Andrew1975 wrote:

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.

 dogma wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

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.

So if I say "This is an apple." and "This is an orange." I am free to call the orange a part of "Greater Apple"?

Andrew1975 wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

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.

So if I say "This is an apple." and "This is an orange." I am free to call the orange a part of "Greater Apple"?

No, not at all. But I can tell someone from California that I live in Cleveland, even though I'm really from Euclid (first suburb east of Cleveland). Its not inaccurate as Euclid is part of Greater Cleveland. Now maybe you would call me on it, but then you would be TFG.

Afghanistan is part of the Greater Middle east which is an extension on the middle east, so it is a reasonable comparison.

Everything You Need To Know About The Syrian Civil War

By Hayes Brown on Apr 29, 2013 at 10:35 am

Over the last several days, the Syrian crisis has exploded back into the news. As the U.S. debates how to respond to the now two-year long struggle, here’s the what you need to know:

How this all began

The current crisis in Syria began in 2011, with civilian protests launched during a wave of pro-democracy sentiment known as the Arab Spring. Those protests were met with harsh repression from the Syrian government under the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad. Assad’s regime continued to crackdown on protesters, eventually resorting to massive human rights abuses including torture, disappearances, extrajudicial executions and detention of medical patients. In response, civilians began to take up arms against the Syrian government, transforming a peaceful movement to increase democratic freedoms into an all-out civil war. Since the beginning of the conflict, more than 70,000 Syrians have died.

Who’s doing the fighting

Over the past two years, the make-up of the Syrian opposition has shifted considerably. In the beginning, the opposition was composed mostly of civil society leaders and Syrian citizens with a small armed group taking shape across the border in Turkey. Since then, the rebels have spawned an entire network of loosely affiliated groups fighting against the Assad regime — and each other at times. Instead of hiding across the border, rebels now openly control a large swath of territory in the north and west of the country as the Syrian government continues to push back.

While many of the rebel groups are secular, recent months have shown an influx of foreign fighters into the country, seeking to impose a harsh version of Islam upon Syria once the Assad regime falls. The U.S. has labeled one such group — Jabhat al-Nusra — a terrorist group for its close ties to Al Qaeda. These murky connections between the rebels and jihadis have proved difficult for Western governments seeking to effect the situation on the ground.

The effect on the Syrian people and the region

As time wore on in the conflict, the Syrian government unleashed more and greater violence was against civilians, including the use of armored vehicles, fixed-wing aircraft and mortars against whole neighborhoods. Making matters worse, rebels are now accused of taking part in atrocities as well.

This has all led to a massive humanitarian crisis in Syria and the surrounding region. As of March, more than one million Syrians have fled into the neighboring countries of Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, placing a massive strain on those states’ governments. According to the United Nations, over 4.25 million Syrians are now internally displaced within the country.

Did Syria use chemical weapons?

Whether or not the Syrian government utilized chemical weapons against its people is the primary reason Syria has exploded back into the news. Last week, the United States announced that it has evidence that chemical weapons were used in Syria, namely sarin. That revelation comes with several caveats, however: the chain of custody of the evidence the U.S. has isn’t clear, nor is exactly how the samples obtained were exposed to the chemical. The U.S. government has also not declared definitively whether or not it was the Assad regime that used sarin, an act that would cross a “red-line” the administration set forth as an action that would spur greater intervention.

The United States’ response

The Obama administration has declared several times that the Assad regime’s days are numbered and that the Syrian president must go. So far, however, the United States has stuck with its policy of providing humanitarian aid — more than $385 million worth to date — to Syria’s civilians and providing “non-lethal aid” to the opposition. That includes a recent decision to provide items such as night-vision goggles and bullet-proof vests to the rebels. The United States is also heavily involved in coordinating the flow of weapons to Syria from Gulf states while not providing such arms itself.

The question that remains is whether a greater U.S. intervention is necessary, and if so in what form. The range of possible responses under consideration range from directly providing arms to the Syrian opposition to establishing a No-Fly Zone in Syria to protect civilians and give the rebels cover to operate. The debate does not evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, with members on both sides advocating for swift action in Syria and members of both parties urging caution in proceeding forward. Even hawks like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), however, are coming out against the idea of American boots being on the ground in Syria.

