War in the Middle-East

[Dryden_Warrior]

Time for Another Gool ol Fashioned Debate
OK the Topic for this debate is Western Intervention in the Middle East and before everyone starts flipping out with THOSE DARN TERRORISTS im talking about the Other Middle Eastern conflicts.
OK so theres Afghanistan, thats the one the debate is NOT about, they attacked America and brought Western Aggresion on themselves.
The things im talking about are like the Arab-Israeli wars i.e The Yom Kippur war (Spelled something like that) and more recently Syria, this debate does however include Iraq and Iran.
The reason for Iraq and Iran being included is they were invaded on grounds of having weapons. So to put it short, do we (The Western Nations) have any right to intervene in the politics and on goings of the Middle Eastern Countries, why not let them have Weapons of Mass Destruction? They pay for them and other countries are allowed them but they are invaded for it?(Iraq) Or, why intervene against a Countries leader when a rebellion broke that was condemned and put down by the majority of the nation?(Syria). Those are just examples, feel free to throw in your own conflicts and interventions.
(I needed a new debate topic, i like debating and i figured this would get people talking :P)

[sprogjcrisis]

I believe we should intervene if we want oil?

Basically, let's take the US and the UK for example, they both have baseshere and both need oil. Most Middle Eastern countries provide oil. This is whywe have to intervene because if oil control ends up in the wrong hands than wewon't get any. Plus, if we want to keep bases in these countries we need toprotect them.

I think the whole terrorism thing has passed and it's becoming more thanjust that. The reality is, at this time we need the Middle East on our side asour allies, which is why we should help them. Another thing is, to have somesort of control over countries such as Iran which holds Nuclear Weapons(although I don't think that is going too well) because I think the last thinganyone needs or wants is a Nuclear War. But there's a point in which you couldargue that if we intervene then they have a reason to use the weapons.

In conclusion, I think it's a good thing to intervene. One, because I'm allfor civil rights and at the moment, the people of the Middle East aren't gettingany (although right now it's kind of becoming fashionable to start a protestfor no real reason). Two, because the rest of the world needs oil, which is whywe have to be nice and help them. Three, we need land and spots for our militarybases. That’s basically it. But I think in general it would be good just tohelp the people fight back (especially in the cases of Libya and Syria andYemen)

[skullreken]

This isn't a subject that you can debate easily there is a lot of background information and history that needs to be known. Most of the problems mentioned are over 100 years in the making thanks to colonialism and outside interference. So I'd advise people to do their research before commenting. I'll point out an error thats already been posted. The Taliban didnt carry out the 9/11 attacks it was Al Qaeda who at the time were and still are hiding in the boarder mountains of pakistan and Afghanistan. The Taliban refused to let coalition forces into their boarders to to hunt down Osama so the propaganda machine said the Taliban was responsible which was used with international outcry as a stepping stone to get the go ahead for war with Afghanistan. I'm not saying that the Taliban wasn't a brutal regime, they used to hang people from goal posts in public executions at football stadiums but people tend to think that Al Qaeda and the Taliban were one in the same one is a terrorist group the other was the government of Afghanistan which is now hold up in a small region waging a war against Nato forces and extorting and terrorizing its own people

[l00dak]

Watch Zeitgeist :P

The movie has an extremely interesting idea of who is behind all of this and actually explains a lot of stuff :)

[Dryden_Warrior]

