B0ycey wrote:Wow. You are happy to be involved in the Iraq and Afgan wars?
No, not really. I never agreed with either. I thought both were a bad idea at the time. But Australia didn’t make the strategy. Can you same the same of the UK under Blair?
However, Australian personal, did their job competently and earn’t their ally’s respect. Disagreeing with strategy isn’t the same as condemning one’s nation or soldiers.
They were American bullshit wars of revenge and protecting their own oil interests. And what has been gained from such intervention? ISIS, refugees and billions of Dollars funding American defence contracts. But being you are the other side of the world what do you care?
It is necessary to fight groups such as ISIS. They are trying to attack us so may as well do something about them.
Things would be different if America attacked Indonesia and boat loads of refugees made it to Australian soil I'm sure.
Ah, but you see, that is why we kept the Americans out of the East Timor operation. You know how they like to blow stuff up.
Nonetheless I will give you Libya. I won't blame the US for that. Only foolish Conservatives on both sides of the channel. And Syria was a near miss mistake where thankfully parliament spared UK brushes over. Otherwise ISIS would have taken over the entire Middle East by now. That is what War mongering does. Creates issues and problems from no problems.
Sure, Libya was a mistake.
ISIS is just one extremist franchise. The Brotherhood goes back to the 1930s at least. American actions didn’t create Al Queda or ISIS, just gave them opportunities.
In fact the US has been chasing these guys all over the world, in Africa and Asia. But they have over extended. Their foriegn policy is reactive rather than goal orientated. They are just wearing themselves down by trying to resist extremism everywhere.
So fucking what. I am in the belief that defence should be used for defence and not attack. Since WWII there has only been one war that required UK troops to be involved in. The Falklands. There is a case for the UK being involved in the First Iraq war as Kuwait were an Ally, and maybe the Serbian War, but that would be it. NATO has had its day. The Cold War is over. Until a sufficient substitute is created by Pesco it can remain. But when Europe can look after itself, what use is NATO? America can look after their own affairs. Let Europe look after theirs.
You do realise PESCO will focus much of its attention on West Africa, right? The French have been long involved in that region. Now you might point out that is where France gets its uranium. But it is also the case that Islamic extremists are threatening to take over that region. Can you just ignore that? If you do, your enemies will have a base of resources to build forces to attack you.
Jeez, Australia being a better global, moral, political model than the UK. Of course it is. The UK are the American poodle. We fight in bullshit wars. But I am not the one advocating these wars. You are.
You can’t ignore world events. You do have to get involved. At least when it really matters. I think the problem with UK leaders is they make decisions as though it was 80 years ago rather than acting within circumstances today. The Americans are not adjusting that well either. Both the UK and the USA need to be smarter in how they use their power.
Europe will never be free from US shackles until they can defend themselves militarily. So today they have to defend clear political suicidal foreign policies until then. Hence why Pesco is Europes only hope. Europe can only be a truely significant political figure when it is an equal to America, not its understudy.
Stop blaming the Americans. The UK is just as culpable as the US when it comes to Middle East interventions.
Anyway, what does PESCO matter to you. The UK won’t be in it. Nor will you even be in the EU. And if you withdraw from NATO (Corbyn said he wants to do that) what will you have left?