The current policy towards Syria does not appear to be in the U.S.’ best interests, however. “It is time for a change in policy,” CAP experts said in a report on the situation in Syria released in February. “The United States needs to increase its assistance to the Syrian opposition with the goal of supporting an alternative opposition government that is better organized than at present.” The report says that the U.S. could offer to provide arms via the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces and the Supreme Military Council — the umbrella group that covers all of the opposition’s political and military operations — if it meets certain “organizational incentives.”

 Andrew1975 wrote:

No, not at all. But I can tell someone from California that I live in Cleveland, even though I'm really from Euclid (first suburb east of Cleveland). Its not inaccurate as Euclid is part of Greater Cleveland. Now maybe you would call me on it, but then you would be TFG.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

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

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Afghanistan is part of the Greater Middle east which is an extension on the middle east, so it is a reasonable comparison.

But this is all hand-waving designed to expedite conversation when a specific fact isn't central to the matter at hand.

So then is South America part of America?

Ratbarf wrote:It's part of the Americas.

And the middle east is pretty much any country that fell under the Umayyad Caliphate minus Spain and plus Turkey if one wants to use the average persons perception on the topic.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Ratbarf wrote:It's part of the Americas.

And the middle east is pretty much any country that fell under the Umayyad Caliphate minus Spain and plus Turkey if one wants to use the average persons perception on the topic.

The Umayyad Caliphate included Morocco and Portugal if I recall correctly; so no, I do not think that is the average person's perception.


EDIT: weird quoting goodness

 Andrew1975 wrote:


Maybe Morocco and Portugal are the "Pretty much" part of his sentence. For people that insist on complete accuracy, you and Dogma don't seam to actually read what people post much, and are wildly inaccurate when referencing other peoples posts.

 Ketara wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:


Maybe Morocco and Portugal are the "Pretty much" part of his sentence. For people that insist on complete accuracy, you and Dogma don't seam to actually read what people post much, and are wildly inaccurate when referencing other peoples posts.

If there's one thing you can't accuse Dogma of, its inaccuracy. The man is specific to a point when in a debate.

This is often felt by the people he's arguing with to be a form of cheating, somehow.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Morocco counts, Portugal doesn't, it's my fault that I forgot the Portuguese exist. Probably should have said the Iberian/Spanish Peninsula instead of just Spain.

Though to quote the English, "Wogs begin at Calais."

Why Arming Syria's Rebels Is Still a Bad Idea

“Humanitarian” intervention would only deepen the humanitarian disaster.

http://www.thenation.com/article/174243/why-arming-syrias-rebels-still-bad-idea

The reported use of chemical weapons by Syria’s Assad regime has not made much difference in that tormented country. Tens of thousands have been killed in the brutal fighting so far, and the violence continues with no end in sight.

The chemical weapons allegations have, however, had a dramatic effect in the United States. Last August, the president warned that the use or movement of large quantities of such weapons would be a “game changer” with “enormous consequences,” marking a “red line” that must not be crossed. Ultimatums rarely make for artful diplomacy; in this case, it gave an opening to the neocon hawks. The same armchair warriors who relied on phony WMD claims to drive us into Iraq—William Kristol, Robert Kagan and others—started pounding the war drums again. They did so even amid uncertainty over nearly everything having to do with the chemical weapons reports: not simply whether they were used, but who—rebels or regime—may have used them.

Alarmingly, liberal interventionists have also begun talking up military action. Anne-Marie Slaughter, former director of policy planning in the Obama State Department, led the charge in a bellicose Washington Post column comparing the president’s cautious response to the latest allegations to the Clinton administration’s fumbling over genocide in Rwanda. That “shameful moment” for America, she said, arose from Clinton’s reluctance to clearly acknowledge that genocide was taking place; such an admission would have compelled intervention. Now, she argued, Obama is repeating the dodge because, like Clinton, he wants to avoid war. Slaughter was joined by The New York Times’s Bill Keller, who urged the administration “to assert control of the arming and training of rebels.”

Neither the neocons nor the liberal interventionists seem aware of the deep divide in the Muslim and Arab world over this conflict, and they seem unconcerned that there is no legal justification for intervention. Apparently, it is enough that the United States is, as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once boasted, “the indispensable nation.” All that matters to the armchair warriors is Washington’s fragile “credibility,” which is apparently endangered whether a conflict involves an ally or an enemy, a near neighbor or a distant land.

Perhaps recognizing the foolishness of declaring red lines, the president has recently displayed a sensible caution that others would do well to emulate (and that includes Israel, whose recent airstrikes have dangerously increased the chances of a regionwide conflagration). Given the terrible costs of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the increasingly sectarian nature of the Syrian fratricide, Obama is surely right not to rush into another Middle East conflict.

