• Navy aircraft carrier will be sold after three years - and never carry jets
    209 replies, posted
God dammit all these cuts are stupid of all the thing yes I would still out money towards special organizations like MI5 and MI6 but cutting back an SAS regiment when we have even been warned about a greater terrorist threat is stupid. [editline]20th October 2010[/editline] Also bravehat there is a thread in GD about you
They increased special forces spending, I don't think they hurt the S.A.S
No I heard they got rid of a complete SAS regiment.
[QUOTE=Bad)-(and;25536407]Excuse me? This country spends £200 BILLION a year on Welfare. Is that not enough? I know, it's not like it's over 30% of our annual budget. It is the single biggest expense in our budget, and is nearly £75 billion more than the next biggest, our NHS.[/QUOTE] Considering our daycares are dire, some schools are struggling for money, hospitals are overstretched and some poor old people can't live on the money they get, then no, I do not support keeping a large navy afloat for an imaginary conflict that won't ever exist. I support increasing our funding towards frigates, subs and the special forces. Otherwise, they can live on the cuts. [editline]20th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=iusehax;25537257]No I heard they got rid of a complete SAS regiment.[/QUOTE] You heard wrong. They've given money to the special forces, not taken it away. [editline]20th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;25533326]You'd better inform the theater commanders, then, because they most certainly ARE.[/QUOTE] Yes, no shit. The last government were spending the military budget on the wrong things. We need tanks, but a cut won't damage national security. [editline]20th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Bad)-(and;25536407]You seem to be overlooking (Quite often) the fact that a miltary is there to protect a country in the event of a war. Simply because this country is not at war with a modernised nation does not mean we won't be, ever again. You can't go around with an ill-equipped Navy, Airforce and Army on the basis that at that current moment in time, you're at peace. No one can predict the future, and until someone can, we need to be prepared to defend ourselves in the event of an attack. And we won't be if the carrier, and the Harriers are axed.[/QUOTE] There is also no point in spending large amounts of money on military hardware that (Currently) looks to be completely out of date by the time we will need it for a modern conflict with a big industrialized nation. I agree that cutting the harriers entirely and having a carrier with no planes is retarded, but there is little point in keeping high stocks of hardware these days.
Wow, this is actually complete bullshit. I've read the defence review itself, it doesn't mention keeping one of the carriers for just 3 years (that took around 10 years to make), with no jet aircraft. [url]http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf[/url] What is going to happen is that only one of the 2 new carriers will be in full operational readiness at a time, and they will be rotated, unless a war that would require them both breaks out.
[QUOTE=Kalibos;25496106]Wait, what? Do you mean they're just doing away with the paratrooper branch altogether?[/QUOTE] I guess in the time when a SAM or something can acquire the paras a mile or two from their drop point getting rid of it might make sense to higher ups. [editline]20th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Snuffy;25496418]So, what will the money be spent on instead?[/QUOTE] Another carrier! :buddy:
I'd just be glad we're even getting the carrier(s) at all. This has happened before, in the 1960's there was a proposal to build at least two aircraft carriers which were almost identical to the ones we are now getting, but the government in their infinite wisdom cancelled them. Check out [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVA-01[/url] for the proposed carrier, and the new ones for comparison: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier[/url]
[QUOTE=sephrosasia;25538623]I'd just be glad we're even getting the carrier(s) at all. This has happened before, in the 1960's there was a proposal to build at least two aircraft carriers which were almost identical to the ones we are now getting, but the government in their infinite wisdom cancelled them. Check out [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVA-01[/url] for the proposed carrier, and the new ones for comparison: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier[/url][/QUOTE] To be fair, on reflection, I would rather have one - or even no carriers at all - as long as it didn't severely impact the rest of the armed forces as it has done in this case.
[QUOTE=David29;25538665]To be fair, on reflection, I would rather have one - or even no carriers at all - as long as it didn't severely impact the rest of the armed forces as it has done in this case.[/QUOTE] Read the defence review, its pretty much positive stuff across the board. It's all about reducing waste, getting rid of stuff we aren't using and reforming inefficient systems.
[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;25538144]I guess in the time when a SAM or something can acquire the paras a mile or two from their drop point getting rid of it might make sense to higher ups. [editline]20th October 2010[/editline] Another carrier! :buddy:[/QUOTE] Somehow I don't see a SAM missile being able to lock on to a human, we don't give off enough heat. And besides paratroopers are trained for both HAHO and HALO jumps, they can fly their parachutes to a target from over 50 km's away and just glide in, flying for about an hour in an extreme HAHO jump.
