Defence - who defends Scotland?

[Whitnail]

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.

I was predominantly referring to the periods from, say, 1700-2000, when it actually transformed into a modern day society. In fact since 1746 there hasn't been a single land battle anywhere in the UK, and since then we seem to have progressed fine since without direct military intervention from, say, Iran.

But anyway, I don't see any common ground here, you seem to support the bombing of Syria. I emphatically do not. You're a hawk masking your interventionist tendencies with the guise of peacekeeping.

[AUFC90]

I was predominantly referring to the periods from, say, 1700-2000, when it actually transformed into a modern day society. In fact since 1746 there hasn't been a single land battle anywhere in the UK, and since then we seem to have progressed fine since without direct military intervention from, say, Iran.

You're a hawk masking your interventionist tendencies with the guise of peacekeeping.

Absolutely spot on.

[bob the tank]

Has anyone actually answered the question posed by the OP?

[Loondave1]

Has anyone actually answered the question posed by the OP?

We will defend ourselves by means of oil (boiling) which will be very cost effective at about $40 a barrel and if it fails we will blame the "English" like the Braveheart phoney tailed arses the SNP imagine us as.

[MarkoRaj]

We will defend ourselves by means of oil (boiling) which will be very cost effective at about $40 a barrel and if it fails we will blame the "English" like the Braveheart phoney tailed arses the SNP imagine us as.

What?

[Whitnail]

Has anyone actually answered the question posed by the OP?

I dunno, coastguard?

As a side note, given seagulls are becoming larger, more powerful and a bigger problem in Aberdeen I propose we introduce birds of prey to counter the threat. Abu Dhabi has apparently had some success with hawks.

[doulikefish]

We will defend ourselves by means of oil (boiling) which will be very cost effective at about $40 a barrel and if it fails we will blame the "English" like the Braveheart phoney tailed arses the SNP imagine us as.

What?

Stock answer,nothing to say chuck in eessnnpeee bad,it works so well

[Ad Lib]

I was predominantly referring to the periods from, say, 1700-2000, when it actually transformed into a modern day society. In fact since 1746 there hasn't been a single land battle anywhere in the UK, and since then we seem to have progressed fine since without direct military intervention from, say, Iran.

Cool story bro. Would you like a badge for stating the blatantly obvious?

This has absolutely zero bearing on whether we should be involved in conflicts beyond our shores.

But anyway, I don't see any common ground here, you seem to support the bombing of Syria. I emphatically do not. You're a hawk masking your interventionist tendencies with the guise of peacekeeping.

I'm masking nothing. I think we should be far less reluctant to use military force to remove dictators and secure human rights and I find isolationist posturing both widely unprincipled and either naive or indifferent to geopolitical forces that greatly, though far less directly than was historically the case, affect our security and way of life.

[Thumper]

Invading other countries and deposing their leaders = "principled"

Not invading other countries and deposing their leaders = "widely principled"

[strichener]

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.

Well you really should be clearer.

You also appear to be very selective when looking at historical military intervention. Perhaps look to the British Empire and tell me why we are in any position to bdictate to any other country how they should be acting.

[Ad Lib]

Invading other countries and deposing their leaders = "principled"

Not invading other countries and deposing their leaders = "widely principled"

Deposing dictators and military junta that commit war crimes against their people = principled

Refusing to intervene in conflicts where you are in a position to stand-up for human rights and global security by doing so = unprincipled

Well you really should be clearer.

I was perfectly clear. You just failed to read the post in context. Probably because you're a moron.

You also appear to be very selective when looking at historical military intervention. Perhaps look to the British Empire and tell me why we are in any position to dictate to any other country how they should be acting.

In what way am I "selective"? At no point have I made any attempt to defend colonialism. Nor do I have to in order to advocate deposing dictators by force.

We are in a position of authority to depose people commiting human rights violations because human rights violations are wrong. When the vulnerable are defenceless it is the duty of the strong to protect them against the evil. No amount of colonial whataboutery impinges upon the moral authority of states with militaries to uphold those universal rights where it is possible for them to do so.

[strichener]

Deposing dictators and military junta that commit war crimes against their people = principled

Refusing to intervene in conflicts where you are in a position to stand-up for human rights and global security by doing so = unprincipled

I was perfectly clear. You just failed to read the post in context. Probably because you're a moron.

In what way am I "selective"? At no point have I made any attempt to defend colonialism. Nor do I have to in order to advocate deposing dictators by force.

We are in a position of authority to depose people commiting human rights violations because human rights violations are wrong. When the vulnerable are defenceless it is the duty of the strong to protect them against the evil. No amount of colonial whataboutery impinges upon the moral authority of states with militaries to uphold those universal rights where it is possible for them to do so.

You have the audacity to call me a moron and yet you continue to post drivel about us being the world's policemen. We don't even have an army if you look at our military numbers and we choose only to get involved when it is in our own interests (either based on politics or economics).

I didn't see us either condemning nor invading the USA over Guantanamo Bay, we were actually complicit. So I would suggest you refrain from your own moronic bleatings and look at the world the way it is rather than as some sort of moral crusade that we should be at the front of.

Accept this simple fact - in many cases, we are the evil that you so roundly condemn.

[Ira Gaines]

Busted flush

f**k off

[AUFC90]

Deposing dictators and military junta that commit war crimes against their people = principled

Refusing to intervene in conflicts where you are in a position to stand-up for human rights and global security by doing so = unprincipled

I was perfectly clear. You just failed to read the post in context. Probably because you're a moron.

In what way am I "selective"? At no point have I made any attempt to defend colonialism. Nor do I have to in order to advocate deposing dictators by force.

