[quote]We have to ask ourselves these questions though Sam.
1. Why do we only intervene in certain cases?[/quote]
I think I answered why I think we do in my last but one post to David. We pick and choose based on our own interests. I don't like it and it doesn't put us in a good light with anybody, but this is an issue outside the moral responsibility of going to war against oppressive regimes that are willing to kill their own people.
[quote]2. Why are we willing to tap up other gulf states that abuse their citizens human rights & kill them en masse for help?
So we are working side by side with people that kill people for being homesexual, or for blasphemy & force women to cover themselves & be totally subservient to men?[/quote]
It's scandalous and hypocritical of us to do just that, but, again, while closely related they are issues that can be dealt, and debated about, separately. The important thing when people are being killed is to stop the killing the fastest and safest way possible. We may not always live up to expected standards in this but it's still the right thing to do, in my opinion.
[quote]3. Why have the UK, America, Europe & the UN stood by & done nothing about Libya for over 40 years, despite the same human rights abuses & killings that have been going on there all that time, done business with & sold weapons to Libya & been shaking the guy's hand & now all of a sudden he is the scum of the earth & needs to be stopped?[/quote]
I don't know. It didn't suit us at the time. The British public and other countries would have been against it far more than they are now (in other words, the timing was wrong).....or the opinion at the time was appeasement was the best call.....it could be many things. I'm just glad we are doing something NOW.
[quote]4. Why do we continue to trade with countries that commit human rights abuses & buy cheap clothes that have been made by forced labour-including young children, in sweat shops etc?[/quote]
Because we're greedy and thoughtless. It's where capitalism has taken us. And since we get cheap clothes, oil and jewellery made by many people in oppressed regimes we are doubly responsible to do something about it when the arms we sold their governments are turned on the unarmed masses who make our lives easier and cheaper.
If you'r ok with saying "continue to make my Nike trainers for a dollar a day but we're going to leave you in the shit if your government kills all your families." then that's up to you. I think differently.
Blown to Brits
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: Sam
"Did we have a military involvement in Rwanda, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, the Sudan where huge numbers of people have been slaughtered? Have we threatened the Burmese government about the slaughtering of its own people? Did we propose military intervention against Sri Lanka when they attacked the Tamils and slaughtered many."
There is a good reason we didn't have a military involvement in any of the country's above, lack of effective targets, who/what do you bomb to protect the innocent? most of the military campaigns we have been recently involved with, we have been able to concentrate on supply lines, tank colums, aircraft bunkers, weapons dumps, communication center's etc, simple as that really,
where would the targets be in Rwanda, Burma etc, this would have to be a "boots on the ground" campaign, resulting in massive loss of life for all. It's a fact of life, that in War, innocent people get killed, however if you can neutralise the agressor's weaponry, before a major onslaught begins, you can hopefully save more lives....eventually. Gaddaffi is a cunt, he's always been a cunt, but he's a cunt that's going to be short on firepower soon, firepower he's using against his own people, I also think it sends a message to other brutal regimes, but don't expect any action against N. Korea anytime soon.
There is a good reason we didn't have a military involvement in any of the country's above, lack of effective targets, who/what do you bomb to protect the innocent? most of the military campaigns we have been recently involved with, we have been able to concentrate on supply lines, tank colums, aircraft bunkers, weapons dumps, communication center's etc, simple as that really,
where would the targets be in Rwanda, Burma etc, this would have to be a "boots on the ground" campaign, resulting in massive loss of life for all. It's a fact of life, that in War, innocent people get killed, however if you can neutralise the agressor's weaponry, before a major onslaught begins, you can hopefully save more lives....eventually. Gaddaffi is a cunt, he's always been a cunt, but he's a cunt that's going to be short on firepower soon, firepower he's using against his own people, I also think it sends a message to other brutal regimes, but don't expect any action against N. Korea anytime soon.
[_]> No Liberals were harmed during the making of this post.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Sam
"So, according to you, if there's a major genocide of some poor, oppressed people, and the UN decide it's not worth their hassle to intervene, then fuck 'em and let 'em die. Not our problem."
No, I did not say that. I said I did not believe in Britain being a global policeman. Once again I am glad you got the emotion out of your system but it has nothing whatsoever to do with my post.
Let's assume, though your posts totally undermine this view, that you are remotely interested in what I actually believe as opposed to using my posts as a way of reading into them whatever meaning suits, so you can make your over-emotional points.
