For anyone thinking about supplying weapons to the "freedom fighters" in Syria, think again. We've been down that road before and it's going the same way there as it did with the freedom fighters of the 1980s in Afghanistan where they kicked out the Soviets and then converted their country into an oppressive Islamist state turned against the US and The West.
BILL'S BLOG
Those Lovable Freedom Fighters
April 25, 2013
By Bill Maher
What's not to like about the al Nusra Front? They're among the Syrian rebels' most well-trained, well-armed, and well-organized opposition groups. They're so strong and well-positioned that other opposition factions feel they can't afford to alienate them. And this month they literally came out and pledged allegiance to al Qaeda and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
There are headlines about other rebel groups "slamming" al-Nusra over their pledge, but in fact most aren't, and the ones that are seem to be adopting the "Shh! Not in front of the infidels!" approach.
From al-Nusra's sharpest critics, the Syrian Islamic Front:
"We protect the principles of Islam like the Islamic state, fighting in the name of God and his prophet Mohammed, Islamic law. But all reference to certain names that create a strong reaction around the world against the Syrian people must be avoided. You do not need to say that you belong to this name... when you know that this will hurt the Syrian people and help the tyrant."
Oh yeah, that sounds like a rousing denouncement of all al Qaeda stands for.
Nobody watching this should be surprised. Unless your name is John McCain, who said last year, "It's time to act. It's time to give the Syrian opposition the weapons in order to defend themselves." Or if you're Joe Lieberman, who concurred: "This will not get better until the rest of the world at least gives the arms to the Syrian freedom fighters with which they can defend themselves and their families."
Or if you're McCain and Lindsey Graham, who last month offered a joint statement saying that if the Syrians had indeed used chemical weapons, the response "should include the provision of arms to vetted Syrian opposition groups, targeted strikes against Assad's aircraft and SCUD missile batteries... and the establishment of safe zones inside Syria to protect civilians and opposition groups."
Come on guys, this time they'll love us. We just know they will! Let's roll!
Mr Hyena wrote: This is what happens when noone wants to help get boots on the ground for rebels. They have to take anyone into their ranks, even terrorists.
Bingo, we waited to long to do anything, so they took the help of the ones who offered it.
Mr Hyena wrote: The rebels weren't always with terrorists. That happened after no one assisted them.
Not always, but they have been for a long time. And what sort of assistance should we have given them, in your opinion? And why should we involve ourselves in a civil war that doesn't benefit us?
Mr Hyena wrote: The rebels weren't always with terrorists. That happened after no one assisted them.
Not always, but they have been for a long time. And what sort of assistance should we have given them, in your opinion? And why should we involve ourselves in a civil war that doesn't benefit us?
Probably to prevent the rise of another nation which will hate yours for showing no help to them. They needed skilled fighters and as the article said, the only skilled fighters that would help were radical islamists. So why should they turn them away?
Mr Hyena wrote: Probably to prevent the rise of another nation which will hate yours for showing no help to them.
You mean like the current regime in Syria which isn't exactly friendly with us anyway? Or the Russians and the Iranians who have a pretty big stake in Syria and what happens there. Apart from that the FSA has had long ties with AQ and other Islamist groups, the FSA's most capable fighters are from the AQ affiliated Al-Nurash. Which means that if we do go in and help the FSA we're strengthening our enemies as they'll have able to set up shop in Syria after the dust settles. So they'll have the ability to set up training camps and have access to whatever military surplus is floating around. So it'll be like Afghanistan after the Soviets left. And we all know how that went - hence my comment about my enemy's enemy. So whoever wins this conflict its not as if we're going to have a friendly partner going forward.
Unless of course you want intervention - that means going in with troops, keeping the peace, dealing with being caught between two sides that are hostile to our soldiers and each other, while trying to deal with the machinations of other interested parties, and investing billions in infrastructure and having to oversee that transition of power and hoping that both sides don't start killing each other again when we leave (See Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam, and Afghanistan after Sept 11), not to mention dealing with sectarian tensions that were previously kept in check by Assad (see Iraq after the over throw of Saddam). Then we have the problem of Turkey. If the Kurds there see us intervene then that might spur on their efforts to get a sovereign state thinking that we will intervene against an ally too (which could also have consequences for Iraq with its large Kurdish population).
Not to mention that Russia will be upset at the lost revenue from the weapon sales, and the loss of a strategic port in the region. This is problematic as they hold a UN veto and they are needed to tackle Iran's nuclear program, as well as North Korea. And its not to say that Russia would not be above turning off the gas (again) to our allies in Eastern Europe.
Then we have Iran. They have the ability to have their terrorist proxies in the Lebanon start to antagonise Isreal, and that leaves us with a spreading conflict in the region and one of our allies possibly needing support and other assistance. Not to mention that Iran would not think twice about mining the Straits of Hormuz, blocking 20% of the world's supply of oil (35% of the petroleum traded by sea) which would necessitate military action to tackle that problem also.
And all that is on the back of two wars in the Middle East, one of which has gone on for over a decade, and a severe shortage of money to start another foreign adventure. So given all this I am very interested in what your proposed solution and intervention looks like, as well as what assistance you think we should give the rebels.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Hyena wrote: They needed skilled fighters and as the article said, the only skilled fighters that would help were radical islamists. So why should they turn them away?
They are perfectly entitled to act in their best interests. So are we. Getting involved in someone else's war isn't in ours - militarily, financially nor politically
Mr Hyena wrote: This is what happens when noone wants to help get boots on the ground for rebels. They have to take anyone into their ranks, even terrorists.
Bingo, we waited to long to do anything, so they took the help of the ones who offered it.
^This.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote: The rebels weren't always with terrorists. That happened after no one assisted them.
Not always, but they have been for a long time. And what sort of assistance should we have given them, in your opinion? And why should we involve ourselves in a civil war that doesn't benefit us?
Because it does benefit you. It could have allowed you to have had a hand in creating another stable state in the Middle East, and likely one that would've been quite friendly to you had you helped them. However, now they've gone the "any port in a storm" route, and now whoever wins the civil war; you lose.
azazel the cat wrote: Because it does benefit you. It could have allowed you to have had a hand in creating another stable state in the Middle East, and likely one that would've been quite friendly to you had you helped them. However, now they've gone the "any port in a storm" route, and now whoever wins the civil war; you lose.
I'll let you read my last post where I address this line of argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Hyena wrote: Probably to prevent the rise of another nation which will hate yours for showing no help to them. They needed skilled fighters and as the article said, the only skilled fighters that would help were radical islamists. So why should they turn them away?
azazel the cat wrote: Because it does benefit you. It could have allowed you to have had a hand in creating another stable state in the Middle East, and likely one that would've been quite friendly to you had you helped them. However, now they've gone the "any port in a storm" route, and now whoever wins the civil war; you lose.
Just picking out these quotes because I feel its necessary to point something out. I keep asking, in this thread and the other about the use of sarin gas, why it has to be the US that gets involved and no one else. I haven't heard a compelling answer yet. Yet here we have two members of Dakka from countries that also have an interest in this - the UK suffered the 7/7 attacks and have uncovered other plots, Canada only recently foiled an attack on their soil - but rather than advocate for their countries to intervene they seem to want the US involved (the constant use of "you" and "yours", rather that "our", "us" etc.).
By all means if you think there should be intervention in Syria no one is saying that you should keep quiet. But asking another country to shoulder the burden is onerous when others also have a stake in the matter.
Our NBC gear will have to be issued to whatever countries that would be willing to go in with us into Syria. Our NBC gear is like our NVG technology...way ahead of any competitors
Risk is to damn great. Now we have rebels align with AQ. Assad military and mercenaries....russians, Iranians, and the mystery pile of NBC agents of goodness yet to be open like pandoria box...
Even before NATO makes a move into the fight I'm willing to bet two case of beers that russian will start movement of their marine forces into Syria. With the blessing of Iran. For they are the lesser of the two great evils.
Dreadclaw69, I say you because Canada already has committed to going in if gas were used; and in fact had been on alert to do so since last winter. Additionally, I say you because it is you who is -somewhat- reviled in the Middle East due to several short-term, botched attempts to play the empire game in the last 60 years.
azazel the cat wrote: Dreadclaw69, I say you because Canada already has committed to going in if gas were used; and in fact had been on alert to do so since last winter. Additionally, I say you because it is you who is -somewhat- reviled in the Middle East due to several short-term, botched attempts to play the empire game in the last 60 years.
So while lamenting about the US not going in before where is your same concern for Canada's inaction for the same time period? Your silence is deafening.
And the US's empire game in the ME, would you also have anything to say about Canada's involvement in the same. You know Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Operation Iraqi Freedom, funding for Palestinians, investment in Egypt etc. Again your focus is US-centric and it shows.
Mr Hyena wrote: The rebels weren't always with terrorists. That happened after no one assisted them.
Not always, but they have been for a long time. And what sort of assistance should we have given them, in your opinion? And why should we involve ourselves in a civil war that doesn't benefit us?
Probably to prevent the rise of another nation which will hate yours for showing no help to them. They needed skilled fighters and as the article said, the only skilled fighters that would help were radical islamists. So why should they turn them away?
Does this mean China, Switzerland, Russia, and South Africa can now expect terrorist attacks, because they didn't help?
azazel the cat wrote: Because it does benefit you. It could have allowed you to have had a hand in creating another stable state in the Middle East, and likely one that would've been quite friendly to you had you helped them.
Is that so? I'm not so sure. We helped out Libya quite a bit, and that didn't work out for us even in the short term.
I mean, yes I know that Benghazi wasn't a, what you'd call, state-sponsored event. And I haven't really decided that we should, or shouldn't intervene. I do think should we decide to intervene anyway; we should do so presuming they will be burning American flags in the street less than a year after we're gone. Which is goddamn galling.
And there goes my support for them. Sometimes I wake up feeling we should just nuke the entire region into radioactive glass, maybe it'd be simpler...but it'd be wrong, right?
azazel the cat wrote: Dreadclaw69, I say you because Canada already has committed to going in if gas were used; and in fact had been on alert to do so since last winter. Additionally, I say you because it is you who is -somewhat- reviled in the Middle East due to several short-term, botched attempts to play the empire game in the last 60 years.
So while lamenting about the US not going in before where is your same concern for Canada's inaction for the same time period? Your silence is deafening.
And the US's empire game in the ME, would you also have anything to say about Canada's involvement in the same. You know Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Operation Iraqi Freedom, funding for Palestinians, investment in Egypt etc. Again your focus is US-centric and it shows.
Canada doesn't really play the empire game. We also aren't responsible for making a mess and then hoping it would clean itself up. Long story short, I think the US (which is the leading country in the free world) had a great opportunity to gain some points in a region that hasn't been too friendly for a while now, and missed its chance.
And Whembly: yes, kinda like how Bush went into Iraq. Had he shouted "Saddam Hussein's regime is bs and we're going to liberate Iraq from a human-rights violating monster!" then most people -myself included- would have likely thought of it as a great idea that should've been done earlier.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: Because it does benefit you. It could have allowed you to have had a hand in creating another stable state in the Middle East, and likely one that would've been quite friendly to you had you helped them.
Is that so? I'm not so sure. We helped out Libya quite a bit, and that didn't work out for us even in the short term.
I mean, yes I know that Benghazi wasn't a, what you'd call, state-sponsored event. And I haven't really decided that we should, or shouldn't intervene. I do think should we decide to intervene anyway; we should do so presuming they will be burning American flags in the street less than a year after we're gone. Which is goddamn galling.
I think the issue there is what happens when you take half-measures; either go big or go home. Libya could have had more direct involvement, but far more important than that would have been to help with repairs and infrastructure. That's what wins hearts & minds.
I believe the US centric rhetoric is largely a by-product of its adventurism and interventionism during the Cold War and afterwards. The US cannot deny having been a large player in the area in the past and several of the messes that engulf the area are the results of said interventionism. If the US didn't have a recent history of picking winners in the area no would call on them to help.
Secondly the US is seen rightly or wrongly as the leader of the Western World, the world which supposedly endorses and supports freedom and human rights and humanitarian aid yet is pretty much unwilling to actually help anyone in a meaningful way despite all of the grandstanding about democracy and freedom we do. It's seen as hypocritical, and often rightly so.
And before you start ignoring my opinion because I'm not American nor am I in the military, A) My father is American and his family is off the Mayflower. B) I've tried enlisting in both the Marines, Army, and Canadian forces but have failed every time due to medical reasons. I'm very willing but it's not my fault they won't take me.
azazel the cat wrote: Dreadclaw69, I say you because Canada already has committed to going in if gas were used; and in fact had been on alert to do so since last winter. Additionally, I say you because it is you who is -somewhat- reviled in the Middle East due to several short-term, botched attempts to play the empire game in the last 60 years.
Empire game?
Did I miss a couple new states being added?
Only deluded Islamic jihadists think America is empire building.
And Whembly: yes, kinda like how Bush went into Iraq. Had he shouted "Saddam Hussein's regime is bs and we're going to liberate Iraq from a human-rights violating monster!" then most people -myself included- would have likely thought of it as a great idea that should've been done earlier.
You do know that we would've never had any legal justification to invade Iraq if we just said "Saddam Hussein's regime is bs and we're going to liberate Iraq from a human-rights violating monster!"... you know that...right?
I do agree with your gist... if we intervene... we go all out.
The actual act of seizing and controlling colonies went out of fashion (with the exception of Africa) in the mid 1800's. Look at the Opium wars, the Great Colonial powers realised it was cheaper to just enforce one sided trade agreements and leave the nation to it's own devices as long as their interests were protected. That's been America's MO since the 50's.
azazel the cat wrote: Canada doesn't really play the empire game. We also aren't responsible for making a mess and then hoping it would clean itself up. Long story short, I think the US (which is the leading country in the free world) had a great opportunity to gain some points in a region that hasn't been too friendly for a while now, and missed its chance.
So you use one incident from America's past involvement with the Middle East as proof that Canada hasn't played the empire game? That's a little disingenuous, especially when I've already shown that Canada has been involved in the Middle East too, very often as a willing partner to the United States. In your own words " it's also an abhorred logical fallacy to excuse bad actions by saying there are other bad actions: in effect, you are saying everyone involved in a gang rape isn't so bad because everyone involved was a gang rapist." http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/523171.page
Concerning your claim that the United States "had a great opportunity to gain some points in a region that hasn't been too friendly" I'll direct you to my earlier post again, which you may have missed;
You mean like the current regime in Syria which isn't exactly friendly with us anyway? Or the Russians and the Iranians who have a pretty big stake in Syria and what happens there. Apart from that the FSA has had long ties with AQ and other Islamist groups, the FSA's most capable fighters are from the AQ affiliated Al-Nurash. Which means that if we do go in and help the FSA we're strengthening our enemies as they'll have able to set up shop in Syria after the dust settles. So they'll have the ability to set up training camps and have access to whatever military surplus is floating around. So it'll be like Afghanistan after the Soviets left. And we all know how that went - hence my comment about my enemy's enemy. So whoever wins this conflict its not as if we're going to have a friendly partner going forward.
Unless of course you want intervention - that means going in with troops, keeping the peace, dealing with being caught between two sides that are hostile to our soldiers and each other, while trying to deal with the machinations of other interested parties, and investing billions in infrastructure and having to oversee that transition of power and hoping that both sides don't start killing each other again when we leave (See Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam, and Afghanistan after Sept 11), not to mention dealing with sectarian tensions that were previously kept in check by Assad (see Iraq after the over throw of Saddam). Then we have the problem of Turkey. If the Kurds there see us intervene then that might spur on their efforts to get a sovereign state thinking that we will intervene against an ally too (which could also have consequences for Iraq with its large Kurdish population).
Not to mention that Russia will be upset at the lost revenue from the weapon sales, and the loss of a strategic port in the region. This is problematic as they hold a UN veto and they are needed to tackle Iran's nuclear program, as well as North Korea. And its not to say that Russia would not be above turning off the gas (again) to our allies in Eastern Europe.
Then we have Iran. They have the ability to have their terrorist proxies in the Lebanon start to antagonise Isreal, and that leaves us with a spreading conflict in the region and one of our allies possibly needing support and other assistance. Not to mention that Iran would not think twice about mining the Straits of Hormuz, blocking 20% of the world's supply of oil (35% of the petroleum traded by sea) which would necessitate military action to tackle that problem also.
And all that is on the back of two wars in the Middle East, one of which has gone on for over a decade, and a severe shortage of money to start another foreign adventure. So given all this I am very interested in what your proposed solution and intervention looks like, as well as what assistance you think we should give the rebels.
azazel the cat wrote: I think the issue there is what happens when you take half-measures; either go big or go home. Libya could have had more direct involvement, but far more important than that would have been to help with repairs and infrastructure. That's what wins hearts & minds.
Yes, remind us how that's going in Afghanistan. Where we only have one side shooting at us. For over a decade with little tangible progress.
Ratbarf wrote: The actual act of seizing and controlling colonies went out of fashion (with the exception of Africa) in the mid 1800's. Look at the Opium wars, the Great Colonial powers realised it was cheaper to just enforce one sided trade agreements and leave the nation to it's own devices as long as their interests were protected. That's been America's MO since the 50's.
You're right, one sided in the other countries' benefit.
azazel the cat wrote: Dreadclaw69, I say you because Canada already has committed to going in if gas were used; and in fact had been on alert to do so since last winter. Additionally, I say you because it is you who is -somewhat- reviled in the Middle East due to several short-term, botched attempts to play the empire game in the last 60 years.
Right, but according to you someone should have gone in even before gas was used. SO WHERE WAS CANADA? I'd be more than happy to see Canada, send it's massive military over there and show us Mericans how it's done.
Because it does benefit you. It could have allowed you to have had a hand in creating another stable state in the Middle East, and likely one that would've been quite friendly to you had you helped them.
Oh is that how it works? That middle east nation building always works so well.
I think the issue there is what happens when you take half-measures; either go big or go home. Libya could have had more direct involvement, but far more important than that would have been to help with repairs and infrastructure. That's what wins hearts & minds.
Well what stopped Canada from swopping in with tons of Maple Syrup and Tim Horton's and winning their hearts and minds. Oh Yeah, the only country that can do the is America, right. When your country starts spending as much on it's military instead of depending on ours, MAYBE then you can tell us what to do with ours. Until then enjoy sucking off the US militaries teet. If we didn't have to pay for the worlds police force maybe we could have free health care too.
Andrew1975 wrote: Right, but according to you someone should have gone in even before gas was used. SO WHERE WAS CANADA? I'd be more than happy to see Canada, send it's massive military over there and show us Mericans how it's done.
Funny thing is that I asked that question fifteen posts before you did, I'm still waiting on an answer
Ratbarf wrote: I didn't say the US was good at it, only that was its intent.
The you're either lying or ignorant, which is it?
While I might be the latter, I don't exactly think so. The reason they propped up regimes that would at first glance be anithema to their supposed moral outlook was for either economic gain or for containing soviet influence. Some of these failed spectacularly, others where somewhat successful, the perceived gain of propping up these various regimes must have outweighed the cost otherwise why would they do it?
As to the question where is Canada, well we were in Libya, we were in the Sinai, we were in the Golan Heights, we were in Afghanistan. We didn't go into Iraq because we thought you were lying to us and that it would be a stupid waste, and we've already said we would go into Syria if we found some friends willing to go along for the ride. We simply don't have the logistical power necessary to project force at that distance by ourselves. That would be like asking Holland to invade Madagascar because of a humanitarian crises. I don't doubt they would like to help, they simply don't have the means to do so in a meaningful way.
Mr Hyena wrote: This is what happens when noone wants to help get boots on the ground for rebels. They have to take anyone into their ranks, even terrorists.
Bingo, we waited to long to do anything, so they took the help of the ones who offered it.
^This.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote: The rebels weren't always with terrorists. That happened after no one assisted them.
