Betrayal of the Military

[Ewan MacDonald]

I am sure that anyone who has read the Government White Paper on Defence Spending released yesterday will be appalled that Blair is to masively cut back on the Armed Forces. This is despite him sending them into conflict in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afganistan, and fr entirely the wrong reasons, Iraq. On top of that the Forces saved his posterior during the Foot and Mouth fiasco, and the Firefighters strike. Despite this catalogue of success and loyalty, he is cutting the RAF by a quarter, scrapping severla Navy Ships, and destroying one of the Scottish regiments. All I can say is that whe Georhe W askes for another military force, Tony can turn around and say, no sorry, I got rid of my army!
Wanker!

[hr]In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing.
Oscar Wilde, The Importance of being Earnest (III)

[mossop]

Yeah, this is something that will affect my local community greatly, since I live in Moray. The RAF generates something like £93 million a year for Moray, and with the cutbacks of the Nimrods from 21 to 16 in Kinloss, and the servicing of Helicopters in Lossiemouth being put out to private tender, the area will lose a lot of money. 40% of hospital workers in our area are related to RAF servicemen and women, and in some primary schools, 80% of the children are RAF children.

The only other industries in Moray are tourism and whisky, I wonder if these arses sitting in Westminster take things like this into account when they are trying to 'streamline the services', or rather save money at the expense of others.

[hr]IMAGE:www.stuord.demon.co.uk/justlarge.gif

[munchingfoo]

I agree that the cut backs are outrageous however, the scrapping of the scottish regiment is due to recruitment shortages and is unavoidable. The scottish regiments(like most others) are working on an average of 100 soldier deficit. People just don't want to join the army. The bad thing about losing a regiment is the prestigue that goes with it. As far as jobs, there will be jobs for everyone becuase closing one regt. will just bring the others back up to strength. There are some issues involved with regt. pride when regts amalgamate, but this isn't the first time, and certainly won't be the last.

[KateBush]

Of course there are going to be people who lose out cos of this move by the government, BUT....

Isn't it time we started looking forwards and not backwards? As a pacifist, I think this is great. Why should people like me and my family who are all pacifists have to fund, through our taxes, those who go out to war and slaughter others?

Before we start funding that kind of sham, we need to sort out problems in our own country first- the education and health systems for starters. Let's face it, they need it!

And it's not as if the WHOLE army/military is going. It's just being streamlined, isn't it?

[Anon.]

[s]KateBush wrote on 11:37, 22nd Jul 2004:
Why should people like me and my family who are all pacifists have to fund, through our taxes, those who go out to war and slaughter others?

Because they're also there to prevent anyone who tries to go to war and slaughter *you*.

[Anon.]

Which regiments are being done away with?

[Haunted]

I think its been overdue for a while to be honest. They are making cuts so that they can fund new enterprises such as Fast Attack vehicles and (for the love of allah) the eurofighter.

It is sad to see some historic regiments go, but they couldnt stay around forever could they?

I think that once everything has gone through and been cleared up then we will see a much more efficient and hi-tech British fighting force.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Personally, I think that Britain should be doing things that would *really* cut military expenses - like pulling out of fools errands in the Middle East...

Besides if they genuinely wanted to give us a slimmed down military - they'd get rid of the bureaucrats who know out-number soldiers 10 to 1.

[KateBush]

[s]Prophet Tenebrae wrote on 15:41, 22nd Jul 2004:
Personally, I think that Britain should be doing things that would *really* cut military expenses - like pulling out of fools errands in the Middle East...

Besides if they genuinely wanted to give us a slimmed down military - they'd get rid of the bureaucrats who know out-number soldiers 10 to 1.


Hear hear. And besides, this government has shafted everyone else. Surely the military wouldn't want to be left out?

[KateBush]

edited cos I put the post up twice by mistake. doh!

[Prophet Tenebrae]

As I see it - this kind of thing actually throws the idea of a combined European Defence policy into a slightly more respectable light... although that's admittedly making the huge leap of faith that assumes the EU wouldn't just make it a mass of seething bureaucracy.

Anyway - I think the only thing that would save the Armed Forces now, is if the Falklands got invaded.

[Guest]

[s]KateBush wrote on 11:37, 22nd Jul 2004:
Isn't it time we started looking forwards and not backwards? As a pacifist, I think this is great. Why should people like me and my family who are all pacifists have to fund, through our taxes, those who go out to war and slaughter others?


