UK Army to get rid of 20,000 soldiers - soccer24-7.com Forums

Bossanova · Jul 5 2012, 12:16 PM

lol @ the tories

Thatcher, their leedor, increased police numbers in her time and had an army of 150,000~

these torays are cutting police and army numbers

im sure their voters will be happy

**Keano** · Jul 5 2012, 12:49 PM

This will alienate a lot of old school hardliners, however your average young Tory places much more importance on the economy instead of the outdated 'rah rah Britain' stuff.

This will make the younger Tories happy, the ones whom are able to breed and **** out a new generation of scumbags.

SMG316 · Jul 5 2012, 03:17 PM

Times change, and as such- the optimal army size also.

Not really a hard concept to grasp.

Next.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keano

This will alienate a lot of old school hardliners, however your average young Tory places much more importance on the economy instead of the outdated 'rah rah Britain' stuff.

This will make the younger Tories happy, the ones whom are able to breed and **** out a new generation of scumbags.

Wouldn't quite say 'happy'...but if its felt at a strategic level, we can cope with a lower headcount as the perceived risk/necessity is less than it was during the cold war...then its prudential.

Stanley · Jul 5 2012, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossanova

lol @ the tories

Thatcher, their leedor, increased police numbers in her time and had an army of 150,000~

these torays are cutting police and army numbers

im sure their voters will be happy

they cant win! Perhaps they should keep the soldiers & cut welfare for disabled or something like that.

**Fowksee** · Jul 5 2012, 04:06 PM

Is there anything they don't cut?

Aside from their own wages and pensions that is....

***Manic Loop*** · Jul 5 2012, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fowksee

Is there anything they don't cut?

Aside from their own wages and pensions that is....

the mustard

**Fowksee** · Jul 5 2012, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic Loop

the mustard

Fredo · Jul 5 2012, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic Loop

the mustard

Well done sir

Bossanova · Jul 5 2012, 08:26 PM

lol epic pwn from manic

SMG316 · Jul 5 2012, 09:11 PM

lulz yeah, when a pwn is good....its good.

That, was good (even if I of course disagree with the sentiment)

**Max Power** · Jul 5 2012, 09:39 PM

Americans - putting the English military industrial complex out of business.

In positive news, I heard the UN was hiring.

moom210 · Jul 5 2012, 10:27 PM

Can be read in two opinions, one is it showing how less likely we will be interfering in other nations business so that's a good point; or it can be read on our dominance, the US reduced their military spending from $1.3 trillion to $800billion that is still substantially more than ours.

In my opinion I don't blame the cuts but I wonder many defence changes we are making, losing this much troops, the loss of the whole entire Harrier squadron, the budget cut.
25000 troops is to much, I just hope the Tories know what they are doing. Seriously if anything happens between Argentina or any political issues we will not be able to cope well.

we are becoming a support nation, that is what the new sea carrier is for.

**Gadger** · Jul 5 2012, 10:44 PM

Off topic, but with the anniversary of the Somme having just passed the cuts really put British casualties in the first hour into perspective.

FWIW the cuts make sense military, for a nation that will no longer be projecting it's armed forces abroad and will now rely on an expanded TA having more commitments to home defense. Before the cold war the UK never had a large standing army - even when Napoleon was issuing levee en masse the full time troop numbers were low. The political switch away from a standing army should have been by restructuring battalion and regiment sizes rather than disbanding entire units though imo.

SMG316 · Jul 6 2012, 07:34 AM

A sense of proportionality and common sense needs to be applied.

Some of the comments in this thread are just proving that regardless of the actual area/nature of the cuts, people will protest regardless- because ideologically, they're automatically opposed to cuts...which is fine, that's their view point, but you can't just have an automatic view point. (i.e. as much of a tory fan boy as I am, I disagreed with the VAT rise).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

This is as it stands...and the spending cuts I believed are phased up until 2020, so not just an automatic culling so to speak.

Do we really need to be so high in our spending? Let's face it, we're not the superpower we once were, and besides a little squabble over the Falklands, there isn't a great deal going on where we wouldn't be behind the USA's lead anyway (Iran etc). I'm not saying we cut down ridiculously, as we still need a force of course, so there's a visible presence/deterrent.

But as times/situations change, the military needs to also.

Bossanova · Jul 6 2012, 08:02 AM

By % of GDP, UK is mid-table, and by value it's equivalent to France, which as you always say 'is a great country to compare to due to location, population and economy size'

so what's your point?

SMG316 · Jul 6 2012, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossanova

By % of GDP, UK is mid-table, and by value it's equivalent to France, which as you always say 'is a great country to compare to due to location, population and economy size'

so what's your point?

By % of GDP, we're still 5th, so to say its mid-table is slightly misleading.

And I wouldn't worry too much about France, they have a ticking debt/govt spend % timebomb which will explode soon enough...so a future cut for them wouldn't be a great surprise.

Regardless, you previously compared numbers to the Thatcher era- do you really think that's a sensible comparison, and that the situation changing in terms of violence/war isn't a factor?

