HMS Daring

RaohNS · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:21

Nana said:
thats right
Because when we get big weapons we use them, and that tends to kill people, often innocent poeple but thats just collateral damage, and that in turn, leads to more hatred and resentment, and more poeple wanting to kill us. If we stopped killing innocent people and raping the world for our lifestyles, then less people would want to kill us, its a kind of reap what you sow thing. If TB had no army, he wouldnt have gone into afghanistan or iraq in the first place. And then almost certainly, 7/7 would not have happened.

Well weapons serve as a deterrant and in some instance can be used... you want us to have some plastic dinghy's instead? I reckon in the event of a waryou'd be one of the first people to take to the streets, or if we were invaded, be the first on the bandwagon to claim it was our fault..

Question: did you march in the Not In My Name Anti-Iraq war movement?

Well the world is a dangerous place... hence these new ships.

So you're saying we should disband our army and we'll be safe? We nearly went up ****creek in WW2, its just that some bloke in a factory decided to continue making Hurricanes otherwise we'd have been invaded if the Germans invaded after the Battle of Britain.

7/7 would have happened either way. We are an ally of America, we are a Christiann and capitalist nation.

>| Raoh |<

Keltyx · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:22

Nana said:
.. it genuinely makes me ashamed of being british.

What a ridiculous thing to say. The only reason your british is because of the navy, without it we would probably be either french, spanish or german. Our heritage as british people includes a proud military history, and by doing as you suggest we would remove a big chunk of what british is all about.

Its been suggested that you are deliberatley posting controversial opinions just to make an argument and id have to agree. You contradict yourself on so many levels.

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:22

Freefaller said:
Needless to say the navy also stops drug runners, pirates and other sea based crimes around the world.

LOL

and these people have serious missile attack systems and aircraft which need to be blown apart by this destroyer!!! literally LOL, a 650 million quid boat to stop drug runners, LOL.

Omg we're being invaded by pirates.

Bernard · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:23

Nana said:
thats right
Because when we get big weapons we use them, and that tends to kill people, often innocent poeple but thats just collateral damage, and that in turn, leads to more hatred and resentment, and more poeple wanting to kill us.

Sorry, but thats just wrong.

As your keen on throwing in history, how would we have fared in 39 - 45? With no royal navy? or any of the armed forces.

I don't think many of the people saved from the oppression of the Nazi's or the concentration camps, hated or resented us at all.

RaohNS · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:23

Nana said:
Isn't it a shame that america declared the UN irrelevant?

I fully agree, and the UN has help from many many countries, who play a significant role, but which have a tiny military by comparison to us. We have no need for hundreds of millions of quids worth of warships.

In world war 2 we did its just in them days they cost a few hundred thousand. Likewise we were having at the height of the battle of the atlantic a few million tonnes of shipping sunk every week! Without that escort of battleships bringing 6million tonnes of food to our shores a week.. Britain would have starved out, no doubt about it.

>| Raoh |<

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:24

Keltyx said:
What a ridiculous thing to say. The only reason your british is because of the navy, without it we would probably be either french, spanish or german. Our heritage as british people includes a proud military history, and by doing as you suggest we would remove a big chunk of what british is all about.

Its been suggested that you are deliberatley posting controversial opinions just to make an argument and id have to agree. You contradict yourself on so many levels.

I completely accept that at times in our history we have needed a navy, I just dont see that situation ever arising again. I also am proud of our naval history.

Exactly where have I contradicted myself please?

RaohNS · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:25

Nana said:
LOL

and these people have serious missile attack systems and aircraft which need to be blown apart by this destroyer!!! literally LOL, a 650 million quid boat to stop drug runners, LOL.

Omg we're being invaded by pirates.

Pity you wouldnt be the first to walk the plank

>| Raoh |<

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:25

RaohNS said:
In world war 2 we did its just in them days they cost a few hundred thousand. Likewise we were having at the height of the battle of the atlantic a few million tonnes of shipping sunk every week! Without that escort of battleships bringing 6million tonnes of food to our shores a week.. Britain would have starved out, no doubt about it.

>| Raoh |<

what the devil does ww2 have to do with the UN? there was no UN. You quote my comments about the un and rant about ww2... whatever.

Bernard · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:29

About as much as your Boer remark did.

RaohNS · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:30

Nana said:
what the devil does ww2 have to do with the UN? there was no UN. You quote my comments about the un and rant about ww2... whatever.

