Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Voting for the leaders behind the war was a kind of endorsement, don't you think? Bush rode the patriotic wave into reelection.
The British Elections in respect of Blair were on the 7th June 2001, so 9/11 was even an issue, and a British Government has a possible 5 years maximum period in office unlike the US where the limit is 4 years. Bush having taken office on January 20th, 2001 again well before 9/11 and the Iraq war was therefore never a voting issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wise TibetanMonkey
The draft? At one point or another you need a large army if you are fighting in different theaters or, say, if you want to occupy a large territory.
Britain has only ever had the draft (conscription) as a last resort during three periods, the first was 1916 to 1919 during WW1 and the year after it finished, the second was during WW2 from 1939 to 1945, and the third during the height of the Cold War from 1945 to 1960, with the last conscripted soldiers leaving the service in 1963. Traditionally Britain was a Naval power and relied on a far stronger navy than it's adversaries whilst keeping a much smaller army than it's European rivals, despite having a large Empire.
Would you have won Vietnam with a professional army? I think war in the jungles took a large army and always will. The Vietcong and their sympathizers simply overwhelmed the American army. Urban warfare also needs intensive hand to hand combat.
I have no idea British forces weren't really involved in the Vietnam War. The US had some form of draft at the time, although the war was unpopular enough in the US without forcing people to fight in it. Britain did help win two wars against communism in the Far East in the 1950's one in Korea and the other in Malaya.
Backward countries like Afghanistan and Iraq stretched the American military enough to require mercenaries.
The American War of Independence stretched Britain to the point where one third of it's force was made up of German Hessian Mercenaries, and some Trading companies of Empire such as the East India Company had their own private armies. So times don't change that much and history has a habit of repeating itself.
As for using conscription to try and invade and occupy other countries it's never a popular thing to do both domestically or in terms of the country you are occupying, which is why the British kept a small army, allowed countries to police themselves and even rule themselves to an extent, whilst keeping the ruling classes and indeed workers happy through increased trade and prosperity, which involved exporting their goods to new markets under the protection of the Royal Navy.
The Swiss have a history of neutrality and though France has a proud military tradition, they have recently been known for either surrending upon attack or refusing to defend itself when threatened.
All I know they are doing some dirty job in Africa, a job nobody wants. They are humbly chipping in with Western civilization, whatever that means.
As for using conscription to try and invade and occupy other countries it's never a popular thing to do both domestically or in terms of the country you are occupying, which is why the British kept a small army, allowed countries to police themselves and even rule themselves to an extent, whilst keeping the ruling classes and indeed workers happy through increased trade and prosperity, which involved exporting their goods to new markets under the protection of the Royal Navy.
The issue is America stretched its forces AND wasted a fortune to secure two backward countries that are likely to revert to chaos sooner or later.
It may be argued that these wars led to Iran and North Korea getting stronger and more paranoid. It may be argued that the UN and the international treaties can simply be ignored when they are not convenient for your ends. You want something? Just grab it and use any pretext.
The issue is America stretched its forces AND wasted a fortune to secure two backward countries that are likely to revert to chaos sooner or later.
It may be argued that these wars led to Iran and North Korea getting stronger and more paranoid. It may be argued that the UN and the international treaties can simply be ignored when they are not convenient for your ends. You want something? Just grab it and use any pretext.
Other NATO forces have been in Afghanistan alongside the US, including Britain, but you just have to look at Afghanistan's history to see why it wasn't a good idea to invade in the first place, and 9/11 had more to do with the Saudis and Pakistanis than the Iraqis and Afghans.
As for Conscripting young men to go and fight in war zones, it's never generally popular with the electorate, with the possible exception of a war like WW2, when it was justified.
Volunteering for military service is very different from being forced in to the military.
Other NATO forces have been in Afghanistan, including Britain, but you just have to look at Afghanistan's history to see why it wasn't a good idea invading it.
As for Conscripting young men to go and fight in war zones, it's never generally popular with the electorate, with the possible exception of a war like WW2, when it was justified.
Volunteering for military service is very different from being forced in to the military.
And it draws a different kind of people, namely the poor.
They gamble their life because they got nothing to lose. And if they do die their family would be somewhat mitigated from the worst poverty. It's a rather cynical view since I know some people really answer to the call of patriotism or adventure. Many ads emphasize the latter. And immigrants are prime candidates.
I don't even hate Putin; I do not know the guy at all. If it were not Putin then it would be someone else with country wanting what it wants based on history of Russia.Putin effects me less than Obama and I do not ahte Obama ;just do not agree with his policies and waiting for him to leave office.
I don't even hate Putin; I do not know the guy at all. If it were not Putin then it would be someone else with country wanting what it wants based on history of Russia.Putin effects me less than Obama and I do not ahte Obama ;just do not agree with his policies and waiting for him to leave office.
I just posted this comment to Yahoo news:
Putin seems to be in control, much more than Obama. Obama would have been the kind of kid that liked playing with matches.
I don't hate Putin at all, I respect him more than I respect obama...
Putin is trying to gain respect for Russia while obama is trying to humiliate America...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
