5 ms·

No we need weapons to defend others. The USA and UK are in part two of the richest nations in the world because they are physically isolated from threats, we gr

by cmdkeen 12y ago

No we need weapons to defend others. The USA and UK are in part two of the richest nations in the world because they are physically isolated from threats, we grew, and continue to grow, rich of trade with the rest of the world. The West has the capacity to be heroic and for a brief period at the turn of the millennium was actually doing that. Kosovo and Sierra Leone were examples of successful military intervention followed up by nation building. Before that the first Gulf War was again a successful intervention. The cause of peace allows Rwanda, Bosnia and a hundred other regional conflicts and genocide to claims the lives of millions and blight regions. We should not let Afghanistan and Iraq - and really the root problem is Iraq detract from the potential to affect positive change in the world. Finally it's worth saying that military capability gives humanitarian capability. The recent Philippines disaster saw HMS Illustrious deliver all the spare rice in Singapore in a short space of time along with a number of helicopters as well as fit, motivated, organised and well led teams to assist in disaster relief.

lentil_soup 12y ago
"The recent Philippines disaster saw HMS Illustrious deliver all the spare rice in Singapore in a short space of time along with a number of helicopters as well as fit, motivated, organised and well led teams to assist in disaster relief." Then you can have the same efficient result with a non-military organization. What's so special about them having guns?
- serge2k 12y ago
  The need/want of the US to have their guns all over the planet means they often have people in a position to help. If they weren't out there defending people/enforcing US interests then they wouldn't be there at all.
  - lentil_soup 12y ago
    Sure, but then it's a bad argument as defense of the military. Their purpose is not to help in disasters, that they happen to be there is secondary.
Htsthbjig 12y ago
"Before that the first Gulf War was again a successful intervention." Successful? You must be joking or only talk about US and UK side. First Gulf war was a disaster. The US and UK invaded a country and asked the locals to support them, but then they went away. So Saddam took all the people that supported US and UK and simply killed them. First GW only served one purpose, to claim hegemony of the US military on the war after the cold war and fall of the wall, that there was only one military ruler in the world. But it was a disaster form an strategic point of view, killing all your supporters in one country, then killing the other side,thus creating a power vacuum as no educated elite is left, creating a failed state. Remember that Saddam was a US ally and now we know he asked US what will happen if they invaded Kuwait. The US said it was none of their business. Of course it was.
- cmdkeen 12y ago
  GW1 militarily was a huge success, Kuwait - a "five feet high nation" in the Lloyd George sense, was defended from aggression from its much bigger, nastier neighbour. The principal of territorial integrity was upheld. The strategic aims were upheld. It was our business, and should be our business. That's the whole point of things like the UN charter - remember there were a series of UN resolutions condemning the invasion of one sovereign nation by another. Without recourse to more powerful countries keeping the peace what defence do smaller nations have? That was the real tragedy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the undermining of that moral authority. You're also trying to have your cake and eat it by saying we shouldn't be involved in other countries affairs and then laying the failure of an internal uprising on the West. It wasn't an invasion where we asked the locals to support us, it was a national revolt (also in the North) as a result of the dictator being seen as weak following his failed invasion of Kuwait. The USA made a few radio broadcasts, that's not enough to kick off an entire revolution. Iraq was in social turmoil after the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War, it was a powder keg waiting to go off.
  - lgieron 12y ago
    > The principal of territorial integrity was upheld. The strategic aims were upheld. Let's be honest, the US cares about those only in there's oil or other goodies involved (see the lack of response to the current situation in Ukraine, where there's little to gain and much to lose for the US).
vasac 12y ago
Well, you didn't seem so upbeat when your ex-allies practiced some 'nation building' on 9/11. Things don't look so heroic when happen in your own backyard, do they?
lostlogin 12y ago
I'm not sure that 1 or 2 successful interventions make a heroic period. And the First Gulf War was a farce. What has occurred in Iraq since is directly related and the stationing of troops in Saudi during the conflict had a profound influence on many, including Bin Laden. Intervention is always complex but this was a disaster.
- cmdkeen 12y ago
  I'd hardly call over a decade of regional stability a farce. It checked any expansionist tendencies of other regional powers. It helped make a very powerful point to Iran who didn't cause any problems with the Straits of Hormuz for a long while after, to Libya who had been invaded Chad only years before etc. It was the 2003 invasion of Iraq that kicked off the nightmare and heightened regional and global instability. It was that massive miscalculation which hugely multiplied the number of jihadists and gave victories to radical Islamists. Remember Iran had been chanting death America for years by that point, religious zealots already hated America and the West.
  - lostlogin 12y ago
    Regional stability didn't make for a very good time in Iraq if you were a Kurd, had supported the U.S. in any way or if you wanted to eat. Infant mortality went through the roof and the death toll from coalition bombing civilians was also a problem. Regional stability is a phrase that gets used to justify support for vicious dictatorships that suit foreign powers.

