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
  • pjhydro
    Rank 4 Registered User
    • Apr 2009
    • 886

    Originally posted by Lindermyer View Post
    Firstly Blacks werent the only slaves shiped abroad whites particuarly the Irish were shipped under the euphenism indentured workers -
    Absolutely! and we've been paying the price of that for years.

    Originally posted by Lindermyer View Post
    secondly when the uk left africa it laft 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.
    We left Africa- exactly! Did we teach them good governance? Did we show them how WE ran it? No we up and left and left people who had never governed themselves to it, what did we think would happen???

    Originally posted by Lindermyer View Post
    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 agreemaent
    Fair enough, we agree!

    Originally posted by Lindermyer View Post
    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 caribean)

    (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 officera 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.
    Sadly you were badly taught by bad and lazy teachers. I'm afraid my profession is full of them, I would guess you were taught WW1 by watching Blackadder and Slavery by watching Roots?? BTW the Caribbean slaves are the African ones....

    Originally posted by Lindermyer View Post
    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.
    I think it needs condemning really, whoever does it! Even at the time there were many in Britain that were uncomfortable with it, especially in the 18th Century.

    Originally posted by Lindermyer View Post
    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.
    Interestingly the title of Simon Schama's chapter in History of Britain on this is called "The Wrong Empire" that it was a very un-english thing, that after pursuing an empire of commerce we got diverted into another route that involved slavery, we endded up with the wrong empire.

    Originally posted by Lindermyer View Post
    As for aid India does not need our aid - time they spent money on welfare rather than weapons.
    I agree to a point but India needs a massive armed forces in order to keep stability and peace. It has a huge number of militant groups within its borders, it has two nations either side of it who have fought major wars with it and is prone to natural disasters. India is caught between a rock and hard place really.

    Originally posted by Lindermyer View Post
    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).
    You see I am the other way round, I have seen first hand the damage NGOs do in Africa. terrible abuses of power, particularly the religious NGOs and my loathing for the US Peace Corps knows few boundaries. NGOs are the bane of Africa and are now causing far more problems than they claim to solve. Government to Government is definately the way ahead, tied to improvements in governance and anti-corruption measures.

    Originally posted by Lindermyer View Post
    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.
    You see I agree with you 100%. You will not hear a dispute of that from here. I would like to see the NGOs out for the most part and then aid held in government hands (ours) and only handed over in return for good governance. After a few beers I can give you more radical solutions....maybe another time.

    Comment

    • pjhydro
      Rank 4 Registered User
      • Apr 2009
      • 886

      Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
      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.
      Oh I agree mostly. It can be fixed, I worked in East Africa, i've seen things work (and a lot fail) its a long road but can be done, but you are not wrong really.

      Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
      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.
      Never said it was all our fault, agreed again. Never said we were evil, just that we need to realise that ONE of the root causes of Africa is what this country did. My main "enemy of reason" in Africa is all those Catholic priests running around creating a slavery of religion and helping the spread of HIV/AIDs. They would be my first target, the lies they spread I spent a long time counter teaching, drove me insane (did you know sex with a virgin would cure you? No me neither.)

      Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
      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.
      Oh absolutlely, but we can do more and we ourselves would benefit froma fit healthy stable Africa.

      Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
      The QEs will do no harm to Africa. Probably, in their long life, they'll have chances to do a lot of good instead.
      Definately 100% agreed! I want QEs built and used in all their roles and absolutley they will be perfect for humanitarian intervention.

      See we actually agreed in the end! maybe we aren't so different.

      Comment

      • pjhydro
        Rank 4 Registered User
        • Apr 2009
        • 886

        Originally posted by Grim901 View Post
        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.
        Sorry dad!

        Comment

        • Lindermyer
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Dec 2009
          • 408

          Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
          Absolutely! and we've been paying the price of that for years.



          We left Africa- exactly! Did we teach them good governance? Did we show them how WE ran it? No we up and left and left people who had never governed themselves to it, what did we think would happen???

          I disagree when the British left we had left all the infrastructure required as for training them unfortunatly some were further down that road than others. Britain wanted to hand over over aperiod of years - many countries were unprepared to wait, unfortunate all round .
          ,
          Fair enough, we agree!



