Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 44

Thread: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

  1. #1
    L'Etranger Senior Member Banquo's Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hunting the Snark, a long way from Tipperary...
    Posts
    5,603

    Default Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Gordon Brown has announced the final British withdrawal from Iraq will take place this coming year. As this opinion piece notes, it is a humiliating retreat, littered with failure and hubris. I know from old colleagues that morale in the Army is at a pretty low ebb. The Blair Doctrine, which was to make the UK indispensable to the US through unquestioning obedience, has failed utterly - as the article rightly notes, the US military establishment views Britain with a mixture of contempt and anxiety.

    Other threads have been discussing Britain's role in Europe, and I am usually amused by the close-held beliefs sometimes expressed that the UK can somehow retain an aloof standing, relying on her ties across the Atlantic. There appears to be more stomach for becoming the 51st inconsequential state than to be a partner of equals. The nostalgia for a time when she was a power of note is palpable. But when, on this recent occasion, required to live up to that role, she has failed.

    It raises questions about the stamina of our nation and the resolve of our political class. It is an uncomfortable conclusion that Britain, with nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, aircraft carriers and the latest generation of fighter-bombers, is incapable of securing a medium-size conurbation. Making Basra safe was an essential part of the overall strategy; having committed ourselves to our allies we let them down.

    I note that the Prime Minister has also now sold off the last interest in Aldermaston to a Californian company, so that there is no longer any direct control over the manufacture of nuclear arms. (No doubt taxpayers will be particularly pleased at the price commanded in this most robust of markets). Why then, as the article touches, is so much money being spent on renewing the Trident programme? Pure, unfounded pride? Let's be frank - if the United Nations were ever to face reform towards relevance, does anyone think the UK would retain her top seat?

    What exactly do orgahs think the role of the United Kingdom in world affairs should be? Is it not time to wholeheartedly embrace a key role in the development of a European force? Aim to be a cog in an increasingly disoriented NATO? Or should it be to downsize to cope with purely national interests alone?
    "If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
    Albert Camus "Noces"

  2. #2
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,631

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Give the lads some equipment that isn't falling apart

  3. #3

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    You have to wonder , with its leaking reactor buildings and the ponds full of waste from the 50s that flood every time it rains how on earth did they manage to find a buyer for Aldermaston ?
    Perhaps there is a clause in the contract that leaves the taxpayer liable for all future claims .

  4. #4
    Bopa Member Incongruous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    H.M.S Default
    Posts
    2,647

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    I liked this bit

    It cannot be a defence of British policy that the war was unpopular at home
    Haha! What load of crap, it matters a whole load that Blair took the UK into the most absurd British war for a long time, the man should be put on bloody trial.
    Last edited by Incongruous; 12-21-2008 at 11:59.

    Sig by Durango

    Now that the House of Commons is trying to become useful, it does a great deal of harm.
    -Oscar Wilde

  5. #5
    Poll Smoker Senior Member CountArach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    9,029

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar View Post
    Haha! What load of crap, it matters a whole load that Blair took the UK into the most absurd British war for a long time, the man should be put on bloody trial.
    That is so completely true...
    Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
    Quote Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
    Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.

  6. #6
    Clan Clan InsaneApache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Grand Duchy of Yorkshire
    Posts
    8,534

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    If you decide to go to war then you have to put the resources in place. What Blair did was and is criminal. Trying to fight a war on the cheap is not an option. Take note Afghanistan.

    We arn't a world power and havn't been during my lifetime but we did used to have a certain kudos in the training and selection of our armed forces. Alas, all now chucked away.

    As for our future on the world stage, well personally I think we should keep our noses out of other peoples business. We've done an excellent job at denigrating our own country and I'm sure that no one would thank us for exporting our peculiar brand of progressive government to other nations.

    I feel sick, ashamed and saddened at the whole debacle.
    There are times I wish they’d just ban everything- baccy and beer, burgers and bangers, and all the rest- once and for all. Instead, they creep forward one apparently tiny step at a time. It’s like being executed with a bacon slicer.

