Should romania take part in international military actions?

[mg 42]

Bearing in mind the international actions of the Romanian army ( bulgaria 1877, balkan wars, WWI, WWII) should we send troops on foreign theatres of operations?

[mabadesc]

In my opinion, yes, Romania should participate in the war against terror.

I am overall against globalization (getu, where are you? I used your middle name :wink:)
I am also not very fond of the UN, EU, or any other such organizations.

However, we should not go to the other extreme and fall into isolationism.

Isolationism is just as dangerous as globalization.

Another reason for Romania participating in the war against terror is simply because of what it stands for. Like it or not, the war on terror is increasingly turning into a religious war between radical muslims on one side and christians on the other side. Since Romania is a Christian nation, we would in the long term be defending our religion.

Well, in a nut shell, that's my first instinctive impression...

[johnny_bi]

QUOTE

Like it or not, the war on terror is increasingly turning into a religious war between radical muslims on one side and christians on the other side

For me it seems an economical war rather than religious... I have a lot of muslim friends and I may say that for them this "religious" war is not quite so religious. Why should we (the Christians) transform it into a real religious one?

[mabadesc]

QUOTE

For me it seems an economical war rather than religious

I hope you're right for everyone's sake, since religious wars tend to be bloodier than most other kinds of wars.

QUOTE

Why should we (the Christians) transform it into a real religious one?

If that is really the case, we (Christians) should definitely not transform it into a religious war. But I'm not sure that's really the case...

The economical war I see is fought on the markets, not on the battlefields, and in my opinion it involves more of a EU vs. America vs. Asia rivalry.

The war on terror as I see it (I may be wrong) involves on one side radical muslim groups who wish harm on the Western Christian society, which they perceive as being run by zionism.

There are certainly economical aspects within this complex issue (ex: oil), but I don't think they represent the core of the conflict.
Look at Afghanistan and Lybia, which, until recently, ran things the way they wanted in their own countries. Afghanistan reduced itself to a primitive society based on religious medieval laws, its main source of trade being opium. Economically, they were non-existent.

In my opinion, besides oil, the Muslim world does not even come close to having the infrastructure and industrial base to conduct any economical war against Europe or the US.

Unfortunately, I tend to believe that it is a religious conflict.

[PanzerKing]

I am not Romanian, but I say it all depends on the situation. The war in Afghanistan I think is just, and I see no problem with international forces as this war on terror and terrorism in general effect everyone. The Iraq war however I think is utter U.S. bullshit and don't see why use guys are participating except for stronger international ties/support. I'm not saying you shouldn't or I don't appreciate what you are doing by fighting side by side with my country, but I thought it was one conflict Romania would stay out of because the war on terror is the only one that truly affects Romania.

Did that make any sense? Sorry if it was confusing.

[Indrid]

i voted for intervention. we got the heart, we miss the weapons. 8)

[johnny_bi]

QUOTE

The economical war I see is fought on the markets, not on the battlefields, and in my opinion it involves more of a EU vs. America vs. Asia rivalry.

The war for resources is made by force also... The market is just the the final ring in the chain...

[Geto-Dacul]

It is a shame that we Romanians engage ourselves in others' imperialist and economic wars. Empires are maybe the nastiest invention of mankind ; only capable of destruction & consumption. And we are openely supporting terrorist and perfidious policies, based on lies and fear. The problem is that history always punishes imperialists but also and very severely their jackals.

Getu'

[mabadesc]

QUOTE

Empires are maybe the nastiest invention of mankind ; only capable of destruction & consumption.

Generally speaking, yes, you are correct.
But remember also that historically empires have contributed greatly to the advance of society and technology. Their accumulation of wealth provided environments in which scientific, technical, industrial and cultural breakthroughs were made. But this is off-topic...

QUOTE

And we are openely supporting terrorist and perfidious policies, based on lies and fear.

I don't understand what you're trying to say...is Romania supporting Bin Laden?

[Geto-Dacul]

mabadesc wrote :

QUOTE

I don't understand what you're trying to say...is Romania supporting Bin Laden?

It is Ben Laden (the son of...), not Bin Laden.

Romania is supporting countries that are ready by force to rob others, with fake motives (like the "mass destruction weapon scenes")

As for Ben Laden, the whole story seems to be a media's fabrication. He ain't so powerful. And do not forget that he and his buddies are the result (and the invention) of American interests. Ben Laden is not a menace for Romania or to Eastern Europe countries in general. He's a menace for Western interests in the Middle East.

Regards,

Getu'

[Indrid]

i agreee with Getu on this one. i personally feel quite worried about the fact that someone drops a glass on the floor and 10 people start shouting that it was Al qaeda! this is beyond stupidity!! it would mean that this organisation is the richest and most powerful in the world, and let`s face it... :roll:

i would like to state my opinin of B L here but it wouldn`t be..... politically correct :blbl:

[88mm]

:? In my opinion in about 30 years we will have a major conflict, if the western politics involving the natural resorces control will not radicaly change. Our simple task is to choose sides. Untill then is in our advantage to participate in diferent conflicts for the porpose of better training. This does not mean involving in conflicts wich not siutes(?) our agenda. We have to demonstrate that in the face of inevitable, they can not be live us outside. :cheers:

[Indrid]

USA versus the european union? that would be a laugh. in 100 years AFRICA will unite, Asia will unite.....we will have the united stated of africa, the united states of asia.. so i guess the americans will rule the world...


imagine, USA, USA AND USA......

[mabadesc]

QUOTE

in 100 years AFRICA will unite, Asia will unite.....we will have the united stated of africa, the united states of asia.. so i guess the americans will rule the world...

I don't get it, Indrid. How would a united Asian community or any other "United States of..." be in the USA's advantage? In my opinion, it would be quite the opposite...

QUOTE

imagine, USA, USA AND USA......

That is funny.....

[Indrid]

i meant from a semantical point of view. of course america has no need for another usa on the face of the planet!! i think they would rather :guns: everybody than to have that..... kidding.....