Can Brown convince the doubters?
Losing the argument over Britain's continued involvement in Afghanistan is much more of a concern for Gordon Brown than losing the defence secretary's aide, Eric Joyce.
The two are, though, connected.
Today's restatement by the prime minister of the war's mission, his defence of the resources he's committed to it, and his outlining of an exit strategy was planned long before Mr Joyce resigned but his resignation highlighted why it was needed.
Downing Street has watched with concern as polls show only around a third of the public back staying in Afghanistan whatever the cost, whilst a third want withdrawal now, and a third to see it within a year. They've been anxious about a growing split with some in the military. They've disliked a campaign in the Sun newspaper under the headline "Don't they know there's a bloody war on?"
The prime minister is hinting that fewer British troops will be needed IF more Afghan troops can be trained fast enough. BUT, the military are warning him that - in the short run at least - that will actually mean sending more soldiers to do that training.
Today, once again, people lined up on the streets of Wootton Bassett to pay their respects to the two latest fallen soldiers to be flown home.
The test of the prime minister's speech is whether he can convince at least some of the doubters that the losses and the pain were worth it.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~45~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Nothing to do with keeping terror off UK shores and everything to do with keeping in with the Americans.
It's an unwinnable war - always has been, always will be, and many have tried and failed before now.
Complain about this comment
Can Brown convince anyone of anything, anymore?
No!
Unless of course they're completely stupid and have absolutely no understanding of the meaning of the words honesty and integrity.
Complain about this comment
I am interested in the apparent focus on the currant bun.
Maybe I am displaying real political naivety, but does it really matter what the Sun trumpets?
If it does, then that would seem to indicate a pretty sad level of political understanding by that part of the electorate.
It may once have been the case of 'it woz the Sun wot done it' but I would have hoped that the electorate might have become a tad more sophisticated in the interventing period.
Complain about this comment
In answer to the Sun's question. No, I don't think they do.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Can Brown convince the doubters?"
No.
". . . his defence of the resources he's committed to it"
Should that not read
"his defence of the resources he's NOT committed to it"?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
In twenty years we may be able to look back and say whether our time in Afghanistan was worth it, but we are simply unable to say that at the moment. Brown does not have the luxury of waiting so long however, he has to say the right thing now to keep voters on his side this close to a General Election.
We should have learned from Northern Ireland that terrorism does not simply go away when faced with soldiers. The end of the troubles only came with much political effort.
Complain about this comment
It's a little difficult to know exactly what Brown's strategy really is.
"Each time I have to ask myself if we can justify sending our young men and women to fight for this cause. And my answer has always been yes."
That's the problem. If you truly believe that YOU are the one person who needs to be asked, you're likely to get the answer you want.
- Brown should ask the Afghans exactly what they plan to do to help themselves.
- He should ask - then respond to - the military about exactly what they can achieve given required numbers of troops and equipment.
- He should check with Pakistan whether they can genuinely address the "Taliban problem".
- He should thump the desk and ask what's the point of having NATO European forces mopping up costs but not allowed out after dark.
And at least be honest enough to say that the "problem" won't be resolved for at least a decade.
Complain about this comment
3. JohnConstable wrote:
I am interested in the apparent focus on the currant bun.
Maybe I am displaying real political naivety, but does it really matter what the Sun trumpets?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, apparently so mate.
Just heard a Radio 4 interview with the Sun Rep who recons that he speaks for millions of people.
Think the guy needs to go back & top up on his pils (sic).
Ever seen the sketch with Jasper Carrot where he points out all of the errors in a Sun report about his family?
He could rehash it now, pointing out that they wont have much of a chance reporting on Afghanistan.
Then again, as a scouser, I wouldn’t believe anything the Sun has to say anyway.
Brown & the Sun, Best Friends Forever.
Complain about this comment
Nobody knows whether pacifying the Taliban will bring respite from terrorist attacks, either here or in Europe. Not because the Taliban are not dangerous to us, but because nobody can predict the future.
But it's reasonable to conclude from their previous actions and current statements that the Taliban intends to remain a threat. Especially to newsworthy cities like London.
Other European countries free-ride on the back of USA & UK efforts. If our efforts work, they will claim that an absence of attacks means our efforts were not worthwhile. If they suffer terrorist attacks, they will claim it's not their governments' fault. So it's not an easy win situation for the UK.
My net assessment is that the risk of a Taliban inspired attack on Londoners is far too high for us NOT to be seeking the defeat of terrorism in Afghanistan. So press on!!
Complain about this comment
Can Brown convince the doubters? The short answer is 'No'. For two reasons, one is that the argument that the war is necessary in order to keep the streets of Britain safe is completely unbelievable. The opposite is true, it's more likely to result in terrorist attacks seeking revenge. The second being that the public no longer listens to Gordon Brown. We know it's a political war, again fought on the coat tails of the Americans.
It's a terrible tragedy that lives are being lost because politicians can't admit the war is un-winnable and would rather cling to power that face that fact. Ask the Russians.
Complain about this comment
It was blatantly obvious Brown was reading a speech put together by some nameless and unqualified civil servant wholly lacking in military experience. I also wondered whether Brown had actually read the darned thing before he started reading!
'We will send 200 EOD experts' became "we will at the same time remove 200 infantry soldiers to keep force levels and expenditure the same!" No one believes Brown anymore and Joyce jumping ship in an attempt to save his skin for reselection in Falkirk where he is detested will not save him or this rotten Labour government who ALWAYS put party first never country. Brown NEVER makes a decision unless he can gain party advantage from it and stuff the people who die as a result. In the olden days he would be charged with treason and sitting in the Tower by now.
Complain about this comment
I don't think any of the "Man of the World" type reasons for being in Afghanistan stack up - in particular, I don't see how it's making us (or anybody) one iota safer from terrorism - quite the opposite, if anything - no, I don't buy any of that stuff - the much better angle (IMO) is a moral one - the Taliban, in their ignorant and disgusting treatment of women, have placed themselves beyond the pale - it's every bit as bad as apartheid South Africa - unacceptable, which means cannot be accepted - therefore the cause is a good and noble one, if we see it as a fight against the oppression of women - has particular resonance (or should have) in a country like ours which has made substantial progress in that particular area over recent years, courtesy of people like Harriet Harman - so I'd like to see our involvement "rebranded" along those lines - a war of liberation on behalf of Afghan women - trouble is, it's hard to see how we can win militarily without using so much brute force that the only thing we end up truly defeating is the object - I was a "troops home" person until just a couple of minutes ago, but now I'm not so sure - (1) ramp up and really go for it? (2) pull out? (3) carry on as we are? - it's such a difficult issue - not sure there's even a Clown consensus on this one
Complain about this comment
I actually read the Sun with the headline "Don't they know there's a bloody war on" and I have to say that it was a very powerful piece of journalism.
They are right to say that MPs and ministers are swanning around on holiday without a care in the world whilst our troops are dying. Far too many politicians regard this as an inconvenient difficulty happening somewhere far away. Most of them have absolutely no idea what is happening. Gordon Brown has indeed abdicated responsibility for the war to Bob Ainsworth! That's how seriously he is taking the war.
The Sun were absolutely right to highlight these points, and to say that if Gordon Brown could not provide the leadership required for this war, then he should step aside and allow someone else to be PM who could.
The issues regarding kit, helicopters etc are well documented, but appointing someone of the calibre of Bob Ainsworth as Defence Secretary is the final straw and an insult to the country. It's not that long ago that the role was being done part-time. Gordon Brown is hopelessly out of his depth here, where real leadership is required. He should resign, and I would go further and say that the Labour MPs who are keeping him in his position are just as much to blame. Shame on them all.
Complain about this comment
How and why did the UK get drawn into the war in Serbia - How and why then did the US get drawn to the war in Serbia and save Blair's reputation?
How and why did the UK get drawn into Afghanistan in 2001 and what were the war aims at that time?
How and why did the UK get drawn into the 2nd war in Iraq - what was the connection?
Why did Brown not clarify the UK commitment as part of a larger coalition force to the campaign, since the election of President Obama?
It seems to me that the UK is still paying a very high price for satisfying egos and saving reputations.
Sometimes when a decision/strategy is wrong - someone somewhere has to admit that and save unnecessary loss of life.
The UK may be trying to be the world's policeman but millions of people, in the UK, do not feel reasonably safe walking, alone, down the street at night - even outside their own homes!
A misplaced sense of priorities?
Complain about this comment
Until the strategic objective changes to winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people and changing the cultuure that has managed to thwart every invader then and only then will the possibility of a peaceful country even come on the agenda.
Most wars are lost not due to lack of military might, but lack of will of the people. Until the Afghan people want the West, Russia, anyone more than they want rid of their warring, tribal way of life this country will continue to be what it has for the last few hundred years.
Complain about this comment
When Gordon Brown speaks nobody listens because the trust has long gone. Does he think that we have forgotten those words from John Reid a few years back about no shots being fired? If we are not careful Afghan will still be going years down the line. Perhaps he should ask the Russians for some advise on Afghan.
Complain about this comment
No one buys the "keeping terrorism off the streets line" anymore - it is insulting to our intelligence to keep re-iterating this sort of drivel.
However if we share Hilary Clinton's "responsibility gene" we must accept that by our actions we have changed the situation in Afghanistan and encouraged people to act against the practices of the Taliban on the basis that we will protect them. We cannot in those circumstances just turn our backs on the Afghanis and in particular the womenfolk and leave them to the mercy of the Taliban.
As someone with little time for Brown, in fairness I have to say that the responsibility for much of this lies with Blair and I have never been convinced Brown has been fully behind the war.
Complain about this comment
Afghanistan is the 30 million poverty stricken almost illiterate people. They are keen on finding their next meal and keeping a roof over their head. What I did not hear in Gordon Brown's speech was any reference to improving the lot of the people.
Backing one unpleasant dictator over another is too redolent of Iraq (under Saddam), Vietnam (under Nguyễn Văn Thiệu) and Chile (under Pinochet) to be a viable strategy and that is my worry. Where is the talk of bringing education and jobs to the Afghan people, where are 'our' mullahs!?
Complain about this comment
@14 Sagamix wrote:
"I'd like to see our involvement "rebranded" along those lines - a war of liberation on behalf of Afghan women "
I share your abhorrence of the way the Taliban treat women and you might even be right that such a cause justifies our involvement and loss of life. Unfortunately, if we rebranded our efforts as you suggest we would instantly lose 99% of the support we currently have from the only people (sadly) who matter in Afghanistan, the men. Just check out Karzai's record on justice for rapists and their victims.
Complain about this comment
As was seen in Iraq it was a fairly easy job to defeat an army but very hard to beat terrorist organisations which have a never ending supply of recruits and drug funds. We are supposedly world experts after all the years fighting the IRA but there has been no sign yet of overall defeat of the Taleban. I object to hearing people say that we are at war with the Taleban. If we declare war on anyone we must , as in the last war, fight as a country with conscription etc and high production levels of the weapons needed to absolutely flatten the enemy. The current half hearted approach will never work and we shall continue to have troops killed albeit relatively low numbers compared to 39/45 when on some single days we lost more lives than all the years against the Taleban.
Complain about this comment
Brown has lost all creditabilty and I doubt anyone now trusts him, his days are numbered. He will end up as a disgrunteled back bencher, if he is fortunate enough to get re-elected as a MP, Which I feel could be touch & go.
Complain about this comment
I decided to read The Sun's piece 'Don't you know there's a bloody war on?" on the web.
There is a veritable litany of complaints and I am certainly familiar with the one about the battlefield radio system (Bowman) as it was the last thing I was involved with in the military before I quit in disgust back in 1992.
However, accepting that the MoD is 'not fit for purpose' and that the overall political direction is woeful, supports my assertion that our so-called allies in NATO/EU must get more involved in Afghanistan.
We are simply do not appear have the military capabilities or the political will (sadly demonstrated in Basra) to do all that is asked.
Complain about this comment
#20 - John_from_Hendon
Not making light of you post, with which I am inclined to agree but how on earth did you get the bot to print those accents? - just once more please for we more simple minded:-)
Complain about this comment
I find it odd that over the years Al Qaeda and the Taliban - originally separate - have become merged by those in the west . So much so that Al Qaeda is very rarely spoken of , it's all Taliban now. So what are we doing ? originally this war was against Al Qaeda ( to satisfy the US's desire for revenge - which we were 'requested ' to join) , the Taliban being merely a hindrance in this effort . So will someone please tell me where Al Qaeda is/are now? - if here it is because of the folly of the adventurism of Blair and Bush in this part of the world . The threat to this country has never been greater than since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq . In that respect Brown is correct , because of the folly of this government since 2001 , we are a terrorist target and we have to try and eradicate it . Talk about shooting oneself in the foot!!!
Complain about this comment
I suppose the thing really is, after all the dust settles from a speech which didn't carry much conviction, from a man who seems to have outlived his role as news broke that St Obama thought Brown was yesterday's man...and he "connected" with Cameroon...how long do we have to put up with no leadership
I'm no great fan of The Sun, but at least they are standing up for our boys out there
Even after the speech, are we any clearer on the "mission" or why our boys body count increases whilst Brown hides on holiday?
Complain about this comment
I seem to recall the original mission in Afghanistan was to destroy the terrorist training bases supported by the Taliban after the 11 / 11 outrage. This war aim was rapidly achieved by the military power of the United States supported by the UK. Then political hubris took over, and we are now find ourselves in a terrible mess with no escape route in sight. I suspect the only real way out is by hard fighting, defeating the Taliban in the field and forcing them to the negotiating table. This means fighting, using such weapons as mines for area denial, air launched smart munitions, infantry assaults upon their camps, and even, God forbid, napalm, fuel air bombs and chemical weapons to kill them in their caves. And providing the manpower to do it. And providing the funds to do it. Then, negotiate a workable peace, and allow the Afghans to surrender without too much loss of face, and get out. The current political party leaders are incapable of doing this, we need another Eisenhower or Churchill.
Once out, re-equip and refit, support our Armed Forces and Industry. Fund them properly, but not over generously, keep them lean and mean. In future, use a style of tactics used by the Israelis, find them, go in hard, kill them, get out.
This is the true and shocking face of war, and those who commit Nations to it must be very sure of their intentions – they will one day have to answer to “He who is most Holy”.
Complain about this comment
Intersting tha he asks himself if we are doing the right thing being in Afghanistan, and he answers himself with a " Yes" .
He'll be chatting to God next and then he'll tell us that God will be his judge ,just like another despicable creature.
Complain about this comment
14. sagamix wrote:
"I don't think any of the "Man of the World" type reasons for being in Afghanistan stack up - in particular, I don't see how it's making us (or anybody) one iota safer from terrorism - quite the opposite, if anything - no, I don't buy any of that stuff - the much better angle (IMO) is a moral one - the Taliban, in their ignorant and disgusting treatment of women, have placed themselves beyond the pale.."
=
No place for archaic beliefs like theirs... but by that reasoning we would have to declare war on a few other Muslim countries. Granted not many are as extreme as the Taliban but a few of our 'allies' deny women their human rights.
Complain about this comment
Diabloandco @ 29
Mr. Brown says he is asking himself if we are doing the right thing by being in Afghanistan and answering himself in the affirmative.
Maybe he should be considering a slightly different question along the lines of "Do our resources (in the very widest sense of the word) match our commitment in Afghanistan?".
Then he should ask the military top brass (not himself) for their blunt opinion and if the answer is "No" and he should take immediate steps to scale back our commitment whilst simultaneously insisting that our so-called allies in NATO/EU pick up the baton.
Complain about this comment
First Afghan War 1839 to 1842
Second Afghan War 1878 to 1880
Third Afghan War May 1919 to August 1919
USSR Afghan Invasion 1979 to 1989
Fourth Afghan War 2002 to Date
That is a partial statement of history. The results have been the same many dead and withdrawl.
Brown's view is to try the same approach as in Iraq, train up the locals then get out and leave it to them. Not quite sure how that will make UK any safer as we are then relying on others to do this for us. Pakistan on the other side of the border is also having problems and they have a more educated military.
Brown is just trying to find shortterm solutions that will address criticism from the Sun ("The paper that won it"). Turning up in Afghanistan just after the article appears convenient.
We need serious politicians to address this very serious problem. This Govt rules by soundbite and it just doesnt work.
Who is paying the price; the military are and they are doing as they are told by a collection of spin doctors. They cant give a truthful straight answer to any question.
Call an election. Let us get a government in that has the authority to govern which this current administration does not have. Then maybe some serious solutions can be found quickly.
Complain about this comment
TBG @ 30
by that reasoning we would have to declare war on a few other Muslim countries
well I take a dim view of Islam (indeed most religions) but the Taliban is a cruel and unusual perversion - Turkey, for example, is a Muslim country and you can't move over there without tripping over a woman who's a senior executive in something or other - they're considerably more advanced than we are, in fact - and no, I certainly wouldn't suggest we start a new Rumble somewhere else just to maintain the internal logic of the argument - we are already, like it or not, involved in this one ... in Afghanistan ... and it's a special case for that reason - no easy answers though, that's for sure
Complain about this comment
The problem is we made a mistake in the first place, the government will not admit to this so we are paying with our troops.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
3#
To take each point in turn...
1) Yes, unfortunately it does.
2) Also, to our eternal shame, your supposition in this case is also true.
3) Hah. I wish. (underlined 5 times in red pen). Chance would be a fine thing.
Complain about this comment
"a safer Afghanistan means a safer Britain.." The premise is flawed, in fact it is probable that the opposite is true...The UK has been sucked into an un-winnable war...He should know with his government's experience in Northern Ireland that terrorists will never be beaten by war and in the end it will come down to negotiating with the Taliban.. and this could take 30 years.... how many more cortèges driving through Wooton Basset will the British public accept before withdrawal becomes politically necessary?
Complain about this comment
I very much doubt it, he has lost direction somewhere,and so has the Labour Party, His intentions saeem good, as were his Party's, but everybody knows what the road to hell is paved with.
Complain about this comment
33#
Yes, because Turkey is (nominally anyway) a secular democracy, rather than a feudal, tribal collection of provinces as is Afghan.
However, TBG does have a point. Such a rebranding would put us at odds with a significant portion of the Islamic world, a number of which we rely on not only for our oil supply, but also for buying up our debt - Islam's position on female circumcision for instance, I would venture would be one particular element that certainly would make Hattie apoplectic - if you think what has happened over the last few weeks with Libya is distasteful, you'd be really cheesed off if that particular set of events was to end up facing us. Even you mate. You're probably right that there is not a conservative consensus on the subject either, but in truth, I'm not sure many of us really expected one. Not from anyone on any bench in this parliament.
This next comment isnt aimed at you in particular Saga, but think about how the Taleb's came into being and what the circumstances were that led to their inception - ie, after the end of the Soviet invasion, etc. Whether anyone approved of what they were doing and how they did it was niether here nor there. They filled a political vaccuum. Bear in mind what the political situation has been in Afghan for most of the last century. The Talebs were not elected into power, they siezed it. Because they were not only largely unopposed by any reasonable credible force, but also because the warlords who had been running things in the meantime had not exactly covered themselves in glory. Not to mention the involvement of Pakistan's ISI. I heard it argued the other day that Afghan's borders and composition was effectively designed to be unstable to keep apart the former British Empire's Indian interests and those of the former Soviet Russia - with a inherently unstable entity keeping the two interests apart, it suited the interests of both nations. (I hadnt thought about it before, but I think it may have some validity, but I'll need to read more about it.)