    “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”

    To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.

    "The purpose of a university education for Left / Liberals is to attain all the politically correct attitudes towards minorties, and the financial means to live as far away from them as possible."

  7. #7
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, Cub Shoot 2 Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Treasure Diver Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Slack Man Champion, Japanese Baseball Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Super Mario Mushroom Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Fish Kill Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, KF 9000 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    10,716

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Setting aside the political decision to go to war in the first place, Iraq was and is a hard job to "git done."

    The USA has poured a noteable amount of casualties and a huge gob of treasure into that particular "hopper," and the best we can hope to effect is the CHANCE for a central government to maintain control while embodying some elements of democracy and personal freedoms after we have withdrawn the bulk of our forces. Many analysts and handicappers here in the USA and abroad would not give that chance great odds either. In that light, the UK's efforts do not pale so much

    UK forces did not perform as well as they might have, but do not "write off" all of their efforts as wasted -- we do not.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  8. #8
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,138

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Humiliating retreat? It's come several years too late IMO. At the very least the Iraqis should have been paying us to be there, not the other way around. Then there might have been the money to equip the troops.

    Polaris was nuclear tipped missiles that were never used, and of such destructive power it would give any country pause for thought. This was replaced by...

    Trident - nuclear tipped missiles that were never used....

    Why more? I can just about understand why we need some sort of big stick to pretend to look hard. But just update Trident for god' sake. It is good enough!!!

    The armed forces of the UK should have:

    No independent airforce - what's the point? What's it there for? Nothing, that's what. We can't afford the numbers of planes to make a difference in any case.

    The Navy would have large submarines, and surface ships mainly of small to medium size. The marines would
    The army would have three parts: the "conventional" forces - probably with more emphasis on light armour drones and attack helicopters than battle tanks, special forces increased in number as far as continuing quality allows and possibly a missile defence division to in essence replace the airforce for defending the British isles.

    It should be obvious that as such the armed forces looses much of its offensive might and refocuses on applying more widespread low key functions.

    As such it might ensure that idiot politicians are less able to charge blindly at the next warzone.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  9. #9
    Master of Few Words Senior Member KukriKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    10,414

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    ^^wot 'e writ^^ (Seamus, that is)

    Iraq was a boondoggle from the get go. Even so, that you guys stood beside us all this time, in the face of heavy political opposition and actual cost, is actually appreciated by me and my peers.

    Thank you.

    None, not one, of my NCO-level contacts, active or inactive, thinks or says you Brits did poorly, or that your leaving the TO soon is any kind of retreat or defeat.

    As for going forward: whatever you fellas decide will be your 'thrust' for the next 20-30 years will be OK with me. In my opinion, your strongest, most reliable 'weapon' is: Military Leadership. Guns, boats, planes... all mean nothing without regionally-insightful, long-range thinking and planning. You guys are expert at that, having been on-the-ground around the world within generational memory. You should (I think) nurture that weapon, develop it, and export it to willing importers.

    -edit-
    re: Aldermaston, and Jacobs Engr'ing getting the nod; you should be fine there. Just don't ask them to build any bridges. Their luck in that area has been spotty.
    Last edited by KukriKhan; 12-21-2008 at 17:35.
    Be well. Do good. Keep in touch.

  10. #10
    is not a senior Member Meneldil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    3,074

    Default Re : Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    Humiliating retreat? It's come several years too late IMO. At the very least the Iraqis should have been paying us to be there, not the other way around. Then there might have been the money to equip the troops.
    Wut ? People should pay you for invading their country ? That sounds very 3rd Reich-ish.

    Last edited by Meneldil; 12-21-2008 at 17:02.

  11. #11
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    12,779

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    A few months ago I would have said that Britain was a world power, but not a Superpower, now, with the recession in full swing, I can't support that statement. The cupbord is bare and part of the reason is that we have been fighting two wars on a shoestring. Even cheap wars are prohibatively expensive and all that has happened is that we have been forced to withdraw from one and are stretched in the other.