          Sadly you were badly taught by bad and lazy teachers. I'm afraid my profession is full of them, I would guess you were taught WW1 by watching Blackadder and Slavery by watching Roots?? BTW the Caribbean slaves are the African ones....

          Roots yes WW1 sadly just very left wing teachers (who were far more comfertable with the russian revolution, who believed all Officers = upper class = oppresssors).
          I was trying to say not all came from main land africa and chose a poor example my apologies

          I think it needs condemning really, whoever does it! Even at the time there were many in Britain that were uncomfortable with it, especially in the 18th Century.
          sorry clarification i wont condemn britains part and britains alone its all or nothing, here isnt a nation on eart that hasent taken traded or been slaves at some point - best forgiven all round.


          Interestingly the title of Simon Schama's chapter in History of Britain on this is called "The Wrong Empire" that it was a very un-english thing, that after pursuing an empire of commerce we got diverted into another route that involved slavery, we endded up with the wrong empire.

          Yes its my understanding that britains Empire was built on trade territory was rarely taken by force, and in many ways was a force for good, the slave trade being an abhorration in many ways

          I agree to a point but India needs a massive armed forces in order to keep stability and peace. It has a huge number of militant groups within its borders, it has two nations either side of it who have fought major wars with it and is prone to natural disasters. India is caught between a rock and hard place really.
          Agreed but At the same time we need to project power to ensure those countries who we have said we will protect are protected, again this will save a war. Im not convinced india needs a space programe or 3 carriers however.

          You see I am the other way round, I have seen first hand the damage NGOs do in Africa. terrible abuses of power, particularly the religious NGOs and my loathing for the US Peace Corps knows few boundaries. NGOs are the bane of Africa and are now causing far more problems than they claim to solve. Government to Government is definately the way ahead, tied to improvements in governance and anti-corruption measures.

          religious NGO and the likes of the peace corps tend to be to politically motivated.

          Others i will bow to youre experience, sadly government to government i cant see how (other than by a few well placed 7.62mm) you can prevent the massive embezzlement seen as perks, Crucially Africa needs to want to help itself and be seen to want to help its self


          You see I agree with you 100%. You will not hear a dispute of that from here. I would like to see the NGOs out for the most part and then aid held in government hands (ours) and only handed over in return for good governance. After a few beers I can give you more radical solutions....maybe another time.
          It would appear we are not so diametrically opposed as i first thought .

          As an aside have you ever read 'the state of africa' worth reading how (white ruled) south africa conducted its affairs
          DACT Proves nothing.

          Comment

          • pjhydro
            Rank 4 Registered User
            • Apr 2009
            • 886

            Originally posted by Lindermyer View Post
            It would appear we are not so diametrically opposed as i first thought .

            As an aside have you ever read 'the state of africa' worth reading how (white ruled) south africa conducted its affairs
            oh yes, great little read, good series on Radio 4 too.

            Comment

            • Frosty
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jan 2008
              • 334

              SO back to CVF what is the minimum numbers of aircraft that are required to provide a full airgroup for a CVF at all times while maintaining the usual training programs?

              Comment

              • MisterQ
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jan 2008
                • 475

                Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                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.
                Archer is not as survivable as AS90, not only is the cab only very lightly armoured in it's circa 30 ton config (and that is paper config), it is also has only 6 wheels, meaning it is virtually roadbound, which means IEDs. Any Archer that entered service in the UK would require more armour, which would mean integration costs. Oh, and lets not forget just how much it'll cost to integrate bowman. Oh, and I for one would love to see LIMAWS adopted, both rocket and gun, The SUPACAT Portee makes a lot more sense to me than ARCHER, Not only can the gun be emplaced without the vehicle if needs be, but it also means the whole system can be shifted by much lighter aircraft due to load splitting.

                As for what we're going to lose in the SDR, I'm guessing 1 AS90 regiment, 1 Light gun regiment, 1 CR2 regiment (may be traded into a 6th formation recon regt), MLRS is safe (I actually heard talk of the 1 regt of 18 switching over to 2 of 12, trading off TA strength), though this will all depend of the pace of operations set in the SDR, as the 5 regiment structure of AS90, Armour and Recce is designed to give optimum operational availability, so we may end up with a number per regt cut instead.

