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.

That was poor.

 Manchu wrote:
I'd have thought you'd send it to Hungary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes you heard it here first, Frazzled supports Obama.

I swear I didn't alter his post!

What kind of sorcery is this?

 Frazzled wrote:


Why just the "West" Ketara? There are three other continents, two of which are closer than the US. If they are not involved, then clearly we have no compelling state interest.

That's a very good question, actually. What makes it the responsibility of the West to help poorer and more war torn nations? It comes down to a number of factors.

Firstly, we pride ourselves in the West these days on how humane we are. Justice, equality, liberty, freedom of political affiliation and religion, freedom of sexuality, and so on. And if you read any newspaper (at least, here in the UK), things are judged good or bad depending on how well they live up to those ideals.

In China or Russia, such concepts are much more muted. Partially because of the cultural outlook, partially because the Governments in charge have a vested interest in keeping it that way (Mr Putin has nothing to gain by allowing the proliferation of opposition after all, for example). As a result, there is no aid forthcoming from those parts of the world. In Africa, the Middle East, and the majority of Asia, you not only have the above two reasons in varying amounts, but also an inability to act. They have neither the power nor the resources to help out.

That leaves the West. We alone have the cultural background and power to intervene in a positive fashion.

Now we could retreat into isolationism, and let the rest of the world fight it out. That's certainly an option. But where do you draw the line? If China invaded Africa, and started up camps to exterminate all black people, would that cross it? If so, then what about if they set up camps in Tibet to kill every single native? That's on a smaller scale, but no less morally abhorrent from our perspective.

Ultimately, I would say it comes down to the roots of good old Victorian style charity. We are the rich and the powerful of this world. We have liberties many people can only dream of, luxuries many have never even heard of.

I do not believe it comes down to the US, or Britain individually. Ultimately, we have no responsibility towards other nations other than that which we choose to assume. But I think that as human beings with empathy, the average person on the street in the West would like to help out those less fortunate, so long as it does not cripple himself.

In the same way I wouldn't take out a 20K loan to give to a homeless person, I would never advocate that we bankrupt ourselves trying to save the world. We do have a moral responsibility to ours and ourselves, and that must come first.

But if we have that aid money dedicated in that direction anyway, why not use it? If collectively, we could occupy Syria on a smaller scale, and turn it into a country of relative liberty as we did Germany and Japan, why not do it? If it doesn't hurt us excessively to do these things (and if done collectively, it would not), to help raise up a country where innocent people are being brutally murdered for nothing, then how can we justify not doing it? By our own espoused moral values of peace, justice and equality, how can we not?


'To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places – and there are so many – where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory. '
-Howard Zinn-

Because you don't get to act like you're the leader of the free world without actually leading.

I didn't know the police were leaders? If we were leaders we would be telling people what to do. We are not, we are garbageman expected to clean up everyone elses messes and get gak on for it, and pay for the privilege. It's one thing to help out Europe, it's another to have to go to some stone age, god forsaken, US hating gakhole for nothing but warm fuzzies.

Where's South America, Asia, and the other Middle East countries in this equation?

 Ketara wrote:
. In Africa, the Middle East, and the majority of Asia, you not only have the above two reasons in varying amounts, but also an inability to act. They have neither the power nor the resources to help out.

Edit in South America to that statement if you like.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
I didn't know the police were leaders? If we were leaders we would be telling people what to do. We are not, we are garbageman expected to clean up everyone elses messes and get gak on for it, and pay for the privilege. It's one thing to help out Europe, it's another to have to go to some stone age, god forsaken, US hating gakhole for nothing but warm fuzzies.

My wife also has little tolerance for the US getting the "I-love-you, I-hate-you, come-here, go-away" treatment from the rest of the world.

 Frazzled wrote:
Where's South America, Asia, and the other Middle East countries in this equation?

