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.

Several posts within this thread are skirting the boundary between assertive discussion and insulting other posters. Consider this a final warning for all involved. Thanks.

Azazel, you are right we messed up Iran with our meddling, through various other attempts at meddling the US has a bad name in the Middle East. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us that no amount of school building or PR is going to change that for us. Even more reason for our NATO allies to go in there without us.

If NATO was really serious about tackling Syria they could have done it by now, but it's just so much easier to get the US to do it. The problem is that the US military will just put everybody in an attack posture and make any mission harder. So again, if NATO wants to fix this thing its a much better idea to go in there without us. Maybe our allies hold the key to taming the middle east, that's fine fine with us. I really doubt it though, but you are welcome to try. Surely the combined resources of NATO (sans the US) are more than enough to fulfill this little mission without us, and if not, well maybe our allies need to spend a little more money and figure out how accomplish some goals without us or with us doing mostly a supporting role. We can accept that, what we can't accept is constantly doing the heavy lifting and then being blamed when things go wrong, and/or getting blamed for problems because the rest of our allies can't be arsed to do anything without us. Go do it yourself, the US is Closed for remodeling.

Turkey should lead it. The fact its a muslim CoC running ground operations will go much smoother. US and other caucasion pilots.....NO FLY ZONE.....

 Jihadin wrote:
Turkey should lead it. The fact its a muslim CoC running ground operations will go much smoother. US and other caucasion pilots.....NO FLY ZONE.....

Turkey could participate, but I don't know that they could handle it on their own, and again I don't even want US pilots. This may sound silly, but if we can't afford the Blue Angels or Thunderbirds to fly airshows anymore because of the sequester, I don't want our equipment being used for missions that our allies could accomplish, if only they were arsed enough to do it themselves. I don't want our military spending any money on missions that could be done by our allies while most of our allies have free medical care 43% of Americans didn't access medical services last year because of the cost http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/26/news/economy/health-care-cost/index.html?hpt=hp_t3. Yet here we are spending our military so that they don't have to. Here is the deal, we will handle global military, you just pay all of our medical bills.

I'd honestly like for someone to figure out a way for NATO to help coordinate and facilitate a task force from the Arab league. Let the Muslims and Arabs police themselves since they seam to get in an uproar anytime anybody else steps in their areas.

Wouldn't happen. To diverse and bad blood between tribes. Turkey would be the best bet or let the rusians handle it. Assad has to go and Iran cannot have a rots in Syria.

Andrew1975 wrote:Azazel, you are right we messed up Iran with our meddling, through various other attempts at meddling the US has a bad name in the Middle East. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us that no amount of school building or PR is going to change that for us. Even more reason for our NATO allies to go in there without us.

If NATO was really serious about tackling Syria they could have done it by now, but it's just so much easier to get the US to do it. The problem is that the US military will just put everybody in an attack posture and make any mission harder. So again, if NATO wants to fix this thing its a much better idea to go in there without us. Maybe our allies hold the key to taming the middle east, that's fine fine with us. I really doubt it though, but you are welcome to try. Surely the combined resources of NATO (sans the US) are more than enough to fulfill this little mission without us, and if not, well maybe our allies need to spend a little more money and figure out how accomplish some goals without us or with us doing mostly a supporting role. We can accept that, what we can't accept is constantly doing the heavy lifting and then being blamed when things go wrong, and/or getting blamed for problems because the rest of our allies can't be arsed to do anything without us. Go do it yourself, the US is Closed for remodeling.

You raise a good point. But I can't help but question the perception of Iraq & Afghanistan; which leads me to assume that one or both of us is wrong.

I've been under the impression that in a nutshell there are two types of people in Afghanistan: those who are generally okay with the US/Canada/everyone else fighting against the Taliban, and the Taliban (and feth those guys). I'm not overtly aware of any crap that the US has been taking for its efforts in Afghanistan. Maybe someone who's actually been there can correct me if I'm wrong on this one.

Iraq is a very, very different situation. I know the US took a lot of crap for going in under clearly false pretenses, and rightly so. But as I've said before, if Bush had said "Hussein is a dick, let's go get him" then I'd have actually supported the action. But that's not why the US went in; they went in because Cheney wanted to. The fact that it just so happened to be Saddam Hussein who was deposed was just a fringe benefit; it could have just as easily been the King of Jordan (who appears to be on the level) for all it mattered to logic or moral reasoning. The actual actions within Iraq were also about as bad as can be: between the dismissal of Iraq's standing army (which basically put hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers out of jobs and angry at the US for costing them their jobs) and the use of private military contractors of dubious professionalism, the US seemed to fail on all PR fronts and generally gave the impression they had no intention or idea how to help with rebuilding the infrastructure (again, not much of a focus on hospitals, schools or roads, etc.). Perhaps the most painful part, was that packing up and leaving before the job was done is basically what happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s after the US supplied them with money and training to help push the Soviets out of the country. Again, the US packed up and left, leaving no infrastructure; just a lot of unemployed, trained soldiers who were angry at the foreigners that cost them their jobs.

Now, if the US had gone into Syria right away, I cannot say that anyone would have learned from the past and done it right this time. But I like to think so, simply because the current administration lacks most of the hubris and spiteful meanness that the Bush administrations had.

Now, if the US had gone into Syria right away, I cannot say that anyone would have learned from the past and done it right this time. But I like to think so, simply because the current administration lacks most of the hubris and spiteful meanness that the Bush administrations had.

It's not just about learning from the past. It's about how the middle east functions. Afghanistan is a good comparison. Outside the cities the place is made up of all these tribes that have bad blood between them, and none of them want ANY foreigners to come in and tell them how to do anything. They get upset if you help another tribe. All they want is to have their tribe and be able to fight with other tribes and not to have anybody tell them what to do. They don't want us coming in and telling them they can't sell their underage daughters, or harvest poppies for opium. They don't let the legal government do it and they certainly don't appreciate non Muslims and non Arabs coming in and telling them what to do. Which is why its easier for the terrorists to get them to do what they want.

I think anyone that has this idea that westerners can go into the middle east and just setup shop is just not well versed at all in how the region works. The US was silly enough to believe that people would poo flowers out of their butts once we got rid of Saddam. It doesn't work that way. There were factions that didn't like the US, there were factions that didn't like Christians, hell the Muslim factions wanted to start killing each other and were upset we were not letting them. The place was a mess held together by fear of a vengeful repressive dictator. That is how a lot of the middle east works, the place is run by fear, and if they don't fear you then you have real problems. Which is why so many of the regions leaders are shown to be these powerful warlords, its also why the warlords act the way they do, once the people don't fear you they will take you down.

It's just too much work for no gain, and if you want to try to change it you are welcome to it. One day someone will tame the middle east, but its not going to be an outsider,and its not going to be any time soon.

I think the US should stay out.

Its a Shia Muslim vs Sunni Muslim sectarian conflict at its very core. If Syria was majority Shia and they were rising up violently against a Sunni dictator, the posture of Sunni Turkey, Sunni Jordan, all of the Gulf Monarchies(Sunni) would be completely different. The regional response and the coverage and bias from main Arab news channels such as Al Jazeera (Qatar) and Al Arabiyah (KSA) would be against the rebels.

Just look at the response from KSA when the Shia of Bahrain, the demographic majority, rose up against the Bahraini government, ruled by a Sunni Monarchy. They were "agents of Iran" or "Hezbollah collaborators" and such, despite little to no violence from the protesters. Sure, some sporadic fighting, but it usually ends up lopsided against the protesters. KSA actually sent in their Army to help quell the peaceful uprising.
Even our governments have been relatively silent on Bahrain, as the sect that is rising up would probably fall under Iranian (Shia) influence or be heavily aligned with them. I suspect our response to Syria would be different as well, had the sectarian position been reversed.

This Shia vs Sunni conflict has been essentially raging since their prophets body started cooling and it shows no sign of abating. Its the Muslims war, 100%. The Muslims started it, let the Muslims finish it.

Turkey has the second largest army in NATO and they are doing jack. We've sold billions of dollars in military equipment to multiple Gulf states and they are collecting dust. We train Saudi fighter pilots here in America and they are sitting on their thumbs. Turkey, Jordan, KSA, Qatar etc. need to put their big boy pants on and finish the job that their co-religionists started and that they have helped prolong with agressive diplomatic posturing against Assad.

This conflict is not worth the American treasure, equipment or most importantly, American lives. We should offer humanitarian aid and leave it at that. Its a tragedy, but I'm done with America being world police. What is the UN for?

If thats not enough for FSA and they deem it necessary to ally heavily with AQ/Nusra Front, thats their choice and they will have to own it when Salafis/wahabbis are making all the rules in their new state and it inevitably starts to eat itself again.

