Results 1 to 30 of 44

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

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  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
    5,604

    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
    30,680

    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
    8,636

    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
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,958

    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

  8. #8
    Master of Few Words Senior Member KukriKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    10,415

    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.

  9. #9
    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."

  10. #10
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,958

    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

  11. #11
    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

  12. #12
    Master of Few Words Senior Member KukriKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    10,415

    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.

  13. #13
    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: 



  14. #14
    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

  15. #15
    L'Etranger Senior Member Banquo's Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hunting the Snark, a long way from Tipperary...
    Posts
    5,604

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    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*.
    Well, I can only apologise for not living up to your standards. The article I referenced and drew from was written by Michael Portillo, a previous Secretary of State for Defence in a Conservative government, so I thought his views merited some consideration.

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    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?
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by the last sentence as the syntax is a trifle convoluted, but the retreat from Basra has been widely commented on as humiliating. This is because not only were British forces chased out of the city by the militias, leaving a collapsed society behind, it took the United States and the Iraqi Army to apply the force necessary to restore some semblance of civilised behaviour. The British Army, as Mr Portillo noted, made the mistake of hubris - thinking they knew best and not applying appropriate power. This was of course, the early mistake of the occupation as a whole, but the US has recognised this and stepped up to produce some limited success. Britain ran for the airport.

    Apologists for the war invariably tell me that the establishment of civil, democratic society to replace the despotic one previously in place is the aim of the occupation. By these standards (now the set position of the UK government) the British contribution has been a disaster. The US could not count on her ally to fix the small area they had been given. In my opinion, that makes for a humiliation. Your attempt to use the oil argument to discredit this view is specious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    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.
    I was not arguing that there is no choice, but there are choices that deserves consideration. Things may change, but the US administrations of the last few years have been much less enthusiastic about the "special relationship" than some like to think. Britain was a useful partner for the Iraq invasion, primarily politically, but as noted above, blotted her copybook militarily. Most senior US politicians of the time were very dubious about supporting the UK in the Falklands War, rightly perceiving that from their strategic interest, supporting Argentina might have been the better option. The level of support in Britain's other military adventure, Northern Ireland, was notably lukewarm.

    Which brings me to...

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    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..................?
    So why is it nonsense to explore whether Britain's interest as a coalition partner might be better served in a new alliance? NATO, should it continue, must soon undergo serious reform. It was conceived as a defensive alliance for the Cold War, not an aggressive invader or peacekeeper. NATO made huge mistakes in Kosovo because of this unintentional political role clashing with its military structure, and continues to make mistakes with regard to actions such as Afghanistan and Georgia. It is quite rightly an American dominated alliance, but this does not sit well in the new realpolitik.

    The United Kingdom government has very clearly decided it does not want to fund an imperial capability, but likes to volunteer her forces for such adventures. These forces are now not only woefully equipped, but tired to breaking point. You have senior staff officers publicly stating that if the men withdrawn from Iraq get deployed straight away to Afghanistan, there may well be serious consequences.

    My question was, in essence, given that the government shows no sign of changing this behaviour, isn't it more sensible to cut cloth accordingly? Why should power be projected from a country like the UK? The Empire is long past, why be involved in anything short of home defence? Why the need for a nuclear deterrent when no Prime Minister will be able to press the button without permission from the President of the United States, and if that were forthcoming, one might suggest they would be doing the bombing? Renewing Trident will cost a unimaginable amount of money, yet the MoD appears to be keener on useless submarines than supplying body armour and vehicles that might withstand a Saturday night fart.

    The British voter will not stand an enormous increase in military expenditure, so isn't it time to think about how Britain will defend itself on a budget of five shillings, a couple of tins of 1940's spam and a looted Persian fertility statue? That reflection may involve thinking again about the type of coalitions that can actually be supported, don't you think? (I apologise in advance for this arrant nonsense).

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    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!
    Your previous post was very interesting and made a good case. I might counter by arguing that one suspects that a reform of the UN would best be served by widening representation and bringing a better regional balance, rather than using sophisticated equations to preserve the current quasi-imperial status quo, but that's a different argument. By the next generation, the lack of regional influence indicated by your equations will have rendered the UN even more pointless than it is now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    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.
    Therein lies my transgression, I suppose. I dared question whether in fact, Britain not only has the stomach, but the ability or need to involve itself in that sharp end. Really, aside from the odd sense of pride that has you planning to abandon your country should it accept a certain realpolitik, what is to be gained? Why should British service men and women die for other's strategic aims?

    There may well be a good answer for that; and what I was attempting by posting this thread was eliciting discussion that might reveal such answers - enabling me to reflect.

    Sorry if that is nonsense. Good thing is, Australia is very pleasant this time of year.
    "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"

  16. #16
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,958

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost View Post
    1. Well, I can only apologise for not living up to your standards. The article I referenced and drew from was written by Michael Portillo, a previous Secretary of State for Defence in a Conservative government, so I thought his views merited some consideration.

    2. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the last sentence as the syntax is a trifle convoluted, but the retreat from Basra has been widely commented on as humiliating. This is because not only were British forces chased out of the city by the militias, leaving a collapsed society behind, it took the United States and the Iraqi Army to apply the force necessary to restore some semblance of civilised behaviour. The British Army, as Mr Portillo noted, made the mistake of hubris - thinking they knew best and not applying appropriate power. This was of course, the early mistake of the occupation as a whole, but the US has recognised this and stepped up to produce some limited success. Britain ran for the airport.
    Apologists for the war invariably tell me that the establishment of civil, democratic society to replace the despotic one previously in place is the aim of the occupation. By these standards (now the set position of the UK government) the British contribution has been a disaster. The US could not count on her ally to fix the small area they had been given. In my opinion, that makes for a humiliation. Your attempt to use the oil argument to discredit this view is specious.