As I said, we're not a world leader anymore and our army needs to adapt as such.

You just see the word 'cut' and see red as a reflex action.

**welshwizard** · Jul 6 2012, 08:39 AM

I heard a figure last night on QT that said the Israeli military procurement section employs 430 people approx. The UK procurement section employs 23,000.

That's where the cuts should be, not the front line.

Bossanova · Jul 6 2012, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMG316

By % of GDP, we're still 5th, so to say its mid-table is slightly misleading.

And I wouldn't worry too much about France, they have a ticking debt/govt spend % timebomb which will explode soon enough...so a future cut for them wouldn't be a great surprise.

Regardless, you previously compared numbers to the Thatcher era- do you really think that's a sensible comparison, and that the situation changing in terms of violence/war isn't a factor?

As I said, we're not a world leader anymore and our army needs to adapt as such.

You just see the word 'cut' and see red as a reflex action.

5th in the top 15 spenders, but worldwide, 39th by gdp

anyway I'm just saying, you're old school tories won't be happy, I didn't say whether I agreed with the cut or not

And it is funny, cut police numbers, a few weeks later the worst riots the UK have seen in decades

**welshwizard** · Jul 6 2012, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossanova

5th in the top 15 spenders, but worldwide, 39th by gdp

anyway I'm just saying, you're old school tories won't be happy, I didn't say whether I agreed with the cut or not

And it is funny, cut police numbers, a few weeks later the worst riots the UK have seen in decades

A great point was made on QT last night by an audience member when they were talking about the drugs war. How can you ever hope to win that when the soldiers will be coming out of Afghanistan, there will be less police on the streets and they are cutting the people working in drug rehabilitation centres. And Ken Clarke has the cheek to say it is a losing battle!! No sh!t sherlock!!

SMG316 · Jul 6 2012, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossanova

5th in the top 15 spenders, but worldwide, 39th by gdp

anyway I'm just saying, you're old school tories won't be happy, I didn't say whether I agreed with the cut or not

And it is funny, cut police numbers, a few weeks later the worst riots the UK have seen in decades

You're right, they probably won't be...but most of them live in the dark ages, hoping that Fox will make a miraculous comeback and overthrow Cameron a la Brown/Blair...which won't happen.

And we both know those riots weren't as a direct result of the cuts, which tbh I don't think had even come into force then....it was a freak incident, which caught the police unaware, and the mentality spread.

I love how some have tried to portray it as a response to the cuts, when reality is that it was just idiots thinking it was fun, including daughters of millionaires and teaching assistants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by welshwizard

A great point was made on QT last night by an audience member when they were talking about the drugs war. How can you ever hope to win that when the soldiers will be coming out of Afghanistan, there will be less police on the streets and they are cutting the people working in drug rehabilitation centres. And Ken Clarke has the cheek to say it is a losing battle!! No sh!t sherlock!!

Would've been a great point, had it not been for the fact that we've been failing on the drugs war for years, including those of rising govt spending.

Bossanova · Jul 6 2012, 09:03 AM

It's because the only way to 'win' the war on drugs is to make them legal and take it from there, but nobody would ever agree to that

**welshwizard** · Jul 6 2012, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMG316

Would've been a great point, had it not been for the fact that we've been failing on the drugs war for years, including those of rising govt spending.

Funny.......I'm sure the figures show that there have been improvements in this, especially in the under 25's.

SMG316 · Jul 6 2012, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossanova

It's because the only way to 'win' the war on drugs is to make them legal and take it from there, but nobody would ever agree to that

More likelihood of Osborne and Balls forming a duet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by welshwizard

Funny.......I'm sure the figures show that there have been improvements in this, especially in the under 25's.

Wait, so are we losing the fight or wut? I won't pretend i've seen the data.

But as a side point, surely a wily person like you knows better than to just accept stats, esp in an area as difficult to monitor/record as this, at face value.

**welshwizard** · Jul 6 2012, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMG316

More likelihood of Osborne and Balls forming a duet.

Wait, so are we losing the fight or wut? I won't pretend i've seen the data.

But as a side point, surely a wily person like you knows better than to just accept stats, esp in an area as difficult to monitor/record as this, at face value.

Some stats are easier to believe than others. Treatment of the under 25's with drug problems has fallen. I think that is likely to be pretty accurate.

Anyway, no comment on the figures regarding procurement staffing levels?

SMG316 · Jul 6 2012, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by welshwizard

Some stats are easier to believe than others. Treatment of the under 25's with drug problems has fallen. I think that is likely to be pretty accurate.

Anyway, no comment on the figures regarding procurement staffing levels?

Again, i've not seen the data- so take your word on it...but i'm always sceptical when it comes to this type of data. Is it the recording that's fallen, or the detection...who knows.

And the procurement staff, i'm not sure if Israel is the best comparison (as bossa knows, I would prefer to see a comparison with France), but at face values, the figure seems high of course.

The front-line cuts got the headlines, as that's what stands out more...but i'm sure there are cuts/service realignments etc behind the scenes, which aren't as front page worthy as actual front liners.