UK & UN Security Council

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Bledlow		#61	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 151 ( 5-Jul-2008 13:49:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Zen9 wrote: We simply don't agree Bledlow. Giving up a UNSC seat would be part of a process, one that has us retreating from the world and our part in it. Handing the decisionmaking over to others who certainly don't have our best interests at heart. Germany does'nt have varioius bits of property dotted around the globe, nor does Japan. They have no equivilent of the Falklands, Chagos, etc... I've not suggested us giving up our UNSC seat, & I don't think we should. Read my posts more carefully, & you'll see that I have not argued for us giving up our seat, or for anyone else being given a seat. All I have done is point out errors in some of the arguments put forward. That is entirely deliberate, & I will continue to do the same, if I see similar factual mistakes. Please do not attribute a view to me which I have not put forward, & which you do not know I hold.
Bledlow		#62	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 152 ( 5-Jul-2008 13:59:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	used to be remf wrote: i certainly don't advocate a german role in the SC, if only because they refuse to a have a force structure capable of intervention beyond the fulda gap and the willingness to employ force in such a manner. The Bundeswehr reorganisation which has been underway for the last few years is changing that. The F125 "frigates", the purchase of 60 A400M, the cutting of the heavy armour force by 90% & the increase in light armoured forces, the development of airmobile medium AFVs & artillery - all this, i.e. a very large proportion of current German spending on equipment, is directly & specifically aimed at producing a force which can be deployed worldwide. Current plans call for the purchase of transport ships, & options being considered include militarised ro-ros like the Point class, & dock landing ships. Units are being re-organised to produce a substantial conscript-free deployable force. In other words, the first part of your argument is wrong. The decision was taken several years ago to restructure the forces, & it is well underway. There are still political difficulties (note that the armed forces command chafe under the restrictions), but they are gradually (too slowly, but moving in the right direction) diminishing. There are, after all, German troops in Afghanistan, & the numbers are being increased. Last Edited By: Bledlow 6-Jul-2008 00:05:07. Edited 1 times.
Zen9		#63	[-]
Posts: 3671 ( 6-Jul-2008 01:31:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	We don't have more interest in global commerce than Japan or Germany Does this not run counter the heart of the SDR which iterates how we are both investing more overseas and gaining more overseas investment? Does'nt this also run counter to our direct interest in Dominion states even if this is more personnal? Does'nt this also ignore how much more reliant on imports we are compared to Germany. Japan is not a good case I think, for a host of reasons.
Bledlow		#64	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 154 ( 6-Jul-2008 15:22:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Zen9 wrote: We don't have more interest in global commerce than Japan or Germany Does this not run counter the heart of the SDR which iterates how we are both investing more overseas and gaining more overseas investment? Does'nt this also run counter to our direct interest in Dominion states even if this is more personnal? Does'nt this also ignore how much more reliant on imports we are compared to Germany. Japan is not a good case I think, for a host of reasons. Please, please! You're doing it again. I wasn't arguing a case, I was pointing out errors. I didn't bring up Japan, I responded to someone else mentioning it. And where Japan is or is not "a good case", it undoubtedly has more interest in global commerce than we do, in every way, so what I said stands. We are not "much more reliant on imports" than Germany. Germany & the UK are both heavily dependent, though in somewhat different ways. We import a larger proportion of our food, & import more manufactures. The Germans import a much larger proportion of their energy. The Germans import more across land borders, but much of that has previously travelled by sea. Overall, Germany has significantly more foreign trade than the UK. We have more interest in world financial markets (though nowadays, every developed country is heavily entwined in them), but the navy isn't very relevant to them. Nor is the RN relevant to overseas investment in the UK, nor to most of our overseas investment, about 80% of which is in the USA & the EU.