Zeitgeist is a load of crap, they just good at argueing but the evidence AGAINST their opinions is greater.
Fine then ill get the ball rolling then :)
Western governements should have no say in what happens in Middle Eastern countries unless an unbiased government ask's for assistance. If Western governemnts acted towards each other the way they do to Middle Eastern Countries we would pretty quickly have a war on our hands because of all the interfering we do to those countries. For another thing Western countries haven't wanted to relinquish their control over the Middle East as it was were the Cold War was finished (So to speak), at the end the USSR lost all control in its proxie governemnts leaving America holding power over governments in the Middle East which should have been handed back to the Countries after the Cold War but Western Countries stayed in these countries asserting their superiorty. History Lesson time- The USSR supported a puppet government in Afghanistan during the cold war, the Local people (Mujahidin *Wrong spelling sorry*) resented the interference in their country and decided to fight the USSR and its supporters, America saw an opportunity and funded the terrorists to fight the USSR, this worked and the USSR eventually got bled dry and collapsed. Cold War over, America decided's it wants to maintain a presence in Middle Eastern Countries, Welcomed at first then resented as they started doing the same as the USSR was, people get pissed, Western Countries start interfering more and more in the Middle East, Israeli conflicts, saddam hussein's invasion of whatever country it was :S, Oil conflicts. Eventually we got what everyone knows as the 9/11 incident, Middle East countries get pissed and attack America, Terrorist groups pop up in heaps of Western Countries, America and its allies go to war, 10 years later we are still at war just like the war between USSR and the terrorists which ended in the collapse of the USSR. TO wrap it up, Western Intervention in Middle Eastern has only ever brought badluck and hatred to those who are doing the interfering.Oh, and to make it clear, i support the war in Afghanistan but not the interfering in politics of the surrounding countries :)
This was of the top of my head, ive studied the conflicts in the Middle East but anything ive said thats wrong or needs corecting let me know and ill fix it up :)

[l00dak]

How can you, as a human being, support ANY kind of war ? Have you been to Afghanistan ? Have you seen how they lived ? No, you just believe what the holy box(TV - for those who didn't get it) tells you...

[Dryden_Warrior]

Holy box??? Nope, i read the Australian Army Newspaper, have talked to a bunch of guys who got back from Afghan during my recruitment process, and have studied conflict in the Middle east, Oh and have talked to a bunch of guys from America who are current and ex military personnel, and lastly on the supporting a war as a human being, go tell that to a historian, they will have a field trip on you explaining how every culture and alot of modern technology developed because of wars and conflicts.
(Here we go, argument heating up :) )

[sprogjcrisis]

I think all media is screwed up (be it T.V or Newspapers ect.). I've met soldiers and I have heard horror stories. I've met Afghanistanis and have heard horror stories. Remember they're in the middle of that war as well and I would bet they have it a LOT harder than the Americans fighting there (no saying that they don't either). I still can't support war no matter what the good outcomes are, no matter what the historians say, it's still a horrifying thing and the more who support it the more the idea is abused o.o

[Dryden_Warrior]

Im not saying war is a good thing it is just neccesary and a part of the Human Psyche. But atleast they don't have it as bad in Afghanistan as they do in Africa, You here some real bad horror stories from those who server over there. Wait, no, This is a debate about interfering with Middle Eastern Countries, not wethere war is good or not XD, focus people :P

[sprogjcrisis]

Right! *back to topic at hand*

I must say I agree with your point that interferring would only create more chaos. But I think the people in the Middle East (civilians) are due for some help? If I think about Libya or Syria, what is happenning to the people of those countries is not 'just'. More and more deaths are occurring which is why it is important to interfer because they need help, and their governments aren't helping them so why not accept help from others?

[Dryden_Warrior]

Yes, a debating topic
The thing with Lybia is that a minority group, although a large minority group rose up against the leader of the country, this was almost straight away countered not by the Military but by the Pro regime supporters, the Military didn't want to get involved and Gaddafi was considering steppind down until so many rallied against the rebellion, after this it cemented his position in power after which the military got involved and started eliminating the rest of the rebellion. Also, look at the reports and you will find that is says thousands turned up in protest in a country of over 21 million people (Classic Silent majority being out shouted by small loud group,Example- Vietnam protests in both America and Australia, earlier in the war anyways), and it evens says that one of the protests took place in a busy market so as to make it look like there were more people protesting than there actually was. Death is never just but sometimes its a risk people take, its a risk they were willing to make and they died. Whats the other bit... oh yeah :). Your'e saying its ok to interfere against the government as more and more people are dieing, but, governments can only exist with the support of the people, and this is where things get out of whack because those who oppose governments are a lot more aggresive in their actions i.e. protests while those who support governments don't feel the need to kick up a fuss because the government they support is in power anyways (reference to silent majority again.) You say you agree interfering would create more chaos then say its ok to interfere if people are dieing? Show me an example were interfering with a Middle Eastern country has done any good

[Ryoga]

Finally a debate topic that I can really think about! I don't know about answering all those questions you asked but i'll give my input. Personally the west doesn't have the right to dictate to other nations if they should have nukes or not. People learn more by example, meaning the west should be the ones to get rid of their weapons first, if they want the rest of the world to do so. Now I think the reasoning behind the west intervening in Middle-east conflicts isn't simply because the oil thing, not that that isn't on their minds.

