| Welcome to Voteliberalist. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Defence | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 26 2008, 09:08 AM (243 Views) | |
| TheVoice | Oct 26 2008, 09:08 AM Post #1 |
Committed Member
  ![]](http://209.85.122.85/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
What is S.L.P. defence policy? |
 |
 
|
| Anton | Oct 27 2008, 12:33 AM Post #2 |
Administrator
|
Yes you're right. Defence is very important. So far in the manifesto, there is very little, and it's not specified how - so definitely an area for detailed discussion. Here's what it says: ****************** Defence Expenditure: We will increase expenditure on the Armed Forces so that they are not neglected. We will increase benefits for ex-servicemen so that their risks and amazing services to their country are properly recognised. ********************* We need to specify how ex-servicemen and current servicemen can get extra benefits from the systems we're proposing. For example the thinking is that their amount of "credit" for healthcare could be much higher than most other people's. We also need to specify where the money will be coming from. We'd have to know by how much to increase, and from where. Targeting specific areas for increased expenditure would also be useful. There's also the issue of the contracts of arms providers. If we were to follow the rest of current policy, we'd try to encourage real competition between providers as opposed to long, expensive contracts. Any other issues to raise? I'm looking forward to lots of great ideas from this topic! |
|
Relish the Challenge. http://voteliberalist.org | |
|
|
|
| TheVoice | Oct 29 2008, 05:42 PM Post #3 |
|
Committed Member
|
Okay, it seems I can quick-reply at any rate. Still no new topics though. We should increase spending on helicopters and infantry, as they are operational necessities in the wars we currently face. What actualy is SLP foreign policy? Neo-Liberal interventionism or isolationism? |
|
|
|
| Anton | Oct 30 2008, 01:38 AM Post #4 |
|
Administrator
|
SLP foreign policy is broadly that of active mediating for peace, so is not isolationist, but neither is it neoliberal interventionism, as it does not seek to impose liberal democracy on other countries. Any more thoughts on how our armed forces can be better treated? We need to come up with enough stuff to turn into solid policy. |
|
Relish the Challenge. http://voteliberalist.org | |
|
|
|
| TheVoice | Nov 6 2008, 03:55 AM Post #5 |
|
Committed Member
|
I'd like to oppose our pacifistic foreign policy, am I allowed to do that? Some means of enforcing the Military Covenant would be a good start. |
|
|
|
| Anton | Nov 10 2008, 06:32 PM Post #6 |
|
Administrator
|
Only if you can give a reason why! I don't like the sound of "enforcing" a military covenant. However it is true that there should be some more shows of support for our military. |
|
Relish the Challenge. http://voteliberalist.org | |
|
|
|
| TheVoice | Nov 17 2008, 04:06 PM Post #7 |
|
Committed Member
|
Well, currently the Military Covenant isn't adhered to, hence enforcement. And I don't see why pacifism needs to be our default foreign policy setting. There is nothing wrong with waging war against barbarism and bad governments. |
|
|
|
| Anton | Nov 23 2008, 06:49 PM Post #8 |
|
Administrator
|
How can you enforce the Military Covenant? It is an obligation by government. Would you set minimum levels of expenditure on defence? There is something wrong with waging war against other countries. This is especially the case when other alternatives can be found such as peaceful negotiation along the lines described. Invasion or war should only be the very last resort, when all other means of finding a settlement have been exhausted. As we've seen, barbarism and bad government are not always sufficient as a justification for war in the eyes of both the public and some of the military themselves. These terms are also subjective and highly disputable. If they came to mean such loose terms as "undemocratic", then that would be government trying to impose its own version of the world and its philosophy on another. Not all countries want democracy. You'll probably bring up the example of Darfur. Perhaps the only grounds for intervention should be genocide or mass killings? On the other hand, Russia said the same about what Georgia was doing earlier this year in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Perhaps then it should be necessary to only invade if there is both genocide, and approval from the UN. We should also realise that invasion often means much more than the displacement of one regime. It more often than not results in huge civilian casualties - killing the people you've been sent to protect, and often result in huge instability. It's part of the reason that so few wars before the 20th Century actually sought to completely destroy another government. Often they'd allow it to exist, but as a vassal, and under conditions. This would allow them to then mould it in their image. What we see now instead are invasions that totally destroy the incumbent's infrastructure and institutions, leaving everything to be rebuilt after the invasion, often badly. This is why peace and negotiation are necessary, and why military action should be used as the very last resort. |
