The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Should our troops be in Iraq?  (Read 8082 times)

Offline Ben6789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 760
  • And then there were none.
    • View Profile
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« on: 04/04/2007 16:27:48 »
Me? I think that since we screwed everything up over there we can't leave it in chaos now. We need to fix however much we can before leaving or those people are going to accuse us of making things worse and get even more pissed off and try to kill us for what we did. We can't fight this war, the terrorists will always have followers to sucess them when they die, and more after those followers. Evil never ends, world peace is impossible.

Besides, we need evil.


 

Offline tony6789

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1127
    • View Profile
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #1 on: 04/04/2007 16:30:07 »
wow very deep dude...lol personally i say we get the F$@# outta there and worry bout N korea and china
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #2 on: 04/04/2007 18:22:29 »
I agree that the US (with help from the UK) messed up big time over there.  Yes, we are responsible for putting it all back together, but if we are going to fix the problem, we have to have a clear idea of what a fix to the problem will look like.  The problem right from the beginning is that everybody was agreed about what they did not want, but nobody had the slightest idea of what the solution was, or how to get there.  They did not understand what they were going in to, they did not understand what was possible and impossible, and they did not understand even what their own ideal solution would have been, let alone what to do to get it.

Simply killing everybody who disagrees with you is not a solution.

One, very serious problem, right now, is that by creating a big mess in Iraq, the USA very badly needs the active cooperation of both Saudi Arabia and Iran to help fix it.  The problem is, you cannot get the help of a country whom you will not talk to, and accuse of being evil, and threaten with sanctions and military action.

Maybe the USA does not like Iran (maybe even with some reason, although the reason is also sometimes exaggerated), but it has backed itself into a corner that it wont get out of without Iran's help (and, what is more, Iran knows this - and is not above twisting the screws on America until America finally comes to accept it).
 

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #3 on: 04/04/2007 18:34:35 »
No, I don't think any allied troops should be in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter.

@ tony6789 why should we be worried about N.Korea or China?

TMM
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #4 on: 04/04/2007 19:05:25 »
The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq was that initially the Afghanistan operation was lead by local forces, with Allied support, so it could be seen as a local operation.  Unfortunately, increasingly allied ground forces are being drawn into that conflict also, and so the local flavour of the conflict is disappearing, and it is looking again like another foreign invasion.

Iraq, right from day one, was a foreign invasion.  There was never a local contingent of military, and what is being built up now is being viewed by the locals as simply being in the pay of the Americans.

I think having US and UK money helping to find a solution is inevitable; but foreign troops (particularly troops from another continent) is simply a liability.

The reality is, right from the start, the only way that the US was ever going to spend substantial sums of money in either country was through military expenditure.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #5 on: 05/04/2007 03:00:30 »
While newspaper stories should always be taken wiuth a pinch of slat (but then, so should official denials), but here is an interesting angle of some of the things the US is suspected of still trying to do in the region:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2414760.ece
Quote
A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines.

Early on the morning of 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds.

In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective, The Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment.

Better understanding of the seriousness of the US action in Arbil - and the angry Iranian response to it - should have led Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence to realise that Iran was likely to retaliate against American or British forces such as highly vulnerable Navy search parties in the Gulf. The two senior Iranian officers the US sought to capture were Mohammed Jafari, the powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, according to Kurdish officials.

The two men were in Kurdistan on an official visit during which they met the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, and later saw Massoud Barzani, the President of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), at his mountain headquarters overlooking Arbil.

"They were after Jafari," Fuad Hussein, the chief of staff of Massoud Barzani, told The Independent. He confirmed that the Iranian office had been established in Arbil for a long time and was often visited by Kurds obtaining documents to visit Iran. "The Americans thought he [Jafari] was there," said Mr Hussein.

Mr Jafari was accompanied by a second, high-ranking Iranian official. "His name was General Minojahar Frouzanda, the head of intelligence of the Pasdaran [Iranian Revolutionary Guard]," said Sadi Ahmed Pire, now head of the Diwan (office) of President Talabani in Baghdad. Mr Pire previously lived in Arbil, where he headed the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), Mr Talabani's political party.

