46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
There've been references to weapons being smuggled to Syria via Turkey and Lebanon. Who is supplying these weapons?
I can only think of a couple possibilities but have heard nothing to confirm or deny any supposition.
* Syrian expatriates/refugees in Turkey and Lebanon who have connections to the opposition.
* Arab league countries who support the sunni ethnic group that makes up a good part of the opposition.
*Nato countries buying soviet style weapons and funneling them to the opposition covertly much like they did in the soviet invasion of Afghanistan via Turkey (part of Nato) and Lebanon (neutral)
Also whilst we're on it. If, worst case scenario. Nato finds itself at war with both Syria and Iran. Would Russia and China do anything/could they do anything to prevent that turn of events in the military sense. my feeling is that both China and Russia know their conventional armies are no match for NATO and are also seperated geographically from the region without Mhe means to move troops there. Which limits them to a threat of nuclear action which could only lead to MAD. I also think both governments have a nest of internal problems that limits their action even more. Aside from selling weapons and political pressure at the UN I don't think they would be a real issue. The biggest worry for NATO would be if countries where the Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt/Tunisia) has to some extent came to power would side with Iran and their fellow muslims against a percieved Western crusade.
221
Post by: Frazzled
(Checks lock to THE BOX)
Nope, not me.
18698
Post by: kronk
*Dons tinfoil hat*
The Obama administration is supplying the weapons to draw attention away from recent activity at Area 51.
*Removes tinfoil hat*
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
kronk wrote:*Dons tinfoil hat*
The Obama administration is supplying the weapons to draw attention away from recent activity at Area 51.
*Removes tinfoil hat*
Dude, the BBC mentioned it off-hand one time but didn't say who it was. I'am just speculating. Things are a bit on edge with the gulf of Hormuz, Irans nuclear weapons programme and of course the Syrian uprising. Anything could happen, and the US has moved more soldiers into the Persian Gulf and Israel. That might equally lead to nothing but that doesn't mean its a conspiracy theory to imply the self evident fact that the US has strategic interests in the Middle East. I asked you a question, not a statement of fact or a theory. Just something i heard and wondered if it had any validity. 
18698
Post by: kronk
Totalwar1402 wrote:I asked you a question, not a statement of fact or a theory. Just something i heard and wondered if it had any validity.
Easy, killer! 
I wasn't attacking or trolling you. I just wanted to be the first person to make up a conspiracy theory for once. It made me feel just like I imagined it would... Giddy!
As to who is really supplying them the arms, I certainly can't say, but I bet you the powers that be have a very good idea.
21737
Post by: murdog
No word on foreign suppliers of arms, it seems to me like the armed portion of the opposition is made up of deserters from the security forces who are bringing their weapons with them.
26523
Post by: Ribon Fox
Then from where and whom are the munitions comming from, a deserter can only carry so much ammo and not to put to finer point on it they all look like they have a BS of like 2.
So even if the iron mongers arn't selling them weapons who is suppyling all the AK rounds?
221
Post by: Frazzled
I'm not seeing a lot opposition. It loks like most of the rounds are only going one way if you catch my drift.
26523
Post by: Ribon Fox
Frazzled wrote:I'm not seeing a lot opposition. It loks like most of the rounds are only going one way if you catch my drift.
Yes well it helps it you have IFV that are proofed against any thing smaller that a 50 call, morters, artilary and tanks.
Looking at it the Syrian army is a bit OP in their codex compaired to the Opposition codex....
52525
Post by: Sonophos
BBC Radio 4 reported that the Syrian leadership is having to get very picky about which troops they use for the dirty work as many are deserting. When a lot of troops desert along with officers they tend to take TRUCK loads of ammo and equipment with them.
The reports that are coming out tend to leave out one small but salient point: There has been a civil war going on in Syria for YEARS and this is just an escalation of it.
Yes most of them do have a BS of 2 but if the template and/or the target are big enough then it doesn't take a world class sniper to hit something.
21737
Post by: murdog
And it's not just a few hundred men - reports are in the 10's of thousands. From the wikipedia entry for the Free Syrian Army ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army):
Weapons
The Free Syrian Army is mainly armed with AK-47s and RPG-7s.[52] Because defecting soldiers lack air cover, deserting soldiers have to abandon their armoured vehicles. Soldiers defect carrying only their army issued light arms and hide in cities, suburbs or the cover of the countryside.[14] Raids on government checkpoints and arms depots are carried out to supply the free army with ammunition and new arms. The FSA also purchases weapons on the Syrian black market which is supplied by arms smugglers from neighboring countries and corrupt loyalist forces selling government arms. There have been reports that whole arms depots have been offered for sale, although these offers were refused because of fears of a potential trap.[53][54] Besides AK-47s, some free army soldiers also have M16s, FN FALs, shotguns,[55] G3 assault rifles,[56] and PK machine guns.[57] Because the free army has a limited supply of weapons, Colonel Riad Asaad has asked the international community to help supply them with arms so that they can protect the Syrian people.[58][59] As of winter, the FSA had not secured outside funding or arms supplies.[60]
The Free Syrian Army is mainly armed with light weapons, however, it has a few heavy weapons which it has captured. In February, video footage was posted online showing a captured government tank, being used in Homs by the FSA forces. The tank carried flags of the Syrian opposition and was seen firing with armed men in civilian clothes backing it up and taking cover behind it.[61] The Free Syrian Army appears to have confirmed that they have a few tanks, as a spokesman stated that when 100 soldiers defected one day, they brought three tanks with them.[46]
241
Post by: Ahtman
The answer is quite obvious.
39004
Post by: biccat
kronk wrote:I wasn't attacking or trolling you. I just wanted to be the first person to make up a conspiracy theory for once. It made me feel just like I imagined it would... Giddy!
Too late. Well, you're first on the Area 51 part.
I have no idea what that site is about, it showed up on Google and was an amusing read.
...oh look, they have a 9/11 section.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Isn't this what the Arab League is supposed to handle? For F'ks sake can we stay out of this one, or at the least not go in first and or do all the work. I'm so sick of the media saying that the blood is on the hands world community for not stopping this massacre. You know what I think we have done more than our share and get gak for it. Let the Arab League handle the problems in the middle east.
If the Arab League can't control it's area of influence what is it good for?
5534
Post by: dogma
Totalwar1402 wrote:There've been references to weapons being smuggled to Syria via Turkey and Lebanon. Who is supplying these weapons?
Everywhere and anywhere, guns are both cheap and plentiful in the Middle East.
The Syrian state is Arab nationalist, and essentially secular (the religious trappings are extraneous), so getting funding and support from fundamentalist movements isn't difficult. Think of Syria like the unsung Iraq.
241
Post by: Ahtman
dogma wrote:Totalwar1402 wrote:There've been references to weapons being smuggled to Syria via Turkey and Lebanon. Who is supplying these weapons?
Everywhere and anywhere, guns are both cheap and plentiful in the Middle East.
This information is new and shocking.
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
If the Arab League can't control it's area of influence what is it good for?
Existing?
Its not like we're members of it.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
dogma wrote:Andrew1975 wrote:
If the Arab League can't control it's area of influence what is it good for?
Existing?
Its not like we're members of it.
What is the point of it's existence if it can't control it's own sphere of influence. More to the point why do they have to come to the UN or Nato and ask for Military action. Just do it yourself.
I understand that we are not members obviously. But the Arab league has a history of coming to the UN and Nato for military assistance, like they did with Libya. Combined the Militaries of the Arab league are vast. If they want intervention, I say that they can do it themselves. These guys sure know how to band together to fix the price of oil, no fix your region. Is it just so they can always blame the west for the fallout? They don't want to be seen as the bad guys in their own sphere. F them.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Their motto: why do tomorrow, what you can get someone else to do today.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Iran
48860
Post by: Joey
I thought nearly all of them were army defectors who took their equipment with them? That's how it's reported by the BBC, anyway.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Syria is one of Iran biggest supporters, it would make no sense for Iran to be backing Syrian rebels. It would be like the US arming Canadians rebels.
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
Turkey, Lebanon, russia, indonesia, egypt, latvia, czech republic.... What does it matter? Illegal guns come from all over the place.
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
What is the point of it's existence if it can't control it's own sphere of influence.
You're assuming its about control, and that said control is based on Western values and priorities.
Andrew1975 wrote:
More to the point why do they have to come to the UN or Nato and ask for Military action. Just do it yourself.
Because they can?
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
I think a lot of people don't quite understand how common the AK is. AK47s can smell conflict and flow there like the tide. It definitely does not take a state actor to satisfy the need for AKs in a conflict.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
You're assuming its about control, and that said control is based on Western values and priorities.
If they didn't want it controlled then why come to the UN or Nato at all?
Because they can?
Right, this is my point. They love to get us to do the dirty work for them and to take the blame for any fallout. While of course selling us the oil we need to do such actions. We should not help them.
Granted a strong Arab League that exercises it's own military powers may not really be in our best interests, but I see it as better than doing the dirty work for them. It's high time we let regional powers handle their own affairs, well at least to a point.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Agreed
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
AustonT wrote:Iran
Their, their ally. Of course! It all adds up!
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Craig's List...
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
Rented Tritium wrote:I think a lot of people don't quite understand how common the AK is. AK47s can smell conflict and flow there like the tide. It definitely does not take a state actor to satisfy the need for AKs in a conflict.
True, but i doubt a country where you can't protest without being shot at would allow public arms bazaars. Even if private traders were responding to 'demand', as it were, it would still be very ramshackle and sporadic in terms of moving guns and the like.Some level of organization would be needed to get guns n ammo to the actual fighters. Yes they can carry truck loads of stuff with army deserters and a lot of the Arab population is armed but surely that could only go so far; even with a conservative use of ammunition.
So you all seem to think its just Syrian expats paying toward getting the dakka dakka into their home country.
Hmmm, has anyone ever watched the news channel Russia Today? Unsurprisingly a lot of their coverage has been stilted against any intervention in Syria and they press the idea that NATO are supplying the rebals ( BTB they're a State sponsored Russian news channel in English ie propaganda). What is the Russian interest in embarresing itself by backing the Assad regime? Its not like Russia could exactly do much to stop a NATO intervention. They already lost the morale high ground on intervening in other countries with their invasion of Georgia on the pretext of an attack on South Ossetia. Say what you like about NATO and America playing the worlds policeman but it is rich that Russia and China can claim to be acting in any interest other than their own or at the expense of the United States.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Russia is selling them stuff, and by stuff I mean arms.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Frazzled wrote:Russia is selling them stuff, and by stuff I mean arms.
And by arms he means hands.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ahtman wrote:Frazzled wrote:Russia is selling them stuff, and by stuff I mean arms.
And by arms he means hands.
We support the right bare arms, and legs!
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
Frazzled wrote:Russia is selling them stuff, and by stuff I mean arms.
yeah, my friend actually thinks its just a conspriacy between American and Russian arms manufacturers. Think about it, Iraq doesn't buy any Russian junk anymore. It wants a 100% American beef Abrams not skinny Russian goat T-55s.  If Assad goes down that means megabucks for US arms dealers. My friend, as you can probably tell, is quite insane. 
Russia was backing Syria back during Soviet times, I guess they simply continued that relationship into the 21st century with the rest of the furniture.
16689
Post by: notprop
I look forward to the sudden appearance or US/European arms in the hands of the rebels just after we all agree that we wont intervene.
I still chuckle at there appearance in the hands of Libyan rebels just prior to the sudden rapid advance on the Capital (yes, the planes helped!  ).
221
Post by: Frazzled
I look forward to staying the hell out of it.
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
notprop wrote:I look forward to the sudden appearance or US/European arms in the hands of the rebels just after we all agree that we wont intervene.
I still chuckle at there appearance in the hands of Libyan rebels just prior to the sudden rapid advance on the Capital (yes, the planes helped! ).
Complete with camoflage fatigues. 
16689
Post by: notprop
Frazzled wrote:I look forward to staying the hell out of it.
C'mon you guys are bottling allot of stuff these days, you carry on like this and your boys wont be fit for the Falklands re-match. Plus everyone likes a safe away fixture from time to time.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Eh, I really had no problem with Russia going into Georgia. Saakashvili is an ass. He played his card knowing full well that NATO would come to his aid as a knee jerk reaction, we again should have stayed out of it. Russia and China have different interests but basically it's all about arms sales and stemming global influence. NATO and the UN did kind of screw themselves when China and Russia played along in Libya, they went with a very liberal interpretation on the types of missions that China and Russia agreed to, basically forcing China and Russian to veto any proposal that is not perfectly defined.
" Analysts say political and strategic concerns are Russia's primary motivation: Moscow is pushing back against what it sees as excessive Western interventionism in sovereign states, and fears losing an old ally that is its last foothold in the Middle East.
But economic ties -- valuable military contracts and energy investments that could be lost if the Assad regime fails -- play a key role as well.
"It's a significant economic interest," said Daniel Treisman, a Russia specialist at UCLA. "We're talking about several billion dollars in contracts with Syria may be at risk."
Russia has long been Syria's primary military supplier and currently has about $4 billion worth of contracts for future arms deliveries to Damascus, according to a report from global analysis firm Oxford Analytica. With the loss of arms sales to Iran following U.N. sanctions and the cancellation of contracts in Libya after the Gadhafi regime's overthrow, the list of Russian arms customers in the region is dwindling. The lost business with Iran was worth $13 billion, according to Treisman, while the Libyan deals totaled $4.5 billion.
Here is the whole article http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/international/russia_syria/
Again I say if anybody should be handling this it is the Arab league. If it is not important enough for them to handle these issues than it's not really important enough for me. I say if Muslims want to blame everything on some grand Christian crusade, then we should just let Muslims handle Muslim problems, let Arabs handle Arab problems.
In short I see no reason why we would send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Arab boys ought to be doing for themselves.
48860
Post by: Joey
Smart move is getting the Turks to intervene. Problem is they have their own difficulties, though I'm sure there are parts of their government that would quite like to intervene.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Joey wrote:Smart move is getting the Turks to intervene. Problem is they have their own difficulties, though I'm sure there are parts of their government that would quite like to intervene.
I don't think Turkey and Iran are as opposed to each other as you think. They see eye to eye on many issues and have been growing closer as of late.
I take that back you meant Turks intervening in Syria not Iran.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Andrew1975 wrote: They see eye to eye on many issues and have been growing closer as of late.
They have been seen taking long walks together, having a picnic in the park, and any day now a video is expected to be 'leaked' to the media of the two of them building a silo together.
48860
Post by: Joey
Andrew1975 wrote:Joey wrote:Smart move is getting the Turks to intervene. Problem is they have their own difficulties, though I'm sure there are parts of their government that would quite like to intervene.
I don't think Turkey and Iran are as opposed to each other as you think. They see eye to eye on many issues and have been growing closer as of late.
I take that back you meant Turks intervening in Syria not Iran.
Well yeah, Turkey isn't exactly going to invade Iran any time soon.
Thing is, they really really want entrance into the EU. The liberal elements in the Turkish government would probably be supportive of Western action, they could do with some liberal credentials.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Totalwar1402 wrote:It wants a 100% American beef Abrams not skinny Russian goat T-55s. If Assad goes down that means megabucks for US arms dealers. My friend, as you can probably tell, is quite insane.
The Iraqi army is primarily armed with AK's and and US surplus from the 80's... And almost all their hardware is Russian.
THe US gains nothing from destabilizing what was a stable Mid-East state. More than likely we're looking at Islamic groups arming dissenters against a secular government. Syria isn't exactly a state that can police and control its own borders. It's fairly easy to sneak, bribe, and kill to smuggle goods into a third world country with a corrupt government that doesn't really care for its own laws.
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
Andrew1975 wrote:Eh, I really had no problem with Russia going into Georgia. Saakashvili is an ass. He played his card knowing full well that NATO would come to his aid as a knee jerk reaction, we again should have stayed out of it. Russia and China have different interests but basically it's all about arms sales and stemming global influence. NATO and the UN did kind of screw themselves when China and Russia played along in Libya, they went with a very liberal interpretation on the types of missions that China and Russia agreed to, basically forcing China and Russian to veto any proposal that is not perfectly defined.
" Analysts say political and strategic concerns are Russia's primary motivation: Moscow is pushing back against what it sees as excessive Western interventionism in sovereign states, and fears losing an old ally that is its last foothold in the Middle East.
But economic ties -- valuable military contracts and energy investments that could be lost if the Assad regime fails -- play a key role as well.
"It's a significant economic interest," said Daniel Treisman, a Russia specialist at UCLA. "We're talking about several billion dollars in contracts with Syria may be at risk."
Russia has long been Syria's primary military supplier and currently has about $4 billion worth of contracts for future arms deliveries to Damascus, according to a report from global analysis firm Oxford Analytica. With the loss of arms sales to Iran following U.N. sanctions and the cancellation of contracts in Libya after the Gadhafi regime's overthrow, the list of Russian arms customers in the region is dwindling. The lost business with Iran was worth $13 billion, according to Treisman, while the Libyan deals totaled $4.5 billion.
Here is the whole article http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/international/russia_syria/
Again I say if anybody should be handling this it is the Arab league. If it is not important enough for them to handle these issues than it's not really important enough for me. I say if Muslims want to blame everything on some grand Christian crusade, then we should just let Muslims handle Muslim problems, let Arabs handle Arab problems.
In short I see no reason why we would send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Arab boys ought to be doing for themselves.
But if you accept that Russia and China are also geo-political players in the region then, sad as it may be to admit, America can't simply take a back foot on global affairs. otherwise you would simply have the above mentioned powers increasing their regional influence without the US as a counter-balance however unequal that currently is. China is up and coming whilst Russia is the sick man of super-powers and about to be driven out of the region entirely. Muslims will never be allowed to solve Muslim problems any more than Europe was able to sort out European porblems on its own during the Cold War ie no united Germany until the US triumphed.
