Are we too reliant on America?

D

Deleted 20555

Guest
#3
America "protecting" us is a myth - they are the reason Britain has been involved in pointless wars for the last 10 years, they are the reason we have Muslim extremists bombing our cities - someone explain to me exactly how the **** they have "protected" us?

If anything Britain has provided them with the fig leaf of political respectability and received **** all in return.

Should they leave? Could it be done by next Tuesday if at all possible? Perhaps then there would be a sensible spend on the military in this country that does not require propping up of useless industry and providing jobs for useless people.
 
#5
Sensible spend? do you mean reduced or increased spend?Surely if the military didnt join in on the iraq/afghanistan militray testing areas or partake in UWB (Uppity Wog Bashing) Ops we would be relegated to very few military ops and before long would be a simple home defence force?
 
#6
I cant see America covering any European nations back these days, they are looking at China and all the disputed Islands with interest.

The U.K needs to reexamine its role in the world and is defense requirements. Island nation with a reliance on sea trade, interests globally that need support, I would be looking towards some form of Commonwealth alliance before any EU super alliance for defense.

Sorry but I don't trust any EU country to come to our aid in a time of need if it did not suit the EUs purpose.
 
#7
I fear the government may well be viewing more towards the home defence force, military spending is not a vote winner and especially after the last 10 years of iraq/afghanistan i think to get involved in other wars (standfast those triggered by a blatant action against the UK ala 9/11 or a miracle rise of argentina and reinvasion of falklands) will be a sure way to get voted out of power.
 
#8
The Yanks have spent fifty years providing the bulk of Europe's defence. They now have other priorities and are understandably sick of spending a fortune protecting Europe while getting nothing but open hostility from most of them.

Either the UK looks to her own defence (unlikely), relies on Europe (suicidal if it's ever needed because most of them are in a worse state than us) or we accept our new place in the world even further from the top table of nations than ever.

The last course is cheapest so clearly what will happen.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
#10
America "protecting" us is a myth - they are the reason Britain has been involved in pointless wars for the last 10 years, they are the reason we have Muslim extremists bombing our cities - someone explain to me exactly how the **** they have "protected" us?

If anything Britain has provided them with the fig leaf of political respectability and received **** all in return.

Should they leave? Could it be done by next Tuesday if at all possible? Perhaps then there would be a sensible spend on the military in this country that does not require propping up of useless industry and providing jobs for useless people.
Only 10 years.....time flies it does! More like 20.

I was of the opinion we dont rely on them, I agree we supported them in the farce global war on terror and received the london bombings in return (not US fault) and Iraq (we didnt rely on them, we supported them - for which they probably only needed the political support).

However, why didnt we (Europe) act first on the former Yogoslavia, it was in our own garden and perhaps without waiting for America to take a lead, we could have handled it? (No disrespect to our US allies).

Similarly with Syria, Libya or Somalia or other places (except Mali) - we always wait for America to lead, Im not suprised that they are sick of us, in leading they become the aggressors and reap more terror/critisism whereas its the rest of us who sit there waiting for America.
 
#11
To put the cat among the pigeons. Would a fall from the top table be the apocalypse some people think? Would we be better off with a home defence force and spending our money on improving our economy and infrastructure? Why get involved unless there is a clear threat to the UK - we have a ministry of DEFENCE not war so lets just do defence.It seems to me that New Zealand, Germany and the Nordic countries manage alright without a having the capability to do day one warfare, why should we bother? Who are we defending against the Russians?(wish i could find the yes minister clip about defending against the russians) Chinese? Terrorism- on home soil surely thats more of a policing/MI5 issue then a military one? and on foreign soil = not our problem
 
#13
That's Britain's problem isn't it? Should've had the guts to say no..

Maybe Mr Blair should have led by example instead of this nonsense 'special relationship' but then were talking about spineless PM's.

If he was in office we'd have gone into Syria a long time ago...the C...
 
#14
I may be getting on but I remember the Suez crisis when Britain and France went in and then got screwed over by the Americans and were forced into a very humiliating pull out. After this it was evident that the balance of power had well and truly shifted and what America said and wanted went.
Now no European country gets involved without the nod from the good old USA or, is 'asked' to assist them in whatever it is they currently find is of major interest and concern to them.
There is no "special relationship" never has been unless it is in American interests and for no other reason. Not a nice thing to realise but lets get real about our relationship with America.
 
#15
What threat (apart from Terrorism) is Europe actually facing?

Are we still expecting 3 Shock Army to invade?
 
#17
I think there are 2 issues here:

1. What's the point of the Telegraph article, directed at what audience.
2. On overall balance, does UK win or lose from close links/reliance upon USA.

The article may contribute to a comms plan for eventual support from the public for military spending. It may be a "stalking horse" for a pro-EU initiative: though I doubt that the Telegraph is ready for a shift such as that yet.

Sovereign States are based on self-interest [Britian has no friends, just those countries with whom interests are mutual]. In the scheme of things do we benefit from close ties and reliance upon US, or is it to our disadvantage?