It's just they feel like if they let the Middle-easterners fight it out, and one nation becomes supreme and especially if they have so called "weapons of mass destruction", that the balance of power would change. You see, the west has ruled for so many centuries now and we must admit western influence through language, culture, and mentality has changed the world. The idea is, what ever nation has the power makes the rules. So naturally the west can't allow another nation to make the rules, or that would upset everything they've worked for. They figure if they intervene now, then they can control which nation does what, and for how long. There by they can maintain power, but in a subtle way.

[wild-ghost69]

about Interfering , let's be honest While a country can't handle things with it self Others (that ofc want their own benefits) will Interfere ... !

USA or anywhere else that Got the Power And is Able , will Rule the world now there's no difference It's gonna be Iran , Iraq or libya !
(it's my opinion)

[l00dak]

I think all media is screwed up (be it T.V or Newspapers ect.). I've met soldiers and I have heard horror stories. I've met Afghanistanis and have heard horror stories. Remember they're in the middle of that war as well and I would bet they have it a LOT harder than the Americans fighting there (no saying that they don't either). I still can't support war no matter what the good outcomes are, no matter what the historians say, it's still a horrifying thing and the more who support it the more the idea is abused o.o

^this

And one more thing, if you really think that we, as humans, wouldn't have progressed as much as we have until now even without war, I must tell you sir, think about it again! It is because of inventors that technology advances, and it is in the inventors nature to INVENT, be there a war or not... The world probably wouldn't look exactly as it was now, and probably many of the things we are used to know wouldn't work/look the same, but we would still be as advanced, if not even more than we are now, technology-wise..

Anyway, I apologise for straying so much off topic, I've just felt like I had to reply once more :P
Enjoy your debate!

[Dryden_Warrior]

Ah, thanks for the input guys :)
You're saying interfering is the West's way to maintain power over what happens around the world. I like your'e idea of this but when i think harder it doesn't seem right, there are much smarter ways to make influence these countries and maintain the power balance, interfering being the less succesfull of them. Providing aid to a country and making alliances and friends without interfering can make a the middle Eastern Countries reliable on the west and therefore require less or no interference, Saudi Arabia for instance. Interfering generally causes hatred amongt A large group of Middle Eastern peoples as many are still living traditionally as Nomadic and tribes people, but also because these people are still living traditionally conflict also erupts between them and the more modern part of the Middle East, and then western nations interfere? It's interfering in a Civil War, it would be like other nation's jumping in to help the South in the American Civil War (using this war is it is more widely known). This case of The Traditinal clashing with the modern is not only happening in the Middle East but also in Africa and in a number of Pacific Island Nations. So while intervening helps maintain power in the Short term it works against the western nations in the Long term

[sprogjcrisis]

OK, well to look at it from a political point, interferring with a country such as Libya would be beneficial as far as resources are concerned. That is why it would be good surely? We need those resources which is why we should interfer. However, you still have to consider the fact (like you said above) that it would turn a civil war into a world war. I don't think any country really wants this, but the fact is that it is still a win-lose situation either way.

(Hmm....I need to go to school and talk to my teachers for some help with this arguement- it's slowly dying and a good debate needs to get exciting :O I will not lose!)

[wild-ghost69]

@Dryden: There are Smarter ways Ofc but the one wins that make the appearance look better ... !

[Ryoga]

@Dryden I agree and the west has used lesser more subtle tactics, but sometimes those don't work. The west also knows that in order to maintain the balance (or inbalance) sometimes you have to be willing to "flex your muscles" so to speak.
What I mean is, sometimes nations have to show other nations a display of their power, well they don't have to but they want to. That display tells weaker nations we could wipe you out at anytime.