It might be a crass comparison, but if you look at what happened when the US, already the worlds greatest if not sole power after WW1, became isolationist and focused on the economy. All that happened was the expansion of regional players like Japan, Germany, Italy and even the USSR in the Baltic. Not only that but geo-political games certainly continued among the other nations at this time. When Italy invaded Abyssinnia (modern Ethiopia), Britain and France were about to make a secret deal with Mussolini to partition the country until it was uncovered and a public scandal ensued. I'am not saying the world is neccesarily better with the US being a player in geo-politics but its certainly doubtful that it is any worse. It may be gauling and ammoral, but sending troops to war to enahnce your own influence is just standard fare of soveriegn states. Whats wrong is that despite being democracies the West doesn't make this a rational public debate about what is and is not in the nations interest. Instead you get this counter-intuitive argument over 'just war' which is silly since no war is truly just or good.
514
Post by: Orlanth
People following the opportunist who fancies himself Assads replacement.
Its rather simple.
"Fight for me and we will be free" = You fight, I will take over afterwards as your leader.
"Other Arab countries and enjoying their new won freedom" = So why not start a war here, many people will die, who cares so long as I get to be the next president.
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
LordofHats wrote:Totalwar1402 wrote:It wants a 100% American beef Abrams not skinny Russian goat T-55s. If Assad goes down that means megabucks for US arms dealers. My friend, as you can probably tell, is quite insane.
The Iraqi army is primarily armed with AK's and and US surplus from the 80's... And almost all their hardware is Russian.
.
I thought they were trying to acquire Abrams tanks and that most of the Russian gear was left over from Sadams armouries.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
But if you accept that Russia and China are also geo-political players in the region then, sad as it may be to admit, America can't simply take a back foot on global affairs. otherwise you would simply have the above mentioned powers increasing their regional influence without the US as a counter-balance however unequal that currently is. China is up and coming whilst Russia is the sick man of super-powers and about to be driven out of the region entirely. Muslims will never be allowed to solve Muslim problems any more than Europe was able to sort out European porblems on its own during the Cold War ie no united Germany until the US triumphed.
It might be a crass comparison, but if you look at what happened when the US, already the worlds greatest if not sole power after WW1, became isolationist and focused on the economy. All that happened was the expansion of regional players like Japan, Germany, Italy and even the USSR in the Baltic. Not only that but geo-political games certainly continued among the other nations at this time. When Italy invaded Abyssinnia (modern Ethiopia), Britain and France were about to make a secret deal with Mussolini to partition the country until it was uncovered and a public scandal ensued. I'am not saying the world is neccesarily better with the US being a player in geo-politics but its certainly doubtful that it is any worse. It may be gauling and ammoral, but sending troops to war to enahnce your own influence is just standard fare of soveriegn states. Whats wrong is that despite being democracies the West doesn't make this a rational public debate about what is and is not in the nations interest. Instead you get this counter-intuitive argument over 'just war' which is silly since no war is truly just or good.
Yes I understand what you are saying, but it's Syria. It's not really vitally important to the US. It would just be another gigantic pit to throw troops and money into, for nothing.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Totalwar1402 wrote:I thought they were trying to acquire Abrams tanks and that most of the Russian gear was left over from Sadams armouries.
Wanting and having are different. A lot of countries would love to have Abrams tanks but we don't sell that kind of hardware until its obsolete and we've replaced it with something better.
So I guess they can ask Santa- Oh wait
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
LordofHats wrote:Totalwar1402 wrote:I thought they were trying to acquire Abrams tanks and that most of the Russian gear was left over from Sadams armouries.
Wanting and having are different. A lot of countries would love to have Abrams tanks but we don't sell that kind of hardware until its obsolete and we've replaced it with something better.
So I guess they can ask Santa- Oh wait
Didn't we sell some to Egypt, or did that get nixed?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I don't think we've ever sold Abrams overseas. We sold Egypt a lot of our surplus M60's and F14's though.
Politics play into this a little. Even if we did sell them we wouldn't sell them to Egypt. That would upset the Israeli's.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
LordofHats wrote:I don't think we've ever sold Abrams overseas. We sold Egypt a lot of our surplus M60's and F14's though.
Politics play into this a little. Even if we did sell them we wouldn't sell them to Egypt. That would upset the Israeli's.
Well I remember there was a lot of press about selling them to Egypt, but maybe it got nixed.
Nope didn't get nixed.
Surprisingly it appears we are handing these out like 1 dollar bills at a strip joint. I was really surprised by this.
Actually here are the numbers.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/
Australia has 59 M1A1SAs (hybrids with a mix of equipment used by US Army and Marine Corps tanks, without depleted uranium layers in armor
Egypt has over 1000 M1A1Tanks with a factory co-produced by the US and Egypt for the Egyptian army. Another 125 Tanks have been ordered
Iraq has 140 M1A1Ms (downgraded, without depleted uranium layers in armor)
Kuwait has 218 M1A2s (downgraded, without depleted uranium layers in armor
Saudi Arabia has 373 To be upgraded to M1A2S configuration
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
What. Egypt has 1125 Abrams tanks? What for, and why doesn't Israel complain about this?
5534
Post by: dogma
LordofHats wrote: Syria isn't exactly a state that can police and control its own borders. It's fairly easy to sneak, bribe, and kill to smuggle goods into a third world country with a corrupt government that doesn't really care for its own laws.
The first rule of Syria: you do not feth with the Assads.
Otherwise, do what you want.
8352
Post by: Lord Bingo
Samus_aran115 wrote:What. Egypt has 1125 Abrams tanks? What for, and why doesn't Israel complain about this?
Because without the depleted uranium plates in the armour, the tank is very vulnerable against modern anti tank weapons. Which the Israeli army has by the boatload.
48860
Post by: Joey
Lord Bingo wrote:Samus_aran115 wrote:What. Egypt has 1125 Abrams tanks? What for, and why doesn't Israel complain about this?
Because without the depleted uranium plates in the armour, the tank is very vulnerable against modern anti tank weapons. Which the Israeli army has by the boatload.
Yup, without the DU in its hull it's much more vulnerable than say the Challanger 2.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Samus_aran wrote:What. Egypt has 1125 Abrams tanks? What for, and why doesn't Israel complain about this?
Because it's none of their business?
5534
Post by: dogma
Samus_aran115 wrote:What. Egypt has 1125 Abrams tanks? What for, and why doesn't Israel complain about this?
Peace treaty.
Of course, things have changed politically.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
dogma wrote:LordofHats wrote: Syria isn't exactly a state that can police and control its own borders. It's fairly easy to sneak, bribe, and kill to smuggle goods into a third world country with a corrupt government that doesn't really care for its own laws.
The first rule of Syria: you do not feth with the Assads.
Otherwise, do what you want.
Looks like this is just a continuation of that as this uprising is happening in the same place. If this is just another Sunni vs Shiite party, we really need to stay out of it. This is being covered as a popular uprising against an unpopular and brutal government, like Libya and Egypt. This really may just be a Muslim sect uprising in a country with a brutal government. Not that I really care either way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:Lord Bingo wrote:Samus_aran115 wrote:What. Egypt has 1125 Abrams tanks? What for, and why doesn't Israel complain about this?
Because without the depleted uranium plates in the armour, the tank is very vulnerable against modern anti tank weapons. Which the Israeli army has by the boatload.
Yup, without the DU in its hull it's much more vulnerable than say the Challanger 2.
Yeah but it doesn't look like Egypt got the down graded ones. They have the full M1A1 if I am reading correctly. The numbers say others got the downgraded versions, but it didn't say anything about the Egyptian tanks being downgraded. I kind of doubt we would give people the DU armor, but why specifically list it with the others then. Can anybody confirm this?
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
Looks like this is just a continuation of that as this uprising is happening in the same place. If this is just another Sunni vs Shiite party, we really need to stay out of it.
Its not, nor has it ever been. The Assads are brutal, and conventionally corrupt, no one likes them (except us, kind of).
Andrew1975 wrote:
This is being covered as a popular uprising against an unpopular and brutal government, like Libya and Egypt. This really may just be a Muslim sect uprising in a country with a brutal government. Not that I really care either way.
Its both.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
dogma wrote:Andrew1975 wrote:
Looks like this is just a continuation of that as this uprising is happening in the same place. If this is just another Sunni vs Shiite party, we really need to stay out of it.
Its not, nor has it ever been. The Assads are brutal, and conventionally corrupt, no one likes them (except us, kind of).
Andrew1975 wrote:
This is being covered as a popular uprising against an unpopular and brutal government, like Libya and Egypt. This really may just be a Muslim sect uprising in a country with a brutal government. Not that I really care either way.
Its both.
It's hard for me to figure from the media coverage, but it appears that Assad is popular or at least accepted among the rest of the people. There does not appear to be uprisings all over.
So it appears to me he may in fact be brutal and corrupt but that's par for the course. Do most Syrians have a real problem with him? Is there a real alternative to him? If the Arab League doesn't care enough or know enough to handle the situation, why should we think that we can handle it?
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
It's hard for me to figure from the media coverage, but it appears that Assad is popular or at least accepted among the rest of the people. There does not appear to be uprisings all over.
There generally aren't. Popular uprisings, based on evidence, don't exist in the form many people assume them to.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Do most Syrians have a real problem with him?
Probably, though probably not enough of one to risk being bombarded.
Andrew1975 wrote:
If the Arab League doesn't care enough or know enough to handle the situation, why should we think that we can handle it?
I'm not sure why you think the Arab League is relevant.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
I think the Arab league is relevant because if anybody should be handling and understanding Arab issues it should be the Arab League, not countries from half way around the world that don't really understand the situation. Also Syria is part of the Arab League.
The UN wants to go into another Arab country to end bloodshed, that is never going to end until apparently one side or the other is gone. Let them wipe each other out. I'm still not sure why we should care? I understand the whole human suffering issue, But they are going to suffer either way. No amount of the press saying that Syrian blood is on our hands for standing on the sidelines is going to change my mind.
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:I think the Arab league is relevant because if anybody should be handling and understanding Arab issues it should be the Arab League, not countries from half way around the world that don't really understand the situation. Also Syria is part of the Arab League.
But why? Just because its called the Arab League doesn't mean its responsible for all things Arab (and not all states in the AL are predominantly Arab), or even member nations. In fact, it generally doesn't intervene in any sort of internal conflict.
Also, Syria's membership was suspended in November 2011.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
dogma wrote:Andrew1975 wrote:I think the Arab league is relevant because if anybody should be handling and understanding Arab issues it should be the Arab League, not countries from half way around the world that don't really understand the situation. Also Syria is part of the Arab League.
But why? Just because its called the Arab League doesn't mean its responsible for all things Arab (and not all states in the AL are predominantly Arab), or even member nations. In fact, it generally doesn't intervene in any sort of internal conflict.
Also, Syria's membership was suspended in November 2011.
They suspended Syria from the Arab League over specifically over this failure to end the bloodshed caused by brutal government crackdowns
The main goal of the league is to "draw closer the relations between member States and co-ordinate collaboration between them, to safeguard their independence and sovereignty, and to consider in a general way the affairs and interests of the Arab countries."
The Arab League as an Organization has no military force, like the UN or EU, but recently in the 2007 summit, the Leaders decided to reactivate their joint defense and establilsh a peacekeeping force to deploy in South Lebanon, Darfur, Iraq, and other hot spots.
I would call this a hotspot inside their sphere or influence. If they are gonna mouth off anytime an outside steps in to clean up issues inside their sphere of influence then they need to take care of it before it is an issue.
If you are gonna complain because the western forces that you ask for help from don't follow Muslim or Arab traditions or break your rules, then take care of it yourself.
If you have something like the Arab League stop running to the UN or NATO. Use your own GD forces.
I'm sick of this continual Damned if we do, Damned if we situation that comes out of the middle east. If you want autonomy then exercise it, because really I've been ready for the whole damned if we don't option for quite some time. Just let these pricks kill each other off already. Especially places like Syria that we owe no allegiance to and have nothing to offer us.
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
They suspended Syria from the Arab League over specifically over this failure to end the bloodshed caused by brutal government crackdowns
Obviously.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I would call this a hotspot inside their sphere or influence.
Of course you would, but you're not them. What is, and is not a hot spot is hardly an objective determination.
Andrew1975 wrote:
If they are gonna mouth off anytime an outside steps in to clean up issues inside their sphere of influence then they need to take care of it before it is an issue.
No they don't. Its perfectly reasonable to claim that X is fine, and that Y should not intervene because X is fine.
Andrew1975 wrote:
If you are gonna complain because the western forces that you ask for help from don't follow Muslim or Arab traditions or break your rules, then take care of it yourself.
Again, perfectly reasonable to ask for help with X, and be upset about intervention with Y.
To draw an obtuse analogy, I asked my dad to help me set up my sound system, but I'd be more than a little annoyed if he decided to give me pointers on the manly arts of the bedroom.
Andrew1975 wrote:
If you have something like the Arab League stop running to the UN or NATO.
You do realize that the UN isn't just the West, right?
29110
Post by: AustonT
LordofHats wrote:I don't think we've ever sold Abrams overseas.
You'd be epically wrong.
They are in service in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Austrailia and Iraq.
LordofHats wrote:Totalwar1402 wrote:I thought they were trying to acquire Abrams tanks and that most of the Russian gear was left over from Sadams armouries.
Wanting and having are different. A lot of countries would love to have Abrams tanks but we don't sell that kind of hardware until its obsolete and we've replaced it with something better.
So I guess they can ask Santa- Oh wait
Wanting and having ARE different. Here's a picture of the Iraqis HAVING. 
And one of the early reports of the deal.
December 18, 2008: The U.S. Department of Defense has approved the sale of another $6 billion in weapons to Iraq. Among the major items the Iraqis are getting are 400 Stryker armored vehicles, 140 M-1 tanks, 23 coastal patrol boats.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Of course you would, but you're not them. What is, and is not a hot spot is hardly an objective determination.
I'm not making the determination, The Arab league is by going to the UN. If it is hot enough for the Arab League to go to the UN and ask for intervention, then it is hot enough for the Arab League to intervene.
No they don't. Its perfectly reasonable to claim that X is fine, and that Y should not intervene because X is fine.
Sure, but when The Arab League claims that X is not fine and wants help, they better accept the help they get and be thankful for it! Or better yet do it themselves!
Again, perfectly reasonable to ask for help with X, and be upset about intervention with Y.
To draw an obtuse analogy, I asked my dad to help me set up my sound system, but I'd be more than a little annoyed if he decided to give me pointers on the manly arts of the bedroom.
Sure, but when you illicit support from non Muslims, it's wrong to expect the support to completely understand Muslim traditions. If you are so worried about white Christians frisking your women or soiling your holy sites with our presence, or God forbid female soldiers relaxing in their civies. Send you own GD Muslim armies.
You do realize that the UN isn't just the West, right?
Yes, but you always insist that its predominantly controlled by the west. Nato certainly is West. Any UN force sent anywhere is going to be predominantly West or more specific US. Arabs nations are always telling us to stay out of Arab affairs. Fine! Handle it yourself and stop asking for our help. Most people in the west have had enough of intervening in the middle east. Let the f'ing savages kill each other already.
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
If it is hot enough for the Arab League to go to the UN and ask for intervention, then it is hot enough for them to do it.
Dude, get me a beer.
No.
feth it, I don't want to get up.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure, but when you claim X is not fine and you want help, you better accept the help you get and be thankful for it!
Just because someone offers help doesn't mean it actually is help, or that the person offering the help is someone that you want help from in this particular circumstance.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure, but when you illicit support from non Muslims...
Ellicit. Not trying to be a pedant, its just a mistake a lot of people make without knowing that its a mistake.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Arabs nations are always telling us to stay out of Arab affairs. Fine! Handle it yourself and stop asking for our help.
Well, its usually "Muslim nations" as Arab nationalism is barely a thing anymore. Also, what nation X, Muslim or Arab, requests has no bearing on what nation Y requests; regardless of any common culture.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Just because someone offers help doesn't mean it actually is help, or that the person offering the help is someone that you want help from in this particular circumstance.
It's not about people offering help it is about them asking for it when 1.They have the ability to do it themselves 2. They give everybody gak after the support is given.
Dude, get me a beer.
No.
feth it, I don't want to get up.
We've been over this I get it. That's why I'm saying we should stay out of it.
Well, its usually "Muslim nations" as Arab nationalism is barely a thing anymore. Also, what nation X, Muslim or Arab, requests has no bearing on what nation Y requests; regardless of any common culture.
Yes, but it's called the Arab league not the Muslim League.
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote: 2. They give everybody gak after the support is given.
Of course they do, why wouldn't they?
Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes, but it's called the Arab league not the Muslim League.
Shockingly, what something is called has very little to do with what it actually is.
21737
Post by: murdog
I was under the impression that Arab meant something more than nationalism, ie. a common culture, language, and history that trancends the nation state.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Of course they do, why wouldn't they?
Because as it turns out they might want it again, and now based on past experience we may not want to give it to them.
Well, its usually "Muslim nations" as Arab nationalism is barely a thing anymore. Also, what nation X, Muslim or Arab, requests has no bearing on what nation Y requests; regardless of any common culture.
Which is why for the most part we should just stay out of it and wash our hands of the situation unless there is some real reason to be there. Either stop accusing us of imperialism and destabilization of the area or quit inviting us to the party every 6 months. Seriously.
5534
Post by: dogma
murdog wrote:I was under the impression that Arab meant something more than nationalism, ie. a common culture, language, and history that trancends the nation state.
It does, and Arab Nationalism isn't just nationalism. Automatically Appended Next Post: Andrew1975 wrote:
Because as it turns out they might want it again, and now based on past experience we may not want to give it to them.
We should grant aid if granting aid favors us.