Positives:

Encompassing UKUSA agreements, link foreign policies, economic positions, C4ISR, Strat Int etc.
Nassau agreement gives "cheap access" to a plethora of nuclear-related issues.
Co-stewardship of BAeS ties MilDef instrustrial infrastructure.
Common history gives an "ethnic edge", all other issues being even.
Predominantly common financial politics encourage US business, finance, funds and banks.

Negatives:

Global perception as a "lap dog". Bad for morale and potentially devalues argueing position.
Complicates the overdue decision "EU or EU-adjacent".
Links UK to USA in the minds of certain communities.
Clouds some military procurement decisions.

For my part, I consider that UK would be in a worse position had we forged ahead alone, or closer to Europe, post WW2.

Does the advantage still hold? Increasingly less so, but do not forget "Relationships, like marriages, need continual work to maintain". It is a "Brave Decision, Minister" who pushes into the unknown without retaining some form of ability to retrace steps and/or re-cross bridges that were sensibly left unburnt.

My opinion: for the future UK needs to resolve its position & relationship with Europe; noting that the current state of Europe is not attractive and that a not inconsiderable re-structuring of the EU's foundations needs to be undertaken before it becomes attractive from a UK point of view. There will always be tension though, as one of (perhaps THE) major power axis is that of the Fr/Ge alignment. This may prove to be difficult to overcome, but possibly requires replacement!

I eagerly await incoming rounds!
 
#18
Quality Post - I will attempt to give the incoming the justice it deseves

I think there are 2 issues here:

1. What's the point of the Telegraph article, directed at what audience.
The key question....... the answer to which we dont know yet..

2. On overall balance, does UK win or lose from close links/reliance upon USA.

The article may contribute to a comms plan for eventual support from the public for military spending. It may be a "stalking horse" for a pro-EU initiative: though I doubt that the Telegraph is ready for a shift such as that yet.

Sovereign States are based on self-interest [Britian has no friends, just those countries with whom interests are mutual]. In the scheme of things do we benefit from close ties and reliance upon US, or is it to our disadvantage?

Positives:

Encompassing UKUSA agreements, link foreign policies, economic positions, C4ISR, Strat Int etc.
Nassau agreement gives "cheap access" to a plethora of nuclear-related issues.
Co-stewardship of BAeS ties MilDef instrustrial infrastructure.
Common history gives an "ethnic edge", all other issues being even.
Predominantly common financial politics encourage US business, finance, funds and banks.
Also slowing down US refocus on China

Negatives:

Global perception as a "lap dog". Bad for morale and potentially devalues argueing position.
Complicates the overdue decision "EU or EU-adjacent".
Links UK to USA in the minds of certain communities.
Clouds some military procurement decisions.
Also probably increases UK target profile to terrorists

For my part, I consider that UK would be in a worse position had we forged ahead alone, or closer to Europe, post WW2.
A moot point, If the UK had engaged fully and properly with Europe in the negotiations of the Treaty of Rome, what would the shape of Europe be like now, I suggest if we had engaged positively from the start it would be radically different - but thats split milk (regardless of your opinions!) - We are where we are

Does the advantage still hold? Increasingly less so, but do not forget "Relationships, like marriages, need continual work to maintain". It is a "Brave Decision, Minister" who pushes into the unknown without retaining some form of ability to retrace steps and/or re-cross bridges that were sensibly left unburnt.
With the ever increasing economic and military power of China, US attention will naturally shift there, from the US perspective Europe will become a strategic backwater

My opinion: for the future UK needs to resolve its position & relationship with Europe; noting that the current state of Europe is not attractive and that a not inconsiderable re-structuring of the EU's foundations needs to be undertaken before it becomes attractive from a UK point of view. There will always be tension though, as one of (perhaps THE) major power axis is that of the Fr/Ge alignment. This may prove to be difficult to overcome, but possibly requires replacement!

I eagerly await incoming rounds!
100% agree, once and for all we have to decide our relationship with the concept of Europe - we have spent 40 years
sitting half in and half out and constantly complaining about it If I were a European leader I would be seriously considering saying to the UK "You know what, if you dont like it, close the door on your way out"

The EU as a political entity needs reform, it is undemocratic (appointed council of Ministers) and overly beauracratic

The concept of so many layers of government is wastefull, and should be streamlined

And many many more things need sorting

We need that debate to resolve the in or out shadow once and for all, my greatest fear is that debate will be based on emotion and not reason.........
 
#20
Or to see it through properly. The reason we didn't get the kudos we felt we deserved for Iraq was because we failed to provide the resources required to do the job, and jacked half way through.
It went wrong because it was conducted DESPITE the UN's effort, not as a result of it. Then, when we (UK/US) failed to establish forces of law & order (police, judiciary, civil service, utilities) into the occupied areas that our troops were vacating, we permitted "other parties" to fill the governance vacuum. THAT was the big error: one we repeated in Libya, too!

Sometimes it's neccessary to take unpleasant medicine, in order to cure the illness. I don't see Iraq as being exceptionally significant in terms of the UK/US relationship.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top