In general, I believe that Britain's involvement in another country's affairs militarily appears to be governed by the following principles. However there are exceptions/contradictions which makes it often appear illogical.
1. Don't get involved when the aggressor has nuclear weapons irrespective of the level of aggression e.g. China invades Tibet, crushes the culture and traditions of that country over a period of decades and kills thousands.
2. Don't get involved when the aggressor is a longstanding ally irrespective of the level of aggression e.g. Israel who used a totally disproportionate level of violence against Gaza.
3. Don't get involved irrespective of the level of violence if there is no geographic/business/economic reason e.g. Rwanda.
4. Do get involved when the aggressor does not have nuclear weapons, is not a longstanding ally and you have a strategic interest in terms of geographic position, resources such as oil and gas and/or the source of potentially large scale business interests e.g. Libya, Iraq.
5. Do get involved in that rare instance when attack on Britain is viewed as likely e.g. Hitler.
6. Do get involved if from a humanitarian point of view it is viewed as worthwhile and it is relatively close to home e.g. Bosnia.
I believe that the problem with the British approach over the last few decades is that the country acts as a global policeman, which undermines the UN e.g. the illegal Iraq War, whilst we claim as in the case of Libya that we are implementing the UN's will. Other countries allow us to get on with that because a. it is cheaper for them, b. we take the flak.
The other problem with the global policeman role is I believe any fool can press a button to launch a Cruise missile, what is much, much, much, much, much more difficult is working out what comes next after the initial military phase.
Why the Iraq war was a disaster was neither the British nor the Americans had any idea whatsoever about what was supposed to happen afterwards. I suspect they believed that 1. we get rid of Saddam 2. Iraqis think "isn't democracy wonderful" 3. we all live happily ever after.
Several hundreds of thousands of deaths later, huge destruction to Iraqi infrastructure and do we have an Iraq free from people having their bollocks attached to the mains? I suspect not.
Unless Britain starts to be much, much, much more discerning about its involvement in overseas military adventures, the Arab League will never ever stand up to the plate, nor will the African Union, nor will the UN ever gain the respect it should have. The days of empire are long gone and Britain should be an important bit player, but no more than that.
Spent enough time on this with you Sam. That's what I believe. Misrepresent it all you like.
Cheers
D
No, I did not say that. I said I did not believe in Britain being a global policeman. Once again I am glad you got the emotion out of your system but it has nothing whatsoever to do with my post.
Let's assume, though your posts totally undermine this view, that you are remotely interested in what I actually believe as opposed to using my posts as a way of reading into them whatever meaning suits, so you can make your over-emotional points.
In general, I believe that Britain's involvement in another country's affairs militarily appears to be governed by the following principles. However there are exceptions/contradictions which makes it often appear illogical.
1. Don't get involved when the aggressor has nuclear weapons irrespective of the level of aggression e.g. China invades Tibet, crushes the culture and traditions of that country over a period of decades and kills thousands.
2. Don't get involved when the aggressor is a longstanding ally irrespective of the level of aggression e.g. Israel who used a totally disproportionate level of violence against Gaza.
3. Don't get involved irrespective of the level of violence if there is no geographic/business/economic reason e.g. Rwanda.
4. Do get involved when the aggressor does not have nuclear weapons, is not a longstanding ally and you have a strategic interest in terms of geographic position, resources such as oil and gas and/or the source of potentially large scale business interests e.g. Libya, Iraq.
5. Do get involved in that rare instance when attack on Britain is viewed as likely e.g. Hitler.
6. Do get involved if from a humanitarian point of view it is viewed as worthwhile and it is relatively close to home e.g. Bosnia.
I believe that the problem with the British approach over the last few decades is that the country acts as a global policeman, which undermines the UN e.g. the illegal Iraq War, whilst we claim as in the case of Libya that we are implementing the UN's will. Other countries allow us to get on with that because a. it is cheaper for them, b. we take the flak.
The other problem with the global policeman role is I believe any fool can press a button to launch a Cruise missile, what is much, much, much, much, much more difficult is working out what comes next after the initial military phase.
Why the Iraq war was a disaster was neither the British nor the Americans had any idea whatsoever about what was supposed to happen afterwards. I suspect they believed that 1. we get rid of Saddam 2. Iraqis think "isn't democracy wonderful" 3. we all live happily ever after.
Several hundreds of thousands of deaths later, huge destruction to Iraqi infrastructure and do we have an Iraq free from people having their bollocks attached to the mains? I suspect not.