And that's how messed up the situation is. I mean besides the use of Chem weapons our ally Turkey is having its own internal issues with the Kurds and is accused of human rights violations against them, much as Assad was being accused. The Kurds were our Allies in Iraq! Nobody say gak about Turkey because they are in Nato. Yet the Turks give Israel a hard time about Israels (yet another US ally) treatment of the Palestinians. So how do you chose who to support and how? Trick question, It doesn't matter because anyone that cooperates with the west is looked down on, so the second that they can distance themselves from the west they will. Except for Israel of course because no matter what they do everyone in the region is going to hate them, so Israel and the US are a perfect fit.

Turkey takes in refugees from Syria and is being brought to task for how they are being treated? Apparently the facilities are not good enough! The Syrians that are in the camp are pissed at guess who? The west and turkey. Where is the anger for their rich Muslim/Arab comrades? Where are the rich Arabs/Muslims and their oil money to donate. The fact is they only care about each other when there is something to gain.

There is always somebody fighting someone, and some regime oppressing some group that claims independence and they are probably getting training from terrorist organizations. The region is just a political mess full of people who want to kill each other because there is nothing better to do. However you can't create infrastructure and jobs to give people something else to do, because someone will just come and blow it up or fight over it.

It's daunting and I can't really fault the US for trying, but I think by now we should have learned it's a fools game. You support whoever you need to to make sure the oil keeps flowing because honestly that is the only thing that makes the place worth caring about. If it's a maniacal repressive dictator, fine he's figured out the game, just keep giving us what we need. I don't care about those people or the region any more than that.

I personally can't wait for the day when we don't really need their oil so much and we can just sit back and watch the whole region slide into complete chaos. Who wins? Who cares! The only reason people care about what happens there is because of oil.

(deleting)

 Andrew1975 wrote:

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.

There are definitely instances in which the USA has intervened to preserve or install puppet regimes sympathetic to American values. You have satellites, you have client states. Just because it's not the 19th century any more, that doesn't mean that major powers don't shape the world in order to benefit themselves, trampling on the self-determination of others. Central America? The Middle East? Ringing any bells?

If we were an empire we would be getting Iraqi oil free, or at least cheaper than anyone else gets it, no?

No, not 'free'. That's not how it works. That's not how it worked under the British Empire either, strictly speaking.

Yes we influence the world and protect what we considers important resources and assets, but everybody benefits from that.

Not everybody. Also, those same arguments were made by the British Empire.

We are not building an empire and I'm not sure how you could classify the US as one.

Because I'm not using a primary school definition of what an empire is, as in, 'we send our guys over, they kill the others guys, stick a flag in the ground, now the land's ours'. When a country overthrows a democratically elected government in order to install a strongman puppet who, though he'll oppress and torture and murder, and generally be an appalling bastard to his vassals, is approved of and kept in place because he is sympathetic to US interests and keeps his country open for business, it's hard to argue that that country is not behaving like an imperial power. Again, I don't have a problem with it, but it's foolish to deny it goes on.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

It's not just about learning from the past. It's about how the middle east functions. Afghanistan is a good comparison.

Afghanistan is not in the Middle East.

Close enough for government work.

 Jihadin wrote:
Close enough for government work.

If that's the standard, then so are Georgia, Bulgaria, and Greece.

Because I'm not using a primary school definition of what an empire is, as in, 'we send our guys over, they kill the others guys, stick a flag in the ground, now the land's ours'. When a country overthrows a democratically elected government in order to install a strongman puppet who, though he'll oppress and torture and murder, and generally be an appalling bastard to his vassals, is approved of and kept in place because he is sympathetic to US interests and keeps his country open for business, it's hard to argue that that country is not behaving like an imperial power. Again, I don't have a problem with it, but it's foolish to deny it goes on.

Right, understood, but when was the last time that happened? When did we last overthrow a democratically elected government? Its been quite some time. I'm admitting that we influence the world, I'm just finding it hard to call it an Empire.

Not everybody. Also, those same arguments were made by the British Empire.

Fine, not everybody, but most. When we protect global oil interests the US doesn't get a special discount rate on oil. Oil is produced and sold on the open market, all people that use oil benefit equally from that including people who are not our allies.

Afghanistan is not in the Middle East.

Well the Middle east is not really all that well defined, if it truly is at all. Some people consider Afghanistan as part of "the greater middle east region". Whatever that means. Don't nit pick, I know you are famous for it, but people get the idea.

We have a decent track record post WWII of getting involved when we shouldn't and not getting involved when we should. It is part of our charm.

