.. 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.

A protectorate is an independent country that has entered into a diplomatic agreement with a stronger country with regards to military assistance. As I said, learn to Google and then learn to comprehend what you are reading.

As for scrambling for excuses, you earlier claimed that Falklanders were British citizens at the time of the conflict. Now you are saying that ok they were not citizens but they regarded themselves as British which is the same thing.

I wonder if that will work at Heathrow Immigration? 'Yes officer I know that I am Nigerian but Cor Blimey Guv'na I think of myself as British' :o

As for HK, you obviously know what 6 million Chinese think so who am I to argue with you? :o :o

But being an 'expert' on the HK Chinese you no doubt know that many have relations in the UK, that many have visited the UK and studied here. They even give themselves English names. Its kind of sad that people like you don't think that they are 'British' enough unlike a bunch of sheep farmers that left Wales a hundred years ago to settle on the Falklands.

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

Have you heard the acronym MAD? It means Mutually Assured Destruction.

And that is where your argument would lead because everyone thinks that. So everyone thus has the right to arm themselves to the teeth because of it.

looktoshinford - You probably find that we killed more of their civilians than vice versa.

Don't understand the Grenada point. Grenada was invaded by US troops (if I recall correctly) to overthrow a democratically elected Socialist government.

There would never have been any question of Britain (a) joining in (because it was a democratically elected government, and in the Commonwealth, all too controversial; or (b) invading to try and resist the US invasion (which would have been doomed to fail, and the most counter-productive act of all time, since it would have destroyed the North Atlantic alliance that is the arguably the single most important aspect of British foreign policy).

So what is the significance of Grenanda as a contrast to the Falklands issue or in relation to the OP? I don't get it.

So out of fairness we should encourage everyone to have nuclear weapons?

MAD.

Oh and its not 'foreign johnny'. Its 'people who dont like us'. You know, those who would wish us harm? Or maybe we should arm all criminals because some of the police have guns? Fairs fair!

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

So its OK for a domestic force to overthrow and execute those in charge and take charge of the country but its NOT OK for a foreign force to overthrow Governor Rex Hunt and to shoot a few sheep?

"It always baffles me that people .... are so averse to the primary duty of government which is to protect British citizens from invasion by a foreign power"

The Falklanders were not British citizens ate the time of the conflict.

I am not adverse to armed force being used for humanitarian reasons. I am just a put off by those who seem to think that we should only shed blood and money if the people involved emigrated from Wales over a 100 years ago.

Eldritch - The government was overthrown by the Pro Marxist military leaders and the Prime Minister and senior members of his government were executed. The Americans invaded the islands because they can and because they were concerned about the domino effect i.e. you let one Marxist government take take power then it is only a matter of time before others countries in the region go the same way.

I am not saying that the British should have sent in military forces to fight the pro Marxist army. I am just saying that there are those who agree with sending a task force to defend an island where the people weren't even citizens at the time and then go, well the Grenadians aren't citizens so why do they expect us to hel? And as for those HK Chinese, they aren't really British like us so we don't really want to give them passports to come here.

*So out of fairness we should encourage everyone to have nuclear weapons?

MAD.

Oh and its not 'foreign johnny'. Its 'people who dont like us'. You know, those who would wish us harm? Or maybe we should arm all criminals because some of the police have guns? Fairs fair! hmm*

I think you've missed the point about Mutually Assured Destruction rather.

But perhaps you can answer without sarcasm:

Why is it OK for us to define who can and cannot have nuclear weapons, eg Iran?

Why is it OK for us to object to people wishing to harm us but then to impose harm on others, eg civilians killed in Iraq/Afghanistan?

What I find funny is that Saddam Hussein and friends got crushed because the US didn't like them and they didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Libya went the same way for the same reasons.

I just don't understand why Iran and North Korea won't give up their nuclear aspirations :o

Quite a few Falkland Islanders would have had have British Dependent Territories Citizenship and its possible some would have had full BC if their family had emigrated more recently. The Falklands was not fully independant from Britain as they had a Governor.

Its not quite the same as Grenada.

BTW because my Dad was born in Ireland prior to 1949 he was a British Subject not a British Citizen

'Our soldiers set an example of fairhandedness the world over and are a benefit to everybody'

hahahaha ha!
Oh wait, you were being serious?

I havent missed anything HeartsJandJ, I just know what I'm talking about and applying it to the real world.

MAD only works if both sides of the equation arent fruitloops. And some of the regimes who you clearly support 'out of fairness' fall very firmly into the lunatic category.

Who gets to decide this? Decent non-fruitloop types. NATO etc. Our military leaders. People who have the job of protecting us.

You wont achieve peace by giving everyone a weapon. You'll just end up being in a weaker position when the bullets start flying.

. Iran -- nutters who would then immediately use the weapon to threaten israel (who no doubt you would happily stand back and watch them wiped off the map if it was 'fair' in line with your views).

. Civilian casualties -- mostly deliberately caused by said nutters, hoping that gullible muppets in the UK will be quick to blame our soldiers and start threads on MN.

oopsi - I presume you've missed the sabre rattling of the potty Argentinian lady recently, then?

Clearly you haven't understood a thing because I am totally opposed to giving everyone a weapon. I am also opposed to, as you term it, fruitloop regimes.

Were I Palestinian I might term Israel itself a fruitloop regime. I would hesitate to call Iran "nutters" as they are simply pursuing the same policy as, for example, us and Israel - they wish to acquire a nuclear weapon to protect themselves from a perceived threat.