The lessons of those previous wars are particularly relevant. As Syria specialist Joshua Landis has argued, the country has many parallels to Iraq. Like Iraq, Syria is rife with sectarian, ethnic and class divisions. As with the Iraqi Baath Party under Saddam Hussein, when a minority built around kinship and sect ruled over a Shiite majority, so in Syria a minority of Alawites, allied with other minorities, has ruled over a restive Sunni majority.

The Syrian conflict has become more sectarian in part because of the influence of Turkey and the Sunni Gulf monarchies, bent on weakening Iran’s alliance with Assad. Despite Washington’s efforts to cobble together a united and more secular opposition, the rebels remain fragmented, with hardline Islamists—many of them openly avowing their allegiance to Al Qaeda—providing the fiercest and most effective fighters. The violence will continue if the regime falls; already chaos, criminality and warlordism beset the “liberated” areas. Even more ominous, the conflict is spreading. Lebanon’s formidable Hezbollah militia is now openly supporting the Assad regime, even as Lebanese Sunnis rally to the rebel flags. Like Turkey, Jordan is straining under a massive refugee burden, and its monarchy is despised by a deep-rooted Islamist opposition. Meanwhile, Iraq’s Al Qaeda affiliate, having solidified an alliance with its extremist Sunni brethren across the border in Syria, is girding for renewed rebellion against the increasingly oppressive and sectarian Shiite regime in Baghdad.

So far, not even the neocons are arguing for a US invasion or occupation of Syria. But their call to supply the rebels with heavier weapons, with or without the cover of a no-fly zone, should be resisted. Syria is awash in arms, and there is no way to ensure that more sophisticated US weapons would not wind up in the hands of extremists. We should be sobered by our experience in Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda was born amid the mujahedeen we armed to fight the Soviet Union. To control the skies of Syria, the United States would have to attack radar installations, anti-aircraft sites and air bases in the face of Russian, Chinese and Iranian objections. Unlike in Libya, these targets are located not in the desert but in cities and suburbs, where the possibility of civilian casualties is far greater.

Washington has no legal basis for waging war on Syria, direct or indirect. The Assad regime has not attacked, nor does it pose an imminent threat to, the United States. There is no UN resolution that can be stretched to provide even the flimsiest cover for armed intervention, as was done for Libya. Liberal interventionists suggest that the humanitarian tragedy provides justification for war, but that flies in the face of international law.

Fortunately, the American people, tired of wasting lives and resources on misadventures abroad, oppose even arming the Syrian rebels. That mirrors public opinion among our European allies and in the Arab world, which has seen quite enough of the freedom delivered by American bombs and missiles.

The horrors in Syria can’t be ignored, however. In fact, the United States can take useful actions. Obama should press Congress and the UN Security Council to increase humanitarian aid to the rapidly growing refugee population in neighboring countries as well as to those starving inside Syria. He should re-engage Russia and China—and, through them, Iran—to restrain Assad, while using Washington’s considerable influence with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to restrain their military support for the rebels—especially for jihadi extremists. (The recent agreement between Russia and the United States to hold an international conference on Syria is a hopeful move in that direction.) And Obama should restrain Israel from provoking war with Hezbollah. It seems unlikely now, but Syria’s combatants will eventually grow weary of battle; as they do, Washington must work closely with regional powers to set up a power-sharing arrangement.

The last thing Obama should do is commit the United States to overthrow the Assad regime. We could win that battle, as we did in Iraq—but, again, we would surely lose its violent aftermath. And we would be responsible for deepening the humanitarian disaster with our “humanitarian” intervention.

Greg Mitchell blogs about disagreements between The New York Times and McClatchy on whether WMD are being used in Syria.

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said on Thursday his forces would support any Syrian effort to recapture the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, days after the Jewish state launched raids in Syria believed to have targeted weapons destined for the Lebanese militant group.
"We announce that we stand with the Syrian popular resistance and offer material and spiritual support as well as coordination in order to liberate the Syrian Golan," he said in a televised speech.
In the days following Israeli strikes last Friday and Sunday, Syrian state news programs quoted unnamed sources saying that Damascus had given the green light to carry out operations against Israel from the Golan Heights after decades of calm on the border.

Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday the transfer of advanced missile defense systems from Russia to Syria would be a "destabilizing" factor for Israel's security.
Kerry said the U.S. has expressed concerns about what such defensive systems in Syria would mean for Israel's security. He wouldn't address what the missiles might mean for Syria's civil war.
He spoke to reporters in Rome after the Wall Street Journal reported that Russia was preparing to sell the weapons to President Bashar Assad's regime.
Israeli officials said they have asked Russia to cancel the imminent sale to the Assad regime of advanced ground-to-air missile systems.
Such weapons would enhance the Syrian government's defensive ability and make it even harder for the U.S. and other governments to consider even the possibility of trying to enforce a no-fly zone in the country or otherwise intervening militarily.
Russia rarely comments publicly on arms sales or transfers, and there has been no official word on the deal in Moscow.
Even before Syria's 2011 uprising, the Israelis warned about a sale of S-300 batteries — which can target manned planes, drones and incoming missiles. Moscow had held off on the deal under persistent U.S. and Israeli pressure.
The S-300 would be a state-of-the-art upgrade for Syria's aging Soviet-supplied defense system, which was easily circumvented in 2007 when Israeli jets bombed a suspected nuclear reactor site along the Euphrates River in northeastern Syria.
And it would only add to reservations in the United States and other Western nations about a more forceful, military intervention to end the war. With the advanced aircraft interception technology, Syria would be able to present a far more robust defense than Moammar Gadhafi's Libya offered two years ago.
The Wall Street Journal put the deal at $900 million for a package of four batteries, six launchers and 144 operational missiles. The missiles have a range of 125 miles, it reported, citing the Israeli-provided information, adding that the materiel would start arriving over the next three months.
Russia remains the Syrian government's most powerful international ally.
Kerry met earlier this week with President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow to find a path forward. Kerry and Lavrov announced afterward that they would convene an international conference in the coming weeks to try to bring representatives of the Assad regime and the opposition to the negotiating table.
The enhanced Russian military support, if confirmed, would fly in the face of American claims that Moscow is demonstrating a new cooperativeness.
Moscow, with China, has repeatedly foiled Washington on Syria, blocking three U.N. Security Council resolutions against the Assad regime. It's unclear how its recent calculus has changed, even as U.S. officials point to statements by Lavrov and other Russian officials showing less support for Assad's continued leadership.
Moscow has been the source of most of Syria's military hardware since Assad's father and predecessor, Hafez, courted the Kremlin decades ago.
It has provided Syria with 36 Pantsyr mobile surface-to-air missile systems and at least eight Buk-M2E mobile SAMs. The Pantsyrs are considered particularly effective against attacking aircraft and feature a combination of 30mm cannons paired with a radar and anti-aircraft missiles on the same vehicle.
And other obsolete systems have been upgraded, and Kerry's predecessor, Hillary Rodham Clinton, sparked controversy last year when she accused the Russians of preparing to deliver attack helicopters.
Russians officials have insisted to their American counterparts that they are only honoring old contracts that are nearing expiration.

