Defence - who defends Scotland?

[Ad Lib]

So in summary, your answer is to have more countries with higher spending on military equipment. Which should then be used to negate the influence of other countries that spend vast amount of money on their military.

I am at a loss to see how this differs from the last 30 years. Have you seen the state of the world and our own threat level.

In the last 30 years the world has become a much safer place.

[Fotbawmad]

In the last 30 years the world has become a much safer place.

Over the last few centuries the world has steadily become a safer place. Yes, I can accept there will be destabilization of countries in the short to medium term. Due to economies crashing/collapsing, but it will not stop the long term trend of the world becoming less violent and hostile.

[AUFC90]

I could live with the reasoning that we should, as a developed rich country, be helping militarily to prevent genocide and the likes if this actually happened. It doesn't though, the USA and the UK only do it for their own economic gain therefore Ad Libs reasoning is a pile of shite.

Take ISIS for example, we were quite happy letting them slaughter their way through half of Iraq until they reached the Kurdish oil capital where all the big companies are based then it was straight in with the bombs. It's a lot crap and we should be spending the billions on public services.

[strichener]

In the last 30 years the world has become a much safer place.

That depends only on the part of the world in which you live.

[H_B]

I could live with the reasoning that we should, as a developed rich country, be helping militarily to prevent genocide and the likes if this actually happened. It doesn't though, the USA and the UK only do it for their own economic gain therefore Ad Libs reasoning is a pile of shite.

Take ISIS for example, we were quite happy letting them slaughter their way through half of Iraq until they reached the Kurdish oil capital where all the big companies are based then it was straight in with the bombs. It's a lot crap and we should be spending the billions on public services.

Insightful geopolitical analysis from the resident forum thicko.

[AUFC90]

Insightful geopolitical analysis from the resident forum thicko.

Least I'm not the resident forum laughing stock and all round loser that is Anthony C Pick.

[strichener]

Insightful geopolitical analysis from the resident forum thicko.

Outstanding. This is the second time that you have accused someone of being a thicko whilst fucking up your post. I think you meant:

Insightful geopolitical analysis from the forum's resident thicko.

Maybe third time lucky.

[H_B]

I think you meant:

Err, no. If I'd meant that I would have said that.

[strichener]

Err, no. If I'd meant that I would have said that.

Oh, OK you are a thicko.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

I could live with the reasoning that we should, as a developed rich country, be helping militarily to prevent genocide and the likes if this actually happened. It doesn't though, the USA and the UK only do it for their own economic gain therefore Ad Libs reasoning is a pile of shite.

Sierra Leone

Libya (however badly that has turned out)

The RAF assisting France in Mali

I don't see a huge amount of economic gain from any of those deployments.

[AUFC90]

Sierra Leone

Libya (however badly that has turned out)

The RAF assisting France in Mali

I don't see a huge amount of economic gain from any of those deployments.

Well Libya might be fucked but at least their oil is now flowing.

If we have a large defence force purely to engage in peace efforts around the world then why don't we and our allies only get involved in a fraction of them ? Why do we actively support regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar who arm and fund just about every sunni extremist group on the planet ?

Sorry but I'm not buying it. This whole world peace excuse and helping out people because we are such a great country doesn't wash. Wars sell arms and open up said country to foreign companies. We support whoever it suits regardless of morals. Switzerland and Sweden have got the right idea.

[Ad Lib]

I could live with the reasoning that we should, as a developed rich country, be helping militarily to prevent genocide and the likes if this actually happened. It doesn't though, the USA and the UK only do it for their own economic gain therefore Ad Libs reasoning is a pile of shite.

Modern warfare is overwhelmingly not in the economic interests of the combatants in question. The amount spent on Afghanistan and Iraq alone clearly far outweighs any speculative benefits gained by e.g. security of oil supply.

Do economic considerations play a part? Absolutely. Because in an energy and trade interdependent world political instability in countries on the other side of the world can significantly affect the wellbeing of countries rich and poor alike, and can affect the balance of power between the big nations that people like you seem to want to leave all the guns to.

