Now if we have the money for this - why are we cutting back on public services???
Ok...I'm naive and should be wiser but it does seem strange to me!
![Sad :(](./images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
:tomcat: (this seems strangely appropriate!!!)
Moderator: Moderators
Don't forget that the Treasury gets a fair amount of that back; they get 20% VAT on each missile and replacement part for the plane, probably Fuel Tax, the aircrew who are paid danger money or whatever get taxed as do the gound crew working overtime as do the people who make the plane .... it is simply money out of the MOD into the TreasuryChris Blewett wrote:Well the Prime Minister answered the question in today's PMQs - the cost of the Libya offensive is coming out of the Treasury Reserve.....so thats ok then
Mid A 15 wrote:It is remarkable how "belt tightening" goes out of the window and billions can magically be found when it comes to financing the vanity wars of politicians, bailing out the Euro or spurious "green" schemes that generate about enough electricity to power a single (low energy) light bulb!
Meanwhile young mothers cannot be given the cancer drugs to prolong their lives, dementia patients the drugs to delay the ravages of their condition and elderly people are routinely starved to death and left putrifying in their own faeces in our State death camps, sorry that should be NHS hospitals, because humane care has to be "rationed" to save money. Note it is never the "suits" or "state of the art" computer systems that get "rationed" just the care of the people the goddamned bureaucracy exists to serve!
Alternatively and additionally our young people who seek to better themselves through obtaining degrees at university are condemned to massive debt as the students friend, Clegg, reneges on his election promises re tuition fees to match the deceit and treachery of his mate "cast-iron" Dave. Cast -iron because that was how he described his guarantee of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
Sorry to come over all Daily Mail but I'm fed up with my country interfering in the business of other countries. Fair enough if we have suffered a direct act of aggression such as Argentina invading the Falklands that is called protecting our people and our interests.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
And breathe!
I think that economic advantage is just one of the major reasons.jhopgood wrote:I have always been under the impression that the underlying cause of most wars is to gain economic advantage. Securing supply of a necessary commodity, oil, would fall into that category.
If the desire to protect populations from harm was the criteria, then surely places like Zimbabwe would have received belligerent help a long time ago, but then Zimbabwe is of little economic consequence to the major western powers.
I may be cynical but no-one spends billions of euros helping someone else for purely altruistic purposes. There must be an underlying reason, and the most obvious one is to ensure the oil supply.