Reduction in Military Reduces Navy Size

Leo,
My analyses of the Georgia example is that the situation was fermented by Russia, by supporting separatist sentiments in South Ossetia (then and now recognized as a part of Georgia by most of the world). Russia responded with friendly help when the Georgians invaded South Ossetia, and Russia was incredibly lucky that they just happened to have 1200 battle-ready tanks across the border.

I agree that the Georgians should have bowed to reality and been more flexible regarding South Ossetia. The South Ossetians have a right to independence, but a sizeable Georgian population in South Ossetia complicated the issue. With common sense the situation should have been possible to solve without war.

Sweden can still not "project power" far beyond our borders on our own, but we can now participate in international missions in different parts of the world.

Erik

 

It's a delight to hear the voice of calm reason, instead of war drums, Michael!

 

I agree that it was handled very poorly by both sides. I also think that the
USA's (i.e. Bush 's ) attempt to put missiles up Russia's nose and claiming
they were there to defend against Iran was not helpful for that region and
subsequent "diplomatic efforts". Remember too, for several months the US
and others claimed it was an unprovoked attack by Russia.

You have given us your opinion on increasing defense spending by Sweden.
Is yours the popular position? Or is it just one side of a hopefully healthy,
calm debate?

Leo.
(4am, 31 degrees C)

 

My view on defence spending is a minority view. The majority view, held by the government (center - right) is that the existing size of the budget is right. Most social democrats are also satisfied with the present defence budget. People farther to the left in the opposition advocate decreased defence spending, and also advocate that the troops we have on international missions should be taken home and the money re-allocated to territorial defence.

There isn't much of a debate because people like me who prefer to increase the budget have our support inside the parties forming the government. The part of the opposition advocating decreased spending can too easily be targeted as "irresponsible". The actual difference in positions isn't really big enough to make the headlines.

I would say that my view on Georgia is the common view here. We're uncomfortable with the Russian position and we've grown more uncomfortable after the latest Russian election. We had hoped for a better working democracy. We all agree that a Russian agression towards Sweden is unlikely but not impossible.

As with the US defence budget it is a question of where the money is best spent. The department of defence isn't the only department wanting more money and Sweden isn't known for low taxes, although the taxes are going down.

Is strengthening the defence more important than using the money to stimulate the economy (e.g. by lowering taxes, at least from our level of taxation) and create jobs? Ideology doesn't give a clearcut answer to that question.

Erik

 

So we should passively let them do hostile acts against us and do nothing. That is a stupid suicidal philosophy.

 

They are not.

 

There were too few cowboy movies and too many chick flicks.

 

Reminds me of the guy who was asked by a rude visitor, "why do you keep a gun in your house? Are you really that scared someone is going to break in and kill you?"

And he answered, "no ma'am, I'm not. And I'm not really that scared my house is going to burn down, either. But I keep a fire extinguisher anyway....

 

And how different from the English attitude.
When the Bonzo Dog Band toured the USA, they were stopped by
a local cop who wanted to inspect their tour bus.
He asked, "Do you have any weapons on board?"
"No".
"And how will you protect yourself?"
Vivian Stanshall drew himself up to full height and replied, "Good manners".

I guess that might not work in some parts of the US

 

GGrrrrrrr....

4:15 pm +2.5c (at best)

 

I gather it doesn't work that well in parts of England, either.

 

Talk softly and carry a....
A apt metaphor in that post Leo.

Is the US being accused of pursuing (again) strong arm diplomacy?

 

I prefer...

"It was a great party, until someone found the hammer."

No, they learned the art of quiet diplomacy after that "Commodore Perry"
misunderstanding and the Boxer Rebellion hiccup.

 

you missed the point completely
I don't think pointing out the history of our piss pore foreign policy constitutes a statement concerning whether or not we retaliate against hostile acts. Most of the time we've initiated the hostile acts.

What's obvious is that had we not supported a troop of despots around the world who subjected there own people to more crap than I'll ever be able to even abbreviate we might not have found ourselves in this mess.

its our own stupid fault, does not mean that we lay down and take a beating, what it means is

its our own stupid fault

or did you forget the golden rule

 

We need to stop policing the world. We need to become introspective and as many have suggested here, "clean our own house!"
The problem is HOWTO about face and not lose face.
An attack like pearl harbor gives government an excuse to reverse policy from nuetrality to war.
What disaster or cataclism prompts a change of heart from meddlesome to autism?