[QUOTE=Ridge;25533363]They HAVE before, and are reportedly wanting to do it again.[/quote] They did about 20+ years ago when a dictator was in power. [quote]Huh, I never knew you were an insurgent...[/quote] Believe it or not, Civilians want the US out too. Mainly the civilians who had their family butcherd by your oh-so advanced United States. [quote]So you think we should drain the economy giving money to people who are not working for it, instead of draining the economy insuring safety and survival?[/quote] I REALLY didn't know the defence economy was the only economy where people worked. So about 30+ million people don't work? [quote]Cmon, Warhol, certainly you remember your dad and his friends making pipe bombs and blowing up Britons just a few decades ago..[/QUOTE] What a fine young racist you are. [editline]24th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;25533682]As a person of Irish descent, I most certainly do NOT think that. But Warhol's anti-establishment and anti-military opinion on everything leads me to believe he was raised with those sentiments, and his elders likely did take part in the IRA insurgency...[/QUOTE] Wow, you're a racist prick [editline]24th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Tetracycline;25536779]You get so fucking mad when someone criticizes you based on knowing of your posts for several months, calm down.[/quote] So you didn't see Bravehat's posts? the "I'M GOING FUCKING RAPE YOU! YOU CUM GUZZLING ASSHOLE" [quote]But if they don't then who knows huh? The UK is a very important and economically strong country, taking it over could help some country somewhere[/QUOTE] you act like they inherent all that shit after an invasion. [editline]24th October 2010[/editline] And seem to think I'm mad lol I didn't know cursing made you officially mad.
Warhol the Argentinians have expressed major interest in reacquiring the flaklands, which are known in their country officially by the Argentinian name of Las Malvinas. And people die in war warhol, shit happens and it's rarely a pleasant way to die, although it's rarely butchery on purpose. And the defence industry of the UK brings in a nice tidy sum of money, breaking it will have an effect on public morale and income of the country.
[QUOTE=bravehat;25614808]Warhol the Argentinians have expressed major interest in reacquiring the flaklands, which are known in their country officially by the Argentinian name of Las Malvinas.[/quote] Source [quote]And people die in war warhol, shit happens and it's rarely a pleasant way to die, although it's rarely butchery on purpose[/quote] So saying OOPS just makes it all better? [quote]And the defence industry of the UK brings in a nice tidy sum of money, breaking it will have an effect on public morale and income of the country.[/QUOTE] Public Morale is already damaged. And cutting ANY industry hurts, but it's not like it'll NEVER fucking recover. And what Ridge was saying, the only money that goes into the defence industry is purely for survival, which we all know the UK's survival is currently at risk. And that anywhere else is a waste.
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8689991.stm[/url] [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8466209.stm[/url] They've never stopped wanting them back. No, finding out what happened wrong and fixing the system so it doesn't happen again makes it better, but frankly I couldn't give a shit, it's a cruel fact of war that people die unjustly. The defence industry also manufactures and sells missiles to foreign countries, it's an industry, and it's not just for us.
"Diplomatic talks" BOMB THE FUCK OUT OF THOSE ARGENTINIAN SLUTS Problem is, they don't find the problem and even if they do, they spend more time covering it up then fixing it. So that means it's right? So selling people shit to kill people with is PERFECTLY fucking fine because it earns money? HOOKAY!
...what the fuck are you talking about warhol, what fucking problem are we supposed to be finding exactly? There is no issue with argentina except argentina has sand in its cunt. According to the UN thingy about self determination, the falklanders are british, that's who they want to be, so they can be, the argentinians are butthurt over that and feel entitled to the islands so they want them back. And seriously, get this whole world view out of your head dude, people want people dead, and people cash in on it. Besides the weapons that we sell are pretty much never used, never really a conflict that they are able to be used in. And don't argue morality with me, ever, cause frankly I couldn't care, our morals are different and mines are never gonna change, with holding some massive life changing experience and you sure as fuck won't be catalysing that in me.