Perhaps in simpleville that makes sense, but not in the real world. Here a pacifist country is one waiting to be stood on.

[Ewan MacDonald]

[s]Anon. wrote on 14:26, 22nd Jul 2004:
Which regiments are being done away with?

they haven't decided yet, which can be taken as read that they don't want to make the unpopular announcement at this time, especially as it will cause huge uprest, and more importantly cost lots and lots of votes. For example look at the battering the Tories got for their defence cuts in the 90's.
The reality is that the armed forces are bing asked to do more and more with less and less.
Oh, and in response to those who don't think that we need a military. Aside fromthe obvious necessity for self-defence, the first requirement of any state, the Armed Forces do an enormous amount of humanitarian work as well, alongside work sch as that in Sierra Leone where they stopped several massacres, or should we be pacifists and leave it for the Americans in their cack-handed manner to resolve?


[hr]
In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing.
Oscar Wilde, The Importance of being Earnest (III)

[Sleigh]

[s]Anon. wrote on 14:26, 22nd Jul 2004:
Which regiments are being done away with?

They're considering the Black Watch and the Highlanders, themselves a product of cuts, at the moment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3916203.stm
[hr]
Math, my dear boy, is nothing more than the lesbian sister of biology.

[Andrew Cusack]

[s]KateBush wrote on 11:37, 22nd Jul 2004:
Why should people like me and my family who are all pacifists have to fund, through our taxes, those who go out to war and slaughter others?

When you stop living under the protection provided by the armed forces, then and only then can you question being required to fund it.


[hr]
http://www.andrewcusack.com

[exnihilo]

Personally, I agree that the cuts are absurd, and I also think that the point made about the armed forces also being there to stop people slaughtering us; but I must say, Mr Cusack, that yours is a dangerously circular argument!


[hr]The world is full of stupid people. I say we get rid of all the warning labels and let the problem take care of itself.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

I am the only person unaware of the IMMINENT invasion that the UK seems to be facing? Are those damned commies going to be invading as soon as we disarm? Or possibly old Johnny German is waiting for our guard to be dropped?

No? Then please would people stop insinuating that Britain is in desperate need of armed forces to protect us from some imaginary enemy.

Social and economic rammifications, I can see but - I put it to you that you the 100,000 jobs that might be axed in the civil service were hardly cried over and the economic and social fallout of that, while not concentrated in individual areas will be of a similar magnitude. They still serve their country... albeit with staplers instead of guns.

Double-standard.

[exnihilo]

No double standard involved. The fun thing about armies is that when we scrap one we won't have it if anyone did invade, or indeed, if it were needed elsewhere to protect others. They're quite hard to produce from nowhere years down the line, but quite handy to have one lying around just in case.


[hr]The world is full of stupid people. I say we get rid of all the warning labels and let the problem take care of itself.

[KateBush]

[s]Andrew Cusack wrote on 19:29, 22nd Jul 2004:
[s]KateBush wrote on 11:37, 22nd Jul 2004:[i]
Why should people like me and my family who are all pacifists have to fund, through our taxes, those who go out to war and slaughter others?

When you stop living under the protection provided by the armed forces, then and only then can you question being required to fund it.


[hr]
http://www.andrewcusack.com
[/i]

That's interesting. Does that mean that I can't question the Health service because I might break a limb in future, or that I can't question top up fees because one day I might have a child who will go to university?

[hr]
a red rose is not selfish because it wants to be red rose. It would be selfish if it wanted all the other flowers in the garden to be both red, and roses. -Oscar Wilde

[tordenskjold]

The whole idea of this paper heralding a high tech army is untrue. The Eurofighter is a disgrace, being based on a Cold War need for interceptors. It represents a huge drain of cash that is damaging the other arms of the military. With the amount of commitments the army is being thrown into it should be given more funding, not less. Surely Tony should realise that he can't showboat on the international stage like he has so far with an emaciated military. What the army needs is MORE soldiers not less, as no matter how much technology you emply it is always a question of having troops on the ground who can impliment all this 'humanitarian intervention'. As it is, cuts like this satisfy the mandarins in Whitehall while bringing those who we send off to fight and die into more danger.