REYHANLI, Turkey (Reuters) - Twin car bombs killed around 40 people and wounded many more in a Turkish town near the Syrian border on Saturday and Turkey said it suspected Syrian involvement.
The bombing increased fears that Syria's civil war was dragging in neighboring states despite renewed diplomatic moves towards ending fighting in which more than 70,000 people have been killed.
The bombs ripped into crowded streets in the early afternoon in Reyhanli, scattering cars and concrete blocks in the town in Turkey's southern Hatay province, home to thousands of Syrian refugees.
President Bashar al-Assad's administration was the "usual suspect" in the attacks, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc said.
"We know that the people taking refuge in Hatay have become targets for the Syrian regime," Arinc said in comments broadcast on Turkish television. "We think of them as the usual suspects when it comes to planning such a horrific attack."
There was no immediate claim of responsibility. Nor was there any comment from Damascus.
NATO member Turkey supports the uprising against Assad and violence has crossed the border before, but not on the same scale.
Turkey is far from alone in fearing the impact of Syria's war, which is already helping inflame the Middle East's tangle of sectarian, religious and nationalist struggles.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said it was no coincidence the bombings came as diplomatic moves to end the Syrian conflict intensify.
"There may be those who want to sabotage Turkey's peace, but we will not allow that," Davutoglu told reporters during a trip to Berlin. "No-one should attempt to test Turkey's power."
Prospects appeared to improve this week for diplomacy over the civil war, now in its third year, after Moscow and Washington announced a joint effort to bring government and rebels to an international conference.
But a Russian official said on Saturday that there was already disagreement over who would take part and he doubted whether a meeting could happen this month.
As well as disputes over who would represent the rebels and government at any talks, there have also been questions over possible participation by Assad's Shi'ite ally Iran. The rebels are backed by the largely Sunni Gulf states.
Diplomats in New York said the Syria meeting would likely slip into June and it was unclear who would participate.
DEATH TOLL MAY RISE
In Reyhanli, smoke poured from charred ruins after the blasts outside administrative buildings.
"My children were so scared because it reminded them of the bombings when we were in Aleppo. God help us," said one refugee, a mother of three who gave her name as Kolsum.
Arinc said around 40 people had been killed, while Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan warned the toll could rise with many more seriously injured.
Erdogan said the bombings might have been related to Turkey's own peace process with Kurdish militants of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), who began a withdrawal this week to end a three decade conflict.
But he said the blasts could also have been aimed at provoking sensitivities in the region that is home to so many Syrian refugees.
Turkey is sheltering more than 300,000 Syrians, most of them in camps along the 900-km (560-mile) frontier, and is struggling to keep up with the influx.
Erdogan said this week Turkey would support a U.S.-enforced no-fly zone in Syria and warned that Damascus crossed President Barack Obama's "red line" on chemical weapons use long ago.
A no-fly zone to prohibit Syrian military aircraft from hitting rebel targets has been mentioned by American lawmakers as one option the United States could use to pressure Assad.
Erdogan is due to meet Obama in Washington on May 16.
Violence also crossed the border in February, when a minibus blew up at a border crossing near Reyhanli, killing 14 people.
The Syrian opposition said one of its delegations appeared to have been the target of that attack, but there has been no confirmation of this from the Turkish authorities.
In October, five Turkish civilians were killed in Akcakale when a mortar bomb fired from Syria landed on their house, prompting Turkey to fire back across the frontier.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think part of the reason why people, including myself, repeatedly call upon the US to go do stuff in the middle east is because between Iran and Saudi Arabia you guys (along with the British) kinda created the mess in the first place. Fighting extreme islamism while propping up one of the most extreme religious dictatorship on earth isn't going to work.

As for the "well, go do it yourselves", Sweden sheltered 40% of the number of refugees compared to the US in 2012, while having less than one thirtieth as big a population. We give the most foreign aid in the world per GDP. We're simply asking you to use your influence and power to clear up a mess that you created with your influence and power in the first place.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think part of the reason why people, including myself, repeatedly call upon the US to go do stuff in the middle east is because between Iran and Saudi Arabia you guys (along with the British) kinda created the mess in the first place. Fighting extreme islamism while propping up one of the most extreme religious dictatorship on earth isn't going to work.

As for the "well, go do it yourselves", Sweden sheltered 40% of the number of refugees compared to the US in 2012, while having less than one thirtieth as big a population. We give the most foreign aid in the world per GDP. We're simply asking you to use your influence and power to clear up a mess that you created with your influence and power in the first place.

And as an American my response to such an argument would be "go yourself and your country."
Now I am not directing that at you, just the argument if it were actually made.

A video which appears to show a Syrian rebel taking a bite from the heart of a dead soldier has been widely condemned.

US-based Human Rights Watch identified the rebel as Abu Sakkar, a well-known insurgent from the city of Homs, and said his actions were a war crime.

The main Syrian opposition coalition said he would be put on trial.

The video, which cannot be independently authenticated, seems to show him cutting out the heart.

"I swear to God we will eat your hearts and your livers, you soldiers of Bashar the dog," the man says referring to President Bashar al-Assad as he stands over the soldier's corpse.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) says Abu Sakkar is the leader of a group called the Independent Omar al-Farouq Brigade.

"The mutilation of the bodies of enemies is a war crime. But the even more serious issue is the very rapid descent into sectarian rhetoric and violence," HRW's Peter Bouckaert told Reuters news agency.

HRW said those committing war crimes on either side had to know that there was no impunity and that they would be brought to account.

The human rights group said Abu Sakkar had been filmed before, firing rockets into Shia areas of Lebanon and posing with the bodies of guerrillas from the Lebanese Hezbollah movement killed fighting alongside Syrian government forces.

The video, posted on Sunday, is one of the most gruesome to emerge among the many thrown up by more than two years of carnage in Syria, says the BBC's Jim Muir in Beirut.

The UN says 70,000 people have been killed since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began in March 2011. The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights puts the death toll at more than 80,000.