[QUOTE=Warhol;25614735]They did about 20+ years ago when a dictator was in power. Believe it or not, Civilians want the US out too. Mainly the civilians who had their family butcherd by your oh-so advanced United States.[/QUOTE] Funny, don't see too many videos on liveleak of US soldiers sawing a person's head off... [quote]I REALLY didn't know the defence economy was the only economy where people worked. So about 30+ million people don't work? [/quote]If they don't produce anything, then they are not doing anything to/for the economy. [quote]What a fine young racist you are. [editline]24th October 2010[/editline] Wow, you're a racist prick[/quote]Irish isn't a race. :smug:
Bravehat, you are living in a fantasy world. To be quite honest, you are asserting an opinion that is pretty much the same as a teenager who has no idea how the world functions and incorporates the majority of his knowledge from video-games, movies, and random books. Listen, the only reason you are even trying to defend this de-militarization movement is because you wish to become one of those "hot-shot" paratroopers, as you have stated in a previous post. It's another ignorant militaristic viewpoint that's going to fuck you up later in life because you will be blind as hell and lead around the tail by your superiors and those who don't give a half ass about you. Just because your country is taking out some of its naval prowess does not mean that there will instantly be a war and invasion against it. This is an infantile thinking process that should have been taken out of your brain in your late secondary education. We no longer live in the centuries where war was rampant and civility non-existent, wars no longer happen because of purely materialistic/territorial reasons. But anyways, go on trying to justify your world-view and your future position as a soldier. Hopefully you will mature out of this juvenile viewpoint that disregards all reason and logic, and replaces it with ignorance and cynical illusion.
I'm defending my views because I believe having a strong army is fairly important, and I'm not talking about the immediate situation, I'm saying that these cuts could put us at a disadvantage in the future, where circumstances may change. And you say that wars don't happen for purely territorial reasons, I agree, there's always another motive behind it, but that doesn't mean wars just stop happening. Feel free to mock how I see the world, it's just how I work, I see the worst in everything.
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;25617928]Bravehat, you are living in a fantasy world. To be quite honest, you are asserting an opinion that is pretty much the same as a teenager who has no idea how the world functions and incorporates the majority of his knowledge from video-games, movies, and random books. Listen, the only reason you are even trying to defend this de-militarization movement is because you wish to become one of those "hot-shot" paratroopers, as you have stated in a previous post. It's another ignorant militaristic viewpoint that's going to fuck you up later in life because you will be blind as hell and lead around the tail by your superiors and those who don't give a half ass about you. Just because your country is taking out some of its naval prowess does not mean that there will instantly be a war and invasion against it. This is an infantile thinking process that should have been taken out of your brain in your late secondary education. We no longer live in the centuries where war was rampant and civility non-existent, wars no longer happen because of purely materialistic/territorial reasons. But anyways, go on trying to justify your world-view and your future position as a soldier. Hopefully you will mature out of this juvenile viewpoint that disregards all reason and logic, and replaces it with ignorance and cynical illusion.[/QUOTE] Yes, because someone who is/wants to enter the military is stupid to worry about demilitarisation. Do you know how retarded you sound? That's like saying everyone in the UK is stupid to worry about the cuts in spending because they want to be -insert "hot-shot" job here-. Aside from that, maintaining the ability to defend the United Kingdom and it's overseas dependencies should be our [b]very first[/b] concern. We have to maintain a force that is not only capable of defending the British Isles, but that is also capable of deploying overseas in defence of other countries that we are committed to - such as our allies and the United Kingdoms overseas territories (like Gibraltar, St Helena, Falklands, etc) who depend on us for defence. We cannot shirk that responsibility. I find it interesting that you call Bravehat "infantile" and say that "wars no longer happen because of a purely materialistic/territorial reasons", yet in the last century (so, from 1910 onwards) there have been numerous wars that fall under that category (WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Falklands War, Gulf War, etc), so I'm beginning to wonder if you even live on the same planet as us - or if you are actually from some alternate reality who has managed to accidentally slip into this reality. And of course, once again, I am going to harp the tired-but-true line of "you can't predict the future". I've said it before and I will say it again - things can change very fast and you really are deluding yourself if you think that nothing bad is going to happen in the future. Finally, I don't see what you are trying to achieve with the "hot-shot paratrooper" comment. So he wants to be a paratrooper? Why attempt to degrade him over it? Grow up.