    The loan culture of this government is absurd, they loan Army Camps, refuelling planes, hell before I'm thirty we'll probably have the cleaning kits for the rifles on loan as well. This has increased cost, as have any number of other hairbrained schemes.

    The general consensus among my own contacts is that what is really needed is an increase in funding and a cutback on commitments.

    Oh, and the boys would like their cap badges and Warriors back, please.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  12. #12
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,288

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=105415

    My thoughts on the matter for what it's worth:

    a) The primary purpose of the SC is to credibly issue threat of attack in order to elicit compliance, in much the same way that a nation-states primary purpose is to credibly demonstrate an ability to defend. Therefore I don't believe membership of the Permanent/Veto-wielding Security Council should even be considered for nations that do not have the economic and military clout to rise above their peers, and that they should have a force structure that allows them to project power. It is no good have a million strong peasant army if they cannot credibly threaten military intervention on a non-contiguous nation.
    b) It is desired by many that a new-look Security Council better reflect the Geographic Distribution of countries, cultures and peoples, rather than the euro-centric composition currently in vogue. However, this desire should not conflict with the above two points otherwise the Security Council will cease to be a credible body.

    To that end I give you what I consider to be a reasonable framework upon which to weigh the relative merits of potential Security Council candidates:

    Security Council membership should be considered on four premises by order of importance leading to a cumulative total.

    (1) military power - modified dependent on: the expeditionary emphasis of armed forces (0 to 10)
    (2) diplomatic influence - modified dependent on: total number of speakers (1 to 5) (*)
    (3) economic power - modified dependent on: how many rankings change when contrasted with PPP (**)
    (4) geographic/demographic - modified dependant HDI: ranking (1 to 5) (***)
    (5) total - modified dependant on: nukes (+5) new region representative (+5)

    (1) - Military Expenditure + Manpower
    1 = US - (20 + 9 + 10 = 39) = [39] ($583,283,000,000)
    2 = UK - (18 + 1 + 8 = 27) = [27] ($79,872,000,000)
    3 = France - (16 + 3 + 6 = 25) = [25] ($74,690,470,000)
    4 = China - (10 + 10 + 2 = 22) = [22] ($59,000,000,000)
    5 = Japan - (12 + 2 + 4 = 18) = [18] ($48,860,000,000)
    6 = Germany - (14 + 4 + 0 = 18) = [18] ($45,930,000,000)
    7 = Russia - (08 + 7 + 2 = 17) = [17] ($41,050,000,000)
    8 = India - (06 + 8 + 2 = 16) = [16] ($26,500,000,000)
    9 = Aust - (04 + 0 + 4 = 8) = [08] ($20,727,710,000)
    10 = Brasil - (02 + 5 + 0 = 7) = [07] ($25,396,731,055)
    11 = Indon - (00 + 6 + 0 = 6) = [06] ($04,740,000,000)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures (0 to 20)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._active_troops (0 to 10)

    (2) - Diplomatic Influence (subjective)
    1 = US - (20 + 5 = 25) = [25]
    2 = China - (18 + 5 = 23) = [23]
    3 = UK - (16 + 5 = 21) = [21]
    4 = France - (14 + 3 = 17) = [17]
    5 = Japan - (12 + 1 = 13) = [13]
    6 = Russia - (10 + 2 = 12) = [12]
    7 = Germany - (08 + 1 = 9) = [09]
    8 = Aust - (06 + 5 = 11) = [11]
    9 = India - (04 + 5 = 9) = [09]
    10 = Brasil - (02 + 2 = 4) = [04]
    11 = Indon - (00 + 2 = 2) = [02]
    Diplomatic Influence (0 to 20)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ative_speakers (0 to 5)

