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.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Looks like this is just a continuation of that as this uprising is happening in the same place. If this is just another Sunni vs Shiite party, we really need to stay out of it.

Its not, nor has it ever been. The Assads are brutal, and conventionally corrupt, no one likes them (except us, kind of).

Andrew1975 wrote:
This is being covered as a popular uprising against an unpopular and brutal government, like Libya and Egypt. This really may just be a Muslim sect uprising in a country with a brutal government. Not that I really care either way.

Its both.

It's hard for me to figure from the media coverage, but it appears that Assad is popular or at least accepted among the rest of the people. There does not appear to be uprisings all over.



So it appears to me he may in fact be brutal and corrupt but that's par for the course. Do most Syrians have a real problem with him? Is there a real alternative to him? If the Arab League doesn't care enough or know enough to handle the situation, why should we think that we can handle it?

Andrew1975 wrote:
It's hard for me to figure from the media coverage, but it appears that Assad is popular or at least accepted among the rest of the people. There does not appear to be uprisings all over.

There generally aren't. Popular uprisings, based on evidence, don't exist in the form many people assume them to.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Do most Syrians have a real problem with him?

Probably, though probably not enough of one to risk being bombarded.

Andrew1975 wrote:
If the Arab League doesn't care enough or know enough to handle the situation, why should we think that we can handle it?

I'm not sure why you think the Arab League is relevant.

I think the Arab league is relevant because if anybody should be handling and understanding Arab issues it should be the Arab League, not countries from half way around the world that don't really understand the situation. Also Syria is part of the Arab League.

The UN wants to go into another Arab country to end bloodshed, that is never going to end until apparently one side or the other is gone. Let them wipe each other out. I'm still not sure why we should care? I understand the whole human suffering issue, But they are going to suffer either way. No amount of the press saying that Syrian blood is on our hands for standing on the sidelines is going to change my mind.

Andrew1975 wrote:I think the Arab league is relevant because if anybody should be handling and understanding Arab issues it should be the Arab League, not countries from half way around the world that don't really understand the situation. Also Syria is part of the Arab League.

But why? Just because its called the Arab League doesn't mean its responsible for all things Arab (and not all states in the AL are predominantly Arab), or even member nations. In fact, it generally doesn't intervene in any sort of internal conflict.

Also, Syria's membership was suspended in November 2011.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:I think the Arab league is relevant because if anybody should be handling and understanding Arab issues it should be the Arab League, not countries from half way around the world that don't really understand the situation. Also Syria is part of the Arab League.

But why? Just because its called the Arab League doesn't mean its responsible for all things Arab (and not all states in the AL are predominantly Arab), or even member nations. In fact, it generally doesn't intervene in any sort of internal conflict.

Also, Syria's membership was suspended in November 2011.

They suspended Syria from the Arab League over specifically over this failure to end the bloodshed caused by brutal government crackdowns

The main goal of the league is to "draw closer the relations between member States and co-ordinate collaboration between them, to safeguard their independence and sovereignty, and to consider in a general way the affairs and interests of the Arab countries."

The Arab League as an Organization has no military force, like the UN or EU, but recently in the 2007 summit, the Leaders decided to reactivate their joint defense and establilsh a peacekeeping force to deploy in South Lebanon, Darfur, Iraq, and other hot spots.

I would call this a hotspot inside their sphere or influence. If they are gonna mouth off anytime an outside steps in to clean up issues inside their sphere of influence then they need to take care of it before it is an issue.

If you are gonna complain because the western forces that you ask for help from don't follow Muslim or Arab traditions or break your rules, then take care of it yourself.

If you have something like the Arab League stop running to the UN or NATO. Use your own GD forces.

I'm sick of this continual Damned if we do, Damned if we situation that comes out of the middle east. If you want autonomy then exercise it, because really I've been ready for the whole damned if we don't option for quite some time. Just let these pricks kill each other off already. Especially places like Syria that we owe no allegiance to and have nothing to offer us.

Andrew1975 wrote:
They suspended Syria from the Arab League over specifically over this failure to end the bloodshed caused by brutal government crackdowns

Obviously.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I would call this a hotspot inside their sphere or influence.

Of course you would, but you're not them. What is, and is not a hot spot is hardly an objective determination.

Andrew1975 wrote:
If they are gonna mouth off anytime an outside steps in to clean up issues inside their sphere of influence then they need to take care of it before it is an issue.

