Is the army overworked?

[steve taylor]

What is your opinion on whether the army is overworked and under trained, to committed to world events and is there truly enough money going into defence

[Biitchboy]

More money goes into defence than goes into either health or education. In America (and most developing nations) more money goes into defence than health, education and practically everything else combined. Personally, I think that's enough...


[hr]
"Everybody knows that boys are bitches"
Rachel Stamp.

[Guest]

You're just wrong, we spend about £25bn on defense and nearly double that on the NHS and education is about £30-35bn.

[Thackary]

We're obviously not spending enough on education.

In the UK, we call it defence.

Let's have fewer airshows and well kept lawns, and more spelling lessons.

[kensson]

I was speaking to my dad (Ken) last night, and it appears that one of the Army's biggest expenses is...

Horses.

Now, maybe, once upon a time, cavalry played a vital role in warfare, but I have some difficulty believing that they serve any useful purpose these days.

Moreover, certain services on MoD sites are contracted out to private firms, usually in a multi-service contract - so one company provides catering, security and cleaning. Quite lucrative...

Except in London, where no-one will take it on, because there's too much horse-shit.

[hr]My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[Guest]

Don't be ridiculous, horses account for an infinitesimally small fraction of Defence spending.
Even though the horses the army has are mainly used for ceremonial uses, it is good to remember that cavalry still remain the most effective virtually-non-lethal method of riot suppression there is, and so having a couple of hundred cavalry in london as a hopefully-never-to-used backup (rather like the green goddesses which were originally there for a post-nuclear scenario) is rather usefull.

[Guest]

To answer the fact about the Army spending more on horses than anything else, I am afraid it is wring. Often private funding is involved.
Defence Costs: The Government has said that any extra costs to prepare for the possible Gulf War will be coming out of the Army's poclet, not the Goverments. And this will be - if it happens - a total overhaul to prepare vehicules for desert conditions. This is because this sort of possible warfare was overlooked by the poeple (civilians) who do the contracts for the Army.
The Army is a little short or 100,000 strong, about 7-9000 under strength I believe. 20,000 will be comitted to the Gulf. 20,000 are on fire fighting duties. The number of crank calls has doubled and the soldiers are getting bricked and even shot at as they attempt to do the fire fighting on out dated eqipment. This means that normal and indeed vital training cannot be undertaken to keep the army up to a certain standard. PLUS all the troops in Noerthern Ireland, Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, and all the other operational postings. Soldiers are coming home from 6 month tours having not seen their familes to then be put straight onto fire fighting duties for three months. This means pretty much living at the Temporary fire station. There are NO reserves. Is the Army overworked? Yes. It has been for a long time and this is not likely to change. Finally, a soldier takes home after tax a little over 10,000 pounds a year. A fireman takes home 21,000 pounds for what is effectivly a 6 month job. They work two day shifts, two night shifts then get four days off. Many soldiers have had or are having their two weeks leave cancelled in order to try to peform the fire fighting duties. Soldiers are not allowed to hae second jobs, nor are allowed to strike. Admiral Boyce said recently that troops morale was at rock bottom. Are you surprised?

[Biitchboy]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 08:31, 29th Nov 2002:
You're just wrong, we spend about £25bn on defense and nearly double that on the NHS and education is about £30-35bn.


No, you're wrong. In the UK we spend £37 billion on military expenditures (Source: Military Spending, Defense Monitor, US ACDA).

By comparison, the US spends $281 billion on defence, whereas only $35 billion on education and $31billion on health.


[hr]
"Everybody knows that boys are bitches"
Rachel Stamp.

[Guest]

According to the Ministry of defence:

http://www.mod.uk/aboutus/factfiles/budget.htm#1


we spend £23.6bn - which is roughly $32-5 billion. Remember when looking at international expenditure table they are allways done in US$.

[splittter]

[s]Biitchboy wrote on 21:09, 29th Nov 2002:
[s]Unregisted User wrote on 08:31, 29th Nov 2002:[i]
You're just wrong, we spend about £25bn on defense and nearly double that on the NHS and education is about £30-35bn.


No, you're wrong. In the UK we spend £37 billion on military expenditures (Source: Military Spending, Defense Monitor, US ACDA).

[/i]

erm, as a pathetic liberal type I would love it to be right that we spent more on defense than health here ... great point to make ... but it really, honestly ain't true.

