[Angus]

Do you think our Armed Forces should be there purely for the defence of our nation and not deployed to fight other countries' enemies, or do you believe we have a duty to step in and sort out overseas conflicts?

If the answer to the latter is "yes" would you, yourself be prepared to enlist, or be comfortable with a loved one being sent to a war zone?

Which wars, if any, should we get involved in and why? And who should foot the bill for our policing role?

This issue reared its head in the BB house and seemed to cause a lot of controversy so I'm interested in the general consensus.

[InOne]

We don't have any duty. Our country is a mess at the moment. We can't help everyone. Apparently 1/3 Children are in poverty in the UK.

[Angus]

I think the soldiers who are deployed need to have some validation and justification for their being required to put their lives on the line for other countries.

Personally, I think we need to stop acting as if we we still had an empire, and wake up to the realisation we are no longer in a position, either morally or financially, to take on other countries' battles. We already do more than enough (some would say way too much) in terms of overseas aid and taking in asylum seekers.

[BB_Eye]

I think it's worth bearing in mind that the legacy of the British Empire is not only the poverty and political turmoil of Commonwealth states, but also the wealth and priviledges the UK enjoys. We live in comfort, because of the economic leaps and bounds made in the days of the Empire and I we have to live with that.

On topic though, the NATO intervention in the Balkans in the 1990's is the only recent example of a successful armed intervention. Perhaps we ought to leave the decision-making up to them. It's all well and good saying people in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve our help, but in the case of the former, we have done more harm than good, with the latter it's just not our responsibility and we only entered the war in Aghanistan as a gesture of solidarity to the Americans. Let them fight their battles. We are struggling with stretched resources, partly thanks to America's failed domestic economic policy.

If this were all about solving the world's problems, surely the best places to start would have been North Korea and Zimbabwe. But we couldn't have done that lest we risk upsetting their friends in China.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

Our armed forces shoud be there to protect our nation and not to fight other countries' battles! Why should it be our responsibility, and, more importantly, the responsibility of our soldiers to put their necks on the line for something that has nothing to do with them! Let other countries sort out their own problems I say - like many I don't want a son of mine dying to help bring peace to some other nation!

The situation in the Middle-East has been going on for decades - things won't change there anyway! It is not our war!

I absolutely agree - and more so because I do have two sons, both of whom are old enough to be in the forces, but thankfully have gone into other careers. Those men and women that do enlist have no say as to which wars they fight, and have to follow orders, and for that I do admire and respect them. However, the powers that be that send them into such wars see them as dispensible.

Blair, in my mind, is a war criminal and was quite happy to lie to the country in order to get support for the illegal Iraqi war, but while his son is comfortably earning hundreds of thousands in a nice safe job in the city, other people's loved ones have paid the ultimate price for his a*se licking of Bush. I think our intervention in other people's wars has caused more harm than good and just increased hostility towards our country.

[Angus]

originally posted by BB Eye

If this were all about solving the world's problems, surely the best places to start would have been North Korea and Zimbabwe. But we couldn't have done that lest we risk upsetting their friends in China.
__________________

I couldn't agree more - Mugabe is as much a tyrant and monster as Saddam Hussein ever was, yet we have done nothing.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

Do you think our Armed Forces should be there purely for the defence of our nation and not deployed to fight other countries' enemies, or do you believe we have a duty to step in and sort out overseas conflicts?

We have a moral duty to help others. Instability in one country often spills over not only into adjoining countries but also trading partners, ex-patriot communities overseas etc.

Its no good sitting there saying we should all let other countries just get on with it, that sort of Jack attitude is selfishness encapsulated.

Originally Posted by angus58

If the answer to the latter is "yes" would you, yourself be prepared to enlist, or be comfortable with a loved one being sent to a war zone?

Have done my time thanks, but would be more than willing to use some of the more esoteric skills that HM Forces invested in me, not much use for them in civvy street.

Originally Posted by angus58

Which wars, if any, should we get involved in and why? And who should foot the bill for our policing role?

In the ideal world, all areas where the UN has concerns. particularly where any country fails to adhere to the UN Bill of Human Rights, that includes the US and UK.