No they don't. Its perfectly reasonable to claim that X is fine, and that Y should not intervene because X is fine.

Andrew1975 wrote:
If you are gonna complain because the western forces that you ask for help from don't follow Muslim or Arab traditions or break your rules, then take care of it yourself.

Again, perfectly reasonable to ask for help with X, and be upset about intervention with Y.

To draw an obtuse analogy, I asked my dad to help me set up my sound system, but I'd be more than a little annoyed if he decided to give me pointers on the manly arts of the bedroom.

Andrew1975 wrote:
If you have something like the Arab League stop running to the UN or NATO.

You do realize that the UN isn't just the West, right?

LordofHats wrote:I don't think we've ever sold Abrams overseas.

You'd be epically wrong.
They are in service in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Austrailia and Iraq.

LordofHats wrote:

Totalwar1402 wrote:I thought they were trying to acquire Abrams tanks and that most of the Russian gear was left over from Sadams armouries.

Wanting and having are different. A lot of countries would love to have Abrams tanks but we don't sell that kind of hardware until its obsolete and we've replaced it with something better.

So I guess they can ask Santa- Oh wait

Wanting and having ARE different. Here's a picture of the Iraqis HAVING.
And one of the early reports of the deal.

December 18, 2008: The U.S. Department of Defense has approved the sale of another $6 billion in weapons to Iraq. Among the major items the Iraqis are getting are 400 Stryker armored vehicles, 140 M-1 tanks, 23 coastal patrol boats.

Of course you would, but you're not them. What is, and is not a hot spot is hardly an objective determination.

I'm not making the determination, The Arab league is by going to the UN. If it is hot enough for the Arab League to go to the UN and ask for intervention, then it is hot enough for the Arab League to intervene.

No they don't. Its perfectly reasonable to claim that X is fine, and that Y should not intervene because X is fine.

Sure, but when The Arab League claims that X is not fine and wants help, they better accept the help they get and be thankful for it! Or better yet do it themselves!

Again, perfectly reasonable to ask for help with X, and be upset about intervention with Y.

To draw an obtuse analogy, I asked my dad to help me set up my sound system, but I'd be more than a little annoyed if he decided to give me pointers on the manly arts of the bedroom.

Sure, but when you illicit support from non Muslims, it's wrong to expect the support to completely understand Muslim traditions. If you are so worried about white Christians frisking your women or soiling your holy sites with our presence, or God forbid female soldiers relaxing in their civies. Send you own GD Muslim armies.

You do realize that the UN isn't just the West, right?

Yes, but you always insist that its predominantly controlled by the west. Nato certainly is West. Any UN force sent anywhere is going to be predominantly West or more specific US. Arabs nations are always telling us to stay out of Arab affairs. Fine! Handle it yourself and stop asking for our help. Most people in the west have had enough of intervening in the middle east. Let the f'ing savages kill each other already.

Andrew1975 wrote:
If it is hot enough for the Arab League to go to the UN and ask for intervention, then it is hot enough for them to do it.

Dude, get me a beer.

No.

feth it, I don't want to get up.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure, but when you claim X is not fine and you want help, you better accept the help you get and be thankful for it!

Just because someone offers help doesn't mean it actually is help, or that the person offering the help is someone that you want help from in this particular circumstance.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure, but when you illicit support from non Muslims...

Ellicit. Not trying to be a pedant, its just a mistake a lot of people make without knowing that its a mistake.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Arabs nations are always telling us to stay out of Arab affairs. Fine! Handle it yourself and stop asking for our help.

Well, its usually "Muslim nations" as Arab nationalism is barely a thing anymore. Also, what nation X, Muslim or Arab, requests has no bearing on what nation Y requests; regardless of any common culture.

Just because someone offers help doesn't mean it actually is help, or that the person offering the help is someone that you want help from in this particular circumstance.

It's not about people offering help it is about them asking for it when 1.They have the ability to do it themselves 2. They give everybody gak after the support is given.

Dude, get me a beer.

No.

feth it, I don't want to get up.

We've been over this I get it. That's why I'm saying we should stay out of it.

Well, its usually "Muslim nations" as Arab nationalism is barely a thing anymore. Also, what nation X, Muslim or Arab, requests has no bearing on what nation Y requests; regardless of any common culture.