Everything else is extraneous.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Which is why for the most part we should just stay out of it and wash our hands of the situation unless there is some real reason to be there. Either stop accusing us of imperialism and destabilization of the area or quit inviting us to the party every 6 months. Seriously.
"We shouldn't intervene, but I'm going to invent reasons to be mad about things I briefly read about."
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
LordofHats wrote:Totalwar1402 wrote:I thought they were trying to acquire Abrams tanks and that most of the Russian gear was left over from Sadams armouries.
Wanting and having are different. A lot of countries would love to have Abrams tanks but we don't sell that kind of hardware until its obsolete and we've replaced it with something better.
So I guess they can ask Santa- Oh wait
You sold several hundred to Egypt. Even got to see them roll onto the streets during the protests. Never thought I'd see the day. If you can sell them to Mubarak then selling them to Iraq would seem plausable. Automatically Appended Next Post: AustonT wrote:LordofHats wrote:I don't think we've ever sold Abrams overseas.
You'd be epically wrong.
They are in service in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Austrailia and Iraq.
LordofHats wrote:Totalwar1402 wrote:I thought they were trying to acquire Abrams tanks and that most of the Russian gear was left over from Sadams armouries.
Wanting and having are different. A lot of countries would love to have Abrams tanks but we don't sell that kind of hardware until its obsolete and we've replaced it with something better.
So I guess they can ask Santa- Oh wait
Wanting and having ARE different. Here's a picture of the Iraqis HAVING.
And one of the early reports of the deal.
December 18, 2008: The U.S. Department of Defense has approved the sale of another $6 billion in weapons to Iraq. Among the major items the Iraqis are getting are 400 Stryker armored vehicles, 140 M-1 tanks, 23 coastal patrol boats.
Does America have a plan B if any government decides to turn them against us? Or worse turn the tech over to the Chinese/Russians?
America has no issue selling arms, especially not to its allies, however short-sighted that might turn out to be. I believe President Carter complained that the Shah of Iran was getting the most advanced type of aircraft BEFORE America would have gotten them. Then the revolution happened with the Iotollas and; well, you know.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Andrew1975 wrote:
Russia has long been Syria's primary military supplier and currently has about $4 billion worth of contracts for future arms deliveries to Damascus, according to a report from global analysis firm Oxford Analytica. With the loss of arms sales to Iran following U.N. sanctions and the cancellation of contracts in Libya after the Gadhafi regime's overthrow, the list of Russian arms customers in the region is dwindling. The lost business with Iran was worth $13 billion, according to Treisman, while the Libyan deals totaled $4.5 billion.
In short I see no reason why we would send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Arab boys ought to be doing for themselves.
You realise that it's exactly the same situation for the US and UK through right? And in turn the exact reason that we have a very good reason to send troops there, in the same way we helped with the overthrow of Gaddafi?
Pretty much every conflict in the Middle East, every despot regime, is supported by either 'the west' or Russia/China, in an effort to secure trade of fossil fuels. Look at the situation in Egypt with President Murubak, who was supported right until the end (and a reluctant withdrawal when international pressure became to strong, and it was obvious that he was going to be overthrown) by the Obama presidency. Or Saudi Arabia, the country where they line up a dozen 'criminals' in a row, at a public show, and a guy with a sword walks along beheading each of them in turn. But, they supply oil to the West, and so the ruling monarchy's atrocities are ignored - the perfect example of moral exceptionalism, as long as you play ball with us, we will turn the other cheek to any other issues . We ignore the fact that all but one of the 9/11 hijackers was ex-military from Saudi Arabia, and that such a terrorist act was to strike at the financial heart of the country which they deem to be keeping the despot monarchs of that country in power. Again, you could give any other number of examples.
In effect the proxy wars between Russia/theWest which occurred throughout south Asia in the latter half of the twentieth century have now moved locale, and are instead taking place in the middle east. This time, rather than the objective being the ideology of a nation, it is for control over energy resources. The inhumane actions of those countries which have traditionally been supported by ourselves, and have trade deals with us, are ignored while those which trade with the 'other side' (Russia/China) are vilified in turn.
As for whether we intervene in these types of conflicts for humanitarian concern, while that might be a (debatabley) good side effect, to claim that that is the sole reason for military action is a far stretch of the imagination. The 5 million dead in the Congolese civil war in the last decade, the worst conflict in terms of casualties since the 2nd world war, would argue otherwise. Unfortunately for them, their conflict isn't taking place on the kind of natural resources that would make our intervention worthwhile.
++EDIT++ The pics of those M1 Abrams, and news of the arms deal, is especially worrying if you take heed to reports that the Iraqi government is effectively under the control of Iran.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Pacific wrote:Andrew1975 wrote:
Russia has long been Syria's primary military supplier and currently has about $4 billion worth of contracts for future arms deliveries to Damascus, according to a report from global analysis firm Oxford Analytica. With the loss of arms sales to Iran following U.N. sanctions and the cancellation of contracts in Libya after the Gadhafi regime's overthrow, the list of Russian arms customers in the region is dwindling. The lost business with Iran was worth $13 billion, according to Treisman, while the Libyan deals totaled $4.5 billion.
In short I see no reason why we would send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Arab boys ought to be doing for themselves.
You realise that it's exactly the same situation for the US and UK through right? And in turn the exact reason that we have a very good reason to send troops there, in the same way we helped with the overthrow of Gaddafi?
Pretty much every conflict in the Middle East, every despot regime, is supported by either 'the west' or Russia/China, in an effort to secure trade of fossil fuels. Look at the situation in Egypt with President Murubak, who was supported right until the end (and a reluctant withdrawal when international pressure became to strong, and it was obvious that he was going to be overthrown) by the Obama presidency. Or Saudi Arabia, the country where they line up a dozen 'criminals' in a row, at a public show, and a guy with a sword walks along beheading each of them in turn. But, they supply oil to the West, and so the ruling monarchy's atrocities are ignored - the perfect example of moral exceptionalism, as long as you play ball with us, we will turn the other cheek to any other issues . We ignore the fact that all but one of the 9/11 hijackers was ex-military from Saudi Arabia, and that such a terrorist act was to strike at the financial heart of the country which they deem to be keeping the despot monarchs of that country in power. Again, you could give any other number of examples.
In effect the proxy wars between Russia/theWest which occurred throughout south Asia in the latter half of the twentieth century have now moved locale, and are instead taking place in the middle east. This time, rather than the objective being the ideology of a nation, it is for control over energy resources. The inhumane actions of those countries which have traditionally been supported by ourselves, and have trade deals with us, are ignored while those which trade with the 'other side' (Russia/China) are vilified in turn.
As for whether we intervene in these types of conflicts for humanitarian concern, while that might be a (debatabley) good side effect, to claim that that is the sole reason for military action is a far stretch of the imagination. The 5 million dead in the Congolese civil war in the last decade, the worst conflict in terms of casualties since the 2nd world war, would argue otherwise. Unfortunately for them, their conflict isn't taking place on the kind of natural resources that would make our intervention worthwhile.
++EDIT++ The pics of those M1 Abrams, and news of the arms deal, is especially worrying if you take heed to reports that the Iraqi government is effectively under the control of Iran.
Yes, again I understand your point. But Syria offers us nothing but another big waste. The US should be done spending out treasure on stupid expeditions like this. The US spent by far more than any other country on the liberation of Libya. If the Arab league is concerned they are the most capable of handling the situation based on cultural and regional understanding.
If Europe wants to go fine. Let them. The US is broke and we don't need to go around interfering in other peoples business when there is little to nothing to gain.
The attacks on 9/11 were a direct response to our intervention in the middle east as Osama was not happy to have infidels in his home land. Hence, had we not been there defending Kuwait (who basically dared Saddam to attack them) we would not have been attacked. These proxy wars that you speak of have only proven to put the Soviet Union (Russia) and the United States in to Massive debt while making us look like big bullies to most of the world where we fight them. For what? Nothing has really changed.
The pics of those M1 Abrams, and news of the arms deal, is especially worrying if you take heed to reports that the Iraqi government is effectively under the control of Iran.
So this must be what you think as the proper way to do things? Here you are saying we need to intervene, what has Iraq gotten us? Just a big amount of debt and we are basically in a worse spot then we were when we started becuase now Iran is running an Iraq that we armed. Great plan!
We should grant aid if granting aid favors us.
Everything else is extraneous.
What are your parameters for favor? I completely agree, but favor is pretty vague. Why would anybody do something that doesn't favor them in someway?
"We shouldn't intervene, but I'm going to invent reasons to be mad about things I briefly read about."
Don't be pedantic. I'm not inventing reasons, these reasons are and have always been there. I didn't just read about them either. In general our interference in the middle east has never been seen as anything but oppressive to Muslims/Arabs/Whatever. It has gotten us nothing but scorn for very little return. It's better if we let them sort out their own problems, especially when there is so little to gain from helping a country like Syria.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Does America have a plan B if any government decides to turn them against us? Or worse turn the tech over to the Chinese/Russians?
Well apparently the ones Iraq has are just M1's (unless Andrew was abbreviating) and the M1 as far as I know doesn't have any of the high tech stuff US Abrams have them. Of course I didn't even know we sold M1's overseas so maybe I'm wrong about that too XD
5534
Post by: dogma
LordofHats wrote:
Well apparently the ones Iraq has are just M1's (unless Andrew was abbreviating) and the M1 as far as I know doesn't have any of the high tech stuff US Abrams have them. Of course I didn't even know we sold M1's overseas so maybe I'm wrong about that too XD
They're export M1A1s, which basically mean M1A1s without DU mesh in their armor.
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
LordofHats wrote:Does America have a plan B if any government decides to turn them against us? Or worse turn the tech over to the Chinese/Russians?
Well apparently the ones Iraq has are just M1's (unless Andrew was abbreviating) and the M1 as far as I know doesn't have any of the high tech stuff US Abrams have them. Of course I didn't even know we sold M1's overseas so maybe I'm wrong about that too XD
I'am assuming the crews won't be quite up to scratch as well. When Jordan went into the six day war with Patton tanks they found themselves being knocked out by upgraded Israeli Shermans and Centurions. Can stuff like Javelins and hellfire rockets (apache rockets) knock out Abrams tanks or is it really difficult? Even if they were just M1's that still way ahead of anything China or Russia has in its arsenal; so far as I'am aware that is. Still it is scary.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Well depending on which model of Patton that's not surprising. Many of the Post-WWII US Tanks were really really bad.
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
What are your parameters for favor? I completely agree, but favor is pretty vague.
Its international relations, everything is vague.
But, loosely, anything that helps us accomplish anything that we want to do. A couple examples are "protect Israel", "Keep the Assads in power", and "Remove the Assads from power".
Andrew1975 wrote:
Don't be pedantic. I'm not inventing reasons, these reasons are and have always been there. I didn't just read about them either. In general our interference in the middle east has never been seen as anything but oppressive to Muslims/Arabs/Whatever. It has gotten us nothing but scorn for very little return. It's better if we let them sort out their own problems, especially when there is so little to gain from helping a country like Syria.
Unless you've made the Middle East a topic of serious study since you were 18, from my perspective you just started reading about them, or alternatively have dabbled in the subject matter.
More to the point, you seem preoccupied with the idea that people in a country on the other side of the world tend to not like America. I don't see why this is necessarily an issue. Sometimes you want foreign nationals to be sympathetic, but it isn't always necessary and is often a necessary consequence of foreign policy. I've also seen you make the argument that we have received very little return for our involvement in the Middle East, and I've already explained why you underestimate the significance of the region to the American economy.
This doesn't mean that we should intervene in Syria, but also doesn't mean that we shouldn't. There are no easy answers here, and the only that believe otherwise are either trying to sell you something, or largely ignorant of the reality of international relations.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Andrew1975 wrote:Pacific wrote:Andrew1975 wrote:
Russia has long been Syria's primary military supplier and currently has about $4 billion worth of contracts for future arms deliveries to Damascus, according to a report from global analysis firm Oxford Analytica. With the loss of arms sales to Iran following U.N. sanctions and the cancellation of contracts in Libya after the Gadhafi regime's overthrow, the list of Russian arms customers in the region is dwindling. The lost business with Iran was worth $13 billion, according to Treisman, while the Libyan deals totaled $4.5 billion.
In short I see no reason why we would send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Arab boys ought to be doing for themselves.
You realise that it's exactly the same situation for the US and UK through right? And in turn the exact reason that we have a very good reason to send troops there, in the same way we helped with the overthrow of Gaddafi?
Pretty much every conflict in the Middle East, every despot regime, is supported by either 'the west' or Russia/China, in an effort to secure trade of fossil fuels. Look at the situation in Egypt with President Murubak, who was supported right until the end (and a reluctant withdrawal when international pressure became to strong, and it was obvious that he was going to be overthrown) by the Obama presidency. Or Saudi Arabia, the country where they line up a dozen 'criminals' in a row, at a public show, and a guy with a sword walks along beheading each of them in turn. But, they supply oil to the West, and so the ruling monarchy's atrocities are ignored - the perfect example of moral exceptionalism, as long as you play ball with us, we will turn the other cheek to any other issues . We ignore the fact that all but one of the 9/11 hijackers was ex-military from Saudi Arabia, and that such a terrorist act was to strike at the financial heart of the country which they deem to be keeping the despot monarchs of that country in power. Again, you could give any other number of examples.
In effect the proxy wars between Russia/theWest which occurred throughout south Asia in the latter half of the twentieth century have now moved locale, and are instead taking place in the middle east. This time, rather than the objective being the ideology of a nation, it is for control over energy resources. The inhumane actions of those countries which have traditionally been supported by ourselves, and have trade deals with us, are ignored while those which trade with the 'other side' (Russia/China) are vilified in turn.
As for whether we intervene in these types of conflicts for humanitarian concern, while that might be a (debatabley) good side effect, to claim that that is the sole reason for military action is a far stretch of the imagination. The 5 million dead in the Congolese civil war in the last decade, the worst conflict in terms of casualties since the 2nd world war, would argue otherwise. Unfortunately for them, their conflict isn't taking place on the kind of natural resources that would make our intervention worthwhile.
++EDIT++ The pics of those M1 Abrams, and news of the arms deal, is especially worrying if you take heed to reports that the Iraqi government is effectively under the control of Iran.
Yes, again I understand your point. But Syria offers us nothing but another big waste. The US should be done spending out treasure on stupid expeditions like this. The US spent by far more than any other country on the liberation of Libya. If the Arab league is concerned they are the most capable of handling the situation based on cultural and regional understanding.
First of all, I just want to say I agree with you Andrew, I don't at all sanction intervention willy-nilly into the affairs of other countries, especially when 'regime change' is involved, or the action is unilateral. History has proven that such actions rarely have the interests of the common people at heart, and it usually ends in significant bloodshed and instability. Furthermore, I find the sanctimonious nonsense that the Hague spouts, in terms of the reasons to intervene, to be tiresome and false. As a side note, I find it interesting how the Conservative party have changed their packaging of PR when related to foreign policy - 10 years ago during the build up to Iraq, rather than taking the 'WMD' route, the conservative shadow foreign secretary spoke up to say they wished that Labour had been more honest in their appraisals of the reasons to send our military to Iraq; i.e. in his words, 'the geopolitical stability of the middle east'. It has become a cliché, but in other words, unfettered access to the black stuff. Obviously, some of New Labour's spin doctors have found new jobs.
The 'Liberation of Libya' is an interesting term, and I think quite inaccurate when examined in any detail. All we have done is given the reigns to another tribal group, shaken the pot up and tried to prompt things to fall neatly on our side. Libya is one of the top 10 oil producers in the world - a former US energy secretary commented that a rise in US energy prices was at least in part down to the pause put on Libyan oil, and there was every reason to go in. As for the 'humanist' argument, that we have a moral responsibility to the brutally oppressed. Well, that's a fine thing to say, but consider that Cameron was on a tour of the Gulf at the same time the Libyan civil war started, selling arms to the same oppressive regimes. He had been in Libya the previous year, and the very same tanks, guns, tear gas, stun grenades etc. (made by British companies) were used on the rioters fighting against Gadhafi. Sarkozy was similarly hypocritical, sending the bombers when only months before he had been sending his own security troops and weaponry to help prop up the Ben Ali regime in Tunisia.
So it's safe to assume that the chaps throwing their shoes at Ghadafi weren't the intended beneficiaries of the air strikes on Libya, but you would instead have to argue that there was a massive financial imperative to do so. In purely selfish terms, and if one is to put aside for one moment the value of human lives and those destroyed by the conflict, the way that the US and UK government has gone on is easily defensible, in fact should be its very purpose, in that it is trying to secure the future wealth of the country.
However having said that, I think it's also a mistake to regard the wealth of an entire country to be a single entity, with the same objectives and requirements, that must be answerable for its actions. Eisenhower warned about the 'military Industrial complex', about the dangers to democracy that a large and powerful military, and it's corresponding industry, represents. Well, here we have it - Bill Hicks used to joke about it in his stand-up, but the reason the West knew that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? Well, we looked at our receipts. It's a simplification of course, but the massive arms trade, not just in the US but also the UK (read Mark Thomas's book, 'As used on the famous Nelson Mandela') and we have a history of selling armaments to whoever is willing to hand over the money. What if Iraq does turn nasty again in the next 20 years or so and we end up fighting those Abrams that have just been sold to them? Well, we'll destroy them with our newly built weapons, after the incumbent parliament votes to attack based on the massive political pressures of the weapon-building lobby groups.
