Thread: Incentive of sending troops to other country?

Hi All,

I have a shallow question.

I don't understand why do US and NATO have to send troops to Conflict Zone, like Iraq, Afghanistan?

What are the incentives? Simply, maintain the peace?

Why foreign countries can interference other countries politics, and even US had made Saddam Hussein executed ?

I have a shallow question.

ArezList; There is nothing swallow about your question, probably very deep and important to understanding the complexity of your world today and into the future.

I don't understand why do US and NATO have to send troops to Conflict Zone, like Iraq, Afghanistan?

Understanding NATO; It formed in 1948, today has 28 Member States, which to shorten the explanation are under agreement to treat any attack on one of them, as an attack on ALL. The United Nations, also works through NATO on various issues, and both the UN and NATO, are frequently involved in 'Peace Keeping' enforcement. Member States;

NATO has added new members seven times since first forming in 1949 (the last 2 in 2009). NATO comprises twenty-eight members: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

On Afghanistan, after the 9/11 attack on the US, and the assumption the Taliban, under Bin Laden who were in Afghanistan, was responsible, the US asked that Government to apprehend and turn over a few leaders of that organization for trial, with a time line. This was not done and the US and many NATO members, began the war. Today, most NATO troops are not involved in combat, but are either acting as a humanitarian or peace keeping entity in Afghanistan. Since the Taliban, basically moved into Pakistan, the US has been working with them, has they have been with the new Afghanistan Government, to bring down the remaining Taliban Organization.

On Iraq, it's an entirely different story. Iraq had not attacked any member State, outside Iraq. NATO was under no obligation, although many have assisted over the years, having interest in the outcome, including many non-member States in the area. (Assistance, can be financially as well).

What are the incentives? Simply, maintain the peace?

In may cases, yes it's just that simple. In Africa, the Middle East or after small conflicts around the World, NATO or the UN, will act as mediators or as an enforcement of local agreements.

Why foreign countries can interference other countries politics, and even US had made Saddam Hussein executed ?

I understand Media, has claimed the US or allies were instrumental in the Iraq Legal System, but it was their system, under there new Government that have tried many of the Hussein Government, including Saddam. Sometimes interference and influencing can mean the same thing, but I'll suggest every Government has interest in many other places and tries to influence other National Policy, US policy included.

Thank you so much..It's very helpful.

I'll keep working on this more.

Originally Posted by jackson33

I have a shallow question.

ArezList; There is nothing swallow about your question, probably very deep and important to understanding the complexity of your world today and into the future.

There's a difference between something being complex all on its own, and conservative pundits trying to make it more complex.

Originally Posted by ArezList

Thank you so much..It's very helpful.

I'll keep working on this more.

The simple answer?

Millions and millions of desperate people are all clamoring to be allowed into our borders as immigrants, or demanding that we fix the economic problems in their home countries for them.

You can't force someone to have responsibility without power. (Or power without responsibility.)

Basically: if you say we're responsible to fix your economy, then we also have the right to rule you. Whoever is responsible, that person always has the right to rule.

The simple answer?

Yeah..it's just that simple, cuz' I'm not a professional on this, and "jackson33" gimme some information I didn't know before..But I'm not making any judgment on his opinion.

Millions and millions of desperate people are all clamoring to be allowed into our borders as immigrants, or demanding that we fix the economic problems in their home countries for them.

You can't force someone to have responsibility without power. (Or power without responsibility.)

Basically: if you say we're responsible to fix your economy, then we also have the right to rule you. Whoever is responsible, that person always has the right to rule.

You, too give me some novel point, and thank you, too...

Basically: if you say we're responsible to fix your economy, then we also have the right to rule you. Whoever is responsible, that person always has the right to rule

I'm thinking is there any countries have ever refused the help from other country because they don't to be ruled...?

There's a difference between something being complex all on its own, and conservative pundits trying to make it more complex.

kojax; Frankly, I can't think of a more complex question, than one dealing with the Worlds major organizations and it's current major leading economic power, whether being discussed by liberal or conservative pundit. However, anytime a person actually ask a question with the caveat of unimportant or trivial, I assume to the poster or person asking, it is of importance.

Basically: if you say we're responsible to fix your economy, then we also have the right to rule you. Whoever is responsible, that person always has the right to rule.

