Here
and
Now

opinions

As U.S. pivots to Asia, Britain warns it not to forget Russia

11 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

11 Comments
Login to comment

Ahem, can't Britain step up? Why do the Americans have to do everything.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The United States found after invading Iraq in 2003 that it had insufficient troops for the drawn out conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The new strategy said U.S. forces will no longer be sized for prolonged, counter-insurgency warfare.

Well thats intelligent isnt it. Given that almost every conflict since WW2 (with probably the only exception being the Falklands war) has developed into prolonged counter insurgency wars then why would the US not change its abilities and manning levels to reflect this fact. Unfortunately after 65 years since WW2 ended the US is still making the same mistakes and not learning from history.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"the U.S. found out it had insufficient troops for the drawn-out conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan"

How about other countries stepping up and contributing to global security?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Serrano

"the U.S. found out it had insufficient troops for the drawn-out conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan" How about other countries stepping up and contributing to global security?

Heres a thought maybe if the US and GWB and his cronies didnt lie to the world about the risks Iraq posed then maybe they wouldnt have got into a protracted war there. As for contributing to global security, thats so funny, the US is the biggest cause of global insecurity with its little adventures why should the rest of the world go and bale the US out every time it sticks its nose in where it shouldnt be.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Cletus

Here's a thought - maybe if the U.S. didn't liberate Iraq, Saddam Hussein and his sons would still be ruling Iraq with an iron fist.

As for "the US is the biggest cause of global insecurity," that's so funny, without U.S. intervention the Taliban would still be in charge of Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein woud still be in charge of Iraq, the Serbians would still be killing/subjugating the Muslims in Bosnia, the South Koreans would have been subjugated by the Kim Dynasty, need I go on?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Serrano,

Here's a thought - maybe if the U.S. didn't liberate Iraq, Saddam Hussein and his sons would still be ruling Iraq with an iron fist.

Ok so where in that was the threat to global security? It is widely known and accepted that there was no justification for this war. And given that Hussein came to power in 1979 why wait so long. Oh and the other point so if the US doesnt like how a leader treats his or her people then thats an excuse to invade, and kill hundreds of thousands in the name of a regime change.

As for "the US is the biggest cause of global insecurity," that's so funny, without U.S. intervention the Taliban would still be in charge of Afghanistan,

Again, who outside Afghanistan did the Taliban threaten or attack? Again the US doesnt like a government so they invade hey? Is that a legitimate excuse? Maybe if someone objected to the way the US is run they could use that as a legitimate excuse to invade America. Oh no of course not that excuse only washes when the US does it right?

the Serbians would still be killing/subjugating the Muslims in Bosnia

Yeah and apart from airpower what was the US involvement? They played a part along with 30 other nations. So to hint that they (the US) resolved this is false as they played a part in a larger picture.

the South Koreans would have been subjugated by the Kim Dynasty, need I go on?

Ok a couple of points here. This war never officially ended and hostilities continue today, you sure you want to really go here? The war was extended and enlarged because of US ambition and tactics, China entered the war due to the US actions. Also the US wasnt the sole saviour of S Korea there where numerous others involved but like a true American you only see the stars and stripes.

But please go on, lets look at Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Panama, Somalia, Lebanon, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Libya, Haiti, and the list goes on.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Pathetic...

Not 10 seconds after the americans announce they are going to focus on asian the british IMMEDIATELY get weak in the knees and beg the americans to keep focus on russia.

Dear England, try growing a pair!

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Actually, while obviously dwarfed by China, Russia is also a US concern in Asia-Pacific as well.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

British troops have been deployed in support of perhaps too many conflicts and paid the painfull price in the cost of life and limb. Forgive us if we have a desire for peace and negotiation. Our troops are at this moment serving in so many countries in defence of democracy and humanity. Dear England, yes, I think we have the democratic right to make up our own minds on what we consider to be a just cause

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why do we need to defend every one? We are not a police for the world.

British, NATO need to do their share to defend themselves against Russia.. America is damned if we do not, and damed if we do. Same rule applies to Japan too. You guys need to do your share and defend yourself. We are all fed up!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Let's face it, Europe does not generate money for the US, it only generates money for themselves. Russia may still be a potential regional threat but is far from being a global threat so it is not within the US national interest to invest into which brings little return to the US economy.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites