Should GB be a world power

To answer a question asked earlier, Canada, Australia and other nations have stopped/are stopping air strikes on Syria and Iraq .

Australia was one of the first coalition countries to carry out air strikes in Syria and Iraq aagainst IS. It stopped when Russia started because air strikes because Australia supports a political solution that includes Assad being removed and Russia supports Assad. Australia was excluded from the talks in Vienna last week because Russia objected to it (and Japan) being involved.

Following a change of government last month, Canada will be withdrawing from military intervention and focussing on humanitarian aid.

Russia taking military action independently of the international coalition after its plane was brought down caused problems, not least of which is that it supports Assad. China also supports Assad and recently suffered it's first loss when a volunteer was executed.

I don't think the UK is a true world power any more, but I do think it is a world leader in many ways.

The questions asked by Jeremy Corbyn during PMQs today are the ones I think are sensible to consider before we commit our country to military intervention. The same kind of statement made by David Cameron was made before we went into Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think this should be regarded as an all or nothing decision. The solution should be part military action and part diplomatic negotiation. I don't think our armed forces should be fighting on the ground in the countries where IS is based. We should be supporting the many groups already there (as we are at the moment).

I have never been so scared about a conflict as this one and it's because the groups/countries currently fighting against IS do not all share the same aims and many are enemies. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

Corbyn is right about Trident, too. We are too small a power to need nuclear weapons.
France has nuclear weapons. They did not stop it being attacked, and they will not use them despite the provocation.
Sorry if this has been said before. I have not read every page.

I understand the need for military action and that the UK must play its part in the fight against ISIL. I'm just not sure joining in because the US, Russia and France are carrying out air strikes in Syria and Iraq is a good reason for us to join in the attacks. Behind closed doors Cameron will have decided on objectives, probably agreed with the USA. Obviously it doesn't make sense to divulge those objectives because our allies will have different objectives.

Perhaps the UK as well as joining in the air strikes on Syria, should step up and offer to broker the political solution to the conflict. That would go a long way to promoting the UK as a world power.

Willmaknickersfit. I agree with you. We don't who our enemies are in this conflict there are probably more than just ISIS. The US And Russia could end up on opposite sides then what?

Pogs, I thought the idea of a discussion was to give a point of view. I made it clear in the OP that I didn't think GB was a world power. My subsequent posts have made suggestions as to how I think money could be better spent. Other people have disagreed with me and given their points of view which have been responded to by people who agree, disagree or add to the discussion in some other way.

I have not put a three line whip on this thread. If people want to discuss other forms of power then that's the way the thread will go. My OP stated that I wanted to promote a discussion and I think that's what has happened.

ISIS is not a person its a mind set that has already infiltrated most Countries at the moment. Air strikes will not stop what's already here it will only reinforce it .which means more atrocities on home soil and in other countries the likes of we already seen. We need to talk to other 'rich' Muslim countries to sort this out.

What do you think they can do?

Arrogance and bullying does not equal power and never did.

Who are we going to have this political dialogue with? I can't see IS sitting down to discuss a peaceful way forward, or any other government in the Middle East as they all have their own agenda. The only governments in any peace negotiations are going to be western ones and putting any agreement into practice will be impossible without the collective agreement of Arab States!! How on earth do you secure that?! I would say, on balance, that you can't, it's as simple as that!
Imo, whether we bomb or whether we don't, we are still a main target for a terrorist attack, purely because we offer so much support in other ways, reconnaissance, intelligence, and, almost certainly, special forces on the ground. We are involved by association if nothing else, so deciding not to bomb, won't, imo, protect us.

It's not ISIL we would try to engage with in any solution. It's all the many local groups already fighting against ISIL and Assad. There needs to be a coalition of those groups.

The only 'good' solution to this conflict is for the people from the countries involved to fight against ISIL and Assad. The international coalition should support these groups in what ever way works.

- That includes getting them round a table to develop a strategic approach to the fighting.

- It includes training and arming these groups to make them effective. This is already happening, but it lacks the necessary co-ordination.

- It includes the sharing of intelligence information.

- And it could include air strikes by the coalition.

This is not an easy way forward because just like the coalition countries, these groups have conflicting objectives. That's why it's called a diplomatic solution. The international coalition should be enabling the countries involved in the conflict to work towards self determination.

Any approach needs to avoid fuelling the fires of radicalism. Taking part in air strikes on Syria because other countries are doing it is not an intelligent choice.

Sorry if this has been said, but I don't want to read 6 pages of comments:
We are not a world power, no country is any more. Our hope for the future lies in collective decision making by consultation with other countries. Remove the veto at the UN which blocks lots of good initiatives. Collectively agree on each country's borders where there are disputes so that no country has to try and defend them or feel threatened. Have open trading. Get rid of nearly all the weapons - because they filter down into poor countries and into the hands of terrorists. Have an Internationsl police force like NATO was that has access to trained and armed, moral, forces from all countries to put down any aggressor.
Get rid of the EU, we are one world now. Reinvigorate the UN and its agencies, they do a lot of good but they also do some silly things and waste money. Then concentrate on education, health, development and saving the environment world wide. It is possible, we have amazing technology to do all this, it would save money, we just need the will.

Get rid of the EU, we are one world now

We cant even agree on gransnet.

Collectively agree on each country's borders where there are disputes so that no country has to try and defend them or feel threatened

That has not happened in the history of all mankind.

it's either laugh or cry at some if the naivety going on here.

Not joining in to help other countries already involved in the fight against ISIS would not do anything to help foil attacks by home grown terrorists, simply show them them how weak we have become on this issue and may even up the attacks here as a result.