Hiding in the corner hoping that they won't have to do anything other than demand that the US do something. Oh, except Iran, they're helping train Assad's forces and may have boots on the ground. So they are doing something

But if we have that aid money dedicated in that direction anyway, why not use it? If collectively, we could occupy Syria on a smaller scale, and turn it into a country of relative liberty as we did Germany and Japan, why not do it? If it doesn't hurt us excessively to do these things (and if done collectively, it would not), to help raise up a country where innocent people are being brutally murdered for nothing, then how can we justify not doing it? By our own espoused moral values of peace, justice and equality, how can we not?

Oh I see, you think we could solve the issue by "Making it rain!"



See, you can't just throw money at the situation. Not that we have money to just throw around. Germany and Japan didn't just cost money by the way, there was a lot of blood.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Oh I see, you think we could solve the issue by "Making it rain!"
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT6DLkPpG1dtPb8hu9vf0l6aR0R4umGmBtsCdZiMtZFeenCwRADDA

See, you can't just throw money at the situation. Not that we have money to just throw around. Germany and Japan didn't just cost money by the way, there was a lot of blood.

I don't know, it worked really well in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't it......

 Andrew1975 wrote:


See, you can't just throw money at the situation. Not that we have money to just throw around. Germany and Japan didn't just cost money by the way, there was a lot of blood.

I'm starting to get a little tired of repeating myself. I do wish people would remember what I write, so I don't have to reiterate it for the umpteenth time.

I am well aware that you cannot just throw money at a situation, indeed, that's one of the primary failures in Afghanistan. Awarding multi-million dollar contracts to private companies whilst trying to hand power over to a corrupt regime does not work.


But invading a third world country in a civil war with the vaunted resources of NATO? I think we could manage that with a minimum of bloodshed.

Direct occupation and administration, as opposed to trying to do everything at arms length through corrupt officials and profit-making entities? An extended but clearly delineated period of time (twenty years) with checkmarks for withdrawal and gradual handing over of power? Deliberate cultural reprogramming through education to ingrain certain loyalties to what we could consider to be good ideals? The establishment of the framework of a functioning democracy, with the correct separation of powers?

Afganistan and Iraq are perfect examples of what should NOT be done.

It would not be easy, and it would be challenging. But the historical precedent clearly indicates that it can be done.

 Ketara wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
. In Africa, the Middle East, and the majority of Asia, you not only have the above two reasons in varying amounts, but also an inability to act. They have neither the power nor the resources to help out.

Edit in South America to that statement if you like.

The middle east has plenty of cash and plenty of military to deal with the situation. They don't because they know the political fallout that could happen, and the absolute nightmare that intervention would be. Asia has tons of money, but they use it to build themselves up instead of pissing it around the world. We should be taking a notes. If anybody doesn't have money for another crusade into hostile enemy territory I'm pretty sure it the US, we has earned the right to sit this one out. We don't need to tie everyone's shoes for them.

My wife also has little tolerance for the US getting the "I-love-you, I-hate-you, come-here, go-away" treatment from the rest of the world.

If just tired of doing this for nothing but warm fuzzies. If you are good at something, you should not do it for free, and definitely not do it to the point it becomes a real issue financially or politically.

But invading a third world country in a civil war with the vaunted resources of NATO? I think we could manage that with a minimum of bloodshed.

. You have no idea of the can of worms you want to open! You do know where Syria is right? Have you learned nothing from the past 50 years of US foreign intervention.
I'm sure someone said the same thing.

"We just kicked the Worlds ass! How hard could (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) be?"

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

You are trying to compare the largest war in the history of man with Syria? This is not apples to oranges this is Elephants to String theory. The occupation of Germany and Japan were occupations of completely exhausted and isolated counties. There was literally nobody left for the Allies to fight. With Syria you want to put us in the middle of the place where everyone hastes us, surrounded by enemies and where terrorists and "freedom fighters" will fight forever. You seam to not comprehend how Iran and Russia will react, and how much Muslim extremists will play a role, especially when properly backed.