The British did this back when they conquered Hong Kong over a hundred years ago. Now the British were afraid of the Chinese because the Chinese out numbered them and still do. So in order to avoid an all out war the British took over Hong Kong, with the threat of "we can do this to all of China if we wanted to". But in reality they knew they that there was a possibility that they would lose. This was just a bluff, so that they could control things.

Things are pretty much still the same now, sometimes nations have to threaten other nations to show them that they're in charge. So even though it would be easier to continue to be diplomatic about it. Stronger nations every once in awhile feel that they have to show just who's in charge. I don't support this tactic, but that's just the way it is. At least that's the way I see it IMHO. :)

[Dryden_Warrior]

@sprog Looking forward to iy :D
@Ryoga You're looking at it in a Western Way of Dealing with each other but when it comes to these countries it doesn't go so well, the greatest enemies of the west or potentail enemies are the Middle east and China, Americans get stabbed in China, Australians were getting stabbed in China because they thought that they were Americans. These countries love a challenge, 'Flexing their muscles' Is a challenge to these people, they are as poor as anything and have nothing so they fight having nothing to lose making them very dangerous, thats why the subtler methods work, you make the people rely on you, therefore giving them something to lose making them easier to control and manipulate for the power balance. Theres a quote about it somewhere, when i find it ill edit it in

Couldn't find the quote but this is close enough "The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose"
James Arthur Baldwin

[sprogjcrisis]

Ok, I have researched and have found out that my arguement is possibly an impossible win o.e
But here goes!
Some more arguements as to why it is a good thing to send aid (I'll explain that later o.e)


Throughout the years there has been a great influence fromWestern Countries in the Middle East causing the Middle East to progress whileholding respect for their religion. If I think about Saudi (which is fine now)only about 60 years ago they discovered oil, and now they are highlyprogressive for a country that is only 60 years old. This is due to the WesternCountries' influence. Looking at it from another perspective, this could be abad thing, but so far they have accepted help with open arms. I think to notaccept help from the Western Countries, and for them to not give help, would bean insult to both sides. I think to not accept their help would be insulting,however at the same time it could be insulting them and their religion. But thefact is thus far they have accepted help, and to not take it would be a greatinsult to the Western Countries, and as a part of their religion it is shamefulto spite others and you must remember most Middle Eastern countries use theirreligion as their main source for the laws in their countries.

Now let us look at what sort of help I’m talking about:

I'm thinking that aid should be sent, more so than entire armiesto help the protestors ect. Because that would be disastrous as they would loseties with those countries and lose a very important resource that they need,and it would only cause more distress as the protestors have already asked thatthey do not aid them in fighting but rather, they help with aid in he injured.I think this is a good reason to interfere as being in the Middle East, thegovernments have closed hospitals toprotestors which is causing more and more irrelevant deaths. I think if aidwere sent it would be a good thing so as the people can get help. So long asthey stay unbiased towards the situation as if that were the case getting inthe countries would be troublesome.

Sending entire armies would only cost more and cause moreproblems. One of those which would annoy most people in the West is cost andtaxes. I’ve always thought that taking money from your citizens to pay for morewar is not a good thing, and I’m sure they feel the same way. Another reason toonly send aid, and nothing else, is that by sending armies you’re being biasedand thus, the government will see that as a way to cut ties with the WesternCountries and thus they would have no oil. This is a situation they clearly donot want to get in after the War with Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s Rule.

So, send aid, but do not start taking sides as it will onlycause more problems for the Middle Eastern Countries and Western Countries.


I think that is enough for now lol >.>

[Dryden_Warrior]

@sprog, some nice ideas, started a bit awkward but got better as you went on. The thing with saudi Arabia is not that we influenced them so much as they were oportunistic in exploiting Western Countries needs which was a win win for both sides. After The Suez Canal incident Most middle eastern Countries placed an Oil embargo on Western Countries because they were interfering in the region. Saudi Arabia did not place an Embargo and so saudi had oil and the Western Countries needed it, In this way Saudi became extremely rich and western countries got their oil, this is why Saudi is the only true ally western countries have in thr middle East, because they make each other rich and both sides come off good. Trade has made Saudi rely on the oil market in western countries, as in my early argument we gave them something to lose and thus made them our allies to the point where Saudi can almost be seen as a Western Country> But yes i agree with the Supplying aid and what not and not interfering, now we need someone who wants to argue opposite to what we are saying to make it more interesting :D

[sprogjcrisis]

Ah, I tried xD
But although Saudi is progressed, I wouldn't say they're a Western Country as their laws prevent it. But I do see the point you're making. And I think finding someone who disagrees with not interfering will be hard as it seems to be that most people aren't for it. Any volunteers?

