Should romania take part in international military actions?

[Alexandru H.]

I voted against it...maybe I would have voted for if the poster that started the poll would have given some more choices and explanations.

What do we gain from participating? If the costs are bigger than the profits, then I say "Screw them all". If we do gain something valuable, well by all means, let's grab our guns and go by the thousands...better in Iraq than in Viena... :drunk:

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

What do we gain from participating? If the costs are bigger than the profits, then I say \"Screw them all\".

That's a hard one. Obviously no one gets rich by fielding forces for UN peacekeeping operations, for example. On the other hand if you "screw them all" as soon as it becomes clear that there is no profit, they will screw you just as fast when it will be your time to need some help.

It is not very clear what sort of international intervention we are speaking off, by the way.

[Indrid]

considering the importance of Romania, i believe the involvement will be more post-conflict. as members of an alliance our troops may see combat, however i have doubts about their morale...

:keep:

[MuddyBoots]

The question is one of motive and opportunity. It's not a philosophical one, and should be answered on purely utilitarian terms (No greater ethics, principles or globalization rants).

What Romania should get (and we should ask our allies the USA to throw their weight about):

Russian armies out of the Republic of Moldova (and the Caucasian states -Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaidjan - they're in the neighborhood and CAN be used - think Turkey - to flare up a regional conflict).

We (Romanians) should also ask ourselves if we want a NATO military base on our teritory:
Pro: Again, insurance against Russia.
Con: Possible target for a nuke. (Russia already has nukes targeted - or ready to be targeted - on Bucharest - since 1995 possibly 1997).

About the price (in lives) we have to pay: There are more people dying in auto accidents in a small Romanian city (like - let's say Urziceni, or Targoviste) than the people we lost in the same period of time in all the "peace-keeping" missions.

Again, this is not a question of principles, but a question of motives and opportunity.

[Indrid]

nukes for Bucharest? i didn`t know we were so important so that the russians could save a nuke for us. come on, if this war should ever happen, in 3 minutes it would all be over and i do not believe the russians would even consider throwing one so close to home. where did you here that?

[MuddyBoots]

http://www.west.net/~wwmr/fsu.htm . But I remember reading an article in Pravda.ru saying that the weapons were ready to be pointed at whatever target in less than ten or thirty minutes, including capitals of the countries that expected to become NATO members.

It was really old news, during the first round of NATO expansion.

[Indrid]

thanks for the link, MUDDYBOOTS. that is a generic statement, i do not think we have much to worry about. i noticed the news coming from Bucharest though. :laugh:

[dead-cat]

[quote]
About the price (in lives) we have to pay: There are more people dying in auto accidents in a small Romanian city (like - let's say Urziceni, or Targoviste) than the people we lost in the same period of time in all the "peace-keeping" missions.
[/quote]
if the army is composed of volunteers, be it. if you chose that as your profession, well you knew the risks. if it's about conscripts, not in a million years. ppl in urziceni are on the street by their own choice and nobody is forced to drive drunk.

besides who has the authority to establish if n casualties are a price worth to be paid. the one who says "i" should be forced to explain this principle to every widdow/mother/child during the funeral.

[MuddyBoots]

->if the army is composed of volunteers, be it. if you chose that as your profession, well you knew the risks. if it's about conscripts, not in a million years. ppl in urziceni are on the street by their own choice and nobody is forced to drive drunk.

Until now I believe that only volunteers have been sent in peace-keeping missions. Citizenship means rights, but also duties. Military service is one of them.

->besides who has the authority to establish if n casualties are a price worth to be paid. the one who says "i" should be forced to explain this principle to every widdow/mother/child during the funeral.

The democratically elected government of the country has the right to establish how many casualties are worth the price. If I'm not mistaken the relatives get a letter saying that the soldier died "in the line of duty".

[dead-cat]

[quote]
Until now I believe that only volunteers have been sent in peace-keeping missions. Citizenship means rights, but also duties. Military service is one of them.
[/quote]

that's something every gov. on earth would love to make everyone belive.
however, by soley being born inside the sphere of influence of a certain government, i don't feel absolutly any obligation to take part in a quarrel caused by other ppl i have no business with. i'm citizen by birth and there is nothing i can do about this, so the whole "duty" thing is forced upon me and i regard it as a very bad deal for me, if not a rip-off. thus i feel absolutly no moral obligation (i'm too weak to do something about the legal obligation imposed upon me) to follow the path others chose for me and cause death and destruction under the excuse of "patriotism".

[quote]
The democratically elected government of the country has the right to establish how many casualties are worth the price. If I'm not mistaken the relatives get a letter saying that the soldier died "in the line of duty".
[/quote]
that's what they'd like to. when they do so, there is never a referendum about going to war, so the "government" is cashing in on the fact that a single individual has a very limited military option to defend himself against any governamental abuse.
i haven't seen many members of the gov. acting as cannon fodder or sending their relatives.

the "line of duty" is nothing more than a petty excuse for a political failure (and often a military one as well).

[MuddyBoots]

The question is one of motive and opportunity. It's not a philosophical one, and should be answered on purely utilitarian terms (No greater ethics, principles or globalization rants).

[quote]
however, by soley being born inside the sphere of influence of a certain government, i don't feel absolutly any obligation to take part in a quarrel caused by other ppl i have no business with. i'm citizen by birth and there is nothing i can do about this, so the whole "duty" thing is forced upon me and i regard it as a very bad deal for me, if not a rip-off. thus i feel absolutly no moral obligation (i'm too weak to do something about the legal obligation imposed upon me) to follow the path others chose for me and cause death and destruction under the excuse of "patriotism".
[/quote]

Do you have the same scruples making use of your rights as a citizen? Getting an education? Voting? Not being under the military occupation of a foreign country? Do you feel bad about that? Duties and rights come together as a package lil' fellow.

<sarcasm>Death and destruction? Yes, I'm sure that every army in the world does cause death and destruction on a regular basis. Like the Romanian soldiers on peace keeping missions. Hell, the Swiss must be the most destructive people on the planet - I mean - their soldiers got Assault Rifles in their homes for God's sake. And we all now they started the second. World War. </sarcasm>

[quote]
that's what they'd like to. when they do so, there is never a referendum about going to war, so the "government" is cashing in on the fact that a single individual has a very limited military option to defend himself against any governamental abuse.
i haven't seen many members of the gov. acting as cannon fodder or sending their relatives.
[/quote]

I was talking about troop deployment on PEACE KEEPING missions.

[dead-cat]

[quote]
Do you have the same scruples making use of your rights as a citizen? Getting an education? Voting?
[/quote]

i pay for it. taxes.

[quote]
Not being under the military occupation of a foreign country? Do you feel bad about that? Duties and rights come together as a package lil' fellow.
[/quote]
i don't care about a "military ocupation of foreign a country" since the term "patriotism" is not existent for me. please refrain from using labels like "lil' fellow". they don't belong here. thank you.

[mabadesc]

Ok, let's get this straight once and for all, because you guys are playing too much the "I'm a citizen and I have rights" card.

MuddyBoots is right. All the Romanian soldiers serving abroad are professional volunteers. Actually, I believe most of them come from a military base near Bistrita - they're specialized and they know they'll be the first to ship out to foreign places.

Their job is no different than if they had been in the Foreign Legion. This is their profession - they receive a salary and benefits for fighting wars.

Same thing for all the US soldiers who fought in Irak. The US has an all-professional army. When you enroll, you get a cash bonus of $15,000 - $XXXXX dollars, depending on your skills, whether you're an officer or not, etc...

You also get an education grant of up to $150.000 to pay for college. You get free housing, free health insurance, free food.
You don't pay sales taxes on items you buy. Once you're retired, you're guaranteed a military pension and various veteran rights.
When your 5 year contract is up, you have the choice to re-enlist for another cash bonus and an increase in salary, or you get to take your money and go home.

In exchange, your job is to fight wars. You've got to be an idiot to join the military and not expect to fight. That's what you were hired to do. That's why you're getting paid.

So you can't accuse the government - because you were the one who wanted the job. It was explained to you when you signed up.

[dead-cat]

i was talking about conscription, as it is obvious from my former post:
[quote]
if the army is composed of volunteers, be it. if you chose that as your profession, well you knew the risks. if it's about conscripts, not in a million years. ppl in urziceni are on the street by their own choice and nobody is forced to drive drunk.
[/quote]

[mabadesc]

Fair enough, dead-cat. That means you agree with me if the case applies to professional soldiers and armies. Correct?