Should we meddle in other countries problems?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Fallschirmjager, Apr 27, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. We should pull out of all ops immediately

  2. Give it until 2015 then revise our aims

  3. Yes, it's in our interests to get involved elsewhere

  4. Just keep doing whatever the US do

  1. As the title says. Should we get involved in other countries problems?

    Iraq. Is it any better since we ousted Saddam Hussain? Were the sacrifices we made there worth it? Was Iraq really a threat to the western world or was it just about getting a better foot in the door of the oil reserves and trying to get someone in power there we could use as our puppet?

    Afghanistan. Is Afghanistan really going to be a better place in 2015 when we pull off the ground? Are the sacrifices worth the dubious final outcome? Is Afghanistan really a threat to the western world when Pakistan and Somalia amongst other countries are safe havens for Muslim extremists?

    Libya. Are we just looking at ousting a dictator we don't like? Are we just trying to get a puppet in power we can use to our own ends? Why do you think Libya is such a threat to the western world we feel the need to give aid to the rebels?

    Would it be better to concentrate on our own security within the UK by spending the billions on inner security measures?
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Yup I agree with that one.Spend more money on our own border controls/security measures.Start to manage the immigration problem robustly and deport all that are in this country that should not be here.While we are at it deport all all the cnuts that are jumping up and down about the British way of life,and British military actions.What i cannot grasp is MI5 and MI6 (as well as other agencies) are putting under surveillance suspects that are deemed to be a threat.Why not just deport them?

    The problem in getting involved with other countries problems governments do not support the military properly,it is always done on the cheap and the military are relied upon to use their professionalism to get the job done.Not acceptable.
  3. We should have closed down our borders 5 years ago, I can't comment about Iraq/Afghanistan as i ****ing loved it and they financially kick started my civvy life.

    Our biggest threats are already here, in droves :)
  4. yeah ****ing gwar bastards
    • Like Like x 2
  5. If it is in our (wider) interests - yes. That is the purpose of a foreign policy. All the ethical crap under New Labour did nothing to help the country. We should not look at it (initially) in terms of effects on other countries. This, of course, is inevitably balanced by the strength of feeling generated by popular opinion and, in reality, the press. Finally there is the International club that we wish to be part of and the implied pressue that is brought to bear by it. Sadly the first aspect is often marginalised by the other two.
    With regards to Iraq, and having been there twice in uniform, I have my doubts as to both validity and effects.
    For me Afghanistan, and I have done that as well, is a difficult one to call. I am heading back out to that region later this year, so may be able to form an opinion then.
  6. We went there on a lie, we gained nothing from it except a large bill and the hatred of a few more million Muslims

    Because of 9/11 we were obligated to go. Its not a bad reason. Its just not being ran very well. As usual the the army has gone in and ousted the enemy from power but noone knows what to do next, it need some investement (without too much corruption) along with a stong force backing up the ANA.

    Cameron seems to have****ed it right up, Gadaffi was quite profitable for the UK before Cameron opened his gob, he also looks like a hypocrite, when Syria and Bahrain are kicking off and he doesnt want to do anything about it. The rebels might well be worse than Gadaffi.
  7. When invading/bombing/protecting civilians in a sovereign state, it should at least be for something a bit more flimsy than securing your next general election, having a bigger prominence on the world stage or appeasing the US hawks to stay in the big boys club (UN Security Council).

    We're not financially or politically deft enough to get involved in large complex overseas conflicts anymore. The mission creep already happening in Libya is yet another example of a crap knee-jerk reaction without a full assesment of the long term factors.
  8. I believe unless we have the political (Foreign Policy more importantly) acumen (which we don't) then we should perhaps take a more Isolationist stance and begger the consequences. For far too long the British Military have been expected to produce gold from lead by the political establishment.

