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.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I did not realise you can't read.

Note the word "tried", it sorta changes what you're trying to argue against, eh?

What country broke up that little region of the world into the joyous killboxes that are Israel, Transjordan, Syria, Iran, and Iraq again?

Oh yea, Britain.
Look to yourself lover boy and leave us out of it.

Ok, as expected you're being purposefully dense and trying to deflect any kind of point back onto the issuer, I was commenting on your comment that Sweden had as much involvement in Syria as the US. The CIA have sponsored attempted coups in Syria in the past, and as far as I'm aware, Swedish intelligence agencies have not. As an aside, it seems Britain's MI6 were also in on some of them. Go them.

Britain has screwed up more than its fair share of countries, which does not invalidate people who live there and their opinions in any way whatsoever, and attempting to claim so is a pretty good example of plain idiocy and dishonesty.

You do it a lot.

 Frazzled wrote:
On the positive the video of the heart eating rebel just got Obama off the hook. There will be no pressure to do anything other than peaceful aid and protecting Turkey now. Good.

Yup. I can't say that there is any political appetite to go in and either help a dictator, help terrorist affiliated militia, or a militia that eats hearts.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Ok, as expected you're being purposefully dense and trying to deflect any kind of point back onto the issuer, I was commenting on your comment that Sweden had as much involvement in Syria as the US. The CIA have sponsored attempted coups in Syria in the past, as far as I'm aware, Swedish intelligence agencies have not.

Assuming you're correct, we weren't successful. So don't blame us for the crappy dictatorship. Blame Britain and the Syrians.

Now get your little redcoat ass in there and fix the problem you little imperialist running dog you. Clean up your mess.

Or we can all accept that Syria has been independent for the better part of a century and its up to the Syrians themselves to determine who they want to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
On the positive the video of the heart eating rebel just got Obama off the hook. There will be no pressure to do anything other than peaceful aid and protecting Turkey now. Good.

Yup. I can't say that there is any political appetite to go in and either help a dictator, help terrorist affiliated militia, or a militia that eats hearts.

In their defense, maybe they heard the phrase "win their hearts and minds" and took it literally.

I wasn't blaming the US for it, I was merely pointing out you were wrong and following your standard MO of trying to invalidate peoples discussion by having a go at their country of origin. Having done so, I am content.

 Frazzled wrote:
In their defense, maybe they heard the phrase "win their hearts and minds" and took it literally.

Damn Google Translate

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I wasn't blaming the US for it, I was merely pointing out you were wrong and following your standard MO of trying to invalidate peoples discussion by having a go at their country of origin. Having done so, I am content.

No you were pretty much blaming us, which is especially choice given: 1) you Brits started this mess; and 2) you're blaming us for FAILING to successfully wack someone. Seriously? Whatever you're smoking I want some.

now you're saying we should get involved again. Now way Jose. The US has no business in the ME except civilian commercial business and a provider of humanitarian aid - just like Sweden.

I am content. People who can read, will read.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I am content. People who can read, will read.

Sounds a little like

I certainly am. Having someone throw words into my mouth because I pointed out a glaring lie in their post is actually fun.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I certainly am. Having someone throw words into my mouth because I pointed out a glaring lie in their post is actually fun.

Hurry up Brit.. The boat to Syria is leaving. I'll mail you some [see forum posting rules] and Span to help you clean up your mess.

Keep up the good work Fraz!

I am content.

Again, you more or less set Iran upon the path that led to where it is today and you're the greatest ally of Saudi Arabia, which controls the Kaaba. Having a semi-insane theocratic state be in control of the greatest holy site of Islam doesn't exactly help. The reason we're asking you guys as opposed to Russia is that you guys are much more ideologically aligned with us than Russia. To us, you're the much more reasonable part.

As for the strawman you're trying to attribute to me, I never said you were bad at interventions, only that you made mistakes in the past. The lesson to learn from making a mistake isn't to give up and never try again, it's to figure out what went wrong and then figure out what to do about it. In this case, that would be not directly creating (and continuing to support) an Islamist dictatorship. As long as Saudi Arabia remain sacrosanct they'll be free to use their substantial amount of money to spread their version of Islam, which doesn't benefit anyone of us.

You may also want to remember that both Afghanistan and Iraq (especially so the second one) were your own wars and yet other nations rallied to support you. For example, Mongolia, Albania and Georgia all sent more than 10 soldiers per $1bn GDP to the ISAF, whereas the US sent 6,6. Why on Earth would Mongolia ever feel the need for going into Afghanistan, other than to attempt to improve relations with the US?