Economics clearly isn't the only motive or else virtually every country ever would have almost completely disarmed by now. You need only look at British and U.S. intervention in Kosovo, UK intervention in Sierra Leone or the French in Mali to see that there are even conflicts where our economic interests screamed non-intervention but we did it anyway for a combination of humanitarian and non-economic strategic motivations.

Your post represents the kind of fagpacket foreign policy that people like Jeremy Corbyn are offering this country. Compassionate and egalitarian right up until the point that it actually means putting some skin in the game to help people beyond our own borders when they imminently need it.

Take ISIS for example, we were quite happy letting them slaughter their way through half of Iraq until they reached the Kurdish oil capital where all the big companies are based then it was straight in with the bombs. It's a lot crap and we should be spending the billions on public services.

Yeah, the U.S. and UK were delighted to see Islamist militants slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians. Have a word with yourself man.

The reason we didn't intervene earlier in Iraq over ISIL had absolutely nothing to do with our oil. We intervened when we did because it was only then that we could demonstrate that the Iraqi Army and Kurdish forces couldn't deal with a massive internal threat to the territory and infrastructure of the country without our direct assistance. Had it not been for peaceniks on the left, it's actually possible that we could have got involved a lot earlier, removing Assad for his chemical weapons attacks and being able directly to constrain the growth of ISIL forces in Syria. That would have made it harder for them to gain the kind of foothold they now have in Iraq.

This stuff is complicated. Seeing people who argued for Scottish independence also arguing for this isolationism is deeply depressing. Obviously for people like you it's not, as Winnie Ewing put it, "stop the world Scotland wants to get on" as much as "the world's no' too difficult, this is ma stop but."

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

Well Libya might be fucked but at least their oil is now flowing.

If we have a large defence force purely to engage in peace efforts around the world then why don't we and our allies only get involved in a fraction of them ? Why do we actively support regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar who arm and fund just about every sunni extremist group on the planet ?

Sorry but I'm not buying it. This whole world peace excuse and helping out people because we are such a great country doesn't wash. Wars sell arms and open up said country to foreign companies. We support whoever it suits regardless of morals. Switzerland and Sweden have got the right idea.

We get involved in only a fraction of them because in terms of actual numbers our military isn't actually that big, and because people at home would go mad if we did more, and because of realpolitik. An attempt to liberate Tibet or to invade Somali probably wouldn't be wonderfully successful. FWIW I agree with you on our support for regimes like the Saudi one.

As for Sweden having the right idea, they committed troops to Afghanistan and their air force took part in the air campaign against Gadaffi. And the idea that that Libya intervention was for some nefarious purpose seems pretty unlikely when you remember that the USA were hugely reluctant to get involved at were dragged into it by us.

[AUFC90]

Modern warfare is overwhelmingly not in the economic interests of the combatants in question. The amount spent on Afghanistan and Iraq alone clearly far outweighs any speculative benefits gained by e.g. security of oil supply.

Do economic considerations play a part? Absolutely. Because in an energy and trade interdependent world political instability in countries on the other side of the world can significantly affect the wellbeing of countries rich and poor alike, and can affect the balance of power between the big nations that people like you seem to want to leave all the guns.

Economics clearly isn't the only motive or else virtually every country ever would have almost completely disarmed by now. You need only look at British and U.S. intervention in Kosovo, UK intervention in Sierra Leone or the French in Mali to see that there are even conflicts where our economic interests screamed non-intervention but we did it anyway for a combination of humanitarian and non-economic strategic motivations.

Your post represents the kind of fagpacket foreign policy that people like Jeremy Corbyn are offering this country. Compassionate and egalitarian right up until the point that it actually means putting some skin in the game to help people beyond our own borders when they imminently need it.

Yeah, the U.S. and UK were delighted to see Islamist militants slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians. Have a word with yourself man.

The reason we didn't intervene earlier in Iraq over ISIL had absolutely nothing to do with our oil. We intervened when we did because it was only then that we could demonstrate that the Iraqi Army and Kurdish forces couldn't deal with a massive internal threat to the territory and infrastructure of the country without our direct assistance. Had it not been for peaceniks on the left, it's actually possible that we could have got involved a lot earlier, removing Assad for his chemical weapons attacks and being able directly to constrain the growth of ISIL forces in Syria. That would have made it harder for them to gain the kind of foothold they now have in Iraq.

