 
|
Daisyhill
|
We should leave...we shouldn't be there anyway. |
|
david536259
|
If Britain wants to have troops all over the place like we do now, then yes we need to spend more money. Equipment levels and quality have been very poor at times. |
|
Oracle
|
Absolutely!!
The troops suffer from lack of equipment (that causes deaths that should never have happened). Lack of medical facilities (because the military hospitals have been closed). Housing that would be condemned by most local authorities and working conditions that even in peacetime are often well outside health and safety requirements for everyone else.
If that was not enough their wages are well below the minimum wage!!!! That is right!!! Although on paper they are paid above the minimum wage if it was a forty hour week they almost never get the chance for such luxury. All the forces should be required to pay an hourly rate and pay for every hour the lads work. It will never happen of course because the wage bill would quadruple!!!
How can Gordon Brown - supposedly man of the people etc. etc. allow this injustice to go on whilst putting more and more troops in harms way!!!! |
|
Oregon
 |
Yes, spend more money.
If you go to war you should do so with the best equipment and training.
Spend the money, train the best. |
|
bert
|
Yes, that way H.M. forces would get adequate, good supplies, for a change instead of constantly having to "make do" |
|
Victor E
 |
With regards to what is happening in the world today and mainly the uncertainty with Iran developing nuclear or atomic bomb. I will say yes UK should increase it's military spending. We need to defend our self against all kind of extremist enemy around us and far from us. |
|
Superdude
|
Yes. |
|
shitebird
 |
no we should not increase spending for the presant situation.. we should increse it for any possible legitimate future threats to the UK . a strong deffence is a good offence . it keeps the bears at bay |
|
Northern Lad
 |
YES! |
|
Sea_Dog
|
Yes, Our forces need a hell of a lot more funding. For those of you who think that the funding for the war in Iraq comes from the defence budget it doesnt, it comes from reserves in the treasury.
Our troops are out there with the best eqiupment, but no where near enough of it, which leads to men being killed.
Although the worst affected is the Royal Navy. The cutbacks and destruction of our fleet is immense. We are currently mothballing and decommisioning more ships that we are building, and the ships we are building we are cutting our order of them too often. We now have less ships than we did during the Falklands, and even then we struggled. I know I was there!
Because of Mr Brown, this country would have a hellish time trying to defend itself, let alone assist other countries.
An increase in military funding would put our forces back in action among the worlds formiddable, where we should and used to be. |
|
one shot
|
New Labour have imposed at least 8 cutbacks on the forces in 10 years. Most whilst our forces have been deployed in Afghanistan & Iraq. To increase spending by 50% would still not equal spending prior to their election in 1997.
Even basic requirements like accommodation has suffered under this Government. The annoying part is I see taxation increasing but no extra spending despite being involved in 2 major conflicts.
My sons accommodation block has 1 leaking washing machine between 50 men. The base has less than £7000 left for basic repairs till April 2008 so no replacement machine. Fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be his unit is currently deployed so they don't need the machine anyway.
Even basic kit like boots is second rate. The "upgraded" boots are still useless leaving those whose "job" entails long distance tabbing with blisters due to the stitching inside the boot. Within 72 hours of deployment my son and his section were at the local American base buying new boots at their own expense. As my son said "If you can't move quickly you're dead and with blisters you can't move quickly!!"
Our forces are expected to do a first class job with second rate kit.
The best area to be wounded in Afghanistan is the American sector - time to evacuation approximately 40 minutes. Due to lack of air transport the evacuation time in the British sector is 4 to 7 hours!! Hence our casualty figures and hence front line troops attending field medical courses in an attempt to keep each other alive if wounded.
I could go on with more examples - but 'nuff said. |
|
futuretopgun101
|
I think they should increase spending but not increase the size of the UK armed forces.