Then there's the interventions in Libya and Mali, where US involvement was comparatively minor, making the claim that everyone always relies on the US to get things done blatantly false.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Again, you more or less set Iran upon the path that led to where it is today and you're the greatest ally of Saudi Arabia, which controls the Kaaba. Having a semi-insane theocratic state be in control of the greatest holy site of Islam doesn't exactly help. The reason we're asking you guys as opposed to Russia is that you guys are much more ideologically aligned with us than Russia. To us, you're the much more reasonable part.

As for the strawman you're trying to attribute to me, I never said you were bad at interventions, only that you made mistakes in the past. The lesson to learn from making a mistake isn't to give up and never try again, it's to figure out what went wrong and then figure out what to do about it. In this case, that would be not directly creating (and continuing to support) an Islamist dictatorship. As long as Saudi Arabia remain sacrosanct they'll be free to use their substantial amount of money to spread their version of Islam, which doesn't benefit anyone of us.

You may also want to remember that both Afghanistan and Iraq (especially so the second one) were your own wars and yet other nations rallied to support you. For example, Mongolia, Albania and Georgia all sent more than 10 soldiers per $1bn GDP to the ISAF, whereas the US sent 6,6. Why on Earth would Mongolia ever feel the need for going into Afghanistan, other than to attempt to improve relations with the US?

Then there's the interventions in Libya and Mali, where US involvement was comparatively minor, making the claim that everyone always relies on the US to get things done blatantly false.

As I said before, Iran has been in charge of its own affairs for over 30 years. They have very clearly rejected American influence and pursue their own interests in the region. To claim that the US is responsible for Iran now is disingenuous in the extreme.
Comparing Syria to Iraq or Afghanistan is not am accurate comparison. Iran and Iraq did not start out as brutal civil wars were there is no clear side to back. Afghanistan started because of horrific terrorist attacks that shocked almost the entire world. Again, your comparison is inaccurate.

So you think that helping Islamist affiliated rebels won't help establish an Islamic dictatorship? Will they suddenly adopt a Western style democracy with individual rights and freedoms? Or should the US engage in imperialism and force a political and cultural system on a country again (like Iran)?

Also it would help if you did not try and argue strawman yourself. I didn't say "that everyone always relies on the US". What I said was 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. Its bad form to accuse someone of improper conduct, and then do it yourself.

Still waiting to hear how the US is more responsible for Syria than Russia and Iran, as well as various non-state actors

Dial it down a notch or two please gents.

Thank you.

EDIT: Turning down a notch.

Between creating the mess that is Iran, supporting Saudi Arabia while they finance global terrorism and propping up dictators like Hosni Mubarak the US has more or less paved the way for anti-western jihadis to rise up.

To clarify, I'll concede that the US hasn't created the civil war in Syria, but the above actions set up the jihadist presence in the FSA which put all of us in the western world in this no-win situation in the first place.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Iran has been a dictatorship for how long and because of the actions of what nation?

Saudi Arabia, while financing jihadist movements and terrorist organisations, has it's staunchest ally in what western nation?

Hosni Mubarak, former dictator of Egypt, was backed up by what nation?

Thus, for 10.000 dollars, what nation is indirectly responsible for the Islamist presence in Syria who are pissed off at western society?

So Iran over threw a US puppet 34 years ago, installed their own political system which expressly rejected US influence in their own affairs, chants "Death to America" at public meetings and the US is responsible for Iran's actions? If I accepted that premise, and I assure you that I do not, when would it be reasonable to say that Iran was solely responsible for its own actions and not the US?
Seems like you're showing a lot of examples of were American intervention in the Middle East was not a positive thing. You aren't exactly making a case for why the US needs to get involved in Syria. In fact, you're doing quite the opposite.

Your other examples are not directly related to events in Syria and just come across as muddying the water. Unless you think that the US is directly responsible for the actions of other sovereign nations. Maybe the US should over throw those governments and engage in imperialism by setting sympathetic governments, like they did with the Shah

Again I will ask you why you think that the US, which has no direct hand in the events of Syria is more culpable than those who are directly influencing events on the ground - Russia, Iran and other non-state actors like Hezbollah

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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

It only got old because you treated groups as individuals.

At any rate: the US is a terrible imperialist, and it generally causes long-term damage when it gets involved in the affairs of other nations.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
EDIT: Turning down a notch.

Between creating the mess that is Iran, supporting Saudi Arabia while they finance global terrorism and propping up dictators like Hosni Mubarak the US has more or less paved the way for anti-western jihadis to rise up.

To clarify, I'll concede that the US hasn't created the civil war in Syria, but the above actions set up the jihadist presence in the FSA which put all of us in the western world in this no-win situation in the first place.