                Comment

                • Stolly
                  Rank 3 Registered User
                  • Jul 2010
                  • 11

                  crikey i wondered into this thread expecting to read about the CVF.

                  Comment

                  • flanker30
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Sep 2009
                    • 517

                    Originally posted by MisterQ View Post
                    ....As for what we're going to lose in the SDR, I'm guessing 1 AS90 regiment, 1 Light gun regiment, 1 CR2 regiment (may be traded into a 6th formation recon regt), ....
                    Another formation reconnaissance regiment is definitely not needed. Indeed most of the other five are a waste of time and space. They're just the toffs in the old cavalry regiments, determined to retain their right to swan about at speed about looking cool.

                    Chop them all and it wouldn't make a ha'porth of military differrence.

                    Comment

                    • Cuito
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Aug 2003
                      • 230

                      I don't know why this conversation has taken this turn, but:

                      Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                      Britain did nothing that the rest of the world did not do. 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.
                      Slavery in the Americas was chattel slavery involving ownership of people, "slavery" in Africa was temporary mandatory labor that never implied ownership of other persons and did not force people to give up their culture, language, names, and did not tear families apart - as was common practice in the West.

                      Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                      There are 17 wars in Africa, between africans, and they never run short of AK47.
                      No there aren't. Somalia, Sudan, and to a lesser extent the DRC are the only countries involved in conflict.

                      Comment

                      • Liger30
                        Armed Forces supporter
                        • Jul 2010
                        • 901

                        Originally posted by Frosty View Post
                        SO back to CVF what is the minimum numbers of aircraft that are required to provide a full airgroup for a CVF at all times while maintaining the usual training programs?
                        Richard Beedall's Navy Matters website reports this table, indicative of what could possibly go around the ocean in the hangars of QE.

                        Sample CVF "Tailored" Air Groups (aka Carrier Strike Joint Force Air Groups)

                        Description Air Group [1] Likely Baseline TAG ("Peacetime", minor exercises)

                        9 - 12 x Harrier GR.9 or F-35B STOVL Joint Strike Fighters;
                        4 x Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control
                        aircraft/helicopters/UAVs
                        6 x Merlin HM helicopters
                        Total = 22 - 25

                        Strike Configured TAG [2] ("Crisis", major exercises)
                        18 - 24 Harrier GR9 or F-35B STOVL Joint Strike Fighters;
                        4 x Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control
                        aircraft/helicopters/UAV's
                        6 x Merlin HM helicopters
                        Total = 28 - 34

                        Surge TAG ("Wartime")

                        36 x Harrier GR9 or F-35B STOVL Joint Strike Fighters;
                        4 x Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control
                        aircraft/helicopters/UAV's
                        Total = 40
                        Forward Aviation Support Ship (ASS) or Amphibious Helicopter Platform (LPH) [3]
                        18 x Medium lift transport helicopters (Merlin HC.3 / FRC);
                        6 x Heavy lift transport helicopters (Chinook HC.2 / FRC);
                        6 x WAH-64 attack helicopters;
                        4 x Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control
                        aircraft/helicopters/UAV's
                        Total = 34

                        Notes:
                        1.In addition, CVF will probably often operate a Ship Flight of 1 or 2 helicopters of unknown type for SAR, COD and utility purposes.
                        2. Expected to be embarked for exercise every two years.
                        3. Speculative.