Unless Britain starts to be much, much, much more discerning about its involvement in overseas military adventures, the Arab League will never ever stand up to the plate, nor will the African Union, nor will the UN ever gain the respect it should have. The days of empire are long gone and Britain should be an important bit player, but no more than that.
Spent enough time on this with you Sam. That's what I believe. Misrepresent it all you like.
Cheers
D
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Lizard
"where would the targets be in Rwanda, Burma etc, this would have to be a "boots on the ground" campaign, resulting in massive loss of life for all."
Like Iraq you mean with the hundreds of thousands that lost their lives there?
Cheers
D
Like Iraq you mean with the hundreds of thousands that lost their lives there?
Cheers
D
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam
[quote]No, I did not say that. I said I did not believe in Britain being a global policeman.[/quote]
I know what you said and what you didn't say, David. I was taking your logic to it's obvious conclusion. If a genocide is happening and the UN don't want to intervene (Rwanda for instance) you don't want the UK to intervene either. And by that, I'm assuming you don't want any other super power, like the US, Russia, China, France, Germany, India, Japan etc. to intervene either. Unless I'm wrong and you do want someone else to take the place of the UN?
The conclusion is that if the UN won't help, no one should and we let people die. In other words, fuck 'em.
[quote]1. Don't get involved when the aggressor has nuclear weapons irrespective of the level of aggression e.g. China invades Tibet, crushes the culture and traditions of that country over a period of decades and kills thousands.[/quote]
I agree with this view. It's unfortunate but I think a nuclear war with China would put the whole globe in danger. I'd like to emancipate Tibetans, but I fear the price may be too high. It's very sad but in this pragmatism rules principle.
[quote]2. Don't get involved when the aggressor is a longstanding ally irrespective of the level of aggression e.g. Israel who used a totally disproportionate level of violence against Gaza.[/quote]
But is this genocide and oppression? There are many things I don't like about Jewish expansionism but I wouldn't put what Israel has done in the same category as Milosovic's actions, Saddam's gassing of the Kurds and what I fear Gaddafi will do if left to fight the rebellion as he sees fit.
[quote]3. Don't get involved irrespective of the level of violence if there is no geographic/business/economic reason e.g. Rwanda.[/quote]
I don't like it and don't support this stance. As I've said before, not intervening in Rwanda brings more shame on this country than a probably illegal invasion in Iraq. Your view may differ.
[quote]4. Do get involved when the aggressor does not have nuclear weapons, is not a longstanding ally and you have a strategic interest in terms of geographic position, resources such as oil and gas and/or the source of potentially large scale business interests e.g. Libya, Iraq.[/quote]
Yes on the nuclear weaponry point. Like I said above, nuclear war is too high a price to pay for everyone on the planet. I wish it wasn't so. As for the rest, again, I don't like some of the motives but if the actions are the right thing to do I'm for it.
[quote]5. Do get involved in that rare instance when attack on Britain is viewed as likely e.g. Hitler.[/quote]
Obviously.
[quote]6. Do get involved if from a humanitarian point of view it is viewed as worthwhile and it is relatively close to home e.g. Bosnia.[/quote]
We shouldn't judge based on how close they are to us. That's sad and it always angered me how most mainland Europeans tutted at the invasion of Iraq but were all for going in when it was on Europe's doorstep. As if European lives are more important than Kurdish, Somalian or Tutsi lives.
[quote]I believe that the problem with the British approach over the last few decades is that the country acts as a global policeman, which undermines the UN[/quote]
Fuck the UN. See Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia, Kurdistan etc etc. And, without US and UK help the UN would never have ousted Milosovic. People complain now about our politicians sending 'our boys (and girls) to war...how much would they complain if it was the UN deciding when our troops put their lives on the line? I had lots of trust in the UN, right up to around 2004-5.
[quote]Other countries allow us to get on with that because a. it is cheaper for them, b. we take the flak.[/quote]
I agree. They should be ashamed because if, say, Russia was invaded by China next week, where millions of Russians were being slaughtered, they'd be crying for the US and Europe to help. Since it's just a few blacks and arabs, they don't give a shit. Pure racism I'm afraid, not some moral principles about war and interference.
[quote]The other problem with the global policeman role is I believe any fool can press a button to launch a Cruise missile, what is much, much, much, much, much more difficult is working out what comes next after the initial military phase.[/quote]
Then we should learn from our mistakes and give greater thought to post-war rebuilding. This is a related, but slightly separate issue to the rights and wrongs of going to war in the first place.