You get what you pay for and man for man, pound for pound they are the best in the world. Increase the spending on the resources we have and life for troops will be much easier. |
|
valf
 |
Yes but make sure the money goes to the benefit of our soldiers..............Salary, accommodation and kit........If they need to raise the funds take it off the police as the service hey offer is non existent....... |
|
El Diablo King Of Kings
 |
Yep they should buy all of our boys a one way ticket out of where ever they are and bring them all back home x x x |
|
Michael W
|
Absolutely. Britsh armed forces need the best equipment money can buy to stay on top of their game. I can tell you for a fact, that the equipment that we use at the moment is generally good, however, some of the items need refining (such as the boots). With increased defence expenditure, hopefully these corners could be tightened up.
Also, the state of the economy should not be taken into account, as this is unimportant. Try telling a dead soldiers' family that he died because he was not issued the correct equipment.
Good question. And please ignore ignorant ignoramuses such as "Daisy Hill" "tons'o'fun" and "Thomas B".
The troops should be paid more, they do a cracking job, and deserve none of the trouble they get at home. The people who give them problems at home shoudl just go and spend a week in Helmand, under fire, diarhea, the works. It's not fun. Trust me. I've been there.
That is pretty much it - Rule Brittania and God Save the Queen. |
|
white angel 007
|
why should Britain do that ?! and what is the reason that make UK. that great country , turns to be one of those worshipers of USA ? what make England that scared nation? whom would we be ready to set a war or to expect a war on UK ? and of course "we the people of UK.who pays taxs , we shouldnt get ourself in such bad position that made many other countries JHATES us.,
Now you tell me <<<WHO WILL GET THE GLORY , ??????
So , why dont we be ourself again ?? who is tony plair or anybody else to build his glorious history on our sons blood ?? and why !! for no reason but ....beeing famous , or following the ORDERS of ....... well we all know the truth ,
Let us live in our late glory ( The Sun Kingdom ).
thank you for your Question, |
|
andyman
|
Our troops in conflict must be equipped properly, their should be enough troops their to do the job relatively safely.
We should not be their.
An Arabic security force should have done the job. |
|
the devil wears camo
|
in the ideal world it would be good if this country could be on par with others in defending itself against an aggressor but as the country is run by those who put votes before lives its not going to happen on the scale it should,labour governments deplete the armed forces year after year while wasting billions elsewhere (not just the NHS) ,the falklands war was the last time we managed to pull something out of the hat by ourselves(well,nearly),now we go cap in hand to the usual suspects and say please sir can you help.OF course we need to increase military spending, if you went to a gun fight you would not take a knife but we would be lucky if we could produce a working slingshot, |
|
Equaliser.
|
No, our whole infrastructure is crumbling and requires massive public investment, our people and the country should be the first consideration of any government before they even contemplate involving us in conflicts all over the globe. |
|
Rommel
|
yep!! pick em all up and send em on a world cruise culminating in a decent standard of housing for them to look forward to as they hit home port. then keep them at home to protect us from the dangers of lying sceaming nest feathering politicians. sounds like a winner to me. |
|
country bumpkin [sheep nurse]
|
when the govnt stop suppling the so called enemy with arms to kill our own troops.we might get a decent way of life in U.K |
|
The goblin
 |
This is a much more complex question than it appears. Past history indicates that the higher military spending is, the more likely we will use the weapons etc.
On the other hand we don't want to be caught with our pants down.
Solution? Possibly a small increase in spending to bring our forces up to scratch and then avoid any unnecessary wars! |
|
focus
|
The only way the government can increase spending is to either increase taxes to raise the money or cut back on something else. If they increase taxes they will be wrong, if they cut back on something else they will be wrong. Catch 22 really. |
|
Thomas B
|
wot eva the media say we dont need mor military fundin we jus need less friendly fire of our "allies" |
|
enigma_variation
|
no funding should be cut. government would then have to pick and choose more carefully which illegal wars to wade into |
|
tons'o'fun
 |
no. the government has tons of money to spend the military now. if spending is increased you know who would have to pay for it |
|
|
|
|
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
