What the hell is the UK doing?

I’m not a big fan of the song myself, but this is perhaps the silliest objection to it that I can imagine. People in the Netherlands are free to sing any song they like. Yes, people from many nations died, but the attack was directed against Americans on American soil and some American’s have responded by singing a silly song to (a)bolster spirits, (b) demonstrate resillience, © score cheap political capital with jingoistic constituents. My goodness, I don’t recall any Kosovan songs calling for blessings upon NATO–selfish bastards probably thought it was all about them.

(a) Devout Muslims who don’t like terrorists are in a tough boat, I agree. Their fellow devout Muslims who tacitly and explicitly support terrorists get a lot of press and like to issue proclamations to the faithful. It is cumbersome to list every organization/nation/regime that supports terror in the middle east by name & membership, thus a common descriptive trait is used. Perhaps the issue is one of familiarity. In this country, fundamentalist Christianity is a commonly used descriptor for devout Christian belief with certain shared elements and other devout Christians understand that it does not apply to them.
(b) If a devout Muslim is alienated because we state that some of their brethren support terrorism then it is unlikely that we would ever win that Muslim’s support. Yes, we need support of reasonable Muslims in the region. Approving or condemning mass murder in the name of one’s religion seems a workable litmus test for “reasonble” to me.

Death tolls have changed many times in the months since the bombings. This is because it takes time to identify victims, track down survivors, try to find teh missing, etc. While I have sometimes heard a number for “non-American” casualties, it was always in the attempt to convey the enormity of the situation.

If these factors sufficed to quash your sympathy for the events of September 11 then I doubt that we shall miss it. It seems a bit thin to be stretching so far, anyway. I am glad you have managed to maintain your sympathy for the bereaved and the victims, though. I should hate to think a tiresome song and an adjective had driven you away entirely.

This is just the way that the media seems to think we want the information presented to us, it’s by no means an exclusively American device. (I’m sure I started a lame thread moaning about this a while back, but I can’t find it now).

I think this is the crux of the matter.

I would imagine that our government has decided that the various benefits which result from an obvious show of support for the Americans outweighs the potential increase in antagonism towards the UK which might also occur as a result of military involvement in Afghanistan.

We British have been very fortunate that the Americans happen to speak our language - if France had had more influence in the US back in the day, the UK would now be in a very poor state (WAG). I guess Mr Blair has realised that the only place to be is holding onto Bush’s coattails as tight as possible…

And the “being seen” bit is perceptive - apart (perhaps) from the SAS and certain airbases, I wouldn’t have thought that British troops are vital to the attacks?

Plus if one is an under-pressure P/Minister, a good war is always good for the ol’ ratings - just ask Maggie…

It seems pretty obvious to me. By standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States on this matter, the U.K. ensures that should something similar happen to them, their often slow-to-motivate buddies across the pond will be bound both by honor and inclination to help them in a timely fashion.

Furthermore, by unreservedly throwing themselves into the fray at the outset, the entire world gets to benefit from superior British diplomacy and… competence, something which probably nobody was certain that the United States would be able to display.

While absolutely commendable, I don’t think the U.K. had to think too hard about what they did. The events of 9/11 are probably just as revolting to them as they were to me. By directly involving themselves, the U.K. gets to play an influential role in what happens from now on. That protects their interests as well as those of the U.S.

And I’d just like to say that the United Kingdom is the greatest nation on earth for so selflessly injecting themselves into the situation as they have. Thank you U.K.–and all other nations which are helping–so much for letting us know that despite our faults, we are still not alone in the world.

bmerton, you are aware that people from over 50 nations died in the WTC attack, including over 100 Britons? Thinks it is still America’s problem?

medstar:

[Moderator Hat ON]

However, this forum is NOT the Pit, and you cannot post Pit-worthy comments in this forum just by slapping an “if” in front of it. Don’t pull stunts like this here. I am getting heartily sick of this cutesy little trick, and whoever tries it next better be prepared for an ass-whupping.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

Kimstu isn’t the only poster to set a ridiculous standard that the US must not only do good, but we must do good out of pure altruistism. Of course, no nation ever acts out of pure altruism. So, this standard becomes a way to ding the US, no matter how much good we do.

Pah!

Yes capacitor I am aware of that. If you actually read my OP you will notice my point about the Americans who died before the US entered into the First World War. Think that it was just Europe’s problem then? Furthermore, I do not see any reports of troops from France, Germany, Italy (ANY OTHER OF THE 50 NATIONS) etc. actually IN Afghanistan. All the links I have seen are ‘pledges’ to send troops. Sounds a bit like cunning diplomacy to me.

My point is that the UK has gone much further than is necessary by sending troops into Afghanistan to support US forces. I do not believe that this would be the case if it were the other way around. I feel as though I am reiterating myself.

bmerton

A couple of points:

  • There are many reasons why the UK is involved in this conflict, some of which have been mentioned already. One other reason that hasn’t been mentioned is the fact that Afghanistan is a former sphere of interest of the British from colonial times.

