Military

[ainsoph9]

Some book on the Mossad apparently claims so. Of course I wouldn't know how true that is.

My own nation handles itself in this region well enough. You can't deny the US has left much bloodshed and worsened plenty of situations across the globe while at the same time proving beneficial in certain cases....it's no guardian angel nor does it try to play that role so let's speak no further on this.

If anything sources show, Saddam sees Iran asa bigger threat than Israel.

I take such books with a grain of salt.

Fine. Let us speak no further on the subject.

While Saddam did see Iran as a larger threat, his actions and much of his rhetoric seemed to show otherwise. It was not Iran that he intended to fire those WMDs, assuming he had them, at in the first place.

[Cosmic Eagle]

Well his interrogations seem to show otherwise. And he did use chemical weapons on Iran. of course he would use them on Israel too, but holding Iranian WMD that could be turned on Iran itself should war break out is rather foolish on the Iranian side.

[Mystes]

Well, Iraq and Iran are kinda different nations. Iran is mot of ancient Persia; if I'm not mistaken, while Iraq is from somewhere else. And historically, they fought often against each other. At Saddam's time, Iraq was in a dangerous situation, since it had Iran in the west and Syria in the east, and we all know that they're good friends. However, I don't think Saddam thought of the USA as a imminent threat. Mind you, he has held the keys of the city of Detroit or something like that. We also got to know that GWB had no real proof to attack Iraq, and that's why Canada didn't join the war at that time, well normally it should have (however, liberals were the governing the country, unlike our PM right now who insulted Canada and wanted to make it like the US).

@ainsoph We can continue our argument on Lebanon, Syria and other countries, but just typing that much on my phone is already difficult.

[Poke2201]

Kira, I think Iran is in the East and Syria is in the west.


Also one question, did NATO attack Iraq or just Afganistan?

[Mystes]

Kira, I think Iran is in the East and Syria is in the West.

Sorry, typed too fast. Iran in the East, Syria in the west, and I think Turkey in the north.

Also one question, did NATO attack Iraq or just Afganistan?

I don't know. However, I don't think many countries participate in Iraq as much as in Afghanistan. So I guess that NATO is only in Afghanistan...and Libya.

[ben1234]

I remember NATO sending in people to help train the security forces in Iraq

[Poke2201]

That doesn't count as attacking though.

[Mystes]

Canada isn't in Iraq, ben.

[ainsoph9]

Keeping up with this discussion is work...

Spoiler! :

Well his interrogations seem to show otherwise. And he did use chemical weapons on Iran. of course he would use them on Israel too, but holding Iranian WMD that could be turned on Iran itself should war break out is rather foolish on the Iranian side.

Who said these guys were wise? They may be wise-guys, but they are certainly not the most intelligent people on the face of the planet.

Well, Iraq and Iran are kinda different nations. Iran is mot of ancient Persia; if I'm not mistaken, while Iraq is from somewhere else. And historically, they fought often against each other. At Saddam's time, Iraq was in a dangerous situation, since it had Iran in the west and Syria in the east, and we all know that they're good friends. However, I don't think Saddam thought of the USA as a imminent threat. Mind you, he has held the keys of the city of Detroit or something like that. We also got to know that GWB had no real proof to attack Iraq, and that's why Canada didn't join the war at that time, well normally it should have (however, liberals were the governing the country, unlike our PM right now who insulted Canada and wanted to make it like the US).

@ainsoph We can continue our argument on Lebanon, Syria and other countries, but just typing that much on my phone is already difficult.

Iraq is ancient Babylon. Historically, Persia took over the Babylonian empire after King Nebuchadnezzar died because he did not leave any heirs. The Bible speaks somewhat extensively on this more or less.

As for Saddam holding the keys to Detroit, the longtime mayor of Detroit was a corrupt !@$@#$, who finally got caught some years ago. Everyone knew he was as a matter of common sense, so Saddam "earning" the keys to Detroit is no surprise. Detroit proper is the butt hole of the universe anyhow, and that is the nice way of saying it.

Concerning Bush not having any evidence, I just say that he was misinformed. The CIA/FBI probably screwed up. That is nothing new.

kira, if you want to continue the debate, I would be happy to do so as well. Perhaps doing it via PM would work best?

Kira, I think Iran is in the East and Syria is in the west.


Also one question, did NATO attack Iraq or just Afganistan?

When are talking about? NATO attacked both, I do believe. NATO attacked Iraq back in the 70s when Saddam was first put into power and Afghanistan in more recent history.

Kira, I think Iran is in the East and Syria is in the West.

Sorry, typed too fast. Iran in the East, Syria in the west, and I think Turkey in the north.

Also one question, did NATO attack Iraq or just Afganistan?

I don't know. However, I don't think many countries participate in Iraq as much as in Afghanistan. So I guess that NATO is only in Afghanistan...and Libya.

Turkey is in the north, correct. Turkey is becoming increasingly more important as a force as of late and not just militarily speaking. Why? Turkey's bid to join the EU would constitute a major demographic shift in the EU. Right now, many European nations are griping, and rightfully so, about the Muslims taking over Europe by breeding like litters of dogs to make a democratic shift in their nations. In other words, Muslims are becoming the majority in Europe. This just happened to England a few months back. Islam is now the majority religion there and will soon take over Parliament. This would not be a problem, except for the fact that most of these Muslim sit on welfare, do not help the nation, whine and complain about how things were better in their old countries, do not try to adapt to their new home countries' cultures, and try to shove Sharia law do the throats of their new home countries. If Turkey joins the EU, this will happen almost overnight. Also, with Turkey's relations with Israel worsening after that ridiculous flotilla incident last year, Turkey has started to prove that it wants to be more like the rest of the Arab world. This has also improved Israel's relations with Greece, Moldova, Crete, and a few other nations though, which shows that Israel is trying to get along more with the EU and its nation-states.