[QUOTE=David29;25618682]Yes, because someone who is/wants to enter the military is stupid to worry about demilitarisation. Do you know how retarded you sound? That's like saying everyone in the UK is stupid to worry about the cuts in spending because they want to be -insert "hot-shot" job here-. Aside from that, maintaining the ability to defend the United Kingdom and it's overseas dependencies should be our [b]very first[/b] concern. We have to maintain a force that is not only capable of defending the British Isles, but that is also capable of deploying overseas in defence of other countries that we are committed to - such as our allies and the United Kingdoms overseas territories (like Gibraltar, St Helena, Falklands, etc) who depend on us for defence. We cannot shirk that responsibility. I find it interesting that you call Bravehat "infantile" and say that "wars no longer happen because of a purely materialistic/territorial reasons", yet in the last century (so, from 1910 onwards) there have been numerous wars that fall under that category (WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Falklands War, Gulf War, etc), so I'm beginning to wonder if you even live on the same planet as us - or if you are actually from some alternate reality who has managed to accidentally slip into this reality. And of course, once again, I am going to harp the tired-but-true line of "you can't predict the future". I've said it before and I will say it again - things can change very fast and you really are deluding yourself if you think that nothing bad is going to happen in the future. Finally, I don't see what you are trying to achieve with the "hot-shot paratrooper" comment. So he wants to be a paratrooper? Why attempt to degrade him over it? Grow up.[/QUOTE] I said that the only reason somebody should truly worry about such trivial demilitarization is if they would be planning to go into the military. Not stupid, but that is his main reason, anything else is just trying to fancifully defend his viewpoint. I understand, but I highly doubt that the current (and future) standings require a tremendously large military. If there was talks of major demilitarization, then that is up to debate, but demilitarization at the moment is necessary. You may not take into account the other parts of the economy and the domestic welfare, but when shit is going down the drain it is imperative that areas of the economy be cut: such as military. All those wars that I have listed are exactly proving my point, none of them were justified/catalyzed by territorial acquisition or potential profits, they were started due to a combination of reasons- not simply what bravehat has been claiming all this time. I never said that nothing bad is going to happen in the future, neither do I think so. The actions taken to demilitarized are done for a reason, and it is infantile to think that lowering the size of the military is wrong when considering what could happen if it is not done. Give me solid evidence for a future conflict and I may be more accepting of a stronger military, but it is far more important to ensure domestic security and prosperity rather than spend in order to protect against some hidden and potential threat.
Well it's a bit fucking difficult to get evidence of a future war. You know, what with it not having happened yet. I don't see why we need to demilitarise at all when there are countless other, better money generating options, like getting rid of trident, legalising, selling and taxing all drugs and cracking down on benefit thieves.
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;25619157]I said that the only reason somebody should truly worry about such trivial demilitarization is if they would be planning to go into the military. Not stupid, but that is his main reason, anything else is just trying to fancifully defend his viewpoint. I understand, but I highly doubt that the current (and future) standings require a tremendously large military. If there was talks of major demilitarization, then that is up to debate, but demilitarization at the moment is necessary. You may not take into account the other parts of the economy and the domestic welfare, but when shit is going down the drain it is imperative that areas of the economy be cut: such as military.[/QUOTE] I agree that cuts need to be made in all areas, which is why I have - albeit reluctantly and with a sour taste in my mouth - accepted the cuts to the defence budget. What I don't like with what you are saying is the way you make it sound - as if it is stupid to care for the defence of the nation and its dependencies. [QUOTE=Kontradaz;25619157]All those wars that I have listed are exactly proving my point, none of them were justified/catalyzed by territorial acquisition or potential profits, they were started due to a combination of reasons- not simply what bravehat has been claiming all this time. [/QUOTE] 1. World War II - Germany: Claimed a number of territories prior to war, eventually invaded Poland. Analysis - territorially motivated. - Italy: Wanted to form a new Roman Empire. Invaded and Ethiopia and Albania. Also joined in with the Germans as soon as Paris fell so it could start taking over the (what it presumed as now weak) British territories. Analysis - territorially motivated. -Japan: Invaded a number of Asian countries (such as China). Eventually attacked the USA due to the sanctions it had imposed on them. Analysis - territorially and economically motivated. 2. Korean War: North Invaded the South. Analysis - territorially motivated. 3. Vietnam War: See 'Korean War'. Analysis - territorially motivated. 4. Falklands War: Argentina tries to reclaim the Falkland Islands. Analysis - territorially motivated. 5. Gulf War: Iraq invades Kuwait, Coalition intervenes. Analysis - territorially motivated. 6. Iraq War: Coalition invades Iraq most likely for oil. Analysis - likely economically motivated. Do you read much history? [QUOTE=Kontradaz;25619157]The actions taken to demilitarized are done for a reason, and it is infantile to think that lowering the size of the military is wrong when considering what could happen if it is not done. Give me solid evidence for a future conflict and I may be more accepting of a stronger military, but it is far more important to ensure domestic security and prosperity rather than spend in order to protect against some hidden and potential threat.[/QUOTE] Conversely, it is stupid and potentially suicidal to think that lowering the size of the military and being unprepared for future events is right. Again, conversely, give me solid evidence that says a future conflict won't take place. I assure you, one will and, eventually - perhaps sooner, perhaps later - it will involve the UK. In fact it is more likely that a conflict will happen then that a conflict wont happen. A conflict happening correlates with history, whilst no future conflict goes against it. It is much better to prepare for the worst, then to pray for the best. Also, you say we need to ensure "domestic security" - well that is what having a well funded military does. Oh, and: [QUOTE=Kontradaz;25619157]I never said that nothing bad is going to happen in the future, neither do I think so.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kontradaz;25619157]Give me solid evidence for a future conflict[/QUOTE] What? You do realise you are contradicting yourself, right?