    By further undermining our military resources in a slap dash manner (by politicians), and continuing to pledge military support to overseas countries, which have no political, traditional or economic ties to the UK, then the stage is set for an impending disaster, militarily, morally and ethically, which we can ill afford, yet alone extracate ourselves from.
  9. Wouldn't NATO's involvement and the aftermath have been better for Afghanistan, the region and it the NATO member states if we had gone on into Afghanistan for a swift punitive raid and withdrawn rather rapidly after smashing the Taliban?

    It seems that mission creep and (notions of) nation building (PC word for neo-imperialism IYAM) has left NATO in a stalemate and allowed the Taliban and other insurgents to re-group, re-supply and train a whole new generation of zealots to fight for the cause in Afghanistan and further afield. I believe Afghanistan's population has nearly doubled in 30 years, so there is no shortage of manpower and no doubt the Taliban QMs have plenty of AKs and flip-flops on the shelves...

    Britain has been there before, 1842 and again in 1878-80 when we were the world's only superpower and had similar problems even then. Nevertheless, they had an exit strategy from the start.
  10. All I can say is that if democracy had won the Spanish Civil War, it would have probably have prevented the need for WW2!

    What are the consequences for the Western Democracies if we lose is Afghanistan?

    The war in Afghanistan is a just war againsts middle ages nutters and must be won!
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Iraq is no better off. The cynics would say (i am one) that is was primarily about oil and Dubya wanting to finish what Daddy couldnt. I dont believe it was worth the sacrifices made of any country and also those forgotten hundreds of thousands of civilians killed.
    Afghanistan. As all we, the public, seem to hear are the negative stories as they generate more headlines the jury is out. We dont hear about the constant injuries received, the firefights, the high morale (?) amongst soldiers and the banter they share everyday.
    Libya. Not our business. We seem to find money to help evacuate people and yet we cant find money to allow our Forces, NHS, Police, Educational and other services to run properly without corners and sacrifices being made. It doesnt help matters when William Hague says that we "are in for the long haul" according to some press reports. John Reid said we wouldnt fire a shot in Afghanistan so forgive me for not believing a politician.
    I do however think that our Forces personnel excel in every avenue and as long as I have a hole in my arse I will for one support them.
    That my shitty opinion. Dont like it dont care.
  12. All I can say about Afghanistan is look to the History booksn read all about Afghan wars; we should accept defeat (like the russians) and pull out now; we'll never 'win' there.

    Middle Eastern and African countries we should keep the hell out of as well, let them sort themselves out. We can sell arms & oil equipment to the survivors.
    • Like Like x 1

    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    There was a democratic side in the Spanish Civil War? Which one was that then, surely not the one that fractured into a range of fratricidal left-wing splinter groups of varying lunacy which then got mopped up by Franco?

    Back on thread, it's taking an inordinately long time for the great and the good to realise the limitations of Western hard power, particularly if it has to be applied over an extended period and in the full glare of the 'uman rights' lobby.

    In my view it's time to recall and regenerate our forces and focus on stabilising, deradicalising and integrating our own country rather than wasting huge sums on the Dark Ages re-enactment society currently active in Afghanistan who are not interested in anything that they can't bugger, kidnap, behead or generally oppress. Whatever the question is in the Islamic World, we are not the answer. We should give them Tony Blair and our best wishes and focus on restoring the neglected fortunes and cohesion of our own rather battered motherland.
  14. You are of course right in your knowledge of history, but you know what I am trying to convey.

    Had the western powers had acted in a cohesive manner and fought fascism in Spain then maybe WW2 would not have happened.
  15. Sad thing is I can't see a leading politician in the Western world with the integrity and balls to actually say that the current plan in Afghanistan isn't working whether as a result of lack of a genuine strategic overview, lack of men and equipment, massive Afghan corruption etc and that we'd probably be better off using airstrikes and advisors to prop up whichever tribal chief/warlord is the best balance of least morally offensive and actually a ruthless enough bastard to take it to the Taliban.
    Would also be nice if we took the Pakistani's to task and made it clear that until they sort their house out and actually use that large army they've got sat on the Indian border doing nothing to put the sword to the Waziristan Taliban safehavens they will be getting precisely **** all aid or equipment from the West.