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

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:
Yes we had a big part im messing up Iran, more reason for us to stay out of that area.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes we had a big part im messing up Iran, more reason for us to stay out of that area.

Aside from the fact that Churchill actually began the embargo and enlisted the US's help for putting the Shah in place, I feel like we're also missing the fact that it wasn't until 2005 that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president. In the 8 years prior to that you had Khatami who, while ineffective, attempted to usher in a more liberal age for Iran. Sure, it probably didn't go as well as he wanted, it's not like Ahmadinejad has been in power since the Shah fell. That election was in 2005. 35 years AFTER the Shah was deposed, and certainly enough time to say Iran was making its own decisions.

 Frazzled wrote:
That whole 'death to America' thing gets a little boring though.

 Frazzled wrote:
That whole 'death to America' thing gets a little boring though.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
That whole 'death to America' thing gets a little boring though.

Right, but it's pretty understandable when you look at the whole situation. Not to mention the US basically says death to Iran all the time. If we could actually communicate with each other, and chill on the rhetoric,I think we would find we have more in common that most other countries in the region. They are by far the lessor and more stable of many of many of the evils there.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I'm unclear as to what impact this would have on the post that you objected to. Would you have preferred if I had substituted "some quarters" for "some groups/individuals"?

 dogma wrote:
I would have preferred that you expressed a sentiment that wasn't equivalent to "Them 'group X', they all think alike."

Perhaps that wasn't your intention and, if so, my bad. Generalization is a bugbear of mine, especially when it comes to politics.

Frazzled wrote:That whole 'death to America' thing gets a little boring though.

 whembly wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
That whole 'death to America' thing gets a little boring though.

Right, but it's pretty understandable when you look at the whole situation. Not to mention the US basically says death to Iran all the time. If we could actually communicate with each other, and chill on the rhetoric,I think we would find we have more in common that most other countries in the region. They are by far the lessor and more stable of many of many of the evils there.

When has American Officials (or anyone for that matter) chanted "death to Iran"?

 whembly wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
That whole 'death to America' thing gets a little boring though.

Right, but it's pretty understandable when you look at the whole situation. Not to mention the US basically says death to Iran all the time. If we could actually communicate with each other, and chill on the rhetoric,I think we would find we have more in common that most other countries in the region. They are by far the lessor and more stable of many of many of the evils there.

When has American Officials (or anyone for that matter) chanted "death to Iran"?

 Jihadin wrote:
I see the MAP is not up to date....we're still in Iraq?...you seriously counting the FoB's in Afghanistan? Wait....let me back up.....whats the difference between a "Installation" and a FoB

 Ratbarf wrote:
I would suggest that this is not what they started out as, but what they have become. Had we helped earlier I don't think they would have stooped to this.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
I would suggest that this is not what they started out as, but what they have become. Had we helped earlier I don't think they would have stooped to this.

Except for the fact that there have been steady accusations of this type of conduct long before now;
February 2012 - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/02/syria-rebels-execution-war-crimes-assad_n_1731747.html
March 2012 - http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/profile-of-rebels-in-homs-and-their-executioners-a-824603.html
August 2012 - http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-rebels-accused-executions-other-abuses-200609653.html
November 2012 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20177384

And there are plenty more examples besides those

 Ratbarf wrote:
I would suggest that this is not what they started out as, but what they have become. Had we helped earlier I don't think they would have stooped to this.

Russia has sent sophisticated anti-ship missiles to Syria, US media report.

The New York Times quotes unnamed US officials as saying the missiles could be used to counter any potential future foreign military intervention in Syria.

Without confirming details, Russia's foreign minister said Russian supplies did not break any international rules.

It comes amid growing alarm that chemical weapons may be being used in Syria, something US President Barack Obama has said would be "a red line".

Meanwhile efforts continue to arrange an international conference on Syria.

The United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met Mr Lavrov in Sochi on Friday to discuss the plans for the conference, which would aim to bring together the Syrian opposition and members of President Bashar al-Assad's government.

At a news briefing, Mr Ban said it was important to "not lose momentum" on the drive towards holding a peace conference and dates for it were being "actively discussed".

Mr Lavrov said a resolution could only be found through "an inclusive all-Syrian dialogue with participation of all Syrian forces, without any external intervention, as soon as possible".

Also on Friday, the UN's refugee agency said more than 1.5m Syrians were now registered as refugees, with the true figure likely to be much higher.

"Refugees tell us the increased fighting and changing of control of towns and villages, in particular in conflict areas, results in more and more civilians deciding to leave," UNHCR said in a statement.

'Ship-killers'
Russia is one of Syria's few remaining allies and its major arms suppliers. Over the years, in contracts worth billions of dollars, it has sold thousands of tanks, artillery units, aircraft, helicopters and defence systems to Damascus.

According to the New York Times report, a recent Russian shipment to Syria included an advanced form of the Yakhont, a 6.7m-long (22ft) missile with a range of 290km (180 miles) and carrying either a high-explosive or armour-piercing warhead.

