starting this thread, which i hope will be short-lived, to keep the board up to date with latest reports gleaned from the net

and believe me, without the professionally applied make-over, she lacks a certain je sais exactement


fred - my english is lacking for i was under the impression that forced and coerced were synonymous ..... further, you switch like an angry rattlesnake, for in one breath you say "act precipitately" (or somesuch) and in the next it's "sit on the sidelines" ..... no doubt i haven't read your posts properly, but those are certainly the distinct impressions that regularly emerge - but then you'ld like to have marxist milliband wriggling in the hotseat

We were right to go to war against sadman insane (no, I don't mean the parrot) when he invaded Kuwait. we did a good thing then.
However, the Arab world is riven by sectarian, religious and tribal divisions and internecine wars and I don't think we should involve ourselves militarily in any of their countries. Humanitarian assistance is different, taking sides in disputes even the participants don't fully understand is foolhardy, in my view.
The Nordic nations, Germany and others in Europe (not to mention the rest of the world) manage perfectly well without such military adventures or interventions and a third rate power like us should stop trying to pretend we are a world power throwing our weight around.
You can call me naive or incredibly stupid if you wish, cynic, that's of no consequence. We have different opinions but let's not fall into the sticky world of parrot's nappies.
You might be right and I wrong, I might be right and you wrong, different views are healthy and no-one is infallible.

slapped wrist deserved ITLOB ......

i'm sure the nordic nations and others do get regularly involved with policing, and if they do not (perhaps here), it could be argued that they are being spineless .... quite where humanitarian ends and military intervention starts is very blurred, and of course politicians of all colours and callings will manipulate such words to suit

"The Nordic nations, Germany and others in Europe (not to mention the rest of the world) manage perfectly well without such military adventures or interventions....."

I think you will find a number of your 'Nordic nations......' are engaging in military adventures in Afghanistan, plus the rest of the world.

Yes, they do get involved in very minor ways, but the actual ground fighting, the suffering of casualties is borne mainly, though not exclusively, by the US and the UK.
It's interesting that the old economic and strategic reasons for foreign adventures, are being replaced by allegedly humanitarian ones; though of course access to oil and other commodities remain strong motivators. Nevertheless, other countries get what they need without the requirement for military force.
Or maybe we all live under the American umbrella and the UK just pretends to matter.

First you say they don't, then you agree they do but don't take casualties.

I think you'll find they do take casualties.

Allow me to clarify.
They do not take leading roles either in the initiation or major contributions. They provide small forces which are not commensurate with the sizes of their economies or military. Their forces are either merely token, non-combatant, supportive or are withdrawn when casualties are suffered. Often this is because their policies do not have sufficient domestic support. I am not being critical, merely expressing an observation.
The major initiators tend to be the US and the UK, with occasionally France. The latter more so as they feel Libya is on their doorstep and because of their historical colonial involvement in Africa, especially the Arab North.

In this country we feel a moral obligation and a related sense of global importance arising from our past. What I am saying is that our role should be non-military, restricted to humanitarian, political, diplomatic and economic in those instances when the wars are civil conflicts.

So you're saying Germany doesn't take a leading role in military intervention (implicit observation from your previous post)?

phew! thank goodness this is evolving into proper and sensible debate .....

peter - i await developments with interest and some amusement, and shall watch from the sidelines (like a nordic support force!)

Yes, I would describe it as not being a leading role.
However, please correct me if I am mistaken.
Something tells me you are about to do so ;)
I am prepared to change my view if either the facts or circumstances change or I recognise my view is based on insufficient information.

cynic,
One can have a civilised exchange of views with intelligent people :)

Enough said?

I'm unconvinced as the North is much less dangerous than the areas where the US and British have been fighting. I don't want to get into comparative casualty figures as that is almost sick, but I would be astonished if you were to provide numbers showing German dead and wounded were more than a small fraction of our losses or the American's.
That is not to say Germany isn't fulfilling a supportive role, but perhaps we are getting into semantics here.

i knew where this one was leading - chuckle chuckle!
thank you peter ...... do you have a similar for libya, or is that still all a bit too fluid?


at least not semitics itlob!

I think the fact that Germany has a Lead Role as the Regional Commander (N) sort of disproves your assertion that Germany and other countries do not adopt a policy of military intervention, no matter how much you side-track to casualty figures.

No doubt in a years time or so, we'll end up with a peace keeping force in Libya, until then they will probably just keep knocking lumps out of each other. Difficult to know how much support MH actually has and would his abdication / removal result in peace?

Incidentally, I think you will also find that casualty figures are reasonably comparitive in the context of number of forces deployed... sadly

I carefully used the word "leading" and I have no intention of "side-tracking".

Number of troops, material, economic cost, casualties are all, in my humble opinion, reasonable metrics, although the latter is distasteful.

"Reasonably comparative". Do you have the figures?
Of course if a small number of troops experiences one major incident then the casualty rate becomes disproportionate but more proportionate to other countries.

itlob - you can't pick and choose which bits of statistic you want to use to bolster your assertion

cynic,
I don't understand.
I have suggested four metrics.
Without knowing the precise figures, I am reasonably sure that Germany which has a bigger economy that ours, contributes far less in manpower, fighting and supportive, material, economic cost etc.
In any case, we are getting away from the point which is that the prime movers in these interventions are USUALLY the US and the UK and, in my view, we do not need to sacrifice our blood and treasure in militarily supporting one side in an Arab civil war.