Nome utente : Password :
Registrazione di un nuovo utente
Moderatore: Vikings 
 Politics

Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.


All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..

As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.

Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!


*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."


Messaggi per pagina:
Lista delle discussioni
Non ti è possibile inserire messaggi in questo forum. Il livello minimo di sottoscrizione per linvio dei messaggi è {0}.
Modalità: Chiunque può inviare messaggi
Cerca nei messaggi:  

4. Agosto 2009, 03:26:50
Übergeek 바둑이 
Civil wars always have foreigners involved for several reasons. Some will backup one side, such as the British backing up the loyalists, or the US backing up the Pakistani army against the Taliban. In those cases the reasons are political.

During the Cold War, the civil wars in Central America saw several countries involved. The US, the British, the Canadians, the French, the Germans, the Israelis, they all had interests there. The CIA provided training for the military and traded weapons and drugs, and for that reason the US had the finger pointed at it through the Cold War.

Today we have forgotten wars such as the civil war in the Soviet Union involving Adzerbaijanis and Armenians fighting over Nagorno-Karabak. In that war western powers and Iran backed and supplied the Adzerbaijanis, while the Russians backed the Armenians. Cold War politics and Islamic extremism fueled foreign involvement, and curiously, both the west and Iran backed the same side.

I find that in most civil wars, somebody is getting rich at the expense of the parties involved in that war. The IRA bought weapons, as did the Loyalists, and there were thirds parties that made money supplying them. It is not different in Afghanistan and Pakistann today. The Taliban, who fought against the Russians in the 1980s, are now buying Kalashnikov rifles Russian smugglers, while the Pakistani army is buying its weapons from the US. Then corrupt Pakistani army officers are selling American weapons to the Taliban. In the mean time who makes the money? Weapons manufacturers of course!

4. Agosto 2009, 06:18:38
gogul 
Argomento: Re:
Übergeek 바둑이: Per capita Switzerland is nr. 2 if it comes to weapon exports (big weapons that is, who can't be carry by a single man, air defense and such). The US (first in total numbers) 9th. We don't want our own soldiers for foreign missions, but are almost top in exporting weapons... We make politics with a peaceful image, but supply India and Pakistan again and again with new generations of weapons that mainly serve to entertain military in trainingcamps. I haven't heard of a airfight in between India and Pacistan. Tensions and mobilisations (weakening Pakistan in the west) yes. But airfights?

4. Agosto 2009, 12:59:59
Mort 
Argomento: Re:
Übergeek 바둑이: Officially... the UK army was neutral in NI, but certain people sided with the Loyalists. We were supposed to be in NI keeping the peace, stopping Catholics from killing Protestants. Religion was used as a dividing line. The main deaths were civilian and the peace keepers. Not the IRA or Loyalist militia.

But you are right, in the end the only people in such wars who profit are the weapons manufacturers.

Data e ora
Amici in linea
Forum preferiti
Gruppi
Consiglio del giorno
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved.
Torna all'inizio