Oh my! I truly hope I'm misunderstanding this comment. It's unAmerican and frankly, not something I'd expect to read from you.

The US, arguably made A difference (if not THE difference) in the outcomes of WWI and II, in addition to hundreds of other outcomes in both economic and security affairs around the world. I don't think, ever has this Country, demanded the right to rule after any outcome, general quite the opposite, we're asked to stay around. In fact, one reason those millions do wish entry into this Country, is the lack of rule over individuals, at least compared to their own government.

I'm thinking is there any countries have ever refused the help from other country because they don't to be ruled...?

ArezList; Not really today, years ago some refused assistance for fear of future influence. China, during a recent major earth quake and Iran, accepted American assistance, not in the least bit worried about losing control of their ruling authority. We have four military floating Hospitals and hundreds of private charitable organization in all part of the world, in all cases with there approval and none expect even payment, much less some kind of authority in their affairs.

Originally Posted by jackson33

Basically: if you say we're responsible to fix your economy, then we also have the right to rule you. Whoever is responsible, that person always has the right to rule.

Oh my! I truly hope I'm misunderstanding this comment. It's unAmerican and frankly, not something I'd expect to read from you.

The US, arguably made A difference (if not THE difference) in the outcomes of WWI and II, in addition to hundreds of other outcomes in both economic and security affairs around the world. I don't think, ever has this Country, demanded the right to rule after any outcome, general quite the opposite, we're asked to stay around. In fact, one reason those millions do wish entry into this Country, is the lack of rule over individuals, at least compared to their own government.

We have to right to rule for however long their dependency on us lasts. During WW2 in Europe, when the USA was basically providing the bulk of the soldiers on the Western Front, our generals had the right make the key decisions, and ignore the British generals if we wanted to. On the Eastern front, I'd say the Russians were still pulling enough of their own weight to be in charge of their own tactics. After the war, Britain's dependency was over, and it was proper for us to concede control back to them.

Our right to rule lasts for the duration of another nation's economic dependency on us, and not a day longer. Once they become self sufficient, they gain the right to rule themselves. And, our goal in dominating their country should always be directed toward setting up self sufficiency.

I'm thinking is there any countries have ever refused the help from other country because they don't to be ruled...?

ArezList; Not really today, years ago some refused assistance for fear of future influence. China, during a recent major earth quake and Iran, accepted American assistance, not in the least bit worried about losing control of their ruling authority. We have four military floating Hospitals and hundreds of private charitable organization in all part of the world, in all cases with there approval and none expect even payment, much less some kind of authority in their affairs.

Yeah. Temporary or one-time assistance doesn't usually impart the right to rule either. But, if a country develops a chronic dependency, then we might expect to be granted some sovereignty.

We shouldn't have to pay forever for someone else's continuous mistakes. Most economic problems world wide are the result of internal strife or corrupt government, so if we are expected to continually fix them by making up their economic shortfalls, then we should have the right to forcibly impose a more permanent solution for the problems. Either that, or we shouldn't be expected to help. It's an "either" "or".

"I'm thinking is there any countries have ever refused the help from other country because they don't to be ruled...?"

Concider it, not in terms of financial aid=legislative authority, but in terms of tolerance of aid=acceptance that one has a problem and acceptance that a donor can help them

Would the US accept aid from nazi germany that says eliminating our jewish population would increase economic stability, so spend it on their exicutions? Of course not, why?because we don't think that is a problem, and if it was, we wouldn't necissarily think that was a solution

plus we hate them, soooooooo we would refuse their help in other areas as well... that is until we whip them and capture their military scientists, then they can give us all the technological aid they want.

Originally Posted by kojax

Our right to rule lasts for the duration of another nation's economic dependency on us, and not a day longer. Once they become self sufficient, they gain the right to rule themselves. And, our goal in dominating their country should always be directed toward setting up self sufficiency.