The NHS budget is around £65 billion

http://specials.ft.com/budget2002/FT38OHZ740D.html

the defence budget is £23 billion as claimed by the MOD

http://www.mod.uk/aboutus/factfiles/budget.htm#1

even if we for some reason assume that the MoD wanted to downplay their spending (for which we have no evidence) its a total fabrication to imply health is less than it.

Incidently I imagine the £37 million figure bitchboy mentions comes from a confusion of americans looking at out budget in dollars

http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/spendersFY03.html

But just to make things fair ... yes the cost of the war is said to be coming out of the defense budget ... but thats set to rise by 3.5 billion over the next few years (15%) ... and I don't suppose clean up costs afterwards will come from that

http://www.britainusa.com/iraq/xq/asp/S ... s_show.htm

[Biitchboy]

oksomaybeiwaswrongaboutthebritishdefencebudgetandhaditindollars BUT MY POINT REMAINS FOR THE USA!!! When in doubt mumble, and speak really loud about something else you are sure about...

Am going to slink away now, quietly, maybe no one will notice...

[hr]"Everybody knows that boys are bitches"
Rachel Stamp.

[Tom Plant]

Bear in mind, folks, that the 'war' (or 'carpet bombing of poorly armed stone-throwers who can't hit our planes anyway') on Afghanistan last year cost the US in excess on $20 billion - not so far off Britain's annual defence budget.

Now that, I think, is pretty obscene, especially considered with the $6 million aid they then put in to resolve the damage.

[puzzled]

whilst i agree that they should have put more aid into afghanistan afterwoods I am heartened that the americans are prepared to put their money where their mouth was with fighting their enemies. History has shown repeatedly that there is little point fighting wars piecemeal - they end up costing more and you lose, eg the british in Ulster. If a nation goes to war then winning must be their only objective, every other consideration, financial or otherwise, must come second.

[kensson]

Objectives of attacking Afghanistan:

1- capture/kill Osama bin Laden.
2- stop al-Qa'ida functioning.

Mighty success that one, eh?

[hr]My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[puzzled]

Surely only a simpleton would actually believe that the aims of america were simply that. The most important point about Afghanistan was that it showed that the US sleepy giant had woken and was now prepared to fight anywhere, no more lingering post-vietnam hangups which had stayed their hands over Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq 1, Somalia etc etc.

As to your points about bin Laden, we haven't heard much from him lately have we? all the audio tapes so far, including the latest one, have been fakes. His training camps have been destroyed in Afghanistan and even if he is alive he is on the run, he would know that the Americans will bomb him at the first sniff of his existence.

Sure, Al-Qai'da are still functioning, but you know some times war takes time, only deluded self-styled 'liberals' think that such fights are only worth fighting if they can be wrapped up quickly.

In your profile you describe yourself as one of these hippie types who espouses human rights, equal opps and not killing people.

Well how about the fact that the actions of the US in Afghanistan have stopped the oppression of the Taliban (like arbitary execution of women for religous crimes), tried to give rights back to woman (like education) and given the Afhgan people an other chance to achieve all those things that you smugly take for granted and don't think we should be bothered to try and give to others.
Sure Afghanistan isn't perfect, the whole attempt may yet fail, many horrible practises still go on, but the US's actions are a long way from failure.

[kensson]

I agree that getting rid of the Taleban was a good thing, but that wasn't the aim of the war.

The USA has always been prepared to fight anywhere - since 1945 it has bombed 19 countries, twenty if you count Yemen.

Interesting that you mention Vietnam, a war fought on the shakiest of political justifications which turned into a massive disaster. Any bells ringing?

Bin Laden? Yes, I believe he's dead. Odd how the White House wheels him out whenever they want to draw attention away from elsewhere, though.

Sure, Al-Qai'da are still functioning, but you know some times war takes time, only deluded self-styled 'liberals' think that such fights are only worth fighting if they can be wrapped up quickly.

No, I think fights are only worth fighting when they have well-defined and
well-justified goals. As opposed to 'oh we've been hit, let's hit back. Doesn't much matter where.'

... the US's actions are a long way from failure.

... but in my view they're still a long way from success. I don't think a let's-bomb-the-shit-out-of-the-towelheads' is a great way to quell anti-American sentiment, much of which is caused (in my opinion) by exactly this kind of gung-ho attitude. There seems to be a massive reluctance to think about the reasons people might dislike the USA so much.

It looks to me like they're just fighting the symptoms rather than trying to cure the disease.

[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[Buzzboy]

What, so the Americans have WON in Afghanistan? Bin Laden's still at large, Al Qaeda terrorists are bombing night-clubs in Bali, yeah great fucking success.

