The UK Armed Forces

[Huguenot]

Besides, the Japan Economic Miracle ended a least two decades ago, since when its been a basket case.

All thoe oriental brands you see now are Korean, Chinese or Taiwanese - they often copy Japanese names to try and gain credibility.

[Brendan]

So should I buy that Mazda or not?

[SeanMacGabhann]

* cough *

[Huguenot]

Well, with a debt to GDP ration of around 200%, anything you could do to help them out, Brenda, would most likely be well received.

[acumenman]

Huguenot wrote:- Besides, the Japan Economic Miracle ended a least two decades ago, since when its been a basket case.

The Japanese exported their filthy industries to Korea, and other places.

They have a strong currency and are loaded, a strict regime yet they are very civilised and extremely industrious.

How I wish I belonged to such a basket case, is your brain going softish with all that heat, and foreign food out there Huguenot?

[Jeremy]

Actually the Japanese economy is very finely balanced. All that national debt Huguenot mentions tends to be bought up by the Japanese banks, keeping the cost of borrowing very low for the government. If consumer/bank behaviour changes, the whole thing will come crashing down. Also, Japanese companies have plummeted in value over the last 20 years too... the Nikkei 225 history makes the FTSE look like a runaway success.

As a society it has its pros and cons... as an economy, it has an uncertain future.

[acumenman]

I think that is temporary Jeremy and Japan's future seems far more certain than ours, in fact any country which successfully reduces their dependency on oil by 50% in little over twelve months is not to be ignored.

[Jeremy]

It's not temporary, it's become the established status quo. Near-zero interest rates, huge government debt, cautious investment strategy by banks and corporates, a culture of saving cash...

> any country which successfully reduces their

> dependency on oil by 50% in little over twelve

> months is not to be ignored.

Sounds interesting, do you have a link?

[david_carnell]

Centre for Global Energy Studies

Doesn't seem to show short term dependency cuts described by SteveT, sorry, Acumenman.

[acumenman]

Perhaps it was 50% of the domestic fuel for houses.

It must be right, I heard it on radio4!

[baroldmc]

Replying to blogger Mockney Piers, Feb 9th, you mention the British army's reluctance

to go to Iraq . Could there be a connection between that and their

eventual defeat? Whichever way you look at it, what purpose did they serve? Why,

if they achieved anything on behalf of the British people, did opposition to the

war increase as it went on?

And if the army didn't want to get involved, then you have to ask - forget the questions

I put in my original blog of Feb 2nd - what exactly DO they want to do for us? Clear the snow off

the planes at Heathrow perhaps (if only) and leave it at that.

Even if you think the Armed Forces have done us great service since 1945, you have to ask

what we need them for in the future. Search out Simon Jenkins on this topic, in The Guardian

about 2 months ago.

What about the issue of the UK as a member of the EU? Take a look around, you'll see

that some nations, especially new members, are going at the project with fantastic energy.

Britain, by contrast, drags its feet, feels permanently menaced by what it sees as EU

bureacracy, always wants to do things separately, thinks it can ignore Acts and treaties

it has signed up to and, in my view anyway, falls behind. Why?

The Establishment is obsessed with the "special relationship" with

the US, which is essentially a military one and one which allows us and our

Armed Forces to pretend we have independent nuclear and conventional

deterrent capabilities.

Blair was a total hostage to this national self-delusion. Just when the

people wanted him to be embedded in European policy, off he went to do the bidding of

Bush & Co.. Again, I argue as before, this happens not because the Armed Forces do or

don't want to get involved, but more simply, because they're there.

The relationship within the UK Establishment is self-perpetuating and we need

to break the habit and move on........probably to Europe

[mockney piers]

apart from the fact the I obviously have no idea what you said in your blog, I'm struggling to get to grips with what you're trying to say here.

I'm not normally a fan of bullet points as they encourage fisking, in your case I'd encourage you to read minkturtle's post here and order your thoughts.

If your suggesting the military tail wags political dog, I think you're way off the mark.

If you're saying the special relationship isn't really very special I'm inclined to agree, and that the perception (misconception) that it is special drives misguided policies, then to a certain extent I agree.

If you're saying we should scrap our expensive nuclear deterrent, I'm wholeheartedly behind you on that one. If you're saying we should scrap the army then I think that's a bit bonkers frankly.

Anyway, focus grasshopper....

[Huguenot]

I think it's a bit simplistic an argument of Jenkins to assume that armies are there to fight wars.

The largest armies globally are those created to mitigate the opportunity to pick a war, to make it less rather than more likely.

I also agree with Mockney that I've heard no evidence that a demand for toys and budgets meant that the armed forces were warmongering in the middle east.

The armed forces are largely a political tool, a big stick, to use in political negotiations. If the recent exercise in Iraq has taught us anything, it's that armies are at their most effective when you don't embarrass yourself by attempting to use them.