|
|
Silver Dragon Breath dragon forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
albvan
Shining Dragonstar
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 322
|
 Posted: Fri 21 Mar 2008 12:33 Post subject: |
 |
|
This debate is becoming pretty hard to follow, but I'll give it a try.
| Ragnarok wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The middle east and the surrounding countries are very war mongering. |
Not really, actually. Turkey, Iran, Israel and Palestine are the only violent ones (Iraq aside, of course); Iran's not exactly overt about it and seems to produce more noise than anything else and Turkey is mostly internal (expeditions into Iraq to pursue rebel forces notwithstanding). |
War mongering is a universal phenomenon, no matter the region or time. It has nothing to do with a certain race, religion, nation, ethnicity or whatever. Also, the countries Ragnarok mentioned have nothing or very little in common with each other, so there is no such thing as a unique Middle Eastern attitude towards war (or anything else) that would set it apart from the rest of the world.
| Ragnarok wrote: |
| Dragoneyes wrote: |
I think it came down to religion. They did not want Christians to enter Baghdad... |
More likely, the Arab countries wouldn't want an invasion of one of their own, regardless of who was doing it. |
Alliances based on an economical and political basis are a lot stronger than those based on religious or national kinship. Take the EU, NATO and SCO as examples. The theocratic Saudi Arabia wasn't pleased with a socialist Iraq in its neighbourhood (and even less with the secularist NATO- oriented Turkey or the heretic Iran, who are not even Arabian). They would most likely sacrifice Iraq for maintaining oil trade with the US. Though the public opinion would probably be negative.
And when the NATO bombarded the Slavic countries of Serbia and Montenegro in 1999 to weaken the Milosevic regime, other Slavic countries, such as Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Croatia, didn't do a thing about it, because everybody was fed up with Milosevic, who was arrested by his own people the year after.
And English, Dutch, Norwegian and Danish belong to the Germanic language family, yet these nations (though with varying success) confronted Germany in WWII, instead of joining its project of creating "the master race".
| Ragnarok wrote: |
| Brightscales wrote: |
| Ragnarok wrote: |
| Brightscales wrote: |
People keep saying that if we pull out of Iraq then nothing will change. THINGS WILL CHANGE!!! |
Indeed, things will change. The Iraqi government would collapse due to the absence of US forces acting as support, the half-trained police forces will revert to their militias, world opinion of the US will drop even lower, terrorist groups in Iraq will call it their victory for chasing the US out, allowing them to recruit more... I can't think of any good changes, but yes, things will change. |
The good things are that our innocent people and theirs WILL STOP GETTING MURDERED!!! World opinion is already low; we would be respected if we got out now instead of letting this war drag on. If we didn't go there in the first place we wouldn't have this pradicament now would we? |
In the instability following a US withdrawal at this point, violence will increase, and more of them will die. In either case, people will die. If we stay, the numbers of dead may be lower due to the extra stability US forces are able to provide right now. |
I think the USA will never completely withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. These countries are, besides Israel, the USA's only footholds on the Asian mainland, which is increasingly being dominated by the rising powers of Russia, the world's 2nd military power and energetics superpower, and China, the world's 3rd economic and military power. The Russian navy is restoring its Mediterranean wing, which will be stationed in a port in Syria, and China has a strong economic presence in Iran and Sudan. The USA was already forced to leave its base in Uzbekistan, and its bases in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan don't have a bright future either (these countries are to the north of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan). Pakistan and India are also increasingly cooperating with China and Russia, respectively. Leaving the poor and fragile countries of Iraq and Afghanistan alone in such an environment would mean leaving the Asian mainland altogether. And in a world dependent on fossil fuels, that would mean great strategic advantage of Russia and China over America and Europe. European countries could still have a choice by balancing between the USA and Russia, but the USA would have to fight its way through by nuclear weapons (which is very risky, considering Russia's nuclear potential) or adapt its economy to a new energy source (which is veeery expensive).
The USA just can't afford to lose these countries. And it is even attempting to block the Russian penetration to the south, by inviting Croatia, Macedonia, Albania, Ukraine and Georgia in the NATO, which is a logical response to Russian-Chinese expansion.
There maybe a democratic Iraq (or multiple Iraqi states) in the future, but certainly not without US control.