    3. I was not arguing that there is no choice, but there are choices that deserves consideration. Things may change, but the US administrations of the last few years have been much less enthusiastic about the "special relationship" than some like to think. Britain was a useful partner for the Iraq invasion, primarily politically, but as noted above, blotted her copybook militarily. Most senior US politicians of the time were very dubious about supporting the UK in the Falklands War, rightly perceiving that from their strategic interest, supporting Argentina might have been the better option. The level of support in Britain's other military adventure, Northern Ireland, was notably lukewarm.

    4. So why is it nonsense to explore whether Britain's interest as a coalition partner might be better served in a new alliance? NATO, should it continue, must soon undergo serious reform. It was conceived as a defensive alliance for the Cold War, not an aggressive invader or peacekeeper. NATO made huge mistakes in Kosovo because of this unintentional political role clashing with its military structure, and continues to make mistakes with regard to actions such as Afghanistan and Georgia. It is quite rightly an American dominated alliance, but this does not sit well in the new realpolitik.
    The United Kingdom government has very clearly decided it does not want to fund an imperial capability, but likes to volunteer her forces for such adventures. These forces are now not only woefully equipped, but tired to breaking point. You have senior staff officers publicly stating that if the men withdrawn from Iraq get deployed straight away to Afghanistan, there may well be serious consequences.
    My question was, in essence, given that the government shows no sign of changing this behaviour, isn't it more sensible to cut cloth accordingly? Why should power be projected from a country like the UK? The Empire is long past, why be involved in anything short of home defence? Why the need for a nuclear deterrent when no Prime Minister will be able to press the button without permission from the President of the United States, and if that were forthcoming, one might suggest they would be doing the bombing? Renewing Trident will cost a unimaginable amount of money, yet the MoD appears to be keener on useless submarines than supplying body armour and vehicles that might withstand a Saturday night fart.
    The British voter will not stand an enormous increase in military expenditure, so isn't it time to think about how Britain will defend itself on a budget of five shillings, a couple of tins of 1940's spam and a looted Persian fertility statue? That reflection may involve thinking again about the type of coalitions that can actually be supported, don't you think? (I apologise in advance for this arrant nonsense).

    5. Your previous post was very interesting and made a good case. I might counter by arguing that one suspects that a reform of the UN would best be served by widening representation and bringing a better regional balance, rather than using sophisticated equations to preserve the current quasi-imperial status quo, but that's a different argument. By the next generation, the lack of regional influence indicated by your equations will have rendered the UN even more pointless than it is now.

    6. Therein lies my transgression, I suppose. I dared question whether in fact, Britain not only has the stomach, but the ability or need to involve itself in that sharp end. Really, aside from the odd sense of pride that has you planning to abandon your country should it accept a certain realpolitik, what is to be gained? Why should British service men and women die for other's strategic aims?
    There may well be a good answer for that; and what I was attempting by posting this thread was eliciting discussion that might reveal such answers - enabling me to reflect.
    1. Your are right, it does merit more than my xmas bah humbug attitude.

    2. There have been huge mistakes, but there is emerging a viable representative polity, and the contribution of the British Forces cannot be written off by the late stage intervention of iraqi and US soldiers. When the local gov't opted for a showdown with the militias in order to wrest societal control for them it was going to need more troops. Portillo's viewpoint is just one, and much as i like the old bugger i do not agree with him in this.

    3. I am just sensitive to the ill-informed zeitgeist that moves us ever closer to europe (and further away from the anglosphere) when it comes to foreign policy. I agree with americas position far more often than the EU's, and if we are going to be a small cog i would rather it was inside a machine whose direction i agree with.

    4. I agree with those staff officers, i am a member of UKNDA, and loath the decision of New Labour to cut defence spending at a time we are at war. I think we should spend far more than we do.
    I am fine with SSBN's and a strong navy, even if that means a less interventionist military structure.

    5. I included new regional representation, but i accept you may not agree with my methodology.

    6. Essentially yes, i believe in an interventionist Britian because there are few other nations capable of playing a role which i believe necessary.

    :)
    Last edited by Furunculus; 12-23-2008 at 22:52.
    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

  17. #17

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

    i am a member of UKNDA
    OK leaving aside that the pattern of cuts predated new labour by a few decades, look at what you support..Owen Guthrie Churchill Boyce Craig and Muxy....nuttier than a crate of almonds and madder than a sack of ferrets

  18. #18
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,958

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

    i am well aware of the damage done by john nott, but that was at least in response to a desire for a post cold war dividend, labour has slashed by the same percentage after making a peactime defence review and then fighting several wars.

    they do a necessary job that i feel deserves my support, after all no-one else is doing it.
    Last edited by Furunculus; 12-27-2008 at 14:58.
    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

  19. #19

    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

  20. #20
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,958

    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

  21. #21

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

    Sorry that was the Transylvanian asthmatic , Vlad the Inhaler .

  22. #22
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

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

    LOL

  23. #23
    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

    "I did not inhale."

    Still confused I see.
    Last edited by Vladimir; 12-23-2008 at 18:06.


    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: 



  24. #24
    Upstanding Member rvg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    3,818

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

    This self-flagellation on the part of the British folk is rather unhealthy.
    "And if the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war." - William Tecumseh Sherman

    “The market, like the Lord, helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, the market does not forgive those who know not what they do.” - Warren Buffett

  25. #25
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,958

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

    Regarding US military opinion of HM's Armed Forces:
    http://www.michaelyon-online.com/red-flag.htm#yvComment
    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

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