(hmm..maybe I should join the debate team- but I think I need more practice first o.e)

[wild-ghost69]

Damn u guys write a lot !!
i'll give up ! (don't got the strength 2 read all u write ... -.-' )

[Dryden_Warrior]

Lol, you can do it man, just wait until your'e really bored, you will be back :P

[Ryoga]

@Sprog I guess this topic was right up your alley since you are from the Middle-East.
@Dryden Yes my view is more of an western view, but it's a viewpoint that's being adopted by many countries now, even those in the Middle East. Even Iran was trying their hands at Nuclear capability, and probably still are. As we already know, North Korea was trying to make Nuclear weapons too, but they were stopped before we could see anything too significant.

I think though that was the idea. They were just proving to the rest of the world that "if they wanted to they could". It's sad that that's the kind of world we're living in now, but with 2 world wars behind us, history seems to be repeating itself. Things may not go that far, but we'll just have to see.

[sprogjcrisis]

It's good to a have a Western Viewpoint, nice to know what you guys are thinking over there, whereas I'm here hearing things from this side. :)

[Ryoga]

@Sprogjcrisis It's good to hear things from a Middle Eastern point of view too. There's a guy I know who's originally from Kuwait, and he told me something. He explain to us how the people in the Middle East viewed George Bush Jr. even before the attack on the Twin Towers. Quite frankly they hated the guy, especially when he became close friends with Saudi Royalty and some other stuff. But what he was saying is that an attack was going to happen regardless.

So I think to avoid a war in the Middle East the other world governments should try to better understand where the other is coming from and not just see things from their own perspective. Mutual understanding, and not shows of "bravado" are what will make the difference between war and peace. Because I don't think this world could survive another World War. :(

[crwallenberg]

There is so much wrong with the intervention of the middle east by the US.
(Very simplified here)
Iraq- clearly the motive to invading Iraq had to do with economics- oil and OPEC. Except the reasons given were anything from non compliance and WMD to aiding terrorism to an evil government of horrible human rights violations. Well we know there were no WMD, terrorism had nothing to do with it, and the one I find the saddest of excuses, human rights, is just a farce. We supported Saddam in the 90's despite these as well as we are currently allies with oil rich countries like saudi arabia whose hands are far from clean.
Afghanistan- again clearly economical reasons. The excuse for invasion was because of al-Qaida in response to 9/11. But again that was just a front for our profit purposes, it gave the US the opportunity to go to war for a real "cause." (as well as the opportunity for the US to intervene without soviet military, giving them the exclusive right to dictate the shape of things). We had soldiers in Afghanistan before the attacks and there are documents that reveal war was planned (with the aid of other countries) before 9/11- The US threatened Afghanistan with military action in August after the Taliban refused the US conditions in cooperation with the oil development in central Asia. It wasn't about terrorism that threatened the US but about the unrest and "terrorism" within the country that threatened the pipelines and oil control and profit. And yet even after bin laden long left the country and is now dead, we have no intent of withdrawing any time soon. We must make sure we leave the country to where government is structured to our advantage. The way we want Afghanistan to be is in contradiction to it's history of governing... We won't be out anytime soon. We have to make sure oil is secure....
Israel- I won't go too much into it, but this one really irks me because the pro israel propaganda is ridiculous in the US. The US bends over backwards for Israel, never questioning them.

Money money money

As far as governments go...
With the Arab spring, it is shown the people themselves can revolutionize and bring change about themselves. They don't need outside countries dictating them. It takes time and they have to be the ones to lead it.

[sprogjcrisis]

I'm agreement there Ryoga, if only governments would understand each other, but I think religion plays a big part here which is why we need to be careful. As for a Wolrd War I think a World War 3 would be the death of us, considering the weaponry at everyone's finger tips...