Not always, but they have been for a long time. And what sort of assistance should we have given them, in your opinion? And why should we involve ourselves in a civil war that doesn't benefit us?
Because it does benefit you. It could have allowed you to have had a hand in creating another stable state in the Middle East, and likely one that would've been quite friendly to you had you helped them. However, now they've gone the "any port in a storm" route, and now whoever wins the civil war; you lose.
Welp... I'm done here folks. Azazel just agreed with me on something. I need to go sit down...
Not to mention that Iran would not think twice about mining the Straits of Hormuz, blocking 20% of the world's supply of oil (35% of the petroleum traded by sea) which would necessitate military action to tackle that problem also.
So, are you claiming that Iran would not think twice about endangering the only state industry it possesses?
whembly wrote: ahem... Powell said it best. (didn't Chesty P say this too?):
Germany would have lost by 1918, America or no America, it's manpower reserves were depleted while France and Britain could draw upon limitless colonial reserves. And honestly to defeat Germany in world war 2 all that was really needed was to funnel supplies to the Soviet Union and United Kingdom, Germany's materiel disadvantage was so great that they never had a hope of winning the war. None at all, by all rights Germany should have lost much earlier, their success is way out the left field if you examine the resources disadvantage they had, but looking at the numbers, Germany was doomed to defeat the moment it picked a fight with the entirety of the British Empire. As for defeating communism, some would say internal schisms created by Gorbachev's reforms were more responsible for that than anything else.
Germany would have lost by 1918, America or no America, it's manpower reserves were depleted while France and Britain could draw upon limitless colonial reserves. And honestly to defeat Germany in world war 2 all that was really needed was to funnel supplies to the Soviet Union and United Kingdom, Germany's materiel disadvantage was so great that they never had a hope of winning the war. None at all, by all rights Germany should have lost much earlier, their success is way out the left field if you examine the resources disadvantage they had, but looking at the numbers, Germany was doomed to defeat the moment it picked a fight with the entirety of the British Empire. As for defeating communism, some would say internal schisms created by Gorbachev's reforms were more responsible for that than anything else.
dogma wrote: So, are you claiming that Iran would not think twice about endangering the only state industry it possesses?
I don't have to claim it, they already have threatened to do so over sanctions. So when it concerns an important regional ally and pipeline to their proxies in Lebanon I think it is a very definite possibility
Iran renewed threats on Sunday to close the Strait of Hormuz unless sanctions against it were revoked, though it remains unclear how Tehran could shut down the vital oil shipping channel given the significant American military presence there.
The Iranian parliament is considering a bill calling for the strait to be closed. The assembly has little control over national defense and foreign policy decisions and, while the bill would be largely symbolic, it would indicate the legislature's support behind any leadership decision to close the strait.
"(Under the bill) the closure of the Strait of Hormuz will continue until the annulment of all the sanctions imposed against Iran," lawmaker Javad Karimi Qoddousi was quoted as saying by the Fars news agency.
The bill will be taken up by parliament this month, said another lawmaker, Seyed Mehdi Moussavinejad, Fars reported.
Foreign and national defence policy rests with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Iran has repeatedly threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz shipping channel, through which 40 percent of the world's seaborne oil exports passes, in retaliation for sanctions placed on its crude exports by Western powers.
The sanctions were imposed over Iran's nuclear programme, which the West suspects is aimed at creating an atomic weapon and Tehran says is for peaceful energy purposes.
The United States has beefed up its presence in the Gulf, adding a navy ship last week to help mine-clearing operations if Iran were to act on its threats.
The Iranian chief of staff of the armed forces, Seyed Hassan Firouzabadi, said on Sunday that any decision to close the strait would have to come from Khamenei, with the Supreme National Security Council advising him, according to Fars.
Military analysts have cast doubt on Iran's willingness to block the slender waterway, given the massive U.S.-led retaliation it would likely incur.
Alarmed by the Iranian threats, the United Arab Emirates has completed a long-awaited oil export terminal on the Gulf of Oman, loading the first cargo on Sunday. The Gulf OPEC member hopes to increase exports from the new facility to around 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd).
An Iranian official said on Sunday that the UAE pipeline would not be able to meet the world's oil demand if the Strait of Hormuz were closed
Germany would have lost by 1918, America or no America, it's manpower reserves were depleted while France and Britain could draw upon limitless colonial reserves. And honestly to defeat Germany in world war 2 all that was really needed was to funnel supplies to the Soviet Union and United Kingdom, Germany's materiel disadvantage was so great that they never had a hope of winning the war. None at all, by all rights Germany should have lost much earlier, their success is way out the left field if you examine the resources disadvantage they had, but looking at the numbers, Germany was doomed to defeat the moment it picked a fight with the entirety of the British Empire. As for defeating communism, some would say internal schisms created by Gorbachev's reforms were more responsible for that than anything else.
Um... okay:
I just get nitpicky whenever I see people overstate the Nazi threat. What they did was horrible but there was literally no chance for them to carry out their goals.
As to the question where is Canada, well we were in Libya, we were in the Sinai, we were in the Golan Heights, we were in Afghanistan. We didn't go into Iraq because we thought you were lying to us and that it would be a stupid waste, and we've already said we would go into Syria if we found some friends willing to go along for the ride. We simply don't have the logistical power necessary to project force at that distance by ourselves. That would be like asking Holland to invade Madagascar because of a humanitarian crises. I don't doubt they would like to help, they simply don't have the means to do so in a meaningful way.
Sure you have sent token forces, but you have never handled any proportion like the US is regularly called on to provide. You don't want friends along for the ride, you need a ride and lots of friends to back you up.
You don't have the logistics power, because you don't want it. Canada would rather (and rightly so) spend money on infrastructure and providing services to it's people. Have you looked at Canada? You pay basically the same taxes we do in the US but you get all these free socialist programs, why? Because you don't spend anything on the Military. If Canada wanted to have force projection it could, but why would you when you can always just rely on the US to do your work for you, and you can then critique it from your couches.
It's time the US took some notes, starts spending money on itself and asks it's allies to handle the Wars for awhile. Until that time comes all the Armchair Generals need to stop telling us what to do with our military.
I didn't say the US was good at it, only that was its intent.
Good, then obviously we are incompetent at it, we are going to sit this one out and let our allies show us how to do it properly.
I just get nitpicky whenever I see people overstate the Nazi threat. What they did was horrible but there was literally no chance for them to carry out their goals.
I just don't know what to say? This is pretty ignorant, while the US fairytale of us coming in and saving the world single handedly is false, we were needed and the Nazis were a very real threat. I don't want to get into here, this thread is done literally every week on dakka.
There was a solid chance of them negotiating peace before American intervention. Peace with Britain would have assured the defeat of Russia.
Granted, Hitler not being a tool and attacking the right Russian targets would have assured Russia's defeat and Germany acquiring the resources it needed to face the west down.
djones520 wrote: There was a solid chance of them negotiating peace before American intervention. Peace with Britain would have assured the defeat of Russia.
Granted, Hitler not being a tool and attacking the right Russian targets would have assured Russia's defeat and Germany acquiring the resources it needed to face the west down.
Doubtful, Hitler gave all the right orders. The "stand fast" order for example was exactly the right one. Addittionally, once the Siberian divisions were in play, taking Moscow was impossible, and once Moscow was lost, the entirety of the War was lost for Germany. Britain could have grounded down Germany by drawing upon the vast wealth and manpower of the Commonwealth if it was really serious. Germany's defeat was inevitable, Hitler's dreams of global conquest being nothing more than an impossible fantasy.
whembly wrote: ahem... Powell said it best. (didn't Chesty P say this too?):
Somewhere, Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong are both pointing at this image macro and laughing so hard tears are running down their faces, barely able to chortle out "this is what they really believe!"
c="http://www.cavemancircus.com
Somewhere, Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong are both pointing at this image macro and laughing so hard tears are running down their faces, barely able to chortle out "this is what they really believe!"
Hey man... it's because our our best AND worst trait. 'Murrica!
I'm not sure which I find more amusing: dreadclaw's attempts at comparing Canada aiding the US in Afghanistan with the US overthrowing a democratically elected government and replacing it with a loathed Shah to help privatize oil interests; whichever silly child said "yer nor Merican so shut up!", or that goddamned hilarious meme of Whembly's, which is so dumb it would take me all day to cover each reason via iPad.
DJones20: I think It's just the gun rights vs. gun privileges debate we are diametrically opposed to.
azazel the cat wrote: I'm not sure which I find more amusing: dreadclaw's attempts at comparing Canada aiding the US in Afghanistan with the US overthrowing a democratically elected government and replacing it with a loathed Shah to help privatize oil interests; whichever silly child said "yer nor Merican so shut up!", or that goddamned hilarious meme of Whembly's, which is so dumb it would take me all day to cover each reason via iPad.
DJones20: I think It's just the gun rights vs. gun privileges debate we are diametrically opposed to.
How can you have this "gun rights vs. gun privileges" debate? We have 2nd amendment... you don't. The. End.
azazel the cat wrote: I'm not sure which I find more amusing: dreadclaw's attempts at comparing Canada aiding the US in Afghanistan with the US overthrowing a democratically elected government and replacing it with a loathed Shah to help privatize oil interests
Maybe the most humorous is your inability to counter my arguments, or your inability to counter the very words you posted yesterday when they do not suit the argument you put forward today, or ignoring the other examples which don't suit you
I'm not sure which I find more amusing: dreadclaw's attempts at comparing Canada aiding the US in Afghanistan with the US overthrowing a democratically elected government and replacing it with a loathed Shah to help privatize oil interests; whichever silly child said "yer nor Merican so shut up!", or that goddamned hilarious meme of Whembly's, which is so dumb it would take me all day to cover each reason via iPad.
Azazel again, any time Canada wants to show us how it is done I will gladly pay my own way over and take notes and pictures. Right now Canada is just as guilty of doing nothing as anyone else is, except for the fact that Canada couldn't do it even if they wanted to, because it's easier to expect us to. Finance your own military with force projection and you can start having fun with the world. Until then, yeah, shut it.
"Your meddling makes the world worse and you are terrible at it, you should do more of it." is basically what you are saying. We are getting sick of the world telling us what to do with our military. GO GET YOUR OWN!
Albatross wrote: "...um, and those Overseas Territories we acquired. But we're not an empire. Honest."
**looks at flag of poster -
Good thing the UK doesn't have anything like that then or people would think you're being hypocritical. I mean its not like you have;
Diego Garcia
Gibraltar
Northern Ireland
Falklands
Akrotiri and Dhekelia
Anguilla
Bermuda
British Antarctic Territory
British Indian Ocean Territory
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Montserrat
Pitcairn Islands
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Turks and Caicos Islands
Not to mention all those countries tied to the UK through the Commonwealth
Ouze wrote: All joking aside, we do own the moon, right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: no seriously guys
http://sciencefocus.com/feature/health/who-owns-space wrote:[...]What framework there is today comes mainly from the Outer Space Treaty drawn up by the United Nations in 1967. “It’s the Magna Carta of space, from which all future laws are likely to develop,” says Newman. Negotiated during the race to the Moon, the Treaty headed off territorial disputes by barring outer space and celestial bodies from all ‘national appropriation’. But, reflecting its time, no mention was made of individuals or private companies.
This loophole permits private property in space: so goes the argument of US entrepreneur Dennis Hope. He filed a claim for the entire Solar System in 1980, going on to earn millions by selling lots on the Moon, Mars and Venus online. Hope’s claim is contested by many, however, including businessman Greg Nimitz, who asserted ownership of asteroid 433 Eros in advance of a NASA probe landing on it in 2001. “Individuals have the inherent right to claim un-owned things, without the interference of governments,” says Nimitz.
azazel the cat wrote: I'm not sure which I find more amusing: dreadclaw's attempts at comparing Canada aiding the US in Afghanistan with the US overthrowing a democratically elected government and replacing it with a loathed Shah to help privatize oil interests
Maybe the most humorous is your inability to counter my arguments, or your inability to counter the very words you posted yesterday when they do not suit the argument you put forward today, or ignoring the other examples which don't suit you
I'm not making the connection that you are, so you're gonna have to spell it out for me. Go on, please. Tell me what horrible act Canada has been involved in. I'll wait.
Are you implying that as a Canadian, I should keep quiet, because Canada assisted the US in supplying troops to Afghanistan? Because I wish Canada sent more troops and aid to Afghanistan. That place is full of some seriously need-to-be-dead MFs, and I support sending in as many pairs of boots on the ground as required to do that job, followed by funding to build proper infrastructure like schools and hospitals during the aftermath.
Please do not attempt to compare the efforts to eliminate the Taliban in Afghanistan with the US government overthrowing a democratically-elected government in Iran in order to install an oil-industry-friendly dictator.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm not sure which I find more amusing: dreadclaw's attempts at comparing Canada aiding the US in Afghanistan with the US overthrowing a democratically elected government and replacing it with a loathed Shah to help privatize oil interests; whichever silly child said "yer nor Merican so shut up!", or that goddamned hilarious meme of Whembly's, which is so dumb it would take me all day to cover each reason via iPad.
Azazel again, any time Canada wants to show us how it is done I will gladly pay my own way over and take notes and pictures. Right now Canada is just as guilty of doing nothing as anyone else is, except for the fact that Canada couldn't do it even if they wanted to, because it's easier to expect us to. Finance your own military with force projection and you can start having fun with the world. Until then, yeah, shut it.
"Your meddling makes the world worse and you are terrible at it, you should do more of it." is basically what you are saying. We are getting sick of the world telling us what to do with our military. GO GET YOUR OWN!
You sound butthurt. I could ignore you, but it's far more fun to point out that the US is our army. Canada has a great relationship with y'all; it's kinda like Master Blaster from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.
But no, "your meddling makes the world worse and your are terrible at it, you should do more of it" is not what I am saying. I think someone actually did say that, but that's not me. What I am saying is quite clear: the US has made some horrendous foreign policy decisions in the past (and some good ones). Not getting directly involved in Syria early on will end up being one of the bad ones; which is just compounded by the fact that it's yet another bad decision in a region where the US could really benefit from one or two good ones right now, as the region's instability could be viewed as a tipping point, and the positive influence from the US would likely be a boon that could ripple through the region. Unfortunately, this is not the course you seem to think should be taken. Given the phrasing of your objection, I'm attributing it to either immaturity or else a serious myopic condition. And again, let me be clear: I'm separating you from Dreadclaw in this, because while he (I assume) & I evidently disagree on this point, he at least has a well-considered objection with a foundation beyond "SHUT UP BECAUSE MURICA RON PAUL 2016", of which it appears cannot be said of you.
So while I will not fulfill your request to shut up, I will happily ignore your impotent, butthurt-sounding whines.
Ouze wrote:All joking aside, we do own the moon, right?
Although private ownership is actually sort of awesomer, come to think of it. That sets the stage for a full-blown Weyland-Yutani type future.
That private ownership is not recognized by any country that counts for anything. I can't remember which one, but I recall some tinpot dictatorship was acknowledging someone's private ownership. Nobody else, though. So you could spend $150 on a piece of paper that says you own a piece of the Moon, but I'd be happy to sell you one that's just as valid for half the price.
Its just another stupid treaty. I say finders keepers. There's plenty of space out there for entire nations. Its silly to say we have to share the entire thing.
Seriously. We're bashing Canada? WTF?! I rolled out the wire quite a few times with the Canadians and shared Tim Horton coffee with them to at KAF. We bleed with them.....Hell I remember when the rocket nailed their DFAC on KAF....NVFM..unbelievable...Canadian version Strykers rolling around Southern Afghanistan with Canadian license plates on them.....getting hit with IED's intended for our Strykers....
Jihadin wrote:Seriously. We're bashing Canada? WTF?! I rolled out the wire quite a few times with the Canadians and shared Tim Horton coffee with them to at KAF. We bleed with them.....Hell I remember when the rocket nailed their DFAC on KAF....NVFM..unbelievable...Canadian version Strykers rolling around Southern Afghanistan with Canadian license plates on them.....getting hit with IED's intended for our Strykers....
Try to ignore their impotent and misdirected anger. A few posters here have become quite upset that they've been called out on their jingoistic chest thumping.
Jihadin wrote: Seriously. We're bashing Canada? WTF?! I rolled out the wire quite a few times with the Canadians and shared Tim Horton coffee with them to at KAF. We bleed with them.....Hell I remember when the rocket nailed their DFAC on KAF....NVFM..unbelievable...Canadian version Strykers rolling around Southern Afghanistan with Canadian license plates on them.....getting hit with IED's intended for our Strykers....
Huh, and here we were being told that they were content to simply watch from their couch.
Thats why I lean towards Heinlien view point. If your going to deploy troops then you need to do at a term in the military just for the experience. So you know what your getting our troops involve in when one's in gov't.
We're one of the very few countries that can access our way into any country. Either by Sea....MEU....airfield seizure...82nd and Rangers. Our heavy hitters M1 and Bradleys along with Strykers 12 hrs behind to expand our foot print. We geared towards that. Germany is not geared towards that. France is not geared towards that. UK......well...two reinforce BDE on ground..best guess...I think its more. the US can have a Division in play with 12 hours around the world. Some countries are not geared towards that at all. Canada does not have the lift capability to move entire BDE at once. Their military not really design for that. They can fly their version of a Stryker in their C130 while we cannot. We have C17's that can tranport two at a time. C5 4 at a time...depending on temperature A lot of US equipment were being flown in on contract birds.....88N movement Coordinator...I don't care who you are and what country. What do you need for me to do to help you complete your mission since your missions have a tendency to run with ours.
There been times I hae to go retrieve another country armored vhicle and store it in our yards....thanks Gawd for TCN's so we can let them know where to come get it. The Canadian Strykers were easy....we get a Stryker driver from our Stryker BDE and make a trip across the FoB......joy ride you betcha and park it in their SMAJ spot. French F L..Germans...Brits....espacially their four wheelers..dang...on a rant here
I don't have to claim it, they already have threatened to do so over sanctions. So when it concerns an important regional ally and pipeline to their proxies in Lebanon I think it is a very definite possibility
There is a massive difference between a possibility, and a thing which is certain. You implied certainty when you claimed that Iran would not hesitate to obstruct the Strait of Hormuz.
To put it differently, Iran has repeatedly threatened (as you demonstrated in the snipped portion) to obstruct the Strait of Hormuz, but it hasn't actually happened. This is an indication of hesitation.
You sound butthurt. I could ignore you, but it's far more fun to point out that the US is our army. Canada has a great relationship with y'all; it's kinda like Master Blaster from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.
Oh I'm sure it is fun for you. You get to have the Worlds best military do all the heavy lifting for you and not only do you not have to pay for it, but you don't even have to get your hands dirty, and you get to critique it. That does sound like fun. If only the US could get away with only spending 22 billion a year on military, that would leave 660 for us to spend on things the country needs. But then who would keep the world safe and protect western interests globally? Canada?
That's the whole BS part. They are not your army, they are not the worlds army or police force. You don't pay for them. I do and other Americans do. You want it to be your army and have a say in where and when it goes, then start paying for it. Better yet, send your whole army, we will even ferry them, don't worry about Canada, we will watch it while your boys are away. I know Canada has contributed in the past, but not like the US does. Yet you want to critique when we do things and you want to critique when we don't. We have more pressing issues and can sit this one out or provide logistics and support. Canada and our other allies can go ahead and use their resources and show us how its meant to be done.
What I am saying is quite clear: the US has made some horrendous foreign policy decisions in the past (and some good ones). Not getting directly involved in Syria early on will end up being one of the bad ones; which is just compounded by the fact that it's yet another bad decision in a region where the US could really benefit from one or two good ones right now, as the region's instability could be viewed as a tipping point, and the positive influence from the US would likely be a boon that could ripple through the region. Unfortunately, this is not the course you seem to think should be taken.