I don't have a problem with this really, as long as it means cuts to welfare and whatnot are lessened.
[QUOTE=David29;25619768]I agree that cuts need to be made in all areas, which is why I have - albeit reluctantly and with a sour taste in my mouth - accepted the cuts to the defence budget. What I don't like with what you are saying is the way you make it sound - as if it is stupid to care for the defence of the nation and its dependencies. 1. World War II - Germany: Claimed a number of territories prior to war, eventually invaded Poland. Analysis - territorially motivated. - Italy: Wanted to form a new Roman Empire. Invaded and Ethiopia and Albania. Also joined in with the Germans as soon as Paris fell so it could start taking over the (what it presumed as now weak) British territories. Analysis - territorially motivated. -Japan: Invaded a number of Asian countries (such as China). Eventually attacked the USA due to the sanctions it had imposed on them. Analysis - territorially and economically motivated. 2. Korean War: North Invaded the South. Analysis - territorially motivated. 3. Vietnam War: See 'Korean War'. Analysis - territorially motivated. 4. Falklands War: Argentina tries to reclaim the Falkland Islands. Analysis - territorially motivated. 5. Gulf War: Iraq invades Kuwait, Coalition intervenes. Analysis - territorially motivated. 6. Iraq War: Coalition invades Iraq most likely for oil. Analysis - likely economically motivated. Do you read much history? Conversely, it is stupid and potentially suicidal to think that lowering the size of the military and being unprepared for future events is right. Again, conversely, give me solid evidence that says a future conflict won't take place. I assure you, one will and, eventually - perhaps sooner, perhaps later - it will involve the UK. In fact it is more likely that a conflict will happen then that a conflict wont happen. A conflict happening correlates with history, whilst no future conflict goes against it. It is much better to prepare for the worst, then to pray for the best. Also, you say we need to ensure "domestic security" - well that is what having a well funded military does. Oh, and: What? You do realise you are contradicting yourself, right?[/QUOTE] I never said that it is stupid to care for the defense of a nation- all I mean is that it is necessary to cut back defense spending at times to ensure that the country does not collapse economically. Maybe you are correct about those conflicts, but we cannot simply look back at the last century in order to prepare ourselves for this century; it is a far different world where the rules have been changed and the concept of war and territorial acquisition is no longer the forefront of our issues. It's like looking back to the British colonization and imperialism to prove that we need to keep a strong military, it is simply being blind to the zeitgeist of these times. Lowering size of military is right when it needs to be done. As I have stated before, I would rather live in a prosperous nation with a working economy/government instead of a country where all the spending goes into the military for fear of some attack. Moderation is key, especially in these times. When I say "domestic security", I talk about giving the citizens of the country benefits that are not simply some ambiguous military protection that has not been exercised for years. What do you mean I contradicted myself? In my first comment I said that I never stated that nothing bad will happen, and neither do I believe that nothing bad will happen. In fact, I am a strong believer that a conflict will occur, but that does not mean that we must up military spending to the detriment of much needed infrastructure spending.
Blacks deserve equal rights.