used to be remf		#65	[-]
Posts: 477 ( 6-Jul-2008 17:43:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Bledlow wrote: used to be remf wrote: i certainly don't advocate a german role in the SC, if only because they refuse to a have a force structure capable of intervention beyond the fulda gap and the willingness to employ force in such a manner. The Bundeswehr reorganisation which has been underway for the last few years is changing that. The F125 "frigates", the purchase of 60 A400M, the cutting of the heavy armour force by 90% & the increase in light armoured forces, the development of airmobile medium AFVs & artillery - all this, i.e. a very large proportion of current German spending on equipment, is directly & specifically aimed at producing a force which can be deployed worldwide. Current plans call for the purchase of transport ships, & options being considered include militarised ro-ros like the Point class, & dock landing ships. Units are being re-organised to produce a substantial conscript-free deployable force. In other words, the first part of your argument is wrong. The decision was taken several years ago to restructure the forces, & it is well underway. There are still political difficulties (note that the armed forces command chafe under the restrictions), but they are gradually (too slowly, but moving in the right direction) diminishing. There are, after all, German troops in Afghanistan, & the numbers are being increased. Germany, cannot project power anywhere by any means other than rolling a bunch of panzer regiments across the border into a neighbouring country. it will eventually have quite good airlift capacity, but: it has zero amphibious capability. it has zero sea-lift tonnage. i don't believe that the german army even has much of the logistical tail needed for it to operate out-of-area. and it does not have, and has no intention to acquire, nukes. it is also chronically underfunded in a way which is halting the bundeswher's attempt at the revolution in military affairs: http://www.comw.org/pda/9911eur.html#4 4.3.2. "There is grave concern, however, that the Bundeswehr's reconnaissance and communications capabilities are not up to the tasks of global - or even continental - power projection. This is why all three services seek to modernize their own command, control and communication systems. In addition a modern interservice satellite communication capacity is to be developed. But there are no plans to acquire a Sentry-type airborne reconnaissance capability; the Bundeswehr is quite content relying on NATO's pool. And there is no provision for an operational ground surveillance system (such as the American J-STARS or the British ASTOR system) which could be particularly helpful in out-of-area contingencies." 4.3.3. Despite the priority that German planners have given to power projection and crisis stabilization, there have been to date no official German statements clearly delineating the kinds of scenarios for which the Bundeswehr is developing crisis-reaction forces. The only available guidance indicates a need to be able to commit "up to one Army division" to a crisis reaction mission over an extended period of time. But how large a division? In separate theaters? For how long exactly? What type of conflicts and missions? All this remains a mystery. 4.5 [quote]Germany still lacks a comprehensive, well-integrated official vision or blueprint mapping the way to the future for the armed forces. Instead, there are only a few pieces of the puzzle: a somewhat tentative list of equipment to be procured between now and 2011, budget projections through 2002, and the force structure scheme of 1994, which is to be fully implemented by 2000/2001. And, as noted above, these are contradictory in some respects, vague in others. However, the so-called Red-Green-coalition, which took over Federal Government in the fall of 1998, decided to set up an expert commission with the task of exploring options for the further development of the Bundeswehr. Its report can be expected before summer 2000. As a consensus has taken form around the proposition that the German armed forces cannot hope for substantial (real-term) budget increases, there seems to be no alternative to reducing active strength in order to break the current modernization deadlock. Three variants of such a policy are being ventilated in expert circles: (i) Transition to an all-volunteer force Proponents see an all-volunteer force as a