Reading your post I completely agree with you in part; in principle I fundamentally disagree with the wanton destruction of people's lives just for the acquisition of wealth. It made me feel outrage reading that Dick Cheney, one of the chief Hawks motivating the second gulf war was an executive of the Haliburton group - the company now reaping the rewards of Iraq's oil wealth, taking that as payment for the rebuilding of infrastructure that the same government was responsible for destroying. Does the American public benefit from this? Most probably no, unless you happen to be a Haliburton shareholder, and the argument could be made that the middle eastern conflicts have made the likelihood of a terrorist retaliation increase massively. However, such are the problems when you have a group that is not democratically elected, and only has its own interests at heart, directing government policy. The greatest trick they pull, however, is hiding such actions behind the veil of morality, of shared interest of the objectives of such a conflict, when in actual fact the opposite is true.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Dogma
That's a better argument. We really do need to care how people half way around the world feel about us. Not because it would be nice if they thought we were great. This strained relationship that we have with the middle east makes it very hard for us to make any real political inroads without paying a very high price for them. Seeing as they have the oil that we need it would benefit us to have good working relations with their ruling parties and also be generally accepted by the people. I have no illusions of winning the hearts and mind of the people, but it would be good for business if we didn't appear as the devil to them, taking out one of their leaders every few years and causing a general disturbance that from their perspective makes them think we are some kind of crusaders and or oil vampires. We may very well be oil vampires (I am, if it wasn't for oil and international backlash I'd gladly sign to turn the place into one big piece of glass) but it does not help our aims for them to perceive us as such.
I know you always take the view that the common people really don't matter, and for the most part you are right. But when you some crazy dictator falls and we want the resources that belong to hid country, well it would make the job a whole lot easier if every AK wielding member of that country didn't also want to shoot at the US.
I fundamentally disagree with the wanton destruction of people's lives just for the acquisition of wealth
I don't have a real problem with fighting for resources, I just think the way we have done it has been flawed. You need to pick your fights, we picked ours poorly and have really turned a large segment of the world against us. I see no reason to not let Arabs fight amongst themselves while we sweep up the pieces of what is left. When Iraq went into Kuwait, was the outcome really going to be that bad for the US? Iraq still would have needed to sell that oil and we were not on bad terms with Iraq at that point. If anything we may have benefited from that situation. I could care less that Saddam was brutal to is people, their his people to do with as he pleases.
I feel the same way about Libya. Momar had been quite for a long time, he had actually been playing ball and toned down his anti west rhetoric also "the spice was flowing", so i really didn't see the need to overthrow his government. For me it's always about the Devil you know and have in your pocket.
And yes I do agree I should have put the "liberation of Libya" in quotation marks.
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:This strained relationship that we have with the middle east makes it very hard for us to make any real political inroads without paying a very high price for them.
Actually, doing business with the states in the Middle East isn't very much harder than doing business with any other nation that isn't Britain. This is largely because, excepting states like Iran that stay in power on the basis of anti-Western rhetoric, the majority of ruling bodies in the region aren't outright hostile, and generally have a pretty good hold over their populations.
As I said, sometimes you want foreign nationals to be sympathetic, but its not always necessary, and often time dislike of your country is a necessary consequence of achieving goals.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Seeing as they have the oil that we need it would benefit us to have good working relations with their ruling parties and also be generally accepted by the people.
But we don't need their oil, we need them to ensure they sell a certain amount of oil every year in order to maintain its global price. We don't even get all that much oil from the Middle East, and most of the oil we do get is from Saudi Arabia, and the Sauds like us. The population is less thrilled with America, but they don't really matter because the Saud family is in no danger of losing power.
Andrew1975 wrote:
But when you some crazy dictator falls and we want the resources that belong to hid country, well it would make the job a whole lot easier if every AK wielding member of that country didn't also want to shoot at the US.
Actually, the major concern with the fall of dictators like Mubarak is related to the creation of havens for terrorism, and to a degree the safety of Israel. Personally, I don't care about Israel's safety, but lots of people in the US seem to, and in a democracy that's important (though not as important as people think). Automatically Appended Next Post: Pacific wrote: In purely selfish terms, and if one is to put aside for one moment the value of human lives and those destroyed by the conflict...
Why should I value the lives of people I don't, and will likely never, know?
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
But we don't need their oil, we need them to ensure they sell a certain amount of oil every year in order to maintain its global price. We don't even get all that much oil from the Middle East, and most of the oil we do get is from Saudi Arabia, and the Sauds like us.
Well i meant the royal we as in global economy.
Actually, doing business with the states in the Middle East isn't very much harder than doing business with any other nation that isn't Britain. This is largely because, excepting states like Iran that stay in power on the basis of anti-Western rhetoric, the majority of ruling bodies in the region aren't outright hostile, and generally have a pretty good hold over their populations.
As I said, sometimes you want foreign nationals to be sympathetic, but its not always necessary, and often time dislike of your country is a necessary consequence of achieving goals.
I understand, but if Muslims had a better opinion of the United states, (and i don't mean great or positive, just not burning our flags and shooting at us every chance they get) and didn't see us as some devil spawned global empire, these "liberations" would go more smoothly and cost us less.
Actually, the major concern with the fall of dictators like Mubarak is related to the creation of havens for terrorism
Yes and no. Most of these terrorists that we are afraid of were formed as a direct response to western interference in the middle east. The continued wars only fuel the fire, well that and we, like the soviet union armed the hell out of them to further our goals while interfering.
34906
Post by: Pacific
dogma wrote:
Pacific wrote: In purely selfish terms, and if one is to put aside for one moment the value of human lives and those destroyed by the conflict...
Why should I value the lives of people I don't, and will likely never, know?
Are you speaking in philosophical terms, or on a practical level?
I always like to think that it's a fundamental part of being human, the ability to feel compassion for those who are not within our immediate society, and perhaps the only thing that might separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. As well as that there is the old 'There but for the grace of God go I'.
53050
Post by: Wee_Tam
Stupid question.... the CIA, who do you think armed and trained bin laden when he was still in the "good lads club" during the russio-afghan conflict?
27391
Post by: purplefood
Wee_Tam wrote:Stupid question.... the CIA, who do you think armed and trained bin laden when he was still in the "good lads club" during the russio-afghan conflict?
That doesn't mean the CIA gives guns/train every terrorist group... just a lot of them...
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
purplefood wrote:Wee_Tam wrote:Stupid question.... the CIA, who do you think armed and trained bin laden when he was still in the "good lads club" during the russio-afghan conflict?
That doesn't mean the CIA gives guns/train every terrorist group... just a lot of them...
Well they are freedom fighters when we arm them.
I always like to think that it's a fundamental part of being human, the ability to feel compassion for those who are not within our immediate society, and perhaps the only thing that might separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. As well as that there is the old 'There but for the grace of God go I'.
They are not in our immediate society though nor would they choose to be. To go around spending our treasure on people that we can't help, don't want our help, and actually resent our help for absolutely no gain is in our interest how? Or have you forgotten how so many other people in the region have "appreciated" our help?
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
I understand, but if Muslims had a better opinion of the United states, (and i don't mean great or positive, just not burning our flags and shooting at us every chance they get) and didn't see us as some devil spawned global empire, these "liberations" would go more smoothly and cost us less.
I doubt it, nation building is expensive by its nature, and operations similar to the one in Libya are actually pretty cheap by comparison.
Also, its not "Muslims", there are Muslims outside the Middle East.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes and no. Most of these terrorists that we are afraid of were formed as a direct response to western interference in the middle east.
That may be true, but what inspires a terrorist doesn't really have any bearing on where they're able to operate.
Andrew1975 wrote:
The continued wars only fuel the fire, well that and we, like the soviet union armed the hell out of them to further our goals while interfering.
Not necessarily, as American wars in the Middle East doesn't have all that much to do with the origins of Islamic extremism. Western cultural dominance has, in general caused a trend of Westernization that many tradition oriented cultures strongly object to.
40024
Post by: SOFDC
Does America have a plan B if any government decides to turn them against us?
The US is not lacking in weapons capable of taking an abrams out of existence. That it can stop 2 pound RPG warheads all day long doesn't necessarily mean it'll stop a 20 pound hellfire, or 120+ pound AGM-65....or a laser designator and a 2000 pound paveway...
The Obama administration is supplying the weapons to draw attention away from recent activity at Area 51.
Truly? I thought they ran out of guns to give away after supplying all those criminals in Mexico.
Back to topic: In a conflict like this, I'm sure -everything- is in play. "I know a guy.." to deserters leaving with all the ammo and guns they can fit in a truck bed, to people at state factories and depots "losing track" of crates here and there, or a couple workers running the machines a bit extra when no one is looking, to guns coming in from governments or groups outside of the country, private owned firearms...etc.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
I doubt it, nation building is expensive by its nature, and operations similar to the one in Libya are actually pretty cheap by comparison.
Also, its not "Muslims", there are Muslims outside the Middle East.
Yes but you have already objected to Arab, so lets just assume since we are talking about the middle east I am talking about Muslims/Arabs in the middle east shall we? (there needs to be an orkicon with rolling eyes)
Yes Libya was cheap, especially if you were not the US. It would be cheaper is someone else did it, if you believe it needed to be done at all. Nation building is expensive but there are issues that make it more expensive. The local populace seeing you as the army of the devil usually makes it very expensive.
That may be true, but what inspires a terrorist doesn't really have any bearing on where they're able to operate.
Yes but if we don't inspire them they don't operate. Well not against us specifically or less.
21737
Post by: murdog
dogma wrote:
Why should I value the lives of people I don't, and will likely never, know?
Because all life is valuable. Because all life is connected. Because their suffering is your suffering.
Marcus Aurelius wrote: [Do] not forget the brotherhood of all rational beings, nor that a concern for every man is proper to humanity... If the power of thought is universal among mankind, so likewise is the possession of reason, making us rational creatures. It follows, therefore, that this reason speaks no less universally to us all with its 'thou shalt' or 'thou shalt not'. So then there is a world-law; which in turn means that we are all fellow-citizens and share a common citizenship, and that the world is a single city. Is there any other common citizenship that can be claimed by all humanity? And it is from this world-polity that mind, reason, and law themselves derive. If not, whence else?
Just happen to be reading his Meditations at the moment. Maybe I can dig some more up for you.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Because all life is valuable. Because all life is connected. Because their suffering is your suffering.
I'm not anywhere near as cold as Dogma, but even I know that is hokum! NO, NO, and NO. I mean maybe on a personal level I can value a bum because I can see how much it sucks to be one, but not a national and/or governmental level.......Hippie
21737
Post by: murdog
I'm just teaching my three-year old how it's not polite to stick your tongue out at people, or call them names. Too bad you have to bring this down to the level of a toddler.
Was Marcus Aurelius a Hippie too?
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
murdog wrote:I'm just teaching my three-year old how it's not polite to stick your tongue out at people, or call them names. Too bad you have to bring this down to the level of a toddler.
Was Marcus Aurelius a Hippie too?
The was meant to inject humor to the hippie remark. It's pretty universal.
No he was a talking out of his ass. As would anyone who speaks like this yet still leads the military in wars. He obviously didn't believe what he was saying. We have a term for these people, they are called politicians.
5534
Post by: dogma
murdog wrote:
Because all life is valuable. Because all life is connected. Because their suffering is your suffering.
I'm generally of the opinion that all life has the ability to be valued, and most life is valued by someone. I simply don't place any significant personal value on all specific living things. My friends are quite valuable to me, but an orphan in Darfur is almost valueless to me. Automatically Appended Next Post: murdog wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote: [Do] not forget the brotherhood of all rational beings, nor that a concern for every man is proper to humanity... If the power of thought is universal among mankind, so likewise is the possession of reason, making us rational creatures. It follows, therefore, that this reason speaks no less universally to us all with its 'thou shalt' or 'thou shalt not'. So then there is a world-law; which in turn means that we are all fellow-citizens and share a common citizenship, and that the world is a single city. Is there any other common citizenship that can be claimed by all humanity? And it is from this world-polity that mind, reason, and law themselves derive. If not, whence else?
Just happen to be reading his Meditations at the moment. Maybe I can dig some more up for you.
I've read Meditations, and remember that quote in particular because of the bold portion. Marcus Aurelius was wrong, even if we assume all people are reasonable (A bold assumption if we interpret "reason" colloquially.) a universal morality does not follow. Now, one might claim that all people have a concept of morality, but that doesn't indicate all forms of morality are the same.
Of course, I'm reading "speaks" as "resonates emotionally" rather simply in the sense of conveying information neutrally.
21737
Post by: murdog
Andrew1975 wrote:he was a talking out of his ass. As would anyone who speaks like this yet still leads the military in wars. He obviously didn't believe what he was saying.
... says some guy on the internet, 2000 years later! Forgive me if I find his words resonate with wisdom, and are echoed in the words and writings of spiritual teachers, philosophers, and scientists across time and culture. Certainly means more to me than 'a bum is valuable because it would suck to be one', which I'm struggling to make sense of, by the way.
5534
Post by: dogma
Pacific wrote:
Are you speaking in philosophical terms, or on a practical level?
Both, my take of philosophy is extremely pragmatic.
Pacific wrote:
I always like to think that it's a fundamental part of being human, the ability to feel compassion for those who are not within our immediate society, and perhaps the only thing that might separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. As well as that there is the old 'There but for the grace of God go I'.
I never liked that phrase, as it seems to imply you would still be you if you were placed in a vastly different situation. Strip away all my life experience, and I'm no longer me.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
murdog wrote:Andrew1975 wrote:he was a talking out of his ass. As would anyone who speaks like this yet still leads the military in wars. He obviously didn't believe what he was saying.
... says some guy on the internet, 2000 years later! Forgive me if I find his words resonate with wisdom, and are echoed in the words and writings of spiritual teachers, philosophers, and scientists across time and culture. Certainly means more to me than 'a bum is valuable because it would suck to be one', which I'm struggling to make sense of, by the way.
Well if you can show me how he can possibly believe in that quote while leading armies to slaughter other members of "the brotherhood of all rational beings" I'd like to hear it. The sentiments expressed do not match the actions taken. It's a beautiful sentiment, but that's all it is.
If you can't understand that negative experiences can teach important lessons, well I'm not sure what to tell you. I think the term cautionary tales may apply here. What other value could a random homeless bum be to me?
There is a reason why spiritual teachers, philosophers, and scientists rarely make governmental policy.
21737
Post by: murdog
dogma wrote:My friends are quite valuable to me, but an orphan in Darfur is almost valueless to me.
Why?
dogma wrote:I've read Meditations, and remember that quote in particular because of the bold portion. Marcus Aurelius was wrong, even if we assume all people are reasonable (A bold assumption if we interpret "reason" colloquially.) a universal morality does not follow. Now, one might claim that all people have a concept of morality, but that doesn't indicate all forms of morality are the same.
Of course, I'm reading "speaks" as "resonates emotionally" rather simply in the sense of conveying information neutrally.
Thats how I read 'speaks' as well. I read the part about reason a bit differently though, not colloquially, as in a 'reasonable' person, but as in we all possess the power of reason. Perhaps you are right, and universal morality does not follow from this (we have only to look at the stated beliefs of others to call that into question), but I think that the main point is that reason, and therefore the morality that springs from that (even if it differs from individual to individual) is what binds us in fraternity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:
If you can't understand that negative experiences can teach important lessons, well I'm not sure what to tell you. I think the term cautionary tales may apply here. What other value could a random homeless bum be to me?
Ha ha now I see where you are coming from. That angle was just way outside my frame of reference at the moment, as we were talking about the value of life - you aren't valuing the bum's life so much as valuing his situation being presented to you. Well, I already said I believe all life to be valuable in and of itself, so it seems we simply have vastly different value systems.
11653
Post by: Huffy
murdog wrote:dogma wrote:My friends are quite valuable to me, but an orphan in Darfur is almost valueless to me.
Why?
.
What can a orphan in darfur do for you? What is the potential of that orphan? essentially nothing compared to your friends
21737
Post by: murdog
Well, the potential of that orphan is limited only by the situation it is born into. Its innate potential is as bright as yours or mine, given the proper opportunities and resources.
As for what the child can do for me, I don't limit my estimation of the value of a human being to what they can or cannot do for me.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Well, I already said I believe all life to be valuable in and of itself, so it seems we simply have vastly different value systems.
What is this guys value? http://news.yahoo.com/norway-mass-killer-demands-medal-court-hearing-133012973.html
As for what the child can do for me, I don't limit my estimation of the value of a human being to what they can or cannot do for me.
This is fine on a personal level, but should not be used to make government policy with tax payer money and lives.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
...
Population control?
Wait- Too soon?
21737
Post by: murdog
Andrew1975 wrote:Well if you can show me how he can possibly believe in that quote while leading armies to slaughter other members of "the brotherhood of all rational beings" I'd like to hear it. The sentiments expressed do not match the actions taken. It's a beautiful sentiment, but that's all it is.
Well, wikipedia says 'Meditations, written in Greek while on campaign between 170 and 180, is still revered as a literary monument to a philosophy of service and duty, describing how to find and preserve equanimity in the midst of conflict by following nature as a source of guidance and inspiration'. I don't know enough about the actual campaigns to say that he was rampaging around just for the sake of killing people. Do you? I do know the book is heavily about duty, and war would have been one of his duties. Just because you kill something doesn't mean you can't recognize the connection with yourself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Good one, good one. It's pretty hard to see any value in that guy. Practically, there is none. Still, you can put down a rabid dog while still loving (valuing) it as part of life. Love, in the most broad, all-encompassing sense possible. Marcus again: Thus to a man of sensitiveness and sufficiently deep insight into the workings of the universe... will view the grinning jaws of real lions and tigers as admiringly as he would an artist's or sculptor's imitation of them...
Andrew1975 wrote:As for what the child can do for me, I don't limit my estimation of the value of a human being to what they can or cannot do for me.
This is fine on a personal level, but should not be used to make government policy with tax payer money.
So, what values should we use, if not personal ones?
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
I don't know enough about the actual campaigns to say that he was rampaging around just for the sake of killing people. Do you?
Oddly enough the Roman-Parthian war which hewas Emperor during began with a rebellion in Syria. It ended after the Romans made successful campaigns into lower Mesopotamia and Media and sacked, the Parthian capital. It can be surmised that he was little concerned about about this "brotherhood of all rational beings", of course he may not have considered his enemies rational as Romans rarely considered anyone but Romans to be on their level.