Many Syrians have fled the country to escape the fighting and more than a million are registered as refugees, according the UN. At least 300,000 are estimated to be living in Turkey.

International conference
The issue of an international conference on the Syrian conflict, including Syrian government representatives and the opposition, remains on the agenda.

The idea was agreed at last week's talks in Moscow between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The conference will try to persuade both the Syrian government and opposition to accept a solution based on the core elements of the final communique issued on 30 June 2012, after the UN-backed Action Group for Syria meeting.

The communique called for an immediate cessation of violence and the establishment of a transitional government that could include officials serving under President Assad and members of the opposition.

Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi said on Tuesday that Syria would need more information before deciding whether to attend such a conference, but would not be party to any meeting which harms "national sovereignty".

He said the future role of Mr Assad was an issue "only for the Syrian people and the ballot box".

Mr Kerry, on a visit to Sweden, has now said he expects such a meeting to take place in June and he suggested the Syrian government would be at the table as it had already given a list of representatives to Russia.

"If he decides not to come to the table, it would be another one of President Assad's gross miscalculations," he said. "I don't believe that that is the case at this moment."

Mr Kerry said he had also spoken to Free Syrian Army leader General Salim Idriss, who had assured him he was committed to the negotiation process.

Netanyahu visit
The conflict in Syria will be at the centre of talks in Russia between President Vladimir Putin and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu in the Black Sea resort of Sochi.

Russia is concerned by Israeli air strikes on targets inside Syria, while Israel is unhappy at shipments of Russian weapons to Damascus.

Mr Netanyahu is expected to request that Russia stop supplying the Syrian military with advanced weapons systems. Recent deliveries have included air defence missiles and artillery systems.

Last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow was not violating any international sanctions and would honour already signed contracts, but avoided confirming reports that it was preparing to sell Damascus S-300 air defence batteries.

Earlier this month, the Syrian government accused Israel of bombing military facilities near Damascus. Israel declined to comment, but security sources said the air strikes had been aimed at preventing the transfer of Iranian-made missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Following the attacks, the Russian foreign ministry warned that the "further whipping-up of armed confrontation" sharply increased the risk of "pockets of tension" in Syria and Lebanon.

 Frazzled wrote:
No, we're not in the situation. We're only in this situation if we allow nattering nabobs from tiny pissant countries pull us into it.

Never again I say.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No, we're not in the situation. We're only in this situation if we allow nattering nabobs from tiny pissant countries pull us into it.

Never again I say.

It gets old hearing some quarters tell the US that they are terrible imperialists, that they cannot get involved with another nation's affairs without causing long term damage, that they should not be the world police etc..... and then calling for the US to intervene in another nation's affairs

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No, we're not in the situation. We're only in this situation if we allow nattering nabobs from tiny pissant countries pull us into it.

Never again I say.

It gets old hearing some quarters tell the US that they are terrible imperialists, that they cannot get involved with another nation's affairs without causing long term damage, that they should not be the world police etc..... and then calling for the US to intervene in another nation's affairs

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No, we're not in the situation. We're only in this situation if we allow nattering nabobs from tiny pissant countries pull us into it.

Never again I say.

It gets old hearing some quarters tell the US that they are terrible imperialists, that they cannot get involved with another nation's affairs without causing long term damage, that they should not be the world police etc..... and then calling for the US to intervene in another nation's affairs

Yea. In other quarters, that would be called schizophrenic behavior.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Good thing that's not what I'm saying then, eh? I'm saying you could do more to fix the mess you've created, not that you shouldn't ever be involved in stuff.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think part of the reason why people, including myself, repeatedly call upon the US to go do stuff in the middle east is because between Iran and Saudi Arabia you guys (along with the British) kinda created the mess in the first place. . .We're simply asking you to use your influence and power to clear up a mess that you created with your influence and power in the first place

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No, we're not in the situation. We're only in this situation if we allow nattering nabobs from tiny pissant countries pull us into it.

Never again I say.

It gets old hearing some quarters tell the US that they are terrible imperialists, that they cannot get involved with another nation's affairs without causing long term damage, that they should not be the world police etc..... and then calling for the US to intervene in another nation's affairs

Good thing that's not what I'm saying then, eh? I'm saying you could do more to fix the mess you've created, not that you shouldn't ever be involved in stuff.

 Frazzled wrote:
We've never had anything to do with Syria, no more than you have.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
We've never had anything to do with Syria, no more than you have.

I did not realise the Swedish CIA tried to topple the government of Syria.