UK vs. The World

[Horus]

Where do you see us?

I have been somewhat public about my location thus far. I am from the UK, and for the most part, I enjoy being here. It is home, after all; it's difficult to hate a place which has contributed to your values and upbringing.

Some of the people I have talked to have made a big thing out of our alliance with the United States. I have heard our ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair referred to as the 'poodle' of the US President George W. Bush (one of the more milder terms I've seen him referred to as). Do you think the UK can stand alone?

Military Programme

We are comfortably in the top ten military countries in the world. We are behind certain superpowers like the US and China (out of sheer size and spending) and other surprise top-ten inclusions such as Brazil and Poland (which are not battle-hardened anyway). We have nuclear weapons; they're actually developed at a location a few miles from my house.

EDIT: Tenth.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/list_countries.asp

Economy

Our economy is strong, despite our large class differences. Unemployment is fairly decent given the circumstances (available work, natural resources, population) and industry thrives still. I think Economy would contribute to a war effort quite well, and also help to rebuild the country afterward.

Allies

The UK is allied with the main power block operating on Earth. We are strong friends with the US, and a part of Nato, which all share a common goal to wipe out terrorism in the Middle East. Our links and alliances are very healthy, to say the least.

Solidarity

This is perhaps a little out-of-place in this thread, as it's due to perception rather than pure fact. Current Prime Minister Gordon Brown ordered the raising of the Union Jack after recent attacks on this country, and how we have dealt with threats on our nation as well as hostile situations internally (UK terror cells, etc) makes us one of the more patriotic nations.

My question is: how would we fare on our own?

[Mitch]

I think that the UK will be better off than the US in the near future. The US is going to have many after they come out of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, even most people in Canada don't like the US government right now. Gordon Brown seems like he'll make the right decisions and do what's best for the country, and think before he acts.

[Horus]

I think that the UK will be better off than the US in the near future. The US is going to have many after they come out of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, even most people in Canada don't like the US government right now. Gordon Brown seems like he'll make the right decisions and do what's best for the country, and think before he acts.

He's been preparing for this position for years; it's no secret that he's had at least half a decade to prepare his stance and 'his government' as he's been groomed for the position ever since he became Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think you're right; Gordon Brown has the best interests of the country at heart, and we all know he has a lot of work to do!

Additional Question: Do you think that the UK will ultimately benefit from the 'War on Terror' in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Yes!

They have gained some strong allies from this. Our notable friendships in the Middle East are both military-based (we have a strong trade deal with Saudi Arabia, and sell a lot of weaponry to Israel) so it's not as if we are entirely alone there. Other countries would be made aware of our loyalty to the US in this war, despite the possibility that we may have lost more from it than the gains.

No!

The UK prides itself on being a multi-cultural country; of one that encourages cohesion and co-existence between different religions and race. However, it's widely known that we have terror cells here. The July 7 bombings were masterminded by a student of Al Qaeda who trained 'disciples' in Leeds, Yorkshire. The plain fact that certain Muslim groups are taught to believe that what the rest of the country is doing is wrong makes for worrying thoughts - that perhaps our own friends are being trained to destroy this country from within.

[Mitch]

OH NO! BONUS QUESTIONS :eek:

[Horus]

OH NO! BONUS QUESTIONS :eek:

Serves you right :p

I personally feel that this country cannot benefit from their recent military activity. The only gains are transparent, and psychological rather than physical (honour, trust, etc) whereas the larger losses have been splashed all over the news.

Guests, what do you think?

[Ed Jones]

In terms of the 'political weight' of both countries, it has been worsened not by military action, but by the indecisiveness of the bodies in charge over this new terrorist threat.

Being PC and having sufficient respect for your foes is all very well and good if they feel the same way about you. But if you're fighting a group that has absolutely no respect for anyone who does not believe as they do, requires a certain leadership quality that both administrations are currently lacking - the ability to use perhaps unethical tactics in order for the something which benefits the country.

When in doubt - ask "what would Maggie do?"

[Horus]

In terms of the 'political weight' of both countries, it has been worsened not by military action, but by the indecisiveness of the bodies in charge over this new terrorist threat.

Being PC and having sufficient respect for your foes is all very well and good if they feel the same way about you. But if you're fighting a group that has absolutely no respect for anyone who does not believe as they do, requires a certain leadership quality that both administrations are currently lacking - the ability to use perhaps unethical tactics in order for the something which benefits the country.
+1 rep; excellent point. You can't fathom using 'proper protocols' against a cell that would kill 10,000 of their own members if it meant killing 10,001 of yours. I'm not advocating suicide bombers on our part, but I feel that we're in a situation similar to the appeasement of Hitler. You cannot negotiate with terrorists.