Still, you can put down a rabid dog while still loving (valuing) it as part of life. Love, in the most broad, all-encompassing sense possible. Marcus again: [i]Thus to a man of sensitiveness and sufficiently deep insight into the workings of the universe... will view the grinning jaws of real lions and tigers as admiringly as he would an artist's or sculptor's imitation of them...
By that logic I can appreciate what is going on in Syria as part of life, (I actually do, but more from a value of learning what to do an what not to do) without feeling the need to act in their behalf. Personally I feel for the people being killed in Syria as a waste. But that does not mean I feel that the US should spend treasure and American lives to save them. It sucks to be them, that's tough, that's life.
If they had something to offer in exchange, even loyalty I'd consider it. But they have nothing to make it worth the expense and burden of helping them.
If you want to make the argument about love, well I love my life(or the ability to live it as I do), Society (not so much the government but the ability to have one, which at the rate we spend money on silly expeditions may not be around too much longer) and people (read soldiers), more than I love the Syrians and the costs (in all terms) of defending them. Especially when you consider based on history we will spend tons of money and lose many lives, and still not remedy the situation, in fact may times we make it worse. I guess you could ask the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis if it was worth dieing to be rid of Saddam, but you can't because they are dead. It cost us billions of dollars, thousands of lives and it's questionable if the lot of Iraq has improved at all. Even so, I can see it may have been worth it if the end result was of some benefit to the US, but I don't see that either.
So, what values should we use, if not personal ones?
Personal values are just that. Governmental values are completely different, the two rarely coincide. If you personally want to try to help the Syrians, more power to you, spend as much as you see fit, go over and fight if you want. That is your personal decision. The government should act in the best interests of it's people. Though I'm sure Dogma will say the government must act in the best interests of itself because people don't matter, which is a different argument.
21737
Post by: murdog
I'm not making an argument for US intervention in Syria, just answering the question of why one should value the life of someone they don't know. I apologize for the troublesome quotes; I only used Marcus Aurelius because the book is open on my table, and I had just read that passage yesterday, and it seems to me to be relevant. You may surmise he was little concerned about the lives of his enemies - given his writings one could surmise the opposite as well. I could find a multitude of similar quotes about oneness, love, valuing all life, etc, from radically diverse sources, if you want me to.
As for personal/governmental values being completely different and rarely coinciding, I think that statement is a little extreme, especially in a democracy.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
murdog wrote:I'm not making an argument for US intervention in Syria, just answering the question of why one should value the life of someone they don't know. I apologize for the troublesome quotes; I only used Marcus Aurelius because the book is open on my table, and I had just read that passage yesterday, and it seems to me to be relevant. You may surmise he was little concerned about the lives of his enemies - given his writings one could surmise the opposite as well. I could find a multitude of similar quotes about oneness, love, valuing all life, etc, from radically diverse sources, if you want me to.
As for personal/governmental values being completely different and rarely coinciding, I think that statement is a little extreme, especially in a democracy.
I would answer that while you may value and or put a value on them, why would you value them more than you would yourself or people in your group?
And while he may have respected them as enemies, I doubt he was concerned about their well being, well not above his own or his peoples. You can value something without placing great value on it, you can even put a negative value on it. It's very hard to sack a city and claim that you are truly concerned about the people being sacked. If he truly believed in the sentiments of that quote and those sentiments applied to those people, wouldn't he find some political way to solve the issue?
There seam to be a lot of high values to strive for in the writings, it's questionable (to me at least) whether he believed that these were "the way things should be" which is different from the way things are and the way he actually conducted himself on a daily basis. Utopia is a great and noble goal, its not attainable though.
It also may be a case of being concerned about people, but they should not be your only concern. I have concern for all people, but there are levels.
I just think you are taking the quote at face value too much. Remember Rome was a great place for political speech and double talk. I wouldn't put so much value on something that comes out of the mouth of a politician, much less a Roman emperor.
"Get thee glass eyes, and like a scurvy politician, seem to see the things thou dost not." Shakespeare
Also how is it even possible for a democracy or any government besides maybe a monarchy to function based on personal values. Which person gets to chose, if it's more than one, it's not a personal value, in fact in some ways since your values would effect everyone else in your government it could never be personal, even if you were completely selfish and not taking anyone else s values into account.
21737
Post by: murdog
But people share common values, and thus they are reflected in government (which is made up by people). No?
Enough about Marcus, maybe. Including that specific quote was unfortunate. However the sentiment he expresses is repeated across human civilization.
5534
Post by: dogma
murdog wrote:
Why?
My friends are valuable because I like them, and have experiential reason to, if not trust them, value and enjoy their company and continued respiration.
I've never met an orphan from Darfur, or even been to Darfur. They're numbers to me, and I don't see any reason to bind up my emotional state with their well being.
murdog wrote:
Perhaps you are right, and universal morality does not follow from this (we have only to look at the stated beliefs of others to call that into question), but I think that the main point is that reason, and therefore the morality that springs from that (even if it differs from individual to individual) is what binds us in fraternity.
I think that, in part, that's true. People often experience fraternity because, over time, they're told that it exists and that they should respect it as a concept (which is to say, because its a moral concept). But I also think its more subtle than that, and more closely tied to instinctual responses than conscious reason. In essence, most often people think "I feel like he's a brother." not "I should feel like he's a brother."
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
murdog wrote:dogma wrote:
Why should I value the lives of people I don't, and will likely never, know?
Because all life is valuable. Because all life is connected. Because their suffering is your suffering.
Marcus Aurelius wrote: [Do] not forget the brotherhood of all rational beings, nor that a concern for every man is proper to humanity... If the power of thought is universal among mankind, so likewise is the possession of reason, making us rational creatures. It follows, therefore, that this reason speaks no less universally to us all with its 'thou shalt' or 'thou shalt not'. So then there is a world-law; which in turn means that we are all fellow-citizens and share a common citizenship, and that the world is a single city. Is there any other common citizenship that can be claimed by all humanity? And it is from this world-polity that mind, reason, and law themselves derive. If not, whence else?
Just happen to be reading his Meditations at the moment. Maybe I can dig some more up for you.
The man was the Emperor of the Rome! He ruled a despotic empire that waged plenty of wars and prided itself on its martial history. He even went to war with Persia (Parthian Empire) from 160-166AD! Even if you claim he justified that with an assertion of 'just war' you would only bring us back to the origional problem of hypocrisy about preaching common humanity but surrendering to real politic issues. Which is the problem with Marcus Aurelius logic, he makes a huge leap from all humans have equal reason to we all share a common interest which implies we have no interest in harming one another. That common interest cannot be held as a matter of faith, it needs to be solidified with real shared interests that are not universal otherwise people are indifferent and even hostile to one another. I think its more likely that Marcus Aurelius, in his use of civic language by comparing his world community to a city was merely making a moral assertion to his own people against their own selfish debauchery and corruption. Instead he wanted them to devout themselves to the greater community (with him in charge naturally, being Imperator and all ) much as their nobler ancestors had done; allowing reason to overcome selfish passions and make the state stronger.
As others have said: 'He was talking out his ass' 
Automatically Appended Next Post:
murdog wrote:Andrew1975 wrote:Well if you can show me how he can possibly believe in that quote while leading armies to slaughter other members of "the brotherhood of all rational beings" I'd like to hear it. The sentiments expressed do not match the actions taken. It's a beautiful sentiment, but that's all it is.
Well, wikipedia says 'Meditations, written in Greek while on campaign between 170 and 180, is still revered as a literary monument to a philosophy of service and duty, describing how to find and preserve equanimity in the midst of conflict by following nature as a source of guidance and inspiration'. I don't know enough about the actual campaigns to say that he was rampaging around just for the sake of killing people. Do you? I do know the book is heavily about duty, and war would have been one of his duties. Just because you kill something doesn't mean you can't recognize the connection with yourself.
lol
Exactly, hes talking about civic duty which doesn't question the existence of citzens who by their very nature would have bourne arms to defend their city as commonly understood in the classical sense.
Frederick the Great was also a fan of the meditations!
Sorry just couldn't resist. 
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes but you have already objected to Arab, so lets just assume since we are talking about the middle east I am talking about Muslims/Arabs in the middle east shall we? (there needs to be an orkicon with rolling eyes)
I objected to "Arab" in one context, and now I'm objecting to "Muslim" in another.
The Middle East isn't all Arab, or Muslim. You can't conflate them, and doing so indicates to me, again, that you have spent all of 5 minutes reading about the Middle East.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes Libya was cheap, especially if you were not the US.
About 1 billion for the US, and 500 million each for France and the UK.
All small change.
Andrew1975 wrote:
It would be cheaper is someone else did it, if you believe it needed to be done at all.
Sure, but it would also be cheaper for me if you decided that you wanted to be my chauffeur free of charge.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Nation building is expensive but there are issues that make it more expensive. The local populace seeing you as the army of the devil usually makes it very expensive.
I recommend you look into the total cost of rebuilding Germany and Japan, and consider how a foreign power "building" you nation might negatively impact the opinion that nation holds regarding that foreign power.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes but if we don't inspire them they don't operate. Well not against us specifically or less.
Sorry, but I'm tired of you mixing arguments. A terrorist haven is not a source of terrorists, its a place terrorists can operate from, and I specifically noted terrorist havens as explicit concerns and further explained what they are. If you believe that terrorist havens cultivate terrorists, or object to my statement that they are not prime concerns, then say so explicitly.
You're either arguing dishonestly on purpose, or incompetent.
21737
Post by: murdog
Totalwar1402 wrote:As others have said: 'He was talking out his ass'
Sorry just couldn't resist.
Marcus Aurelius does not need me to defend him, so I won't. I'm sure entire libraries could be marshalled for and against the question of whether or not he wrote in good faith. It really matters little for this thread - the passage I quoted is echoed through the ages, across time, culture, and geography. I merely used it because it was at hand. The point was to answer the question as to why human life should be valued, regardless of whether or not one has personal knowledge or experience of the human life in question.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
I objected to "Arab" in one context, and now I'm objecting to "Muslim" in another.
The Middle East isn't all Arab, or Muslim. You can't conflate them, and doing so indicates to me, again, that you have spent all of 5 minutes reading about the Middle East.
No, what you are doing is using nit picking as a diversion. Anyone else can see from the context exactly who I am referring too. There is no one proper term that one can use to encompass all the people of the middle east and surrounding areas.
Sorry, but I'm tired of you mixing arguments.
You can dish it out but you can't take it huh? Typical.
A terrorist haven is not a source of terrorists, its a place terrorists can operate from, and I specifically noted terrorist havens as explicit concerns and further explained what they are. If you believe that terrorist havens cultivate terrorists, or object to my statement that they are not prime concerns, then say so explicitly.
But I'm not saying either. I'm saying that unnecessary and poorly thought out actions taken by the west have not only created, and fueled terrorism, but made us targets of it. These same actions have made it very difficult to make true and lasting political ties.
About 1 billion for the US, and 500 million each for France and the UK.
All small change.
I' don't think the US should be spending money and lives like they are nothing. 1 billion here, one billion there, billions and billions on Iraq and trillions into the military beast just so we can go on these missions. France was the one that began the whole Libya saber rattling. If they were so concerned they should have handled Libya on their own or better yet get the Arab league to handle it.
Syria will not be another Libya. The Syrian military is an all together different beast.
Sure, but it would also be cheaper for me if you decided that you wanted to be my chauffeur free of charge.
No, it wouldn't because I'd run your car with you in it over a cliff. Either argue or don't argue but this is just pathetic.
I recommend you look into the total cost of rebuilding Germany and Japan, and consider how a foreign power "building" you nation might negatively impact the opinion that nation holds regarding that foreign power.
Yeah, because post world war 2 Germany and Japan were real problems as compares to say Iraq?
11653
Post by: Huffy
Ha..though it is in the Israeli's benefits to keep the current regime in power, the regime that has no motivation to retake the golan heights or go on a war footing with Israel
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
39188
Post by: Bullockist
Aside from maybe the arab league about Syria, i'm still wondering who invited the US/NATO to "intervene" anywhere
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Bullockist wrote:Aside from maybe the arab league about Syria, i'm still wondering who invited the US/NATO to "intervene" anywhere
Then you should read history books. Honestly and truly. You do not know that Saudi Arabia requested US assistance after Saddam struck Kuwait? You do not understand how we got into Libya, Kosovo? If you don't you might want to look it up. Many of these entanglements that the US gets into start off as UN actions or requests for help from allies. Look it up.
49775
Post by: DIDM
Bullockist wrote:Aside from maybe the arab league about Syria, i'm still wondering who invited the US/NATO to "intervene" anywhere
who says we need to be invited? One thing we pride ourselves with here is being the big bad ass who goes and does what ever we please.
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
No, what you are doing is using nit picking as a diversion. Anyone else can see from the context exactly who I am referring too. There is no one proper term that one can use to encompass all the people of the middle east and surrounding areas.
Its not a diversion, and its an important distinction which many people fail to make. Its also something I consider particularly annoying.
Plus, there is a proper term for all the people of the Middle East: people of the Middle East.
Andrew1975 wrote:
You can dish it out but you can't take it huh? Typical.
My argument is pretty simple, really, and I've made it in fairly straight forward manner. Removing dictators from power, or keeping them in power, is not necessarily better or worse in terms of achieving a set of foreign policy goals, because foreign public opinion isn't necessarily important or even significantly impacted by our operations in country.
From what I can gather, your argument is that the approval of either Arabs, Muslims, or the people of the Middle East (I wasn't sure which one you meant until now) is of central importance to our foreign policy in the Middle East, and it should be a key concern.
Andrew1975 wrote:
But I'm not saying either. I'm saying that unnecessary and poorly thought out actions taken by the west have not only created, and fueled terrorism, but made us targets of it. These same actions have made it very difficult to make true and lasting political ties.
The Saudi government is very supportive of the United States and has been for a long time, the Egyptian state was also a close ally for decades. Pretty much all of the gulf states (Bahrain, the UAE, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait) have close ties to the US. Jordan is also a close US ally, and Iraq is obviously closely connected to us at this point as well. Oh, and don't forget Turkey.
Really, looking at the Middle East, the only states we don't have close relationships with are Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. So, if our actions in the Middle East have made it difficult to form strong political ties, it certainly isn't manifested in very many places.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I' don't think the US should be spending money and lives like they are nothing.
I'm fairly certain the only coalition soldier killed in the Libyan operation was British guy who died in a car accident in Italy.
Andrew1975 wrote:
1 billion here, one billion there, billions and billions on Iraq and trillions into the military beast just so we can go on these missions.
Yeah, foreign policy costs money.
Andrew1975 wrote:
France was the one that began the whole Libya saber rattling. If they were so concerned they should have handled Libya on their own or better yet get the Arab league to handle it.
I still don't understand your preoccupation with the Arab League, especially in light of dismissing the UN as an invalid means of resolving grievances. But that aside, you're also acting like we didn't have a material interest in Libya, and that it was all because of those dirty French; which is absolutely not the case.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Syria will not be another Libya. The Syrian military is an all together different beast.
Of course not, which is why we probably won't intervene.
Andrew1975 wrote:
No, it wouldn't because I'd run your car with you in it over a cliff. Either argue or don't argue but this is just pathetic.
I am arguing. The point I'm illustrating is that arguing that option X is cheaper than option Y is meaningless if option X is not feasible.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Yeah, because post world war 2 Germany and Japan were real problems as compares to say Iraq?
We didn't have to rebuild them, and whether or not something was a real problem isn't important relative to your argument. You said there were issues that can make nation building more or less expensive, I argued that nation building is intrinsically expensive. And now I'm going to add that you're not likely to be rebuilding a nation that doesn't have significant reason to dislike you; you are likely to be rebuilding a nation you just fought a war with.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Its not a diversion, and its an important distinction which many people fail to make. Its also something I consider particularly annoying.
Plus, there is a proper term for all the people of the Middle East: people of the Middle East.
But I'm not exclusively talking just about people in the middle east though. Pakistan is not the middle east nor is Libya technically.
My argument is pretty simple, really, and I've made it in fairly straight forward manner. Removing dictators from power, or keeping them in power, is not necessarily better or worse in terms of achieving a set of foreign policy goals, because foreign public opinion isn't necessarily important or even significantly impacted by our operations in country.
I don't agree with this. The countries we are discussing are dictatorships that more and more are on the edge of rebellion. We may make political inroads with a ruler here and there, but we are doing little to improve our image with the people that are eventually going to replace them. Part of this is that the people we chose to back use anti western policies in an attempt to control their people.
From what I can gather, your argument is that the approval of either Arabs, Muslims, or the people of the Middle East (I wasn't sure which one you meant until now) is of central importance to our foreign policy in the Middle East, and it should be a key concern.
It's not of central importance, but it should be a major concern when the general public of "the area" has a very bad view of us. Yes we have made political inroads with some governments, but not their people. How many times have we seen leaders we have propped up in the middle east fail, only to be replaced by new governments that are anti west. It will be interesting to see where the loyalties of the new governments of Libya and Egypt lay.
The Saudi government is very supportive of the United States and has been for a long time, the Egyptian state was also a close ally for decades. Pretty much all of the gulf states (Bahrain, the UAE, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait) have close ties to the US. Jordan is also a close US ally, and Iraq is obviously closely connected to us at this point as well. Oh, and don't forget Turkey.
Yes their leaders are supportive because they have been bought a long time ago, their people much less so if not openly hostile in some cases. The current state of governmental stability in "The AREA" leads me to believe that while we still want to keep good relations with the leaders, it may also be time we look at ways at getting your average person to not see us as the devil.
I'm fairly certain the only coalition soldier killed in the Libyan operation was British guy who died in a car accident in Italy.
Is risking the better term then?
Yeah, foreign policy costs money.
