Save The RN!

bd popeye said:

I would hope so. We Americans "owe" the UK a lot. I mean a whole lot...

Click to expand...

Shame you're not the Pres then.

You brought up a good point about future presidents and what they would do. Future presidents may not be as willing to suppourt the UK in any future military endeavors. Americans politicans change their minds with the wind.

Click to expand...

In which case the US may find itself unable to rely on us again. Personally I would feel that if there was another Falklands situation and the US tried to have its cake and eat it (back us only verbally), we shouldn't back you up next time you need it if we didn't have to. I'm sure a lot of other people feel that way too. Sounds nasty, but I think too many Americans take us for granted. I mean, Jesus, we had to fight over the F-35.

Of course it might be that we wouldn't ask for help, but with the way things could go it may be the case we really would need direct aid.

FuManChu said:

The problem we have is that Tony Blair is making the MoD fight two wars, but Gordon Brown and the treasury is refusing to fund them fully enough. They're also letting defence spending slip as a proportion of GDP.

Click to expand...

Doesn't give much hope about what will happen to the RN after Brown takes over in the summer does it?

Neutral Zone said:

Doesn't give much hope about what will happen to the RN after Brown takes over in the summer does it?

Click to expand...

It's difficult to say. Gordon as PM may well be different from Gordon as Chancellor. You can't benefit from the military when you're in the latter position, but you can't do any "international statesman" stuff without it when you're in the former position.

I think Mr Brown needs to be reminded that defence cuts will mostly mean SCOTTISH job losses as the Scottish Labour government we have had for the last ten years has moved most of the defence industry north of the border...

FuManChu said:

I'm sure a lot of other people feel that way too. Sounds nasty, but I think too many Americans take us for granted. I mean, Jesus, we had to fight over the F-35.

Of course it might be that we wouldn't ask for help, but with the way things could go it may be the case we really would need direct aid.

Click to expand...

The US supported the UK in the first Falklands conflict...I see no reason to believe we wouldn't do so in a future one at least to the logistical and recon/surveillance extent we did then.

My guess is, that had things gone badly, back then we (the US) would have become even more involved.

Of course that was under Reagan and Thatcher and there is a whole different breed of politicians now. Given the likely political landscape of the next few years...heck, I am not sure even the UK will fight for the Falklands.

I hope I am wrong on that count for the sake of the UK citizens down there, and for the sake, prestige, reputation and image of the UK and particularly the RN.

For my two cents, I believe as Popeye does. We need to stand together and the US and UK owe one another a lot over the last 80-100 years. Our interests coincide on so many issues, both strategiaclly and ideologically. We are foolish to strain at knats and argue over small things in todays geo-political landscape...but that drifts too far toward politics.

So, I will just leave it, as I say, for the sake of the UK citizens down there and for the sake of the future of the RN, I hope both the UK and the US remain firm on the Falklands and other similar issues.

Obi Wan Russell said:

I think Mr Brown needs to be reminded that defence cuts will mostly mean SCOTTISH job losses as the Scottish Labour government we have had for the last ten years has moved most of the defence industry north of the border...

Click to expand...

I think he knows, which is why we may see a carrier announcement delayed until before the Scottish elections. Hopefully he'll be more generous towards the MoD considering the latest press - especially the bit about Labour "hating" the military because it's "Tory" and they leak reports. If he's mean to them in the next budget/spending review, people will say it's because he's being vindictive. I doubt he'll want that reputation for when he's taking over as PM.

There is some good news that the Telegraph said nearly 3,000 troops will be pulled out of Iraq in late Spring. Should reduce the over-stretch.

Have your say about the issue on the BBC website.



Comments about spending more on the RN are what you might want to post.

Tony Blair gave a speech in Plymouth earlier today stating that closing Portsmouth or Plymouth was "inconcievable" and that the two CVFs were still very much on the Governments shopping list. So far no one has said they believe him, and as he'll be gone in six months the decisions are in the hands of his successor anyway.

We will need to wait until the budget (March) and comprehensive spending review (Summer) to find out whether Gordon agrees with Tony that more money is required. Until then we can only enjoy the launch of HMS Dauntless and the cutting of first steel on Astute #4.

Still at least Blair has kept the debate going, putting some extra pressure on Gordon.

FuManChu said:

Have your say about the issue on the BBC website.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Comments about spending more on the RN are what you might want to post.

Click to expand...

I made a few posts to that forum, strange how none of them were posted! I'm no fan of Blair, but on that forum, people can't wait to criticise him over his military interventions during his premiership namely, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq, and most of the criticism is related to Iraq.

In Kosovo, Britain was part of a NATO intervention in response to the attrocities committed by the Milosevic regime against the Kosovars. I remember the scenes as the NATO troops pushed into Kosovo and how the Kosovans welcomed them as liberators. Was that war mongering?

Regarding Sierra Leone, some people seem to have forgotten how Foday Sankoh and his RUF thugs systematically hacked off the hands of anyone who they came across. A relatively small British intervention stabilised the situation and today Sierra Leone is making progress.

Afghanistan was of course a response to 9/11. IMHO, America made a big mistake in switching it's attention to Iraq when the situation in Afghanistan had not been stabilised. The British and Canadian troops in Afghanistan have performed superbly and have managed to prevent the situation from deteriorating. Are the people who want Britain to withdraw from Afghanistan happy to let a Taleban regime which treats women like cattle be re-established in that country? Iraq has of course been argued about at length and that is the one intervention where I would say Blair was wrong. The others were IMHO entirely justified. The people queing up on BBC's Have Your Say section to demand that Britain's armed forces are devoted entirely to territorial defence are of course the same people who, whenever a major humanitarian crisis occurs, are demanding that "something must be done." And of course in order to do something, you need well equipped, expeditionary armed forces and they cost money!