The attempt by the US to seize the two high-ranking Iranian security officers openly meeting with Iraqi leaders is somewhat as if Iran had tried to kidnap the heads of the CIA and MI6 while they were on an official visit to a country neighbouring Iran, such as Pakistan or Afghanistan. There is no doubt that Iran believes that Mr Jafari and Mr Frouzanda were targeted by the Americans. Mr Jafari confirmed to the official Iranian news agency, IRNA, that he was in Arbil at the time of the raid.

In a little-noticed remark, Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister, told IRNA: "The objective of the Americans was to arrest Iranian security officials who had gone to Iraq to develop co-operation in the area of bilateral security."

US officials in Washington subsequently claimed that the five Iranian officials they did seize, who have not been seen since, were "suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraq and coalition forces". This explanation never made much sense. No member of the US-led coalition has been killed in Arbil and there were no Sunni-Arab insurgents or Shia militiamen there.

The raid on Arbil took place within hours of President George Bush making an address to the nation on 10 January in which he claimed: "Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops." He identified Iran and Syria as America's main enemies in Iraq though the four-year-old guerrilla war against US-led forces is being conducted by the strongly anti-Iranian Sunni-Arab community. Mr Jafari himself later complained about US allegations. "So far has there been a single Iranian among suicide bombers in the war-battered country?" he asked. "Almost all who involved in the suicide attacks are from Arab countries."

It seemed strange at the time that the US would so openly flout the authority of the Iraqi President and the head of the KRG simply to raid an Iranian liaison office that was being upgraded to a consulate, though this had not yet happened on 11 January. US officials, who must have been privy to the White House's new anti-Iranian stance, may have thought that bruised Kurdish pride was a small price to pay if the US could grab such senior Iranian officials.

For more than a year the US and its allies have been trying to put pressure on Iran. Security sources in Iraqi Kurdistan have long said that the US is backing Iranian Kurdish guerrillas in Iran. The US is also reportedly backing Sunni Arab dissidents in Khuzestan in southern Iran who are opposed to the government in Tehran. On 4 February soldiers from the Iraqi army 36th Commando battalion in Baghdad, considered to be under American control, seized Jalal Sharafi, an Iranian diplomat.

The raid in Arbil was a far more serious and aggressive act. It was not carried out by proxies but by US forces directly. The abortive Arbil raid provoked a dangerous escalation in the confrontation between the US and Iran which ultimately led to the capture of the 15 British sailors and Marines - apparently considered a more vulnerable coalition target than their American comrades.
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #6 on: 05/04/2007 09:56:57 »
Quote
  The abortive Arbil raid provoked a dangerous escalation in the confrontation between the US and Iran which ultimately led to the capture of the 15 British sailors and Marines - apparently considered a more vulnerable coalition target than their American comrades.

could it also be that the Iranians knew that if they tried this with the Americans, they would have fought back?
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #7 on: 05/04/2007 17:42:08 »
could it also be that the Iranians knew that if they tried this with the Americans, they would have fought back?

I doubt that had much to do with it - I think it was just opportunism (and possibly the Iranians genuinely thought that the British boats, even if outside Iranian waters at the time of intercept, had been within Iranian waters, in support of Arab insurgents within Iran, just prior to the intercept).

The speech Tony Blair made about not wishing Iran any ill will does sound like he was distancing himself from policies the American's are assumed to be undertaking to destabilise Iran (ofcourse, how they expect an unstable Iran to be conducive to stabilising Iraq of Afghanistan is another matter - instability has a tendency to be infectious - which is why it is not in Iran's long term interest to have continued instability in Iraq, but it is also not in Iraq's long term interest for an unstable Iranian neighbour).
 

Offline Ben6789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 760
  • And then there were none.
    • View Profile
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #8 on: 10/04/2007 16:24:03 »
Why didn't we listen to the UN? Why did we go into Iraq anyway? Our original fight was in Afghanistan, now no news coverage at all is in Afghanistan, it's in Iraq, were we shouldn't be.
 

