HMS Daring

theleg · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:51

Nana said:
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.

The UN is causing more problems than solving? How do you work that one out?

You are, probably deliberately, confusing the UN version of policing the world, with the US version. Its quite obvious im talking about the UN version. The one that goes in to protect people from being slaughtered by dictators, that gives huge food aid and protects it, that acts as a mediator across the globe.

If you fail to understand this, how can you claim to support the UN? It seems your views change on a post by post basis.

melchy · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:51

The fact of the matter is that without a strong military force there can be no political pressure (economics aside). The 6 (or possibly 12) Type 45's and the new carriers (when built) will mean that we will be at the cutting edge as far a naval power goes and people will take notice. If you've no such force, you have much less political leverage.

wordy · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:53

Nana said:
what like voting, and going to anti war protest marches, and helping out with the ballot boxes at local elections? you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about me, don't make foolish assumptions.

Sacrifices to uphold our freedom. What the hell are you talking about? I know you aren't talking about people dying in Iraq, because that has diddly squat to do with our freedom.

The foolish assupmstion I'm making is that you you are using democracy to state you are ashamed to be british. But have done nothing to defend this democracy that you use to justify your little rant.

Of course I'm not talking about iraq. I'm talking about past and present where millions of people in H.M forces have served to defend this country. Without their scarifice we would be speaking german or russian or french and would not have the rights we now have. so instead of saying you are ashamed, how about saying "Thanks"

Beansprout · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:53

Nana said:
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.

Oh my God.

Here's a map:

Now...where's the water around Switzerland? Germany?

theleg · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:53

Nana said:
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.

Where do you get this stuff? Honestly....

The French navy...Currently under construction or order...

A second aircraft carrier - conventionally propelled (the current Charles De Gaulle is nuclear), and built to a similar design as the British CVF ships.
4 Horizon units; two are now under construction, the third one should be ordered in 2007
17 FREMM multipurpose frigates - 8 should be ordered between 2003 and 2008, the first commissioning being expected for 2008
6 nuclear attack submarines of the Barracuda class - 2 should be ordered between 2003 and 2008, the first commissioning being expected for 2012

Along with a lot of equipment modernisation..

V-Spec · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:54

I think with the way things are progressing, I welcome the 20 Billion tony has just spent on nuclear weapons, I welcome this new battleship, I welcome any spending which is gonna help protect us from what is inevitable in the next 5 years, you think Iraq was all about oil and saddm? no chance, it was to get a foothold in the east because of what is now beginning to unfold with Iran... Blair and bush aint stupid, they know whats coming more than any of us...

Lopéz · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:55

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.

Requoting this as it appears to have been skipped over and raises a very valid point.

Nana, do you lock your door at night? Do you leave your wallet on a table in a crowded cafe? Do you leave your windows wide open when you go to work? Do you leave your keys in the ignition? Sleeping on the train would you leave your mobile on the seat next to you?

We have to protect - or be seen to have the ability to protect - what is ours, because weaknesses in security will always be targeted by certain forces in this world. Did bullies pick on the big guy at school or did they choose the weed to victimise?

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:56

Balddog said:
The UN is causing more problems than solving? How do you work that one out?

You are, probably deliberately, confusing the UN version of policing the world, with the US version. Its quite obvious im talking about the UN version. The one that goes in to protect people from being slaughtered by dictators, that gives huge food aid and protects it, that acts as a mediator across the globe.

If you fail to understand this, how can you claim to support the UN? It seems your views change on a post by post basis.

no no no.

Sorry, I said "world police" view caused trouble. Not UN intervention or legislation.

You see, the UK went along with the US into Iraq, without UN approval. (so we were part of their "police force of the world" bs coalition)

I think the UN is invaluable. But when we just ignore it, we lower its value.

Defending innocent people from slaughter is all well and noble, but it is not carried out universally, or with any consistency, it seems the current US administration would rather steal oil than save people.. and imo this is sadly, what these boats are inevitably going to be used for.

fatiain · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:56

Nana, I believe Switzerland does have a navy, it's not very famous as they don't have a side line in pocket knives.