The initial order - for 72 missiles along with launcher and support vehicles - was placed in 2007 and the first deliveries received in early 2011, said the paper. It quotes two unnamed senior US defence officials as saying the most recent shipments had more advanced radar guidance systems, enabling it to evade a ship's defences.

Sergei Lavrov said on Friday he did not understand "why the media is trying to create a sensation out of this".

"We have not hidden that we supply weapons to Syria under signed contracts, without violating any international agreements, or our own legislation.

"And we most importantly supply anti-aircraft system, and it doesn't create any imbalance of power in the region or any kind of advantages in the fight against the opposition."

Another US newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, reports that Moscow has deployed at least a dozen warships to patrol waters near the Russian naval base in the Syrian city of Tartus.

It quotes a senior US defence official as saying the deployment is a "show of force" by Moscow to demonstrate its commitment to the region.

Although there have been growing calls for arms to be channelled to the rebel fighters in Syria, there has so far been very limited enthusiasm in the West for outright military intervention.

But there is concern that the presence of sophisticated Russian-supplied weaponry will make it much harder to agree and carry out such intervention, implement a blockade or conduct targeted airstrikes in the future.

Nick Brown, editor-in-chief of the influential military journal Jane's International Defence Review, said the Yakhont was "a real ship killer".

"It enables the regime to deter foreign forces looking to supply the opposition from the sea, or from undertaking a more active role if a no-fly zone or a shipping embargo were to be declared at some point" he told the Times.

Israel is also concerned such weapons could fall into the hands of Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, which could use them to either attack Israel or defend itself against any Israeli assault.

During his visit to Moscow on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly discussed the issue with Mr Putin, while Israeli jets have carried out strikes on Syrian targets to block alleged transfers of weapons to Hezbollah.

Despite its arms sales, Russia has hosted several world leaders in recent weeks in an attempt to find a way of ending the Syrian conflict, which has left an estimated 80,000 people dead.

The BBC's Steve Rosenberg is Moscow says the fact that Mr Ban, Mr Netanyahu, US Secretary of State John Kerry and UK Prime Minister David Cameron have travelled to Russia for talks shows they believe Moscow is the key to ending the crisis.

Syria's Russian-made military

Nearly 5,000 tanks; 2,500 infantry fighting vehicles; 2,500 self-propelled or towed artillery units
325 Tactical aircraft; 143 helicopters
Nearly 2,000 air defence pieces
295,000 active personnel; 314,000 reserve personnel

Jonathan Marcus
BBC diplomatic correspondent
The Yakhont is a radar-guided, supersonic anti-shipping missile designed for coastal defence. Depending upon its trajectory it has a range of between 120 and 300 km (75-186 miles).

US reports stress the ability this gives to the Assad government to push hostile naval forces away from Syria's shores.

But the real significance of these reports, if true, is twofold. Firstly they show Russia's continuing desire to ensure that there be no Western intervention in Syria along the lines of what happened in Libya. Russian naval deployments in the Mediterranean back up this view.

But equally the real concern about the Yakhont may be their potential transfer to Syria's Lebanese ally Hezbollah. Israel has made it clear that a transfer of the Yakhont represents a red line that could prompt more air strikes against Syrian arms depots.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
I would suggest that this is not what they started out as, but what they have become. Had we helped earlier I don't think they would have stooped to this.

Except for the fact that there have been steady accusations of this type of conduct long before now;
February 2012 - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/02/syria-rebels-execution-war-crimes-assad_n_1731747.html
March 2012 - http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/profile-of-rebels-in-homs-and-their-executioners-a-824603.html
August 2012 - http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-rebels-accused-executions-other-abuses-200609653.html
November 2012 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20177384

And there are plenty more examples besides those

 Ratbarf wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
I would suggest that this is not what they started out as, but what they have become. Had we helped earlier I don't think they would have stooped to this.

Except for the fact that there have been steady accusations of this type of conduct long before now;
February 2012 - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/02/syria-rebels-execution-war-crimes-assad_n_1731747.html
March 2012 - http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/profile-of-rebels-in-homs-and-their-executioners-a-824603.html
August 2012 - http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-rebels-accused-executions-other-abuses-200609653.html
November 2012 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20177384

And there are plenty more examples besides those

Considering this is the third year of the conflict, and those examples are from the second, I think it's still an applicable theory that had we helped with the same kind of speed as seen in Libya they would not have degenerated into this kind of barbarism. As wars get longer they tend to get more brutal, we had a chance to end it early, now we're going to pay the price of waiting.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Considering this is the third year of the conflict, and those examples are from the second, I think it's still an applicable theory that had we helped with the same kind of speed as seen in Libya they would not have degenerated into this kind of barbarism. As wars get longer they tend to get more brutal, we had a chance to end it early, now we're going to pay the price of waiting.

Hussein can barely remember the first time he executed someone. It was probably in a cemetery in the evening, or at night; he can't recall exactly. It was definitely mid-October of last year, and the man was Shiite, for sure. He had confessed to killing women -- decent women, whose husbands and sons had protested against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime. So the rebels had decided that the man, a soldier in the Syrian army, deserved to die, too.