Cheerytree

'Why make ourselves stand out as a target on home soil? because as sure as night follows day we will be if we start joining in as a big player.

We ARE a target on home soil, we have been for years. We have been told 7 potential terror attacks have been foiled this year. We have been fortunate that our security agencies have foiled them but it will happen AGAIN on our home soil .

'DJ

'We are too small a power to need nuclear weapons. France has nuclear weapons . That did not stop it being attacked and they will not use them despite the provocation'

We are not too small a power with regard to military / intelligence led defence. Yes France has nuclear weapons but for goodness sake it would not use them to attack IS in Iraq and Syria just to have revenge. That is ridiculous. If IS held territory EVER obtained nuclear weapons, say IRAN. then it would have no qualms in using it.

The only possible reason it would not is the thought that they would in turn be attacked by the same type of weapon. That is why it Trident is classed as a nuclear detterent. If every country in the world gave up nuclear weapons and every country in the world was honest and never made nuclear weapons for the next thousand years then yes , get rid of nuclear weapons. But whilst there is not a chance of this happening then

I had one son in the first Gulf war, in the Falklands, in Belize and both he and his brother were sent to NI in the troubles, one in plain clothes so as not to be recognised as he was in intelligence. Did I worry............of course, especially as I had only a matter of months before lost their father. But......they were grown men, they chose their career, they loved it and were happy. I was and still am, though they are in their 50's now, immensly proud of them. I think the British people try to do what is right, without wondering what the rest of the world thinks. As for the days of the British empire, yes the British made horrendous mistakes, but so too in history did Rome, Turkey, France, Portugal, Spain......we were not the only ones...........we are only human. But we also, and this is often forgotten, did a great deal of good. The Commonwealth countries for the most part are ex-colonies............if we were as bad as all that they would have wanted no close ties with us. I believe the UK foreign aid budget is still the highest in the world, but please correct me if I am wrong. As for ISIL, what would have happened if we had stood by and let Hitler run riot over all of us? Please don't forget that for a year Great Britain stood alone agaist him, and many many people from the "colonies" that we had done such wrong to, came here and fought with us. Hitler tried to exterminate all the Jews, the gypsies, amd other ethnic minorities he considered undesireable. ISIL is slaughtering anyone who does not suscribe to their view of what being a muslim is. I really don't see too much difference.
As for being a World power, yes I think we are, we may not have the greatest number of men in the forces, so America outnumbers us there......but one son once remarked to me that it took 8 American personnel to do what 2 Brits did! He should know he was in the Gulf at the time. There is a saying, "she be small but she be mighty"......Thats Britain.
Margaret

against.....sorry

Great post, Margaret!

GIve not a world power. As said in a previous comment we just follow the USA lead.

And Trident is a complete waste of money. Especially after reading an artical yesterday that they can be open to hacking. Also, as the upgrade will not be ready until 2030 immaterial to what is happen today.

Fantastic post Margaret, it says it all. As you say rose, that naivety that is being posted on here is breathtaking!!! If we lived in a perfect world, of course all parties would sit down and work out a common solution, but sadly we don't, and we can't! All factions in the Middle East have their own agenda and no doubt will use our incomprehension to further their own ends. DH worked in the M.E for some years and let's just say that their way of doing business was very different to ours! You thought you had a deal, and it could easily turn out that you didn't!!! Quite frankly the west is having rings run round them, much to the delight of IS and most of the M.E!

MargaretinNorthants

Thank you for such a succinct , common sense personal post.

With your permission I would like to align my thoughts with yours as your words chime so well with mine.

So nigglenellie , you think we should bomb most of the middle East not just Syria?

Excellent post Margaret. I have nothing by admiration and gratitude for the mean and women (and their families) who keep our country safe.

I would add though that I would like to think the days of putting those men and women in unnecessarily danger are long gone. I'm not sure that's the case though and I'm talking as much about being adequately supplied with the correct equipment, etc. Also, Hitler and the Nazis were a clear target, ISIL is not.

nigglynellie I can only assume you didn't read my post properly. If I am naive, then you are closed minded. We all know each faction has it's own agenda. That's why I said any coalition of local groups and ME countries it's not an easy thing to. But it must be done if we are to beat ISIL and avoid more people becoming radicalised because of foreign forces fighting in their country. Or perhaps you think a bomb them all approach is the only approach?

Why is David Cameron still not saying the sources of ISIL's financing is part of his proposal?

I am not against military action. I am against military action without clear aims and objectives. It is not enough to say we want to help defeat ISIL.

But to bring in another aspect. The West makes money from rebuilding the infrastructure of countries reduced to rubble by conflict. Is one of the reasons for expanding air strike to make sure we get a bite of that huge cherry?

Your last paragraph is both shocking and cynical. . I can't believe anyone would think like that.

On the original vampirequeenquestion should we be a world police power, I have heard a great deal from those in the know that persuades me that we haven't even got an effective local police force. I fear the last round of police cuts has fatally injured our local police who just cannot respond to community crime incidents leaving residents with no long term option but to defend themselves along the lines of what they do in the USA. So, no, if we can't defend our own residents in our own country we should not attempt to behave as if we could sort out other countries problems. That's not to say we should not care about them, if ordinary folk are in dire straits we should try to help them in any way we can.

On the second point about defence, I believe we have to retain a first strike capability to keep the looney tunes in their place although the nuclear option is bleeding resources and cannot ever be used. We are still a world power, the 5th wealthiest, and we excel in so many fields of human endeavour.