All we would do is throw gasoline on the flames and most likely increase civilian casualties.

The only real comparison that you can put together is that if we do go there with the "full force of NATO" as you describe, we may start WWIII, and then we really will need the full force of NATO, bankrupt the country and destabilize the entire global economic system, just as it seams it might be on the verge of some recovery. Is all that really worth some warm and fuzzies?

It would not be easy, and it would be challenging. But the historical precedent clearly indicates that it can be done.

No it doesn't. Historically what you are talking about almost never happens. And when it did the firepower and access to weapons of your average terrorist/"freedom fighter" was very limited, so was the press. In most of these successful occupations that you speak of, acts that today would be considered War Crimes were commonly used to quell resistance. Today you just don't get away with that anymore, if you think the allies did not do "unsavory" things during the occupation of Germany and Japan, you have another history lesson to look up.

 Ketara wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
. In Africa, the Middle East, and the majority of Asia, you not only have the above two reasons in varying amounts, but also an inability to act. They have neither the power nor the resources to help out.

Edit in South America to that statement if you like.

South America's overall economy is approaching First World status. They could do something.
Japan can't do something?
The rest of the Middle East can't do something?
Only we can?
Nonsense. If we're the only ones who can then I submit we should submit a bill for the UN for 3x the all-in cost including $10mm in insurance for each casualty we receive. Thats our bill. Sorry, no credit, cash only. If you can find cheaper use them instead.

 Frazzled wrote:
South America's overall economy is approaching First World status. They could do something.

Isn't Brazil currently trying to play with the big boys? Maybe they could step in.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
South America's overall economy is approaching First World status. They could do something.

Isn't Brazil currently trying to play with the big boys? Maybe they could step in.

Why play with chemical weapons, when you can SAMBA!

 Frazzled wrote:
Why play with chemical weapons, when you can SAMBA!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4a-qbFMAAk

There we go, a peace keeping force of samba dancers to distract both sides

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why play with chemical weapons, when you can SAMBA!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4a-qbFMAAk

There we go, a peace keeping force of samba dancers to distract both sides

And there are a Brazillion of them!

Sending half naked women into radical Islam territory.. Nice plan.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
. In Africa, the Middle East, and the majority of Asia, you not only have the above two reasons in varying amounts, but also an inability to act. They have neither the power nor the resources to help out.

Edit in South America to that statement if you like.

The middle east has plenty of cash and plenty of military to deal with the situation. They don't because they know the political fallout that could happen, and the absolute nightmare that intervention would be. Asia has tons of money, but they use it to build themselves up instead of pissing it around the world. We should be taking a notes. If anybody doesn't have money for another crusade into hostile enemy territory I'm pretty sure it the US, we has earned the right to sit this one out. We don't need to tie everyone's shoes for them.

However, since now a few of you have raised this bizare point that South America, Asia, or the rest of the Middle East could do it, I'll disprove it it swiftly and succinctly.

First, you need the mindset. As I've already stated earlier, the cultural ethos does not exist to install a democracy abroad when your own country is not a democracy. It is patently absurd to suggest that a country that's busy stamping on the liberties of its own citizens would wish to suddenly install a correct separation of powers and system of civil liberties in the middle of a civil war elsewhere in the world. Most Middle Eastern countries are hardly what you would call shining examples of enlightenment and cultural advancement these days. And in that, they're swiftly followed by Africa, the larger chunk of South America and most of Asia.

Those parts of Asia like Japan and South Korea? I fully agree they could lend a hand, and in such a plan, should in collaboration with the West. You'll note however that those parts of the world are only the stable democracies they are now due to heavy direct investment in infrastructure of the kind I am advocating.


