Off To War ?

clivex said:
Wrong. Lets go back to the liberation of europe shall we? Or Mali perhaps? You telling us that "no one' in Mali wanted to see the French troops there?
Click to expand...

The American and British didn't outstay their welcome, but the Russians did.

Its all sweeping statements. Britain US (and France no doubt) "wrong" , the rest "right'. Its lazy thinking and based on simple minded prejudice
Click to expand...

Methinks the lazy thinking and prejudice is coming from elsewhere.

If we hadnt intervened we would have had the following

Falklanders under Argentina
- Fair enough if you think the money spent was worth it

Mali under Al queda
- We'll see, the more difficult part is knowing what to do next.

South Korea under communism
- the end product of that war, a partitioned country with continuing tensions between the two parts, is not an unqualified success

Malaysia at war with indonesia
- don't know enough to comment

Kuwait invaded (and spreading war without doubt)
- this is a good example of a mission with a clear mandate under international law and limited purpose

Afganistan and AQ state launcing attacks on the west
- this makes about as much sense as attacking Dublin to get at the IRA would have

More destruction in Bosnia dn Kosovo
- more destruction? I wouldn't be so sure, are you aware what the NATO bombing did?

Sierra Leone under god knows what
- the British were there as part of a UN operation

Bar Iraq thats just about every conflict isnt it?
Bar Kenya that is, and Cyprus, Northern Ireland, Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan (Russians, US and British), Grenada, East Timor... I'm sure there are many more
Click to expand...


If i was under threat of and AQ takeover or a facist / communist invasion, i would be well pleased to "see troops on the street"
Click to expand...

I doubt it, because even if the troops were welcome for objective reasons, it would still be a blow to your pride to have to call on outside 'assistance', which would make you sensitive to any sign of arrogance on their part.


Many on the left do have sneaking admiration (or not always sneaking) for the genocidal regimes of AQ, saddam, communists and so on. We know that.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes::lol::p

Also the supposed analysis completely disregards that these wars have other players too. China, Russia and so on. They allowed a free reign are they?
Click to expand...

What gave you that idea? The Russian intervention in Afghanistan was just as doomed as the current US/British one, they drove central and eastern Europe into the arms of the west, and their support for Assad is prolonging an extremely bloody conflict.
 
Bar Iraq thats just about every conflict isnt it?
Bar Kenya that is, and Cyprus, Northern Ireland, Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan (Russians, US and British), Grenada, East Timor... I'm sure there are many m
Click to expand...

what rubbish

The british were not involved in Somalia, Vietnam, Grenada and East timor

Northern ireland is hardly a case of foreign troops ...whether you like it of not

Afganistan? Mentioned already. And like "attacking Dublin because of the IRA". So you are saying that Dublin fully protected and promoted and supplied the IRA? That Dublin ra training camps for the ira? Interesting. Would dublin have not have handed over a terrorist that had murdered thousands of British citizens in the IRA's name then?

Cyprus was to prevent civil war. Anything wrong with that?

Kenya was not an invasion

And that leaves?
 
Last edited:
South Korea under communism
- the end product of that war, a partitioned country with continuing tensions between the two parts, is not an unqualified success
Click to expand...

You kidding? The alternative was a North Korea right down to the southern tip

WTF
 
he Russian intervention in Afghanistan was just as doomed as the current US/British one, they drove central and eastern Europe into the arms of the west
Click to expand...

That is extremely tenuous. I really cannot believe for a moment that it took the Afgan war to convince the Poles that it was no longer worth living under the complete and comprehensively failed communist totalitarian creed
 
clivex said:
That is extremely tenuous. I really cannot believe for a moment that it took the Afgan war to convince the Poles that it was no longer worth living under the complete and comprehensively failed communist totalitarian creed
Click to expand...

