CV90) line in the UK either, but their setting one up for this order, not to mention the Warrior maintainance line already exists.

                                  As for many regiments of AS90, 5 is not "many" regiments, ARCHER is not cheaper, because we already own AS90, it is not more deployable because it's too heavy for a C130J (both require C-17 to shift), and you have no idea about maintainance costs because no ARCHERS have gone into service.

                                  I am going to say it again, buying ARCHER to replace AS90 would not save any money, it would cost a bloody fortune, and add yet another chassis to the already massive maintainance load
                                  They are not setting up a line for the production of ASCOD in the UK. The FRES SV will merely be fitted together in the UK, but the hulls will come already shaped from the production line abroad. The turret is the german Rheinmetal Lance modular turret.
                                  ASCOD SV was the worst possible choice between the two in competition. But as a matter of fact, no, there's not an ASCOD or CV90 production in the UK and it is not going to exist tomorrow either.

                                  We'll see how many of those 5 regiments survive the SDR. I'm afraid you don't have an idea of just how bad things will be yet.

                                  As a matter of fact, Archer would be far cheaper.

                                  It still weights far less than an AS90 and is smaller. The A400 is going to carry it comfortably. Moving it to the battlezone would still be easier. Then again, it is one of the possibilities: the LIMAWS(G) came up with a Supacat 6x6 vehicle that could be moved around by a Chinook and that could be separated in gun and vehicle as well.

                                  As a matter of fact, Archer will NOT be bought to replace the AS90 we'll lose with the SDR. Not now. We'll lose them without replacement. As probably we'll lose part of the CR2 as well and who knows what else. And i did not say they will CHANGE from one to another now. We'll just lose a lot of artillery without replacement for now. (far worse)

                                  But one day, the requirement for self-propelled artillery will come back. And i'm pretty sure that the days of tracked, armored sep guns are over. In the Uk at least, they probably are.
                                  An Archer-like vehicle is what you are going to get. And it makes sense in the current kind of wars.

                                  Also because AS90 wouldn't be that much more survivable than Archer in state-on-state warfare, sincerely.
                                  "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                  Comment

                                  • Liger30
                                    Armed Forces supporter
                                    • Jul 2010
                                    • 901

                                    Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
                                    He did it too miss!



                                    It was like that when I got here!



                                    They did it first miss!



                                    Well you can't blame me miss, i'm not apologising it happened ages ago and they should be like sooo over it by now, god, its like sooo old....



                                    Well it was their fault, i mean look at them....their different, if they had been more like us miss we wouldn't have done it.



                                    See miss, I mean they were asking for it really.



                                    And then they had the cheek to fight back miss, they hit us so we kept hittin' em back.



                                    Well if we hadn't done it miss they would have started and then my mum.....


                                    Come on is this the best argument against "slavery guilt" you have?

                                    What if I change the word slavery to "Holocaust" in all your phrases and African to Jew? is that more or less acceptable?
                                    Man, get it over with already.
                                    If you want to cry and claim that it is your fault for all the problems of the world, do it, but don't call in the rest of the nation and of the taxpayers.
                                    And avoid being offensive.

                                    I pointed out facts. Why Turkey is not repaying Europe for the hundred thousands of babies kidnapped and turned into soldiers? Why arabs and Turkey aren't giving money in exchange for the hundred thousands of slaves taken all over Europe when they were expanding well into Ungary and sieging Vienna? Slavery is not UK's fault. It was a global

                                    What use does Africa of the money we give them?
                                    Algeria bought Su30 fighters from Russia. Morocco even planned FREMM frigates. Egypt is one of the most armed countries on earth.
                                    There are 17 wars in Africa, between africans, and they never run short of AK47. Do you think that Russia and China give them all out for free? A china-built AK47 is 40/50 US dollars. You make your counts.

                                    Someone in Africa has the money.

                                    Africa is the most resource-rich area of the world. Ancient Egypt was a global power, ahead of everyone else. Far ahead of Europe.
                                    Yet, something happened, and their development halted well before Europe got back to Africa for getting its resources.
                                    Man, had they developed half as much of Europeans, with all the resources of their land, they'd rule the world.

                                    Doesn't it cause questions to arise in your mind?
                                    And not your pathetic mockery of my previous post, something serious.


                                    As to India, they may pay little their soldiers, but the life in there costs a lot less, man. Soldiers definitely aren't poor and dying starving in India.
                                    And the country, only on the military side is:

                                    - Buying Gorshokov from Russia at a price higher than that of the Queen Elizabeth.
                                    - a lot of Mig29K
                                    -leasing as much as six Akula nuclear submarines
                                    -Developing several advanced missiles
                                    -planning to buy perhaps as much as 126 advanced fighters (that if we are lucky and good marketers will be Typhoons), on top of their indigenous LCA and of planned 230 Su30.
                                    -they are building a 40.000 tons aircraft carrier at home
                                    -buying 2 huge fleet replenisher ships from Fincantieri, Italy
                                    -they recently bought a US landing ship
                                    -Scorpene submarines
                                    -Arjun tanks
                                    -THOUSANDS of russian tanks

                                    Am i forgetting something? Probably.