Offline tony6789

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1127
    • View Profile
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #9 on: 10/04/2007 16:25:57 »
No, I don't think any allied troops should be in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter.

@ tony6789 why should we be worried about N.Korea or China?

TMM



because they are getting very technology advanced and may be starting to get ahead of the U.S. i mean China is getting many people to make a big army and korea (possibly) has nuclear weapons...
 

Offline tony6789

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1127
    • View Profile
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #10 on: 10/04/2007 16:27:23 »
yes that war has been over for a while dude...we are no fighting terrorism...whcih is mostly in Iraq(no offense to any iraqies we have here)
 

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #11 on: 10/04/2007 16:40:56 »
Thanks tony6789 for the explanation.

I like the way you say korea (possibly) has nuclear weapons, spot on I think!
One small explosion a nuclear arsenal does not make.

TMM
 

Offline Ben6789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 760
  • And then there were none.
    • View Profile
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #12 on: 10/04/2007 16:51:24 »
"because they are getting very technology advanced and may be starting to get ahead of the U.S. i mean China is getting many people to make a big army and Korea (possibly) has nuclear weapons..." --tony6789

"Look to the past, with all the empires rising and falling, and you shall see the future."

What if that's happening now? The US empire is falling and the China and Korean empires are rising?

.................Could it be the beginning of the end for America?
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #13 on: 10/04/2007 17:46:37 »
Why didn't we listen to the UN? Why did we go into Iraq anyway? Our original fight was in Afghanistan, now no news coverage at all is in Afghanistan, it's in Iraq, were we shouldn't be.

listen to the UN! are you having a laugh?

what a bunch of *********, they are all to keen to do nothing at all. but they like the yanks and brits to do their dirty work at their own expense.

what are the UN doing about genecides around the world? ethnic cleansing? etc, etc , etc. I'll tell you what...bugger all.

 

another_someone

  • Guest
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #14 on: 10/04/2007 17:48:28 »
"because they are getting very technology advanced and may be starting to get ahead of the U.S. i mean China is getting many people to make a big army and Korea (possibly) has nuclear weapons..." --tony6789

"Look to the past, with all the empires rising and falling, and you shall see the future."

What if that's happening now? The US empire is falling and the China and Korean empires are rising?

.................Could it be the beginning of the end for America?

North Korea is no more than an irritant - it lacks the economic base to be a threat.

China is a real threat, but it is playing it very clever - it allows the US to exhaust itself fighting futile wars with third parties (such as Iraq), while it sits on the sidelines making the best economic advantage it can out of it (trading with all the countries that feel threatened by US aggression, including most of Africa, and countries that are subject to US sanctions).

When the US is sufficiently exhausted, then China can make the moves it really wants to make (you will know when China is ready to move against the US when it finally takes action against Taiwan, and the US will be too week to protect Taiwan).  It has already absorbed Honk Kong and Macao, which Britain and Portugal could not prevent, so just stepped aside.

The real problem is how India will fit into all of this.  India has the capability to challenge China, but it has some problems with internal politics (so has China, but in a different way).  To what degree will India and China cooperate, and to what extent will they compete.  If they do compete, how will this effect those countries in which they do compete (particularly in the Middle and Far East).  Will China and India have proxy wars, in the way that the USA and USSR used Cuba, Angola, South Africa, Vietnam, etc. for proxy wars.

In the Middle East in particular, with the Sunni/Shia schism, one can see different parties backing the two sides (and, as is so often the case, the USA simple vacillates, first backing one side, then the other).

It is unlikely that either India or China (or any Asian country) will provide the unconditional backing for Israel that the USA has, although it is in my view more probable that India will provide some backing for Israel than China would, but it certainly wont be to the level that the USA presently does.

Then there is the question as to how the Russia and ex-soviet States will play out in this.  At present, Russia is not playing an especially clever game, making more enemies amongst its neighbours than friends, and these enemies could be used (and no doubt in many cases already are) by foreign interested parties to undermine Russia's influence.

No doubt that Iraq and Afghanistan are sapping the USA's strength, and even the recent Israeli's war in Lebanon, although not directly involving the USA, has an impact on the foreign influence and credibility that the USA has, and it has effected it negatively.

But as has been hinted at by Ben6789, the USA was a total fool to try and fight two wars at once - but the problem is that the USA totally and naively underestimated the size of either task, and thought that invading a third world country was trivial task for a superpower (invading them was trivial, holding them is another matter altogether - as if Somalia had not been enough of a lesson).
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #15 on: 10/04/2007 17:58:59 »
Why didn't we listen to the UN? Why did we go into Iraq anyway? Our original fight was in Afghanistan, now no news coverage at all is in Afghanistan, it's in Iraq, were we shouldn't be.

listen to the UN! are you having a laugh?

what a bunch of *********, they are all to keen to do nothing at all. but they like the yanks and brits to do their dirty work at their own expense.

what are the UN doing about genecides around the world? ethnic cleansing? etc, etc , etc. I'll tell you what...bugger all.

The UN was never set up to do anything - it is a talking shop, that will sanction action by others, but has no resources of its own.

How can the UN do anything - the UN does not raise taxes, it has a minuscule budget based on contributions from its members, and the lions share of those contributions are by the small number of wealthy countries, and in particular, the wealthiest of them all, the USA (and if the USA chooses not to pay for something, the UN cannot do it).

The point is that it was not only the UN as an organisation that was cautioning against the war, but most of the rest of the world (including a substantial proportion of the British population).

Whether or not you take notice of the UN, when much of the population of the world at large cautions against something, you had better have a very good plan in hand to go ahead anyway - not least of which, you know you are going to be spending a lot of credit in terms of lost international good will, so it had better be for something worth spending it on, and that you know you can get the results you need.

Much of the international community (whether rightly or wrongly) supported the US intervention in Afghanistan, so even if the US had got that wrong, all the rest of the world would be able to do is pat the US on the back, and say "bad luck, old man".  In the case of Iraq, most of the world was against the US, so when it gets that wrong, the rest of the world is just turning to the US and telling it "we told you so", and simply regards the US as a dangerous fool rather than just an unfortunate.
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #16 on: 10/04/2007 18:07:58 »
But George, what except talking do they do. It's not about what's right for everyone it's all about me. The few odd words from them now and again saying that it's bad what's happening in Zimbabwe and other place...but where is the political action.

i don't believe it's all about oil, we stand back and condem from the sidelines without actually lifting a finger. the only time in the past few years they took any notice and sat up was when the US said they may pull all their funding.
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #17 on: 10/04/2007 18:16:29 »
should we have gone to Iraq, too right. although i wish the politicians were brave enough to stand up and say we were doing it to get rid of saddam - regieme change - and not because of the non-existant WMD's.

yes we got things totally wrong, we were not prepared for the days after saddam and his government were gone, and that has turned in to a whole lot of ......mess.

but this is the way it goes, history tells us that whenever the UK or the US (world wars apart) interviene they mess it up. they leave and make matters worse for the locals. but should we just leave things as they are?

there are many places that need intervension, to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide but we ignore them...why, i wish i knew


Rwanda
Quote
Beginning on April 6, 1994, and for the next hundred days, up to 800,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutu militia using clubs and machetes, with as many as 10,000 killed each day.

Among the peacekeepers were ten soldiers from Belgium who were captured by the Hutus, tortured and murdered. As a result, the United States, France, Belgium, and Italy all began evacuating their own personnel from Rwanda.

However, no effort was made to evacuate Tutsi civilians or Hutu moderates. Instead, they were left behind entirely at the mercy of the avenging Hutu.

Back at U.N headquarters in New York, the killings were initially categorized as a breakdown in the cease-fire between the Tutsi and Hutu. Throughout the massacre, both the U.N. and the U.S. carefully refrained from labeling the killings as genocide, which would have necessitated some kind of emergency intervention.

On April 21, the Red Cross estimated that hundreds of thousands of Tutsi had already been massacred since April 6 - an extraordinary rate of killing.

The U.N. Security Council responded to the worsening crisis by voting unanimously to abandon Rwanda. The remainder of U.N. peacekeeping troops were pulled out, leaving behind a only tiny force of about 200 soldiers for the entire country.

In some local villages, militiamen forced Hutus to kill their Tutsi neighbors or face a death sentence for themselves and their entire families. They also forced Tutsis to kill members of their own families.

By mid May, an estimated 500,000 Tutsis had been slaughtered. Bodies were now commonly seen floating down the Kigara River into Lake Victoria.

Confronted with international TV news reports depicting genocide, the U.N. Security Council voted to send up to 5,000 soldiers to Rwanda. However, the Security Council failed to establish any timetable and thus never sent the troops in time to stop the massacre.

The killings only ended after armed Tutsi rebels, invading from neighboring countries, managed to defeat the Hutus and halt the genocide in July 1994. By then, over one-tenth of the population, an estimated 800,000 persons, had been killed.


Quote
Bosnia
At this point, some of the worst genocidal activities of the four-year-old conflict occurred. In Srebrenica, a Safe Haven, U.N. peacekeepers stood by helplessly as the Serbs under the command of General Ratko Mladic systematically selected and then slaughtered nearly 8,000 men and boys between the ages of twelve and sixty - the worst mass murder in Europe since World War II. In addition, the Serbs continued to engage in mass rapes of Muslim females.

On August 30, 1995, effective military intervention finally began as the U.S. led a massive NATO bombing campaign in response to the killings at Srebrenica, targeting Serbian artillery positions throughout Bosnia. The bombardment continued into October. Serb forces also lost ground to Bosnian Muslims who had received arms shipments from the Islamic world. As a result, half of Bosnia was eventually retaken by Muslim-Croat troops.

Faced with the heavy NATO bombardment and a string of ground losses to the Muslim-Croat alliance, Serb leader Milosevic was now ready to talk peace. On November 1, 1995, leaders of the warring factions including Milosevic and Tudjman traveled to the U.S. for peace talks at Wright-Patterson Air Force base in Ohio.

After three weeks of negotiations, a peace accord was declared. Terms of the agreement included partitioning Bosnia into two main portions known as the Bosnian Serb Republic and the Muslim-Croat Federation. The agreement also called for democratic elections and stipulated that war criminals would be handed over for prosecution. 60,000 NATO soldiers were deployed to preserve the cease-fire.

By now, over 200,000 Muslim civilians had been systematically murdered. More than 20,000 were missing and feared dead, while 2,000,000 had become refugees. It was, according to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, "the greatest failure of the West since the 1930s."


Darfur, 400,000 dead, thousands raped and tortured. 4million refugees. where are the UN?
« Last Edit: 10/04/2007 18:40:04 by paul.fr »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #18 on: 10/04/2007 19:39:17 »
But George, what except talking do they do. It's not about what's right for everyone it's all about me. The few odd words from them now and again saying that it's bad what's happening in Zimbabwe and other place...but where is the political action.

i don't believe it's all about oil, we stand back and condem from the sidelines without actually lifting a finger. the only time in the past few years they took any notice and sat up was when the US said they may pull all their funding.

There are a number of problems.

The biggest single problem is that whether or not we should have undertaken the Iraq project, we certainly should never have done it until Afghanistan was settled.  The reality is we risk losing two wars because we were too impatient with the second before the first was finished.

There are arguments that one should act against tyrants, but the timing has to be right, and you cannot be seen to act arbitrarily - there must be some rule of law, and not some image of vigilantism.

It is rather like every citizen in this country making up his own mind about who was innocent and who was guilty, and taking the task of punishing the guilty upon himself.  It simply creates arbitrary violence.

The reality is that it is this image of arbitrary violence that has made the world a more dangerous place since the US invaded Iraq.

Had the US and UK decided to enter Baghdad in 1991, when they already had an ongoing conflict with Iraq, and could try and stretch the legitimacy of that conflict to invading the forcing regime change, it might well have been more acceptable.  Time has moved on since then.

What was particularly irksome was the proclamation by Bush and Blair that all that Saddam Hussein had to do to avoid military action was to hand over his WMD's.  This might have been true, insofar as if he had some WMD's to hand over, it is very likely we would never have risked invading the country.  It was his physical inability to hand over that which he did not have which made the country susceptible to invasion - but the message it sends out is that not having nuclear weapons makes you vulnerable to US aggression.

The problem is that, as you say, there are lots of dictators every bit as bad as Saddam Hussein who are not being touched, and the decision as to which dictators should be removed and which supported (and some are being actively supported by the USA, as for a long time Saddam Hussein was) is somewhat arbitrary.

It is the arbitrariness of the action, and that nobody can make any sense as to why act in one case and act conversely in another, combined with the total failure even to achieve the desired goals, is what makes the action dangerous.

If there was a clear and unambiguous body of international law that the USA signed up to, and was acting to consistently uphold, then its actions might be acceptable.  The reality is, just as the USA is invading Iraq, it is at the same time refusing to place itself under the jurisdiction of the international criminal courts; and just as it demands that Iran and Iraq submit themselves to weapons inspectors, its close ally is allowed to ignore the nuclear proliferation treaty altogether.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #19 on: 11/04/2007 12:17:59 »
Paul, Re the UN and "But George, what except talking do they do."
They were the organisation that gave credibility to gulf war 1 which achieved the objective of freeing Kuwait.
They were not involved in gulf war 2 which has, according to recent reports, worsened the problem of international terrorism.
Also, re "Darfur, 400,000 dead, thousands raped and tortured. 4 million refugees. where are the UN?".
Good point, but tell me, where are the US? As has already been pointed out, the US has a budget and the UN doesn't.
And by the way,
re.
"The problem is that, as you say, there are lots of dictators every bit as bad as Saddam Hussein who are not being touched, and the decision as to which dictators should be removed and which supported (and some are being actively supported by the USA, as for a long time Saddam Hussein was) is somewhat arbitrary."
I'm not sure its arbitrary and I think the rules are these.( somewhat tounge in cheek)
Don't attack anyone who has nukes.
Only invade countries with oil.
I'm not sure about Afghanistan, but I think it may be a hang over from US support of Israel leading to the idea that anything Arab is bad.
 

Offline Ben6789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 760
  • And then there were none.
    • View Profile
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #20 on: 11/04/2007 13:03:36 »
North Korea is no more than an irritant - it lacks the economic base to be a threat.

China is a real threat, but it is playing it very clever - it allows the US to exhaust itself fighting futile wars with third parties (such as Iraq), while it sits on the sidelines making the best economic advantage it can out of it (trading with all the countries that feel threatened by US aggression, including most of Africa, and countries that are subject to US sanctions).

When the US is sufficiently exhausted, then China can make the moves it really wants to make (you will know when China is ready to move against the US when it finally takes action against Taiwan, and the US will be too week to protect Taiwan).  It has already absorbed Honk Kong and Macao, which Britain and Portugal could not prevent, so just stepped aside.

The real problem is how India will fit into all of this.  India has the capability to challenge China, but it has some problems with internal politics (so has China, but in a different way).  To what degree will India and China cooperate, and to what extent will they compete.  If they do compete, how will this effect those countries in which they do compete (particularly in the Middle and Far East).  Will China and India have proxy wars, in the way that the USA and USSR used Cuba, Angola, South Africa, Vietnam, etc. for proxy wars.

In the Middle East in particular, with the Sunni/Shia schism, one can see different parties backing the two sides (and, as is so often the case, the USA simple vacillates, first backing one side, then the other).

It is unlikely that either India or China (or any Asian country) will provide the unconditional backing for Israel that the USA has, although it is in my view more probable that India will provide some backing for Israel than China would, but it certainly wont be to the level that the USA presently does.

Then there is the question as to how the Russia and ex-soviet States will play out in this.  At present, Russia is not playing an especially clever game, making more enemies amongst its neighbours than friends, and these enemies could be used (and no doubt in many cases already are) by foreign interested parties to undermine Russia's influence.