When in doubt - ask "what would Maggie do?"
Maggie would probably forge an anti-terrorist machine out of toilet paper tubes and paper clips! :P

[Spartacus]

I think the war against terror is a sham and not a very convincing one at that.
Yes there are people who have and will commit terrorist attacks in the UK but they are in response to the State terrorism of our own government in Iraq and Afghanistan .
There is a strange logic held by many people in the UK and the USA ( the main proponents of the invasions of both countries mentioned ). It is that it is okay for our own governments to kill and maim others ( and on a grand/genocidal scale ) but it is somehow outrageous when we are attacked in response.
It is no secret that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan would greatly increase the chances of terrorist attacks on British/American soil. The national security/intelligence agencies of both countries have all informed their governments of the likely outcomes of continuing military operations in the middle east.
The war on terror is , imo , the war for control of world resources and to establish a world run by and for Corporations , Bankers , financiers , etc
I strongly believe that the real terrorists of the planet are a lot closer to home than most people would ever dare to admit .
There is a better way to reduce terrorism around the world today and that is to stop the State terrorism we have lived with from the colonial era to the present day.

[Locke]

I think the war against terror is a sham and not a very convincing one at that.
Yes there are people who have and will commit terrorist attacks in the UK but they are in response to the State terrorism of our own government in Iraq and Afghanistan .
There is a strange logic held by many people in the UK and the USA ( the main proponents of the invasions of both countries mentioned ). It is that it is okay for our own governments to kill and maim others ( and on a grand/genocidal scale ) but it is somehow outrageous when we are attacked in response.
It is no secret that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan would greatly increase the chances of terrorist attacks on British/American soil. The national security/intelligence agencies of both countries have all informed their governments of the likely outcomes of continuing military operations in the middle east.
The war on terror is , imo , the war for control of world resources and to establish a world run by and for Corporations , Bankers , financiers , etc
I strongly believe that the real terrorists of the planet are a lot closer to home than most people would ever dare to admit .
There is a better way to reduce terrorism around the world today and that is to stop the State terrorism we have lived with from the colonial era to the present day.

Indeed. Well stated. The rhetoric that justifies the the War on Terror bears no relation to what it actually accomplishes, and there is a great discrepancy between the aim and the actual point of contact.
I propose that the best way to reduce terrorism would be to reduce disenfranchisement on a macrocosmic scale.

[Mr Jolly]

We'll be much better off once we're in a Federal Europe.

[Coll]

Yeah, we were so close in 1941!

[Mr Jolly]

I'm very surprised to hear Texas was close to being part of a Federal Europe!

If Hitler had chosen a less dramatic, and less genocidal route to uniting Europe it might have worked out better in the long run. But that's besides the point, I'm talking about a democratic Federal State, you can't really compare.

[Spartacus]

Indeed. Well stated. The rhetoric that justifies the the War on Terror bears no relation to what it actually accomplishes, and there is a great discrepancy between the aim and the actual point of contact.
I propose that the best way to reduce terrorism would be to reduce disenfranchisement on a macrocosmic scale.

Thx Locke , with the Corporate ownership af the mainstream media people will have to go to the dissidents to find out what is really going on :)

I just think that with the fall of the Soviets , hence the end of the " Cold War " , a new fear would have to be invented...enter The War Against Terror.
Once again interventions abroad and reductions in civil liberties at home can be " justified " and the Corporatocracy can remain intact.

Yeah , disenfranchisement is a big big issue ( probably the biggest ) and one that needs to be addressed.

Are you familiar with JM Keynes' International Clearing Union concept? It was Keynes proposal at the Bretton Wood conference but it was cast out by his US counterpart.

It seems like a real boon to the establishment of real free trade between nations and would counteract the trade imbalance between developed and undeveloped nations.

I first heard of it whilst reading George Monbiots book " Manifesto for a New World Order ". From what I recall it involved the developed nations paying interest on trade surpluses to the Clearing Union. It's late but I will try to dig it out soon and post a clear account of the proposals it makes which at the time ( when I first read them ) seemed to be a reasonable and achievable system of world trade. Certainly vastly more superior to the so called " free trade agreements " we see today which as you probably already know are anything but free .

[Cattraknoff]

Thx Locke , with the Corporate ownership af the mainstream media people will have to go to the dissidents to find out what is really going on :)

I just think that with the fall of the Soviets , hence the end of the " Cold War " , a new fear would have to be invented...enter The War Against Terror.
Once again interventions abroad and reductions in civil liberties at home can be " justified " and the Corporatocracy can remain intact.

Yeah , disenfranchisement is a big big issue ( probably the biggest ) and one that needs to be addressed.

Are you familiar with JM Keynes' International Clearing Union concept? It was Keynes proposal at the Bretton Wood conference but it was cast out by his US counterpart.

It seems like a real boon to the establishment of real free trade between nations and would counteract the trade imbalance between developed and undeveloped nations.

I first heard of it whilst reading George Monbiots book " Manifesto for a New World Order ". From what I recall it involved the developed nations paying interest on trade surpluses to the Clearing Union. It's late but I will try to dig it out soon and post a clear account of the proposals it makes which at the time ( when I first read them ) seemed to be a reasonable and achievable system of world trade. Certainly vastly more superior to the so called " free trade agreements " we see today which as you probably already know are anything but free .