My objection is pretty clear, we don't need to go, there is no reason to go, there is no victory if we go, never was. Walking into Syria, no matter what anyone says was never going to be a cake walk, and would be another proxy battlefield filled with Coin warfare, IEDS and terrorists/insurgents. If our allies think otherwise they are welcome to give it a shot.
We're one of the very few countries that can access our way into any country.
And why is that? Maybe it has something to do with us spending more money than anyone else. If Canada spent what the US spends they would not have the great free health care that they are always talking about. It sure would be nice to have things like that in the US, but we have a military to pay for.
I personally don't have a problem with Canada, but as other have pointed out Azazel the cat use of yours and ours in your earlier statements shows that he believes the US military should be a Canada's beck and call. His response should have been our militaries should have gone in earlier, not your military or the US military. Which I still don't agree with, but it is at least less insulting.
Actually. If using a US Cargo bird they pay for the leg of that flight for that equipment. SO if its coming from Kuwait to KAF then the estimated cost of moving that one vehicle is if I remember correctly because later on we have to justify the move. $73,000
Out of that 73K
Fuel
Maintenance upkeep
Two off the bat.
British and the Marines have the same thing going at Leatherneck/Bastion
Only unit with freebies were medical units and EoD
Jihadin wrote: Actually. If using a US Cargo bird they pay for the leg of that flight for that equipment. SO if its coming from Kuwait to KAF then the estimated cost of moving that one vehicle is if I remember correctly because later on we have to justify the move. $73,000
Out of that 73K
Fuel
Maintenance upkeep
Two off the bat.
British and the Marines have the same thing going at Leatherneck/Bastion
Only unit with freebies were medical units and EoD
Awsome. We could make some loot by just being battle taxis. There you go Azazel we can even provide the ride for the great Mountie invasion of Syria.
whembly wrote: ahem... Powell said it best. (didn't Chesty P say this too?):
Germany would have lost by 1918, America or no America, it's manpower reserves were depleted while France and Britain could draw upon limitless colonial reserves. And honestly to defeat Germany in world war 2 all that was really needed was to funnel supplies to the Soviet Union and United Kingdom, Germany's materiel disadvantage was so great that they never had a hope of winning the war. None at all, by all rights Germany should have lost much earlier, their success is way out the left field if you examine the resources disadvantage they had, but looking at the numbers, Germany was doomed to defeat the moment it picked a fight with the entirety of the British Empire. As for defeating communism, some would say internal schisms created by Gorbachev's reforms were more responsible for that than anything else.
I'm not sure how the US involvement in the world wars is related to the topic of Syrian freedom fighters, however it should be noted that the USA got a number of overseas bases in compensation for its help in WW2, so the basis of the quotation is false.
I'm not sure how the US involvement in the world wars is related to the topic of Syrian freedom fighters, however it should be noted that the USA got a number of overseas bases in compensation for its help in WW2, so the basis of the quotation is false.
I now return you to the original topic.
Yeah! Are those bases rent free? And even so all that means is we get to have bases so that we could defend Europe more easily, which is kind of Europe's job. Thanks a bunch!
Andrew1975, I think you're projecting your own unresolved baggage onto my earlier statement. But here's the short version: the US likes to laud itself as the leader of the world, and that's just fine, so long as ya walk the talk. And doing that means flexing your might for the right reasons. "it doesn't immediately benefit me and it's too hard" is not an example of such. Further, there are special circumstances here, as I've already stated: the US has historically done more to harm the Middle East than heal it, and generally made it's own bed insofar as earning a lot of the anti-American attitudes over there.
I can't say the same about Canada. We didn't overthrow any democratically-elected governments. So I'd call your attitude of making a mess and then thinking it's okay to just pretend it never happened is not only ignorant, but extremely juvenile as well. However, even beyond the rare circumstance wherein your moral obligation to fix your mistakes happens to coincide with what's in your long-term best interests, youre still not alone. Canada has still committed to aiding in our own way: the US spends it's money on tanks, so it can go in with the muscle. Canada spends it's money on social infrastructure and quality of life; so we have opened our doors to taking in refugees and offering aid. That's how we roll.
Albatross wrote: "...um, and those Overseas Territories we acquired. But we're not an empire. Honest."
**looks at flag of poster -
Good thing the UK doesn't have anything like that then or people would think you're being hypocritical. I mean its not like you have;
Diego Garcia
Gibraltar
Northern Ireland
Falklands
Akrotiri and Dhekelia
Anguilla
Bermuda
British Antarctic Territory
British Indian Ocean Territory
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Montserrat
Pitcairn Islands
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Turks and Caicos Islands
Not to mention all those countries tied to the UK through the Commonwealth
I'm sorry, did I post a huge picture of the Union Flag with a lion on the front of it and a bunch of jingoistic balls about saving the world but not asking for land? I'm pretty sure it was the other guy who did something like that. I'm well aware that Britain did what it did in the past and was smart enough to keep some land. I don't have a problem with that at all. What I do have a problem with is Yanks who finger-wag other nationalities about it, because they blatantly have a number of overseas territories (one of which has on it a... Well, is 'concentration camp' too strong a term for Gitmo?), even if most of their citizens seem do to be unaware of this fact. Some of them were even acquired in the 20th century if I'm not mistaken.
I'm not sure how the US involvement in the world wars is related to the topic of Syrian freedom fighters, however it should be noted that the USA got a number of overseas bases in compensation for its help in WW2, so the basis of the quotation is false.
I now return you to the original topic.
Yeah! Are those bases rent free? And even so all that means is we get to have bases so that we could defend Europe more easily, which is kind of Europe's job. Thanks a bunch!
azazel the cat wrote: But here's the short version: the US likes to laud itself as the leader of the world, and that's just fine, so long as ya walk the talk.
Actually, I'm pretty sure we can say whatever the feth we want regardless of what we do or do not do. There's no reference check for that title, and I doubt many people give much of a gak who buys it and who doesn't.
This thread can be boiled down to, "All US intervention in the Middle East is bad, except for the stuff I want the US to do in the Middle East." Have fun with it, I guess.
azazel the cat wrote: Are you implying that as a Canadian, I should keep quiet, because Canada assisted the US in supplying troops to Afghanistan? Because I wish Canada sent more troops and aid to Afghanistan. That place is full of some seriously need-to-be-dead MFs, and I support sending in as many pairs of boots on the ground as required to do that job, followed by funding to build proper infrastructure like schools and hospitals during the aftermath.
Please do not attempt to compare the efforts to eliminate the Taliban in Afghanistan with the US government overthrowing a democratically-elected government in Iran in order to install an oil-industry-friendly dictator.
Shifting the goalposts I see, while dodging the other substantive arguments I've raised You said the US was responsible for Syria because of Empire builing elsewhere in the Middle East. I showed that Canada was also involved in the Middle East, and by your own logic was equally responsible.
If you want to mis-read and distort my argument that is your prerogative.
I'm still waiting for your response to my other posts too
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Seriously. We're bashing Canada? WTF?! I rolled out the wire quite a few times with the Canadians and shared Tim Horton coffee with them to at KAF. We bleed with them.....Hell I remember when the rocket nailed their DFAC on KAF....NVFM..unbelievable...Canadian version Strykers rolling around Southern Afghanistan with Canadian license plates on them.....getting hit with IED's intended for our Strykers....
No one is bashing Canada, or those who served in their military to the best of my knowledge. What people are objecting too are people in other countries who also have a stake in what happens in the Middle East demanding that the US be the one to go in. We're objecting to that.
azazel the cat wrote: Try to ignore their impotent and misdirected anger. A few posters here have become quite upset that they've been called out on their jingoistic chest thumping.
That's entirely correct.... if you entirely mis-read what people have posted to suit your own agenda and show that you'd rather smear others than engage in honest debate
dogma wrote: There is a massive difference between a possibility, and a thing which is certain. You implied certainty when you claimed that Iran would not hesitate to obstruct the Strait of Hormuz.
To put it differently, Iran has repeatedly threatened (as you demonstrated in the snipped portion) to obstruct the Strait of Hormuz, but it hasn't actually happened. This is an indication of hesitation.
It hasn't happened yet because they know the repercussions. However in the event of losing a vital ally and power in the region it becomes a much more viable course of action for them to take. Perhaps my original language was imprecise
Albatross wrote: I'm sorry, did I post a huge picture of the Union Flag with a lion on the front of it and a bunch of jingoistic balls about saving the world but not asking for land? I'm pretty sure it was the other guy who did something like that. I'm well aware that Britain did what it did in the past and was smart enough to keep some land. I don't have a problem with that at all. What I do have a problem with is Yanks who finger-wag other nationalities about it, because they blatantly have a number of overseas territories (one of which has on it a... Well, is 'concentration camp' too strong a term for Gitmo?), even if most of their citizens seem do to be unaware of this fact. Some of them were even acquired in the 20th century if I'm not mistaken.
No you didn't, but that's not what I said so please do not distort my words. I noted the hypocracy of someone crying "empire" when his own country has a long and inglorious history of the same. Including laying the foudations for many of the problems in Africa and the ME by creating countries that put together religous, ethnic and/or cultural groups with a history of animosity ("divide and rule"). And after the Boer War and other adventures abroad I'd be careful of throwing around the word "concentration camp", especially when the UK hardly has clean hands
US likes to laud itself as the leader of the world,
Not really sure about that, its more like our allies have forced the situation on us. Whats really Juvenile is when countries that equally benefit form overseas adventurers could step in if they wanted, but tell the United Sates it's too hard for them to go in alone so, why doesn't the US send in their "meat shields" (as you put it in another thread) of democracy and spend their treasure for us. I love it when our NATO allies act like they can do nothing without us. I was unaware that NATO stood for Needs America To Operate!
dogma wrote: I didn't make anything up. You represent yourself as a person who cares about America's image, and spoke emotively about it in this thread.
In this thread, I've spoken emotively about my complete indifference to Syria.
I'm thoroughly uninterested in America's image. America's actions, on the other hand?
Seeing as this thread is getting interesting I just wanted to say please don't take my lack of responses as bowing out, my wife and I have guests coming for a week or so and I won't be on the forums as much, if at all
It hasn't happened yet because they know the repercussions. However in the event of losing a vital ally and power in the region it becomes a much more viable course of action for them to take. Perhaps my original language was imprecise
Yes, they know the repercussions: the destruction of the source of income that keeps the government afloat.
I guess I just don't understand why you think the Iranian government would throw itself away because they lost a key ally.
dogma wrote: Yes, they know the repercussions: the destruction of the source of income that keeps the government afloat.
I guess I just don't understand why you think the Iranian government would throw itself away because they lost a key ally.
Except for the fact that their oil exports have been decreasing steadily so closing of the Straits might not be so devastating to them if there revenue source is already diminished. Besides the role of the Republican Guard isn't to keep the government in power, its to safe guard the Islamic Revolution. Losing ground and a shrinking power base could be catalysts for behaviour that does not seem rational to an outside observer.
In addition it would not be unheard of for a friendly government to help them financially with hard currency if it is part of the bigger game if it frustrates a rival power.
Albatross wrote: I'm sorry, did I post a huge picture of the Union Flag with a lion on the front of it and a bunch of jingoistic balls about saving the world but not asking for land? I'm pretty sure it was the other guy who did something like that. I'm well aware that Britain did what it did in the past and was smart enough to keep some land. I don't have a problem with that at all. What I do have a problem with is Yanks who finger-wag other nationalities about it, because they blatantly have a number of overseas territories (one of which has on it a... Well, is 'concentration camp' too strong a term for Gitmo?), even if most of their citizens seem do to be unaware of this fact. Some of them were even acquired in the 20th century if I'm not mistaken.
No you didn't, but that's not what I said so please do not distort my words. I noted the hypocracy of someone crying "empire" when his own country has a long and inglorious history of the same. Including laying the foudations for many of the problems in Africa and the ME by creating countries that put together religous, ethnic and/or cultural groups with a history of animosity ("divide and rule"). And after the Boer War and other adventures abroad I'd be careful of throwing around the word "concentration camp", especially when the UK hardly has clean hands
Absolutely. But, you see, you've stumbled upon my point. I would have preferred that you apprehended it from what I posted but I'll take 'stumbled upon it by accident' if it stops us going round in circles. America behaves like an imperial power. So did Britain and, to a very limited extent, it still does. Let me make this perfectly clear: I think that this is a good thing. I'd rather live in a world governed by British values than any other, and the Americans picked up that torch from us in the mid-20th century. They are continuing to run with it and I'm glad.
It's the hypocrisy of the Americans who deny their country's imperialist nature that I find obnoxious, mostly because they have a tendency to be 'holier-than-thou' about it, particularly towards us. It's not their fault though, they literally are holier than us!
That's probably where the pious finger-wagging comes from. America has benefited enormously from being the pole of a unipolar world, but let's not forget, it's a world they created, and continue to create, around themselves. Their hands are dirty just like ours. They just pretend that they aren't and that's irritating.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Shifting the goalposts I see, while dodging the other substantive arguments I've raised
You have yet to raise a single substantive argument, and if I'm mistaken then it is because you buried it in a pile of rubbish that I don't feel like sifting through to get at.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:You said the US was responsible for Syria because of Empire builing elsewhere in the Middle East.
You said you were angry at my post because you never learned to read past a third-grade level.
See, I can put words in your mouth, too. So rather than waste everyone's time, why don't you quote me directly, rather than make things up. Because I'm pretty sure you're making a connection here that is patently false.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:I showed that Canada was also involved in the Middle East, and by your own logic was equally responsible.
If you want to mis-read and distort my argument that is your prerogative.
Your whining about misreading and distorting is incredibly ironic, and you are demonstrating that you don't actually understand how logic works. If you're still confused as to why I've ignored the bulk of your posts, it is because they are without value or interest to me. You try to put words in my mouth, (which is doubly stupid given this board has a quote system) and you make connections between statements that don't follow. The fact that you seem to think all involvement in the Middle East is equal is extremely telling of your ignorance on the subject in general, and quite frankly I don't feel like giving you a free History lesson just so you can play catch-up. You appear to be unclear on what, exactly, Canada's involvement in the Middle East is, and you equate it to the same level and direction of involvement as all other actions there. So if you cannot differentiate between Canada attempting to remove the Taliban, and the USA's removal of Mossadegh, then we have nothing to speak about.
You wrote something down. Hitler also wrote something down. Therefore, you are just like Hitler would be an example of the truly ridiculous comparisons you are constantly making in what appears on its face to be a smug, childlike attempt to appear clever. But your posts are not clever. They are depressing, because while I would like to be able to hold a real discussion with you, I do not feel like spending an extra half-hour per post just explaining what logical fallacies you are making. Given your demonstrated propensity for putting words in everyone's mouth, I think you'll be just fine if you just fine playing by yourself.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:I'm still waiting for your response to my other posts too
I'll address any post you make so long as you remove the ridiculously lies distortions, misrepresentations and start using the quote system. Otherwise it's not worth my time.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: Try to ignore their impotent and misdirected anger. A few posters here have become quite upset that they've been called out on their jingoistic chest thumping.
That's entirely correct.... if you entirely mis-read what people have posted to suit your own agenda and show that you'd rather smear others than engage in honest debate
Everything after the ellipsis is ironic. Everything prior is correct.
Any operation would by necessity involve NATO. The only way we'd be able to effectively launch an effective intervention (whatever that might entail) in Syria would be through the use of bases in Turkey, Italy, and probably Spain and Germany as logistics bases.
Operationally, I could see a limited, joint combined air campaign to destroy Syria's air defense network and strategic weapons stockpiles. Follow this up with a no fly zone to ground Syria's helicopter fleet and call it good.
Strategically, I'm not sure what to do. Both sides of the coin are pretty gruesome. I think a lot of people in the US are wary of getting involved because they remember the grief we've gotten for propping up or setting up dictatorial regimes in the 70s and 80s. Ten years down the road, will people remember their cries for intervention if the FSA, now in charge of the country, are launching terrorist attacks around the world against the very people who were trying to help them?
azazel the cat wrote: You have yet to raise a single substantive argument, and if I'm mistaken then it is because you buried it in a pile of rubbish that I don't feel like sifting through to get at.
You said you were angry at my post because you never learned to read past a third-grade level.
See, I can put words in your mouth, too. So rather than waste everyone's time, why don't you quote me directly, rather than make things up. Because I'm pretty sure you're making a connection here that is patently false.
More insults and misdirection. You are really becoming quite predictable. But seeing as you missed it when I posted it, then re-posted it in a third page thread I'll post it here again;
You mean like the current regime in Syria which isn't exactly friendly with us anyway? Or the Russians and the Iranians who have a pretty big stake in Syria and what happens there. Apart from that the FSA has had long ties with AQ and other Islamist groups, the FSA's most capable fighters are from the AQ affiliated Al-Nurash. Which means that if we do go in and help the FSA we're strengthening our enemies as they'll have able to set up shop in Syria after the dust settles. So they'll have the ability to set up training camps and have access to whatever military surplus is floating around. So it'll be like Afghanistan after the Soviets left. And we all know how that went - hence my comment about my enemy's enemy. So whoever wins this conflict its not as if we're going to have a friendly partner going forward.
Unless of course you want intervention - that means going in with troops, keeping the peace, dealing with being caught between two sides that are hostile to our soldiers and each other, while trying to deal with the machinations of other interested parties, and investing billions in infrastructure and having to oversee that transition of power and hoping that both sides don't start killing each other again when we leave (See Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam, and Afghanistan after Sept 11), not to mention dealing with sectarian tensions that were previously kept in check by Assad (see Iraq after the over throw of Saddam). Then we have the problem of Turkey. If the Kurds there see us intervene then that might spur on their efforts to get a sovereign state thinking that we will intervene against an ally too (which could also have consequences for Iraq with its large Kurdish population).
Not to mention that Russia will be upset at the lost revenue from the weapon sales, and the loss of a strategic port in the region. This is problematic as they hold a UN veto and they are needed to tackle Iran's nuclear program, as well as North Korea. And its not to say that Russia would not be above turning off the gas (again) to our allies in Eastern Europe.
Then we have Iran. They have the ability to have their terrorist proxies in the Lebanon start to antagonise Isreal, and that leaves us with a spreading conflict in the region and one of our allies possibly needing support and other assistance. Not to mention that Iran would not think twice about mining the Straits of Hormuz, blocking 20% of the world's supply of oil (35% of the petroleum traded by sea) which would necessitate military action to tackle that problem also.
And all that is on the back of two wars in the Middle East, one of which has gone on for over a decade, and a severe shortage of money to start another foreign adventure. So given all this I am very interested in what your proposed solution and intervention looks like, as well as what assistance you think we should give the rebels.
azazel the cat wrote: I'll address any post you make so long as you remove the ridiculously lies distortions, misrepresentations and start using the quote system. Otherwise it's not worth my time.
You use that fall back position a lot.
So Azzy, you keep agitating of the US to go in and Empire build, despite pointing out how US intervention in the region to serve its interests hasn't helped the region. That is hugely inconsistent and smacks of wanting your cake and eating it;
azazel the cat wrote: Canada doesn't really play the empire game. We also aren't responsible for making a mess and then hoping it would clean itself up. Long story short, I think the US (which is the leading country in the free world) had a great opportunity to gain some points in a region that hasn't been too friendly for a while now, and missed its chance.
azazel the cat wrote: Because it does benefit you. It could have allowed you to have had a hand in creating another stable state in the Middle East, and likely one that would've been quite friendly to you had you helped them. However, now they've gone the "any port in a storm" route, and now whoever wins the civil war; you lose.
azazel the cat wrote: Dreadclaw69, I say you because Canada already has committed to going in if gas were used; and in fact had been on alert to do so since last winter. Additionally, I say you because it is you who is -somewhat- reviled in the Middle East due to several short-term, botched attempts to play the empire game in the last 60 years.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Your whining about misreading and distorting is incredibly ironic, and you are demonstrating that you don't actually understand how logic works. If you're still confused as to why I've ignored the bulk of your posts, it is because they are without value or interest to me. You try to put words in my mouth, (which is doubly stupid given this board has a quote system) and you make connections between statements that don't follow. The fact that you seem to think all involvement in the Middle East is equal is extremely telling of your ignorance on the subject in general, and quite frankly I don't feel like giving you a free History lesson just so you can play catch-up. You appear to be unclear on what, exactly, Canada's involvement in the Middle East is, and you equate it to the same level and direction of involvement as all other actions there. So if you cannot differentiate between Canada attempting to remove the Taliban, and the USA's removal of Mossadegh, then we have nothing to speak about.