dedicated, high-tech intervention instrument nearly reaching US standards. But adoption of the all-volunteer path would require a reduction of active strength to about 170,000 (plus limited mobilization potential). A volunteer military any larger than this would not be able to cover the relatively hefty bills for operations and procurement required by a high-technology force geared to intervention missions. Such a force would not constitute a "pillar of solidity" in Central Europe, nor would it lend itself easily to integration with most neighboring armies. But it could lead to the sociopolitical isolation of the military as a professional caste (which has been particularly problematic in Germany's past). (ii) Limited reduction of active strength (conscription maintained) The Bundeswehr could be reduced to 250,000 - 260,000 soldiers (with a still considerable mobilization potential). Since this size would include "inexpensive" conscripts, the savings should be sufficient for a general, thorough modernization program (which would include high-tech items only on a selective basis, not as an obsession). Conscription could be socially stabilized at this reduced force level, making almost everyone serve who is fit and not a conscientious objector, by raising the fitness standards, by slightly increasing the proportion of conscripts in the forces, and by reducing the terms of service from 10 to 9 months. The resulting force would still be large enough to integrate itself with most of the neighbors and form a solid block in the middle of Europe. It would also be intervention- capable, but less dependent on strike elements and more on formations dedicated to control and protection missions. Such a military would also possess less provocative potential, especially if restructured in a more defensive manner. (iii) Voluntary elite plus conscript militia This option remains vague. Its proponents are not worried about the prospect of producing a two-tier force with inherent problems of cohesion. They would like to preserve the draft system (a holy cow in Germany) mainly for symbolic reasons. They view the conscript element as an inexpensive way to provide for basic home protection only. Most of the available resources would go to the crack intervention element, consisting of precious volunteers. However, the current and foreseeable security environment makes a homeguard (militia) for Germany look useless. Useless, but not necessarily "cheap" - after all, it would still require training, equipment, and an infrastructural foundation. Thus, this scheme would not likely generate enough savings to underwrite the requirements of the sizeable all-volunteer component equipped with cutting-edge equipment.
Zen9		#66	[-]
Posts: 3674 ( 6-Jul-2008 19:16:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Well now this is all changed at yuku! And not for the better IMO. How odd....! Now Yuku is back to how it was? So despite this I think I have to say. Its clear Germany is not a global actor in the way the UK is, which is strongly suggestive they either leave that to others or don't value it the way we do. There is history to consider there as with Japan. There seems no case for Germany on the UNSC there. Japan is comming out of its shell but its investment is far more focused on its protector/dominator the USA and its offshoring of production to China. No I'm not entirely convinced that we are less reliant on global connections than Germany. The suggestion they rely on imports for power is correct, however this is primarily from land connections, region to region with no sea traversed. In that instance Russia and Iran. In fact I'd say we have more such global connections, in both trade and non-trade related matters. In fact I'm not much convinced by Bledlows statements either, their statements only, no supportive facts which would convince one way or the other. Nor do I quite get where you, Bledlow support UK presence on the UNSC or on the global stage at all. Please tell us why you do support the UK on the UNSC? UK trade connections extra-Europa, outside of our 'region' are clear and expanding, not contracting. A logical consiquence of the fact Europe's markets are not expanding for UK products at the rate available elsewhere as surely as the flow of imports is expanding from outside Europe. These things are less related to current currency fluctuations than to trends in economic growth. Last Edited By: Zen9 6-Jul-2008 20:05:43. Edited 1 times.
