HMS Daring

theleg · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:38

Nana said:
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 on earth can you make such a statement?

If the US keeps going the way it is with regard to the UN then we will be one of the biggest players involved. It will be up to us to do a huge amount of peacekeeping duties...Not to mention the added work involved with peacekeeping missions that are required after the US has bulldozed a country.

You think US forces are gonna stay in Iraq forever? You think when they leave its gonna be all hunky dorey? No...The UN will have to get involved..

What about Iran? Syria? If things should happen there then we are in trouble...The movement with regard to Iran is multilateral, even France are agreeing with the US on this one. If anything happens it will be the UN that do it this time...

What if something happens with North Korea, god forbid...You think a few soldiers are gonna be enough to protect against the ENORMOUS civilian slaughter that would commence?

Jesus man, look at this world of ours...The UN is the best chance at keeping as many people alive as possible...

RaohNS · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:38

Nana said:
sadly. No, they are not.

Cha-ching... there you go then... if there are people in this world who are our enemies.. why shouldnt we make/take precautions to defend ourselves?

>| Raoh |<

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:38

RaohNS said:
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 |<

I expect Balddog to confirm that it was indeed a typo. Then I shall expect you to retract this remark.

theleg · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:39

RaohNS said:
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?

Actually it was a typo.

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:39

Balddog said:
How on earth can you make such a statement?

If the US keeps going the way it is with regard to the UN then we will be one of the biggest players involved. It will be up to us to do a huge amount of peacekeeping duties...Not to mention the added work involved with peacekeeping missions that are required after the US has bulldozed a country.

You think US forces are gonna stay in Iraq forever? You think when they leave its gonna be all hunky dorey? No...The UN will have to get involved..

What about Iran? Syria? If things should happen there then we are in trouble...The movement with regard to Iran is multilateral, even France are agreeing with the US on this one. If anything happens it will be the UN that do it this time...

What if something happens with North Korea, god forbid...You think a few soldiers are gonna be enough to protect against the ENORMOUS civilian slaughter that would commence?

Jesus man, look at this world of ours...The UN is the best chance at keeping as many people alive as possible...

that still does not to me, justify this quantity of spending.

RaohNS · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:40

Nana said:
I expect Balddog to confirm that it was indeed a typo. Then I shall expect you to retract this remark.

Retracted

>| Raoh |<

RaohNS · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:40

but... the UN doesnt support the UN hence why the UN isnt supporting America now (a UN Permanent SC member)

>| Raoh |<

fatiain · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:41

Nana said:
But the UN will not require us to have 6 of these,

No but the Royal Navy do, to protect OUR interests

Nana said:
extremely expensive boats.

A lot of money, but not expensive.

Nana said:
So I come back to my first point - that this is a obscene waste of money.

What price security and being able to sleep safe in your bed at night?

theleg · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:41

Nana said:
that still does not to me, justify this quantity of spending.

and you have the gall to talk to us about it being about money not morals?

pfft.

Some of us value the prospect of peace and the ability to be able to help those less fortunate. Luckily we live in a democracy and you have the right to value your money over such petty things as peace and life.

Beansprout · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:42

Nana, look, it's simple:

British = used to have a wicked Empire = traditionally the best = big ships = firepower = fun = big explosions, wheee! = we don't die when others attack us (and consequently = we can go kill others, yay, though would that really happen for no reason?)

Lots of other countries in the world = bad and evil and want to destroy us with their halfwit leadership = they see our ships and BANG! Bye bye!

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:42

fatiain said:
No but the Royal Navy do, to protect OUR interests

A lot of money, but not expensive.

What price security and being able to sleep safe in your bed at night?

this is nothing to do with our security, fgs we're not about to be invaded.

Mic · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:43

Hehee, the ship made engadget. Surround sound, wifi and ipod docks. Cool.

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:44

Balddog said:
and you have the gall to talk to us about it being about money not morals?

pfft.

Some of us value the prospect of peace and the ability to be able to help those less fortunate. Luckily we live in a democracy and you have the right to value your money over such petty things as peace and life.

if you want peace prepare for war. I see where you are coming from, but if these craft are primarily for UN use, I would expect some of the money to come from the UN, or IMF or wherever, why do we foot the bill, for middle eastern security?

RaohNS · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:44

Nana said:
this is nothing to do with our security, fgs we're not about to be invaded.

i sort of see what you're getting out. You havent answered my earlier question as to why YOU think the UN is relevant today?

I think however relating to the above quote that you'd be OK for another country to attack another country ala Rwanda, and then us not do anything about it?

>| Raoh |<

Freefaller · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:45

RaohNS said:
Great post Freefaller

>| Raoh |<

Thanks

Seems to have been ignored though - but the argument is not moving onto other tangents

theleg · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:46

Nana said:
if you want peace prepare for war. I see where you are coming from, but if these craft are primarily for UN use, I would expect some of the money to come from the UN, or IMF or wherever, why do we foot the bill, for middle eastern security?

Ugh...You just refuse to listen..

They may well not be intended for UN use at this point in time...but it is important than we have a powerful navy, and thus force extension, in order to be useful for any UN future tasks.

Why would you expect money to come from the UN? Do you understand how the UN works?

Why do we foot the bill for middle eastern security? BECAUSE WE CAN and we have a moral duty to do so. Thats what the damn UN is about..

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:47

RaohNS said:
You havent answered my earlier question as to why YOU think the UN is relevant today?

I think however relating to the above quote that you'd be OK for another country to attack another country ala Rwanda, and then us not do anything about it?

>| Raoh |<

I think my view of the UN sort of coincides with Balddogs, that it is an invaluable security organisation. I stated that i thought it was a shame that the yanks declared the UN "irrelevant"

With regard to your second point, well we didn't give a stuff about Mugabe, but then he hasn't got oil has he? We only seem to bother about getting involved if someone high up the chain of command is getting rich.

theleg · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:48

Nana said:
I think my view of the UN sort of coincides with Balddogs, that it is an invaluable security organisation. I stated that i thought it was a shame that the yanks declared the UN "irrelevant"

With regard to your second point, well we didn't give a stuff about Mugabe, but then he hasn't got oil has he? We only seem to bother about getting involved if someone high up the chain of command is getting rich.

From your posts, you dont seem to give a damn about the UN..Or at least are under the belief that only other people should have to put in any work or money...that we should just stay out of it.

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:48

Balddog said:
Why do we foot the bill for middle eastern security? BECAUSE WE CAN and we have a moral duty to do so.

moral duty?

please explain. I fail to see how it is our moral duty to police the world, if anything our "world police" view is causing more problems than solving.

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:49

Balddog said:
From your posts, you dont seem to give a damn about the UN..Or at least are under the belief that only other people should have to put in any work or money...that we should just stay out of it.

not at all, but I dont see other nations as wealthy as us, switzerland, france, building near 4 billion quids worth of boat, for ostensibly UN use.