[puzzled]

[s]kensson wrote on 14:27, 4th Dec 2002:
The USA has always been prepared to fight anywhere - since 1945 it has bombed 19 countries, twenty if you count Yemen.

20 is not very many, and they committed significant numbers of ground troops to even fewer a number. For example it is not even much more that what Britain has done, where we have had troops fighting at various points (since 1945) in Israel, Korea, Kenya, Egypt, Rhodesia, Malaya, Ulster, Iraq, Bonsnia, Cyprus, Kosovo, Falklands, Afhganistan and Nepal to name but a few places.
Added to the fact are that many of america's campaigns were anti-communist,and thus helping the world, there are not that many instances of wars purely for america's benifit.

Interesting that you mention Vietnam, a war fought on the shakiest of political justifications which turned into a massive disaster. Any bells ringing?

I agree that the war itself was cronic defeat. However, as to whether the domino theory was right or wrong is deabatble; I don't think that it was fought on shacky political or moral justifications, communism brought misery to those under its yoke it was right that someone tried to do something about it. I know that often there additional, more murkey, reasons as well, but the main plank to the US argument was right.

Bin Laden? Yes, I believe he's dead. Odd how the White House wheels him out whenever they want to draw attention away from elsewhere, though.

Quite right too, our pacifist fellow europeans need to be reminded far too often about how important it is to win this war.

I think fights are only worth fighting when they have well-defined and
well-justified goals. As opposed to 'oh we've been hit, let's hit back. Doesn't much matter where.'

this war does was well justified goals, the free people of the world have been and are being attacked by terrorists, often state sponsored ones. What better reason could there be to fight a war? You seem to be blinkered into thinking that a war is static, it is not; welcome to war a la 21st century.

... but in my view they're still a long way from success.

Obviously, the war has only just started, in could take half a century or more. After all, it took 70 years to beat russia.

I don't think a let's-bomb-the-shit-out-of-the-towelheads' is a great way to quell anti-American sentiment, much of which is caused (in my opinion) by exactly this kind of gung-ho attitude. There seems to be a massive reluctance to think about the reasons people might dislike the USA so much.


How about a 'lets free the iraqis from the vile and oppressive masters and introduce them to democracy' (personally i think we should have done this whether sept 11 had happened or not)

[Prophet Tenebrae]

People are always saying Americans have a short attention span - their current action just prove this to be true, a war against terrorism will not be over in a few months or a few years, the chances are it'll last longer than the 100 years war if America prosecutes it seriously.

However, I'm sure that eventually they'll get bored and do something else - probably impose more punitive charges on 3rd world steal or blow up the moon or something.

[kensson]

20 is not very many, and they committed significant numbers of ground troops to even fewer a number. For example it is not even much more that what Britain has done, where we have had troops fighting at various points (since 1945) in Israel, Korea, Kenya, Egypt, Rhodesia, Malaya, Ulster, Iraq, Bonsnia (sic), Cyprus, Kosovo, Falklands, Afhganistan (sic) and Nepal to name but a few places.

Even to highlight that two of those places are UK territory, and several more may have been at the time, misses the point: in none of the 20 countries did US intervention lead to the establishment of a humane democracy.

I'll leave your anti-Communist points for others (splittter?) to argue, and merely state that I disagree with you.

Quite right too, our pacifist fellow europeans need to be reminded far too often about how important it is to win this war.

When I say he's wheeled out from time to time, I mean he's used to bury bad political news or Iraqi co-operation.

this war does was well justified goals, the free people of the world have been and are being attacked by terrorists, often state sponsored ones.

"Terrorism: (threats of) violence for political purposes." What better definition of war? Let's also think for a moment about September 11th.

September 11th 1973, that is, when a US-supported coup overthrew the democratically elected Chilean government and killed 3000 or so people in the process. The USA has sponsored countless terrorist actions is South America and not been held to account.

You seem to be blinkered into thinking that a war is static, it is not; welcome to war a la 21st century.

Um... I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be attributing beliefs to me just so you can contradict them.

How about a 'lets free the iraqis from the vile and oppressive masters and introduce them to democracy' (personally i think we should have done this whether sept 11 had happened or not)


Personally, I don't see how September 11th and Iraq are linked at all; furthermore, I don't believe the USA has the right to decree the kind of government in place in any country, no matter how vile. Say China decided the US system was wrong and chose to impose regime change there?

If America is so concerned about human rights and democracy, why are the abuses by countries such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan never even mentioned, let alone condemned?

[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change