[QUOTE=Kontradaz;25620147]I never said that it is stupid to care for the defense of a nation- all I mean is that it is necessary to cut back defense spending at times to ensure that the country does not collapse economically.[/QUOTE] That's fine, but you were putting it across as if anyone who disagreed with the cuts was an idiot/infantile. [QUOTE=Kontradaz;25620147]Maybe you are correct about those conflicts, but we cannot simply look back at the last century in order to prepare ourselves for this century; it is a far different world where the rules have been changed and the concept of war and territorial acquisition is no longer the forefront of our issues. It's like looking back to the British colonization and imperialism to prove that we need to keep a strong military, it is simply being blind to the zeitgeist of these times.[/QUOTE] Firstly, there is no "maybe" about those conflicts. They were all started for territorial/economical gain reasons and they were all within the last century. What you are saying completely goes against the proven adage of "those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it". Territorial wars will still happen - just because the situation suggests that one might not take place at the moment (although, I wouldn't put it past North Korea), this could change very quickly and the diplomatic climate will have changed completely ten years down the line. In the last century over thirty years we had the USSR being formed, Germany rising up and falling [b]twice[/b], the whole of Asia being messed, the end of the British Empire and the rise of the USA, just to name a few examples. This just shows how quickly things change. War has been around for all of human history, even prior to it when we were primates and would fight in groups. It is human nature. Ideas like colonialism and imperialism come and go. Comparing these ideas to human nature is stupid. War, war never changes. [QUOTE=Kontradaz;25620147]Lowering size of military is right when it needs to be done. As I have stated before, I would rather live in a prosperous nation with a working economy/government instead of a country where all the spending goes into the military for fear of some attack. Moderation is key, especially in these times. When I say "domestic security", I talk about giving the citizens of the country benefits that are not simply some ambiguous military protection that has not been exercised for years.[/QUOTE] Again, I don't have anything against cutting the defence budget as long as we are able to 1) operate properly and 2) provide constant defence for the country and our dependencies. I, personally, would rather live in a country that is able to actually defend itself should it find itself at war with another country (see Britain and its reliance on other countries in WWII). You call the military protection "ambiguous" and that it has not been exercised in some time. First, why is it ambiguous? Second, you need to learn that constant military deterrence is in itself a form of military protection - thus it is actually "military protection that is actively defending our country and its dependencies, as well as being constantly on standby to act either in defence of the nation and/or its dependencies or as part of another commitment". [QUOTE=Kontradaz;25620147]What do you mean I contradicted myself? In my first comment I said that I never stated that nothing bad will happen, and neither do I believe that nothing bad will happen. In fact, I am a strong believer that a conflict will occur, but that does not mean that we must up military spending to the detriment of much needed infrastructure spending.[/QUOTE] I would have thought it would appear obvious, apparently not. First you say that you don't think that nothing bad is going to happen (a double negative - you are saying you do think something bad is going to happen in the future) but then - in addition to your whole post basically saying that there is never going to be a war in the future - you ask me to provide proof that there will be a future conflict. Explain how that is not a contradiction.
[QUOTE=David29;25619768]1. World War II - Germany: Claimed a number of territories prior to war, eventually invaded Poland. Analysis - territorially motivated. - Italy: Wanted to form a new Roman Empire. Invaded and Ethiopia and Albania. Also joined in with the Germans as soon as Paris fell so it could start taking over the (what it presumed as now weak) British territories. Analysis - territorially motivated. -Japan: Invaded a number of Asian countries (such as China). Eventually attacked the USA due to the sanctions it had imposed on them. Analysis - territorially and economically motivated. 2. Korean War: North Invaded the South. Analysis - territorially motivated. 3. Vietnam War: See 'Korean War'. Analysis - territorially motivated. 4. Falklands War: Argentina tries to reclaim the Falkland Islands. Analysis - territorially motivated. 5. Gulf War: Iraq invades Kuwait, Coalition intervenes. Analysis - territorially motivated. 6. Iraq War: Coalition invades Iraq most likely for oil. Analysis - likely economically motivated. Do you read much history?[/QUOTE] 1. Germany was sick of being hung for a war none of the current generation started, nor feel they should have a responsibility for because it begun over the Kaisers Empire building plans. WWII had very little to do with gaining territory, it was attempting to build an empire in order to never be weak and poor ever again, as well as to get revenge against Europe and the Jews. Italy and Japan were led by military dictatorships attempting to restore empires (Reclaiming Korea and China. China was secured to provide Japan with raw materials for war). It was well known and took many decades before it all came to fruition. 