And, like other organisations before them, in other countries, they are not all they seem and neither are the countries that oppose them. Start googling things like protection being paid to the Talebs to ensure safe passage of convoys to allow schools to be built that they then blow up (similar things happened in NI in the 1970's). Look on Michael Yons blog about how despite us losing lives sending troops to the Kajaki Dam, rebuilding the generators there, that we dont have the troop levels to protect the other power stations further downstream - the Talebs control these totally and utterly and therefore have the local populace by the short and curlies. Afghanistan is about 500 years behind the rest of the planet and democracy is never going to take root there. Anyone who thinks it will is mistaken.
If Gordon does have an exit strategy, I'll be intrigued to see what it is. All that will happen is that they will appear to train up the ANA and the ANP and then they will leg it.
And when they leg it, what happened in Iraq will look like a chimps tea party. The Talebs will return and it will be a bloodbath. Scores will be settled and it will revert to being a failed state and it will remain as one. This particular genie is out of the bottle and is not going to go back in. The Afghans unfortunately cannot be helped unless they are prepared to help themselves and they do not have the individual or collective will to do so. Paying a blood price with our troops is not worth it.
Complain about this comment
Good evening each & Nick.
How now, Brown? Cow?
Over the moon, cow?
Magic beans, cow?
Now Brown how?
Milch cow now?
Low brow now?
Or just low.
You low.
The thin end of the wedge.
Complain about this comment
#39 Fubar_Saunders
You make a lot of sense (unlike the political leaders of the UK).
Afghanistan is a state effectively constructed by the agression of the British and Russian Empires (and their failure to conquer large bits of it). While the Durrani Empire from 1747 was just as bad at subjugating peoples as the Brits and Russians were, there is a need to readjust the boundaries of imperially constructed states like Afghanistan and Pakistan to create homogenous national states.
The Pashtun (the Taliban is essentially a Pashtun organisation) deserve to have their own state. If they choose to run it undemocratically, how is that different from the Saudis?
Any state that hosts terrorists training camps is essentially an outlaw state, and I don't have a problem with bombing those camps - though I'm not sure wheo would have bombed America's training camps for the Contras!
As to having UK troops in Afghanistan? It is palpable nonsense, and just another example of the Brits failing to realise that they are an irrelevance in the modern world.
Complain about this comment
#9 fairly
"Brown should ask the Afghans exactly what they plan to do to help themselves"
The problem is, who are 'the Afghans'? And who can speak on their collective behalf? The country is made up of warring factions. Even the Afghan 'government' lacks credibility due to the flawed election process.
"He should ask - then respond to - the military about exactly what they can achieve given required numbers of troops and equipment."
To ask the military what they can achieve is difficult when the exact aim of the 'mission' seems to be uncertain and shifting. Some people say it's about installing a stable democracy. Frankly, that is going to be very difficult to achieve, particularly in the short term. A more realistic view is to assist the de facto government to exercise better control over the country - and in particular to prevent the Taliban from gaining any ground.
"He should check with Pakistan whether they can genuinely address the Taliban problem"
This is the crux of the matter. The Taliban operate in both Afghanistan and Pakistan - borders are of no real interest to them. Because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, it is even more important that the Taliban are not able to destabilise the country. If the Taliban or Al Qaeda were able to get their hands on those weapons, the consequences would obviously be dire.
Afghanistan AND Pakistan both need support - they are not separate issues.
"He should thump the desk and ask what's the point of having NATO European forces mopping up costs but not allowed out after dark"
Of course you are right. The problem is politicians always keep their eyes firmly on the opinion polls. There is a mood amongst many voters that this situation is hopeless, it's not 'our' problem, why not just leave them to get on with it? So, realistically, how many NATO countries are likely to commit extra troops?
After the Iraq war and all the warnings leading up to it regarding weapons of mass destruction, people are wary and weary. Understandably, civilised people just want all the fighting to stop - particularly when they see the coffins coming home. Now, when there are warnings about the Taliban and Al Qaeda, people don't take it too seriously. It's like the story of 'the boy who cried wolf'.
But in that story, the wolf was real. As is the threat of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and not to forget Iran.
People seem very ready to accept the dangers of Global Climate Change, but don't want to face up to Global Extremism. In the not so distant past, wars resulted when one country threatened another. But this isn't about countries or borders. It is a global issue resulting from a violent conflict of ideologies.
I wish I knew the answer, but ignoring the problem will not make it go away.
Complain about this comment
Nick:
I have my serious doubts that Gordon Brown can convince the doubters on the reasons....
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
If we are fortunate the equipment needed will arrive in time for the soldiers to come home in.
When the Government announced that helicopters and vehicles would be ready in a further 18 months, why didn't anyone question the time it was to take then and the apparent long term commitment made by this bunch of idiots.
There has never been any intention of leaving this field of conflict any time in the future.
The theory, I suspect being..keep Taliban busy in thier back yard and they won't be over here.
In the meantime, keep blowing up and shooting the civilians is not the way to restore peace.
GB always evades the truth and is constantly in denial about everything. About time we got a leader we can trust and I am not sure your man Cameron's one of those either.
Complain about this comment
I'm slightly concerned about Gordon Brown playing questions and answers with himself. Its slighty "Yes Prime Minister" -ish, where Jim Hacker dicates his diaries into a cassette tape recorder. He found great comfort in this as the tape recorder listened uncritically to what he said, and when played back, the tape repeated his own thoughts and ideas back to him. He found this very reassuring.
I'm sure that Gordon Brown similarly finds great comfort what he does - and from the fact he can choose the questions he asks himself - both in subject and phrasing - comes up with an answer, decides if the answer is correct and uncritically accepts the answer without having to explain or justify it to anyone.
Given his performance at PMQs and TV interviews, it must be the first time he's actually answered a question from anyone.
Complain about this comment
So many Comments leaping on to resigned Junior Minister Eric Joyce to back up their anti-Brown/Govnt/NuLb views!
How many had even an inkling of the existence of Eric Joyce before his resignation?
How many realise Eric Joyce had also quit the Army because he did not get a promotion he had anticipated?
How many now place all their vitriol around the resignation of 1 man who frankly was not as Mr Robinson tried to allude of any significance except that he resigned at such a moment?
So what Mr Joyce thinks the Government policy in Afghanistan is misguided: If you actually read all that he said it appears nobody is doing anything the way he wants them to, so he quit. Well, that is about the only substantive thing he has done.
Complain about this comment
#42, DistantTraveller wrote:
"#9 fairly
"Brown should ask the Afghans exactly what they plan to do to help themselves"
The problem is, who are 'the Afghans'? And who can speak on their collective behalf? The country is made up of warring factions. Even the Afghan 'government' lacks credibility due to the flawed election process."
Distant,
I agree. But that was already the circumstance before the invasion, so should have been no surprise to our political leaders after the invasion.
The Taliban exercised political control by cooperating with tribal / regional war-lords, who appeared quite happy with a rather harsh interpretation of Islam.
Taking out the central Talib administration didn't change anything else. But surely even the US and UK governments could not imagine that simply parachuting in a reasonably tame Interim (then formal) President would change the whole landscape?
At the least they should have demanded wide ranging regular contact with the war-lords to attempt to broker some sense of pan-Afghan co-operation. Maybe it happens? But it doesn't look as though Karzai's power stretches far beyond Kabul.
It's quaint (or rediculous) to assume a sudden jump from Taliban - essentially strictly religious - control to the type of secular democracy that the West has only really had for less than a century. (Arguably an inclusive democracy respecting different races, cultural variations, etc is still being worked on and is a post-WWII phenomenon!)
In the West, we accept / tolerate central governments who garner taxes and promise to spend our money better than we could ourselves. What exactly is Kabul Central spending on behalf of the people? Do they see benefits from a new style of government investing to improve the nation's future? If not, when could they expect to?
The Taliban reflect a way of looking at society (which I don't happen to like) and could decide to sit on their hands for years before coming back in to try and seize power again. Especially if a central government proves to be corrupt (and there are worrying comments about that in the press).
Saddam was a dictator who used brutal power to maintain relative stability within Iran. There was no evidence that he would have tolerated an out-of-control Al-Qaeda disrrupting his control. Overthrowing his centralised structure was militarily quite easy. (Arguably should have been done a decade previously, post Kuwait...)
Post-Saddam, all the inherent tensions between religious and cultural groups will take decades to work themselves out.
Afghanistan was never remotely close to the state of infrastructural development that even Iraq had achieved. It will take a generation for the population to work out how to create and live within a functioning political structure they are prepared to tolerate.
Pragmatically, some federalist approach, reflecting the reality of regional power bases seems the only short-term way forward. "Take out" the war-lords and you'll just have a mess of regional conflicts that would take another 100,000 troops to combat.
The West complains about the economic damage done by drugs. So buy the poppies at a price competitive with/higher than the Taliban or others pay - and destroy what can't be used for medicinal purposes. Set up structures whereby part of those payments is set aside to invest in "stuff" the local population needs. (That could include defence against the Taliban, as well as infrastructure.)
Savage, maybe, but put a bounty on the head of any incursors who attempt to disrupt local communities. We're not dealing with a bit of down-town disruption on the streets of London or Liverpool... This really is more like the Wild West. The USA was not built on fine words and promises - it was savagely won before becoming a relatively civilised place!
Complain about this comment
The notion that Gordon Brown is anchored in reality takes yet another hit.
Nick, if you and other commentators want to get a feel for the reality of life on the frontline in Afghanistan for British forces.....simples......read this
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/michael-s-dispatches/
Bash
Complain about this comment
Brown's continuing assertion that the war in Afghanistan is necessary to prevent the spread of Islamic terrorism to the UK is a nonsense.
Indeed if he doesn't stop the New Labour ruling class's ludicrous obsession with multi-culturalism and diversity, the troops may soon be on duty in places like Birmingham, Leeds, London and Manchester, never mind Helmand Province. Wake up, Gordon. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
Dear Nick,
I would far more believe GB if he actually ment anything. His reguard for the military is none, and how many funerals has he personally attended?
The military is a drain on his resorces and he does not like it.
Xxxx
Complain about this comment
oldnat and #41.
Re, "...UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan... another example of Brits failing to realise they are irrelevant in the world.."
Aye!?
What!?
Iraq and Afghanistan exercise immense Public concern and Government time - - rightly so, for they are that 'lives at risk' augmentation of State policy and therefore the rights and wrongs are hotly debated - - however, they are just 2 relatively minor affairs in the life and direction of the United Kingdom.
The lives lost and damaged in UK Armed Forces and by those perceived as enemies and civilians that UK Government policy instructs they aggress can never be replaced: However tragic and costly in human terms, in terms of the UK's overall situation the casualties of war are not how any Nation is measured.
How on earth could you write so knowledgeably on the creation of Afghanistan and then so palpably unrealistically on the UK just a paragraph later!?
UK is Member of G8 and G20 Economic forums, Permanent member of the UN Security Council, major contributor to the World Monetary Fund, substantial World Economic contributor (depending on the statistic either 5th or 6th largest economy), in top6 of World Aid provision for Food-AIDS-Medicine/Health-Disaster Emergency Services, a Nuclear Weapons power, London Financial centre 1st/2nd/3rd (depending on volume/value type) in the World, 2nd largest contributor to the European Union, leading State of the Commonwealth of Nations, populated by a multi-cultural 60,000,000 people....
The list goes on...
One can only assume you had the 'English' planks in your 'nationalist' eyes again and thus came out with such a ridiculous "... irrelevance in the modern world.." statement.
Complain about this comment
meninwhitecoats and #19.
Re, "..no one buys the "keeping terrorism off the streets line" anymore.."
I do.
It seems to me patently obvious: There are Al Queda terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and no doubt elsewhere where Islamic fundamentalism has a grip, e.g. Somalia and Yemen).
Correct me if I am wrong, but, when I read the Report on the USA September 11th and UK July 7th attacks they were carried out by dedicated Islamic fundamentalists who had all been to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
This is also true of the perpetrators of attacks on Tourists and high profile 'western' used sites in Kenya, Tanzanier, Bali, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, India, Pakistan and of course Israel.
I am sure I have forgotten some.
You may think everything started with the Twin Towers etc., but those of us who have taken time to to look properly at world affairs concerning 'terrorism' can quite clearly see all the evidence points to a concerted Islamic fundamentalist terror movement stretching back over 2 decades.
It does not matter a jot if Bin Laden was once on the Americans side in a war in Afganistan against Soviet Russia - - the fact is Bin Laden is now an enemy of the 'west' whose aim is the overthrow of democracy and the imposition of Islamic Sharia law - - you would do well to remember the differing lifestyles the USA and the Taliban-Al Queda represent.
If you prefer Sharia law applied to the Human Race do stand up and say so - - that is your right under democratic methods - - the Fundamentalist of course would not allow you or anyone that right of choice.
Complain about this comment
The real question here is where is the money? and one thing is for certain it cannot come from the other services.
If we wont fund this with new money then we should make a timely and orderly withdrawl. Its simply not worth destroying our present and future maritime and air strength in order to remain in ths campaign.
And with regard to Mr Cleggs recent call for an increase in armed forces pay he must know that any such increase can only come at the expense of remaining or future military power. This of course is the trap.
Complain about this comment
46. At 09:35am on 05 Sep 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
So many Comments leaping on to resigned Junior Minister Eric Joyce to back up their anti-Brown/Govnt/NuLb views!
===
No different to those NuLab supporters jumping on comments made by Daniel Hannan to reinforce their anti-Conservative prejudices. Get over it. What goes around, comes around!
Complain about this comment
Brown is a lost cause and the Afgan "problem" is just another example of his failure to understand the reality of the situation.
So the answer to the question is a definitive NO !
Complain about this comment
My no. 5 was moderated. Heaven knows why and I haven't been given the courtesy of an explanation. By the time I have or it gets reinstated it will have lost its impetus and nobody will be reading anyway (if in fact they ever did!).
In essence: Nobody believes what Brown says. He is the corrupt leader of a corrupt government. Trouble is if we pull out now our boys will have gone to war in vain. Dreadful Catch 22 situation.
There is a big cover up and it is all politically driven - as usual.
Complain about this comment
56 flamepatricia
The reason we are involved in Afghanistan - oil.
The reason we were involved in Iraq - oil.
The reason Megrahi was not excluded from a prisoner transfer agreement as promised - oil. As confirmed by Jack Straw today in an interview with the Daily Telegraph.
Can you see a pattern here?
It also explains why we didn't get involved in other countries with equally appalling human rights records, such as Sudan/ Darfur, Zimbabwe and many others.
Complain about this comment
What really infuriates me is the continuous use of the word “we” by various Secretaries of State, ministers, and the Prime Minister of this pathetic government. As in “we are doing so-and-so”, and “we are doing this” in Afghanistan.
How dare these people in their comfy offices attempt to equate themselves with members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. It is not them or members of their families who are fighting and dying with sub-standard equipment. It is not them who are burying loved-ones. It won’t be their children growing up without one of their parents, killed on a foreign field. I could go on, but I am starting to get irritated, very irritated.
“We”? Pah!
Believe Brown? If he told me today was Saturday 5th September 2009, I would ask for a second opinion.
Complain about this comment
41#
I'm not sure I would have put it quite like that, an irrelevance.
The one line in Joyces resignation statement that does chime with me is "the punching above our weight" one where he suggests that it could well be time for this to be re-assessed. That is significantly different from being an irrelevance.
An irrelevance is what the UK may become, in time - and if that is what both its political leaders and its populace chooses, then fine, so be it... but, as another poster put it, there are many more factors on which that criteria could be measured in addition to the projection of foreign policy.
And, answering Nicks original question, I think that if Mr Brown told me it was raining outside, I would have to go and check to make sure it was wet. The man is a pathalogical liar and megalomaniac and is unfit to hold public office, let alone an office of state.
Complain about this comment
I am not convinced that the involvement of UK armed forces in Afghanistan has (or will have) any impact upon anything happening within the UK.
Nor am I convinced that it has any positive result overall for Afghanistan.
It follows that I would be happy to see all our forces return to their UK bases today.
Then perhaps we could drastically reduce 'defence' spending and redirect taxpayers' money to where it can do some good.
Ashill
Complain about this comment
59 fubar-saunders
I agree with the term punching above our weight. At this point in time the notion of implementing a western style democrarcy in Afghanistan is a pipe dream. Maybe if the full armed forces had stayed in 2001 it could now be a reality. A post above thought of a federal system of government could exist and that holds some appeal. The remote rural areas will always revert to type, and the country is vast but with a primtive communications system.
I personally think that the endgame exit strategy should be downgraded to what would benefit the region. The border with Pakistan is porous (always has been) and is also causing instability in the region - Iran and to a lesser extent India are very worried. Perhaps this is agitation is causing Iran to hanker after a nuclear arsenal?
A real tangible lasting legacy could be the creation of an effective border patrol force controlling all ingress to the country and egress out. This force could also help in cutting down the drug export trade. A further incentive to success would be UN endorsement, where the UN could enforce a wide no-go area near the borders. Any Afghan troops used wouid be paid by the UN directly i.e. real money bypassing the need to Karzai and his crooks syphoning off an other income stream.
But no Afghan politician would allow or contemplate this. The NGO's and aid agencies would raise holy hell, as they are doing very nicely out of all this. Sometime altruistic motives can also be very profitable.
Complain about this comment
I personally find the most worrying aspect of the debate surrounding the war in Afghanistan and the headline resignation of Eric Joyce is the fact that the main opposition parties have no alternative agenda.
I watched Thursday’s News-night with incredulous disbelief when both Liam Fox and Nick Clegg appeared on the programme and could have almost been reading from Gordon Brown’s book of how to appease the voters in respect of this unpopular campaign in Afghanistan. The only time I’ve actually heard a real alternative set of aspirations discussed, were comments made by members from the government’s own back benches.
I genuinely fear that since we had the expenses debacle, the main parties have some agreement that there is safety in sticking together and braving the storm. If so this will stilt the way politics opens up debate in this country and expose voters to an overwhelming apathy in respect of their perception of actually being able to vote for tangible changes in the way our government runs the country on their behalf.
I firmly believe that a step in the right direction would be a far more honest approach. If politicians simply came out and told us that our involvement in unpopular areas of policy are vital for the UK and offered a few home truths to back them up, it would be easier for people to make sense of what’s going on. The constant use of smoke and mirrors and shifting objectives will only fuel widespread cynicism in many areas of current policy.
It’s high time that opposition and current government made real use of the diverse range of mediums to actually take stock of what the electorate see as priorities going forwards. I am not so naïve to think that everything that might be desired is attainable, but at least let’s have honest and open debate where a potential government can give reasons for why something would be impractical or otherwise and demonstrate that their mandate is one that is driven by the vision of shaping the UK in way that actually reflects the aspirations of its citizens. Surely that is democracy in a truer sense than what we currently have?
Complain about this comment
#60
This year:
NHS = 100 Billion GBP
Welfare = aprox 163 Billion GBP
Scottish subsidy = 20 Billion GBP
Defence = aprox 35 Billion GBP.