 Ahtman wrote:
We have a decent track record post WWII of getting involved when we shouldn't and not getting involved when we should. It is part of our charm.

Well that's called hindsight and opinion. Who know what would have happened if we didn't get involved, who knows what would have happened if we didn't. I kind am in the camp now that getting involved or not the place is a mess and no amount of intervention or non intervention is going to change that. So you might as well leave it alone for the most part, you still need to protect vital resources and interests, but just let the rest of the nonsense happen.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Well the Middle east is not really all that well defined, if it truly is at all.

No it is pretty well defined, and Afghanistan isn't a component of it by any reasonable definition.

Unless "Middle East" now means all countries with lots of brown, Muslim people that we don't like.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
We have a decent track record post WWII of getting involved when we shouldn't and not getting involved when we should. It is part of our charm.

Well that's called hindsight and opinion.

If you can figure out how to view history with foresight that would be a pretty neat trick.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
Unless "Middle East" now means all countries with lots of brown, Muslim people that we don't like.

Dearborn, Michigan is in the Middle East now?

Well, some parts of Detroit are pretty indistinguishable from Afghanistan, damaged infrastructure-wise.

 dogma wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Well the Middle east is not really all that well defined, if it truly is at all.

No it is pretty well defined, and Afghanistan isn't a component of it by any reasonable definition.

Unless "Middle East" now means all countries with lots of brown, Muslim people that we don't like.

Well, then you are still being overly critical because it is listed as a member of the greater middle east on more than one site. Is the greater middle east a even a thing? The term middle east is a Euro centric construct that most of the people living there have little real consciousness of.

I wouldn't consider Mexico the middle east and it is full of brown people .

Again your just being nit picky and wrong.

Dearborn, Michigan is in the Middle East now?

If you look at it, it makes more sense for Michigan to be in the middle east than the Midwest. Midwest of what? Its clearly in the mideast of the USA Maybe that's why people are so angry in Syria, they are still trying to find the offramp for Pittsburgh.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Because I'm not using a primary school definition of what an empire is, as in, 'we send our guys over, they kill the others guys, stick a flag in the ground, now the land's ours'. When a country overthrows a democratically elected government in order to install a strongman puppet who, though he'll oppress and torture and murder, and generally be an appalling bastard to his vassals, is approved of and kept in place because he is sympathetic to US interests and keeps his country open for business, it's hard to argue that that country is not behaving like an imperial power. Again, I don't have a problem with it, but it's foolish to deny it goes on.

Right, understood, but when was the last time that happened? When did we last overthrow a democratically elected government? Its been quite some time.

Depends on your definition of 'democratically' and 'elected'. Also, keeping a friendly dictator in power basically amounts to the same thing.

Not everybody. Also, those same arguments were made by the British Empire.

Fine, not everybody, but most. When we protect global oil interests the US doesn't get a special discount rate on oil. Oil is produced and sold on the open market, all people that use oil benefit equally from that including people who are not our allies.

How do you think it used to work? Stock-markets and international finance weren't invented in the 80s, man.

Claiming that the United States is an imperialist power can only be achieved by nullifying all other routes of global supremacy and declaring, "If you''re on top, you must be imperialist." At absolute worst, we're cultural imperialists. We own the world's most powerful military by leaps and bounds, but overwhelmingly, our influence is made manifest through economic and cultural means, not military conquest.

Not using the "primary school" definition of imperialism is a way to win the argument, I guess, because it means you can use "imperialist" to mean whatever the hell you want. I'm gonna go lace up my skates, grab my stick, and play some non-primary school definition football.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Now, if the US had gone into Syria right away, I cannot say that anyone would have learned from the past and done it right this time. But I like to think so, simply because the current administration lacks most of the hubris and spiteful meanness that the Bush administrations had.

It's not just about learning from the past. It's about how the middle east functions. Afghanistan is a good comparison. Outside the cities the place is made up of all these tribes that have bad blood between them, and none of them want ANY foreigners to come in and tell them how to do anything. They get upset if you help another tribe. All they want is to have their tribe and be able to fight with other tribes and not to have anybody tell them what to do. They don't want us coming in and telling them they can't sell their underage daughters, or harvest poppies for opium. They don't let the legal government do it and they certainly don't appreciate non Muslims and non Arabs coming in and telling them what to do. Which is why its easier for the terrorists to get them to do what they want.