[quote]Why the Iraq war was a disaster was neither the British nor the Americans had any idea whatsoever about what was supposed to happen afterwards.[/quote]
I agree. It was too gung-ho for my liking. We should learn from that.
[quote]Several hundreds of thousands of deaths later, huge destruction to Iraqi infrastructure and do we have an Iraq free from people having their bollocks attached to the mains? I suspect not.[/quote]
We can only wait and see. Most of the trouble in Iraq, after the war, was Islamist extremists from other countries coming over and killing people (mainly Muslim vs Muslim given the amount of Mosques that have been bombed in the last 6 years). We didn't take such problems into account but I still feel it was right to free the Kurds and Marsh Arabs from Saddam Hussain.
[quote]Unless Britain starts to be much, much, much more discerning about its involvement in overseas military adventures, the Arab League will never ever stand up to the plate, nor will the African Union, nor will the UN ever gain the respect it should have.[/quote]
So we let people die just so the Arab League and African Union can learn the hard way? I'm not having that. As for the UN and respect......please.
[quote]The days of empire are long gone and Britain should be an important bit player, but no more than that.[/quote]
Forget Empire. This is about the rights and wrongs of interfering in other countries' conflicts when genocides are happening and human rights trodden on. You know, uphold the very UN laws the UN don't seem to care upholding sometimes.
[quote]Spent enough time on this with you Sam. That's what I believe. Misrepresent it all you like.[/quote]
I'm not misinterpreting you, just taking what you say and running with it to see where it takes us. I don't think you're being consistent, that's all, and seem to only back wars when the UN decides it suits them to get involved this time. As you're fully aware by now, I have far less trust in the UN than you, which probably explains your inconsistency.
Thank you for the debate. We've not really got anywhere, as usual, but things could be worse. We could just sit back-slapping each other like others do !happy!
I know what you said and what you didn't say, David. I was taking your logic to it's obvious conclusion. If a genocide is happening and the UN don't want to intervene (Rwanda for instance) you don't want the UK to intervene either. And by that, I'm assuming you don't want any other super power, like the US, Russia, China, France, Germany, India, Japan etc. to intervene either. Unless I'm wrong and you do want someone else to take the place of the UN?
The conclusion is that if the UN won't help, no one should and we let people die. In other words, fuck 'em.
[quote]1. Don't get involved when the aggressor has nuclear weapons irrespective of the level of aggression e.g. China invades Tibet, crushes the culture and traditions of that country over a period of decades and kills thousands.[/quote]
I agree with this view. It's unfortunate but I think a nuclear war with China would put the whole globe in danger. I'd like to emancipate Tibetans, but I fear the price may be too high. It's very sad but in this pragmatism rules principle.
[quote]2. Don't get involved when the aggressor is a longstanding ally irrespective of the level of aggression e.g. Israel who used a totally disproportionate level of violence against Gaza.[/quote]
But is this genocide and oppression? There are many things I don't like about Jewish expansionism but I wouldn't put what Israel has done in the same category as Milosovic's actions, Saddam's gassing of the Kurds and what I fear Gaddafi will do if left to fight the rebellion as he sees fit.
[quote]3. Don't get involved irrespective of the level of violence if there is no geographic/business/economic reason e.g. Rwanda.[/quote]
I don't like it and don't support this stance. As I've said before, not intervening in Rwanda brings more shame on this country than a probably illegal invasion in Iraq. Your view may differ.
[quote]4. Do get involved when the aggressor does not have nuclear weapons, is not a longstanding ally and you have a strategic interest in terms of geographic position, resources such as oil and gas and/or the source of potentially large scale business interests e.g. Libya, Iraq.[/quote]
Yes on the nuclear weaponry point. Like I said above, nuclear war is too high a price to pay for everyone on the planet. I wish it wasn't so. As for the rest, again, I don't like some of the motives but if the actions are the right thing to do I'm for it.
[quote]5. Do get involved in that rare instance when attack on Britain is viewed as likely e.g. Hitler.[/quote]
Obviously.
[quote]6. Do get involved if from a humanitarian point of view it is viewed as worthwhile and it is relatively close to home e.g. Bosnia.[/quote]
We shouldn't judge based on how close they are to us. That's sad and it always angered me how most mainland Europeans tutted at the invasion of Iraq but were all for going in when it was on Europe's doorstep. As if European lives are more important than Kurdish, Somalian or Tutsi lives.