Banks = Not yet fully known, but it will be more than 50 Billion GBP (Northern Rock = 50 Billion GBP = almost the Defence and Scottish subsidy in TOTAL)
The UK is in debt, we have a lot of money to pay back, just wait until the interest rates go up again.
The UK has committed men and women to Battle abroad whilst the boys drink themselves senseless on their welfare money every day in the pubs. Some of them are smacked out of their heads on Heroin, whilst our incompetent Government boasts that it is sorting out the drugs trade in Afghanistan. UK druggies are actively supporting our enemies in Afghanistan! And those who are doing the fighting are paying TAX to support our welfare state. What a sick joke!
We need to cut back on welfare dependency and get people to take responsibility for their lives. I am not saying do not help those who are down on their luck or genuinely disabled or ill, but I am sick of paying out money for a bunch of layabouts who will not get off their fat bottoms and work.
Complain about this comment
I was in the military for 13 years 68-81,brown is not a military man,he hasnt a clue,the staff out there in helmand are doing a wonderfull job.lions led by donkeys.brownwatch 268 days[max]
Complain about this comment
#59, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
"41#
I'm not sure I would have put it quite like that, an irrelevance.
.... And, answering Nicks original question, I think that if Mr Brown told me it was raining outside, I would have to go and check to make sure it was wet. The man is a pathalogical liar and megalomaniac and is unfit to hold public office, let alone an office of state."
Fubar,
I wouldn't have been quite so blunt.
This whole regime has been operating since pre-1997 on the basis that since "They" know best, it's far better to tell "Us" only those bits they choose to. Because obviously "We" wouldn't want to be made aware of, or be able to understand, the difficult bits...
That's why any government announcement is crafted to deliver a sound-bite, TV-digestible comment, but it takes a couple of days for details of the reality to be dug out by politicians and journalists.
You'd have thought that performances in the HoC would be relatively transparent, but even there, Ministers spout stuff that skims over the surface ice but ignores or hides the difficult stuff hidden in the unfrozen waters beneath. Even Budgets are full of opaque asertions that hide nasty realities. I've never heard Brown or Darling get up and state that by using indirect taxes for a decade, which apply to all, the true tax burden weighs much, much more heavily on poorer citizens than ever.
I really don't like that!
It's certainly pathological spin.
What amazes me is that, even after 11 years, they haven't worked out that the information environment they thought they could manipulate has come back to bite their bums. It's much harder to hide things away, today. So we know that Brown red-pencilled GBP1.5BIL of Forces spend years ago, leaving us short of vital helicopters and other equipment...
Hello. What have the Iraqi and Afghan troops been short of?
(And there are well developed anti-mine devices that could flail/cover the road sufficiently ahead of a vehicle to prevent fatal losses to the occupants. It seems many are owned by the UK Forces, they are made in the UK, but the government hasn't actually bought the mechanisms to attach them to vehicles... It's a bit like saying I bought a great yoyo, but we'll have to wait for the string until we saved enough in future!)
The Blair/Brown/Mandelson/Campbell etc group was/is like a truly dysfunctional family that tries to present a glossy image to the outside (real) world.
I'd never expect a "consultant" from a company trying to flog an IT system to spell out why it's going to be far more expensive to deliver than the existing customer's budget, so they should be prepared to dig even deeper in future, once the customer has signed up. (Been there.) But you do expect a bit of understanding of the risks by the customer. There has been none of that understanding for a decade.
I'm still trying to work out how an ID card will stop terrorism, reduce fraud, ensure personal integrity, while details from the card have already been cloned. (Especially when it's not mandatory and there are no evident plans to deploy reading/affirmation devices in every commercial outlet in the UK and even the border management services is not fully equipped!) Or how an NHS system, designed with minimal involvement from the users could ever work.
Still trying to work out how building heavily subsidised windmills, with highly unpredictable output will save the planet. Sorry, forgot that Miliband Minor is in charge. Not quite sure which science based degree he brought to the assessment of the IPCC documents (developed and published in a political - NOT a scientific - context).
The Brits have been involved in Afghanistan since the 1800s. With no success. I'm hopeful that somebody, somewhere, is working feverishly to grapple with the social and political manoevres needed to turn a disparate group of people into some sort of cohesive society. We didn't bother with that, before pulling out of Iraq.
But since Brown is saving the world's economy (well as an historian who focused on some obscure Scottish Labour dissident, he would, wouldn't he?) all this other stuff must just irritate him. For goodness sake, it's so hot there, he had to take his jacket off...
Complain about this comment
52 ikamaskeip
Whatever the initial reasons were, I see no correlation between keeping terrorists off our streets and the current activities in Afghanistan.
We are not prepared to throw sufficient resource at the problem to achieve what you would like and our half hearted efforts probably have the effect of radicalising more young muslims and creating more potential terrorists.
Complain about this comment
57.yellowbelly1959 wrote:
It also explains why we didn't get involved in other countries with equally appalling human rights records, such as Sudan/ Darfur, Zimbabwe and many others.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sudan has substantial oil reserves in the South of the country.
The Government has used much of the revenue to build up it’s arms.
If I recall, much of the oil is sold to China, so we don’t want to go upsetting them do we?
Complain about this comment
just be thankful this government were not incharge during the american vietnam disaster.
sadly the present government seem to be willing to bend over backward to please the american's and in my humble opinion that is just typical of a weak inept british government that has lost the plot.
Complain about this comment
60#
Like where??
If you are quite happy for your defence spending to be cut to the point where all you can do is basically look after your own coastline - not getting involved in humanitarian relief overseas, not getting involved in getting British citizens out of areas of conflict, etc then fine.
But next time theres an earthquake or a tsunami or famine, or if we end up with another repeat of what happened in Lebanon a couple of years ago, or if Zimbabwe is about to implode, or Iran starts threatening to chuck nukes at Israel... dont expect us to get involved. Dont then tut at the tv from the comfort of your armchair and shout "something must be done".
Not our problem anymore.
Complain about this comment
No one believes PMs any more even those few who are good workers and do a good job because there are many who do not look at Straw man Jack does not know the truth when it jumps up and bits him. Brown was not chosen over Blair because the power that be could not make him do as they please now he wants to stay in power for ever like Golum he does what the USA says why because they know were the bodies are buried over the war in Iraqi and this war now we have the Sun doing the spin soon Brown will be topless taking drivel.
And if anyone thinks Cameron will be different think again as they brown nose as well. the USA will implode and take us with them so much for a special relationship. You reap what you sow.
Complain about this comment
#47 fairly
"The Taliban exercised political control by cooperating with tribal / regional war-lords, who appeared quite happy with a rather harsh interpretation of Islam.
Taking out the central Talib administration didn't change anything else."
Yes, I think that's tight - although it could be argued even if the war-lords were 'happy' with the Taliban, it doesn't follow that the long-suffering population were. But simply removing the Taliban without anything in its place just leaves a vacuum.
But I think it is a mistake to think of the Taliban as merely an Afghan problem that doesn't affect anyone else. They have already made considerable headway into Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons (unfortunately).
The extremist ideology behind the Taliban and their brothers-in-arms, Al Qaeda, is not restricted to just one country. It is in essence a blueprint ready for world-wide export and is the motivating force behind Al Qaeda's brand of international terrorism.
Those who say "it's not our problem, let them get on with it" are unfortunately burying their heads in the sand.
It's a timely reminder this week that appeasement seldom works as Neville Chamberlain eventually realised 70 years ago. Most people are rightly against the idea of war and armed conflict. But the question is, what should we do when we are faced with this kind of global threat from people who do not share our values?
I don't have the answer, but I think doing nothing is simply postponing the the problem. Meanwhile, whilst we would sit and watch, they regroup and build up their forces. And continue brutalising the population.
Regarding drugs, you say: "So buy the poppies at a price competitive with/higher than the Taliban or others pay - and destroy what can't be used for medicinal purposes. Set up structures whereby part of those payments is set aside to invest in "stuff" the local population needs. (That could include defence against the Taliban, as well as infrastructure.)"
Yes, I think this is an excellent proposal. At least that way, less drugs would make their way onto our streets. Perhaps in time, if the farmers were free of the Taliban, they could eventually be persuaded to grow some other crops, more useful to the local community.
Complain about this comment
71#
The buying up the opium idea has been mooted before. Unfortunately, one underestimates the lobbying capabilities of the major international Pharma firms. What, buy up all that opium and push the price of legitimate opiate drugs down even lower? Less return for the shareholders?
Yeah, they'd all vote for that..... Not!
Complain about this comment
We rushed into Afghanistan with the US in 2001 as a reflex response and without thinking it through properly. We did the same with Iraq in 2003. On both occasions Brown was a reluctant participant because of the financial implications which has resulted in continuing under-resourcing because of his reluctance to fund the armed forces properly. There is no clear evidence that either action makes our streets any safer from terrorist activity. We need either to agree a gameplan and resource it properly or to pull out. Our troops do a fantastic job but they do not get the support they deserve from the government and take too many casualties as a consequence.
Complain about this comment
yellowbelly1959 and #57.
With no 'oil' in Afghanistan worth meantioning.... No, I can't see the pattern you're referring to?
If you have other details of some mysterious oil find that we've all missed do let us in on it.
Complain about this comment
Afghanistan is war without end. A war in which there are no limits to british dead. How many more processions of union flagged draped coffins have to go through wootton bassett before the people of this country say ENOUGH. End this carnage. END IT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!. r.i.p TO THE 392 combined total is iraq and afghanistan
Complain about this comment
meninwhitecoats and #66.
Sorry, but as I've already made claer I do see a correlation between the campaign in Afghanistan and safety on the streets of GB and every 'western' nation.
That you and I disagree on the perspective is how it will have to remain: Suffice to say I support the lamentable PM Brown Government's Defence policy and you do not. Come the next General Election who will you vote for as Cameron and Clegg have expressed exactly my view that our first line of defence is currently in Afghanistan (and probably Pakistan in the near future).
Complain about this comment
#72, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
"71#
The buying up the opium idea has been mooted before. Unfortunately, one underestimates the lobbying capabilities of the major international Pharma firms. What, buy up all that opium and push the price of legitimate opiate drugs down even lower? Less return for the shareholders?
Yeah, they'd all vote for that..... Not!"
Fubar,
The pharmas make the delivery of medicines to the NHS extremely expensive. I rather expect a GOVERNMENT to take sensible decisions, regardless of the commercial interests of particular companies.
They may not vote for that - so what? I don't believe that any major pharma would drag itself away from the NHS teat - do you?
OK, one of their own (who negotiated a very good sole-distributor deal just before the UK government bought massive quantities of stuff) may raise objections. But I rather think that, as the NHS is told to prepare for significant income drops, somebody has to get a grip.
Naive? Yep. But if any decent government, with a teeny-weeny bit of commercial understanding, told the pharmas that they would no longer be able to rely on rubbish negotiators from the Ministeries to deal with, I'm still optimistic that costs would drop like a stone.
Why are drugs supplied to US commercial health companies bought in the UK at many multiples of their local prices?
This rediculous back-scratching co-operation between Ministries and companies is simply reflected in the number of former ministers who end up with (surprise) jobs or consultancies with the companies who supplied their departments.
I'm really pro-business. But there is a completely "unreal" commercial attitude within the Westminster village. If sensible people couldn't cut at least 5 percent of cost from central government, they shouldn't even pass a Business Studies A Level..... I'd aim for 10 percent as a realistic and very short-term target, with reductions over the next decade. It's going to have to happen anyway, as the UK doesn't have the money to continue spraying cash around like a drunk on a Saturday night. Even if Blair believed that a 24-hour drinking culture would "change the attitude" of the people!!!!
Funny that he works for a Bank now. Odd that he never bothered to properly regulate them.
Complain about this comment
Just to add to earlier comment #71, the discussion about whether to intervene or not to intervene is of course nothing new.
Talking about threats to Czechoslovakia in 1938, Neville Chamberlain described it as "a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CAAqfS8lUQ
Understandably people do not want war. However, there is a moral dilemma when facing a brutal, extreme ideology. Do we intervene, or do we do nothing and hope the problem will go away? In the case of Czechoslovakia, the Czechs were left to their own fate. It was only after Poland was invaded that Britain decided to act. As we now know (and was understood by many at the time) ignoring or appeasing evil does not work.
The situation today is very different, although the moral questions remain the same. The Taliban and Al Qaeda do not have huge armies as the Germans did in 1938. Global extremism is exported through terrorism rather than armies fighting on battlefields.
For those who think the ideology is based on relics from the past, they should understand the methods of delivery are very much 21st Century.
How should we respond to the threat? I wish I knew...
Complain about this comment
#72 Fubar
"What, buy up all that opium and push the price of legitimate opiate drugs down even lower? Less return for the shareholders? Yeah, they'd all vote for that..... Not!"
Given the billions spent on the conflict, attempts to destroy the crops, as well as the cost to the home economies of dealing with the huge illegal drugs trade, arguably western governments could fund this and probably still save money. I wouldn't expect individual pharmaceutical companies to negotiate with Afghan farmers. The West could just buy up the crops and destroy them. Not ideal, but it would be a pragmatic approach.
Complain about this comment
74. At 4:39pm on 05 Sep 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
yellowbelly1959 and #57.
With no 'oil' in Afghanistan worth meantioning.... No, I can't see the pattern you're referring to?
If you have other details of some mysterious oil find that we've all missed do let us in on it.
===
Glad to help, obviously you haven't heard of the TAPI gas pipeline, Unocal or Centgas? I have posted some links for you to bring you up to speed. Hopefully knowledge will then outweigh sarcasm!
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/679670
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK24Ag01.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2017044.stm
Complain about this comment
74. At 4:39pm on 05 Sep 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
yellowbelly1959 and #57.
With no 'oil' in Afghanistan worth meantioning.... No, I can't see the pattern you're referring to?
If you have other details of some mysterious oil find that we've all missed do let us in on it.
===
A little tip for you, try reading people's posts properly. I never said Afghanistan had its own oil and gas reserves, I said the reason for the invasion by the US with us on their coat tails was oil.
"America has wanted a new government in Afghanistan since at least 1998, three years before the attacks on 11 September 2001. The official report from a meeting of the U.S. Government's foreign policy committee on 12 February 1998, available on the U.S. Government website, confirms that the need for a West-friendly government was recognised long before the War on Terror that followed September 11th:
"The U.S. Government's position is that we support multiple pipelines...
The Unocal pipeline is among those pipelines that would receive our
support under that policy. I would caution that while we do support the
project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any
governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries,
Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do
support the project."
[ U.S. House of Reps., "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]
"The only other possible route [for the desired oil pipeline] is across,
Afghanistan which has of course its own unique challenges."
[ "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]
"CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized
Afghanistan Government is in place."
[ "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]"
Complain about this comment
#69, Fubar.....
After Mumbai and the way the Artic Sea slid through the English Channel without anyone noticing whilst under control of pirates I would be careful to suggest we even control our own backyard, the UK is wide open to a maritime attack.
If we want to protect our coastline we need a Royal Navy that is configured to do it and at home!
Complain about this comment
yellowbelly1959 and #81.
And here's a little tip for you: Try reading your own Comments:
Quote from your #57 "..the reason we are involved in Afghanistan - oil.."
Nowhere in #57 do you mention the USA!
In #81 you have 3 or so lovely, interesting quotes of your own - - none of which refer to #57 - - all of which fail to actually uphold your 'oil' is why UK is on US 'coat-tails' in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The oil pipeline route is an issue that has been under discussion at national and international level for 2 decades: It would seem eminently straightforward that a pipeline through a Taliban governed Afghanistan is about as sensible as one through Saddam Hussein's Iraq would have been.
Why you would think quotes about a preference for a 'democratic government' was somehow shocking or cynical eludes me!?
Here's another tip: When you see a precipice ahead apply the breaks and divert to another course.
Complain about this comment
83. At 6:25pm on 05 Sep 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
"The oil pipeline route is an issue that has been under discussion at national and international level for 2 decades: It would seem eminently straightforward that a pipeline through a Taliban governed Afghanistan is about as sensible as one through Saddam Hussein's Iraq would have been."
===
Thank you for confirming my point that the reason we are in Afghanistan, as lap dogs for the USA, is oil.
===
"Why you would think quotes about a preference for a 'democratic government' was somehow shocking or cynical eludes me!?"
Because neither we, nor the USA, have the right to impose our values on other nation states. If imposing democracy is OK, why have we not invaded Saudi Arabia yet?
===
"Here's another tip: When you see a precipice ahead apply the breaks and divert to another course."
Here's another tip, try proof reading your rants. Did you mean "brakes" by any chance?
Complain about this comment
In answer to Nick's question, 'Can Brown convince the doubters?" - the answer can only be no. This is nothing to do with the merits of the case, but because Brown and his wretched government cannot be trusted on anything and no one believes what any of them say any more.
For example:
As reported August 22: Mandelson says there was no deal over Megrahi, and any suggestions that the release of the Lockerbie bomber was linked to a UK-Libya trade deal are "offensive".
Reported September 5: Straw says said trade was "a very big part" of the 2007 talks that led to the prisoner deal with Libya.
Complain about this comment
77#
FOM, I completely agree with you. Your analysis and prognosis - pharma's making drugs expensive because they know the NHS will pay the price and then ration the issue of such drugs to the patients - hey, they dont care, so long as they get paid - is spot on.
Vested interests, as you rightly point out. We could, I firmly believe, have had both a cure for the common cold and the electric car, probably 50 years ago. However, the big international oil and pharma conglomerates have a significant amount of influence. They are not going to do anything to interrupt those revenue streams.
You are right that there should be a political solution. Unfortunately, that requires both altruism, a sense of public service and most absent of all, qualities of leadership. As you're no doubt aware, companies, particularly those who supply governments, exist purely to make money.
There is not a shred of altruism, ethics, doing anything for the greater good - if a requirement for something the government is going to buy is not specified properly, a prospective supplier isnt going to say during negotiations "oh by the way, that sub-clause about building widgets for the army to Standard ABC is a bit woolly... dont worry, we've tightened it up a bit for you... and we'll throw this extra thing in with it"... Their attitude is "the negotiator on the customer side is a bit wet behind the ears... this is our chance to get away with murder".
And they do it. Every day. And they get away with it. The likes of EDS, BAe, BT Global, et al; Its the customers money (ie the governments, so its taxpayers money) and they are entitled to waste it on whatever they want. So long as they pay the quoted price. The company exists purely to make money for the shareholders. Nothing else. Nothing else whatsoever.
And the chumps in procurement in the civil service buy it. Time after time after time. Not just MOD, but MOJ, HMRC, DFID, DFWP and definately the NHS - they're all completely clueless.
You are very right that someone should get a grip of it. Unfortunately, certainly not within NL and I seriously doubt it within the conservatives as well, no-one is going to have the spine necessary to go and shake the whole thing up. It needs that kind of "right, you cant deliver what we want at the price we want it. Stuff you, we'll buy it from China instead" attitude. The only time I'm aware of that happening was when AEW Nimrod was cancelled and that was twenty odd years ago, because Thatch got to the end of her tether and went out and bought the E3 instead. BAe and Marconi were not best pleased.
