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.

Seriously. We're bashing Canada? WTF?! I rolled out the wire quite a few times with the Canadians and shared Tim Horton coffee with them to at KAF. We bleed with them.....Hell I remember when the rocket nailed their DFAC on KAF....NVFM..unbelievable...Canadian version Strykers rolling around Southern Afghanistan with Canadian license plates on them.....getting hit with IED's intended for our Strykers....

Jihadin wrote:Seriously. We're bashing Canada? WTF?! I rolled out the wire quite a few times with the Canadians and shared Tim Horton coffee with them to at KAF. We bleed with them.....Hell I remember when the rocket nailed their DFAC on KAF....NVFM..unbelievable...Canadian version Strykers rolling around Southern Afghanistan with Canadian license plates on them.....getting hit with IED's intended for our Strykers....

Try to ignore their impotent and misdirected anger. A few posters here have become quite upset that they've been called out on their jingoistic chest thumping.

 Jihadin wrote:
Seriously. We're bashing Canada? WTF?! I rolled out the wire quite a few times with the Canadians and shared Tim Horton coffee with them to at KAF. We bleed with them.....Hell I remember when the rocket nailed their DFAC on KAF....NVFM..unbelievable...Canadian version Strykers rolling around Southern Afghanistan with Canadian license plates on them.....getting hit with IED's intended for our Strykers....

Huh, and here we were being told that they were content to simply watch from their couch.

Thats why I lean towards Heinlien view point. If your going to deploy troops then you need to do at a term in the military just for the experience. So you know what your getting our troops involve in when one's in gov't.

We're one of the very few countries that can access our way into any country. Either by Sea....MEU....airfield seizure...82nd and Rangers. Our heavy hitters M1 and Bradleys along with Strykers 12 hrs behind to expand our foot print. We geared towards that. Germany is not geared towards that. France is not geared towards that. UK......well...two reinforce BDE on ground..best guess...I think its more. the US can have a Division in play with 12 hours around the world. Some countries are not geared towards that at all. Canada does not have the lift capability to move entire BDE at once. Their military not really design for that. They can fly their version of a Stryker in their C130 while we cannot. We have C17's that can tranport two at a time. C5 4 at a time...depending on temperature A lot of US equipment were being flown in on contract birds.....88N movement Coordinator...I don't care who you are and what country. What do you need for me to do to help you complete your mission since your missions have a tendency to run with ours.

There been times I hae to go retrieve another country armored vhicle and store it in our yards....thanks Gawd for TCN's so we can let them know where to come get it. The Canadian Strykers were easy....we get a Stryker driver from our Stryker BDE and make a trip across the FoB......joy ride you betcha and park it in their SMAJ spot. French F L..Germans...Brits....espacially their four wheelers..dang...on a rant here

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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

There is a massive difference between a possibility, and a thing which is certain. You implied certainty when you claimed that Iran would not hesitate to obstruct the Strait of Hormuz.

To put it differently, Iran has repeatedly threatened (as you demonstrated in the snipped portion) to obstruct the Strait of Hormuz, but it hasn't actually happened. This is an indication of hesitation.

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

Oh I'm sure it is fun for you. You get to have the Worlds best military do all the heavy lifting for you and not only do you not have to pay for it, but you don't even have to get your hands dirty, and you get to critique it. That does sound like fun. If only the US could get away with only spending 22 billion a year on military, that would leave 660 for us to spend on things the country needs. But then who would keep the world safe and protect western interests globally? Canada?

That's the whole BS part. They are not your army, they are not the worlds army or police force. You don't pay for them. I do and other Americans do. You want it to be your army and have a say in where and when it goes, then start paying for it. Better yet, send your whole army, we will even ferry them, don't worry about Canada, we will watch it while your boys are away. I know Canada has contributed in the past, but not like the US does. Yet you want to critique when we do things and you want to critique when we don't. We have more pressing issues and can sit this one out or provide logistics and support. Canada and our other allies can go ahead and use their resources and show us how its meant to be done.