Bledlow		#67	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 155 ( 6-Jul-2008 21:39:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	What is this? I point out factual errors, & everyone starts treating me as if I'm arguing against their standpoint. Zen9 - why do you want me to justify my opinions on the UKs UNSC membership? What does it have to do with what I've said? I only mentioned it because you started trying to argue with me, on the false assumption that I was advocating the UK giving it up Everything I have said is checkable, if you care to look (try the Office for National Statistics), & I fail to see why you are less convinced by it than by the erroneous statements which I have responded to. I have not said our worldwide trade connections are contracting, nor that they are not expanding. I am well aware that they are expanding. That applies equally to ALL European countries. We're all importing more from China, especially, and also other fast-growing countries. Japan is not limiting its foreign investments to the USA, any more than we are, but for both the UK & Japan it is by far the largest single destination of outward investment. If you want a breakdown of German oil imports, look here. You'll see a link to gas imports on the same page. Read what it says, & you'll see that what I have said is true, that the majority of their energy imports are ultimately transported by sea: everything except the Russian oil & gas & Dutch gas. BTW, there are no land connections between Iran and Europe for either oil or gas imports. There are projects to build both, but purely on paper so far. used to be remf: None of what you say makes your original statement, which I posted a correction to, true. The document you quote and link to is dated November 1999, & its projections & speculations have been rendered irrelevant by facts. I suggest looking at what the Bundeswehr has actually done in the 7 1/2 years since that was published. You are correct that Germany has no amphibious capability, but not that it has no sealift. It shares (the largest share) four leased commercial ro-ros, registered to the Danish navy, & is proposing to replace them with purpose-built ships when the current lease arrangement expires. You say that the German army cannot operate out of area, but it is already (in small numbers, true) doing so, using both owned & leased commercial air transport, & the previously mentioned sealift. Agreed, that German armed forces are underfunded, but that means small intervention forces, not none. Numbers have already been cut to Mr Untersehers option (ii), & a path similar to that is being followed. All this is a matter of public record. See the 2006 German White Paper outlining the future of the armed forces. It is to some extent a recognition of changes already underway, rather than a vision for the future, but it provides them with a coherent framework. For example, a "Response force" of 35000 (see pages 69, 78-80), & "Stabilisation force" of 70000 - into which category all the forces currently deployed abroad would fall. With the planned & ongoing equipment purchases (e.g. A400M), largely funded by cutting back manpower, bases, & undeployable conscript-manned heavy units, this is hardly refusing to have a force structure capable of intervention beyond the Fulda gap. Last Edited By: Bledlow 6-Jul-2008 21:43:08. Edited 2 times.
Zen9		#68	[-]
Posts: 3675 ( 6-Jul-2008 23:06:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	What is this? I point out factual errors, & everyone starts treating me as if I'm arguing against their standpoint. I don't trust the way your "corrections" are presented, perhaps that is down to patterns of language, I cannot say, but it is highly provocational. Theres something about the way this is presented that reeks of laying the foundations for a future arguement we should give up. Germany by that source quoted gains the bulk of oil and presumably gas from Russia, Norway and the UK, the only major seaborn effort to cross a significant distance is Lybia. All are very intra-Europa, its even arguable over Lybia on that score. Rather substantialy different to importing gas from Malasia. No German connections are not the same, nothing like the same, not even in the same league, how could they be, without ex-colonies of the likes of Canada or Australia and the dots in the ocean of the Empires legacy? Nothing like the Commonwealth, nothing like The City, nothing like the transatlantic axis between The City and New York that runs like a strange feedback loop between the two. Nor should they need to, our position forces us to reach out or wither in a way they cannot nor do not need to do. Besides they had little choice, history left them only the option of living within someone elses global system, the system built between the UK and the USA in tandem, since the defeat of Napoleon. Iran shares no pipeline it is true as of yet. But its links to Europe are as much landbased as seabased. That applies equally to ALL European countries. Not exactly true that, it varies depending.