2. The North was attempting to bring all of Korea under a communist state, it only increased in scale because of the Cold War - which was pretty much well known about. The west would have never been involved and it'd have been a local problem if it wasn't for 'communist containment' policies of the US. 3. Communist North again which was partly motivated by the cold war under a military dictatorship. The west would have never been involved and it'd have been a local problem if it wasn't for 'communist containment' policies. 4. No, it wasn't about gaining territory, it was about 'returning' territory to those who believed it was rightfully theirs - similar to the crusades. They weren't trying to steal it from some poor black people, they were trying to take it from 'thieves'. Big difference. 5. Uhh, it wasn't exactly about territory. One quote here "Some feel there were several reasons for the Iraq move, including Iraq's inability to pay more than $80 billion that had been borrowed to finance the war with Iran and also Kuwaiti overproduction of oil which kept oil revenues down for Iraq". It was financial yes, but to say they 'suddenly stole land because they wanted it' is a bit wrong. 6. Oil? Oh my God, are you serious? The war was never about oil - we get most of our oil from Africa and more stable regions of the middle east. Also, the US has never profited from Oil directly because of the war, the oil state has never changed. It was about pointing a finger for an angry and bloodthirsty nation based on bad and botched evidence about WMDs. Stop pulling shit out of your ass. [editline]25th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=David29;25622413]In the last century over thirty years we had the USSR being formed, Germany rising up and falling [b]twice[/b], the whole of Asia being messed, the end of the British Empire and the rise of the USA, just to name a few examples. This just shows how quickly things change. War has been around for all of human history, even prior to it when we were primates and would fight in groups. It is human nature. Ideas like colonialism and imperialism come and go. Comparing these ideas to human nature is stupid. War, war never changes.[/QUOTE] Right, because all these things happened so quickly, and nobody ever guessed or saw it coming. Hell, it's not like anybody prepared for them or anything, it was all so sudden! The only thing to to be a surprise was the fall of the USSR being so bloodless. Also, Fallout quotes are never amusing.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;25624029]*words*[/QUOTE] 1. To be honest I don't really care about how Germany or its psychotic dictator was feeling, what its intentions were or anything. It could have been taking over the local corner shop at the end of the street so it could buy a newspaper for all I care - the fact is that it still gobbled up various territories faster than a mouse in a cheese factory. Even if I wasn't dismissing your argument because it completely missed my point - it has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese. Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway - you say it was for 'revenge' yet none of these countries had done anything to Germany but were invaded. As for Italy and Japan... so... what, you're dismissing what I said because they were dictatorships? Right, brilliant argument. 2. You said it yourself, the North was trying to bring all of Korea under it's control - thus it was a war started by country seeking control over more territory. That was my point exactly, thank you for confirming it. Regarding the US involvement - I couldn't care less. My point wasn't why the US got involved - I was explaining that all these wars were started by countries looking to gain territorially and/or economically 3. See above, on the territory and on the US. Also, stop with the dictatorship thing. It's not a get-out clause that makes war OK as long as there is someone with a silly moustache in charge. 4. If it was 'returning' or 'gaining' territory is irrelevant to the point. It was a war motivated by territory. It wasn't returning anyway - the general consensus (even by the UN) is that the islands are British. Besides, by your logic it would entitle the British to legally retake their colonies in the USA. 5. Fine, it was economical then, but thanks for agreeing with me. 6. I'm not arguing this point since an argument over Iraq is completely irrelevant to the point. On this I will simply agree to disagree. So, there you are. Am I pulling shit out of my ass? No. Are you not taking the time to read my posts and then just posting random crap? Yes. [QUOTE=MrEndangered;25624029]Right, because all these things happened so quickly, and nobody ever guessed or saw it coming. Hell, it's not like anybody prepared for them or anything, it was all so sudden! The only thing to to be a surprise was the fall of the USSR being so bloodless. Also, Fallout quotes are never amusing.[/QUOTE] Oh of course, everyone saw it coming. Answer me this, then: if everyone saw it coming, why did no-one do something to avert it? Why would people vote a lunatic into power who would murder millions and ruin his country? Why would the British and French put such harsh conditions on Germany if they knew it would destroy the country and leave it vulnerable to radicals? Why would Poland refuse to cooperate with Germany if it knew it was going to get invaded? Why didn't the USA intervene in the war earlier if it knew it was going to be attacked? Oh, how I could go on... And I used that quote because it was appropriate to my post, not that you would know because you didn't even take in what my point was.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.