Sure does, especially when you feel the need to police the world. Clumsily.
I still don't understand your preoccupation with the Arab League, especially in light of dismissing the UN as an invalid means of resolving grievances. But that aside, you're also acting like we didn't have a material interest in Libya, and that it was all because of those dirty French; which is absolutely not the case.
I never said the UN was invalid. I just wish it's de facto military force wasn't the US. Look when the UN has problems in Canada, or south America, give us a call. Otherwise let someone closer to the problem (in every sense) handle it.
We have material interest in Libya, but in that case Gaddafy was keeping the oil flowing so I didn't really see any reason to go after him. If someone felt like going after him for humanitarian reasons that's fine, the French and English were very vocal about it, so they could have done it. The Arab league was annoyed with it, so they could have done it. I still don't understand why every time there is a problem people expect the US to send money and soldiers. Except that we always have, but its time for other people to start pitching in.
Of course not, which is why we probably won't intervene.
Can I quote you on that?
I am arguing. The point I'm illustrating is that arguing that option X is cheaper than option Y is meaningless if option X is not feasible.
The only thing that makes the Arab league stepping in unfeasible is that they always count on us doing it for them. Now if the arab league needs some technical support and advisers, then I'm fine with that. I just don't want to see US troops or equipment there in large numbers. Operationally Libya was a step in the right direction, but I'd like to see even less US involvement.
You said there were issues that can make nation building more or less expensive, I argued that nation building is intrinsically expensive.
Of course but there are levels. You seam to have a problem understanding this concept. It's expensive to nation build, its really exponentially expensive when you have to constantly fight while you are nation building because the people whose nation you are building are taking shots at you the whole time and blowing up the nation you just built.
The hatred that these people have for the US is manifested in how easy it is to find bodies and weapons to throw against us.
I'm going to add that you're not likely to be rebuilding a nation that doesn't have significant reason to dislike you; you are likely to be rebuilding a nation you just fought a war with.
The people of Germany and Japan did not hate the US. In fact it would be very hard to see where we have ever met this kind of resistance, distrust and hatred among a population. It may be that no population has been as messed with by the US as the people of the "AREA". There are plenty of reasons for this, we are constantly meddling in the region, we exploit it for it's resources, we prop up brutal leaders, these leaders preach anti western rhetoric, because western values are what will cause their people to rise against them.
I'm as interested in oil and other resources as anyone else, I just think there are better ways to get it. I'm not ignoring that we need the oil to flow, or that we need it to flow cheaply.
And yes I'm going to be annoying and use the "AREA" because you object to everything else and have not given me a better term to use.
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
Andrew1975 wrote:
I' don't think the US should be spending money and lives like they are nothing.
.
Andrew1975 wrote:
1 billion here, one billion there, billions and billions on Iraq and trillions into the military beast just so we can go on these missions.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Syria will not be another Libya. The Syrian military is an all together different beast.
.
US defence spending is only like, what, 5% of GDP and is around that for most Western nations. In fact didn't the US recently complain that other NATO countries weren't rising to hit that magic 5% number. All Western countries spend vastly more on health, welfare and education than they do on the military. This isn't a state of total war with a massive proportion of the population under arms like in WW2 and several times total GDP being spent on war. The west currently maintains peacetime armed forces. I won't pretend to know figures but I think you're exaggerating how much money the military machine actually costs relative to other public spending. If I'am wrong, by all means tell me.
Sadam Husseine ( ) had the fourth largest army in the world in 1991 with a million men. The Syrian army has (wikipedia) 220,000 active soldiers and 300,000 reservists. Given the track record of Arab armies, defeating the conventional forces in the field would simply be a matter of logistics and willpower. It was only the occupation of Iraq that cost so many lives because they were left vulnerable to guerilla attacks. It would probably also be easier because a plausable Nato coalition would actually surround Syria on all sides from Turkey, Iraq and Jordan/Arab league. This would divide the Syrian army into defending multiple fronts or abandoning parts of the country to focus on defending a central part of the country which would appear like weakness. The problems aren't military: they are diplomatic and political. Is the opposition strong enough to take over Syria to prevent a lengthy US occupation? Will Turkey and Iraq support having US troops invade from their countries and start a war with their neighbour? Would an Arab coalition stand if Israel entered the War? Syria has, unlike Sadam in 91, a direct border by the Golan heights and could start hostilities simply by rolling its tanks across the border. Even if the attack were (in all likelihood) annialated it could tear any potential coalition apart. Will Iran widen the conflict by directly assisting its ally in the region? etc etc. I still think the US has the firepower to destroy both of those countries conventional armed forces but not unless a set of conditions exist and with considerable support from its Arab and Turkish partners.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
By GDP
US defence spending is only like, what, 5% of GDP and is around that for most Western nations
NO. No matter what metric you use the United states spends vastly more that our western partners. By GDP the most any off our Western counter parts spent was the UK and that was 2.6% we spent almost twice as much.
Germany spent only 1.3% France. 2.4%
I still think the US has the firepower to destroy both of those countries conventional armed forces but not unless a set of conditions exist and with considerable support from its Arab and Turkish partners.
What is interesting about spending by GDP is you see a huge amount of money being spent in the middle east. These countries are building large militaries, I say let them use them, now if they need some C&C help to coordinate the Arab League forces, well fine, I can be down. If they do get a UN resolution I would love to see the UN dictate that the coalition must be at least 75% Arab League military. I'm sick of these pissers providing token forces or sitting on the sideline all together.
they are diplomatic and political. Is the opposition strong enough to take over Syria to prevent a lengthy US occupation? Will Turkey and Iraq support having US troops invade from their countries and start a war with their neighbour? Would an Arab coalition stand if Israel entered the War? Syria has, unlike Sadam in 91, a direct border by the Golan heights and could start hostilities simply by rolling its tanks across the border. Even if the attack were (in all likelihood) annialated it could tear any potential coalition apart. Will Iran widen the conflict by directly assisting its ally in the region? etc etc.
These are all important concerns, I just don't see why they are US or specifically or exclusively US concerns. If they should be raising red flags and getting militaries mobilized I would think it would be in their own back yard and neighbors, not 10 thousand miles away.
If the Arab league uses it's military guess who they want to buy weapons from to replace loses? The US. When we show that we can coordinate their C&C using our technology $$$$$$$$. We need to stop putting ourselves in positions of weakness and loss and put ourselves in positions of strength and gain. If they need to occupy Syria for 10 years, we could use our experience in Iraq to sell them vast amounts of tech and weapons. Hell let them hire blackwater mercs if they want.
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
But I'm not exclusively talking just about people in the middle east though. Pakistan is not the middle east nor is Libya technically.
Do you believe the average Libyan hates the US?
Andrew1975 wrote:
I don't agree with this. The countries we are discussing are dictatorships that more and more are on the edge of rebellion.
Turkey isn't a dictatorship, and Saudi Arabia isn't on the edge of rebellion. Nor is the UAE, or Oman, or Qatar, or even Bahrain, Kuwait, or Jordan. Protests do not mean "on the edge of rebellion". If they did, the US and many other Western countries would also be "on the edge of rebellion".
Andrew1975 wrote:
We may make political inroads with a ruler here and there, but we are doing little to improve our image with the people that are eventually going to replace them.
I'll say it yet again: the people matter far less than the government. They matter more in democracies than they do in dictatorships, but even in democracies they don't matter all that much. There are dozens of ways to control people, and there is always the option of simply not telling people what you're doing.
Andrew1975 wrote:
How many times have we seen leaders we have propped up in the middle east fail, only to be replaced by new governments that are anti west.
Once. Iran.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Is risking the better term then?
Given the nature of the Libyan operation, no.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure does, especially when you feel the need to police the world. Clumsily.
We're actually pretty damn good at it, we've had practice.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I never said the UN was invalid. I just wish it's de facto military force wasn't the US.
Its not. Look at the makeup of UN peacekeepers. They're disproportionately from third and second world nations. When the US uses military force "on behalf of the UN" its really using military force on behalf of itself, being on the Security Council basically makes the UN a forum by which to establish legitimacy.
Andrew1975 wrote:
We have material interest in Libya, but in that case Gaddafy was keeping the oil flowing so I didn't really see any reason to go after him.
Other than the fact that he was personally and politically unstable.
Andrew1975 wrote:
The only thing that makes the Arab league stepping in unfeasible is that they always count on us doing it for them.
That's utter nonsense. What makes the Arab League unfeasible is their total lack of force projection, and lack of complete concurrence with US interests.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Of course but there are levels. You seam to have a problem understanding this concept. It's expensive to nation build, its really exponentially expensive when you have to constantly fight while you are nation building because the people whose nation you are building are taking shots at you the whole time and blowing up the nation you just built.
Not really. The primary cost is in the deployment of military and civilian assets to do the work, and maintain relative stability. This cost is further determined by the actual size of the nation. Insurgent violence is a minor cost at best, and isn't even necessarily reflective of how long the process will take as "not shooting at Americans" isn't the priority.
No offense, but your argument is basically a collection of all the ignorant cliches that people throw around about the Middle East, foreign policy, and military intervention. You sound like someone who is incredibly frustrated by a series of concepts he simply doesn't understand.
Andrew1975 wrote:
The people of Germany and Japan did not hate the US.
Yeah, sure, that island nation that made a habit of suicide bombing US warships held no hatred for it; certainly not after we fire and nuclear bombed several of their cities.
The Germans are a different matter, but to claim no hatred was held for a nation, series of nations really, that just engaged in a devastating war against you which effectively ruined your country is just ridiculous.
Andrew1975 wrote:
....these leaders preach anti western rhetoric, because western values are what will cause their people to rise against them.
Very few of the leaders we prop up in the ME preach anti-Western rhetoric, or preach at all. Most of them work on the rentier model.
241
Post by: Ahtman
No matter what metric you use the United states spends vastly more that our western partners.
Well we are more paranoid and militaristic than most of the other Western countries so it isn't a surprise. Looking at the groups that do outspend us in terms of GDP % puts us in interesting company.
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
Yes, but only 4% of your economy is still only 4% of your economy. I asumed by your previous comment that you were implying the military is a collossal drain on the states resources when in fact. For all Western countries. It is actually not a vast burden at all in relation to public welfare or the cost of government. Even Israel, a state threatened with annialation only has 8%.
Admittedly, having defence spending nearly as great as the combined top list or spenders is pretty ridiculous. Its like the British in the 19th century insisiting that we had to have a fleet twice the size of our nearest rival.
5534
Post by: dogma
Ahtman wrote: Looking at the groups that do outspend us in terms of GDP % puts us in interesting company.
It makes me smile every time. Automatically Appended Next Post: Totalwar1402 wrote:Yes, but only 4% of your economy is still only 4% of your economy. I asumed by your previous comment that you were implying the military is a collossal drain on the states resources when in fact. For all Western countries. It is actually not a vast burden at all in relation to public welfare or the cost of government. Even Israel, a state threatened with annialation only has 8%.
Truthfully, while percentage of GDP is a useful metric, budget share and total deficit are better ways to assess true cost to the state (there are mitigating factors as well). The US military budget could be reduced without necessarily significantly reducing overall effectiveness (and we've actually been making some headway on the R&D/procurement side), but even then the largest issue is systemic cost, not the cost of using what is on hand.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Do you believe the average Libyan hates the US?
I believe that they have a negative view and in general take an anti west stance yes.
Turkey isn't a dictatorship, and Saudi Arabia isn't on the edge of rebellion. Nor is the UAE, or Oman, or Qatar, or even Bahrain, Kuwait, or Jordan. Protests do not mean "on the edge of rebellion". If they did, the US and many other Western countries would also be "on the edge of rebellion".
Tell that to Egypt, Libya, Syria,Tunisia, Bahrain and Yemen
I'll say it yet again: the people matter far less than the government. They matter more in democracies than they do in dictatorships, but even in democracies they don't matter all that much. There are dozens of ways to control people, and there is always the option of simply not telling people what you're doing.
Yes, but take for instance Egypt and Iran, the leaders we supported are gone, so all the money and resources we put in are gone too, if not just turned against us as in Iran's case. There is a growing concern that after all the resources we put into Iraq we will lose control of the country.
Once. Iran.
And now the ones who are not pro west?
We're actually pretty damn good at it, we've had practice.
I think we are good in some places, but not the "Area".
When the US uses military force "on behalf of the UN" its really using military force on behalf of itself, being on the Security Council basically makes the UN a forum by which to establish legitimacy.
I accept this as fact, but I still don't understand the necessity for it. The European members of NATO along with the Arab League could have handled Libya without the US.
Other than the fact that he was personally and politically unstable.
He had been playing along for quite some time and the oil was flowing. Who cares. If anything going to war with him endangered and disrupted the flow of oil, which is all that really should matter to us.
That's utter nonsense. What makes the Arab League unfeasible is their total lack of force projection, and lack of complete concurrence with US interests.
I'm not asking the Arab league to send troops to Europe, it's Syria, it's their neighbor. As for US interests, it's Syria, hardly a keystone in American foreign policy.
Not really. The primary cost is in the deployment of military and civilian assets to do the work, and maintain relative stability. This cost is further determined by the actual size of the nation. Insurgent violence is a minor cost at best, and isn't even necessarily reflective of how long the process will take as "not shooting at Americans" isn't the priority.
Yeah because that was not the reason Iraq took so long and cost so much. "The primary cost.....and maintain relative stability" "Insurgent violence is a minor cost at best". How do you maintain relative stability if you are not limiting insurgent violence?
Yeah, sure, that island nation that made a habit of suicide bombing US warships held no hatred for it; certainly not after we fire and nuclear bombed several of their cities.
Did you see major terrorist activity on the same level as Iraq after the Japanese surrender?I'm sure you will blame this on a cultural distinction between the Japanese and the insurgents. Either way it didn't happen there or in Germany, Italy, France, Panama, Grenada, etc.
The Germans are a different matter, but to claim no hatred was held for a nation, series of nations really, that just engaged in a devastating war against you which effectively ruined your country is just ridiculous.
Sure there was hate but not on the scale they we see in the "Area". Citizens in countries we haven't even touched can be seen burning flags and protesting against the US on a regular basis.
"In Arab countries and among Muslim populations, anti-Americanism is not only the monopoly of intellectuals but also a widespread disposition of the masses. In these areas, traditional religion, radical politics, and economic backwardness combine to make anti-Americanism an exceptionally widespread, virulent, and reflexive response to a wide range of collective and personal frustrations and grievances-and a welcome alternative to any collective or individual self-examination or stock-taking. More generally, it is the rise of alternatives, ushered in by modernization, that threatens traditional societies and generates anti-American reaction. The stability of traditional society (like that of modern totalitarian systems) rests on the lack of alternatives, on the lack of choice. Choice is deeply subversive-culturally, politically, psychologically. The recent outburst of murderous anti-Americanism has added a new dimension to the phenomenon, or at any rate, throws into relief the intense hatred it may encapsulate. The violence of September 11 shows that when anti-Americanism is nurtured by the kind of indignation and resentment that in [turn] is stimulated and sanctioned by religious convictions, it can become spectacularly destructive."
Can you seriously say that this anit-western attitude is good for US operations in the region? When you can't even deliver aid to these areas without being attacked how can you deny that this makes any action much more dangerous and costly?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes, but only 4% of your economy is still only 4% of your economy. I asumed by your previous comment that you were implying the military is a collossal drain on the states resources when in fact. For all Western countries. It is actually not a vast burden at all in relation to public welfare or the cost of government. Even Israel, a state threatened with annialation only has 8%.
Exactly a country surrounded by enemies and constantly threatened with annihilation spends 8%.
I think we get a pretty good deal for what we spend actually. But the cost is still to much, the US needs to find better ways to do business. Let regional players take a more active role. When we have so many infrastructure issues it's irresponsible to spend the budget like we do. I agree we need a strong military and their are issues worth intervening in, I just think we have picked many of our recent battle poorly.
Why the hell would anyone in the US want to go to Syria?
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
I believe that they have a negative view and in general take an anti west stance yes.
I've not seen much evidence of either. Certainly they don't like Italy, but America and the entire Western world don't seem to be discussed en masse. Of course, the absence of evidence does not mean a thing is not true, it means there is no evidence to support it.
That being said, there is significant anti-American sentiment certainly exists among Libyans (whether or not among most Libyans is a different question) if some sources are to be believe
Andrew1975 wrote:
Tell that to Egypt, Libya, Syria,Tunisia, Bahrain and Yemen
We didn't support Libya, Syria, or Yemen. Bahrain isn't in danger of a successful revolution.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes, but take for instance Egypt and Iran, the leaders we supported are gone, so all the money and resources we put in are gone too, if not just turned against us as in Iran's case. There is a growing concern that after all the resources we put into Iraq we will lose control of the country.
Sure, sometimes things backfire, don't work, or end, that's true of life, but especially political life. However, in both losing something doesn't mean that it wasn't a worthwhile venture.
Andrew1975 wrote:
And now the ones who are not pro west?
We don't know how the Arab Spring is going to shake out yet.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I accept this as fact, but I still don't understand the necessity for it. The European members of NATO along with the Arab League could have handled Libya without the US.
Still this obsession with the Arab League, and the assumption that it will (or can) do what you want. Its been ridiculous for a while now, and I'm starting to think its just because the word "Arab" is in the name.
And yeah, NATO probably could have handled Libya without the US, but the US had a material interest and so acted. This isn't a difficult concept.
Andrew1975 wrote:
He had been playing along for quite some time and the oil was flowing. Who cares. If anything going to war with him endangered and disrupted the flow of oil, which is all that really should matter to us.
Well, neither of those things is true. The oil producing region of Libya is the Eastern, otherwise known as the revolutionary, side of it. Its also the part of the country that holds the most anti-US sentiment. It looked like they were going to, if not win, deny that half to the sitting government; so we moved to curry favor because they would control the oil which was already disrupted by the conflict (meaning a swift end is good).