I was referring to the

We have no need for hundreds of millions of quids worth of warships

And also for a point the UN is the equivalent of the League of Nations, just under a different name

>| Raoh |<

Freefaller · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:30

Nana said:
LOL

and these people have serious missile attack systems and aircraft which need to be blown apart by this destroyer!!! literally LOL, a 650 million quid boat to stop drug runners, LOL.

Omg we're being invaded by pirates.

Who said anything about this particular boat being used? A normal frigate does that job however it's part of the navy which you so hate. So I'd quit with the sarcastic quips if I were you.

This new boat will help protect against a more sophisticated attack.

Just like keeping your antivirus up to date - just because you've never sent a virus doesn't mean you won't recieve one or try to be hacked. It's just basic protection.

I fail to understand why it's such a bad thing to have a military force to serve and protect out country? Do you have locks on your front door? Do you have a burglar alarm? Does your car have an alarm? If so why do you use them? Because people will take advantage of the lack of security and screw you over - just like another country would if we were defenseless.

theleg · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:30

Nana said:
Isn't it a shame that america declared the UN irrelevant?

I fully agree, and the UN has help from many many countries, who play a significant role, but which have a tiny military by comparison to us. We have no need for hundreds of millions of quids worth of warships.

Isnt the fact that the UN doesnt support the UN even more reason for us to?

If the US doesnt do it, who will? Granted most UN missions these days require only small scale stuff...but its folly to assume that will always be the case.

Im sad you see the UN as being pointless but I disagree and I dont see this warship as being needed to defend our country. We will likely not need to defend out country in that way for many decades...These days our navy is there to help others according to the UN.

RaohNS · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:31

Freefaller said:
Who said anything about this particular boat being used? A normal frigate does that job however it's part of the navy which you so hate. So I'd quit with the sarcastic quips if I were you.

This new boat will help protect against a more sophisticated attack.

Just like keeping your antivirus up to date - just because you've never sent a virus doesn't mean you won't recieve one or try to be hacked. It's just basic protection.

I fail to understand why it's such a bad thing to have a military force to serve and protect out country? Do you have locks on your front door? Do you have a burglar alarm? Does your car have an alarm? If so why do you use them? Because people will take advantage of the lack of security and screw you over - just like another country would if we were defenseless.

Great post Freefaller

>| Raoh |<

Retsef · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:31

As a side point, this country would be a lot poorer if it wasn't for the manufacture of weapons for other countries. Defence spending entering the UK is enormous. Rightly or wrongly, it's a fact.

War is also very good for the building industry.

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:33

Retsef said:
As a side point, this country would be a lot poorer if it wasn't for the manufacture of weapons for other countries. Defence spending entering the UK is enormous. Rightly or wrongly, it's a fact.

War is also very good for the building industry.

exactly right.

It's all about money not morality.

theleg · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:34

Nana said:
exactly right.

It's all about money not morality.

What utter rubbish...Stop trying to polarise issues that are far more complex than any of us can know..

RaohNS · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:34

Nana said:
exactly right.

It's all about money not morality.

Yes because everyone on the planet is as moral as you are they?

People out there want us dead you know :rolleyes:

>| Raoh |<

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:34

Balddog said:
Isnt the fact that the UN doesnt support the UN even more reason for us to?

If the US doesnt do it, who will? Granted most UN missions these days require only small scale stuff...but its folly to assume that will always be the case.

Im sad you see the UN as being pointless but I disagree and I dont see this warship as being needed to defend our country. We will likely not need to defend out country in that way for many decades...These days our navy is there to help others according to the UN.

I assume thats a typo in line 1

I dont see the UN as pointless, far from it.

But the UN will not require us to have 6 of these, extremely expensive boats. So I come back to my first point - that this is a obscene waste of money.

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:36

RaohNS said:
Yes because everyone on the planet is as moral as you are they?

sadly. No, they are not.

RaohNS · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:37

Nana said:
I assume thats a typo in line 1

I dont see the UN as pointless, far from it.

But the UN will not require us to have 6 of these, extremely expensive boats.

How little you know. The first sentence is correct the UN doesnt back other UN countries decision hence votes and the VETO. Therefore the UN doesnt support the UN if they have disagreements

In what ways is the UN far from pointless then? Please tell us all as it would be interesting.

Well what do you suggest we have then Prime Minister Chaimberlain?

>| Raoh |<