by cmdkeen 12y ago

lentil_soup 12y ago

"The recent Philippines disaster saw HMS Illustrious deliver all the spare rice in Singapore in a short space of time along with a number of helicopters as well as fit, motivated, organised and well led teams to assist in disaster relief." Then you can have the same efficient result with a non-military organization. What's so special about them having guns?

serge2k 12y ago
The need/want of the US to have their guns all over the planet means they often have people in a position to help. If they weren't out there defending people/enforcing US interests then they wouldn't be there at all.
- lentil_soup 12y ago
  Sure, but then it's a bad argument as defense of the military. Their purpose is not to help in disasters, that they happen to be there is secondary.

Htsthbjig 12y ago

"Before that the first Gulf War was again a successful intervention." Successful? You must be joking or only talk about US and UK side. First Gulf war was a disaster. The US and UK invaded a country and asked the locals to support them, but then they went away. So Saddam took all the people that supported US and UK and simply killed them. First GW only served one purpose, to claim hegemony of the US military on the war after the cold war and fall of the wall, that there was only one military ruler in the world. But it was a disaster form an strategic point of view, killing all your supporters in one country, then killing the other side,thus creating a power vacuum as no educated elite is left, creating a failed state. Remember that Saddam was a US ally and now we know he asked US what will happen if they invaded Kuwait. The US said it was none of their business. Of course it was.

cmdkeen 12y ago
GW1 militarily was a huge success, Kuwait - a "five feet high nation" in the Lloyd George sense, was defended from aggression from its much bigger, nastier neighbour. The principal of territorial integrity was upheld. The strategic aims were upheld. It was our business, and should be our business. That's the whole point of things like the UN charter - remember there were a series of UN resolutions condemning the invasion of one sovereign nation by another. Without recourse to more powerful countries keeping the peace what defence do smaller nations have? That was the real tragedy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the undermining of that moral authority. You're also trying to have your cake and eat it by saying we shouldn't be involved in other countries affairs and then laying the failure of an internal uprising on the West. It wasn't an invasion where we asked the locals to support us, it was a national revolt (also in the North) as a result of the dictator being seen as weak following his failed invasion of Kuwait. The USA made a few radio broadcasts, that's not enough to kick off an entire revolution. Iraq was in social turmoil after the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War, it was a powder keg waiting to go off.
- lgieron 12y ago
  > The principal of territorial integrity was upheld. The strategic aims were upheld. Let's be honest, the US cares about those only in there's oil or other goodies involved (see the lack of response to the current situation in Ukraine, where there's little to gain and much to lose for the US).

vasac 12y ago

Well, you didn't seem so upbeat when your ex-allies practiced some 'nation building' on 9/11. Things don't look so heroic when happen in your own backyard, do they?

lostlogin 12y ago

I'm not sure that 1 or 2 successful interventions make a heroic period. And the First Gulf War was a farce. What has occurred in Iraq since is directly related and the stationing of troops in Saudi during the conflict had a profound influence on many, including Bin Laden. Intervention is always complex but this was a disaster.

cmdkeen 12y ago
I'd hardly call over a decade of regional stability a farce. It checked any expansionist tendencies of other regional powers. It helped make a very powerful point to Iran who didn't cause any problems with the Straits of Hormuz for a long while after, to Libya who had been invaded Chad only years before etc. It was the 2003 invasion of Iraq that kicked off the nightmare and heightened regional and global instability. It was that massive miscalculation which hugely multiplied the number of jihadists and gave victories to radical Islamists. Remember Iran had been chanting death America for years by that point, religious zealots already hated America and the West.
- lostlogin 12y ago
  Regional stability didn't make for a very good time in Iraq if you were a Kurd, had supported the U.S. in any way or if you wanted to eat. Infant mortality went through the roof and the death toll from coalition bombing civilians was also a problem. Regional stability is a phrase that gets used to justify support for vicious dictatorships that suit foreign powers.