    (3) - Economic Power GDP + PPP (millions)
    1 = US - (20 + 10 + 3 = 33) = [33] ($13,244,550)
    2 = Japan - (18 + 8 + 2 = 28) = [28] ($4,367,459)
    3 = China - (14 + 9 + 5 = 28) = [28] ($2,630,113)
    4 = Germany - (16 + 6 + 1 = 23) = [23] ($2,897,032)
    5 = UK - (12 + 5 + 2 = 19) = [19] ($2,373,685)
    6 = France - (10 + 4 + 2 = 16) = [16] ($2,231,631)
    7 = India - (04 + 7 + 5 = 12) = [16] ($886,867)
    8 = Brasil - (08 + 3 + 4 = 13) = [15] ($1,067,706)
    9 = Russia - (06 + 2 + 4 = 10) = [12] ($979,048)
    10 = Indon - (00 + 1 + 5 = 5) = [05] ($364,239)
    11 = Aust - (02 + 0 + 2 = 4) = [04] ($754,816)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._GDP_(nominal) (0 to 20)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_by_GDP_(PPP) (0 to 10)

    (4) - Demographic + Geographic
    1 = US - (16 + 9 + 5 = 30) = [30] (301,950,000)
    2 = China - (20 + 5 + 2 = 27) = [27] (1,321,000,000)
    3 = Russia - (10 + 10 + 2 = 24) = [24] (141,400,000)
    4 = India - (18 + 4 + 1 = 23) = [23] (1,129,000,000)
    5 = Brasil - (12 + 7 + 2 = 21) = [21] (186,500,000)
    6 = Japan - (08 + 3 + 5 = 16) = [16] (127,720,000)
    7 = France - (04 + 6 + 5 = 15) = [15] (64,102,140)
    8 = Indon - (14 + 0 + 1 = 15) = [15] (234,950,000)
    9 = Aust - (00 + 8 + 5 = 13) = [13] (20,830,000)
    10 = Germany - (06 + 1 + 5 = 14) =[12] (82,310,000)
    11 = UK - (02 + 2 + 5 = 9) = [09] (60,609,153)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population (0 to 20)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zone (table inc onshore territory) (0 to 10)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...elopment_Index (1 to 5)

    (5) - Total -
    1 = US - (127 + 5 + 0 = 132)..........=.........[132]
    2 = China - (100 + 5 + 0 = 105)......=........ [105]
    3 = UK - (76 + 5 + 0 = 81).............=........[081]
    4 = France - (73 + 5 + 0 = 78)........=........[078]
    5 = Japan - (75 + 0 + 0 = 75).........=.........[075]
    6 = India - (64 + 5 + 5 = 74)..........=.........[074]
    7 = Russia - (65 + 5 + 0 = 70)........=.........[070]
    8 = Germany - (62 + 0 + 0 = 62).....=.........[062]
    9 = Brasil - (50 + 0 + 5 = 55)..........=.........[055]
    10 = Aust - (36 + 0 + 5 = 41).........=.........[041]
    11 = Indon - (28 + 0 + 5 = 33)........=.........[033]
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Appendix -
    (*)--------------|-(**)--------------|-(***)--------------
    5 - 800m - plus -|- 5 - 2 ranks up----|- 5 - 0.90 plus
    4 - 600m - 800m-|- 4 - 1 rank up-----|- 4 - 0.85 to 0.90
    3 - 400m - 600m-|- 3 - 0 change-----|- 3 - 0.80 to 0.85
    2 - 200m - 400m-|- 2 - 1 rank down--|- 2 - 0.75 to 0.80
    1 - 000m - 200m-|- 1 - 2 ranks down-|- 1 - 0.00 to 0.75
    --------------------------------------------------------

    nuff said.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  13. #13
    Chieftain of the Pudding Race Member Evil_Maniac From Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6,407

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    Polaris was nuclear tipped missiles that were never used, and of such destructive power it would give any country pause for thought. This was replaced by...

    Trident - nuclear tipped missiles that were never used....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE

    That whole episode is brilliant.