                        This depends largely on what the RAF will want to do with the F35: officially, it has been agreed that their main role should be as embarked planes, but the RAF may end up taking the planes for itself most of the time as it does with the Harriers.
                        However, it is likely that a Operational Conversion and Training unit for F35 would comprise 14 or so planes. Frontline F35 squadrons were expected to deploy 12 planes each, but later rumors talked of 9. 72 aircrafts would give 6 squadrons of 12 planes each, theorically enough to fill up completely a carrier and still give RAF something to use elsewhere, or a second airgroup for PoW. All squadrons active would mean wartime, though.
                        84 planes considering the 14 for the OCTU wouldn't be a bad deal.
                        "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 MisterQ View Post
                          Archer is not as survivable as AS90, not only is the cab only very lightly armoured in it's circa 30 ton config (and that is paper config), it is also has only 6 wheels, meaning it is virtually roadbound, which means IEDs. Any Archer that entered service in the UK would require more armour, which would mean integration costs. Oh, and lets not forget just how much it'll cost to integrate bowman. Oh, and I for one would love to see LIMAWS adopted, both rocket and gun, The SUPACAT Portee makes a lot more sense to me than ARCHER, Not only can the gun be emplaced without the vehicle if needs be, but it also means the whole system can be shifted by much lighter aircraft due to load splitting.

                          As for what we're going to lose in the SDR, I'm guessing 1 AS90 regiment, 1 Light gun regiment, 1 CR2 regiment (may be traded into a 6th formation recon regt), MLRS is safe (I actually heard talk of the 1 regt of 18 switching over to 2 of 12, trading off TA strength), though this will all depend of the pace of operations set in the SDR, as the 5 regiment structure of AS90, Armour and Recce is designed to give optimum operational availability, so we may end up with a number per regt cut instead.
                          I still have to disagree about your points on Archer, but anyway.

                          I actually hope the L118 regiments will be spared by the axe. They are, realistically, the most useful formations of the RA, and the only formation of artillery that can really be "easily" moved to the frontline. Not a case that Commando and Air Assault Brigade use it. Not a case that it was used heavily in the Falklands.
                          GMLRS is definitely safe, it would be idiotic to touch it.

                          AS90 is costy to maintain, little relevant to current operations and it is not anymore at the edge of technology in its field. It was a shame that the Braveheart upgrade was cancelled. I suspect that AS90 regiments will be the easiest victims to make in the SDR.
                          "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 Cuito View Post
                            I don't know why this conversation has taken this turn, but:

                            Slavery in the Americas was chattel slavery involving ownership of people, "slavery" in Africa was temporary mandatory labor that never implied ownership of other persons and did not force people to give up their culture, language, names, and did not tear families apart - as was common practice in the West.

                            No there aren't. Somalia, Sudan, and to a lesser extent the DRC are the only countries involved in conflict.
                            I suggest checking all the civil wars and tribe wars too. If they aren't anymore 17, they may be even more. Or a little less. But definitely not as few as you say.
                            The fact that they don't get space on the news does not mean they are not happening.
                            "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

                            • FluffyThoughts
                              Rank 3 Registered User
                              • Oct 2009
                              • 4

                              Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
                              "Bleeding heart stuff" such an easy term to throw out there and means nothing other than ignorance of history and the ignorance of the social structure of the UK. I dare you to go into the centre of say Brixton, lewisham, Battersea and stand with a sign on your chest that says "Africa is not MY problem...."
                              De-lurking just to say - as a Lew'sham lad - what utter balls. Stop projecting your guilt and please keep on-thread as I am enjoying the naval conversation (as opposed to staring into the midst of my moral navel).

                              De-lurk off! :diablo:
                              Last edited by FluffyThoughts; 15th July 2010, 08:09. Reason: Brain engaged....

                              Comment

                              • Witcha
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jun 2010
                                • 1241

                                Regarding the problem of a fixed-wing AEWC solution for the CVFs, the Russian Navy had considered a 'mini-AWACS' version of the two-seat Su-33UB trainer with an Erieye-type 'balance-beam' radome on the tail spine. I think the Royal Navy could make a case for something similar based on the F-35B's trainer version, with a belly-mounted MPA-like radar in the internal weapons bay. The second crew member could serve as a radar operator with additional ship-based operators available via datalink.

