AIDS? - come to Britian.

[anobium]

I want to exclude illegal immigrants that have aids. When they are rounded up they should be deported aids or not.

Ha! You have just dug a very big pit and fallen right into it, Joe!

Read what you have just said and appreciate the senselessness of it.

Conversation over now - your 'contributions' to it are terminally dull, zenophobic, irrational and poorly expressed - I have had better debates with 13 year olds! No doubt you'll grind on, Daily Fail style, for some time to come, but I will be doing something more interesting.

Best wishes to all, including those who disagree with me.

Thought so another pompous Guardian reader, what is it that makes them think they are never wrong, me thinks its something they put in the ink.

 

[exbg1]

exterminate them & re-enforce our borders (ports) with machine guns & watch towers

 

[Arthur2shedsJackson]

exterminate them & re-enforce our borders (ports) with machine guns & watch towers

Not sure you'll get that Extermination policy through

However, if, as the government would have us believe, the war in Afghanistan is about National Security, we could bring all those troops home, save a fortune in Tax Payers money and utilise those same troops to defend our borders.

 

[AronSearle]

However, if, as the government would have us believe, the war in Afghanistan is about National Security, we could bring all those troops home, save a fortune in Tax Payers money and utilise those same troops to defend our borders.

I'm not advocating the "war" in Afghanistan.

If those goat farmers want to be led by tribal leaders who just want to **** them over, let them.

But if you ignore the ethics, and look at it from a practical point of view, the "war" provides us an excellent training tool, for very few casualties (relatively speaking).

Having our troops act as border control, may as well feed them doughnuts.

 

[Arthur2shedsJackson]

However, if, as the government would have us believe, the war in Afghanistan is about National Security, we could bring all those troops home, save a fortune in Tax Payers money and utilise those same troops to defend our borders.

I'm not advocating the "war" in Afghanistan.

If those goat farmers want to be led by tribal leaders who just want to **** them over, let them.

But if you ignore the ethics, and look at it from a practical point of view, the "war" provides us an excellent training tool, for very few casualties (relatively speaking).

Having our troops act as border control, may as well feed them doughnuts.

Interesting point of view

However, I doubt that the "casualties" and their families would agree and you must admit that even if it is like feeding them doughnuts it would save this country a fortune and kill two birds with one stone - As it were !!

 

[AronSearle]

The thing is, people join the military knowing what they get into, and it ain't pillow fights. The wives should also know this, so I don't buy the whole "their family" angle, or worry about the soldiers, they all know the deal and happily accept it, we don't have conscription.

As to saving money, well I wonder how much it does cost us (we still need the equipment, the men, the fuel), but the maintenance and ammunition is a cost.

A lot of the cost of the war is to pay for repairing infrastructure (which the Afghans then waste or the local child sodomising chieftains take over).

I really do wonder if you look at Afghanistan as one big training camp, is it hugely expensive, or is it actually a very cost effective way of keeping a well trained army?



Now I am actually against the occupation, because I don't see it as worth our while trying to make their country better, when they don't want to do it themselves, but from a cost perspective, I am not convinced.

 

[Arthur2shedsJackson]

As to saving money, well I wonder how much it does cost us (we still need the equipment, the men, the fuel), but the maintenance and ammunition is a cost.
.

Well, we wouldn't need to develop special vehicles to use at our ports to protect against IEDs, we wouldn't have to spend the money we are doing on helicopters, flying the troops out the and back, even feeding them whilst they are at home if the sensationalising press are to be believed.

We did manage to train our troops before we went out there and our chances of success are nil, look how much the Russians spent out there.

As for your point on troops knowing what they're getting into, that's a perpetual argument which won't go away, but fighting for "Queen and Country" and laying down your life in that pursuit is hardly relevant in that war.

 

[AronSearle]

Well, we wouldn't need to develop special vehicles to use at our ports to protect against IEDs (snip) we wouldn't have to spend the money we are doing on helicopters

Yea, but how much money is that in the grand scheme of things, to anyone here it's colossal, but as part of a military budget spread over 5-10 years (how long these vehicles should last).

It's peanuts.

flying the troops out the and back, even feeding them whilst they are at home if the sensationalising press are to be believed.

Peanuts.

We did manage to train our troops before we went out there

You do know that since WW2 ended we have been in one small war or another almost constantly.

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/

India, Palestine, Malaya, Korea, Suez Canal Zone, Kenya, Cyprus, Suez 1956, Borneo, Vietnam, Aden, Radfan, Oman, Dhofar, Northern Ireland, the Falklands War, the Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and many more.