@crwallenberg
Money, money, money is the truth of it. The whole reason why the US is still in Afghanistan is because they want some control over the oil there, which they are not getting. The whole reason, why they aren't interfering with Libya, Egypt or Syria is again because of oil. As Ryoga said above, they are friends with Saudi (whose hands are defianately far from clean o.e) because of the oil. It is all money and it applies to every country. Just each country goes from it from a different viewpoint.

But you are right about the people taking everything into their own hands. It is a good thing, although you don't want other countries ruling your own, you still need them for other resources (the main one in the Middle East being food). However, if I think about what's currently happening in Syria, the people have no chance at all, from what I am hearing (and seeing), Syria's condition is close to Sadaam's Rule in Iraq years ago and the people need help or at least some form of aid.

[Ryoga]

I'm surprised that I failed to mention religions role in all this too, thanks for reminding me sprog:)! Yes, religion has played a big role in the inner workings of countries. Like with World War 2, I remember reading something from someone who I think was a historian or a reporter, he said that if the Catholic church had stepped in Hitler's way, the Holocaust may never had happened.
Same when it came to the Crusades, because of 2 opposing religious convictions people died for no reason.

That was then, but even now religion carries a huge influence through out all of this. Some Middle Eastern countries are in conflict with one another because of how they view what the Koran actually says. These differences have existed for a long time so trying to fix them isn't going to be easy. But if true peace is to be achieved this particular part of the disagreements must be resolved. Like I said though it's just one of the factors but it's one of the main ones.

[Dryden_Warrior]

@ryoga during World War 2 the Catholic Church was banned from from Germany, i don't have the time at the moment to write a debate piece though, Sorry guys

[RebbieChan]

It's dumb that religion causes wars. I mean I love my religion and all that but doesn't most religions have things against wars and fighting *sigh* though yes religion is always a factor

[Ryoga]

@Dryden I'm sure they did eventually, but from what I read Hitler actually went to the Catholics before he did anything. See back in those days the Catholic were the ones that held the real power in Europe. They have since after the fall of the Roman Empire when they took in to take it's place. In fact at that time they were known as the "Holy Roman Empire", if you can believe that. Hitler knew that he couldn't have done anything if he didn't have their backing.

They never outright said that they were behind him, but their silence was as good as a go ahead. The Catholics felt the Jewish religion was a problem for them for centuries. With Hitlers help they could get rid of them. Anyway back to topic, religion may not have the big influence it once had, but it still wields power.

[DemonGod]

@Dryden I'm sure they did eventually, but from what I read Hitler actually went to the Catholics before he did anything. See back in those days the Catholic were the ones that held the real power in Europe. They have since after the fall of the Roman Empire when they took in to take it's place. In fact at that time they were known as the "Holy Roman Empire", if you can believe that. Hitler knew that he couldn't have done anything if he didn't have their backing.

They never outright said that they were behind him, but their silence was as good as a go ahead. The Catholics felt the Jewish religion was a problem for them for centuries. With Hitlers help they could get rid of them. Anyway back to topic, religion may not have the big influence it once had, but it still wields power.

sorry but.. whaaat? O_o
the Holy Roman Empire: The empire that once united most of europe under a single flag. Supported both Catholicism and Lutheranism. Fell apart at the end of the middle ages around 1800 which is also the beginning of the modern era where the church started to lose it's grip on the people and technological advancement had a rapid influx on society.

World War II: Worldwide conflict lasting from 1939 to 1945, Hitler, inspired by Mussolini and his extremist nationalistic ideas rose to power and turned the Weimar republic into the one party dictatorship we know as the Third Reich. Had the belief that the catholic believers where weak for showing respect for the jews and therefore heavily criticized them and their faith.

[wondering]

Interesting topic. But to answer the first post, I'd say that Western countries should be allowed to intervene if they have the support of the people/ethical reasons. I know for example this wasn't in the middle east but when the protestors in Libya were/are being attacked and the UN imposed sanctions, I feel that it is even necessary for western nations to intervene to protect the "peaceful" protestors and the civilians. Of course the argument could be said that the UN is not simply the western nations but I think it is easy to see that the vast majority of the forces are coming from western nations. So as long as it is for ethical reasons, I feel that the western nations should intervene. Also, as mentioned earlier, aid and the like should be welcomed.

