Defence cuts

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.guardian.c...s-attack-defence-cuts

Is it not sheer madness to make these excessive defence cuts while we are still taking part in two major military operations, Afghanistan and Libya?

When defence secretary Liam Fox was recently asked this question he admitted that Britain was putting more resources etc into the Libyan conflict than any of other nations, WHY?

He also said that the cost for these two operations did not come out of the defence budget, but out of a separate emergency pot.

I wonder were the money will come from when there is a real emergency?

[youngmafbog]

The defence cuts should be made.

Along with this we should take our noses out of every one elses business and have a force to defend our land only.

We should be fighting the evil forces we have within first.

[Gladeian]

And we still give away 11 billion quid to a load of free-loading nations who cannot control their own populations - STOP the foreign aid now !!

[andy-hughes]

It seems to me that the word 'defence' is being used by people who appear not to understand what it means.

I am quite happy for us to maintain a 'defence' force, if we feel we must, but that does not include sending out troops on invasion missions which are really not our concern, and in which we have no realistic means of concluding with anything that can be called a success.

Of course we need to scale back our armed forces - this is 2012, and it should have dawned on us by now that we lack the finance, the expertise, or the willingness to go picking fights with other nations who'se armies consist of people perfectly willing to die to defend their ways of life.

There are far more pressing needs for the billions of pounds wasted on 'defence' - but which government is ever going to admit that? not one which fancies winning the next election, that's for sure!

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// and it should have dawned on us by now that we lack the finance, the expertise, or the willingness to go picking fights with other nations who'se armies consist of people perfectly willing to die to defend their ways of life.///

We may lack the finances although the politicians would have us think differently when it comes to certain expenditure.

But I must take issue with your last two reasons, we do not lack the expertise, or the willingness to fight, far from it Britain has the most willing and expertise fighting force in the world.

Regarding picking fights with other nations whose armies consist of people perfectly willing to die to defend their way of life.

Does that include the Libyan theatre of war?

Are we not there to stop the Libyan army from massacring large numbers of innocent Women and Children?

I don't call that defending their way of life.

[andy-hughes]

What about the Mugabe regime? Torture, murder and supression as a routine way of life.

These attrocities occur all over the world - but military intervention from a country that is long on principle and short on manpower and resources means we look to the world like a nation with 'small man' syndrome - constantly trying to prove how tough we are - regardless of the actual as opposed to imagined) outcomes for all concerned.

Remember how our involvement in Lybia started? Gadaffi was on the way out, all we needed to do was hitch a ride with the rebels and see him off.

Except that didn't happen, and now we are stuck there, stretching our resources yet again in a conflict that is not ours, and which we cannot realisitically win.

And yet again - no thought of the vaccum that Gadaffi will leave behind if he does go.

We as a nation need to concentrate on the direct threats to our safety, and put our armed forces into those, and leave America to play the bg 'I am' arfound the world - except now, they can't afford it either!

This waste of money is immoral, and continues to be so.

[andy-hughes]

I agreee Steve5 - and I do wonder about the thinking of the government who, after all, do not have to live (and die!) with the decisions they make.

I recall the reluctance of the Tory government to engage Argentina over the Falklands, because with the exception of Thatcher and one minister, everyone around that table had been directly involved in a war, and knew what military conflict is really about.

Now, it's an abstract concept, and pushed by people who have a versted interest in it - generals and so forth, whose raison d'etre is to fight other armies.

It's time to be civilised, and try diplomacy first and hardest, threats last and least, and military invasion not at all.

[anotheoldgit]

Andy-Hughes & Steve.5

I agree entirely with you Andy also Steve.

Nowhere did I agree with Britain policing the World.

I was merely criticising the politicians over the massive defence cuts when they are still prepared to send our forces out to do their dirty work on a cut-price basis.

Regarding my remark on the Libyan conflict, I also taking to task Andy's words,

/// picking fights with other nations who'se armies consist of people perfectly willing to die to defend their ways of life.///

We may be picking a fight in this instance, but surely on a humanitarian basis, almost like offering a military type of foreign aid to an ailing nation's people.

[andy-hughes]

Thank you for your comments AOG.

I see that our exchnage is simply about the finer points, since we broadly agree on the main one.

I can see your point about military 'aid' - which is laudible, if misplaced, but again I take issue with the simple fact that none of the politicians have looked at the possible resolution of this situation - or considered the fact that - as it has turned out - Gadaffi will not simply pack up his tent and steal away, which was the perceived result.