The British wanted to be there partly because they still feel they have some degree of obligation to help out these countries when they are in trouble (witness Sierra Leone) and partly to act as a brake on the Americans in case they get too out of hand.

  • If Sept 11 had happened in London, the UK would be perfectly capable of embarking on much the same type of operation in Afghanistan as the US is currently embarking on. The UK would expect (and get) US support for this but they would have been able to remove the Taliban on their own.

The US would give the UK exactly the same degree of support as the UK is currently giving the US if the situations were reversed (especially if Afghanistan were a former US sphere of influence instead of a UK one).

The reason why you feel as if you’re reiterating yourself, is that you are. Doesn’t make you any more right.

Supoosebly, French and Australian special forces are in Afghanistan, in addition to British and American. Hundreds Turkey has sent forces to “Help train Anti-Taliban forces.”.

Most other nations, right now, are in the support role. They’re doing stuff like providing Medics(important), using ships to help transport goods (important), sending ships to make sure ole OBL doesn’t try to slip out by boat(important), and gearing up for more direct Humanitarian aid, which is something the increasingly smaller European Armed Services are better suited to.

If you are afraid the next attack will be targeted at you, why did you give them instructions about what to hit? The truth is that this type of thing was tried originally against the Eiffel Tower in Paris. Do you think that the Russians should have kept out of this, because the Kremlin might get hit or the Australians because of the Sydney Opera House?

The answer is that this war is not about territory and so it does not matter who was the first target, because if we don’t put a stop to it, we will all be targets. You can play your game of “what if” all you want, but the truth is that in the last fifty years the U.S. has always been there and has been criticized for that, rather than for not showing up at all.

We truly appreciate the help we are getting from the UK and from everywhere else as well.

Another reason that bmerton is reiterating himself is that he seems to only respond to points he has already addressed. He is presented with cogent objections A, B, C, D, E, and F, and responds to C. Then is presented with further objections G, H, I, C, J, K, and L, and again responds to C, complaining that he is being repetitive. Repeat ad nauseam.

This is a joke right? Or do you have a cite?
Most military sources suspect that the UK could no longer fight campaign like the Falklands any longer. Yet you think that the UK could do the Afghanistan job single handedly? Where the hell would the air cover come from? A couple of Tornado squadrons?

december: Kimstu isn’t the only poster to set a ridiculous standard that the US must not only do good, but we must do good out of pure altruistism. Of course, no nation ever acts out of pure altruism. So, this standard becomes a way to ding the US, no matter how much good we do.

Nonsense. Where did I ever say that the US, or any other nation, “must do good out of pure altruism”? I’m simply pointing out that, as you say yourself, our policies are not in fact dictated by pure altruism. So it’s no fair employing a double standard (the way much patriotic sentiment, including the above Sinclair quote, seems inclined to do) to portray our acts that happen to have positive effects on other nations as benevolent favors that we deserve unstinted credit for, while portraying our acts that happen to have negative effects as inevitable necessities of realpolitik that we don’t deserve any blame for. I’m not asking for any ridiculous standard of altruism, I’m just asking for clear-eyed recognition of the variety of mixed motives that inspire all our policies.

You have summed up Jones’s Eleventh Law:

No matter what happens, where it happens, why it happens or to whom it happens, the United States will always be blamed for it.

Well, then, you’re attacking a straw man, because I’m pretty sure that everyone over the age of twelve understands that politics and war are cutthroat endeavors, and that the players seldom act on purely altruistic or humanitarian motives.

And even if our motives are matters of self-interest, I’m sure their still a helluva lot more noble than those of our enemies–and, in many cases, our critics. A man who defends his wallet from a thief may be acting out of self-interest, but he obviously has a moral claim on our sympathy. The thief does not, no matter what his motives. And one can only wonder what are the motives of those who criticize a man engaged in legitimate self-defense.

LP: […] I’m pretty sure that everyone over the age of twelve understands that politics and war are cutthroat endeavors, and that the players seldom act on purely altruistic or humanitarian motives.

Then we should be careful to recognize that explicitly, which the Sinclair quote I was criticizing on the previous page of this thread does not. Instead, it talks about various beneficial things the United States has done as though they were inspired by purely altruistic or humanitarian motives. That sort of sloppy jingoism is what I’m complaining about.

“Would we see Dubya only hours after this occurred saying, ‘we will stand shoulder to shoulder…’ and pledging as much military help as the UK needed in eradicating this ‘new enemy’? I think not.”

I think so. We would see the Shrub offering some help to Britain. We helped the UK in the Falklands War and I see no reason why we would not help Britain against perpetuators of such a monstrous attack. I grant you the USA has not done much to crack down on Americans helping the IRA and probably could do much more to push peace in Northern Ireland, but you have to consider that many Americans of Irish descent, myself included, do not like British occupation of Ireland, and American politicians have to deal with us.

“The United States is an intensely selfish nation.” Most, if not all, nations are intensely selfish. Even Japan and the altruistic, socialist democracies of Scandanavia give only a small fraction of their wealth to help the Third World.