                                    Oh, yeah! 10 and i say TEN C17, when the RAF struggled years to get 7.
                                    And 6 EADS air tanker, even if the program got on hold.
                                    And P8I Poseidon patrol planes from the US.
                                    And new howitzers for the army.

                                    They are buying more kit in the last three years than the UK did in the last 40.
                                    And you talk about poor people...? They look like they are gearing up for WWIII, regardless of their own people.

                                    And in times of internal economic crisis, aiding foreign nations should be damn low on the priority anyway. There's plenty of people who lost the job that should be helped, CREATING new jobs with anything the government can do. But this is another matter.

                                    And aiding Afghanistan would have avoided the war...? Not likely. Giving money to Stan' would have been like giving it directly to Talibans. What do you think they would have used it for...?
                                    I have ideas.
                                    We would have faced better-armed talibans. And had even more drug coltivations blossoming all over the region.

                                    Look how succesfull it is the Aid Program in Somalia. People of the UN died aiding. Ships loaded with aid get captured by pirates. Convoy of vehicles loaded with food get attacked, ambushed, raided pretty often.
                                    What a success! Yeah, it definitely was the way to go at it!
                                    "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                    Comment

                                    • Lindermyer
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Dec 2009
                                      • 408

                                      [QUOTE=pjhydro;1610071]You would be willing to stand and look at a Black Britain and say that? You would look someone who is in the UK because their family were seized in Africa and taken to the other side of the world, (by some of your relatives) made to work for nothing but a blooded back and you could stand there and say "nothing to do with MY country".

                                      Why NEO-colonial guilt? Neo-colonial is a term bounded about by those who believe we should not be taking part in military intervention in Africa, it does not refer to original flavour colonialism. Also colonial is the wrong term to use when talking about slavery. Colonialism is a term that mainly refers to the penultimate phase of empire, late 19th century until the 1940s (after which we get collapse and abandonment, lets stop being so sanctimonious as to call it “giving them independence”) Slavery occurred in the earlier phases of empire when the emphasis was on trade and commerce rather than outright domination and rule.

                                      As for the 'Granuiad' it is one of the reasons we gave up slavery, it is also one of the key protagonists in the fight to end child labour in the UK, extend workers rights, give you the right to a union and the right to protest. While there is a lot wrong with it, it is also a very British institution and one I am frankly very proud of.



                                      Yes we gave India almost a Billion in aid last year. Ever been to India? We give them aid because it is poor, very poor. They have a huge army because they pay their soldiers peanuts and they need one otherwise their country would be defenceless and at the mercy of a dozen militant groups and the situation would be worse. To give you an idea of the reality GDP per capita in the UK is around 35,000 dollars India is about 1000. That isn’t just a huge disparity it is a monumental gulf and again partly due to two centuries of asset stripping by the UK.

                                      Which would you rather…a tiny proportion of our wealth to help solve education, AIDs, poverty etc in Africa OR British and European soldiers having to fight in peacekeeping ops in order to restore order in an unstable, desperate and starving Africa. I would assume you are against British soldiers being killed for the cause of Africa? Defence money can sometimes mean not just buying arms, we can attain the aims of UK defence in many different ways.

                                      You want to stop immigration to the UK I am sure (inference I know, but probably a good one?) then raising the living standards of poorer countries is the best way to do it. You want the UK economy to grow, then raising living standards in one of the worlds largest barely tapped markets would help massively.



                                      As a matter of record it did. Can I point you in the direction of Simon Schama’s a History Of Britain and his fantastic book on the trade Rough Crossings. Also for a more economic out look there is Slavery, Atlantic trade and the British economy, 1660-1800 by Ken Morgan.

                                      http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british..._gallery.shtml might be a good starter for you.



                                      Firstly Blacks weren't the only slaves shiped abroad whites, particuarly the Irish were shipped under the euphenism indentured workers -

                                      Secondly when the uk left africa it left some very rich well structured nations (see Sierra Leone) that they now live in poverty is nothing to do with the slave trade (and incidently when are the vikings, phonecians corsairs etc apologising to me) The situation they are in now is (mostly) the result of massive corruption on a monumental scale.

                                      Note some of our european neighbours when leaving their colonies did so in some cases in a most spiteful manner literally abandoning them withoutgovenment advice or help.