But if these suppliers are given licence to wag the dog, they will do it. And it is allowed to happen. No-one in the civil service has got the backbone to stand up to them. Also, as you say, the revolving doors between ministers and organisations that are suppliers to central government must be having an influence. And, although we are not alone in doing it, it affects all our NATO partners as well, we always insist on trying to make stuff in our own countries under licence, which takes longer to deliver solution, so that it keeps jobs in the marginal constituencies of politicians and keeps the unions off their backs... despite the product being manufactured under licence frequently being inferior to what was originally asked for. Just look at Apache Longbow and the Chinook scandal, not to mention the A400M. Westlands should have been allowed to go bust in 85. But, lord above, redundancies? When the troops/NHS/Police/whatever need product Y? Out comes the "British Jobs For British Workers" soundbites and the collective political backbones turn to jelly and what is good for the country suddenly takes 3rd or 4th priority.
Until the political class start to develop qualities of leadership, making difficult decisions that impact beyond one parliament, I'm afraid on that front, we're stuffed. And bear in mind, that even if you do try and get rid of a significant element of the drugs trade in this manner, there would be significant NGO/Quango resistance - all of those people employed in the war on drugs, providing rehabilitation, SOCA, the Bureau Of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco in the US - all these empires that people have built up, suddenly with nothing to do? Again, turkeys voting for Xmas. They arent going to let it happen.
IMVHO, nothing short of insurrection will change it. But, because the Brits and certainly the English, have been neutered by being embarrassed about their history and had any fight, any national pride sapped out of them in the last 20 years... nothing will change. We will just grumble on forums like this, take it on the chin and do nothing about it. And it will get worse. We should be apoplectically mad about it and taking to the streets demanding change. Fat chance of that. Most of us cant be bothered to vote, despite millions giving their lives in two world wars so that we can do just that. I'm ashamed of what we've become in such a short time.
71#
As a follow up; The whole rotten mess in Afghan has become self perpetuating. There is potentially an undesirable result if we were to unilaterally pull out; It would give a huge shot in the arm to the Islamic Fundamentalists that the western infidels do not have the stomach to fight for what they believe in - just grind them down for long enough and eventually they will give up. The effect on organisations like PIJ, Hamas, HizbAllah, and Gordon's "Alky-Ada" not to mention Iran, would be an enormous filip. And, it would encourage the likes of the 7/7 mob as well. What would be to stop them?
You could also potentially see NATO unravelling. Some people might not necessarily see that as a bad thing, but NATO has played a front row part in keeping the peace in Europe for the longest amount of time in its history. Dont forget that. I for one think it would be incredibly bad. And lastly, for those who have died so far, if we walk away now, what the hell have they died for?
Dont get me wrong. I'm of the opinion that we should not have gone into Afghan in the first place. But, that doesnt change the fact that we are there. And for us to leave there has to be a political solution, however fleeting.
What is completely inexcusable is sending your young into danger and not equipping them properly for the task in hand and trying to do it on the cheap. It is also completely inexcusable not to provide them with the aftercare that their sacrifices deserve. If we can save Northern Rock and RBS and allow the financial sector to go about its business unreformed within a year, after having taken us to the abyss, then we can provide for our forces to do the job properly that we are askng them to do.
Regrettably, the chances of this government doing any of those things is likely to be zero. All they are concerned about is staying in power for their own ends. There is no concept whatsoever of public service any more and I firmly think that if a lot of the fallen of the first and second world wars could have seen what their blood price has bought - they'd have had second thoughts as to whether they should have bothered.
Complain about this comment
82#
Completely agree. Look on the BBC site, the news article isnt that old... do you know how many naval ships we have protecting the UK coastline at any one time? The whole of the UK coastline?
The answer is Six. Six ships. My flabber was well and truly ghasted when I read that.
And you dont want to know how bad Air Defence has got over the last 12-15 years. You really dont.
Complain about this comment
yellowbelly1959 and #84.
"...thank you for confirming we are in Afghanistan as 'lap-dogs' for the USA.."
Sorry, have you lost all touch with your own thread of argument?
'UK in Afghan..'? 'lap-dogs'?
UK along with 9 other NATO nations following a unanimous Resolution by the UN Security Council inc. Syria (oh yes, well-known to be in dubya's pocket) took action in Afghanistan to oust the Al Queda supporting and brutal Taliban regime.
Just love reading your increasingly illogical extremes to back-up a lost argument: E.g. "... neither we, nor the USA, have the right to impose our values..". Hang on, I will just check on the reason for opposing Adolf Hitler and the Soviet Union in the Cold War and the even more basic UN Charter with its quaint little phrases about Freedoms...
Of course any responsible 'democratic government' will use its Armed Forces sparingly and against those nations that are a clear and distinct threat to National security - - now with Iraq you may have some sort of case, but, even that has to presuppose the WMD was all an invention by dubya and Blair (which may suit your perception of things but your guesswork is a long way from proof) and not very poor intelligence - - in Afghanistan, you have no case at all.
And finally, spelling corrections! Hmm, well as I have not made any sort of 'rant' on this topic and stuck firmly to fact as opposed to your preference for opinionated delusion I can see how it is irritating you!
Complain about this comment
#76 ikamaskeip
We agree on one thing - there is little difference between the major parties, although I suspect the Tories might support the armed forces better.
My earlier post does not say we should cut our losses, I merely object to the "keeping our streets safe" argument as it seems to be an extension of the "45 minutes to weapoms of mass destruction" claim - intended to instill fear with the aim of getting people to rally round the cause.
Complain about this comment
88#
Lets not get hung up on UN Resolutions though. The UN talks a lot and achieves for the most part, nothing unless whoever has decided it is in their interests to act.
Had there not been a UN Resolution, America would still have piled in. Just like they did in Iraq in 03. Just like no-one has done anything about Zimbabwe. Just like it took an eternity for anything to happen in Dharfur. Just like the long list of UN Resolutions that Israel has thumbed its nose at over the last 20 years. Just like the much vaunted UN "Safe Havens" in the former Yugoslavia resulted in the massacres at Srebrenica while Dutch UN peacekeeping troops stood on and watched. Just like in the last spat between Israel and HizbAllah, while Nigerian UN troops stood and watched the HizbAllah rockets sailing over their heads.
The UN is a paper tiger. Yugoslavia was solved by NATO and the Dayton agreeement. Even the former Secretary General of the UN's son was caught up in alleged sanction busting in Iraq. It has, unfortunately become nothing more than a talking shop for expense claiming bureaucrats and has outlived its useful purpose.
Complain about this comment
Winston Churchill said that you could always trust the Americans to do the right thing ... once they'd exhausted all the other possibilities.
So, US General McCrystal has now mapped out a strategy for Afghanistan which probably will work, with a few provisos regarding the other significant 'local' regional players e.g. Iran, Pakistan, Russia, China.
Taking a global perspective, there really isn't much choice other than to try because the Islamo-Fascists have shown that they will kill thousands of innocent people if given any opportunity.
Our problem is that our politicians still like to think that we amount to more than a hill-of-beans in geo-political terms, and that is not the case and has'nt been for a few decades.
Complain about this comment
#86 Fubar
"What is completely inexcusable is sending your young into danger and not equipping them properly for the task in hand and trying to do it on the cheap. It is also completely inexcusable not to provide them with the aftercare that their sacrifices deserve. If we can save Northern Rock and RBS and allow the financial sector to go about its business unreformed within a year, after having taken us to the abyss, then we can provide for our forces to do the job properly that we are askng them to do."
People may agree or disagree on the rights and wrongs of intervening in Afghanistan, but what will be remembered long after the dust has settled is the mismanagement and total incompetence of this government. Our political leaders are not fit for purpose; you can't win battles with spin.
The army top brass are in a difficult position because in a democracy it isn't done for soldiers to criticise ministers. However, some have spoken out, albeit in muted tones, presumably because they feel they have no choice.
Today a report in The Times claims that a minister was attempting to smear General Sir Richard Dannatt over his expenses. How disappointing for the minister it must have been to discover that unlike sleazy politicians, the General has behaved with honour and integrity at all times. His legitimate expenses apparently included meals from a discount supermarket at £5 per head, and wine at £1.49 a bottle! What a difference from all those politicians with their snouts in the trough! According to the report, the minister denies the allegation, saying "it's just not true", but the Times published the story anyway.
"All they are concerned about is staying in power for their own ends. There is no concept whatsoever of public service any more"
I agree. For the good of the country and our troops, the general election cannot come a day too soon.
Complain about this comment
Can I go off thread for a minute
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6806249.ece
Mandelson says that any suggestion of a Trade deal with Megrahi is offensive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8239572.stm
Straw admits trade link.
Is this joined up government, is Straw talking to Mandelson, are they even on the same planet?
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
Nauseating Brown has not got the balls to do anything except watch UK service personell get killed and injured. He has not got the balls to say to the Americans or anyone else that the strategy is wrong and this is not working.
You've got to listen to the millitary - they know best. Afghanistan is a large country and to secure it as per current allied mission would need several millions of top grade troops - no exaggeration according to those with experience of Afghanistan.
The best that can be achieved is to seal off the border rat runs for drug and arms smuggling and set up safe areas for those Afghans who wish to live in a semi-civilised fashion. The rest of the country can be left to its own fate - that is realisticially all that can be achieved without massive casualties fighting a dirty war when our troops are denied a dirty war strategy, equipment, fair pay and accomodation,troop numbers and freedom to organise and lead themselves on the ground.
This is a dirty war - if you have not got the political will, strategy, tactics and resources to fight it then you (we) must pull out. This is what ex-millitary personnel are saying if someone listens to them.
This is a dirty war, Brown - for goodness sake listen and admit your government gooning mistakes and save some lives!
It's not so much that Brown must convince the doubters - he is such an ego tripping devious lying megla-maniac - he needs to convince himself that he has intelligence, integrity, a sense of responsibility, humanity and basic common sense.
Brown has a lot of blood on his hands but he still does not see it!
Complain about this comment
#51 ikamaskeip
Sorry to take so long to get back to you. I've been earning my bed and board here in the US by putting up what seems like acres of shelving!
I'll accept that "irrelevant" was an overstatement. However, I was thinking purely in terms of military intervention in another state, where the UK is simply a bit player, doing the bidding of the USA and without the wherewithal to deliver the exaggerated role it pretends to deliver.
More broadly, however, your examples of the UK's important role actually confirm my view of the British as a nation who still have not accepted their diminished role in the world, and continue to glory in the trappings of their old status, despite being unable to afford it. Penelope Keith in "To the Manor Born" seems an apt analogy.
For example, "Permanent member of the UN Security Council" - that depends on having nuclear weapons (which are actually American) that have no real purpose other than to continue the status of permanent member of the Security Council. Quite what that delivers to the people of the UK, I don't know, but it does provide the US with a normally compliant puppet.
G8 - Set up by France in 1975 as a meeting place for the 8 (originally 6) largest economies in the northern hemisphere - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States (with the EU represented , but never hosting meetings). So just how many of these G8 states have significant troops in Afghanistan in significant numbers, with significant numbers returning in body bags? I have no wish to see troops from these islands dying - not for their country - but for Gordon Brown or David Cameron to posture as world leaders.
And you forget the need for a state to be able to fund military adventurism and the consequent hardware. The UK has only been able to do that by squandering a one off resource in oil (Norway, Canada and most other states with oil as a resource sensibly invested much of the revenue instead of just spending it), and simultaneously running a fiscal deficit (fine in part of the economic cycle, but insane as policy).
What seems to me define the Brits is that they want to be part of an "important" country, as opposed to the English, who would be an important medium level country such as France or Germany, ore the Scots, who would be a small country, simply running its own affairs like Denmark or Norway.
Complain about this comment
#69 Fubar_Saunders
"If you are quite happy for your defence spending to be cut to the point where all you can do is basically look after your own coastline - not getting involved in humanitarian relief overseas, not getting involved in getting British citizens out of areas of conflict, etc then fine."
That's the Irish and Swedish position BUT they do "get involved in humanitarian relief overseas, they do get involved in getting their own citizens out of areas of conflict".
Quite why any nation wants to gert involved militarily in much beyond that, has always been a strange concept. The Brits are, however, a strange nation.
Complain about this comment
#97 oldnat
You say "Quite why any nation wants to gert involved militarily in much beyond that, has always been a strange concept. The Brits are, however, a strange nation."
If everyone had only peaceful intentions, the world would be a much better place. But the moral dilemma arises when other people, who are not peaceful, seek to subjugate or kill those who think differently. You could take the view that 'it's not my problem' and leave them to their fate. But can we absolve ourselves from responsibility by choosing to be bystanders and doing nothing?
"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."
Martin Niemoller (1892 - 1984)
Complain about this comment
Brown has no chance of convincing voters to do anything.The sad part is that his credibility has sunk so low that any correct strategy would be rejected because he identifies with it. Why has it taken so long to realise there should be a diplomatic hearts and minds straetgy ? We seem to forget the Irish guy from the UN who was kicked out because he actually talked to Taliban leaders in order to understand them !
Complain about this comment
#98 DistantTraveller
I look forward to your advocating that the UK simultyaneously invades every country that doesn't match the UK's particukar version if democracy,
While I dislike the social organisation of the Pashrun, I don't see that attacking then does anything to change that society. You may see some moral superiority in supporting a regime which allows men to starve their wives if they don't submit to sex on their husband's insistence. I don't suscribe to the idea that UK troops die to uphold such a vision.
But it's a free world. If you want our troops to die supporting a concept of marital rape, then no one is stoppimg you. If you are a married man, have you asked your wifr?
Complain about this comment
Distant traveller , fine words indeed BUT the UK has been flogging arms to every Tom ,Dick and Harry for quite some time.
Obviously, being the folk on the " moral high ground", we expect them to be used for peaceful purposes and not to steal their neighbours assets or to back up a side that we want to win politically speaking.
Lets see if we can behave as Switzerland and the other neutral countries in Europe.
They seem to be doing just fine by their own people and resist the temptation to be the worlds policeman.
It could well be argued that the force supposed to be the worlds policemen , the UN ,needs far greater power and the ability to act at speed instead of interminable talks.
Complain about this comment
oldnat and your #41 plus #96 re my #51.
Now come on!
You cannot have it both ways: Either the World is set-up as it is or it is all an illusion and there's some other hithertoo unnoticed paraphanelia?
Are there 2 substantial global Financial-Economic organisations with membership limited (to put it crudely) to the 'have most' and is UK in both? Yes.
Is there a UNO with a Security Council and is UK a member? Yes.
Does the UK possess Nuclear Weapons? Yes.
Is there a Commonwealth of Nations (to which an independent Scotland would belong?) HQ London, broadly connecting by support of democracy (!?), english-speaking peoples and joint enterprises one-third of the World's Nations? Yes.
Is there an international defense organisation called NATO of which UK is a key member and substantial contributor over many decades? Yes.
Is there an EU to which UK is a massive contributor and joint 2nd largest MEP representation? Yes.
We may all have opinions/perspective as to what those various institutions mean, their roles and value to the World but, the factual reality is it is neither 'irrelevant' nor unimportant that UK is a part of them all.
As for the oft repeated, by anti-English such as yourself, 'UK puppet of the USA' theme it is fundamentally and demonstrably untrue when a genuine (un-nationalistblinkered) view is taken of events across many decades. That the UK shares and enjoys far more commonality with the USA than mainland Europe is also fundamentally-demonstrably accurate: And why not?
Much of Europe only found 'democracy' in the last 20 or so years: A good many Asian and African nations had forms of democratic government way ahead of Europe - - most of them set-up by the prime retreating colonisers, Britain and France - - UK links to them are strong but have not been based on out-moded 'imperialism' for almost half a century.
What is so wrong about the UK more often than not finding common cause with the democracies (imperfect as all human institutions are) of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand? Given the immense communality of experience in diversity and progression how could it be otherwise?
Add to that the rapid withdrawl from colonial interests leaving behind substantial democracies, e.g. India, Kenya etc., and furthermore, post-1989 and the demise of Soviet Russian influence the expansion of democracatic values the British/English have considerable economic-social ties with much of the rest of the world. None of it based on some spurious supremacy-primacy of UK but broadly around equal or common interests in a developing World.
Where in your education did you get so stagnant a view of the English/British as to propose nothing has moved on since Harold MacMillan's 'wind of change' speech!?
"..Penelope Keith to the manor born.."!? Was that meant as a joke?
"..confirm my view the British have still not accepted their diminished role..": It is a completely false premise for which you are only able to offer your slanted view as opposed to fact and reality.
There are 49,000,000 Citizens in England and 60mil across the Isles and I doubt if two-thirds would have heard of the programme never mind share such out-dated views. Given the massive multi-cultural development of English-British society over the last 6 decades how ís it possible you could have such an old-fashioned misconception about the cultural-social-political interests of a huge majority of Britons (especially the English)? I am aware demographically Scotland's population-mix has not progressed/changed at the pace of England but to be so behind the times in your views is truly extraordinary!
The British Empire's final colonies gained independence in the 1960s - - those that remain do so by election (e.g. Scotland, Wales, Falklands etc.) - - a Briton would have to be 75 at least to recall the Raj and in their 60s like me to revile Ian Smith's 'white Rhodesia'. There are 5mil+ non-indigenous British (i.e. Parents not originally from the British Isles) and the most recent 'newcomers' are preponderantly from 'white' East Europe (the recent 'jobs for Brits' strikers were protesting about Europeans) - - so, quite how you have become stuck with this classic (almost 'Carry on Up the Khyber') image of bowler-hatted London 'east of Suez' is a mystery which I suspect goes again to your unreasoned dismissive cynacism of 'the English'.
Are you seriously considering/posing an independent Scotland will lean toward neutrality or side with China-Russia-fundamental Islam!?
Scotland going to take each international matter case-by-case at Holyrood are they? Yes, of course, and Scotland being that fully tied in member of the EU is going to really enjoy it when Brussels makes decisions based around Paris-Berlin-London interests - - or do you somehow think Edinburgh is going to be referred to anymore than Paris-Berlin actually grudgingly even consider London or Prague or Athens!?
No, Scotland's leadership (for all its antiquated bluster about perfidious England) after independence will look to London in the first instance as Brussels will certainly not be calling Edinburgh for its views: And for any international affair Scotland will in almost every instance follow Washington's lead.
It is your Scotland that must find its way in a well-deserved full independent status.
England will have to adjust to that final break-up of the UK: A part of that adjustment may come with a realisation that it is not able to retain a chair at the Security Council as nations such as India, Brazil, South Africa step up to represent the newly developed regions - - that will have nothing to do with ownership/control of Nuclear Weapons (another of your misconceptions - - when the Sec.Coun. was set-up only the USA had such weapons - - historically membership went to the 5 Allied victors of WW2 and though the UNO has gone from 50 to 150 member nations the Cold War kept the original arrangements in place). It may be England and the English will find their role diminished again in global terms, but, unlike you, I believe the English are well-suited to such adjustments as the close of empire and advance of the USA, Russia, and now China has prepared us over many eras.
The EU is where you see the future of Scotland: I think that is a false dawn for a great people and vibrant Scotland that should concentrate all its energy on establishing itself; to rush into ties with mainland Europe appears to me a recklessly 'anti-English' improvisation that will cost you your new found 'freedom' from the day you step out from under the imagined shadow of the English.