Visage · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:56

Beansprout said:
Oh my God.

Here's a map:

Now...where's the water around Switzerland? Germany?

Didnt Switzerland win the America's cup recently?

RaohNS · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:57

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.

Right OK based on the fact you've just said it is an invaluable security organisation... how in gods name, do you expect a security force to be able to follow through with an action if it doesnt have the hardware to do so?

Rwanda has nothing to do with Zimbabwe... you're talking nearly a thousand miles away

>| Raoh |<

big_white_dog84 · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:57

The ships are not for UN use at all. They might occasionally be used to enforce UN embargoes but 95% of their time will be spent defending the UK and her interests abroad.

Interestingly, the French have recently paid a lot of money to buy into our new Aircraft Carrier design.

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:57

Lopéz said:
Requoting this as it appears to have been skipped over and raises a very valid point.

Nana, do you lock your door at night? Do you leave your wallet on a table in a crowded cafe? Do you leave your windows wide open when you go to work? Do you leave your keys in the ignition? Sleeping on the train would you leave your mobile on the seat next to you?

We have to protect - or be seen to have the ability to protect - what is ours, because weaknesses in security will always be targeted by certain forces in this world. Did bullies pick on the big guy at school or did they choose the weed to victimise?

it is totally irrelevant because we are not under a military threat.

If there was no thefts in my area for 50 years, would I lock my door?

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:58

big_white_dog84 said:
The ships are not for UN use at all. They might occasionally be used to enforce UN embargoes but 95% of their time will be spent defending the UK and her interests abroad.

Interestingly, the French have recently paid a lot of money to buy into our new Aircraft Carrier design.

defending the UK from what exactly? the huge iranian navy?

45 minute wmd in iraq?

RaohNS · 2 Feb 2006 at 11:59

Nana said:
defending the UK from what exactly? the huge iranian navy?

45 minute wmd in iraq?

My question is above regarding the UN.

Also so you dont lock your doors? Or car... where you live exactly i'll let some very 'nice' people know

>| Raoh |<

theleg · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:00

Nana said:
no no no.

Sorry, I said "world police" view caused trouble. Not UN intervention or legislation.

You see, the UK went along with the US into Iraq, without UN approval. (so we were part of their "police force of the world" bs coalition)

I think the UN is invaluable. But when we just ignore it, we lower its value.

Defending innocent people from slaughter is all well and noble, but it is not carried out universally, or with any consistency, it seems the current US administration would rather steal oil than save people.. and imo this is sadly, what these boats are inevitably going to be used for.

Will you stop projecting your negative image of the US onto my opinions? I understand that the US is to blame for everything thats ever gone wrong in the world, but some things...just some....can happen without the US.

I know full well that there is a problem with the way the UN is working at the moment...Does that mean we should abandon it? Should we give up because the US ignores it once?

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:00

fatiain said:
Nana, I believe Switzerland does have a navy, it's not very famous as they don't have a side line in pocket knives.

they do have a navy, in fact they are really quite the pioneers in stealth boats which are invisible to radar. Despite ebing land locked. (because of course being inland means you cant concieve of a boat)

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:01

Balddog said:
Will you stop projecting your negative image of the US onto my opinions? I understand that the US is to blame for everything thats ever gone wrong in the world, but some things...just some....can happen without the US.

I know full well that there is a problem with the way the UN is working at the moment...Does that mean we should abandon it? Should we give up because the US ignores it once?

not at all, but does it justify buying these boats? - lets simplify this, what do you think these boats are for?

big_white_dog84 · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:01

Nana said:
defending the UK from what exactly? the huge iranian navy?

45 minute wmd in iraq?

Defending our companies and passport holders in foreign countries.
Anti-narcotiocs operations.
Embargoes against countries that we are in dispute with.
Force projection against the enemies of our allies.
Naval Diplomacy.
etc

Freefaller · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:01

Nana said:
it is totally irrelevant because we are not under a military threat.

So you know what's going on in the intelligence agencies all around the world, or even in the UK? Impressive.

How do you know this? You don't. In this case ignorance is not bliss, ignorance will kill. Don't be so shortsighted.