Yes diplomancy, not arms is the way forward.

But as we seen poeple like Nazi and communists want there way and they will achieve it by force. We ofcourse would prefer to be diplomatic but diplomacy does not work alot of the time.

But diplomany before arms should always be the way. We Liberals want to establish a form of the United Nations in this world, collective secruity is the best option in any world.

as clauswitz said: - "war is a continuation of politics". the liberals have a strong political team, we wont let it come to a war we might lose.

Diplomacy would always come first if it is possible. But say the enemy nation does not listen and invades we wil, be unprepared for war thats why a nationalist goverment would keep us safe and not let us be beaten.

Peter Collective Secruity would deal with the aggressor if they invaded us.

Also ofcourse we would build alliences that would come into help us when we spread democracy around the world. are policys help the other policys.

Yes alliances are a good thing, beats the tory moral of going it alone and making the taxpapyer pay for their mess!

alliences will mean less Britannican Loss of life. Join BNP for a Land Of Hope and Glory!

disturbing information
a disturbing figure has come to hand: the military budget proposed by the tories is 63bn as we may know. the personnell in the military is 235000. this works out to about 268000 pounds per person. wages i would guess are around 11000 in the army. weapons are cheap, you could get an AK-47 on the black market for under 100 pounds and that includes the profit made by the people selling them. in batch i would imagine that guns are very cheap. as i dont know the exact figures i would allow that about 60000 is spent on each man per year for wages, kit and barracking. it costs 1 pound for a good meal. thats 3 pounds a day for the Britannican army. 1095 a year. so for 235000 men thats 17.1 billion pounds on the men themselves leaving about 46 billion for tanks, planes and ships. im sure there is a lot of waste money. i would like for carlosse to tell me where the money goes, how much is spent on vehicles, their maintenance and fuel. how much does the logistics cost. how much is ammunition, shells, artillery pieces. if the liberals are elected then i will do my duty to look into every aspect of the military to cut wastage and to inform the nation on whether her territories are defendable or not. under carlosse we dont even know if we have artillery.

There is more to defence than just troops, we must pay for tanks, aircraft, artillery, ships, of which we have many, all of which have to be kept up to scratch and filled with fuel etc etc. The AK-47 is something we shall never use at it is not a British weapon and we refuse to use the black market to get them! Also we would like our troops to have proper meals and more if they want it! Slim that entire post shows how unbelievebly terrible you will be in defence matters and that you dont even know that an airforce and navy exist in Britannica!

Edmund you may say what you wish about the Shadow Defence Secretary, but least hes bothered. You cant't moan you havent been here.

carlosse, i dont think you read my article fully, i know the airforce and navy exist otherwise i wouldnt mention planes and ships. i used the AK as an example of how cheap guns are and its price was an example. you didnt look at the figures as the price i estimated for guns which i included in the sum when i guessed wages and kit were 200 pounds each. you have diverted the question. i wanted to know the figures you spend not a half hearted sppech that shows you didnt read the article.

At least the military is getting maintained. I agree all soldiers need to be fed proper meals. why do you forget about all the written work. There is also radars, develpoment of new and safer weapons. I also agree that we only use british made weapons this will help are own industry.

We do not need conscription, there are plenty of soldiers, more than we need, who will voluntarily join. But we cannot in any way substain conscription. Already 0.7% of the population is in the army (which needs to be cut.) And you are proposing, Peter, that we take around 2-3% of the population on top of the amount we already have I find impossible. The BNP has shown that it only takes one matter in at a time, there is a budget and a budget that cannot be exceeded, the amoutn of soldiers you are asking us recruit we will have a defence budget of over £90b!