The cost for the involvement should be footed by the UN who would in turn be partly funded by all members and partly funded from the resources of the troubled country.


Besides it would be educational for a lot of the worlds youths to go out in the world, travel to exciting new places they probably would never have the chance to visit, meet new people and see new cultures, then shoot the fuck out of them.

[Just Do It]

There is no empire anymore - not since Victoria was on the throne.
We're also a too small and insignificant country to police anywhere else in the world.
Time to realise we're not a major player anymore.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Shasown

Besides it would be educational for a lot of the worlds youths to go out in the world, travel to exciting new places they probably would never have the chance to visit, meet new people and see new cultures, then shoot the **** out of them.

Lol - with a bit of paraphrasing that would make a good recruitment poster!

Seriously though your point that we should intervene in other countries' internal affairs to stabilise certain regions is a fair point, but it still begs the question "In whose best interests" would a certain outcome be? I don't think it's always about doing the moral thing, but the expedient thing and not all parties would see events in the same way. It is no surprise that the West are so hated in the Middle East, since it cannot be denied that some of the wars in which we choose to involve ourselves are more to do with self interest than altruism.

I would also dispute whether it is our moral duty to try and impose western style democracy, (which has taken centuries to evolve), virtually overnight onto cultures whose people have lived under very different political regimes.

I agree that the cost for involvement in a conflict should be footed by the UN in some way, particularly if that involvement is going to benefit all members.

[Tom4784]

No country should police the world but if we do get involved in a conflict we should clean up any mess we leave behind.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

Originally posted by Shasown




Lol - with a bit of paraphrasing that would make a good recruitment poster!

Seriously though your point that we should intervene in other countries' internal affairs to stabilise certain regions is a fair point, but it still begs the question "In whose best interests" would a certain outcome be? I don't think it's always about doing the moral thing, but the expedient thing and not all parties would see events in the same way. It is no surprise that the West are so hated in the Middle East, since it cannot be denied that some of the wars in which we choose to involve ourselves are more to do with self interest than altruism.

I would also dispute whether it is our moral duty to try and impose western style democracy, (which has taken centuries to evolve), virtually overnight onto cultures whose people have lived under very different political regimes.

I agree that the cost for involvement in a conflict should be footed by the UN in some way, particularly if that involvement is going to benefit all members.

I didnt mean to suggest that we, the UK, be involved in every dispute in all areas, there are enough relatively stable countries in the world for a sizeable UN peacekeeping force to include members that would be far more acceptable to certain cultires, races or religions.

Nor should western style democracy be introduced into any area, thats a politicians viewpoint. any sort of force introduced into an area should work with all sides after securing the peace, in order to determine what works best in that area.

I dont feel it should be left to politicians to decide which countries we should send forces to either. The UN should assess all countries armed forces capabilities then decide what assets they should pretty much hand over to UN authority. The UN itself would decide who goes where and why.

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by Shasown

We have a moral duty to help others. Instability in one country often spills over not only into adjoining countries but also trading partners, ex-patriot communities overseas etc.

Its no good sitting there saying we should all let other countries just get on with it, that sort of Jack attitude is selfishness encapsulated.



Have done my time thanks, but would be more than willing to use some of the more esoteric skills that HM Forces invested in me, not much use for them in civvy street.



In the ideal world, all areas where the UN has concerns. particularly where any country fails to adhere to the UN Bill of Human Rights, that includes the US and UK.

The cost for the involvement should be footed by the UN who would in turn be partly funded by all members and partly funded from the resources of the troubled country.


Besides it would be educational for a lot of the worlds youths to go out in the world, travel to exciting new places they probably would never have the chance to visit, meet new people and see new cultures, then shoot the fuck out of them.

Sorry - but if caring about my own son more than the peace of another nation is selfish - then I hold my hands up to that! I think most
would agree, if they are being honest, it is natural to want to look after your own first!

No doubt the same would apply to Middle Eastern countries - who would be in no hurry to risk their necks for us!

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

Sorry - but if caring about my own son more than the peace of another nation is selfish - then I hold my hands up to that! I think most
would agree, if they are being honest, it is natural to want to look after your own first!

No doubt the same would apply to Middle Eastern countries - who would be in no hurry to risk their necks for us!