What I am saying is quite clear: the US has made some horrendous foreign policy decisions in the past (and some good ones). Not getting directly involved in Syria early on will end up being one of the bad ones; which is just compounded by the fact that it's yet another bad decision in a region where the US could really benefit from one or two good ones right now, as the region's instability could be viewed as a tipping point, and the positive influence from the US would likely be a boon that could ripple through the region. Unfortunately, this is not the course you seem to think should be taken.

My objection is pretty clear, we don't need to go, there is no reason to go, there is no victory if we go, never was. Walking into Syria, no matter what anyone says was never going to be a cake walk, and would be another proxy battlefield filled with Coin warfare, IEDS and terrorists/insurgents. If our allies think otherwise they are welcome to give it a shot.

We're one of the very few countries that can access our way into any country.

And why is that? Maybe it has something to do with us spending more money than anyone else. If Canada spent what the US spends they would not have the great free health care that they are always talking about. It sure would be nice to have things like that in the US, but we have a military to pay for.

I personally don't have a problem with Canada, but as other have pointed out Azazel the cat use of yours and ours in your earlier statements shows that he believes the US military should be a Canada's beck and call. His response should have been our militaries should have gone in earlier, not your military or the US military. Which I still don't agree with, but it is at least less insulting.

Actually. If using a US Cargo bird they pay for the leg of that flight for that equipment. SO if its coming from Kuwait to KAF then the estimated cost of moving that one vehicle is if I remember correctly because later on we have to justify the move. $73,000

Out of that 73K

Fuel
Maintenance upkeep
Two off the bat.

British and the Marines have the same thing going at Leatherneck/Bastion

Only unit with freebies were medical units and EoD

 Jihadin wrote:
Actually. If using a US Cargo bird they pay for the leg of that flight for that equipment. SO if its coming from Kuwait to KAF then the estimated cost of moving that one vehicle is if I remember correctly because later on we have to justify the move. $73,000

Out of that 73K

Fuel
Maintenance upkeep
Two off the bat.

British and the Marines have the same thing going at Leatherneck/Bastion

Only unit with freebies were medical units and EoD

Awsome. We could make some loot by just being battle taxis. There you go Azazel we can even provide the ride for the great Mountie invasion of Syria.

 Kain wrote:

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

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

I'm not sure how the US involvement in the world wars is related to the topic of Syrian freedom fighters, however it should be noted that the USA got a number of overseas bases in compensation for its help in WW2, so the basis of the quotation is false.

I now return you to the original topic.

I'm not sure how the US involvement in the world wars is related to the topic of Syrian freedom fighters, however it should be noted that the USA got a number of overseas bases in compensation for its help in WW2, so the basis of the quotation is false.

I now return you to the original topic.

Yeah! Are those bases rent free? And even so all that means is we get to have bases so that we could defend Europe more easily, which is kind of Europe's job. Thanks a bunch!

Andrew1975, I think you're projecting your own unresolved baggage onto my earlier statement. But here's the short version: the US likes to laud itself as the leader of the world, and that's just fine, so long as ya walk the talk. And doing that means flexing your might for the right reasons. "it doesn't immediately benefit me and it's too hard" is not an example of such. Further, there are special circumstances here, as I've already stated: the US has historically done more to harm the Middle East than heal it, and generally made it's own bed insofar as earning a lot of the anti-American attitudes over there.