Right, so again out interferance by supporting Saudi Arabi caused everything. Yet, I'm sure if we didn't support Saudi Arabia and that area was even more of a mess than it is now, that would be our fault for not interviening.

arm chair generals, go play with your own toys,

 dogma wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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

It only got old because you treated groups as individuals.

How did you get that from "some quarters"?

Syria's kinda fethed at this point, no matter what. What could be done to prevent further problems is primarily to stop backing Saudi Arabia. Backing the biggest contributor to Islamic terrorism in the world is a good way to create more of those terrorists. Trying to explain away that by saying that the US isn't responsible for what the Saudis do with the money is ignoring the fact that they're where they are because of continued support from the US.

As for what to do in Syria: for now, nothing. It's too late. Wait and see what happens. If the rebels win, offer to help them rebuild the infrastructure of the country to give them a future. If they refuse the offer, you've at least tried. If they simply replace al-Assad with another dictatorship you're back to square one. If they accept, help them out while making sure that there's as few instances of, for lack of a better word, national nepotism as possible. Make sure there's no fuckups like Blackwater or any instances of American companies getting suspiciously good deals out of the war.

What you CAN do straight away is to provide more foreign aid for the civilian refugees.

Regarding the desk ions of sovereign states, 40 years isn't that long in the grand scheme of things. Large parts of Africa are still dealing with the effects of colonialism. Furthermore, the new generation in Iran (i.e. those born after the revolution) HAVE tried to change their future by rebelling. As you might remember, that didn't turn out that well. The entire point of a dictatorship is that the dictator rules regardless of the will of the people. The Iranian public can't really be held responsible for the actions of their government when they've got no way to influence their actions. It's obviously primarily the fault of the Iranian leadership, but the fact remains that it's aid leadership probably wouldn't be in power in the first place if the US didn't feth up.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
EDIT: Turning down a notch.

Between creating the mess that is Iran, supporting Saudi Arabia while they finance global terrorism and propping up dictators like Hosni Mubarak the US has more or less paved the way for anti-western jihadis to rise up.

To clarify, I'll concede that the US hasn't created the civil war in Syria, but the above actions set up the jihadist presence in the FSA which put all of us in the western world in this no-win situation in the first place.

Yes its all our fault. Once again the US is #1. Admit it you're jealous.
Well we're following your idea. I'll give Obama great credit in getting us out of there. After all, if it weren't for the UK (again) and France and their oil interests, we wouldn't have been involved in Libya either. Its a start.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Syria's kinda fethed at this point, no matter what. What could be done to prevent further problems is primarily to stop backing Saudi Arabia. Backing the biggest contributor to Islamic terrorism in the world is a good way to create more of those terrorists. Trying to explain away that by saying that the US isn't responsible for what the Saudis do with the money is ignoring the fact that they're where they are because of continued support from the US.

Saudi has oil. The US buys the oil. They take the money and spend it how they choose, that's how it works with sovereign nations. When you buy something do you check that the money is only going towards noble causes?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
As for what to do in Syria: for now, nothing. It's too late. Wait and see what happens. If the rebels win, offer to help them rebuild the infrastructure of the country to give them a future. If they refuse the offer, you've at least tried. If they simply replace al-Assad with another dictatorship you're back to square one. If they accept, help them out while making sure that there's as few instances of, for lack of a better word, national nepotism as possible. Make sure there's no fuckups like Blackwater or any instances of American companies getting suspiciously good deals out of the war.

So for arguments sake, seeing as you are a strong advocate of exclusive US intervention, which side should we have backed?
- The current dictator being aided by Russia, Iran and terrorist groups, and against whom there are allegations of employing chemical weapons
- The FSA and its Al-Queda affiliates and run the risk that the country turns into another Afghanistan
- The FSA and its heart-eating-indisctiminate-rocketing-of civilians, who are also accused of using chemical weapons
Or should we go in and stand in the middle and take fire from all sides and get involved in a lengthy engagement that their is not the political will nor the financial means to support?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What you CAN do straight away is to provide more foreign aid for the civilian refugees.

As for providing aid to the refugees that is something that I have advocated for in numerous threads concerning Syria. Glad that we at least agree on that.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Regarding the desk ions of sovereign states, 40 years isn't that long in the grand scheme of things. Large parts of Africa are still dealing with the effects of colonialism. Furthermore, the new generation in Iran (i.e. those born after the revolution) HAVE tried to change their future by rebelling. As you might remember, that didn't turn out that well. The entire point of a dictatorship is that the dictator rules regardless of the will of the people. The Iranian public can't really be held responsible for the actions of their government when they've got no way to influence their actions. It's obviously primarily the fault of the Iranian leadership, but the fact remains that it's aid leadership probably wouldn't be in power in the first place if the US didn't feth up.