NATO is much more involved on many other fronts than most people realize. In a sense, NATO has superseded its original intent and gone beyond the borders of what it was supposed to be empowered to do. Personally, I am progressively finding NATO to be more of a nuisance than a help to the world because it tends to involve itself in matters like the collapse of regimes and make them worse in the end. (Also, if you NATO as the United States, please understand that I make a big difference between the two.)

I remember NATO sending in people to help train the security forces in Iraq

Another BIG mistake. I see this as another example of the Western world not understanding the consequences of shipping their assumptions, culture, and democracy to other parts of the world where that is not normative. To me, it is irresponsible and just dumb. Democracy does not work worldwide because democracy comes from a certain worldview that is not everyone's worldview. This holds quite true in Arab nations.

Canada isn't in Iraq, ben.

If Canada is part of NATO, and it is, it has troops or aid in Iraq. Last I recall, although most of Canada's troops and aid are no longer in Iraq, there are a few small pocket groups there.

[Poke2201]

Answering the NATO and US difference a bit more, NATO is pretty much a Cold War relic. It had good intentions before, but now I think its a bit useless. The US is quite literally the only country with major military power and resources at hand, while the rest are just cronies to whatever the US probably wants.

[ainsoph9]

I agree with you for the most part. I do not think though that the United States uses the rest of NATO as pawns though, despite having the diplomatic power to do so. I see NATO as mini-UN more or less. However, I do not see NATO as being as nearly as evil or useless as the UN.

Here is an example of classic textbook UN "action:"

Assad is killing his own people right now with the death toll rising steadily daily. While this is outside of NATO's "jurisdiction," the world at large with the UN and the United States included is doing practically absolutely nothing. I would like to know when our diplomats will learn that diplomacy is not just about talking around a table and playing "nice." Somehow, the world thinks that sanctions or appeasements are the answer to everything to get people to stop killing others. Did we not learn anything from WWII?! Are we not learning anything from the case with Iran?! Sanctions do NOT work just like appeasement does not work. Only bombing these evil kinds of people back into the Stone Age works. Diplomacy includes this, despite what others may say. Making your opponent comply when they persist to do evil acts by whatever means necessary is not an option, unlike what the diplomats of today do. I know that some will think that I am a "warmonger," but people need to wake up and realize that there are times when only through war will true peace come about, that the path of destruction is really the path to rebuilding things anew, and that once someone purposefully pursues the lives of others with the intent to kill that they have lost the right to their own life. While the UN is busy debating whether to take action outside of "condemning" Assad, PEOPLE ARE DYING!!! I do not understand why they fail to understand that they are playing with people's lives when they do this, and because of their inaction, it is as if they are holding the guns and driving the tanks that are killing innocent Syrian civilians. I may not know all of the details or whatever, but I do know that whatever is causing them not to take action is a NON-ISSUE. Where are the people out in the streets protesting this?!

While NATO technically could get involved, I do not see it happening. However, I do not see any reason why they should not at least speak on the issue. I know that this example is not exactly fair between the two, but I really do not care because it does not matter who you are when it comes to the slaughter of human life.

[Poke2201]

The UN was built on keeping peace. Its hard to do that when the solution to keeping people alive is to retaliate with force at this moment in time.

[ainsoph9]

The problem there though is that the world's concept of the definition of peace is wrong. Here is a quote that I read some time back:

War and Peace coexist...People imagine...peace in the home, refers to a house where people never raise their voices, where bliss and serenity reign. This, he says, is not [peace in the home] -- this is a cemetery!

There is harmony and unity...when both partners are thinking about what is best for the home, what is best for the entire unit. There can be strong, even "violent" differences of opinion about what is best, but when everyone is working towards the same goal, then there is peace.

This is crucial, because we imagine that our neighbors have this sort of peace, and believe that we don't. Not so...This is crucial, because we may worry and nurse our wounds until we are no longer thinking about the unit, but ourselves alone -- and then peace is truly absent.

This is the kind of peace that the world is missing and fails to understand. If the UN could understand this, the world actually might experience less conflict in the sense that they desire. However, as long as they assume that peace and the sword cannot coexist, at best, the world with be full of spoiled brats who need to be spanked. (Ironically, many of these kinds of people do not spank their children either and then wonder why they are wayward.) The proverb of "Spare the rod, spoil the child" truly applies here. However, the original Hebrew for the saying does not say the proverb as it has come to be known. It says that "One who spares the rod hates his child." So, in that context, one has to question whether our failure as a global community to chastise, rebuke, and even punish our neighbors is truly an act of love or rather of hate. Do we love our neighbors as ourselves when we "spoil" them without a proper show of force to say that, in the words of Horton the Elephant, "I say what I mean, and I mean what I say?" Or, do we hate them and perhaps ourselves by not showing them a path of correction as a father or a brother would?

[Poke2201]

Well I thought peace was just a time when everyone just calmed down and cleaned up after the wars. Then the cycle begins again.

[ainsoph9]

Not always. We keep the military around during peace time not just preparing for the case of a war but also to enforce said peace. It is not Pax Romana per se, but you can see that Peace and War do coexist at the same time in the same place just by the fact that the military exists during so-called "peace time."