“Whilst it was perfectly clear that a horrendous ‘attack on freedom and democracy’ was being carried out in Europe in 1939-1945, the US was still only motivated to help out after they were affected directly at Pearl Harbour.”
You really need to read a few history books.
1.) Many Americans, especially FDR, were aware that freedom and democracy had been under attack after 1933. However, they had to deal with an isolationist majority. Also, the Great Depression rocked this country far more than it did most European countries; it is understandable that many Americans, especially the unemployed, were more concerned about domestic affairs.
2.) Well before the Munich Settlement FDR proposed that the UK, France, the USSR, the USA, and other countries meet to reach an agreement for containing German aggression. His offer, which was politically somewhat risky because of said isolationism, was rejected by Neville Chamberlain because Chamberlain believed he knew how to deal with Hitler. After such a stupid rebuff you can hardly expect FDR’s administration to bend over backwards for the UK. Winston Churchill noted the stupidity of this move in his history of WW2.
3.) The USA could do little because this country had disarmed to the point where Portugal and Greece fielded larger armies. I believe if you read William Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” you’ll find that Hitler and other German military leaders did not think the USA could be a military threat to the Reich before 1943-45. It took us time to build up our forces.
4.) Furthermore, we were helping the Allies a long time before Pearl Harbor. Have you never heard of Lend-Lease? American ships were exchanging shots with the Germans in the Atlantic all throughout the summer of 1941. In fact, American sailors on the USS Kearnsey and the USS Ruben James died before the sailors at Pearl Harbor. Under international law, Hitler’s regime would have been quite justified in declaring war on the USA early in 1941 because it was obvious that we were not a neutral.
5.) Had the UK and France been led by people with intelligence, foresight and guts in the '30’s, the world need never have gone to war.

“The First World War tells a similar story. It was only because Germany sank four American ships in 1917 that America was reluctantly persuaded to help the quest for eradicating injustice and oppression in Europe.”
This is another stupid statement. The Zimmerman note played as much a role as unrestricted submarine warfare in persuading the USA to enter the war. If you’ll read European histories of the war, you’ll find out that the USA did a great deal to help the Allies 'way before 1917 by supplying munitions and other supplies. In fact, I’ll think you’ll find that France and the UK would have lost before 1917 had it not been for American manufacturing capacity. I also think you might take a look at the origins of the war and ask yourself why the average American should give a shit.

“It is still true today - America could not care less about atrocities in other countries unless they are in some way involved.”
Ah, yes, that attitude explains why we have intervened in Haiti, Somalia, and the Balkans.

“If I may be so bold as to suggest that this is THE REASON that they have found themselves in this mess in the first place.”
No, we are in this mess because we made the mistake of stepping away from Afganistan after the Soviet invasion, because we have placed bases on the Arabian peninsula, and because of our pretty much unconditional support for Israel. I realize this last factor offends many in Europe, but I know of no European country with such large percentages of Jews and fundamentalist Christians as the USA.

“When the US shows some concern for other nations when they are in times of need, then we can work together.”
Obviousily, you’ve never heard of the Marshall Plan or the aid this country gave to Austria after both World Wars. Obviousily, you’ve never considered all the money this country has spent, rightly or wrongly, to protect western Europe from the Soviets.

“Right now, however, America is so wrapped up in its financial and military dominance that it couldn’t really care less.”
Yes, I suppose we are a little bit like the British Empire used to be.

Must we preface every statement about the benefits that others have derived from the U.S. with the phrase, “Acting on our own self-interest”? Every adult with a fully functioning brain already understands that self-interest was the prime motive, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t deserve recognition for whatever postive influence we may have had. America may have acted in its own political and military interests by keeping tens and even hundreds of thousands of military personnel in Europe for more than half a century, but the political stability that resulted benefitted a great many more people than the Americans. And it required genuine determination on our part. At almost any time, it would have been a lot easier just to say “To hell with you” to the Euros and pull out. Is it really “sloppy jingoism” to expect a little gratitude when your actions benefit others, even though your actions may have been largely due to self-interest? All we’re really asking for is some balance and perspective. If others want to criticize and condemn, let them consider the good as well as the bad. Just be fair, that’s all.

As for WWI, I find it ridiculous that anyone would criticize our reluctance to get involved. Yes, Germany was attacking our ships. So was Britain. Both countries were being childish and irresponsible, and it was their fault that they were at war. Of course, there are those that say that we are responsible for the current conflict, but none of their arguments stand up to scrutiny.

With WWII, it was not clear in the beginning just how different this was from previous wars. During the Napoleonic era, Britain got itself involved in pointless wars and demanded that we help them. Then during WWI they again got themselves involved in a pointless war and demanded that we help them. Then they come to us in 1939 and tell us that yet again they’ve gotten themselves involved in a war, and yet again they want our help. I can understand the annoyance that the American people felt towards Britain. Britain had a long history of crying wolf, so to speak. But the US did almost everything it could short of going to war to help. The lend-lease act was mentinoed; what hasn’t been mentioned is that they reason Japan attacked the US was because it was leading an embargo that was destroying the Japanese economy; the US gave Japan a clear choice: stop with the imperialism, or face our armies. Japan chose the armies.