[quote]I believe that the problem with the British approach over the last few decades is that the country acts as a global policeman, which undermines the UN[/quote]
Fuck the UN. See Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia, Kurdistan etc etc. And, without US and UK help the UN would never have ousted Milosovic. People complain now about our politicians sending 'our boys (and girls) to war...how much would they complain if it was the UN deciding when our troops put their lives on the line? I had lots of trust in the UN, right up to around 2004-5.
[quote]Other countries allow us to get on with that because a. it is cheaper for them, b. we take the flak.[/quote]
I agree. They should be ashamed because if, say, Russia was invaded by China next week, where millions of Russians were being slaughtered, they'd be crying for the US and Europe to help. Since it's just a few blacks and arabs, they don't give a shit. Pure racism I'm afraid, not some moral principles about war and interference.
[quote]The other problem with the global policeman role is I believe any fool can press a button to launch a Cruise missile, what is much, much, much, much, much more difficult is working out what comes next after the initial military phase.[/quote]
Then we should learn from our mistakes and give greater thought to post-war rebuilding. This is a related, but slightly separate issue to the rights and wrongs of going to war in the first place.
[quote]Why the Iraq war was a disaster was neither the British nor the Americans had any idea whatsoever about what was supposed to happen afterwards.[/quote]
I agree. It was too gung-ho for my liking. We should learn from that.
[quote]Several hundreds of thousands of deaths later, huge destruction to Iraqi infrastructure and do we have an Iraq free from people having their bollocks attached to the mains? I suspect not.[/quote]
We can only wait and see. Most of the trouble in Iraq, after the war, was Islamist extremists from other countries coming over and killing people (mainly Muslim vs Muslim given the amount of Mosques that have been bombed in the last 6 years). We didn't take such problems into account but I still feel it was right to free the Kurds and Marsh Arabs from Saddam Hussain.
[quote]Unless Britain starts to be much, much, much more discerning about its involvement in overseas military adventures, the Arab League will never ever stand up to the plate, nor will the African Union, nor will the UN ever gain the respect it should have.[/quote]
So we let people die just so the Arab League and African Union can learn the hard way? I'm not having that. As for the UN and respect......please.
[quote]The days of empire are long gone and Britain should be an important bit player, but no more than that.[/quote]
Forget Empire. This is about the rights and wrongs of interfering in other countries' conflicts when genocides are happening and human rights trodden on. You know, uphold the very UN laws the UN don't seem to care upholding sometimes.
[quote]Spent enough time on this with you Sam. That's what I believe. Misrepresent it all you like.[/quote]
I'm not misinterpreting you, just taking what you say and running with it to see where it takes us. I don't think you're being consistent, that's all, and seem to only back wars when the UN decides it suits them to get involved this time. As you're fully aware by now, I have far less trust in the UN than you, which probably explains your inconsistency.
Thank you for the debate. We've not really got anywhere, as usual, but things could be worse. We could just sit back-slapping each other like others do !happy!
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: Lizard
Point out to me whereabouts the Mirage jets are based in Rwanda, tell me where the sophisticated communications installations are, where's the naval base in Naypyidaw? nah, nothing like Iraq, even you should know that.
[_]> No Liberals were harmed during the making of this post.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Lizard
"Point out to me whereabouts the Mirage jets are based in Rwanda, tell me where the sophisticated communications installations are, where's the naval base in Naypyidaw? nah, nothing like Iraq, even you should know that."
Try to think more clearly.
In your post you state that one of the reasons why there was no intervention in Rwanda was because there would have been a huge loss of life. I merely point out that there was huge loss of life in Iraq. I am not comparing the two countries.....obviously!
However, what I expect you are not aware of is that there was a power struggle between the leader of the Tutsis, Kigame and the leader of the Hutus, Habyarimana. In 1993 a peace accord was signed. However when Habyarimana's plane was shot down this triggered a breakdown of law and order.
If there had been a swift movement by the international community in the politics of this country at a high level in government warning them of the consequences of sending death squads out, a tragedy might have been averted.
Your suggestion that you cannot have military intervention unless there are Mirage jets or communications networks is wrong. How on earth did countries intervene in others internal affairs in the world pre-Mirage jets or comms networks, otherwise?
Cheers
D
Try to think more clearly.
In your post you state that one of the reasons why there was no intervention in Rwanda was because there would have been a huge loss of life. I merely point out that there was huge loss of life in Iraq. I am not comparing the two countries.....obviously!