Whilst I can understand your reluctance to agree with international interference with another countries problems, if you look at any troubled area within the world you will see sooner or later the problem escalates or is transferred to another area. Involving the innocents of another area.

To stand by and simply watch while wringing your hands saying something should be done about .... , really is simply allowing problems to manifest. Looking at recent world history from the First World War to current times, most if not all of the worlds major problems could have been nipped in the bud by a co-operative international effort.

That doesnt necessarily mean sending in troops, but rather taking effective action early, be it diplomatic pressure, sanctions or economic assistance. The major problem is trust between nations.

[AusFan]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

Our armed forces shoud be there to protect our nation and not to fight other countries' battles! Why should it be our responsibility, and, more importantly, the responsibility of our soldiers to put their necks on the line for something that has nothing to do with them! Let other countries sort out their own problems I say - like many I don't want a son of mine dying to help bring peace to some other nation!

The situation in the Middle-East has been going on for decades - things won't change there anyway! It is not our war!

Surely if Australia were to be invaded you'd want Britain to help out wouldn't you?

I mean Australians went all the way to Europe to fight in WWI and WWII when they could of been back in Australia ready to take on potential invading Japanese forces during WWII.

[bananarama]

If we are under threat then all bets are off and a nation under threat should do what ever it feels it needs to do.

However should we be policemen of the world as a matter of principle..Of course not as that would be interfering without just cause...

Neither should we or any other country be a lifeboat to the rest of the world when others run away from their own country....

Each country has had to fight for its own freedom.......So should those that run away from their repressive countries........

[Angus]

Originally Posted by AusFan

Surely if Australia were to be invaded you'd want Britain to help out wouldn't you?

I mean Australians went all the way to Europe to fight in WWI and WWII when they could of been back in Australia ready to take on potential invading Japanese forces during WWII.

Well Australia was part of the British Empire then wasn't it, so technically you were Brits and had a duty to fight. The last constitutional ties were cut in 1986 with the Australia Act, so Britain has no obligations towards Australia whatever. USA is your ally of choice.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

Well Australia was part of the British Empire then wasn't it, so technically you were Brits and had a duty to fight. The last constitutional ties were cut in 1986 with the Australia Act, so Britain has no obligations towards Australia whatever. USA is your ally of choice.

Sorry to tell you this but there are still treaties and ties etc binding Australia and the UK. And Rightly so. Constitutional ties were actually cut in the middle of the Second World War but backdated to the start to ensure Australian Declarations of War were legal. So Australia wasnt actually part of the British Empire

A couple of examples would be the fact the Queen is Head of State of both countries and all servicemen and women from both nations state an oath of allegiance to her and her subjects regardless of country, creed, etc. The Five Powers Defence Agreement.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Sorry to tell you this but there are still treaties and ties etc binding Australia and the UK. And Rightly so. Constitutional ties were actually cut in the middle of the Second World War but backdated to the start to ensure Australian Declarations of War were legal. So Australia wasnt actually part of the British Empire

A couple of examples would be the fact the Queen is Head of State of both countries and all servicemen and women from both nations state an oath of allegiance to her and her subjects regardless of country, creed, etc. The Five Powers Defence Agreement.

BUT USA is Australia's main ally.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

BUT USA is Australia's main ally.

No not really, New Zealand is its main ally, there are many treaties involving the 2 including the CDP (Closer Defence) UNZUS, 5 power, there are also numerous defence agreements between the UK and Australia. Australia is also updating a major defence agreement with Japan.

[Eye_Spy]

Originally Posted by angus58

Do you think our Armed Forces should be there purely for the defence of our nation and not deployed to fight other countries' enemies, or do you believe we have a duty to step in and sort out overseas conflicts?

If the answer to the latter is "yes" would you, yourself be prepared to enlist, or be comfortable with a loved one being sent to a war zone?

Which wars, if any, should we get involved in and why? And who should foot the bill for our policing role?

This issue reared its head in the BB house and seemed to cause a lot of controversy so I'm interested in the general consensus.

its the starting wars that were based on pure lies that seems to be fuelling all this hatred.

[Omen]

The US billed Saudi Arabia $7 billion for GW1. So it's not at all altruistic.