We are in a position of authority to depose people commiting human rights violations because human rights violations are wrong. When the vulnerable are defenceless it is the duty of the strong to protect them against the evil. No amount of colonial whataboutery impinges upon the moral authority of states with militaries to uphold those universal rights where it is possible for them to do so.

Maybe we should start a list of dictators that Britain have actively supported over the last 60 years.

I suspect it will be rather large.

[Ad Lib]

You have the audacity to call me a moron and yet you continue to post drivel about us being the world's policemen. We don't even have an army if you look at our military numbers and we choose only to get involved when it is in our own interests (either based on politics or economics).

At no point have I said that we are the world's policemen. I have simply said that we have a duty to make humanitarian interventions where our involvement has the potential to improve global security and protect human rights.

I didn't see us either condemning nor invading the USA over Guantanamo Bay, we were actually complicit.

This is whataboutery of the highest order. This is literally like saying "the police shouldn't enforce the law. Look at what happened to John Charles De Menezez". Stop being a moron.

So I would suggest you refrain from your own moronic bleatings and look at the world the way it is rather than as some sort of moral crusade that we should be at the front of.

Saying that moral actions are justified isn't incompatible with looking at the world the way it is. I think we and other international partners can use miltiary force to remove dictators and juntas and warlords, bringing democracy, human rights and stability to parts of the world that sorely need it. At absolutely no point have I said that all of our military interventions have met this criteria. When we invaded Saddam's Iraq I was opposed to it. The lack of a clear objective for reconstruction and withdrawal meant that our involvement would not have made the situation better for those on the ground.

All I am suggesting is that the size, structure and use of our military should not be judged by how many people with stripes on their uniform are based in Scotland, nor should it be judged simply by how likely it is that another country could invade us. This isn't a controversial position. It's common fucking sense.

Accept this simple fact - in many cases, we are the evil that you so roundly condemn.

At no point on this thread have I even remotely suggested that British foreign policy has been immaculate, or for that matter, even good, when it comes to our military activities.

Perhaps if you stopped attributing views not expressed to the people who disagree with you and engaged with the points they actually made, you wouldn't be such a moron.

[parahandy1]

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).

Asking ground troops to operate without the close air support provided by the RAF and the support of naval guns/weaponry reflects a complete failure to understand military tactics.

You need every aspect of an integrated tri-service force for a reason. How exactly do you propose to move military personnel around - Easyjet & Stagecoach? Seriously!

[strichener]

At no point have I said that we are the world's policemen. I have simply said that we have a duty to make humanitarian interventions where our involvement has the potential to improve global security and protect human rights.

This is whataboutery of the highest order. This is literally like saying "the police shouldn't enforce the law. Look at what happened to John Charles De Menezez". Stop being a moron.

Saying that moral actions are justified isn't incompatible with looking at the world the way it is. I think we and other international partners can use miltiary force to remove dictators and juntas and warlords, bringing democracy, human rights and stability to parts of the world that sorely need it. At absolutely no point have I said that all of our military interventions have met this criteria. When we invaded Saddam's Iraq I was opposed to it. The lack of a clear objective for reconstruction and withdrawal meant that our involvement would not have made the situation better for those on the ground.

All I am suggesting is that the size, structure and use of our military should not be judged by how many people with stripes on their uniform are based in Scotland, nor should it be judged simply by how likely it is that another country could invade us. This isn't a controversial position. It's common fucking sense.

At no point on this thread have I even remotely suggested that British foreign policy has been immaculate, or for that matter, even good, when it comes to our military activities.

Perhaps if you stopped attributing views not expressed to the people who disagree with you and engaged with the points they actually made, you wouldn't be such a moron.

Too many mentions of moron.

Just so I can get a full disclosure of your position.

1. Are human rights abuses only carried out in countries where there are dictators, juntas and warlords?

2. Should we invade the USA to prevent the human rights abuses carried out by American forces and intelligence services? If not, why not?

3. Same as question 2 but for China?

4. How many acts of terrorism does Israel have to perform before we take them to task and ask the English Army to "bomb the f**k" out of them?

5. Given our history of interventions where, by your own admission, our foreign policy leaves much to be desired, what gives us the right to act with impunity when we violate another country's sovereignty?

6. Did you favour the invasion of Afghanistan?

7. We are a country that has been condemned by the UN Committee for Torture for our own abuses and for inserting an escape clause into the 1998 Criminal Justice Act. that prevents prosecution for state sponsored terrorism. Is this really a basis for projection of UK values onto the rest of the world?

8. Finally, provide a list of countries that we should use our military to influence, overthrow the government of, or remove a dictator. If you could list these in priority order that would be just dandy.

[TONTROOPER]

Asking ground troops to operate without the close air support provided by the RAF and the support of naval guns/weaponry reflects a complete failure to understand military tactics.

You need every aspect of an integrated tri-service force for a reason. How exactly do you propose to move military personnel around - Easyjet & Stagecoach? Seriously!

You...sir...need to give yourself a chance to escape the tag 'ignorant of the facts' and read the defence section of T he White Paper issued last November.It is still totally relevant and costed...you of course will not see it that way because you choose not to.Take off your Unionist-tainted glasses!

[parahandy1]

You...sir...need to give yourself a chance to escape the tag 'ignorant of the facts' and read the defence section of T he White Paper issued last November.It is still totally relevant and costed...you of course will not see it that way because you choose not to.Take off your Unionist-tainted glasses!

I was commenting on Whitnails remarks that the "Airforce should be non existent" and "Navy should be restricted to lifeguards and search and rescue". The white paper includes provision for all 3 services which is exactly what I said is needed.

[Thumper]

Advocates Just Wars. Lost his deposit. Cause and effect.