You wrote something down. Hitler also wrote something down. Therefore, you are just like Hitler would be an example of the truly ridiculous comparisons you are constantly making in what appears on its face to be a smug, childlike attempt to appear clever. But your posts are not clever. They are depressing, because while I would like to be able to hold a real discussion with you, I do not feel like spending an extra half-hour per post just explaining what logical fallacies you are making. Given your demonstrated propensity for putting words in everyone's mouth, I think you'll be just fine if you just fine playing by yourself.
So deliberate confusion of my point, strawmen, Godwin, avoiding any substantive discussion to play the ball instead of the player and trying to play the victim. That's quite impressive for such a short few lines.
You refuse to engage in any sort of honest debate time and time again and it shows. You ask me to show my arguments (after having posted them twice already for no reply), and now you say it doesn't matter "because they are without value or interest to me". Yet you still reply.
azazel the cat wrote: Everything after the ellipsis is ironic. Everything prior is correct.
Only if you're pushing an agenda with little concern for the actual facts. Oh, and jingoistic may not be the right word to use either, especially when people are advocating for the US to stay out of Syria;
"Jingoism is extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism Unless you wish to redefine aggressive foreign policy as staying out of someone else's civil war
It's the hypocrisy of the Americans who deny their country's imperialist nature that I find obnoxious, mostly because they have a tendency to be 'holier-than-thou' about it, particularly towards us. It's not their fault though, they literally are holier than us!
Right, because we enslave other countries. If we were an empire we would be getting Iraqi oil free, or at least cheaper than anyone else gets it, no? Yes we influence the world and protect what we considers important resources and assets, but everybody benefits from that. We are not building an empire and I'm not sure how you could classify the US as one.
I'll address any post you make so long as you remove the ridiculously lies distortions, misrepresentations and start using the quote system. Otherwise it's not worth my time.
Okay, Dreadclaw69, I'll ignore the fact that you still seem to be having trouble with what I've been trying to explain, and I'll lay it all out for you in one place.
I think a lot of the hatred towards the USA in the Middle East is justified. The US has spent the past 60 years meddling in their affairs, to varying degrees of success. For example, I think the US taking an active part in the Iranian coup in 1953 was the single biggest mistake the US has made in that part of the world. Just about every problem the US has with Iran can be traced back to that event, wherein the US helped overthrow a democratically-elected head of state and transplant a Shah into direct power, simply because the elected government moved to nationalize oil production, whereas the Shah was far more accommodating to American corporate interests. The Iranian people weren't big fans of seeing their constitutional monarchy overthrown and turned into the USA's puppet dictator, and that's where Khomeini came in, because his Islamic extremism was always kept suppressed and in check from gaining any real traction by both the Shah and the government. However, without the government, the Shah became increasingly dictatorial, and thus alienated everyone in the middle of the two opposites: the pro-West views of the Shah and the hardline anti-West views of Khomeini et al. The reasonable, mostly-in-the-middle Iranians naturally sided with the nationalists (previously Mosaddegh's government) on the side of the Shah, but without that voice in government, it really became a choice between being OPEC's (which translated to America at the time) puppet following the mid-'70s oil bonanza, or the hardline -but still nationalist- religious fringe. So Khoneini came to power during the 1979 revolution, and would go on to become the donkey-cave that everyone knew he would be.
Let me put this into a relatable context for you: pretend Obama (like him or not, he's the POTUS) was removed from office by, say, Putin, and replaced with Bloomberg. Then Bloomberg gets increasingly dictatorial, and before you know it, things have polarized to the point where you can either support Bloomberg, or you can side with, uh, let's say Pat Roberts. While you don't really trust Pat Roberts and think he's a little too crazy for you, you still like him more than Bloomberg, because Bloomberg is tyrannical and does whatever Russia tells him to; your Constitution be damned.
Anyway, that's the situation that the US created in Iran, in a nutshell (and England helped a little, too). But the US has also made some very good decisions in the Middle East, such as going into Afghanistan to fight against the Taliban (seriously, feth those guys). Unfortunately, many of the decisions the US has made in the region tended to follow this kind of pattern:
"Yeah, insert dictator name here is an donkey-cave and reviled by his own people whom he oppresses and tortures, but he's friendly to our interests, so let's keep supporting him, because we can't rely on liberated people to be friendly to us. They might, but we'll stick with the devil that we know."
Now, when you look at Syria, you tend to have just about that same situation, except the US wasn't gaining anything (to my knowledge) from the existing government. And the people hated the regime. So the US could have gone in an aided in the revolution, in hopes that the new Syrian government would be friendly to the country that helped put it there (likely), and that the people would also recognize the US's efforts to liberate them (also likely). The key is showing that it is the US doing it for them and not for oil interests or to play empire. Kind of like when your coworker asks you to help him move, and in doing so, you don't actually ask your coworker to give you a piece of his new place. However, perhaps the most important part would be in offering aid to civilians in the war-torn country, and then helping the new government set up their own infrastructure until it is strong enough to sopport itself, because that is the citical time period where the extremists and nutjobs come in.
Will the US ever be universally loved? No. Hell, there areeven families of Canadians who were killed in a friendly-fire incident who bitterly hate the US. And it's hard to blame them. But they're not representative of the whole. Just like how you'll never win over the hearts and minds of the hardcore Islamist fundamentalists; but those groups are small, and without populist support they have no power. It's the middle ground that the US needs to try to win over, because a pro-US (or even neutral) middle-ground is all that is needed in order to keep the hardcore fundamentalists from taking hold. And this is incredibly important, because you can't kill terrorism with bullets; terrorism is a hydra. You can only kill it with schools, hospitals, and roads, until it whithers and dies.
What has happened in Syria could be seen as something of a tipping point: the people could have gone either way. But the US didn't intervene, as so the Syrians have turned to any group that will help them; in this case it's the radical Islamists. So while the US's help would not have guaranteed that Syria becomes pro-US, it would have been at least somewhat likely, provided the US didn't treat Syria's military like they did with Iraq's (as in, dismiss a standing army that might not have been full of true believers, but rather just trained dudes that needed their job). However, the lack of US intervention in Syria virtually guarantees that Syria will not be pro-US now that the radicals have begun to help them.
I do understand a lot of your points regarding Iran and Russia, but they are permutations of a slippery slope that's not even certain. Russia won't get pissed off at the US because it can't sell Syria weapons anymore to any degree that matters. And Iran won't blockade Hormuz because they always say they will and never do. I'm not saying repairing the US's image in the Middle East is going to be easy (because that would likely be the dumbest thing anyone has ever said, ever) but aiding Syria would have been a very good start.
Several posts within this thread are skirting the boundary between assertive discussion and insulting other posters. Consider this a final warning for all involved. Thanks.
Azazel, you are right we messed up Iran with our meddling, through various other attempts at meddling the US has a bad name in the Middle East. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us that no amount of school building or PR is going to change that for us. Even more reason for our NATO allies to go in there without us.
If NATO was really serious about tackling Syria they could have done it by now, but it's just so much easier to get the US to do it. The problem is that the US military will just put everybody in an attack posture and make any mission harder. So again, if NATO wants to fix this thing its a much better idea to go in there without us. Maybe our allies hold the key to taming the middle east, that's fine fine with us. I really doubt it though, but you are welcome to try. Surely the combined resources of NATO (sans the US) are more than enough to fulfill this little mission without us, and if not, well maybe our allies need to spend a little more money and figure out how accomplish some goals without us or with us doing mostly a supporting role. We can accept that, what we can't accept is constantly doing the heavy lifting and then being blamed when things go wrong, and/or getting blamed for problems because the rest of our allies can't be arsed to do anything without us. Go do it yourself, the US is Closed for remodeling.
Jihadin wrote: Turkey should lead it. The fact its a muslim CoC running ground operations will go much smoother. US and other caucasion pilots.....NO FLY ZONE.....
Turkey could participate, but I don't know that they could handle it on their own, and again I don't even want US pilots. This may sound silly, but if we can't afford the Blue Angels or Thunderbirds to fly airshows anymore because of the sequester, I don't want our equipment being used for missions that our allies could accomplish, if only they were arsed enough to do it themselves. I don't want our military spending any money on missions that could be done by our allies while most of our allies have free medical care 43% of Americans didn't access medical services last year because of the cost http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/26/news/economy/health-care-cost/index.html?hpt=hp_t3. Yet here we are spending our military so that they don't have to. Here is the deal, we will handle global military, you just pay all of our medical bills.
I'd honestly like for someone to figure out a way for NATO to help coordinate and facilitate a task force from the Arab league. Let the Muslims and Arabs police themselves since they seam to get in an uproar anytime anybody else steps in their areas.
Wouldn't happen. To diverse and bad blood between tribes. Turkey would be the best bet or let the rusians handle it. Assad has to go and Iran cannot have a rots in Syria.
Andrew1975 wrote:Azazel, you are right we messed up Iran with our meddling, through various other attempts at meddling the US has a bad name in the Middle East. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us that no amount of school building or PR is going to change that for us. Even more reason for our NATO allies to go in there without us.
If NATO was really serious about tackling Syria they could have done it by now, but it's just so much easier to get the US to do it. The problem is that the US military will just put everybody in an attack posture and make any mission harder. So again, if NATO wants to fix this thing its a much better idea to go in there without us. Maybe our allies hold the key to taming the middle east, that's fine fine with us. I really doubt it though, but you are welcome to try. Surely the combined resources of NATO (sans the US) are more than enough to fulfill this little mission without us, and if not, well maybe our allies need to spend a little more money and figure out how accomplish some goals without us or with us doing mostly a supporting role. We can accept that, what we can't accept is constantly doing the heavy lifting and then being blamed when things go wrong, and/or getting blamed for problems because the rest of our allies can't be arsed to do anything without us. Go do it yourself, the US is Closed for remodeling.
You raise a good point. But I can't help but question the perception of Iraq & Afghanistan; which leads me to assume that one or both of us is wrong.
I've been under the impression that in a nutshell there are two types of people in Afghanistan: those who are generally okay with the US/Canada/everyone else fighting against the Taliban, and the Taliban (and feth those guys). I'm not overtly aware of any crap that the US has been taking for its efforts in Afghanistan. Maybe someone who's actually been there can correct me if I'm wrong on this one.
Iraq is a very, very different situation. I know the US took a lot of crap for going in under clearly false pretenses, and rightly so. But as I've said before, if Bush had said "Hussein is a dick, let's go get him" then I'd have actually supported the action. But that's not why the US went in; they went in because Cheney wanted to. The fact that it just so happened to be Saddam Hussein who was deposed was just a fringe benefit; it could have just as easily been the King of Jordan (who appears to be on the level) for all it mattered to logic or moral reasoning. The actual actions within Iraq were also about as bad as can be: between the dismissal of Iraq's standing army (which basically put hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers out of jobs and angry at the US for costing them their jobs) and the use of private military contractors of dubious professionalism, the US seemed to fail on all PR fronts and generally gave the impression they had no intention or idea how to help with rebuilding the infrastructure (again, not much of a focus on hospitals, schools or roads, etc.). Perhaps the most painful part, was that packing up and leaving before the job was done is basically what happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s after the US supplied them with money and training to help push the Soviets out of the country. Again, the US packed up and left, leaving no infrastructure; just a lot of unemployed, trained soldiers who were angry at the foreigners that cost them their jobs.
Now, if the US had gone into Syria right away, I cannot say that anyone would have learned from the past and done it right this time. But I like to think so, simply because the current administration lacks most of the hubris and spiteful meanness that the Bush administrations had.
Now, if the US had gone into Syria right away, I cannot say that anyone would have learned from the past and done it right this time. But I like to think so, simply because the current administration lacks most of the hubris and spiteful meanness that the Bush administrations had.
It's not just about learning from the past. It's about how the middle east functions. Afghanistan is a good comparison. Outside the cities the place is made up of all these tribes that have bad blood between them, and none of them want ANY foreigners to come in and tell them how to do anything. They get upset if you help another tribe. All they want is to have their tribe and be able to fight with other tribes and not to have anybody tell them what to do. They don't want us coming in and telling them they can't sell their underage daughters, or harvest poppies for opium. They don't let the legal government do it and they certainly don't appreciate non Muslims and non Arabs coming in and telling them what to do. Which is why its easier for the terrorists to get them to do what they want.
I think anyone that has this idea that westerners can go into the middle east and just setup shop is just not well versed at all in how the region works. The US was silly enough to believe that people would poo flowers out of their butts once we got rid of Saddam. It doesn't work that way. There were factions that didn't like the US, there were factions that didn't like Christians, hell the Muslim factions wanted to start killing each other and were upset we were not letting them. The place was a mess held together by fear of a vengeful repressive dictator. That is how a lot of the middle east works, the place is run by fear, and if they don't fear you then you have real problems. Which is why so many of the regions leaders are shown to be these powerful warlords, its also why the warlords act the way they do, once the people don't fear you they will take you down.
It's just too much work for no gain, and if you want to try to change it you are welcome to it. One day someone will tame the middle east, but its not going to be an outsider,and its not going to be any time soon.
Its a Shia Muslim vs Sunni Muslim sectarian conflict at its very core. If Syria was majority Shia and they were rising up violently against a Sunni dictator, the posture of Sunni Turkey, Sunni Jordan, all of the Gulf Monarchies(Sunni) would be completely different. The regional response and the coverage and bias from main Arab news channels such as Al Jazeera (Qatar) and Al Arabiyah (KSA) would be against the rebels.
Just look at the response from KSA when the Shia of Bahrain, the demographic majority, rose up against the Bahraini government, ruled by a Sunni Monarchy. They were "agents of Iran" or "Hezbollah collaborators" and such, despite little to no violence from the protesters. Sure, some sporadic fighting, but it usually ends up lopsided against the protesters. KSA actually sent in their Army to help quell the peaceful uprising.
Even our governments have been relatively silent on Bahrain, as the sect that is rising up would probably fall under Iranian (Shia) influence or be heavily aligned with them. I suspect our response to Syria would be different as well, had the sectarian position been reversed.
This Shia vs Sunni conflict has been essentially raging since their prophets body started cooling and it shows no sign of abating. Its the Muslims war, 100%. The Muslims started it, let the Muslims finish it.
Turkey has the second largest army in NATO and they are doing jack. We've sold billions of dollars in military equipment to multiple Gulf states and they are collecting dust. We train Saudi fighter pilots here in America and they are sitting on their thumbs. Turkey, Jordan, KSA, Qatar etc. need to put their big boy pants on and finish the job that their co-religionists started and that they have helped prolong with agressive diplomatic posturing against Assad.
This conflict is not worth the American treasure, equipment or most importantly, American lives. We should offer humanitarian aid and leave it at that. Its a tragedy, but I'm done with America being world police. What is the UN for?
If thats not enough for FSA and they deem it necessary to ally heavily with AQ/Nusra Front, thats their choice and they will have to own it when Salafis/wahabbis are making all the rules in their new state and it inevitably starts to eat itself again.
And that's how messed up the situation is. I mean besides the use of Chem weapons our ally Turkey is having its own internal issues with the Kurds and is accused of human rights violations against them, much as Assad was being accused. The Kurds were our Allies in Iraq! Nobody say gak about Turkey because they are in Nato. Yet the Turks give Israel a hard time about Israels (yet another US ally) treatment of the Palestinians. So how do you chose who to support and how? Trick question, It doesn't matter because anyone that cooperates with the west is looked down on, so the second that they can distance themselves from the west they will. Except for Israel of course because no matter what they do everyone in the region is going to hate them, so Israel and the US are a perfect fit.
Turkey takes in refugees from Syria and is being brought to task for how they are being treated? Apparently the facilities are not good enough! The Syrians that are in the camp are pissed at guess who? The west and turkey. Where is the anger for their rich Muslim/Arab comrades? Where are the rich Arabs/Muslims and their oil money to donate. The fact is they only care about each other when there is something to gain.
There is always somebody fighting someone, and some regime oppressing some group that claims independence and they are probably getting training from terrorist organizations. The region is just a political mess full of people who want to kill each other because there is nothing better to do. However you can't create infrastructure and jobs to give people something else to do, because someone will just come and blow it up or fight over it.
It's daunting and I can't really fault the US for trying, but I think by now we should have learned it's a fools game. You support whoever you need to to make sure the oil keeps flowing because honestly that is the only thing that makes the place worth caring about. If it's a maniacal repressive dictator, fine he's figured out the game, just keep giving us what we need. I don't care about those people or the region any more than that.
I personally can't wait for the day when we don't really need their oil so much and we can just sit back and watch the whole region slide into complete chaos. Who wins? Who cares! The only reason people care about what happens there is because of oil.
It's the hypocrisy of the Americans who deny their country's imperialist nature that I find obnoxious, mostly because they have a tendency to be 'holier-than-thou' about it, particularly towards us. It's not their fault though, they literally are holier than us!
Right, because we enslave other countries.
There are definitely instances in which the USA has intervened to preserve or install puppet regimes sympathetic to American values. You have satellites, you have client states. Just because it's not the 19th century any more, that doesn't mean that major powers don't shape the world in order to benefit themselves, trampling on the self-determination of others. Central America? The Middle East? Ringing any bells?
If we were an empire we would be getting Iraqi oil free, or at least cheaper than anyone else gets it, no?
No, not 'free'. That's not how it works. That's not how it worked under the British Empire either, strictly speaking.
Yes we influence the world and protect what we considers important resources and assets, but everybody benefits from that.
Not everybody. Also, those same arguments were made by the British Empire.
We are not building an empire and I'm not sure how you could classify the US as one.
Because I'm not using a primary school definition of what an empire is, as in, 'we send our guys over, they kill the others guys, stick a flag in the ground, now the land's ours'. When a country overthrows a democratically elected government in order to install a strongman puppet who, though he'll oppress and torture and murder, and generally be an appalling bastard to his vassals, is approved of and kept in place because he is sympathetic to US interests and keeps his country open for business, it's hard to argue that that country is not behaving like an imperial power. Again, I don't have a problem with it, but it's foolish to deny it goes on.
Because I'm not using a primary school definition of what an empire is, as in, 'we send our guys over, they kill the others guys, stick a flag in the ground, now the land's ours'. When a country overthrows a democratically elected government in order to install a strongman puppet who, though he'll oppress and torture and murder, and generally be an appalling bastard to his vassals, is approved of and kept in place because he is sympathetic to US interests and keeps his country open for business, it's hard to argue that that country is not behaving like an imperial power. Again, I don't have a problem with it, but it's foolish to deny it goes on.
Right, understood, but when was the last time that happened? When did we last overthrow a democratically elected government? Its been quite some time. I'm admitting that we influence the world, I'm just finding it hard to call it an Empire.
Not everybody. Also, those same arguments were made by the British Empire.
Fine, not everybody, but most. When we protect global oil interests the US doesn't get a special discount rate on oil. Oil is produced and sold on the open market, all people that use oil benefit equally from that including people who are not our allies.
Afghanistan is not in the Middle East.
Well the Middle east is not really all that well defined, if it truly is at all. Some people consider Afghanistan as part of "the greater middle east region". Whatever that means. Don't nit pick, I know you are famous for it, but people get the idea.
Ahtman wrote: We have a decent track record post WWII of getting involved when we shouldn't and not getting involved when we should. It is part of our charm.
