.. to think that being unable to project power overseas is a good thing?

[PooshTun]

According to military commanders, the recently announced budget cuts will limit Britain's ability to fight and project power overseas. Gawd Dammit! No more invading/bombing other people' s countries because we don't like their politics or because they might impede our access to oil.

I rather suspect so.

Just because our gutter press and resident tree-huggers focus on the very rare bad to sell papers (or to strengthen their rather simplistic 'were as bad as them' argument) doesn't mean there isnt a world of good in what we are doing in these countries. You just dont hear about it.

The Guardian eh? Ha ha. Worse than the DM for its sensationalism.

A world of good in your opinion, I would say a dirty great mess, certainly in Afghanistan.

I don't dispute some military personnel are good people, I do dispute that somehow the British Army is this role-model of fair play across the world.

And I also dispute that our press sensationalise the bad stuff. In fact the tabloids are more likely to carry emotive rubbish about Our Boys dying in action. They're soliders FFS, it's in the job description.

"We never sent British troops to Africa to prevent crimes against humanity"

Sierra Leone isn't in Africa, then?

Generally though, isn't it a bad thing if liberal democracies wield less overseas influence than alternative regimes, because if we exit the stage, you can be sure that someone will fill the vacuum.

The problem with liberal values is that's it's very hard to defend them using liberal values. That's why liberalism is so fragile.

"Read my post. the Flakland islanders are British citizens and were at the time of the Falklands conflict"

Learn to fecking Google. I was fully grown back during the War and I avidly followed the conflict in the news and if that wasn't enough for you, according to Wikipedia -

"Under the British Nationality Act of 1983, Falkland Islanders are British citizens"

Stop scrambling for excuses to justify your racist views.

OP, why have you posted this is AIBU?

You have already decided that YANBU and no one is going to change your mind.

As for, "It always crack me up when I read people scramble for excuses ...

Really? You're laughing when people try to reason with you? Wow.

"if we exit the stage, you can be sure that someone will fill the vacuum"

I'm sure the USA will find some one else to be their side kick.

I'm rascist why? It's not me referring to the Chinese as "orientals". It's you.

As you were fully grown during the Falklands, you were already fully grown when the handover talks were going on, so you should remember why HK was handed back shouldnt you? You really think Thatcher would have let Asia's major financial centre go if she had a choice? Seriously?

The point is that at the time of the Falklands conflict the islanders considered themselves to be British. The nationalities act merely formalised that. The HK Chinese NEVER considered themselves to be British citizens. Come here and talk to some. You might learn something.

I'm not sufficiently interested in the argument to Google the subject...

Fair enough.

Learn to fecking Google...

Ah ok, so that's just for those who disagree with you?

"I don't dispute some military personnel are good people, I do dispute that somehow the British Army is this role-model of fair play across the world."

Dispute all you want, but its a fact. The harsh lessons learned when fighting the IRA make us the best peacekeeping force in the world. Other countries look to us as an example.

Afghanistan? Yeah its a mess, but not for want of trying. We should have dealt with Pakistan instead seeing as how they have funded the insurgency.

I guess all those girls getting an education today can go back to being slaves in their homes tomorrow. We were stupid to even try

.......and dont quote wiki as a source. Every primary school child learns that in Yr 1 FFS

But looktoshinford, those very girls who were offered the chance of an education and a future are now in peril because we are pulling out and they have a very real fear that the Taliban will return and not only will their lives return to the original terrible state, it might actually be worse when the Taliban take revenge against those they wish to set an example about.

The Taliban were wreaking hell in Afghanistan for many years before the US (and thus us) took an interest.

Shelly - My original point was that we should stay close to home and mind our business. And as Steven Seagal put it so eloquently in one of his movies, if 'trouble' comes looking for us then we rip its head off and piss down its neck :)

Another poster then went on about how British might is used overseas to defend the oppressed.

I made the point that despite hundreds of thousands of Africans being butchered no freedom fighting brigades were dispatched.

As for my comment about people's excuses .....

But the Falkanders were British whereas the Granadians were not.

Actually the Grenadians had a greater expectation for military aide because they were a Protectorate.

But the Falkanders were British citizens and the HK Chinese weren't.

Actually, the Falkanders were made British citizens AFTER the war.

I knock down one point and another pops up. Hence my comment about excuses.