                                      If you want to debate that the drawing of colonial borders without regard to peoples and cultures has fuelled many civil wars and is also a factor on poverty, well it will be a short debate on that im in agreement

                                      National curriculum - this managed to teach me that whites were the only people to take slaves (not true) and only africans were slaves (again what about the carribean)

                                      (it also taught me that in ww1 the officers were safe behind the lines and sent the men to die which is why enlisted dead outnumber the officers 10 -1
                                      realism has taught me that as enlisted men outnumber officers about 30-1 in infantry regiments that officer casualties were inordinatly high)

                                      sadly our education tends to teach what is politicaly acceptable as opposed to the truth.

                                      back to the slave trade - that was the way of the world then yes african backs may have built the UK but British backs built rome. so while i do not condone the slave trade i will not condemn it.

                                      What I will condemn is the despicable and inhuman manner in which slaves were treated and transported during this period - That even by those standards was awful. Sadly Black people were thought to be subhuman and by dehumanising them they became less valuable than livestock - more tragically this isnt the English behavour at that time but human nature in general.

                                      As for aid India does not need our aid - time they spent money on welfare rather than weapons.

                                      Africa - Now in case you have the wrong idea I would like to find work with an aid agency in Africa - but I dont think another penny should be sent to africa (except to NGO).

                                      For clarity - I do not think another penny should be sent to an african country, to many leaders syphon to much off.

                                      All aid should be delivered in the form of food/clothing/skillled labour ( teachers included) training and education and machinery where required. this the man on the street will benifit from.

                                      Every penny given to an african Government is a penny wasted corruption means little if any gets where its needed, and I have come to the conclusion that our aid money is only prolonging the agony and that radical action is required.
                                      Last edited by Lindermyer; 14th July 2010, 19:29. Reason: grammer spelling and additional para
                                      DACT Proves nothing.

                                      Comment

                                      • pjhydro
                                        Rank 4 Registered User
                                        • Apr 2009
                                        • 886

                                        Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                                        Man, get it over with already.
                                        If you want to cry and claim that it is your fault for all the problems of the world, do it, but don't call in the rest of the nation and of the taxpayers.
                                        And avoid being offensive. etc etc.......
                                        Liger we come from different worlds with very different views, I think we see the events of the world through different sides of the prism. I've worked in Africa and India and it gives you a lot to chew on. I am a huge supporter of a strong British Military but I have also seen what the price of a couple of Typhoons could do in some the poorest nations on earth. This all resulted from someone saying what a stupid idea helping to pay for African education is, I disagreed, what we could achieve in terms of stability, peace and joint prosperity (once Africans have buying power we have a whole new market to work in) is so jaw droppingly simple and most of cheap that for me its a no brainer, a few million quid now or war in the future, wars that our soldiers will have to fight and die in at some point. Seems to me it would be good money well spent and a case of good defence planning. Lets build those QEs though in case it still goes **** and i'm wrong eh?

                                        Comment

                                        • Liger30
                                          Armed Forces supporter
                                          • Jul 2010
                                          • 901

                                          Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
                                          Liger we come from different worlds with very different views, I think we see the events of the world through different sides of the prism. I've worked in Africa and India and it gives you a lot to chew on. I am a huge supporter of a strong British Military but I have also seen what the price of a couple of Typhoons could do in some the poorest nations on earth. This all resulted from someone saying what a stupid idea helping to pay for African education is, I disagreed, what we could achieve in terms of stability, peace and joint prosperity (once Africans have buying power we have a whole new market to work in) is so jaw droppingly simple and most of cheap that for me its a no brainer, a few million quid now or war in the future, wars that our soldiers will have to fight and die in at some point. Seems to me it would be good money well spent and a case of good defence planning. Lets build those QEs though in case it still goes **** and i'm wrong eh?
                                          If 5 billions could fix Africa for real, it could be done tomorrow. Not by UK alone, obviously. Everyone would have to put a penny into it all the same, from french to dutch to chinese (the new, real slavers, since they are getting their hands on the contracts to exploit mostly all of the natural resources of Africa). The truth is that, between corruption, wars, enemy tribes and everything else, there's no way in hell you can fix that.

                                          And anyway, again, it is not UK's fault. It's everyone's fault, starting from african people itself, beware.
                                          The UK has its own interests to care about. I can certainly agree on spending more on Africa and less on India, of course. Greatest supporter of such a move.
                                          But please, let's not be extremists in drawin an evil Uk, or a Uk that, while it is deciding if it can still be a strong nation in the world or a backstage country, must at the same time save the world.

                                          Uk could shoulder more of the "save the world" effort if it was the leading world's superpower. It is not, unfortunately. And it must care very carefully about its own well being first of all.

                                          The QEs will do no harm to Africa. Probably, in their long life, they'll have chances to do a lot of good instead.
                                          "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X