I can't say the same about Canada. We didn't overthrow any democratically-elected governments. So I'd call your attitude of making a mess and then thinking it's okay to just pretend it never happened is not only ignorant, but extremely juvenile as well. However, even beyond the rare circumstance wherein your moral obligation to fix your mistakes happens to coincide with what's in your long-term best interests, youre still not alone. Canada has still committed to aiding in our own way: the US spends it's money on tanks, so it can go in with the muscle. Canada spends it's money on social infrastructure and quality of life; so we have opened our doors to taking in refugees and offering aid. That's how we roll.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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

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

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

I'm sorry, did I post a huge picture of the Union Flag with a lion on the front of it and a bunch of jingoistic balls about saving the world but not asking for land? I'm pretty sure it was the other guy who did something like that. I'm well aware that Britain did what it did in the past and was smart enough to keep some land. I don't have a problem with that at all. What I do have a problem with is Yanks who finger-wag other nationalities about it, because they blatantly have a number of overseas territories (one of which has on it a... Well, is 'concentration camp' too strong a term for Gitmo?), even if most of their citizens seem do to be unaware of this fact. Some of them were even acquired in the 20th century if I'm not mistaken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

I'm not sure how the US involvement in the world wars is related to the topic of Syrian freedom fighters, however it should be noted that the USA got a number of overseas bases in compensation for its help in WW2, so the basis of the quotation is false.

I now return you to the original topic.

Yeah! Are those bases rent free? And even so all that means is we get to have bases so that we could defend Europe more easily, which is kind of Europe's job. Thanks a bunch!

None of which applies to Diego Garcia.

 azazel the cat wrote:
But here's the short version: the US likes to laud itself as the leader of the world, and that's just fine, so long as ya walk the talk.

Actually, I'm pretty sure we can say whatever the feth we want regardless of what we do or do not do. There's no reference check for that title, and I doubt many people give much of a gak who buys it and who doesn't.

This thread can be boiled down to, "All US intervention in the Middle East is bad, except for the stuff I want the US to do in the Middle East." Have fun with it, I guess.

 Seaward wrote:

Actually, I'm pretty sure we can say whatever the feth we want regardless of what we do or do not do.

The US can, but that doesn't make doing so wise.

 Seaward wrote:

There's no reference check for that title, and I doubt many people give much of a gak who buys it and who doesn't.

Except for you, all the people that have posted 'Murica stuff in this thread, and a whole bunch of people in the wider country.

 dogma wrote:
Except for you, all the people that have posted 'Murica stuff in this thread, and a whole bunch of people in the wider country.

I disagree with your position that all dogs should be shot for sport.

See? We can both make up stuff about each other.

 Seaward wrote:

I disagree with your position that all dogs should be shot for sport.

See? We can both make up stuff about each other.

I didn't make anything up. You represent yourself as a person who cares about America's image, and spoke emotively about it in this thread.

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

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

Shifting the goalposts I see, while dodging the other substantive arguments I've raised You said the US was responsible for Syria because of Empire builing elsewhere in the Middle East. I showed that Canada was also involved in the Middle East, and by your own logic was equally responsible.
If you want to mis-read and distort my argument that is your prerogative.

I'm still waiting for your response to my other posts too


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Seriously. We're bashing Canada? WTF?! I rolled out the wire quite a few times with the Canadians and shared Tim Horton coffee with them to at KAF. We bleed with them.....Hell I remember when the rocket nailed their DFAC on KAF....NVFM..unbelievable...Canadian version Strykers rolling around Southern Afghanistan with Canadian license plates on them.....getting hit with IED's intended for our Strykers....

No one is bashing Canada, or those who served in their military to the best of my knowledge. What people are objecting too are people in other countries who also have a stake in what happens in the Middle East demanding that the US be the one to go in. We're objecting to that.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Try to ignore their impotent and misdirected anger. A few posters here have become quite upset that they've been called out on their jingoistic chest thumping.

That's entirely correct.... if you entirely mis-read what people have posted to suit your own agenda and show that you'd rather smear others than engage in honest debate

 dogma wrote:
There is a massive difference between a possibility, and a thing which is certain. You implied certainty when you claimed that Iran would not hesitate to obstruct the Strait of Hormuz.

To put it differently, Iran has repeatedly threatened (as you demonstrated in the snipped portion) to obstruct the Strait of Hormuz, but it hasn't actually happened. This is an indication of hesitation.

