UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
view the rest of the comments
You seem to suggest that a powerful military is a good thing then. Maybe it is. If Ukraine's military had been more powerful (e.g. if they had been admitted to NATO) then Russia may never have been able to take Ukrainian land, or kill so many Ukrainian civilians.
I don't believe in the UK harming anybody in the Middle East. I hope the UK doesn't do that. I don't see plans from the UK government that involve harming people in the Middle East with the UK military.
It is a good thing if only it is used for defensive purposes. Other than WW2, the UK has practically never seen a defensive war. However, I am using your logic here. You want a powerful military for "national security". I am telling you that your politicians are not creating a powerful military.
Then you are not keeping up with the news. The UK has provided a lot of arms to the occupation in Palestine and runs daily reconnaissance missions for them. Furthermore, the UK has been a willing partner of America in its war on terror.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were probably wrong (I don't know enough about them really).
In any case I don't think the UK is planning new military action in the Middle East. Starmer recently criticised Israel for its conduct in Gaza. Maybe we will see more criticism from the UK on that topic.
On the topic of Russia though, I think they do pose a threat to Europe. They've been waging war against Ukraine for over a decade now, and senior military figures across Europe think that Russia might try to attack another European country in a few years time.
You're basing this on what? And who said that the UK's future aggression will only be limited to the middle east?
Congratulations for the mildly worded letter while still providing military parts and daily reconossaince missions I guess.
You keep talking about the Middle East. I hope Israel stops its war against Palestine. The UK shouldn't assist Israel's attacks on Palestine. I think Israel has a right to defend itself (and so does Palestine), e.g. with the Iron Dome system, but I don't think Israel should be harming any civilians in Palestine.
I think that's a separate issue from the UK and its allies spending more on defence in order to protect themselves from Russia, though.
It very much isn't. You don't have 2 seperate militaries, one for defense against Russia and one for use against everyone else.
I think they're two separate issues, because it is perfectly possible for the UK to increase its defence capabilities, while also refraining from attacks upon the Middle East, and refraining from giving support to attacks on the Middle East.
This is for a hypothetical UK that has divested from the imperial system in west asia, a hypothetical UK that does not exist.
It's absolutely possible for the UK to increase its defence spending while also not harming civilians, in the Middle East or anywhere else.
By your logic, no country should have a military, because a military creates a risk of harming civilians. I'm sure that would be great if we lived in a world with no militaries. But then one tyrant could decide he's going to build a military and then he could go and massacre lots of people who wouldn't be able to defend themselves, because they wouldn't have a military.
Not for imperial Britain. It's possible for other countries, but not for imperialists. If you have the slightest concern for the people of Britain and people in other countries, you should oppose all attempts made by the imperialists to arm themselves. I oppose the imperial British arming themselves for the same reason I oppose nazi Germany arming itself.
Has there been a single year in my entire life where the western powers were not at war against some third world country? If the British really can be trusted with a military, they should prove it.