Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
MOP

How Can The Uk/us Afford This?

Recommended Posts

Scrap the friggin army and give us a Civil Defence Force instead.

Redirect the saved cash to housing.

Leave the Americans to their endless wars.

Edited by gruffydd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://costofwar.com/

This is for the US alone btw.

In Feb, the UK was expected to spend 4.5 billion this year

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/1...ritish-military

Is it worth it?

The cost of Afghanistan is one thing, but if we don't provide a presence there then what are our armed forces for? If we don't fight in Afghanistan, we could also scale back other operational commitments.

So the true cost of going to Afghanistan isn't just related to the cost of funding the operation, but to keeping the necessary amount of forces at readiness. The real point is: what should the role of the armed forces be, and do the armed forces provide value for money?

Once this is determined the cost is almost irrelevant.

Edited by Total_Injustice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The cost of Afghanistan is one thing, but if we don't provide a presence there then what are our armed forces for? If we don't fight in Afghanistan, we could also scale back other operational commitments.

So the true cost of going to Afghanistan isn't just related to the cost of funding the operation, but to keeping the necessary amount of forces at readiness. The real point is: what should the role of the armed forces be, a do the armed forces provide value for money?

Once this is determined to cost is almost irrelevant.

Team UK, World Police.

Nice, but we cant afford it....neither can the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The British Army simply carries out a supporting role for the US army. They are not needed in their current bloated form.

Edited by gruffydd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The British Army simply carries out a supporting role for the US army. They are not needed in their current bloated form.

more like the british army allows Brown to Brown-nose the US in a practical and visible way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
more like the british army allows Brown to Brown-nose the US in a practical and visible way.

Exactly. And security contractors (mercenaries) are one of the UK's most profitable growth sectors.

It's win win.

Well, except for the wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey did you know there's a global shortage of morphine? What am l saying? Simply use the money you would have spent on killing them to co-opt them instead and set up a sustainable opiate export industry.

People forget about hating each other when the good times roll. Just look at Ireland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're forgetting to deduct the profits from all that opium, which the allied invasion increased from 182 tons under the Taliban, to 10,500 now (or something like that).

I do not believe the Allies are making zilch from it.

As for the armed forces, our only credible deterrent is nuclear submarines. We could scrap everything else and lose only our ability to intimidate foreign governments (and our own population) at a conventional level. But that's not what armed forces are about; a lot of it seems to be posturing and extortion rackets abroad, and keeping a thieving regime in power at home (in every country)

Quite why that should be necessary is a mystery to me. I think trying to get monopolies on raw materials looks a bit Victorian, protection rackets ditto. I can't see how they could possibly succeed in a nuclear world; if you have to share at the end for fear of armageddon, it's not worth the collossal expense of getting the monopoly in the first place. That only seems to leave, stealing from the third world and keeping the home population cowed. But here again, a tenfold increase in trade (if the third world were allowed to prosper) would be far more profitable than stealing their raw materials.

So the only reason I can come up with for the armed forces (nuclear deterrent aside) is: to allow an oligarchy to steal assets abroad for their private gain (even though the uk as a whole would be better off with a prosperous third world trading peacefully with us) and to keep that same oligarchy in power at home, no matter how corrupt and incompetent.

That would also explain why we keep doing it: the few (who control the government) get the profits, but the many pay for the expenses of these wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Team UK, World Police.

Nice, but we cant afford it....neither can the US.

Great Britain, F*ck Yeah! (Said in a Brummie accent.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://costofwar.com/

In Feb, the UK was expected to spend 4.5 billion this year

Looks like a tax-payer bargain to me, compared to the cost of running banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like a tax-payer bargain to me, compared to the cost of running banks.

It's only a bargain if we win the war.

Here's a quick reminder of what happened last time:

Soviet Losses in Afghanistan War 1979-1988

14,453 soldiers killed

469,685 soldiers wounded

118 aircraft lost

333 helicopters lost

147 tanks lost

1,314 IFV/APCs lost

433 artillery guns and mortars lost

1,138 radio sets and command vehicles lost

510 engineering vehicles lost

11,369 trucks and petrol tankers lost

RESULT: FAIL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The real point is: what should the role of the armed forces be

Standing armies are not good

and we shouldnt be in afghanistan. never mind people dying because of it.

Against Standing Armies

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

"A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:90

"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:207

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184

"Bonaparte... transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's only a bargain if we win the war.

Here's a quick reminder of what happened last time:

Soviet Losses in Afghanistan War 1979-1988

14,453 soldiers killed

469,685 soldiers wounded

118 aircraft lost

333 helicopters lost

147 tanks lost

1,314 IFV/APCs lost

433 artillery guns and mortars lost

1,138 radio sets and command vehicles lost

510 engineering vehicles lost

11,369 trucks and petrol tankers lost

RESULT: FAIL

you could go back in history and see similar over and over again re afghanistan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it worth it?