It hasn't happened yet because they know the repercussions. However in the event of losing a vital ally and power in the region it becomes a much more viable course of action for them to take. Perhaps my original language was imprecise

 Albatross wrote:
I'm sorry, did I post a huge picture of the Union Flag with a lion on the front of it and a bunch of jingoistic balls about saving the world but not asking for land? I'm pretty sure it was the other guy who did something like that. I'm well aware that Britain did what it did in the past and was smart enough to keep some land. I don't have a problem with that at all. What I do have a problem with is Yanks who finger-wag other nationalities about it, because they blatantly have a number of overseas territories (one of which has on it a... Well, is 'concentration camp' too strong a term for Gitmo?), even if most of their citizens seem do to be unaware of this fact. Some of them were even acquired in the 20th century if I'm not mistaken.

No you didn't, but that's not what I said so please do not distort my words. I noted the hypocracy of someone crying "empire" when his own country has a long and inglorious history of the same. Including laying the foudations for many of the problems in Africa and the ME by creating countries that put together religous, ethnic and/or cultural groups with a history of animosity ("divide and rule"). And after the Boer War and other adventures abroad I'd be careful of throwing around the word "concentration camp", especially when the UK hardly has clean hands

Inglorious? The history of the Glorious British Empire is glorious by definition.

US likes to laud itself as the leader of the world,

Not really sure about that, its more like our allies have forced the situation on us. Whats really Juvenile is when countries that equally benefit form overseas adventurers could step in if they wanted, but tell the United Sates it's too hard for them to go in alone so, why doesn't the US send in their "meat shields" (as you put it in another thread) of democracy and spend their treasure for us. I love it when our NATO allies act like they can do nothing without us. I was unaware that NATO stood for Needs America To Operate!

 dogma wrote:
I didn't make anything up. You represent yourself as a person who cares about America's image, and spoke emotively about it in this thread.

In this thread, I've spoken emotively about my complete indifference to Syria.

I'm thoroughly uninterested in America's image. America's actions, on the other hand?

Seeing as this thread is getting interesting I just wanted to say please don't take my lack of responses as bowing out, my wife and I have guests coming for a week or so and I won't be on the forums as much, if at all

Keep up the good work everyone

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

It hasn't happened yet because they know the repercussions. However in the event of losing a vital ally and power in the region it becomes a much more viable course of action for them to take. Perhaps my original language was imprecise

Yes, they know the repercussions: the destruction of the source of income that keeps the government afloat.

I guess I just don't understand why you think the Iranian government would throw itself away because they lost a key ally.

 dogma wrote:
Yes, they know the repercussions: the destruction of the source of income that keeps the government afloat.

I guess I just don't understand why you think the Iranian government would throw itself away because they lost a key ally.

Except for the fact that their oil exports have been decreasing steadily so closing of the Straits might not be so devastating to them if there revenue source is already diminished. Besides the role of the Republican Guard isn't to keep the government in power, its to safe guard the Islamic Revolution. Losing ground and a shrinking power base could be catalysts for behaviour that does not seem rational to an outside observer.
In addition it would not be unheard of for a friendly government to help them financially with hard currency if it is part of the bigger game if it frustrates a rival power.

We are living in interesting times.

Revolutionary Guard, the Republican Guard was an Iraqi force.

And yes, its role is to protect the Islamic Revolution, but that is what the government embodies (especially the Guardian Council).


Edits: Typing and helping my parents clean before insurance assessor comes by.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
I'm sorry, did I post a huge picture of the Union Flag with a lion on the front of it and a bunch of jingoistic balls about saving the world but not asking for land? I'm pretty sure it was the other guy who did something like that. I'm well aware that Britain did what it did in the past and was smart enough to keep some land. I don't have a problem with that at all. What I do have a problem with is Yanks who finger-wag other nationalities about it, because they blatantly have a number of overseas territories (one of which has on it a... Well, is 'concentration camp' too strong a term for Gitmo?), even if most of their citizens seem do to be unaware of this fact. Some of them were even acquired in the 20th century if I'm not mistaken.