Bledlow		#69	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 156 ( 7-Jul-2008 12:10:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Zen9 wrote: What is this? I point out factual errors, & everyone starts treating me as if I'm arguing against their standpoint. I don't trust the way your "corrections" are presented, perhaps that is down to patterns of language, I cannot say, but it is highly provocational. Theres something about the way this is presented that reeks of laying the foundations for a future arguement we should give up. Germany by that source quoted gains the bulk of oil and presumably gas from Russia, Norway and the UK, the only major seaborn effort to cross a significant distance is Lybia. All are very intra-Europa, its even arguable over Lybia on that score. Rather substantialy different to importing gas from Malasia. No German connections are not the same, nothing like the same, not even in the same league, how could they be, without ex-colonies of the likes of Canada or Australia and the dots in the ocean of the Empires legacy? Nothing like the Commonwealth, nothing like The City, nothing like the transatlantic axis between The City and New York that runs like a strange feedback loop between the two. Nor should they need to, our position forces us to reach out or wither in a way they cannot nor do not need to do. Besides they had little choice, history left them only the option of living within someone elses global system, the system built between the UK and the USA in tandem, since the defeat of Napoleon. Iran shares no pipeline it is true as of yet. But its links to Europe are as much landbased as seabased. That applies equally to ALL European countries. Not exactly true that, it varies depending. I am sorry if I have given a false impression, but it is entirely unintentional. I am NOT arguing for British withdrawal, or a permanent German or Japanese seat. Nor do I dispute that we have greater worldwide political & emotional links to other countries than either Germany or Japan. Note that I've responded only to claims about commercial & trade interests. Please, please, read what I've said, and not try to look beyond it. There isn't anything beyond it. BTW, I find the "reeks", & your false imputation of a hidden agenda to me, offensive. German oil supplies from the UK are balanced by UK imports from further afield. The UK is no longer a net exporter of oil. UK exports are to do with refinery capacity (there are optimum crude grades for particular refineries), terminal location, which firm has signed what contract, etc, not due to an excess of production over consumption. In reality, Germany is more dependent on long-distance imports than the chart shows, & we are less dependent than a similar chart for the UK would show, though we couldn't simply keep all our exports in place of the same quantity of imports. Imports of oil, & even more gas by sea have a significant degree of independence from specific sources - though limited by the aforementioned refinery characteristics & terminals. The Malaysians could probably ship all their gas to Japan, & we could buy more from somewhere else, nearer to home. Pipelines are fixed, & have a fixed capacity. Russia can't increase oil exports to Europe overland much without new pipelines or upgrades to existing ones, hence the numerous new projects to permit them to. Iranian oil & gas exports currently go through the Gulf of Persia, not overland. There are no pipelines connecting Iran to Europe, even indirectly. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline can only, at present, carry oil from Azerbaijan (an Iranian connection is yet another paper project), & there is no gas pipeline. Indeed, the Iranians are proposing a pipeline to carry Central Asian gas to their export terminals in the Persian Gulf! True, the degree to which imports from the rest of the world is growing varies between European countries, so "equally", was not correct, but the differences are minor compared to the shared trend. BTW, interesting breakdown of Russian oil exports by route - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Russia/Oil_exports.html And Iran, including exports - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iran/Full.html - note that Germany isn't in the top ten of recipients of Iranian exports, & Iran can not, from those figures, be a significant source of German imports. You stated earlier that my assertions were unsupported. I note that in this debate I'm the only person to have supplied any evidence at all.
Zen9		#70	[-]
Posts: 3678 ( 7-Jul-2008 12:51:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Please, please, read what I've said, and not try to look beyond it. There isn't anything beyond it. BTW, I find the "reeks", & your false imputation of a hidden agenda to me, offensive. This rather remindes me of the issues of language and how interpretations can differe even within a common language and reference framework. Difference perspectives, the 'corrections' you use can all be wielded by those who wish to use them to justify their argument that the UK should withdraw and curl up into a ball. I've met those who hold that position and argued with them on many occaisions, both here and real life. They will use anything that even leaves one gap to build towers of arguement justifying their cause. Too many people are swayed by them. To defeat them one must understand them, so I can see what they'd be looking for in the very 'facts' you've used. You stated earlier that my assertions were unsupported. I note that in this debate I'm the only person to have supplied any evidence at all. You wish to use the word 'correction', nothing proves ones case better than facts. The UK is no longer a net exporter of oil. Which I'd like to think we all knew. Are you saying we did'nt? ------------------------ Gods I'm sick of yuku! Why can't we have a simple quote function than this mucking around?