  14. #14
    Poll Smoker Senior Member CountArach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    9,029

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars View Post
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE

    That whole episode is brilliant.
    My first thought as well. Excellent show
    Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
    Quote Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
    Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    re: Aldermaston, and Jacobs Engr'ing getting the nod; you should be fine there.
    Yeah should be fine , the government study concluded that places like Tadley had such high numbers of diseases that could be linked to radioactive waste but were not really linked to radioactive waste , They were a result of a strange localised genetic flaw that was perpetuated by inbreeding in the villages who historicly in the main had a population made up of navvies who settled once the canal was built........well apart from the massive population explosion from all corners of the country that moved there to work on the bomb factory who are dying but must by chance have that same localised genetic flaw .

  16. #16

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    Humiliating retreat? It's come several years too late IMO. At the very least the Iraqis should have been paying us to be there, not the other way around. Then there might have been the money to equip the troops.

    Polaris was nuclear tipped missiles that were never used, and of such destructive power it would give any country pause for thought. This was replaced by...

    Trident - nuclear tipped missiles that were never used....

    Why more? I can just about understand why we need some sort of big stick to pretend to look hard. But just update Trident for god' sake. It is good enough!!!

    The armed forces of the UK should have:

    No independent airforce - what's the point? What's it there for? Nothing, that's what. We can't afford the numbers of planes to make a difference in any case.

    The Navy would have large submarines, and surface ships mainly of small to medium size. The marines would
    The army would have three parts: the "conventional" forces - probably with more emphasis on light armour drones and attack helicopters than battle tanks, special forces increased in number as far as continuing quality allows and possibly a missile defence division to in essence replace the airforce for defending the British isles.

    It should be obvious that as such the armed forces looses much of its offensive might and refocuses on applying more widespread low key functions.

    As such it might ensure that idiot politicians are less able to charge blindly at the next warzone.

    Stick to doctoring bud as your ideas on what the military needs doesn't tie up with anything the military say they need. You might get away with the nukes part though

  17. #17
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,138

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Hey I'm not saying I'm anything approaching an expert. I would also say that the Military is hardly likely to say "you know what? We need to slim down the numbers we've got here" Noooo - like and other department it is always more, more more!!!

    I would be interested with a link of what the armed forces want - and their reasons why just out of interest.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  18. #18

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    You got me on the links part but as an example some of the vehicles are Mastiff and Warthog which are moving away from the lighter more manouverable vehicles back to bigger more heavily armoured.

    Try looking in www.army.mod.uk

  19. #19
    Master of Few Words Senior Member KukriKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    10,414

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Tribesman View Post
    Yeah should be fine , the government study concluded that places like Tadley had such high numbers of diseases that could be linked to radioactive waste but were not really linked to radioactive waste , They were a result of a strange localised genetic flaw that was perpetuated by inbreeding in the villages who historicly in the main had a population made up of navvies who settled once the canal was built........well apart from the massive population explosion from all corners of the country that moved there to work on the bomb factory who are dying but must by chance have that same localised genetic flaw .
    Well, we gotta blame the local beer then, don't we? Since Fuller's bought out Gales and quit using local water in their recipe, maybe the brew-sippers have ceased glowing so much?
    Be well. Do good. Keep in touch.

  20. #20
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,288

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost View Post
    1. Gordon Brown has announced the final British withdrawal from Iraq will take place this coming year. As this opinion piece notes, it is a humiliating retreat, littered with failure and hubris. I know from old colleagues that morale in the Army is at a pretty low ebb. The Blair Doctrine, which was to make the UK indispensable to the US through unquestioning obedience, has failed utterly - as the article rightly notes, the US military establishment views Britain with a mixture of contempt and anxiety.

    2. Other threads have been discussing Britain's role in Europe, and I am usually amused by the close-held beliefs sometimes expressed that the UK can somehow retain an aloof standing, relying on her ties across the Atlantic. There appears to be more stomach for becoming the 51st inconsequential state than to be a partner of equals. The nostalgia for a time when she was a power of note is palpable. But when, on this recent occasion, required to live up to that role, she has failed.