However, what I expect you are not aware of is that there was a power struggle between the leader of the Tutsis, Kigame and the leader of the Hutus, Habyarimana. In 1993 a peace accord was signed. However when Habyarimana's plane was shot down this triggered a breakdown of law and order.
If there had been a swift movement by the international community in the politics of this country at a high level in government warning them of the consequences of sending death squads out, a tragedy might have been averted.
Your suggestion that you cannot have military intervention unless there are Mirage jets or communications networks is wrong. How on earth did countries intervene in others internal affairs in the world pre-Mirage jets or comms networks, otherwise?
Cheers
D
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam
"I'm not misinterpreting you, just taking what you say and running with it to see where it takes us. I don't think you're being consistent, that's all, and seem to only back wars when the UN decides it suits them to get involved this time. As you're fully aware by now, I have far less trust in the UN than you, which probably explains your inconsistency."
You have an unerring ability to get the wrong end of the stick. In the case of Rwanda, I think Britain should have got involved irrespective of the UN.
Anyway enough.
Cheers
D
You have an unerring ability to get the wrong end of the stick. In the case of Rwanda, I think Britain should have got involved irrespective of the UN.
Anyway enough.
Cheers
D
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam
[quote]You have an unerring ability to get the wrong end of the stick.[/quote]
Well, firstly there's this:
I asked: "But if the UN don't do anything we shouldn't either?"
Your replied: "For the last time, I do not believe that the UK should act as a global policeman."
A few posts later you say: "In the case of Rwanda, I think Britain should have got involved irrespective of the UN."
Is it my unerring ability to get the wrong end of the stick or your unerring ability to be unclear? I get the feeling you're only questioning my understanding (again) because you don't really know what you believe. It was a direct question and I got a vague answer.
So you both wanted the UK to intervene irrespective of the UN, in Rwanda, but don't want the UK to be the world's policeman. A little bit of an oxymoron, I think.
Oh well. The speed in which you change your mind, eh? At least you'll never get round to hanging yourself.
Well, firstly there's this:
I asked: "But if the UN don't do anything we shouldn't either?"
Your replied: "For the last time, I do not believe that the UK should act as a global policeman."
A few posts later you say: "In the case of Rwanda, I think Britain should have got involved irrespective of the UN."
Is it my unerring ability to get the wrong end of the stick or your unerring ability to be unclear? I get the feeling you're only questioning my understanding (again) because you don't really know what you believe. It was a direct question and I got a vague answer.
So you both wanted the UK to intervene irrespective of the UN, in Rwanda, but don't want the UK to be the world's policeman. A little bit of an oxymoron, I think.
Oh well. The speed in which you change your mind, eh? At least you'll never get round to hanging yourself.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam
"So you both wanted the UK to intervene irrespective of the UN, in Rwanda, but don't want the UK to be the world's policeman. A little bit of an oxymoron, I think. Oh well. The speed in which you change your mind, eh? At least you'll never get round to hanging yourself."
No. You still don't get it. And the above statement is incorrect.
I have already outlined the various factors that govern Britain's involvement/non-involvement in other countries' affairs here in points 1-6
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=243814&t=243784
I have in the same message, towards the end, outlined the drawbacks to this apparent approach. "Unless Britain starts to be much, much, much more discerning about its involvement in overseas military adventures, the Arab League will never ever stand up to the plate, nor will the African Union, nor will the UN ever gain the respect it should have. The days of empire are long gone and Britain should be an important bit player, but no more than that."
I do not particularly want to go one by one through all the military adventures that Britain might have got involved in in the last decades. Hence my reply that Britain should not be a global policeman which confused me. There are umpteen. It is a complex area which takes in a whole host of different factors. Something I suspect that you in your gungho attitude don't seem to understand.
Cheers
D
No. You still don't get it. And the above statement is incorrect.
I have already outlined the various factors that govern Britain's involvement/non-involvement in other countries' affairs here in points 1-6
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=243814&t=243784
I have in the same message, towards the end, outlined the drawbacks to this apparent approach. "Unless Britain starts to be much, much, much more discerning about its involvement in overseas military adventures, the Arab League will never ever stand up to the plate, nor will the African Union, nor will the UN ever gain the respect it should have. The days of empire are long gone and Britain should be an important bit player, but no more than that."
I do not particularly want to go one by one through all the military adventures that Britain might have got involved in in the last decades. Hence my reply that Britain should not be a global policeman which confused me. There are umpteen. It is a complex area which takes in a whole host of different factors. Something I suspect that you in your gungho attitude don't seem to understand.
Cheers
D