Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    However I think we could take some inspiration from Switzerland, especially in defence.
    Train and arm all citizens? thought you wanted to disarm the UK
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    We weren't the only nation involved in that coalition, so the people of Benghazi would be grateful to the French and Italians rather than us. That I can live with. The logic behind disarmament is that for the past 500 year the nations of the British Isles - England in particular - have been one of the most war-like and conflict prone on the planet. We have subjugated peoples from the Irish through to the Kenyans, Native Americans, and others and it's really time for that to stop. Our place in the world is as Europeans and heaven knows we Europeans have plenty of problems of our own to deal with. It's time to stop thinking ourselves a superpower. We haven't been one for nearly a century.
    The British Armed Forces are still recognized as the most skilled and capable in the world. For a country with an army, navy and airforce as small as ours are now to be able to inspire that much fear in our enemies, is a great achievement. To disarm the best fighting force in the world would be idiocy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Why is the Labour party policy to disarm? Where would the people of Benghazi be now if not for British involvement?
    I don't think we should totally disarm - I think we should reduce our defence to exactly that - defence. I don't think we should get involved in countries overseas, and we should concentrate on having a small military force which would be sufficient in the (very unlikely) event we happened to be invaded.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Train and arm all citizens? thought you wanted to disarm the UK
    Well I'm not an expert on Switzerland, but I do know they have a small force of professional soldiers for defence purposes and like to stay neutral and not get involved in conflict. That's what I like about their defence policy, certainly not conscription - I should've made it more clear.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    Well I'm not an expert on Switzerland.
    And yet you wrote something as if you knew a lot about it.

    Switzerland arms every citizen, yes their main army is small but they have reserves. I think you should go and research so you don't look like you know nothing.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    I don't think we should totally disarm - I think we should reduce our defence to exactly that - defence. I don't think we should get involved in countries overseas, and we should concentrate on having a small military force which would be sufficient in the (very unlikely) event we happened to be invaded.
    So should there be another invasion of the Falklands, we don't try to recapture them then? Should another Benghazi occur, we shouldn't do something about it? We shouldn't act like the world's policeman, but we need a capacity to help defend our allies and our overseas territory. Cutting our forces down will leave our territories exposed. We need a strong army to ensure that we can protect them in the future.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You don't really need to be a super power to bomb the **** out of people.

    I think the past is more or less irrelevant when it comes to what we do going forwards. So we subjugated half of Africa for a few centuries - obviously this has ongoing effects even now, but does that change the morality or practicality of what we should do going forwards? I don't understand why it should. Our decision to intervene should be based upon three questions:

    - Do we actually want to help these people
    - Do we have the capacity to help
    - Is the likely outcome of our helping better in the medium-long term than our not helping.

    If we're going to get utilitarian about it (ie reducing net suffering), I don't see why our past has anything to do with it. Even if we did a fantastic intervention and everything went well, the regime topples and democracy flourishes - if the people, in their wisdom, choose to instill a horrible, maniacal bunch of Shariah nutters, is that better? I mean, we don't have the choice between "good outcome" and "bad outcome", it's often the choice between two bad outcomes. But, in the rare instances where this isn't the case - such as Kosovo - I don't think we should limit our intervention on the grounds of something our father's father's father's did.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    And yet you wrote something as if you knew a lot about it.

    Switzerland arms every citizen, yes their main army is small but they have reserves. I think you should go and research so you don't look like you know nothing.
    Oops, well you get the gist of what I meant when I explained it, no need to go on about it.

    (Original post by toronto353)
    So should there be another invasion of the Falklands, we don't try to recapture them then? Should another Benghazi occur, we shouldn't do something about it? We shouldn't act like the world's policeman, but we need a capacity to help defend our allies and our overseas territory. Cutting our forces down will leave our territories exposed. We need a strong army to ensure that we can protect them in the future.
    We could still retain a defence force on the Falklands (although we'd be pretty pissed off if Argentina owned Shetland or the Isle of Man, but that's another discussion).

    I just think that there's so many better things the (quite considerable) money we spend on defence could be spent on.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    We could still retain a defence force on the Falklands (although we'd be pretty pissed off if Argentina owned Shetland or the Isle of Man, but that's another discussion).

    I just think that there's so many better things the (quite considerable) money we spend on defence could be spent on.
    So we've got a defensive force there and a defensive force here and then perhaps reserves. By the time you actually come to disarming, then you find that it's difficult. If we assume for a minute then that you are going to cut the armed forces, then where would the axe fall? What would you get rid of?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    So we've got a defensive force there and a defensive force here and then perhaps reserves. By the time you actually come to disarming, then you find that it's difficult. If we assume for a minute then that you are going to cut the armed forces, then where would the axe fall? What would you get rid of?
    Well first off the obvious one I can think of is nuclear weapons. I don't think it's needed as a "deterrent", and the money we spend on it could certainly be spent better elsewhere.

    I also think we should seek to negotiate some sort of deal with Argentina about the Falklands. I mean we'd be pretty pissed off it Argentina "owned" the Isle of Man or Shetland in the same way we "own" the Falklands, so I think some sort of compromise is needed. I think they should remain under British sovereignty as long as the islanders there wish, but we could have some compromise over any profits from the Falklands (ie oil).
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    Well first off the obvious one I can think of is nuclear weapons. I don't think it's needed as a "deterrent", and the money we spend on it could certainly be spent better elsewhere.

    I also think we should seek to negotiate some sort of deal with Argentina about the Falklands. I mean we'd be pretty pissed off it Argentina "owned" the Isle of Man or Shetland in the same way we "own" the Falklands, so I think some sort of compromise is needed. I think they should remain under British sovereignty as long as the islanders there wish, but we could have some compromise over any profits from the Falklands (ie oil).
    I agree with nuclear disarmament, but only multilaterally. We don't know what the next threat will be so we're better to be one step ahead.