Yes, but it's called the Arab league not the Muslim League.

Andrew1975 wrote: 2. They give everybody gak after the support is given.

Of course they do, why wouldn't they?

Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes, but it's called the Arab league not the Muslim League.

Shockingly, what something is called has very little to do with what it actually is.

I was under the impression that Arab meant something more than nationalism, ie. a common culture, language, and history that trancends the nation state.

Of course they do, why wouldn't they?

Because as it turns out they might want it again, and now based on past experience we may not want to give it to them.

Well, its usually "Muslim nations" as Arab nationalism is barely a thing anymore. Also, what nation X, Muslim or Arab, requests has no bearing on what nation Y requests; regardless of any common culture.

Which is why for the most part we should just stay out of it and wash our hands of the situation unless there is some real reason to be there. Either stop accusing us of imperialism and destabilization of the area or quit inviting us to the party every 6 months. Seriously.

murdog wrote:I was under the impression that Arab meant something more than nationalism, ie. a common culture, language, and history that trancends the nation state.

It does, and Arab Nationalism isn't just nationalism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Because as it turns out they might want it again, and now based on past experience we may not want to give it to them.

We should grant aid if granting aid favors us.

Everything else is extraneous.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Which is why for the most part we should just stay out of it and wash our hands of the situation unless there is some real reason to be there. Either stop accusing us of imperialism and destabilization of the area or quit inviting us to the party every 6 months. Seriously.

"We shouldn't intervene, but I'm going to invent reasons to be mad about things I briefly read about."

LordofHats wrote:

Totalwar1402 wrote:I thought they were trying to acquire Abrams tanks and that most of the Russian gear was left over from Sadams armouries.

Wanting and having are different. A lot of countries would love to have Abrams tanks but we don't sell that kind of hardware until its obsolete and we've replaced it with something better.

So I guess they can ask Santa- Oh wait

You sold several hundred to Egypt. Even got to see them roll onto the streets during the protests. Never thought I'd see the day. If you can sell them to Mubarak then selling them to Iraq would seem plausable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:

LordofHats wrote:I don't think we've ever sold Abrams overseas.

You'd be epically wrong.
They are in service in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Austrailia and Iraq.

LordofHats wrote:

Totalwar1402 wrote:I thought they were trying to acquire Abrams tanks and that most of the Russian gear was left over from Sadams armouries.

Wanting and having are different. A lot of countries would love to have Abrams tanks but we don't sell that kind of hardware until its obsolete and we've replaced it with something better.

So I guess they can ask Santa- Oh wait

Wanting and having ARE different. Here's a picture of the Iraqis HAVING.
And one of the early reports of the deal.

December 18, 2008: The U.S. Department of Defense has approved the sale of another $6 billion in weapons to Iraq. Among the major items the Iraqis are getting are 400 Stryker armored vehicles, 140 M-1 tanks, 23 coastal patrol boats.

Does America have a plan B if any government decides to turn them against us? Or worse turn the tech over to the Chinese/Russians?

America has no issue selling arms, especially not to its allies, however short-sighted that might turn out to be. I believe President Carter complained that the Shah of Iran was getting the most advanced type of aircraft BEFORE America would have gotten them. Then the revolution happened with the Iotollas and; well, you know.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Russia has long been Syria's primary military supplier and currently has about $4 billion worth of contracts for future arms deliveries to Damascus, according to a report from global analysis firm Oxford Analytica. With the loss of arms sales to Iran following U.N. sanctions and the cancellation of contracts in Libya after the Gadhafi regime's overthrow, the list of Russian arms customers in the region is dwindling. The lost business with Iran was worth $13 billion, according to Treisman, while the Libyan deals totaled $4.5 billion.

In short I see no reason why we would send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Arab boys ought to be doing for themselves.

You realise that it's exactly the same situation for the US and UK through right? And in turn the exact reason that we have a very good reason to send troops there, in the same way we helped with the overthrow of Gaddafi?

