Iraq, terrorism and Defence spending

[walibe]

This topic started in another thread that went off-topic, so that part of the original thread has been split out and starts here as a new topic in a new thread. - Saracen


Defence spending has become very critical. We have alot of interests around the world, alot of other countries who depend on us which Labour has found out, and to their credit acted upon. Don't be so narrow minded in your views when it comes to defence.

[DaBeeeenster]

Defence spending has a lot to do with who people vote for.

Given that it is spending on defence, can you provide some more details on which nations we need to defend ourselves against? Which other countries depend on us for defence?

[walibe]

We have a lot of commitments around the world. It doesn't take a genius to work that we are part of NATO for instance and besides these foreign commitments it is looking more and more likely we are in for some form of major terroist attack.

Defence spending has been vital and has been supported by a majority of the country (yes the same majority that want more money in schools and hospitals), a couple of polls showed this. One appeared in the telegraph and one on sky news.

The country supports our defence spendings and the majority of our commitments, this is not the issue. The issue is with yet another scandle filled government which looks to be on the way out.

PJ

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by walibe
I was just saying this is totally wrong. Anyway...

Why am I totally wrong? You haven't answered my question. What importance is adding up the total votes that have ever taken place? Most of the people who voted in this coutry are long dead now! Your argument that I am "totally wrong" has no logical foundation.

Originally posted by walibe

We have a lot of commitments around the world. It doesn't take a genius to work that we are part of NATO for instance and besides these foreign commitments it is looking more and more likely we are in for some form of major terroist attack.

How is defence spending going to reduce the likelihood of a terrorist attack? The US spend many times more on defence than the UK do, yet they suffered one of the worst single peace time acts of terrorism in world history.

I'd say that spending more on defence is more likely to increase the chances of a terrorist attack taking place in Britain, not the other way around.

Originally posted by walibe

Defence spending has been vital and has been supported by a majority of the country (yes the same majority that want more money in schools and hospitals), a couple of polls showed this. One appeared in the telegraph and one on sky news.

The country supports our defence spendings and the majority of our commitments, this is not the issue. The issue is with yet another scandle filled government which looks to be on the way out.

PJ

Vital? Other than Kosovo, what vital defence activities have taken place in recent years? Afghanistan and Iraq were in NO WAY vital.

Could you post links to your polls, and back up your statistics.

I will say again, I do not support the Labour party. Having said that, the amount of scandal surrounding the Tory party is gargantuan relative to the Labour party. How many Labour MP's have just done a stint in the clink?

[walibe]

How is defence spending going to reduce the likelihood of a terrorist attack? The US spend many times more on defence than the UK do, yet they suffered one of the worst single peace time acts of terrorism in world history.

Well I guess it is true we are more likely to be attacked. We are in the top 10 nations most likely to be a victim of a terrorist attack but Germany and France are not that far behind (in the 20s I believe, I'll double check this). Other the other hand we have always been a terrorist target, thanks largely to the work of the IRA although even the IRA would not do the kind of things we have seen from the so called 'terrorist network' which on the downside has given a screen for countries such as Israel to hide behind in their killings with what seems like approval from the U.S.

However I do believe the elimination of the Afghan regime was essential as the work of Al-Qaeda has proved devistating. Don't forget this attack was what started off the larger scale terrorist hunt which is essential for us to do to protect our people. However I believe Iraq may well of been a step too far although it will work out well for its people in the end, it was not for the people of Iraq that we invaded.

Our commitments are not just in the hunt for terrorisim. Thanks largely to our colonial history we do have a moral obligation to much of the world and it seems like year in or year out, one of formal empires (British or French) is having to sort out problems in Africa (with varying success). Unfortunately the way we operate now requires alot more defence spending, the two giant aircraft carriers scheduled for between 2008 and 2010 which be essential to our future defence program.

We are coming to a stage where we could well see a break up of the NATO due to its members very reserved attitudes to conflict and the way America and the UK has had to operate in Iraq has lead to a devaluation (??) of the UN itself which is scary to say the least. Iraq was something we should of sorted along time ago and we should of invaded for different reasons. I think it was only too obvious Sadams weapons would of been removed to Siria.

It this uncertain climate that I think will make our defence spending very, very vital over the next few years which is why our spending is likely to tip more towards buying and dveloping alongside American aircraft/weapons/vechiles ect to save costs.

Alot of the problems now facing this country in terms of the new hightened terrorisim threats are down to Tony Blairs decision to act alongside Bush which I fully supported him for. We now have to live with the consquences of this action. Much more British blood will be spilt around the world defending our country and its interests.

As for the polls, sky news always used to keep a back log of their polls on their web site (you may well find it on there) and I'm not sure about the telegraph. On the other hand you also need to take into consideration the make up of their audiences.

Also well done for putting up a decent argument. It pisses me off to see statements like:

Typical Tory crap!

And don't worry, I'm not making you out to be a Labour supporter .

PJ

[DaBeeeenster]

Alot of the problems now facing this country in terms of the new hightened terrorisim threats are down to Tony Blairs decision to act alongside Bush which I fully supported him for. We now have to live with the consquences of this action. Much more British blood will be spilt around the world defending our country and its interests.

you say you supported the war in Iraq, which you have admitted yourself was "a step to far" yet you want to increase our "defence" spending. I dont see how these two views are compatiable. Surely if we were to avoid totally unnecessary conflicts like the one in Iraq, we would not need such large defence budgets...

I find the two views somewhat hypocritical...