No you didn't, but that's not what I said so please do not distort my words. I noted the hypocracy of someone crying "empire" when his own country has a long and inglorious history of the same. Including laying the foudations for many of the problems in Africa and the ME by creating countries that put together religous, ethnic and/or cultural groups with a history of animosity ("divide and rule"). And after the Boer War and other adventures abroad I'd be careful of throwing around the word "concentration camp", especially when the UK hardly has clean hands

Absolutely. But, you see, you've stumbled upon my point. I would have preferred that you apprehended it from what I posted but I'll take 'stumbled upon it by accident' if it stops us going round in circles. America behaves like an imperial power. So did Britain and, to a very limited extent, it still does. Let me make this perfectly clear: I think that this is a good thing. I'd rather live in a world governed by British values than any other, and the Americans picked up that torch from us in the mid-20th century. They are continuing to run with it and I'm glad.

It's the hypocrisy of the Americans who deny their country's imperialist nature that I find obnoxious, mostly because they have a tendency to be 'holier-than-thou' about it, particularly towards us. It's not their fault though, they literally are holier than us!

That's probably where the pious finger-wagging comes from. America has benefited enormously from being the pole of a unipolar world, but let's not forget, it's a world they created, and continue to create, around themselves. Their hands are dirty just like ours. They just pretend that they aren't and that's irritating.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:Shifting the goalposts I see, while dodging the other substantive arguments I've raised

You have yet to raise a single substantive argument, and if I'm mistaken then it is because you buried it in a pile of rubbish that I don't feel like sifting through to get at.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:You said the US was responsible for Syria because of Empire builing elsewhere in the Middle East.

You said you were angry at my post because you never learned to read past a third-grade level.

See, I can put words in your mouth, too. So rather than waste everyone's time, why don't you quote me directly, rather than make things up. Because I'm pretty sure you're making a connection here that is patently false.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:I showed that Canada was also involved in the Middle East, and by your own logic was equally responsible.
If you want to mis-read and distort my argument that is your prerogative.

Your whining about misreading and distorting is incredibly ironic, and you are demonstrating that you don't actually understand how logic works. If you're still confused as to why I've ignored the bulk of your posts, it is because they are without value or interest to me. You try to put words in my mouth, (which is doubly stupid given this board has a quote system) and you make connections between statements that don't follow. The fact that you seem to think all involvement in the Middle East is equal is extremely telling of your ignorance on the subject in general, and quite frankly I don't feel like giving you a free History lesson just so you can play catch-up. You appear to be unclear on what, exactly, Canada's involvement in the Middle East is, and you equate it to the same level and direction of involvement as all other actions there. So if you cannot differentiate between Canada attempting to remove the Taliban, and the USA's removal of Mossadegh, then we have nothing to speak about.

You wrote something down. Hitler also wrote something down. Therefore, you are just like Hitler would be an example of the truly ridiculous comparisons you are constantly making in what appears on its face to be a smug, childlike attempt to appear clever. But your posts are not clever. They are depressing, because while I would like to be able to hold a real discussion with you, I do not feel like spending an extra half-hour per post just explaining what logical fallacies you are making. Given your demonstrated propensity for putting words in everyone's mouth, I think you'll be just fine if you just fine playing by yourself.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:I'm still waiting for your response to my other posts too

I'll address any post you make so long as you remove the ridiculously lies distortions, misrepresentations and start using the quote system. Otherwise it's not worth my time.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Try to ignore their impotent and misdirected anger. A few posters here have become quite upset that they've been called out on their jingoistic chest thumping.

That's entirely correct.... if you entirely mis-read what people have posted to suit your own agenda and show that you'd rather smear others than engage in honest debate

Everything after the ellipsis is ironic. Everything prior is correct.

Any operation would by necessity involve NATO. The only way we'd be able to effectively launch an effective intervention (whatever that might entail) in Syria would be through the use of bases in Turkey, Italy, and probably Spain and Germany as logistics bases.