However, your ranting last two paragraphs kind of lead me to think you're not actually open to much debate about this.

And I'm sorry but when you say:

MAD only works if both sides of the equation arent fruitloops

are you seriously suggesting it's a good idea for sane people?

Ah, ok OP. But:

Quite a few Falkland Islanders would have had have British Dependent Territories Citizenship and its possible some would have had full BC if their family had emigrated more recently. The Falklands was not fully independant from Britain as they had a Governor

I agree. The Falkland Islands are not independent from Britain. They're a UK Overseas Territory with a governor. So saying the islanders are not British citizens is an over-simplification.

Britain sent a navy frigate and other aid to Montserrat after the volcano on the same basis as it intervened in the Falklands: ultimate responsibility for the territory and its people.

oopsi

how about 'Our soldiers are much better at peacekeeping than the US forces?'

because that at least seems fairly true.

poosh lots of HK chinese did get residency before the handover, DHs school was full of them...and that was a wonderful piece of realpolitik. As it is the mores of HK have been taking over the mainland with capitalism ....though yes it is true the PRC remains a scummy dictatorship and there has been significant restriction of freedom in HK.

realistically China was not going to go away in a hurry.
realistically, Argentina could be made to....

what you can achieve should always be a consideration...

i think we have been wonderfully sidetracked on the Grenada/ Falklands thing...

the point is what purpose does it serve to maintain such a significant navy?

Edless - During my time with HSBC I spent periods in HK. Believe me when I say very few HK Chinese got UK residency. Those that did got it because they had money to invest or as a reward for dutiful service to the Crown. Your average HKer had no chance.

The funny thing was that Macao residents got offered Portuguese citizenship which meant they could come to the UK unlike their British Colonial friends.

But as you've said we've digressed . My original post was whether we need such defence spending when economically more powerful countries spend less. Punching above our weight is a phrase that is often used. Perhaps we should punch our weight and spend the peace premium on education of the NHS.

PooshTun
I suspect if the MOD was even vaguely financially competant we could spend less and still punch above our weight.

I agree that we don't really need to be flexing our muscles and playing the superpower as much as we do.

I don't know if it is also partly driven by the importance of the defence sector to the economy. www.ft.com/cms/s/0/faee6c48-959a-11df-a2b0-00144feab49a.html#axzz1uyNxLrVD

The UK is one of the largest defence exporters in the world (we may still be second to the US) so the billions of pounds of exports may give the MOD more clout than it would otherwise have.

the point is what purpose does it serve to maintain such a significant navy?
I don't think significant is a word that can be used to describe our Navy these days. We won't even have an aircraft carrier for several more years.

I suspect if the MOD was even vaguely financially competant we could spend less and still punch above our weight.

MOD is perfectly competent. It's the policitcal interference that renders the organisation incompetent. The MOD will spend years conducting an investment appraisal to determine the best procurement route for major military capabilities - the politicians will overturn that work at a stroke and award the contract for cynical political reasons i.e. Gordon Brown's decision to have the carriers built in his constituency, which was not the cheapest option.

I'm not so sure that MoD is entirely financially competent. Day to day operations seem fine, agreed, but I've never heard a good word about Procurement. And that is an enormous budget.

The department is having cuts like every other.

It is right that the operational commander (who exactly made the warning in OP?) tells the Government when cuts damage certain levels of capability and thus what new constraints will be placed on policy making. It is then up to the Govt to decide whether to keep or maintain it. Looking at how much the Labour Govt liked to commit troops to major operations overseas, and how Labour and Tory policies are indistinguishable at present, I suspect this is not a capability that a Government will relinquish lightly.

What is harder to tell is how true the warning is. All public sector organisations come up with dire warnings at times of cuts. All are angled to maximise appeal to the general public, all are a mixture of fact and spin.

"But being an 'expert' on the HK Chinese you no doubt know that many have relations in the UK, that many have visited the UK and studied here. They even give themselves English names. Its kind of sad that people like you don't think that they are 'British' enough unlike a bunch of sheep farmers that left Wales a hundred years ago to settle on the Falklands."

That is no different from the mainland Chinese. My SIL arrived from Shanghai under an English moniker, which was then quietly dropped when she found everybody liked her Chinese name better. We have masses of mainland Chinese students at our universities. Does that mean we should protect mainland China as a colony?

Can I explain from a Grenadian perspective (not wanting to out myself) that the Brits most certainly would have invaded/intervened (the jury is out as to whether it was an invasion or intervention) had not the Americans being very keen to do so? Shall I point out that both the Americans and the Brits collaborated on the American invasion/intervention? Most definitely the Brits would have come had the the Americans not done so.

The Americans had a ready excuse that they were coming to save the staff and students at the offshore american university - St. George's Medical School.

The Brits warships go to the islands all the the especially after natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes. So yes the UK still plays a very active role in safeguarding the Anglophone Caribbean.

It is really not fair to say that because Grenadians are black that the Brits abandoned them as that did not happen.

A new issue cropping up is that when the Brits and Americans withdraw their military power perhaps China will turn up? Not far fetched. As we already see the Chinese government giving big loans to the Caribbean islands including Grenada for big infrastructure projects. A decade ago these islands would have looked to western countries to give loans etc.

So when you ask the Americans and Brits to reduce military power, you leave in a gap in the market... so to speak