(bolded mine)

As for your point on troops knowing what they're getting into, that's a perpetual argument which won't go away, but fighting for "Queen and Country" and laying down your life in that pursuit is hardly relevant in that war.

As above, as a country we have been sending troops to fight in foreign parts nearly every year since WW2 ended.

Anyone who joins the army thinking they won't end up seeing action in some backwater country is either ignorant, deluded, or just hopeful that they can take the pay check, but it won't be them getting sent.





Again, I don't think we should be in the stan, but from a military perspective, and looking at the costs, It could be argued to be beneficial.

 

[Arthur2shedsJackson]

I want to exclude illegal immigrants that have aids. When they are rounded up they should be deported aids or not.

Ha! You have just dug a very big pit and fallen right into it, Joe!

Read what you have just said and appreciate the senselessness of it.

Conversation over now - your 'contributions' to it are terminally dull, zenophobic, irrational and poorly expressed - I have had better debates with 13 year olds! No doubt you'll grind on, Daily Fail style, for some time to come, but I will be doing something more interesting.

Best wishes to all, including those who disagree with me.

You do seem to have become extremely excited over what basically is incorrect punctuation, or at worst missing the word "all".

Nothing that Joe has said is Zenophobic, he has no irrational fear of foreigners from what I've read and far from irrational, his point of view is quite rational.

We as a country are struggling financially, we have a Health System that is failing because it can't cope with the additional demands now placed upon it by too much immigration, and it certainly doesn't need to be burdened further by Health Tourists.

If you go on holiday you have to take out insurance for health care and in some countries you don't get treatment without first showing that insurance is in place or by presenting a credit card.

Imagine if we had all paid into a scheme to provide for our own health care and then found that people who had paid nothing were being treated by that scheme hwo had paid nothing into it and had no intention of paying for their care

Oh, sorry we already have

 

[Arthur2shedsJackson]

Well, we wouldn't need to develop special vehicles to use at our ports to protect against IEDs (snip) we wouldn't have to spend the money we are doing on helicopters

Yea, but how much money is that in the grand scheme of things, to anyone here it's colossal, but as part of a military budget spread over 5-10 years (how long these vehicles should last).

It's peanuts.

flying the troops out the and back, even feeding them whilst they are at home if the sensationalising press are to be believed.

Peanuts.

We did manage to train our troops before we went out there

You do know that since WW2 ended we have been in one small war or another almost constantly.

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/

India, Palestine, Malaya, Korea, Suez Canal Zone, Kenya, Cyprus, Suez 1956, Borneo, Vietnam, Aden, Radfan, Oman, Dhofar, Northern Ireland, the Falklands War, the Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and many more.

(bolded mine)

As for your point on troops knowing what they're getting into, that's a perpetual argument which won't go away, but fighting for "Queen and Country" and laying down your life in that pursuit is hardly relevant in that war.

As above, as a country we have been sending troops to fight in foreign parts nearly every year since WW2 ended.

Anyone who joins the army thinking they won't end up seeing action in some backwater country is either ignorant, deluded, or just hopeful that they can take the pay check, but it won't be them getting sent.





Again, I don't think we should be in the stan, but from a military perspective, and looking at the costs, It could be argued to be beneficial.

It's not peanuts to those people who are losing their homes due to unemployment and I thought we were cutting military budgets.

Just because we've been in all those conflicts doesn't make it right does it?

It doesn't matter how many years the vehicles last, if they're no good in other environments.

Anyway, we've gone completely off the original point and this should probably be for another thread.

 

[AronSearle]

THREAD DERAIL!!!

It's not peanuts to those people who are losing their homes due to unemployment and I thought we were cutting military budgets.

I don't think we should cut the military budget, it's still only a few % of GDP.

The primary role of any government is defence, it should be the last thing to cut, not the first.

Just because we've been in all those conflicts doesn't make it right does it?

Nope.

Just pointing out from a military perspective they could be considered beneficial.

It doesn't matter how many years the vehicles last, if they're no good in other environments.

Most of the vehicles can be cheaply adapted for other environments, particularly if we buy sensibly (HAHAHA).

And again, put in the context of a military budget, it's still peanuts.

 

[AronSearle]

we have a Health System that is failing because it can't cope with the additional demands now placed upon it by too much immigration

Well, these immigrants pay tax.

and it certainly doesn't need to be burdened further by Health Tourists.

Health tourism costs us a few hundred million, it's less than 1% of our healthcare budget.


MY my I am a disagreeable sod.

But what I am getting at is that we have problems with our NHS because of the way it is run, managed (or mismanaged), and funded.