    3.
    It raises questions about the stamina of our nation and the resolve of our political class. It is an uncomfortable conclusion that Britain, with nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, aircraft carriers and the latest generation of fighter-bombers, is incapable of securing a medium-size conurbation. Making Basra safe was an essential part of the overall strategy; having committed ourselves to our allies we let them down.

    4. I note that the Prime Minister has also now sold off the last interest in Aldermaston to a Californian company, so that there is no longer any direct control over the manufacture of nuclear arms. (No doubt taxpayers will be particularly pleased at the price commanded in this most robust of markets). Why then, as the article touches, is so much money being spent on renewing the Trident programme? Pure, unfounded pride? Let's be frank - if the United Nations were ever to face reform towards relevance, does anyone think the UK would retain her top seat?

    5. What exactly do orgahs think the role of the United Kingdom in world affairs should be? Is it not time to wholeheartedly embrace a key role in the development of a European force? Aim to be a cog in an increasingly disoriented NATO? Or should it be to downsize to cope with purely national interests alone?
    i Have to ask BG, is this thread a joke? I ask because it is so totally nonsensical i cannot bring myself to believe that a normally sesnible person like yourself wrote this *edited for xmas*.

    1. It can only be seen as a humiliating retreat if you work by the assumption that we really did intend to set up permanent military control in order to dominate teh oil supplies, forever!!!111ONEONE
    I have seen no evidence that the US Armed forces in general hold British forces in contempt, but if they were to do so in regard do you think they hold anyone elses forces?

    2. I am often amused by the many people who think Britian has no choice but to merge into a federated europe if she is to survive in the 21st century. Yes, we are insignificant compared to the US, so is everyone else, but there is no-one else who could conduct a sustained hot war at the far ends of the world.

    3. Yes, since the end of industrial war we have known that military coalitions and alliances are the best way to project power for anybody but the worlds only hyperpower, and..................?

    4. See my post above, who is better qualified to remain on the SC than Britain with the exception of the US and China? Yes we will slip, but not by more than two or three places in the next generation.
    Utters spheres!

    5. As long as Britian has the stomach to involve itself in the sharp end of world affairs then it should do so. We should only embrace european defence provided those nations have the same foreign policy aims as ourselves, which they certainly do not. NATO is a highly successful defence alliance, exactly the thing we should remain totally committed too, as it maintains a strong military tie to the most powerful member of the anglosphere. The day Britian decides it is nothing more than a medium sized power I will move to Australia.

    *edited for xmas*
    Last edited by Furunculus; 12-23-2008 at 16:17.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  21. #21
    Master of Few Words Senior Member KukriKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    10,414

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus
    i Have to ask BG, is this thread a joke? I ask because it is so totally nonsensical i cannot bring myself to believe that a normally sesnible person like yourself wrote this tripe.
    Banquo's Ghost is a big boy and can certainly speak for himself. I (and, I think, the other 12 posters in the thread) took this topic not as a joke, or nonsensical, or tripe - rather, as an opportunity to discuss and decide: "Has the UK been Humiliated and Chastened, or indeed Defeated, by it's performance in Iraq?" and "Now, post-Iraq... What?".

    It's obvious that your answer is "No, to all". Most of us apparently agree with you. Would you rather never ask probing questions, never challenge conventional wisdom, never hold up someone else's views that diametrically oppose our own, to see if they have any value? I think we must do that kind of soul-searching constantly, else we get stuck in a chauvinist, pat-ourselves-on-the-back, and ultimately irrelevant foreign policy and military policy.
    Be well. Do good. Keep in touch.

  22. #22
    Ultimate Member tibilicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,663

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Are you saying in this topic that it's only the UK who has been humiliated? I don't think there are any winners from this war. Even still look at Basra province and the areas. There a lot more stable than the US sector.

    Britain now accepts were no longer a super power but the question still remains how the US could do so badly in this war. If you look at the worlds so called super power and its track record these past years it really is an embarrassing sight. Despite what some people will tell you the US got it's a** kicked in nam. That should of been a lesson. Now the US had to have a surge of troops to beat a couple of guys roaming round in trucks with AK's? To me we should be questioning the foothold of not just Britain but the USA on the world scene.