|
Relish the Challenge. http://voteliberalist.org | |
|
|
|
| TheVoice | Nov 26 2008, 01:53 AM Post #9 |
|
Committed Member
|
Eh, 'genocide' gets thrown around too much, I'd certainly view it as a threshold far too high. At this rate, you're going to have our armed forces bound like Ireland's are, and an overtly pacific foreign policy will just remind everyone that this is a student party. I also wouldn't require UN approval for the useage of our armed forces, that's silly. I assume you will still have us maintaining our NATO and EU commitments? |
|
|
|
| Anton | Nov 26 2008, 07:53 PM Post #10 |
|
Administrator
|
So what threshold would you have for war? Obviously, the national interest is overriding, but that's not to say that certain procedures can't be met for the actual invasion and occupation of another country. There's a crucial difference between using military action in defence, and actually infringing on the sovereignty of another country. You see, I never said we'd require UN approval for the use of armed forces, but for the actual invasion of another country. Otherwise, using the criteria for "bad governments and barbarism" in order to invade would mean that we'd be invading loads of countries - something that's completely unfeasible. We're stretched as it is in two countries - how would we cope in 10 more? As for NATO and EU commitments, yes. |
|
Relish the Challenge. http://voteliberalist.org | |
|
|
|
| commando | Nov 26 2008, 09:35 PM Post #11 |
|
Ok to move back to healthcare for ex-squaddies. This is a really important subject for me and will win the SLP major Kudos with the military and anyone even vaguely related to it. A first plan would be to support, promote and copy the work of charities like Help for Heroes. Google it if you're unfamiliar. They do the work that the current government is unwilling to do and they do it well. Secondly, the extra credits proposal would not really be of much use in this situation, as credits are used for minor things and rehabilitation for quadriplegia is not minor. The thought of offering a cash reward for not spending their health credits is insulting in this case. A possible alternative would be a higher disability benefit in light of the service they've done to the country. Or take the case of one disabled serviceman who was blinded and became a male escort for women that other escorts refused to work with. A similar, yet slightly off-topic case was the Gurkhas who had won a Victoria Cross fighting for Britain in WW2, but were not allowed to live here. Shocking. Sort it out. Edit: Also the case of the soldier who was refused accommodation in a hotel because he was a soldier. He was organising the funeral of a friend who had died in battle. |
|
Vote Conservative! Only joking. | |
|
|
|
| KiwiSocLib | Nov 27 2008, 12:45 AM Post #12 |
|
Member
|
Hmm. I doubt if the defense policy will be seen as overtly pacifist if military force is still to be used, even as a last resort. Its important that if we are going to send our people into harms way that we exhaust all diplomatic avenues first and that includes support from the United Nations. Do you think other countries will be so open to trade with Britain if she is running around starting wars on her own? Wasn't this the thinking that got Bush and Blair knee deep in horsepoos? Would we not suffer the same fate? Would we not just spread more misery in the world? I agree about investment in Helicopters and Infantry - particularly the development of better weapons and protective equipment for urban fighting, the battlefield of choice these days. But also we should invest in better covert spy hardware (reconaissance aircraft/spacecraft) and more human intelligence operatives to ensure that the information we get is accurate. |
|
|
|
| Lightbringer | Apr 7 2009, 12:20 AM Post #13 |
|
Heh, the military covenant cannot be enforced, because it was never intended to be formal or enforceable. It was just the Labour Party's way of saying 'Guys, let's be nice to soldiers we've sent to do our murdering for us'. To wage war against other people is to be barbaric. It denies reason and just reinforces 'might is right'. If you don't that, just look at the Iraq situation: the USA hasn't liberated it, she has turned it into a puppet state. They are confiscating weapons from the people, urging emigration barriers from neighboring states, censoring the press, imposing curfews, mandating ID cards, arresting and jailing people without trial, and imposing arbitrary violence. The best defence policy is one of defence: we defend our land, our waters, and nothing beyond them. |
| 'The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe—but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.' Ayn Rand | |
|
|
|
| Eleri | Apr 10 2009, 09:20 PM Post #14 |
|
Simple comment-Supplies for the men and women of the armed forces need to be drastically increased. When my aunt was in Afghanistan she had to buy her own boots off the Americans.... |
|
|
|
| TheVoice | May 25 2009, 02:54 PM Post #15 |
|
Committed Member
|
I thought the Military Covenant was much older than New Labour. Is it not? |
|
|
|
| « Previous Topic · Policy · Next Topic » |
3:32 AM Nov 28