The fall of the Soviet union was the beginning of the end for socialism and the majority of the political left. An era of corporatism is nearing, likely one without end. There is no longer anything resembling a counter-balance to the west, and our ruling elite is now given a free hand to exploit other nations and our own people as they see fit.

[Locke]

The fall of the Soviet union was the beginning of the end for socialism and the majority of the political left. An era of corporatism is nearing, likely one without end. There is no longer anything resembling a counter-balance to the west, and our ruling elite is now given a free hand to exploit other nations and our own people as they see fit.

It's difficult to say that the Soviet Union even stood for the political left. One would have to be quite deluded to believe so. The Russian Government did (and still does) conduct itself in the way you have accused the Western states. There may have been an economic shift to the right, but ultimately it makes no difference when the paradigm rested and still rests on the extreme side of a theory.

[Cattraknoff]

It's difficult to say that the Soviet Union even stood for the political left. One would have to be quite deluded to believe so. The Russian Government did (and still does) conduct itself in the way you have accused the Western states. There may have been an economic shift to the right, but ultimately it makes no difference when the paradigm rested and still rests on the extreme side of a theory.

I didn't mean to imply that they did truly follow the left. They simply provided a counter-balance to the western agenda, which allowed for other left-leaning countries to survive.

[Coll]

I'm very surprised to hear Texas was close to being part of a Federal Europe!

I'm not from Texas originally.

[Spartacus]

The fall of the Soviet union was the beginning of the end for socialism and the majority of the political left. An era of corporatism is nearing, likely one without end. There is no longer anything resembling a counter-balance to the west, and our ruling elite is now given a free hand to exploit other nations and our own people as they see fit.

I tend not to see the old Soviets as left Wing either and think their collapse has some truly beneficial aspects with regards to the promotion of Socialism into the 21 st century.

I hold with the view " the people will feel no better if the stick with which they are beaten is labelled " The Peoples Stick " "
Plus , there was always a double edged sword in the survival of other " Socialist " attempts during the same period through alignment to the Soviets , whether voluntary or by necessity. As 1980's Nicaraguans found out to their cost ,there are other examples particularly in Latin America and Africa ( Angola )

I totally agree that the balance of superpower , post Soviet collapse ,has given rise to a very dangerous world situation . Having said that, I think there are some really big shifts developing as the reaction to sole superpower hegemony grows and these are becoming strangely positive , a beacon in dark times so to speak. As GW Bush said " you are with us or against us " and that will galvanize anti US sentiments on a scale the Soviets could never have dreamed of. If what he said is true there are indeed still two superpowers , the US and a shaky European support versus everybody else . That's no small foe and when coupled with the financial dependency of nations for use as another weapon things are by no means cut and dry , imo. Wild times lay ahead no doubt.

[Cattraknoff]

I tend not to see the old Soviets as left Wing either and think their collapse has some truly beneficial aspects with regards to the promotion of Socialism into the 21 st century.

I hold with the view " the people will feel no better if the stick with which they are beaten is labelled " The Peoples Stick " "
Plus , there was always a double edged sword in the survival of other " Socialist " attempts during the same period through alignment to the Soviets , whether voluntary or by necessity. As 1980's Nicaraguans found out to their cost ,there are other examples particularly in Latin America and Africa ( Angola )

I totally agree that the balance of superpower , post Soviet collapse ,has given rise to a very dangerous world situation . Having said that, I think there are some really big shifts developing as the reaction to sole superpower hegemony grows and these are becoming strangely positive , a beacon in dark times so to speak. As GW Bush said " you are with us or against us " and that will galvanize anti US sentiments on a scale the Soviets could never have dreamed of. If what he said is true there are indeed still two superpowers , the US and a shaky European support versus everybody else . That's no small foe and when coupled with the financial dependency of nations for use as another weapon things are by no means cut and dry , imo. Wild times lay ahead no doubt.

One must also take into account that multi-nationals (which are primarily based in Western Nations) have spread to almost every nation on the planet. Show me a nation which has signed a free trade agreement, and I'll give you a country that has bent the knee to the west. Once the floodgates are open, it is extremely difficult for a nation to resist near-complete foreign takeovers of their industries, natural resources, etc. The examples can be seen in the exploitation of Latin American, African, Asian, and even some western nations to varying degrees.

The soviets as I said provided a counter-balance; given the removal of this, globalization has taken root across the planet, and a "free" trade system has been imposed on nearly every nation. Those who do not comply are quickly labelled "rogue" states (if they have strong internal stability), or will suffer a regime change (if the political atmosphere is suitable). The soviets, while certainly not working to spread a real socialism that might benefit the people, attempted to exploit others as the Americans did. I simply see it as less of a problem (though it is still quite substantial) when there are two competing sides, rather than one dominant force. The longer western nations maintain their free reign over others, the harder it will be to effect a change in the overall system of any nation, or the world at large.

[Mr Jolly]

I'm not from Texas originally.

Germany? :D

[Coll]

Germany? :D

As a matter of fact, I'm Scottish.