Bledlow		#71	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 158 ( 8-Jul-2008 00:51:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Zen9 wrote: Please, please, read what I've said, and not try to look beyond it. There isn't anything beyond it. BTW, I find the "reeks", & your false imputation of a hidden agenda to me, offensive. This rather remindes me of the issues of language and how interpretations can differe even within a common language and reference framework. Difference perspectives, the 'corrections' you use can all be wielded by those who wish to use them to justify their argument that the UK should withdraw and curl up into a ball. I've met those who hold that position and argued with them on many occaisions, both here and real life. They will use anything that even leaves one gap to build towers of arguement justifying their cause. Too many people are swayed by them. To defeat them one must understand them, so I can see what they'd be looking for in the very 'facts' you've used. You stated earlier that my assertions were unsupported. I note that in this debate I'm the only person to have supplied any evidence at all. You wish to use the word 'correction', nothing proves ones case better than facts. The UK is no longer a net exporter of oil. Which I'd like to think we all knew. Are you saying we did'nt? ------------------------ Gods I'm sick of yuku! Why can't we have a simple quote function than this mucking around? Agreed, that interpretation of language differs, & any fact (not 'fact' - checkable, as I keep saying) can be used in many ways. In this particular case, it seems that your interpretation of what I have posted has been influenced by the understandable assumption that the motive for criticising a particular assertion is likely to be that one disagrees with the standpoint the assertion was made in support of. Fair enough - once. But why carry on trying to argue with me against a position I wasn't supporting after I'd made it clear? In effect, you were accusing me of dishonesty, implying that I was misrepresenting my stance. I joined in not to try to argue for or against anyones UNSC membership, but because I find it irritating when false statements go unchallenged, even when they're in support of my own stand (apart from anything else, they can undermine the case, since provably false arguments can cause the sound arguments to be distrusted), & I've carried on in a sometimes intemperate tone because I find it doubly irritating when it's implied that I'm lying. Yes, nothing proves a case better than facts. Has anyone who's disagreed with me in this debate put forward any? All I've seen is unsupported assertions, some correct, but some not, & the latter sometimes repeated after I've provided evidence that they're mistaken. Triply irritating. As for the UKs oil import balance - it was obviously relevant to the debate at that point, since you'd raised UK oil exports to Germany as an example of German imports from a near neighbour, as if you were unaware of our oil balance. So I spelled it out.
used to be remf		#72	[-]
Posts: 478 ( 9-Jul-2008 10:19:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Bledlow wrote: What is this? I point out factual errors, & everyone starts treating me as if I'm arguing against their standpoint. Zen9 - why do you want me to justify my opinions on the UKs UNSC membership? What does it have to do with what I've said? I only mentioned it because you started trying to argue with me, on the false assumption that I was advocating the UK giving it up Everything I have said is checkable, if you care to look (try the Office for National Statistics), & I fail to see why you are less convinced by it than by the erroneous statements which I have responded to. I have not said our worldwide trade connections are contracting, nor that they are not expanding. I am well aware that they are expanding. That applies equally to ALL European countries. We're all importing more from China, especially, and also other fast-growing countries. Japan is not limiting its foreign investments to the USA, any more than we are, but for both the UK & Japan it is by far the largest single destination of outward investment. If you want a breakdown of German oil imports, look here. You'll see a link to gas imports on the same page. Read what it says, & you'll see that what I have said is true, that the majority of their energy imports are ultimately transported by sea: everything except the Russian oil & gas & Dutch gas. BTW, there are no land connections between Iran and Europe for either oil or gas imports. There are projects to build both, but purely on paper so far. used to be remf: None of what you say makes your original statement, which I posted a correction to, true. The document you quote and link to is dated November 1999, & its projections & speculations have been rendered irrelevant by facts. I suggest looking at what the Bundeswehr has actually done in the 7 1/2 years since that was published. You are correct that Germany has no amphibious capability, but not that it has no sealift. It shares (the largest share) four leased commercial ro-ros, registered to the Danish navy, & is proposing to replace them with purpose-built ships when the current lease arrangement expires. You say that the German army cannot operate out of area, but it is already (in small numbers, true) doing so, using both owned & leased commercial air transport, & the previously mentioned sealift. Agreed, that German armed forces are underfunded, but that means small intervention forces, not none. Numbers have already been cut to Mr Untersehers option (ii), & a path similar to that is being followed. All this is a matter of public record. See the 2006 German White Paper outlining the future of the armed forces. It is to some extent a recognition of changes already underway, rather than a vision for the future, but it provides them with a coherent framework. For example, a "Response force" of 35000 (see pages 69, 78-80), & "Stabilisation force" of 70000 - into which category all the forces currently deployed abroad would fall. With the planned & ongoing equipment purchases (e.g. A400M), largely funded by cutting back manpower, bases, & undeployable conscript-manned heavy units, this is hardly refusing to have a force structure capable of intervention beyond the Fulda gap. you are of course quite correct, that document is dated. my apologies.