I think anyone that has this idea that westerners can go into the middle east and just setup shop is just not well versed at all in how the region works. The US was silly enough to believe that people would poo flowers out of their butts once we got rid of Saddam. It doesn't work that way. There were factions that didn't like the US, there were factions that didn't like Christians, hell the Muslim factions wanted to start killing each other and were upset we were not letting them. The place was a mess held together by fear of a vengeful repressive dictator. That is how a lot of the middle east works, the place is run by fear, and if they don't fear you then you have real problems. Which is why so many of the regions leaders are shown to be these powerful warlords, its also why the warlords act the way they do, once the people don't fear you they will take you down.

It's just too much work for no gain, and if you want to try to change it you are welcome to it. One day someone will tame the middle east, but its not going to be an outsider,and its not going to be any time soon.

The ideas and language you use here almost points to a white man's burden attitude. I'm going to assume that is a result of only getting information from the US media.

Opium harvesting is done because that is where the money is. If the US goes in an burns a farmer's opium fields, and simply says "don't do that", then that farmer is going to curse you and laugh at you. But if you go in and burn the farmer's opium fields, and help him plant a different crop that will allow him to earn an income, then he'll likely stick with that one. Very few people support the Taliban out of anything other than fear (and sometimes economics). The best way to combat that is to take the fear away (kill the Taliban) and to replace the crutch of opium farming with other viable alternatives. The tribal mentality you describe is something that really stands out in the absence of infrastructure; which means the solution is to help build the infrastructure.

So, yes, you're damned right they don't want you going in and telling them that they can't harvest poppies for opium; because that's their income. How would you like it if your only job was taken away because the government said so. The Reagan-era "just say no" stupidity still informs many elements of the war on drugs; and unfortunately it now affects an actual war. You can't just burn & scold; you have to burn & plant alternatives.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Because I'm not using a primary school definition of what an empire is, as in, 'we send our guys over, they kill the others guys, stick a flag in the ground, now the land's ours'. When a country overthrows a democratically elected government in order to install a strongman puppet who, though he'll oppress and torture and murder, and generally be an appalling bastard to his vassals, is approved of and kept in place because he is sympathetic to US interests and keeps his country open for business, it's hard to argue that that country is not behaving like an imperial power. Again, I don't have a problem with it, but it's foolish to deny it goes on.

Right, understood, but when was the last time that happened? When did we last overthrow a democratically elected government? Its been quite some time. I'm admitting that we influence the world, I'm just finding it hard to call it an Empire.

Well, the US did overthrow the democratically-elected government of Iran in 1953...

...And then again in the Congo (now Zaire) in 1965, killing the democratically-elected president to install Mobuto (this one was a real prizewinner)

...And then again in Chile in 1973, killing the democratically-elected president to install Augusto Pinochet (another failure for human rights).


EDIT: These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more if you use Google.

 azazel the cat wrote:

The tribal mentality you describe is something that really stands out in the absence of infrastructure; which means the solution is to help build the infrastructure.

Not quite. They still suffer from this problem in Africa as well as the Middle East. Let me illustrate.

I am a member of Tribe X. So are all of my friends and family, and all my family going back hundreds of years. Around me is the land controlled by tribes Y and Z. These three tribes have been stabbing each other in the back and trading and warring since my tribe's memory begins more or less. All our food is grown locally in this area, and most of us never leave it. The local power balance is between the strongholds of our various tribes, and it waxes and wanes as the years go by.

Then one day, along comes a fellow from the faroff distant tribe F who says, 'Hey there. We're actually all part of the same tribe/group called National Group A. Now there's a bunch of us several hundred miles away, and we've come up with all these rules about what you can and can't do. And you need to send us money for this thing called tax.'

Naturally, the reaction is to laugh at this fellow and ignore him. And that's more or less the attitude that a lot of the people in Afghanistan take. There's a reason no Afghan government has ever controlled the entire country, You get a lot of this spread across Africa, Pakistan and so on as well.

This problem gets even worse when you realise that Tribe F more or less makes up the entire government and sets lots of laws to favour itself over the other tribes (especially Tribe Y, who was one of its local rivals). Because ultimately, not even Tribe F believes in 'National Group A'. It's just a speech they make to get more power and control for Tribe F. The result being that when Tribe Y have had enough and take control of power from Tribe F through violence, Tribe Y start saying the same thing as Tribe F, but they don't believe it anymore than F did. Meanwhile, some distance away, tribes X and Z more or less ignore them and get on with their own business.


The problem is that you can't instill a national identity in the space of a few years. Only two things are capable of creating it.