I'd also like to point out the preparations for the emerging struggle for fresh water (and a possible topic for a new debate). China rules Tibet with an iron fist because it is the source land of most important Asian rivers, and the USA is building strong ties with Canada, Iceland, Norway and Croatia, who have great reserves of fresh water.
| Brightscales wrote: |
I'm not saying we should isolate ourselves from the world, I'm sayin we should help countries that REALLY NEED IT!!!! (i.e. DARFUR!!!!) |
The best solution for Darfur would be to fund the African Union forces already stationed there, perhaps send EU forces, which were promised by the EU, and boycot the Olympic games in Beijing to send China, which stands behind the conflict, a strong political message. You can't act isolationist if others are not acting the same.
| Hyraxylos wrote: |
I meant they’re not deploying troops over here in America to force us to change in a way we don’t want to, even though THEY think it would be good for us. |
Where did you get that idea from? The military expedintures of the USA are 3 times the size of expenditures of all European countries combined (Russia excluded). And just remember that the US global politics are merely a continuation of European imperialism. The USA is just walking the European footsteps.
| Hyraxylos wrote: |
We’ve got some Europeans here on this forum right? Would anyone like to show what the gas prices are like over there? In Russia I’ve seen it cost around the equivalent of eight dollars a gallon; Americans have nothing to complain about in comparison.
Europe doesn’t want to fight because they’re intelligent, unlike America. And I’m sorry if that offends people, really I am, but it simply has to be said. We don’t know what we’re doing over there, we have no conditions for “victory” in Iraq, and we shouldn’t have invaded in the first place. Americans especially like to rip on French people, calling them cowards more than any other European race, but lets look at history. |
Yes, we do have Europeans on here. Syrobe, Namhias and me are from Europe, for example. The gas costs about 8,5 kunas (1,7 US dollars) a litre in Croatia, which would equall to about 17$ a gallon. And about European intelligence... It is just so because European militaries are weak. Most European countries rely on the USA to protect them and their interests in armed conflicts. Much of the UK's power comes fom its tight relationship with (or even obedience to) the United States of America, for example.
And the US governmet knows very well what's it doing in Iraq, see above.
And there's no such thing as a European race.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Solid
Dragonstar
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 969
Location: The other side of somewhere.
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Mar 2008 13:02 Post subject: |
|
|
Ha, yes answers I cant adgree with are disadgree with! There is a god!  Good answers.
_________________
Rest in Peace, Ronnie James Dio, from Mortal to God, Rest in Peace.(1942-2010) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the dragon of eternity
Dragonstar
Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Posts: 32
Location: in my room playing video games with unfinished homework by my side
|
| Posted: Sun 28 Dec 2008 17:47 Post subject: |
|
|
| Dragoneyes wrote: |
I think if we would have gone to Baghdad back when George senior was in charge it would not be like it is today. Without the rest of Nato involved it makes us look like we are the bad guys.
If we leave Iraq nothing is going to change. They will have another self proclaimed Prime minister or religious nut to run their country. The middle east and the surrounding countries are very war mongering. They are always killing each other over land that they all claim. Religions are the problem. Everyone thinks they are the chosen ones. Bah I hope they kill each other off. Long live the Devil.....lol |
I don't like the way you think dude. If we stay in this war then our country would be interfering with another countries choices and we're wasting money!!!!!!!! Just because we don't like their choices we cant damage our and their country. And what if we lose the war? What a waste of hardworkingLIVES
AND KILL EACHOTHER OFF!? WHAT THE HECK IS WRONG WITH YOU ?! HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF THOUSANDS OF LIVES WERE WASTED!?!?!?!?!?!NOT VERY GOOD HUH?!
okay rant over.
_________________
you can only run so far.you can only hide so long.you can only cry so much.you can only scream so loud. but you can fight for as long as you need |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Namhias
Shining Dragonstar
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 1055
|
| Posted: Sun 28 Dec 2008 18:58 Post subject: |
|
|
| Don't shout. It is not allowed to type whole sentences in capital letters. This is a debate, not a ranting board. Try to convince people of your standpoint in a calm manner, using arguments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ragnarok
Global Moderator
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 1091
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA.
|
| Posted: Sun 28 Dec 2008 20:25 Post subject: |
|
|
Technically, since Congress has never actually declared war on anyone, we're not at war.
| the dragon of eternity wrote: |
| If we stay in this war then our country would be interfering with another countries choices and we're wasting money!!!!!!!! Just because we don't like their choices we cant damage our and their country. |
I agree with your first point, and completely disagree with the second. Yes, by having active troops in Iraq (or Afghanistan), we're affecting what goes on in those countries, but so what? If that's your argument for being against the war, then I'm sorry to say that it's a very weak one, at best. Pretty much anything done in international politics is done by one country to interfere with other countries. Diplomacy, embargoes, war... all of them are aimed at influencing another country's decisions, and the latter two are both more than capable of damaging the target country, either physically, though bombs and missiles; or economically, by cutting them off from the rest of the world.