England I hope and actively work to take a step out of the EU as the Scots plough themselves deeper into it: My unimagined shadow is a Europe run from Brussels on behalf of Paris-Berlin and for whom an independent England (or UK) is anathema and to be done away with at any cost to the UK/English Citizens' rights and responsibilities.
Have a care man of the north - - Alan Breck was not far from the truth 200 years ago, "..if we could but win to them! friends and rich friends, beds to lie in, food to eat, doctors to see to him... and here he must tramp in the dubs and sleep in heather like a beggarman!"
Complain about this comment
#98
"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."
Martin Niemoller (1892 - 1984)"
I've always thought Niemoller's words easier written than acted upon. A re-writing might have been:
"First they came for the Communists, And I spoke up for them, got arrested alongside them and ended up in a concentration camp with them.
So that was that."
Martin Niemoller (1892 - 1940)
Complain about this comment
"85. At 6:49pm on 05 Sep 2009, DistantTraveller wrote:
In answer to Nick's question, 'Can Brown convince the doubters?" - the answer can only be no. This is nothing to do with the merits of the case, but because Brown and his wretched government cannot be trusted on anything and no one believes what any of them say any more.
For example:
As reported August 22: Mandelson says there was no deal over Megrahi, and any suggestions that the release of the Lockerbie bomber was linked to a UK-Libya trade deal are "offensive".
Reported September 5: Straw says said trade was "a very big part" of the 2007 talks that led to the prisoner deal with Libya."
My only problem is that Peter did not make the comment in the house of commons, If he had then the speaker would have been forced to act.
OH I had forgoten for a moment Peter is not a member of the house and not covered by its rules of honesty. He's just a totally unelected cabinet member with hands in more committees than any one else, and the ability to change goverment policy on a whim (or more likley after meeting a rich opposer to policy at a dinner party or on holiday ie ISP disconnecting file shaires, Gadafies son and the release of a prisoner....)
Complain about this comment
98. DistantTraveller
All fine words indeed, but it boils down to whether you think intervention in Afghanistan will achieve anything by us toughing it out.
I think that we only have to look in the history books to realise that the chances of that are slim.
So what has been achieved so far?
We have a democratically elected (sic) puppet Government that has little power outside of Kabul.
The President holds power by appeasing a group of War Lords who could turn their allegiances at any time.
The Poppy production is still a lot higher than it was under Taliban rule & this money exacerbates the problem by funding the very people we are trying to fight.
The extremists still seem to have the upper hand & the body bags keep coming.
You said in any earlier post that it didn’t really matter which side Bin Laden was originally on, I say it matters very much.
Don’t you find it ironic that the very tax money that went to pay for a proxy war in Afghanistan is the very money that is being used against us now?
What goes around comes around.
It’s not as if there is much stomach by our so-called allies either.
The US is trying its best, but what about the others?
Perhaps if everybody pitched in with their fair share of resources, we could get the job done far quicker, but this will not happen because there really isn’t the political will all round.
Anyway, terrorists are very resourceful & if the going gets tough they merely shift their operations somewhere else, & then what?
They don’t have to train in Afghanistan or Pakistan do they?
No, it could be anywhere really.
All of this leaves Brown caught between a rock & a hard place.
If he pulls out, he will infuriate the US (more than he already has), but if we stick around, the resources just aren’t there to get the job done.
Meanwhile, our immigration policies seem to have attracted plenty of the very people who threaten our safety at home.
Perhaps its time for us to concentrate on our own homegrown problems instead of trying to sort out everybody else’s.
The Afghan cause may be just, but that doesn’t mean it is achievable.
Personally. I still think it’s all a Red Herring since the real problems lie in Pakistan & the UK Government seem to be terrified of them for some reason?
Complain about this comment
Brown just does not get it at all. No one, apart from those within the labour elite, wants him. No one in their right mind trusts him or believes anything he says.
Complain about this comment
ANYONE FOUND A MORAL COMPASS ?
Complain about this comment
97#
You do like making a bit of mischeif dont you oldnat? France, medium level ambitions? The French are very much like the English, everywhere they go, they expect everyone to speak their language by default and they think the world revolves around them. They are, with the exception of the Americans the only nation with a more self inflated view of themselves than the Empire age English. (note the distinction!)
Ireland and Sweden... yep, OK. But, they dont make much of a difference, do they? But, again, thats fine, you've made it clear which side your bread is buttered on.
Someone else mentioned Switzerland. One thing. They recently got into a tangle with Ghadaffi over his son beating up some hotel staff in Geneva... so, he was duly nicked and the old man went off the deep end and stopped oil exports to Switzerland (who get 50% of their supply from Libya) toute de suite.
Guess who ended up blinking first?
I'll give you a clue.
It wasnt Ghadaffi.
Complain about this comment
Good afternoon nick and fellow soap boxers.In answer to nicks question can brown convince the doubters? The answer is a very big no he had a job answering the young students simple questions let a long more complexed questions like when are you going to concede and throw in the towel?And still our young men are returning draped under the union jack at brize Norton how many more Mr brown.Prisoner release from Scotland with no inter fearance from downing street over a possible oil deal in the past?i myself doubt that one for a start.Great Britain can forget it roll in the past as a leader in world affairs the British empire is finished and the likes of brown cozying up to the states is futile.There are some very difficult situation that need addressing and in my opinion brown isn't the one to be in the driving seat.Full stop..................
Complain about this comment
The thing that worries me most about modern politics is that at each headline or incident the PM has to comment/deal with the issue personally.
The Government is made up of a number of Ministers (however poor or third eleven they have become) with individual portfolios. These individuals now announce the odd thing or provide the intital defence or toady up to the PM but are never allowed 'Mission Command' to get things done or handle an issue and we are poorer for this; an issue I blame the media for a little but which Tony Blair made a permanent fixture (n.b. David Cameron).
In the instance of Afghanistan we get Gordon visiting the troops every time things go awry and looking ill at ease and using our troops as puppets to support his angle (they can hardly refuse). He will then utter a soundbite such as the one where he stated that 200 IED experts will be deployed to theatre ASAP. Where are we planning to find these experts exactly? Because the PM is in a bit of a mess he thinks that he can just announce this and everything will be ok but thinks little of the effects this will have:
1. It will help but not solve the IED problem as the experts need to find the IED before it is triggered. The majority of deaths have been caused by them being triggered with troops not aware that the device was there. Does the PM think that this is a 'red wire or blue wire' situation all the time and we just need some bright chap to defuse each one? ATO personnel can help with tactics or clear weapon finds but as good as they are they are not psychic or able to locate IEDs by scanning the horizon. If these 'experts' are for detection purposes then we would need thousands, correctly equipped, to cover our daily operations across Helmand.
2. These experts are already heavily tasked and spend a great deal of time away from their families. Any 'slack' in the system is surely already earmarked for deployment. Bringing them forward for deployment will have an effect on the future (think quantitive easing)...
3. Similar arguments for time to train/recovery from deployments.
Getting back to why we are there he fails to see that the main problem is that by having to make these announcements personally, not using (decent) Ministers to deal with the situation, not listening to the Army (was Eric Joyce referring to Gen Dannatt when he worried about 'behind the hand' tactics?) and providing them with what is required and not working with all other Ministries/nations to help the people of Afghanistan (is the Kajaki Dam working yet...)so they might support us not fight us he just makes the situation look worse and not under control. Does he not understand that terrorists/Taliban/whatever are like the Hydra and can not be defeated by eliminating bits. What exactly would we be training the Afghan Army to do?
Complain about this comment
#100 oldnat
"You may see some moral superiority in supporting a regime which allows men to starve their wives if they don't submit to sex on their husband's insistence. I don't suscribe to the idea that UK troops die to uphold such a vision"
No, I don't support those policies or any regime that would introduce them. Frankly, it is an outrage that a 'government' that is supported by the USA and UK could make such disgraceful laws. I am astonished that President Karzai was not firmly told that if he wanted continued Western support, then this had to be reversed. I am also astonished that more has not been made of the flawed election.
But, whatever we are told, I do not believe that introducing 'good' governance to Afghanistan or even a perfectly functioning democracy, are the true aims of the mission. Obviously, it would be a bonus to have those things, but that wasn't why 'we' went in in the first place. People forget that the original mission was to seek out Al Qaeda and find Bin Laden following 7/11. The mission has obviously 'evolved' over time, and now one of the most pressing matters is to stop the Taliban from destabilising Pakistan (a country with nuclear weapons).
If your point is 'it's a mess', I agree. However, just walking away now would leave things in a perilous state. But, as I have said earlier, I don't pretend to know the answer to this.
Complain about this comment
#110 Hellfyyr Good post I two noticed the white shirt short sleeve approach its a pity he didn't get out the eighteen inch bayonet and start prodding the ground like in my time looking for mines that consumed may hours of painstaking willpower to cover a very large area. Because thats the mental capacity he's equipped with, way lost in the past and unable two grasp the very difficult tasks that these men have to endure now days? It would appear as if he has chronic hearing problems regarding their problems and needs in vital equipment. But then he's well out of his depth on millitary matters.
Complain about this comment
#101 Diabloandco
"fine words indeed BUT the UK has been flogging arms to every Tom ,Dick and Harry for quite some time"
Yes, you are right. The lucrative arms trade has always been about boosting exports and providing jobs back home. Our government has never been too fussy about where the weapons go.
"Lets see if we can behave as Switzerland and the other neutral countries in Europe.
They seem to be doing just fine by their own people and resist the temptation to be the worlds policeman"
Switzerland is a fine country and if everyone else behaved like them there would obviously be no more conflicts. But in the real world, there are others who seek to destroy. Unfortunately, until such time that the human race evolves so that we can all live in peace and without fear, we do need policemen.
"the UN ,needs far greater power and the ability to act at speed instead of interminable talks"
The founding concept of the UN is obviously good, but for now it is little better than a talking shop. Whilst countries like Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Zimbabwe, N. Korea, China etc can influence policies, then any decisions from the UN have to be seen in that context.
Having the UN is certainly better than not having it, but due to the way it works, it cannot be considered the sole arbiter of what is 'right' or 'wrong'.
#103 AndyC555
"I've always thought Niemoller's words easier written than acted upon"
Yes, and that's the point. It is always easier to avoid difficult decisions.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Complain about this comment
#105 forgottenukcitizen
You say "You said in any earlier post that it didn’t really matter which side Bin Laden was originally on, I say it matters very much".
I have never said that or anything similar! Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?
You say, "Don’t you find it ironic that the very tax money that went to pay for a proxy war in Afghanistan is the very money that is being used against us now?"
Ironic, yes, but surprising, no. There is an old adage, 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. The thinking being, if someone is 'against' my enemy, they must be on my side. But this is obviously complete nonsense and we pay the price for such folly! The Iran/Iraq war is just one example.
You say "Meanwhile, our immigration policies seem to have attracted plenty of the very people who threaten our safety at home. Perhaps its time for us to concentrate on our own homegrown problems instead of trying to sort out everybody else’s"
The issue of global extremism isn't limited to other countries or any particular place. By shutting our doors, we don't keep the problem out. That is why this issue is so difficult. 'Our problems' and 'everybody else's' are inextricably linked, which is why we must work together.
You say "I still think it’s all a Red Herring since the real problems lie in Pakistan & the UK Government seem to be terrified of them for some reason?"
The problem isn't Pakistan itself, but the extremists who use it as a base and training ground for terrorists. This is also linked to what is happening across the border in Afghanistan - which is why just walking away would leave a dangerous vacuum. It's important that Pakistan is supported, but how best to do this, I don't know...
Complain about this comment
#63 feduplittlefellow
Government figures for defence spending this year
Revenue expenditure 37.9 Bn GBP
Capital expenditure 8.6 Bn GBP
(Source: Departmental Expenditure Limits - Budget 2009)
Compare this defence spend of 46.5 Bn with TOTAL education spending of 83 Bn.
UK defence spending is roughly 50 times that of the Republic of Ireland!
Who can point me to any disadvantage suffered by Ireland as a result of its limited defence expenditure?
Why not cut the UK defence spending to 1 Bn and spend the other 45.5 Bn on valuable public services?
Ashill
Complain about this comment
Well the USA (and us) has been trying to capture Bin Laden & Co for years. They have failed despite throwing vast amounts of treasure and lives at the problem.
Why? Because public opinion in the West wants it all to be nice - like a film or TV programme. The other side know this and play to it. Unless we are prepared to kill and injure lots of innocent and doubtless very photogenic people then we will never get to Bin Laden & Co.
So in conclusion it is time we wrote the whole thing off as a bad job and got out.
Complain about this comment
115#
Youre hardly comparing like with like. Ireland may not be at a disadvantage, but she doesnt do anything.
And pray, what would this extra forty odd billion do for public services?
Buy more agency nurses?
More Non job outreach workers?
More executive chairs for DFID?
More compensation being paid to prisoners for their human rights being violated by being in jail?
Anyone who would advocate such a reduction in defence spending by a permanent member of the UN Security council has obviously got a very tenuous grasp not only on politics but on reality.
Complain about this comment
#104 icewombat
"OH I had forgoten for a moment Peter is not a member of the house and not covered by its rules of honesty. He's just a totally unelected cabinet member with hands in more committees than any one else, and the ability to change goverment policy on a whim"
The fact that Brown turned to Mandelson for help shows just how desperate things have become.
This government will only be remembered for all the years of spin and deceit, with one minister saying one thing, another saying something else.
If Labour promised us 'fine weather', it would be time to build an Ark
(with acknowledgement to TW3 for that old joke)
Complain about this comment
#115
Hello ASHill,
Your economic idea for funding defence and welfare is like that of a man who fills his house with fine and expensive possessions, but neglects to put proper locks and bolts on some of the doors and windows. Eventually, he will have it all stolen away from him.
The Irish are relying upon the goodwill of their neighbours. I believe an Irishman once said to an aide of Napoleon when he was attempting to turn them against the British, “John Bull is a bad neighbour, but he is not a bully”. Perhaps the Irish are truly confident that the UK will never do any real harm to the people of Eire, and do not need to spend money on defence against the only possible aggressor they may face. That is one hell of a compliment that the people of Eire are paying to the people of UK.
Complain about this comment
#117 Fubar_Saunders
Are you suggesting it is worth throwing away 40 Bn GBP each year for a permanent seat on a committee?
I will cheerfully sit on my arse in New York (and would even change my name to Arsehill) if you pay me a tiny fraction of that amount!
More seriously, you indicate that the money would not produce valuable public services in the UK. Get real, please!
Ashill
Complain about this comment
There are so many doubters out here because no one believes that we are being told the truth.
The more waffle we here the more we disbelieve.
If it's an oil pipeline then say so. If it's nuclear waepons in Pakistan then say so.
If its islamic fundamentalism we're fighting against say so.
If it's because the US insist we do to ensure they continue participating in NATO then say so.
Unless the people are told and believe what's told to them there is no way this futile war will be seen as anything but a repeat of Vietnam
That was a war without end and it was eventually the death toll of US soldiers and public opinion which forced the eventual withdrawal of the US.
Then the excuse was communism now it's terrorism.
The only winners were the arms suppliers.
Complain about this comment
115 ashill
"Why not cut the UK defence spending to 1 Bn and spend the other 45.5 Bn on valuable public services?"
=======================
As daft as your comment is, it is in keeping with the general trend of what Gordon Brown would love to do. He has long viewed the armer forces with utter contempt, and has not acted to resolve any of the basic problems. Many of the problems today are directly as a result of his financial decisions eg helicopter budgets, equipments shortages, forces family accomodation etc.
I'm amused by the comment of "valuable public services". Do you not think that the armed forces are a valuable public service ? What valuable public services do you have in mind ? More diversity coordinators, traffic wardens, five a day advisors perhaps ? Management consultants ? Lawyers for fight troop compensation claims ?
The government would only waste the money. Perhaps, it's best if we got rid of a few so called valuable public services, and used the money to provide the armed forces the equipment and facilities they and their families deserve.
Complain about this comment
One or two persons have mentioned Bin laden? Is it not possible that the yanks killed him with that Lazar shot through the caves that time we have had no videos from his supporters of late?Seems strange they are normaly out two tell us he's alive and well.
Complain about this comment
#122 StrictlyPickled
I have been giving some thought to the concept of defence spending as a "valuable public service".
It occurs to me that recruitment to the armed forces potentially gives employment to those who would otherwise be unemployed. But it would be much cheaper to have them endlessly march around parade grounds in Yorkshire, or set them to work digging holes and filling them in again - better than having to give them excruciatingly expensive equipment and fly them overseas to use it.
Alternatively one could argue they learn useful skills in the forces. But why not instead set up a mission to Mars from which no useful product would come but the employees would learn scientific skills and there should be some useful technological spinoff? The advantage would be that no harm would be done here on earth.
Nope - sorry, can't think of any valuable service performed by the armed forces.
Hospitals, schools, public utilities and infrastructure, etc - that's valuable public services.
Ashill
Complain about this comment
#121 Silver You will never repeat never gain the truth even when they come looking for your vote on the doorstep If you are gullible you will believe every thing they tell you, They haven't the country at heart like they would have us believe only there own personal welfare its all a game. My father told me many years ago to take with a pinch of salt every thing you hear and see and sometimes say then you might somehow arrive at the truth.Hence honesty and integrity
Complain about this comment
120#
I didnt say that. What I said was, youre not comparing like with like.
Like it or not, Ireland and the UK are not the same. Ireland is not a nuclear power. Ireland's independence from the UK to become a republic came about partly through political "solutions" and partly through the armed resistance of a guerilla army, not a full time retained army. This was only formed after the civil war in the early 1920's, if I recall.
A large number of men from the Irish Republic served in British regiments during both world wars but the Irish Army was largely confined to keeping the IRA locked up at the Curragh during the course of the WW2.
If you are English, chances are you might be a tad ashamed of the UK's imperial past. Not all of what happened was honorable and the UK did some bad things, which we could and should and have apologised for.
But, it cannot be undone. We are who and what we are. We can certainly change and shape the future.
Ireland is not a nuclear power.
She has no natural resources around her coastline that I am aware of, her economy is largely rural, she has relied a lot on EU handouts and allowed her economy to overheat during the bubble of the late 20th/early 21st century.
She is at a point where the membership of the Eurozone, which had brought a degree of prosperity hitherto unknown, is being clung onto by a thread.
Her economy is almost bust.
If I recall rightly as well, she is non aligned, not a member nation of NATO, although she is a part of NATO's Partnership For Peace.
Ireland, with the exception of Guinness, which is owned by a conglomerate anyway, does not have industrial or financial reach around the world... no mining, oil, manufacturing interests that I am aware of. She also hasnt, historically made many, if any, enemies abroad. As she only has one land border, she is unlikely to be invaded. She does not need to spend billions she does not have on defence. Good for Ireland, thats fine.
Do you know what she spends the money on instead?
Now the UK on the other hand, does have commitments. Like them or not, they are there. If you realistically think we can swap seats with Ireland, after all this time, you are, most respectfully, off your head.
Am I saying that the potential "peace dividend" largesse you suggest would not produce better public services?
Well, look at it this way. How much more have New Labour poured into the NHS and Education, let alone their vaunted social engineering projects? Hundreds of Billions Of Pounds.
And how much better have things got? I'll tell you shall I? With the exception of hospital waiting lists, which are massaged, everything has got worse.
We're still kicking kids out of school with inferior qualifications to the point where 25% of school leavers are going to be consigned to the scrapheap from the minute they get out of the school gates.