@crwallen- Not to be disrespectful, but I don't know where you got your facts about human rights being a farce for the US to intervene. Even if that was true in the sense that the US was not really going to intervene because of that noble reason, it is still true that human rights were being violated in that area, and still probably ongoing. I can personally say with confidence that the locals I've met over there are glad about the US troops actually coming to the country for aid, false or not. Of course, my knowledge is a little limited in the fact that I've only truly communicated with people in the remote villages and not the main cities. However, the people I've met, which I can tell you was certainly a large amount were generous in their hospitality and welcoming for the assistance that the troops brought. Then again, I'm talking about the actions of the troops more than the actions of the government, but they are still interlinked to an extent. I can't speak on behalf of all the actions of the US, but some of those actions certainly helped a large number of the population over in the middle east.

[sprogjcrisis]

This is turning into a debate on religion o.o

But moving on:

wondering has a point about the people wanting some help, at least I know my Syrian friends here want it. Basically they are saying that there is no way the civilians in Syria can defeat the Government without some help from the West. However, I have also met people that argue that they don't want any help because it's their fight and not anyone elses and that they don't want any help from the people that have been fighting a long war with them anyways (and others don't want help due to religious reasons) . I guess there is a a debate on that amongst the people here as well as all of us. However, I think some aid should be sent and not any forces as this would only result in a bigger war. But my opinion is slowly changing in the case of Syria which is becoming more and more horrific as time passes...

[Ryoga]

sorry but.. whaaat? O_o
the Holy Roman Empire: The empire that once united most of europe under a single flag. Supported both Catholicism and Lutheranism. Fell apart at the end of the middle ages around 1800 which is also the beginning of the modern era where the church started to lose it's grip on the people and technological advancement had a rapid influx on society.

World War II: Worldwide conflict lasting from 1939 to 1945, Hitler, inspired by Mussolini and his extremist nationalistic ideas rose to power and turned the Weimar republic into the one party dictatorship we know as the Third Reich. Had the belief that the catholic believers where weak for showing respect for the jews and therefore heavily criticized them and their faith.DG, it's good to see you back in the debate section!:) At first I thought you had given up on debating, since few people in the forum actually post to debates. It's also nice to see that you've been reading my post, I guess I should deem it an honor kind sir :). I don't want to argue with you about history or religion on this since obviously you know quite a bit.

First I should point out though, that I never once said that the Holy Roman Empire was still in existence, since the age of empires are over with. I was merely stating how the Christian faith gained control in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. You are correct about how they united a then divided Europe. But the topic is about war in the Middle East and all I was pointing out is religion's part in it just like religion has played apart in wars all throughout history. As for "Hitler" and "Mussolini" I'd rather not get into them right now because it would take far too long and mostly would get off topic.

Just a suggestion though when you have the time, you could do a little more research on them and their ties to the christian church. It just sounds like you're missing a few facts.

[DemonGod]

And i was merely pointing out how your argument was fundamentally wrong, which.. it still is. The second world war was not a war in which religion played a heavy factor, the power of the church in europe started to vanish around the year 1800 and was not present at all anymore during the period 1939-1945. People where religious, yes. It was common to visit a church once a week, yes. But Rome, or to be precise, the Vatican, had no political power in Europe anymore. That power was lying with the countries' respective governments that were democratically chosen by the people.
I do not know what sources you are getting your information from but i would look back into them as you have some major inconsistencies in your history of Europe.

On the topic of this debate, how did religion get in here again? the most active 'wars' in the middle east right now are no religious wars but civil wars. People rising up against the rulers (or in some cases rather.. dictators) of their respective countries.
and on this topic i have but one question..

The UN is actively fighting Gaddafi in Libia under the argument that they have to protect the people of Libia against him and his army..
How in the world are they justifying the fact that they turn a blind eye on Syria, what's happening to the people there makes what happened to the people in Libia look like nothing.
And yet Libia gets military support while Syria has only gotten some warnings, yet none of the countries of the UN are even questioning this.
Why?

