Aircraft Carriers

[Peppermint]

Re: Not racist

We are discriminating. It's a trait that has stood us in good stead since we fell out of the tree's.

I just think it would be nice if, while we're doing backflips to accommodate and integrate the wandering horde's, while facing up to and being pilloried for our history, they'd showed some inclination to join in these community building efforts.

Some have done so and reaped the benefits, the Ugandan asians, Chinese and many Indians spring to mind.

I also think we had it easy in Enoch's time. The inflow was from the commonwealth countries were we did have some common ground. Now were in a whole new ball game.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

Re: Not racist

Not sure that discriminating has done that much good, pogroms, holocaust - nope not at all sure bout that.

But there is common ground here between that soggy leftie zefender and yourself - one one whom asserts that the immigrants are mostly ok, and yourself who asserts that they "want want we have". I think both are correct. Most immigrants do indeed want what we have and are ready to work for it - and pretty damn hard. But on arrrival in the UK, if accepted, a friend (from the US) was told he could not work until all the paperwork had been completed which took 10 months. Free healthcare and schools should somehw be tied to working. Do they only have health tourists in the daily mail - or is it a real big problem?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Reiscrimination is a personal thing

related to choice. It's only when it is made corporate that it leads to pogroms and such like. The other thing to consider is, we may be crap at integration but, according to the UN, we're one of the best countries in the world at it. Sad reflection on some of the others.

As to my discrimination, I have no time for dogmatic, resentful, mouthy, awkward, stupid tossers. Whatever colour they are. I have plenty of time for flexable, tolerant & cooperative people people who want to maintain or improve a lifestyle through hard work and application.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[zefender]

Re: Speaking of Flaws

Try employing someone in London or the South East with the offer of a minimum wage rate.

UK employers do of course have other costs and which are generally lower costs than employers in most other european countries. Oh and they have better healthcare, railways, education - and probably aircraft carriers for all I know(or the good sense not to build them)!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[zefender]

Re: typical left wing liberal thinking

...sorry you've lost me again ....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Heckler]

Re: typical left wing liberal thinking

there's none so deaf as those that dont want hear or understand or engage in discussion about issues that are going to bite our arses.
stu

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Heckler]

i wasa quoted word for word

by ragi omar on the blair broadcasting corp tonight at 6.00 news, they want what we want
s

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[zefender]

Re: i wasa quoted word for word

I wasn't disagreing that many people overseas may yearn for economic prosperity and perhaps political freedoms too. That's hardly a breathtakingly original observation. But to take that evidence and assume that modest immigration will lead to our streets being subjected to the constant percussion of AK47s is a leap into fantasy.

By the way, Ragi Omar, your source of credible info, comes from Somalia.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[peterb]

Re: i wasa quoted word for word

For "will lead" read "has led". Much of the armed crime appears to come from non-British origins.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Heckler]

wh said AK47s are going to be used here?

do you have a problem with reading?
and it is irrelevant where ragi omar comes from he is in bagdhad because he speaks arabic as any one watching last night could see and hear,
oh i forget myself, because i speak arabic i sometimes forget that ordinary people cant.
stu
ps the local authority could probably provide you with details of adult classes for people with reading difficulties.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ccscott49]

Re: i wasa quoted word for word

It doesn't just "appear to come from", it does come from!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Cornishman]

>Portsmouth entrance and approaches needs redredging<

Send 'em to Guz instead

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

Re: wh said AK47s are going to be used here?

Yes, you do forget yourself, Sonsy lass. Someone disagreed with you, so you resorted to making personal insults. Not really necessary. Perhaps if sensible dialogue was maintained between people, the aircraft carriers wouldn't be necessary either. Unfortunately, because our current leaders fail in that regard - as you have done- we probably do need aircraft carriers. Probably *more* than two if you were in charge eh?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Heckler]

Re: wh said AK47s are going to be used here?

i made a few observations, i was then presented with condescending replys.
stu

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[zefender]

Re: Take a chill pill, Sonsy

I'm sorry you took my responses to be condescension. I was disagreing with you, that's all. Despite the provocation, I'll not rise to the bait and return insults. Zefender 'out'.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[AlexL]

Of course the main issue here is that TB and Gordon don't seem to understand basic economics! If the carriers were built in the Clyde or Belfast or on the Tyne using british steel, creating british jobs and all paid for by the british tax payer, then the carriers don't really cost anything at all - its all monopoly money going round in circles. However gordon seems not to understand this simple premise. How much of americas huge military expenditure is spend outside the US? not alot.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

um, no they aren't free at all. They'll use mostly foreign materials, and the wages paid will be lots higher than if the same people did the same job outside the EC. Weird costing systems still left over from the wartime years when all costs were rolled up mean that delays add to the costs and the price. The process of public sector workers being paid by the govenrment and then that money also being taxed means more inefficiency. Well-off workers will spend the money on foreign holidays and foreign cars. By contrast, hand hands-off overseas contract attracts a lower price and few union problems which is how the dock probelms started in the first place, which lead to the orders drying up. Cheapest option is er not to have an aircraft carriers at all. Spain, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark - i wonder how many aircraft carriers they have between them?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Heckler]

roger, wilco

ewvaah end out
stu


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[kgi]

Re: This is absolutely true, if incredible

Don't agree with your ideas on fort vic being outrageously expensive because it was fitted for vertical launch seawolf, the concept was brilliant because the AOR is always the weak point in a battle group, sink it and the rest of the group grinds to a halt, it takes a couple of frigates just to look after it, the idea was that the ship could look after itself this then made the group more flexible. as to H&W, they do not build vessels for the MOD and after the fort vic i sincerely hope they never build another one, the defect lists were absurd, things that worked in H&W trials were found to be defective to the point where it became highly suspicious, i helped bring this ship into service so if you want to know more about what was wrong with it pm me and i will tell you why it was a disaster.........keith

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MainlySteam]

Using that rationale then if the aircraft carriers were built in the USA, say, and then the USA spent that money in the UK, then the aircraft carriers would still be free. So what I would propose is that the UK do that but also get the USA to have its aircraft carriers built in the UK on the promise that the UK would in return spend the payment in the USA. Then both parties would have free aircraft carriers and could therefore afford as many as they wanted.

Obviously it doesn't work so.

The matter of how much of a country's military expenditure goes offshore is not just a matter of trade protectionism, but a matter of the capability of other sources of supply and security - security both from the point of view of intelligence and from the point of view of materiels support in the case of conflict.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>