Further, there are obvious reasons to consider the interests of trading partners, like France, Britain(Who got a lot of oil from Libya, and want more.), and the rest of NATO.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm not asking the Arab league to send troops to Europe, it's Syria, it's their neighbor.
Whose neighbor? Sudan's?
Andrew1975 wrote:
As for US interests, it's Syria, hardly a keystone in American foreign policy.
Us foreign policy includes "keep Israel happy."
Andrew1975 wrote:
Yeah because that was not the reason Iraq took so long and cost so much. "The primary cost.....and maintain relative stability" "Insurgent violence is a minor cost at best". How do you maintain relative stability if you are not limiting insurgent violence?
We did, and as nation building goes, Iraq was pretty short; and only dubiously successful. Its expensive, and takes a long time. The most successful incidences of nation building (state building is probably more accurate) were the British colonies in the Caribbean, and they took decades.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Did you see major terrorist activity on the same level as Iraq after the Japanese surrender?I'm sure you will blame this on a cultural distinction between the Japanese and the insurgents. Either way it didn't happen there or in Germany, Italy, France, Panama, Grenada, etc.
We weren't at war with France, so that's irrelevant to my claim, and further damaging to yours as the French were pretty damn hostile with respect to America during the Cold War.
Panama wasn't state building, we basically just dropped in and took Noriega, and in Grenada we overthrew the state and left so that wasn't state building either.
Italy wasn't an incidence of state building either, it basically just went back to pre-fascist Italy.
And yeah, as regards Japan it is a cultural difference.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure there was hate but not on the scale they we see in the "Area". Citizens in countries we haven't even touched can be seen burning flags and protesting against the US on a regular basis.
Yeah, because military intervention isn't the cause of the hatred, which is what I've been arguing for pages.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Can you seriously say that this anit-western attitude is good for US operations in the region?
No, but it isn't necessarily bad, or avoidable.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Still this obsession with the Arab League, and the assumption that it will (or can) do what you want. Its been ridiculous for a while now, and I'm starting to think its just because the word "Arab" is in the name.
And yeah, NATO probably could have handled Libya without the US, but the US had a material interest and so acted. This isn't a difficult concept.
The Arab league should be the major player in the region, it should be a NATO like organization, I know it's not there yet, but there is no real reason it could not be. The have vast militaries.
I don't agree with those material interests. Without support for the rebels Libya could have been able to deal with the rebellion, thus allowing the flow of oil to return back to normal. Gadaffi had been maintaining a low profile for quite sometime. It goes back to the devil you know. Gadaffi for the last 10 years had not been a thorn in the side of the west, largely complying with the Wests suggestions. I think the jury is still out at to whether ousting him was really the best call. We had Gadaffi pretty well under control, can the same be guaranteed about Libya's new stewards?
Further, there are obvious reasons to consider the interests of trading partners, like France, Britain(Who got a lot of oil from Libya, and want more.), and the rest of NATO.
Of course there are, but there are obvious reasons for us to be more concerned with our own interests.
Whose neighbor? Sudan's?
Syria is surrounded by members of the Arab League and is in close proximity to many of them. Logistically it would be much easier for the Arab league to mobilize their forces than for the US to send them.
Us foreign policy includes "keep Israel happy."
And how does going into Syria change this. If anything the US going into Syria has the potential to put Israel in more danger.
We did, and as nation building goes, Iraq was pretty short; and only dubiously successful. Its expensive, and takes a long time. The most successful incidences of nation building (state building is probably more accurate) were the British colonies in the Caribbean, and they took decades.
10 years, thousands of lives and trillions of dollars (that's just US costs mind you) is pretty short and relatively cheap to you? You are going to have to legitimize that in some way. Not to mention what was actually gained by the action and was it successful, and my favorite will it last. By all accounts this was a complete waste. I still do not see the benefit to making an enemy of Saddam, yes he was a jerk, but what was the benefit to the US? The protection of Saudi Arabia aspect of Desert shield I understood, but probably would have been unnecessary had we not stood up for Kuwait.
We weren't at war with France
We were with part of it.
Panama wasn't state building, we basically just dropped in and took Noriega, and in Grenada we overthrew the state and left so that wasn't state building either.
Italy wasn't an incidence of state building either, it basically just went back to pre-fascist Italy.
Even so you did not see civilian resistance on the level we see in the middle east. You could say that the whole reason we had to go through such a massive nation building exercise in Iraq was because the population was so hostile towards a US sponsored rebuild. Would they have had this issue if it was done by Muslims from the Arab League? Would it have been more successful?
Yeah, because military intervention isn't the cause of the hatred, which is what I've been arguing for pages.
No it not just because of military intervention, it;s because of intervention of all forms. But US military intervention is a major part of the general anti-US sentiment throughout the entire "AREA"
No, but it isn't necessarily bad, or avoidable.
Sure it is, it makes all operations and actions much more, dangerous, costly, and dicey. And while it's not completely avoidable as there is always going to be culture clash between the two players it can certainly be manged much much better. Part of that is letting the region self govern and regulate, or at least appear to self govern and regulate itself more, by allowing or making the Arab league become a NATO like force in the region. I know things will not go swimmingly even if Arab League troops are used, but at least then anger will be pointed at the arab league and not the US.
45703
Post by: Lynata
In regards to the original topic, I think it wouldn't be out of the question that Qatar might smuggle weapons into the country. They've already done so for the insurgents in Libya, and Sheikh Hamar is currently campaigning for an Arab military force to intervene in Syria, so he would seem to be firmly on the rebels' side.
Andrew1975 wrote:Any UN force sent anywhere is going to be predominantly West or more specific US.
Actually, peacekeeper forces are predominantly African troops. In the UN, you can choose whether you want to participate with money or men, so unsurprisingly the poorer nations tend to "rent" out their soldiers whilst the rich ones tend to lean back and pay for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_peacekeeping#Participation
Of course there's also national military forces acting on behalf of the UN, for example the conflict in Libya. If you want that to stop, however, don't look towards the Arabs or the UN, for the resolution was spearheaded by France and the US, backed by Lebanon - the Security Council merely voted on sanctioning what these three nations have proposed. You need to understand that politics are heavily influenced by backdoor deals and powerful lobbies, and whilst war may cost a nation greatly in money and lives, corporations do have a lot to gain. Halliburton and its ties to certain politicians were already mentioned earlier.
For what it's worth, I tend to agree that the UN needs to become more proactive regarding military intervention, and that national endeavours need to be banned to preserve control. Given that I firmly believe in global thinking and cooperation as well as a commitment to make a stand against injustice and atrocities, I appreciate NATO often stepping up to do what the UN seems unwilling to do, but in the end it should fall to the UN to play "world police", as only the UN has a chance of acting under the aegis of being a multinational alliance pursueing an ideal rather than economic interests put forth by industrial lobbies.
Unfortunately, the undemocratic and anachronistic veto power is deadlocking the UN's true potential, and the only way I can see this changing would be another reform like the transformation of the League of Nations into the United Nations.
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
The Arab league should be the major player in the region, it should be a NATO like organization, I know it's not there yet, but there is no real reason it could not be. The have vast militaries.
Why should it be like NATO? It isn't NATO, or the EU, or the AU, or even ASEAN.
The member nations also don't have "vast militaries". The largest military in the AL is Saudi Arabia's, and its gross cost is ~66% of France's, and France has limited force projection capacity, and a very different military doctrine.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I don't agree with those material interests. Without support for the rebels Libya could have been able to deal with the rebellion, thus allowing the flow of oil to return back to normal.
Sure, they cold have, and with aerial support Libya still could have been able to do the same. There are no guarantees in IR.
Andrew1975 wrote:
We had Gadaffi pretty well under control, can the same be guaranteed about Libya's new stewards?
No, but neither could we guarantee that Gaddafi's regime would have stayed under control.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Of course there are, but there are obvious reasons for us to be more concerned with our own interests.
There's not much of a difference between the two. Our interests are often reflected in the interests of others.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Syria is surrounded by members of the Arab League and is in close proximity to many of them. Logistically it would be much easier for the Arab league to mobilize their forces than for the US to send them.
That's debatable, shorter distances doesn't mean easier logistical problems, it can, but not always. Just as an analogy, its easier (and cheaper) for me to get from Chicago to New York than it is for me to get from Chicago to, say, Green Bay.
Then there's the whole argument from differentiating organization types I made above.
Andrew1975 wrote:
And how does going into Syria change this. If anything the US going into Syria has the potential to put Israel in more danger.
You only asked why Syria was a concern.
Andrew1975 wrote:
10 years, thousands of lives and trillions of dollars (that's just US costs mind you) is pretty short and relatively cheap to you?
Compared to the cost and time put into Antigua/Barbuda, Jamaica, Dominica, etc.? Absolutely.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Even so you did not see civilian resistance on the level we see in the middle east.
Is it really that hard to understand that waging active war on a population, and then trying to manipulate their government is different from only doing one of those things, or neither?
Andrew1975 wrote:
But US military intervention is a major part of the general anti-US sentiment throughout the entire "AREA"
What major US military interventions occurred prior to the Iraq War?
Desert Storm, and launching missiles at terrorist camps.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure it is, it makes all operations and actions much more, dangerous, costly, and dicey.
It really doesn't. It makes military intervention harder (though not state building), or more likely, but that's simply a catch 22.
45703
Post by: Lynata
dogma wrote:Andrew1975 wrote:
And how does going into Syria change this. If anything the US going into Syria has the potential to put Israel in more danger.
You only asked why Syria was a concern.
And for what it's worth, if these evidence are to be believed, Syria is actively supporting Israel's enemies.
Beyond no-man's land, in the east of the village, was evidence of Syrian-supplied hardware. In a garden next to a junction used as an outpost by Hizbollah lay eight Kornet anti-tank rockets, described by Brig Mickey Edelstein, the commander of the Nahal troops who took Ghandouriyeh, as "some of the best in the world".
Written underneath a contract number on each casing were the words: "Customer: Ministry of Defence of Syria. Supplier: KBP, Tula, Russia."
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1526407/Israel-humbled-by-arms-from-Iran.html
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
Aye, the Arab league seems to be moving toward recognising the opposition and might even include covert supply of weaponry. They even had opposition members attend a meeting of the league recently.
I also remember a Russia Today (massively biased, beware) report that claimed the Libyan government. Or at least members within the militia were interested in the prospect of exporting revolution to Syria. Hey, I just thought of a great way to disarm the militia! Lets just give the guns to the Syrians!
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Why should it be like NATO? It isn't NATO, or the EU, or the AU, or even ASEAN.
The member nations also don't have "vast militaries". The largest military in the AL is Saudi Arabia's, and its gross cost is ~66% of France's, and France has limited force projection capacity, and a very different military doctrine.
I think the better question is why shouldn't it be like NATO. If the Arab Leagues only real function is to run to the UN any time there is a problem, it's pretty limited. I understand that it's primarily a venue for inter Arab relations and networking, but there is no reason it's role could not expand.
"Combined together the Arab League military makes it one of the powers in the World today with 130 million manpower availability, putting it third after India and before the US's 67 Million Manpower."
Egypt's army is larger than the Saudi's. Limited force projection is all they need Syria is surrounded but Iraq, Turkey and Jordan. Forces could easily be launched from those boarders. It's looking more and more like they will actually, as the Arab league is currently looking at a joint military option with a strong presence.
Sure, they cold have, and with aerial support Libya still could have been able to do the same. There are no guarantees in IR.
So again the only thing that really mattered was the flow of oil and having a government to work with. I think the safer bet would have been to just let Libya sort itself out. In the end, I don't think oil production was effected, sure it slowed for a bit, but that was going to happen no matter which side ended up on top. At least we knew where we stood with Gadaffy. We have no idea what the new leadership of Libya is going to do.
No, but neither could we guarantee that Gaddafi's regime would have stayed under control.
We could have guaranteed it the same way we basically guaranteed the rebels won. But I wouldn't have advocated for that either. Gadaffy's army was making pretty good progress at cleaning up the rebellion. I think either way oil production would have returned at about the same time.
There's not much of a difference between the two. Our interests are often reflected in the interests of others.
And often they aren't.
That's debatable, shorter distances doesn't mean easier logistical problems, it can, but not always. Just as an analogy, its easier (and cheaper) for me to get from Chicago to New York than it is for me to get from Chicago to, say, Green Bay.
Then there's the whole argument from differentiating organization types I made above.
Yes but you are a flying individual. I wouldn't use that as an example. It would be quite easy for them to mobilize their forces, lets not act like they have never been mobilized before shall we. These same basic countries had no problem mobilizing for the 6 day war back in 1967.
You only asked why Syria was a concern.
In the context of caring about the rebellion or intervention in the current rebellion. Your answer was to keep Israel happy, but making Syria a concern as far as military action goes may endanger Israel.
Compared to the cost and time put into Antigua/Barbuda, Jamaica, Dominica, etc.? Absolutely.
I don't agree. I don't see how those cost the US anything compared to what Iraq has cost.
Is it really that hard to understand that waging active war on a population, and then trying to manipulate their government is different from only doing one of those things, or neither?
But we have done both at the same time in the past without facing the resistance we did in Iraq.
What major US military interventions occurred prior to the Iraq War?
Desert Storm, and launching missiles at terrorist camps.
I didn't say major, don't try to steer my conversation.
TURKEY 1922
IRAN 1953 CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah (this is a big one)
IRAQ 1963 CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.
LIBYA 1981 Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
AFGANIATAN 1981 CIA arms freedom fighters
LEBANON 1982-1984
IRAN 1984 Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA 1986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.
IRAN 1987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA 1989 Two Libyan jets shot down.
IRAQ 1990-91 Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
IRAQ 1991-2003 Bombing, naval No-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval-enforced economic sanctions
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
IRAQ 1998 Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
It really doesn't. It makes military intervention harder (though not state building), or more likely, but that's simply a catch 22.
It makes state building much harder also, look how hard it was to get the different anti western (or at least distrustful of the east) groups to have meetings of the minds as far as nation building, well when elections were not being blown up, or possible officials being assassinated.
28942
Post by: Stormrider
Don't forget, the CIA didn't directly arm The Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in 1981, it was done through the Pakistani Intelligence service via proxy. The Mujahadeen had no direct contact with the CIA.
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
I think the better question is why shouldn't it be like NATO.
Not really, as you first need to establish why it should be like NATO. You can't just assume that NATO is good, and that all multinational organizations should be like it.
Andrew1975 wrote:
If the Arab Leagues only real function is to run to the UN any time there is a problem, it's pretty limited. I understand that it's primarily a venue for inter Arab relations and networking, but there is no reason it's role could not expand.
There are many, mostly political, reasons.
Andrew1975 wrote:
"Combined together the Arab League military makes it one of the powers in the World today with 130 million manpower availability, putting it third after India and before the US's 67 Million Manpower."
Egypt's army is larger than the Saudi's. Limited force projection is all they need Syria is surrounded but Iraq, Turkey and Jordan. Forces could easily be launched from those boarders.
Yes, they could be, if those countries would allow the forces of other AL members to traverse their territory in order to do something that the US, and the West, wants done.
And comparing the combined militaries of all members of an international organization to the militaries of individual nations is beyond problematic. The AL isn't a single state, and doesn't have direct control over any military, let alone 22 of them (21 less Syria, now, I suppose).
Andrew1975 wrote:
It's looking more and more like they will actually, as the Arab league is currently looking at a joint military option with a strong presence.
Sure, if they get Western support.
Andrew1975 wrote:
So again the only thing that really mattered was the flow of oil and having a government to work with. I think the safer bet would have been to just let Libya sort itself out. In the end, I don't think oil production was effected, sure it slowed for a bit, but that was going to happen no matter which side ended up on top. At least we knew where we stood with Gadaffy. We have no idea what the new leadership of Libya is going to do.
Yes, the notoriously mercurial dictator was a person we knew where stood with.
Andrew1975 wrote:
And often they aren't.
And, of course, the guy who owns a bar is the one qualified to judge when that is. I'm not one to harp on qualifications, but your likely access to experience and information is very low.
Andrew1975 wrote:
It would be quite easy for them to mobilize their forces, lets not act like they have never been mobilized before shall we. These same basic countries had no problem mobilizing for the 6 day war back in 1967.
The only non-adjacent state that managed to put soldiers into combat was Iraq, and their numbers were trivial. There was a massive amount of trouble in mobilizing support in that conflict. The War of Independence is a better example, but still not a good one given the vastly different political situation.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I don't agree. I don't see how those cost the US anything compared to what Iraq has cost.
They didn't cost the US anything, but they cost the UK a lot. The gross comparison isn't 1:1, obviously, but gross comparisons are irrelevant to actual cost; which is based on adjusted cost.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I didn't say major, don't try to steer my conversation.
No, you didn't say "major", but major events are the only events that would have the effect you seem to be describing. Shooting down a few military aircraft is as close to irrelevant as anything can be, even in terms of popular opinion. They're symptomatic of conflict with certain nations, not sources of conflict with a region.
Andrew1975 wrote:
It makes state building much harder also, look how hard it was to get the different anti western (or at least distrustful of the east) groups to have meetings of the minds as far as nation building, well when elections were not being blown up, or possible officials being assassinated.
It was difficult to get them to come to the table because they hated each other, not because they hated the West.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Not really, as you first need to establish why it should be like NATO. You can't just assume that NATO is good, and that all multinational organizations should be like it.
Do I really need to list why collected defense and mutual assistance, especially during revolutionary times might be a good idea.
There are many, mostly political, reasons.
There were people that thought the EU or NATO would never happen.
Yes, they could be, if those countries would allow the forces of other AL members to traverse their territory in order to do something that the US, and the West, wants done.
In many ways I think that they may be more comfortable with their own Arab bothers in their territories than the west. Especially with current amount of Civil unrest in the middle east, the populations of these countries could be very upset about having US military presence in their land, this could be the straw that breaks the camels back in some places.