The second part is capability. In order to mount an invasion, you require force projection capacity. The British, French, and Americans have global force projection capacity. Just about every other nation however, does not. They only have the capability to project force and influence locally. Even if Argentina decided tomorrow that they wished to invade Syria and bring peace and democracy (a relatively unlikely scenario), they simply would not have the means to do so. It is beyond their capacity. They simply do not have the military power projection required to do it. Neither do Qatar. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Egypt. Turkey would be capable, but they fall down thanks to the first reason (mindset).


To be blunt, this is pretty obvious stuff. I'm coming to expect this of Andrew, but you frazzled? I know you're smart enough to know this.

You have no idea of the can of worms you want to open! You do know where Syria is right? Have you learned nothing from the past 50 years of US foreign intervention.
I'm sure someone said the same thing

I'm probably infinitely better acquainted with the past 50 years of US intervention than you, considering I'm a modern military historian.

Most of the interventions you're referring to are undertaken solely by the US, for reasons that are far from humanitarian (profit, to try and arrest communism, chasing terrorists for revenge, etc). If you genuinely can't tell the difference between those and a dedicated collaborative state-building effort, then I'll cease to keep taxing you intellectually, and withdraw there.

As I've already stated earlier, the cultural ethos does not exist to install a democracy abroad when your own country is not a democracy.

I was unaware that you had to be a democracy to realize that using gas was wrong, and or defend people. That's good to know and very western of you to think.

Most Middle Eastern countries are hardly what you would call shining examples of enlightenment and cultural advancement these days.

Right. So it should be easy for us to go and install a "proper"completely new culture and moral code. People always love when you do that and it always goes so swimmingly?

To be blunt, this is pretty obvious stuff. I'm coming to expect this of Andrew, but you frazzled? I know you're smart enough to know this.

To be blunt this is a bunch of crap excuses for why nobody wants to be part of the nightmare that you are describing. These countries are very capable of recognizing civilian suffering when one of our bombs goes off target. They know right from wrong just as well as we do. Like me, they just don't particularly feel like doing anything about it, because its a pointless gesture and costs way too much.

Its also a very western view that only we are moral and have the desire to do something about it. This superiority complex is kind of what gets us into problems in the first place. It should have gone right out the window with the fall of the "Empire".

I'm probably infinitely better acquainted with the past 50 years of US intervention than you, considering I'm a modern military historian.

Most of the interventions you're referring to are undertaken solely by the US, for reasons that are far from humanitarian (profit, to try and arrest communism, chasing terrorists for revenge, etc). If you genuinely can't tell the difference between those and a dedicated collaborative state-building effort, then I'll cease to keep taxing you intellectually, and withdraw there.

For a military historian you sure seam to be unaware that for most of those the US did not go in alone. In fact in none of those were undertaken solely by the US!

Korea was UN
Vietnam was not Solely a US action
Iraq? Nope
Afghanistan? Nope

Sorry just wrong wrong wrong.

Lots of people think we should use our military for Warm Fuzzies and/or gaks and giggle. It's irresponsible and an insult to those that serve to waste the military on such frivolous adventures. This is clearly a lose/lose situation, you either don't care, or just refuse to see it.

Either way you can't civilize people at the point of a gun.

At least fighting for (profit, to try and arrest communism, chasing terrorists for revenge) usually has an endgame, identifiable goals and something worth fighting for. Fighting for peace is like F%&^ing for virginity, it doesn't make any real sense.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

As I've already stated earlier, the cultural ethos does not exist to install a democracy abroad when your own country is not a democracy.

I was unaware that you had to be a democracy to realize that using gas was wrong, and or defend people. That's good to know and very western of you to think.

I beg your pardon? What you just said has absolutely no relation to what I just said.
I mean, are you actually even reading this? Because if you hoenstly think that that was some kind of rebuttal, you're not even playing in the same squash court here.

Most Middle Eastern countries are hardly what you would call shining examples of enlightenment and cultural advancement these days.

Right. So it should be easy for us to go and install a "proper"completely new culture and moral code. People always love when you do that and it always goes so swimmingly?

....what? Sorry, that was a quote referring to why other countries would be less than keen to install democracies, due to not being them themselves. How on earth does that have anything to do with the difficulty or lack thereof in translating Western concepts of government?

Again, different squash court. I mean, if I was going to respond in a similar fashion to you now, I'd have to say something like, 'Well South America has democratic leanings!' (in other words, something completely unrelated to the actual point, but vaguely related to another point made elsewhere).

To be blunt this is a bunch of crap excuses for why nobody wants to be part of the nightmare that you are describing.

Nightmare? I don't know. Japan, Germany, and South Korea seem to be doing alright for themselves.

These countries are very capable of recognizing civilian suffering when one of our bombs goes off target.

They know right from wrong just as well as we do. Like me, they just don't particularly feel like doing anything about it, because its a pointless gesture and costs way too much.

So wait. The reason that autocracies don't install occupy other countries and install democracies is because its pointless and costs too much?

Mate, seriously? I mean, are you actually for real? I'm starting to wonder if this is just someone having a laugh now. No-one could be this daft.

Its also a very western view that only we are moral and have the desire to do something about it. This superiority complex is kind of what gets us into problems in the first place. It should have gone right out the window with the fall of the "Empire".

Actually, there's plenty of psychological evidence relating to how certain traits of empathy and suchlike are more or less spread across the human race. Morality isn't completely subjective to culture, and as a result, certain attitudes (like a desire to do what you want without being dragged away by the police) could easily be installed into a stable political framework.

Perhaps you got the wrong idea here. I'm not talking about transplanting good ol Uncle Sams Apple pie here. The whole point of it being a collaborative international effort is to forestall such a thing. I'm not talking about completely uprooting the culture and turning them in americans or englishmen, or frenchmen, etcetc. Just a loyalty to law and order, and a government not run down by corruption with the potential to revert to autocratic atrocities.

For a military historian you sure seam to be unaware that for most of those the US did not go in alone. In fact in none of those were undertaken solely by the US!

I don't believe I named any specific incursions? You seem to be jumping to misprove words you just placed in my mouth. In essence, you're kind of arguing with yourself for that one.

Either way you can't civilize people at the point of a gun.

That's amusing. Because historical precedent would disagree there, from the Romans on up.

First, you need the mindset. As I've already stated earlier, the cultural ethos does not exist to install a democracy abroad when your own country is not a democracy.

***We’re a republic…

It is patently absurd to suggest that a country that's busy stamping on the liberties of its own citizens would wish to suddenly install a correct separation of powers and system of civil liberties in the middle of a civil war elsewhere in the world.

Brazil, Argentina, Peru, and Chile are democracies.
The problem of course is that,
1) to be a democracy you have to fight for it. No one can give it to you.
2) we’ve seen this show before it. Its not worked out. A short list (US only): Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosova, Cuba.

Most Middle Eastern countries are hardly what you would call shining examples of enlightenment and cultural advancement these days. And in that, they're swiftly followed by Africa, the larger chunk of South America and most of Asia.

Agreed. But if we’re only after WMDs we just need bodies.

Those parts of Asia like Japan and South Korea? I fully agree they could lend a hand, and in such a plan, should in collaboration with the West. You'll note however that those parts of the world are only the stable democracies they are now due to heavy direct investment in infrastructure of the kind I am advocating.

Get on the freaking speed dial then. Lets get the sons of Ieyasu out there.

The second part is capability. In order to mount an invasion, you require force projection capacity. The British, French, and Americans have global force projection capacity. Just about every other nation however, does not. They only have the capability to project force and influence locally. Even if Argentina decided tomorrow that they wished to invade Syria and bring peace and democracy (a relatively unlikely scenario), they simply would not have the means to do so. It is beyond their capacity. They simply do not have the military power projection required to do it. Neither do Qatar. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Egypt. Turkey would be capable, but they fall down thanks to the first reason (mindset).

It’s a land war. Egypt, Turkey, Saudia Arabia could all send troops and other forces. Kuwait could send aircraft. Seriously, these guys have weapons out the yin yang . They don’t have to cross the Pacific, just the border.


Side note, if supposedly no other country besides the US, UK, and France can do this, then what do we have this giant military for. Downsize that puppy. Just have an air force, small defensive navy, national guard, USMC, and of course the new cyber/space fleet.
Carriers...gone! army...gone!

 Frazzled wrote:

It is patently absurd to suggest that a country that's busy stamping on the liberties of its own citizens would wish to suddenly install a correct separation of powers and system of civil liberties in the middle of a civil war elsewhere in the world.

Brazil, Argentina, Peru, and Chile are democracies.
The problem of course is that,
1) to be a democracy you have to fight for it. No one can give it to you.
2) we’ve seen this show before it. Its not worked out. A short list (US only): Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosova, Cuba.

I'm not convinced that Vietnam or Cambodia were exactly the result of international humanitarian relief occupations. =p

And like I said several times now, it worked out for Japan and Germany.

Those parts of Asia like Japan and South Korea? I fully agree they could lend a hand, and in such a plan, should in collaboration with the West. You'll note however that those parts of the world are only the stable democracies they are now due to heavy direct investment in infrastructure of the kind I am advocating.

Get on the freaking speed dial then. Lets get the sons of Ieyasu out there.

I saw a funny Eddie Izzard clip along those lines once. About how we should parachute in Germans and Japanese to install peace, as they'd just land and go, 'Guys, we've done this before. Take it from us, not worth it.'

The problem with Japan though, is the whole self-defence conflict only ethos, although they've started to shift that lately.

The second part is capability. In order to mount an invasion, you require force projection capacity. The British, French, and Americans have global force projection capacity. Just about every other nation however, does not. They only have the capability to project force and influence locally. Even if Argentina decided tomorrow that they wished to invade Syria and bring peace and democracy (a relatively unlikely scenario), they simply would not have the means to do so. It is beyond their capacity. They simply do not have the military power projection required to do it. Neither do Qatar. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Egypt. Turkey would be capable, but they fall down thanks to the first reason (mindset).

It’s a land war. Egypt, Turkey, Saudia Arabia could all send troops and other forces. Kuwait could send aircraft. Seriously, these guys have weapons out the yin yang . They don’t have to cross the Pacific, just the border.

Might as well throw two US carreir fleet for Air Support while in the Med. Couple tomahawk loaded crusiers...Aegis cruiser? Still be a lose/lose for us...IF a US warplane nail a holding facility or transport carrying whatever agent then we became just as guilty as Assad for releasing it. Even if we use a fuel air bomb the collateral damage is to much

 Jihadin wrote:
Might as well throw two US carreir fleet for Air Support while in the Med. Couple tomahawk loaded crusiers...Aegis cruiser? Still be a lose/lose for us...IF a US warplane nail a holding facility or transport carrying whatever agent then we became just as guilty as Assad for releasing it. Even if we use a fuel air bomb the collateral damage is to much

That's also assuming that these weapons have centralised storage facilities and in some cases have not been issued to commanders in the field. That makes targeting them even more difficult, and the risk of collateral damage much higher - whether from the airstrike or the potential release of the agent.

 Jihadin wrote:
Might as well throw two US carreir fleet for Air Support while in the Med. Couple tomahawk loaded crusiers...Aegis cruiser? Still be a lose/lose for us...IF a US warplane nail a holding facility or transport carrying whatever agent then we became just as guilty as Assad for releasing it. Even if we use a fuel air bomb the collateral damage is to much

Is there no way, short of the obvious and unusable one, that we can neutralize such facilities with a minimum of collateral damage?

I beg your pardon? What you just said has absolutely no relation to what I just said.
I mean, are you actually even reading this? Because if you hoenstly think that that was some kind of rebuttal, you're not even playing in the same squash court here.

You basically said only democracies have the ability to help people. Its wrong.

...what? Sorry, that was a quote referring to why other countries would be less than keen to install democracies, due to not being them themselves. How on earth does that have anything to do with the difficulty or lack thereof in translating Western concepts of government?

Again, different squash court. I mean, if I was going to respond in a similar fashion to you now, I'd have to say something like, 'Well South America has democratic leanings!' (in other words, something completely unrelated to the actual point, but vaguely related to another point made elsewhere).

Who is saying we have to install a democracy? We were talking about stopping people from using gas weapons. You cannot translate western governments to places that are resistant to western thoughts, it doesn't really work. You still are using this West is right mentality that others find pretty offensive.

Nightmare? I don't know. Japan, Germany, and South Korea seem to be doing alright for themselves.

Again completely different situations. None of those countries was surrounded by radical islamists that will corrupt the operation. Your closest comparisons should be are Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, where outside influences really played a destabilizing role.

So wait. The reason that autocracies don't install occupy other countries and install democracies is because its pointless and costs too much?

Mate, seriously? I mean, are you actually for real? I'm starting to wonder if this is just someone having a laugh now. No-one could be this daft.

Again with democracies? The reason other countries don't step in to help the situation is because it's pointless and costs to much. Trying to install a Democracy is even more pointless.

I'm not talking about completely uprooting the culture and turning them in americans or englishmen, or frenchmen, etcetc. Just a loyalty to law and order, and a government not run down by corruption with the potential to revert to autocratic atrocities.

That pretty much uproots their culture. You need to study middle eastern society better. Western style Democracy is not going to work with their culture.

I don't believe I named any specific incursions? You seem to be jumping to misprove words you just placed in my mouth. In essence, you're kind of arguing with yourself for that one.

No now you are trying to be daft. You said most of the engagements that I was speaking about were when the US went in Solely and/or for selfish reasons. "Most" is what you said. So what engagements are you talking about then?

That's amusing. Because historical precedent would disagree there, from the Romans on up.

Sure history since before the firearm maybe. There is no precedent for what you are describing. Japan and Germany are not even close to this.

Andrew, I'm going to leave this one there with you. I think I've sunk enough of my life into trying to reason with you. You keep throwing up strawmen, and bending what I've said so far out of context and proportion, that it makes my head hurt just trying to understand what you're telling me I've supposedly said.

And to be frank, if I can't even understand what you're telling me I said, something has gone severely wrong in the communicating process. That's the stage I give it up as a lost cause.

I think it's fair to say there is little appetite in the us or uk for spilling any more blood in the Middle East. The us has lost thousands of soldiers over the last few years, and the uk several hundred. Other NATO countries, very little by comparison.

Can we honestly say that Iraq or afghan has changed so much? Sure, we've offed a couple of tyrant dictators. We're supposedly in the final stages of having troops in the Middle East. Is anyone on the forum genuinely confident that those countries won't have new dictators in another 10 or 20 years?

Europeans have been warring with the Middle East since the Middle Ages, and there's still no sign of reconciling a workable shared world view.

If other countries want to step up to the challenge for a change, I'm sure we'd be happy to rent them some equipment. But I thought the idea of missiles, drones and the like is a better idea, with the bill split equally amongst NATO members. It's the way warfare is heading anyway.

Apart from the us' new ship laser. Mount that puppy up in a mega tank. I want to see that thing in action.

I find it ironic that some people are willing to commit US troops in another ME country. Similiar to the stance with going into Afghanistan and Iraq.....then it went into years and their stance change. Those voicing to go in need to do a deployment first before being motivated to deploy troops. Its not a cake walk when democracy clashes with muslim country.

edit
Would laugh my arse off though if half the chemical weapons were from Iraq.

 Jihadin wrote:

edit
Would laugh my arse off though if half the chemical weapons were from Iraq.

There's no way we would know if that were true...right?