                                Comment

                                • Liger30
                                  Armed Forces supporter
                                  • Jul 2010
                                  • 901

                                  Originally posted by Witcha View Post
                                  Regarding the problem of a fixed-wing AEWC solution for the CVFs, the Russian Navy had considered a 'mini-AWACS' version of the two-seat Su-33UB trainer with an Erieye-type 'balance-beam' radome on the tail spine. I think the Royal Navy could make a case for something similar based on the F-35B's trainer version, with a belly-mounted MPA-like radar in the internal weapons bay. The second crew member could serve as a radar operator with additional ship-based operators available via datalink.
                                  The F35 trainer version does not exist. The F35 comes in single seat only, and there's no way in hell money can be found to attempt modifying so deeply an F35. And chances are, it wouldn't even be a good choice anyway. You'd have to completely redesign the weapons bays (F35 has TWO separate bays at the sides, not a ventral one like F22) and design a radar suite capable to fit inside.

                                  I won't say it would be impossible... But it will never happen. It would cost more than buying a bunch of Hawkeyes and fit the carriers with catapults.
                                  "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

                                  • John K
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Jul 2010
                                    • 311

                                    Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
                                    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 isnt 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 rathera 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 Schamas 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.




                                    So you are ok with that? It made the country as a whole rich Im afraid.



                                    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!



                                    Look at the sources above and I can pass many others your way, Im 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? Im afraid it comes from Britains Holocaust, the Slave trade.
                                    Your use of the "R" word is as inevitable as it is laughable. You seem to be the one in fear of what black people will do to you, not me. I rather think that most black people in Lewisham would rather have their taxes spent on their welfare, not that of foreigners, and I would hope that any who disagree with me would do so peacefully.

                                    As it happens, for most British people, the only "benefit" they got from slavery really was cheap sugar, and not much else. Dr Schama may say otherwise, but his views are not gospel. He thinks Obama is wonderful, and I disagree with him on that too!

                                    Comment

                                    • Witcha
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jun 2010
                                      • 1241

                                      Originally posted by John K View Post
                                      Your use of the "R" word is as inevitable as it is laughable. You seem to be the one in fear of what black people will do to you, not me. I rather think that most black people in Lewisham would rather have their taxes spent on their welfare, not that of foreigners, and I would hope that any who disagree with me would do so peacefully.

                                      As it happens, for most British people, the only "benefit" they got from slavery really was cheap sugar, and not much else. Dr Schama may say otherwise, but his views are not gospel. He thinks Obama is wonderful, and I disagree with him on that too!
                                      I don't get most of your argument with him and won't step in, but if you believe that the UK's aid package to India needs to be cut to facilitate defence purchases you're dead wrong. What's in a paltry 250 million being used to feed millions starving to death instead of paying for social security for a few thousand British retirees? If that's your view you should be railing against the billions being gifted/loaned to Pakistan by the West as well.

                                      Comment

                                      • Liger30
                                        Armed Forces supporter
                                        • Jul 2010
                                        • 901

                                        Originally posted by Witcha View Post
                                        I don't get most of your argument with him and won't step in, but if you believe that the UK's aid package to India needs to be cut to facilitate defence purchases you're dead wrong. What's in a paltry 250 million being used to feed millions starving to death instead of paying for social security for a few thousand British retirees? If that's your view you should be railing against the billions being gifted/loaned to Pakistan by the West as well.
                                        250 millions aren't paltry in time of budget cuts at home. But if tou want to spend them to help poor people, do NOT give them to India. India has by far an economic power and budget that can surely take care of its own population. I remind you their massive arms race and their space program for a fast example.

                                        Money given to Pakistan makes already more sense because it has a strategical importance in ensuring Pakistan support in the Afghanistan effort. And it is meant to make the Pakistan government capable to get back in force in the currently uncontrollable area at the borders with Afghanistan.
                                        Money given to India seems to be far less effective for helping british interests, and coupled to the might of India itself... They don't need that money. The british overstretched budget would bless 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

                                        • Liger30
                                          Armed Forces supporter
                                          • Jul 2010
                                          • 901

                                          Seems it is official now: the review will include an analysis on the capabilities that could be shared, pooled or interdipendent with France.
                                          It may be good news for the Taranis drone, and it will probably end up with the French buying hours out of 6 of the 14 new Uk air tankers.

                                          Will some sort of cooperation touch the carriers as well...? We'll see, i guess.

                                          Here is the news article:
                                          http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...29&c=EUR&s=TOP
                                          "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