    With regards to the Falklands, I completely disagree. How much of an insult would it be to those who lost their lives, the families of those who lost their lives and the armed forces if we gave them up? If we negotiate to give them any form of profit, then we're giving in. If we give into the Argentine bullies, then how does that look? We should only negotiate with those states that are open to various solutions not with states that have the conclusion to the negotiations drawn up before the negotiations even start.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    regarding his comments about the falklands, does the leader of the labour party believe that they should in fact be Argentinian?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    I agree with nuclear disarmament, but only multilaterally. We don't know what the next threat will be so we're better to be one step ahead.

    With regards to the Falklands, I completely disagree. How much of an insult would it be to those who lost their lives, the families of those who lost their lives and the armed forces if we gave them up? If we negotiate to give them any form of profit, then we're giving in. If we give into the Argentine bullies, then how does that look? We should only negotiate with those states that are open to various solutions not with states that have the conclusion to the negotiations drawn up before the negotiations even start.
    I disagree, despite nuclear weapons being a monumental waste of money I think we should lead the way in nuclear disarmament. Also, kind of hypocritical to tell other nations they can't have nuclear weapons while we retain them.

    If you look at it from an entirely one sided viewpoint then yes, bugger Argentina, the Falklands are ours. But I've said this twice and I'm going to say it again: would you not be pissed off if Argentina owned the Isle of Man or the Shetlands (for example) in the same manner we own the Falklands?
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    Oops, well you get the gist of what I meant when I explained it, no need to go on about it.
    Yes but you are wrong and always will be wrong in regards to demilitarisation of the UK. We need and deserve a strong military.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    We don't own the Falklands, the people of the Falklands who've dwelt there for generations are the only people with a right to claim them or their natural resources.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Yes but you are wrong and always will be wrong in regards to demilitarisation of the UK. We need and deserve a strong military.
    Well then, you can discuss that with me rather than reiterating what an idiot I must be to bring up Switzerland. In answer to your post, why?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    We don't own the Falklands, the people of the Falklands who've dwelt there for generations are the only people with a right to claim them or their natural resources.
    Shht you I meant that they come under British sovereignty, and it's significantly easier to say we "own" them than they "come under British sovereignty" when discussing it frequently
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    I disagree, despite nuclear weapons being a monumental waste of money I think we should lead the way in nuclear disarmament. Also, kind of hypocritical to tell other nations they can't have nuclear weapons while we retain them.
    So it's fine for Iran to get hold of nuclear weapons while we have them then? That is what your hypocrisy statement implies and that's a pretty risky road to go down. If we disarm multilaterally, then fine, but why can't we keep nuclear weapons until we have those agreements? We should not simply say 'oh it's fine because they won't use nuclear weapons so we don't need them'. In war, your enemy will use any means to win and so we need to have the means to stop that. We don't know how the next war will be fought and so why deny ourselves part of our arsenal?

    If you look at it from an entirely one sided viewpoint then yes, bugger Argentina, the Falklands are ours. But I've said this twice and I'm going to say it again: would you not be pissed off if Argentina owned the Isle of Man or the Shetlands (for example) in the same manner we own the Falklands?
    Your example is ridiculous and you can't compare them. The UK ruled the islands way before Argentina ever existed as any kind of state and this isn't the same with the UK. The UK was beginning to form and England itself and Scotland were more like countries than Argentina was back then. The examples aren't comparable. The Falkland islands want to remain British, that isn't one sided. That is them saying that they want to remain British. Hence the territory is British hence any oil and by extension any profit is British. This should be non-negotiable. Why do you think that we should give into Argentine demands? Why do you think that we should give into their campaign of intimidation?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    Shht you I meant that they come under British sovereignty, and it's significantly easier to say we "own" them than they "come under British sovereignty" when discussing it frequently
    Just checking that you're not secretly a massive colonialist. You sure, right?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    So it's fine for Iran to get hold of nuclear weapons while we have them then? That is what your hypocrisy statement implies and that's a pretty risky road to go down. If we disarm multilaterally, then fine, but why can't we keep nuclear weapons until we have those agreements? We should not simply say 'oh it's fine because they won't use nuclear weapons so we don't need them'. In war, your enemy will use any means to win and so we need to have the means to stop that. We don't know how the next war will be fought and so why deny ourselves part of our arsenal?
    Yep, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. Just because we don't like Iran doesn't mean that they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. After all, we can have them, what gives us any more of a right than them?

    The second part of this paragraph is exactly my point. I'm saying that we shouldn't get involved in any wars, and remain neutral. Like Switzerland. When was the last time Switzerland was attacked?

    Your example is ridiculous and you can't compare them. The UK ruled the islands way before Argentina ever existed as any kind of state and this isn't the same with the UK. The UK was beginning to form and England itself and Scotland were more like countries than Argentina was back then. The examples aren't comparable. The Falkland islands want to remain British, that isn't one sided. That is them saying that they want to remain British. Hence the territory is British hence any oil and by extension any profit is British. This should be non-negotiable. Why do you think that we should give into Argentine demands? Why do you think that we should give into their campaign of intimidation?
    My example isn't that ridiculous. The point is that if you were Argentinian you'd be a bit pissed off at someone who's country is miles and miles away owning (sorry JPKC ) a set of islands right on your doorstep. I'm fully aware of the situation in the past, and I'm not suggesting that we give sovereignty of the islands to Argentina. I also don't think we should "give in" to Argentine demands and bullying as you put it, but I do feel that a solution is available that everyone could be happy with.

    (Original post by JPKC)
    Just checking that you're not secretly a massive colonialist. You sure, right?
    Does it sound like I'm a massive colonialist from what I'm saying to toronto?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.