tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3886214044927583593.post7744865547511349101..comments2023-09-06T13:56:44.951+00:00Comments on uptone: BRITISH TROOPS OVERSEASjohnalexwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01643488607849736607noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3886214044927583593.post-7898976846974254812009-03-18T21:07:00.000+00:002009-03-18T21:07:00.000+00:00The British Armed Forces are Defence Forces; their...The British Armed Forces are Defence Forces; their role is to protect Britain and its dependencies from attack by a foreign power. The Ministry controlling them is the Defence Ministry. As I see it, the British Armed Forces should not be used as the world’s policeman. <BR/><BR/>In my opinion, British Armed Forces should be deployed abroad only in defence of British interests. For example, I agree with their deployment when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, a British Dependency. <BR/><BR/>With the Gulf war you could argue (just about) that Britain’s interests were threatened – their ME oil interests, that is. Even so, in that war the Brits numbered 43,000 whereas the next European contributor was France with 18,000, next Italy with 1,200. Spain contributed Naval forces only, the other EU countries sent just a handful of troops.<BR/><BR/>I do not agree with the British invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan – those regimes presented no threat to Britain. Neither do I agree with Brits being deployed on peacekeeping missions around the world.<BR/><BR/>I am aware that the UN Security Council is empowered to call upon member states to provide military intervention for both peacekeeping and combat missions. However, I think the only nations that should provide troops are those whose security is directly threatened, that is from the states neighbouring the conflict only.<BR/><BR/>(As an aside. When Argentina invaded the Falklands, a clear case of aggression by one member state against another, the UN Security Council did not “call upon member states” to intervene against Argentina. Apart from calling for both sides to cease fire, the UN did nothing. Not one state provided military aid to Britain at that time of need! Britain had to go it alone.)<BR/><BR/>I admit to being somewhat biased. I can’t help (mentally) putting myself in the shoes of the Brits on overseas missions. I was in the British Army throughout WWII. Then, the army was doing what it had to do –defend the nation. We knew very well what we were there for -- if we lost the war, Britain would become a Nazi-occupied country, part of the Third Reich. But that is completely different to the situation of the Brits on missions now. <BR/><BR/>The men on overseas missions now are “in harm’s way” day and night. They are exposed to suicide bombers, snipers, car bombs and the like for months at a time. And why? I am sure the men in, for example, the Balkans, must ask, <BR/><BR/>“I joined the Army to defend my country, but I am out here, thousands of miles away from home. Every day I am sent out on patrol trying to stop the Muslims from blowing up the Christians, or the other way around. What I am doing here is nothing at all to do with defending the UK. Will somebody tell me, what the hell am I doing in this God-forsaken place?”<BR/><BR/>As I wrote before, I do believe that Britain’s Military combat troops and peacekeepers should be brought home forthwith. That includes the 8,300 combat troops in Afghanistan --that’s an un-winnable war anyway!<BR/><BR/>However, I believe that Humanitarian Aid is another matter. I do agree with the British government (i.e. the taxpayers) providing humanitarian aid in crisis situations overseas, whether the crisis is due to conflict or to natural disaster.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3886214044927583593.post-81772273833908689602009-03-18T21:05:00.000+00:002009-03-18T21:05:00.000+00:00Well, what it all boils down to is whether or not ...Well, what it all boils down to is whether or not you get involved in other people’s problems. If you don’t want to see a repeat of the Bosnian conflict or some of the inter-tribal massacres in Africa then of course there is no need to have a peace-keeping force and no need for Britain to send its armed forces to participate.<BR/><BR/>If on the other hand you consider that there is a humanitarian purpose in stopping people killing each other and states existing in what amounts to anarchy (that invariably has a knock-on effect)<BR/><BR/>I support Brits being part of all and any peacekeeping forces.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com