More UK troops to be sent to Middle East, defence secretary says (www.bbc.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 16 points 3 weeks ago

Daddy's in trouble, and the British are there to help.

[-] Saapas@piefed.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago

Seems from the article that they're there to help their allies in the Gulf. And Cyprus/the Cyprus bases.

USA would like to get them dragged more into the war though as in making attacks and whatnot.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 15 points 3 weeks ago

They are very clearly participating and directly facilitating attacks on Iran. Let's not try to spin this as anything other than that.

[-] Saapas@piefed.zip 0 points 3 weeks ago

What would be the spin in what I said? British got dragged into this because of their alliances to Gulf states, their bases in Cyprus etc. It's not like they came there to help the US in this war, even though their actions do help them out.

Anyone defending against Iranian strikes, even when defending themselves, is in effect helping the US out but it's not like they're doing that in order to help out the US.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 weeks ago

The British actively allow the US to use their bases for refuelling and staging attacks. These are absolutely actions that directly help the US in the war. Anyone participating in a war of aggression is doing the opposite of defending themselves.

[+] Saapas@piefed.zip -7 points 3 weeks ago

The British actively allow the US to use their bases for refuelling and staging attacks.

Right but we were talking about them sending more troops to Middle East, like the title says.

Anyone participating in a war of aggression is doing the opposite of defending themselves.

I'm talking about the Gulf states too or anyone who would be defending against Iran's strike. By the act of defending yourself you would be helping out the US without your reason for the action being helping out the US, you know?

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 weeks ago

And those troops will obviously be used to support military activities against Iran. They're not going to just sit there and jerk off. Gulf states are direct participants the same way brits are. They're hosting US bases that are used for striking Iran. Calling that defending yourself is the height of idiocy.

[+] Saapas@piefed.zip -6 points 3 weeks ago

And those troops will obviously be used to support military activities against Iran.

From the article it sounds like they're there to defend the Gulf allies and Cyprus/Cyprus base.

Calling that defending yourself is the height of idiocy.

Easy there partner, I'm making the point that anyone even defending yourself against the missile would be helping the US even when it wasn't their intention.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I'll try to explain this to you one final time. These troops are 'defending' military bases which are used to attack Iran. Let me know what part of that you're still struggling with. Bases that are used to attack Iran and countries hosting them are the aggressors.

[-] Saapas@piefed.zip -5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It's just that your first comment seemed to imply that the troops were going there with the goal of helping the US, when that wasn't the goal but rather an effect from the goal of the troops defending the Gulf allies and Cyprus. That's all. There's really no need to get snarky about this, friend

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I mean they are literally helping the US by working at the bases the US is using to attack Iran. You're trying to draw a weird distinction here between them providing support by operating at these bases and actively engaging in attacks. In both cases they are active participants in the war of aggression against Iran.

[-] Saapas@piefed.zip -5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It's not a weird distinction between a goal (why they're going there) and a (side-)effect (what is something that's happening as a result of it), when someone seems to confuse the two lol

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago

The only one confused here is you. The goal is to enable military operations against Iran. That's why those bases exist in the first place. These troops are part of the war of aggression, and whether they have an offensive role or not is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. To put it in terms you might understand easier, if you're a getaway driver for a bank robbery, you can't use that an excuse to claim that you weren't part of the robbery.

[-] Saapas@piefed.zip -2 points 3 weeks ago

It doesn't look like that's why those troops are being send there right now though. These troops are for the Gulf allies and Cyprus.

You are angry about the British role in the Iran war and I feel you, but I'm just talking about why these troops are going there.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago

I'm not angry. I'm pointing out the simple fact that the reason those bases are being attacked by Iran is because they're used to wage a war of aggression against Iran. I'm just trying to explain to you why those troops are active participants in this war. I don't know why it's so difficult for you to understand that frankly.

[-] Saapas@piefed.zip -2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It's just that you're talking about a different thing to me. You're explaining things that weren't under question and don't really relate to what I said. I was solely talking about why these troops were being sent there right now.

I appreciate the enthusiasm but it's just a bit off this topic and more a general discussion about the war.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago

And I was solely explaining how that makes them part of the war.

[-] Saapas@piefed.zip -2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Nobody was questioning that though. The discussion was about the reason for their involvement... But doesn't hurt to mention I guess

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago

Their involvement is the same as the one of the getaway driver's involvement in a robbery.

[-] Saapas@piefed.zip -2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Do you mean the troops they now sent? What would the analogy be in their case?

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago

here's an explanation from a former British diplomat for you https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/keir-starmer-agrees-to-deploy-5000

[-] Saapas@piefed.zip -3 points 3 weeks ago

An agile, twenty-first century capable elite armed Brigade of 5000 troops is being stood up right now, ready to deploy. That unique and fearsome force will, I am reliably informed, be comprised of 800 bandsmen, 300 cooks, 500 truck drivers, 400 bottle washers, 100 lawyers, 50 chaplains, with the remainder being daily Telegraph journalists who, let’s face it, work for the MoD anyway, plus Civil Servants who are well up for it.

A further brigade may also be stood up in the coming days. Morris dancers, druids from Stonehenge and reiki healers from Glastonbury are being tapped up for support.

Asylum seekers who cross the channel on rubber dinghies are to be offered UK citizenship if they join the fight.

Unfortunately, all of the available combat troops are tied up on diversity, equality and inclusion training, and therefore unable to make it as they are not fully licensed to fight in a manner that might not spread hurty feelings that are contrary to British values. But this truly groundbreaking force that Keir Starmer is readying will strike fear into the hearts of the Cypriot government, if not the Iranian mullahs themselves.

Pretty funny but not sure what you want me to take away from this. I still don't understand how your analogy fits these new troops being sent there.

[-] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago

You spend all your time nitpicking and rule lawyering and NONE on actually reading. Your posts REEKS of "UMH AKSHUALLY..."

[-] Saapas@piefed.zip -2 points 3 weeks ago

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to upset you. I did read the post but it was just that sort of bizarre but funny stuff. If it made the analogy clear then I honestly missed it.