And comparing the combined militaries of all members of an international organization to the militaries of individual nations is beyond problematic. The AL isn't a single state, and doesn't have direct control over any military, let alone 22 of them (21 less Syria, now, I suppose).
Sure, coalitions are rarely perfect or easy. We learned that a long time ago, but it's not impossible, the "Coalition of the willing" worked out pretty well. This also gives the US a chance to sell some equipment.
Sure, if they get Western support.
If the west does not support them, I can see Hungry or Saudi Arabia putting something together. That is if anything is to be done.
Yes, the notoriously mercurial dictator was a person we knew where stood with.
For the last ten years, yeah probably.
And, of course, the guy who owns a bar is the one qualified to judge when that is. I'm not one to harp on qualifications, but your likely access to experience and information is very low.
That's a bar, a nightclub and a web design company. Don't pretend to know what my qualifications are.
The only non-adjacent state that managed to put soldiers into combat was Iraq, and their numbers were trivial. There was a massive amount of trouble in mobilizing support in that conflict. The War of Independence is a better example, but still not a good one given the vastly different political situation.
That had more to do with an effective Israeli defense than anything having to do with a general inability to mobilize.
They didn't cost the US anything, but they cost the UK a lot. The gross comparison isn't 1:1, obviously, but gross comparisons are irrelevant to actual cost; which is based on adjusted cost.
Right, so my statement still stands. The didn't cost the US anything compared to Iraq. You are not the only one who can have fun with his answers and questions. What we need to look at though was it really good policy for them to spend so much on nation building. I don't think the "Empire" is doing so well anymore.
The comparison is actually pretty bad as the UK was building those nations to make tons of cash through trade. Not really the same thing that the US was doing in Iraq.
No, you didn't say "major", but major events are the only events that would have the effect you seem to be describing. Shooting down a few military aircraft is as close to irrelevant as anything can be, even in terms of popular opinion. They're symptomatic of conflict with certain nations, not sources of conflict with a region.
Shooting down a couple of planes is completely irrelevant on it's own. However when you add that to everything else including a few the coup d'états, you can see a pattern emerging here.
It was difficult to get them to come to the table because they hated each other, not because they hated the West.
Yes they did, but they also hated anyone that sided with the US. Do you think all the insurgents just showed up for the hell of it? You seam to be under the opinion that the insurgents really didn't cause any problems, or make life any more difficult.
Don't forget, the CIA didn't directly arm The Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in 1981, it was done through the Pakistani Intelligence service via proxy. The Mujahadeen had no direct contact with the CIA.
And that fooled who exactly?
41596
Post by: Zakiriel
Belgium
37755
Post by: Harriticus
Syria is a massively armed country, and they're only armed with small arms and some heavy weapons. They're mostly capturing them or getting them from defecting units. There's no great conspiracy. When they start firing Javelin Missiles instead of RPG's call me.
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
Do I really need to list why collected defense and mutual assistance, especially during revolutionary times might be a good idea.
A lot of people think NATO is a bad idea explicitly because of the collective defense provision, and the NATO countries are far closer in terms of state relations than the Arab League countries.
You can say that it would be a good idea all you want, but that's not going to change the reality of the political situation. Of course, it also doesn't help that it would be a terrible idea given the military capabilities of the members of the AL, and the political state of many of its members.
Andrew1975 wrote:
There were people that thought the EU or NATO would never happen.
Sure, but they were wrong.
Andrew1975 wrote:
In many ways I think that they may be more comfortable with their own Arab bothers in their territories than the west. Especially with current amount of Civil unrest in the middle east, the populations of these countries could be very upset about having US military presence in their land, this could be the straw that breaks the camels back in some places.
They probably would be, but the population doesn't matter, and the state is more likely to accept unilateral US aid than the unilateral aid of, say, Saudi Arabia.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure, coalitions are rarely perfect or easy. We learned that a long time ago, but it's not impossible, the "Coalition of the willing" worked out pretty well.
No it didn't. The "coalition of the willing" was the US and the UK, plus some token contributions from other countries. There are no AL countries that can carry, on their own, the invasion of another AL country.
Andrew1975 wrote:
If the west does not support them, I can see Hungry or Saudi Arabia putting something together. That is if anything is to be done.
I'm sure you can, but you like to see things that aren't real, so I'm not sure that matters.
Also, Hungary is in Europe, and part of the West.
Andrew1975 wrote:
That's a bar, a nightclub and a web design company. Don't pretend to know what my qualifications are.
Fair enough, but I know what they aren't.
Andrew1975 wrote:
That had more to do with an effective Israeli defense than anything having to do with a general inability to mobilize.
Which one, the War of Independence? That's the only one you could make the case for, and even then its weak.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Right, so my statement still stands. The didn't cost the US anything compared to Iraq. You are not the only one who can have fun with his answers and questions. What we need to look at though was it really good policy for them to spend so much on nation building. I don't think the "Empire" is doing so well anymore.
Shockingly, empires eventually fall apart, and truthfully the British were masterful (especially Churchill) when it came to managing that process.
Anyway, you made the point that the process of nation building in the Caribbean cost the US nothing. That's nice, but I brought it up as a notation about the intrinsic cost of nation building.
I'm not the only one that can play games with arguments, but I also happen to be good at it.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Shooting down a couple of planes is completely irrelevant on it's own. However when you add that to everything else including a few the coup d'états, you can see a pattern emerging here.
That might be relevant if you see the Middle East as one, monolithic, nation.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes they did, but they also hated anyone that sided with the US. Do you think all the insurgents just showed up for the hell of it? You seam to be under the opinion that the insurgents really didn't cause any problems, or make life any more difficult.
They "showed up" because there were political factions in Iraq that wanted power. If they merely hated the US the policy of paying off groups of them wouldn't have worked.
And yes, they made the process difficult, but the process of nation building is always difficult. They didn't make it significantly more difficult than nation building is of its own accord.
53149
Post by: Warrior Squirrel
So the person with a burned neck and with a dislike for foreigners cares not for syrian children being tortured?
26523
Post by: Ribon Fox
Warrior Squirrel wrote:So the racist redneck cares nothing for the syrian children that are being tortured?
But if there was oil, that would be a differnt story
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
Andrew1975 wrote:[I
TURKEY 1922
IRAN 1953 CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah (this is a big one)
IRAQ 1963 CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.
LIBYA 1981 Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
AFGANIATAN 1981 CIA arms freedom fighters
LEBANON 1982-1984
IRAN 1984 Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA 1986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.
IRAN 1987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA 1989 Two Libyan jets shot down.
IRAQ 1990-91 Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
IRAQ 1991-2003 Bombing, naval No-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval-enforced economic sanctions
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
IRAQ 1998 Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
You forgot the two big ones
Korea 1951 to assist the South Korean government against the communist north
Vietnam 1965? to assist the South Vietnamese government against the communist north and Vietcong guerillas
Neither ending well in Americas favour but both of them were given massive support by the USSR and China (direct in the Korean case) with relatively modern weaponry, financial backing, trained personel and equipment. Not sure if the Russians would be able to/willing to commit to similar support since Syria doesn't share a border with either country like these two examples. I know that the Russians are selling them arms but just not at the same scale.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Warrior Squirrel wrote:So the racist redneck cares nothing for the syrian children that are being tortured?
Talk is cheap. How come you're on the computer and not crossing the Turkish border into Syria as we speak?
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
You forgot the two big ones
Korea 1951 to assist the South Korean government against the communist north
Vietnam 1965? to assist the South Vietnamese government against the communist north and Vietcong guerillas
I didn't forget anything, we were talking about the middle east. When were North Korea or South Vietnam ever part of the middle east.
Also Russia sells arms to the Syrian government. I doubt they are selling them to the rebels as well as Russia supports the Syrian government and sells them billions of dollars worth of weapons. They could be double dipping, but I really don't see it.
Ribon Fox wrote:Warrior Squirrel wrote:So the racist redneck cares nothing for the syrian children that are being tortured?
But if there was oil, that would be a differnt story
Syria actually does have oil.
There is always some place people are being slaughtered. The question is does it benefit the US to step in every time or even some of the time when the costs far out way out gains given current financial state of the US?
How was I being racist?
A lot of people think NATO is a bad idea explicitly because of the collective defense provision, and the NATO countries are far closer in terms of state relations than the Arab League countries.
True, but that relationship did not happen overnight. NATO is not even the first European mutual assistance pact. Think back to the 1800's and the dangerous time of revolution.
You can say that it would be a good idea all you want, but that's not going to change the reality of the political situation. Of course, it also doesn't help that it would be a terrible idea given the military capabilities of the members of the AL, and the political state of many of its members.
So one second they have great capabilities, and another they don't? I said it may not be in the best interests of the US for the Arab League to unite, but it may be a very good idea for the Arab League. For the US this could be dangerous, but if played right it could be advantageous. It depends on the US ability of influence.
Sure, but they were wrong.
A lot of people with great credentials thought it was near impossible, or at least improbable. Without outside pressure and threat I'm sure it would never have happened, but it's interesting what counties will do when they share even a few common goals.
They probably would be, but the population doesn't matter, and the state is more likely to accept unilateral US aid than the unilateral aid of, say, Saudi Arabia.
Again people do matter as we have seen with Arab spring, or is that a governmental construct too? Who says aid would have to be unilateral.
No it didn't. The "coalition of the willing" was the US and the UK, plus some token contributions from other countries.
Really. In the begining of desert shield the Saudi armored divisions did pretty well defending Saudi Arabia.
There are no AL countries that can carry, on their own, the invasion of another AL country.
I'm not saying the do it on their own I'm saying they do it as an alliance. As an alliance they could take Syria.
I'm sure you can, but you like to see things that aren't real, so I'm not sure that matters.
You do know that the option is already being discussed right?
Also, Hungary is in Europe, and part of the West.
Hungary is an in between state bordering Syria, that just recently got EU certification.
Fair enough, but I know what they aren't.
Whatevs. Yawn. The old faithful "Can't win the argument so I'll attack his credentials" game. It has been shown that a change to control the area will be more effective and efficient with the use of "Soft Power", rather than the old ideas of "Hard Power". I happen to agree with that. But go ahead and continue, I just love when you seem to suggest my ideas come completely from left field.
Which one, the War of Independence? That's the only one you could make the case for, and even then its weak.
Again both the 6 day war and the War of Indepenence both show that Arab League militaries can be coordinated to work jointly. There success against or lack there of vs Israel, isn't the issue as Syria is not Israel.
Shockingly, empires eventually fall apart, and truthfully the British were masterful (especially Churchill) when it came to managing that process.
No doubt, but there comes a time when such actions are just untenable.
Anyway, you made the point that the process of nation building in the Caribbean cost the US nothing. That's nice, but I brought it up as a notation about the intrinsic cost of nation building.
Yes and the comparison of those situations to what the US is/was facing are fascicle at best.
That might be relevant if you see the Middle East as one, monolithic, nation.
It's obviously not one nation, but the nations combine share many features and ideas.
And yes, they made the process difficult, but the process of nation building is always difficult. They didn't make it significantly more difficult than nation building is of its own accord.
I disagree. It took quite some time and huge amounts of resources just to deal with the insurgents before the real work of nation building could even begin.
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
Since when have Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan been part of the Middle East? No need to be rude, his question didn't hint at the Middle East being the subject and niether was your ansawr.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Totalwar1402 wrote:Since when have Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan been part of the Middle East? No need to be rude, his question didn't hint at the Middle East being the subject and niether was your ansawr.
Not trying to be rude. If you look at the list they are all in what could be called "The Greater middle east", there are many many interventions not listed outside that frame.
I know the tread is long, but we were both talking specifically about the "Area". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East If you look there is a part called "The Greater Middle East" Is not a perfect or real construct but it is useful (to me at least) in this argument.That includes Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan and Libya.
28942
Post by: Stormrider
Totalwar1402 wrote:Since when have Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan been part of the Middle East? No need to be rude, his question didn't hint at the Middle East being the subject and niether was your ansawr.
They're culturally and religiously similar, hence why they are included.
5534
Post by: dogma
Stormrider wrote:Totalwar1402 wrote:Since when have Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan been part of the Middle East? No need to be rude, his question didn't hint at the Middle East being the subject and niether was your ansawr.
They're culturally and religiously similar, hence why they are included.
No, none of them are part of the Middle East, nor have they ever been.
Bush II started using the term "greater Middle East" for political reasons, but its basically just slang for "Muslims that are vaguely brown, but not at all East Asian."
As an analogy, it would be like calling the Americas "greater Europe" because most of the people living there are Christian, and ruled by democratic governments.
5534
Post by: dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
True, but that relationship did not happen overnight. NATO is not even the first European mutual assistance pact. Think back to the 1800's and the dangerous time of revolution.
But none of those treaties were at all like NATO, or any other international alliance that presently exists. NATO has its own infrastructure, staff, and governing bodies. Prior European treaties were based on agreements between individual nations, and were often in conflict. Read about why World War I became World War I.
Andrew1975 wrote:
So one second they have great capabilities, and another they don't?
I never said that it did, you said that.
Even if I did say that, "military capabilities" is a very broad term, and in this instance I was using it to refer to force projection.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I said it may not be in the best interests of the US for the Arab League to unite, but it may be a very good idea for the Arab League.
You did say that, just now. You've not argued from anything other than "I don't want the US to do something."
Andrew1975 wrote:
A lot of people with great credentials thought it was near impossible, or at least improbable. Without outside pressure and threat I'm sure it would never have happened, but it's interesting what counties will do when they share even a few common goals.
First, credentials mean precisely nothing when it comes to determining if someone is making a good argument, which is why I said earlier that I don't like referencing my credentials.
Second, there are no significant common goals within the AL, or any common external or internal pressure or threat, nor is one likely to manifest soon. You can't just imagine them into existence.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Again people do matter as we have seen with Arab spring, or is that a governmental construct too? Who says aid would have to be unilateral.
Because the member states of the Arab League agree on almost nothing collectively, not even antisemitism anymore.
And no, people don't matter, not compared to the state, as we have seen with the Arab Spring. Lots of protests and attempted revolutions, none successful in mineral rich, Middle Eastern countries. The Egyptian state fell, but it looks like, as expected, the Muslim Brotherhood (a well established political group) is going to be the primary power.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Really. In the begining of desert shield the Saudi armored divisions did pretty well defending Saudi Arabia.
Wow, a countries military is able to defend that country on its own territory, and therefore is only marginally concerned with logistical operations. What a revelation. That also isn't what "coalition of the willing" generally refers to these days.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm not saying the do it on their own I'm saying they do it as an alliance. As an alliance they could take Syria.
No, they probably couldn't, and if they could it would be a massive loss for all participants. The Arab League, collectively, has almost no force projection ability, they have no inter-military cooperative capacity, they have no independent military organization, and they don't get along politically. NATO has, and does, all of these.
Andrew1975 wrote:
You do know that the option is already being discussed right?
They're petitioning the UN and NATO, not discussing independent intervention.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Hungary is an in between state bordering Syria, that just recently got EU certification.
No it isn't.
Hungary is in Central Europe, and borders the Ukraine, Slovakia, and Romania, among others. It doesn't even border Turkey, which is the nearest Middle Eastern country.
Andrew1975 wrote:
But go ahead and continue, I just love when you seem to suggest my ideas come completely from left field.
I'm not suggesting it so much as saying it explicitly.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Again both the 6 day war and the War of Indepenence both show that Arab League militaries can be coordinated to work jointly. There success against or lack there of vs Israel, isn't the issue as Syria is not Israel.
Actually, they show that they completely lack coordination, cannot work jointly, and have abysmal force projection. Those were all central factors in both defeats.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes and the comparison of those situations to what the US is/was facing are fascicle at best.
Not really, as the central goal of both is nation building, the point being that it doesn't happen overnight, and takes a long time to do successfully. If it took the British decades to create successful governments on tiny Caribbean islands, and it took the US only 8 years to do something that might end up being a similar success in Iraq, your argument that the hostility of the population was an important variable isn't supported.
Andrew1975 wrote:
It's obviously not one nation, but the nations combine share many features and ideas.
No, they don't, and its vaguely racist to suggest that they do. It is certainly ignorant of the actual culture of the Middle East.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I disagree. It took quite some time and huge amounts of resources just to deal with the insurgents before the real work of nation building could even begin.
They were concurrent events, and in fact tightly connected to one another.
28942
Post by: Stormrider
dogma wrote:Stormrider wrote:Totalwar1402 wrote:Since when have Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan been part of the Middle East? No need to be rude, his question didn't hint at the Middle East being the subject and niether was your ansawr.
They're culturally and religiously similar, hence why they are included.
No, none of them are part of the Middle East, nor have they ever been.
Bush II started using the term "greater Middle East" for political reasons, but its basically just slang for "Muslims that are vaguely brown, but not at all East Asian."
As an analogy, it would be like calling the Americas "greater Europe" because most of the people living there are Christian, and ruled by democratic governments.
I'm not saying they are either, just the fact that they are included in a discussion of greater overall strategy in the ME and surrounding sub-regions. Sub Saharan Africa has netted some pretty nasty Al-Qaeda members and Afghanistan housed the brain trust of the organization for a while so it's a legitimate, but still technically inaccurate, statement.
5534
Post by: dogma
Stormrider wrote:
I'm not saying they are either, just the fact that they are included in a discussion of greater overall strategy in the ME and surrounding sub-regions. Sub Saharan Africa has netted some pretty nasty Al-Qaeda members and Afghanistan housed the brain trust of the organization for a while so it's a legitimate, but still technically inaccurate, statement.
Its not even really legitimate, because there's a lot of variance across not only the Middle East, but the larger Muslim world. Its basically symptomatic of Westerners, especially Americans, having next to zero knowledge about the Middle East, and the larger Muslim world. That's understandable, but still annoying.
|
|