We've got declining standards of medical care and have had rampant hospital borne diseases because NHS managers contract out services to the lowest possible bidder and nurses think cleaning is beneath them. MRSA killed my brother in law last year. We've got an economy in shreds. We are paying out as much in benefits in one year as we are recieving in taxation. Has NL's largesse resulted in better public transport? NO. Has it resulted in better funding of local government services? NO.
Has it resulted in hundreds of thousands of non-jobs in the civil service in the regions where Labour's core vote is? YES! Has it resulted in an open door immigration policy where over half of the new jobs that New Labour claim to have created went to economic migrants instead, suppressing wage inflation amongst the indigenous population? YES!
Throwing money at something is no guaranteee of any kind of success. Some of NL's ideas have been laudable, but the implementation has been woeful and wasteful.
Like I said. If you realistically, honestly think we could cut our defence spending to a level similar to Ireland's, you'd end up with something less than the size of the TA, which when the brothers from the Fire Brigades union go on strike again, or if there is flooding or natural disaster, or if some eejit goes wandering up Ben Nevis in flip flops, would be left to die there because you couldnt afford Search and Rescue - if you realistically think that is possible, you are, most respectfully either sniffing lighter fuel or you've got sand between your ears.
Complain about this comment
#126 Faber A well penned post if i may say so. So many good points raised in deed straight off pat But then i suppose you could always have a Guinness?And the proceeds will wing their way across to the states.
Complain about this comment
#126 Fubar_Saunders
You may be as surprised as I was to find that I agree with some of your points.
I am not interested in WW2 or the British Empire. If the Falklanders want to be British they can, but they should not expect us to spend money on maintaining a 'presence' there. You're on your own guys!
I wish we did not have nuclear weapons, polaris submarines or aircraft carriers. I would prefer our armed forces not to operate beyond the UK mainland and territorial waters.
I don't expect you to agree with that.
But I do agree that throwing money at a problem is no guarantee of a solution and the government has made terrible foul ups. I anticipate the next government will do no better - and will blame it on the legacy of New Labour.
What I expect government to do now (sadly) is to cut resources from those public services which are working satisfactorily, in the mistaken belief that this can be done in the name of 'efficiency', until we reach a point where those services break down.
If we have to cut expenditure on public services you know where I think the first 45 Bn of cuts should fall!
Ashill
Complain about this comment
"Nope - sorry, can't think of any valuable service performed by the armed forces."
"It occurs to me that recruitment to the armed forces potentially gives employment to those who would otherwise be unemployed. But it would be much cheaper to have them endlessly march around parade grounds in Yorkshire, or set them to work digging holes and filling them in again - better than having to give them excruciatingly expensive equipment and fly them overseas to use it."
"But why not instead set up a mission to Mars from which no useful product would come but the employees would learn scientific skills and there should be some useful technological spinoff?"
Right. You are either a wind-up merchant, a Crustie, a student or all three.
Put as simply as possible to each point...
1) Marching around parade grounds. Digging holes. Better work for prisoners than soldiers. So, another 140,000 military on the dole, plus the 150,000 civil servants that "support" them. Plus tens of thousands of defence related jobs gone. Yeah, good idea. Save billions that would.
2) Mission to Mars. OK. How would they get there? Rockets, perhaps? Invented by? Heard of Werner Von Braunn? Who just happened to be... a military man perhaps? And the rockets were being designed as.... maybe, could it have been weapons? The amount of spin off's there have been from military technology, employed by the Western nations over the last 100 years is huge. Things you'd take every day for granted.
"Cant think of any valuable service." Like I mentioned before. I hope you dont get yourself lost when swimming in the sea, or up a mountain, or if your house is burning down when theres Fire Brigades Union strike, or in the event of another Lockerbie... who do you think was first on the scene and did most of the clear up?
You cannot be taken seriously. Go back to gluing yourself to the front doors of RBS mate, or hiding up a tree near a new A road bypass.
Complain about this comment
124 Ashill
"Nope - sorry, can't think of any valuable service performed by the armed forces."
=====================
There we have it, the limit of your understanding. No further comment required from me or anyone else.
Complain about this comment
128#
It may interest you to know that the sale of block fishing licences by the Falkland Islands Government pays the cost of keeping the now reduced military prescence in the islands. So, in net terms, the only thing the Falklands has cost us is 500 lives, one Sea Harrier and about six warships.
The best starting point for 45Bn worth of cuts would be DFID in its entirety, the NHSPfIT and the Identity Cards scheme. Closely followed by the Trident replacement and the two aircraft carriers. I'm not saying MOD arent wasteful and things could be done better, but you cannot advocate slicing the Defence budget into negative figures and expect to be taken seriously.
Complain about this comment
#128 Ashill
"I am not interested in WW2"
Clearly! It's also evident that you have no knowledge of history.
Unfortunately, Mr Hitler WAS interested in war, so the stark choice was to oppose him or do nothing thereby allowing him to overrun Europe murdering millions of people in the process.
Because of the sacrifice made by the armed forces in WW2, you are alive and well today and free to spout your ill-informed nonsense.
Complain about this comment
#130 StrictlyPickled
I agree. Nothing to more to be said.
Ashill
Complain about this comment
Ashil,
From personal experience, the Armed Forces provides you with,
SAR
MACC
MACD
MACP
Oh yes, they are acronyms aren’t they. Typical of the military, eh
And your homework question for tonight is:
Research and produce a short report for the benefit of all the other blogg readers, who are just waiting for your reply.
Remember, it’s all part of your “education, education, education” :o)
(sorry folks, I just could not resist sending this one :o) )
Complain about this comment
#131 Fubar_Saunders
Again I find myself agreeing with much of what you say.
NHSPfIT, ID cards, Trident replacement and the two aircraft carriers would be on my list of cancellations.
I do think that over the coming decades the standard of living of the UK will fall compared to the rest of the world. I see that happening too to the rest of Western Europe and the USA.
The gainers will be in the Middle East, Far East and Asia.
Our armed forces are there to pander to the vanity of our politicians and others who do not see the shifting of economic power from West to East. They will be as influential as King Canute was over the advancing tide.
Ashill
Complain about this comment
#132 DistantTraveller
Had Mr Hitler had his way the Euro probably would be known as the Mark and Brussels would be in Berlin.
Plus ca change, plus la meme chose.
Britain has been over-run before - remember Julius Caesar, the Norman Conquest?
Ashill
Complain about this comment
THE YOUNG BRITISH SOLDIER
By Rudyard Kipling
When the 'arf-made recruity goes out to the East
'E acts like a babe an' 'e drinks like a beast,
An' 'e wonders because 'e is frequent deceased
Ere 'e's fit for to serve as a soldier.
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
So-oldier ~OF~ the Queen!
Now all you recruities what's drafted to-day,
You shut up your rag-box an' 'ark to my lay,
An' I'll sing you a soldier as far as I may:
A soldier what's fit for a soldier.
Fit, fit, fit for a soldier . . .
First mind you steer clear o' the grog-sellers' huts,
For they sell you Fixed Bay'nets that rots out your guts --
Ay, drink that 'ud eat the live steel from your butts --
An' it's bad for the young British soldier.
Bad, bad, bad for the soldier . . .
When the cholera comes -- as it will past a doubt --
Keep out of the wet and don't go on the shout,
For the sickness gets in as the liquor dies out,
An' it crumples the young British soldier.
Crum-, crum-, crumples the soldier . . .
But the worst o' your foes is the sun over'ead:
You ~must~ wear your 'elmet for all that is said:
If 'e finds you uncovered 'e'll knock you down dead,
An' you'll die like a fool of a soldier.
Fool, fool, fool of a soldier . . .
If you're cast for fatigue by a sergeant unkind,
Don't grouse like a woman nor crack on nor blind;
Be handy and civil, and then you will find
That it's beer for the young British soldier.
Beer, beer, beer for the soldier . . .
Now, if you must marry, take care she is old --
A troop-sergeant's widow's the nicest I'm told,
For beauty won't help if your rations is cold,
Nor love ain't enough for a soldier.
'Nough, 'nough, 'nough for a soldier . . .
If the wife should go wrong with a comrade, be loath
To shoot when you catch 'em -- you'll swing, on my oath! --
Make 'im take 'er and keep 'er: that's Hell for them both,
An' you're shut o' the curse of a soldier.
Curse, curse, curse of a soldier . . .
When first under fire an' you're wishful to duck,
Don't look nor take 'eed at the man that is struck,
Be thankful you're livin', and trust to your luck
And march to your front like a soldier.
Front, front, front like a soldier . . .
When 'arf of your bullets fly wide in the ditch,
Don't call your Martini a cross-eyed old bitch;
She's human as you are -- you treat her as sich,
An' she'll fight for the young British soldier.
Fight, fight, fight for the soldier . . .
When shakin' their bustles like ladies so fine,
The guns o' the enemy wheel into line,
Shoot low at the limbers an' don't mind the shine,
For noise never startles the soldier.
Start-, start-, startles the soldier . . .
If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier ~of~ the Queen!
Complain about this comment
#134 feduplittlefellow
Benefit of the armed forces, SFA - homework done!
Sorry, couldn't resist an acronym in reply!
Ashill
Complain about this comment
THE YOUNG BRITISH SOLDIER
When the 'arf-made recruity goes out to the East
'E acts like a babe an' 'e drinks like a beast,
An' 'e wonders because 'e is frequent deceased
Ere 'e's fit for to serve as a soldier.
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
So-oldier ~OF~ the Queen!
Now all you recruities what's drafted to-day,
You shut up your rag-box an' 'ark to my lay,
An' I'll sing you a soldier as far as I may:
A soldier what's fit for a soldier.
Fit, fit, fit for a soldier . . .
First mind you steer clear o' the grog-sellers' huts,
For they sell you Fixed Bay'nets that rots out your guts --
Ay, drink that 'ud eat the live steel from your butts --
An' it's bad for the young British soldier.
Bad, bad, bad for the soldier . . .
When the cholera comes -- as it will past a doubt --
Keep out of the wet and don't go on the shout,
For the sickness gets in as the liquor dies out,
An' it crumples the young British soldier.
Crum-, crum-, crumples the soldier . . .
But the worst o' your foes is the sun over'ead:
You ~must~ wear your 'elmet for all that is said:
If 'e finds you uncovered 'e'll knock you down dead,
An' you'll die like a fool of a soldier.
Fool, fool, fool of a soldier . . .
If you're cast for fatigue by a sergeant unkind,
Don't grouse like a woman nor crack on nor blind;
Be handy and civil, and then you will find
That it's beer for the young British soldier.
Beer, beer, beer for the soldier . . .
Now, if you must marry, take care she is old --
A troop-sergeant's widow's the nicest I'm told,
For beauty won't help if your rations is cold,
Nor love ain't enough for a soldier.
'Nough, 'nough, 'nough for a soldier . . .
If the wife should go wrong with a comrade, be loath
To shoot when you catch 'em -- you'll swing, on my oath! --
Make 'im take 'er and keep 'er: that's Hell for them both,
An' you're shut o' the curse of a soldier.
Curse, curse, curse of a soldier . . .
When first under fire an' you're wishful to duck,
Don't look nor take 'eed at the man that is struck,
Be thankful you're livin', and trust to your luck
And march to your front like a soldier.
Front, front, front like a soldier . . .
When 'arf of your bullets fly wide in the ditch,
Don't call your Martini a cross-eyed old bitch;
She's human as you are -- you treat her as sich,
An' she'll fight for the young British soldier.
Fight, fight, fight for the soldier . . .
When shakin' their bustles like ladies so fine,
The guns o' the enemy wheel into line,
Shoot low at the limbers an' don't mind the shine,
For noise never startles the soldier.
Start-, start-, startles the soldier . . .
If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier ~of~ the Queen!
Complain about this comment
My #136 got moderated apparently because I quoted a well known French saying. So I shall put it (more clumsily) in English.
Had Mr Hitler had his way perhaps now the Euro would be known as the Mark and the offices in Brussels would be situated in Berlin.
[French saying] The more it changes, the more it is the same thing.
We have been over-run before, by Julius Caesar and by the Normans to name but two.
Mr Hitler is now dead. Please let's move on.
Ashill
Complain about this comment
While the politicians spin the war for all they're worth, who pays the price?
Little has changed in the last hundred years.
http://www.everypoet.com/archive/poetry/Rudyard_Kipling/kipling_the_young_british_soldier.htm
Complain about this comment
#138 Ashill,
a superb answer which shows your outstanding grasp of the modern world. I have every confidence, that in years to come, you will rise to the very top. I reported on this blog many moons ago that we needed a new leader, “cometh the hour cometh the man. The hour is upon us” It is clear that you are that man, our messiah, who will lead the people of the UK to the promised land of Utopia. Stand aside Mr Brown, pack your bags Mandy, Lord of etc, etc, forget everything Dave you’ve no chance now, sorry Vince, your services are no longer required, the man is here! The Troops are coming home and all will be well in this land. Huzzahh.
Well, what did you expect. You couldn’t run a bath matey. It’s alright Gordon, I was only joking, your still the PM.
Complain about this comment
#142 feduplittlefellow
Actually I shower rather than bath. The problem with the bath is that every time I go to step in it the waters part - leaving me standing in a dry bit.
Thanks for your comment - now I understand the cause of the problem!
Ashill
Complain about this comment
FULF:
He's just toying with us. I should have known better than to rise to the bait.
Where's the Saga and Susie Show when you need it??
I'm gonna go and watch the new series of Waking The Dead (otherwise known as BBC Parliament). See ya tomorrow.
Complain about this comment
Nick, your comments:
"Losing the argument over Britain's continued involvement in Afghanistan is much more of a concern for Gordon Brown than losing the defence secretary's aide, Eric Joyce.
The two are, though, connected......
The test of the prime minister's speech is whether he can convince at least some of the doubters that the losses and the pain were worth it."
Brown's problem with trying to win an argument is that he has to convince an audience that, after 8 years - so much longer than WWII - he truly understands the reason why the venture started in the first place, the motives for continuing to be involved and the objectives (with attached cost predictions) for allowing the UK to either commit ahead or withdraw with honour.
One problem is that many argue that the UK did not withdraw from Iraq with honour. A lot of US people believe we slipped out with our tails between our legs, as the political and economic backbone was not available to support UK troops.
It's all very fine for Brown to say "he" is - actually WE are - investing to ensure that appropriate military equipment is made available. Bit late, given his scrapping of budget approval for requested helicopter spend.
But it's hard to believe anything when Ministers start briefing against senior military leaders who express an opinion on behalf of their staff. Or when there is such opacity and obfuscation about a relationship with Libya that sounds more like a banana republic's approach.
Or when assessments of the UK economy were always based on a pumped-up, credit-bubble approach to support tax-scooping and profligate spending.
There have been some peculiar comments here about minimising the defence budhet, to allow "investment" (which just means spending) on "essential public services".
The primary task of a government is to defend the nation's people. Maybe people forget that income tax was introduced to allow the UK to fight a war! It had nothing to do with health and safety, traffic wardens, education, health services, environment protection of all the other "essential public services".
IF any UK government slashed GBP30BIL from the defence budget, I'd expect that money to be given straight back to the people or companies who earned it - not sprayed around on the "cause of the day".
And it should be via absolute cuts in tax - not just collected, expensively processed around various government departments, then using rediculously complicated rules to allow people to keep their own money!
Brown will be seen in historical terms as the Chancellor who presented a bubble as the promised globe. Not a world that my children could ever be allowed to access. It popped.
(And I always tell them that, if they expect "The Government" to pay for something, they should walk about amongst their friends and decide which ones should empty their wallets... Cos that's all it is. Our money taken away so politicians can play God in support of favoured projects.
I'm quite happy, for example, if individuals choose to invest their own money in windmills for power generation. I don't like my family's money to be taken away and given as subsidies to companies who can't make an economic case for their development.
Complain about this comment
Returning to Nick Robinson's blog - he says that one third of voters want the troops out of Afghanistan now (as I do) and another one third want the troops out within 12 months.
Now if you genuinely believe that the armed forces provide a valuable public service, and if part of that valuable service (you would say) is going to Afghanistan with weapons to get shot at and blown up and do the same to the people who live there, then it seems to me you have some work to do to win 'hearts and minds' not only in Afghanistan but in the UK as well.
You say that having armed forces is useful to people lost on a mountainside or at risk at sea - but that is not the role in Afghanistan is it? (Nor is it a role which should requires ARMED forces or 45 Bn in annual expenditure.)
In the past half-century or so we have seen wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Falklands, Iraq, all of which appear to have been utterly pointless.
One feels that a government in trouble at home uses a foreign war to distract attention from UK problems and draw us together against a supposed foreign foe.
George Orwell dramatised this in "1984" and one feels he hit the nail on the head.
It is now said to be necessary for us to win the war in Afghanistan. We should be more concerned about the decaying Victorian sewage system under the streets of London, the congestion on our motorways, etc etc. (To pick a couple of non party-political topics.)
There is much that needs to be done right here in the UK. What on earth are we doing spending money on an army in Afghanistan?
Ashill
Complain about this comment
Recently I did an analysis of the distribution of opinion of Bloggers who contributed to Andrew Neil`s blog.I reported that only 7% of respondents were politically neutral or supported the governing party/ This did not reflect opinion in the country where support for Labour is stable at 25%.Without making a further analysis I am confident that opinions on this blog are equally skewed.
While the government is unpopular,it would be more interesting to have a clash of opinion and alternative points of view.The uniform condemnation of Mr. Brown is tiresome and repetitive and gets in the way of an objective evaluation of the structures and processes governing political decisions.
Complain about this comment
Doubters? What doubters?
Complain about this comment
#102 ikamaskeip
I am no more "anti-English" than you are. I am, however, "anti-British".
The UK (or England on its own) is one of the bigger European economies - largely that is a matter of population. Quite why you think that gives the Brits should intervene in other states in a way that no other similarily sized state does remains a mystery to me.
It has been obvious since Suez (my first introduction to politics), that the days of the former empires of France and the UK mounting such adventures without the backing of the US is quite impossible.
Actually, we are in agreement that England would adjust well to independence, without the British dimension.
As to my country's future, it always makes sense for a small country to be in some form of Union with other nations (unless they have had the good luck to find a one off resource like oil, and the good sense to invest it). Why on earth would one choose to have a union with one massively bigger nation, within which union we have less independence than Denmark has within the EU, as opposed to the much wider EU where no one of the big nations can dominate, and make policy to impose on all?
Complain about this comment
#108 Fubar_Saunders
And the last time that France had significant military intervention in another country wsas precisely when?
Complain about this comment
Sadly, for Gordon Brown during his time as Prime Minister he has gone from one Crisis to another with no sense of direction, while aimlessly looking around to see if he can bury his Head somewhere in the sand, hoping that the World, and His problems will simply go away upon their own.
Even when the P.M. is trying to rise above the shouts for him to resign, which upon merit appears now to be Daily from some quarters or other, while at the end with Brown facing defeat by the sheer numbers stacked up against him, he attempts appeasement by U-Turning in some vain hopes that he may end up pleasing someone, only to find that the voices of discontent get ever louder.