Operationally, I could see a limited, joint combined air campaign to destroy Syria's air defense network and strategic weapons stockpiles. Follow this up with a no fly zone to ground Syria's helicopter fleet and call it good.

Strategically, I'm not sure what to do. Both sides of the coin are pretty gruesome. I think a lot of people in the US are wary of getting involved because they remember the grief we've gotten for propping up or setting up dictatorial regimes in the 70s and 80s. Ten years down the road, will people remember their cries for intervention if the FSA, now in charge of the country, are launching terrorist attacks around the world against the very people who were trying to help them?

 azazel the cat wrote:
You have yet to raise a single substantive argument, and if I'm mistaken then it is because you buried it in a pile of rubbish that I don't feel like sifting through to get at.

You said you were angry at my post because you never learned to read past a third-grade level.

See, I can put words in your mouth, too. So rather than waste everyone's time, why don't you quote me directly, rather than make things up. Because I'm pretty sure you're making a connection here that is patently false.

More insults and misdirection. You are really becoming quite predictable. But seeing as you missed it when I posted it, then re-posted it in a third page thread I'll post it here again;

You mean like the current regime in Syria which isn't exactly friendly with us anyway? Or the Russians and the Iranians who have a pretty big stake in Syria and what happens there. Apart from that the FSA has had long ties with AQ and other Islamist groups, the FSA's most capable fighters are from the AQ affiliated Al-Nurash. Which means that if we do go in and help the FSA we're strengthening our enemies as they'll have able to set up shop in Syria after the dust settles. So they'll have the ability to set up training camps and have access to whatever military surplus is floating around. So it'll be like Afghanistan after the Soviets left. And we all know how that went - hence my comment about my enemy's enemy. So whoever wins this conflict its not as if we're going to have a friendly partner going forward.

Unless of course you want intervention - that means going in with troops, keeping the peace, dealing with being caught between two sides that are hostile to our soldiers and each other, while trying to deal with the machinations of other interested parties, and investing billions in infrastructure and having to oversee that transition of power and hoping that both sides don't start killing each other again when we leave (See Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam, and Afghanistan after Sept 11), not to mention dealing with sectarian tensions that were previously kept in check by Assad (see Iraq after the over throw of Saddam). Then we have the problem of Turkey. If the Kurds there see us intervene then that might spur on their efforts to get a sovereign state thinking that we will intervene against an ally too (which could also have consequences for Iraq with its large Kurdish population).
Not to mention that Russia will be upset at the lost revenue from the weapon sales, and the loss of a strategic port in the region. This is problematic as they hold a UN veto and they are needed to tackle Iran's nuclear program, as well as North Korea. And its not to say that Russia would not be above turning off the gas (again) to our allies in Eastern Europe.
Then we have Iran. They have the ability to have their terrorist proxies in the Lebanon start to antagonise Isreal, and that leaves us with a spreading conflict in the region and one of our allies possibly needing support and other assistance. Not to mention that Iran would not think twice about mining the Straits of Hormuz, blocking 20% of the world's supply of oil (35% of the petroleum traded by sea) which would necessitate military action to tackle that problem also.

And all that is on the back of two wars in the Middle East, one of which has gone on for over a decade, and a severe shortage of money to start another foreign adventure. So given all this I am very interested in what your proposed solution and intervention looks like, as well as what assistance you think we should give the rebels.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I'll address any post you make so long as you remove the ridiculously lies distortions, misrepresentations and start using the quote system. Otherwise it's not worth my time.

You use that fall back position a lot.