Zen9		#73	[-]
Posts: 3681 ( 9-Jul-2008 13:04:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Lets have a look now....... In this thread you come in on page 6 and 'correct' remf, for his incorrect statement over the economy or so it seems. Did you assume I hold his beliefs on the position of the UK economy? Because when I state, that I can't think of a better member of the UNSC than us, you come in and say we don't have any more global interests than Germany or China, implying either Germany should be on it or we off it. You assume to correct me on the postion of the UK economy, which suggests you have'nt read my earlier posts in this very thread. Where I state the UK is the fifth not the fourth largest economy. You have jumped in and mischaracterised me and my position. At that point I assume your out to argue against the UKs position on the UNSC, but only after you reached to the conclusion that 'interests' mean economics, and the idea that the rest is 'emotional' or so it is later revealed. You state I'm offeding you, and yet you seem unaware of your offense to me? So you find it irritating, have you considered that how you 'correct' others is itself a potential path to irritation and insult? The very term 'correction' carries a load of implied meanings, which you will be aware of and chose to use anyway as you have a lot of the rest of your language. This is a two way street, and if one is looking for arguement rather than discussion, the tone of language is a key indicator. I appologise for any mischaractisaton of you, but consider your 'corrections' and the manner you present them and it has stuck this discussion into a argument rather than moved forward in any direction. Let us move forward Bledlow, let us agree. The UK is rightly a member of the UNSC, and certain other states are not, as yet.
Bledlow		#74	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 160 ( 9-Jul-2008 14:17:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Zen9, this began with a post of mine (no. 55) addressed to "used to be remf". That was where the ranking of the UK among economies was debated. I have made no assumptions or statements about your opinions on that matter. In post 56, you described the UK as "a state with more global history than any other and more interest in global commerce, peace, law and order than any other.". I addressed only the "commerce" part of your claim, but that does not mean that I believe that interests are only economic. That is an assumption you have made. You have nicely illustrated your own point about language & interpretation with this - "the conclusion that 'interests' mean economics, and the idea that the rest is 'emotional' ". To me, the word "emotional", in the context in which I used it, includes the numerous connections made through shared ancestry, history etc. It is a positive thing. From the way that you quote it, I think you have a different impression. Yes, I am aware that telling someone he is wrong is a potential path to irritation and insult, & my first post was, probably, tactlessly phrased. But as you say, that's a two-way street, & you have made assumptions about my opinions, which apart from the first one (I admit, post 55 can be read as if it's arguing against the UKs UNSC seat, although that was not the intention), have not been supported by what I've written. I presume your first impression coloured your reading of subsequent posts. BTW, you should not be chiding me for using the word "corrected". I did not use it. You did. One cannot have a meaningful debate without addressing the assumptions on which opinions are based. If I put forward an honestly held but mistaken opinion on a matter of fact, to support an argument, I would not be offended by being put right, though it could be done in a manner to cause me offence. In this particular discussion, although I do not believe that is what you intend, you appear to be criticising me for the act, not only the manner. And I agree, let us move on. We can both learn a lesson on the pitfalls of language, and we are agreed on the main point.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

UK & UN Security Council

Quick Reply