Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

http://www.real-time-with-bill-maher-blog.com/real-time-with-bill-maher-blog/2013/4/25/those-lovable-freedom-fighters.html

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!

Isn't that what we did during the Benghazi fiasco? Covertly supplying arms to the Syrian opposition group?

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.

 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.

And this should surprise no one who's been following events in Syria.

Hopefully we've learned from Afghanistan that the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

Hopefully we've learned from Afghanistan that the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

The rebels weren't always with terrorists. That happened after no one assisted them.

 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?

 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?

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

djones520 wrote:

 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.

 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....

You mean, exactly like what Bush did?

(imperialist!)

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:

 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?

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?

 Frazzled wrote:
Does this mean China, Switzerland, Russia, and South Africa can now expect terrorist attacks, because they didn't help?

Russia is helping Assad so maybe they should. Maybe those peace keeping samba dancers can stop Brazil being a target

I didn't say Brazil. Even AQ won't mess with the Samba Dancing Army Of Ultimate Doom!

 Frazzled wrote:
I didn't say Brazil. Even AQ won't mess with the Samba Dancing Army Of Ultimate Doom!

They won't be able to concentrate with the sight of so much exposed flesh

 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?

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

 azazel the cat wrote:


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.

I didn't say the US was good at it, only that was its intent.

 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.