So Azzy, you keep agitating of the US to go in and Empire build, despite pointing out how US intervention in the region to serve its interests hasn't helped the region. That is hugely inconsistent and smacks of wanting your cake and eating it;

 azazel the cat wrote:
Canada doesn't really play the empire game. We also aren't responsible for making a mess and then hoping it would clean itself up. Long story short, I think the US (which is the leading country in the free world) had a great opportunity to gain some points in a region that hasn't been too friendly for a while now, and missed its chance.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Because it does benefit you. It could have allowed you to have had a hand in creating another stable state in the Middle East, and likely one that would've been quite friendly to you had you helped them. However, now they've gone the "any port in a storm" route, and now whoever wins the civil war; you lose.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Dreadclaw69, I say you because Canada already has committed to going in if gas were used; and in fact had been on alert to do so since last winter. Additionally, I say you because it is you who is -somewhat- reviled in the Middle East due to several short-term, botched attempts to play the empire game in the last 60 years.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:Your whining about misreading and distorting is incredibly ironic, and you are demonstrating that you don't actually understand how logic works. If you're still confused as to why I've ignored the bulk of your posts, it is because they are without value or interest to me. You try to put words in my mouth, (which is doubly stupid given this board has a quote system) and you make connections between statements that don't follow. The fact that you seem to think all involvement in the Middle East is equal is extremely telling of your ignorance on the subject in general, and quite frankly I don't feel like giving you a free History lesson just so you can play catch-up. You appear to be unclear on what, exactly, Canada's involvement in the Middle East is, and you equate it to the same level and direction of involvement as all other actions there. So if you cannot differentiate between Canada attempting to remove the Taliban, and the USA's removal of Mossadegh, then we have nothing to speak about.

You wrote something down. Hitler also wrote something down. Therefore, you are just like Hitler would be an example of the truly ridiculous comparisons you are constantly making in what appears on its face to be a smug, childlike attempt to appear clever. But your posts are not clever. They are depressing, because while I would like to be able to hold a real discussion with you, I do not feel like spending an extra half-hour per post just explaining what logical fallacies you are making. Given your demonstrated propensity for putting words in everyone's mouth, I think you'll be just fine if you just fine playing by yourself.

So deliberate confusion of my point, strawmen, Godwin, avoiding any substantive discussion to play the ball instead of the player and trying to play the victim. That's quite impressive for such a short few lines.
You refuse to engage in any sort of honest debate time and time again and it shows. You ask me to show my arguments (after having posted them twice already for no reply), and now you say it doesn't matter "because they are without value or interest to me". Yet you still reply.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Everything after the ellipsis is ironic. Everything prior is correct.

Only if you're pushing an agenda with little concern for the actual facts. Oh, and jingoistic may not be the right word to use either, especially when people are advocating for the US to stay out of Syria;
"Jingoism is extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism
Unless you wish to redefine aggressive foreign policy as staying out of someone else's civil war

It's the hypocrisy of the Americans who deny their country's imperialist nature that I find obnoxious, mostly because they have a tendency to be 'holier-than-thou' about it, particularly towards us. It's not their fault though, they literally are holier than us!

Right, because we enslave other countries. If we were an empire we would be getting Iraqi oil free, or at least cheaper than anyone else gets it, no? Yes we influence the world and protect what we considers important resources and assets, but everybody benefits from that. We are not building an empire and I'm not sure how you could classify the US as one.

I'll address any post you make so long as you remove the ridiculously lies distortions, misrepresentations and start using the quote system. Otherwise it's not worth my time.

Azazel is just in love with moving goal posts

Okay, Dreadclaw69, I'll ignore the fact that you still seem to be having trouble with what I've been trying to explain, and I'll lay it all out for you in one place.

I think a lot of the hatred towards the USA in the Middle East is justified. The US has spent the past 60 years meddling in their affairs, to varying degrees of success. For example, I think the US taking an active part in the Iranian coup in 1953 was the single biggest mistake the US has made in that part of the world. Just about every problem the US has with Iran can be traced back to that event, wherein the US helped overthrow a democratically-elected head of state and transplant a Shah into direct power, simply because the elected government moved to nationalize oil production, whereas the Shah was far more accommodating to American corporate interests. The Iranian people weren't big fans of seeing their constitutional monarchy overthrown and turned into the USA's puppet dictator, and that's where Khomeini came in, because his Islamic extremism was always kept suppressed and in check from gaining any real traction by both the Shah and the government. However, without the government, the Shah became increasingly dictatorial, and thus alienated everyone in the middle of the two opposites: the pro-West views of the Shah and the hardline anti-West views of Khomeini et al. The reasonable, mostly-in-the-middle Iranians naturally sided with the nationalists (previously Mosaddegh's government) on the side of the Shah, but without that voice in government, it really became a choice between being OPEC's (which translated to America at the time) puppet following the mid-'70s oil bonanza, or the hardline -but still nationalist- religious fringe. So Khoneini came to power during the 1979 revolution, and would go on to become the donkey-cave that everyone knew he would be.