Today, Nu Labour is unable to make any "New" Policies simply because of the weakness, and unpopularity of Gordon Brown, for you could say that Tony Blair just managed to get out in time, leaving Brown to pick up the fall-out from both within and outside the real Labour Party, and matter at State at large both Home and away.
We are coming up too the silly end part of the Summer Season where at that point in time we have the Labour Party Conference, whereby we will hear all the old chestnuts of Policies by re-launching yet once again, while the P.M. wanders about kissing Old Ladies and Babies.
It therefore remain to be seen just how much back-bone is left in the member-ship of the Real Labour Party, and how far they are prepared to go and slap down both Gordon Brown and his chosen would be Cabinet Ministers, along with challenging the leader-ship over all their failed Policies of the past few Years, todate.
So, again therefore what Brown has to do is not so much in wasting his time in trying to yet again appease the Voting public onto his side, but moreover in an up-hill struggle in trying to convince all the doubters in the Real Labour Party with, at the rate he has been going since he took Office as P.M., will be never.
I cannot wait for this Silly Season to get started, for like Nick Robinson knows there will be more unanswered Question at the end of all the Political Party Conferences then there currently is prior to these events.
Complain about this comment
Ashill,
The blog was originally about whether Brown could persuade the elctorate that being involved in Afghanistan was feasible. The mods seem to allow all sorts of stuff, so I'm responding to your variant...
"There is much that needs to be done right here in the UK. What on earth are we doing spending money on an army in Afghanistan?"
Of course there is a lot that needs doing in the UK. There has been such a requirement for centuries. That doesn't mean that tax should be taken from people who earn money in order to do what you seem to believe are "essential public services". Without saying what they may be.
Like bringing up children? Parents are responsible for children they create and bring up. Well, they used to be. Was a time if you couldn't afford that - either financially or emotionally - you didn't just breed for the sake of it.
Like the more rediculous health and safety stuff? Was a time when people were smart enough to realise when they needed a bit of experience before climbing too high on a ladder - but didn't need to be "trained and have a certificate" to do it. Like spending money on stopping people putting up hanging baskets in case somebody is hurt - though there appear to be no incidences of that happening.
Like hiring a special inspectorate to monitor households, to ensure they use expensive "low energy" light bulbs rather than much better value and light producing bulbs?
Like building windmills to garner energy? For goodness sake that stuff has been around for millennia. It was dumped in favour of river power (rivers tend to flow almost all the time. Winds blow when they want to.) then other reliable sources of power.
Traffic wardens? They'd be a lot of help if the UK came under attack!
By the way, you seem to forget (as we all choose to) that the last significant invasion was when William of Orange brought a bunch of blokes from the Netherlands to this country.
Once upon a time it would be fairly close (Western European) nations who could attack the UK. That's long gone.
You are right. Hitler is long gone. Stalin (who had a peace pact with him) was to slaughter millions of his own and subjugate millions of others.
Maybe you are right. What we need is a good life boat system, to save the ignorant people with multiple GCSEs who drift off on their lilos. Maybe I'd prefer a local coast guard who simply shoot the lilo, so the candidates for the Darwin Awards just didn't cost so much! That - by the way - was written with a sense of irony. But only just.
I hate it when my daughter is out late. Because there is no secutity here on UK soil, for UK citizens. Because there are so many UK people who have no idea about or understanding of basic human social values. Shouldn't be some government funded stuff - it should be what you grow up with.
Ashill, maybe you don't realise that the road system in the UK was originally imposed by the Romans, and much later the responsibility of local councils. Or that rail transport was a totally commercial development. As were the adventures into electricity generation and gas supply. And hospitals, policing and education. Even armies, actually.
The biggest of Brown's problems is to define what he thinks the State should NOT be responsible for. He's wasted enough of my family's money on totally spurious things. I'd just like to understand which part of UK life is not supposed to be in thrall to the State.
Brown now needs to work out not only how his foreign plicy works, but how to chop out massive excessive spending within the UK.
If a decent commercial organisation couldn't reduce spend by 5 percent they would be derelict in their duty, if revenue was in free-fall. Ours - the UK tax income - is plummeting.
I don't know about you, but if my family's income drops I cut out stuff that isn't really necessary. But I wouldn't chop things that could defend my children.
Complain about this comment
#152 fairlyopenmind
"But I wouldn't chop things that could defend my children"
Nor would any of us. However, it is a matter of judgment as to whether invading Islamic states defends our children, or exposes them to more serious risk of attack.
I have no wish to see soldiers from these islands (I presume none of your children are in the military) exposed to risk, just because Gordon Brown or David Cameron want to pretend that they are the leader of a seriously important world player.
Complain about this comment
Some interesting points on here even if somewhat irrelevent to the main question.
Six million people on benefits in the UK - 25% of the voting population predicted by pollsters to vote Labour - that speaks for itself, I think.
Blair and Brown, I think, HATE THE ENGLISH - there is a clear undercurrent in their trail of wreckage in the governance of the UK and that is why many English people hate Brown.
But, both Blair and Brrown are wannabee Winston Churchill's but they are not fit to tie Winston's shoe laces. Both Blair and Brown have failed miserably as the 'Wannabee Winstons'- in fact, they have individually and collectively failed at most things.
Keep hating us 'Wannabee Winston' - your time will come around soon!
Complain about this comment
Morning nick and Nat i see you are in the states Nat?as the blogs are in bed in the UK.Regarding the blog The doubters are still in abundance Nat .The UK is no longer a powerful player on the world stage, of course Gordon brown would like two think that it is? As it some times makes him look as if hes contributing some thing really useful, But the main players step back and take a more cautionary stance nodding their heads but not necessarily taking all he says for granted especially when they see the political problems he has on his own doorstep, And finding them difficult two contain.The UK needs two step back and take a closer look at the problems it has in its own back yard .Leave Afghan and other conflicts alone and start sorting out its enemy from within, the general public know the issues they want sorting, And its not being one of the worlds policemen Leave that tasks two the united states and china Those days of the great British empire are long gone ,Along with imperial japan and Pakistan, the latter is the breading ground of some of the currant problems the UK face today infiltrators in their mist and growing.
Complain about this comment
150#
Ha ha, indeed! I know exactly what you mean. Like the old adage of googling the phrase "Famous French Military Victories" then hitting "I feel lucky"...
From what I remember it was probably either Algeria or Chad, I'm not sure. Certainly Vietnam was ignominious. French history certainly has them as the liberators of Paris in WW2...
The fact that history does not back up an inflated national ego is neither here nor there... France still believes she is a major world player.
...As do some of the English, I'm afraid. Hence all this punching way above our weight on the cheap business. Our international influence has been dwindling over the years and although we're still a permanent member of the UNSC and a nuclear power, we are a pale shadow of what we used to be. And, before long we're going to get a bloody nose for it too, unless we decide what and who we really are for the 21st century. We're certainly not an imperial, global power any more, that much is a fact.
Complain about this comment
oldnat and #149.
Hmm, you are moving the goalposts again to suit your argument, and it just does not resonate with me: Especially as you do not actually address my points about 'relevance' or otherwise of the UK.
Hence, it is difficult to follow the logic-reasoning of your comment: Apparently some amorphous group called the Brits are dangerous but the sub-groups Scots, English, Welsh, Irish are not!?
How do these 60,000,000 people so easily step out from this perceived aggro-assertive-inflamatory British cultural mind-set to the pacific-balanced-reasoning of Nationalities? By gaining 'independence' from the UK?
Sort of Clark Kent in and out the phone-box routine! I always find that faintly ridiculous as the super-hero has his underpants on show!
Will the unencumbered 4 Nations find themselves in a similarly dishsevelled political-social-moral condition - - time will expose the flaws in your vision - - for breaking away from a Union in an effort to restore National direction and control within an even larger pan-European body is the politics of the naively credulous.
Re, "...why...gives Brits (right/reason?) to intervene in other states..?"
International law via the UNO does make such actions feasible and acceptable (i.e. politically approved - - the morality of attacking killing/injuring anyone anywhere is of course never acceptable in strictly human terms - - however, human race being what it is there are those who would stand back forever from any aggression and those who consider it the right course of action to intervene at some stage for reasons dependent on circumstance/excuse).
The NATO campaign in Afghanistan is quite clearly UN approved (and UK as a loyal ally followed suit): The debacle of Iraq has led to the present situation where what should have been done by 2005-06 in Afghanistan is now taking much longer ('exit strategy'? Your guess is as good as mine!).
Iraq on the other hand is wide open to argument - - it was a brilliant military achievement - - i.e. the overthrow of Saddam and the Baathist ruling elite - - but, it was a disaster from that point on for the Iraqis especially and for the credibility of the so-called 'coalition of the willing'. The lively debate as to the legality of the campaign has never persuaded me simply because it all went so horribly to climb on the "it's illegal" bandwagon. The UN Security Council Resolutions are loosely worded and open to the cynical interpretation of those 'for' and 'against'.
I totally agree about the post-Suez view on the likelihood of UK and/or France acting unilaterally on any military issue: The USA is the paramount political-economic-military force and long may it continue.
Hence my puzzlement that you want your independent Scotland to at once join with the European Defence Force (membership is obligatory as a new nation) which is a direct challenge/undermining of NATO and the USA? I cannot envisage the EDF ever being aggressive in defence of Georgia against Russia or Tibet against China (anymore than the US/NATO). However, 'policing' actions e.g. Balkans/East Timor will crop up and unless there is a vast expansion of EDF Armed Forces it will be reliant on the US/NATO or wholly ineffective. So, if in its present form EDF can do nothing what is the purpose of the EDF if not to become the fully functioning/equipped modern Military arm of a European Union intent on replacing NATO - - and there is your Scotland slap-bang in the sort of union you've all along campaigned was a main reason for getting out from under the UK/England! Out of the political-military-economic frying pan and into the power-hungry-EU fire and with your discredited non-aligned underpants on display!
Scotland thoroughly deserves its place at the table of Nations as a fully fledged democratic voice of reason and culture. Given everything you soundly argue is wrong with the UK union are you really sure EU membership is the way to achieve it?
Complain about this comment
DEFENCE resources should be used to defend our borders, perhaps also EU borders. Switzerland is much richer than us and is nearer to the MiddleEast and do not have a natural barriers, yet it does not feel the need to send her troops away. We must be an UK constitution forbidden our troops to be send away or used by others for their own gains but paid for by us.
Complain about this comment
The real tragedy of the Afghan situation is that in 2001 we had a genuine chance to turn the country around. Afghans hated the Taliban and were glad to see the back of them, had a serious effort been made to improve the country's infrastructure and create security with a relatively small number of troops then we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
The problem was that Cheney and Rumsfeld had no interest in Afghanistan beyond the presence of Bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda and merely saw it as a warm up for the main event in Iraq. So they installed Karzai, who as subsequent events have shown is an incompetent and corrupt ruler and just like the British in the 1920's resorted to "aerial control," i.e. bombing anything that moved. This has alienated a large section of the population, and our continuing support for Karzai doesn't help.
I think it was the Sunday Times yesterday that had an analysis piece about how a blatantly rigged election in South Vietnam in 1967 turned most of the population against the Americans, I'm afraid that history mayu be about to repeat itself.
Complain about this comment
puzzling and #158.
"...Switzerland.. Middle East.. do not have natural barriers.."
Whether you are referring to Switzerland atop the Alps or to the Levant and Arabian Peninsula you clearly have no idea of the physical geography of those regions.
The 'natural barriers' are formidable in and around all of them.
As for a Constitution forbidding UK troops to be 'sent away' it is a worthy notion: However, are you seriously proposing the UK should not have intervened in the Falklands, Balkans, Afghanistan etc. and simply let aggressors remain? What about the humanitarian campaign in Sierra Leone?
Looking to future scenarios: Are you suggesting if Argentina again invades Falklands, or, Spain attempts to annex Gibraltar UK does nothing, and, if another Rwanda-type brutality occurs the UK ignores it as it did the last?
Even you hedge your high-minded views and 'puzzle' whether UK lives should be put at risk for "EU" borders! So, tell us, why might it be okay for a British soldier to kill or be killed on the borders of Eire, Norway, Finland, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Greece but not in defence of the Phillipines, South Africa, Egypt, India, Chile etc.?
Just where do the human lives become worthy or unworthy of UK concern?
Complain about this comment
there's no doubt that having a disproportionately large military gives us a bigger voice on the "World Stage" than we otherwise would have (even if we do tend to end up as junior partner in a Big Bob Little Larry routine with the USA) but here's the thing: it's not us who are on the WS using that "louder and more annoying than it otherwise would be" voice, is it? - no, it's our political establishment - and that's not quite the same, is it? - great for them, I can see that ... the late night phone calls with other key players, the big boy meetings crackling with tension, too sensitive to be minuted ... too important, frankly ... yes important, all very very important - and extremely hard to give up, I'd have thought - don't blame them for clinging onto it, even at the cost of 45 billion (or whatever it is) - cheap at twice the price actually, that sort of power buzz for the Establishment - an excellent investment for THEM ... a good use of public money for them
... but for us?
Complain about this comment
It would serve the Government well to set before the people the (allegedly) legal basis for being there. When the US acted in late 2001 they were, so it is claimed, seeking Osama bin Laden in connection with the 911 atrocities. This barely fell within the UN resolutions but we can be generous and suggest that the intention was legitimate.
But then we have to deal with the illogical loss of the chance of capturing ObL alive at Tora Bora. So what was the US doing there if it wasn't to capture (or even dispose of) ObL, and how did this now fit the UN resolution. We were fed a lot of smoke and mirrors around the Taleban, and a somewhat tenuous connection with 911 "terrorism", to keep the operation "legal" but it had now fallen outside the UN scope.
A regime change? No doubt there are/were Taleban beliefs that do not settle well in the west, but what of the alternative? Was it any less unpleasant? And had the US returned to the UN to argue their case?
When and if a UK prime minister (or even opposition leader) sets out the truth of Afghanistan to the UK people, then perhaps we can begin to see illogic in this whole operation - wrong targets, wrong country, wrong motives, and an unpleasant illegality.
Had Bush quickly brushed over the sands that pointed to the real culprits of 911? Had Bush even gone so far as to say the perpetrators of 911 were his trusted allies just so he could attack Afghanistan? Do the US people know how evil their own government's chosen political ally in Afghanistan actually is?
The Soviets tried to seduce Afghans with their attempts to overcome a Taleban bolstered with US weapons. The US has attempted the same seduction this time with a corrupt alternative to the Taleban and with a pathetically rigged election. None of these actions correspond to what the Afghans MAY want. I say "MAY" because no one is getting even close to asking them.
Complain about this comment
All this talk about Scotland and the other parts of the UK going it alone is nonsense Scotland along with Ireland and Cardiff Newcastle you name it, Is the united kingdom and can never be any thing other than just that NATO was formed after the last war but owing to differences of opinion it has been a job two hold its self together .The EU is in similar disarray one group will send forces the other groups won.t In my opinion for what its worth the whole shooting match should be disbanded and start again .The object of the exercise was to offer stability to Europe as a united front assisting in other parts of the world where and when needed but the global picture is so vast thats its nigh on impossible to implement its good intension's so the states has two hold the reigns and then get jumped upon when things go pear shaped.So its a no-win situation.
Complain about this comment
157#
Very, very, good question. I'll be intrigued as to what the answer is to that.
158#
True, she doesnt. Also, she has a history of non-alignment. She also made heavy financial concessions to the Germans to avert invasion during WW2 and if the Allies hadnt have landed on D-Day, the invasion of Switzerland would have come sooner or later. Declassified papers show that the Swiss would have blown the bridges and other routes in through the alps, but would have ceded the populated lowland areas to the Germans.
The post-war German and Japanese constitutions also prevented them from fighting outside their own borders, if I recall correctly.
Hence why the Germans have been a fat lot of good in Afghanistan for the last few years apart from blowing up hijacked fuel tankers surrounded by avaricious local civilians.
Depends what you want the country to be... Remember, projection of power overseas is not always a matter of combat, there is also humanitarian relief, evacuations, delivery of aid and reconstruction that the military can and often are, involved with. Make your mind up and vote accordingly.
Complain about this comment
The short answer is No, to convince the doubters.
Another own goal over the Libya affair on Sunday evening? Can he last until the party conference?
Complain about this comment
nautonier @ 154
You mention that six million people are on benefits in the UK - and that 25% of the voting population are predicted by pollsters to vote Labour.
This brings to mind an old saw 'He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul".
There are also some significant other voting groups who might also be tempted to continue voting for Labour, for example:
a) the Civil Service - because 'Dave' and his chums are going to take a chainsaw to their index-linked final salary pensions.
b) Union members - because 'Dave' is most unlikely to point his moonbeam munificence in their direction.
c) NHS management workers - because again 'Dave' is likely to put the chainsaw into that layer.
bryhers @ 147 bemoans that lack of 'left-wing' support on these blogs.
I have been political blogging for around a decade and have also noticed a dearth of left-wing bloggers.
It is a bit of a mystery, maybe the 'workers' are too busy slaving away for the 'bosses' to spend much time on these blogs.
It is a great pity because the blogs are a bit unbalanced by their absence.
Complain about this comment
No, the only person who thinks Brown is right, is Brown.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that the country is backing the Conservatives and that there is no confidence in him, Brown continues to doggedly stake his claim and dig his heels in.
Quite sad, really, and dangerous for this country the longer he remains.
Complain about this comment
#153, oldnat wrote:
"#152 fairlyopenmind
"But I wouldn't chop things that could defend my children"
Nor would any of us. However, it is a matter of judgment as to whether invading Islamic states defends our children, or exposes them to more serious risk of attack."
Oldnat,
I have substantial doubts about UK involvement in either Iraq or Afghanistan. (I especially challenge whether there were genuine strategic objectives, including a definition of what a "victory" would be and how troops would be withdrawn. I still don't see a convincing case being made by Obama, Brown or the other members of the alliance.)
A few dozen countries are engaged in Afghanistan - so presumably the governments of 30 odd nations decided it was a good idea.
I do believe that it's anachronistic thinking to say (as some posters have) you should "just defend the physical borders". You obviously can't wait for hand-to-hand, broadside-for-broadside, fighting only within territorial waters and on land when aircraft and missiles have ranges of thousands of miles.
So I sympathise with the idea of having to take on a genuine enemy within their territory if need be.
The problem is that troops are sent to do their jobs on the instruction of politicians.
You just have to hope that they have the intelligence and practical common sense to make proper assessments. And that they think through a complete vision of the military, political and consequent social outcomes of engagement.
For the last couple of decades the UK has been involved in "wars of choice". Sometimes on behalf of Muslim communities (as in the Balkans) and sometimes perceived as being anti-Muslim.
The problem that Brown faces is to convince us that there is some clear reason and strategy for the Afghan exercise. Historically, that area has always shrugged off "foreign intruders".
Blair never really convinced me that either the Afghan or Iraq ventures had been thought through beyond "Let's get rid of the bad guys in a government, so the local good guys appreciate us and become politically more like us".
Blair always seemed shallow. Brown claims to be a deep thinker. I'm still waiting for some exposition of just what represents a good "final outcome" that will allow our troops to withdraw.
Complain about this comment
Can Brown convince anyone of anything?
His latest shambling U-turn on Libyan compensation typifies the man. He got something wrong, he refused to admit that he was wrong. He then realises public opinion is aginst him, changes his mind, refuses to admit that he was wrong or that he has changed his mind.