Everything you have said here goes against the basic principles of American foreign policy. Words like "dominance" and "rule" aren't even used for internal matters. The United States is probably history's most charitable nation by choice, not by obligation. The US donates money and it's soldier's lives to preserve the freedom and sovereignty of oppressed nations because it's the right thing to do. It's a shame to hear one of it's citizens speak the way you do.

depending on how you look at it, we donate the least of our GNP as compared to all other developed nations, but this comes out to be more total dollars when compared to all other developed nations, since the beginning of this century.

also, saying it is by choice and not obligation is a bit peculiar, since we have an obligation to the UN, along with many other participating nations that says we will spend .7% of our GNP on foreign aid, yet we spend a mear .14%~... again it adds up to the most actuall dollars, so it is arguable whether we are as cheritable or selfish as people make us out to be. To settle it, one would need to prove that charity is a measure of what one gives, or a measure of what one gives as compared to what one is capable of giving.

100% of nothing = nothing..

1% of 15T$ = 150M$, not including military/financial/medical/catastrophe or charitable aid.

All the countries in the EU (27) have just about the same GDP as the US in total.




kojax; If the US Federal Government decides to assist and the Country accepting the help, whether for financial or military help, it must be with out certain conditions. We entered the Korean Conflict, as a member of the UN, accomplished the intended goal and are there today to protect that achievement. We do not or have ever run the South Korean Government, dictated policy or frankly been paid for our original or continuing cost. Original cost 30B$ (320B$ todays $) and have been there 56 additional years with an untold cost. As for those running operations, yes it's negotiable and the US will always insist their leaders are in charge. WWII, which was extremely costly, dollars and lives, was not on the precondition of any of the involved allies, then current government, whether we liked them or not. 'Spoils of War' or to the losers, of course consideration of stability is essential and the loser, must comply to specific demands. Germany and Japan, both were compelled to form governments, with limitations for further aggression (learned WWI) but not to the type of government...

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/...or_us_wars.htm

The reverse; As previously mentioned the US, under Treaty with the members of NATO, invoked that treaty, after OBL attacked the US Homeland, while living in Afghanistan. Those Nations, supplied troops, paid their own expenses and furnished war materials. In no way did they either dictate the operation of the war or demand we change anything, disliked about the US or her policy...

Originally Posted by Kukhri

Originally Posted by kojax

Our right to rule lasts for the duration of another nation's economic dependency on us, and not a day longer. Once they become self sufficient, they gain the right to rule themselves. And, our goal in dominating their country should always be directed toward setting up self sufficiency.

Everything you have said here goes against the basic principles of American foreign policy. Words like "dominance" and "rule" aren't even used for internal matters. The United States is probably history's most charitable nation by choice, not by obligation. The US donates money and it's soldier's lives to preserve the freedom and sovereignty of oppressed nations because it's the right thing to do. It's a shame to hear one of it's citizens speak the way you do.

You mean like when we overthrew Allende in Chile, and installed Pinoche as his replacement? I suppose we might have used different words, instead "dominance" and "rule", but those words are what we did. He was democratically elected, and way more popular than Pinoche.

But, I don't object, because I don't think Allende's economic policies were going to work out. Unless a foreign country can guarantee that none of their people are going to try and illegally enter the USA, I don't think they have the right to do anything that would result in creating economic refugees. Invariably, the problems they create become our problems.

Originally Posted by jackson33

We do not or have ever run the South Korean Government, dictated policy or frankly been paid for our original or continuing cost. Original cost 30B$ (320B$ todays $) and have been there 56 additional years with an untold cost. As for those running operations, yes it's negotiable and the US will always insist their leaders are in charge. WWII, which was extremely costly, dollars and lives, was not on the precondition of any of the involved allies, then current government, whether we liked them or not. 'Spoils of War' or to the losers, of course consideration of stability is essential and the loser, must comply to specific demands. Germany and Japan, both were compelled to form governments, with limitations for further aggression (learned WWI) but not to the type of government...

If you think I'm suggesting that the USA's right of dominance is based on the right to recouperate our costs, then you've greatly misunderstood me. We have the right to end others' dependence on us, whether by persuasion or by force, it doesn't matter. That doesn't involve being repaid for anything we've already done. It's just the elimination of a parasite.

Suppose you had a relative with a gambling addiction. They're constantly hitting you up for cash, because they think, they're just going through a streak of "bad luck", at some point you might want to show them some "tough love". Sometimes a foreign country makes economic decisions that are no less stupid. To me, overthrowing Allende was "tough love".

Also, there's no reason to demand a surrender of autonomy if you think their leaders are already being smart. Because sometimes they really are just going through a streak of "bad luck".

Originally Posted by ArezList

Hi All,

I have a shallow question.

I don't understand why do US and NATO have to send troops to Conflict Zone, like Iraq, Afghanistan?

What are the incentives? Simply, maintain the peace?

Why foreign countries can interference other countries politics, and even US had made Saddam Hussein executed ?

Every country has internal inertia that will tend to maintain military spending. You can call it business or bureaucracy or infrastructure maintenance, whatever, it takes on a kind of will of its own. So you might objectively say that's a waste of money - but it's money well spent to those whose careers depend on it. A nasty little paradox enters when the taxpayer complains armed forces aren't proving worthwhile. How shall the forces prove their value? Most convincingly through combat! So we keep the ball rolling.

Defensenews.com: Afghanistan Combat To Help Shape Canadian Budget


Politically, or ethically, a significant new framework "the international community" has embraced is The Responsibility to Protect. This doctrine spells out why and when intervention may take precedence over state sovereignty, in universal terms most sovereigns can agree with. There are some flaws in it. Notably it favours the liberation of people from oppressive ignorance e.g. patriotic North Koreans should be liberated, precisely because they don't believe they should be liberated.

What???

So it becomes healthy for a country to put their solider's life on risk for financial reasons ??

Yeah, that, plus real combat experience is more valuable than any exercises or war-games. Afghanistan's been good that way. Everybody gets a whack at it.

Originally Posted by Pong

There are some flaws in it. Notably it favours the liberation of people from oppressive ignorance e.g. patriotic North Koreans should be liberated, precisely because they don't believe they should be liberated.

This creates an interesting question, though. How do you tell the difference between an unpopular government, and one that is popular, but not democratic? If it is the democratic will of the people to have a dictator, then you're certainly right that we would have no cause to interfere.

Also, there's a frustrating duality. In diplomatic matters, the government speaks on the peoples' behalf, but if it's unpopular then what it says on their behalf is not what they mean for it to say. How do we decide the value of a nation's sovereignty if we can't even know stuff like that?

You see the flaw.

Our traditional concept of sovereignty (applied internationally, i.e. UN) derives authority from "the will of the people." That's not necessarily through "free and fair elections" approved by Western news networks!

If we go by Responsibility to Protect then we're second-guessing: Is their expressed will a genuinely free will? I think it's pretty easy to say No, because they're victims of propaganda. Anyone could say that of any country couldn't they? So then it's just a question of who has power to act on the belief.

Truthfully, I think the only universal code of conduct in warfare is the will of the victor/stronger guy over the loser/weaker guy.

But since there are other guys watching, waiting for an excuse to pick sides, or already have sides picked but are waiting for an excuse to jump in, it is more political than physical.

and since citizens tend ti distrust their governments these days, you will loose support if you fight a war simply because you are the strongest and they are the weakest

also, depending on what you mean by "strong" and "weak" you are completely wrong. Wars have been won with smaller, less skilled armies, such as many revolutions. Since revolutions happen from within, usually centered on government sectors and capitol buildings, while armies are scattered everywhere, and in other lands; this shows that strategy is more important than force, but I guess you can be silly with your adjectives and say "strength in war" includes "strong strategies,"

Depends on the weak country. Did anybody bat an eye when US marines took the democratically elected president of Haiti for a little plane ride few years ago?

Originally Posted by Pong

You see the flaw.

Our traditional concept of sovereignty (applied internationally, i.e. UN) derives authority from "the will of the people." That's not necessarily through "free and fair elections" approved by Western news networks!

If we go by Responsibility to Protect then we're second-guessing: Is their expressed will a genuinely free will? I think it's pretty easy to say No, because they're victims of propaganda. Anyone could say that of any country couldn't they? So then it's just a question of who has power to act on the belief.

We could argue that fraud is a subversion of free will. When some old person gets tricked out of 2 or 3 thousand dollars because they got an e-mail informing them that they had won the lottery, but they'd need to pay a "processing fee" in order to actually collect their reward, we generally consider it an act of theft on the part of the person who sent the e-mail, rather than a free and charitable contribution on the part of the old person.

Maybe we should measure freedom by the degree to which press is free? In the USA, we might actually lose our status as a "free society" if we did that.

I don't understand why do US and NATO have to send troops to Conflict Zone, like Iraq, Afghanistan?

Its normal not to understand, the first casualty of war is the truth and we are being fed steaming BS, hypocrisy and misleading information by both government and media to justify the wars.

War is a Racket, and that racket aint new

Why ?

Well the Pentagon (et al) wants to grow and grow, they can't grow without a war.

And in America if you are politician and you wave a gun and talk about 'freedom' the public votes for you : even when they are being royaly screwed up the ass.

In America people fight with a desperation NOT to have public health care !

Wow ! That's amazing. What a f*ckup.

Next Americans will be lining up to shoot themselves in the head.

"Me next",
"no assh*le I am dying next",
"No you mother, I have the freedom to shoot myself next",
"out of my way I am next !!!"

(yes yes, I know you are ALL FREE, free like a bird in the clouds of your head)

rideforever, based on statistics(not really), I'd say American's would sooner line up to rob, rape and kill you(all three, not necessarily in that order) then kill themselves.

i have the feeling that your passions are misguided, and based on flawed information

What, all of it ?!

Originally Posted by rideforever

Why ?

Well the Pentagon (et al) wants to grow and grow, they can't grow without a war.

And in America if you are politician and you wave a gun and talk about 'freedom' the public votes for you : even when they are being royaly screwed up the ass.

In America people fight with a desperation NOT to have public health care !

Wow ! That's amazing. What a f*ckup.

They're getting too stupid/uneducated to know the difference. Dumb is the new smart in the USA right now. If your kid is doing poor in school, that means your kid needs to be told how smart they are, and congratulated on it. If your kid is smart, then they're not working hard enough for their grades, and they need to be criticized so the other kids will feel better about themselves.

I've started to notice more fat models in the clothing ads. College students are passing over the difficult major programs so they can study to be welfare case workers, or psychologists, and find more creative ways to build a person's self esteem without requiring them to actually accomplish anything.

Can you guys please define your value terms and be clearer about the differences between your opinions and facts by providing evidence?

I am an American, and I don't doubt what you say, for I have seen no evidence to the contrary, but I also do not know what you say to be true, for you have not provided any evidence to support it.

Also, there is great diversity here, as in much of the western world, please keep that in mind when you judge all of Americans based on what little you see or hear. If you do, at least provide some reasons, so that those who are interested can determine whether your opinions are valid, and facts are accurate.

Come on dude, this isn't a peer review. What's your opinion on the subject ?

I think Americans are great (like all people) but they seem to be so at the mercy of a very distorted media.

Freedom. Americans always go on about wanting to be free, but then they line up like are army of fanatics to raise the Stars and Stripes and hail to the chief. And they don't see the irony.

And there does not seem to be an intellectual tradition. Everyone wants to be dumb, it's like a badge of pride. This could be a good thing, you know, if it led to Americans distrusting everyone ... but no, they still trust their country - still hanging on.

I think recently the rest of the world has gone from despising America to just feeling really sorry for the people there; there are a lot of people being really screwed over there.

Anyway ... what do I know, my source is just the internet.

"they still trust their country"

OK, you all but confirm my suspicions. You don't know what your talking about, but that's ok, neither do I. The difference is that I don't go on and on about something when it is more than clear I do not grasp the subject in it's entirety to be able to generalize about it's many parts.

If you feel it a valid claim, then you should have no problem leading me to your reasoning so that I may, if convinced, be closer to the truth, and you may, if convinced, be lead away from it(excuse the cynicism, if you may)

The claim can be any of these, but due to the ambiguity of your statement, we will have to decide before going on, that is, if you care to go on, or if you'd rather me wave you a flag and trust what you have to say as true. :wink:

which do are you implying?

"All American's trust the entirety of American government?"
"All American's trust all other American's?"
or if you are generalizing, which I assume you are, you can feel free to replace "all" with "most" and then you can feel free to share with me what it is to trust, because I don't know it other than what it feels like when I trust someone/something.

Knowing what it feels like to trust someone/something though, is not the same as knowing that someone else trust something/someone.

We may be able to determine whether there is trust in a relationship, if there are behaviors characteristic of a trusting relationship. But if there are not, then I don't believe that you can logically imply that trust is good or bad, since it has no effect, good or bad, on behavior.

mc : can you accept my post from my perspective, no matter how limited it is ?

I don't live in America, but this is what I see. Please provide your view - are you living there ... what do you think ?

What do I think about what?