Further, I'd like to know if you believe any sort of armed interventions (e.g. officially declared war, the current state in Iraq/Afghanistan, etc) should be allowed, since your argument against the Iraq war is very non-specific. Is any war unacceptable, or are some wars okay>
_________________
To win against an opponent stronger than yourself, you must not be weaker than that opponent. - Takamachi Nanoha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Solid
Dragonstar
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 969
Location: The other side of somewhere.
|
| Posted: Sun 05 Apr 2009 13:55 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Technically, since Congress has never actually declared war on anyone, we're not at war. |
By not declaring war, how would we benefit from that? And what are the repercussions of actually declaring war? You would think that if you were to invade a country with an armed force that it would be classified as war...  [/quote]
_________________
Rest in Peace, Ronnie James Dio, from Mortal to God, Rest in Peace.(1942-2010) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ragnarok
Global Moderator
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 1091
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA.
|
| Posted: Sun 05 Apr 2009 14:45 Post subject: |
|
|
| Solid wrote: |
By not declaring war, how would we benefit from that? And what are the repercussions of actually declaring war? You would think that if you were to invade a country with an armed force that it would be classified as war... |
Pretty much everything I've looked at makes it look like a pretty muddy area. A declaration of war would create a state of war between the two countries, and has only been done five times by the US, none of which were after WWII. An authorization of force, on the other hand, just means that military assets can be deployed and utilized, but without the formal state of war.
In that sense, even though an invasion and overthrow of the government occurred, without a formal declaration of war by either the US or Iraq, officially, there is no war.
_________________
To win against an opponent stronger than yourself, you must not be weaker than that opponent. - Takamachi Nanoha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tarnos
Dragonstar
Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Wed 30 Mar 2011 1:22 Post subject: |
|
|
Instead of quoting what dragons said, I will try to sum up my opinions on the topics:
1. Should have Iraq been invaded?
I believe that it shouldn´t have. Such interventions usually fail to accomplish anything in the long run...one reason is that the mentality of that country is different. Arabian countries developed their social and religious system in different conditions than Europe (and the european system was adopted by the US). I think that sooner or later, new Saddam will appear, maybe the same, maybe worse. Implementing our own set of beliefs there is bound to fail. I know that thought is not very nice, but is democracy really the best system for every country? Don´t take me wrong, I am glad I live in a democratic country. But I live in Europe, not Asia...some mentalities simply tend to create authoritarian regimes: Russia was really democratic only for a few months in it´s history under Kerenskij´s government in 1917, China is comunistic...
2. Should US troops retreat?
Sooner or later, they should. The US surely can´t keep them there forever, if only because of vox populi. They would also become increasingly unpopular at first, hated later. The question is not whether the troops should retreat, but when should they do that...and that is not now. The US looking bad is just a minor thing...a collapse of Iraq government and eruption of violence that would follow are more important.
3. The role of Europe
Europe experienced Holocaust, America experienced nearly complete eradication of native Americans...violence and malvolence are not domain of one nation, continent or culture. It seems to be in-built to every human being. The trick is not to allow that internal beast (and I don´t mean dragon) to seize control.
It is true that most of the troops were from the US, it is true that european soldiers went back home. It is also true that it was the US government who wanted to start the war in the first place...
As for "raising a finger"...actually, ALL governments are "greedy and evil", even ours. That means there is no will in Europe to raise a finger. Besides, european states couldn´t have possibly thought about succeeding in using their military forces in the US!
4. Reasons for the invasion:
Yes, the petrol prices here have increased. They are always increasing. But my country imports petrol from Russia and wasn´t really affected by Iraq in this respect.
I think it would be very interesting to find out why did the invasion take place,
Petrol? Maybe, but petrol prices actually increased and if you look at how much petrol one tank of fighter jet needs to be able to operate for few hours...
To help people there? Nice, but when are they going to help people in China? Or in Britain, to take down the evil Queen and change the country into a democratic one?
Power? Seems to be that...power, wealth and influence is why wars are waged. That includes the american civil war (at first, slaves who escaped from the Confederation to the Union were being returned back, later on the Union started "confiscating" them), the second world war ("they chose the shame and will have war" and not only that-it was one man´s ambition to power that started it) and any other war as well.
_________________
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!
By Rudyard Kipling |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