No. It is exclusively the fault of the Iranian leadership. It is not the fault of the US. The Iranians revolted against the US installed government, rejected US influence, actively try to frustrate US influence in the region. To say that the US is directly responsible for those actions and what Iran is doing in Syria at present is being dishonest in the extreme.
The revolt in Iran against the current regime has nothing whatsoever to do with the US, it was an internal Iranian issue. Also the regime in Iran is not a dictatorship. It is a theocratic democracy.

So, as Iran is an independent largely self-sustaining nation that is not dependent upon the West and actively rejects many Western ideals when do you think it is reasonable to say that it is an independent agent, and accountable for its own action? Or should we blame Britain for the US track record in the Middle East because of their influence on the US? Or do we blame the Normans/Romans/Saxons/etc. for their influence on what would become Britain?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

How did you get that from "some quarters"?

There are more than 4 people that contribute to the US political environment, so I presumed "quarters" referenced a space occupied by more than one person.

the new generation in Iran (i.e. those born after the revolution) HAVE tried to change their future by rebelling. As you might remember, that didn't turn out that well.

Oh, I'm sure its our fault that the rebellion failed now too.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
EDIT: Turning down a notch.

Between creating the mess that is Iran, supporting Saudi Arabia while they finance global terrorism and propping up dictators like Hosni Mubarak the US has more or less paved the way for anti-western jihadis to rise up.

To clarify, I'll concede that the US hasn't created the civil war in Syria, but the above actions set up the jihadist presence in the FSA which put all of us in the western world in this no-win situation in the first place.

Yes its all our fault. Once again the US is #1. Admit it you're jealous.
Well we're following your idea. I'll give Obama great credit in getting us out of there. After all, if it weren't for the UK (again) and France and their oil interests, we wouldn't have been involved in Libya either. Its a start.

It's not all your fault, as has been mentioned Britain fethed up as well. As for Libya, considering it seems to be headed towards a remarkable success all things considered I'd find it hard to call it a failure.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Right, so again out interferance by supporting Saudi Arabi caused everything. Yet, I'm sure if we didn't support Saudi Arabia and that area was even more of a mess than it is now, that would be our fault for not interviening.

arm chair generals, go play with your own toys,

Do you always act so condescendingly or do you actually argue points instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks sometimes? I have no idea what the greater middle east would look like without the influence of Saudi Arabia, but when your own Foreign Minister considers Saudi Arabia a major contributor to some rather unsavoury types you might want to start thinking through why you're allied to them in the first place.

Trying to portray me as a US hater in order to refute my argument is dishonest. The US has done a lot of good things, but that doesn't change the fact that, pardon the cliché, with great power comes great responsibility.

As a final note, who propelled the current Iranian regime into power by making the Shah a dictator? How is it not partially that part's fault that the current regime is still in power, despite attempts by the populace to reinstate democracy?

 Andrew1975 wrote:

the new generation in Iran (i.e. those born after the revolution) HAVE tried to change their future by rebelling. As you might remember, that didn't turn out that well.

Oh, I'm sure its our fault that the rebellion failed now too.

Again with the strawmen. If you hadn't fethed the country over in the first place there'd possibly be no need of a second revolution. Having done that and placing the entire blame on Iran when the populace has tried and failed to fix what you fethed up is despicable.

towards a remarkable success all things considered I'd find it hard to call it a failure.

Libya a success? You must have a different definition then I do.

http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=10191
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22520499

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-22423238

 dogma wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

How did you get that from "some quarters"?

There are more than 4 people that contribute to the US political environment, so I presumed "quarters" referenced a space occupied by more than one person.

No, the phrase "some quarters" is, to the best of my knowledge, pretty common;
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/quarter#quarter_16

4[COUNTABLE] [OFTEN PLURAL] FORMAL a particular person or group of people
from this/that quarter (=from one particular person or group): I knew there would be a lot of trouble from that quarter.
in some quarters (=among some people or groups): Concern has been expressed in some quarters about this policy.
from all quarters (=from all people or groups): He has won support from all quarters.

There's a lot of pluralization in that definition.

 dogma wrote:
There's a lot of pluralization in that definition.

Actually you're both wrong. The use of "quarters" always refers to the amount of cake Frazzled tries to snag at a party, as in "holy crap he took a quarter of the whole cake!"

Come on people, get with the program.