This stuff is complicated. Seeing people who argued for Scottish independence also arguing for this isolationism is deeply depressing. Obviously for people like you it's not, as Winnie Ewing put it, "stop the world Scotland wants to get on" as much as "the world's no' too difficult, this is ma stop but."

Security of natural resources, arms companies making more money and any other companies that profit from war. The money spent must line someones pockets.The only people that lose out are taxpayers and the normal men who lose their lives. How many arms have we sold to the Kurds and Iraqis to fight ISIS. Conflicts make powerful people money and open up new lines of profit for multinational companies whilst the taxpayer pays the bill. Did Iraq really cost more than it paid over the 2 wars ? We sold Hussein tonnes of weaponry before it and secured the steady flow of oil.

You use the moral argument that we should keep a large force to assist in interventions around the globe but fail to see that the UK and the US government do not give a shit about atrocities in far away lands.You can bet your boots if 50% of the worlds hydrocarbons were located in Europe there would not have been anywhere near the same amount of interfering in the Middle East over the last 100 years and probably not anywhere near the same amount of people from the Middle East who hate the West.

If our government are so nice and cuddly and only care about helping the world, why do we sell billions upon billions of pounds worth of arms to terrible countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain ? Countries that covertly incite conflict and extremist elements in that part of the world. We actively consider them our allies ffs

I am not arguing for isolationism but if your definition of isolationism is not projecting power around the globe whenever it suits Team America the isolation it is.

[Fotbawmad]

The reason we didn't intervene earlier in Iraq over ISIL had absolutely nothing to do with our oil. We intervened when we did because it was only then that we could demonstrate that the Iraqi Army and Kurdish forces couldn't deal with a massive internal threat to the territory and infrastructure of the country without our direct assistance. Had it not been for peaceniks on the left, it's actually possible that we could have got involved a lot earlier, removing Assad for his chemical weapons attacks and being able directly to constrain the growth of ISIL forces in Syria. That would have made it harder for them to gain the kind of foothold they now have in Iraq.

This stuff is complicated. Seeing people who argued for Scottish independence also arguing for this isolationism is deeply depressing. Obviously for people like you it's not, as Winnie Ewing put it, "stop the world Scotland wants to get on" as much as "the world's no' too difficult, this is ma stop but."

What would be the point in intervening in Iraq anyway? For a start, it's not even a real country. It was drawn up along artificial lines after WW1. Meaning you have a country of Shia, Sunni and Kurdish groups. Democracy can only work if people vote along policy lines. If people choose to vote solely along ethnic and cultural lines, then you don't have a functioning democracy. It just becomes mob rule like it has in Iraq. For that reason you don't have to be surprised why the Shia part of Iraq didn't bother to resist ISIL in the name of a largely Sunni government that rules in a sectarian manner in Baghdad. Any long term solution has to involve Iraq being split into three countries, but that in itself will create unintended consequences. Especially when it comes to Kurdistan. If ISIL is able to win in Syria, then Syria will become another Libya. Due to ISIL being made up of groups of people who don't like and are mistrustful of one another. Why anyone would want them to win over Assad is either naive or has sinister intentions.

I find it ironic that anyone who speaks out against interventionism is automatically branded as an isolationist. What about Sweden and Switzerland? Would you regard them as isolationists? It's a nonsensical argument to think we wouldn't try to engage in diplomacy and trade deals with other countries.

[Whitnail]

Not exclusively it shouldn't. Scotland, as a developed and prosperous nation, should b actively involved militarily in conributing to multinational forces committed to stopping miltary aggression or violence against civilians, wherever and whenever it occurs. As citizens of the world that have benefited from domestic peace we have a moral duty to use our resources in ways that give parts of the world with conflict and instability a fighting chance of enjoying the same.

DFID is great. I'd significantly increase the foreign aid budget. You're the one that's saying it's zero sum. Go speak to the Kosovans if you don't think military intervention can save lives. The harsh reality is it doesn't matter how many aid pacakges, well installations or roads you build, in some parts of the world there are people with guns, and they are kiling othe people and the only way to make them stop includes the use of guns.