Pretty much every conflict in the Middle East, every despot regime, is supported by either 'the west' or Russia/China, in an effort to secure trade of fossil fuels. Look at the situation in Egypt with President Murubak, who was supported right until the end (and a reluctant withdrawal when international pressure became to strong, and it was obvious that he was going to be overthrown) by the Obama presidency. Or Saudi Arabia, the country where they line up a dozen 'criminals' in a row, at a public show, and a guy with a sword walks along beheading each of them in turn. But, they supply oil to the West, and so the ruling monarchy's atrocities are ignored - the perfect example of moral exceptionalism, as long as you play ball with us, we will turn the other cheek to any other issues . We ignore the fact that all but one of the 9/11 hijackers was ex-military from Saudi Arabia, and that such a terrorist act was to strike at the financial heart of the country which they deem to be keeping the despot monarchs of that country in power. Again, you could give any other number of examples.

In effect the proxy wars between Russia/theWest which occurred throughout south Asia in the latter half of the twentieth century have now moved locale, and are instead taking place in the middle east. This time, rather than the objective being the ideology of a nation, it is for control over energy resources. The inhumane actions of those countries which have traditionally been supported by ourselves, and have trade deals with us, are ignored while those which trade with the 'other side' (Russia/China) are vilified in turn.

As for whether we intervene in these types of conflicts for humanitarian concern, while that might be a (debatabley) good side effect, to claim that that is the sole reason for military action is a far stretch of the imagination. The 5 million dead in the Congolese civil war in the last decade, the worst conflict in terms of casualties since the 2nd world war, would argue otherwise. Unfortunately for them, their conflict isn't taking place on the kind of natural resources that would make our intervention worthwhile.

++EDIT++ The pics of those M1 Abrams, and news of the arms deal, is especially worrying if you take heed to reports that the Iraqi government is effectively under the control of Iran.

Pacific wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Russia has long been Syria's primary military supplier and currently has about $4 billion worth of contracts for future arms deliveries to Damascus, according to a report from global analysis firm Oxford Analytica. With the loss of arms sales to Iran following U.N. sanctions and the cancellation of contracts in Libya after the Gadhafi regime's overthrow, the list of Russian arms customers in the region is dwindling. The lost business with Iran was worth $13 billion, according to Treisman, while the Libyan deals totaled $4.5 billion.

In short I see no reason why we would send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Arab boys ought to be doing for themselves.

You realise that it's exactly the same situation for the US and UK through right? And in turn the exact reason that we have a very good reason to send troops there, in the same way we helped with the overthrow of Gaddafi?

Pretty much every conflict in the Middle East, every despot regime, is supported by either 'the west' or Russia/China, in an effort to secure trade of fossil fuels. Look at the situation in Egypt with President Murubak, who was supported right until the end (and a reluctant withdrawal when international pressure became to strong, and it was obvious that he was going to be overthrown) by the Obama presidency. Or Saudi Arabia, the country where they line up a dozen 'criminals' in a row, at a public show, and a guy with a sword walks along beheading each of them in turn. But, they supply oil to the West, and so the ruling monarchy's atrocities are ignored - the perfect example of moral exceptionalism, as long as you play ball with us, we will turn the other cheek to any other issues . We ignore the fact that all but one of the 9/11 hijackers was ex-military from Saudi Arabia, and that such a terrorist act was to strike at the financial heart of the country which they deem to be keeping the despot monarchs of that country in power. Again, you could give any other number of examples.

In effect the proxy wars between Russia/theWest which occurred throughout south Asia in the latter half of the twentieth century have now moved locale, and are instead taking place in the middle east. This time, rather than the objective being the ideology of a nation, it is for control over energy resources. The inhumane actions of those countries which have traditionally been supported by ourselves, and have trade deals with us, are ignored while those which trade with the 'other side' (Russia/China) are vilified in turn.

As for whether we intervene in these types of conflicts for humanitarian concern, while that might be a (debatabley) good side effect, to claim that that is the sole reason for military action is a far stretch of the imagination. The 5 million dead in the Congolese civil war in the last decade, the worst conflict in terms of casualties since the 2nd world war, would argue otherwise. Unfortunately for them, their conflict isn't taking place on the kind of natural resources that would make our intervention worthwhile.

++EDIT++ The pics of those M1 Abrams, and news of the arms deal, is especially worrying if you take heed to reports that the Iraqi government is effectively under the control of Iran.

Yes, again I understand your point. But Syria offers us nothing but another big waste. The US should be done spending out treasure on stupid expeditions like this. The US spent by far more than any other country on the liberation of Libya. If the Arab league is concerned they are the most capable of handling the situation based on cultural and regional understanding.