    The fact remains that the USA as a super power will be toppled within the next 15 years. That to me seems pretty embarrassing..

    And to be honest I would like to see the USA acting now to preserve there status instead of focusing on conflicts such as this. I know when push comes to shove and we need a world super power I would certainly prefer the USA compared to some one like China..


    "A lamb goes to the slaughter but a man, he knows when to walk away."

  23. #23
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,288

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by KukriKhan View Post
    Banquo's Ghost is a big boy and can certainly speak for himself. I (and, I think, the other 12 posters in the thread) took this topic not as a joke, or nonsensical, or tripe - rather, as an opportunity to discuss and decide: "Has the UK been Humiliated and Chastened, or indeed Defeated, by it's performance in Iraq?" and "Now, post-Iraq... What?".

    It's obvious that your answer is "No, to all". Most of us apparently agree with you. Would you rather never ask probing questions, never challenge conventional wisdom, never hold up someone else's views that diametrically oppose our own, to see if they have any value? I think we must do that kind of soul-searching constantly, else we get stuck in a chauvinist, pat-ourselves-on-the-back, and ultimately irrelevant foreign policy and military policy.
    you are correct that it is good to discuss this, and in the spirit of xmas i have edited my reply.

    the OP is written in a contemporary Louis style, which i took at face value as being a held view in the absence of a Louis style declaration of intent to post in a controversial style.

    i have rebooted my sense of humour module accordingly.
    Last edited by Furunculus; 12-23-2008 at 15:17.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  24. #24
    Texan Member BigTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, United States of America.
    Posts
    1,187

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Stop pussyfooting around, vote and ratify already. The 51st state, it is destiny.

    i Have to ask BG, is this thread a joke? I ask because it is so totally nonsensical i cannot bring myself to believe that a normally sesnible person like yourself wrote this
    He is questioning the failure on a promise to an ally. A very proud and respectable thing, if only there were more people in the world with such respect for themselves and their country.
    Wine is a bit different, as I am sure even kids will like it.
    BigTex
    "Hilary Clinton is the devil"
    ~Texas proverb

  25. #25
    Master of Few Words Senior Member KukriKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    10,414

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by BigTex View Post
    Stop pussyfooting around, vote and ratify already. The 51st state, it is destiny.
    LOL. It could go the other way: Calif. and Mass. could become the 4th and 5th provinces of the UK - a secret desire harboured by both States, I've always suspected. :)
    Be well. Do good. Keep in touch.

  26. #26
    Enlightened Despot Member Vladimir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In ur nun, causing a bloody schism!
    Posts
    7,906

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq



    Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
    How do you motivate your employees? Waterboarding, of course.
    Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pinten
    Down with dried flowers!
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  27. #27
    Yesdachi swallowed by Jaguar! Member yesdachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    LA, CA, USA
    Posts
    2,454

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Could the UK run as a third party in the US?

    From my perspective I think the British military still has a positive image in the eyes of all I know.

    But… we are easily duped by that accent.
    Peace in Europe will never stay, because I play Medieval II Total War every day. ~YesDachi

  28. #28

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    i Have to ask BG, is this thread a joke? I ask because it is so totally nonsensical i cannot bring myself to believe that a normally sesnible person like yourself wrote this *edited for xmas*.

    So you have a British army fella saying something you don't like and you try and coubter it with another British army fella saying somethig you do like even though your choice doesn't even really touch on the subjects the first fella brings up

  29. #29
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,288

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Tribesman View Post

    So you have a British army fella saying something you don't like and you try and coubter it with another British army fella saying somethig you do like even though your choice doesn't even really touch on the subjects the first fella brings up


    i haven't posted a link about the british army.......................
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  30. #30

    Default Re: Humiliated and chastened - the UK's international role after Iraq

    Sorry that was the Transylvanian asthmatic , Vlad the Inhaler .

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO