Iraq

Yeah, its a boring discussion. And weve diverted from the original topic.

 

Thanks for the stats Paragon.

Gives insight and credence to your argument as well as mine. :-D
owerup:

 

The thing that the US did to start Bin Laden's hatred was that the US stationed troops in Saudi Arabia (at the request of Saudi Arabia) and backs governments that Bin Laden claims are un-Islamic. The US didn't kill a bunch of innocent Islamic people or do anything remotely similar to what the terrorists do. US reactions went from arresting some people in connection with terrorist acts to launching cruise missiles at terrorist camps to invading the country that supported and contained the terrorists responsible.

 

Yes, I already said you were right about that. Ive been reading about it and all you said was true.

 

Oh that was just reinforcement for anyone else who still isn't sure. I know you know.

 

This topic is about the war in Iraq, so please try and stay on topic.

 

The war in Iraq is part of the war on terrorism so I figured the two were related enough to discuss both.

 

the periods in the arms equation is confusing. basically, the US spends something like a trillion dollars in weapons. let's put Al Gore into power, we'll all be better off. no stupid decisions about going to war with false data and facts. like 4000 us soldiers have died it was 3000 in december, so my estimate is wrong. but they aren't getting nowhere. you could argue that they have put many Al Qaeda memebrs in disarray and killed many as well, but it's nothing compared to the millions of people displaced. and civs murdered. i'm not too sure that Canada is doing too much good in Afghanistan but that's a WHOLE nother topic.
i really dispise Bush. last weekend in Montebello, near Ottowa, but still in Québec, the North American leaders came together to discuss. MANY people came to protest. tear gas was unleashed.
here is the scam: some american secret service or something put some canadian cops in masks and sent them into the crow and made them throw rocks at the police to get the police angry to charge with tear gas on the crowd.
anyway. Bush and Harper are the worst things that happened to American and Canada

 

Afghanistan was the first time since the Korean War that Canadian troops relieved US troops on the field.
The war on terrorism (even Iraq) is creating a significant increase in globalization and global cooperation. There will come a time when islamist terrorism is no longer a concern. It won't be today and it wont be tomorrow but with hard work and determination we will prevail. Quiting half way and not listening to the generals in the field (who want to sustain the troop levels in Iraq) is not the way to go. I'm sure the generals in the field know a considerable amount more of whats going on there than any politician, penny pusher, anti-war activist, etc...

 

Paragon, I hate to bud into this thread as it has precious little to do with starcraft, but I am a poli-sci major so, I do have to correct you here. Canadian troops did relieve US troops in Afghanistan as per article 5 of the Nato accord which was activated on 9/11. However, the U.S. has basically ignored article 5, deemed the "Holy Grail" of the Nato accord by many, and pursued unnecessary unilateral action even when begged not to by allies.

Also Canada is conspicuously not involved at all in Iraq. How's that for increased global co-operation? Also the international debate leading up to the Iraq debacle pitted many of the EU 10 countries (+ Britain) against most of the EU 15 countries creating serious mistrust and bad feelings between members of the EU which persists to this day and have stressed already bad relations between countries such as Poland and Germany.

Unilateral action on the part of the U.S., while it may be for good or ill, does not and will not create global cooperation.

And the war on terror hasn't increased globalization at all. That doesn't even makes sense. Unless you mean the global arms trade, which believe me, was thriving far before Iraq.

 

yeah that didn't sit right with me string_me_along, thanks for pointing that out

 

Yes... that's what I said:

I am well aware of this.

Did I say every single action done against global terrorism involved every country that was involved in action against global terrorism? No. I said:

There is no mention of Canada in that sentence. Canada is cooperating in Afghanistan thats part of the war on terrorism. Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and other countries in South East Asia are cooperating to one degree or another with the US in fighting terrorism. The US is aiding countries like Indonesia and Pakistan (for better or worse) that were shunned before.
The initial invasion of Iraq included the US, the UK, Poland, Australia, and Denmark. Later in the invasion many more countries contributed troops including South Korea, Romania, Georgia, El Salvador, Czech Republic, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Mongolia, Albania, Lithuania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Republic of Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, and Bulgaria. Additionally, The Netherlands, Slovenia, and Slovakia have troops there. Countries with troops that were there but have now withdrawn include Italy, Ukraine, Spain, Japan, Thailand, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Hungary, Nicaragua, Singapore, Norway, Portugal, New Zealand, Philippines, Tonga, and Iceland.

In Afghanistan, NATO states who contributed troops include:
Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and United States
Others not in NATO who have contributed troops include:
Afghanistan, Afghan Northern Alliance, Armenia, Australia, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Georgia, Honduras, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Mongolia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Pakistan, South Korea, Thailand, Tonga, and Ukraine.
Countries that provided other personnel or services other than troops include:
Algeria, Angola, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Yemen

Many of these countries have never worked together with each other on anything. If that is not an increase in global cooperation, I don't know what is.

Maybe you should study more before you think to correct someone about this stuff.

 

again, I don't know what this has to do with starcraft but since you wrongfully disagree, here we go:

I was agreeing with that point, because it was true. However it was selective in that you missed the larger point which is that Canada made a slight effort in Afganistan but didn't help at all in Iraq. You used a correct point to support an invalid argument. Just because Canada fulfilled a legal obligation doesn't mean that is doing anymore work cooperating in the war on terror than it would have anyway if there was no war on terror. It hasn't increased or deepened its cooperation. If anything, it has moved away from the U.S. politically since 9/11.

Should I give you a cookie?

You used them to support your previous argument, which was also invalid. The fact that they helped when legally obligated, but did not continue when they were not obligated supports my argument. It doesn't support your argument, it was supporting mine.

You also give a lot of names of countries and assume they are working together, without any sort of information on the depth of their relation or interaction among their soldiers. Just because certain countries have sent support (please do not think these are always front line soldiers) does not mean that they often interact with or share information with the other countries you have mentioned. You include countries like Japan who are there only in a support role. They are constitutionally forbidden to be involved in war and don't have an army as per their constitution. The effect that these troops have on the war in afganistan or on the unity of these countries is minimal. Throwing statistics like that together may look impressive, but it doesn't actually show any sort of connection being forged between these countries. It's an illusory correllation.

Further, the major damage caused by these war (particularly the Iraq Policing Action) is done is several ways, none of which you have argued against.

1. The Role of the United States. By scrapping multilateral efforts in Iraq in favor of unpopular unilateral action, the U.S. has severly harmed its soft power and has become a target of foreign ill will. This makes it harder for the U.S. to deal with other foreign countries, especially in ones with increasing anti-Americanism. In short, other countries see us as a bully and don't want to deal with us.

2. the U.N. By claiming that they had the authority to attack Iraq, even though a second resolution making force more explicit was blocked by Russia, China, and France. This is the reason that people call the Iraqi Policing Operation an "illegal war". Because this was done unilaterally by the U.S. (and the U.K.), it harms the multilateral processes of the U.N. It invalidates the years of work on negotiations, nuclear disarmament and sanctions which the U.N. had invested into Iraq. Also, the veto of further resolutions by France, Russia, and China meant that the U.N. as a body was powerless to stop the American invasion therefore limiting its stature on the world stage. In other words, we made the U.N. look like they couldn't do anything.

3. The European Union. In getting a "coalition of the willing", the U.S. harmed inter-European relations which have still not fully been mended. Despite the fact that an OVERWHELMING majority of all Europeans (except England) are against the war, many governments did support the U.S. with either money or troops, even against the wishes of their own people. This caused a major upset between the new Eastern European additions to the European Union and the old EU15 member states. In an open letter, then French President Jacques Chirac said that the Eastern Euro countries had "missed a good opportunity to keep quiet". Of course they didn't take that too well, now did they?
In other words, by not bringing old allies on board, like france and germany, the U.S. has alientated good and dependable allies and has hurt our allies by causing them diplomatic problems with their neighbors and fellow European Union members.

In short, being willful and invading Iraq against global opinion has not only hurt the U.S., but also severelly damaged institutions of global co-operation such as the U.N. and the E.U.

And please do not get personal with me:

I do know what I'm talking about.


Also globalization is an economic and cultural term (generally speaking) so you're not even using the correct terminology.

 

This is the Lounge, topics here do not have to do with StarCraft. Topics about StarCraft are in the StarCraft sections on the top of the forum.

Iraq war done unilaterally by multiple countries? I do hope you see the contradiction there. It has always been a multinational operation with the United States doing most of the planning and organization. Other nations could pull out at any time (as many have) and yet there are still nations there providing support.

And I said that some nations were only providing support roles that did not include any soldiers so your little lecture about that is completely unnecessary. As for the U.N being powerless, they've been powerless for a while. They failed to protect the Muslim civilians from being massacred by the Serbs in the so called safe towns. The UN was also unable to enforce the agreements made and NATO had to come in to do that. All the UN can do is talk and if someone doesn't want to listen (which is usually the case) then the UN can do little to force the issue. Look at the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur. The UN didn't stop those. This is not a failure or lack of global cooperation, this is a failing of the structuring of the UN.

Countries have provided more support for international causes related to the war on terrorism than ever before. THAT is an increase in global cooperation. They don't even have to see each other or work directly with each other to be cooperating. Just because they aren't shoulder to shoulder on the front lines does not mean that they are not cooperating.

As for globalization. I was referring to it as an economic and culture term. If you'll notice I gave no examples in my initial post and did not talk about globalization in my second. The first sentence of my initial post is a completely different thought and separate from the second paragraph. Also notice that I said "globalization and global cooperation." If I thought they were the same thing why would I say it twice? The US has lifted economic restrictions of countries that can help us in the War on Terrorism. Lifting these economic restrictions allows for increases in globalization. Additionally, the Kurdish controlled areas of Iraq have embraced globalization since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Their freedom is a result of the War on Terrorism.

When exactly has France been a good and dependable ally? Currently, they are giving minimal help in relatively secure areas of Afghanistan.
As for Germany, they support the War on Terrorism in Afghanistan.

Please remember that I said the war in Iraq was a mistake but given current circumstances we cannot just leave and that I said the War on Terrorism, not the War in Iraq, is causing increased global cooperation and globalization.

Canada politically supports the war on terrorism. Saying they just showed support because of a legal obligation is wrong.

And I noticed you completely bypassed the subject of South East Asia.

 

Oh well when you put it that way... still no. I know precisely what I said and that it is correct.

War on Terror increases globalization
War in Iraq example - "Kurdistan" the Kurdish controlled area of Iraq is thriving now and embracing globalization.
Other parts of the war on terror example - Pakistan (US gave them debt relief which significantly eased their economy allowing them to significantly increase foreign exports and investments which is part of globalization. This would not have happened had the War on Terror not occured because the US shunned Pakistan prior to that.

Saying that I am wrong and giving no support to back up your claim is not a good debate technique.

 

I think that the vagueness of "global cooperation" is not helping here. Sure, governments are working together. But what does that mean, really? How many governments do you think jumped on the bandwagon because they thought that they felt compelled to strike down the terrorists that committed the atrocities of September 11th? How many governments joined because they knew they would feel morally remiss if they didn't? I doubt that any government joined in without thinking about what they could gain from helping. Who's to say that the countries off of which the US raised economic restrictions didn't join in with these benefits in mind?

There is a difference between sympathy and opportunism. And not necessarily one-way. selfish opportunism; I mean the "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" sort of mentality. I don't know much, but I don't think countries like Estonia/Dominican Republic/Fiji would benefit greatly from eliminating the Islamic terrorists of the world. There is obviously something else in play here.

That being said, I don't see how saying that "global cooperation" is increasing means anything really noteworthy. It's more like international-political-opportunism. And to what does that amount? When I go to foreign countries that are "globally cooperating" with the USA or talk to my foreign classmates and get shit-on because I am American by birth and my government is Rambo-ing its way across the Middle East, the "global cooperation" between governments doesn't come into play.


Oh and Paragon - I re-read string_me_along's post, and I don't see a personal attack on you in there, it was just a correction. Nobody's infallible.

 

Cooperation is still cooperation no matter what the underlying motive is. The USSR and the other Allies cooperated during World War II to defeat the Axis. And yet before the war was over both sides knew that they would not be allies afterwards. My point is that the war on terrorism is causing global cooperation. I attempted no prediction about whether or not that trend will continue after the war on terrorism comes to a close. As long as there is a war on terrorism, countries that otherwise would not cooperate are doing so.

 

ok well maybe I will have to be blunt:
so what? governments work together in so many other instances, and for so many other reasons

Actually your talking about the USSR and the USA kinda supports what I was trying to say. The way you posted made it seem to me like it was a fond thought you had or a positive side effect about the War on Terror, that it was making governments come together and cooperate. I don't see it as much more than countries kissing the US's ass by helping them out a bit now, then citing it later when they ask for backing for a new international trading standard, or to lift some sort of restriction, etc.

I just don't see what is so great about claiming global cooperation has increased when it is only the governments working together to mooch off of each other and probably against the will of the citizens of the respective countries.

 

Well, technically its not just ass-kissing Nikzad. It is a rule of NATO, if one country is attacked, all other countries must come to the aid of the country being attacked. After 9/11, NATO voted that this was a legitimate attack against the US and that NATO would join the coalition against Al Quada. I'm not taking any sides, just putting in a tidbit of info in there.

Now back on subject....Amercan international intervention is really tricky business. If we intervene, we are eventually seen as oppressors or occupiers (Afghanistan, Mogadishu,etc), and if we do nothing, the international community accuses the US of not doing its part (Darfur, Rwanda, etc.). And some are done decent enough (Kosovo, Arab-Israeli truce). Now, again I state, Iraq wasn't justified, and it really could have been executed a lot better. It may or may not have been an opportunistic ploy of the government, more than likely it was a bit of both. The big problem we're gonna have afterward is regaining international credibility, that's gonna be tricky. As for a pullout...its a bit double-edged: You get US soldiers out, which everyone will be happy about for a while, yet when Iraq is in civil war and such, we'll be accused later on for not doing our part; either way we're gonna look bad.

Stuff like this intrigues me, which may be a reason why it would interest me to work for the UN or the EU or the government such as my career in life...I'm an odd person hehe

 

That sounds like signing up for being whipped daily.....

Interesting arguments, everyone. But I've decided to hold my tongue at the behest of futility.