If Europe wants to go fine. Let them. The US is broke and we don't need to go around interfering in other peoples business when there is little to nothing to gain.

The attacks on 9/11 were a direct response to our intervention in the middle east as Osama was not happy to have infidels in his home land. Hence, had we not been there defending Kuwait (who basically dared Saddam to attack them) we would not have been attacked. These proxy wars that you speak of have only proven to put the Soviet Union (Russia) and the United States in to Massive debt while making us look like big bullies to most of the world where we fight them. For what? Nothing has really changed.

The pics of those M1 Abrams, and news of the arms deal, is especially worrying if you take heed to reports that the Iraqi government is effectively under the control of Iran.

So this must be what you think as the proper way to do things? Here you are saying we need to intervene, what has Iraq gotten us? Just a big amount of debt and we are basically in a worse spot then we were when we started becuase now Iran is running an Iraq that we armed. Great plan!

We should grant aid if granting aid favors us.

Everything else is extraneous.

What are your parameters for favor? I completely agree, but favor is pretty vague. Why would anybody do something that doesn't favor them in someway?

"We shouldn't intervene, but I'm going to invent reasons to be mad about things I briefly read about."

Don't be pedantic. I'm not inventing reasons, these reasons are and have always been there. I didn't just read about them either. In general our interference in the middle east has never been seen as anything but oppressive to Muslims/Arabs/Whatever. It has gotten us nothing but scorn for very little return. It's better if we let them sort out their own problems, especially when there is so little to gain from helping a country like Syria.

Does America have a plan B if any government decides to turn them against us? Or worse turn the tech over to the Chinese/Russians?

Well apparently the ones Iraq has are just M1's (unless Andrew was abbreviating) and the M1 as far as I know doesn't have any of the high tech stuff US Abrams have them. Of course I didn't even know we sold M1's overseas so maybe I'm wrong about that too XD

LordofHats wrote:
Well apparently the ones Iraq has are just M1's (unless Andrew was abbreviating) and the M1 as far as I know doesn't have any of the high tech stuff US Abrams have them. Of course I didn't even know we sold M1's overseas so maybe I'm wrong about that too XD

They're export M1A1s, which basically mean M1A1s without DU mesh in their armor.

LordofHats wrote:

Does America have a plan B if any government decides to turn them against us? Or worse turn the tech over to the Chinese/Russians?

Well apparently the ones Iraq has are just M1's (unless Andrew was abbreviating) and the M1 as far as I know doesn't have any of the high tech stuff US Abrams have them. Of course I didn't even know we sold M1's overseas so maybe I'm wrong about that too XD

I'am assuming the crews won't be quite up to scratch as well. When Jordan went into the six day war with Patton tanks they found themselves being knocked out by upgraded Israeli Shermans and Centurions. Can stuff like Javelins and hellfire rockets (apache rockets) knock out Abrams tanks or is it really difficult? Even if they were just M1's that still way ahead of anything China or Russia has in its arsenal; so far as I'am aware that is. Still it is scary.

Well depending on which model of Patton that's not surprising. Many of the Post-WWII US Tanks were really really bad.

Andrew1975 wrote:
What are your parameters for favor? I completely agree, but favor is pretty vague.

Its international relations, everything is vague.

But, loosely, anything that helps us accomplish anything that we want to do. A couple examples are "protect Israel", "Keep the Assads in power", and "Remove the Assads from power".

Andrew1975 wrote:
Don't be pedantic. I'm not inventing reasons, these reasons are and have always been there. I didn't just read about them either. In general our interference in the middle east has never been seen as anything but oppressive to Muslims/Arabs/Whatever. It has gotten us nothing but scorn for very little return. It's better if we let them sort out their own problems, especially when there is so little to gain from helping a country like Syria.

Unless you've made the Middle East a topic of serious study since you were 18, from my perspective you just started reading about them, or alternatively have dabbled in the subject matter.

More to the point, you seem preoccupied with the idea that people in a country on the other side of the world tend to not like America. I don't see why this is necessarily an issue. Sometimes you want foreign nationals to be sympathetic, but it isn't always necessary and is often a necessary consequence of foreign policy. I've also seen you make the argument that we have received very little return for our involvement in the Middle East, and I've already explained why you underestimate the significance of the region to the American economy.

This doesn't mean that we should intervene in Syria, but also doesn't mean that we shouldn't. There are no easy answers here, and the only that believe otherwise are either trying to sell you something, or largely ignorant of the reality of international relations.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Pacific wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Russia has long been Syria's primary military supplier and currently has about $4 billion worth of contracts for future arms deliveries to Damascus, according to a report from global analysis firm Oxford Analytica. With the loss of arms sales to Iran following U.N. sanctions and the cancellation of contracts in Libya after the Gadhafi regime's overthrow, the list of Russian arms customers in the region is dwindling. The lost business with Iran was worth $13 billion, according to Treisman, while the Libyan deals totaled $4.5 billion.

In short I see no reason why we would send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Arab boys ought to be doing for themselves.

You realise that it's exactly the same situation for the US and UK through right? And in turn the exact reason that we have a very good reason to send troops there, in the same way we helped with the overthrow of Gaddafi?

Pretty much every conflict in the Middle East, every despot regime, is supported by either 'the west' or Russia/China, in an effort to secure trade of fossil fuels. Look at the situation in Egypt with President Murubak, who was supported right until the end (and a reluctant withdrawal when international pressure became to strong, and it was obvious that he was going to be overthrown) by the Obama presidency. Or Saudi Arabia, the country where they line up a dozen 'criminals' in a row, at a public show, and a guy with a sword walks along beheading each of them in turn. But, they supply oil to the West, and so the ruling monarchy's atrocities are ignored - the perfect example of moral exceptionalism, as long as you play ball with us, we will turn the other cheek to any other issues . We ignore the fact that all but one of the 9/11 hijackers was ex-military from Saudi Arabia, and that such a terrorist act was to strike at the financial heart of the country which they deem to be keeping the despot monarchs of that country in power. Again, you could give any other number of examples.

In effect the proxy wars between Russia/theWest which occurred throughout south Asia in the latter half of the twentieth century have now moved locale, and are instead taking place in the middle east. This time, rather than the objective being the ideology of a nation, it is for control over energy resources. The inhumane actions of those countries which have traditionally been supported by ourselves, and have trade deals with us, are ignored while those which trade with the 'other side' (Russia/China) are vilified in turn.

As for whether we intervene in these types of conflicts for humanitarian concern, while that might be a (debatabley) good side effect, to claim that that is the sole reason for military action is a far stretch of the imagination. The 5 million dead in the Congolese civil war in the last decade, the worst conflict in terms of casualties since the 2nd world war, would argue otherwise. Unfortunately for them, their conflict isn't taking place on the kind of natural resources that would make our intervention worthwhile.

++EDIT++ The pics of those M1 Abrams, and news of the arms deal, is especially worrying if you take heed to reports that the Iraqi government is effectively under the control of Iran.

Yes, again I understand your point. But Syria offers us nothing but another big waste. The US should be done spending out treasure on stupid expeditions like this. The US spent by far more than any other country on the liberation of Libya. If the Arab league is concerned they are the most capable of handling the situation based on cultural and regional understanding.

First of all, I just want to say I agree with you Andrew, I don't at all sanction intervention willy-nilly into the affairs of other countries, especially when 'regime change' is involved, or the action is unilateral. History has proven that such actions rarely have the interests of the common people at heart, and it usually ends in significant bloodshed and instability. Furthermore, I find the sanctimonious nonsense that the Hague spouts, in terms of the reasons to intervene, to be tiresome and false. As a side note, I find it interesting how the Conservative party have changed their packaging of PR when related to foreign policy - 10 years ago during the build up to Iraq, rather than taking the 'WMD' route, the conservative shadow foreign secretary spoke up to say they wished that Labour had been more honest in their appraisals of the reasons to send our military to Iraq; i.e. in his words, 'the geopolitical stability of the middle east'. It has become a cliché, but in other words, unfettered access to the black stuff. Obviously, some of New Labour's spin doctors have found new jobs.

The 'Liberation of Libya' is an interesting term, and I think quite inaccurate when examined in any detail. All we have done is given the reigns to another tribal group, shaken the pot up and tried to prompt things to fall neatly on our side. Libya is one of the top 10 oil producers in the world - a former US energy secretary commented that a rise in US energy prices was at least in part down to the pause put on Libyan oil, and there was every reason to go in. As for the 'humanist' argument, that we have a moral responsibility to the brutally oppressed. Well, that's a fine thing to say, but consider that Cameron was on a tour of the Gulf at the same time the Libyan civil war started, selling arms to the same oppressive regimes. He had been in Libya the previous year, and the very same tanks, guns, tear gas, stun grenades etc. (made by British companies) were used on the rioters fighting against Gadhafi. Sarkozy was similarly hypocritical, sending the bombers when only months before he had been sending his own security troops and weaponry to help prop up the Ben Ali regime in Tunisia.

So it's safe to assume that the chaps throwing their shoes at Ghadafi weren't the intended beneficiaries of the air strikes on Libya, but you would instead have to argue that there was a massive financial imperative to do so. In purely selfish terms, and if one is to put aside for one moment the value of human lives and those destroyed by the conflict, the way that the US and UK government has gone on is easily defensible, in fact should be its very purpose, in that it is trying to secure the future wealth of the country.

However having said that, I think it's also a mistake to regard the wealth of an entire country to be a single entity, with the same objectives and requirements, that must be answerable for its actions. Eisenhower warned about the 'military Industrial complex', about the dangers to democracy that a large and powerful military, and it's corresponding industry, represents. Well, here we have it - Bill Hicks used to joke about it in his stand-up, but the reason the West knew that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? Well, we looked at our receipts. It's a simplification of course, but the massive arms trade, not just in the US but also the UK (read Mark Thomas's book, 'As used on the famous Nelson Mandela') and we have a history of selling armaments to whoever is willing to hand over the money. What if Iraq does turn nasty again in the next 20 years or so and we end up fighting those Abrams that have just been sold to them? Well, we'll destroy them with our newly built weapons, after the incumbent parliament votes to attack based on the massive political pressures of the weapon-building lobby groups.

Reading your post I completely agree with you in part; in principle I fundamentally disagree with the wanton destruction of people's lives just for the acquisition of wealth. It made me feel outrage reading that Dick Cheney, one of the chief Hawks motivating the second gulf war was an executive of the Haliburton group - the company now reaping the rewards of Iraq's oil wealth, taking that as payment for the rebuilding of infrastructure that the same government was responsible for destroying. Does the American public benefit from this? Most probably no, unless you happen to be a Haliburton shareholder, and the argument could be made that the middle eastern conflicts have made the likelihood of a terrorist retaliation increase massively. However, such are the problems when you have a group that is not democratically elected, and only has its own interests at heart, directing government policy. The greatest trick they pull, however, is hiding such actions behind the veil of morality, of shared interest of the objectives of such a conflict, when in actual fact the opposite is true.

Dogma

That's a better argument. We really do need to care how people half way around the world feel about us. Not because it would be nice if they thought we were great. This strained relationship that we have with the middle east makes it very hard for us to make any real political inroads without paying a very high price for them. Seeing as they have the oil that we need it would benefit us to have good working relations with their ruling parties and also be generally accepted by the people. I have no illusions of winning the hearts and mind of the people, but it would be good for business if we didn't appear as the devil to them, taking out one of their leaders every few years and causing a general disturbance that from their perspective makes them think we are some kind of crusaders and or oil vampires. We may very well be oil vampires (I am, if it wasn't for oil and international backlash I'd gladly sign to turn the place into one big piece of glass) but it does not help our aims for them to perceive us as such.

I know you always take the view that the common people really don't matter, and for the most part you are right. But when you some crazy dictator falls and we want the resources that belong to hid country, well it would make the job a whole lot easier if every AK wielding member of that country didn't also want to shoot at the US.

I fundamentally disagree with the wanton destruction of people's lives just for the acquisition of wealth

I don't have a real problem with fighting for resources, I just think the way we have done it has been flawed. You need to pick your fights, we picked ours poorly and have really turned a large segment of the world against us. I see no reason to not let Arabs fight amongst themselves while we sweep up the pieces of what is left. When Iraq went into Kuwait, was the outcome really going to be that bad for the US? Iraq still would have needed to sell that oil and we were not on bad terms with Iraq at that point. If anything we may have benefited from that situation. I could care less that Saddam was brutal to is people, their his people to do with as he pleases.

I feel the same way about Libya. Momar had been quite for a long time, he had actually been playing ball and toned down his anti west rhetoric also "the spice was flowing", so i really didn't see the need to overthrow his government. For me it's always about the Devil you know and have in your pocket.

And yes I do agree I should have put the "liberation of Libya" in quotation marks.

Andrew1975 wrote:This strained relationship that we have with the middle east makes it very hard for us to make any real political inroads without paying a very high price for them.

Actually, doing business with the states in the Middle East isn't very much harder than doing business with any other nation that isn't Britain. This is largely because, excepting states like Iran that stay in power on the basis of anti-Western rhetoric, the majority of ruling bodies in the region aren't outright hostile, and generally have a pretty good hold over their populations.

As I said, sometimes you want foreign nationals to be sympathetic, but its not always necessary, and often time dislike of your country is a necessary consequence of achieving goals.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Seeing as they have the oil that we need it would benefit us to have good working relations with their ruling parties and also be generally accepted by the people.

But we don't need their oil, we need them to ensure they sell a certain amount of oil every year in order to maintain its global price. We don't even get all that much oil from the Middle East, and most of the oil we do get is from Saudi Arabia, and the Sauds like us. The population is less thrilled with America, but they don't really matter because the Saud family is in no danger of losing power.

Andrew1975 wrote:
But when you some crazy dictator falls and we want the resources that belong to hid country, well it would make the job a whole lot easier if every AK wielding member of that country didn't also want to shoot at the US.

Actually, the major concern with the fall of dictators like Mubarak is related to the creation of havens for terrorism, and to a degree the safety of Israel. Personally, I don't care about Israel's safety, but lots of people in the US seem to, and in a democracy that's important (though not as important as people think).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pacific wrote: In purely selfish terms, and if one is to put aside for one moment the value of human lives and those destroyed by the conflict...

Why should I value the lives of people I don't, and will likely never, know?

But we don't need their oil, we need them to ensure they sell a certain amount of oil every year in order to maintain its global price. We don't even get all that much oil from the Middle East, and most of the oil we do get is from Saudi Arabia, and the Sauds like us.

Well i meant the royal we as in global economy.

Actually, doing business with the states in the Middle East isn't very much harder than doing business with any other nation that isn't Britain. This is largely because, excepting states like Iran that stay in power on the basis of anti-Western rhetoric, the majority of ruling bodies in the region aren't outright hostile, and generally have a pretty good hold over their populations.

As I said, sometimes you want foreign nationals to be sympathetic, but its not always necessary, and often time dislike of your country is a necessary consequence of achieving goals.

I understand, but if Muslims had a better opinion of the United states, (and i don't mean great or positive, just not burning our flags and shooting at us every chance they get) and didn't see us as some devil spawned global empire, these "liberations" would go more smoothly and cost us less.

Actually, the major concern with the fall of dictators like Mubarak is related to the creation of havens for terrorism

Yes and no. Most of these terrorists that we are afraid of were formed as a direct response to western interference in the middle east. The continued wars only fuel the fire, well that and we, like the soviet union armed the hell out of them to further our goals while interfering.

dogma wrote:

Pacific wrote: In purely selfish terms, and if one is to put aside for one moment the value of human lives and those destroyed by the conflict...

Why should I value the lives of people I don't, and will likely never, know?

Are you speaking in philosophical terms, or on a practical level?

I always like to think that it's a fundamental part of being human, the ability to feel compassion for those who are not within our immediate society, and perhaps the only thing that might separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. As well as that there is the old 'There but for the grace of God go I'.

Stupid question.... the CIA, who do you think armed and trained bin laden when he was still in the "good lads club" during the russio-afghan conflict?

Wee_Tam wrote:Stupid question.... the CIA, who do you think armed and trained bin laden when he was still in the "good lads club" during the russio-afghan conflict?

That doesn't mean the CIA gives guns/train every terrorist group... just a lot of them...

purplefood wrote:

Wee_Tam wrote:Stupid question.... the CIA, who do you think armed and trained bin laden when he was still in the "good lads club" during the russio-afghan conflict?

That doesn't mean the CIA gives guns/train every terrorist group... just a lot of them...

Well they are freedom fighters when we arm them.

I always like to think that it's a fundamental part of being human, the ability to feel compassion for those who are not within our immediate society, and perhaps the only thing that might separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. As well as that there is the old 'There but for the grace of God go I'.

They are not in our immediate society though nor would they choose to be. To go around spending our treasure on people that we can't help, don't want our help, and actually resent our help for absolutely no gain is in our interest how? Or have you forgotten how so many other people in the region have "appreciated" our help?