[sprogjcrisis]

@DG Just the point I was trying to make! How come no help has been sent to Syria? Right now, they need more aid than Libya as the people of Libya seem to be able to hold their ground at least (even if it is a bit), whereas the Syrians have no resources to help them fight their own civil war. The only reason I can think of is because Libya has more resources than Syria...

It is such a shame to see one of the oldest cities in the world being wrecked because of a civil war. I feel for the civilians of Syria, but I really think the government is being unfair, and so is the West for not helping the civilians. Not only are civilians getting murdered, but history is getting destroyed and people are getting brutally tortured (the most shocking one being a 12 year old) and from what I know, as far as Islam is concerned, hurting innocent people is not okay (again with religion). How can people watch this and not send aid?

[crwallenberg]

@sprog I'm not saying they should be left entirely on their own... I see no problem with aid and support... But there's a difference between that and other countries taking out right control. As I pointed out earlier with the US, it's more than likely outside countries coming in have far from pure intentions. Going back to Iraq, the majority of Iraqis did not look favorably upon US occupation, despite being freed from Saddam. Though Saddam had fallen, things were not getting better for them. One big factor to this discontent was that it was becoming clear to the Iraqis that they were on the backburner for the US. The US were fierce in their defense and follow through of oil issues, but when it came to the people and their programs, it was a sad effort. Once you lose support from the people, you will not accomplish anything. It was basically replacing one dictator for another. The people themselves need to lead their way as they know what's best for them. Yes they may need help from others, but there is a balance outsiders need to maintain in their role (and with instability is something countries can come in and take advantage of with the role they play, which is something to be leary of). Advice that can be taken from the Gettysburg address "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Governments should refrain from trying to force their grubby hands in the cookie jar during these times of upheaval.

@wonder if you cared to read what I wrote, you would have seen I was not saying that human rights violations was a farce but the US using that as an excuse to invade. Even further clarified by the next sentence that pointed out the US has a history of overlooking human rights violations as long as it benefits them.

[DemonGod]

however i'm not asking the US to invade, i'm asking the UN to help.
not one country, but ALL countries.
not to take down the government, but to support the people so THEY can take down the government.
This is the least they can do.
Like with Libia, they're not actively invading the country, just evening the odds between the two parties.
Once Gadaffi deploys long range weaponry, they take that down and retreat.
If they know Gadaffi is somewhere planning an attack, aerial strike and again retreat.
However sending the army to the frontline to take over the country themselves they won't do, it's not their fight after all.
With this tactic they only need a fraction of their forces to help, so there should at least be some portion left to help the people of Syria.

[wondering]

@wonder if you cared to read what I wrote, you would have seen I was not saying that human rights violations was a farce but the US using that as an excuse to invade. Even further clarified by the next sentence that pointed out the US has a history of overlooking human rights violations as long as it benefits them.

I did care to read what you wrote, otherwise I wouldn't have even taken the time to reply about it. What I meant was "even if" as in a hypothetical situation, sorry if that wasn't clearly defined, the US was using that as an "excuse" to invade. The US certainly did help prevent a number of human rights being violated in the Middle East and even though it may have been true that the US has a history of overlooking human rights violations, the US still has a history of helping to prevent human rights violation. An effort I believe the US is undertaking right now, even if you believe their agenda has ulterior motives.

[Dryden_Warrior]

Im back :)
Ok, so to clear some shit up, we gave aid to Afghanistan during cold war that was in similar situation to Syria/ Libya is now. Looking at current events we are now at war with Afghanistan. They beg for our help then when its no longer needed they resented the interference and turned our aid against us. Terrorists in the Middle east are still using weapons against allied forces that the US gave them to fight the USSR.
I will have to research up on the UN but from what i understand at this current time the UN is dominated by US forces and has been used numerous times by the US to interfere in foreign countries under the flag of the UN and not the US. So in other words used the UN as a front for their military operations overseas. And human Rights is a terrible reason to interfere in a country, just likes Hitlers excuse that the Jews killed Jesus so they need to suffer. Alot of Western Countries have just as many or more Human Rights Violations as Countries in the Middle East and although someone is going to get angry at me im pretty sure US has one of the highest counts of Human Rights Violation. If you ask for statistics i can probably go and dig them up from somewhere.