Free at the point of use is a massive issue, other countries do not do it. The French model for instance (you know those peeps that have state subsidised healthcare rated as amongst the best), make you pay to see a doctor, you can then claim this money back from the government.

Bit hard to do that when you are an immigrant or using it frivolously.

Immigration is an issue, but it is also a handy scapegoat for simple failures of the system.

 

[Arthur2shedsJackson]

Well Arron, you are in full Devil's advocate flow today, or is it just me you like to goad ?

Well, what's a debate without a devil's advocate and a worm can opener ??

Ok then, just one more post and then I'm off to a war torn African Country in an army surplus military vehicle that cost the tax payer a fortune, but isn't fit for purpose, to claim my three bed semi and free health care - Yeah Right

I don't think we should cut the military budget, it's still only a few % of GDP.

The primary role of any government is defence, it should be the last thing to cut, not the first.

I agree whole heartedly, the point I was making was that the government keep telling us they're cutting it, whilst wasting money on someone else's war. It's a defence budget, not an attack budget.

Most of the vehicles can be cheaply adapted for other environments, particularly if we buy sensibly (HAHAHA).

Yeah, we could change them back into landrovers.

Well, these immigrants pay tax.

Do they ???
SOME of those immigrants pay tax, but not the illegal immigrants and certainly not the asylum seekers, they're not allowed to work!!!!
I seriously doubt that the immigrants earning minimum wage are nett contributors either, since by the time you consider the tax allowance, tax credits or whatever they're called this week, the housing benefit and child benefit there won't be any going into this country's coffers.

Then you've got the immigrants who are sending their money home - all leaving this economy ( Yes I know it's there's to do what they want with ) but it's not helping build our economy is it?

Health tourism costs us a few hundred million, it's less than 1% of our healthcare budget.

You keep throwing away these small percentages, as if they don't matter - that's how bankrupcy creeps up on you.

But what I am getting at is that we have problems with our NHS because of the way it is run, managed (or mismanaged), and funded

Immigration is an issue, but it is also a handy scapegoat for simple failures of the system

I agree that we have fundamental issues with the NHS, but the point I was making is that overloading and giving it away free certainly isn't helping.
if the immigrants were all paying tax, it wouldn't make the improvements in the infrastructure happen any quicker and I' not against immigration, but I think that we have got it wrong on the figures, we are still running at a nett rate of 250,000 annum, we cannot sustain this and our infrastructures cannot adapt quickly enough.

 

[Norcon]

AronSearle wrote

If those goat farmers want to be led by tribal leaders who just want to **** them over, let them

Where as we just elect politicians to **** us over.

 

[AronSearle]

Well Arron, you are in full Devil's advocate flow today

What, me?

I agree whole heartedly, the point I was making was that the government keep telling us they're cutting it

Yea, but they are idiots.

Cutting defence then splashing money around on the EU and aid to India, and windfarms.

SOME of those immigrants pay tax, but not the illegal immigrants and certainly not the asylum seekers, they're not allowed to work!!!!

They are actually the small fry though, the large immigration numbers are those that are legally allowed to settle here.

When I say small fry, I mean in the context of a 700 billion government budget.

I seriously doubt that the immigrants earning minimum wage are nett contributors either, since by the time you consider the tax allowance, tax credits or whatever they're called this week, the housing benefit and child benefit there won't be any going into this country's coffers.

Possibly, but then you can probably say the same about 10-15 million indigenous Brits.

Then you've got the immigrants who are sending their money home - all leaving this economy ( Yes I know it's there's to do what they want with ) but it's not helping build our economy is it?

So you holiday in the UK then?

You keep throwing away these small percentages, as if they don't matter - that's how bankrupcy creeps up on you.

No, it's more that we have large structural issues with the NHS, but the NHS is like some sacred cow, and so people point to piddling issues.

It's not that these small issues don't matter, but it's like fixing a tap leak when your shed is on fire.

If our health system charged at the point of use (which legal citizens could reclaim), you would overnight see a drop in people using it frivolously (I have a cold), or fraudulently (non UK citizens).

But that will never happen, because the big 3 parties are to chicken to stand up to the NHS religion, and so we will be stuck with a 2nd rate system that is forever "overburdened".

if the immigrants were all paying tax

Here is a thought, how many plumbers and builders etc do "cash in hand".

When was the last time you heard anyone complaining about them using the NHS?

but I think that we have got it wrong on the figures, we are still running at a nett rate of 250,000 annum, we cannot sustain this and our infrastructures cannot adapt quickly enough.

Vote UKIP then.

Or vote red/yellow/blue to carry on as we are.

Guess what people vote for.