posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 05:40 PM
Paid via Tax, how much are these oversized aircraft carrier's going to cost to run? we just spent billions on new nuculear subs.
They're not oversized, they're rather small still. As for the nuclear subs, we need a deterrent. Or would you prefer we all sing koombaya and hope
that someone else who is big and powerful doesn't take a fancy to us?
Govement money comes from tax, people would be better off with less taxes and the economy would be better because people would have more money.
How ironic. You want lower taxes but in the same breath ask for billions to be spent on flood defences? Can't have it both ways.
The money the Government spends is on huge projects, which no matter how low tax was, the Public would not either want or be able to afford.
Government collects the money and does it for them.
Oxford a pretty little village? 6 counties were flooded, the goverment is still wanting to build more houses in these area's due to the housing
crisis we have at the moment. If we are building more and more houses in these area's more billions should be spent on flood defenses, the problem
with flood defenses are it protects a certain area and makes another more vunerable.
No need to preach mate, I live in one of those counties. And while I am at work tonight, the Thames looks like it is going to breach. I have taken
As you said, no matter how much is spent on defences, the water has to go somewhere. It's all about managing the risk. You cannot make it go away.
We went to Afghanistan to find Al Qaeda and Osama, we ended up nation building so they can have a pretty nice oil pipeline they were so desperate to
make. Iraq we went there because of "Weapons of mass destruction" they were not there and we continue to stay and nation build whilst creating more
war in the area so we can spend more money being there.
Indeed. Two folly's because Blair is a spineless lapdog. Don't let Blair degrade your opinion of the Armed Forces. They don't want to be there
either, but the will of the Politicians takes precedent, unfortunately.
Thats a damn twist of information there, never did i say we shouldn't have a army, navy & RAF but spending billions on two big ships just to sit
their and look pretty is a different matter.
As I have explained and you have willfully ignored, they are not just going to "sit there and look pretty". Don't be such a fool.
Where am i benifiting from having two giant carriers? your trying to make out im against the Military im not, im against offensive minded military
where billions are wasted.
Carriers are also great command ships, great Humanitarian vessels as well as great warships. You quite obviously don't know the role carriers play in