Urban Hat€monger ?

Any wars that Britain gets into is because of little man syndrome in Whitehall, these old farts who can't handle the fact Britian isn't as important as it used to be.
Britain doesn't need a big army, It doesn't need to be getting mixed up in every war around the globe (Apart from Argentina, that's personal). And it certainly doesn't need to fork out £100bn on Trident.

__________________

hip hop bunny hop

Not really. There are a few dominate political ideas in Britain;

(1) A general belief in equality which extends beyond political boundaries (e.g., an immigrant is just as British as ______ )
(2) A strong feeling that the government can and should intervene to prevent excessive inequality (whatever that is)
(3) A general feeling that the plight of the poor is largely the fault of the rich, not the poor themselves

Is it really very difficult to see how this manifests itself in an interventionist foreign policy? If the general dialogue in Britain is one that the Government is both obligated to and capable of bringing about greater equality, that the political divisions which separate people are (or should be) meaningless, and that the Top 1% is responsible for the problems of the Bottom 50%, then how can you not have lapses into neo-liberal "humanitarian interventions"?

edit: seriously, I'd love to hear how you can square the above with a position that's against, say, nation building in Aghanistan?

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.

Unknown Soldier

This is not strictly true. Most immigrants here are free to maintain their own culture, identity and language and it's up to them as to how far they immerse themselves into British culture. They are seen as British subjects and treated as such and given the same benefits as those born here. It's largely upto the immigrant whether they see themselves as British or not and not the politicians really.

The UK is a welfare state and welfare states are like so. I see no reason why the UK should ever adopt a strict 'laissez-faire' belief in such matters.

This is only a Socialist viewpoint and not held by the majority here.

Now you're agreeing with Urban's 'little man mentality in Whitehall' because it's the politicians in Whitehall that decide on these interventionist policies and those that follow these viewpoints. The average Brit doesn't really care what goes on on the other side of the world, but does care about its military once there.

You've made this final paragraph far more complicated than it should be, but as I've stated the general belief apart from the politicians and old school traditionalists, is one that the average Brit has no real interest in most external affairs and only really has an interest in greater equality at home.

The humanitarian interventions that you speak of, are really the sphere of the UN, but I'll admit that is a difficult subject to nail down.

I for one, see most of these countries as far from democracy and nation building (as we see it here in the west) about as far as you can get. I see no point in promoting the concept of democracy for example in Afghanistan etc in states that have no real idea of the concept in the first place.

__________________
Metal Wars

Power Metal

Pounding Decibels- A Hard and Heavy History

Newkie

Truer words...I get tired of the conservative traditionalist v hippy pussio arguments on Trident. It's all down to a British Government never having the balls to kick the habit. Too obsessed with clinging on to some sense of former glory and maintaining that seat on the security council. Balls to it all, cut trident and use the money to import hotties from the continent using Ali G's immigration policy and we'll all be happy scandinavians, just like we were meant to be. Bloody Alfred the Great.

__________________

The Batlord

If the mods want to split this question into another thread then feel free, but I'm far too lazy.

What exactly is the point of the Security Council anyway, besides giving the major powers unfair control of the UN? And why should France, among others, be on it? Since when has France been anything but a middling power after WWII?

__________________

Unknown Soldier

They were largely a waste of space in WWII as well, caved in when the krauts went around the Maginot Line. Then they formed Vichy France in the south thinking the Nazis were going to win and got that wrong as well.

__________________
Metal Wars

Power Metal

Pounding Decibels- A Hard and Heavy History

The Batlord

I guess everyone just felt too bad to tell the French, "Hey, France, go kick rocks. The rest of us powerful countries need to discuss things."

__________________

Unknown Soldier

Well the European Axis powers were really only defeated thanks to the US and the Soviet Union, with the UK just hanging in there to help out.

To be fair though, before the conflict they were the biggest army in Western Europe and had done themselves proud in WWI, but they were caught totally unawares when they were struck by the German 'Blitzkrieg'.

Joining the army is a great, as long as you have the option not to get into any nasty conflicts.

__________________
Metal Wars

Power Metal

Pounding Decibels- A Hard and Heavy History

Newkie

I think it was just that post-war they were seen as a vital player on the continent, nobody wanted yet another war with Germany and everyone knew -esp Britain and the USSR that France would be the "best" buffer. They could also keep an eye on the pesky fascist/marxist movements for the rest of the council, especially in Italy and Spain. Although if Roosevelt had lived a little longer who knows? Maybe us and the french would have been cast off.

__________________

Circe

Even by the end of World War 2 us Brits and the French were still convinced that we had a place on the world power stage. The point where everyone finally opened our eyes and realised that we were America's bitches for life is generally accepted to be the Suez Crisis and by then we'd already secured places on the Security Council and built up our nuclear programmes for good. Although even by modern standards I'm not sure if the Security Council would change its format that much. If you're going by standards of how badly a country could mess up another country the UK and France would probably still deserve spots on it.