1. A gradual evolution where the various tribes fight it out and subsume each other until a tribe large enough to be called a country is left. That's how most of Europe formed.

2. A power arises either internally or externally with the force necessary to maintain the peace over the area, and inculcates it through education over time. As the older generations die out, the ones that grew up being taught that they were all National Group A cease to see the older tribal divisions. Naturally, those still alive at the same time as the older generations will hear secondhand accounts from their parents/grandparents and will still retain a vestige of that tribal identity. But as time passes, their kids, and grandchildren won't hear those tales so much. And as such, you end up with a situation where the population self identifies as a homogeneous lot.

Occupying a country at arms length for five years, building a few hospitals and training up Tribe F to dominate the others does not create a national identity, and merely perpetuates the cycle. Building a crapload of hospitals, railways, and power stations does not do that either.

I think you're generally correct, Ketara. But I don't see that as being incongruous with what I pointed out. I never said it would be easy, nor that it could happen overnight. If anything, I did suggest that the 5-year plans don't really work for the problem. My whole point was that if you want to see group Y not being laughed at when they ask for the tax, then they're going to need to supply some concrete, tangible benefit (such as hospitals and schools). Then, it'll take at least a generation for things to really start to take hold, but they will.

I never said it was a fast solution, and I really hope it didn't come across as such. But a hard, long-term solution is far better than not bothering at all, because it is hard.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Well, then you are still being overly critical because it is listed as a member of the greater middle east on more than one site. Is the greater middle east a even a thing?

Yes, the Greater Middle East is a thing which is distinct from the Middle East; a region that is basically Egypt, Turkey, Iran, the Arabian Peninsula, and all things in between.

Note that Afghanistan is not in between.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

The term middle east is a Euro centric construct that most of the people living there have little real consciousness of.

And since we're both English speakers it might do for us to understand what such terms actually mean.

 dogma wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Well, then you are still being overly critical because it is listed as a member of the greater middle east on more than one site. Is the greater middle east a even a thing?

Yes, the Greater Middle East is a thing which is distinct from the Middle East; a region that is basically Egypt, Turkey, Iran, the Arabian Peninsula, and all things in between.

Note that Afghanistan is not in between.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

The term middle east is a Euro centric construct that most of the people living there have little real consciousness of.

And since we're both English speakers it might do for us to understand what such terms actually mean.

No it is pretty well defined, and Afghanistan isn't a component of it by any reasonable definition.

So being part of the Greater middle east is not part of a reasonable definition? Again you are just nitpicking. If I said Somebody was from Chicago, are really the kind of person that would go. "Actually they are from Greater Chicago because they might live outside the city limits? Really just go away and give someone else a hard time.

The ideas and language you use here almost points to a white man's burden attitude. I'm going to assume that is a result of only getting information from the US media.

No it comes from the history of the region. You really don't seam to understand at all how these regions work, as proven by your attitude that Syria would have easily walked into waiting US arms if only we had gone before the terrorists arrived. All that would have happened is the terrorists would have shown up sooner, just to fight US soldier.

To me is sounds like your lazy and want the US to do everything for you. I hate to burst your sense of entitlement, but the US military is not your military. The sense of militery entitlement that our allies have is completely out of control. You want another 5-10 year excursion, you go pay for it. Go do it yourself if it is so easy. I'm sure Canada has a much better grip on Middle East politics than the US has.

.And then again in Chile in 1973, killing the democratically-elected president to install Augusto Pinochet (another failure for human rights).

So like 40 years ago right?

Depends on your definition of 'democratically' and 'elected'. Also, keeping a friendly dictator in power basically amounts to the same thing.

Keep moving those goalpost, I should be able to see them across the Empire soon.

How do you think it used to work? Stock-markets and international finance weren't invented in the 80s, man.

Is that how it worked for the East India Trading Company? IS that how it worked when the English empire looted the counties it conquered? Is that when happened when you set up colonies and taxed the hell out of them or just gave the land to your Nobles?

 Andrew1975 wrote:

So being part of the Greater middle east is not part of a reasonable definition?

Not a reasonable definition of the Middle East.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Again you are just nitpicking.

No, I'm teaching.

 dogma wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

So being part of the Greater middle east is not part of a reasonable definition?

Not a reasonable definition of the Middle East.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Again you are just nitpicking.

No, I'm teaching.

Hmm, if the greater middle east is not being a part of the middle east by reasonable definition, I believe it is you that are being unreasonable.