Is it worth it?

A new winter coat and shoes for the wife

And a bicycle on the boy's birthday

It's just a rumour that was spread around town

By the women and children

Soon we'll be shipbuilding

Well I ask you

The boy said dad they're going to take me to task

But I'll be back by Christmas

It's just a rumour that was spread around town

Somebody said that someone got filled in

For saying that people get killed in

The result of this shipbuilding

With all the will in the world

Diving for dear life

When we could be diving for pearls

It's just a rumour that was spread around town

A telegram or a picture postcard

Within weeks they'll be re-opening the shipyards

And notifying the next of kin

Once again

It's all we're skilled in

We will be shipbuilding

With all the will in the world

Diving for dear life

When we could be diving for pearls

(Elvis Costello)

Edited by mikthe20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. They are not needed in their current bloated form.

a few questions

1) "bloated form" Are you suggesting the British army is overmanned :blink: ? if so what manning do you think id sufficiant?

2) "not needed" do you think the current terrorist threat to the UK just Goverment hype?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a few questions

2) "not needed" do you think the current terrorist threat to the UK just Goverment hype?

Yes, the threat has increased a huge amount since the invasion.

Who would have guessed it? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a few questions

1) "bloated form" Are you suggesting the British army is overmanned :blink: ? if so what manning do you think id sufficiant?

2) "not needed" do you think the current terrorist threat to the UK just Goverment hype?

Anyone who calls the armed forces bloated is uninformed.

The armed forces, particularly the army, are stretched to beyond breaking point. They only cope because of the gestures of outstanding individuals.

The payment has to be made from somewhere though, and often paid in the form of broken marriages.

As I said before, the Government needs to define the role of the armed forces, and make sure a function is provided that offers value for money. If you want to reduce costs, reduce what they do, and cull the 'army' of civil servants in acquisition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone who calls the armed forces bloated is uninformed.

The armed forces, particularly the army, are stretched to beyond breaking point. They only cope because of the gestures of outstanding individuals.

The payment has to be made from somewhere though, and often paid in the form of broken marriages.

As I said before, the Government needs to define the role of the armed forces, and make sure a function is provided that offers value for money. If you want to reduce costs, reduce what they do, and cull the 'army' of civil servants in acquisition.

standing armies

get rid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. The regime we are propping up are almost as bad as the Taliban and are just another bunch of Islamic extremists who for the moment are more favourable to western money interests.

Our troops are dying for the global elite to put its corporate plan into action. It won't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was ever a quagmire it's Afganistan/Pakistan its next door neighbour.

1. Population:

Pakistan is under a population explosion of epic proportions:

33 million (1951) 89 million (1981)

170 million (2007) 250 million by 2025.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p..._8-8-2005_pg3_7

2. Culture: fertility is 5 children per woman, poverty is high, 40% of the population are illiterate, most of the poor only have madrassas which instill the same cultural mores + fundementalist.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ID25Df02.html

They thought they beat the Taliban in 2001, but are now facing a massive resurgence. Thats because of the vast swathes of fighters that are emerging. Within 10 years rivers of men will be fighting the west. Demographics is destiny.

Edited by brainclamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a matter of whether we can afford it. If the islamist extremists are not defeated in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan now, the cities of Europe will be war zones in a few years' time.

Edited by blankster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there was ever a quagmire it's Afganistan/Pakistan its next door neighbour.

1. Population:

Pakistan is under a population explosion of epic proportions:

33 million (1951) 89 million (1981)

170 million (2007) 250 million by 2025.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p..._8-8-2005_pg3_7

2. Culture: fertility is 5 children per woman, poverty is high, 40% of the population are illiterate, most of the poor only have madrassas which instill the same cultural mores + fundementalist.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ID25Df02.html

They thought they beat the Taliban in 2001, but are now facing a massive resurgence. Thats because of the vast swathes of fighters that are emerging. Within 10 years rivers of men will be fighting the west. Demographics is destiny.

Then you can add in inadequate numbers, inadequate equipment and a global recession. The UK death toll will probably be horrific in the next couple of months leading into the elections.

History has taught us nothing by the looks of it. Afghanistan is a meat grinder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Afghanistan is a meat grinder.

The former British miltary commander in Afghanistan said on TV that there are about 100 Taliban deaths to every coalition military fatality. Although the Taliban might never be totally defeated, they could be reduced to a small but occasionally deadly insurgency, which is something Afghanistan would have to live with for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   289 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.