Let me put this into a relatable context for you: pretend Obama (like him or not, he's the POTUS) was removed from office by, say, Putin, and replaced with Bloomberg. Then Bloomberg gets increasingly dictatorial, and before you know it, things have polarized to the point where you can either support Bloomberg, or you can side with, uh, let's say Pat Roberts. While you don't really trust Pat Roberts and think he's a little too crazy for you, you still like him more than Bloomberg, because Bloomberg is tyrannical and does whatever Russia tells him to; your Constitution be damned.

Anyway, that's the situation that the US created in Iran, in a nutshell (and England helped a little, too). But the US has also made some very good decisions in the Middle East, such as going into Afghanistan to fight against the Taliban (seriously, feth those guys). Unfortunately, many of the decisions the US has made in the region tended to follow this kind of pattern:

"Yeah, insert dictator name here is an donkey-cave and reviled by his own people whom he oppresses and tortures, but he's friendly to our interests, so let's keep supporting him, because we can't rely on liberated people to be friendly to us. They might, but we'll stick with the devil that we know."

Now, when you look at Syria, you tend to have just about that same situation, except the US wasn't gaining anything (to my knowledge) from the existing government. And the people hated the regime. So the US could have gone in an aided in the revolution, in hopes that the new Syrian government would be friendly to the country that helped put it there (likely), and that the people would also recognize the US's efforts to liberate them (also likely). The key is showing that it is the US doing it for them and not for oil interests or to play empire. Kind of like when your coworker asks you to help him move, and in doing so, you don't actually ask your coworker to give you a piece of his new place. However, perhaps the most important part would be in offering aid to civilians in the war-torn country, and then helping the new government set up their own infrastructure until it is strong enough to sopport itself, because that is the citical time period where the extremists and nutjobs come in.

Will the US ever be universally loved? No. Hell, there areeven families of Canadians who were killed in a friendly-fire incident who bitterly hate the US. And it's hard to blame them. But they're not representative of the whole. Just like how you'll never win over the hearts and minds of the hardcore Islamist fundamentalists; but those groups are small, and without populist support they have no power. It's the middle ground that the US needs to try to win over, because a pro-US (or even neutral) middle-ground is all that is needed in order to keep the hardcore fundamentalists from taking hold. And this is incredibly important, because you can't kill terrorism with bullets; terrorism is a hydra. You can only kill it with schools, hospitals, and roads, until it whithers and dies.

What has happened in Syria could be seen as something of a tipping point: the people could have gone either way. But the US didn't intervene, as so the Syrians have turned to any group that will help them; in this case it's the radical Islamists. So while the US's help would not have guaranteed that Syria becomes pro-US, it would have been at least somewhat likely, provided the US didn't treat Syria's military like they did with Iraq's (as in, dismiss a standing army that might not have been full of true believers, but rather just trained dudes that needed their job). However, the lack of US intervention in Syria virtually guarantees that Syria will not be pro-US now that the radicals have begun to help them.

I do understand a lot of your points regarding Iran and Russia, but they are permutations of a slippery slope that's not even certain. Russia won't get pissed off at the US because it can't sell Syria weapons anymore to any degree that matters. And Iran won't blockade Hormuz because they always say they will and never do. I'm not saying repairing the US's image in the Middle East is going to be easy (because that would likely be the dumbest thing anyone has ever said, ever) but aiding Syria would have been a very good start.