As for why I started this post, I was making the point that foreign military intervention isn't worth the cost. I mean, how many Iraqi/Afghan civilians not to mention Coalition forces have been killed. Does anyone seriously believe that we are in a better place for having invaded those countries?

That was my point. Unfortunately along the way I have allowed a few posters with inaccurate historical 'facts' to move me off topic.

The harsh lessons learned when fighting the IRA make us the best peacekeeping force in the world. Other countries look to us as an example.

Who? The Russians fighting the Chechens? The Israelis fighting the Palestinians?

We can be truly proud of that then.

Some things we (and other countries) have done have been good for the world. WW2, the Balkan conflicts, Sierra Leone and Libya. But the original question referred to the military's desire to fight and project power overseas and I strongly feel that there is no need for us as a country to have that amount of power on the basis that somehow we are better with it than other people.

As Edless said 'unless wiki is talking crap Grenada was independent from 1974'. If the Other Side wants to quote wiki .....

In economic terms Germany and others are better off than the UK. They don't feel the need to send battle fleets around the world to protect their economic interests so why do we?

Billions spent and thousands killed. Are we any safer compared to pre the invasions?

"The harsh lessons learned when fighting the IRA make us the best peacekeeping force in the world. Other countries look to us as an example"

Ermm. Didn't the British admit that militarily they couldn't defeat the IRA? Hence the Good Friday Agreement? At this moment there are several men who have murdered men, women, children and cops/soldiers sitting down to a Guiness. I don't think the world is looking for such an example.

No-one should be quoting Wiki.

In regard to Grenada though, if Grenada declared independence in 1974, then it wasn't still a protectorate in 1983. It was an independent commonwealth country, whose citizens had taken the decision to be independent of the UK almost a decade earlier (i.e. had actively said "we dont want anything to do with you") so they had no call on british military assistance at all at the time of the invasion. That's very different to the Falkland islanders, who despite not officially being recognised as British, considered themselves to be British and actively embraced it when it was offered.

Btw, have you accepted that you were wrong about HK yet?

YANBU.

We do need a nuclear deterant to ensure that no other country decides to invade us. We do need to be able to defend ourselves and our overseas territories with conventional forces too.

However, I do not want to see another British soldier die in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq. We have no business being there. I dont want to hear about 'strategic interest' either. There is no strategic interest in Britain invading other countries.

A lot of this strategic interest nonsense is driven by decades and decades of Foreign Office obsession with Britain 'punching above its weight' on the world stage. We should behave like Switzerland in a lot more ways.

Grenada and Falklands were two different issues. The Falklands were invaded, Grenada had its government overthrown.

It always baffles me that people who are so determined to involve the government in every single area of my life - be it healthcare, education, porn filtering, whatever - by voting in governments which take more and more tax and tell me how to live my life, are so averse to the primary duty of government which is to protect British citizens from invasion by a foreign power.

But MoreBeta, by your argument everyone should have a nuclear deterrent to stop other people invading them. So presumably you support Iran's ambitions in that area? After all, they have much more chance of facing an invasion by, say, the US than us!

We should behave like Switzerland in a lot more ways.

I'll drink to that. I actually probably come close to agreeing with the OP on the basic argument which is that Iraq and Afghanistan have been counter productive and that we need to reconsider our position on the world stage (i.e. sit back a bit and let the US and China pick teams and fight it out amongst themselves).

My only point of disagreement is re self-determination, which I feel quite strongly about, mainly because where you don't have it, things are rarely peaceful.

Hearts - the stance by the major nuclear powers that aims to stop other powers having nuclear weapns is supreme hypocricy.

There have been rumours for years about Israel having a nuclear weapon but we are concerned about Iran having one. India has nuclear capability but we are concerned about Pakistan having nuclear weapons.

Why are some countries allowed them and not others?

"Why are some countries allowed them and not others?"

I personally prefer extreme hypocricy to having my home turned into a glass carpark by some tinpot dictator.

MoreBeta - I can only admire the way that the nuclear cartele fight and whinge all the way about anyone else getting one, but as soon as they do they are in the club and are given access to top tables at the UN and so on.

I think my major gripe about our position is that it's always tinged with a holier than thou aspect. Like it's not bad for us to have a bomb because we can be trusted with it. Unlike your average foreign johnny.