Nufix
Well, first, you dont understand my clear point but instead you call me a kid...ha,ha.
I dont bother what you said to me, you dont have any weight with what ever you just said. I only respect people with morale ground. I know who I am. You seem to act without any morality...I know what kind of person you are.
Okay, now, I will explain more on this
Actually, There is people in this world who is inspired by religion and morality and there is people who is not. I believe you are the second one (sorry if it is not right and please clarify it if it is not true). And I do believe that you know Republican party dont you ? The Republican is Evangelish and The Democrat is liberal and Catholic. This Country is right now running many course in Today world's politics.
You do know that saying that my POV is weightless reflects to yours too right?
Republican evangelical bases and Democrat Catholic bases do have some weights in the elections within the U.S.A as both sides emphasize the use of mormons to get votes. heck even 79 percent evangelicals voted for GOP. But the significances of both party's religious grounds are proven little and carry lesser weight to the actual national decision making towards international policies. CSU/CDU is basically a party with Christianity as its base, even Merkel vocally shouted and rejected the integration of Muslim to the german society and said that German people should defend the very value of Christianity. But does her own and her party's religious view carry weight to her international policies? Nope, As we are now talking about country-to-country matters which in this case, binding it only to religion seems out of case.
The post era of USSR is actually a rival between Orthodoks Catholic in one side (including Serbia) with Roma Catholic and Protestan (USA and British) in the other side. So making a war with Serbia do have some part in this, even though morale ground of Presiden Clinton and also the media pressure do the other part of reason of why the war took place (Christian Amanpour was in Bosnia Herzegonvina during the war). Even our military gave ammunition to the Bosnian when Soeharto visited Bosnia during the war, Do you think it is not morale ground and just worldly interest of Indonesia ??
Fair enough, but one thing clicks my mind, if the U.S and British were so against the other orders of christianity itself, where was the position of the muslims then? The KLA was commanded and mostly joined by Muslims, towards whom is the hatred of the Roman Catholic and Protestan bigger?
Anyway, you do know with whom was Soeharto clinging right? Soeharto was a friend to the U.S global policies, Soeharto was also supporting Afghanis mujahideen, "surprisingly" U.S was also supporting them, the same case applies to the Kosovo war, Soeharto will support anyone that U.S told him to support. If you understand how the politics run in the cold war, you will understand the sentences like "He's a SOB, but he is our SOB".
Put aside morality for a second and focuses more on religion. If you learn history, the impact of religion is quite large in the last time. It is just like Sunni (Saudi etc) and Syiah (Iran, Syria) rival in the Gulf region. Why Saudi supported Saddam in Iran-Iraq war will make your brain a little bit clear. If you thing it is not materialize in the current politics so I have the right to say that you must learn more about international politics and history. I do believe that not only religion play the part but other things play as well as you have already explained in your last post. You are like side blinded person, who doesn't know the other part of the game. I do recognize both parts of the game and their respective influence to the real politics and history. Ego and Morale do play.....And which side the leader take...just clarify what kind of leader he is....
First of all, I didn't say that religion does not have any impact to the conflict between countries. I said that religion and ideologies are being used to justify the decisions made by decision makers of any country, "because they have great impact especially to reason with the people" (that's the full version so that you brains can catch it). A lack of understanding of yours you can't be simply made as a reason for you to say that i lack of understanding in international politics to the sunshine.
I am maybe side blinded, But you tend to be seeing from both sides while in the meantime you actually never mentioned anything about the other side which lead to a conclusion that you are just as blinded as me. Saudi during Iran-Iraq war was already in U.S ranks, Saudi supported anyone that U.S told them to, pretty much like Indonesia during Soeharto. What happened when Iraq started to run its own agenda like invading Kuwait will make your brain a little bit clearer, Saudi took side with NATO in the gulf war, it is simply because Saudi's national interest was bigger than Saudi's religious agenda towards its neighboring countries, although conflict between middle eastern countries can't be separated from Religion.
Ego and Morale do play, but the big line depends on which matter and which interest a country has, chosing side takes more than ego of a person. As an analogy; Abott of Australia was hard as rock towards Gillard's "appeasement" to Indonesia regarding issues like Boat People and Papua, but is he still holding up to his hard-rock principle (like towing the boats back or hire locals to spy for Australia) towards Indonesia when he is taking the office now? "Indo's Boot-licker" is now what he is called, Australia's interests are bigger than Abott's earlier stands, and Abott does know that his own stands endanger the relationship with Indonesia which is seen important to the future of Australia's position in Asia.
My last post actually talked about the responsibility and morality, and some leaders do have some responsibility even though some are not. I just want to bring some morale ground here. About Rwanda, I do believe that Moslem and Christian country should have intervened there, but Christian country has more responsibility to do so in the international politics scene. On the other part, Saddam Hussein is a person I called before in my last post as "Hitler like leaders" that should understand that his bad action can be punished by the internasional community.
Christian and Moslem country can do something together to get rid these person which they did in the first Gulf War, or they can do it by themselves where the Moslem is more passive just, just like what happen in Libya and Syria as if it is justified morally. Honestly, I am not a person who will sit down nicely at home and see hundred thousand people including kids and women get killed by one crazy leader while I have power in my hand to stop it. but in case if you become a leader, I bet you will not do it. So, it depends on who has the power. Not only money and ego (including Nationalist Ego) that rules a person.
In short, if the intervention is so needed to safe many life just like in Bosnia and Libya (or even Syria) it is justifiable in my understanding. Another example, US attacked Jermany under Hitler even though US was not at war with Jermany in the early phase of WW2. But I still dont like the way US and British bomb many cities there and in Japan cities with no mercy to civiliants.
I don't think so, intervening a conflict will only escalate the conflict, World war I was fought because Russian Empire intervened the punitive action of Austria-Hungaria towards the Serb nationalists which provoke the German Empire to enter the theater and later invited the British and French armies to the war. The best thing an outsiders could do is to contain the escalation of the war itself and to avoid intervening directly in the war.
And you do realize that the conflict in Syria last longer than in Libya because to many hands play in the game right? If Saudis and its Sunni counterparts didn't support the FSA, FSA could be defeated by Bashar and the war will end. If Russia and Iran didn't support Bashar, FSA could win the war fast and finally end it. Now guess what, both sides have enough support to continue the war until there is nothing left, is that your "morale ground"?
If you want to quickly end the war, let's just be passive and let one side get supports while the other don't.
My stand is actually more simple than you thought, my goal is to secure the safety of the people who had trusted me with their belongings and possesions. If I had that kind of power, I will consider meddling into other people's matter only when it suits the need of my people. If one day Indonesia couldn't find anymore oil inside its current power projection and no country is willing to trade their oil with Indonesia, I will gladly support Indonesia to attack any countries in order to takeover their oilfields, even Saudi Arabia for example.
Going back to this present time and talking a little bit about unjustified war and the influence of oil in current war. An attack to Iraq, Afganistan, and in some degree in Somalia (under Islamic court) by USA is a different story. It is not justified morally. Do you still believe that it is about oil ??? Ha,ha, how much they can get money from it compare how much USA suffer financially to finance those wars (Iraq/Afganistan). Have you check the figure yet or still using oil scenario based explanation ?
Oil money is nothing compare to Iraq/Afgan war US budget, and many of Iraq oil are also operated by non-USA companies now. Is it to make cheaper oil....Nope. It destabilize Iraq and oil price is keep growing (China and India demands are also affecting oil price though). Is it about energy security in Afganistan ? To secure gas pipeline? Why dont USA make a friend with Taliban if it is the real agenda, which is only to secure oil pipe line. Taliban has already given green light for USA silent operation if USA want to get Osama, but instead of doing that, USA burn all Afganistan which also affect Pakistan until now.
Actually, yes I had
Qurna field alone has more than 17 million barell oil reserve which is estimated at USD $1.8 trillion using march 2013's figure of USD 106 per barell which is won by Exxon. It is enough to cover the the entire cost of Iraq war that stands at USD $1.7 trillion, until 2013 and we are yet to talk about the untapped resources Iraq has.
The afghanistan war is fought simply because Taliban is not in line with U.S interest, the anti-america taliban leadership could endanger U.S interest in other parts of Middle east. Anyway, to some extents, Afghanistan do have some weights in natural resources.
And since when did I say the U.S fought only for oil? I used it as an example of how the need for resource is seen more important than religion to define a global stances of a country.
So.. are you speculating when you try to mock me?
It should be moslem nation to bring troops there so we dont have to arm the Libya rebel that makes Libya become fragile Today.