[walibe]

you say you supported the war in Iraq, which you have admitted yourself was "a step to far" yet you want to increase our "defence" spending.

I supported the war for the need to remove Sadam and free Iraqs people. I did not support the war for the finding of Weapons of Mass destruction as it was all too clear these things would have been shipped off long before anyone arrived. I want to see defence spending maintained.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by walibe
I supported the war for the need to remove Sadam and free Iraqs people. I did not support the war for the finding of Weapons of Mass destruction as it was all too clear these things would have been shipped off long before anyone arrived. I want to see defence spending maintained.

Originally posted by walibe

Gordon Brown could be a suitable replacement but due to his wish to slash defence spending (which has prooved to be so vital in the last few years)

Vital ??? Do you think it has proved itself *vital*? I dont think there is a very good argument to say that an increase in defence spending is vital.

Do you not think that there might be a better strategy to solving the problems in the world? Instead of trying to arm our way out of the problem (in this case of terrorism) we could actually try and take more peaceful steps, like pressuring America to stop funding and arming the Israeli army? Or doing the same to Russia over Chechnya?

As I said, America has a FAR BIGGER PER CAPITA defence budget than the UK. They suffered the worst single peace time terrorist attack ever. How does increasing our defence spending help us here? How is that vital?

[walibe]

As I said, America has a FAR BIGGER PER CAPITA defence budget than the UK. They suffered the worst single peace time terrorist attack ever. How does increasing our defence spending help us here? How is that vital?

Defence against terrorisim is costing our armed forces alot of money through its preperations and planning for terrorists strikes. It is already desperate for more money to cope with these issues on top of its various existing commitments. If this is no longer funded then we leave our selves open to a huge attack.

Yes we almost aways follow peaceful lines at the same time as we look at more extreme measures as was seen with the case in Iraq. I have few doubts we go to war alongside the Americans alot more often from now on.

[DaBeeeenster]

You are avoiding my main line of argument tho mate.

The attacks on the US proved that defence spending cannot help in defending against terrorism. So why do you want to increase defence spending? It is not to help fight terrorism. As 9/11 proved without a shadow of a doubt, having a strong military does not prevent terrorism.

[walibe]

The attacks on the US proved that defence spending cannot help in defending against terrorism

Actually it proved that measures needed to be taken to counter terrorisim and some of the measures they introduce are fairly good and theres much better air coverage by rapid response fighters so you couldn't have another 9/11 although you could end up with a shot down airliner if the security fails.

We need to do this and more. Its a very worrying time.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by walibe
Actually it proved that measures needed to be taken to counter terrorisim and some of the measures they introduce are fairly good and theres much better air coverage by rapid response fighters so you couldn't have another 9/11 although you could end up with a shot down airliner if the security fails.

We need to do this and more. Its a very worrying time.

I disagree. I'd suggest that 9/11 proved that you cannot spend and arm your way out of a problem such as this. What we have learnt about the situation in Northern Ireland is that you dont solve the problem with guns. You solve it with diplomacy. This is something, by the way, that the Conservative party could not or would not understand.

You seem to be solving the problem in a reactionary manner, rather than a preventative one...

[walibe]

You solve it with diplomacy

But often you can't sit down with the terrorist as they have no official face unlike the IRA. In my opinion a reactionary manneris a preventative one.

[Zathras]

When the reaction helps exacerbate the problem and creates many more terrorists by giving them sufficient grievances through action taken, do you still describe the action as preventative?

[walibe]

When the reaction helps exacerbate the problem and creates many more terrorists by giving them sufficient grievances through action taken, do you still describe the action as preventative?

Wow, you squeezed alot of big words into that sentence, obviously yoy got your dictionary out.

Yes, on the scale that has been done by the U.S, it is preventative. Its main goals have been accomplished. There are still risks of terrorists attacks but not on the scale we have seen.

[Zathras]

I didn't get my dictionary out, rather I took time to compose my post properly and succinctly, minimizing spelling and grammar errors that too frequently litter the posts of others.

Would the "scale that has been done by the US" extend to the families, sons, fathers, brothers etc of those killed by actions such as the bombing of the restaurant where the US knew full well there would be many innocent civilians present? How about the shooting of the truck containing only women and young children at the checkpoint where a stop sign in Arabic wasn't considered necessary? How many terrorist groups were active and had ground-level support in Iraq before the war and how many are active now? What was the level of rape and ethnic conflict including murder and 'cleansing' of the population in rural areas of Afghanistan? (Maybe this doesn't count for some people as we're only talking about "some raghead farmers" rather than Westerners) How about Northern Ireland, where 'preventative' action taken by the UK and initially welcomed by the Catholics lead on to widespread endemic support for the IRA in the same group? More civilians were killed by the US both in Afghanistan and Iraq than Americans killed in the Sept 11th bombing. Look at the reaction of the US to the (despicable) killing of three thousand people in the WTC attacks. What's to stop similar levels of grievance and anger being leveled at the US by the families of those killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Too often the long-term effects of military action is not taken into account. We are seeing a perfect example now with the surprise shown by the US government at the level of hostility to US and British soldiers from groups most definitely anti-Saddam before the war. More US soldiers have been killed by 'hostile fire' since the war was declared 'over' than were killed during full-scale conflict. That's certainly an interesting definition of an effective 'preventative' measure to prevent Americans getting killed, unless you consider the lives of soldiers killed in Iraq worth less than Western civilians killed in terrorist attacks.