Forgive me for thinking it's not a desirabe world where the only major supplier of arms and multilateral military support are the US, the Russians and the Chinese. Giving them more power and influence to leverage over sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and Eurasia isn't going to reduce global conflict and oppression. It's going to increase it. Substantially.

We are one of the richest nations on the planet. Our commitment to global peace shouldn't be diinished just because others lack the resources or will to step up to the plate.

If there was violence against civilians in Scotland, as there has been many times in the past, would you be welcoming foreign troop intervention? At what point does the violence become severe enough to merit foreign intervention? Scotland has gone through full development of a society from a nation with bitter, warring clans to a modern prosperous democracy. This is a journey we have taken without any foreign intervention.

The tribe based system in Afghanistan bears certain hallmarks, somehow I don't believe that a full scale foreign invasion and occupation has helped the country. Nor has it helped Iraq. You can't artificially implant democracy into nations with no concept of it, and no institutions to support. Furthermore, it bears the assumption that Western style liberal democracy will suit all nations regardless of their development when it patently doesn't - Singapore and South Korea seemed to manage fine without it for much of their modern history.

But obviously the stakes are raised. Relative to Scotlands early development now automatic weapons are available, everything is broadcast on international media so of course intervention needs to exist. The way a small country can contribute to this is predominantly do not sell arms to these nations. As for pure peacekeeping forces a few hundred troops from Scotland whose sole job is to protect civilians isn't going to meet much opposition, but your point on China, the US and Russia gaining more influence is a moot one. Surely any rich nation sending troops is utilising its position to gain more influence? My position, at most Scotland owes the world a few hundred relatively lightly armed troops whose sole job is to protect civilians. Navy should be restricted to lifeguards and search and rescue. Airforce should be non existent (the illegal bombing of Syria by heroic Brits is emphatically not peace keeping).

Peace keepers do not pick sides, they do not impart beliefs, they protect civilians only. The British view on Syria has completely changed from bitterly opposing Bashar Al-Assad to, er, helping him win. Such dire errors of judgment show the great risks of intervention. It's easy enough to preach it when you aren't the one getting bombed.

[Ira Gaines]

Can we stop discussing anything with H_B?

Guy has no interest in rational discussion.

[Ad Lib]

If there was violence against civilians in Scotland, as there has been many times in the past, would you be welcoming foreign troop intervention? At what point does the violence become severe enough to merit foreign intervention? Scotland has gone through full development of a society from a nation with bitter, warring clans to a modern prosperous democracy. This is a journey we have taken without any foreign intervention.

Not sure if serious.

Scotland's advancement came against the backdrop of almost permanent foreign intervention. We are a country that literally wouldn't exist but for the influx of several invading peoples. From the Norse to the Normans our entire history is shaped by conquest and conflict from further afield. Not that it should matter a jot, because we live in a world which is now more connected than ever, largely post-colonial and which aspires to have things like international law, human rights and multinational organisations governing relations between states, all of which were absent when the MacDonalds were throwing spears.

It is also gratuitously offensive to compare the civilisation of our ancestors of several centuries ago with the actions of brutal dictators and warlords today. Saying that we shouldn't be fighting the Taliban because the MacDougalls put away their axes by themselves is moronic and if you have any grey matter you know that too.

If Scotland had a government that started gassing its own people with impunity or which started to exterminate the Highlanders with military resources, I probably would be calling for a humanitarian intervention by the international community, yes. I'd be asking the English Army to bomb the f**k out of genocidal maniacs until they ceased and desisted.

[strichener]

If Scotland had a government that started gassing its own people with impunity or which started to exterminate the Highlanders with military resources, I probably would be calling for a humanitarian intervention by the international community, yes. I'd be asking the English Army to bomb the f**k out of genocidal maniacs until they ceased and desisted.

Now, I am not sure if serious. Exterminating highlanders and asking the English Army to assist, you are 300 years too late.

[Ad Lib]

Now, I am not sure if serious. Exterminating highlanders and asking the English Army to assist, you are 300 years too late.

1. I wasn't suggesting the English should help with the extermination.

2. I was answering a direct question about whether I'd call for international military action if the Scottish Government started using the military to carry out acts of violence against the civilian population.