I was linking dislike of Russia in central and eastern Europe to the Russians staying on in this places after the WW2 liberation was completed, not to Afghanistan
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
what rubbish

The british were not involved in Somalia, Vietnam, Grenada and East timor

Northern ireland is hardly a case of foreign troops ...whether you like it of not

Afganistan? Mentioned already. And like "attacking Dublin because of the IRA". So you are saying that Dublin fully protected and promoted and supplied the IRA? That Dublin ra training camps for the ira? Interesting. Would dublin have not have handed over a terrorist that had murdered thousands of British citizens in the IRA's name then?

Cyprus was to prevent civil war. Anything wrong with that?

Kenya was not an invasion

And that leaves?
Click to expand...

This is not all about Britain. Just how slow to get the point can you possibly be? It is about interventions by outside armies.

Regarding Northern Ireland, the only reason I mention it is that the troops were initally welcomed there by the catholic/nationalist population, but that cosy situation didn't last. I am perfectly aware that British troops are not 'foreign' in northern Ireland, even if some of them needed reminding of it.
 
Last edited:
"First you push on your territories, where you have no business to be, and where you had promised not to go; secondly, your intrusion provokes resentment, and resentment means resistance. Thirdly, you instantly cry out that the people are rebellious and their act is rebellion.......Fourthly, you send out a force to stamp out rebellion; and fifthly, having spread bloodshed, confusion and anarchy, you declare with your hands uplifted to the heavens that moral reasons forced you stay; for if you were to leave , this territory would be left in a condition which no civilized power could contemplate with equanimity or with composure."

- Viscount John Morley
State Secretary for India 1905 - 1910

(Well known leftie and Guardian reader)

Just read this at the front of an American Novel about the CIA.
 
I did not list the american actions. Have never discussed those

At the end of the day Grey you made sweeping statements about british troops "never being welcome" and "anywhere they go they do this and that" that simply dont stand up when you look at each conflict in detail.

many would contend that they have also carried out some excellent work in very difficult scenarios but that might be an objective opinion
 
My point is that sending armies into complex situations without a tightly specified mandate generally leads to consequences that cannot be forestalled or controlled and generally go from bad to worse.

It seems you want me to distinguish British troops from the rest, but I won't.

Do you remember in the early days of the Iraq business how the British troops were reported by the UK media to be more sensitive and more effective than their US counterparts? I don't hear those claims being made any more.
 
Do you remember in the early days of the Iraq business how the British troops were reported by the UK media to be more sensitive and more effective than their US counterparts? I don't hear those claims being made any more.
Click to expand...

No you don't

Might have something to do with the fact that they are no longer there
 
Looking at the latest footage from Syria, it goes beyond what almost any of us can comprehend as reality.

I don't know what the answer is but it is a truly horrific situation.
 
I think France are playing a cynical game here.
By demanding a forceful intervention in Syria, they can make themselves look caring and sympathetic. But at the same time they know that any U.N. approval for an attempt at intervention will be stymied by both Russia and China. They are talking-the-talk whilst confident in the knowledge that they won't have to walk the walk.
 
icebreaker said:
I think France are playing a cynical game here.
By demanding a forceful intervention in Syria, they can make themselves look caring and sympathetic. But at the same time they know that any U.N. approval for an attempt at intervention will be stymied by both Russia and China. They are talking-the-talk whilst confident in the knowledge that they won't have to walk the walk.
Click to expand...

Quite true

China are probably see the weapons as a market and Russia are viewing it as an excellent test run for the next gay pride march
 
Grey said:
They got involved in Libya alongside the British, and they have troops in Mali at the moment.
Click to expand...

British people live off untrue stereotypes to make themselves feel better about themselves and their country..
 
And some (wont decend to certain posters xenophobia) Irish people are obsessed with everything we say and do it would seem
 
Last edited:
walsworth said:
Makes a change.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this at all !
I understood from my history that France got involved in all kinds of militaristic stuff.
They declared war on Hitler ( alongside with Britain) in 19390, active in colonial Africa, Vietnam etc etc.
Weren't they a prime component in last year's Libya adventure?
 
Last edited:
I understand it

It was a joke. We all know they get involved but they are still cheeseeatingsurrendermonkeys
 
Back
Top