Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: darrellmaurina

‘Britain may have decided that it doesn’t need to protect itself anymore and can rely on the United States for its protection. Considering that most of the rest of NATO has long since decided to mooch off the United States, I can’t really blame the British parliament for deciding to follow the lead of the rest of our allies.’

Bollocks. We havent, we dont, and wont need to mooch of you.


37 posted on 07/18/2011 11:20:26 AM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: the scotsman
DTM wrote: “Britain may have decided that it doesn’t need to protect itself anymore and can rely on the United States for its protection. Considering that most of the rest of NATO has long since decided to mooch off the United States, I can’t really blame the British parliament for deciding to follow the lead of the rest of our allies.”

Scotsman wrote: “Bollocks. We havent, we dont, and wont need to mooch of you.”

Scotsman, please note the key word “may.”

My understanding is that the Guardian is a left-leaning newspaper and I don't trust their analysis of the British defense moves until I see more data. My guess is they're highlighting defense cuts because they know that cutting defense will antagonize at least some conservatives, while cutting social programs will get a rousing “huzzah” from many in the current parliamentary leadership.

I also agree that in the past Britian has not been mooching off the United States. That's unlike much of the rest of NATO. You are right that you “haven't... need(ed) to mooch” off the United States, if by that you mean the past tense.

I'm not so sure about the present tense given your planned defense cutbacks, but I'm open to being shown otherwise.

As for the future... well... I hope that Britain doesn't go the way of most of the rest of Europe.

You no longer have an active Northern Ireland problem, though it's in the background, and that always was primarily a policing and civilian issue, not a traditional military problem. You no longer have a Soviet threat. You're nowhere near the Balkans. You no longer have very many colonies you need to protect. Your only value in having a strong military is to support a Western vision of freedom and democracy in the world, a vision currently supported (from a military perspective) mostly by the United States.

How long will the British Parliament want to spend money to do that? I don't know the answer, but I do think it's pretty clear that most of Europe decided long ago that in the absence of a Soviet threat there wasn't a good reason to have a strong military, and with the rise of Islam in Europe, I'm not at all sure that strong majorities in European governments are even interested in promoting traditional Western values, let alone spending the large amounts of money needed to do so through armed force.

42 posted on 07/18/2011 11:51:18 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson