Why is Denmark an ally to the US in Iraq?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by teguy, Nov 1, 2004.

  1. teguy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    70
    Dear all,

    I am very perplexed the fact that Denmark is supporting the war in Iraq while, as far as I see, there isn't much strategical benefit.

    Unlike Japan, UK or other Anglo-Saxon nations, Denmark doesn't have much economical relationship to the States. One of few reasons as to why Denmark is part of the game is due to the historical ties between the UK; but this doesn't justfy considering economic benefits.

    Even considering the strong precense of Denmark in NATO (15 out of the 25 NATO allies support the game), I am not so certain whether benefits outweigh the losses.

    Or, is Denmark simply reacting to the ever expanding pressure of the EU's economic/monetary Union?

    Any rational comment would be usuful.
    kind regards,
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sprafa Thou have chosen war Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    45
    Portugal is in it too. Why ?

    moneh.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. c20H25N3o Shiny Heart of a Shiny Child Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,017
    Because sides must be chosen? The whole world is divided on the issue of Iraq. The righteous will be known by their numbers terrible thing though factions are.
    On the one hand we have a rather soppy gullible Mr Bush who spouts Justice and peace for all peoples, On the other side we have Mr Hussein a vicious tyrant into raping and pillaging and gasing people.
    Well if I have to pick a side, well err, erm, err, erm God this is hard, erm, err, er, erm well I guess I had better go with that fool Bush lest I be yoked to a rapist. That's settled then. Bush it is and whatever he has spouted on about, at least I can measure that man by his own actions and he seems just to damn weak to be a real threat to anyone, let alone a raping murderous tyrant. I know who I would rather invite to my 18 year old virgin daughters birthday party.

    peace

    c20
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    C20, that is a False dichotomy logical fallacy.
    False dichotomy (bifurcation), "either/or", or the "all-or-nothing" mistake: presenting only two options (typically where both are are undesirable) where multiple options exist.
    http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/Logic101a.htm

    Not supporting Hussein doesn't mean you have to support Bush. Opposing Bush doesn't mean you think Hussein was ok. As has been pointed out in this forum many times, Hussein had the full support of the U.S. government while he was comitting his worst crimes. So our government's proclamations of good intentions are very hard to listen to with a straight face.

    DeeCee was kind enough to provide a link to this in another thread.
    http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html
     
  8. c20H25N3o Shiny Heart of a Shiny Child Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,017
    So in not taking sides what do I achieve? I only see the battle ground before me and it is a battle ground of two sides. If I am not for bush then I am against him.
    Sadam was not for anyone other than himself it seems in my humble opinion. The war exists primarily to remove Sadam from a place of power. Bush has achieved this. Bush is now under pressure to restore the Iraq he tore apart. Life cuts and Life heals again and again and again. But you are right. I do not have to take sides given that it is not my war. I just chose to back a horse in this race at this time.

    cheers

    c20
     
  9. Sprafa Thou have chosen war Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    45
    You're looking at it as black & white.

    The world is like several shades of grey.
     
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Perspective?

    Eventually, you might actually see through the façade of the "sides" involved. Stand with something like Justice, Goodness, or Happiness, instead of a stupid label like a yokel provocateur president or a jingoistic national image.

    Send Rumsfeld to prison as a conspirator with Saddam's regime and I'll back off the rest of the Bush administration.

    I mean, look at that mess in Iraq. Such is the legacy of the great Ronald Reagan. Why not prosecute the man Reagan sent to Iraq in order to restore normal relations and work business deals to secure Iraq against Iran even at a time when Hussein was gassing people?
     
  11. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Denmark I don’t think has been a big fan of France or Germany, the Netherlands supported the US too I believe, along with the UK. It’s symbolic of two Europe’s in the EU, Denmark like the rest are resisting to a certain extent the inevitable EU centralization but now that the EU constitution has been signed I suspect that the EU will become much more solidified and act (finally) as a badly needed moral counterweight to the US.
     
  12. DeeCee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,793
    So in not taking sides what do I achieve?

    Objectivity.
    Dee Cee
     
  13. teguy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    70
    Undediced:

    I agree with the overall picture above. As I remarked in my thread, that's precisely the circumstances between the EU Monetary Union and the non-monetrary union.

    But the question still remains: What is the (economic) benefit for Denmark to go against the grain of the EU? In my opinion, to be a part of the Anglo-Saxons' game wouldn't be in Denmark's best interest cosidering its negative economic/political consequences in the future.

    Any thougth?
    kind regards,
     
  14. teguy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    70
    Sprafa:

    Unlike Denmark, Portugal is a second rate country (economically speaking) in that they would try to support whoever with money. Besides, whether going against the grain of the EU or not wouldn't make much difference considering its economic impact.

    As in some of the economically formative Eastern European nations - such as Poland - they have everyting to gain (so as they think) by supporting the US (as it increases the foreign investment and thereby it also increases the overll market capital of those nations).

    The difficulty here is that for a country whose internal infrastructure is well established and its external econo-political precense is well regarded, like Denmark, why to go after Iraq with Anglos?
     

Share This Page