Well that's called hindsight and opinion. Who know what would have happened if we didn't get involved, who knows what would have happened if we didn't. I kind am in the camp now that getting involved or not the place is a mess and no amount of intervention or non intervention is going to change that. So you might as well leave it alone for the most part, you still need to protect vital resources and interests, but just let the rest of the nonsense happen.
Ahtman wrote: We have a decent track record post WWII of getting involved when we shouldn't and not getting involved when we should. It is part of our charm.
Well that's called hindsight and opinion.
If you can figure out how to view history with foresight that would be a pretty neat trick.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: Unless "Middle East" now means all countries with lots of brown, Muslim people that we don't like.
Andrew1975 wrote: Well the Middle east is not really all that well defined, if it truly is at all.
No it is pretty well defined, and Afghanistan isn't a component of it by any reasonable definition.
Unless "Middle East" now means all countries with lots of brown, Muslim people that we don't like.
Well, then you are still being overly critical because it is listed as a member of the greater middle east on more than one site. Is the greater middle east a even a thing? The term middle east is a Euro centric construct that most of the people living there have little real consciousness of.
I wouldn't consider Mexico the middle east and it is full of brown people .
Again your just being nit picky and wrong.
Dearborn, Michigan is in the Middle East now?
If you look at it, it makes more sense for Michigan to be in the middle east than the Midwest. Midwest of what? Its clearly in the mideast of the USA Maybe that's why people are so angry in Syria, they are still trying to find the offramp for Pittsburgh.
Because I'm not using a primary school definition of what an empire is, as in, 'we send our guys over, they kill the others guys, stick a flag in the ground, now the land's ours'. When a country overthrows a democratically elected government in order to install a strongman puppet who, though he'll oppress and torture and murder, and generally be an appalling bastard to his vassals, is approved of and kept in place because he is sympathetic to US interests and keeps his country open for business, it's hard to argue that that country is not behaving like an imperial power. Again, I don't have a problem with it, but it's foolish to deny it goes on.
Right, understood, but when was the last time that happened? When did we last overthrow a democratically elected government? Its been quite some time.
Depends on your definition of 'democratically' and 'elected'. Also, keeping a friendly dictator in power basically amounts to the same thing.
Not everybody. Also, those same arguments were made by the British Empire.
Fine, not everybody, but most. When we protect global oil interests the US doesn't get a special discount rate on oil. Oil is produced and sold on the open market, all people that use oil benefit equally from that including people who are not our allies.
How do you think it used to work? Stock-markets and international finance weren't invented in the 80s, man.
Claiming that the United States is an imperialist power can only be achieved by nullifying all other routes of global supremacy and declaring, "If you''re on top, you must be imperialist." At absolute worst, we're cultural imperialists. We own the world's most powerful military by leaps and bounds, but overwhelmingly, our influence is made manifest through economic and cultural means, not military conquest.
Not using the "primary school" definition of imperialism is a way to win the argument, I guess, because it means you can use "imperialist" to mean whatever the hell you want. I'm gonna go lace up my skates, grab my stick, and play some non-primary school definition football.
Now, if the US had gone into Syria right away, I cannot say that anyone would have learned from the past and done it right this time. But I like to think so, simply because the current administration lacks most of the hubris and spiteful meanness that the Bush administrations had.
It's not just about learning from the past. It's about how the middle east functions. Afghanistan is a good comparison. Outside the cities the place is made up of all these tribes that have bad blood between them, and none of them want ANY foreigners to come in and tell them how to do anything. They get upset if you help another tribe. All they want is to have their tribe and be able to fight with other tribes and not to have anybody tell them what to do. They don't want us coming in and telling them they can't sell their underage daughters, or harvest poppies for opium. They don't let the legal government do it and they certainly don't appreciate non Muslims and non Arabs coming in and telling them what to do. Which is why its easier for the terrorists to get them to do what they want.
I think anyone that has this idea that westerners can go into the middle east and just setup shop is just not well versed at all in how the region works. The US was silly enough to believe that people would poo flowers out of their butts once we got rid of Saddam. It doesn't work that way. There were factions that didn't like the US, there were factions that didn't like Christians, hell the Muslim factions wanted to start killing each other and were upset we were not letting them. The place was a mess held together by fear of a vengeful repressive dictator. That is how a lot of the middle east works, the place is run by fear, and if they don't fear you then you have real problems. Which is why so many of the regions leaders are shown to be these powerful warlords, its also why the warlords act the way they do, once the people don't fear you they will take you down.
It's just too much work for no gain, and if you want to try to change it you are welcome to it. One day someone will tame the middle east, but its not going to be an outsider,and its not going to be any time soon.
The ideas and language you use here almost points to a white man's burden attitude. I'm going to assume that is a result of only getting information from the US media.
Opium harvesting is done because that is where the money is. If the US goes in an burns a farmer's opium fields, and simply says "don't do that", then that farmer is going to curse you and laugh at you. But if you go in and burn the farmer's opium fields, and help him plant a different crop that will allow him to earn an income, then he'll likely stick with that one. Very few people support the Taliban out of anything other than fear (and sometimes economics). The best way to combat that is to take the fear away (kill the Taliban) and to replace the crutch of opium farming with other viable alternatives. The tribal mentality you describe is something that really stands out in the absence of infrastructure; which means the solution is to help build the infrastructure.
So, yes, you're damned right they don't want you going in and telling them that they can't harvest poppies for opium; because that's their income. How would you like it if your only job was taken away because the government said so. The Reagan-era "just say no" stupidity still informs many elements of the war on drugs; and unfortunately it now affects an actual war. You can't just burn & scold; you have to burn & plant alternatives.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Because I'm not using a primary school definition of what an empire is, as in, 'we send our guys over, they kill the others guys, stick a flag in the ground, now the land's ours'. When a country overthrows a democratically elected government in order to install a strongman puppet who, though he'll oppress and torture and murder, and generally be an appalling bastard to his vassals, is approved of and kept in place because he is sympathetic to US interests and keeps his country open for business, it's hard to argue that that country is not behaving like an imperial power. Again, I don't have a problem with it, but it's foolish to deny it goes on.
Right, understood, but when was the last time that happened? When did we last overthrow a democratically elected government? Its been quite some time. I'm admitting that we influence the world, I'm just finding it hard to call it an Empire.
Well, the US did overthrow the democratically-elected government of Iran in 1953...
...And then again in the Congo (now Zaire) in 1965, killing the democratically-elected president to install Mobuto (this one was a real prizewinner)
...And then again in Chile in 1973, killing the democratically-elected president to install Augusto Pinochet (another failure for human rights).
EDIT: These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more if you use Google.
The tribal mentality you describe is something that really stands out in the absence of infrastructure; which means the solution is to help build the infrastructure.
Not quite. They still suffer from this problem in Africa as well as the Middle East. Let me illustrate.
I am a member of Tribe X. So are all of my friends and family, and all my family going back hundreds of years. Around me is the land controlled by tribes Y and Z. These three tribes have been stabbing each other in the back and trading and warring since my tribe's memory begins more or less. All our food is grown locally in this area, and most of us never leave it. The local power balance is between the strongholds of our various tribes, and it waxes and wanes as the years go by.
Then one day, along comes a fellow from the faroff distant tribe F who says, 'Hey there. We're actually all part of the same tribe/group called National Group A. Now there's a bunch of us several hundred miles away, and we've come up with all these rules about what you can and can't do. And you need to send us money for this thing called tax.'
Naturally, the reaction is to laugh at this fellow and ignore him. And that's more or less the attitude that a lot of the people in Afghanistan take. There's a reason no Afghan government has ever controlled the entire country, You get a lot of this spread across Africa, Pakistan and so on as well.
This problem gets even worse when you realise that Tribe F more or less makes up the entire government and sets lots of laws to favour itself over the other tribes (especially Tribe Y, who was one of its local rivals). Because ultimately, not even Tribe F believes in 'National Group A'. It's just a speech they make to get more power and control for Tribe F. The result being that when Tribe Y have had enough and take control of power from Tribe F through violence, Tribe Y start saying the same thing as Tribe F, but they don't believe it anymore than F did. Meanwhile, some distance away, tribes X and Z more or less ignore them and get on with their own business.
The problem is that you can't instill a national identity in the space of a few years. Only two things are capable of creating it.
1. A gradual evolution where the various tribes fight it out and subsume each other until a tribe large enough to be called a country is left. That's how most of Europe formed.
2. A power arises either internally or externally with the force necessary to maintain the peace over the area, and inculcates it through education over time. As the older generations die out, the ones that grew up being taught that they were all National Group A cease to see the older tribal divisions. Naturally, those still alive at the same time as the older generations will hear secondhand accounts from their parents/grandparents and will still retain a vestige of that tribal identity. But as time passes, their kids, and grandchildren won't hear those tales so much. And as such, you end up with a situation where the population self identifies as a homogeneous lot.
Occupying a country at arms length for five years, building a few hospitals and training up Tribe F to dominate the others does not create a national identity, and merely perpetuates the cycle. Building a crapload of hospitals, railways, and power stations does not do that either.
I think you're generally correct, Ketara. But I don't see that as being incongruous with what I pointed out. I never said it would be easy, nor that it could happen overnight. If anything, I did suggest that the 5-year plans don't really work for the problem. My whole point was that if you want to see group Y not being laughed at when they ask for the tax, then they're going to need to supply some concrete, tangible benefit (such as hospitals and schools). Then, it'll take at least a generation for things to really start to take hold, but they will.
I never said it was a fast solution, and I really hope it didn't come across as such. But a hard, long-term solution is far better than not bothering at all, because it is hard.
Well, then you are still being overly critical because it is listed as a member of the greater middle east on more than one site. Is the greater middle east a even a thing?
Yes, the Greater Middle East is a thing which is distinct from the Middle East; a region that is basically Egypt, Turkey, Iran, the Arabian Peninsula, and all things in between.
Well, then you are still being overly critical because it is listed as a member of the greater middle east on more than one site. Is the greater middle east a even a thing?
Yes, the Greater Middle East is a thing which is distinct from the Middle East; a region that is basically Egypt, Turkey, Iran, the Arabian Peninsula, and all things in between.
The term middle east is a Euro centric construct that most of the people living there have little real consciousness of.
And since we're both English speakers it might do for us to understand what such terms actually mean.
No it is pretty well defined, and Afghanistan isn't a component of it by any reasonable definition.
So being part of the Greater middle east is not part of a reasonable definition? Again you are just nitpicking. If I said Somebody was from Chicago, are really the kind of person that would go. "Actually they are from Greater Chicago because they might live outside the city limits? Really just go away and give someone else a hard time.
The ideas and language you use here almost points to a white man's burden attitude. I'm going to assume that is a result of only getting information from the US media.
No it comes from the history of the region. You really don't seam to understand at all how these regions work, as proven by your attitude that Syria would have easily walked into waiting US arms if only we had gone before the terrorists arrived. All that would have happened is the terrorists would have shown up sooner, just to fight US soldier.
To me is sounds like your lazy and want the US to do everything for you. I hate to burst your sense of entitlement, but the US military is not your military. The sense of militery entitlement that our allies have is completely out of control. You want another 5-10 year excursion, you go pay for it. Go do it yourself if it is so easy. I'm sure Canada has a much better grip on Middle East politics than the US has.
.And then again in Chile in 1973, killing the democratically-elected president to install Augusto Pinochet (another failure for human rights).
So like 40 years ago right?
Depends on your definition of 'democratically' and 'elected'. Also, keeping a friendly dictator in power basically amounts to the same thing.
Keep moving those goalpost, I should be able to see them across the Empire soon.
How do you think it used to work? Stock-markets and international finance weren't invented in the 80s, man.
Is that how it worked for the East India Trading Company? IS that how it worked when the English empire looted the counties it conquered? Is that when happened when you set up colonies and taxed the hell out of them or just gave the land to your Nobles?
Hmm, if the greater middle east is not being a part of the middle east by reasonable definition, I believe it is you that are being unreasonable.
So if I say "This is an apple." and "This is an orange." I am free to call the orange a part of "Greater Apple"?
No, not at all. But I can tell someone from California that I live in Cleveland, even though I'm really from Euclid (first suburb east of Cleveland). Its not inaccurate as Euclid is part of Greater Cleveland. Now maybe you would call me on it, but then you would be TFG.
Afghanistan is part of the Greater Middle east which is an extension on the middle east, so it is a reasonable comparison.
Hmm, if the greater middle east is not being a part of the middle east by reasonable definition, I believe it is you that are being unreasonable.
So if I say "This is an apple." and "This is an orange." I am free to call the orange a part of "Greater Apple"?
No, not at all. But I can tell someone from California that I live in Cleveland, even though I'm really from Euclid (first suburb east of Cleveland). Its not inaccurate as Euclid is part of Greater Cleveland. Now maybe you would call me on it, but then you would be TFG.
Afghanistan is part of the Greater Middle east which is an extension on the middle east, so it is a reasonable comparison.
Everything You Need To Know About The Syrian Civil War
By Hayes Brown on Apr 29, 2013 at 10:35 am
Over the last several days, the Syrian crisis has exploded back into the news. As the U.S. debates how to respond to the now two-year long struggle, here’s the what you need to know:
How this all began
The current crisis in Syria began in 2011, with civilian protests launched during a wave of pro-democracy sentiment known as the Arab Spring. Those protests were met with harsh repression from the Syrian government under the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad. Assad’s regime continued to crackdown on protesters, eventually resorting to massive human rights abuses including torture, disappearances, extrajudicial executions and detention of medical patients. In response, civilians began to take up arms against the Syrian government, transforming a peaceful movement to increase democratic freedoms into an all-out civil war. Since the beginning of the conflict, more than 70,000 Syrians have died.
Who’s doing the fighting
Over the past two years, the make-up of the Syrian opposition has shifted considerably. In the beginning, the opposition was composed mostly of civil society leaders and Syrian citizens with a small armed group taking shape across the border in Turkey. Since then, the rebels have spawned an entire network of loosely affiliated groups fighting against the Assad regime — and each other at times. Instead of hiding across the border, rebels now openly control a large swath of territory in the north and west of the country as the Syrian government continues to push back.
While many of the rebel groups are secular, recent months have shown an influx of foreign fighters into the country, seeking to impose a harsh version of Islam upon Syria once the Assad regime falls. The U.S. has labeled one such group — Jabhat al-Nusra — a terrorist group for its close ties to Al Qaeda. These murky connections between the rebels and jihadis have proved difficult for Western governments seeking to effect the situation on the ground.
The effect on the Syrian people and the region
As time wore on in the conflict, the Syrian government unleashed more and greater violence was against civilians, including the use of armored vehicles, fixed-wing aircraft and mortars against whole neighborhoods. Making matters worse, rebels are now accused of taking part in atrocities as well.
This has all led to a massive humanitarian crisis in Syria and the surrounding region. As of March, more than one million Syrians have fled into the neighboring countries of Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, placing a massive strain on those states’ governments. According to the United Nations, over 4.25 million Syrians are now internally displaced within the country.
Did Syria use chemical weapons?
Whether or not the Syrian government utilized chemical weapons against its people is the primary reason Syria has exploded back into the news. Last week, the United States announced that it has evidence that chemical weapons were used in Syria, namely sarin. That revelation comes with several caveats, however: the chain of custody of the evidence the U.S. has isn’t clear, nor is exactly how the samples obtained were exposed to the chemical. The U.S. government has also not declared definitively whether or not it was the Assad regime that used sarin, an act that would cross a “red-line” the administration set forth as an action that would spur greater intervention.
The United States’ response
The Obama administration has declared several times that the Assad regime’s days are numbered and that the Syrian president must go. So far, however, the United States has stuck with its policy of providing humanitarian aid — more than $385 million worth to date — to Syria’s civilians and providing “non-lethal aid” to the opposition. That includes a recent decision to provide items such as night-vision goggles and bullet-proof vests to the rebels. The United States is also heavily involved in coordinating the flow of weapons to Syria from Gulf states while not providing such arms itself.
The question that remains is whether a greater U.S. intervention is necessary, and if so in what form. The range of possible responses under consideration range from directly providing arms to the Syrian opposition to establishing a No-Fly Zone in Syria to protect civilians and give the rebels cover to operate. The debate does not evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, with members on both sides advocating for swift action in Syria and members of both parties urging caution in proceeding forward. Even hawks like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), however, are coming out against the idea of American boots being on the ground in Syria.
The current policy towards Syria does not appear to be in the U.S.’ best interests, however. “It is time for a change in policy,” CAP experts said in a report on the situation in Syria released in February. “The United States needs to increase its assistance to the Syrian opposition with the goal of supporting an alternative opposition government that is better organized than at present.” The report says that the U.S. could offer to provide arms via the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces and the Supreme Military Council — the umbrella group that covers all of the opposition’s political and military operations — if it meets certain “organizational incentives.”
No, not at all. But I can tell someone from California that I live in Cleveland, even though I'm really from Euclid (first suburb east of Cleveland). Its not inaccurate as Euclid is part of Greater Cleveland. Now maybe you would call me on it, but then you would be TFG.
Sure, and I tell people that aren't from the Chicago metro-area that I'm from Chicago, despite the fact that I'm from the Western suburbs of the same city. Now, were I talking to a person from the Chicago metro-area I might tell them that I'm from the Western Suburbs. I may even tell them that I'm from Lisle. But this is all hand-waving designed to expedite conversation when a specific fact isn't central to the matter at hand.
But it's part of the greater middle east which for the sake of the conversion is good enough. The Middle East by definition is "Secretary of State John Foster Dulles defined the Middle East as "the area lying between and including Libya on the west and Pakistan on the east, Syria and Iraq on the North and the Arabian peninsula to the south, plus the Sudan and Ethiopia."
This would clearly place Afghanistan in the Middle east as it is north and west of Pakistan. The definition has changed over time and now even Pakistan is not considered part of the Middle east. The definition itself is a eurocentric term, because it lumps a bunch of countries together that really do not share any affiliation with each other and is basically a way to lump together countries that consist of mostly (but not entirely) of brown skinned Arabs and Muslims that share a relative geography.
So again while technically Afghanistan may no longer be a part of the middle east, but is part of the greater middle east (truly an even worse attempt to lump countries together), it is fair to say that in a conversation it is not inappropriate to compare Afghanistan with parts of the true by definition of the middle east.
But this is all hand-waving designed to expedite conversation when a specific fact isn't central to the matter at hand.
Exactly, Afghanistan being part of the true middle east was not ever central to the matter at hand. Hence why I say you are just being TFG who loves to derail threads. Which is why as usual, im pretty much done with you.
So then is South America part of America?
Depends, what is this America you speak of? There is no such place.
There are the American Continents, North and South America.
There is a Country called the United States of America or USA for short.
But there is no America that I know of. You could be asking is South America part of the USA (which is sometimes referenced as America as we call ourselves Americans), but now you are asking if a Continent is part of a country?
South America as a continent is not part of North America as a continent, no. South America is part of the Americas though. South America is not part of the USA.
And the middle east is pretty much any country that fell under the Umayyad Caliphate minus Spain and plus Turkey if one wants to use the average persons perception on the topic.
And the middle east is pretty much any country that fell under the Umayyad Caliphate minus Spain and plus Turkey if one wants to use the average persons perception on the topic.
The Umayyad Caliphate included Morocco and Portugal if I recall correctly; so no, I do not think that is the average person's perception.
And the middle east is pretty much any country that fell under the Umayyad Caliphate minus Spain and plus Turkey if one wants to use the average persons perception on the topic.
The Umayyad Caliphate included Morocco and Portugal if I recall correctly; so no, I do not think that is the average person's perception.
EDIT: weird quoting goodness
Maybe Morocco and Portugal are the "Pretty much" part of his sentence. For people that insist on complete accuracy, you and Dogma don't seam to actually read what people post much, and are wildly inaccurate when referencing other peoples posts.
Maybe Morocco and Portugal are the "Pretty much" part of his sentence. For people that insist on complete accuracy, you and Dogma don't seam to actually read what people post much, and are wildly inaccurate when referencing other peoples posts.
If there's one thing you can't accuse Dogma of, its inaccuracy. The man is specific to a point when in a debate.
This is often felt by the people he's arguing with to be a form of cheating, somehow.
Morocco counts, Portugal doesn't, it's my fault that I forgot the Portuguese exist. Probably should have said the Iberian/Spanish Peninsula instead of just Spain.
Though to quote the English, "Wogs begin at Calais."
Maybe Morocco and Portugal are the "Pretty much" part of his sentence. For people that insist on complete accuracy, you and Dogma don't seam to actually read what people post much, and are wildly inaccurate when referencing other peoples posts.
If there's one thing you can't accuse Dogma of, its inaccuracy. The man is specific to a point when in a debate.
This is often felt by the people he's arguing with to be a form of cheating, somehow.
Yeah, I often enjoy watching people get annoyed when he does that.
It's the little things in life, y'know?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ratbarf wrote: Morocco counts, Portugal doesn't, it's my fault that I forgot the Portuguese exist. Probably should have said the Iberian/Spanish Peninsula instead of just Spain.
Though to quote the English, "Wogs begin at Calais."
The reported use of chemical weapons by Syria’s Assad regime has not made much difference in that tormented country. Tens of thousands have been killed in the brutal fighting so far, and the violence continues with no end in sight.
The chemical weapons allegations have, however, had a dramatic effect in the United States. Last August, the president warned that the use or movement of large quantities of such weapons would be a “game changer” with “enormous consequences,” marking a “red line” that must not be crossed. Ultimatums rarely make for artful diplomacy; in this case, it gave an opening to the neocon hawks. The same armchair warriors who relied on phony WMD claims to drive us into Iraq—William Kristol, Robert Kagan and others—started pounding the war drums again. They did so even amid uncertainty over nearly everything having to do with the chemical weapons reports: not simply whether they were used, but who—rebels or regime—may have used them.
Alarmingly, liberal interventionists have also begun talking up military action. Anne-Marie Slaughter, former director of policy planning in the Obama State Department, led the charge in a bellicose Washington Post column comparing the president’s cautious response to the latest allegations to the Clinton administration’s fumbling over genocide in Rwanda. That “shameful moment” for America, she said, arose from Clinton’s reluctance to clearly acknowledge that genocide was taking place; such an admission would have compelled intervention. Now, she argued, Obama is repeating the dodge because, like Clinton, he wants to avoid war. Slaughter was joined by The New York Times’s Bill Keller, who urged the administration “to assert control of the arming and training of rebels.”
Neither the neocons nor the liberal interventionists seem aware of the deep divide in the Muslim and Arab world over this conflict, and they seem unconcerned that there is no legal justification for intervention. Apparently, it is enough that the United States is, as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once boasted, “the indispensable nation.” All that matters to the armchair warriors is Washington’s fragile “credibility,” which is apparently endangered whether a conflict involves an ally or an enemy, a near neighbor or a distant land.
Perhaps recognizing the foolishness of declaring red lines, the president has recently displayed a sensible caution that others would do well to emulate (and that includes Israel, whose recent airstrikes have dangerously increased the chances of a regionwide conflagration). Given the terrible costs of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the increasingly sectarian nature of the Syrian fratricide, Obama is surely right not to rush into another Middle East conflict.
The lessons of those previous wars are particularly relevant. As Syria specialist Joshua Landis has argued, the country has many parallels to Iraq. Like Iraq, Syria is rife with sectarian, ethnic and class divisions. As with the Iraqi Baath Party under Saddam Hussein, when a minority built around kinship and sect ruled over a Shiite majority, so in Syria a minority of Alawites, allied with other minorities, has ruled over a restive Sunni majority.
The Syrian conflict has become more sectarian in part because of the influence of Turkey and the Sunni Gulf monarchies, bent on weakening Iran’s alliance with Assad. Despite Washington’s efforts to cobble together a united and more secular opposition, the rebels remain fragmented, with hardline Islamists—many of them openly avowing their allegiance to Al Qaeda—providing the fiercest and most effective fighters. The violence will continue if the regime falls; already chaos, criminality and warlordism beset the “liberated” areas. Even more ominous, the conflict is spreading. Lebanon’s formidable Hezbollah militia is now openly supporting the Assad regime, even as Lebanese Sunnis rally to the rebel flags. Like Turkey, Jordan is straining under a massive refugee burden, and its monarchy is despised by a deep-rooted Islamist opposition. Meanwhile, Iraq’s Al Qaeda affiliate, having solidified an alliance with its extremist Sunni brethren across the border in Syria, is girding for renewed rebellion against the increasingly oppressive and sectarian Shiite regime in Baghdad.
So far, not even the neocons are arguing for a US invasion or occupation of Syria. But their call to supply the rebels with heavier weapons, with or without the cover of a no-fly zone, should be resisted. Syria is awash in arms, and there is no way to ensure that more sophisticated US weapons would not wind up in the hands of extremists. We should be sobered by our experience in Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda was born amid the mujahedeen we armed to fight the Soviet Union. To control the skies of Syria, the United States would have to attack radar installations, anti-aircraft sites and air bases in the face of Russian, Chinese and Iranian objections. Unlike in Libya, these targets are located not in the desert but in cities and suburbs, where the possibility of civilian casualties is far greater.
Washington has no legal basis for waging war on Syria, direct or indirect. The Assad regime has not attacked, nor does it pose an imminent threat to, the United States. There is no UN resolution that can be stretched to provide even the flimsiest cover for armed intervention, as was done for Libya. Liberal interventionists suggest that the humanitarian tragedy provides justification for war, but that flies in the face of international law.
Fortunately, the American people, tired of wasting lives and resources on misadventures abroad, oppose even arming the Syrian rebels. That mirrors public opinion among our European allies and in the Arab world, which has seen quite enough of the freedom delivered by American bombs and missiles.
The horrors in Syria can’t be ignored, however. In fact, the United States can take useful actions. Obama should press Congress and the UN Security Council to increase humanitarian aid to the rapidly growing refugee population in neighboring countries as well as to those starving inside Syria. He should re-engage Russia and China—and, through them, Iran—to restrain Assad, while using Washington’s considerable influence with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to restrain their military support for the rebels—especially for jihadi extremists. (The recent agreement between Russia and the United States to hold an international conference on Syria is a hopeful move in that direction.) And Obama should restrain Israel from provoking war with Hezbollah. It seems unlikely now, but Syria’s combatants will eventually grow weary of battle; as they do, Washington must work closely with regional powers to set up a power-sharing arrangement.
The last thing Obama should do is commit the United States to overthrow the Assad regime. We could win that battle, as we did in Iraq—but, again, we would surely lose its violent aftermath. And we would be responsible for deepening the humanitarian disaster with our “humanitarian” intervention.
Greg Mitchell blogs about disagreements between The New York Times and McClatchy on whether WMD are being used in Syria.
BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said on Thursday his forces would support any Syrian effort to recapture the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, days after the Jewish state launched raids in Syria believed to have targeted weapons destined for the Lebanese militant group.
"We announce that we stand with the Syrian popular resistance and offer material and spiritual support as well as coordination in order to liberate the Syrian Golan," he said in a televised speech.
In the days following Israeli strikes last Friday and Sunday, Syrian state news programs quoted unnamed sources saying that Damascus had given the green light to carry out operations against Israel from the Golan Heights after decades of calm on the border.
Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday the transfer of advanced missile defense systems from Russia to Syria would be a "destabilizing" factor for Israel's security.
Kerry said the U.S. has expressed concerns about what such defensive systems in Syria would mean for Israel's security. He wouldn't address what the missiles might mean for Syria's civil war.
He spoke to reporters in Rome after the Wall Street Journal reported that Russia was preparing to sell the weapons to President Bashar Assad's regime.
Israeli officials said they have asked Russia to cancel the imminent sale to the Assad regime of advanced ground-to-air missile systems.
Such weapons would enhance the Syrian government's defensive ability and make it even harder for the U.S. and other governments to consider even the possibility of trying to enforce a no-fly zone in the country or otherwise intervening militarily.
Russia rarely comments publicly on arms sales or transfers, and there has been no official word on the deal in Moscow.
Even before Syria's 2011 uprising, the Israelis warned about a sale of S-300 batteries — which can target manned planes, drones and incoming missiles. Moscow had held off on the deal under persistent U.S. and Israeli pressure.
The S-300 would be a state-of-the-art upgrade for Syria's aging Soviet-supplied defense system, which was easily circumvented in 2007 when Israeli jets bombed a suspected nuclear reactor site along the Euphrates River in northeastern Syria.
And it would only add to reservations in the United States and other Western nations about a more forceful, military intervention to end the war. With the advanced aircraft interception technology, Syria would be able to present a far more robust defense than Moammar Gadhafi's Libya offered two years ago.
The Wall Street Journal put the deal at $900 million for a package of four batteries, six launchers and 144 operational missiles. The missiles have a range of 125 miles, it reported, citing the Israeli-provided information, adding that the materiel would start arriving over the next three months.
Russia remains the Syrian government's most powerful international ally.
Kerry met earlier this week with President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow to find a path forward. Kerry and Lavrov announced afterward that they would convene an international conference in the coming weeks to try to bring representatives of the Assad regime and the opposition to the negotiating table.
The enhanced Russian military support, if confirmed, would fly in the face of American claims that Moscow is demonstrating a new cooperativeness.
Moscow, with China, has repeatedly foiled Washington on Syria, blocking three U.N. Security Council resolutions against the Assad regime. It's unclear how its recent calculus has changed, even as U.S. officials point to statements by Lavrov and other Russian officials showing less support for Assad's continued leadership.
Moscow has been the source of most of Syria's military hardware since Assad's father and predecessor, Hafez, courted the Kremlin decades ago.
It has provided Syria with 36 Pantsyr mobile surface-to-air missile systems and at least eight Buk-M2E mobile SAMs. The Pantsyrs are considered particularly effective against attacking aircraft and feature a combination of 30mm cannons paired with a radar and anti-aircraft missiles on the same vehicle.
And other obsolete systems have been upgraded, and Kerry's predecessor, Hillary Rodham Clinton, sparked controversy last year when she accused the Russians of preparing to deliver attack helicopters.
Russians officials have insisted to their American counterparts that they are only honoring old contracts that are nearing expiration.
REYHANLI, Turkey (Reuters) - Twin car bombs killed around 40 people and wounded many more in a Turkish town near the Syrian border on Saturday and Turkey said it suspected Syrian involvement.
The bombing increased fears that Syria's civil war was dragging in neighboring states despite renewed diplomatic moves towards ending fighting in which more than 70,000 people have been killed.
The bombs ripped into crowded streets in the early afternoon in Reyhanli, scattering cars and concrete blocks in the town in Turkey's southern Hatay province, home to thousands of Syrian refugees.
President Bashar al-Assad's administration was the "usual suspect" in the attacks, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc said.
"We know that the people taking refuge in Hatay have become targets for the Syrian regime," Arinc said in comments broadcast on Turkish television. "We think of them as the usual suspects when it comes to planning such a horrific attack."
There was no immediate claim of responsibility. Nor was there any comment from Damascus.
NATO member Turkey supports the uprising against Assad and violence has crossed the border before, but not on the same scale.
Turkey is far from alone in fearing the impact of Syria's war, which is already helping inflame the Middle East's tangle of sectarian, religious and nationalist struggles.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said it was no coincidence the bombings came as diplomatic moves to end the Syrian conflict intensify.
"There may be those who want to sabotage Turkey's peace, but we will not allow that," Davutoglu told reporters during a trip to Berlin. "No-one should attempt to test Turkey's power."
Prospects appeared to improve this week for diplomacy over the civil war, now in its third year, after Moscow and Washington announced a joint effort to bring government and rebels to an international conference.
But a Russian official said on Saturday that there was already disagreement over who would take part and he doubted whether a meeting could happen this month.
As well as disputes over who would represent the rebels and government at any talks, there have also been questions over possible participation by Assad's Shi'ite ally Iran. The rebels are backed by the largely Sunni Gulf states.
Diplomats in New York said the Syria meeting would likely slip into June and it was unclear who would participate.
DEATH TOLL MAY RISE
In Reyhanli, smoke poured from charred ruins after the blasts outside administrative buildings.
"My children were so scared because it reminded them of the bombings when we were in Aleppo. God help us," said one refugee, a mother of three who gave her name as Kolsum.
Arinc said around 40 people had been killed, while Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan warned the toll could rise with many more seriously injured.
Erdogan said the bombings might have been related to Turkey's own peace process with Kurdish militants of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), who began a withdrawal this week to end a three decade conflict.
But he said the blasts could also have been aimed at provoking sensitivities in the region that is home to so many Syrian refugees.
Turkey is sheltering more than 300,000 Syrians, most of them in camps along the 900-km (560-mile) frontier, and is struggling to keep up with the influx.
Erdogan said this week Turkey would support a U.S.-enforced no-fly zone in Syria and warned that Damascus crossed President Barack Obama's "red line" on chemical weapons use long ago.
A no-fly zone to prohibit Syrian military aircraft from hitting rebel targets has been mentioned by American lawmakers as one option the United States could use to pressure Assad.
Erdogan is due to meet Obama in Washington on May 16.
Violence also crossed the border in February, when a minibus blew up at a border crossing near Reyhanli, killing 14 people.
The Syrian opposition said one of its delegations appeared to have been the target of that attack, but there has been no confirmation of this from the Turkish authorities.
In October, five Turkish civilians were killed in Akcakale when a mortar bomb fired from Syria landed on their house, prompting Turkey to fire back across the frontier.
I think part of the reason why people, including myself, repeatedly call upon the US to go do stuff in the middle east is because between Iran and Saudi Arabia you guys (along with the British) kinda created the mess in the first place. Fighting extreme islamism while propping up one of the most extreme religious dictatorship on earth isn't going to work.
As for the "well, go do it yourselves", Sweden sheltered 40% of the number of refugees compared to the US in 2012, while having less than one thirtieth as big a population. We give the most foreign aid in the world per GDP. We're simply asking you to use your influence and power to clear up a mess that you created with your influence and power in the first place.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think part of the reason why people, including myself, repeatedly call upon the US to go do stuff in the middle east is because between Iran and Saudi Arabia you guys (along with the British) kinda created the mess in the first place. Fighting extreme islamism while propping up one of the most extreme religious dictatorship on earth isn't going to work.
As for the "well, go do it yourselves", Sweden sheltered 40% of the number of refugees compared to the US in 2012, while having less than one thirtieth as big a population. We give the most foreign aid in the world per GDP. We're simply asking you to use your influence and power to clear up a mess that you created with your influence and power in the first place.
And as an American my response to such a hypothetical argument would be "go yourself and your country. WE should have never risked our country extending a nuclear umbrella against the Soviets for a such a bunch of ungrateful bastards. Don't call us ever again for anything. " Now I am not directing that at you, just at that hypothetical argument if it were actually made.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think part of the reason why people, including myself, repeatedly call upon the US to go do stuff in the middle east is because between Iran and Saudi Arabia you guys (along with the British) kinda created the mess in the first place. Fighting extreme islamism while propping up one of the most extreme religious dictatorship on earth isn't going to work.
As for the "well, go do it yourselves", Sweden sheltered 40% of the number of refugees compared to the US in 2012, while having less than one thirtieth as big a population. We give the most foreign aid in the world per GDP. We're simply asking you to use your influence and power to clear up a mess that you created with your influence and power in the first place.
And as an American my response to such an argument would be "go yourself and your country."
Now I am not directing that at you, just the argument if it were actually made.
Which is why we're in this situation in the first place.
The US created the mess in Syria? How so?
If you're going to point to the Shah they were ousted in 1979 (and always given as a reason for the US to stay out of the Middle East) so Iran has been in charge of its own affairs for 34 years.
A video which appears to show a Syrian rebel taking a bite from the heart of a dead soldier has been widely condemned.
US-based Human Rights Watch identified the rebel as Abu Sakkar, a well-known insurgent from the city of Homs, and said his actions were a war crime.
The main Syrian opposition coalition said he would be put on trial.
The video, which cannot be independently authenticated, seems to show him cutting out the heart.
"I swear to God we will eat your hearts and your livers, you soldiers of Bashar the dog," the man says referring to President Bashar al-Assad as he stands over the soldier's corpse.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) says Abu Sakkar is the leader of a group called the Independent Omar al-Farouq Brigade.
"The mutilation of the bodies of enemies is a war crime. But the even more serious issue is the very rapid descent into sectarian rhetoric and violence," HRW's Peter Bouckaert told Reuters news agency.
HRW said those committing war crimes on either side had to know that there was no impunity and that they would be brought to account.
The human rights group said Abu Sakkar had been filmed before, firing rockets into Shia areas of Lebanon and posing with the bodies of guerrillas from the Lebanese Hezbollah movement killed fighting alongside Syrian government forces.
The video, posted on Sunday, is one of the most gruesome to emerge among the many thrown up by more than two years of carnage in Syria, says the BBC's Jim Muir in Beirut.
The UN says 70,000 people have been killed since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began in March 2011. The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights puts the death toll at more than 80,000.
Many Syrians have fled the country to escape the fighting and more than a million are registered as refugees, according the UN. At least 300,000 are estimated to be living in Turkey.
International conference
The issue of an international conference on the Syrian conflict, including Syrian government representatives and the opposition, remains on the agenda.
The idea was agreed at last week's talks in Moscow between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The conference will try to persuade both the Syrian government and opposition to accept a solution based on the core elements of the final communique issued on 30 June 2012, after the UN-backed Action Group for Syria meeting.
The communique called for an immediate cessation of violence and the establishment of a transitional government that could include officials serving under President Assad and members of the opposition.
Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi said on Tuesday that Syria would need more information before deciding whether to attend such a conference, but would not be party to any meeting which harms "national sovereignty".
He said the future role of Mr Assad was an issue "only for the Syrian people and the ballot box".
Mr Kerry, on a visit to Sweden, has now said he expects such a meeting to take place in June and he suggested the Syrian government would be at the table as it had already given a list of representatives to Russia.
"If he decides not to come to the table, it would be another one of President Assad's gross miscalculations," he said. "I don't believe that that is the case at this moment."
Mr Kerry said he had also spoken to Free Syrian Army leader General Salim Idriss, who had assured him he was committed to the negotiation process.
Netanyahu visit
The conflict in Syria will be at the centre of talks in Russia between President Vladimir Putin and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu in the Black Sea resort of Sochi.
Russia is concerned by Israeli air strikes on targets inside Syria, while Israel is unhappy at shipments of Russian weapons to Damascus.
Mr Netanyahu is expected to request that Russia stop supplying the Syrian military with advanced weapons systems. Recent deliveries have included air defence missiles and artillery systems.
Last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow was not violating any international sanctions and would honour already signed contracts, but avoided confirming reports that it was preparing to sell Damascus S-300 air defence batteries.
Earlier this month, the Syrian government accused Israel of bombing military facilities near Damascus. Israel declined to comment, but security sources said the air strikes had been aimed at preventing the transfer of Iranian-made missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Following the attacks, the Russian foreign ministry warned that the "further whipping-up of armed confrontation" sharply increased the risk of "pockets of tension" in Syria and Lebanon.
Frazzled wrote: No, we're not in the situation. We're only in this situation if we allow nattering nabobs from tiny pissant countries pull us into it.
Never again I say.
It gets old hearing some quarters tell the US that they are terrible imperialists, that they cannot get involved with another nation's affairs without causing long term damage, that they should not be the world police etc..... and then calling for the US to intervene in another nation's affairs
Frazzled wrote: No, we're not in the situation. We're only in this situation if we allow nattering nabobs from tiny pissant countries pull us into it.
Never again I say.
It gets old hearing some quarters tell the US that they are terrible imperialists, that they cannot get involved with another nation's affairs without causing long term damage, that they should not be the world police etc..... and then calling for the US to intervene in another nation's affairs
Yea. In other quarters, that would be called schizophrenic behavior.
Frazzled wrote: No, we're not in the situation. We're only in this situation if we allow nattering nabobs from tiny pissant countries pull us into it.
Never again I say.
It gets old hearing some quarters tell the US that they are terrible imperialists, that they cannot get involved with another nation's affairs without causing long term damage, that they should not be the world police etc..... and then calling for the US to intervene in another nation's affairs
Good thing that's not what I'm saying then, eh? I'm saying you could do more to fix the mess you've created, not that you shouldn't ever be involved in stuff.
Frazzled wrote: No, we're not in the situation. We're only in this situation if we allow nattering nabobs from tiny pissant countries pull us into it.
Never again I say.
It gets old hearing some quarters tell the US that they are terrible imperialists, that they cannot get involved with another nation's affairs without causing long term damage, that they should not be the world police etc..... and then calling for the US to intervene in another nation's affairs
Yea. In other quarters, that would be called schizophrenic behavior.
I'm fed up hearing it and I'm not even American
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Good thing that's not what I'm saying then, eh? I'm saying you could do more to fix the mess you've created, not that you shouldn't ever be involved in stuff.
That is exactly what you're saying.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think part of the reason why people, including myself, repeatedly call upon the US to go do stuff in the middle east is because between Iran and Saudi Arabia you guys (along with the British) kinda created the mess in the first place. . .We're simply asking you to use your influence and power to clear up a mess that you created with your influence and power in the first place
So you're saying that the US created the mess in the first place, so are clearly bad at intervention, and then you ask them to intervene.
I'm still waiting to hear exactly how the US is responsible for Syria, especially given the fact that its Russia, Iran and Hezbollah backing Syria. Maybe you should ask them to stop supplying their ally instead of asking the US to intervene in a civil war that will not be to their benefit.
Frazzled wrote: No, we're not in the situation. We're only in this situation if we allow nattering nabobs from tiny pissant countries pull us into it.
Never again I say.
It gets old hearing some quarters tell the US that they are terrible imperialists, that they cannot get involved with another nation's affairs without causing long term damage, that they should not be the world police etc..... and then calling for the US to intervene in another nation's affairs
Good thing that's not what I'm saying then, eh? I'm saying you could do more to fix the mess you've created, not that you shouldn't ever be involved in stuff.
We didn't create the mess in Syria. We've never had anything to do with Syria, no more than you have. History books help you know.
On the positive the video of the heart eating rebel just got Obama off the hook. There will be no pressure to do anything other than peaceful aid and protecting Turkey now. Good.
Frazzled wrote: We've never had anything to do with Syria, no more than you have.
I did not realise the Swedish CIA tried to topple the government of Syria.
I did not realize we toppled them either. Looks at name of their current dictator. Nope. They are still there. Next stupid statement you care to share with us? While pondering it you might think about which power took over the Ottoman Empire after WWII and broke it up. Here's a hint..they have a thing for fish and chips.
Ok, as expected you're being purposefully dense and trying to deflect any kind of point back onto the issuer, I was commenting on your comment that Sweden had as much involvement in Syria as the US. The CIA have sponsored attempted coups in Syria in the past, and as far as I'm aware, Swedish intelligence agencies have not. As an aside, it seems Britain's MI6 were also in on some of them. Go them.
Britain has screwed up more than its fair share of countries, which does not invalidate people who live there and their opinions in any way whatsoever, and attempting to claim so is a pretty good example of plain idiocy and dishonesty.
Frazzled wrote: On the positive the video of the heart eating rebel just got Obama off the hook. There will be no pressure to do anything other than peaceful aid and protecting Turkey now. Good.
Yup. I can't say that there is any political appetite to go in and either help a dictator, help terrorist affiliated militia, or a militia that eats hearts.
MrDwhitey wrote: Ok, as expected you're being purposefully dense and trying to deflect any kind of point back onto the issuer, I was commenting on your comment that Sweden had as much involvement in Syria as the US. The CIA have sponsored attempted coups in Syria in the past, as far as I'm aware, Swedish intelligence agencies have not.
Assuming you're correct, we weren't successful. So don't blame us for the crappy dictatorship. Blame Britain and the Syrians.
Now get your little redcoat ass in there and fix the problem you little imperialist running dog you. Clean up your mess.
Or we can all accept that Syria has been independent for the better part of a century and its up to the Syrians themselves to determine who they want to be.
Frazzled wrote: On the positive the video of the heart eating rebel just got Obama off the hook. There will be no pressure to do anything other than peaceful aid and protecting Turkey now. Good.
Yup. I can't say that there is any political appetite to go in and either help a dictator, help terrorist affiliated militia, or a militia that eats hearts.
In their defense, maybe they heard the phrase "win their hearts and minds" and took it literally.
I wasn't blaming the US for it, I was merely pointing out you were wrong and following your standard MO of trying to invalidate peoples discussion by having a go at their country of origin. Having done so, I am content.
MrDwhitey wrote: I wasn't blaming the US for it, I was merely pointing out you were wrong and following your standard MO of trying to invalidate peoples discussion by having a go at their country of origin. Having done so, I am content.
No you were pretty much blaming us, which is especially choice given: 1) you Brits started this mess; and 2) you're blaming us for FAILING to successfully wack someone. Seriously? Whatever you're smoking I want some.
now you're saying we should get involved again. Now way Jose. The US has no business in the ME except civilian commercial business and a provider of humanitarian aid - just like Sweden.
Again, you more or less set Iran upon the path that led to where it is today and you're the greatest ally of Saudi Arabia, which controls the Kaaba. Having a semi-insane theocratic state be in control of the greatest holy site of Islam doesn't exactly help. The reason we're asking you guys as opposed to Russia is that you guys are much more ideologically aligned with us than Russia. To us, you're the much more reasonable part.
As for the strawman you're trying to attribute to me, I never said you were bad at interventions, only that you made mistakes in the past. The lesson to learn from making a mistake isn't to give up and never try again, it's to figure out what went wrong and then figure out what to do about it. In this case, that would be not directly creating (and continuing to support) an Islamist dictatorship. As long as Saudi Arabia remain sacrosanct they'll be free to use their substantial amount of money to spread their version of Islam, which doesn't benefit anyone of us.
You may also want to remember that both Afghanistan and Iraq (especially so the second one) were your own wars and yet other nations rallied to support you. For example, Mongolia, Albania and Georgia all sent more than 10 soldiers per $1bn GDP to the ISAF, whereas the US sent 6,6. Why on Earth would Mongolia ever feel the need for going into Afghanistan, other than to attempt to improve relations with the US?
Then there's the interventions in Libya and Mali, where US involvement was comparatively minor, making the claim that everyone always relies on the US to get things done blatantly false.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Again, you more or less set Iran upon the path that led to where it is today and you're the greatest ally of Saudi Arabia, which controls the Kaaba. Having a semi-insane theocratic state be in control of the greatest holy site of Islam doesn't exactly help. The reason we're asking you guys as opposed to Russia is that you guys are much more ideologically aligned with us than Russia. To us, you're the much more reasonable part.
As for the strawman you're trying to attribute to me, I never said you were bad at interventions, only that you made mistakes in the past. The lesson to learn from making a mistake isn't to give up and never try again, it's to figure out what went wrong and then figure out what to do about it. In this case, that would be not directly creating (and continuing to support) an Islamist dictatorship. As long as Saudi Arabia remain sacrosanct they'll be free to use their substantial amount of money to spread their version of Islam, which doesn't benefit anyone of us.
You may also want to remember that both Afghanistan and Iraq (especially so the second one) were your own wars and yet other nations rallied to support you. For example, Mongolia, Albania and Georgia all sent more than 10 soldiers per $1bn GDP to the ISAF, whereas the US sent 6,6. Why on Earth would Mongolia ever feel the need for going into Afghanistan, other than to attempt to improve relations with the US?
Then there's the interventions in Libya and Mali, where US involvement was comparatively minor, making the claim that everyone always relies on the US to get things done blatantly false.
As I said before, Iran has been in charge of its own affairs for over 30 years. They have very clearly rejected American influence and pursue their own interests in the region. To claim that the US is responsible for Iran now is disingenuous in the extreme.
Comparing Syria to Iraq or Afghanistan is not am accurate comparison. Iran and Iraq did not start out as brutal civil wars were there is no clear side to back. Afghanistan started because of horrific terrorist attacks that shocked almost the entire world. Again, your comparison is inaccurate.
So you think that helping Islamist affiliated rebels won't help establish an Islamic dictatorship? Will they suddenly adopt a Western style democracy with individual rights and freedoms? Or should the US engage in imperialism and force a political and cultural system on a country again (like Iran)?
Also it would help if you did not try and argue strawman yourself. I didn't say "that everyone always relies on the US". What I said was It gets old hearing some quarters tell the US that they are terrible imperialists, that they cannot get involved with another nation's affairs without causing long term damage, that they should not be the world police etc..... and then calling for the US to intervene in another nation's affairs. Its bad form to accuse someone of improper conduct, and then do it yourself.
Still waiting to hear how the US is more responsible for Syria than Russia and Iran, as well as various non-state actors
Between creating the mess that is Iran, supporting Saudi Arabia while they finance global terrorism and propping up dictators like Hosni Mubarak the US has more or less paved the way for anti-western jihadis to rise up.
To clarify, I'll concede that the US hasn't created the civil war in Syria, but the above actions set up the jihadist presence in the FSA which put all of us in the western world in this no-win situation in the first place.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Iran has been a dictatorship for how long and because of the actions of what nation?
Saudi Arabia, while financing jihadist movements and terrorist organisations, has it's staunchest ally in what western nation?
Hosni Mubarak, former dictator of Egypt, was backed up by what nation?
Thus, for 10.000 dollars, what nation is indirectly responsible for the Islamist presence in Syria who are pissed off at western society?
So Iran over threw a US puppet 34 years ago, installed their own political system which expressly rejected US influence in their own affairs, chants "Death to America" at public meetings and the US is responsible for Iran's actions? If I accepted that premise, and I assure you that I do not, when would it be reasonable to say that Iran was solely responsible for its own actions and not the US?
Seems like you're showing a lot of examples of were American intervention in the Middle East was not a positive thing. You aren't exactly making a case for why the US needs to get involved in Syria. In fact, you're doing quite the opposite.
Your other examples are not directly related to events in Syria and just come across as muddying the water. Unless you think that the US is directly responsible for the actions of other sovereign nations. Maybe the US should over throw those governments and engage in imperialism by setting sympathetic governments, like they did with the Shah
Again I will ask you why you think that the US, which has no direct hand in the events of Syria is more culpable than those who are directly influencing events on the ground - Russia, Iran and other non-state actors like Hezbollah
It gets old hearing some quarters tell the US that they are terrible imperialists, that they cannot get involved with another nation's affairs without causing long term damage, that they should not be the world police etc..... and then calling for the US to intervene in another nation's affairs
It only got old because you treated groups as individuals.
At any rate: the US is a terrible imperialist, and it generally causes long-term damage when it gets involved in the affairs of other nations.
Between creating the mess that is Iran, supporting Saudi Arabia while they finance global terrorism and propping up dictators like Hosni Mubarak the US has more or less paved the way for anti-western jihadis to rise up.
To clarify, I'll concede that the US hasn't created the civil war in Syria, but the above actions set up the jihadist presence in the FSA which put all of us in the western world in this no-win situation in the first place.
Right, so again out interferance by supporting Saudi Arabi caused everything. Yet, I'm sure if we didn't support Saudi Arabia and that area was even more of a mess than it is now, that would be our fault for not interviening.
It gets old hearing some quarters tell the US that they are terrible imperialists, that they cannot get involved with another nation's affairs without causing long term damage, that they should not be the world police etc..... and then calling for the US to intervene in another nation's affairs
It only got old because you treated groups as individuals.
Syria's kinda fethed at this point, no matter what. What could be done to prevent further problems is primarily to stop backing Saudi Arabia. Backing the biggest contributor to Islamic terrorism in the world is a good way to create more of those terrorists. Trying to explain away that by saying that the US isn't responsible for what the Saudis do with the money is ignoring the fact that they're where they are because of continued support from the US.
As for what to do in Syria: for now, nothing. It's too late. Wait and see what happens. If the rebels win, offer to help them rebuild the infrastructure of the country to give them a future. If they refuse the offer, you've at least tried. If they simply replace al-Assad with another dictatorship you're back to square one. If they accept, help them out while making sure that there's as few instances of, for lack of a better word, national nepotism as possible. Make sure there's no fuckups like Blackwater or any instances of American companies getting suspiciously good deals out of the war.
What you CAN do straight away is to provide more foreign aid for the civilian refugees.
Regarding the desk ions of sovereign states, 40 years isn't that long in the grand scheme of things. Large parts of Africa are still dealing with the effects of colonialism. Furthermore, the new generation in Iran (i.e. those born after the revolution) HAVE tried to change their future by rebelling. As you might remember, that didn't turn out that well. The entire point of a dictatorship is that the dictator rules regardless of the will of the people. The Iranian public can't really be held responsible for the actions of their government when they've got no way to influence their actions. It's obviously primarily the fault of the Iranian leadership, but the fact remains that it's aid leadership probably wouldn't be in power in the first place if the US didn't feth up.
Between creating the mess that is Iran, supporting Saudi Arabia while they finance global terrorism and propping up dictators like Hosni Mubarak the US has more or less paved the way for anti-western jihadis to rise up.
To clarify, I'll concede that the US hasn't created the civil war in Syria, but the above actions set up the jihadist presence in the FSA which put all of us in the western world in this no-win situation in the first place.
Yes its all our fault. Once again the US is #1. Admit it you're jealous.
Well we're following your idea. I'll give Obama great credit in getting us out of there. After all, if it weren't for the UK (again) and France and their oil interests, we wouldn't have been involved in Libya either. Its a start.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Syria's kinda fethed at this point, no matter what. What could be done to prevent further problems is primarily to stop backing Saudi Arabia. Backing the biggest contributor to Islamic terrorism in the world is a good way to create more of those terrorists. Trying to explain away that by saying that the US isn't responsible for what the Saudis do with the money is ignoring the fact that they're where they are because of continued support from the US.
Saudi has oil. The US buys the oil. They take the money and spend it how they choose, that's how it works with sovereign nations. When you buy something do you check that the money is only going towards noble causes?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: As for what to do in Syria: for now, nothing. It's too late. Wait and see what happens. If the rebels win, offer to help them rebuild the infrastructure of the country to give them a future. If they refuse the offer, you've at least tried. If they simply replace al-Assad with another dictatorship you're back to square one. If they accept, help them out while making sure that there's as few instances of, for lack of a better word, national nepotism as possible. Make sure there's no fuckups like Blackwater or any instances of American companies getting suspiciously good deals out of the war.
So for arguments sake, seeing as you are a strong advocate of exclusive US intervention, which side should we have backed?
- The current dictator being aided by Russia, Iran and terrorist groups, and against whom there are allegations of employing chemical weapons
- The FSA and its Al-Queda affiliates and run the risk that the country turns into another Afghanistan
- The FSA and its heart-eating-indisctiminate-rocketing-of civilians, who are also accused of using chemical weapons
Or should we go in and stand in the middle and take fire from all sides and get involved in a lengthy engagement that their is not the political will nor the financial means to support?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: What you CAN do straight away is to provide more foreign aid for the civilian refugees.
As for providing aid to the refugees that is something that I have advocated for in numerous threads concerning Syria. Glad that we at least agree on that.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Regarding the desk ions of sovereign states, 40 years isn't that long in the grand scheme of things. Large parts of Africa are still dealing with the effects of colonialism. Furthermore, the new generation in Iran (i.e. those born after the revolution) HAVE tried to change their future by rebelling. As you might remember, that didn't turn out that well. The entire point of a dictatorship is that the dictator rules regardless of the will of the people. The Iranian public can't really be held responsible for the actions of their government when they've got no way to influence their actions. It's obviously primarily the fault of the Iranian leadership, but the fact remains that it's aid leadership probably wouldn't be in power in the first place if the US didn't feth up.
No. It is exclusively the fault of the Iranian leadership. It is not the fault of the US. The Iranians revolted against the US installed government, rejected US influence, actively try to frustrate US influence in the region. To say that the US is directly responsible for those actions and what Iran is doing in Syria at present is being dishonest in the extreme.
The revolt in Iran against the current regime has nothing whatsoever to do with the US, it was an internal Iranian issue. Also the regime in Iran is not a dictatorship. It is a theocratic democracy.
So, as Iran is an independent largely self-sustaining nation that is not dependent upon the West and actively rejects many Western ideals when do you think it is reasonable to say that it is an independent agent, and accountable for its own action? Or should we blame Britain for the US track record in the Middle East because of their influence on the US? Or do we blame the Normans/Romans/Saxons/etc. for their influence on what would become Britain?
There are more than 4 people that contribute to the US political environment, so I presumed "quarters" referenced a space occupied by more than one person.
the new generation in Iran (i.e. those born after the revolution) HAVE tried to change their future by rebelling. As you might remember, that didn't turn out that well.
Oh, I'm sure its our fault that the rebellion failed now too.
Between creating the mess that is Iran, supporting Saudi Arabia while they finance global terrorism and propping up dictators like Hosni Mubarak the US has more or less paved the way for anti-western jihadis to rise up.
To clarify, I'll concede that the US hasn't created the civil war in Syria, but the above actions set up the jihadist presence in the FSA which put all of us in the western world in this no-win situation in the first place.
Yes its all our fault. Once again the US is #1. Admit it you're jealous.
Well we're following your idea. I'll give Obama great credit in getting us out of there. After all, if it weren't for the UK (again) and France and their oil interests, we wouldn't have been involved in Libya either. Its a start.
It's not all your fault, as has been mentioned Britain fethed up as well. As for Libya, considering it seems to be headed towards a remarkable success all things considered I'd find it hard to call it a failure.
Right, so again out interferance by supporting Saudi Arabi caused everything. Yet, I'm sure if we didn't support Saudi Arabia and that area was even more of a mess than it is now, that would be our fault for not interviening.
arm chair generals, go play with your own toys,
Do you always act so condescendingly or do you actually argue points instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks sometimes? I have no idea what the greater middle east would look like without the influence of Saudi Arabia, but when your own Foreign Minister considers Saudi Arabia a major contributor to some rather unsavoury types you might want to start thinking through why you're allied to them in the first place.
Trying to portray me as a US hater in order to refute my argument is dishonest. The US has done a lot of good things, but that doesn't change the fact that, pardon the cliché, with great power comes great responsibility.
As a final note, who propelled the current Iranian regime into power by making the Shah a dictator? How is it not partially that part's fault that the current regime is still in power, despite attempts by the populace to reinstate democracy?
the new generation in Iran (i.e. those born after the revolution) HAVE tried to change their future by rebelling. As you might remember, that didn't turn out that well.
Oh, I'm sure its our fault that the rebellion failed now too.
Again with the strawmen. If you hadn't fethed the country over in the first place there'd possibly be no need of a second revolution. Having done that and placing the entire blame on Iran when the populace has tried and failed to fix what you fethed up is despicable.
There are more than 4 people that contribute to the US political environment, so I presumed "quarters" referenced a space occupied by more than one person.
4[COUNTABLE] [OFTEN PLURAL] FORMAL a particular person or group of people
from this/that quarter (=from one particular person or group): I knew there would be a lot of trouble from that quarter.
in some quarters (=among some people or groups): Concern has been expressed in some quarters about this policy.
from all quarters (=from all people or groups): He has won support from all quarters.
dogma wrote: There's a lot of pluralization in that definition.
Actually you're both wrong. The use of "quarters" always refers to the amount of cake Frazzled tries to snag at a party, as in "holy crap he took a quarter of the whole cake!"
But the question is how much do the dachshunds get
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: There's a lot of pluralization in that definition.
I'm unclear as to what impact this would have on the post that you objected to. Would you have preferred if I had substituted "some quarters" for "some groups/individuals"?
Not getting that. We didn't install or support the Syrian government. Claiming its our fault because we didn't succeed in assassinating him is off the charts looney.
To you and your country. That means you're just an English ex pat. As my kin noted once: Down with the monarchy! Vive Le Emperor!
He didn't claim it was America's fault. He was simply correcting the statement that America had as much to do with Syria as Sweden, which is not the case. He wasn't blaming America for the current fiasco.
Well one of mine said, "The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea." Kudos if you know who it is.
Do you always act so condescendingly or do you actually argue points instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks sometimes? I have no idea what the greater middle east would look like without the influence of Saudi Arabia, but when your own Foreign Minister considers Saudi Arabia a major contributor to some rather unsavoury types you might want to start thinking through why you're allied to them in the first place.
I'm pretty sure the question that I'm posing is while you are being critical of US support of Saudi Arabi, you might want to think what Saudi Arabia, the middle east and the world would look like if the US did not support Saudi Arabia. It's very easy to be critical of our support without looking at what the alternative would be.
Trying to portray me as a US hater in order to refute my argument is dishonest. The US has done a lot of good things, but that doesn't change the fact that, pardon the cliché, with great power comes great responsibility.
Never said you were a US hater, but you are a blamer, who wants us to continue to interfere in the middle east, when we are the ones that fethed it up in the first place (which I don't really agree with, yes we played a role, but its not all or even mostly our fault)
As a final note, who propelled the current Iranian regime into power by making the Shah a dictator? How is it not partially that part's fault that the current regime is still in power, despite attempts by the populace to reinstate democracy?
Yes we had a big part im messing up Iran, more reason for us to stay out of that area.
Andrew1975 wrote: Yes we had a big part im messing up Iran, more reason for us to stay out of that area.
Aside from the fact that Churchill actually began the embargo and enlisted the US's help for putting the Shah in place, I feel like we're also missing the fact that it wasn't until 2005 that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president. In the 8 years prior to that you had Khatami who, while ineffective, attempted to usher in a more liberal age for Iran. Sure, it probably didn't go as well as he wanted, it's not like Ahmadinejad has been in power since the Shah fell. That election was in 2005. 35 years AFTER the Shah was deposed, and certainly enough time to say Iran was making its own decisions.
Andrew1975 wrote: Yes we had a big part im messing up Iran, more reason for us to stay out of that area.
Aside from the fact that Churchill actually began the embargo and enlisted the US's help for putting the Shah in place, I feel like we're also missing the fact that it wasn't until 2005 that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president. In the 8 years prior to that you had Khatami who, while ineffective, attempted to usher in a more liberal age for Iran. Sure, it probably didn't go as well as he wanted, it's not like Ahmadinejad has been in power since the Shah fell. That election was in 2005. 35 years AFTER the Shah was deposed, and certainly enough time to say Iran was making its own decisions.
I don't really find Iran all that frightening. In fact if it wasn't for bad blood, they are probably one of the best countries in the region for us to ally with.
Frazzled wrote: That whole 'death to America' thing gets a little boring though.
Maybe they could spice it up with some dancing, or a musical number. You know, at least put some effort in. China must love it though, what with all the flags that get burned it must be making them a fortune
Frazzled wrote: That whole 'death to America' thing gets a little boring though.
Right, but it's pretty understandable when you look at the whole situation. Not to mention the US basically says death to Iran all the time. If we could actually communicate with each other, and chill on the rhetoric,I think we would find we have more in common that most other countries in the region. They are by far the lessor and more stable of many of many of the evils there.
Frazzled wrote: That whole 'death to America' thing gets a little boring though.
Right, but it's pretty understandable when you look at the whole situation. Not to mention the US basically says death to Iran all the time. If we could actually communicate with each other, and chill on the rhetoric,I think we would find we have more in common that most other countries in the region. They are by far the lessor and more stable of many of many of the evils there.
When has American Officials (or anyone for that matter) chanted "death to Iran"?
I'm unclear as to what impact this would have on the post that you objected to. Would you have preferred if I had substituted "some quarters" for "some groups/individuals"?
I would have preferred that you expressed a sentiment that wasn't equivalent to "Them 'group X', they all think alike."
Perhaps that wasn't your intention and, if so, my bad. Generalization is a bugbear of mine, especially when it comes to politics.
Frazzled wrote:That whole 'death to America' thing gets a little boring though.
Is it really that much different then your calling for a glassing of the whole region? I mean, "Death to America!" is a bit tamer than, "Nuke every country within a certain geographical area!"
It's kind of funny though because America bombed them first.
Frazzled wrote: That whole 'death to America' thing gets a little boring though.
Right, but it's pretty understandable when you look at the whole situation. Not to mention the US basically says death to Iran all the time. If we could actually communicate with each other, and chill on the rhetoric,I think we would find we have more in common that most other countries in the region. They are by far the lessor and more stable of many of many of the evils there.
When has American Officials (or anyone for that matter) chanted "death to Iran"?
While not exactly word for word, I think the sentiment is similar.
There's got to be a statute of limitations on how long you can go on blaming another country for your internal problems no matter how much they screwed you over, doesn't there? We don't still blame the Brits for the bag of crazy that is New England, do we?
We're the biggest kids on the block, so of course we're going to get the call to do something. It's part and parcel of leading the free world. We do all the dirty work that everybody wants us to do, but will conveniently forget having asked us as soon as something goes even moderately wrong.
"Defense" isn't just about pure physical security of the borders anymore, and even countries that maintain armies smaller than the Minneapolis Police Department know that. They also know that we'll take care of this kind of stuff for them, and they get to go on acting holier-than-thou.
Frazzled wrote: That whole 'death to America' thing gets a little boring though.
Right, but it's pretty understandable when you look at the whole situation. Not to mention the US basically says death to Iran all the time. If we could actually communicate with each other, and chill on the rhetoric,I think we would find we have more in common that most other countries in the region. They are by far the lessor and more stable of many of many of the evils there.
When has American Officials (or anyone for that matter) chanted "death to Iran"?
I said basically. We constantly isolate them, stand in their way politically, meddle in the affairs of almost every nation that surrounds them while surrounding them with military bases all the while calling them one of the axis of evil and deriding their government and leaders. Not to mention that we did attempt to overthrow the country. Yeah, its not saying death to Iran, but its a pretty threatening posture.
I'd say they have reason to be a little apprehensive!
I see the MAP is not up to date....we're still in Iraq?...you seriously counting the FoB's in Afghanistan? Wait....let me back up.....whats the difference between a "Installation" and a FoB
Jihadin wrote: I see the MAP is not up to date....we're still in Iraq?...you seriously counting the FoB's in Afghanistan? Wait....let me back up.....whats the difference between a "Installation" and a FoB
Map might be out of date, but the point still stands
I would suggest that this is not what they started out as, but what they have become. Had we helped earlier I don't think they would have stooped to this.
Ratbarf wrote: I would suggest that this is not what they started out as, but what they have become. Had we helped earlier I don't think they would have stooped to this.
Ratbarf wrote: I would suggest that this is not what they started out as, but what they have become. Had we helped earlier I don't think they would have stooped to this.
Ratbarf wrote: I would suggest that this is not what they started out as, but what they have become. Had we helped earlier I don't think they would have stooped to this.
No. They are just revealing who they really are. Some are good. A lot are bad. Its tribal conflict. Stay the heck out.
Russia has sent sophisticated anti-ship missiles to Syria, US media report.
The New York Times quotes unnamed US officials as saying the missiles could be used to counter any potential future foreign military intervention in Syria.
Without confirming details, Russia's foreign minister said Russian supplies did not break any international rules.
It comes amid growing alarm that chemical weapons may be being used in Syria, something US President Barack Obama has said would be "a red line".
Meanwhile efforts continue to arrange an international conference on Syria.
The United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met Mr Lavrov in Sochi on Friday to discuss the plans for the conference, which would aim to bring together the Syrian opposition and members of President Bashar al-Assad's government.
At a news briefing, Mr Ban said it was important to "not lose momentum" on the drive towards holding a peace conference and dates for it were being "actively discussed".
Mr Lavrov said a resolution could only be found through "an inclusive all-Syrian dialogue with participation of all Syrian forces, without any external intervention, as soon as possible".
Also on Friday, the UN's refugee agency said more than 1.5m Syrians were now registered as refugees, with the true figure likely to be much higher.
"Refugees tell us the increased fighting and changing of control of towns and villages, in particular in conflict areas, results in more and more civilians deciding to leave," UNHCR said in a statement.
'Ship-killers'
Russia is one of Syria's few remaining allies and its major arms suppliers. Over the years, in contracts worth billions of dollars, it has sold thousands of tanks, artillery units, aircraft, helicopters and defence systems to Damascus.
According to the New York Times report, a recent Russian shipment to Syria included an advanced form of the Yakhont, a 6.7m-long (22ft) missile with a range of 290km (180 miles) and carrying either a high-explosive or armour-piercing warhead.
The initial order - for 72 missiles along with launcher and support vehicles - was placed in 2007 and the first deliveries received in early 2011, said the paper. It quotes two unnamed senior US defence officials as saying the most recent shipments had more advanced radar guidance systems, enabling it to evade a ship's defences.
Sergei Lavrov said on Friday he did not understand "why the media is trying to create a sensation out of this".
"We have not hidden that we supply weapons to Syria under signed contracts, without violating any international agreements, or our own legislation.
"And we most importantly supply anti-aircraft system, and it doesn't create any imbalance of power in the region or any kind of advantages in the fight against the opposition."
Another US newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, reports that Moscow has deployed at least a dozen warships to patrol waters near the Russian naval base in the Syrian city of Tartus.
It quotes a senior US defence official as saying the deployment is a "show of force" by Moscow to demonstrate its commitment to the region.
Although there have been growing calls for arms to be channelled to the rebel fighters in Syria, there has so far been very limited enthusiasm in the West for outright military intervention.
But there is concern that the presence of sophisticated Russian-supplied weaponry will make it much harder to agree and carry out such intervention, implement a blockade or conduct targeted airstrikes in the future.
Nick Brown, editor-in-chief of the influential military journal Jane's International Defence Review, said the Yakhont was "a real ship killer".
"It enables the regime to deter foreign forces looking to supply the opposition from the sea, or from undertaking a more active role if a no-fly zone or a shipping embargo were to be declared at some point" he told the Times.
Israel is also concerned such weapons could fall into the hands of Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, which could use them to either attack Israel or defend itself against any Israeli assault.
During his visit to Moscow on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly discussed the issue with Mr Putin, while Israeli jets have carried out strikes on Syrian targets to block alleged transfers of weapons to Hezbollah.
Despite its arms sales, Russia has hosted several world leaders in recent weeks in an attempt to find a way of ending the Syrian conflict, which has left an estimated 80,000 people dead.
The BBC's Steve Rosenberg is Moscow says the fact that Mr Ban, Mr Netanyahu, US Secretary of State John Kerry and UK Prime Minister David Cameron have travelled to Russia for talks shows they believe Moscow is the key to ending the crisis.
Syria's Russian-made military
Nearly 5,000 tanks; 2,500 infantry fighting vehicles; 2,500 self-propelled or towed artillery units
325 Tactical aircraft; 143 helicopters
Nearly 2,000 air defence pieces
295,000 active personnel; 314,000 reserve personnel
Jonathan Marcus
BBC diplomatic correspondent
The Yakhont is a radar-guided, supersonic anti-shipping missile designed for coastal defence. Depending upon its trajectory it has a range of between 120 and 300 km (75-186 miles).
US reports stress the ability this gives to the Assad government to push hostile naval forces away from Syria's shores.
But the real significance of these reports, if true, is twofold. Firstly they show Russia's continuing desire to ensure that there be no Western intervention in Syria along the lines of what happened in Libya. Russian naval deployments in the Mediterranean back up this view.
But equally the real concern about the Yakhont may be their potential transfer to Syria's Lebanese ally Hezbollah. Israel has made it clear that a transfer of the Yakhont represents a red line that could prompt more air strikes against Syrian arms depots.
Ratbarf wrote: I would suggest that this is not what they started out as, but what they have become. Had we helped earlier I don't think they would have stooped to this.
Considering this is the third year of the conflict, and those examples are from the second, I think it's still an applicable theory that had we helped with the same kind of speed as seen in Libya they would not have degenerated into this kind of barbarism. As wars get longer they tend to get more brutal, we had a chance to end it early, now we're going to pay the price of waiting.
Ratbarf wrote: I would suggest that this is not what they started out as, but what they have become. Had we helped earlier I don't think they would have stooped to this.
Considering this is the third year of the conflict, and those examples are from the second, I think it's still an applicable theory that had we helped with the same kind of speed as seen in Libya they would not have degenerated into this kind of barbarism. As wars get longer they tend to get more brutal, we had a chance to end it early, now we're going to pay the price of waiting.
Who is going to pay the price? It's not our price to pay!
You say it would have not been so bad if we went in earlier. I don't believe that, if anything it creates targets and escalates insurgent action. Iraq was pretty peaceful until the US and its allies went in.
Ratbarf wrote: Considering this is the third year of the conflict, and those examples are from the second, I think it's still an applicable theory that had we helped with the same kind of speed as seen in Libya they would not have degenerated into this kind of barbarism. As wars get longer they tend to get more brutal, we had a chance to end it early, now we're going to pay the price of waiting.
According to the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703995) it is arguable that the conflict started in July 2011, when Assad's forces sent troops into Hama. The FSA did not exist until July 29th 2011 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army), Given that sort of timeframe, and the examples listed above, it would seem that the FSA "degenerated into this kind of barbarism" no more than 6-7 months after their formation.
In fact if you read the Spiegel link which was published in March 29th 2012 it opens with the following;
Hussein can barely remember the first time he executed someone. It was probably in a cemetery in the evening, or at night; he can't recall exactly. It was definitely mid-October of last year, and the man was Shiite, for sure. He had confessed to killing women -- decent women, whose husbands and sons had protested against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime. So the rebels had decided that the man, a soldier in the Syrian army, deserved to die, too.
That would put this incident in October 2011. No more than three months after the conflict began.
It is a bit of a stretch to say that their actions are only because the West did not intervene if they are carrying out executions of captives three months into the conflict.
Just slitting the throats of captured and tortured prisoners instead, which is still a war crime.
The executioner himself blames the Assad regime and not the West.
Also something I missed earlier;
The rebels in Homs began carrying out regular executions in August of last year, shortly after the conflict in the country began to escalate, says Hussein's comrade Abu Rami. In his Adidas tracksuit, he looks like any other convalescent in the hospital. But Abu Rami is a senior member of the Homs militia. The other Syrians in the ward greet him respectfully and pay close attention to his words.
"Since last summer, we have executed slightly fewer than 150 men, which represents about 20 percent of our prisoners," says Abu Rami. Those prisoners who are not convicted and sentenced to death are exchanged for rebel prisoners or detained protesters, he says. But the executioners of Homs have been busier with traitors within their own ranks than with prisoners of war. "If we catch a Sunni spying, or if a citizen betrays the revolution, we make it quick," says the fighter. According to Abu Rami, Hussein's burial brigade has put between 200 and 250 traitors to death since the beginning of the uprising.
Ratbarf wrote: I'm relatively sure they wouldn't have been eating people's hearts.
Why? That region is notoriously violent. The only think that would have stopped it may have been intervention....temporarily but then as soon as the boots leave it all starts anew. Unless you want to constantly baby sit. All intervention does is increase the targets and possibly put bulls eyes on yourself. Let them kill each other, its a win/win.
Ratbarf wrote: I'm relatively sure they wouldn't have been eating people's hearts.
Why? That region is notoriously violent. The only think that would have stopped it may have been intervention....temporarily but then as soon as the boots leave it all starts anew. Unless you want to constantly baby sit. All intervention does is increase the targets and possibly put bulls eyes on yourself. Let them kill each other, its a win/win.
The region is also notoriously lacking in the cannibal department.
Ratbarf wrote: I'm relatively sure they wouldn't have been eating people's hearts.
Why? That region is notoriously violent. The only think that would have stopped it may have been intervention....temporarily but then as soon as the boots leave it all starts anew. Unless you want to constantly baby sit. All intervention does is increase the targets and possibly put bulls eyes on yourself. Let them kill each other, its a win/win.
The region is also notoriously lacking in the cannibal department.
Indeed. There are a few places where cannibalism does/once existed. That area isn't one of them.
Ratbarf wrote: I'm relatively sure they wouldn't have been eating people's hearts.
Why? That region is notoriously violent. The only think that would have stopped it may have been intervention....temporarily but then as soon as the boots leave it all starts anew. Unless you want to constantly baby sit. All intervention does is increase the targets and possibly put bulls eyes on yourself. Let them kill each other, its a win/win.
The region is also notoriously lacking in the cannibal department.
Indeed. There are a few places where cannibalism does/once existed. That area isn't one of them.
That you know of! Remember one indecent does not make an epidemic. I'm sure we get reports of every weird thing that happens in a conflict. You make it sound like its routine and all the soldiers are doing it. Eating a heart is shocking but cutting innocent peoples throats on the internet is fine, or car bombing streets full of women and children? All I've learned is that in that the whole middle east region has plenty of savages, am I really shocked that one of them was filmed eating somebody's heart? Not really. The way I see it, just more reason to stay out of it and let them wipe each other out. Let the Shia and the Sunnie wipe each other out. Remember "an attack on one Muslim, is an attack on all Muslims!" so right now they must all be killing each other.
The stuff that was and still is going on in Africa for the last 30 years is worse than this. Why are you not crying out for intervention there?
Ratbarf wrote: I'm relatively sure they wouldn't have been eating people's hearts.
Why? That region is notoriously violent. The only think that would have stopped it may have been intervention....temporarily but then as soon as the boots leave it all starts anew. Unless you want to constantly baby sit. All intervention does is increase the targets and possibly put bulls eyes on yourself. Let them kill each other, its a win/win.
The region is also notoriously lacking in the cannibal department.
Indeed. There are a few places where cannibalism does/once existed. That area isn't one of them.
That you know of! Remember one indecent does not make an epidemic. I'm sure we get reports of every weird thing that happens in a conflict. You make it sound like its routine and all the soldiers are doing it. Eating a heart is shocking but cutting innocent peoples throats on the internet is fine, or car bombing streets full of women and children? All I've learned is that in that the whole middle east region has plenty of savages, am I really shocked that one of them was filmed eating somebody's heart? Not really. The way I see it, just more reason to stay out of it and let them wipe each other out. Let the Shia and the Sunnie wipe each other out. Remember "an attack on one Muslim, is an attack on all Muslims!" so right now they must all be killing each other.
The stuff that was and still is going on in Africa for the last 30 years is worse than this. Why are you not crying out for intervention there?
I have voiced my feelings for Imperialism several times prior. Personally all for it, bring back the Pax Britannica!
Well you are welcome to it then, just leave us out of it. There is no good side here, there has never been, right now we basically have a win/win situation where people we don't like are killing each other. Yeah! If we go in, then it turns into a lose/lose. Boooo!
Now maybe we can go in once they all kill each other off and take their land and go there for vacation, but I'm not sure Syria will every be a great get away spot full of beaches and boat drinks.
I'm all for letting Russia deal with it if they want. The Russians don't really pussy foot around when it comes to these kind of actions.....and they don't care if the rest of the world thinks they are being brutal. Winning hearts and minds has never really been much of a concern for them.
I'm sure someone is going to bring up Afghanistan, but we have learned how tough of a battle that was, and nobody was giving the Muj state of the art weaponry when we were doing it.
yourself and your country. 