The small crumb of comfort I can draw from the mess he has made of this country and its immediate future is that when he is voted out of office and of leadership of the Labour party, his career will be in ruins and, hopefully, he'll be a sad broken man.
Complain about this comment
Michael Portillo, writing in yesterdays ST, made a useful contribution to the debate over the 'AfPak' question.
It is patently true that the Taleban/Al Quaeda were pushed over the border into Pakistan and therefore started to destablise that country (not that it appeared to be particularly stable beforehand).
In the most optimistic view, the measures proposed by US Gen. McCrystal, coupled with continuing pressure from other sources such as the Pakistani military, special forces and the drones, will eventually put enough pressure on some of the Taleban, such that they switch sides and ultimately cause Al Quaeda decamp to a friendlier place e.g. Yemen and/or Somali.
Complain about this comment
I see some comment to the effect that blogs such as this are not representative of opinions of the public as a whole. That is no doubt true.
It is interesting to see however that of over 150 posts here only a handful are in support of the UK involvement in the war in Afghanistan - and some of those on the basis of "we have to start from the fact that we are currently there, and have to find a way to exit honourably".
There is a separate debate to be had about the best use of the billions which could be cut from the defence budget. (Should it be spent on public services? If so, which ones? Should it be used to cut UK taxes? Should it be retained to reduced the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement?) These are issues in a different debate.
There is, on here, only the very occasional contributor saying that having UK troops in Afghanistan makes the UK a safer place. Interesting!
Ashill
Complain about this comment
#124 Ashill
"Nope - sorry, can't think of any valuable service performed by the armed forces"
Forums are a home for really dumb comments but I think we have a new champion for this board. What are you going to do if someone chooses to invade? Hit them with your copy of the Big Issue?
Complain about this comment
25% of the voting public are possibly still going to vote lab our ?Why is someone holding an AK 47 to their heads then ?Or is it the possibility of having their fingers cut off being covered with printing ink?As to being unable to write their own signature?EDUCATION EDUCATION remember the quotes well well well.
Complain about this comment
Public support for the war is not the same as public support for the armed services.
Where have all the left leaning - or more accurately, Pro-Brown-Government - bloggers gone? Who knows. Back to Uni perhaps. Maybe they're on strike. Maybe somebody cut through an IP pipe in the Champagne Socialist Republic Of Islington with a JCB.
Maybe they figure they cant defend the indefensible any more. Or they're sick to the back teeth of doing so. Or, maybe the 25% who the statistics say support Labour have no interest in registering their views on here, but would rather either talk to like minds on LabourList or other left leaning blogs rather than in open debate elsewhere.
Not agreeing with Brown's government is not the same as being Pro-Tory. A significant number of the regulars on here are exasperated with all three of the main parties, but with the current incumbents more, because they are the ones in power.
That doesnt make them all rabid Tories. Never has, never will.
Complain about this comment
fillandfrowpist and #162.
Re, "...serve the Government well to set before the people the (allegedly) legal basis for being there.."
UNO Security Council Resolution 1386: This 'reaffirmed' previous Sec.Coun. Resolutions 1378 (14 Nov '01) and 1383 (6 Dec '01) 'supporting' international efforts to root out terrorism in Afghanistan, 'welcomed' developments in Afghanistan for Afghanis to enjoy the UN 'inalienable rights and freedoms', and 'recognised' ultimate Afghan responsibility to provide 'security, law and stable' government; it went on to reiterate and support the Bonn Agreement (5 Dec '01) which included the deployment of 'international security forces' to Afghanistan in support of those Afghanis seeking removal of terrorist organisations and foreign mercenaries within its borders as well as those Afghanis from positions of authority that are deemed in alliance with such groups...
Now, that is about as fairly upfront, totally legal grounds for 'being there' as any I have seen on any conflict.
So, as happens with many opponents of recent USA Foreign policy the debacle of Iraq has coloured/affected your entire view of events and made you present arguments that are entirely false on Afghanistan.
The NATO Forces in Afghanistan are there to hunt down bin Laden and his nasties, are there to depose the Taliban and are there to effect regime change - - and all with unanimous UN Security Council endorsement.
That Afghanistan is notoriously ungovernable by the common concepts of what amounts to Government is a reality: Conflict for some 30 years, War Lords, Drug Lords, Illiteracy, Tribal feuds, Feudal infra-structures etc. and dwelling there a terrorist group that has repeatedly claimed responsibility for 9/11 and many other heinous acts whilst backing a grotesque Islamic Fundamentalism placing women at the mercy of men and children attending school as legitimate terror targets!
Yet, you decide it is all the fault of some lying Politicians in the 'west' who have set about the "..wrong targets, wrong country, wrong motives..."!
The mind boggles at what you would conceive of as a 'legal' campaign!?
You may condemn USA-NATO's choice of allies for the campaign in Afghanistan but given your own acknowledgement of the condition of that nation post-Soviet and pre-NATO invasion plus my description I am intrigued to know exactly whom you would cite as the ideal 'democracy-loving' Afghan ally the 'west' somehow overlooked!?
Re, "...I say MAY because no ones getting even close to asking them (Afghans - what they want).."
So, is it your preference for a return to the status quo of pre-2001 with Taliban and bin Laden style of Government?
They, of course, would not have held any sort of 'democratic' process with choice of candidates for Afghans to choose from by ballot - - the 'corruptness' of the recent election is a sad commentary on the quality of NATO's Afghan 'allies' - - but, at least some millions did get a vote and the 2 main candidates appear to be neck-and-neck according most recent announcements.
Criticise by all means but at least show some understanding of the complexities of the profoundly disjointed conditions within which the US-NATO Forces and Afghan 'Leadership' are having to work.
Complain about this comment
#172 Freeman
If I fear a wasp sting I would be foolish to purchase a guard dog to protect me from it. Not only would the guard dog be expensive to purchase and feed, it would also be totally ineffective to protect me from the wasp sting.
If we fear anything it is a terrorist atrocity in the UK. The 45 billion spent on the armed forces does nothing to protect us from that (and arguably actually increases the risk).
The USA spends vastly more on armed forces than the UK. Those armed forces did nothing to protect the USA from 9/11.
Ashill
Complain about this comment
Re: 154 nautonier.
I don't believe for one minute that either Brown or Blair hate the English, but moreover what is true is that in reality Brown at least has for along time now has become "Englishised" in his way of thinking, and by doing so has lost his memories of the grass roots of Scottish problems.
For lets face facts here for in Scotland it is not the once mighty Labour Party that rules the roost, it is the SNP that are in Government. For again if anything Brown has also lost the respect of many of his once fellow Scots.
The reason for this is because Politics to the many is what happens Locally, for no one living in London can really be expected to understand what is happening in every local environment in Scotland, as I am also equally sure that they have very little concern what happen in the Northern regional parts of England either.
Therefore, both Brown as Blair before him has been taken in by what the majority of Voters in the U.K. thinks as a whole as a requirement, for there are 55 million People or more living in England, which is up against around just 5 million living Scotland, althought Nu-Labour doe's have the luxury of returning Scottish Labour M.P.s' to Westminster, which quite frankly is really all that is important to not just Labour but all the main Political Parties during a General Election period.
No doubting then that from now onwards right up until the forthcoming General Election we will be once more told just how important every part of the United Kingdom is in relation to the other, only to find once more that after the next General Election that any promises made will be firmly locked up back into the Vaults of Political preception of wishfull thinking, in each of the Political Parties Departments of Brain-Washing, for since when ever did any Political Party carry out in Full, or in many Cases any real promises to cure the ill's of British Society.
The wishfull thinking of Politicians knows no bounds, for just a week or so ago the Labour Transport Minister was harping on about investing Millions of Pounds into creating an investment to catch-up with a High - Speed Rail Link between Euston and Glasgow Central, in 30 Year's time, while the very next day there was an announcement that around 150,000 Railway Workers will lose their Job's within the next 12 Month's, and to add insult to injury just yesterday Midlands Railway was closed down because Train Drivers decided that they would not go into Work so that the Train operating Company can use Free Labour. You really could not make this up.
We also have as you say around 25% of the heads counted Unemployed out of Work, and of those that are counted, the worrying trend is the rise of those between 18 and 25 Years of Age.
Along with many that have or will have taken a Gap-Year, the true Unemployment count is really unknown. [ Nothing new here then ].
Looking forward, we know that the Government is raising the level of the State Retirement to beyond 65 Years, and this will also do nothing more then ensure that we will be seeing more Unemployment in the future, for even when our current Recession comes to a Technical end, we have no ideas as yet as to just what we will be Exporting to maintain a high level of Employment based manufacturing in the future, for only last week the last TV manufacture in the UK [ Toshiba ] closed its doors for the final time, so given that Britain today now has lost its one time National Industries that were once the back-bone and the driving force of British Exports.
So the Question today is: just where doe's the Government thinks All the New Employment places are coming from, not just to reduce the current levels of UK Unemployment, but to further stop Unemployment from rising in the future.
Complain about this comment
#175
I am unimpressed with people whose main thrust of attack is that a country is "not like I think it ought to be". I am sure you know what is best for you but please do not lecture Afghans about what they need. They are certainly not going to get it from a US "special selection".
Afghanistan has been a buffer zone for over three hundred years. Its strategic use to the US is because it is needed for fuel/energy pipelines. The "stories" about ObL, which you recycle as "fact", have little basis in hard evidence; there is much more serious evidence (collected by US intelligence over the past twenty five years) against Pakistan.
But of course the US do not want to be in Pakistan. And there is no legal basis for any foreigners to be in Afghanistan attacking anyone. Read the resolutions over a twenty five year period NOT since the US invaded illegally.
Complain about this comment
#176...yes but to help ward off a burglar, bug spray is not that helpful..neither is a rolled up Big Issue.
We have various types of forces for various needs. Each has their area (including police/humanitarian actions).
Can you still not see any valuable service performed by our armed forces?
Not one?
Or would a more accurate comment of your views be...
"I do not think Britain should get involved around the globe and should make do with a tiny military and (from previously) forget the Falkland Islanders/Gibraltarians and anyone else who is not on this island"?
In which case that is your right to hold that opinion but Dirty Harry had a good quote about them. My one of those says the Falkland Islanders/Gibraltarians are as British as I am and deserve defending.
Complain about this comment
fillandfrowpist and #178.
Please reveal your 'Intelligence' sources for knowing it is people from Pakistan behind 9/11.
If you know such things presumably you can let us all in on those responsible for terror bombings in Kenya, Tanzanier, Pakistan, Bali, Turkey, Egypt, India etc.?
'"..USA special selection..": So, despite the UNO Security Council vote for in an intervention in Afghanistan you know so much more than the delegates of the 15 Nations?
Would that not be very similar to the selective use by those opposed to USA Foreign-military policy who trumpet how the Security Council was split on the Iraq invasion: I.e. when the Sec.Coun. votes in favour of the USA (re Afghanistan) it is a puppet of the White House and when it does not it is evidence of the USA flouting international law!?
If you cannot come up with fact and continue to present your own perspective as reality one could draw the conclusion you are trying to 'lecture' on what you want to believe is the truth to suit your view of nasty old USA!
Complain about this comment
177#
"Midlands Railway was closed down because Train Drivers decided that they would not go into Work so that the Train operating Company can use Free Labour"
Almost true. Not quite free Labour, just normal pay for working on a Sunday, as against the double time they had been on during the summer. And, knowing Bob Crowe's lot... give him a millimetre and he'll take a mile.
Quite which idiot from the Train Operating Company concerned signed off on that contract, heaven only knows.
You're right though, you couldnt make it up. Its like being back in the 1970's.
Complain about this comment
fillandfrowpist and #178.
Somehow in my haste I removed a sentence from my #180 reply.
It was :
'It is all very well to be 'unimpressed' but you are therefore implying the Taliban etc. should be left to rule and the fate of women and children makes no impression on you at all!'
Complain about this comment
#180,#182
If you wish to go galloping around the globe sorting out the "wrongs" committed by governments against their people, then perhaps you should start at "home" and work gradually away from home as, when and if, you get the chance.
The Taleban have been around for a very long time in Afghanistan, in Pakistan and in many other nations in the area. They were settlers from a myriad of different sources, and their reputation has been utilised by the west in various different guises. As it is the US "special selection" is equally unpleasant as was the "replacement" for Mr Hussein in Iraq. They are horses for courses and not brought in by politicians who are in the least interested in "making countries better". But if you are talking about "women and children" then you should study the subject in a little more depth.
As for intelligence read the 911 Commission Report carefully, including the bits about aircraft attacks on US soil (which actually go back twenty five years or so). Read the testimony given by those who were entirely unimpressed by the US administration and compare with the perjury committed (at least twice) by the FBI agents, and the demonstrably dishonest testimony of a certain Ms Rice. Now make up your mind who was telling the truth and who wasn't and why the Commission were so keen to back good old GWB.
Complain about this comment
fillandfrowpist.
And finally; took your advice and referred back to UN Resolutions I had not read in recent times.
Thanks for jogging my memory so informatively. To take just 3 from the end of the Clinton era and leading to the Dubya Oval Office:
Resolutions 1076 (1996) / 1193 (1998) / 1267 (1999)
Among myriad clarion call sub-sections to the international community and addressed to the Taliban by the UN Sec.Coun. were the following:
Taliban to cease mass killings of opposing forces in Afghanistan, Taliban to desist from subjugation of women's rights, Taliban to halt all attacks, kidnaps and killing of UNO Officials whether local Afghan or international representatives working for the UN Observation Delegation, the World Food Organisation and UN Aid stations, Taliban to explain and produce the missing Iranian and Turkish Diplomats taken into 'protective custody' by Taliban, Taliban to cease genocidal destruction of Shia community settlements, Taliban to uphold right of children inc. females to access education...
It just goes on and on... The further I read back the more I came to realise that were the International Community (via UNO/NATO/EU/USA) to have taken up your line of "..don't lecture Afghans on what they need.." I.e. the sit back and do nothing approach as per very sadly the Balkans' people for many years, and most tragically as happened for Rwanda's entire strife-torn era and so many others, then appeasement would have found a new and even more vulgarly unpleasant measurement!
In fact (as opposed to unsubstantiated opinion) and is well documented the USA in particular had military intentions where Afghanistan is concerned pre-9/11. These plans were quite well advanced and centred around the Taliban failing to comply with all the above Sec.Coun. Resolutions and for the USA in particular (but by no means in isolation) the failure of the Taliban to comply with those same Resolutions's demand that they handover bin Laden and Al Queda terrorist leadership to at least a neutral Nation. That Pres Clinton had ordered such Pentagon policy development was incorporated into the lamentable Dubya's massive but far from hasty response to the events of 9/11.
Complain about this comment
166. At 10:02am on 07 Sep 2009, JohnConstable wrote:
nautonier @ 154
>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes - you are quite right with your (a) (b) (c) list - my analysis was rather limited and I would add two further main categories -
(d) the immigrant vote as New Labour give NI numbers and election voting papers out like free newspapers - even though many of these people are not legally entitled to vote.
(e) OAP's, as many elderly people sre really struggling (but still see Labour as more generous than other aprties in looking after them - even though Wannabee Winston blocked their earnings related pension increase in 2004)
What does that swell the potential full Nu Labour vote to - 10 - 12 million of 'eligible voters'?
David Cameron/ Nick Clegg - Are you listening? - Please speak to these groups and reassure them, wherever possible, of your intentions regarding the next general election.
What is apparent, I think, is that Wannabee Winston does not need to try very hard to secure their votes at the next election - I find this most disturbing indeed.
Complain about this comment
177. At 12:22pm on 07 Sep 2009, LondonHarris wrote:
Re: 154 nautonier.
I don't believe for one minute that either Brown or Blair hate the English,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I respect your views but I think there is a definite trend and trail of damage left by Blair and Brown which impacts significantly on merry old England - its 'William Wannabee a Winston Wallace', I'm afraid when I count up the problems - including Brown admitting that Scotland is subsidised.
As for the SNP in Scotland - their lead at Holyrood could evaporate at any time when the true cost and implications of Independance are considered properly by a competent UK government. I can understand Scotland becoming independent to become a New Tiger Economy - but not to be subservient to Brussels - even with all of the EU handouts.
Complain about this comment
fillandfrowpist and #183.
I had my suspicions some while back reading your posts and you have now confirmed it.
You are a plain, simple, run-of-the-mill 'conspiracy theorist'! It's all a set-up by some meglamaniac power - - in this case Oil/Pipeline cartels - Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld - US Weapons Manufacturers....blah de blah!
Oh goodness! So an FBI Agent got caught in a lie! Well, I don't suppose Osama, Mullah Omar, Saddam or any of those other fine upstanding representatives of law, order and civilised behaviour ever did anything like that. No, only those wretched Americans.
Never a hint from me that I supported "..galloping.." around the World sorting things: No, my tiresome response to you has been to query what you would do as you don't agree with what has been done?
You know. "..Taliban... around a long time.."! Well, so was smallpox and for hundreds of years Chinese women had to crippling bandage their feet, but, unless I miss your meaning, you actually think both would be okay so long as no interfering human organisation got involved with them?
You know: "..study the subject in a little more depth... women and children.."! Sorry, are you suggesting women and children being cruelly mistreated is okay because I do not know enough about Afghanistan?
You know: "... they (US selected leaders)... horses for courses... brought in by politicians who are not the least interested in making things better.."! Again sorry, but are you suggesting that your way, i.e. to do nothing is in some way the best the international community can do at "making things better"?
Let us just take the start nearer "home" suggestion of yours: Well why not? Show me the European nation forcing female brides as young as 6 or burning down libraries with the kids inside and I'll be among the first at my ripe age to join the battle lines. Point to the American-European community wilfully blowing up ancient cultural monuments in the name of one brand of religion and I'll back any UN Resolution calling for their overthrow. If the UK Government does not submit itself for a General Election by June next year then let's have a revolution or intervention by the US-EU-NATO to force one!
Meanwhile, back in the real World... the conspiracy continues: Sarkozy, Obama, Cameron are just clones of the previous entities... we are under attack from our own side... they are coming... Oilmen reign supreme...
Complain about this comment
Re:186 nautonier.
its 'William Wannabee a Winston Wallace',
___________________________________________
I fully understand where you are coming from, but let's pose this Question:
With the majority of Nu-Labour M.P.s' coming from what you would call home grown English Constituencies, then why is it that they Voted for a Scottish P.M. on the last two occassions to elect a Scotman as their Leader and our U.K. Prime Minister,
It therefore goe's without saying that you really only end up for whom you Vote for, and it would appear that to bring about a change in the way Local Nu-Labour M.P.s' have since 1997 let down their Local Voters in England, [ assumming that everyone in England believes that it is/was wrong to have an elected Scottish M.P. holding the Post of a U.K. Prime Minister in the First-Place], then in reality most of the blame for this set-up that allowed English M.Ps' to elect two Scottish M.P.s' on the trot, to the Post of Prime Minister lays firmly with those amongst the 55 million English voters, whom Voted for their Local English Nu-Labour M.P.s', thus allowing them onwards to not only once, by twice to Elect a Scottish M.P. as P.M. over the full due course of two past General Elections.
The mess that England is now in, is however you look at it, is Home-Grown.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS