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.

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

The you're either lying or ignorant, which is it?

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Right, but according to you someone should have gone in even before gas was used. SO WHERE WAS CANADA? I'd be more than happy to see Canada, send it's massive military over there and show us Mericans how it's done.

Funny thing is that I asked that question fifteen posts before you did, I'm still waiting on an answer

 Frazzled wrote:

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

The you're either lying or ignorant, which is it?

While I might be the latter, I don't exactly think so. The reason they propped up regimes that would at first glance be anithema to their supposed moral outlook was for either economic gain or for containing soviet influence. Some of these failed spectacularly, others where somewhat successful, the perceived gain of propping up these various regimes must have outweighed the cost otherwise why would they do it?

As to the question where is Canada, well we were in Libya, we were in the Sinai, we were in the Golan Heights, we were in Afghanistan. We didn't go into Iraq because we thought you were lying to us and that it would be a stupid waste, and we've already said we would go into Syria if we found some friends willing to go along for the ride. We simply don't have the logistical power necessary to project force at that distance by ourselves. That would be like asking Holland to invade Madagascar because of a humanitarian crises. I don't doubt they would like to help, they simply don't have the means to do so in a meaningful way.

 azazel the cat wrote:

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.

Welp... I'm done here folks. Azazel just agreed with me on something. I need to go sit down...

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Not to mention that Iran would not think twice about mining the Straits of Hormuz, blocking 20% of the world's supply of oil (35% of the petroleum traded by sea) which would necessitate military action to tackle that problem also.

So, are you claiming that Iran would not think twice about endangering the only state industry it possesses?

ahem... Powell said it best. (didn't Chesty P say this too?):

 whembly wrote:
ahem... Powell said it best. (didn't Chesty P say this too?):

Germany would have lost by 1918, America or no America, it's manpower reserves were depleted while France and Britain could draw upon limitless colonial reserves. And honestly to defeat Germany in world war 2 all that was really needed was to funnel supplies to the Soviet Union and United Kingdom, Germany's materiel disadvantage was so great that they never had a hope of winning the war. None at all, by all rights Germany should have lost much earlier, their success is way out the left field if you examine the resources disadvantage they had, but looking at the numbers, Germany was doomed to defeat the moment it picked a fight with the entirety of the British Empire. As for defeating communism, some would say internal schisms created by Gorbachev's reforms were more responsible for that than anything else.

 Kain wrote:

Germany would have lost by 1918, America or no America, it's manpower reserves were depleted while France and Britain could draw upon limitless colonial reserves. And honestly to defeat Germany in world war 2 all that was really needed was to funnel supplies to the Soviet Union and United Kingdom, Germany's materiel disadvantage was so great that they never had a hope of winning the war. None at all, by all rights Germany should have lost much earlier, their success is way out the left field if you examine the resources disadvantage they had, but looking at the numbers, Germany was doomed to defeat the moment it picked a fight with the entirety of the British Empire. As for defeating communism, some would say internal schisms created by Gorbachev's reforms were more responsible for that than anything else.

Um... okay:

 dogma wrote:
So, are you claiming that Iran would not think twice about endangering the only state industry it possesses?

I don't have to claim it, they already have threatened to do so over sanctions. So when it concerns an important regional ally and pipeline to their proxies in Lebanon I think it is a very definite possibility

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/15/us-iran-hormuz-idUSBRE86E0CN20120715

Iran renewed threats on Sunday to close the Strait of Hormuz unless sanctions against it were revoked, though it remains unclear how Tehran could shut down the vital oil shipping channel given the significant American military presence there.

The Iranian parliament is considering a bill calling for the strait to be closed. The assembly has little control over national defense and foreign policy decisions and, while the bill would be largely symbolic, it would indicate the legislature's support behind any leadership decision to close the strait.

"(Under the bill) the closure of the Strait of Hormuz will continue until the annulment of all the sanctions imposed against Iran," lawmaker Javad Karimi Qoddousi was quoted as saying by the Fars news agency.

The bill will be taken up by parliament this month, said another lawmaker, Seyed Mehdi Moussavinejad, Fars reported.

Foreign and national defence policy rests with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Iran has repeatedly threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz shipping channel, through which 40 percent of the world's seaborne oil exports passes, in retaliation for sanctions placed on its crude exports by Western powers.

The sanctions were imposed over Iran's nuclear programme, which the West suspects is aimed at creating an atomic weapon and Tehran says is for peaceful energy purposes.

The United States has beefed up its presence in the Gulf, adding a navy ship last week to help mine-clearing operations if Iran were to act on its threats.

The Iranian chief of staff of the armed forces, Seyed Hassan Firouzabadi, said on Sunday that any decision to close the strait would have to come from Khamenei, with the Supreme National Security Council advising him, according to Fars.

Military analysts have cast doubt on Iran's willingness to block the slender waterway, given the massive U.S.-led retaliation it would likely incur.

Alarmed by the Iranian threats, the United Arab Emirates has completed a long-awaited oil export terminal on the Gulf of Oman, loading the first cargo on Sunday. The Gulf OPEC member hopes to increase exports from the new facility to around 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd).

An Iranian official said on Sunday that the UAE pipeline would not be able to meet the world's oil demand if the Strait of Hormuz were closed

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/operations/238061-iran-restarts-threats-over-closing-straight-of-hormuz
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/09/navy-exercise.html
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/threat-to-close-strait-of-hormuz-is-no-bluff-says-iran-commander-1.451210
http://rt.com/news/hormuz-drill-iran-weapons-923/

 whembly wrote:

 Kain wrote:

Germany would have lost by 1918, America or no America, it's manpower reserves were depleted while France and Britain could draw upon limitless colonial reserves. And honestly to defeat Germany in world war 2 all that was really needed was to funnel supplies to the Soviet Union and United Kingdom, Germany's materiel disadvantage was so great that they never had a hope of winning the war. None at all, by all rights Germany should have lost much earlier, their success is way out the left field if you examine the resources disadvantage they had, but looking at the numbers, Germany was doomed to defeat the moment it picked a fight with the entirety of the British Empire. As for defeating communism, some would say internal schisms created by Gorbachev's reforms were more responsible for that than anything else.

Um... okay:

I just get nitpicky whenever I see people overstate the Nazi threat. What they did was horrible but there was literally no chance for them to carry out their goals.

As to the question where is Canada, well we were in Libya, we were in the Sinai, we were in the Golan Heights, we were in Afghanistan. We didn't go into Iraq because we thought you were lying to us and that it would be a stupid waste, and we've already said we would go into Syria if we found some friends willing to go along for the ride. We simply don't have the logistical power necessary to project force at that distance by ourselves. That would be like asking Holland to invade Madagascar because of a humanitarian crises. I don't doubt they would like to help, they simply don't have the means to do so in a meaningful way.

Sure you have sent token forces, but you have never handled any proportion like the US is regularly called on to provide. You don't want friends along for the ride, you need a ride and lots of friends to back you up.

You don't have the logistics power, because you don't want it. Canada would rather (and rightly so) spend money on infrastructure and providing services to it's people. Have you looked at Canada? You pay basically the same taxes we do in the US but you get all these free socialist programs, why? Because you don't spend anything on the Military. If Canada wanted to have force projection it could, but why would you when you can always just rely on the US to do your work for you, and you can then critique it from your couches.

It's time the US took some notes, starts spending money on itself and asks it's allies to handle the Wars for awhile. Until that time comes all the Armchair Generals need to stop telling us what to do with our military.

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

Good, then obviously we are incompetent at it, we are going to sit this one out and let our allies show us how to do it properly.

I just get nitpicky whenever I see people overstate the Nazi threat. What they did was horrible but there was literally no chance for them to carry out their goals.

I just don't know what to say? This is pretty ignorant, while the US fairytale of us coming in and saving the world single handedly is false, we were needed and the Nazis were a very real threat. I don't want to get into here, this thread is done literally every week on dakka.

There was a solid chance of them negotiating peace before American intervention. Peace with Britain would have assured the defeat of Russia.

Granted, Hitler not being a tool and attacking the right Russian targets would have assured Russia's defeat and Germany acquiring the resources it needed to face the west down.

 djones520 wrote:
There was a solid chance of them negotiating peace before American intervention. Peace with Britain would have assured the defeat of Russia.

Granted, Hitler not being a tool and attacking the right Russian targets would have assured Russia's defeat and Germany acquiring the resources it needed to face the west down.

Doubtful, Hitler gave all the right orders. The "stand fast" order for example was exactly the right one. Addittionally, once the Siberian divisions were in play, taking Moscow was impossible, and once Moscow was lost, the entirety of the War was lost for Germany. Britain could have grounded down Germany by drawing upon the vast wealth and manpower of the Commonwealth if it was really serious. Germany's defeat was inevitable, Hitler's dreams of global conquest being nothing more than an impossible fantasy.

 whembly wrote:
ahem... Powell said it best. (didn't Chesty P say this too?):

Somewhere, Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong are both pointing at this image macro and laughing so hard tears are running down their faces, barely able to chortle out "this is what they really believe!"

 Ouze wrote:

c="http://www.cavemancircus.com
Somewhere, Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong are both pointing at this image macro and laughing so hard tears are running down their faces, barely able to chortle out "this is what they really believe!"

Hey man... it's because our our best AND worst trait. 'Murrica!

I'm not sure which I find more amusing: dreadclaw's attempts at comparing Canada aiding the US in Afghanistan with the US overthrowing a democratically elected government and replacing it with a loathed Shah to help privatize oil interests; whichever silly child said "yer nor Merican so shut up!", or that goddamned hilarious meme of Whembly's, which is so dumb it would take me all day to cover each reason via iPad.


DJones20: I think It's just the gun rights vs. gun privileges debate we are diametrically opposed to.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I'm not sure which I find more amusing: dreadclaw's attempts at comparing Canada aiding the US in Afghanistan with the US overthrowing a democratically elected government and replacing it with a loathed Shah to help privatize oil interests; whichever silly child said "yer nor Merican so shut up!", or that goddamned hilarious meme of Whembly's, which is so dumb it would take me all day to cover each reason via iPad.


DJones20: I think It's just the gun rights vs. gun privileges debate we are diametrically opposed to.

How can you have this "gun rights vs. gun privileges" debate? We have 2nd amendment... you don't. The. End.

And it's Friday! It's time to be cheeky!

 azazel the cat wrote:
I'm not sure which I find more amusing: dreadclaw's attempts at comparing Canada aiding the US in Afghanistan with the US overthrowing a democratically elected government and replacing it with a loathed Shah to help privatize oil interests

Maybe the most humorous is your inability to counter my arguments, or your inability to counter the very words you posted yesterday when they do not suit the argument you put forward today, or ignoring the other examples which don't suit you

I'm not sure which I find more amusing: dreadclaw's attempts at comparing Canada aiding the US in Afghanistan with the US overthrowing a democratically elected government and replacing it with a loathed Shah to help privatize oil interests; whichever silly child said "yer nor Merican so shut up!", or that goddamned hilarious meme of Whembly's, which is so dumb it would take me all day to cover each reason via iPad.

Azazel again, any time Canada wants to show us how it is done I will gladly pay my own way over and take notes and pictures. Right now Canada is just as guilty of doing nothing as anyone else is, except for the fact that Canada couldn't do it even if they wanted to, because it's easier to expect us to. Finance your own military with force projection and you can start having fun with the world. Until then, yeah, shut it.

"Your meddling makes the world worse and you are terrible at it, you should do more of it." is basically what you are saying. We are getting sick of the world telling us what to do with our military. GO GET YOUR OWN!

 whembly wrote:
ahem... Powell said it best. (didn't Chesty P say this too?):

"...um, and those Overseas Territories we acquired. But we're not an empire. Honest."

 Albatross wrote:
"...um, and those Overseas Territories we acquired. But we're not an empire. Honest."

**looks at flag of poster -
Good thing the UK doesn't have anything like that then or people would think you're being hypocritical. I mean its not like you have;
Diego Garcia
Gibraltar
Northern Ireland
Falklands
Akrotiri and Dhekelia
Anguilla
Bermuda
British Antarctic Territory
British Indian Ocean Territory
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Montserrat
Pitcairn Islands
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Turks and Caicos Islands

Not to mention all those countries tied to the UK through the Commonwealth

 Albatross wrote:

 whembly wrote:
ahem... Powell said it best. (didn't Chesty P say this too?):

"...um, and those Overseas Territories we acquired. But we're not an empire. Honest."

??? you mean Okinawa? Phillipines? The Moon?

All joking aside, we do own the moon, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
no seriously guys

 Ouze wrote:
All joking aside, we do own the moon, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
no seriously guys

Lol Ouze .

Well, there's a flag on it, amirite?




(if it's not clear, the above is sarcasm!)

 Ouze wrote:
All joking aside, we do own the moon, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
no seriously guys

http://sciencefocus.com/feature/health/who-owns-space wrote:[...]What framework there is today comes mainly from the Outer Space Treaty drawn up by the United Nations in 1967. “It’s the Magna Carta of space, from which all future laws are likely to develop,” says Newman. Negotiated during the race to the Moon, the Treaty headed off territorial disputes by barring outer space and celestial bodies from all ‘national appropriation’. But, reflecting its time, no mention was made of individuals or private companies.

This loophole permits private property in space: so goes the argument of US entrepreneur Dennis Hope. He filed a claim for the entire Solar System in 1980, going on to earn millions by selling lots on the Moon, Mars and Venus online. Hope’s claim is contested by many, however, including businessman Greg Nimitz, who asserted ownership of asteroid 433 Eros in advance of a NASA probe landing on it in 2001. “Individuals have the inherent right to claim un-owned things, without the interference of governments,” says Nimitz.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I'm not sure which I find more amusing: dreadclaw's attempts at comparing Canada aiding the US in Afghanistan with the US overthrowing a democratically elected government and replacing it with a loathed Shah to help privatize oil interests

Maybe the most humorous is your inability to counter my arguments, or your inability to counter the very words you posted yesterday when they do not suit the argument you put forward today, or ignoring the other examples which don't suit you

I'm not making the connection that you are, so you're gonna have to spell it out for me. Go on, please. Tell me what horrible act Canada has been involved in. I'll wait.

Are you implying that as a Canadian, I should keep quiet, because Canada assisted the US in supplying troops to Afghanistan? Because I wish Canada sent more troops and aid to Afghanistan. That place is full of some seriously need-to-be-dead MFs, and I support sending in as many pairs of boots on the ground as required to do that job, followed by funding to build proper infrastructure like schools and hospitals during the aftermath.

Please do not attempt to compare the efforts to eliminate the Taliban in Afghanistan with the US government overthrowing a democratically-elected government in Iran in order to install an oil-industry-friendly dictator.

Andrew1975 wrote:

I'm not sure which I find more amusing: dreadclaw's attempts at comparing Canada aiding the US in Afghanistan with the US overthrowing a democratically elected government and replacing it with a loathed Shah to help privatize oil interests; whichever silly child said "yer nor Merican so shut up!", or that goddamned hilarious meme of Whembly's, which is so dumb it would take me all day to cover each reason via iPad.

Azazel again, any time Canada wants to show us how it is done I will gladly pay my own way over and take notes and pictures. Right now Canada is just as guilty of doing nothing as anyone else is, except for the fact that Canada couldn't do it even if they wanted to, because it's easier to expect us to. Finance your own military with force projection and you can start having fun with the world. Until then, yeah, shut it.

"Your meddling makes the world worse and you are terrible at it, you should do more of it." is basically what you are saying. We are getting sick of the world telling us what to do with our military. GO GET YOUR OWN!

You sound butthurt. I could ignore you, but it's far more fun to point out that the US is our army. Canada has a great relationship with y'all; it's kinda like Master Blaster from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.

But no, "your meddling makes the world worse and your are terrible at it, you should do more of it" is not what I am saying. I think someone actually did say that, but that's not me. What I am saying is quite clear: the US has made some horrendous foreign policy decisions in the past (and some good ones). Not getting directly involved in Syria early on will end up being one of the bad ones; which is just compounded by the fact that it's yet another bad decision in a region where the US could really benefit from one or two good ones right now, as the region's instability could be viewed as a tipping point, and the positive influence from the US would likely be a boon that could ripple through the region. Unfortunately, this is not the course you seem to think should be taken. Given the phrasing of your objection, I'm attributing it to either immaturity or else a serious myopic condition. And again, let me be clear: I'm separating you from Dreadclaw in this, because while he (I assume) & I evidently disagree on this point, he at least has a well-considered objection with a foundation beyond "SHUT UP BECAUSE MURICA RON PAUL 2016", of which it appears cannot be said of you.

So while I will not fulfill your request to shut up, I will happily ignore your impotent, butthurt-sounding whines.

Ouze wrote:All joking aside, we do own the moon, right?

No. Article II of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 explicitly prohibits state ownership of any celestial body; declaring them to be the common heritage of all mankind.

And so I go, a wiser and sadder man.


Although private ownership is actually sort of awesomer, come to think of it. That sets the stage for a full-blown Weyland-Yutani type future.

Ouze wrote:And so I go, a wiser and sadder man.


Although private ownership is actually sort of awesomer, come to think of it. That sets the stage for a full-blown Weyland-Yutani type future.

That private ownership is not recognized by any country that counts for anything. I can't remember which one, but I recall some tinpot dictatorship was acknowledging someone's private ownership. Nobody else, though. So you could spend $150 on a piece of paper that says you own a piece of the Moon, but I'd be happy to sell you one that's just as valid for half the price.

Its just another stupid treaty. I say finders keepers. There's plenty of space out there for entire nations. Its silly to say we have to share the entire thing.