Hi Gent's all good points and I do agree, even living here in the US the same questions have been raised as to the Welfare state etc, and it excess's. Don't loose it, it will nye on impossible to get it back
But really to put it in a nutshell, when the army and it's eventual size, is committed under the pretext of "democratization" of a dark and barren world, when in fact is it to gain political and economical control of a region - don't try to kid me it's from the goodness of our hearts. One could say we have only ever made that cynical move, but I say no; we haven't. There have been times in our history where we have defended the weak, and in the end even knowingly sacrificed an empire to protect it from probably the most heinous of regimes (Nazism and Japanese imperialism), this was the good fight, the present one's are not. The casualties of 1914-45 can be looked upon as a sacrifice willingly made for the better of civilization -the present one's cannot.
No one there or here in US is going to convince me otherwise that this wasn't a "good fight" And this takes us to the original point, size of the army. The size should and will no doubt mirror the economic fortunes of the British. Change that, and back come's the big stick. Although I'd rather spend it though on the population that earns it and pays for it, than subsidize the less committed of our Allies in their defense and economic fortunes.
I agree in '82, we were as you might say, "caught with our trouser's down", but as in a previous post it was said in the end "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog". The state of the British Army in 1982 wasn't a result of rampant thoughtless cutback's, but the product of a weak and at times verging on a 3rd world economic status. A time when the UK went cap in hand to the IMF in '74, and was refused. What did come out of the 80's though was a new and vibrant ECONOMIC power in the UK. And that in the end is what matters.
I would rather spend the resources on the population that earns it and provides it as mentioned before, not expend it on subsidizing corporate global policy. I mean you'd think we were back in the day's of the East India Company, renting our troops out. Remember this, that oil pipe line is still being built to the Indian Ocean through Afghanistan from southern Russia. And I thought we were there to "spread light and civilization in a dark and barren world".......
This will be my last post on this as it can go round and round, but remember this. If a fight, a "Good fight" does come, we should and most probably will lead from the front as we always have; with what ever size of army we have. But never again should we commit limited resources to FOLLOW blindly in the foot steps of an aggressor looking to secure it's own agenda at the cost of our Blood and Treasure.
Many regards as always.
Simon.