No doubt that Iraq and Afghanistan are sapping the USA's strength, and even the recent Israeli's war in Lebanon, although not directly involving the USA, has an impact on the foreign influence and credibility that the USA has, and it has effected it negatively.

But as has been hinted at by Ben6789, the USA was a total fool to try and fight two wars at once - but the problem is that the USA totally and naively underestimated the size of either task, and thought that invading a third world country was trivial task for a superpower (invading them was trivial, holding them is another matter altogether - as if Somalia had not been enough of a lesson).
----another_someone

I read this and see a lot of truth in it. China could very well be the "next US." But if we help Iraq and somehow manage to clean up the mess, will Iraq try to help us in our war on China?

Just a thought....
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #21 on: 11/04/2007 13:20:57 »
Paul, Re the UN and "But George, what except talking do they do."
They were the organisation that gave credibility to gulf war 1 which achieved the objective of freeing Kuwait.
They were not involved in gulf war 2 which has, according to recent reports, worsened the problem of international terrorism.

i would suggest that arab troops gave credibility to gulf war 1



Also, re "Darfur, 400,000 dead, thousands raped and tortured. 4 million refugees. where are the UN?".
Good point, but tell me, where are the US? As has already been pointed out, the US has a budget and the UN doesn't.

where are the US! this is a problem, people have this big hang up about the US interviening in other countries. yet they want them to take the initiative in situations where it's "tricky". Darfur needs a massive injection of UN peecekeepers or NATO troops but there will be one hell of a bloody mess, so we wait for the US to recognise the situation as genocide and act.

it can not be down to oil and resources...can it. but still we sit, watch and do bugger all. when did you last see a news report from there? even us tv shows are trying to highlight the problem.

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #22 on: 11/04/2007 19:59:05 »
"i would suggest that arab troops gave credibility to gulf war 1"!
A very good point; just the sort of thing that an international organisation like the UN can arrange.

Presumably, like the UK, the US are providing some humanitarian aid. I'm not sure they need NATO troops because I think that would be seen as too "Western". I'm also not sure that taking the initiative is what's needed. The whole of the UN needs to agree to act and that will always be a slow process.
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #23 on: 11/04/2007 20:11:43 »
"i would suggest that arab troops gave credibility to gulf war 1"!
A very good point; just the sort of thing that an international organisation like the UN can arrange.

gives with one hand, takes with the other  ;) evening, BC


Presumably, like the UK, the US are providing some humanitarian aid. I'm not sure they need NATO troops because I think that would be seen as too "Western". I'm also not sure that taking the initiative is what's needed. The whole of the UN needs to agree to act and that will always be a slow process.

doctors without borders, and others are all doing an excellent job over there and deserve some major credit for what they do.

slow process! it is another of those forgotten conflicts and in our newly revamped puppy friendly media not news worthy, we dont want to put people off their dinner, lets show some lovely puppy story. meanwhile women are systematically raped, then shunned by their men for being unclean......and hundreds of thousands of people die as we sit on our hands.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #24 on: 11/04/2007 20:24:20 »
There are two problems in Darfur, the political and the humanitarian.

The humanitarian issue needs not so much military force as to airlift the refugees well outside of the region, and well away from harms way.  At present, they are in neighbouring Chad - the Chad government can neither afford to feed them, or to protect them, and the war is beginning to spill over into Chad.  If we had the guts to airlift them to Europe of America, it would protect them, and would also denude the area of a civilian population that the military parties can utilise to further their aims.

Then we can apply economic sanctions against those who remain in the region until they clean up their act (knowing full well that we will give sanctuary to those who wish to leave the zone, so that they can avoid the sanctions by just getting out). We also offer to help with reconstruction once people decide to stop killing each other.

Lots of money involved, but the minimum of bullets.

The logistics of sending foreign troops in is just impractical.  There is some attempt at present to send African troops into the region, but even that is fraught with difficulty.

The trouble is that in practice there is no point in peace keepers until the combatants have decided for themselves that there is nothing more they can gain by war.  In order to keep the peace, you first need a peace to keep.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Should our troops be in Iraq?
« Reply #24 on: 11/04/2007 20:24:20 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length